Is anyone else dying to get to Garlemald?

[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.