Garlemald's situation. (Spoilers 6.55)

[Pimsan20]

Just saw a video of one of the FF XIV lore channel, explaining the situation and the potential that Garlemald could be invaded or attack by one of the civilizations that they either conquered or not.

Wuk Lamat mentioned one of her brothers wanted to conquering Garlemald, showing that the civilization and it's people are still in danger because of the deeds they have done. And even if the scions and we, the warriors of light try to stop this, that doesn't mean Wuk Lamat's brother will be the last, since a lot of people would see the Garleans burn.

So i wonder if in Dawntrail and maybe other expansion will show us if this would happen. Since Garlemald is in a weakens sate and the source has suffered 60/70 years under the Galrean's yolk, i wouldn't be surprise if they would attack them out of hatred and demanding justice and revenge of what the Garlemald has done to them.

[Tsiron]

As cathartic as that would be, the fact we'd then be forced to jump to their defense makes me hope that never ends up being the case

[Pimsan20]

I think that will be the field operation in Dawntrail. Just something out the top of my head, but it would make sense if you have Garlemald's situation.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

I took that part to mean that with the Garleans out of the way, Eorzea is free to conquer. Not that they were gonna march through several Eorzean city-states to go attack a barren ice field of civilians huddled in a train station.

[Cleretic]

I disagree with Scribe about that being on the table. I think it's possible, but only in the sense that, like, it's also possible that Ishgard could invade the Thanalan; yes, people are in position to, but doing so would require a will that I just don't think is there. A big part of Garlean history is that Garlemald is where it is because they were bullied off into the ass-end of nowhere thanks to resource scrambles, but the fact that they're in the ass-end of nowhere means that they don't really have a lot of tactical value to anyone else. Sure, they've got ceruleum, but they're also the only nation that really wants ceruleum enough to go kill for it. Much more likely is that they'll start trading with it with more niche interested parties like the Skysteel Manufactory than, like, Bozja deciding 'let's take their magic-oil'.

That only really leaves the motivation of raw vengeance, and... honestly, that's just not really how war politics works. Sure, wars can be drawn out longer out of emotions like that, and we've definitely got in-setting examples of that, but actually getting into a war in the first place out of vengeance, that's just... not really a popular or smart move in the real world or XIV's. Certainly, none of the leaders we've met are the type to do that (especially since most of them are at least generally familiar with why the Dragonsong War sucked), and nothing we've really heard about unseen occupied lands suggests they are either. Hell, remember that Locus Amoenus is still calling itself Locus Amoenus; there's not even will to change their name back, why would there be will to mobilize a 'Kick 'Em While They're Down' war?

All of these thoughts that Garlemald could get attacked are actually falling more into the rhetoric that Solus Galvus and his faithful weaved to justify their imperialism in the first place; that everyone around Garlemald are just inherently bullies, that they had to swing first because the notion that someone else would take from them was inevitable. And not only do I not think that any in-universe country we're aware of is that cruel or vindictive, I also don't think that we're playing a game that would do that.

The exception is the Turalian warmonger, but like Silvermoon said, I think that's more just seeing land ripe to conquer in general rather than specifically wanting Garlemald. I also think we're gonna put a stop to that before he gets to even set any boats out to sea.

[Eisi]

This is the sort of story that Endwalker (or rather the expansion that should have been the first part of Endwalker) should have already told, one in which the Eorzean Alliance doesn't march into Garlemald on their own but as part of an international effort that would include representatives of Garlemald's former satellites, some of which would absolutely want to see every last Garlean responsible for upholding the system at a stake.

[Vallavia]

If I were a conquered nation that suffered under Garlean occupation for 15-50 years, my chief concern would be making absolute certain that they weren't just going to resupply and conquer me right back. Besides, as others have mentioned, there's no real strategic value to any of the few territories that the Garleans have left, and nobody in Ilsabard is likely to have the military resources at this juncture to launch a campaign of vengeance outside of maybe Landis which was largely content under Garlean rule.

This is the sort of story that Endwalker (or rather the expansion that should have been the first part of Endwalker) should have already told, one in which the Eorzean Alliance doesn't march into Garlemald on their own but as part of an international effort that would include representatives of Garlemald's former satellites, some of which would absolutely want to see every last Garlean responsible for upholding the system at a stake.

While I'm willing to concede the Warrior of Light being an unfailing paragon of altruism, it is still, to this day, extremely frustrating that any internal division among the Alliance regarding the fate of the empire is glossed over by the narrative and that very few of the people who suffered the most under imperial oppression have any involvement in the resolution of that arc. Yes, somebody needs to stop the cycle of revenge that fueled Garlemald's unceasing engine of perpetual retribution against everyone and no one in particular, but it seems like a huge cop-out for everyone to just agree that they've suffered enough and that nobody is to be held for account for the atrocities that were committed in the name of Garlean imperialism that they still wholeheartedly believe in.

I also loathed the self-effacing "maybe we are the bloodthirsty conquerors" angle for the Alliance, who just showed up with only the absolute best of intentions to literally save all life on Etheirys from certain doom. It would certainly have been a better beat to play at the conclusion of a long campaign winding northward through Ilsabard than one where we simply materialize at Fandaniel's doorstep. Showing Garleans in that arc with a greater diversity of opinion than all being unfaltering nationalist sycophants might help too.

[RavLandslide]

This is the sort of story that Endwalker (or rather the expansion that should have been the first part of Endwalker) should have already told, one in which the Eorzean Alliance doesn't march into Garlemald on their own but as part of an international effort that would include representatives of Garlemald's former satellites, some of which would absolutely want to see every last Garlean responsible for upholding the system at a stake.

Maybe then the writers would've realized how weird it is to keep the former, warmongering, xenophobic, racist politicians in power, instead of replacing them with people that don't openly admit that they'd start conquering again if they had the chance...

[Lady_Silvermoon]

Maybe then the writers would've realized how weird it is to keep the former, warmongering, xenophobic, racist politicians in power, instead of replacing them with people that don't openly admit that they'd start conquering again if they had the chance...

That's not weird. That's exactly what would happen. Most people view hierarchies as natural. So after the regime fell, those who were highest in the hierarchy still alive would be the ones put into power. It doesn't make sense for warmongering, xenophobic citizens to elect a bunch of nice, reasonable people to be their senators. These are people who would rather die than trust outsiders. The senators we got were the exact kind of people who would be chosen to lead under those conditions. It might be annoying, but it's realistic.

[Cleretic]

That's not weird. That's exactly what would happen. Most people view hierarchies as natural. So after the regime fell, those who were highest in the hierarchy still alive would be the ones put into power. It doesn't make sense for warmongering, xenophobic citizens to elect a bunch of nice, reasonable people to be their senators. These are people who would rather die than trust outsiders. The senators we got were the exact kind of people who would be chosen to lead under those conditions. It might be annoying, but it's realistic.

It's not just realistic (and probably the only option anyway, since legislative bodies were pretty heavily controlled by the Galvuses anyway so pickings were probably slim), it's also in many ways the right move from a detached perspective. There's a few reasons for that:

1. Morally-speaking, the Ilsabard Contingent just don't want to be interventionary. Taking a historical view, that's probably right: being interventionary like that mostly just leads to resentment and, several decades later, people wanting to retaliate.
2. Since it's entirely possible that sort of group will eventually get power, it actually sort of helps to let them have it when they can't actually use it and just sort of burn themselves and their ideology out.
3. They're the hardest to convince to play nice, but will be forced to, making for an 'if they can be convinced, anyone can' situation. In the long term that's a good move, because the fact they've been forced to eat crow themselves means they're probably not going to get rebellious in opposition once someone more moderate is in charge.

I don't think anybody in-universe was thinking that many steps ahead, their stances were much more empathetic,, but from an external audience perspective with knowledge of real-world history and a greater eye for additional factors, they actually took the options available to them that were least likely to set a time bomb several decades down the line.