Is anyone else dying to get to Garlemald?

[Kallera]

To Klonoa's point, if it is all their fault, as in everything in the setting, and truly as black as you say, then why let them live? Wasn't Zenos enough of a lesson, of letting your enemies live long enough to foster the strength to come at you again. Are you going to be satisfied with them coming back into governance after they are inevitably crushed? Are you willing to let them choose a decision that you may not agree with?

If you cannot find something to relate to, either you do not know enough about them, or you know all you care to. It sounds like you are arguing that they are irredeemable, while at the same time sparing these irredeemable people for traits you don't believe exist in them... Is that the case?

I do not see it as all their fault, especially with the primal problem given the setting and their limitations, so the point is pretty much moot to me. I'm aware that there are facets about that society that need to change, much like Ishgard when we first went there. I'm waiting for the sane representations of Garlean government to appear on screen as well, as I know they exist, and that npcs from the empire have discussed about them. Indeed, they couldn't have an empire without it.

But if you cannot see anything worth relating with them and do not see it in the future then calls for their annihilation are bound to exist.

Edit: I'm thinking (hoping really) that we are arguing the same point. I haven't looked foward to this conflict.

[Kallera]

I agree with cillia about the using germany as a comparison, Its a step too far to facilitate discussion.

[Alleo]

I agree with cillia about the using germany as a comparison, Its a step too far to facilitate discussion.

But she also pointed out that there are similarities that cant just be ignored. (Even if this seemingly makes some uncomfortable) I do agree that nobody is something like that in the real life if they like Garlemald. (Because liking something in fiction will never mean that you like that in real life too.) But I just dont see why its going too far with that regime but not with the roman or British empire. All of this is part of the history of earth and if we allow real life examples in some points we should also allow it in others.

Anyway I am still kinda hoping that people will point out what good side the empire has or which good actions the empire ever showed.

[Theodric]

There aren't really many similarities at all. Garlemald is based almost entirely off of the Roman Empire, which whilst far from perfect brought with it a lot of good in terms of art, culture, language, education, architecture and inventions. It's also somewhat based off of the British Empire to a lesser extent.

We can look at other periods of history, too, such as the Victorian age of enlightenment. That advanced civilisation immensely but it wasn't without flaws or dubious experimentation. The Victorian stance on medical issues, for instance, was rather harsh and misguided...but at the same time it was a necessary evil as it helped to push society forward and contributed to what we see today. Even the present day isn't without such flaws - one needs only look at what many countries politicians are involved in when it comes to scandals, their loyalties and financial interests, their policies and so on.

As far as Garlemald's good side is concerned, many aspects have been pointed out already. The most important aspect, however, is that FFXIV follows a somewhat steady formula. Ishgard was not painted in a flattering light - we were literally seeing innocent people accused of being heretics and thrown off of a cliff to perish and rot at the bottom of a dark, lonely chasm. That did not mean that every Ishgardian we met was a bad apple, though. Nor did we seek to intervene in their ways until it became apparent that there was more to the conflict between Nidhogg's brood and Ishgard's people.

Zenos, too, was introduced as a horrific individual. By his own admittance, though, he cared not for Garlemald or his father's cause. He was also written off as a monster by his own father who stated that such men were not made for thrones. Before Zenos controlled Ala Mhigo Gaius held the reins and by all accounts he was harsh but fair, often defending the people of Gyr Abania against the darker elements of Garlemald.

Then there's a side quest in Gyr Abania where a Garlean in charge of a particular settlement surrenders the place to the Ala Mhigan Resistance without a fight. The people within are reluctant to hand him over to the Eorzean Alliance and Resistance because they fear that he will be executed.

The reason? Once he took command he treated them exceptionally well, to the point where he became beloved by those who resided there. This aligns very much with the likes of Gaius and Regula - and it is highly likely that there are more men and women like them elsewhere.

Furthermore, the same Garlean points out that it is fascinating how different regions under Garlean control can be. In some places, the people there would sooner seek death to end their suffering whilst in other locations there is prosperity and life is virtually unchanged. This aligns very much with, again, the Roman and British Empires.

We will inevitably see more of Garlemald in due time and as always the Warrior of Light and his allies will likely seek to cut out the rot that exists, learn the truths of Garlemald's origins and see the other side of the story. They'll meet more Garleans worthy of respect and aid them - and be helped in turn.

We're not going there to wipe it off of the map. If that was the intention then the groundwork for moral greyness would not have been laid.

[Cilia]

But she also pointed out that there are similarities that cant just be ignored. (Even if this seemingly makes some uncomfortable) I do agree that nobody is something like that in the real life if they like Garlemald. (Because liking something in fiction will never mean that you like that in real life too.) But I just dont see why its going too far with that regime but not with the roman or British empire. All of this is part of the history of earth and if we allow real life examples in some points we should also allow it in others.

People dislike bringing up the Nazis because they feel not only that it's disrespectful to the still-living survivors of that horror, the term is thrown about rather liberally on the internet, and doing so inevitably leads to someone being labeled a Nazi sympathizer and the discussion / debate devolving into a flame war. It never leads to anything good. I personally have no problems with it (so long as there are rather clear and direct parallels) or avoiding accusations of Nazi sympathy... but in the interest of keeping things civil so the discussion / debate can continue, I avoid it.

However...

There aren't really many similarities at all. Garlemald is based almost entirely off of the Roman Empire, which whilst far from perfect brought with it a lot of good in terms of art, culture, language, education, architecture and inventions. It's also somewhat based off of the British Empire to a lesser extent.

...

We're not going there to wipe it off of the map. If that was the intention then the groundwork for moral greyness would not have been laid.

This kind of invites it.

While there are no perfect records of Roman history, there are some marked differences in how Rome and Garlemald conduct themselves. (Or how Rome conducted itself. You know what I mean.) The first that comes to mind is how foreign sovereigns from conquered territories were treated. Rome tended to send the rulers of such territories to Rome itself, indulge them in the pleasures of the imperial city, and then send them home as loyal citizens. Garlemald... does not. As I recall they held Kaien in Doma Castle for twenty-five years until his death during the failed rebellion.

Rome was largely content to leave the civilians of its provinces alone, provided they pay their taxes and obey their laws. Garlemald will forcefully (and deceitfully) conscript civilians into military service if it wants to. (Did Rome? I can't remember off the top of my head.) Cf. the villagers of Namai, who were pressed into service for the Confederacy's defiance. Like Garlemald, Roman military service guaranteed citizenship, but Roman conscription lasted only six years... not twenty.

Rome also never developed or deployed chemical weapons. Garlemald has them, but only Gaius' decency (which was born of a selfish desire to have something to rule, not genuine benevolence) prevented it from being deployed.

Is it true that we tend to see the bad sides of places before we go there, only to find out there's more to the picture than that? Certainly. Ishgard was like that. Ala Mhigo was like that. (Doma... I don't recall anyone acting or saying anything bad about it.) Yet... I can only draw conclusions with what I know. What I've seen. What I've seen, especially in 4.0, does not paint Garlemald in a positive light. At all. Granted we were fighting a wild dog of war, but even Gaius and Regula weren't exactly the sort of genuinely benevolent Garlean national we need to go there on peaceful terms. (One declared his ability to conquer Eorzea gave him the right to do so, the other called us savages even while proposing cooperation. Though he did sacrifice himself for someone else shortly thereafter...) I'd also counsel against using Gaius as the baseline for how Garlean legates govern their lands and treat their people - he was well-noted for his relative progressiveness and meritocracy, attitudes no other Garlean has been shown to share. (Or: the VIth thinks Regula got his station by being Varis' friend, the XIIth thinks Fordola got her station by whoring herself out for it.)

I'll never say Garlemald is irredeemable. I'll never condone glassing the place - that's not an acceptable solution. Still, unless we get someone who is not a power-hungry tyrant into a position of power, clashes with the Empire will continue. And the whole "savages" thing still really, really rustles my jimmies.

I'd be very interested to see how people in provinces outside Eorzea and Othard feel about their rulers and how they are treated. Very interested...

Ehh, it's late and I need to get to bed. (I got a sweet Gordian Katana though!) In short... while I don't deny that Garlemald could be better than what we've seen, I can only draw conclusions based on what we've seen, and it's not flattering.

[LalafellDown]

I hope one day the people of Eorzea will realize that we should embrace empire and take down these false Gods (giant talking crystal) who clame to rule our lives .

[Gaiussenpai]

I hope we get to see territories run by more sensible viceroys because we only seen Zenos who ran both Gyr Abania and Othard to the detriment of his own nation to get a adrenaline rush.

[Grayve]

Well, this thread got unpleasant fast. To answer the original question, not really. I don't expect them to be able to portray a nuenced society very well. Stormbloodhad problems with its MSQ that still irk me. Why is a single legion in charge of such wildly separate provinces? Why does no reinforcements show up? Why does the Emperor allow Xenos to make a game out of two entire provinces? Sure, you can explain it away, but "because xenos wanted a BFF" reduced an interesting Empire to clicheness. Still liked SB but felt lit it really failed to display the strength of the Empire.

[Theodric]

The easiest solution would be to simply introduce a Garlean Legion that upholds a similar sense of honour to the likes of Regula and Baut. For those unfamiliar, Baut is a Garlean formerly in command of one of the liberated settlements in Gyr Abania. The people there loved him so much that they conspired to refuse to hand him over to the Eorzean Alliance and Ala Mhigan Resistance because his leadership was both fair and just. We also know that not all the lands under Garlean rule are cesspits - some places are virtually unchanged and prosper.

I believe we'll see the better sides of Garlemald in due time. The groundwork has already been laid - it's just a matter of waiting for the story to head towards a more cordial approach to Garlemald. With any luck we'll see the Garlean Consulate used to hold talks with someone prominent hailing from Garlemald itself who wishes to put an end to the needless bloodshed on both sides. That very much aligns with the goals of the Warrior of Light and Scions...or at least it should align with their goals. Blind vengeance isn't the right route to take, especially since the Garleans were persecuted themselves in the past.

Though I do hope we don't see more 'revolutions'. Garlemald needs reform, not to be the punching bag for another expansion or two. Now that we're moving away from Eorzea, too, I'd rather see Eorzea's influence on the world stage lessen so that we can see other regions prosper and shine - including Garlemald.

[Theodric]

Regula was shown to be benevolent, though.

- He refused to strike at Ulk...(?) due to him being a child.
- He also refused to strike at Krile as well.
- When Y'shtola criticised him for wanting to work with the Warrior of Light and the Scions to put an end to Zurvan despite being responsible for Ysayle's demise he pointed out that he, too, had lost those he cared about. Namely his men. Arguably he had lost more since Ysayle was but one person and everybody else who came to Azyz Lla survived.
- His primary concern upon Zurvan starting to break free from his bindings was to defend not only his own men but the Warrior of Light and the Scions as well.
- He literally died to protect a child.

Regula and other Garleans referring to Eorzeans as 'savages' isn't entirely incorrect from their perspective. Furthermore, it's not as if the Garleans are not referred to in worse terms by Eorzeans themselves at various points. Not entirely unjustified, either - but the 'savages' term likely stems from bitterness at how poorly Garleans were treated before Garlemald came to be a successful Empire. Even putting Garlemald aside there's a lot of racism within Eorzea itself in both the past and present.