zute (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zute) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
peopleofthedas2010-11-20 03:26 pm
zute) wrote in peopleofthedas2010-11-20 03:26 pm
How big is a division?
I apologize for another lame-ass question, but in the story I'm writing now this actually has relevance. It's the difference between paranoia and reasonable concern.
When you rescue Riordan he tells you that Loghain had turned away 200 Grey Wardens and two dozen divisions of cavalry. When I looked up division sizes I got utterly enormous numbers like 10,000 for single light infantry division, in the modern army. I'm sure that must be vastly larger than in middle ages terms.
Does anyone have a feel for how many actually people that would be?
My thanks!
Zute
When you rescue Riordan he tells you that Loghain had turned away 200 Grey Wardens and two dozen divisions of cavalry. When I looked up division sizes I got utterly enormous numbers like 10,000 for single light infantry division, in the modern army. I'm sure that must be vastly larger than in middle ages terms.
Does anyone have a feel for how many actually people that would be?
My thanks!
Zute
no subject
There isn't enough information to know whether or not Orlais was truly a threat or whether they were potentially good allies. There's a gap of 30 years since the end of the occupation and we don't know whether there had been assassination attempts, plots uncovered, spies, etc.
I am certain that Loghain would never trust Orlais. Sometimes you just have to wait for the older generation to die off before you can make progress in changing attitudes. One thing I wondered about is how long it took people who experienced Pearl Harbor or the Holocaust to trust the Japanese or the Germans as allies. It probably takes longer the worse your experience is.
Empress Celene was pretty sly to murder her uncle and outmaneuver her cousins to get the throne at age 17. Who knows what sort of plots she was hatching.
no subject
But there is no rational reason for Orlais to assume that.
To date, the shortest Blight had been 8 years long and even that one managed to slaughter the ruling family of Antiva and devastate large portions of the Free Marches, Rivaine and the Anderfels.
There's no historic precedent for a Blight ending as quickly as the one in Ferelden turns out to or for a Blight remaining contained in a single nation. There's no reason for Orlais to assume such a thing would happen, much less to hedge their bets on it happening.
no subject
They don't even invade during Awakening, one year after the Blight and with Ferelden considerably weakened.
no subject
Yeah, but you have the advantage of hindsight that Loghain doesn't have.
There were two things he believed at Ostagar (that are documented):
1) It isn't a blight.
2) Orlais wants to conquer us (from his past experience)
With those beliefs was he justified in turning away a massive Orlesian force? You be the judge. :D
no subject
Really you have to look at the knowledge Loghain would probably have at the time he makes these decisions. And if you do that, his actions seem much more rational and he becomes way more sympathetic and tragic - as he makes the wrong decisions.
no subject
no subject
And you know, some of us prefer villians that are more than two dimensional. Complex villians make for a much more interesting story than guys that are just crazy and paranoid. Two people with confiliting views that are both shades of grey is far more compelling conflict than one person being 100% right and the other 100% wrong. Stories where Loghain is totally wrong, evil, incompetant and other opposing characters, such as the warden, are 100% right in what they do are not only boring but sadly simplifying his character.
no subject
Why would Loghain's actions keep Orlais from doing what he is afraid they would do?
Why does he make himself regent when his daughter, widow of the late king, is the most likely candidate to be promoted by the Landsmeet to become the new ruler? This would have prevented civil war and Anora could have continued the diplomatic relations with Orlais.
Why does Orlais stop at the border if they simply want to take over Ferelden?
Why does Loghain abandon the south?
Why does he fight a civil war when Orlais and a Blight pose a threat?
No matter what you think of Orlais, NONE of Loghain's actions make sense or help him defend the country. So far I have the choice to make him look incompetent or a madman, who got curropted by what was once his strength (a bit like Denethor in Lord of the Rings, though less of a lunatic).
no subject
I don't think any of us are arguing that Orlais is going to invade, obviously they didn't which we know in hindsight. What the debate is about is whether or not that was a reasonable concern for Loghain to have.
Because he kept out four Legions, or 24 divisions, of Orlesian troops/chevaliers or whatever.
To protect his daughter from all the fairly ruthless stuff he is going to do. He doesn't want her associated with stuff like poisoning Eamon, selling elves and so on. He realizes there's a price to pay for these actions and I think he wants to be the one to pay it, not have his daughter involved.
Lots of possible reasons. They didn't want to fight through the small pass and loose lots of guys in the process, or they weren't actually interested in invading. None of us are saying Loghain was correct, that Orlais was interested in invading, we're just saying Loghain wasn't irrational in assuming that was a possibility (or just not leaving the country after the Blight was squashed).
Why did he retreat from Ostagar you mean?
Possible reasons (confirmed by DG)
1) The beacon was lit late, too late for the plan to work.
2) He promised Maric he'd never risk an entire army to save one man (Cailan). If they were overwhelmed, which is entirely possible since everyone seemed intent on underestimating the horde, then retreating was a rational choice versus losing the entire military forces of Ferelden.
I didn't realize it was optional. What were his choices instead? Just let the Banns run riot and refuse to provide the troops necessary to rebuild the army? That seems like it would rather undermine their political structure. There's a certain amount of alpha-wolfiness necessary to being a leader in this sort of political structure. They had a stick in one hand and a carrot in the other. If the carrot doesn't work, Loghain gonna whoop yo ass, or stick the carrot up it. :D
Loghain's judgment was faulty, absolutely, but he wasn't just some crazy-ass villain without reasonable motivations for most of what he did. That's what makes him interesting. Is he ruthless? Yes. Does he do awful things? Yes. Was he doing it for Ferelden? Yes.
My one complaint is that I actually think the slavery business with the elves was a bit out-of-character, but I didn't write the story.
This is probably why Loghain was voted as one of the best villains in some gamer magazine recently. He's complicated!
no subject
If you talk to Eamon, he's pretty clear on that Loghain is the best/most expected person for the job (other than Alistair, of course). Arguably, he's not fighting a civil war...it's Eamon, Teagan, the Grey Wardens, etc. who are. So he's got a choice to either let all sides pull away from each other (probably dooming the country to a Blight - at least Eamon seems to think so), or force them to all work along.
It's somewhat analogous to Lincoln's decisions in the Civil War (although arguably much less so, as Lincoln may have been acting unconstitutionally, didn't have a Blight as a threat, etc.)
no subject
Why did he retreat from Ostagar you mean?
No, I mean why does he abandon the south, take his armies to Denerim (to declare himself regent), summon even the Banns and Arls loyal to him (like the Bann of Lothering), leaving the villages and farms completely defenseless.
"Why does he fight a civil war when Orlais and a Blight pose a threat?"
I didn't realize it was optional. What were his choices instead? Just let the Banns run riot...
Of course, it was optional. The moment he noticed the Bannorn wouldn't follow him, he could have relented and given over to Anora. He could have taken HIS troops to guard the Orlesians at the border and let the Bannorn and Redcliffe turn their troops south to defend Ferelden against the Blight.
The battlefields of the civil war were located in the Bannorn, so obviously Loghain went there to force them into submission, not the other way round. They simply didn't accept his authority (with good reason, he didn't have legal authority to begin with) and refused to follow him.
"Why does Orlais stop at the border if they simply want to take over Ferelden?"
Lots of possible reasons. They didn't want to fight through the small pass...
Fight against whom? Do you think there was an army keeping them in check? What army? What losses?
"Why would Loghain's actions keep Orlais from doing what he is afraid they would do?"
Because he kept out four Legions, or 24 divisions, of Orlesian troops/chevaliers or whatever.
How did he keep them out? He refused to let them in, they were turned back at the border. That can be accomplished by a messenger and a handful of guards.
I don't think any of us are arguing that Orlais is going to invade, obviously they didn't which we know in hindsight. What the debate is about is whether or not that was a reasonable concern for Loghain to have.
If they were never going to invade (obviously), what did Loghain base his assumptions on? What evidence did he have? I just can't get it into my head, Orlais obviously never planned to invade, what kind of information could Loghain have to make him believe otherwise, other then seeing ghosts? I really don't see any reasons other than his hatred.
no subject
Come on now, people have given lengthy reasons and arguments, about why it's reasonable to believe this. No one has said Orlais will invade just because. That's a straw man, and not accurate of what people have been saying at all.
Why would Loghain's actions keep Orlais from doing what he is afraid they would do?
Why wouldn't they? If I thought Orlais wanted to take over Ferelden, keeping their military on the other side of the border would be the #1 priority, right?
Why does he make himself regent when his daughter, widow of the late king, is the most likely candidate to be promoted by the Landsmeet to become the new ruler? This would have prevented civil war and Anora could have continued the diplomatic relations with Orlais.
Possibly to keep her hands clean from the terrible decisions he thought needed to be made. Possibly because he thought she didn't appreciate the threat from Orlais. Personally, I think this is one of his biggest mistakes, second only to his belief tha the blight isn't for real.
Why does Orlais stop at the border if they simply want to take over Ferelden?
Again, this has been discussed at length elsewhere. Waiting out the blight safely on the other side of the border is a win/win for them, as they can invade later if ferelden is weakened by fighting the blight.
Why does Loghain abandon the south?
Because he messes up and judges the greater threat to be Orlais. This is something he takes ownership and will talk to you about if you let him into your party.
Why does he fight a civil war when Orlais and a Blight pose a threat?
He's trying to hold the country together in the face of these threats, he's got opposition that he doesn't think appreciate the theats so they clash and fight.
No matter what you think of Orlais, NONE of Loghain's actions make sense or help him defend the country.
Again, I disagree. People have given very well thought out answers why they do think why many of his actions make sense given the situation and the information he had. He's wrong, of course, but judging him with meta knowledge and with the benefit of hindsight isn't doing the character justice.
So far I have the choice to make him look incompetent or a madman, who got curropted by what was once his strength (a bit like Denethor in Lord of the Rings, though less of a lunatic).
I disagree. He can be entirely wrong and make terrible misakes without being either incompetent or a madman. There are a lot of shades of grey in most of the choices he makes which is what makes his character interesting and compelling. If you disagree, that's cool, but if that's how you're writing him in fics, then I personally think you're not doing the character justice.
no subject
I absolutely agree. But I think where we part ways is that I think Loghain's decisions were understandable, given the information available--but I still don't believe that saying, "He had good reasons to think it was all an Orlesian plot" gets him out of all responsibility, or means that he wasn't partially acting out of non-rational reasons, like his absolute hatred of the Orlesians or not wanting to believe that Flemeth's prophecy was true. I consider him a classic tragic villain because he isn't destroyed by some outside force. His tragic flaw is the inverse of his best qualities: his willingness to do what he believes needs to be done, regardless of the cost, and his single-minded focus. He's not a victim of circumstance; he destroys himself by a series of very conscious choices.
The best Loghain-centric fics I've read are the ones that tackle that head-on.
no subject
I like to think of him as Hero v1.0 and his software is a little outdated for dealing with the new environment.
no subject
*dies*
And nobody bothers to issue a patch. Typical Bioware.
no subject
no subject