What do you think Garlemald currently is?

(INB4 Theodoric :P)

I figured I should start this topic and ask what does the player think Garlemald is portrayed as at the moment. The Fantasy version of the Third Reich (Yes I'm Godwinning this. Someone had to get that outta the way)? A Ego-Driven empire purely bent on World Domination? The Only Sane Country trying to save Hydealyn from the Primals? Or Merely a flawed nation between these extremes?

At the Same Time I also want to ask what the players think Garlemald could become as the story moves forward and if they think the Empire could move away from their current portrayal eventually.

Finnaly I must ask people to be civil, and please give explanations for any comparisons they make to other Final Fantasy Empires or Real World regimes.

I'm not sure what real world parallels can be made for it, I'm sure its a call back to an earlier final fantasy title...but I would guess it the closest would be Rome, with possibly Germany's beginnings, I'm not certain..

As for what they are in game, I kinda think what eventually came to be the Garlean Empire was the product of what was around them. Here you have a people that are not versed in magic,around nations and beast tribes that can, to disastrous degrees. the tech and ingenuity are pretty much the only thing they have going for them against god beasts and the heroes chosen by said god beasts. I'm willing to bet the average Garlean, with their role and status clearly and securely defined in a hierarchical society, would be frightened of what would be those that have seemingly unexplained powers, and the ability to call up the wrath of god over some real estate squabble. Garlemeld wasn't born a large empire, and if I had to guess, in the midst of all the magical hubbub going around that they cannot partake in, they likely had a hard meager life before then. Imagine if the gods existed and helped out and acted dickish, and everyone had one...except you.

So they managed to find the one area they had over their neighbors...and got REALLY REALLY good at it. and because they are not particular to the spiritual bits of primals, and rely on technology for their conclusions, it would make sense that their answer to the primal question would at first be as simple as it is final: kill the worshipers, kill the rampaging primal they believe in. Azis Lla would be as interesting to them as it is to us, as it presents how the Allagans handled primals back in their day, a technological method to defanging the primal threat would open up new avenues of subjugating their growing list of enemies(as empires are wont to have), and blunting the magical advantage, which if history tells us, can be a huge advantage.

The problem with all this is that we have a very limited perspective on what Garlean life actually is like. but if some of the the conquered are as willing to fight for them in such numbers as their own men, well, it must say something about what that life offers.

From the evidence of what we can read from the text, I have to go with the third option. They may at first were pushing for a simple domination based on the sense they felt superior to the Eorzeans, but the Agrius wreck appalled them to the point they felt their invasion was not only something they wanted to do but had to do. Gaius Van Baelsar's flavor text quote from his Triple Triad Card says: “Unworthy is the ruler whose subjects seek the solace of false gods.”

I believe they falsely accuse all of Aldenard due to the "summoning" of Midgardsormr. So they feel some sort of divine crusade to bring civility to the entirety of their shared continent.

I think we can make the argument that their struggle against the Primals is a worthy one, considering our actions are not terribly different in ruthlessly cutting them down repeatedly whenever they pop up, but their methods of genociding beast races and Echo users like us - not so much. As Limsa's mistakes have shown, as well as the Sylphs in Gridania, it's those specific overt hostilities that provoke the tribes into summoning and prevents peaceful relations.

(In fact, I'd argue the crusade against primals and the increased chaos left in its wake is precisely the evidence you have of Ascians influencing the higher ranks of the Empire when you compare Lahabrea's words to you about how you search for new Primals to destroy and the chaos it causes - but I digress and I apologize.)

It's very much like our situation - we're driven to believe that what we're doing is for the best for Hydaelyn, just like the Garleans. They are their own protagonists and see us as meddling antagonists (and possibly evil, teleporting robed wizards, depending on your class!) that are trying to stifle what they view as progress.

I think SE is trying to make reference to Rome with the caste system and naming conventions, but at the same time SE is picking and choosing their historical references. They're using "barbarians," but are neglecting things like potential foreign influence on Garlean culture and politics after assimilating so many regions, for example.

It's as I mentioned in another thread, we have a very one sided view of the Garleans right now because the narrative does not allow us to have a multi-dimensional view of them yet and has a bias against them. We can only hope that, in the future, we'll be given the opportunity to see them as more than just an evil empire.

I've always envisioned it as kind of like an extremely imperialist USA, spreading their particular brand of Liberation (tm) from the terrorist (oops, I mean primal) influence. The annexation of other lands is their version of Manifest Destiny made possible by superior firepower. I visualize the regular citizens of the empire as generally content if not exactly happy with the government due to the influence of nationalism and propaganda, with relatively few (but very vocal) dissidents.

I think it's worth linking to Moose's The Rise and Fall of the White Raven for this, because it really gives a clearer idea of the origins of the Garlean Empire than ARR's in-game text has (and is endorsed by Fern and everything). Case in point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kallera

-snip-

---

Garlemald's ambitions being borm of all that would make a lot more sense if their first encounter with Primals hadn't been in Othard, during an attempt to conquer. Which came after they had already done that to their home continent. The Primal crusade came well after Garlemald started doing the Imperialism Dance.

In other words, the Garleans aren't fighting to rid the world of Primals; they're trying to rid the world of Primals because Primals are the major obstacle to their domination of the world.

Anyways, from what we know, Garlemald is mostly the second option there; knowing their backstory like we do, any other conclusion is basically wild-mass guessing, and everything about their origins makes me preeeetty sure they aren't Option 3. That said, I don't think they're particularly Nazi-esque either (Beast Tribe genocide aside, but even that is more a result of their crusade against Primals). In terms of real-world reference, they actually remind me of the approach taken with Mobile Suit Gundam's Principality of Zeon - a unambiguously antagonistic dictatorship with a primary historical influence (with Garlemald, it's probably Rome; with Zeon, it was an amalgamation of the Soviets, the Nazis, and Imperial Japan) that nevertheless has been tweaked to the point where it's hard to reliably draw on those influences for story prediction. But yeah, everything we know about how they formed and how they operate points to ego-driven imperialism.

As for how we'll eventually address the problem...we're going to need to end their Imperial ambitions, at the very least in Eorzea. Frankly, I think nothing less than a total regime change would make them a trustworthy ally, but it's possible that the Ascians do something that forces a negotiated, more tenuous peace that can be used for future story developments (especially since we now have friends and allies from the lands they brutally conquered in the past). That scenario would also have the benefit of being more distinct from how we handled Ishgard.

Changing their portrayal is going to come with getting to know them better, but if I'm being honest, I'd probably feel a bit cheated if their current regime's nature was born out of some sympathetic event and the game just expects us to forgive them. I'd rather FFXIV not go down the route of Imperial apologism. If we want Garlemald to be friendly and sympathetic ala the other City-States, they need to stop seeing themselves as the rightful Owners of Everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyrilLucifer

It's very much like our situation - we're driven to believe that what we're doing is for the best for Hydaelyn, just like the Garleans. They are their own protagonists and see us as meddling antagonists (and possibly evil, teleporting robed wizards, depending on your class!) that are trying to stifle what they view as progress.

---

I think this is giving them a tad more benefit of the doubt than they deserve, mostly because the biggest difference is that they're doing what's best for GARLEMALD, not Hydaelyn. Progress, to them, is completely at the expense of the societies and people of the land they conquer. I don't think that's an insignificant distinction to draw.

They're heavily based off of the Roman Empire and there's quite a lot of similarities between them. I've said this before in a different thread but even to this very day in the real world an immense amount of our culture is directly influenced by what the Romans did be it in terms of architecture, art, entertainment and even the method we use to tell time. They were, however, very driven in regards to wanting to conquer more and more territory and establish dominance. The irony is that even though the Roman Empire fell they technically succeeded - because even in the modern day we're very reliant on what they did for us.

It's pretty similar with Garlemald. Yes, Allagans are ultimately responsible for Magitek but Garlemald are the ones to have brought it back - and now Eorzea is quite rapidly embracing it as well as a direct consequence of Garlemald doing so.

They're certainly morally grey, there's no doubt about that - but we don't know a whole lot about their motives as of yet beyond them seemingly being well intentioned extremists. Yes, they resort to harsh methods but in a setting that has a lot of awful stuff going on I feel like a lot of people just rally against them as the 'easiest' targets.

Still, I'd like to see more Garleans who are similar to Drace and Gabranth from FFXII who are loyal to their homeland and people and aren't traitors - and I'm hoping that we'll eventually see that much like we found that Ishgard wasn't fully rotten to the core like many suspected.

One of the biggest issues with these sort of things, however, is that a lot of people are prone to viewing stuff as either 'black' or 'white' even if they claim not to. I mean, for those familiar with the likes of The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones there's a lot of characters who are pretty morally dubious by our standards. By the standards of the settings themselves, however, their actions and behaviour are...pretty understandable, really. I won't spoil anything since they're not FFXIV based stuff but...yeah. Hopefully someone gets what I'm rambling on about, eh?

Oh, and because I feel like it needs to be highlighted:

For all the criticism of Garlemald oppressing and killing those who boast different ideals to themselves...the WoL and their allies are prone to embracing the exact same mentality. I mean, think about it - how many lives have been snuffed out by the WoL and their friends? Did some have it coming? Arguably, but what about the majority who were just following orders or were loyal to their friends, family and causes?

I'm hoping we see a scene in the future where the WoL strikes down an opponent only for it to be revealed that their opponent was standing in their path to allow a friend or lover to escape. Because let's be honest - that's the sort of thing that is very, very likely to be occurring during the countless battles that have transpired thus far.

It's been a while, but I remember years ago when I did the quests to rescue the scions and disguised myself as a Garlean soldier. I spoke with the npcs that I was stationed with ... they were all seemingly "normal" my memory is hazy, but I remember one had a family and would have returned to his homeland eventually. Then we revealed ourselves and killed that group which offered a nice bit of moral greyness to our character

I was genuinely impressed that they weren't all stereotypically evil. Afterwards that wasn't the case anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myahele

*SNIP*

---

I remember that scene, and all I could think of was back in 1.0 during the (original) final quest, where Garlean soldiers are seen brainwashing Eorzean citizens, presumably by some magical means, into joining their crusade. It painted a picture to me that most of the Garleans we fight are actually brainwashed Eorzeans.

Then again there's a lot of stuff in 1.0 that seems to have been silently shoved under the rug *coughwhostabbedNiellefresnecough*

I just imagine it as Gestahl Empire HD.


That being said, it's pretty clear we'll be focusing on fighting them eventually but I don't know when, I certainly believe when we do go there we'll have a chance to go in to the imperial capital city and when we do, it will probably try and show it in a more sympathetic light, probably show us that the people living in the main city have an easy comfortable life where technology takes care of them and the vast majority of the citizens having no idea what's going on in the rest of the world.

Doesn't one of the quests say that the majority of the imperial army is conscripted soldiers from places that have been conquered? It would make sense then to me that the Garlean citizens (peasant and noble alike as I am assuming it has some sort of aristocracy) probably don't know the amount of damage the empire has done. All they probably hear about is how the glorious imperial army brought the light of civilization to barbarians of a new country and taught them the "joys" of serving the empire.

As it stands, Garlemald is currently a military dictatorship with a love of conquest and the belief that anyone and everyone even capable of summoning a primal must be brought to heel or killed. Incidentally, this is pretty much Eorzea's entire population.

I'm not ruling out the possibility of there being any good within the Garleans or it being impossible to reform the system from within. As long as they hold onto their "Eorzeans are all savages that must be brought to heel" philosophy, I don't see it happening. There may be some good within the system, but the only good Garleans we've seen are two defectors (with a possible third) - as long as nobody within the system opposes it, things will remain as they are.

Oh, and...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

For all the criticism of Garlemald oppressing and killing those who boast different ideals to themselves...the WoL and their allies are prone to embracing the exact same mentality. I mean, think about it - how many lives have been snuffed out by the WoL and their friends? Did some have it coming? Arguably, but what about the majority who were just following orders or were loyal to their friends, family and causes?

---

... some people have actually pondered this, though more in regard to the Zodiac Weapon quest (where we go around slaughtering things wholesale to eat their souls and power up our weapon(s)... not exactly heroic, y'know?). The difference is that Garlemald is the aggressor in this case; we're only fighting in self-defense. There may be piles of dead Garleans... but there are also piles of dead Eorzeans who were only defending their homelands. War is a tragedy on both sides, not the glorious conquest Garlemald's leaders paint it as.

The idea of a long protracted war with Garlemeld isn't very appealing, imo. even if its the sort of thing to launch a new plot. I dunno, It just feels like such a thing would go pretty far in atrocities and the temptation to commit atrocities. If our character partakes, im not sure it'll be with the same blinders as most participants(at least I hope not)

If anything, we'll probably encounter more story similar to Drest's (The hermit living in Raincatcher Gully)

Quote:

---

Drest
Do...do you have any children? I've a...a son and a daughter. They were so little when I left... They probably think I'm dead.
Drest
I've been saving for years to...to buy passage back home somehow. But...still not enough. Maybe...maybe you could bring me some jungle coeurl skins? I...I can sell them. I just...I just want to go home...
Drest
Please... Even a few skins would help...
Drest
You...you helped me. Even after what my comrades and I did to your country...
Drest
We were on a reconnaissance mission when the Maelstrom caught us by surprise. We tried to escape, but the others... N-No one else survived.
Drest
I didn't ask for this, dammit! I'm not even Garlean! They conquered my lands just like they tried to conquer yours!
Drest
I...I don't want to die in some blasted jungle halfway around the world...
Drest
I just...I just want to go home...

---

In the end, he was a conscripted soldier from one of Garlean's conquered territory just following orders. I'd love to hear more stories like this, atleast more stories involving Garlean foot soldiers. Showing the tragedies of war on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

One of the biggest issues with these sort of things, however, is that a lot of people are prone to viewing stuff as either 'black' or 'white' even if they claim not to.

---

On that note this applies to a lot of things in history and in many other 'gray' stories. Some people will demonize x and y without taking context into account, since GoT became a tv show it happens even with that, people constantly praise daenarys without realizing the faults of her character while demonizing the lannisters and those who fight on their side without taking context into account. The show kinda paints it in a 'black and white' fashion more than the books would though. Same could be said with garlemald so far but even then that makes sense because we are in the country being attacked, we'll probably hear more about their side eventually. At least I hope we do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myahele

It's been a while, but I remember years ago when I did the quests to rescue the scions and disguised myself as a Garlean soldier. I spoke with the npcs that I was stationed with ... they were all seemingly "normal" my memory is hazy, but I remember one had a family and would have returned to his homeland eventually.

---

Well ... there was that one guy who had the hots for Tataru over Minfilia. I thought that was a little strange, in a child molesting kind of way, but other than that I agree.

Most of the Garleans seem pretty down to earth. Their head leadership is a bit on the extreme side, but their way of going about things doesn't seem to be inherently "wrong" or "evil." To be perfectly honest, I can't even fault their methodology. Science and industrialism are not inherently bad things. Progress, understanding, unity and communal defense are pretty good principles to live by. Hell, even the idea of an empire is not necessarily evil (despite SE's running fictional trope which suggests otherwise). Several currently unified and successful countries were, in fact, founded on the ideals of an empire at one point in their respective histories.

The problem with the Garleans, as I see it, is that they are arbitrarily assumed to be evil, and that assumption is typically justified because of two reasons. The first is that they are an "Empire," which most people (SE included) seem to think is a synonym for "Evil" when it's really not. The second reason is that they (or at least their cabinet of leaders) are okay with committing genocide to fulfill their goals. That's a tad on the extreme side. If they were merely at war, then I could not fault them for this. Killing is part of the business. However, rounding up random populations of people and snuffing them out without so much as a declaration of war is a bit much (the Vanu, for example).

Logically speaking, they're not wrong. Eliminating the source of the primal is the most efficient way of removing the primal threat. We merely treat the symptom. The Garleans want to cure the plague. However, killing an entire species of people just because they have misguided beliefs is not a morally justifiable decision ... even if those people are frustratingly annoying, and backwards, and make you do dozens of monotonous quests like taking out their garbage or feeding their pets just to prove you're "friendly." They're still people ... albeit annoying people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Februs

Well ... there was that one guy who had the hots for Tataru over Minfilia. I thought that was a little strange, in a child molesting kind of way, but other than that I agree.


Most of the Garleans seem pretty down to earth. Their head leadership is a bit on the extreme side, but their way of going about things doesn't seem to be inherently "wrong" or "evil." To be perfectly honest, I can't even fault their methodology. Science and industrialism are not inherently bad things. Progress, understanding, unity and communal defense are pretty good principles to live by. Hell, even the idea of an empire is not necessarily evil (despite SE's running fictional trope which suggests otherwise). Several currently unified and successful countries were, in fact, founded on the ideals of an empire at one point in their respective histories.

The problem with the Garleans, as I see it, is that they are arbitrarily assumed to be evil, and that assumption is typically justified because of two reasons. The first is that they are an "Empire," which most people (SE included) seem to think is a synonym for "Evil" when it's really not. The second reason is that they (or at least their cabinet of leaders) are okay with committing genocide to fulfill their goals. That's a tad on the extreme side. If they were merely at war, then I could not fault them for this. Killing is part of the business. However, rounding up random populations of people and snuffing them out without so much as a declaration of war is a bit much (the Vanu, for example).

Logically speaking, they're not wrong. Eliminating the source of the primal is the most efficient way of removing the primal threat. We merely treat the symptom. The Garleans want to cure the plague. However, killing an entire species of people just because they have misguided beliefs is not a morally justifiable decision ... even if those people are frustratingly annoying, and backwards, and make you do dozens of monotonous quests like taking out their garbage or feeding their pets just to prove you're "friendly." They're still people ... albeit annoying people.

---

The Garlemand empire is a dictatorship. It's a military goverment crasy of power, where the citisens doesnt have any rights and any action or free speech is supreced. Look how they are treating their conquered lands. You serious?
Nop. Its evil in all ways, a dictatorship will always be wrong, no matter what. Then they are abusing of the poeple lifes and killing just beacuse the think they can? No. One thing is a War and another is thiis.

They arent curing the planet, killing is not the answer. They are making things worst not better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Februs

snip

---

Nothing about a negative portrayal of Garlemald is arbitrary. Well, okay, calling them EVIL might be a bit much, but seeing them in shades of black certainly isn't, and I think the biggest issue with your argument is that you're attributing our conflict with them to something that it isn't.

It has nothing to do with science and industrialism - those are simply the tools they use and, as Theodric has pointed out, we use them as well. It has nothing to do with the Primals - that's simply the current phase of a larger campaign. And actually, considering it's one that aligns with our own desires and goals, why do you think we're not teaming up? It's not because Eorzea's leadership is daft, it's because the actual root of our conflict with Garlemald is what they'll do after the Primal problem is cleared up. This war did not start with the Primals. It started with them doing what Empires do. Which brings me to your other argument.

Empires are bad news. That is a moral conclusion that our society has come to, after spending a significant time flirting with the concept. Yes, many former empires are now flourishing nation states, but you'll notice they have completely dropped all the trappings and holdings of their imperial ages. Literature and history are not kind to the concept either, despite the formerly Imperial nations being the writers of that history. Nobody looks back fondly on the days of the European empires, and even the ancient empires are largely viewed as products of their time rather than models for a modern society. Empires-are-evil isn't just some common trope, it's a reflection of our historical experiences and struggles with Imperialism and the states that would employ it.

And even though I will concede that you can intellectually conceive of a benevolent Empire, Garlemald is not that. They conquer because they can, and when they do, they enslave, brutalize, draft, and rule over the conquered populations as second-class citizens. That is bad. They are demonstrably not a benevolent Empire. So no, the view of them as evil isn't arbitrary. It isn't a lazy mis-read of the text, or a lazy application of a common fantasy device. It's a deliberate use of a sort of government that is by its very nature aggressive and threatening to those around it.

As an aside, 'human rights' and 'equal rights' are very much a recent, modern day affair. People need to be careful when applying their concept of morality to a fictional setting. A lot of the stuff that we find horrid is perfectly normal within Eorzea. It's also why a lot of people struggle to grasp the true complexities that exist in the likes of The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. Yes, the Garleans are more morally dubious than Eorzea is - that doesn't make Garlemald 'evil'. Nor should they be forced to adhere to our sense of real world morality. That'd be pretty boring, right? Especially when Eorzea itself doesn't even adhere to the same concepts.

I agree in theory. But as far as we know, Garlemald does not need to conquer to ensure their own survival; as far as we know, Garlemald's dominion is not keeping some worse or equally dubious power at bay, or creating stability where there previously was none*; as far as we know, Imperialism isn't the status quo in Aldenard. Thus, I can't really see how "setting relativism" applies here, like it would in The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones. Their actions are VERY morally dubious, even by the standards of the setting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
*This is admittedly something I could see changing, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hinoto-no-Ryuji

But as far as we know, Garlemald does not need to conquer to ensure their own survival; as far as we know

---

Sometimes I feel like they conquer because they don't know else to do. They build this massive army of conscripts from countries they invade and as such need something for them to do, why not have them invade? Although thinking about how the Garleans enslave people to turn them in to soldiers to then send them out to conquer and enslave more people made me think of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave-making_ant

All in-game/lore-based evidence points to that being EXACTLY what they're doing - their first emperor brought glory and fame and purpose to their nation through conquest, so they just keep doing it, because that's what makes them what they are. Empires traditionally incorporate their success at conquest as a big part of their national identity, and that national identity is a huge source of propaganda-fueled nationalism, which itself further fuels the entire mechanism. And because they've been doing that from the start, they have to KEEP doing it, because it's what their entire society is built on.

I think you made a great point about average Garlean citizens earlier, Khalithar, that really fits with the standard Imperial model: they do nothing but benefit from the actions of their state, so why wouldn't they buy into the fantasy wholesale? I imagine any Garlean allies we acquire (and they will absolutely be "traitors", Theo, I'm sure much to your chagrin) will be particularly worldly ones, who have seen the impact their nation has had first-hand.

I think the reason why we seeing Garlemand evil is because how they act, how their soldiers and alaegatus operate. Look how they Nero killed a soldier for having some doubts on 2.0. The garlemand empire doesnt have much time, like 50 -80 years? Its still a young empire.

The Roman empire lasted so long and brought so many proud and, morality to its people for this reasons I think:

-the roman empire it may be consider the first true civilised nation, with a high intelectual society and military power
- most of the placed the romans conquered were uncivilised, barbarian lands ( cof cof, savages, cof cof )
- Not well sure, but I think the romans leet the conquer lands to keep their traditions and religions if they payed money.

The garlmand empire isnt old, and from the start they have being doing all wrong. The nations they conquer are as much civilised as them. The treatmentwith the conquer lands is awfull and brutal. Thats why I see them more as the nazi germany than the roman empire.

I honestly look at them like the empire Star Wars but I'm thinking the inspiration may be of a FF VI type.

Again, they're not evil. Antagonistic doesn't equal evil. Yes, they attempted to invade Eorzea but they've never thrown their full might behind doing so - Nael and Gaius were essentially acting on their own and whilst Varis is currently within Eorzea he seems more concerned with exploring Azyz Lla than invading Eorzea.

Azyz Lla isn't really Eorzean territory. Yes, it's technically in Eorzea but nobody had claimed it as their own until Garleans and Eorzeans clashed there. Again, they're very similar to the Roman Empire - and the Roman Empire wasn't evil. Morally dubious, yes - but not evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hinoto-no-Ryuji

It has nothing to do with science and industrialism - those are simply the tools they use and, as Theodric has pointed out, we use them as well. It has nothing to do with the Primals - that's simply the current phase of a larger campaign. And actually, considering it's one that aligns with our own desires and goals, why do you think we're not teaming up? It's not because Eorzea's leadership is daft, it's because the actual root of our conflict with Garlemald is what they'll do after the Primal problem is cleared up.

---

I think you're misunderstanding what I said a little.When I was talking about Science, industrialism, and their attitude about Primal worship, I didn't mean to refer those things to our conflict with them. Like I said, I was referring to their methodology and ideology. What I meant was that their ideals, in general, are not bad. Garleans seem to value industry, science, and progress, probably because they cannot (supposedly) use magic. They also refute the worship of false gods. Putting aside our conflict with them for just a moment, these are not bad or evil ideas. They're progressive. I, for one, cannot condemn a progressive society simply for being progressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hinoto-no-Ryuji

Empires are bad news. That is a moral conclusion that our society has come to, after spending a significant time flirting with the concept. Yes, many former empires are now flourishing nation states, but you'll notice they have completely dropped all the trappings and holdings of their imperial ages.

---

On this we're going to have to disagree. China, Germany (before the whole Nazi thing, when it was split between Prussia and Austria-Hungry), Italy, Canada, and The United States (just to name a few), were all part of empires at one point (Canada, technically, still is). Of them, only the United States waged a war of independence because they thought it was "bad." The rest of them unified to become countries. Further, not all Empire-related holidays were scrapped when the Empires were dissolved. Ever heard of Christmas? How about Easter? Canada day, maybe? The fact is that Empires aren't evil, and history has proven it time and again. There are just as many positive examples of sustainable empires as there are failed ones. Nothing about them is inherently evil.

It's also worth noting that we don't actually know anything about how the Garlean Empire is run. We're outsiders looking in, and to us it seems to be a military engine bent on world conquest. However, inside the Empire is a different story. We don't know anything about how the Empire is treats their conquered states. All we have is a few "he said, she said" accounts from refugees who are upset that they lost a war, most of which tell about a superior military power butchering their small resistance. Now, rule of the underdog automatically makes us sympathetic to the refugees who were too bitter about their defeat to stick around, but, really, we don't actually know anything about what happened to these states other than they lost to a superior military force ... which is kind of expected.

Granted, it's pretty safe to assume (based on first hand experience) that if any of these people worshiped Primals they were likely rounded up and put to death, but other than that we can't make any assumptions, because we haven't actually been there to see it. They could be treating the remaining locals as slave labour, or they could have rolled in with running water, mircrowave ovens, and paved roads and taught them the ways of civilization. It's most likely the former, but we wont' know till we go there.

Now, that said, the word "Empire" should not be confused with "imperialism" or "dictatorship." Imperialism is a tricky one, because it, too, is not inherently evil. Imperialism via diplomacy, for example, is not necessarily bad. Creating a strong unifying force among the citizens is also not bad. What these things can lead to, however, is bad, and that's a dictatorship or outright fascism.

What Fredrick said is accurate. The core reason of why the Garlean Empire is accurately perceived as "evil" is because it is run as a military dictatorship. The fact that they're an Empire has nothing to do with how "evil" they are. What does, is that their heads of state are all officers in the military, and government policy is established by the military agenda. That is unquestionably bad (Rome, being a good example of what happens when your Empire is hijacked by a dictator), especially when those heads of state are content to commit acts of genocide to achieve their goals (which is more of an extreme fascist mentality).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Yes, they attempted to invade Eorzea but they've never thrown their full might behind doing so - Nael and Gaius were essentially acting on their own and whilst Varis is currently within Eorzea he seems more concerned with exploring Azyz Lla than invading Eorzea.

---

That's a...selective reading of the text.

Nael was never acting on his own. Except for a brief period after the destruction of the Bozja Citadel and before the failure at Silvertear (during which Nael was operating in Othard, it should be noted), Meteor was 100% endorsed by the Emperor, right up until it fell and the campaign was brought back to the drawing board. And Gaius was only acting on his own post-Calamity; everything he had done up to that point, all of which involved maintaining a military foothold in Eorzea while a means of expansion was sought, was done in an official capacity. And "never thrown their full might"? What do you call Silvertear? They did, it failed, and rather than endure the losses they experienced in Othard at the hands of the newly-summoned Primals, they decided to find a solution to that before resuming the campaign in earnest.

Which brings us to Varis. Why do you think he's exploring Azys La? Why do you think the Garleans have interest in it in the first place? The campaign on Eorzea wasn't halted. It's just on hiatus until they can solve the Primal Problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Februs

China, Germany (before the whole Nazi thing, when it was split between Prussia and Austria-Hungry), Italy, Canada, and The United States (just to name a few), were all part of empires at one point (Canada, technically, still is). Of them, only the United States waged a war of independence because they thought it was "bad." The rest of them unified to become countries. Further, not all Empire-related holidays were scrapped when the Empires were dissolved. Ever heard of Christmas? How about Easter? Canada day, maybe? The fact is that Empires aren't evil, and history has proven it time and again. There are just as many positive examples of sustainable empires as there are failed ones. Nothing about them is inherently evil.

---

I'm not sure what relevance the holidays have. While some may have their roots in an Imperial Era, none currently champion Imperialism.

(Also, Canada isn't technically part of an Empire; even when Britain still had theirs, Canada has been its own thing since 1931).

And then there's China. Look, ancient Empires were certainly very successful, it's true, and that's likely why the system got so popular in the modern era. But then we realized what maintaining and forming an Empire meant and what it tended to lead to: even non-dictatorships, such as the various European empires, ended up running roughshod over their conquered territories' people and culture and society, to the point where many sought independence the second they had the chance, ala Doma. The ones that didn't, like Australia and Canada, were ones that had subjugated the original population to the point of irrelevance (and then they became independent anyways). Modern Imperial success stories are all predicated on the total subjugation of the original population, for nothing more than the glory and expansion of a bigger, mightier population.

So it's kind of hard for me to agree that you can point to any of the modern Empires as examples of ones that aren't inherently bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Februs

We don't know anything about how the Empire is treats their conquered states. All we have is a few "he said, she said" accounts from refugees who are upset that they lost a war, most of which tell about a superior military power butchering their small resistance. Now, rule of the underdog automatically makes us sympathetic to the refugees who were too bitter about their defeat to stick around, but, really, we don't actually know anything about what happened to these states other than they lost to a superior military force ... which is kind of expected.

---

Sure, but since this is a story being told to us, we have to use what we know and take it with the evidence presented to us if we want to figure out how we're "supposed" to read the Garleans. As of right now, we have a small handful of evidence that tells us how the XIVth Legion treated the conquered people of Ala Mhigo, how Garlemald automatically delegates all conquered people into second-class citizens and conscripts, and how they ruled over Doma with a brutality that resulted in its people rising up against them literally the first chance they got.

Now, are those biased accounts? Certainly (except that second one, which is in a Gubal book). But we've also been presented with precisely nothing to balance them out. With the possible exception of Rhitatyn,* we have no subjects of Garlemald singing their praises or championing life under their rule. We can postulate their existence, but as it stands right now, I think the view that the storytellers want us to have of the Garleans is pretty unambiguous.

------------------------------------
*And even he is an exception that proves the rule, allowed his station in life pretty much only because of Gaius; any other conscript would be subject to the racism and classism inherent in Garlemald's caste system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hinoto-no-Ryuji

Also, Canada isn't technically part of an Empire; even when Britain still had theirs, Canada has been its own thing since 1931.

---

Incorrect. Canada was established as it's own country in 1867, but is still a constitutional monarchy. We have our own government. We make our own laws and legislation, but we also have a Queen. Queen Elizabeth II is still the head of state in Canada, and is represented by the Governor General in our parliament. We are still, technically, part of the British Monarchy, with the Queen as our supreme leader (if only in name). That makes us, technically, still part of the British Empire.

You're also incorrect about Empire success stories being countries who were completely subjugated to their Empire. Sorry to tell you this, but the French and Native populations in Canada would be insulted by this comment. It is true that Britain defeated France in control of their colonies, but the province of Quebec was predicated on not subjugating the French immigrants into British lifestyles and rule. They are far from submissive to the British Monarchy and have actually advocated for separation from Canada on several occasions, opting to keep their province as distinct as possible from the rest of the country. They were even given a referendum to choose whether or not they wanted to stay or leave. They chose to stay (albeit by a narrow margin).

The natives, as well, have similar circumstances in the Territories and reservations. Many of them were mistreated, killed, or moved, when Britain unified the country, but they were not actively subjugated. They still maintain their unique identity. They have unique rights that are distinct from the general population of Canadians. They even have their own laws and governing body (varying from tribe to tribe/reserve to reserve). Their relationship with the Federal Government of Canada (not to be confused with the head of state, her majesty the Queen) is tricky. Sometimes, especially in the past, it was one of subjugation, but it is often one of negotiation (which really gums up the works when you're trying to build something).

Regardless, you are still confusing the term "empire" for "imperialism." They are not the same thing. Like I said before, there is nothing inherently evil, wrong, or bad, about an empire. The reason that you're not seeing the good examples of them is because most of them have dropped the moniker "Empire" and replaced it with "Country" (Ie: Canada, The United States, etc). The truth is, going simply by the definition of what an Empire is, there is absolutely nothing evil about it. It's actually how most countries are formed, and has been established in the past by the means of negotiation, marriage, culture, and language, rather than subjugation and force (France and Germany, being examples of this). That's not to say that there aren't plenty of bad examples out there, but the pre-conceived notion that they are evil by nature is a purely fictional trope that has been pounded into the heads of the masses by silly stories such as Star Wars and pretty much every Final Fantasy that was ever made.

Here's an extra fun fact: Technically, by definition, the united states is also an Empire. As the definition of an Empire is simply, "an extensive group of states or countries under a supreme authority" (Concise Oxford English Dictionary). The United States also fits the bill in that they are a unified set of states under a supreme authority ... if you consider congress or the president to be an "supreme authority" (I'm sure there's a political joke or two to be found in that). They even had a Civil War to unify the country under one leadership ... though I'm not sure how many southern citizens would consider themselves to be "subjugated" to that leadership structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hinoto-no-Ryuji

Now, are those biased accounts? Certainly (except that second one, which is in a Gubal book). But we've also been presented with precisely nothing to balance them out. With the possible exception of Rhitatyn,* we have no subjects of Garlemald singing their praises or championing life under their rule. We can postulate their existence, but as it stands right now, I think the view that the storytellers want us to have of the Garleans is pretty unambiguous.

---

This was pretty much my point. We simply don't know, with certainty, what is happening within the Empire. All we have are second hand accounts. It really would be nice to visit this Empire at some point and take a look-see for ourselves.

That said, you're right that the writers are playing up the idea of the Garleans being "evil." It seems pretty clear that they want us to believe that the Empire is bad news; however, the reason it is bad news has nothing to do with the fact that it is an Empire. It also has very little (though, not nothing) to do with they ideologies behind that empire (science, industrialism, etc). It has everything to do with what kind of Empire it is: A military dictatorship with a fascist leadership. Hypothetically speaking,if we took take out the military dictator and fascist attitude and the Garleans would likely be perceived as the warm light of civilization spreading across Hydaelyn. Unfortunately, the military is at the reigns and are guiding the country with a singular focus on domination. That puts them pretty firmly in the realm of "evil."