What do you think Garlemald currently is?

[Hinoto-no-Ryuji]

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.

[Frederick22]

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.

[Dante_V]

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

[Theodric]

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.

[Februs]

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.

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).

[Hinoto-no-Ryuji]

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.

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.

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.

[Februs]

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.

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."