[SPOILERS] Stormblood Ending

[Hinoto-no-Ryuji]

The invasion of Eorzea is in itself a consequence of the Primal/Eikon threat which is ultimately a problem created by the Ascians/Elidibus and Zodiark.

Garlemald's 'might makes right' approach would not be even be a thing if Eikons/Primals were not a potentially world ending threat.

Was it a consequence of that, though? Primal summonings weren't common in Eorzea before Silvertear (Garlemald's whole reasoning behind seizing it so decisively being a pre-emptive measure to ensure Primals wouldn't happen).

As for their "might makes right" approach, that was totally a thing before they knew Primals existed. Garlemald had the entirety of Ilsabard conquered and had turned to bring Othard into the fold before they first encountered a summoning; I think it's pretty clear that their founding purpose and conquests have nothing to do with the beasts, and as such find the notion that they would have minded their own business in their corner of the world were it not for Primals more than a little suspect.

[Berethos]

Garlemald's 'might makes right' approach would not be even be a thing if Eikons/Primals were not a potentially world ending threat.

They began their "might makes right" approach before they encountered the destruction wrought by a primal in Doma.

That approach was why they were in Othard to see it in the first place.

As per the Lore Book:

They began forcefully subjugating their neighboring city states in 1515.
They use airships to "easily" conquer the small nation of Dalmasca in 1517.
The northlands of Ilsabard are united under Garlean rule and Galvus declares it an empire and him Emperor in 1522.

They *then* begin their military campaign on the eastern continent in 1528.

As noted in the Garlean Empire section of the book:

It was during this campaign that Galvus first laid on eyes upon the ruin wrought by primals - an entire land utterly drained of life.

The "might makes right" approach began as a way to avenge basically being kicked around by their northern neighbors, but it surpassed that solely because the Emperor was not content with conquering Ilsabard and set his sights on the East.

Then primals entered the picture.

Any other order of events is speculative at best and revisionist at worst.

[Theodric]

I'm aware. It's not necessarily damning, though. Not to the extent some would paint it as, anyway. I've made it a point to highlight in the past the similarities between Garlemald and the Roman/British Empires. Both sought to conquer both neighbouring and distant lands and both contributed heavily to the development of much of the world's culture, language, knowledge, architecture and so on. It wasn't without problems, certainly, though the world would be a much different and less advanced place if not for such events occurring throughout history.

It is little different in Hydaelyn. The Garleans may see foreigners as 'savages' to be uplifted and they're...not entirely wrong in some cases. It speaks volumes that their push for territory began as a result of fighting back against their oppressors. They definitely extended beyond the territory of their neighbours, there's no denying that - but they're hardly the first to do so and likely won't be the last either.

Plus much of their expansion efforts are tied to the previous Emperor. Varis, meanwhile, is primarily concerned with finding a way to end the Eikon/Primal threat. How he reacts to the loss of Doma and Ala Mhigo remains to be seen but it is telling that he did not send any reinforcements.

To go back to the comparisons to the Roman and British Empire, though, it's more likely than not that none of us would even be here in the present day if not for those two Empires. I wonder how many of you feel contempt for that? Will you discard all the comforts and luxuries you have access to because they're tied to the influence of the Romans and the British? There's a pretty good chance that Garlemald's conquests will prove to be beneficial and have a lasting impact in the ages to come - especially in terms of culture, technology and language. Not just in the territories they operate(d) in either - there may be people in the future once Garlemald is a distant memory scouring through history books seeking to mimic the glory days of the past through the arts.

It's all rather fascinating. So it's a real shame that some people here spend so much of their time simply striving to paint Garlemald in the worst possible light across every possible thread. I saw something similar play out back when I was invested in WoW, though, when diehard Alliance fans downplayed any and all justifications of the Horde's perspective and reasoning. Or when diehard fans of the Exiles in Wildstar did the same in regards to the Cassians. It happened in The Elder Scrolls Online, too, with each of the three factions and their rivals/enemies. It's a little different here since Garlemald isn't a playable faction but the 'tribalism' towards Eorzea and Doma plays out in a very similar manner. Thankfully the developers have created a wonderfully nuanced setting that boasts shades of grey across the board rather than shades of white and black. We can, then, join hands and celebrate it together!

[Alleo]

I'm aware. It's not necessarily damning, though. Not to the extent some would paint it as, anyway. I've made it a point to highlight in the past the similarities between Garlemald and the Roman/British Empires. Both sought to conquer both neighbouring and distant lands and both contributed heavily to the development of much of the world's culture, language, knowledge, architecture and so on. It wasn't without problems, certainly, though the world would be a much different and less advanced place if not for such events occurring throughout history.

So its alright to conquer the world? That is something I will never get behind. War is never good..all it does is creating misery, vengeance and destruction..also thanks to some world wars in real life we are now burdened with very horrible weapons that could destroy the world if another war would start. You can also not say that we would be less advanced if we never had those conflicts. You argue that people should post facts but you bring up points that cant even be proven. Nobody knows how the world would look like now if certain events did not happen. One could speculate about certain aspects but it will never be a fact. Also lets not forget how many young people died in the world wars..how many of those could have brought us some new ideas too but never got the chance?

Also just because someone did something wrong, does not make it less wrong if someone else does it too..

Could you imagine if a third world war happen (just imaging it is horrible v_v) and the survivors of the fall out would be going around and saying: Well thanks to millions of people dieing we got to live. Thanks for having war! Also if anyone, that ever lost someone in a war, will read such statements they will surely love that.

About culture and stuff: This would only happen if you have an empire that allows for other cultures to exist. Rome did use some of the things from other cultures but they also tried to destroy certain cultures even though they did not do anything wrong at all. We are shown in the game that Garlemald only accepts the view of the Garlean people and stops any other culture activities. So I cant see how we would have diverse and interesting cultures under their rule..

And look at history, be it in real life or in Eorzea and they will show you how it often ends. (It does not mean that it has to end that way, yet its still kind of telling) Rome and other big empires and dictatorships that tried to conquer the whole world all destroyed themselves or got finally put down by an alliance of other states. You need lots of money to go to war which will weaken your own system, also its not that easy to hold all your conquered states together. At the same time in FF14 we know that each really advanced state destroyed itself or through wars with other advanced states. All the long lasting "benefits" they brought were new calamities that killed another shard and pushed the people back to the stone age..

Its your opinion and all, if you just want to look at the "good" sides that empires like Rome brought to the world and make the costs for something like that as a necessary evil but one cant just simply look at it as only a comparison with such empires and completely ignore the parallels to more modern dictatorships. I do kinda wonder how our world would be today if one of the crazy Caesar would have been able to use atomic bombs in their wars..

Maybe somewhere in a distant future they will be remembered in a positive light and maybe in the future they get better and dont need to experiment on people to advance. But right now they dont show themselves from a good side and thus right now I will not see themselves as anymore than an enemy.

Also this is a forum for discussion. There will be different kind of opinions on things and if someone is posting that they dont like Garlemald and gets an answer that talks about how they are good, then yes you will have people discuss this. And if there are points, where I for example disagree with and I have an argument (and not personal insults or looking down on people because they are "emotional" arguing even though they are pointing out stuff that is happening ingame) that I can bring toward a post, I will post it. If you like something in a game that is often seen in a negative way you have to accept that people might not like that and might point things out. This does not mean that they are disliking the people that are liking it but that they arguing about something ingame. I have no problems with you as a person or anyone else that loves Garlemald. But I will not shy away from writing down my opinions about them, even if that means getting insulted.

[YianKutku]

So it's a real shame that some people here spend so much of their time simply striving to paint Garlemald in the worst possible light across every possible thread.

Do you have any specific examples?

I will interpret "some people" as "more than one person" (two is borderline, three is enough), and "worst possible light" as "the entire country is irredeemably evil and must be utterly destroyed" or some such version of Garlemald delenda est. I will leave aside the "so much of their time" and "across every possible thread" criteria, since I'm not sure how to judge those objectively.

There may be an even worse view than "all Garleans must be killed", but it's late and I'm not really up for quibbling the definition of "worst possible light" right now. I might be up for it tomorrow.

[Theodric]

-snip-

It's more a matter of people who are arguing in defence of Garlemald being more than willing to highlight that reform is needed. Yet they're also not going to stand by and allow Garlemald to be completely vilified - not in a setting where clear shades of grey have been established and there's two sides to every tale. There's also the subtle snipes in threads by certain posters - who then, in turn, complain when a bit of shade is thrown their way instead.

Regula is a clear example of a Garlean who is honourable and worthy of respect but there's subtle arguments made to downplay him whenever he's brought up - such as a poster making it seem like it was possible that Varis wasn't good friends with him even though their friendship is specifically highlighted in-game and in the lore book.

Or that, somehow, him calling Eorzeans 'savages' means he's not worthy of respect...even though racism and xenophobia exists across all of Hydaelyn to varying degrees including within territories occupied by the Eorzeans and Hingans.

Then, of course, there's the tiresome 'Garleans are Nazis!' outcry that occassionally pops up from time to time. Even though Garlemald itself is far more inspired by the Roman and British Empires in terms of how it operates...with, arguably, a bit of Victorian England thrown in for good measure.

Is Garlemald perfect? Not at all. Yet as I've said many times before a lot of these discussions would be avoided outright. They're circular, they're tiresome, they're utterly boring. We've accepted that Garlemald requires reform, we have not accepted that they are not without their reasons or redeeming elements. Yet people will come here time and time again asking for 'proof' and then when Regula or Baut or any other redeeming element is pointed out the goalposts are conveniently moved and/or those elements are downplayed.

Like I said, I've seen it all before across other MMO's. This isn't my first rodeo...and if some people frequented the WoW EU lore forum they may very well have seen me under a different name arguing in the defence of the blood elves and their reasoning for doing the things that they did.

I'd highlight specific names though I fear that'd simply leave me open to falling foul of the naming and shaming rules in place. Not that I bear any grudges, mind you - I just want to put an end to these circular debates as it's clear nothing is going to come of them and at this point it's clear neither side is going to convince the other to change their mind. Nor should they - because a lot of what is being argued about is completely subjective and open to interpretation where morality is concerned. It's a very complicated thing, that. Especially when detailing events that transpired in the past in the real world where circumstances were very different to how they are in the present day. Or in a fictional setting when there's additional elements to consider that most cannot wrap their heads around.

Eikons, for instance, do not exist in the real world. Let's be honest, here, though - if they did and countless people suffered at their hands again and again and again then a solution would need to be found and the methods to put an end to such a problem would differ immensely. We'd likely see at least one nation try the 'might makes right' approach. Heavy handed, perhaps, but with the lack of an actual solution to the threat there aren't many other alternatives.

I'd also highlight that the Final Fantasy franchise has countless examples of real world modern day morality not being applied. Things are much more nuanced than that, as shown through FFIX and the simple fact that multiple characters were involved in genocide but were not removed from their positions or punished for it. They were simply convinced to take a different approach. The Shinra Corporation in FFVII, too, was responsible for a lot of shady stuff but that wasn't dismantled and held fully accountable. It reformed - and whilst still focused on profit it did so through safer methods than before.

Yet when it comes to FFXIV there's a lot of people who argue from the perspective that Garleans who have even the slightest bit of greyness to them somehow need to be held fully accountable for their actions, removed from their positions or killed outright. That does not align with the 'Final Fantasy' approach to such nuances. So I will never support it. I'm content to see them redeemed or given a tragic end. FFXIV itself does not shy away from doing just that...so I remain consistently baffled when such is not acknowledged.

Hopefully that explains my perspective a bit better!

[Lauront]

Eikons are dangerous not just in terms of their raw power but the fact that they tax the very land itself to sustain themselves. Now wouldn't it be interesting if the WOL was himself an eikon? ;D

[Draginhikari]

Eikons are dangerous not just in terms of their raw power but the fact that they tax the very land itself to sustain themselves. Now wouldn't it be interesting if the WOL was himself an eikon? ;D

If that were the case it would likely have been hinted at already by this point. Given that primals have specific characteristics that make them what they are I think this would be extremely unlikely.

[Cilia]

---

At at at at! No comparisons. By choosing to compare the Garlean Empire to the British and Roman Empires instead of any other culture or nation you show that you are biased toward affirming similarities between the two. Disallowing biased arguments should include yourself. If you cannot play by your own arbitrarily imposed rules, you are playing an unfair game.

Look at the Garlean Empire's actions, impact, and reception on the world of Hydaelyn and that alone. That is what defines it, not real-world cultures it is arbitrarily compared to.

---

If you're going to call me out, I'd much rather prefer you do so directly instead of beating around the bush. Pleasantries were never something I really cared for.

My point in questioning Regula was not to deny his friendship with Varis. The point was to state that despite your claims Varis was not "shown to care deeply for Regula." It is heavily alluded to and I do not deny it to be true, but very little was shown of the two together. Saying anything further is straw manning me.

The point drawing attention to him calling us "savages" even while attempting to parley with us is to show how, even when asking for cooperation, van Hydrus did not respect us.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have never said all Imperials should be killed or the Empire dismantled. I agree that heavy (heavy) reforms are needed. I agree that we should forge a peace treaty with them. (With the current political climate I believe the ball is in the Imperials' court - the Domans and Ala Mhigans won their liberty back with great effort, and are presently interested only in rebuilding their shattered homelands and lives, not pursuing further aggression against the Empire. Should the Empire go on the offense it shows it does not care about peace, only its own "stuff," so to speak.)

The only difference is that I will not allow Imperial malfeasance to be downplayed while exaggerating the Eorzeans' own and comparing the two (re: Limsa broke a land treaty, the Imperials have gone on unprovoked, aggressive wars of conquest for the past half a century-ish. The difference in scale and impact is colossal, yet you use this to paint the Eorzeans as if they're no better than the Imperials) for the sake of injecting "nuance" and "moral greyness" into every conflict involving them. I forgive easily (I've even said I'll fight for the Imperial civilians if they're as oppressed as the civilians of their provinces), but I do not forget.

I do hope you know I'm not trying to be hostile - I'm just trying to allow the whole truth to be known, not just the parts that make the Imperials better and the Eorzeans worse. Nobody has said all Imperials are evil by nature and must be killed for the sake of the world, but a legatus willing to offer us a choice between servitude and death, a legatus willing to form an alliance of necessity with us, and a genuinely benevolent town magistrate doesn't magically make all the Empire's wrongdoing lesser somehow.

[Grayve]

I have to say, this multithread fighting over the nature of the Empire is really making it hard to enjoy what was once an informative and engaging lore forum.