Garlemald's situation. (Spoilers 6.55)

[Cleretic]

I disagree with Scribe about that being on the table. I think it's possible, but only in the sense that, like, it's also possible that Ishgard could invade the Thanalan; yes, people are in position to, but doing so would require a will that I just don't think is there. A big part of Garlean history is that Garlemald is where it is because they were bullied off into the ass-end of nowhere thanks to resource scrambles, but the fact that they're in the ass-end of nowhere means that they don't really have a lot of tactical value to anyone else. Sure, they've got ceruleum, but they're also the only nation that really wants ceruleum enough to go kill for it. Much more likely is that they'll start trading with it with more niche interested parties like the Skysteel Manufactory than, like, Bozja deciding 'let's take their magic-oil'.

That only really leaves the motivation of raw vengeance, and... honestly, that's just not really how war politics works. Sure, wars can be drawn out longer out of emotions like that, and we've definitely got in-setting examples of that, but actually getting into a war in the first place out of vengeance, that's just... not really a popular or smart move in the real world or XIV's. Certainly, none of the leaders we've met are the type to do that (especially since most of them are at least generally familiar with why the Dragonsong War sucked), and nothing we've really heard about unseen occupied lands suggests they are either. Hell, remember that Locus Amoenus is still calling itself Locus Amoenus; there's not even will to change their name back, why would there be will to mobilize a 'Kick 'Em While They're Down' war?

All of these thoughts that Garlemald could get attacked are actually falling more into the rhetoric that Solus Galvus and his faithful weaved to justify their imperialism in the first place; that everyone around Garlemald are just inherently bullies, that they had to swing first because the notion that someone else would take from them was inevitable. And not only do I not think that any in-universe country we're aware of is that cruel or vindictive, I also don't think that we're playing a game that would do that.

The exception is the Turalian warmonger, but like Silvermoon said, I think that's more just seeing land ripe to conquer in general rather than specifically wanting Garlemald. I also think we're gonna put a stop to that before he gets to even set any boats out to sea.

[Eisi]

This is the sort of story that Endwalker (or rather the expansion that should have been the first part of Endwalker) should have already told, one in which the Eorzean Alliance doesn't march into Garlemald on their own but as part of an international effort that would include representatives of Garlemald's former satellites, some of which would absolutely want to see every last Garlean responsible for upholding the system at a stake.

[Vallavia]

If I were a conquered nation that suffered under Garlean occupation for 15-50 years, my chief concern would be making absolute certain that they weren't just going to resupply and conquer me right back. Besides, as others have mentioned, there's no real strategic value to any of the few territories that the Garleans have left, and nobody in Ilsabard is likely to have the military resources at this juncture to launch a campaign of vengeance outside of maybe Landis which was largely content under Garlean rule.

This is the sort of story that Endwalker (or rather the expansion that should have been the first part of Endwalker) should have already told, one in which the Eorzean Alliance doesn't march into Garlemald on their own but as part of an international effort that would include representatives of Garlemald's former satellites, some of which would absolutely want to see every last Garlean responsible for upholding the system at a stake.

While I'm willing to concede the Warrior of Light being an unfailing paragon of altruism, it is still, to this day, extremely frustrating that any internal division among the Alliance regarding the fate of the empire is glossed over by the narrative and that very few of the people who suffered the most under imperial oppression have any involvement in the resolution of that arc. Yes, somebody needs to stop the cycle of revenge that fueled Garlemald's unceasing engine of perpetual retribution against everyone and no one in particular, but it seems like a huge cop-out for everyone to just agree that they've suffered enough and that nobody is to be held for account for the atrocities that were committed in the name of Garlean imperialism that they still wholeheartedly believe in.

I also loathed the self-effacing "maybe we are the bloodthirsty conquerors" angle for the Alliance, who just showed up with only the absolute best of intentions to literally save all life on Etheirys from certain doom. It would certainly have been a better beat to play at the conclusion of a long campaign winding northward through Ilsabard than one where we simply materialize at Fandaniel's doorstep. Showing Garleans in that arc with a greater diversity of opinion than all being unfaltering nationalist sycophants might help too.

[RavLandslide]

This is the sort of story that Endwalker (or rather the expansion that should have been the first part of Endwalker) should have already told, one in which the Eorzean Alliance doesn't march into Garlemald on their own but as part of an international effort that would include representatives of Garlemald's former satellites, some of which would absolutely want to see every last Garlean responsible for upholding the system at a stake.

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...

[Lady_Silvermoon]

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.

[Cleretic]

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.

[YianKutku]

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.

[Cleretic]

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.

[Mayhemmer]

The exception is the Turalian warmonger, but like Silvermoon said, I think that's more just seeing land ripe to conquer in general rather than specifically wanting Garlemald. I also think we're gonna put a stop to that before he gets to even set any boats out to sea.

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.

[Cleretic]

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.