The feeling of beeing Home ...

[Theodric]

Garlemald is quite clearly inspired by a combination of the Romans and the Russians, just with a technological twist thrown in for good measure. The attempts to try and tie them to a certain era in Germany's history are misguided and deceptive - usually based around taking one or two specific elements, greatly exaggerating them and presenting them as something completely different to what is actually being portrayed.

(To say nothing of the constant issue of the English localisation using some strange phrasing choices that are not present in the other languages!)

Though as I have said before in the past, a common trend for certain posters from the lore forum is to insinuate awful things about people who like the antagonists in the game over a lengthy period of time. They push and push until, finally, someone will crack a joke at their expense and then they'll point to that as the worst thing ever and make it seem like it's 'both sides' to blame.

That isn't the case at all - and Endwalker revealed that such concerns are disingenuous in the first place given that certain posters went from 'genocide is never okay' to 'genocide is perfectly acceptable when mommy hydaelyn partakes of it'.

I don't particularly care if some of you dislike the Garleans or the Ancients. I've frequently stated a desire to agree to disagree where differences of opinion are to be found.

[CrownySuccubus]

Garlemald is quite clearly inspired by a combination of the Romans and the Russians, just with a technological twist thrown in for good measure. The attempts to try and tie them to a certain era in Germany's history are misguided and deceptive - usually based around taking one or two specific elements, greatly exaggerating them and presenting them as something completely different to what is actually being portrayed.

No, the Garleans are definitely more like Nazi Germany than the Romans, in terms of modus operandi. But even that hair is one that is pointless to split (more on this later).

The Romans liked to conquer things and incorporate them into the empire sure, but as long as you weren't rebelling and paid your taxes, Rome would leave you alone and (to an extent) even try to incorporate people and cultures into Rome, such as developing Roman versions of local gods or incorporating other aspects of culture. Garlemald, however, liked to roll into whatever area they conquered and completely eradicate whatever the local culture was, replacing with with wholly Garlean ideals and beliefs and taking various members as conscripts or workers (aka "slaves", based on how it's described in Stormblood and Endwalker). In short, the Romans tried to avoid things like genocide (whether cultural or ethnic) at all costs because dead or devastated people don't pay taxes, while the Nazis and Garleans were all about that life.

Further, all of this is pretty superfluous because the Nazis explicitly modeled themselves and their fascist ideology on the Roman Empire. The entire point of the name "Third Reich", in fact, is in deference to the Holy Roman Empire, which was the First Reich (the Hohenzollern Germany was the Second). Even the term "fascism" comes from a Roman term for a bundle of sticks. The Nazis were pretty much Roman Empire LARPers, much like the Garleans are.

Which is a key point, I've noticed. Whenever it is suggested that maybe the protagonists could actually endure some meaningful losses amongst the major characters such a suggestion is shot down - but it's considered acceptable for the game's antagonists, no matter how sympathetic, to lose absolutely everything they care about.

Because the antagonists choose to fight to the last man and live and die by the sword. There were multiple attempts to find common ground or peace with, for example, the Ascians and Garlemald, but both of them made it very clear that they were going to fight to the bitter end. Even if we argue that this was "understandable" for their parts, it doesn't change the fact of.

As I've said before, you can't advocate that only the strong survive or that morality is decided by the victors, and then be upset when it's not you.

So I certainly don't blame them for getting their hands dirty out of necessity to protect their loved ones.

That argument may work for the Ascians, but not the Garleans. The Garleans were waging war of expansion, not defense.

Furthermore, as I've said every other time this exact same discussion has occurred supporting the antagonists does not equal expecting the protagonists to just roll over and die. I liked ShB a lot for that reason. It didn't pretend that both sides lacked a point or that one side winning came at the cost of another. That's how...any conflict works.

While it's nice that Emet-Selch had more nuance, there are many conflicts (both real and fictional) in which one side is either more in the wrong or COMPLETELY wrong.

[hagare]

The Nazis were pretty much Roman Empire LARPers, much like the Garleans are.

now I'm just imagining the SS doing the biggus dickus skit