If unrecruited, Byleth joins Claude and convinces him to betray the empire. Both meet their end in the Valley of Torment battle, which is a 4 way battle in the unrecruited Byleth version and the Alliance continues without Claude.
I've noticed something about Edelgard and Claude, neither can wrap their head around the concept of loyalty and integrity. Edelgard is perplexed by the idea that the Kingdom's lords and their vassals would fight so hard to defend Dimitri and Rhea. Where as her peers, repeatedly I might add, point out that Adrestia is the aggressor in this war and that people will "fight tooth and claw" to defend what is theirs. Claude is also confused by Bergliez and his men holding the line rather than surrendering. The fact that his retainers, Hilda and Judith, will fight to the death to defend him happens in both games. Neither seems to realize that anyone that is willing to turn coat the instant their live is in danger, Acheron, can not be trusted to hold power.
Yeah, it strange neither can wrapped their head around absolute loyalty despite their own soldiers demonstrating such loyalty to their causes. One example being that Edelgard’s Soliders in Silver Snow during the Bridge of Myrddin mission were willing to continue fighting even after the death of their commanders until there was no survivor according to Seteth.
There's a difference between fighting with no hope of victory vs. holding out for reinforcements. Whenever El is defending Enbarr, it's always said that reinforcements will be coming eventually.
That’s more Edelgard, with Claude he was mostly suprised that he could even hold out as long as he did, and the empire was also suprised that he could still hold out.
I feel like this applies less to Edelgard and more to Hubert. Edelgard doesn't necessarily understand, but at least she knows the implications of continuing the war against the loyalty of the Kingdom. Hubert, on the other hand, not only is hypocritical about the ideals of loyalty and chivalry, but honestly berates the entire Kingdom for doing so.
@@ResurgentRaven Nah, both Petra and Hubert know exactly what chivalry is, and why it's bad: ruclips.net/video/gw5vuTGaiqo/видео.html Claude also says as much in GW, with Shez possibly agreeing completely. I mean, imagine not using stealth, LOL. No wonder Faerghus is the poorest of the 3 countries. They don't even know the true source of their founder's power.
I actually think it’s not saying they’re equivalent at the end actually. In fact Rheas response is pretty clear when she sees the Agarthans and it all comes together. She sees the greater evil before her and focuses on that, whereas Thales is trying to kill everyone there Rhea straight up ignores Edelgard and Shez to hold back Thales suicide bomb attack by her own hands. For Edelgard she’s small minded enough to see it that way and cheers herself on a job well done, but it’s Edelgard so can’t expect her to ever realize Rhea was willing to die there protecting Garreg Mach also means she was willing to die to protect them too. Meanwhile the Imperial Varley being a focus of some of Church soldiers since he’s living sewage and the game doesn’t even punish you much for choosing to let him die besides additional enemies. He’s even portrayed as less sympathetic than he was when he was working for the Agarthans on AG.
Wholeheartedly agree. It always baffles me that Edelgard sees the church as some giant threat when they weren't the ones who are doing experiments and replacing others with imposters (Cornelia, Tomas, Monica, Arundel, etc.) Like I can understand her perspective but for the most part the conflict is a really big misunderstanding on Edelgard's part
@@gamerlover20o2 Especially when you realize that Edelgard personally asked the Church to be backup while she attempts to "reconquer" Enbarr in Chapter 3. She asked them and then she stabbed them in the back.
A small correction about Duke Aegir responsibility on backstory stuff; him being partially innocent of what's he accused of only applies to his treatment of Hrym. He is still chiefly responsible for having the Agarthans experimenting on Edelgard family (and likely Lysithea's as well), and just in case Three Houses' clues didn't convince you, Three Hopes ensured both in SB on AG that there is no ambiguity surrounding it (which just makes his treatment back in 3Hs super hysterical).
Personally I think SB is an improvement over CF. I also think the ferdinand subpot was one if it's greatest strengths. The comparisons between silver snow Ferdinand and his father in three hopes aren't accurate. One being that ferdinand opposes edelgard due to her methods if change, whilst his father opposes her out of not being included in her new regime (which is what he deserves for all the things he did to her). The reason Caspar and Lindhart's fathers were given more leniency was because they didn't know what Duke Aeigr or TWSITD were doing to her and her family. On top of expressing guilt in their involvement.
Half the storytelling issues raised in this video also affect Golden Wildfire imo. Claude is done so dirty. I think it boils down to him being characterised as a genius, but then being written by people who can’t match that due to self-imposed plot restrictions. For example, his bloodlust for Rhea and his decision to join the empire is never explained in a remotely satisfying way. The cutscene where the alliance and empire join forces STARTS with claude, hilda, holst and shez all saying that joining with the empire would be a bad idea. But it happens anyway? I struggle to play Edel’s path because to me this game is about your relationships with all the characters, be it you as the player or though byleth, or i guess shez. You can imagine how upset I was when Claude decided to invade the empire and I suddenly had to face off with the blue lions, who were an ally in three houses. I’d’ve much preferred an almyran-centred story that focuses a lot more on Shahid, who is also absolutely underused, or on fighting the empire who fully invades the alliance at the start of the game to cross the great bridge. The characters in this game are all so strong, but are failed time and time again by strange, convoluted, underdeveloped or unnecessary plot that’s there just so you have enough fights to play. It looks for me like Dimitri’s route is the strongest.
In Three Houses I didn't like Edelgard and adored Ferdinand as a character, but back then I couldn't explain why I felt that way. In Three Hopes, the game kinda affirms the feeling I had, and why I dislike Edelgard's character even more. SPOILERS FOR ANYONE THAT HASN'T FINISHED SCARLET BLAZE, and some mild spoilers for other routes if I remember some examples. In Three Houses, Ferdinand, like you say, is a moral compass to Edelgard, and has a lot to sacrifice, especially in Silver Snow where his father gets killed and he has struggles keeping his territory safe from the Empire. However, he's always framed by the game as a joke character and in Three Hopes his character in ''the adrestian trio'' is replaced by Monica, who just straights up never questions Edelgard, and even wants to die for her for seemingly no reason (while you could say ''she saved her life'' as a reason, Monica straights up says in her support with Edelgard she'd be willing to die so that she could be replaced by Kronya if it was Edelgard's desire, and instead of Edelgard being scared, or saying that her life has value, she straight up likes it). In Three Hopes, Ferdinand is still the one that has to sacrifice something, he's putting his own mental health into play by killing his own father, and keeps being anxious about making the right choice of following Edelgard. (Dimitri has some of this as well, questioning himself a lot but never letting his ptsd get the best of him, which Edelgard and Claude keep mocking everytime they see him. Plus, in the game, Dimitri is a lot more respectuous to Edelgard. Both Ferdinand and Dimitri, despite their nobility, seek to see how the commoners live and what they truly think of war. Ferdinand stays with Edelgard *because* he mainly thinks of the commoners of the Empire (Even at some point Edelgard uses the commoners as shields, yet only Rhea is blamed for that type of action in Three Houses)). He also keeps reaching out to people in all of his supports in both Three Houses and Three Hopes, always there to help and always trying to understand everyone's point of view. (Even admitting when he's in the wrong, even though he defends nobility just as much as Lorenz). Edelgard keeps thinking she's in the right and keeps thinking the entire world is wrong except her, so her internal struggle is always minimal (crushing everyone who gets in her way never brings her any doubt about her own actions, she just gets things done and that's it). Her lack of empathy shows up a lot in her support with Ferdinand, where he's revealing to her his deepest doubts and inner struggle as he feels guilty of not having seen his father after she arrested him, and yet she gets angry at him and gaslights him (at this point, threatens him) by saying ''you're not gonna leave me are you? I want my advisor by my side'' rather than actually understanding what he's going through. While some people justified it by saying ''she has the right to be angry as his dad was her abuser'', she keeps making as if she has the moral highground over everyone else in the games, yet she chooses to put her enemy in the same place she was tortured in and treat him badly (she claims ''giving proper food to him'' while also not checking on him as it was stated in fact in Three Houses that the cells are old and extremely dirty, so he might die by freezing to death or being sick) while also not telling her comrade that she's arresting his father in the first place. In Hubert's support with Lysithea, he's basically saying he hid the fact to Edelgard that he had a little brother and sister by fear she would use that against him. Yikes. And yet, Ferdinand is supposedly considered a bad character because he doesn't want to blindly follow Edelgard? (Plus, it's so rare for Hubert to get compliments from Edelgard that when she does give some at one point, Hubert thinks she is unwell or will inconvenient him.) Her relationship with Petra is strange as well. In their supports in Three Hopes, she promises her that her country will be independent, yet when Petra claims that if she dies in the war, their treaty will be cancelled, Edelgard does not rebuke that fact. She, in fact, reaffirms it by saying ''that's right''. As in she basically uses Petra as a soldier for her war and taking hostage Petra so that if she dies Brigid will still be a vassal country to the Empire. What the hell. How can anyone think Edelgard is a good guy?? (Plus, instead of making Caspar's dad pay for his war crimes against Brigid in the Dagda-Brigid war, she instead uses him for her army while also having him fight alongside the same army as Petra. What.) An important plot point that isn't addressed is her connection with Jeritza. While his abuse is not as explained as hers, she doesn't feel any kind of remorse when using the Death Knight, even though Jeritza/Emile is a victim to TWSITD as much as she is. Why??? Why use him as her own weapon when she basically rebels in the demo so that she isn't TWSITD's weapon anymore. Makes her a hypocrite, but no one seems to notice that. It's also extremely sad in Three Houses when Mercedes can be with him yet Edelgard never lets him go, or never appeases him when he struggles with the sins of his past (as seen in Mercedes-Jeritza supports) and he can only be happy when for example you recruit Constance and Mercedes in Crimson Flower (and that is basically Byleth/the player's decision, and we know how Edelgard acts around Byleth). And for Dimitri, boy she just treats him like garbage. She keeps acting as if she owns everything, knows everything, and it's especially weird considering he's supposed to be her childhood friend, she should have been able to talk to him about what she's been through, and he has understanding since he's dealing with his own ptsd of Duscur. Their support is just awful as she keeps making as if Dimitri's an idiot just because he's idealistic. Her support with Claude meanwhile just seems hypocritical because she plans on taking down the Kingdom with the Alliance but basically plans on crushing the Alliance as well. It's as if she has trust issues and just can't commit to an everlasting alliance unless someone is beneath her. It's also really annoying that, in each game, both the Church and TWSITD need to be portrayed as pure evil villains for Edelgard to look like a morally virtuous character and a hero to people. Decreasing a character's writing does not increase another one by default. In Three Hopes, it's basically summed up by her supports with Shez. Shez tells her to her face that she needs to have reasons for her to start a war because everyone is suffering because of her, and yet, instead of finally opening up to someone other than Byleth in Houses, she avoids the question and says ''did your mercenary life make you like this?''. She reduces Shez to ''just a mercenary'' because they're criticizing her while also trying to understand her. Then, huge 180 from Shez, they say they are a ''whole other person, a worthy person'' thanks to our Lord and Savior Edelgard, and keeps wanting her approval of becoming stronger ''for her''. Edelgard only sees them as a person when they prove their loyalty to both her and Hubert. Jesus. (This one is not as important as the other points, but in her support with Bernadetta, it's crazy how she has almost no capability for empathy as she struggles to understand the idea that the anxiety she feels in their support is that same anxiety Bernadetta might be feeling when she goes outside. In all of the games, she also never acknowledges the wrongdoings of Bernadetta's father and basically never tries to free her from his grasp. Instead, she keeps putting her in situations where she has to confront her father, wether be when they reunite in the monastery or when they go to fight him, and Bernadetta can watch as her father gets killed. Also not as important, but in most of her interactions with Linhardt in Three Houses (sometimes in Three Hopes too, though not as much), she keeps going into these weird debates, and when she can't contradict him with anything, she just calls him lazy. With Dorothea, she kinda just compliments her for being a good songstress, and then just lets her go into these weird conversations about love and passion. She never seems to truly put new elements in conversations with her. She also has trouble with ''critique'', as seen when Balthus says she's too cute and too noble for him, but doesn't take it as a compliment. As if every single character needed to be obssessed with her. C'mon.) Also, on another note, they referenced Edelgard's obssession with Byleth at some point. Edelgard talks to Hubert about Byleth after they encounter them, and basically she ''laments'' over Byleth because she has a feeling she knows them. I haven't seen her reactions in the route when Byleth does join the party, though. In conclusion (or tl;dr I guess), I wished they went with a true villain route tone rather than having Edelgard being constantly portrayed by people around her as a hero, with basically everyone in the games having a crush on her at some point (Dimitri, Hubert, Monica, Dorothea, Petra, possibly Ferdinand, possibly Byleth, possibly Claude, possibly Shez, and maybe more since I don't remember all of them). It just makes her have more traits of a Mary Sue rather than a full fledged character like everyone keeps saying she is. The problem is framing. And if the games would focus more on her negative aspects, then maybe people would see that she's supposed to be arrogant and not necessarily in the right, and that's okay to like a villain in the wrong. It's also sad that people hate Ferdinand's character so much when he just tries his best.
Of course people would hate Ferdinand Von Aegir as not many can stand not being Ferdinand Von Aegir. They can't fathom having so much testosterone and absolute Giga-Chad energy flowing through their body that it causes them to despise one who has both in spades. Memes aside I love him as well, he's just the best Black Eagle (my second favorite being Caspar, they fucked up his design so bad in 3 hopes). Ferdinand dares to think about anything else than kissing Edelgard's ass and worshipping the grounds she tramples civilians on, so people who play CF and SB obviously don't like him. The routes that wank Edelgard give no room for Ferdinand to shine as bright as he should, imo. He's her advisor not her simp, allow him to do his job. R.I.P the King, the Goat, Billy Kametz. Truly brought to life some amazing characters and was gone too soon.
While i personally think you ignored plenty of edelgard's character hints of her opinions on war and her actions thus not realizing how closed off a person she is, i still think that, like you said, she has the belief of a moral high ground we see in the supports of both Three Houses and Three Hopes how Ferdinand, Caspar, Dorothea, etc. help her see sides of the world she wouldn't consider, thus growing as a person and also showing how her character growth depends on the friendships she makes throughout the games, that is also why she is such a villain in other routes (ss specially since she has no friends and no reason as to not go radical in her actions). A really good developed character like her that shows so much change and growth, for me, puts her on the same level as Dimitri, Rhea, Felix, Mercedes, Ferdinand, etc.
Except El is not a villain. Like Cao Cao, she's a hero (or rather heroine) of chaos. There's a reason why Koei's Dynasty Warriors (9 games and counting) is more popular than Capcom's Dynasty Wars (2 games)
This just this I completely agree with all of this edelgard is a war obsessed manipulative warmonger ,that uses people and throws them away and doesn’t accept any non peaceful solution or discussion.She just masks her thirst for conquest with an ideology that is just destroy all who oppose her
That's a lot of Edelgard hate. Let's also not forget that in Three Houses, Byleth seemingly dies. The Black Eagle students then join Edelgard in her war, making them look like monsters in the eyes of the rest of Fodlan. Then, after 5 years, Byleth mysteriously returns, and Edelgard barely questions it. Even when Byleth shows more and more signs of being related to the Nabateans somehow, Edelgard blindly believes in him. He gets to know the truth of Those Who Slither in the Dark, and who really blew up Arianrhod. All the other students, who showed unwavering loyalty to Edelgard for half a decade can't be trusted and are left in the dark. I really want to like Edelgard, but even her own routes make it so damn hard!
Anyway something to actually answer Is why exactly The Empire is more oppressive Is in routes That are against the Empire seemingly is because byleth is the new minister of religion This would answer why We have that big discrepancy
The Black Eagles Scarlet Blaze story is a lot better than the original Fire Emblem: Three Houses: Crimson Flower (Adrestian Empire). I also like Edelgard's new outfits and hairstyle because she looks a whole better than her old one.
@@gascon-en-exil yeah I get that I feel like they were trying to make her highly fanatic like in her support with Dorothea but she comes across as notice me Edelgard senpai
@@Magicbased121 It's ironically funny because Edelgard is younger than Monica, and also a year below Monica back in Garreg Mach (Monica was, academically, a year ahead and "senpai" is an upperclassman, so Monica is the "senpai" and Edelgard is the "kohai", underclassman, in this situation).
Huh? Personally I find Scarlet Blaze in some ways inferior to Crimson Flower (As someone who ranked Crimson Flower in 4th place for Three House's Story Routes, yeah that how bad I find parts of Scarlet Blaze). For one thing - the best comparison I can give for my view on Edelgard is in fact Ulfric Stormcloak from Skyrim, both are brainwashed by third parties that want to keep a war going and both are just power thirsty idiots trying to become rulers of their land. Yeah, I say Edelgard is brainwashed by Thales prior any of the crst stone nonsense at Arianrhoad in Azure Gleam - Thales had been interfering with House Hresvelg's view on Rhea almost since Rhea kicked Nemisis's rump on Tailtean. Slowly he was trying to insert ideas to the Adrestian Emporers over that 995 years about Rhea until he felt confident enough he could make one of them rebel, then finally he tortured the crap out of Edelgard while giving her the Crest Of Flames/Sothis and made sure she overheard them talking or directly talked to her to give her the idea that it was Rhea's Crest system that was to blame for all her suffering (Which Rhea only did to take power away from Thales, as if she did nothing Thales woulda incited rebellion against the Nabateans that were left alive from people wanting to kill them to gain their crest). So yeah after all that brainwashing Edelgard only had one thing holding her fragile mind from breaking entirely - the Crest Of Flames (Which was an unintentional side effect that even Thales knew nothing of, he never investigated the effects of Crests on the personality of the host). She should have never risked it all on a hair-brained plan to save Monica of all people (Who should have been killed and used in thae blood ritual LONG before that, they wouldn't hold her hostage for a year before using her :S) who she had never spoken to before (Listen to Hilda in the monstery right after Monica/Flayn are rescued, she outright states that Monica was never friendly to Edelgard or had ever spoken to her before). The huge plot hole right there for the whole game ticks me off, not to mention the whole friggin army marching 6 laps around Fodlan during the campaign and somehow being a good enough state to face off against the numerous Hero Relics that Faergus has.... For me that aspect was worse that Crimson Flower - at least you were stationed in the Monastery and got rest in between mission for that. Note - I'm not saying Scarlet Blaze was bad overall - just that I REALLY dislike some parts of it.
I don't think the developers were concerned about maintaining strict continuity with Three Houses. One bit that gets me is that the whole Flame Emperor thing is completely dropped from Hopes, even though we know from Houses that Edelgard came up with the persona at some point before the common event that kicks off both games (Kostas's attack). That's also how we have those inconsistencies re: Monica, among others. The sad thing is that the plot of White Clouds is messy and convoluted enough that it still mostly hangs together even if some details are off. I don't think I've ever seen that theory about Thales brainwashing Edelgard to hate Rhea. The writing around her motivations is so obscured however that it's no surprise that there are half a dozen (or more) popular headcanons that people have come up to explain why Edelgard does what she does, to make up for how unclear canon can be on the subject.
To be fair - yes there is nothing written down in game to state Edelgard is brainwashed - it is just connecting the dots from a lot if support and story info (The same as working out why Byleth faints prior to Remire, you need a lot of support and story info and then connect all the dots to see the bigger picture). There is also plain common sense in there - for example, I assume you know what stockholm syndrome is? While Edelgard has no affection for Thales she is kinda drawn to him, if she was able to raise an army and attack garreg Mach without him in 3 hopes then why did she even bother with him in the first place? Also, if you made a bio-weapon to kill your greatest enemy, would you then turn it loose after yoou made it and just HOPE it attacked Rhea of it's own accord? Nah, Thales was smart enough to install brainwashing in Edelgard to make sure she hated Rhea but feared her enough to ask for Thales' help. Also he would need to be giving mis-information to the Hresvelg family for al ong time before making one into a bio-weapon to ensure he could brainwash them. Of course yes - there could be some other way he forced Edelgard to attack Rhea, but given the inconsistency of Edelgard's own reasons to want Rhea dead, it's most likely brainwashing.
Am I complaining about it, or implying? Either way, that's a topic I mean to tackle when I do a larger project on queer subtext in Hopes in the future, but the short version re: Monica is that I'm not fond of how much of her attraction to Edelgard is played for (at times uncomfortable) humor. It reminds me of certain characters in past games whose excessive devotion to a character of the same sex is treated as a punchline, and it doesn't stand up well alongside other examples of sapphic material in this game that are handled more seriously.
@@gascon-en-exil In my opinion, the writers got it right with Hubert and his (excessive) devotion to Edelgard without coming off as predatory. Also, it baffles me why the writers took Monica's characterization in this direction when Hubert is literally already there. They just copy/pasted what Hubert's character had going onto Monica and turned her devotion up to 200%. Monica didn't even have any good reason to be an Edelgard simp unlike Hubert who was Edelgard's personal retainer ever since their childhood.
Semantic arguments only happen when one side is relentlessly bad-faith. The story doesn't frame Edelgard's plans as cronyism (which you don't really use correctly), you do. Cronyism is like nepotism, but more strictly related to friends with no regard to qualifications. Edelgard doesn't do this. She keeps Linhardt and Ferdinand around for their intellectual capabilities, the former being able to study Crests and see their use in the new regime and the latter formulating public education. She keeps those who don't oppose her around yes, but what is the alternative? Kill everyone indiscriminately to take power away from them? Keep enemies around alongside allies? If you look for holes in her logic or problems with her ideals, you'll find them, but they're clearly not what the writers wanted you to walk home with. The game explicitly stated in Azure Gleam that when Edelgard is deposed and Duke Aegir assumes power that the Adrestians hate it and find him oppressive. Scarlet Blaze also makes clear that Edelgard spent two years as Emperor enacting progressive reforms that reflect her vision. Ultimately, what makes her actions appear imperialist is the fact that she wants to enact her reforms to the other two nations of Fódlan. Think about it, though. She considers the Church a threat, and they have a larger presence in Leicester and practically control Faerghus. Plus Rhea personally already sent assassins to the head of the Southern Church, before they even overtook Garreg Mach. Plus the Church has an army. It would be unwise to assume that nobody at all would take violent opposition to Edelgard, and since she wants to free everyone of Rhea's influence, well. Imperialism has had a lot of far worse applications in the real world, and I think comparing or conflating this with Edelgard is a mistake. Edelgard isn't pulling a Stalin or Hitler or even Christopher Columbus with her plans. She literally just wants to make the world a better place and eliminate a theocratic feudal system. It baffles me that people not only have a problem with this but find the factions that violently defend a toxic status quo to be more just. Plus, in retaliation, Dimitri does imperialism too if we're wanting to call it that. At least Edelgard and Claude in both their routes find common ground and don't actually conquer each other. Claude and Edelgard see the evils of the Church, Dimitri not so much, like at all. He sort of allows Claude to kill Rhea but... eh? He still wanted to house and protect her, and also keeps her around in his route, so he definitely cares the least about reform, stating that the people of Faerghus "don't need" that. Edelgard started a war, but I'd like to know if people think one wasn't going to start anyway.
>accuses OP of bad faith arguments >proceeds to argue in bad faith but alright, let's take a look. 1. You seem to consider the opinions of peasants on who govern them to have some moral weight in the narrative of Fe3H, even though peasants only exist when nobles generously extrapolate on what they think is good for them in supports to other lords/people in power. Alright. Then you would note that peasants of Faerghus hate the imperial occupation, many run from occupied territories, and cite cruel conducts on behalf of Imperial soldiers. In AM, even though the myth of the vengeful beastly man that roams their land scares them, they still uplift him as a liberator character because he kills the occupiers. The occupiers are killed brutally, and we know that Dimitri is capable of brutality that even the soldiers would balk at, but the common people are welcoming. 2. "Church have a larger presence in Leister". Literally one of the plot points of GW is Claude and co discovering, to their delight, that the people feel so disconnected to the Church, so used to it's basically autonomous and ineffectual eastern branch, they they wouldn't mind if Claude "wiped the Central Church off the map" (direct quote of Claude). Church's violent evil control of the Kingdom via providing them aid for years after the king was assassinated and the country was in chaos is not something that's even up for debate, especially since Church's apparently horribly xenophobic doctrine can't stop Dimitri from repairing relationship with Duscur. What sort of a political power can't even pressure a young king of 2 years who's fighting a civil war AND a war on 2 fronts, into adhering to their basic doctrine? For shame. 3. Edelgard's war doesn't "appear to be imperialistic", it's explicitly imperialistic. One of the main arguments of her manifesto is that Kingdom and Alliance are fictitious pseudo-states that the Church created to undermine the Empire's righteous rule of Fodlan, that's the cry she rallies her soldiers with. She says that they're offshoots of the Empire in monastery dialogue, gleefully anticipates fighting them during training battle, and proclaims that her goal is to unite Fodlan under her rule in supports both in CF and SB. "It's for the greater good, my rule can provide more than the local government with backwards unprogressive values who don't know how the world really works" has been the imperialist argument for ages. "White Man's Burden", etc, etc. The ending mural depicts her triumphant with her boot stomping all over the flags of the conquered countries. It's not subtle. 4. The Church have the "order" of Knights of Seiros, who are easily overwhelmed and send running in every route, until they receive Dimitri's aid in CF and Warriors, or are just scattered to the winds in all other routes. If Church really was this controlling power over Fodlan with a huge army at it's disposal it could have deployed that army straight up to maintain said mythical control, for instance: how come Empire was even allowed to form it's own branch of the Church who moved away from the Central control?? Should have marched that army down there in the times of Edelgard's grandfather or great grandfather, and squashed that foolishness at its root. Same for the Eastern and Western Churches. 5. You are right in that comparing Edelgard to real life tyrants is in bad taste, especially considering there is right now in real time an aging imperialist state waging war in Europe. Good thing the video doesn't do anything that tasteless. However, if we do try to locate her historical inspirations, it's clearly not those you named, but Napoleon. Borne of the Republican ideals of the French Revolution and even arguably still carrying them with him into the start of his war of conquest, Napoleon abandoned those ideals (such as people's right to self-determination, freedom of religion, and others) crowned himself Emperor, became the terror of Europe and North Africa, many historians thus dubbing him the first modern tyrant in Europe (emphasis on modern obviously). The level of his monstrosity is still debated in Western Europe, with some people agreeing with the values, not the implementation. In Eastern Europe and Africa, that saw the brunt of his brutality, the debate is not as vigorous. And ofc course, the failure of his campaign resulted in a horrible snap back, which actually... doesn't happen in fe3h, all endings, those in which expansionist imperialist is vanquished and those in which she wins, end in a relatively stable rule resplendent with reforms and betterments. Wildly unrealistic, but that's viddy games for you. 6. I will not start on Dimitri "being for the status quo" and "not caring about reforms" because that horse has been beaten to death and it's corpse then fornicated with since 2019. "People of Faerghus don't need that" my ass, literally every second line Dimitri utters is about what the people need, about how they need to learn the truth about Duscur, how they need peace to recover from civil war, how they need better irrigation systems, how they need protection from everyday violence, how they need to be less militaristic as a culture, how they need to be represented in the government across all social strata, it doesn't end. There is a distinction between bad faith arguments arguing against which still has some merit, and those that don't. The "war would have started anyways" goes into the same basket.
@@ughhhSawyer I mean no he literally states that the people of Faerghus don't need radical reforms, I think it's in one of the chapters available in the demo, in a dialogue where he debates on siding with the Church and going to war with the Empire or not doing that. Like I get Dimitri sycophants need to make shit up in order to have a reality where he's the most correct of the lords, but don't lie about content of the game whose text you're trying to make it look like you paid attention to. Dimitri is absolutely a proponent of the status quo and in the impossible chance you accept that, then you'll understand where I come from. Anyway what I said wasn't in bad faith, it's just disputing the points of contention with the video, it makes arguments based in what I believe is conjecture at times. We don't know some things mentioned for certain, so we can't presuppose they're true. I didn't say the video calls Edelgard Hitler, but I mentioned it because some people do. Anyway, don't downplay the police that Seiros heads. They've been slaughtering sinners™ for 1,000 years baybee. They're not weak, they are horrible. Also I don't dislike Dimitri. He's just a product of his terrible, terrible country and its backwards views. I don't like his stans, however. Though despise Seiros. Anyway, I asked one question at the end of my ramble, and that was, what else did you expect Edelgard to do? Sit down and shut up because you don't like disturbances? Submit to the Church, Crests and their death grip of Fódlan politics? Because any opposition to the Church results in their violent retaliation, punishment of sinners, they brand it. But of course violence is only bad when Edelgard does if for 5 years, but excusable when Seiros does it for 1,000.
@@hypotheticaltapeworm Dimitri is ABSOLUTELY not Pro-Status Quo. His long term is to have radical LONG TERM change because that will benefit his people in the long run. Radical, fast reforms his father explicitly advocated for was butchered by the Western Lords and Western Church of Faerghus, all of whom ARE Pro-Status Quo and the Tragedy of Duscur was their “RADICAL REVOLUTION” to restore the Status Quo, and by doing so made things explicitly worse for everyone. These groups are the same ones who consistently try to jump ship and join the Empire in 3 Houses and Hopes because Pro-Status Quo in their eyes is whatever gives them power, and Edelgard awards those who pledge loyalty to her. His goals have been consistently stated to be rapid as is, him making commoners into Knights, something long held by the Nobility with few exceptions, the goal of improving the quality of life for Commoners who don’t care what one’s selling if they can’t feed themselves, then once they are able to be consistently fulfilled on that front give them free Education, and with that his long term goal of Participatory Government where it’s the Commoners who will decide what policies are best for the area they live in, just as he’s stated to do in his solo ending in 3 Houses.
@@hypotheticaltapeworm ...okay, I haven't finished 3 Hopes so this is going entirely off of 3 Houses, but "slaughtering sinners"? The only people we see them execute are literal assassins who were trying to kill the students who interrupted their attempt to ransack the holy tomb. GMM has atheists, agnostics, and people who follow other faiths entirely- several of whom are employed by Rhea!- and none of them give any indication that they're pressured to join or follow the church. *Violent* opposition to the church results in violent retaliation. Seteth outright says in his paralogue that if the Western Church's issues were doctrinal, they'd be left alone- as they have been for years, because the dispute isn't new. And you get that the church isn't enforcing the crest system, right? Like, the crest system is a direct result of Rhea's family being slaughtered. Bloodline-obsessed nobility exists without crests, and 95% of Fodlan? Dngaf about them whatsoever.
@@ughhhSawyer as far as i can tell dimitri was done dirty twice in these games in 3 houses he's does a few things but doesn't change the overall system of chests. and he's kinda fucked in 3 hopes because he states that commeners need nobles to guide then dispite everything done in both games but also nobles shouldn't be represented
If unrecruited, Byleth joins Claude and convinces him to betray the empire. Both meet their end in the Valley of Torment battle, which is a 4 way battle in the unrecruited Byleth version and the Alliance continues without Claude.
Don't forget the central church.
I've noticed something about Edelgard and Claude, neither can wrap their head around the concept of loyalty and integrity. Edelgard is perplexed by the idea that the Kingdom's lords and their vassals would fight so hard to defend Dimitri and Rhea. Where as her peers, repeatedly I might add, point out that Adrestia is the aggressor in this war and that people will "fight tooth and claw" to defend what is theirs.
Claude is also confused by Bergliez and his men holding the line rather than surrendering. The fact that his retainers, Hilda and Judith, will fight to the death to defend him happens in both games.
Neither seems to realize that anyone that is willing to turn coat the instant their live is in danger, Acheron, can not be trusted to hold power.
Yeah, it strange neither can wrapped their head around absolute loyalty despite their own soldiers demonstrating such loyalty to their causes. One example being that Edelgard’s Soliders in Silver Snow during the Bridge of Myrddin mission were willing to continue fighting even after the death of their commanders until there was no survivor according to Seteth.
There's a difference between fighting with no hope of victory vs. holding out for reinforcements. Whenever El is defending Enbarr, it's always said that reinforcements will be coming eventually.
That’s more Edelgard, with Claude he was mostly suprised that he could even hold out as long as he did, and the empire was also suprised that he could still hold out.
I feel like this applies less to Edelgard and more to Hubert. Edelgard doesn't necessarily understand, but at least she knows the implications of continuing the war against the loyalty of the Kingdom.
Hubert, on the other hand, not only is hypocritical about the ideals of loyalty and chivalry, but honestly berates the entire Kingdom for doing so.
@@ResurgentRaven Nah, both Petra and Hubert know exactly what chivalry is, and why it's bad: ruclips.net/video/gw5vuTGaiqo/видео.html Claude also says as much in GW, with Shez possibly agreeing completely. I mean, imagine not using stealth, LOL. No wonder Faerghus is the poorest of the 3 countries. They don't even know the true source of their founder's power.
I actually think it’s not saying they’re equivalent at the end actually. In fact Rheas response is pretty clear when she sees the Agarthans and it all comes together. She sees the greater evil before her and focuses on that, whereas Thales is trying to kill everyone there Rhea straight up ignores Edelgard and Shez to hold back Thales suicide bomb attack by her own hands. For Edelgard she’s small minded enough to see it that way and cheers herself on a job well done, but it’s Edelgard so can’t expect her to ever realize Rhea was willing to die there protecting Garreg Mach also means she was willing to die to protect them too.
Meanwhile the Imperial Varley being a focus of some of Church soldiers since he’s living sewage and the game doesn’t even punish you much for choosing to let him die besides additional enemies. He’s even portrayed as less sympathetic than he was when he was working for the Agarthans on AG.
It bothers me that the fandom is exclusively people like you.
Wholeheartedly agree. It always baffles me that Edelgard sees the church as some giant threat when they weren't the ones who are doing experiments and replacing others with imposters (Cornelia, Tomas, Monica, Arundel, etc.)
Like I can understand her perspective but for the most part the conflict is a really big misunderstanding on Edelgard's part
@@gamerlover20o2 Especially when you realize that Edelgard personally asked the Church to be backup while she attempts to "reconquer" Enbarr in Chapter 3.
She asked them and then she stabbed them in the back.
A small correction about Duke Aegir responsibility on backstory stuff; him being partially innocent of what's he accused of only applies to his treatment of Hrym. He is still chiefly responsible for having the Agarthans experimenting on Edelgard family (and likely Lysithea's as well), and just in case Three Houses' clues didn't convince you, Three Hopes ensured both in SB on AG that there is no ambiguity surrounding it (which just makes his treatment back in 3Hs super hysterical).
Personally I think SB is an improvement over CF. I also think the ferdinand subpot was one if it's greatest strengths.
The comparisons between silver snow Ferdinand and his father in three hopes aren't accurate. One being that ferdinand opposes edelgard due to her methods if change, whilst his father opposes her out of not being included in her new regime (which is what he deserves for all the things he did to her).
The reason Caspar and Lindhart's fathers were given more leniency was because they didn't know what Duke Aeigr or TWSITD were doing to her and her family. On top of expressing guilt in their involvement.
I am a bit disappointed that the endings don’t change apart from some ending text depending on which way you recruited Byleth :(
Half the storytelling issues raised in this video also affect Golden Wildfire imo. Claude is done so dirty. I think it boils down to him being characterised as a genius, but then being written by people who can’t match that due to self-imposed plot restrictions. For example, his bloodlust for Rhea and his decision to join the empire is never explained in a remotely satisfying way. The cutscene where the alliance and empire join forces STARTS with claude, hilda, holst and shez all saying that joining with the empire would be a bad idea. But it happens anyway?
I struggle to play Edel’s path because to me this game is about your relationships with all the characters, be it you as the player or though byleth, or i guess shez. You can imagine how upset I was when Claude decided to invade the empire and I suddenly had to face off with the blue lions, who were an ally in three houses. I’d’ve much preferred an almyran-centred story that focuses a lot more on Shahid, who is also absolutely underused, or on fighting the empire who fully invades the alliance at the start of the game to cross the great bridge. The characters in this game are all so strong, but are failed time and time again by strange, convoluted, underdeveloped or unnecessary plot that’s there just so you have enough fights to play. It looks for me like Dimitri’s route is the strongest.
In Three Houses I didn't like Edelgard and adored Ferdinand as a character, but back then I couldn't explain why I felt that way. In Three Hopes, the game kinda affirms the feeling I had, and why I dislike Edelgard's character even more.
SPOILERS FOR ANYONE THAT HASN'T FINISHED SCARLET BLAZE, and some mild spoilers for other routes if I remember some examples.
In Three Houses, Ferdinand, like you say, is a moral compass to Edelgard, and has a lot to sacrifice, especially in Silver Snow where his father gets killed and he has struggles keeping his territory safe from the Empire. However, he's always framed by the game as a joke character and in Three Hopes his character in ''the adrestian trio'' is replaced by Monica, who just straights up never questions Edelgard, and even wants to die for her for seemingly no reason (while you could say ''she saved her life'' as a reason, Monica straights up says in her support with Edelgard she'd be willing to die so that she could be replaced by Kronya if it was Edelgard's desire, and instead of Edelgard being scared, or saying that her life has value, she straight up likes it). In Three Hopes, Ferdinand is still the one that has to sacrifice something, he's putting his own mental health into play by killing his own father, and keeps being anxious about making the right choice of following Edelgard. (Dimitri has some of this as well, questioning himself a lot but never letting his ptsd get the best of him, which Edelgard and Claude keep mocking everytime they see him. Plus, in the game, Dimitri is a lot more respectuous to Edelgard. Both Ferdinand and Dimitri, despite their nobility, seek to see how the commoners live and what they truly think of war. Ferdinand stays with Edelgard *because* he mainly thinks of the commoners of the Empire (Even at some point Edelgard uses the commoners as shields, yet only Rhea is blamed for that type of action in Three Houses)). He also keeps reaching out to people in all of his supports in both Three Houses and Three Hopes, always there to help and always trying to understand everyone's point of view. (Even admitting when he's in the wrong, even though he defends nobility just as much as Lorenz).
Edelgard keeps thinking she's in the right and keeps thinking the entire world is wrong except her, so her internal struggle is always minimal (crushing everyone who gets in her way never brings her any doubt about her own actions, she just gets things done and that's it). Her lack of empathy shows up a lot in her support with Ferdinand, where he's revealing to her his deepest doubts and inner struggle as he feels guilty of not having seen his father after she arrested him, and yet she gets angry at him and gaslights him (at this point, threatens him) by saying ''you're not gonna leave me are you? I want my advisor by my side'' rather than actually understanding what he's going through. While some people justified it by saying ''she has the right to be angry as his dad was her abuser'', she keeps making as if she has the moral highground over everyone else in the games, yet she chooses to put her enemy in the same place she was tortured in and treat him badly (she claims ''giving proper food to him'' while also not checking on him as it was stated in fact in Three Houses that the cells are old and extremely dirty, so he might die by freezing to death or being sick) while also not telling her comrade that she's arresting his father in the first place.
In Hubert's support with Lysithea, he's basically saying he hid the fact to Edelgard that he had a little brother and sister by fear she would use that against him. Yikes. And yet, Ferdinand is supposedly considered a bad character because he doesn't want to blindly follow Edelgard? (Plus, it's so rare for Hubert to get compliments from Edelgard that when she does give some at one point, Hubert thinks she is unwell or will inconvenient him.)
Her relationship with Petra is strange as well. In their supports in Three Hopes, she promises her that her country will be independent, yet when Petra claims that if she dies in the war, their treaty will be cancelled, Edelgard does not rebuke that fact. She, in fact, reaffirms it by saying ''that's right''. As in she basically uses Petra as a soldier for her war and taking hostage Petra so that if she dies Brigid will still be a vassal country to the Empire. What the hell. How can anyone think Edelgard is a good guy?? (Plus, instead of making Caspar's dad pay for his war crimes against Brigid in the Dagda-Brigid war, she instead uses him for her army while also having him fight alongside the same army as Petra. What.)
An important plot point that isn't addressed is her connection with Jeritza. While his abuse is not as explained as hers, she doesn't feel any kind of remorse when using the Death Knight, even though Jeritza/Emile is a victim to TWSITD as much as she is. Why??? Why use him as her own weapon when she basically rebels in the demo so that she isn't TWSITD's weapon anymore. Makes her a hypocrite, but no one seems to notice that. It's also extremely sad in Three Houses when Mercedes can be with him yet Edelgard never lets him go, or never appeases him when he struggles with the sins of his past (as seen in Mercedes-Jeritza supports) and he can only be happy when for example you recruit Constance and Mercedes in Crimson Flower (and that is basically Byleth/the player's decision, and we know how Edelgard acts around Byleth).
And for Dimitri, boy she just treats him like garbage. She keeps acting as if she owns everything, knows everything, and it's especially weird considering he's supposed to be her childhood friend, she should have been able to talk to him about what she's been through, and he has understanding since he's dealing with his own ptsd of Duscur. Their support is just awful as she keeps making as if Dimitri's an idiot just because he's idealistic. Her support with Claude meanwhile just seems hypocritical because she plans on taking down the Kingdom with the Alliance but basically plans on crushing the Alliance as well. It's as if she has trust issues and just can't commit to an everlasting alliance unless someone is beneath her.
It's also really annoying that, in each game, both the Church and TWSITD need to be portrayed as pure evil villains for Edelgard to look like a morally virtuous character and a hero to people. Decreasing a character's writing does not increase another one by default.
In Three Hopes, it's basically summed up by her supports with Shez. Shez tells her to her face that she needs to have reasons for her to start a war because everyone is suffering because of her, and yet, instead of finally opening up to someone other than Byleth in Houses, she avoids the question and says ''did your mercenary life make you like this?''. She reduces Shez to ''just a mercenary'' because they're criticizing her while also trying to understand her. Then, huge 180 from Shez, they say they are a ''whole other person, a worthy person'' thanks to our Lord and Savior Edelgard, and keeps wanting her approval of becoming stronger ''for her''. Edelgard only sees them as a person when they prove their loyalty to both her and Hubert. Jesus.
(This one is not as important as the other points, but in her support with Bernadetta, it's crazy how she has almost no capability for empathy as she struggles to understand the idea that the anxiety she feels in their support is that same anxiety Bernadetta might be feeling when she goes outside. In all of the games, she also never acknowledges the wrongdoings of Bernadetta's father and basically never tries to free her from his grasp. Instead, she keeps putting her in situations where she has to confront her father, wether be when they reunite in the monastery or when they go to fight him, and Bernadetta can watch as her father gets killed. Also not as important, but in most of her interactions with Linhardt in Three Houses (sometimes in Three Hopes too, though not as much), she keeps going into these weird debates, and when she can't contradict him with anything, she just calls him lazy. With Dorothea, she kinda just compliments her for being a good songstress, and then just lets her go into these weird conversations about love and passion. She never seems to truly put new elements in conversations with her. She also has trouble with ''critique'', as seen when Balthus says she's too cute and too noble for him, but doesn't take it as a compliment. As if every single character needed to be obssessed with her. C'mon.)
Also, on another note, they referenced Edelgard's obssession with Byleth at some point. Edelgard talks to Hubert about Byleth after they encounter them, and basically she ''laments'' over Byleth because she has a feeling she knows them. I haven't seen her reactions in the route when Byleth does join the party, though.
In conclusion (or tl;dr I guess), I wished they went with a true villain route tone rather than having Edelgard being constantly portrayed by people around her as a hero, with basically everyone in the games having a crush on her at some point (Dimitri, Hubert, Monica, Dorothea, Petra, possibly Ferdinand, possibly Byleth, possibly Claude, possibly Shez, and maybe more since I don't remember all of them). It just makes her have more traits of a Mary Sue rather than a full fledged character like everyone keeps saying she is. The problem is framing. And if the games would focus more on her negative aspects, then maybe people would see that she's supposed to be arrogant and not necessarily in the right, and that's okay to like a villain in the wrong. It's also sad that people hate Ferdinand's character so much when he just tries his best.
Of course people would hate Ferdinand Von Aegir as not many can stand not being Ferdinand Von Aegir. They can't fathom having so much testosterone and absolute Giga-Chad energy flowing through their body that it causes them to despise one who has both in spades.
Memes aside I love him as well, he's just the best Black Eagle (my second favorite being Caspar, they fucked up his design so bad in 3 hopes). Ferdinand dares to think about anything else than kissing Edelgard's ass and worshipping the grounds she tramples civilians on, so people who play CF and SB obviously don't like him. The routes that wank Edelgard give no room for Ferdinand to shine as bright as he should, imo. He's her advisor not her simp, allow him to do his job.
R.I.P the King, the Goat, Billy Kametz.
Truly brought to life some amazing characters and was gone too soon.
While i personally think you ignored plenty of edelgard's character hints of her opinions on war and her actions thus not realizing how closed off a person she is, i still think that, like you said, she has the belief of a moral high ground we see in the supports of both Three Houses and Three Hopes how Ferdinand, Caspar, Dorothea, etc. help her see sides of the world she wouldn't consider, thus growing as a person and also showing how her character growth depends on the friendships she makes throughout the games, that is also why she is such a villain in other routes (ss specially since she has no friends and no reason as to not go radical in her actions). A really good developed character like her that shows so much change and growth, for me, puts her on the same level as Dimitri, Rhea, Felix, Mercedes, Ferdinand, etc.
Except El is not a villain. Like Cao Cao, she's a hero (or rather heroine) of chaos. There's a reason why Koei's Dynasty Warriors (9 games and counting) is more popular than Capcom's Dynasty Wars (2 games)
This just this I completely agree with all of this edelgard is a war obsessed manipulative warmonger ,that uses people and throws them away and doesn’t accept any non peaceful solution or discussion.She just masks her thirst for conquest with an ideology that is just destroy all who oppose her
That's a lot of Edelgard hate.
Let's also not forget that in Three Houses, Byleth seemingly dies. The Black Eagle students then join Edelgard in her war, making them look like monsters in the eyes of the rest of Fodlan. Then, after 5 years, Byleth mysteriously returns, and Edelgard barely questions it. Even when Byleth shows more and more signs of being related to the Nabateans somehow, Edelgard blindly believes in him. He gets to know the truth of Those Who Slither in the Dark, and who really blew up Arianrhod. All the other students, who showed unwavering loyalty to Edelgard for half a decade can't be trusted and are left in the dark.
I really want to like Edelgard, but even her own routes make it so damn hard!
Anyway something to actually answer Is why exactly The Empire is more oppressive Is in routes That are against the Empire seemingly is because byleth is the new minister of religion
This would answer why We have that big discrepancy
The Black Eagles Scarlet Blaze story is a lot better than the original Fire Emblem: Three Houses: Crimson Flower (Adrestian Empire). I also like Edelgard's new outfits and hairstyle because she looks a whole better than her old one.
Well atleast scarlet blaze has more CGs than black eagles route
I feel like scarlet blaze focused more on Hubert than Edelgard, and that was awesome.
Well judging from your reaction I take it you're not a fan of Monica
She's not a favorite, no, although as I said in a reply another comment it's more in how she's presented than anything else.
@@gascon-en-exil yeah I get that I feel like they were trying to make her highly fanatic like in her support with Dorothea but she comes across as notice me Edelgard senpai
@@Magicbased121 It's ironically funny because Edelgard is younger than Monica, and also a year below Monica back in Garreg Mach (Monica was, academically, a year ahead and "senpai" is an upperclassman, so Monica is the "senpai" and Edelgard is the "kohai", underclassman, in this situation).
Huh? Personally I find Scarlet Blaze in some ways inferior to Crimson Flower (As someone who ranked Crimson Flower in 4th place for Three House's Story Routes, yeah that how bad I find parts of Scarlet Blaze). For one thing - the best comparison I can give for my view on Edelgard is in fact Ulfric Stormcloak from Skyrim, both are brainwashed by third parties that want to keep a war going and both are just power thirsty idiots trying to become rulers of their land. Yeah, I say Edelgard is brainwashed by Thales prior any of the crst stone nonsense at Arianrhoad in Azure Gleam - Thales had been interfering with House Hresvelg's view on Rhea almost since Rhea kicked Nemisis's rump on Tailtean. Slowly he was trying to insert ideas to the Adrestian Emporers over that 995 years about Rhea until he felt confident enough he could make one of them rebel, then finally he tortured the crap out of Edelgard while giving her the Crest Of Flames/Sothis and made sure she overheard them talking or directly talked to her to give her the idea that it was Rhea's Crest system that was to blame for all her suffering (Which Rhea only did to take power away from Thales, as if she did nothing Thales woulda incited rebellion against the Nabateans that were left alive from people wanting to kill them to gain their crest).
So yeah after all that brainwashing Edelgard only had one thing holding her fragile mind from breaking entirely - the Crest Of Flames (Which was an unintentional side effect that even Thales knew nothing of, he never investigated the effects of Crests on the personality of the host). She should have never risked it all on a hair-brained plan to save Monica of all people (Who should have been killed and used in thae blood ritual LONG before that, they wouldn't hold her hostage for a year before using her :S) who she had never spoken to before (Listen to Hilda in the monstery right after Monica/Flayn are rescued, she outright states that Monica was never friendly to Edelgard or had ever spoken to her before). The huge plot hole right there for the whole game ticks me off, not to mention the whole friggin army marching 6 laps around Fodlan during the campaign and somehow being a good enough state to face off against the numerous Hero Relics that Faergus has.... For me that aspect was worse that Crimson Flower - at least you were stationed in the Monastery and got rest in between mission for that.
Note - I'm not saying Scarlet Blaze was bad overall - just that I REALLY dislike some parts of it.
I don't think the developers were concerned about maintaining strict continuity with Three Houses. One bit that gets me is that the whole Flame Emperor thing is completely dropped from Hopes, even though we know from Houses that Edelgard came up with the persona at some point before the common event that kicks off both games (Kostas's attack). That's also how we have those inconsistencies re: Monica, among others. The sad thing is that the plot of White Clouds is messy and convoluted enough that it still mostly hangs together even if some details are off.
I don't think I've ever seen that theory about Thales brainwashing Edelgard to hate Rhea. The writing around her motivations is so obscured however that it's no surprise that there are half a dozen (or more) popular headcanons that people have come up to explain why Edelgard does what she does, to make up for how unclear canon can be on the subject.
To be fair - yes there is nothing written down in game to state Edelgard is brainwashed - it is just connecting the dots from a lot if support and story info (The same as working out why Byleth faints prior to Remire, you need a lot of support and story info and then connect all the dots to see the bigger picture). There is also plain common sense in there - for example, I assume you know what stockholm syndrome is? While Edelgard has no affection for Thales she is kinda drawn to him, if she was able to raise an army and attack garreg Mach without him in 3 hopes then why did she even bother with him in the first place? Also, if you made a bio-weapon to kill your greatest enemy, would you then turn it loose after yoou made it and just HOPE it attacked Rhea of it's own accord? Nah, Thales was smart enough to install brainwashing in Edelgard to make sure she hated Rhea but feared her enough to ask for Thales' help. Also he would need to be giving mis-information to the Hresvelg family for al ong time before making one into a bio-weapon to ensure he could brainwash them.
Of course yes - there could be some other way he forced Edelgard to attack Rhea, but given the inconsistency of Edelgard's own reasons to want Rhea dead, it's most likely brainwashing.
I got the bad ending so the story is garbage , byleth does have an interesting effect on the story
What, are You implaing monica Love's edelgard no i can't beleve that
Am I complaining about it, or implying?
Either way, that's a topic I mean to tackle when I do a larger project on queer subtext in Hopes in the future, but the short version re: Monica is that I'm not fond of how much of her attraction to Edelgard is played for (at times uncomfortable) humor. It reminds me of certain characters in past games whose excessive devotion to a character of the same sex is treated as a punchline, and it doesn't stand up well alongside other examples of sapphic material in this game that are handled more seriously.
@@gascon-en-exil In my opinion, the writers got it right with Hubert and his (excessive) devotion to Edelgard without coming off as predatory.
Also, it baffles me why the writers took Monica's characterization in this direction when Hubert is literally already there. They just copy/pasted what Hubert's character had going onto Monica and turned her devotion up to 200%.
Monica didn't even have any good reason to be an Edelgard simp unlike Hubert who was Edelgard's personal retainer ever since their childhood.
@@_Just_Another_Guy Maybe the devs took the personality Kronya had to imitate in Three Houses as the basis?
Semantic arguments only happen when one side is relentlessly bad-faith.
The story doesn't frame Edelgard's plans as cronyism (which you don't really use correctly), you do. Cronyism is like nepotism, but more strictly related to friends with no regard to qualifications. Edelgard doesn't do this. She keeps Linhardt and Ferdinand around for their intellectual capabilities, the former being able to study Crests and see their use in the new regime and the latter formulating public education. She keeps those who don't oppose her around yes, but what is the alternative? Kill everyone indiscriminately to take power away from them? Keep enemies around alongside allies?
If you look for holes in her logic or problems with her ideals, you'll find them, but they're clearly not what the writers wanted you to walk home with.
The game explicitly stated in Azure Gleam that when Edelgard is deposed and Duke Aegir assumes power that the Adrestians hate it and find him oppressive. Scarlet Blaze also makes clear that Edelgard spent two years as Emperor enacting progressive reforms that reflect her vision.
Ultimately, what makes her actions appear imperialist is the fact that she wants to enact her reforms to the other two nations of Fódlan. Think about it, though. She considers the Church a threat, and they have a larger presence in Leicester and practically control Faerghus. Plus Rhea personally already sent assassins to the head of the Southern Church, before they even overtook Garreg Mach. Plus the Church has an army. It would be unwise to assume that nobody at all would take violent opposition to Edelgard, and since she wants to free everyone of Rhea's influence, well.
Imperialism has had a lot of far worse applications in the real world, and I think comparing or conflating this with Edelgard is a mistake. Edelgard isn't pulling a Stalin or Hitler or even Christopher Columbus with her plans. She literally just wants to make the world a better place and eliminate a theocratic feudal system. It baffles me that people not only have a problem with this but find the factions that violently defend a toxic status quo to be more just. Plus, in retaliation, Dimitri does imperialism too if we're wanting to call it that. At least Edelgard and Claude in both their routes find common ground and don't actually conquer each other. Claude and Edelgard see the evils of the Church, Dimitri not so much, like at all. He sort of allows Claude to kill Rhea but... eh? He still wanted to house and protect her, and also keeps her around in his route, so he definitely cares the least about reform, stating that the people of Faerghus "don't need" that.
Edelgard started a war, but I'd like to know if people think one wasn't going to start anyway.
>accuses OP of bad faith arguments
>proceeds to argue in bad faith
but alright, let's take a look.
1. You seem to consider the opinions of peasants on who govern them to have some moral weight in the narrative of Fe3H, even though peasants only exist when nobles generously extrapolate on what they think is good for them in supports to other lords/people in power. Alright. Then you would note that peasants of Faerghus hate the imperial occupation, many run from occupied territories, and cite cruel conducts on behalf of Imperial soldiers. In AM, even though the myth of the vengeful beastly man that roams their land scares them, they still uplift him as a liberator character because he kills the occupiers. The occupiers are killed brutally, and we know that Dimitri is capable of brutality that even the soldiers would balk at, but the common people are welcoming.
2. "Church have a larger presence in Leister". Literally one of the plot points of GW is Claude and co discovering, to their delight, that the people feel so disconnected to the Church, so used to it's basically autonomous and ineffectual eastern branch, they they wouldn't mind if Claude "wiped the Central Church off the map" (direct quote of Claude). Church's violent evil control of the Kingdom via providing them aid for years after the king was assassinated and the country was in chaos is not something that's even up for debate, especially since Church's apparently horribly xenophobic doctrine can't stop Dimitri from repairing relationship with Duscur. What sort of a political power can't even pressure a young king of 2 years who's fighting a civil war AND a war on 2 fronts, into adhering to their basic doctrine? For shame.
3. Edelgard's war doesn't "appear to be imperialistic", it's explicitly imperialistic. One of the main arguments of her manifesto is that Kingdom and Alliance are fictitious pseudo-states that the Church created to undermine the Empire's righteous rule of Fodlan, that's the cry she rallies her soldiers with. She says that they're offshoots of the Empire in monastery dialogue, gleefully anticipates fighting them during training battle, and proclaims that her goal is to unite Fodlan under her rule in supports both in CF and SB. "It's for the greater good, my rule can provide more than the local government with backwards unprogressive values who don't know how the world really works" has been the imperialist argument for ages. "White Man's Burden", etc, etc. The ending mural depicts her triumphant with her boot stomping all over the flags of the conquered countries. It's not subtle.
4. The Church have the "order" of Knights of Seiros, who are easily overwhelmed and send running in every route, until they receive Dimitri's aid in CF and Warriors, or are just scattered to the winds in all other routes. If Church really was this controlling power over Fodlan with a huge army at it's disposal it could have deployed that army straight up to maintain said mythical control, for instance: how come Empire was even allowed to form it's own branch of the Church who moved away from the Central control?? Should have marched that army down there in the times of Edelgard's grandfather or great grandfather, and squashed that foolishness at its root. Same for the Eastern and Western Churches.
5. You are right in that comparing Edelgard to real life tyrants is in bad taste, especially considering there is right now in real time an aging imperialist state waging war in Europe. Good thing the video doesn't do anything that tasteless. However, if we do try to locate her historical inspirations, it's clearly not those you named, but Napoleon. Borne of the Republican ideals of the French Revolution and even arguably still carrying them with him into the start of his war of conquest, Napoleon abandoned those ideals (such as people's right to self-determination, freedom of religion, and others) crowned himself Emperor, became the terror of Europe and North Africa, many historians thus dubbing him the first modern tyrant in Europe (emphasis on modern obviously). The level of his monstrosity is still debated in Western Europe, with some people agreeing with the values, not the implementation. In Eastern Europe and Africa, that saw the brunt of his brutality, the debate is not as vigorous. And ofc course, the failure of his campaign resulted in a horrible snap back, which actually... doesn't happen in fe3h, all endings, those in which expansionist imperialist is vanquished and those in which she wins, end in a relatively stable rule resplendent with reforms and betterments. Wildly unrealistic, but that's viddy games for you.
6. I will not start on Dimitri "being for the status quo" and "not caring about reforms" because that horse has been beaten to death and it's corpse then fornicated with since 2019. "People of Faerghus don't need that" my ass, literally every second line Dimitri utters is about what the people need, about how they need to learn the truth about Duscur, how they need peace to recover from civil war, how they need better irrigation systems, how they need protection from everyday violence, how they need to be less militaristic as a culture, how they need to be represented in the government across all social strata, it doesn't end. There is a distinction between bad faith arguments arguing against which still has some merit, and those that don't. The "war would have started anyways" goes into the same basket.
@@ughhhSawyer I mean no he literally states that the people of Faerghus don't need radical reforms, I think it's in one of the chapters available in the demo, in a dialogue where he debates on siding with the Church and going to war with the Empire or not doing that. Like I get Dimitri sycophants need to make shit up in order to have a reality where he's the most correct of the lords, but don't lie about content of the game whose text you're trying to make it look like you paid attention to. Dimitri is absolutely a proponent of the status quo and in the impossible chance you accept that, then you'll understand where I come from.
Anyway what I said wasn't in bad faith, it's just disputing the points of contention with the video, it makes arguments based in what I believe is conjecture at times. We don't know some things mentioned for certain, so we can't presuppose they're true. I didn't say the video calls Edelgard Hitler, but I mentioned it because some people do.
Anyway, don't downplay the police that Seiros heads. They've been slaughtering sinners™ for 1,000 years baybee. They're not weak, they are horrible.
Also I don't dislike Dimitri. He's just a product of his terrible, terrible country and its backwards views. I don't like his stans, however. Though despise Seiros.
Anyway, I asked one question at the end of my ramble, and that was, what else did you expect Edelgard to do? Sit down and shut up because you don't like disturbances? Submit to the Church, Crests and their death grip of Fódlan politics? Because any opposition to the Church results in their violent retaliation, punishment of sinners, they brand it. But of course violence is only bad when Edelgard does if for 5 years, but excusable when Seiros does it for 1,000.
@@hypotheticaltapeworm Dimitri is ABSOLUTELY not Pro-Status Quo. His long term is to have radical LONG TERM change because that will benefit his people in the long run. Radical, fast reforms his father explicitly advocated for was butchered by the Western Lords and Western Church of Faerghus, all of whom ARE Pro-Status Quo and the Tragedy of Duscur was their “RADICAL REVOLUTION” to restore the Status Quo, and by doing so made things explicitly worse for everyone. These groups are the same ones who consistently try to jump ship and join the Empire in 3 Houses and Hopes because Pro-Status Quo in their eyes is whatever gives them power, and Edelgard awards those who pledge loyalty to her.
His goals have been consistently stated to be rapid as is, him making commoners into Knights, something long held by the Nobility with few exceptions, the goal of improving the quality of life for Commoners who don’t care what one’s selling if they can’t feed themselves, then once they are able to be consistently fulfilled on that front give them free Education, and with that his long term goal of Participatory Government where it’s the Commoners who will decide what policies are best for the area they live in, just as he’s stated to do in his solo ending in 3 Houses.
@@hypotheticaltapeworm ...okay, I haven't finished 3 Hopes so this is going entirely off of 3 Houses, but "slaughtering sinners"? The only people we see them execute are literal assassins who were trying to kill the students who interrupted their attempt to ransack the holy tomb. GMM has atheists, agnostics, and people who follow other faiths entirely- several of whom are employed by Rhea!- and none of them give any indication that they're pressured to join or follow the church.
*Violent* opposition to the church results in violent retaliation. Seteth outright says in his paralogue that if the Western Church's issues were doctrinal, they'd be left alone- as they have been for years, because the dispute isn't new.
And you get that the church isn't enforcing the crest system, right? Like, the crest system is a direct result of Rhea's family being slaughtered. Bloodline-obsessed nobility exists without crests, and 95% of Fodlan? Dngaf about them whatsoever.
@@ughhhSawyer as far as i can tell dimitri was done dirty twice in these games
in 3 houses he's does a few things but doesn't change the overall system of chests.
and he's kinda fucked in 3 hopes because he states that commeners need nobles to guide then dispite everything done in both games
but also nobles shouldn't be represented