Final Fantasy Soft vs Enix

[Abriael]

a) Missed the point of the thread

Not really. It's more that the OP missed his own point, besides trying to beat a dead and buried horse for the millionth time.

b) Condescending and patronising tone again

Not really. Simply realistic.

c) Whereas the Roman Empire had many different qualities throughout its 2,200 years, it was an expansionist civilization which the majority of its leaders achieved through direct conflict. It was at war for the larger part of its existence.

You mean like every civilization during that timeframe?

Expansionism and Militarism were traits endemic of that period of history when peace simply wasn't seen as a value. Not nearly exclusive to the Roman Kingdom, Republic or Empire. Rome simply had the means and strategic ingenuity to actually earn results from those common traits.

If they didn't expand, they would have been expanded upon. That's an iron rule of antiquity, that affected every civilization without any exception.

Civilizations should be judged based on the values of their time, not on modern values that still didn't exist or were simply irrealistic back then.

Abriael, a blunt tone is fine if you lack the eloquence to hold a civil discussion (I'm used to it here), but it's becoming quite clear your intent is to gain some notoriety on these forums to increase the popularity of your review site. It's becoming tiresome watching you derail thread after thread with your passive-aggressive posts.

This is an awesome conspiracy theory, but I've been around here since day one. I doubt I need any effort to gain any kind of notoriety (whether negative or positive).

Besides, I don't know if you noticed, but *very* few people read this forum nowadays, with the majority of the community moved elsewhere. If my goal was to "increase the popularity of my review site" (lol), I'd have plenty better places to be than in this half-abandoned forum.

On the other hand, you seem to enjoy throwing personal attacks quite a lot. Which is funny for someone painting himself as upholding "civil discussion". Also ironic that you'd define my posting passive-aggressive, while yours are quite active-aggressive.

[Bowen]

Stop what.

Your not explaining, what are you talking about??

IDK what your talking about. Do you understand the context of my post sir/miss??

I

I understood your post. I just think that the "Enix vs Soft" debate has been beaten to death already.

I'm not sure what their massage to their fan is anymore but main stream pop-culture and soap-operas. Do you think SE needs to reform?

If that's all you're seeing in the newer games, you really need to go and replay them. FFX touched on topics such as organized religion. The whole idea behind the Church of Yevon was clearly taken from real life Christian organizations. Beyond that, there was the whole point behind Summoner's sacrifices, and Yuna's own personal journey.

If anything, I think the stories and plot points have become more complex and sophisticated since the merge.

[SkyeWindbinder]

a) Missed the point of the thread
b) Condescending and patronising tone again
c) Whereas the Roman Empire had many different qualities throughout its 2,200 years, it was an expansionist civilization which the majority of its leaders achieved through direct conflict. It was at war for the larger part of its existence.

Abriael, a blunt tone is fine if you lack the eloquence to hold a civil discussion (I'm used to it here), but it's becoming quite clear your intent is to gain some notoriety on these forums to increase the popularity of your review site. It's becoming tiresome watching you derail thread after thread with your passive-aggressive posts.

lol Go easy on Abriael. Sometimes he doesn't play well with others, but I don't think he really means any true maliciousness.

Well, for the most part.

[Mjollnir]

Not really. It's more that the OP missed his own point, besides trying to beat a dead and buried horse for the millionth time.

He seems quite cogent to me. As for beating a dead horse; forums are fluid creatures. People may read them every day, once a week, disappear for a bit and come back, etc. If they haven't seen this discussion before, or have evolved their opinion, or the world has moved on since the last time the discussion was active, there's most likely a new perspective to be had. You've tried to stifle that with your post. If the topic was indeed dead, it would have dropped down the boards of its own accord.

Not really. Simply realistic.

Being realistic (which you weren't, as per below) does not preclude being condescending and patronising. Besides, I was making a callback to the other exchange of posts we've had recently.

Rome stuff.

Hang on a sec. PSXpert compared the story with a struggle against the tyranny of Rome. You suggested that such a struggle didn't happen outside of Hollywood. I pointed out that it most certainly did. You respond by listing a lot of unrelated "Rome stuff" which neither defends your position or bears any relevance to the point? It is ok to admit you may have been mistaken (humility is a good quality).

This is an awesome conspiracy theory, but I've been around here since day one. I doubt I need any effort to gain any kind of notoriety (whether negative or positive).

Well if we're dropping FFXIV-lifetime into this, I've also been around since day one too (quite literally; I was in the very first wave of 1.0 alphas). I brought that up because it's only been in the last couple of weeks your posting style has changed from having strong opinions on topics to posting needlessly negative or derogatory comments in certain threads.

Besides, I don't know if you noticed, but *very* few people read this forum nowadays, with the majority of the community moved elsewhere. If my goal was to "increase the popularity of my review site" (lol), I'd have plenty better places to be than in this half-abandoned forum.

I don't consider them half-abandoned. There's a hundred or so active posters and a few hundred more posting intermittently. This community is still here, even if there's not much in the way of FFXIV for us to discuss (thank the mods for allowing the social threads here to prosper). There's an FFXIV forum I've seen recently which has dozens of posts made every minute. The majority of people may be logged in there, but the sense of community is non-existent.

On the other hand, you seem to enjoy throwing personal attacks quite a lot. Which is funny for someone painting himself as upholding "civil discussion". Also ironic that you'd define my posting passive-aggressive, while yours are quite active-aggressive.

Quite a lot? The only thing that I've posted that could be construed as a personal attack is me theorising on your reasons for making rude, derogatory comments. I'm sorry if you took it that way, but you denied it to be the case, so I don't know how you can consider it an attack. Again, quite a lot? No, maybe once, maybe, and for that I apologise. My intention was to discuss a reason for your current attitude. I'm not aware of any personal attacks I've made toward anyone else on the forum (well ok there was that one time with fusional, but I think we resolved that...). If there is, you should probably take this opportunity to highlight them. Else perhaps apologise for that statement, if it's incorrect.

lol Go easy on Abriael. Sometimes he doesn't play well with others, but I don't think he really means any true maliciousness.

Well, for the most part.

I'd go easy on him if he went easy on others. I know you can stand up for yourself (and create half an hour of light reading in the process!), but others don't. Posts like those add weight to the opinion expressed on the fan-site forums that here we are all trolls and fanboys.

When someone decides that they have no need for humility and courtesy in a public place that I frequent (online or off), it goes against my being to sit by and accept it without challenge. We're a community and a certain level of respect and decent behaviour is required to keep it together. And yes, for a large part there's no maliciousness, but taking the time to produce an interview with Yoshi-P and offering commentary on new hardware doesn't give you a right to deride other posters on your whim.

---

Sorry, I hate it when it's necessary to meta-post without bringing anything to the discussion topic, so...

I think comparing the Garlean Empire to Rome is a reasonable allegory, as better explained by those who have become much more involved in the lore than I (do a forum search on "Rome" to read some good posts on the comparison).

[Abriael]

He seems quite cogent to me. As for beating a dead horse; forums are fluid creatures. People may read them every day, once a week, disappear for a bit and come back, etc. If they haven't seen this discussion before, or have evolved their opinion, or the world has moved on since the last time the discussion was active, there's most likely a new perspective to be had. You've tried to stifle that with your post. If the topic was indeed dead, it would have dropped down the boards of its own accord.

That's why we have a search function. You used it yourself. It works.

Being realistic (which you weren't, as per below) does not preclude being condescending and patronising. Besides, I was making a callback to the other exchange of posts we've had recently.

There's nothing "patronizing" or "condescending" in telling someone that he's stating an incorrect concept and why.

Hang on a sec. PSXpert compared the story with a struggle against the tyranny of Rome. You suggested that such a struggle didn't happen outside of Hollywood. I pointed out that it most certainly did. You respond by listing a lot of unrelated "Rome stuff" which neither defends your position or bears any relevance to the point? It is ok to admit you may have been mistaken (humility is a good quality).

I'm not exactly sure what kind of discussion you're used to, but normally "your arguments don't apply because I say they don't apply so I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't exactly work in "civilized discussion" (since that's what you paint yourself as upholding).

Tyranny is a form of government. And Ancient Rome (besides a few very limited and transient periods of its long history) simply never adopted that form of government.

Rome was actually one of the most democratic nations of antiquity, both with its citizen and with annexed populations.

I suggest reading on it. This is a good place to start and it features a tons of sources if you want to go deeper.

Ancient Rome was, for the majority of its history, a mix between an oligarchy and a democracy, even more democratic (especially with annexed nations) than the oft popularly-praised Greek city-states. Check here for a good summary and then expand to the sources if you so wish.

You're simply confusing military expansion with tyranny. But they aren't the same thing.

If you think military expansion is the same as tyranny, then you'll be hard pressed to find many nations that aren't "tyrannical", as a vast majority of them sits on territories conquered with arms, even recently.

Again, you're judging the Roman civilization according to modern moral values, and that's simply inappropriate when studying ancient history.

Well if we're dropping FFXIV-lifetime into this, I've also been around since day one too (quite literally; I was in the very first wave of 1.0 alphas). I brought that up because it's only been in the last couple of weeks your posting style has changed from having strong opinions on topics to posting needlessly negative or derogatory comments in certain threads.

Aside from the fact that my comments are never derogatory towards individuals in this forum (they can be at time towards external individuals, but never without cause), my attitude never changed. I always attack the argument (even very firmly), not the person making it.

Maybe you recently found yourself on the opposite site of the moat, and that made you think that my attitude changed, but that's simply not the case.

Simply put, being on the receiving end of my arguments is quite different than when you agree with me.

I don't consider them half-abandoned. There's a hundred or so active posters and a few hundred more posting intermittently. This community is still here, even if there's not much in the way of FFXIV for us to discuss (thank the mods for allowing the social threads here to prosper). There's an FFXIV forum I've seen recently which has dozens of posts made every minute. The majority of people may be logged in there, but the sense of community is non-existent.

Even assuming your numbers are correct, I'd say it's a tad ridiculous to assume that I'm staging some sort of "advertising campaign" (wasting a crapton of my time) for such small numbers.

I never meant to say that the sense of community is not here, and I agree with your vision of that, but the numbers simply aren't.

Quite a lot? The only thing that I've posted that could be construed as a personal attack is me theorising on your reasons for making rude, derogatory comments. I'm sorry if you took it that way, but you denied it to be the case, so I don't know how you can consider it an attack. Again, quite a lot? No, maybe once, maybe, and for that I apologise. My intention was to discuss a reason for your current attitude. I'm not aware of any personal attacks I've made toward anyone else on the forum (well ok there was that one time with fusional, but I think we resolved that...). If there is, you should probably take this opportunity to highlight them. Else perhaps apologise for that statement, if it's incorrect.

There's no "reason" for my current attitude other the fact that I enjoy frank, honest debate. if someone is wrong, I'll tell him, and explain why at length. Some may not like it, but that's always been the case.

I'd go easy on him if he went easy on others. I know you can stand up for yourself (and create half an hour of light reading in the process!), but others don't. Posts like those add weight to the opinion expressed on the fan-site forums that here we are all trolls and fanboys.

Your idea of "going easy" on someone is simply different from mine. In this forums there are some people expressing concepts that make me triple facepalm by how absolutely nonsensical they are. Most would simply scoff, throw in a personal jab and leave.
I prefer to explain why they are wrong. Even at length if necessary. I would say that's a lot more productive than a lot of what I see around here, but to each his own.

When someone decides that they have no need for humility and courtesy in a public place that I frequent (online or off), it goes against my being to sit by and accept it without challenge. We're a community and a certain level of respect and decent behaviour is required to keep it together. And yes, for a large part there's no maliciousness, but taking the time to produce an interview with Yoshi-P and offering commentary on new hardware doesn't give you a right to deride other posters on your whim.

I would say that your behavior isn't exactly that respectful to begin with. considering that you're attacking the person instead of his arguments, proceeding to go as far as to second guess his motives for posting.

think comparing the Garlean Empire to Rome is a reasonable allegory, as better explained by those who have become much more involved in the lore than I (do a forum search on "Rome" to read some good posts on the comparison).

Rome is an historical nation. The Garlean Empire is a fantasy nation. That alone makes them quite incomparable.

Rome has for the vast majority of its history a nation with strong elements of democracy in its form of government. It was expansionistic, like pretty much every nation in its age, but factually treated annexed nations very fairly for the standards of the time.

While, as far as we know (as information is direly scarce) the Garlean Empire is a full fledged autocracy with some limited elements of military oligarchy, that has no problem committing untold (literally) atrocities on conquered populations.

The parallel between the two civilizations is limited to the use of iconic names (legion, legatus and such) and designs.

The simple fact of the matter is that Hydaelyn is a fully fictional world in which there are good nations and evil nations.

There are the evil invaders and the peaceful victims that would want nothing else than sit on their nice island and not hurt a mosquito.

That kind of black and white setup did not exist in antiquity, where warlike culture was the norm.

[Mjollnir]

That's why we have a search function. You used it yourself. It works.

I had presumed the OP did that. If there's an active post asking a question, I'll respond to it if I want to. I'm not about to search the forum each time someone makes a thread to see if the topic has been covered before, that's ridiculous. I did do a brief search just now on "Squaresoft" and the OPs of threads that it returned didn't posit the same question as is here.

There's nothing "patronizing" or "condescending" in telling someone that he's stating an incorrect concept and why.

No there's not, but that's not what we're talking about. Compare:

No PSXpert, I don't think you're right in comparing the Roman Empire to the Garlean Empire and here's why: (fill in some bits from your most recent post)

Funny you'd mention that, considering that Rome was one of the most democratic and "free" civilizations of antiquity.

Maybe you mean the Rome based in Hollywood, California.

In the second one, I italicised the patronising and condescending bit for you.

I'm not exactly sure what kind of discussion you're used to, but normally "your arguments don't apply because I say they don't apply so I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't exactly work in "civilized discussion" (since that's what you paint yourself as upholding).

You began to talk about something else entirely.

Tyranny stuff

The OP's perspective, one that I should think everyone understood, was that the nation of Rome was tyrannical in its attitude to the parts of the world that were not part of it (because we are talking from a perspective of Eorzea vs Garlemald), not that it was a Tyranny. Luckily, I don't need wiki refresher because I studied Latin for five years, then spent my higher education studying Ancient History, Classical Civilisation and Philosophy. Also, living in one of the countries that was part of the Roman Empire and still having its physical legacy visible on a daily basis, along with historical sites where those that resisted the advance of the Roman Empire fought what I'm confident they perceived as a tyrannical attitude (oppressive and controlling), gives me enough of a basis to form a reasonable judgment. The Iceni would have perceived themselves as resisting the tyranny of Rome, as they would have been oppressed against their will, for instance.

Aside from the fact that my comments are never derogatory towards individuals in this forum (they can be at time towards external individuals, but never without cause), my attitude never changed. I always attack the argument (even very firmly), not the person making it.

Err...

Funny you'd mention that, considering that Rome was one of the most democratic and "free" civilizations of antiquity.

Maybe you mean the Rome based in Hollywood, California.

Ok, call me out if you were making a genuine suggestion and not being derogatory in that closing comment. If that's the case I've totally misread the situation.

Maybe you recently found yourself on the opposite site of the moat, and that made you think that my attitude changed, but that's simply not the case.

Simply put, being on the receiving end of my arguments is quite different than when you agree with me.

Can't think of a time when I've agreed with you previously. I tend to just hit a 'Like' on a post from someone who has already written what I would say though. That's cool; we come to the forms for discussion. I just perceived a lot more hostility than I've seen for a while (good ole ClausL notwithstanding!), specifically from you. Perhaps it's just that time of the month.

Even assuming your numbers are correct, I'd say it's a tad ridiculous to assume that I'm staging some sort of "advertising campaign" (wasting a crapton of my time) for such small numbers.

Fair enough. I'm not in your industry, I have no idea how many people read your editorials and I don't know if you focus entirely on FFXIV or if this is just one of many games for you (I can't answer that for myself because your site is down).

There's no "reason" for my current attitude other the fact that I enjoy frank, honest debate. if someone is wrong, I'll tell him, and explain why at length. Some may not like it, but that's always been the case.

Bold bit: someone has a different opinion and you want to share yours to see if they agree with that instead. If they do, nice. If they don't, they're not wrong. Here, I'm trying to help you see my perspective on all this. You're free to agree or disagree. Ultimately, rhe difference between you're wrong and I disagree.

Your idea of "going easy" on someone is simply different from mine. In this forums there are some people expressing concepts that make me triple facepalm by how absolutely nonsensical they are. Most would simply scoff, throw in a personal jab and leave.
I prefer to explain why they are wrong. Even at length if necessary. I would say that's a lot more productive than a lot of what I see around here, but to each his own.

Err...

Funny you'd mention that, considering that Rome was one of the most democratic and "free" civilizations of antiquity.

Maybe you mean the Rome based in Hollywood, California.

It was only when I called you on that post^ that you began your explanations.

I disagree that in these forums most would throw personal jabs and leave, or that a lot of posts are not productive. I just don't see it.

I would say that your behavior isn't exactly that respectful to begin with considering that you're attacking the person instead of his arguments, proceeding to go as far as to second guess his motives for posting.

Now I already apologised for trying to guess your reasons for your posting style and explained why I did that. That's the second time you've accused me of personal attacks that I've never made and now you're saying I'm not being respectful toward you? If it's truly the case that I've hurt your feelings, I'm sorry (as that is not my intention), but from what you've said about yourself, you'd led me to believe you had a thicker skin than that.

I hope we can both agree now that any further discussion on the meta-matter is just going to be us re-iterating the same differing points of view and call it quits there (though I'd still appreciate an apology). I don't want to get the OP's thread locked over our difference of opinion, which we can continue to debate outside these forums if you really need to.

Rome is an historical nation. The Garlean Empire is a fantasy nation. That alone makes them quite incomparable.

Regarding the thread's actual subject matter, which I'm glad we can return to at the end of our posts, I'm going to have to disagree with you here and leave it at that. To me, this sentence makes zero sense whatsoever, so trying to continue a discussion is going to send us round in circles, as we'd essentially be trying to talk about two different things.

[Abriael]

In the second one, I italicised the patronising and condescending bit for you.

There's nothing patronizing or condescending in that. The fact that Hollywood gave a vision of Rome (and not only Rome) that has absolutely nothing to do with historical reality is indeed a fact.

You began to talk about something else entirely.

Absolutely not. I simply explained why Rome has nothing to do in any realistic shape or form, with a tyranny.

The OP's perspective, one that I should think everyone understood, was that the nation of Rome was tyrannical in its attitude to the parts of the world that were not part of it (because we are talking from a perspective of Eorzea vs Garlemald), not that it was a Tyranny. Luckily, I don't need wiki refresher because I studied Latin for five years, then spent my higher education studying Ancient History, Classical Civilisation and Philosophy. Also, living in one of the countries that was part of the Roman Empire and still having its physical legacy visible on a daily basis, along with historical sites where those that resisted the advance of the Roman Empire fought what I'm confident they perceived as a tyrannical attitude (oppressive and controlling), gives me enough of a basis to form a reasonable judgment. The Iceni would have perceived themselves as resisting the tyranny of Rome, as they would have been oppressed against their will, for instance.

I should have imagined that you were British. British pride brought to an extreme romanticization of the "struggle" of the Iceni and the whole story of Boudica, ignoring facts that staged that uprising. British tradition very conveniently ignores the fact that the Iceni *voluntarily* allied themselves with Rome, and the relationship escalated when their king tried to circumvent Roman succession law (to which he initially agreed).

It's the same British pride that brought The Creative Assembly to the frankly ridiculous idea of including the Iceni as a playable faction in Total War: Rome 2, despite their almost complete historical irrelevance compared to the whole european/middle eastern/north african theater.

Of course It's very possible that you'll take this as a personal jab to your nationality, but it isn't. Every nation tends to put its own roots on a pedestal.

Besides, even if you were to (wrongly) put the entire responsibility of the uprising on Rome, the actions of a single Procurartor during a single situation aren't enough to paint an entire civilization.

Ok, call me out if you were making a genuine suggestion and not being derogatory in that closing comment. If that's the case I've totally misread the situation.

It was simply stating a fact, and that's that hollywood painted Rome as a tyrannical nation, while history denies that vision.

Can't think of a time when I've agreed with you previously. I tend to just hit a 'Like' on a post from someone who has already written what I would say though. That's cool; we come to the forms for discussion. I just perceived a lot more hostility than I've seen for a while (good ole ClausL notwithstanding!), specifically from you. Perhaps it's just that time of the month.

Or maybe it's simply that we're talking about topics close to my heart, like the state of the game industry, and the musconceptions on it, which are an endless source of frustration for me. That aside, my arguments are always aimed to the opposing argument, not to the person (ClausL notwithstanding, but he was simply a troll)-

Fair enough. I'm not in your industry, I have no idea how many people read your editorials and I don't know if you focus entirely on FFXIV or if this is just one of many games for you (I can't answer that for myself because your site is down).

Yeah, our VPS decided to completely change infrastructure without advance notice and they're still working on it. I'd very much like to strangle someone at the moment, but that's entirely unrelated to this discussion.

My site is an entirely generalist one, and frankly, while I definitely enjoy discussion on this forum, it's on a personal level. Even if I were to gain a few more hits they'd be a minimal fraction of our traffic. It's no IGN, bit it's not THAT small
Besides, if I really came here for publicity, don't you think I'd go out of my way to be nice and popular?

Bold bit: someone has a different opinion and you want to share yours to see if they agree with that instead. If they do, nice. If they don't, they're not wrong. Here, I'm trying to help you see my perspective on all this. You're free to agree or disagree. Ultimately, rhe difference between you're wrong and I disagree.

Opinion goes a long way but it doesn't cover every possible situation. When an opinion is based on a factually wrong foundation, it becomes wrong itself.

I disagree that in these forums most would throw personal jabs and leave, or that a lot of posts are not productive. I just don't see it.

I didn't describe a general situation, as much as how many behave when there's conflict.

Now I already apologised for trying to guess your reasons for your posting style and explained why I did that. That's the second time you've accused me of personal attacks that I've never made and now you're saying I'm not being respectful toward you? If it's truly the case that I've hurt your feelings, I'm sorry (as that is not my intention), but from what you've said about yourself, you'd led me to believe you had a thicker skin than that.

Don't worry. My feelings aren't hurt. I just let you know that if you want to uphold the banner of "civil discussion" you may want to direct your retorts at my arguments and not at me, because that's the basics of civil discussion.

Regarding the thread's actual subject matter, which I'm glad we can return to at the end of our posts, I'm going to have to disagree with you here and leave it at that. To me, this sentence makes zero sense whatsoever, so trying to continue a discussion is going to send us round in circles, as we'd essentially be trying to talk about two different things.

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense to you. Historical reality is a lot more complex than Fantasy reality.

The Garlean Empire is described as wholly evil (to the point of systematical genocide), with a few honorable but still dark exceptions (like Van Baelsar). That's something that works well in fantasy, but through the history of humanity nations that could be described as "evil" even just by limiting it to the government are very, very rare.

[Cedri]

This horse has been ridden, beaten, left to die in the desert, and beaten again.

Please, just stop. ;_;

You forgot electrocuted, treated for severe burns, burned again, left untreated so it developed a skin infection, had to be put down, revived by a necromancer of the underworld, used for evil, finally defeated by the mahou shoujo army of Nique's thread, restored back to normal horse...ness and then beaten again.

[Mjollnir]

Re: the Iceni, I'd re-read your Tacitus, or summary thereof.

Of course It's very possible that you'll take this as a personal jab to your nationality, but it isn't. Every nation tends to put its own roots on a pedestal.

Don't worry about that; I have no national pride. Personally, I consider the notion foolish; each to their own though. Also, my ancestors didn't so much oppress and control the native Britons as indiscriminately rape and murder them quite literally into the Dark Ages. I don't revere those roots.

I just let you know that if you want to uphold the banner of "civil discussion" you may want to direct your retorts at my arguments and not at me, because that's the basics of civil discussion.

Naw, civil discussion requires manners. Despite my attempts to provoke some from you it's not occurred.

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense to you. Historical reality is a lot more complex than Fantasy reality.

You can compare FFXIV grass to real grass. You can compare Garlemald to Rome. To come back at me with "you can't" gets us nowhere. Let's leave it alone now.

[Abriael]

Re: the Iceni, I'd re-read your Tacitus, or summary thereof.

Tacitus isn't the only source, and there are tons of books written on the topic.

Don't worry about that; I have no national pride. Personally, I consider the notion foolish; each to their own though. Also, my ancestors didn't so much oppress and control the native Britons as indiscriminately rape and murder them quite literally into the Dark Ages. I don't revere those roots.

Glad that we agree on something.

Naw, civil discussion requires manners. Despite my attempts to provoke some from you it's not occurred.

I would say countering the arguments and not the person is included in the definition of "manners" during discussion. Despite my attempts to provoke that in you, it's not occurred.

You can compare FFXIV grass to real grass. You can compare Garlemald to Rome. To come back at me with "you can't" gets us nowhere. Let's leave it alone now.

I guess you can "compare" yes. I used the wrong term. You can indeed compare them and notice that they were completely different in their political stricture, ethos, values and behavior towards the conquered.