Jump to content
omegaxis1

The True Tragedy of Three Houses

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

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.

But why would I do that? Of course it's rapid when compared to 8000 years of written human history lmao

But not rapidly enough for it to really be meaningful in regard to your argument.

Share this post


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

But why would I do that? Of course it's rapid when compared to 8000 years of written human history lmao

But not rapidly enough for it to really be meaningful in regard to your argument.

My argument is that social change is directly tied to technological change, so things being the same for massive spans of time and then changing rapidly with the invention of new technologies means that taking large amount of times into account reinforces that belief. When we are talking about large, global and irrevocable changes to human society, two hundred years is not that long at all. That is very rapid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes 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. 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.

22 minutes ago, Crysta said:

 

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

Pretty much what Crysta said yes, and to provide an example:

 

Printing with mobile characters, the evolution from woodblock printing which revolutioned the diffusion of books, and henceforth education and the likes centuries down the line. While Gutenberg was the one who invented it for Europe around 1450, Koreans discovered it too. With the earliest models to be found dating back from 1040 (clay mobile blocks before the metal ones).

But nothing came out of it in Orient. Why? Because that new method wasn't well-adapted to the complexity of the ideograms languages of the region, leading to it being deemed an interesting curiosity here, but nothing more because too impractical.

Technologic determinism, where technology=progress in 100% of the cases, isn't a thing. A society can change with technology, yes, but only if that society is ready and willing to undertake these changes.

Share this post


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

Pretty much what Crysta said yes, and to provide an example:

 

Printing with mobile characters, the evolution from woodblock printing which revolutioned the diffusion of books, and henceforth education and the likes centuries down the line. While Gutenberg was the one who invented it for Europe around 1450, Koreans discovered it too. With the earliest models to be found dating back from 1040 (clay mobile blocks before the metal ones).

But nothing came out of it in Orient. Why? Because that new method wasn't well-adapted to the complexity of the ideograms languages of the region, leading to it being deemed an interesting curiosity here, but nothing more because too impractical.

Technologic determinism, where technology=progress in 100% of the cases, isn't a thing. A society can change with technology, yes, but only if that society is ready and willing to undertake these changes.

Of course I'm not saying it's 100% (otherwise development would be uniform everywhere), but if we look at things backwards and ask the question, will society ever make meaningful changes if we take away the existence of the technology. If not for the printing press (imagine it is somehow scientifically impossible) would humanity have ever had a majority literate and educated society merely via social progress? I'd say we could trend towards it in certain parts, but ultimately there are limitations on what societies can do and new technologies remove or shift those limitations.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hardric62 said:

Technologic determinism, where technology=progress in 100% of the cases, isn't a thing. A society can change with technology, yes, but only if that society is ready and willing to undertake these changes.

tenor.gif

That's better than how I was trying to phrase it.

Now I'm finally gonna go get some sleep gl hf

Share this post


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

Of course I'm not saying it's 100% (otherwise development would be uniform everywhere), but if we look at things backwards and ask the question, will society ever make meaningful changes if we take away the existence of the technology. If not for the printing press (imagine it is somehow scientifically impossible) would humanity have ever had a majority literate and educated society merely via social progress?

((Scientifically impossible? Nah. Unless too complex for the languages using it, or forbidden for reasons by authorities (Woops, look at what the Church of Seiros did in-game), I can't see it not happening at all.))

Not that it is the ultimate no-no stopping culture development if it isn't present. Asian civilizations managed rather correctly it seems, and were quite demanding in educated people for making their society work long before Westerners did it. For a long while, China was the high tech place of the world, with wonders like paper (important too for spreading books), stirrups, gunpowder to name a few... It would have been slow and complex to go further, but I don't think it would be outright impossible.

 

However, while the mobile printing made this one possible on the scale of today, it still took quite a few centuries for the societies to evolve enough to reach the point of the society you describe. Gutenberg worked it out in 1450, but it wasn't until the XIXth that mentalities, society, and, admittedly, the tech were sufficiently developped enough that a shift for more education of the people was both possible and desirable. Although there was a larger educated portion of the population before that thanks to it nonetheless, which is why things like the XVIIIth happened.

((For a more modern example... Look at the digital technologies today. For a while everyone assumed it was just a matter of getting the tech to everyone to put an end to the 'Digital Divide'. And then we discovered that 'Divide' is also a matter of skills with the new tools, and of habits for the populations, without talking about the need of an extensive formation with these new tools.))

Share this post


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

However, while the mobile printing made this one possible on the scale of today, it still took quite a few centuries for the societies to evolve enough to reach the point of the society you describe. Gutenberg worked it out in 1450, but it wasn't until the XIXth that mentalities, society, and, admittedly, the tech were sufficiently developped enough that a shift for more education of the people was both possible and desirable. Although there was a larger educated portion of the population before that thanks to it nonetheless, which is why things like the XVIIIth happened.

I would argue that it required the invention of other technologies that brought the necessity of a more educated population rather than it being held back by social attitudes. If it was merely a case of no society really wanted to have wide spread literacy so no society educated its population that way, then I think we would have seen a society that would have 100% literacy rates several times in the long past we have to examine. Because it's undeniable useful to have an educated population. It just wasn't as useful before there were books for an educated population to read and there were a tonne of necessary jobs that didn't require an educated population (or rather didn't require a general education, everyone was educated to some extent on the subject in industry in which they had to work).

Of course I'd be remiss to not point out that technological development also relies on social development. New inventions typically don't pop out of nowhere. A society will only invent new things if it is open to technological innovation and potential (and Geography will naturally play a large part in shaping all that too). I'm not saying the scale falls completely on one side, but that they are intrinsically linked and that one must develop in tandem with the other. Society cannot develop based on opinion alone. The people of the past were not more idiotic or corrupt to have systems we find more distasteful. For the opportunities they had available to them at the time it was generally speaking the most pragmatic way to do things.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

Because it's undeniable useful to have an educated population. It just wasn't as useful before there were books for an educated population to read and there were a tonne of necessary jobs that didn't require an educated population (or rather didn't require a general education, everyone was educated to some extent on the subject in industry in which they had to work).

 

Euuuuuuh... You might look at what happened to people like Gallileo, and where the term 'Index' comes from exactly. Unfortunately, attempts to control the knowledge of the population in the name of the ruling powers' interest isn't an invention from modern society. Heck, one of the big names of the Enlightnement/Lumières period, Voltaire? The guy was actually very much of the opinion that education of the masses was a wasted, even dangerous, effort. His actual thing was constitutional monarchy like in Engmand.

Share this post


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

 

Euuuuuuh... You might look at what happened to people like Gallileo, and where the term 'Index' comes from exactly. Unfortunately, attempts to control the knowledge of the population in the name of the ruling powers' interest isn't an invention from modern society. Heck, one of the big names of the Enlightnement/Lumières period, Voltaire? The guy was actually very much of the opinion that education of the masses was a wasted, even dangerous, effort. His actual thing was constitutional monarchy like in Engmand.

I know, hence this part of my quote.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Of course I'd be remiss to not point out that technological development also relies on social development. New inventions typically don't pop out of nowhere. A society will only invent new things if it is open to technological innovation and potential (and Geography will naturally play a large part in shaping all that too). I'm not saying the scale falls completely on one side, but that they are intrinsically linked and that one must develop in tandem with the other. Society cannot develop based on opinion alone. The people of the past were not more idiotic or corrupt to have systems we find more distasteful. For the opportunities they had available to them at the time it was generally speaking the most pragmatic way to do things.

When I said it was undeniable I meant that it's (hopefully) undeniable to us that having an educated population is a good thing. Obviously elitism has existed for a long, long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 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.

Guess who held back technology?

Share this post


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

Edelgard by destroying the best tool they have in Fodlan. Crests. 

Nice joke. Crests weren't destroyed. What Edelgard destroyed about Crests were the political influence they held. So yay to no more victims like Hanneman's sister, which is what would have happened to Mercedes had Jeritza's father had gotten his hands on her.

And Rhea is the one that held back the metal mold printer, something that would have revolutionized the printing press. 

Share this post


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

Edelgard by destroying the best tool they have in Fodlan. Crests. 

I thought this was a serious discussion. Why you trolling?

43 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

And Rhea is the one that held back the metal mold printer, something that would have revolutionized the printing press. 

And the telescope, don't forget the telescope. Rhea certainly wouldn't want people to say "Hey! You said the goddess was watching from above! I don't see any goddess up there! What else have you been lying about?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Nice joke. Crests weren't destroyed. What Edelgard destroyed about Crests were the political influence they held. So yay to no more victims like Hanneman's sister, which is what would have happened to Mercedes had Jeritza's father had gotten his hands on her.

And Rhea is the one that held back the metal mold printer, something that would have revolutionized the printing press. 

It's kinda impossible destroying the influence of the crest whitout phisically destroying the credt themselves. Under a meritocracy every position that require strenght is going to be won y the guy whit a crest of Blaydid by default, because not even Raphael could match Dimitri's strenght, and so everything that can be enhanced by crest. Eventually crestbearers would be an elite again to the the boosting of crests giving them more "merit".

Share this post


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

It's kinda impossible destroying the influence of the crest whitout phisically destroying the credt themselves. Under a meritocracy every position that require strenght is going to be won y the guy whit a crest of Blaydid by default, because not even Raphael could match Dimitri's strenght, and so everything that can be enhanced by crest. Eventually crestbearers would be an elite again to the the boosting of crests giving them more "merit".

No, it's completely possible. The fact is, Crests don't give you special privileges anymore as they have been back then. Having a Crest doesn't give someone a title. It won't give them benefits politically. Even if Crests can give someone an advantage, if they are incompetent with it and can't do shit, or are too uneducated to know how to use it, then they are worth nothing. 

It's because Crests used to give political power and influence that things like Hanneman's sister happened. It's why people became desperate for Crests. Ingrid nearly got kidnapped or bought into marriage for her Crest. 

Without the political influence backing it, Crests are more often decoration that only give you some talent, but won't make one be able to get noble positions. Consider Crests to be like this Easy Pass that give you stuff automatically. With Edelgard, that Easy Pass is now declined. 

Trying to indicate that Edelgard destroyed the Crests themselves is rather silly given how Edelgard doesn't go around killing those with Crests, cause that's not the point. 

This is especially when you know that Crests are on the decline, hence why the Crest obsession is so unhealthy that we have victims like Hanneman's sister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not expecting her to genocide crestbearers, i assumed that she would use something similar to what happen in many Lysithea's endings to remove the crest ehitout killing them. 

That said, in the real worls even in meritocratic societies the children of the wealthy and powerful have many advantages, both because they can receive better education, and therefore have more merit, or because there is bribery involved. If you pile up superpowers on top of those advantages, i see an uphill battle for the commoners.Let's not forget that Edelgard needed to have Ferdinand Von Aegir telling her that maybe public education is a neat idea. 

Share this post


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

It's kinda impossible destroying the influence of the crest whitout phisically destroying the credt themselves. Under a meritocracy every position that require strenght is going to be won y the guy whit a crest of Blaydid by default, because not even Raphael could match Dimitri's strenght, and so everything that can be enhanced by crest. Eventually crestbearers would be an elite again to the the boosting of crests giving them more "merit".

I'm not sure that would be the case. Many crest wielders don't seem like people that would get position based on merits because a lot of them either don't have them or refuse to show them. 

Neither Linhardt nor Felix seem to have any real interest in governance so them getting those functions based on merit doesn't seem too likely whether they have a crest or not. And while sylvain has a lot of merit his refusal to show it might make him lose out in Edelgard's meritocracy. 

Having strength might give crest wielders the edge when it comes to posts defending the border but in general strength should get valued less in a peaceful world. 

Share this post


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

Let's not forget that Edelgard needed to have Ferdinand Von Aegir telling her that maybe public education is a neat idea. 

That's why real politicians have advisors: to get ideas they may not have thought of themselves.

As for Crests themselves, their value is a self-perpetuating cycle: people value them because they give rank, and people with them gain rank because they are valued. Cut off that rank, and they will no longer be valued. Yes, those with Crests will fight tooth and nail to keep their power, but they no longer have inherent power over everyone else just for having Crests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sid Starkiller said:

That's why real politicians have advisors: to get ideas they may not have thought of themselves.

As for Crests themselves, their value is a self-perpetuating cycle: people value them because they give rank, and people with them gain rank because they are valued. Cut off that rank, and they will no longer be valued. Yes, those with Crests will fight tooth and nail to keep their power, but they no longer have inherent power over everyone else just for having Crests.

In fact, this is what Constance notes in the support. KNowing that she cannot make a noble family through bloodline in Edelgard's rule, she decides that her family will instead excel at magic and keep getting better so they will ALWAYS be a household name known for hard workers that prove themselves with merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was assuming that the crests were in decline anyway because the original blood of the saints gets thinner and thinner with every generation, making crest there is more and more rare. Even within noble families, which is why there are so many born without one, and why nobles have so many children trying to get one with a crest. 

Crests will likely still be around in the dirt society, but it doesn't grant you any special political advantages, but it might affect your merit overall. If it makes you better at the job. 

I don't think she will force the removal of all crests, but she is likely to remove her own crest flames as it is literally killing her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I want to ask, is how advanced other civilizations are outside of Fodlan. Dagda and Brigid doesn't count, they are tribal. Same with Almyran, except Almyran is bad writing.
Because 1000 years of evolution outside of fodlan ! The game can't make me believe that a relic could ever match a tank. (civilization reference)
And if they didn't develop tanks or something like firearms, there's a problem somewhere.

11 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

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

It's funny, I sort of blame the opposite: a very blind and stupid anime idealism on the laws of reality. Because in this franchise, you have character that survives despite being cut, pierced, burnt  and other savory things. And then retreat. In the middle of a freaking war/battle. Realistically, they would be torn appart.

Remember that plot device Kostas ? The dude that for some stupid reason can kill Byleth, and then gets blown away, by a sword. Realistically the dudé would had a big gap with blood showering everything. And that'd be freaking fun.

Share this post


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

I was assuming that the crests were in decline anyway because the original blood of the saints gets thinner and thinner with every generation, making crest there is more and more rare. Even within noble families, which is why there are so many born without one, and why nobles have so many children trying to get one with a crest. 

Crests will likely still be around in the dirt society, but it doesn't grant you any special political advantages, but it might affect your merit overall. If it makes you better at the job. 

I don't think she will force the removal of all crests, but she is likely to remove her own crest flames as it is literally killing her

Some might try, but there's little good if you are trying to gamble it all. I mean, Hanneman's sister must have given birth to a lot of kids, all without Crests. And raising one kid is tough even back then. So trying to hope that maybe a kid will get a Crest is hard to say. Had Edelgard NOT tried to change society and people learned to actually start to change things, then odds are, there'd be nobles that would be in desperate enough situations that the Agarthans would exploit, making more blood reconstruction surgeries just to get Crests. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Guess who held back technology?

Rhea, I know. Do I need to inform everyone that I'm not a Rhea worshiper again? Being critical of Edlegard does not automatically make one blind to the faults of the other characters.

Share this post


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

Rhea, I know. Do I need to inform everyone that I'm not a Rhea worshiper again? Being critical of Edlegard does not automatically make one blind to the faults of the other characters.

Are you arguing about the aforementioned characters' writing or their morality? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, B.Leu said:

What I want to ask, is how advanced other civilizations are outside of Fodlan. Dagda and Brigid doesn't count, they are tribal. Same with Almyran, except Almyran is bad writing.
Because 1000 years of evolution outside of fodlan ! The game can't make me believe that a relic could ever match a tank. (civilization reference)
And if they didn't develop tanks or something like firearms, there's a problem somewhere.

It's funny, I sort of blame the opposite: a very blind and stupid anime idealism on the laws of reality. Because in this franchise, you have character that survives despite being cut, pierced, burnt  and other savory things. And then retreat. In the middle of a freaking war/battle. Realistically, they would be torn appart.

Remember that plot device Kostas ? The dude that for some stupid reason can kill Byleth, and then gets blown away, by a sword. Realistically the dudé would had a big gap with blood showering everything. And that'd be freaking fun.

From what I've heard apparently one of the opening infographics about Almyria shows a cannon on a ship. But I haven't seen the image myself (or rather I probably saw it in the game and just didn't register it) and I'm not sure how far you can take something like that as we don't see it at all in game.

2 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Are you arguing about the aforementioned characters' writing or their morality? 

Yes.

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...