Jump to content
omegaxis1

The True Tragedy of Three Houses

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Even Napoleon isn't completely accurate given how Edelgard doesn't need to be forced out of power, but rather abdicates.

The very thing that makes Edelgard not a dictator in the negative sense or anything near a tyrant is the fact that she is willing to abdicate. She doesn't fear the idea of losing power and would love to lose it.

She even said it herself. She'd rather laze around gorging on sweets.

I do find it very endearing that Edelgard rather want to do anything else other than rule, it does seem like the reason she does what she does is out of a sense of duty and obligation as the heir to the Empire. It is more of a thing she feels she has to do rather than what she wants to do, after all, if you have the power to right the wrongs of the world, doesn't that make you complicit. If you allow the wrongs to continue while you have the power to stop it? Edelgard risks her life and reputation in order to make the world a better place, as well as sacrificing the life she would rather want to live for the sake of her ideals and making her ideal society, a reality. Edelgard is all about making sacrifices for the greater good, which applies to herself as well as others. Whatever the result of her actions. This makes her intent quite noble

Also, are we certain Edelgard and Lysithea aren't sisters? They do seem to have rather similar traits, including their obsession with sweets. I think Edelgard mentioned that not all of her siblings died, some also went insane, does that mean she might have a sibling, alive somewhere? 

Honestly, I would love to live out my days with Edelgard after she gives up the throne lazing about and gorging on sweets, after all that headache she went through I think Edelgard deserves to live out the rest of her days in peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sid Starkiller said:

I've grown numb to people calling characters they don't like Hitler. I've heard it so many times over the years, and it's usually because they can't actually explain what they don't like about them.

I don't like Lorenz therefore....

 

 

 

 

 

He is now Hitler

 

/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Eurydice said:

I don't like Lorenz therefore....

 

 

 

 

 

He is now Hitler

 

/s

I don't think there is a single character in this game. I don't like as a character, even the characters. I do dislike as people has some kind of redeeming quality. Rhea, I can understand to a certain degree because of the trauma she suffered, and the loss of her mother, but by this point, I do think that it had transcended grief and become straight up obsession. She can be kind and motherly at her best, but when angry, she is downright terrifying. Especially during and the chapter following the Flame Emperor reveal, Rhea left such a bad impression on me that I just went with Edelgard and never looked back, and I think she comes across even worse if you don't go with Edelgard in the moments immediately following. The fact that she almost immediately jumps to the completely incorrect conclusion that Edelgard is trying to make herself a false God is also not doing her any favours and makes her come across as delusional to me

And she still wouldn't be compared to Hitler, but I can probably find a few mediaeval Popes that fit the bill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2020 at 9:38 AM, Darkmoon6789 said:

It is actually quite silly to apply modern standards to a mostly mediaeval world, technically any king would be a dictator by modern standards. I also hate one more than definitions of war crimes are used to define actions in fantasy settings, people had very different standards when it comes to warfare back then.

The most major differences between Edelgard and people like Stalin is that Edelgard actually cares about her people, she is a devout believer in her own ideology, Stalin was never a true believer in the ideology of the revolution, he just exploited a power vacuum for his own personal gain. Plus, I am not too sure that meritocracy and communism are all that comparable, they are more like complete opposites

By the way, the person I was talking to a few weeks ago that accused Edelgard of gaslighting did also say that she reminded him of his ex-girlfriend, so I believe there is quite a bit of projecting going on there, he was unable to see at Edelgard was actually telling the truth to Byleth, for the most part, due to his own experience with his ex 

Edit: there is a reason I usually roll my eyes whenever a character is being compared to Hitler, I think some people just have a problem understanding nuance and want to paint complex characters as either pure good or pure evil. The only time I think it is apt to compare anyone to Hitler is if they are also responsible for racist policies and committing genocide on a racial basis. Edelgard just doesn't do this, I think Edelgard deserves better than to be compared with the likes of Hitler and Stalin, the girl isn't actually all that bad once you get to know her. But I will accept comparisons to Napoleon as that is at least somewhat accurate

Funny thing about that is that the system Edelgard replaced was a distinct non dictatorship as it had a council limiting the power of the monarch and dividing it among multiple people. Almost like a proto parliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Funny thing about that is that the system Edelgard replaced was a distinct non dictatorship as it had a council limiting the power of the monarch and dividing it among multiple people. Almost like a proto parliment.

Maybe so, but a lot of people in power are also highly corrupt and using that power to benefit only themselves, it isn't only the type of government that matters, but also the people wielding the power. One primary example is the nobles involved in the insurrection of the seven, while this is an example of the power of the Emperor being divided among a council of nobles, this was done primarily for the sake of personal power. Not to mention that they enabled a shadowy cult that performed awful human experimentation who and were responsible for creating major unrest throughout the continent to wield power to the level, but they were able to turn the heiress to the imperial throne into for the lack of a better term, an experimental rat, with the intent of using her as a tool in their quest for revenge against their ancient enemies. I do think that the power dynamic as a consequence between Edelgard and those who slither in the dark is very much in favour of her tormentors. As a consequence of the actions taken by the insurgents. Despite being heir to the Empire, Edelgard practically never had control over her own life, her destiny or her own country, not until being literally given the throne by the cultists in order to further their mutual goal of taking down the church. The imperial family had remained in control of the Empire none of this would have likely ever happened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Maybe so, but a lot of people in power are also highly corrupt and using that power to benefit only themselves, it isn't only the type of government that matters, but also the people wielding the power. One primary example is the nobles involved in the insurrection of the seven, while this is an example of the power of the Emperor being divided among a council of nobles, this was done primarily for the sake of personal power. Not to mention that they enabled a shadowy cult that performed awful human experimentation who and were responsible for creating major unrest throughout the continent to wield power to the level, but they were able to turn the heiress to the imperial throne into for the lack of a better term, an experimental rat, with the intent of using her as a tool in their quest for revenge against their ancient enemies. I do think that the power dynamic as a consequence between Edelgard and those who slither in the dark is very much in favour of her tormentors. As a consequence of the actions taken by the insurgents. Despite being heir to the Empire, Edelgard practically never had control over her own life, her destiny or her own country, not until being literally given the throne by the cultists in order to further their mutual goal of taking down the church. The imperial family had remained in control of the Empire none of this would have likely ever happened

Which obviously sucks for Edelgard (and even more for those siblings tortured to death), but centralizing all power onto a single individual and undoing a previous system overnight sets a much more dangerous precedent for corruption long term. Even if post war Edelgard sets up a system that limits her power, the fact that she did so to begin with means any successor could pull the same thing again and become an absolute ruler. The nobles of the Insurrection of the Seven themselves might seem to be bad people (recent DLC actually vindicates Bernadetta's father a bit surprisingly), but the Insurrection of the Seven itself wasn't actually a bad thing imo as it held each of them accountable to each other rater than a single individual who can do whatever they want.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Especially during and the chapter following the Flame Emperor reveal, Rhea left such a bad impression on me that I just went with Edelgard and never looked back, and I think she comes across even worse if you don't go with Edelgard in the moments immediately following. The fact that she almost immediately jumps to the completely incorrect conclusion that Edelgard is trying to make herself a false God is also not doing her any favours and makes her come across as delusional to me

Rhea comes across as delusional because she basically is. Rhea is mentally unwell, traumatized and a bit unstable. Byleth betraying her to support Edelgard pushes everything over the edge as she doesn't want another "Red Canyon tragedy". Though her calling Byleth a "another failure" and how she threatens to rip and tear out hearts was absolutely terrifying.

In VW and SS she admits that she's done some very questionable things, out of fear and trauma, and regrets them. She's quite similar to Dimitri actually.

This might be YMMV but I feel like the "best way" to play Three Houses is to play all routes, so you can understand everybody's pov and why they do the things that they do. 

Edited by Eurydice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the story of 3H was supposed to be some sort of reflection of history's worst leaders.  So let's not go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

The nobles of the Insurrection of the Seven themselves might seem to be bad people (recent DLC actually vindicates Bernadetta's father a bit surprisingly), but the Insurrection of the Seven itself wasn't actually a bad thing imo as it held each of them accountable to each other rater than a single individual who can do whatever they want.

Pretty sure it was Arundel/Thales pulling the strings. There's no actual indication that they held each other accountable for anything, unless I'm missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Which obviously sucks for Edelgard (and even more for those siblings tortured to death), but centralizing all power onto a single individual and undoing a previous system overnight sets a much more dangerous precedent for corruption long term. Even if post war Edelgard sets up a system that limits her power, the fact that she did so to begin with means any successor could pull the same thing again and become an absolute ruler. The nobles of the Insurrection of the Seven themselves might seem to be bad people (recent DLC actually vindicates Bernadetta's father a bit surprisingly), but the Insurrection of the Seven itself wasn't actually a bad thing imo as it held each of them accountable to each other rater than a single individual who can do whatever they want.

The point here being, the insurrection of the seven wasn't a good thing. Despite the division of power, in fact, they are arguably one of the most corrupt governments in this entire game and Edelgard's empire after a war is a massive improvement from what the Empire was previously. I would rather have one good and selfless person in power than a country controlled by a council of corrupt and selfish people. Also, I should also probably address that even an absolute monarch is dependent on other power structures to remain in power, even for someone like Edelgard, the people close to her are a vital to maintain power. Her empire would still have a nobility of sorts, they just wouldn't get their positions from family lines, rather, from personal merit, and these people would still be delegated some degree of power. I have read a bit about non-successive monarchies, that is monarchies that doesn't determine the heir to the throne by Bloodlines, rather by another means that is usually the election of a new monarch through some kind of council, or by an election. . While I know what no system that is immune to human corruption,  The very point of Edelgard not wanting her children on the throne is an attempt to make sure that power only given to those who will use it for the greater good, if this will work or not is another matter, but this is the intent. Plus many of the types of reforms Edelgard introduced is the type that leads to a larger middle-class who will have more influence in politics over the years, which usually leads to the development of a constitutional monarchy, which unless something else major happens, I think is the most likely direction Edelgard's empire will take over the centuries due to the lack of division between commoner and nobility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jotari said:

Funny thing about that is that the system Edelgard replaced was a distinct non dictatorship as it had a council limiting the power of the monarch and dividing it among multiple people. Almost like a proto parliment.

 

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

Which obviously sucks for Edelgard (and even more for those siblings tortured to death), but centralizing all power onto a single individual and undoing a previous system overnight sets a much more dangerous precedent for corruption long term. Even if post war Edelgard sets up a system that limits her power, the fact that she did so to begin with means any successor could pull the same thing again and become an absolute ruler. The nobles of the Insurrection of the Seven themselves might seem to be bad people (recent DLC actually vindicates Bernadetta's father a bit surprisingly), but the Insurrection of the Seven itself wasn't actually a bad thing imo as it held each of them accountable to each other rater than a single individual who can do whatever they want.

 

The whole conflict between nobility and royal/central authority for power is pretty much a constant of the Middle Ages, and the following centuries actually. And while victory of the elites could lead to things like England, it also led to the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania (congrats, the nobility votes and elect the king, plus the major laws. Except they kept chosing, with a few notable exceptions, weaklings which couldn't get them to do anything, while voting in a way that assured everybody was doing whatever in their little corner. Cue the big power of Eastern Europe wasting away until all is left is an open bar for Prussia, Austria and Russia), the latter definitely making me thinking of Leicester in their worst moments.

In Adrestia? I see it as a reflect of the struggle for Holy Roman Emperors to make the title have any meaning against the German, Italian nobles, and the popes. And it didn't work here either, the Habsburg eventually keeping to Austria, Hungary and bohemia while the rest was a dog-eat-dog mess. I would also compare the ministers more to the Electors, the top dogs of the HRE, than anything else.

And absolutism isn't worst regime by itself. Louis XIV and Louis XV managed to run the country pretty well, and had their own ministers to help them do so (Colbert, Louvois, the latter which opened officier carriere for people without the money to buy a commission by the way). Except these ones weren't hereditary titles, which could lead to ineffectual leadership. There is also the fact the turn for absolutism in France was a reaction to the nobility being greedy ambitious backstabbers. And lazy ones to boot, because when the Regent of Louis XV threw them a bone, they immediately wasted it by their intense laziness, leading to it being taken away. Heck, it is the nobility doing obstruction because they went 'Muh Privileges' which led to the French Revolution. Everyone knew they were the last social class with a meaningful amount of money to tax, but they refused to give an inch for so long the Revolution happened.

Yes, there is no tangible signs of how things were before the Seven. But centralization hardly happens only for naked power-grabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Hardric62 said:

 

 

The whole conflict between nobility and royal/central authority for power is pretty much a constant of the Middle Ages, and the following centuries actually. And while victory of the elites could lead to things like England, it also led to the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania (congrats, the nobility votes and elect the king, plus the major laws. Except they kept chosing, with a few notable exceptions, weaklings which couldn't get them to do anything, while voting in a way that assured everybody was doing whatever in their little corner. Cue the big power of Eastern Europe wasting away until all is left is an open bar for Prussia, Austria and Russia), the latter definitely making me thinking of Leicester in their worst moments.

In Adrestia? I see it as a reflect of the struggle for Holy Roman Emperors to make the title have any meaning against the German, Italian nobles, and the popes. And it didn't work here either, the Habsburg eventually keeping to Austria, Hungary and bohemia while the rest was a dog-eat-dog mess. I would also compare the ministers more to the Electors, the top dogs of the HRE, than anything else.

And absolutism isn't worst regime by itself. Louis XIV and Louis XV managed to run the country pretty well, and had their own ministers to help them do so (Colbert, Louvois, the latter which opened officier carriere for people without the money to buy a commission by the way). Except these ones weren't hereditary titles, which could lead to ineffectual leadership. There is also the fact the turn for absolutism in France was a reaction to the nobility being greedy ambitious backstabbers. And lazy ones to boot, because when the Regent of Louis XV threw them a bone, they immediately wasted it by their intense laziness, leading to it being taken away. Heck, it is the nobility doing obstruction because they went 'Muh Privileges' which led to the French Revolution. Everyone knew they were the last social class with a meaningful amount of money to tax, but they refused to give an inch for so long the Revolution happened.

Yes, there is no tangible signs of how things were before the Seven. But centralization hardly happens only for naked power-grabs.

Absolutism is fine as long as the person in charge is a good person and is competent in what they are doing. It is just unfortunate that power usually attracts the worst of people. I think that Edelgard herself is absolutely fine as a ruler as she is remarkably selfless only really wanting to remove those she deemed corrupt from power rather than securing power for herself, it is ultimately her plan to give power over to someone she considers worthy regardless of their heritage. So it is ultimately less about personal power and more about creating a new power structure for the future. The only reason she is centralising power is to make it easier to introduce new reforms to the system. 

I love how this game seem to reflect a lot of real-world history, there are a lot of parallels that can be drawn. I have noticed that Adrestia do seem to reflect the Holy Roman Empire, something I notice in their iconography and the names of some characters from there, Edelgard is a Germanic name after all. Yes, it does seem to be a real historical name and a name with a beautiful meaning. Noble Protector. Do you think that Faerghus is more England or France? We do need a nation with a strong chivalric code for the comparison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I love how this game seem to reflect a lot of real-world history, there are a lot of parallels that can be drawn. I have noticed that Adrestia do seem to reflect the Holy Roman Empire, something I notice in their iconography and the names of some characters from there, Edelgard is a Germanic name after all. Yes, it does seem to be a real historical name and a name with a beautiful meaning. Noble Protector. Do you think that Faerghus is more England or France? We do need a nation with a strong chivalric code for the comparison

 

My vote would be for France, 'Eldest Daughter of the Church' for comapration with the 'Holy Kingdom', plus the weigth of nobility over merchant classes and the likes. Although as opposed to the HRE (see Canossa), Franc ended up affirming royal authority over things like nomination of bishops, which eventually led to the Avignon popes. So yes, maybe not a relationship as smooth as the one between Faerghus and the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hardric62 said:

 

My vote would be for France, 'Eldest Daughter of the Church' for comapration with the 'Holy Kingdom', plus the weigth of nobility over merchant classes and the likes. Although as opposed to the HRE (see Canossa), Franc ended up affirming royal authority over things like nomination of bishops, which eventually led to the Avignon popes. So yes, maybe not a relationship as smooth as the one between Faerghus and the Church.

You do seem to know quite a bit about history, which is always useful in debates like this. I was thinking France myself due to the closer connection with the Catholic Church.Is there any historical nation with a system of government, similar to that which Edelgard proposes? Might be useful in tracking what would likely happen with her empire in future generations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2020 at 4:58 AM, omegaxis1 said:

Even Napoleon isn't completely accurate given how Edelgard doesn't need to be forced out of power, but rather abdicates.

The very thing that makes Edelgard not a dictator in the negative sense or anything near a tyrant is the fact that she is willing to abdicate. She doesn't fear the idea of losing power and would love to lose it.

She even said it herself. She'd rather laze around gorging on sweets.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla did leave the position of dictator on his own volition, but i would be hard pressed to not call him a tyrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

Lucius Cornelius Sulla did leave the position of dictator on his own volition, but i would be hard pressed to not call him a tyrant.

Let's put it this way, does Edelgard seem to have a malicious intent in any way? I am more thinking of Edelgard after the war, rather than any of her actions during it. I have no idea who your example is due to me only having played one game in the series.

I think Edelgard is very likely to make life as good as possible for as many people as possible during her time as a ruler, a retired motivation for starting the war in the first place, what to create a better world, and I believe that this is exactly what she will attempt to do. Mistakes will be made, but I don't think she will intentionally make things worse for personal gain like a tyrant would. I guess what is considered to be a tyrant, is rather subjective to begin with, but I would define it as a ruler put their own self-interest before the needs of their people. Edelgard is the literal opposite of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

You do seem to know quite a bit about history, which is always useful in debates like this. I was thinking France myself due to the closer connection with the Catholic Church.Is there any historical nation with a system of government, similar to that which Edelgard proposes? Might be useful in tracking what would likely happen with her empire in future generations

 

Well, historically... It wasn't that good. You could argue that the exam systems for mandarins of the Chinese imperail dynasties (meant to fight nobility's power) was a form of that system, but corruption would always creep in. For succession like Edelgard intends? A close thing would be the Antonian dynasty of the Roman Empire. Yes, it did provide Rome's greatest emperors, but they were still looking for some minor family bonds before adopting, and of course, there was Commodus which ruined it all...

Now I think about it, the Roman Empire wasn't exactly that big on dynasties, despite attempts by the Julio-Claudians, Flavians, Antonians, Severians... More often than not, if the emperor wasn't deemed up to the task (or enough ambitious men tried their luck), revolts would happen, and eventually succeed. And there is the whole mess of the 3rd century after the last Severe, after Diocletian... Let's say it would take titanic work to make the system idiot-proof, and it would still need reformations as time goes. Nothing is forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hardric62 said:

 

Well, historically... It wasn't that good. You could argue that the exam systems for mandarins of the Chinese imperail dynasties (meant to fight nobility's power) was a form of that system, but corruption would always creep in. For succession like Edelgard intends? A close thing would be the Antonian dynasty of the Roman Empire. Yes, it did provide Rome's greatest emperors, but they were still looking for some minor family bonds before adopting, and of course, there was Commodus which ruined it all...

Now I think about it, the Roman Empire wasn't exactly that big on dynasties, despite attempts by the Julio-Claudians, Flavians, Antonians, Severians... More often than not, if the emperor wasn't deemed up to the task (or enough ambitious men tried their luck), revolts would happen, and eventually succeed. And there is the whole mess of the 3rd century after the last Severe, after Diocletian... Let's say it would take titanic work to make the system idiot-proof, and it would still need reformations as time goes. Nothing is forever.

I don't think I have ever seen a system of government that isn't prone to corruption in some way, even the current government of my country is still very prone to corruption, it is definitely better than some other forms of corruption in other governments types, but greedy leaders, motivated only by personal gain is still a very much a problem even in democratic systems. Edelgard is well-intentioned but it is highly unlikely things will work out the way she planned in the future, wars will happen and there will be power struggles in the future. But with any degree of luck I guess we can count on at least a the reign of Edelgard and her successor to be prosperous, assuming we can trust Edelgard to pick a good candidate for her successor, which isn't guaranteed because Edelgard's judgement is fallible, just like that of any human. I have been looking at ways to make Edelgard's system idiot proof when it comes to when it comes to succession, haven't really found a way because no matter who we leave to determine who is worthy to be, a successor to the Empire, whenever a council, the previous emperor or through a vote open to all people, all people are fallible, so there is always a risk of a tyrant being chosen. I haven't found a single system of government that is completely idiot proof, if I had I would move heaven and earth to make sure that system of government was adopted world over, but hopefully Edelgard sat things in motion that will eventually lead to a renaissance and an industrial revolution. Which I don't think is entirely impossible. I also think that a victory for Edelgard will most likely the outcome that most likely leads to the biggest leaps in government reform and technological advancement in the future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Let's put it this way, does Edelgard seem to have a malicious intent in any way? I am more thinking of Edelgard after the war, rather than any of her actions during it. I have no idea who your example is due to me only having played one game in the series.

My example came from history of the roman republic. There are actually several examples of dictator/tyrants that willingly step down in the classic period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

My example came from history of the roman republic. There are actually several examples of dictator/tyrants that willingly step down in the classic period.

Taking a look at your example, did this guy do anything especially terrible? The title of dictator was an official title in Rome and doesn't necessarily mean a person was a tyrant. Wielding absolute power isn't enough to be considered a tyrant, you must also abuse it. I am just asking that if you do consider Edelgard a tyrant, why is that? What has she done to deserve being called that? Other than the war, of course, I am more interested in examples about how she treats her people. Once the war is over, and it seems to be mostly in a positive way from I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Taking a look at your example, did this guy do anything especially terrible? The title of dictator was an official title in Rome and doesn't necessarily mean a person was a tyrant. Wielding absolute power isn't enough to be considered a tyrant, you must also abuse it. I am just asking that if you do consider Edelgard a tyrant, why is that? What has she done to deserve being called that? Other than the war, of course, I am more interested in examples about how she treats her people. Once the war is over, and it seems to be mostly in a positive way from I can tell.

 

Sulla took over power while the Republic was beginning to going down the drain, and his conflict with Marius marked the first major civil war for control of the Republic. He led a conservative counter-revolution of the optimates (pro-aristocrats) against Marius and his partisans of the populares (pro-plebeians), who had just tried to confiscate Sulla's command for a campaign (and thus the pretige and money to be earned there). That would also be the start (for both sides) of proscritptions, aka mass purges of members of the opposition depending on which one was having the control of Rome, beyond the 'mere' elimination of heads of factions. Marius was the first to do that when he retook Rome, but Sulla answered in kind when he took back control. After that, 3 years of dictatorship passing laws intended to preserve the aristocratic Republic. Not that stopped the civil wars with the Triumvirates and the end of the Republic. Sulla was also the first to lead armed forces to Rome itself, a big taboo of the time (something like that was how Caesar started his own civil war).

 

Next to that, Edelgard... Welp, letting Hrym between the hands of Tharundel isn't a high point of anything she did. And even in CF, there is a mention of civilian unrest because of the war with the Church. Although that when it only pops up in CF, and to be mentioned has having lost in intensity over the five years of the timeskip... Unanimous support most certainly not, but I think her anti-Church agenda could have been a bit more favorable amongst the common people than what is usually expected when a monarch publically goes 'Duck the Church! Duck the pope-equivalent figure!'. The HRE never 'won' against the pope like that in the Middle Ages, or until the Reformation cut into both of their power bases/legitimacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hardric62 said:

 

Sulla took over power while the Republic was beginning to going down the drain, and his conflict with Marius marked the first major civil war for control of the Republic. He led a conservative counter-revolution of the optimates (pro-aristocrats) against Marius and his partisans of the populares (pro-plebeians), who had just tried to confiscate Sulla's command for a campaign (and thus the pretige and money to be earned there). That would also be the start (for both sides) of proscritptions, aka mass purges of members of the opposition depending on which one was having the control of Rome, beyond the 'mere' elimination of heads of factions. Marius was the first to do that when he retook Rome, but Sulla answered in kind when he took back control. After that, 3 years of dictatorship passing laws intended to preserve the aristocratic Republic. Not that stopped the civil wars with the Triumvirates and the end of the Republic. Sulla was also the first to lead armed forces to Rome itself, a big taboo of the time (something like that was how Caesar started his own civil war).

 

Next to that, Edelgard... Welp, letting Hrym between the hands of Tharundel isn't a high point of anything she did. And even in CF, there is a mention of civilian unrest because of the war with the Church. Although that when it only pops up in CF, and to be mentioned has having lost in intensity over the five years of the timeskip... Unanimous support most certainly not, but I think her anti-Church agenda could have been a bit more favorable amongst the common people than what is usually expected when a monarch publically goes 'Duck the Church! Duck the pope-equivalent figure!'. The HRE never 'won' against the pope like that in the Middle Ages, or until the Reformation cut into both of their power bases/legitimacy.

So I guess that Sulla is the opposite of Edelgard in that he wanted to protect the aristocracy.

In the case of Edelgard, civilian unrest, if directed towards the church is actually a positive thing for her cause, she was probably rather popular with the commoners, especially the people who have suffered at the hands of the nobility, a reputation I am sure would be improved even further after the war. Here's the thing with Edelgard, while it is possible to point out things she did wrong during the war, I can find almost nothing wrong with her reign afterwards. She just made the nobles surrender their titles, she didn't execute them like in the French Revolution.

It is also quite interesting that the holy Roman Empire actually had a history of conflict with the Pope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

 

It is also quite interesting that the holy Roman Empire actually had a history of conflict with the Pope

 

It started from the very birth of the HRE, when the pope did some small modifications to the coronation ceremony which made the emperor (then Charlemagne) appear as subordinate of the pope, rather than the opposite. Charlemagne was quite salty over that, and following emperors and dynasties tried for a long while to put themselves over the pope, as part of an effort to truly be emperor of the mess of fiefdoms the HRE eventually became, with... mixed results, to say the least, with both sides not hesitating to create anti-popes and anti-emperors to show their superiority. Oh, and there was this forgery produced for the popes, the 'Donation of Constantine', which affirmed he had willed to them the western half of the Roman Empire. Yeah, the inspiration for Adrestia and its conflicted relationship with the Church isn't to search really far.

 

18 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Here's the thing with Edelgard, while it is possible to point out things she did wrong during the war, I can find almost nothing wrong with her reign afterwards. She just made the nobles surrender their titles, she didn't execute them like in the French Revolution.

 

At the same time, the same can be said of all endings (although AM has the Mole Men still allowed to go for the next round in the future). And the Revolution wasn't just killing all nobles either. And there is the possible calculation of keeping them alive, so they don't feel cornered into forming counter-revolutionaries armies (having the Ministers' first successors picked from their families got to help too).

And... I think Duke Aegir thought an extensive lesson on the concept of 'Cruel Mercy' to Edelgard with the Insurrection. Ionius was basically not needed once the coup succeeded, they could have been regents of one of his kids. But they kept him, lilkely because it was still the easiest way to go. And he lived to see the Empire confiscated and his projects reduced to ashes, his family butchered in these experiments... I mean, look at the guy when he crowns Edelgard, they took everything from him, at this point keeping him alive to see that ruin every day was pretty cruel. It probably was part of why Edelgard came to abhorr the idea of surrendering: her father's fate was a perfect example of just how much you can destroy someone while 'sparring' them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Taking a look at your example, did this guy do anything especially terrible? The title of dictator was an official title in Rome and doesn't necessarily mean a person was a tyrant. Wielding absolute power isn't enough to be considered a tyrant, you must also abuse it. I am just asking that if you do consider Edelgard a tyrant, why is that? What has she done to deserve being called that? Other than the war, of course, I am more interested in examples about how she treats her people. Once the war is over, and it seems to be mostly in a positive way from I can tell.

Essentially Sulla purged everyone he didn't like. So did his rival Marius and later Augustus did the same. Just about the only Roman warlord that didn't commit brutal purges was Caesar and the people he spared stabbing him about 200 times probably showed people that not doing purges was a bad idea. 

Aside from the purges Sulla also attained his dictatorship by overthrowing Rome's government and setting up his own. I guess the Marian faction getting a posthumous victory through Caesar further soiled Sulla's reputation though its worth nothing his lieutenants were already dismantling Sulla's legacy long before Caesar.  

But as far as Romans go Edelgard seems more a Caesar than a Sulla. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...