Garlemald's situation. (Spoilers 6.55)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayhemmer

I really, really do hope this plot point gets done away with rather quickly, as it's one I just don't have any interest in whatsoever, and don't think is very interesting or substantial. I'd like for our motivation for opposing a would-be warmonger to be a little more immediately substantial to Dawntrail, if that makes sense. Not that I think that itself is going to be the driving force for longer than a handful of quests, mind, but I'd rather just distance myself from Garlemald as a whole, personally.

---

I think it will. 'He's gonna try to swing for the Three Great Continents eventually if he wins, but there's shorter-term reasons we need to get him to knock it off'. After all, someone whose number one priority is waging a war for the hell of it probably isn't a very good leader in other ways.

I do think that he's gonna be more of a Nidhogg than a Thordan, though, if you get what I mean. He'll be the first, louder and more simplistic villain, and then the real bad guy becomes clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RavLandslide

Maybe then the writers would've realized how weird it is to keep the former, warmongering, xenophobic, racist politicians in power, instead of replacing them with people that don't openly admit that they'd start conquering again if they had the chance...

---

That's not weird. That's exactly what would happen. Most people view hierarchies as natural. So after the regime fell, those who were highest in the hierarchy still alive would be the ones put into power. It doesn't make sense for warmongering, xenophobic citizens to elect a bunch of nice, reasonable people to be their senators. These are people who would rather die than trust outsiders. The senators we got were the exact kind of people who would be chosen to lead under those conditions. It might be annoying, but it's realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

That's not weird. That's exactly what would happen. Most people view hierarchies as natural. So after the regime fell, those who were highest in the hierarchy still alive would be the ones put into power. It doesn't make sense for warmongering, xenophobic citizens to elect a bunch of nice, reasonable people to be their senators. These are people who would rather die than trust outsiders. The senators we got were the exact kind of people who would be chosen to lead under those conditions. It might be annoying, but it's realistic.

---

It's not just realistic (and probably the only option anyway, since legislative bodies were pretty heavily controlled by the Galvuses anyway so pickings were probably slim), it's also in many ways the right move from a detached perspective. There's a few reasons for that:

1. Morally-speaking, the Ilsabard Contingent just don't want to be interventionary. Taking a historical view, that's probably right: being interventionary like that mostly just leads to resentment and, several decades later, people wanting to retaliate.
2. Since it's entirely possible that sort of group will eventually get power, it actually sort of helps to let them have it when they can't actually use it and just sort of burn themselves and their ideology out.
3. They're the hardest to convince to play nice, but will be forced to, making for an 'if they can be convinced, anyone can' situation. In the long term that's a good move, because the fact they've been forced to eat crow themselves means they're probably not going to get rebellious in opposition once someone more moderate is in charge.

I don't think anybody in-universe was thinking that many steps ahead, their stances were much more empathetic,, but from an external audience perspective with knowledge of real-world history and a greater eye for additional factors, they actually took the options available to them that were least likely to set a time bomb several decades down the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Since it's entirely possible that sort of group will eventually get power, it actually sort of helps to let them have it when they can't actually use it and just sort of burn themselves and their ideology out.

---

This is not really a good mindset, though. As in, I can concede that it might be "realistic", but only in that people in RL might believe in such a thing, despite any evidence or reasoning to the contrary. (A lot of things are "realistic" in that they happen in RL, but in RL we also acknowledge it to be mistaken and flawed, if not utterly stupid. The International Realism proposed by Quintus van Cinna is an obvious example.)

The flaw in this mindset is "let the ideology burn itself out" requires not only time, but also keeping the people involved powerless for the entire duration. This effectively turns the situation into a sort of incarceration or prison, to prevent any part of that toxic ideology from spreading outside of the carefully controlled environment, rather than addressing the toxic ideology itself. In fact, it's letting that ideology fester by allowing its proponents to come to power, regardless of whether it's allowed to affect anyone else.

As we've seen in the 6.x patches, the Ilsabard Contingent are not interested in doing that. By far what the vast majority of them want to do is go home, because they don't like the climate of Ilsabard any more than the Garleans do. So quarantining the existing Garlean ideology of conquest and imperialism is already rejected for being too much work for not enough results.

And we've also seen that the Ilsabard Contingent, and the Eorzean Alliance behind them, are more than willing to give more power to the surviving state of Garlemald, however rump. That was the whole rationale behind the trade treaty with Thavnair; the Ilsabard Contingent do not wish to be gaolers to the Garleans, and the Garleans want to move towards self-sufficiency. In fact, my own annoyance with that plot point was how literally nobody had evidently thought about reopening trade until Varshahn brought it up; realistically, this should have been one of the first proposals from either the Eorzean Alliance or Garlemald.

Letting the ideology of conquest "burn itself out" is very dangerous, because you need to be absolutely certain that burning will not spread, and that it will burn itself out instead of continuing to burn forever. The more realistic route is through education and de-programming, ie "convince the remaining authorities to play nice". So I strongly disagree with your point 2 as stated, but strongly agree with your point 3 as stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Letting the ideology of conquest "burn itself out" is very dangerous, because you need to be absolutely certain that burning will not spread, and that it will burn itself out instead of continuing to burn forever. The more realistic route is through education and de-programming, ie "convince the remaining authorities to play nice". So I strongly disagree with your point 2 as stated, but strongly agree with your point 3 as stated.

---

Yeah, I think that to clarify, this only works out because the leaders left standing in Garlemald... kind of aren't very good at harnessing and leading with the ideology they have. I suspect that might be a symptom of the fact that the nominal leadership in areas like the senate were likely chosen partly for being ineffectual; the Galvuses appointed a lineup of, above all, yes-men who were only ever going to use powers that the Galvuses wanted them to. But you cut off the head that is the royal family, and all these guys can really do with that ideology themselves is shout it ineffectually at a world that no longer bends to it. If someone like Nerva Galvus was still alive we'd be in a lot more trouble, but these guys aren't really capable of furthering their own cause.

The same 'qualities', I think, also made them unexpectedly good at the situation that they found themselves in. Someone like Quintus would never have accepted the trade deal that's ultimately their first shovel to dig themselves out of their hole, because he's just too proud and ambitious. But these guys, basically by design, are too spineless for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Yeah, I think that to clarify, this only works out because the leaders left standing in Garlemald... kind of aren't very good at harnessing and leading with the ideology they have. I suspect that might be a symptom of the fact that the nominal leadership in areas like the senate were likely chosen partly for being ineffectual; the Galvuses appointed a lineup of, above all, yes-men who were only ever going to use powers that the Galvuses wanted them to. But you cut off the head that is the royal family, and all these guys can really do with that ideology themselves is shout it ineffectually at a world that no longer bends to it. If someone like Nerva Galvus was still alive we'd be in a lot more trouble, but these guys aren't really capable of furthering their own cause.

The same 'qualities', I think, also made them unexpectedly good at the situation that they found themselves in. Someone like Quintus would never have accepted the trade deal that's ultimately their first shovel to dig themselves out of their hole, because he's just too proud and ambitious. But these guys, basically by design, are too spineless for that.

---

It's still far from my ideal outcome, but you're right: they're going to either have to learn to play nice or die the second they're no longer surviving hand to mouth from the Alliance.

What I'm missing most is not catharsis against the Empire (we've got plenty of that already), but rather a more complicated imperial populace than the one we're shown in Endwalker. If Maxima is to be believed, the Populares actually had quite a lot of influence, legitimacy, and military strength, and a lot of even pureblood Garleans suffered a great deal under the autocratic regime. I can imagine that having your friends and relatives constantly being sent into the meat grinder of your emperor's forever war, especially one that they are suddenly losing, might begin to sway public opinion. The idea that a not-insignificant amount of imperial citizens had objections to the governance of the provinces is hardly unbelievable even if it weren't stated outright in the text.

But in Endwalker, we are shown nothing but undyingly loyal emperor cultists who are hopelessly ignorant and superstitious despite their world-class education. What happened to the rest? Died off-screen? How convenient. If we couldn't get the full Optimates vs Populares showdown that they set up in Stormblood, we could at least have gotten some imperial citizens that weren't constantly adversarial. It even would have added a layer to the underlying moral conflict: of course we'd leap to extend an olive branch to the people who agree with us, but we'd also have to rise above ourselves and reach out to the people who don't, too. It would have made a much more interesting 6.x arc for Garlemald to reconcile political differences within Garlemald rather than wait around for Vrtra to hand down the obvious solution in the eleventh hour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vallavia

What I'm missing most is not catharsis against the Empire (we've got plenty of that already), but rather a more complicated imperial populace than the one we're shown in Endwalker. If Maxima is to be believed, the Populares actually had quite a lot of influence, legitimacy, and military strength, and a lot of even pureblood Garleans suffered a great deal under the autocratic regime. I can imagine that having your friends and relatives constantly being sent into the meat grinder of your emperor's forever war, especially one that they are suddenly losing, might begin to sway public opinion. The idea that a not-insignificant amount of imperial citizens had objections to the governance of the provinces is hardly unbelievable even if it weren't stated outright in the text.

But in Endwalker, we are shown nothing but undyingly loyal emperor cultists who are hopelessly ignorant and superstitious despite their world-class education. What happened to the rest? Died off-screen? How convenient. If we couldn't get the full Optimates vs Populares showdown that they set up in Stormblood, we could at least have gotten some imperial citizens that weren't constantly adversarial. It even would have added a layer to the underlying moral conflict: of course we'd leap to extend an olive branch to the people who agree with us, but we'd also have to rise above ourselves and reach out to the people who don't, too. It would have made a much more interesting 6.x arc for Garlemald to reconcile political differences within Garlemald rather than wait around for Vrtra to hand down the obvious solution in the eleventh hour.

---

The problem with that is that it was already stated that Varis rid Garlemald of the Populares off-screen. When the other political party is given the KGB treatment or outright gassed with Black Rose, the remaining citizens aren't necessarily going to suddenly flip to support that purged side overnight because they got conquered themselves.

The Populares lost the first Garlean civil war when the movement's leader Titus failed to take the throne and Varis purged them later on despite them being around and prominent in politics at the beginning of his reign. Maxima took all the remaining Populares and defected to Ala Mhigo with them. So there wouldn't be any Populares left in Garlemald for there to be a whole thing since they would've been with the Ilsabard Contingent. Maxima mentioned it in passing but I think it would be interesting when Garlemald inevitably comes back up if the Populares coming back as conquerors has any repercussions.

One thing that I'm still confused about the whole thing though is why Nerva, Titus' son, was still in command of a legion and in a position of power after the first civil war. The 3rd lore book says that he was also against Varis every step of the way so it stands to reason he'd also be Populares like his father, but we know how he ended up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

The problem with that is that it was already stated that Varis rid Garlemald of the Populares off-screen. When the other political party is given the KGB treatment or outright gassed with Black Rose, the remaining citizens aren't necessarily going to suddenly flip to support that purged side overnight because they got conquered themselves.

---

I should state for clarity I'm not disputing that any of this actually happened (though I do still find it unlikely that all support for provincial reform and a distaste for the monarchy would just completely evaporate among the general public), just that I find it unsatisfying storytelling to have all of Garlemald's internal politics teased and then resolved offscreen an expansion later with little ceremony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

The Populares lost the first Garlean civil war when the movement's leader Titus failed to take the throne and Varis purged them later on despite them being around and prominent in politics at the beginning of his reign. Maxima took all the remaining Populares and defected to Ala Mhigo with them. So there wouldn't be any Populares left in Garlemald for there to be a whole thing since they would've been with the Ilsabard Contingent.

---

I suppose I may have a flawed recollection, but my understanding was that the Populares still managed to hold on to relevance prior to Maxima and the lot defecting to the Alliance. Was it that they were only allowed to exist to facilitate Elidizenos's gambit to further damage relations between Doma and the Empire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

Maxima mentioned it in passing but I think it would be interesting when Garlemald inevitably comes back up if the Populares coming back as conquerors has any repercussions.

---

This is ultimately what I was hoping for but in the short term, the implications of the Populares seeking foreign aid to wrest control of Garlemald would surely be cause for alarm. But, as you said, it may be yet more interesting to see what the perception is now that they've come returned as a hostile foreign power themselves.

eta: I also wanted to clarify that I wasn't stating that the Populares should have been present in Endwalker as a significant military entity or distinct faction, just that their ideology was widespread enough to be represented among Garlean citizens that we would have seen in Endwalker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vallavia

I suppose I may have a flawed recollection, but my understanding was that the Populares still managed to hold on to relevance prior to Maxima and the lot defecting to the Alliance. Was it that they were only allowed to exist to facilitate Elidizenos's gambit to further damage relations between Doma and the Empire?

---

They were purged some time after the Doma delegation before or during the time Alphinaud went back with Maxima, but that whole thing was a farce orchestrated by Varis and Elidibus anyway. Like I said, I'm not sure why Varis allowed the political movement to exist after the civil war. Maxima's parents were Populares and were "disappeared" an untold amount of time ago, but I don't know if that would be before or after the civil war. By the time Black Rose came around Varis stopped playing around and everyone died or defected in the end.


The Populares were the better of the two main political movements to our eyes, but to the Garleans they were the cause of two civil wars and arrived with the Ilsabard contingent. Though on the Optimates side you have Varis who attempted to kill everyone in the world (and succeeded in one timeline) and Zenos who purposefully broke the empire apart and invited the Telophoroi in to destroy everything and temper Garlemald. You would hope the Garleans would eventually realize that the Populares fought against the people who were controlled or managed by ancient angry ghosts who ended up enslaving them to build a creepy tower and forced families to kill each other at the end. Also it would be nice if they remember they were a republic with a senate for 700 years and nothing world-shattering terrible happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

You would hope the Garleans would eventually realize that the Populares fought against the people who were controlled or managed by ancient angry ghosts who ended up enslaving them to build a creepy tower and forced families to kill each other at the end. Also it would be nice if they remember they were a republic with a senate for 700 years and nothing world-shattering terrible happened.

---

I want to believe that this is the angle that they're ultimately shooting for, even if we probably won't see it for another few years. The Role Master quests in Endwalker had a distinct tone of nostalgia for a peaceful Garlemald, hearkening back to Locus Amoenus in the tribal or republic era, and a sort of celebration of Garlean ingenuity outside of the war machine. The logical step would be to follow through on that ideal in the MSQ, though I doubt we'll get that far until we actually get to central and southern Ilsabard in person.