Jump to content
Darkmoon6789

What Edelgard means to me…

Recommended Posts

Just now, Jotari said:

Of course. Having relations with the institutes of the land is inevitable. England continued having Catholics even after the whole Henry VIII thing. People still followed the church because they wanted to. The point is the church's independent political control had been removed and replaced with a branch of the imperial command.

It wasn't. The Church still maintain involvement with the Empire, given how the Empire has to allow the Church to host the Battle of the Eagle and Lion in their territory. And still send Knights of Seiros into the Empire still, given how Remire Village is in the Empire as well. And the fact that the archbishop is still to be present during the crowning ceremony of the Emperor, meaning that Rhea was there for Ionius to be crowned in the past, despite how it happened long after the Southern Church's insurrection. 

Share this post


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

Of course. Having relations with the institutes of the land is inevitable. England continued having Catholics even after the whole Henry VIII thing. People still followed the church because they wanted to. The point is the church's independent political control had been removed and replaced with a branch of the imperial command.

Henry VIII is probably not the best example, nor is England for that matter. After Henry VIII came his first daughter Mary I, who was extremely Catholic and extremely anti-Protestant. Then came Elizabeth I, and, despite her attempts to mediate between the two, rebellious Catholic nobles continued to oppose her rule. Things were nowhere near healthy in England for a very long time. 

Share this post


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

Determining your people's fate. Not determining the fate of everyone else who follow different monarchs/leaders.

Church was ousted from the empire a hundred years before the game began.

I do find it pretty ridiculous to suggest if a neighbouring country is guilty of violating the freedom of its citizens that you as a monarch don't have the right to interfere for the benefit of the citizens of the other country. Maybe it is not technically their obligation as the ruler of her own nation, but it is their obligation as a human being with the power to stop said violation of rights. If you have a power to stop injustice and you remain complacent, I think you are actually culpable in said injustice.

A monarch declaring a war is not a crime, it is totally within their rights, especially if the war is waged in the name of liberation.

Would you also argue that if a Third World country is guilty of causing great suffering and promoting inequality among their own people, even if said people are brainwashed enough to believe that said injustice is acceptable, would you say that we shouldn't interfere just because we should respect the independence of that nation. Even if it means that people will suffer? Isn't it better that we overthrow the corrupt regime and install a new government who will improve the lives of the people in the country? I think this type of noninterventionist attitude is the reason that oppression and injustice are still so widespread in the world today. 

A war is costly, sure, but so is leaving people living under a repressive regime when they could given true freedom. Is life really worth living if said life is awful and you don't have the freedom to live your own life? Reminds me of a saying: "give me freedom or give me death"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vanguard333 said:

Henry VIII is probably not the best example, nor is England for that matter. After Henry VIII came his first daughter Mary I, who was extremely Catholic and extremely anti-Protestant. Then came Elizabeth I, and, despite her attempts to mediate between the two, rebellious Catholic nobles continued to oppose her rule. Things were nowhere near healthy in England for a very long time. 

Elizabeth really didn't help the situation...At all...She was less famous than Mary, but hoo boy, being Catholic would land you in the tower of London to be tortured.

Share this post


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

Elizabeth really didn't help the situation...At all...She was less famous than Mary, but hoo boy, being Catholic would land you in the tower of London to be tortured.

Oh, I agree. I was just saying that she certainly put more effort into mediating than her sister or her father, though that is admittedly such an extremely low bar to clear that any effort at all would clear it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vanguard333 said:

Oh, I agree. I was just saying that she certainly put more effort into mediating than her sister or her father, though that is admittedly such an extremely low bar to clear that any effort at all would clear it. 

Yeah. It's kinda sad how she did better at mediating, considering how bad things were then...

I love history. So cheerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Benice said:

Yeah. It's kinda sad how she did better at mediating, considering how bad things were then...

I love history. So cheerful.

Yeah; history can be depressing at times. Just look at basically any historic interaction between England and Scotland if you really want to be depressed; and the worst part is that a lot of the systemic prejudice is still happening to this day because of the way the UK is structured to favour England. 

Anyway, at least Edelgard isn't trying to declare herself the new supreme leader of the church of seiros; that already makes her 1,000,000 times better than Henry VIII. 

Edited by vanguard333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

EDIT: Also, I think we can all agree that Edelgard is a far better written character than Lelouch. 

I have read these comparisons between Edelgard and Lelouch but unfortunately, I can't agree or disagree as I haven't read or watched CG much like you can't agree or disagree that Orochi is a great character. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vanguard333 said:

Yeah; history can be depressing at times. Just look at basically any historic interaction between England and Scotland if you really want to be depressed; and the worst part is that a lot of the systemic prejudice is still happening to this day because of the way the UK is structured to favour England. 

I would argue that if you put Edelgard in the context of the real world history. She does look pretty good in comparison to pretty much every single monarch in history, rulers just aren't usually this noble, only really fictional Kings like King Arthur. The closest comparison I can think of is Napoleon, and Edelgard is pretty much just a better person in every way possible. Of course, this also applies to the other leaders in three houses, even Rhea is better than most real-life popes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

I have read these comparisons between Edelgard and Lelouch but unfortunately, I can't agree or disagree as I haven't read or watched CG much like you can't agree or disagree that Orochi is a great character. 

Okay. I guess I meant everyone in the thread who has seen the show; namely @Jotari and @omegaxis1, with whom I was discussing the show when I said that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Okay. I guess I meant everyone in the thread who has seen the show; namely @Jotari and @omegaxis1, with whom I was discussing the show when I said that. 

It was a very long time ago I watched the show, over 10 years ago. In fact, so I am just going off from what I remember. I do remember Lelouch being one of my favourite characters as a teenager. Who would you say is the better person, him or Edelgard?

Share this post


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

It was a very long time ago I watched the show, over 10 years ago. In fact, so I am just going off from what I remember. I do remember Lelouch being one of my favourite characters as a teenager. Who would you say is the better person, him or Edelgard?

Hm... As a character, I've already said that Edelgard is far better. 

As a person, however, that's difficult. Edelgard certainly has the advantage of a better script; there were a lot of questionable writing choices in Code Geass that I believe made Lelouch seem far more of a jerk (and an idiot, but that's beside the point) than the writers intended. But if I were to ignore the things that I attribute more to the writers than to the character, it is a bit of a tough call. 

Both of them are well-intentioned extremists who care deeply about those close to them. Both resort to some very morally questionable methods to achieve their goals, and sometimes, using those methods backfires. Comparing Crimson Flower Edelgard specifically to Lelouch, I think I would have to say Edelgard. She does try to place a lot of value in the people around her; far more so than Lelouch in most cases, where it can sometimes seem like anyone who isn't Nunnally or C. C. is expendable to him. 

Another problem I have with trying to compare them is that I never finished Code Geass; the Euphemia scene completely killed my interest in the show. I know what happens afterward from reading about it, but I don't know every decision every character made in, say, season 2. 

It's a tough question. 

12 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Yes she is. I don't know I haven't asked. 

Ah. Okay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y’know if we’re comparing Edelgard to anime characters. I tend to find she’s very similar to Sasuke from Naruto. Both of them lost their families to domestic political affairs dealing with a coup of some sort. And it’s through learning the truth behind those events they each begin to question the political system the world at large operates under(the shinobi village system that allowed for the uchiha clan massacre for Sasuke and the church/crest system that allows the agarthans to run amok for Edelgard). It’s when they question these systems and the ideals they’re built on that they both come to the conclusion that the system is flawed for all the suffering it causes and doesn’t account for and as such decide to reform this system through the means they deem necessary to make the world a better place.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Hm... As a character, I've already said that Edelgard is far better. 

 

It'd be more interesting to discuss how she compares with your previous favourite lords. 

Share this post


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

Determining people's fate is your literal role as a monarch

that's why wise monarchs surround themselves with lots of reliable counselors: one single person, no matter how idealistic or powerful, simply can't rule a kingdom, let alone a whole continent, on his/her own

6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I do not understand why some people need to bash Edelgard any chance they get

because being controversial what edelgard's entire character is all about...?

i mean seriously, let people dislike what they want, they can't undermine your appreciacion towards those things, and there's no need to shove your reasons why they're wrong down their throats, just live and let live, it's ok to disagree about something

6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Judging someone solely by their actions is just another way of dehumanising people and reducing them down to simple categories because they can't comprehend complexity.

Hitler probably had what, in his head, seemed like very valid reasons to exterminate jews, and he probably didn't live a happy childhood; after all, he only did what he thought was good for his beloved Germany feel the sarcasm

does this mean that people who fail to comprehend his complex and somber past are wrong?

Edited by Yexin

Share this post


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

that's why wise monarchs surround themselves with lots of reliable counselors: one single person, no matter how idealistic or powerful, simply can't rule a kingdom, let alone a whole continent, on his/her own

because being controversial what edelgard's entire character is all about...?

i mean seriously, let people dislike what they want, they can't undermine your appreciacion towards those things, and there's no need to shove your reasons why they're wrong down their throats, just live and let live, it's ok to disagree about something

Hitler probably had what, in his head, seemed like very valid reasons to exterminate jews, and he probably didn't live a happy childhood; after all, he only did what he thought was good for his beloved Germany feel the sarcasm

does this mean that people who fail to comprehend his complex and somber past are wrong?

The reliable counsellors thing is actually exactly why Byleth and the members of the Black Eagle strikeforce are so important. Together, they are far more capable than just Edelgard alone. It is a good thing that Edelgard is the type of monarch that is actually willing to listen to advice and one of her better ideas actually came from foreign land, voicing a view what was different from hers.

Sorry about the outburst earlier, it applies less to anything I've seen on this board and more towards what I have seen in other places. The truth is that I do enjoy this type of debate. We are not trying to show my opinion down anyone's throat as much as I do just really like discussing Edelgard and if I have an argument for why don't agree with someone's reasoning. I do like to express that.

I don't want to compare Edelgard with Hitler because of Godwins law. But he is the perfect example of someone wary public perception of him has become a caricature of the actual man. This is not to say I thought he was justified in any way shape or form, far from it, Hitler crossed lines far beyond anything Edelgard has ever done. But you are right in that he likely believed in what he was doing, very few people actually consider themselves the villains. It is also a fact that Hitler was abused by his father during his childhood and that is likely that his mind was unhinged due to a gas attack. He experienced in the First World War.

I do actually think that people who fail to comprehend the complexity even about people like Hitler are actually wrong, not because the conclusions are wrong, but because dehumanising even the worst of people leads to a lack of understanding of why these atrocities occurred. I do understand why people take this emotional distance and refused to try to understand, it is because the truth of the matter isn't very comforting. And that truth is that it doesn't take anyone especially evil to commit even the worst of atrocities, in the wrong circumstances we are all pretty much capable of such things. People like telling themselves they wouldn't fall down the rabbit hole regardless of circumstance, but I think by ignoring looking at why someone turned out the way they did. You do risk falling into the same pit trap in the future. To dehumanise even the worst people in history is nothing but an attempt to deny the evil that lurks within all of us, and what humans are truly capable of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Sasuke comparison, I'd like to point out that he's very obviously portrayed as in the wrong for 90% of the show. Haven't seen Code Geass so can't comment there.

As for intent versus action, if I were to say something right now with no intent to hurt someone, just an innocent comment, and that comment ends up hurting someone... my intent not to hurt them does not matter because it still hurt them. Intent does not change the fact of your actions. That's a big part of the reason I simply can't support Edelgard. Her war will directly harm far more innocent people than she even realizes. War isn't built on the back of the elite, war is found in the destruction of livelihoods and in the sounds of people screaming for their loved ones who will never return. Not only that, but as a monarch she has no right to force her beliefs onto the people of other nations. Doing so makes her nothing more than a tyrant, no matter her intent. You may argue that she had the right because the people were suffering, but that's not how that works in the real world and that's never been how it worked. The people of that country will almost always resent you and your country for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

For the Sasuke comparison, I'd like to point out that he's very obviously portrayed as in the wrong for 90% of the show. Haven't seen Code Geass so can't comment there.

As for intent versus action, if I were to say something right now with no intent to hurt someone, just an innocent comment, and that comment ends up hurting someone... my intent not to hurt them does not matter because it still hurt them. Intent does not change the fact of your actions. That's a big part of the reason I simply can't support Edelgard. Her war will directly harm far more innocent people than she even realizes. War isn't built on the back of the elite, war is found in the destruction of livelihoods and in the sounds of people screaming for their loved ones who will never return. Not only that, but as a monarch she has no right to force her beliefs onto the people of other nations. Doing so makes her nothing more than a tyrant, no matter her intent. You may argue that she had the right because the people were suffering, but that's not how that works in the real world and that's never been how it worked. The people of that country will almost always resent you and your country for it.

I think the fact that people can view Edelgard in such a radically different light is part of what makes her such an interesting character, I will say that I don't even know her certain if she's in the right or not. I think Edelgard herself will also question whenever she made the right decision and struggle with quite a bit of guilt over the war, especially as she gets older. But this to me makes her very human. Maybe she did make a mistake and maybe she did become a tyrant unintentionally, but I do think that if she realises this she is a good enough person to try to correct this course. Of course, not everyone will like her for what she did and some people will resent her. 

But the fact is that Edelgard might have been a Mary Sue if it was absolutely clear she was in the right and that she was like by everyone, the fact that she is fallible and prone to mistakes despite her good intentions is what makes her interesting. 

Share this post


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

It wasn't. The Church still maintain involvement with the Empire, given how the Empire has to allow the Church to host the Battle of the Eagle and Lion in their territory. And still send Knights of Seiros into the Empire still, given how Remire Village is in the Empire as well. And the fact that the archbishop is still to be present during the crowning ceremony of the Emperor, meaning that Rhea was there for Ionius to be crowned in the past, despite how it happened long after the Southern Church's insurrection. 

Yes, the Empire has interactions with the church. They're not North Korea, shutting themselves off from the rest of the world. What exactly are you trying to say? Or more pertinently what do you think I'm trying to say? Because I was never suggesting the Empire had zero relationship with the church since the southern church was ousted. The church does not control the empire. Arundal can do whatever he wants with his money, the empire allows the church to have a historical reenactment in their land and doesn't stop the church from helping with a massacre in their borders. None of this means the empire is subservient to the church. The closes would be their ceremonial role in witnessing the newest emperor's coronation, which Edelgard and her father both completely ignore. Had she ignored it without a war the church would no doubt be pissed in being shafted, but it's not like they could have done anything about it. So again, what are you actually trying to say?

10 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Henry VIII is probably not the best example, nor is England for that matter. After Henry VIII came his first daughter Mary I, who was extremely Catholic and extremely anti-Protestant. Then came Elizabeth I, and, despite her attempts to mediate between the two, rebellious Catholic nobles continued to oppose her rule. Things were nowhere near healthy in England for a very long time. 

Yes, the Empire managed to carry out the ousting of the church much more effectively than England did. My point was despite the crown completely putting down Catholicism it managed to persist as a part of the nation with importance to many people.

10 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I do find it pretty ridiculous to suggest if a neighbouring country is guilty of violating the freedom of its citizens that you as a monarch don't have the right to interfere for the benefit of the citizens of the other country. Maybe it is not technically their obligation as the ruler of her own nation, but it is their obligation as a human being with the power to stop said violation of rights. If you have a power to stop injustice and you remain complacent, I think you are actually culpable in said injustice.

A monarch declaring a war is not a crime, it is totally within their rights, especially if the war is waged in the name of liberation.

Would you also argue that if a Third World country is guilty of causing great suffering and promoting inequality among their own people, even if said people are brainwashed enough to believe that said injustice is acceptable, would you say that we shouldn't interfere just because we should respect the independence of that nation. Even if it means that people will suffer? Isn't it better that we overthrow the corrupt regime and install a new government who will improve the lives of the people in the country? I think this type of noninterventionist attitude is the reason that oppression and injustice are still so widespread in the world today. 

A war is costly, sure, but so is leaving people living under a repressive regime when they could given true freedom. Is life really worth living if said life is awful and you don't have the freedom to live your own life? Reminds me of a saying: "give me freedom or give me death"

Yes.

10 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I would argue that if you put Edelgard in the context of the real world history. She does look pretty good in comparison to pretty much every single monarch in history, rulers just aren't usually this noble, only really fictional Kings like King Arthur. The closest comparison I can think of is Napoleon, and Edelgard is pretty much just a better person in every way possible. Of course, this also applies to the other leaders in three houses, even Rhea is better than most real-life popes. 

Hell Fodlan society seems way better than medieval society. I don't think you'd find the likes of Ignatz dining with three different members of royalty in any real world setting. Plus the whole gender equality that's common place for all Fire Emblem settings.

10 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Hm... As a character, I've already said that Edelgard is far better. 

As a person, however, that's difficult. Edelgard certainly has the advantage of a better script; there were a lot of questionable writing choices in Code Geass that I believe made Lelouch seem far more of a jerk (and an idiot, but that's beside the point) than the writers intended. But if I were to ignore the things that I attribute more to the writers than to the character, it is a bit of a tough call. 

Both of them are well-intentioned extremists who care deeply about those close to them. Both resort to some very morally questionable methods to achieve their goals, and sometimes, using those methods backfires. Comparing Crimson Flower Edelgard specifically to Lelouch, I think I would have to say Edelgard. She does try to place a lot of value in the people around her; far more so than Lelouch in most cases, where it can sometimes seem like anyone who isn't Nunnally or C. C. is expendable to him. 

Another problem I have with trying to compare them is that I never finished Code Geass; the Euphemia scene completely killed my interest in the show. I know what happens afterward from reading about it, but I don't know every decision every character made in, say, season 2. 

It's a tough question. 

Ah. Okay. 

One of my biggest complaints with Code Geas is that the ending that everyone loves is rather similar to the Three Houses endings. Namely I don't actually buy that peace will last more than a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

For the Sasuke comparison, I'd like to point out that he's very obviously portrayed as in the wrong for 90% of the show. Haven't seen Code Geass so can't comment there.

Honestly, I don't see Edelgard as Sasuke, mostly cause Sasuke is primarily motivated by revenge to the point of madness, something that makes him much closer to Dimitri than anything. And that's why Sasuke is portrayed as 90% in the wrong, cause revenge is NEVER a justified reason.

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Yes, the Empire has interactions with the church. They're not North Korea, shutting themselves off from the rest of the world. What exactly are you trying to say? Or more pertinently what do you think I'm trying to say? Because I was never suggesting the Empire had zero relationship with the church since the southern church was ousted. The church does not control the empire. Arundal can do whatever he wants with his money, the empire allows the church to have a historical reenactment in their land and doesn't stop the church from helping with a massacre in their borders. None of this means the empire is subservient to the church. The closes would be their ceremonial role in witnessing the newest emperor's coronation, which Edelgard and her father both completely ignore. Had she ignored it without a war the church would no doubt be pissed in being shafted, but it's not like they could have done anything about it. So again, what are you actually trying to say?

I'm saying that the Church maintains very strong political influence. Hell, Constance and Yuri's paralogue has the Knights of Seiros making her go to the Empire to reclaim a Relic that the Church believes is rightfully theirs. No matter how much you are thinking that the Empire ousting the Southern Church is meant to indicate, the Church overall still maintained political influence over the Empire, just as it does with the Kingdom and Alliance. 

So no, you cannot make political changes by abolishing the nobility cause the Church still backs the nobility with Crests. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Honestly, I don't see Edelgard as Sasuke, mostly cause Sasuke is primarily motivated by revenge to the point of madness, something that makes him much closer to Dimitri than anything. And that's why Sasuke is portrayed as 90% in the wrong, cause revenge is NEVER a justified reason.

I'm saying that the Church maintains very strong political influence. Hell, Constance and Yuri's paralogue has the Knights of Seiros making her go to the Empire to reclaim a Relic that the Church believes is rightfully theirs. No matter how much you are thinking that the Empire ousting the Southern Church is meant to indicate, the Church overall still maintained political influence over the Empire, just as it does with the Kingdom and Alliance. 

So no, you cannot make political changes by abolishing the nobility cause the Church still backs the nobility with Crests. 

Yes, because the Church is a political identity that they're sharing a continent with. Influence, not control. The USA holds a massive amount of political influence with every single country on the planet. Doesn't mean we should all gang up and invade them unannounced. Countries interact with other countries. That's what international relations are. The church is not commanding the empire to do anything, and if it did the empire could just ignore them (like Edelgard does for her coronation, to no one's shock). The fact that basically no element of her country rebels against her is a testament how little control of the country the church actually is. Can't remember exactly, but I think even that territory Thales seems to be purposefully going full dictator on still remains part of the empire and has no issue with the whole war on the divine authority.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

Yes, because the Church is a political identity that they're sharing a continent with. Influence, not control. The USA holds a massive amount of political influence with every single country on the planet. Doesn't mean we should all gang up and invade them unannounced. Countries interact with other countries. That's what international relations are. The church is not commanding the empire to do anything, and if it did the empire could just ignore them.

Let's not compare the magnitude of IRL where we have intercontinental relationships to this that is a closed off continent with 3 nations, all focused around the Church. Okay? This is the critical flaw of you trying to make IRL comparisons. It doesn't work as well as you're trying to think.

You are completely ignoring the fact that the Church literally has the right to bar a nation from scientific advancements, given how autopsies, telescopes, and the metal molding printer were banned from being produced. Nations not allowed to make tech or nations like Faerghus not even allowed to use oil as a resource, all of which proves the kind of power the church holds, even on the Empire still. 

And if you have the Church hold such power and influence on the other nations, then waging war against the Church WILL cause conflict to rise between the Empire and the other nations. Like, stop pretending this isn't going to happen. If Edelgard left the other nations alone, all that means is that Church sympathizers and Empire haters will simply use the Kingdom and/or Alliance to wage war on the Empire, destroying all of Edelgard's work. 

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...