Jump to content
omegaxis1

The True Tragedy of Three Houses

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Honestly, that's even worse, really. Cause 3H is all about how things currently needed to change. And that if you want things to change, you need some plan for the future. Dimitri talks this once, but never really in depth. It's this lack of reason that makes it hard to know what the point of fighting is. 

We can easily argue that any ending will not work out and another war can break out as a result. It's not that hard. Like, at all. Like saying one route is not gonna work out is silly, really. You can move one generation and say something will go wrong. 

And Edelgard reforms are going to crash as soon as an heir of her pick a Commodus instead of someone worthy. Or hell, the nobles may strike back as soon as she dies. Changing a system by force does not solve shit because the culture that created it remain and is not changed whitin a generation. 

Hence my annoyance of all ending being "GoLdEn AgE!!!" Instead of something realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Flere210 said:

And Edelgard reforms are going to crash as soon as an heir of her pick a Commodus instead of someone worthy. Or hell, the nobles may strike back as soon as she dies. Changing a system by force does not solve shit because the culture that created it remain and is not changed whitin a generation. 

Hence my annoyance of all ending being "GoLdEn AgE!!!" Instead of something realistic.

No ending is realistic. They are all golden endings because that's how stories work in FE for the most part. 

What you're saying goes on the case of excessive what ifs, which can be placed on any ending. This isn't Edelgard exclusive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel people grouse about the golden ending with the lord they like the least because they think they deserve to fail more lol

Do you guys got any ideas for good "realistic" endings?

Share this post


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

And Edelgard reforms are going to crash as soon as an heir of her pick a Commodus instead of someone worthy. Or hell, the nobles may strike back as soon as she dies. Changing a system by force does not solve shit because the culture that created it remain and is not changed whitin a generation. 

Hence my annoyance of all ending being "GoLdEn AgE!!!" Instead of something realistic.

I mean that can be said of quite literally every fire emblem or any story that deals in some of kind of war politics. Hell it's something that's brought up when it comes to discussions of any evil empire story. What happens after is something that's never really addressed in any story of this nature because of all the logistics that go into it and this is just where the story ends so yeah...

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Crysta said:

I feel people grouse about the golden ending with the lord they like the least because they think they deserve to fail more lol

Do you guys got any ideas for good "realistic" endings?

My most realistic ending is "Dagda and Almyra sweep in taking advantage of a weakened fodlan and conquer it". Wich is a pretty shitty ending from any perspective other than realism.

Outside of that, i feel like Dimitri "angry side" will not disappear and he would eventually become the boar again. Obviously a Fodlan governed by the boar is going to end in a bloodbath. 

As for Edelgard, she is trying to force a change when a large part of the society is not ready for it, so i am expecting a strong backlash from the noble houses as soon as they have a chance, leading to another civil war.

As for VW and SS, Byleth has no experience in politic, so i just expect them to be bad rulers and screw something up. 

 

6 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I mean that can be said of quite literally every fire emblem or any story that deals in some of kind of war politics. Hell it's something that's brought up when it comes to discussions of any evil empire story. What happens after is something that's never really addressed in any of this nature because of all the logistics that go into and this is just where the story ends so yeah...

Older games are not really about the lord changing the world, they are about stopping a big bad. 

It's pretty possible that Seliph's son is going to be a tyrant worse than Arvis, but this is not whitin the scoper of genealogy. The point of genealogy is to stop Loptyr from getting revived, not to do any particular reform of Granvale. Or the point of awakening is to prevent the apocalypse. 

It's depending on how the story is framed.

Share this post


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

I feel people grouse about the golden ending with the lord they like the least because they think they deserve to fail more lol

Do you guys got any ideas for good "realistic" endings?

The Agarthans win and usher in the industrial revolution.

46 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Eh, Dimitri needs a plan if I want to be confident of his ability to lead after exhibiting clear, invasive mental health issues. And plenty of advisors.

But I can't assume that reassurance is necessary for everyone.

I played Verdant Wind before Azure Moon and what I thought they were going to do with Azure Moon was point out the flaws of hereditary monarchy. Sure Dimitri's crazy, but why is everyone else fighting his crazy way taking out alliance soldiers when they have a mutual enemy? The only explanation is that they're putting loyalty over sense and doing it purely because Dimitri is their king. It's not based on his character but based on his position which he gained from birth. Like Bryce from Path of Radiance. But then in Azure Moon is like the most justifiable route there is even though you have a deranged psychopath as your lord. Everyone just lets Dimitri mutter to himself in a corner until he gets his shit together. Ain't nothing wrong with hereditary monarch at all because we just ignore the king if we feel like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said good endings, not Game of Thrones endings. Stuff you'd actually pitch to the writing team with a chance of it being accepted as a reasonable way to end a game you've probably invested 100+ hours into.

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

I played Verdant Wind before Azure Moon and what I thought they were going to do with Azure Moon was point out the flaws of hereditary monarchy. Sure Dimitri's crazy, but why is everyone else fighting his crazy way taking out alliance soldiers when they have a mutual enemy? The only explanation is that they're putting loyalty over sense and doing it purely because Dimitri is their king. It's not based on his character but based on his position which he gained from birth. Like Bryce from Path of Radiance. But then in Azure Moon is like the most justifiable route there is even though you have a deranged psychopath as your lord. Everyone just lets Dimitri mutter to himself in a corner until he gets his shit together. Ain't nothing wrong with hereditary monarch at all because we just ignore the king if we feel like it.

I'd buy this more if it didn't just default right back to the traditional FE story as soon as he gets over it.

But that is a big reason why, even if we're going with the bad realistic endings, his may still rank the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Flere210 said:

As for VW and SS, Byleth has no experience in politic, so i just expect them to be bad rulers and screw something up. 

The sad thing is that there's an ending that proves how little Byleth understands managing territory and such with Marianne in CF:

Quote

Almost immediately after Byleth and Marianne had celebrated their engagement, the struggle against those who slither in the dark began in earnest. Together they fought tirelessly to bring the war to an end so that Fódlan could have lasting peace. Afterwards, they left the Imperial army and were officially wed in Edmund territory. In time, the pair grew into first-rate politicians under the tutelage of Margrave Edmund himself. With the emperor's blessing, they annexed part of Riegan territory, including Derdriu, and used their influence to improve relations and expand trade with foreign nations. Their work greatly contributed to the restoration of the Empire.

Apparently Byleth needed to be educated by Edmund to know how to manage territory. So how is Byleth capable of being the new king?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I said good endings, not Game of Thrones endings. Stuff you'd actually pitch to the writing team with a chance of it being accepted as a reasonable way to end a game you've probably invested 100+ hours into.

I'd buy this more if it didn't just default right back to the traditional FE story as soon as he gets over it.

But that is a big reason why, even if we're going with the bad realistic endings, his may still rank the worst.

That's why I said I thought it was the route they were going to go when seeing Dimitri's story from Verdant Wind. But it wasn't at all what they did.

13 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The sad thing is that there's an ending that proves how little Byleth understands managing territory and such with Marianne in CF:

Apparently Byleth needed to be educated by Edmund to know how to manage territory. So how is Byleth capable of being the new king?

 

Just stirring shit here because I have no opinion myself, but one can easily take that ending as evidence that Byleth actually would be a fine ruler as even though they're tutored in it by someone else it out right says they got good at it. And in every route with Byleth in power there remains trusted people to help guide them. The expectation that Byleth could manage territory when raised as a mercenary is unfounded to begin with, but the fact that we have proof they would actually listened to experienced people and learn is exactly what one needs in a ruler.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

I said good endings, not Game of Thrones endings. Stuff you'd actually pitch to the writing team with a chance of it being accepted as a reasonable way to end a game you've probably invested 100+ hours into.

For BL, i think Dimitri should realize he is not suited to rule. So he should give the crown away. As Farghus is based on France and the one thing he says on the issue is that people whit crest and people whitout crests should cooperste, i would make him establish a parliment similar to the Estate general: made in equal parts of nobles, commoners, and member of the church of Seiros. Then they will elect a king that hopefully is not Byleth.

For SS i would go trough a similar route, and have Rhea giving Fodlan to Byleth, Sethet and Flayn, wich nominate a parliment. 

For CF, Edelgard should crush the nobility whut an iron fist, outright killing or exiling them whitout their wealth. Also, the game should aknowledge that Edelgard revolution may not go as planned, but still ending on an hopeful note than whatever is going to Happen, the citizien of Fodlan were free to chose their own path.

For VW, outright unifying Fodlan and Almyr into a great Empire seem a better solution, maybe using a federal style of government.

Share this post


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

For CF, Edelgard should crush the nobility whut an iron fist, outright killing or exiling them whitout their wealth. Also, the game should aknowledge that Edelgard revolution may not go as planned, but still ending on an hopeful note than whatever is going to Happen, the citizien of Fodlan were free to chose their own path.

Sounds like a good way of starting rebellions and actually making Edelgard a tyrant, which she isn't about. Edelgard's methods is to siphon out nobility in the long term by transforming them into government officials that work for a paycheck.

Share this post


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

For BL, i think Dimitri should realize he is not suited to rule. So he should give the crown away. As Farghus is based on France and the one thing he says on the issue is that people whit crest and people whitout crests should cooperste, i would make him establish a parliment similar to the Estate general: made in equal parts of nobles, commoners, and member of the church of Seiros. Then they will elect a king that hopefully is not Byleth.

ok this seems alright

13 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

For SS i would go trough a similar route, and have Rhea giving Fodlan to Byleth, Sethet and Flayn, wich nominate a parliment. 

wait a ruler-appointed parliament?

13 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

For CF, Edelgard should crush the nobility whut an iron fist, outright killing or exiling them whitout their wealth. Also, the game should aknowledge that Edelgard revolution may not go as planned, but still ending on an hopeful note than whatever is going to Happen, the citizien of Fodlan were free to chose their own path.

You do realize this means killing off many of the allies who committed to her cause, right? And the parents of some of the other units in your army. If they go with this ending they probably need to drastically change the tone of the rest of CF's narrative and really, really lean into the extremist angle.

13 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

For VW, outright unifying Fodlan and Almyr into a great Empire seem a better solution, maybe using a federal style of government.

Eh, maybe but I don't think even Claude would be 100% okay with immediate consolidation without him reforming Almyra as well. You have two large populations who need to get used to interacting with each other first, let alone get used to a "federal style" of government. And I'm not sure that form of government makes sense with how Claude would prefer to rule (which imo would likely be a dictatorship with emphasis on economic liberalization and some lower level democratic decision-making).

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


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

For BL, i think Dimitri should realize he is not suited to rule. So he should give the crown away. As Farghus is based on France and the one thing he says on the issue is that people whit crest and people whitout crests should cooperste, i would make him establish a parliment similar to the Estate general: made in equal parts of nobles, commoners, and member of the church of Seiros. Then they will elect a king that hopefully is not Byleth.

If we're being generous with Dimitri's ending we could interpret that as exactly what he did.

 

22 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

For CF, Edelgard should crush the nobility whut an iron fist, outright killing or exiling them whitout their wealth. Also, the game should aknowledge that Edelgard revolution may not go as planned, but still ending on an hopeful note than whatever is going to Happen, the citizien of Fodlan were free to chose their own path.

That would result in some morbidly hilarious endings for half the cast which are themselves nobles in Crimson Flower.

"Bernadetta was allowed to stay in Fodlan due to her contribution in the war, but her entire family was killed or exiled and she herself had to work as a laborer throughout her days. Everyone also treated her with great prejudice due to her former bourgeois status , but since Bernadetta had always assumed everyone was out to get her, this didn't change much."

22 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

For VW, outright unifying Fodlan and Almyr into a great Empire seem a better solution, maybe using a federal style of government.

Hmm. Even with a marriage between King Claude and God Queen Byleth, Fodlan itself isn't unified enough and Almyra is too alien for me to see this working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it always assumed that "realistic" means that things end up terrible? I blame the pessimistic attitude this day and age. 

It is really hard to know where any of these endings would really lead in the future. Edelgard's system in crimson flower could end up collapsing in a few decades after her death due to the choice of an unworthy successor (Edelgard means well, but her judgement can sometimes be flawed), or because of a counter revolution from the former Nobles restoring their power. But it could also the start of a series of reformations that would eventually lead to a constitutional monarchy due to the ever increasing influence of the middle class and the reduction of the number of poor citizens, which historically reforms like the ones Edelgard tried to implement usually leads to. I don't think the better outcome is necessarily any more unrealistic, might just feel that way, but there is always a chance, things might actually go well for quite a while. There has been real golden ages in most countries in actual history.

I did watch the video on's non-successive monarchies not too long ago, the idea that the next monarch isn't determined by bloodlines isn't unheard of in the real world, though it usually involves some kind of council of powerful people getting together to vote on who will become the next monarch, which is usually one of them. While in Edelgard system, it would be the Emperor that elects their successor during their lifetime, there might be a time where the Emperor dies before a proper successor had been selected, what should be done in that particular case? I am assuming that a new Emperor might be chosen by the people in power chosen by the last Emperor, probably from among their own number. Say for example, if Edelgard would suddenly die before a successor was selected, it would likely be up to the surviving members of the former Black Eagles and other people who were highly respected by Edelgard to determine who would be the next Emperor. This is really starting to sound like the Roman Empire.

I do not think it makes sense for Edelgard to kill all the nobles considering that most of the Black Eagles were nobles, Edelgard isn't Hubert, she isn't that cruel and I think the nobles simply stepping down and giving up their titles would be enough.

If you want my take of what likely would happen after the end of crimson flower is that the empire would enter a golden age for a time. While some rebellions may occur during the first couple of decades, the common people would quickly realise that they have it so much better under the new regime. The former commoners will gain many more individuals in positions of power and influence over the coming decades of Edelgard's reign, and these people will come to regard Edelgard as a heroic figure. 

Edelgard would eventually step down and nominate a successor, while the first couple of successors would do an adequate job, they wouldn't quite live up to their predecessor, the legendary revolutionary beloved by the common people. As time goes by and the memory of Edelgard passed down into history, our deeds will become further and further embellished, an idealised version drowning out the memory of the real Edelgard. When this happens, the current Emperors will seem more and more inadequate as time goes on, having to deal with being compared to an ideal, even the real Edelgard couldn't have possibly met.

Discontent will spread until a resistance movement is formed against an especially unpopular Emperor. The leader of said resistance will channel inspiration from the now legendary figure known as Edelgard and go by the name Flame Emperor. After a Bloody conflict. The resistance formed by the new Flame Emperor will triumph over the reigning emperor and him and his reigning elites will be put to death for a perceived abuse of power. 

From there are many things might happen, the new Flame Emperor might decide to take power for himself, thinking he could be the next Edelgard and usher in a new golden age, but maybe he instead becomes a tyrant. The new Flame Emperor might decide that no one but Edelgard was worthy to wield absolute power and create an election based system. Over time, the worship of the idealised Edelgard might even reach the level to form a new religion which takes absolute power over society, elevating the descendants of the original revolutionary to positions of power due to over worship of Edelgard, forgetting her original ideology, and starting to cause problems, mirroring that caused by the church of Seiros. Which might cause Edelgard's name to be dragged through the mud by the actions of these cultists, a new revolutionary will rise whose believes mirror that of the original Edelgard who ultimately defeats the false idol that was created in Edelgard's image and the cycle starts anew.

So what do you people think of this idea?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because realistically a lot of leg work has to go into ripping down an old government and erecting a new one. The funny thing is, in spite of all the aversion to all the warmongering in the thread, that's usually what triggers radical change: relying on a corrupt system to correct itself, even with a sincerely kind leader at the top, does not usually turn out well.

Honestly I'm fine with just giving the game the benefit of the doubt in this case, because even with the "realistic but not 100% terrible" endings I'm confident someone will find it personally unsatisfying. There's a reason why golden routes are popular.

Share this post


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

It's because realistically a lot of leg work has to go into ripping down an old government and erecting a new one. The funny thing is, in spite of all the aversion to all the warmongering in the thread, that's usually what triggers radical change: relying on a corrupt system to correct itself, even with a sincerely kind leader at the top, does not usually turn out well.

Honestly I'm fine with just giving the game the benefit of the doubt in this case, because even with the "realistic but not 100% terrible" endings I'm confident someone will find it personally unsatisfying. There's a reason why golden routes are popular.

You just described the exact reason I am okay with Edelgard's solution, it might generally be the only way for lasting change. For all the aversion to war people have nowadays, War does have a legitimate purpose in the overthrowing of corrupt regimes. People will die in the short term, yes, but an even greater number of deaths might be prevented by people taking decisive action before it gets even worse

In the ending I described, I did basically have things play out exactly like it did in the games actual ending, only that I included how things might go for the centuries to follow, the game does not cover such a long amount of time in its epilogue. I think it is always implied in any ending that things might go wrong in the future by some point, but for now, things worked out pretty well and often times this is good enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Crysta said:

 

There's nothing suggesting Claude's hypothetical plan to bring peace to Fodlan would have worked. Not sure where Sylvain comes in? He's an asshole because of his Crest and he doesn't really seem to change in the story lol

Sylvain ending card :

 

Quote

With oration alone, he succeed in helping a new way of life, for nobles in which Crests and Relics were no longer viewed as necessary.

 

As we all know Sylvain hates the crests because his brother attempted to murder him several times out of jealousy and bitterness and because women use him because they want to bear his future crest/s babies, and they don't want to know him for who he truly is. So this could've easily occured without Edelgard triggering said war. 

 

All that it took was just one good speech.

 

As for Claude, he knows that his dream was a pipe one, he mentions this to Byleth. 

 

Quote

tl;dr you're giving him too much credit for a hypothetical long term plan that never actually takes place because Edelgard's war gives him the opportunity to forge the world how he likes it without looking like a terrible warmongering tyrant. There's a reason I don't consider VW's ending the best.

Edelgard does that on her own, nothing to do with Claude, or anybody else. She wanted to take up war, that was her choice and she made it, she even admits it more than once. Edelgard wanted to take up war path, even if it brings bloodshed.

Edelgard chooses to work with the Slithers, Edelgard chooses to provoke war with Rhea and the church. She wanted it. That's not Claude's fault lol. Claude only manages to make his dreams a reality, if Byleth aids him, if not, then like he's screwed. So Edelgard's war doesn't really help him, otherwise he'll be able to make his dreams a reality, without Avatar self-insert.

Claude can even get trapped and die via Byleth and/ or Edelgard or get spared by them and just have to leave....so Edelgard war, really doesn't "help him", it only does, if he has good leadership, or rather the power of ~Avatar~

It sounds like you just don't like that ending, because it paints Edelgard in a bad light, even though Claude needs Byleth to make it happen. Just like how Edelgard and Dimitri need Byleth to make their good endings happen as well. 

CF ending doesn't even have Edelgard defeat the Slithers, it's just ....assumed that she does, unless that changes via future DLC. Don't see how that's the "best" ending, but k.

Even Dimitri, who I personally hate, has a better ending, as Rhea steps down, and he has Sylvain in his house via canon.

 

I do agree with you that Claude and Sylvain can paint Edelgard in a bad light though, because they do. Claude can show that just waiting for more facts was the smarter thing to do, and Sylvain shows that was needed was just a good talk, some coffee and a good sit down with the nobles to stop the crests system. Just like that old song, war what's it good for ? Absolutely nothing.

Edited by Eurydice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that wasn't Sylvain doing it by himself with just one good speech, only that he assisted in helping create a way with pretty words.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Crysta said:

It's because realistically a lot of leg work has to go into ripping down an old government and erecting a new one. The funny thing is, in spite of all the aversion to all the warmongering in the thread, that's usually what triggers radical change: relying on a corrupt system to correct itself, even with a sincerely kind leader at the top, does not usually turn out well.

Honestly I'm fine with just giving the game the benefit of the doubt in this case, because even with the "realistic but not 100% terrible" endings I'm confident someone will find it personally unsatisfying. There's a reason why golden routes are popular.

IMO increasing technology is usually what causes old systems to change. What we see as corrupt systems were often historically the most beneficial way to structure society at the time. Slavery didn't end because we all suddenly became more moral suddenly. It stopped being necessary to uphold society which allowed us to be more moral about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jotari said:

IMO increasing technology is usually what causes old systems to change. What we see as corrupt systems were often historically the most beneficial way to structure society at the time. Slavery didn't end because we all suddenly became more moral suddenly. It stopped being necessary to uphold society which allowed us to be more moral about it.

There were always those who opposed slavery. While the increasing industrialization of the North certainly made them less reliant on manual labor and may have sped up our arrival to the Civil War, it still took us a long time to get there. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 arguably made the South more invested in slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Crysta said:

There were always those who opposed slavery. While the increasing industrialization of the North certainly made them less reliant on manual labor and may have sped up our arrival to the Civil War, it still took us a long time to get there. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 arguably made the South more invested in slavery.

Of course there was. Since ancient times there were people who opposed it. But the fact that within a few centuries the entire world abandoned it is not coincidence. Similar to the recent women's rights movements. The fact that there have always been people against these things and outliers to the norm yet nothing changes in thousands of years, and then suddenly things changed very, very quickly is what makes me thing social progress is tied very directly to technological progress. And that's why the Agrathans are the true heroes.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

Of course there was. Since ancient times there were people who opposed it. But the fact that within a few centuries the entire world abandoned it is not coincidence. Similar to the recent women's rights movements. The fact that there have always been people against these things and outliers to the norm yet nothing changes in thousands of years, and then suddenly things changed very, very quickly is what makes me thing social progress is tied very directly to technological progress.

While the technological angle can be applied to slavery, I don't find it's easily applied to much else. Women's suffrage and the civil rights movements that came afterward were definitely the result of social attitudes changing, and in the former, because of WWI. 

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


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

While the technological aspect can be applied to slavery, I don't find it's easily applied to much else. Women's suffrage and the civil rights movements that came afterward were definitely the result of social attitudes changing, and in the former, because of WWI. 

Because suddenly society was a lot less agrarian and thus there were a lot more women could contribute to working society on equal footing with men. When the majority of the population are based on self sufficient labor the division of work will obviously be based quite largely on physical capabilities. I find that more believable than for thousands of years almost the entirety of human civilizations, even those completely isolated from each other, came to similar conclusions about the concept of gender roles.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jotari said:

Because suddenly society was a lot less agrarian and thus there were a lot more women could contribute to working society on equal footing with men. When the majority of the population are based on self sufficient labor the division of work will obviously be based quite largely on physical capabilities.

It... really was not that sudden, nor do I think that was actually it. The whole of the country doesn't suddenly all technologically advance all at once, and even if it did, it did not mean that people suddenly saw more value hiring more women or giving them the right to vote. WWI and WWII changed things because suddenly they had to work, proved they could do it, and decided they liked doing it and didn't want things to revert to the way it was before (spoiler: it still did for the most part).

I'm not a historian by any stretch of the imagination, but it sounds like you're oversimplifying it by a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Crysta said:

It... really was not that sudden, nor do I think that was actually it. The whole of the country doesn't suddenly all technologically advance all at once, and even if it did, it did not mean that people suddenly saw more value hiring more women or giving them the right to vote. WWI and WWII changed things because suddenly they had to work, proved they could do it, and decided they liked doing it and didn't want things to revert to the way it was before (spoiler: it still did for the most part).

I'm not a historian by any stretch of the imagination, but it sounds like you're oversimplifying it by a lot. 

I was incredibly sudden when we're measuring the time span of humanity as a whole. Hell even the entire of idea of society has come about very sudden in the past ten thousand years as a result of farming practices. For most of history we were hunter gatherers because that's all the options that were available.

Edited by Jotari

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...