+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Community (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: RP Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] (/showthread.php?tid=11182)
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-20-2015
(04-20-2015, 03:02 PM)Aya Wrote:(04-20-2015, 02:55 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: You didn't read your own link. They were commissioned by the british army by american volunteers in british territory.They were raised as volunteers, yes they were commissioned by the British army to become a British army unit - how does this differ from Continental Militia? I really don't understand the distinction you're trying to make.
They were then sent to fight in Florida against the spanish. Yes there were loyalists, yes they joined the british cause, I'm not disputing that.
However as soon as America declared independence, England was a foreign power. They were troops volunteering with a foreign power. The declaration of independence, and the fact that all the colonies sighed it /Was/ the revolution. The war afterwards was great Britain invading this new country called America.
Yes Canada was loyalists fleeing, because they /fled/ they did not stage organize resistance against the revolution, and after England invaded they did join up in some numbers, but again, it's a foreign power.
The neat and tidy little distinction you're trying to make is the stuff of the-winner-writes-the-history. I'd be curious to know what your opinion were on the American Civil War, given how you've set this one up.Â
Regardless, the point is that large numbers of Americans supported the British cause, and fought alongside them (however it is you're trying to categorize them). There was significant civil strife (because it was, in reality, a civil war - the final episode of the English Civil War, really). Communities and families were torn apart by competing loyalties, and atrocities were committed by both sides. Thousands died in open warfare, and as the war ended thousands more were uprooted from their homes to flee for safer climes forever reshaping the nature of North America.Â
It wasn't as bloody as the French Revolution (nothing in Western history to that point had been), but it was hardly peaceful!
I would continue to argue that it was. If you consider a revolution the transfer of power, authority and control of a political entity (Nation, city state, empire, etc) from one group to another. The American revolution was basically completely bloodless. There were no troops storming a palace, no heads were put up on spikes, there was no cloak and daggers.
They elected representatives, they got together, they voted, they wrote a paper, and they signed it.
I would argue similarly for the American Civil war.
Now obviously the aftermath is different. Civil wars often follow revolutions, and are usually much bloodier than the revolutions that caused them.
As a good example of what I mean, the russian revolution (which was relatively low key) is quite different from the russian civil war.
As in the US, once a new group seizes power, then there may be lots of other groups who don't want them to have that power.
Ul'dah has had a revolution of sorts, but obviously the Flames are none too pleased about it, so there could be a civil war afterwards.
Maybe a better question than the one this thread is asking is "Must a Civil war always follow a revolution?"
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - Aya - 04-20-2015
(04-20-2015, 03:08 PM)Verad Wrote:I agree, I meant to phrase it so that it would not be answered. :-x And if she does I'll apologize and go hide, Verad!Quote:I'd be curious to know what your opinion were on the American Civil War, given how you've set this one up. Â
Plzno.
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - Warren Castille - 04-20-2015
I think everyone here is narrowly missing one another.
The crux becomes "when is power actually transitioned?" Because declaring independence doesn't actually grant you independence. The colonies signing a paper didn't suddenly remove England's grasp on the territories, and the war wasn't unrelated. Similarly, declaring secession from the country doesn't actually secede you from a country, hence the attached war.
One party is saying these are separate events, one party is saying they're innately connected.
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - Verad - 04-20-2015
There does seem to be a bit of the sovereign citizen logic involved there, whereby the legalistic is treated as being synonymous with authority.
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - Gegenji - 04-20-2015
(04-20-2015, 03:22 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: Because declaring independence doesn't actually grant you independence. The colonies signing a paper didn't suddenly remove England's grasp on the territories, and the war wasn't unrelated. Similarly, declaring secession from the country doesn't actually secede you from a country, hence the attached war.
So basically the transition isn't over until all involved parties recognize said transition of power? And the wars that often follow are the original power's attempt to quell what is, technically, still an uprising or coup?
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-20-2015
(04-20-2015, 03:24 PM)Verad Wrote: There does seem to be a bit of the sovereign citizen logic involved there, whereby the legalistic is treated as being synonymous with authority.
It is one thing to be a a dude saying "I don't need a license"
It's another to be a nation-state with your own government, military and currency. Just because the South lost the Civil War doesn't mean it wasn't a nation state while it existed.
The truest test of authority though is the ability to retain it, and sovereign citizens are dumb because they lack this capacity.
(04-20-2015, 03:22 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: I think everyone here is narrowly missing one another.
The crux becomes "when is power actually transitioned?" Because declaring independence doesn't actually grant you independence.
Of course it does. However it only grants you independence so long as you can hold onto it. Just like any other political entity.
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - Harmonixer - 04-20-2015
As I read all of this, a thought comes to mind:
Is this sort of thing in place to fill in the void of 'faction' gameplay elements?
For the most part, outside of PvP- we as players are united. ICly from what I understand, adventurers work together and accomplish a great many things. There isn't a Elyos/Asmodian conflict, or a Alliance/Horde thing here.
We have some friendly shoulder punching when it comes to Grand Companies, but it's mostly representative of the city states and for variety, general life to the game.
I do agree that this subject is interesting, but I wonder if somewhere they thought against making this gameplay related as an effort to prevent splitting up the playerbase.
Regardless, I'm struggling to decide if this is what I want the focus of the games story to be on. It's mostly predictable at best and at worst it sometimes executed hamfisted. It's difficult even to make criticisms of the game in certain circles because they are quick to defend it without looking at the bigger picture.
I do enjoy this, I have been and I hope to continue to well into the expansion, but it's somewhat of a dangerous juggle to do stuff like this and still keep the 'the power of peace and love will conquer all' among the 'powerstruggle of basic human ideals and desires'.
I'm awaiting patiently to see what they do with all of it. It's important to me they take the time they need to execute the story they are trying to tell, because I feel with the right amount of time it could surprise and even impress me.
It's gotten better, but it hasn't quite gripped me just yet. Close, but I may just be overthinking it, as ever. I just don't want the ascians to stick their grimdark dicks into everything and suddenly override the whole 'btw, real people are just as evil if not worse than everyone else'.
Also constantly challenging what the definition of evil is, but that's another rant.
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - V'aleera - 04-20-2015
(04-20-2015, 03:22 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: Because declaring independence doesn't actually grant you independence.I would argue that it does. In that moment an allegedly dependent entity asserts its own independent agency. The onus then falls upon the power from which that entity removed itself to either recognize that claim or make the attempt to regain control over the newly independent entity.
Also, speaking more directly toward the topic: many historians consider the election of 1800 to be of particular note for the fact that one party (Democratic-Republicans) almost completely usurped the power of its polar opposite (Federalists) without any bloodshed at all.
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - Khadan - 04-20-2015
Interesting historical side-note since the American Revolutionary war is brought up often: The actual total number of Americans that fought for independence never totaled more than three percent of the colonials.Â
I guess the lesson there is apparently a small but dedicated group can do some crazy things.
That or a small number of people can spoil the party for everyone.Â
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - V'aleera - 04-20-2015
(04-20-2015, 06:02 PM)Kayllen Wrote: That or a small number of people can spoil the tea party for everyone.ÂFixed
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-20-2015
Bringing it back to FFXIV, I think it's very unlikely that this will end up being a peaceful revolution/coup. Every indication is that the Scions/Flames/Warrior of Light, are just licking their wounds before they strike back.
What that strike back will look like, and if it devolves into full scale civil war, will be interesting to see.
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - Warren Castille - 04-20-2015
(04-20-2015, 03:26 PM)Gegenji Wrote: So basically the transition isn't over until all involved parties recognize said transition of power? And the wars that often follow are the original power's attempt to quell what is, technically, still an uprising or coup?
I'd say so. Did the Confederacy secede from the Union, or attempt to?
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - OttoVann - 04-20-2015
So fucking done with Ul'Dah.
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - C'kayah Polaali - 04-20-2015
(04-20-2015, 08:07 PM)OttoVann Wrote: So fucking done with Ul'Dah.
Because Otto backed the wrong horse, old boy? There's plenty of room on the dark side of things...
RE: Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist] - OttoVann - 04-20-2015
(04-20-2015, 08:11 PM)Ckayah Polaali Wrote:(04-20-2015, 08:07 PM)OttoVann Wrote: So fucking done with Ul'Dah.
Because Otto backed the wrong horse, old boy? There's plenty of room on the dark side of things...
Oh not not that, not at all. I just hm, like I enjoyed the politics flavor of the RP, the business part. Now thats been ruined by a shit MSQ. For months we figured something bad would happen to anyone that didn't support that stupid ass lalafell queen, and like others have pointed out in the other thread, other merchants themselves are especially at risk above all else. Because Evil being evil for the sake of being evil. I can move on, and I will, it's just disappointing that the Ul'Dah thing is pretty much as dead as dead gets for Otto.