A game for 4 year olds

[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.

[thegreatonemal]

I mean there are real world examples. The British Empire abolishing slavery while several of the African tribes and nations they and others colonized practiced enslavement of their neighbors, plus exporting them. To be fair, the Brits didn't start out with that position. But they did get better and reach it, even while those tribes did not in that same time period.

The Spaniards conquering the Aztecs was a case of it too if you consider live human sacrifice to be worse than the Spaniards, which I would argue it was. Then you have older examples of Rome conquering several neighboring nations, with some of them having way less egalitarian legal standards than the Romans did. And I'm sure you can argue Nobunaga in Japan was better than several neighboring warlords he conquered, though probably also worse than some. (I'm not super familiar with Japanese history.)

Examples exist, though what "better" is can often (but not always imo) be argued about and considered relative. In-game, yeah, the Garlean rule is mostly not a purely civilizing influence that made things better than they were before. They are typically shown as a case of new problems replacing old problems at best, with some exceptions.

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

[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.)

[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.

[MikkoAkure]

That basically sums up the new position of the new Empress regarding the territories, was thinking that there could be some pretty backwards Druid/Viking regions somewhere in Ilsabard to fit the sort of warlords she refused to hand power back over to. Stable rule under a benevolent Empress is preferable to chaos. I should have thought given the trends I've seen of the posters here that they would jump at the chance to back a new female political leader who refuses to let herself be dominated by the powers around her.

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

Both wars of succession involved the legions fighting each other with the fate of the leadership of the country being uncertain and I would consider that chaos, not stability. On top of that, Shadowbringers ends with the destruction of Garlemald in the second war of succession. The capital of your empire being in ruins and the military that kept the peace in the empire being depleted with full legions deserting to create their own countries doesn't exactly lend itself to a stable empire, even if another Galvus' butt was place on the throne. Ultimately, I don't see how keeping the empire is better than returning power, especially since the they can no longer provide safety.

Your story involved a Garlean noble breaking the rules of Garlean nobility and culture to take the throne. Her first initial supporter is Gaius, who himself is a Garlean pariah labeled as the previous emperor's assassin. Even if your story takes place, her power is given to her by a deserted legatus ruling a breakaway province and depends on the support of a foreign army. Unless you retcon Shadowbringers, the empire is still fraying at the edges and has lost all of its territory outside Ilsabard, with the rebellions providing inspiration to others. She has no actual Garlean legions backing her and if she belongs to a faction, you didn't mention it. On top of that, your story has her dissolve the senate, which had been the governing body for ~550 years and the advisory body to the emperor after that. There's no way that's going to be a stable rule on its own unless the plot just says so and is left at that.


We do know of a viking culture in the game, Aerslaent, but they're extremely far away and considering Garlemald didn't bother with Hingashi, which is closer to their held territory, the Garleans probably haven't bothered with it. Since Garlemald is already in the furthest northern wastes of Ilsabard where such a culture would rise, I don't think there would be any warlord cultures other than the ones they put down to guarantee their safety during their republic days. Hypothesizing the existence of possible terrible warlords of "backwards" regions in Ilsabard we don't know about will just lead to endless "what ifs". What we do know is that every region so far visited or mentioned as part of a full storyline (not counting field records of places alluded to) that has been a Garlean province hasn't liked it and has rebelled successfully.

The closest equivalent might be Nagxia, since that was said to be a wasteland even before the Garleans came, but the Garleans didn't make it any better and what we do know of that place involves the XIth legion stuck in Garlemald's version of Vietnam, fighting against guerillas in the jungle and destroying native peoples' villages. Captured Domans were also sent to Nagxia by the Garleans to do grueling work. Doma itself has petty kings and warlords, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks that Yotsuyu's Doma is better than the way it was before.

[Jandor]

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

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.

[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).

[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.

[rxantos]

Disagree. Anything that is in the FF14 game and comes from Squarenix is by definition canon.

Is just that some writers in Squarenix are really good, and some writers are really bad. But since the stories are on the game and are from the same company that is running the game, they are indeed canon (at least for the particular game).

[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).