A game for 4 year olds

[thegreatonemal]

Slavery not making as much money will have eaten away at the power of those standing in the way of abolishing slavery, but it doesn't make much sense as a motivating factor in and of itself. It's not like the actual business of ending it was free.

Slave revolts being another factor, the risk were simply getting too big to try and maintain it. It's not as the British people suddenly grew a heart but that does make for good PR.

[Iscah]

A leader "refusing to be dominated by other powers" would mean one who stands firm and upholds their own country's territory and interests; it has nothing to do with taking over others. And it wouldn't be a new thing when we already Merlwyb, Kan-E, Nanamo and Lyse.

[Denishia]

As someone who isn't Mestizo and only lives a hundred miles from the Mexican border instead of an actual citizen of that country, I will not speak on any authority. But I will say that if you asked a descendent of Spanish imperialism in a region that also suffered under Aztec imperialism, let alone an actual historian, then the feelings towards the Spanish conquest are Mixed at best. There is a reason that La Malinche is commonly reviled in modern Mexico. And one only needs to look at reports from the Spanish missionaries on the ground to see that even the Spanish recognized they were another variation on oppression - even without factoring in the unintentional genocide of smallpox and other diseases. In simplistic terms and to sum up centuries of Mexican history of which striving to free themselves from Spanish rule and reclaim their suppressed culture and heritage is a major component, yes the Aztecs were bad but they did not think the Spanish were better.

(And if you aren't familiar with the story of Malinche, I do recommend reading about her. Especially if you enjoyed Stormblood.)

[WhiteArchmage]

snip

I am actually Mexican so allow me to intervene. Yes, the Nahuas were highly unpopular in that time period (almost like, idk, being an expansionist Empire and demanding tribute from conquered nations doesn't make you much friends), and Cortez basically promised the Tlaxcaltecs that they would topple the Nahuas and leave them in power before stabbing them in the back and conquering the rest of the natives. Malintzin (La Malinche) was in the very unfortunate position of having been sold as a slave to at least 3 tribes before the Nahuas eventually gifted her to Cortez, which made her very valuable as a translator.

Also we talk about the Encomiendas, where the church gave a well-to-do Spaniard control over certain groups living in what's now the Spaniard's territory and task them with "looking after them" which meant converting them to Christianity, putting them to work on the fields, and preventing them from moving elsewhere because they are, after all, under the "protection" of him. Which checks off a lot of the slavery boxes without being named such.

And that's without mentioning how the Spaniards destroyed an astounding amount of religious and cultural texts, so most of what we DO know about pre-hispanic cultures comes from oral tradition being carried over and the few texts remaining (and carvings, of course). So saying that the peoples of Mexico were better off withthe Spaniards... Yeah, nope, it was an entire cultural erasure and takeover. Even now there's a whoooole identity crisis as few of us really know where we come from, not just on which of our ancestors were Spaniards and which were Natives (let alone from which tribe), but also because records were lost, when they were even kept. Heck, thanks to the Caste System, even Mexico-born Spaniards (Criollos) were second-class citizens, unable to inherit land, titles or anything; women were sent off to Spain so they could give birth there to their firstborn and screw the rest of the kids.

The thing is, is that after the point of Solus' death, Garlemald was no longer capable of stable rule.

Also it can't be highlighted enough that the chaos in Garlemald after Solus' death was by design. Everything that eventually bit Garlemald in the ass was deliberately crafted by Solus to create as much chaos as possible (..ok, fine, almost everything, I don't think he saw Fandaniel coming).

[Denishia]

Thank you for jumping in! I didn't feel comfortable as a gringo in Texas but even I knew enough that the statement about the Spanish conquest raised my hackles. I didn't know enough about how the Nahua (Aztec) treated the various conquered and vassal states in the region to know if they suppressed language and religion as well as the slaves and tribute, but I didn't think so, which is not something that could be said for the Spanish. And the Encomiendas were serfdom if not outright slavery (and to go into Texan history- Mexico finally winning its independence from Spain and outlawing slavery was what kicked off that particular war).

[MikkoAkure]

Slave revolts being another factor, the risk were simply getting too big to try and maintain it. It's not as the British people suddenly grew a heart but that does make for good PR.

The Brits also still turned around and introduced Indian indentured servitude to replace the slaves, which for all intents and purposes was nearly the same thing: free labor under grueling conditions. That also only ended because it ceased to be as profitable.

Also it can't be highlighted enough that the chaos in Garlemald after Solus' death was by design. Everything that eventually bit Garlemald in the ass was deliberately crafted by Solus to create as much chaos as possible (..ok, fine, almost everything, I don't think he saw Fandaniel coming).

Going back to FF and before he's brought up, Varis didn't bring stability after Solus' death either. Of the two choices of emperor during the civil war, he was the worst for both everyone else in the world as well as Garlemald itself. He has equal blame for the civil war as Titus and later purged Titus' faction, the Populares, who had been on a platform of reforms for the provinces and thought that expansionism wasn't good. Varis' decisions lost Ala Mhigo and Doma, which set off copycat rebellions across the empire. Dalmasca was made an example of since they had rebelled repeatedly and the capital of Rabanastre was turned to rubble. He lost 2 more legions, with the XIIth being destroyed at Ala Mhigo and the VIth being left in Eorzea. Though at this point with the VIth it feels super awkward they're just hanging there with the largest airship in the Garlean fleet doing nothing.

Varis also wanted to destroy the world multiple times over to finish the Rejoinings within one lifetime, which also doesn't typically mean stability. In the 8UC timeline, he only managed to get one Calamity off before it backfired in his face and destroyed the Garlean Empire as well as his enemies. In our own timeline, he kept Zenos's Ascian puppet as his official heir, which wouldn't exactly have been good for the world had a new Ascian been on the throne, but it wasn't good for him in the end either when Zenos came back to took his body and killed him. Nerva had correctly deduced that Zenos was an "demonic" meat puppet and Varis' lie that Zenos just got injured and then got better later was difficult to believe and that led to the 2nd civil war that destroyed Garlemald in the end.

[KariTheFox]

The British abolished slavery because it wasn't making them enough money, not because they realized slavery=bad.

Well, there's some truth to that. Abolitionism was inspired by a genuine moral objection to slavery by quakers and other groups, but it really only gained traction after the industrial revoltution and a bunch of revolts in slave colonies. By the time slavery was abolished, the British economy didn't really rely on it (it did rely on the subjugation and oppression of people from Africa and the Indian subcontienent though, as far as moral actors go I wouldn't really point to the British Empire in the 19th century.)

As for Spain, any historical account of how the Spanish Empire treated the native population of the Americas is pretty horrific, and it's not somehow cancelled out by the actions of the Aztecs.

The Roman Empire is a more difficult one to judge, since most sourced we have about it come from Roman sources, from a time period when "political bias" in the recording of events was explicitly encouraged, instead of something to be avoided. Though Rome did exist before the kind of industrialized oppression and resource extraction that defines modern colonialism really existed. Which makes comparisons pretty difficult.

[Alleluia]

I mean re: the Aztecs, I would still say everything that was mentioned was better than being a subject to an empire that performed ritualized human sacrifice with its human tribute. I never claimed the Spaniards were utopian. It was a comparison. The quote I was responding to claimed that historically there haven’t been cases where the conquered were worse than the conquerors, and I don’t think that’s true.

And the Brits didn’t only abolish slavery within their own territory, they enforced a stop on trade of them in international waters, too by other countries. It wasn’t cheap in either blood or money. There was a moral conviction there for people to be willling to die over it. And I don’t see how profit and cost reduction would force abolition of slavery. If slavery was a hit to the bottom line then factories could have simply not bought them? It wouldn’t require abolition to simply not use the system. Alternatively, if you mean slavery being in competition with factories hurt factories’ bottom lines, that must mean slavery was profitable. Which would actually be an incentive to keep slavery by the, presumably older money and more influential, people who had them and were using them in competition to the factories. So either way, a purely profit motive for abolishing it, much less enforcing that abolition elsewhere, makes no sense to me. Im sure there were interests that had a money motive to abolish it, but I don’t think it’s fair to claim that was the only reason.

But, regardless of pure or mixed motives, slavery was still abolished. Which is inherently a better condition than having slavery.

My point was less bad civilizations have arguably conquered more unpleasant civilizations before. Which was the quoted statement I was responding to.

[thegreatonemal]

I mean re: the Aztecs, I would still say everything that was mentioned was better than being a subject to an empire that performed ritualized human sacrifice with its human tribute. I never claimed the Spaniards were utopian. It was a comparison. The quote I was responding to claimed that historically there haven’t been cases where the conquered were worse than the conquerors, and I don’t think that’s true.

And the Brits didn’t only abolish slavery within their own territory, they enforced a stop on trade of them in international waters, too by other countries. It wasn’t cheap in either blood or money. There was a moral conviction there for people to be willling to die over it. And I don’t see how profit and cost reduction would force abolition of slavery. If slavery was a hit to the bottom line then factories could have simply not bought them? It wouldn’t require abolition to simply not use the system. Alternatively, if you mean slavery being in competition with factories hurt factories’ bottom lines, that must mean slavery was profitable. Which would actually be an incentive to keep slavery by the, presumably older money and more influential, people who had them and were using them in competition to the factories. So either way, a purely profit motive for abolishing it, much less enforcing that abolition elsewhere, makes no sense to me. Im sure there were interests that had a money motive to abolish it, but I don’t think it’s fair to claim that was the only reason.

But, regardless of pure or mixed motives, slavery was still abolished. Which is inherently a better condition than having slavery.

My point was less bad civilizations have arguably conquered more unpleasant civilizations before. Which was the quoted statement I was responding to.

Yes because the Spanish didn't kill people for no good reason either using religion as an example. Your comparison is pointless nobody was acting like other groups were goodie two shoes and to be frank this comparison is used by some pretty foul people all the time. Yes the Brits but pressure on others to get rid of slavery, because if they couldn't make as much money off it, nobody should.

[Cleretic]

I do want to say a huge thanks to Denishia and WhiteArchemage for stepping in with better knowledge than I had on the whole 'Cortez Vs. the Aztecs' situation. While I knew as a fact that it wasn't nearly as simple as 'the Aztecs were bad, then the Spanish came in and were better', it's also one of the parts of world history where my knowledge is so poor that the Civilization games are a significant percentage of my knowledge; I live very far away from that part of the world both geographically and culturally.

My knowledge of colonialist history is rooted in being Australian. Ours is best described as 'worse than you expect, for longer than you'd think'; almost worse than the many acts committed against our First Nations people is the fact that people who were direct victims and perpetrators of that are still alive, it's not exactly distant history. Our story is much closer to Limsa than anything touched by Garlemald, though. (Which for the record means I actually quite like Limsa's recent stories!)