>>136197364 He's the only one who seemed to enjoy being a King, Gil gets some kind of redemption because he seems bothered by the fact that Iskandar enjoys being a king so much that he starts doing stuff other than abusing the inferior humans.
Saber should've just quit being a king and play knights with Diarmut.
It depends. What are her policies? Are you asking about a Saber as a king of modern or a medieval coutnry?
She loves her kingdom, yeah, whatever. Many of the greatest criminals at the top of a country probably loved their country, loved their people ("I-Ich liebe doch alle Menschen!" - "B-but I love all humans!" - moe Erich Honecker, leader of the East-German StaSi), but motivation alone won't earn my respect, because I care for competence and outcomes, too, and she doesn't exactly have a good track record there, seeing as her country fell apart. She's also probably only capable of war, but managing a country? She has no idea of philosophy and natural philosophy, neither has she an idea of how to get and control competent staff that can fill in her lack of such knowledge. All she did was depend on the deus ex machina Merlin and his tools. I'd also bet that she's not even a good head of a state: Could you imagine her filling in diplomatic roles? No, she's too stubborn, too easily embarrassed, too near-sighted to form consensūs. She's bad at grasping the whole.
>>136199490 Thing is, none of her decisions were exactly "shitty". She regretted the outcome, but at the end of Fate she understood that if it was the result of her right decisions, then she shouldn't redo them in hope of something better. Is it correct? Well, it's arguable, but it was certainly right for her and Shirou.
>>136199337 >Who's more foolish, the fool or those who follow him? To be fair, I think people who made her king in the first place and accepted her as such afterward should be blamed more. Putting a delusional young girl who had no clue about things like politic, diplomatic, management on the throne and making her a de facto head of the state instead of a useless puppet were the worst things they could do.
>>136199337 Well. before her there wasn't even a country to fall apart in the first place, so there is that. Besides, what makes you think she was incompetent at managing a country? It prospered right to the end.
ITT: People who need to reread the Fate route and Arthurian legend. Yes I respect Saber as a king. She united her country, led them on conquests of victory and had Britain prosper in a golden age. It was only at the end she was betrayed.
The whole point of Iskandar was for you to see that he was charismatic unlike Saber, but a shitty, shitty king. Where as Saber (as told explicitly to you by Merlin and Lancelot) was an outstanding king.
>>136201187 >she seems to have been kinda terrible at the whole kingship thing She wasn't, you should read FSN.
She was an oustanding king, she only thought she was failure since she couldn't be 100% perfect and was only 99%.
Her downfall was literally caused by the fact that others of her time period simply weren't ready for utopia yet. They were easily jealous and greedy and quickly joined with La Fey at the prospect of taking all her wealth and lands and believing that the most righteous king of their era would turn on them and take their lands even though she'd spent years defending them.
She wasn't to be blamed for being ahead of the times.
>>136201463 >Cant read political climate Because she was creating a new era, she was LITERALLY creating utopia and people weren't ready for it yet. >Unable to crush rebels before they even start She's literally not around because she was saving them all. >Outstanding king Yep.
Again, it's canon she was fantastic. Everything you have about her being a failure COMES FROM HER because of her persecution complex. Merlin tells you the story and how she didn't fail at all.
>>136201534 >Because she was creating a new era, she was LITERALLY creating utopia and people weren't ready for it yet. And she failed to see that her people werent ready. >She's literally not around because she was saving them all. And even then she didnt appoint anybody to do that job for her
>The PEOPLE failed HER. People dont have to obey a bad ruler,anon. If she fails to convince the people then she was a shit king.
>>136201420 Like how those "genius" kids hailed by their parents and teachers always lament about how friends their age are all illiterate retards who can't never understand their greatness? Get real, it's just pure arrogance and ignorance.
>>136202369 That's it. Humans are always flawed, it's their nature and also what makes them humans in the first place. Any fucker who fails to understand it can't possibly call themselves a leader, let along a good one. Since if all humans are perfect, there's no need for a leader to leader them anyway. Trying to create an utopia that can't cope with humans' flaws are completely retarded to begin with.
>>136200212 >, led them on conquests of victory and had Britain prosper in a golden age.
That is not true. Britain regressed to a Dark Age after the Roman slowly pulled out following the disintegration of the Empire. Saber was only holding it together, but she certainly didn't bring a Golden Age given that the wealth from the imperial trade network was no longer there. But it also wasn't really her fault that everything fell apart since the major source of wealth had left.
>>136202153 >> Be good with money and possess a deep knowledge of economics.
This is made-up bullshit.
Fact of the matter is that nobody, not even the people responsible for the uprising, could find any flaw in her governing. That's precisely why the place lasted as long as it did even though the assembled lord only reluctantly agreed to obey a king in the first place: they all waited for her to mess up, but it never once happened. The opening had to be created by her own knights failing her over MUH FEELS bullshit, because nobody could find the slightest thing to complain about regarding her role as an administrator.
Merlin says as much, Gawain says as much, even Mordred and Agravain say as much, and the last one was a spy of Morgan who was there to undermine her. Even her enemies were repulsed by the noble lords' pettiness and ungratefulness, and Agravain seemed ready to spit on Guinevere for betraying Arturia.
Yes. Saber was totally selfless in what she did. For Gilgamesh rulership was simply his divine right and his subjects were property. For Iskander his rulership was something he took for himself and his subjects were soldiers who followed him out of the chance to share in his glory.
But for Arturia, rulership was a tremendous burden, thrust upon her by the sword. A burden she agreed to carry because she was told that no one else could do it.
She had such high standards that even she did not meet them in the end, and entered the grail war twice out of the hope that she could use magic to fill her place in history with someone even better than herself, destroying her own legend and glory and life for the betterment of her land and people.
There is no one that I would trust more with kingship, because she ruled not for herself but for her people. Her nation fell, but the ideals that she raised went on to enlighten and shape future generations, literally defining what modern day humans believe chivalry and nobility was supposed to be about.
She isn't the king I would go drinking with, but she is the king that I would serve until my dying breath. Because she is the King that ruled to make their world better instead of just enrich their own lives.
King Arthur was an excellent king and rightfully idealized by England and France for many centuries.
However, the Nasuverse interpretation of Arturia (especially Urobuchi's in particular) focuses mainly on Arthur's failings rather than all of his successes, while eagerly pointing out what Iskander and Gilgamesh and myriad other rulers did right. It is easy to develop a poorer opinion of Arturia as a result of this very skewed representation in the Nasuverse media.
Also, Saber never behaves like a king, either, so it is difficult to imagine her in the role. She's always busy trying to be a good knight, which is pretty admirable since she's one of the few king characters who wilfully obeys their master.
>>136206847 >Fact of the matter is that nobody, not even the people responsible for the uprising, could find any flaw in her governing Sure anon. It must be that her rule was so flawless that people rose against her.
>Merlin says as much, Gawain says as much, even Mordred and Agravain say as much This is like Putins family claiming that Putin is a good and just president.
>Leads her kingdom to destruction >Saberfags justify this Honestly,the matter of fact is that if you cant keep rebellions under control you are a shit king
>>136206947 > However, the Nasuverse interpretation of Arturia (especially Urobuchi's in particular) focuses mainly on Arthur's failings rather than all of his successes
Because Saber's whole goal is give her kingdom a second chance with what she hopes to be a better king. If Saber had been all "Yeah, Camelot was fucking AWESOME" it would have been a very different story.
-Camelot's Lords would submit to none but a perfect flawless king, otherwise preferring to wallow in their decline like a bunch of selfish pigs rolling in the mud. -This demanded that Arturia pretend to be male. -Which required Merlin to enchant the sword to stop her growth. -Which meant that the world was deprived of her huge, huge welsh titties.
Burn it. Burn Camelot and salt the earth. Oh wait, the Saxons did that already. Good riddance, those fuckers did not deserve to live.
I feel this is one of the broader failings in Saber's narrative, as it implies Saber has no pride in her own kingdom. King Arthur certainly did, and he certainly had pride in himself. Nasu's interpretation does make internal sense, though - Saber was just too damn flawless as a human being to have pride in anything, to the extent that everyone around her felt as though she had no human heart.
Yes, it's internally consistent in the Nasuverse, but it does not mesh with many of the Western interpretations of Arthur.
Also I like how your logic makes it so that a tyrant who puts down rebellions and maintains his own power for evil is a better king than a good man who rules justly and fails to prevent a coup. You're arguing about ruthlessness versus morality, and I think pretty much everyone in the world will agree that ruthlessness is not a desirable trait in a king.
>>136206847 >Fact of the matter is that nobody, not even the people responsible for the uprising, could find any flaw in her governing. That's precisely why the place lasted as long as it did even though the assembled lord only reluctantly agreed to obey a king in the first place: they all waited for her to mess up, but it never once happened. The opening had to be created by her own knights failing her over MUH FEELS bullshit, because nobody could find the slightest thing to complain about regarding her role as an administrator. You understand those retarded stuffs are just nonsensical justification Nasu used to advocate his milk cow, right?
To hell with "nobody could find the slightest thing to complain about". If all those niggas agreed to overthrow her, that means she failed to meet their expectation and made them feel uncomfortable, just that simple. A king failed to satisfying his vassals, making compromise with them and even keeping them alive despise the potential rebel can only be described as an incompetent fool who needs to be executed right away for his own citizens' good.
It really doesn't matter how much her friends and enemies worshiped her, if they still decided to rebel against her in the end and even succeed, she deserves no respect as a king.
>>136199337 Saber was an amazing king. Her only real problem was her belief that she had to literally destroy and remove all of her humanity in order to be a proper king. Her thought that she needed to remove all human emotions and turn herself into something other then human was a flawed idea.
Its what a lot of her problems to begin with. Her being so removed and detached from her humanity made her people uncomfortable. People started to question if its in their best interest to be lead by a person who lacks basic human emotions.
So all in all had she been more human instead of thinking had to be some sort of monster that lacked all humanity she probably would have had a much better run as king.
None of the peasants respected Seiba after the stories about how Lancelot had cuckolded the king were circulating.
Then, Arthur either doesn't care (which makes the kingdom lose even more faith in their King), or he temporarily flew into a ballistic cuckrage upon discovering Lancer's lance in Gwen and the connection between the King and kingdom was damaged thanks to that breach of trust.
Hitler was deluded and a fool. Saber never claimed herself to be the perfect king, and in fact, her entire plotline revolved around trying to replace herself because she thought she was too flawed. It is other people who claim that she was actually flawless, so no, you don't get to paint this as Saber calling herself perfect.
This is a narrative story with an omniscient narrator. In this case we have multiple internal and external narrative perspectives explaining that it is no delusion that Saber was a phenomenal king and that it was her knights and her people who destroyed Camelot, out of their own greed and selfishness, not by any fault of her own.
Unless you flatly choose to disregard the text itself, you have no choice but to admit that you are wrong.
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women.
>>136201420 She was also a complete sociopath who lacked all humanity and slaughtered hundreds of innocent people and villages to help fuel her army. She also had people executed for the smallest of mistakes. She was a great king but she needed to be more human and not some kind of monster who forced all of her emotions away.
>>136206875 >There is no one that I would trust more with kingship, because she ruled not for herself but for her people But her people didn't trust her anon. >the ideals that she raised went on to enlighten and shape future generations, literally defining what modern day humans believe chivalry and nobility was supposed to be about No sane man wants to follow her ideal about the inhuman perfection no one could achieve, even herself.
>>136207455 On the other side, if she would not throw away her humanity, she probably would've go crazy trying to be ideal, and if she wouldn't be ideal, then lords would've overthrow her. It really was not a very good situation.
>>136206947 I think we should make this clear, Saber isn't king Arthur in the legend and will never be, she is just some twisted, deviant image of him some Japanese came up with, mostly for fanservice purpose.
>>136207300 >You understand those retarded stuffs are just nonsensical justification Nasu used to advocate his milk cow, right?
You've never fucking read the VN or Morning of Selection, have you? It makes perfect sense in the story.
They hated the very concept of being unified from the start. Kay even gives a whole speech about how the lords were relieved that nobody could pick up the sword, because none of them wished to submit to a king regardless of how needed that was. They'd rather continue being petty lords of their petty kingdoms, clinging to their petty authority while the Picts and Saxons advanced on them and razed their lands and people.
That's what Camelot was formed out of: a host of selfish cunts with no foresight that didn't realize they were on the brink of annihilation, and would rather throw a tantrum at their one hope for survival than be forced to put their people first for a change.
>>136207593 >She was also a complete sociopath who lacked all humanity and slaughtered hundreds of innocent people and villages to help fuel her army
Which made his knights butthurt until they realized that it had been the right choice, later forgot about it, became butthurt again, then realized it was the right choice and on and one.
It's hilarious how on one hand people bitch she wasn't a tyrant who destroyed her own land, and then bitch about her doing what was necessary to protect that same land.
Like, really, she should have had her lords executed, which would have instantly caused every other lord to rebel and hastened Camelot's demise by a decade, but at the same time should have gone on to fight hopeless battles with a crippled army for the sake of not being cruel.
You people are fucking terrible at this whole armchair ruling thing.
>>136207593 > slaughtered hundreds of innocent people and villages to help fuel her army > She also had people executed for the smallest of mistakes "Exhausting" village is not the same as slaughtering it by a large margin, and it is a first time I hear about executions. What are you talking about?
>>136207258 >Tyrant >Mercilessly eliminate rebels Yeah, people would live under tyranny but the general order would be maintained and most of them would still be able to live their life peacefully >Good man >Fails to prevent a coup The whole nation falls in to endless anarchy and chaos with power struggle between warlords who fight each other to become king. No one is safe because there is nothing to maintain order, civilians are slaughter left and right on the street.
You see, there are some reasons why people believe the US's decision to topple dictators like Saddam was wrong and keeping him in power would make the region more stable.
>>136207300 >that means she failed to meet their expectation
Nigger, read the fucking VN. It's stated explicitly and with no ambiguity: her being a perfect, inhuman king was exactly what they demanded. When she fulfilled that beyond any of their expectations, they instead bitched that she was inhuman. The narration even points out the catch 22 they pulled on her. There was no winning scenario from the start.
>>136208294 Why are you trying to argue about a story you clearly haven’t read? Every single part of your post makes it clear you’re yapping out of your ass. “Eliminate rebels”? What the fuck are you talking about? When did she not do that?
Or what, are you suggesting that she should have just arbitrarily tried to kill her own lords, thus immediately giving all the other lords the excuse they needed to revolt?
>>136207342 >You have the most skewed perception of reality Not me, but your waifu. She didn't even understand that greedy and evil are humans' very nature. Any attempt to build a society without establish a proper system to keep human's primal instinct in check is guaranteed to fail terribly.
>>136208673 You just keep dancing around the issue because you can't sustain your original point: there was no flaw in her administration and she fulfilled every single requirement they asked of her. They just made a new one afterwards that directly contradicted what they asked of her before.
They were a bunch of petty cunts that refused to obey out of retarded pride and would chose annihilation over having that pride wounded by having to obey someone better then them.
After failing to hold up your original point, you've descended into some far-flung abstract argument about human nature, when the whole point was that there was never any winning scenario to begin with. All the armchair politicians yapping about how she should be a tyrant conveniently omit mentioning exactly how that should have been carried out, given that that choice would have simply hastened the rebellion.
Basically, you're just a stubborn cunt who's never read the story and are running your mouth about things you don't know shit about.
>>136208899 >there was no flaw in her administration and she fulfilled every single requirement they asked of her. Whether there was a flaw in her administration or not fully depends on whether you agree with the leaving knight's criticism from the perspective of the reader that knows that there was no other efficient option (which is simply posited). Maybe "exhausting" a village, whatever that may entail, is an act that shouldn't be done even if the consequences are equal or worse. To say that this "exhausting" is required already requires a value judgement.
Also, you could claim that it is an administrative flaw not to let other humans' emotions brought forth by your actions into your calculus.
I find this whole "hurr durr, high forms of rationality require you to shut down all your emotions" to be a silly concept anyways, though.
>>136209438 Like I said, you keep dancing around the issue because you said some really dumb shit that showed you hadn't read the novel. All your arguments now revolve around "Well, maybe what every textual source on the matter says is a lie, unlike MY interpretation!" at which point you'd be better served going to fanfiction.net.
>>136209539 First of all, this was my first post. Secondly, I read F/SN. Thirdly, I intentionally wrote it in a way so that it stays a valid criticism even if all the assumptions the narrator makes were true.
>>136209438 >Maybe "exhausting" a village, whatever that may entail, is an act that shouldn't be done even if the consequences are equal or worse.
Aren't you the same fuckhead that advocated her plunging her kingdom into a civil war to kill her own lords because it would have resulted in stability in the long run (mostly because burned-out barren plains tend to be pretty unchangingly stable)?
>>136208392 >>136208448 >>136208521 Holy shit, I'd completely forgotten how well-written Saber's character and her memories were in the Fate route. Ufo adaptation fucking when? Even if it's only these memory scenes.
>>136209618 Fuck no. He's a noble guy and a great hero but is too self-conceited and emotional to be a good ruler. When faced with opposition and discontent his reaction usually is "go fuck yourselves, I'm doing what it suits me". So no, Saitama is not a good prospect for a king.
>>136207558 >Saber is flawless because the narrator said so Your argument solely based on this, but you see, this omniscient narrator isn't some transcendental being, he is a Japanese, a normal human just like you and me. He can be wrong and his logic can be flawed just like anyone else. Before you said "Muh author's right", please remember even though in this fiction, the author has the right to create any setting he wants, he still has to follow a basic logic to make the story consistent. If he want to use a special logic different than normal logic in real life, he first has to introduce it to us. Otherwise it will make us readers wonder about the story's consistency and his writing skill. In this case, he calls Saber flawless, but the story itself proves otherwise, so unless he introduce some new definition of "flawless" and why did he calls Saber as such, his words is unreliable.
The normal definition of "flawless" is being able to do something without fail, once you fail, it means you're flawed. A flawless king is someone who can achieve all objectives she wants as a king, if she fails any, she's flawed.
On top of that, it was really easy for them to mutter in the shadows about how Arturia wasn't even a REAL king, just chosen by some sword malarky.
It certainly didn't help that Arturia then made them start to treat their peasants better. Because they were such shits that they considered stomping on the serfs to be their god given right. What was the POINT of being a noble if you couldn't be shits to the peasantry?
>>136208097 Not that anon but it mentions somewhere about her being rather merciless when it came to punishing people and often would coldly dish out executions. Hell she was going to have Guinevere executed and she even understood why she did what she did.
>>136210436 This is a whole lotta yapping while saying fucking nothing.
>but the story itself proves otherwise
No, it doesn't. And since it doesn't you've taken to claiming that the narrator, the opinions of every single character that knew her, including a literally omniscient magician, and even the objective narration of events are all wrong because you would rather think they are, all without proposing any concrete example of a mistaken decision with a better alternative path.
>>136207753 Maybe but making the decision to destroy all of her humanity and become nothing but an ideal wasnt really the right choice either. She wasnt human really. She had no emotions, no real feelings. To be honest there really wasnt a right choice she could have made. It just goes to show that no matter what she was fucked.
In that era, cheating on your husband was not considered the 'smallest of mistakes', it was a literally damning sin that condemns you to hellfire for all eternity, and it was the Church and State's rightful purpose to accelerate your path to hell via execution.
It was the law that adulterers be executed, and Saber's whole thing was making a law that is respected and enforced by all, not just by whoever it suits as it was in the days of previous kings like Iskander and Gilgamesh. Saber could not make an exception and let Guinevere go because if she did, she would be no better than any of the tyrants that came before her.
Yes, you could call her absolute rule of law merciless, but it was fair and equal, unlike all the kings before her, who were merciless AND unfair and unequal.
>>136202225 Arthur was flawed as hell. Like >>136206315 said. Galahad is British Jesus. I thought this is the point of King Arthur. Despite their high ideals they are still just humans and fuck things up.
>>136207885 You are beyond saving. To think because of your waifu you become this delusional to the point of rejecting all logic.
Your Saber isn't the only person who has to face with that kind of shitty situation, nearly all founder of great empires in history did. Genghis Khan did, Attila the Hun did, Alexander the Great did, Muhammad did. But none of them failed miserably like her. Knows why? Because they didn't pretend to be a flawless ruler without human flaw and expect their vassals and citizens to do so. You will find stupid, greedy, incompetence officers in every system and government, but it doesn't mean those systems and governments will collapse right away because of them. Any competent ruler know how to detect the cancers and remove them from the body, or make compromise in case they can't do it right away to do it later. They also try to satisfy people's needs to erase any seed of rebellion and oppress the rebel immediately if it ever happens.
Just get real and stop calling anyone who fail to do those a good leader.
>>136211041 Remember that she also set everything up so that if a certain renegade knight just HAPPENED to be around, he would not face any resistance if he just HAPPENED to try and rescue Guinevere, but said knight was such a shithead that he just had to go berserk and kill the near-naked unarmored guards who were all but holding a sign saying "We will pose no resistance, just grab her and go mang."
>>136211290 You're insane and nothing you're saying has any connection with the story or the situation she was presented with. You're doing nothing but babbling high-highhandedly about hypotheticals that have no bearing on what's being discussed.
>>136211290 So what should have been the plan? Immediately starts a second civil war and burn the entirety of the country to the ground? Have Camlann happen a decade in advance, only with even less loyals because you just went and betrayed the values they followed you for?
No, really, what would have been the actual correct choice? And no, "quell the rebels" is not a choice, that's a goal. What actual course of action would not have resulted in the immediate re-dissolution of Camelot?
>>136211569 There;s lots of stuff to do to get rid political enemies. assassination planting a spy to find out the lords crimes then use it as a justification for banishment, execution, imprisonment. while doing that install people loyal to you in those positions that are vacant such as the knights in the round table.
>>136212316 She should have had the whole vassal lord assembly murdered then, while hoping nobody would notice and that none of her actually loyal knights would lose trust in her due to all the backhanded murdering? All while Morgan is already choking the court with her intrigue and even most of the "loyal" knights are fucking prima donnas? What part of "court full of seething rancorous cunts" do you have such problems with?
Do you want to try reading the actual story before making these retarded fanfiction plotlines?
>>136211569 There's no logical choice that could be made to make the situation better. Everything was damned to at the start, since it was the way this setting to created. No one could have any logical way to save her country, including Saber. That's the key here, it means Saber was just another flawed human who couldn't do something all others also couldn't. That's understandable, since "flawlessness" is something only belongs to omnipotent beings who can make miracle mortals can't even wish to imitate. Even in a hopeless situation without any logical solution, a flawless being can still solve everything by a miracle. That's why he's called flawless, there's nothing he can't do, hence he has no flaw. Likewise, if someone fails to do something, they aren't flawless.
>>136211605 No, Jesus is the King of the Jews, who are the one true god's chosen people, who in turn is also part of the Holy Trinity which encompass the divine being that is God. Jesus would also be a cute girl who would get anally ravaged by a Japanese boy were she ever to be summoned.
>>136212647 You keep thinking in extremes, just like Saber. The options wouldn't be either to mercilessly slaughter them all, to ignore them, or to accommodate all their needs.
Any head of state has to handle preference heterogeneity within the the principal-actor system. Besides ex-ante or ex-post termination and the threat thereof, there's lots of ways how you can influence agents that factually are acting as political opponents in your favour: Incentive systems, efficiency rates, cutting ministries/cabinets together so that only tangential interests collide and, most importantly, compromise, for example. The mastery of positive reinforcement alone would already get you a long shot. Of course, a machine-like Saber wouldn't be able to see those opportunities - which is why she's a bad administrator.
>>136213938 I'm pretty much convinced you're trolling now.
Let me just spell this out for your dumb fucking ass one last time: you're applying fucking modern politic system mechanics to a medieval court, moreover one made of cunts so petty that the fact that all their needs were being met was superseded by how butthurt they were at her having been selected by the sword instead of them.
Their political and material interests were being met, which was a spectacular achievement considering their own rule would have not achieved the "stay alive" requirement. This wasn't enough. They were jealous from the start, hated the idea of serving a unifying king and not being able to just act as they pleased. From Day 1, the court's plan was watch Arturia like a hawk for the merest slip and then eat her alive. They didn't want anything from her save get rid of her, and as Mordred accurately points out, they would follow even a deranged cruel cunt like her to their certain ruin just for the chance to have an excuse to redeem their pride of the wound of her having pulled the sword when they couldn't.
Go read the novel instead of wanking like an imbecile about your fanfiction plotlines.
>>136214579 I suppose there's a joke to be made about how the plot of Grand Order revolves around a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the world, since that's pretty much what it's about. Also Slavs are ruining London.
>>136214296 I'm surprise you didn't realize there're more than one person trying to point out your idol's fault.
Whether it's a medieval system or a modern one doesn't really matter. Politic didn't change very much over the last millennium. All you need to do is making compromise with right people using right conditions. A job that requires the full understanding of human's heart and behaviors, which fails Saber at her first try anyway.
And if you think just because an ancient system's fill with drooling fools, it's fated to doom eventually, I advice you to go to your local library and read some real history books. There are many example about how competent leaders united lands full of greedy, illiterate, warmongering warlords who only wanted to kill each other and loot as much wealth as possible to become great nations and empires in history.
>>136214296 >They didn't want anything from her save get rid of her, Getting rid of her would've only been the tool to accomplish the actual goal: restoring their pride. There's more ways to restore someone's pride than humiliating someone who hurt your pride. For example, someone's pride can be restored by having them do and be recognized (if necessary by an authority figure they accept, not yourself) to have done commonly accepted noble acts that are hard to do - or at least appear to be so.
>>136214617 The term "cabinet" isn't limited to democracies.
>>136214401 >I'm pretty sure Muhammad did Did what? Failed? Nah, he created the foundation for many great Arab Empires, to the point they even conquered Spain and Africa while completely followed his teaching.
>>136214914 >For example, someone's pride can be restored by having them do and be recognized (if necessary by an authority figure they accept, not yourself)
And who the fuck would that be? No, really who? Who else was there? The entire point is that they were all a bunch of petty lords that resented having someone above them. There was exactly one person above them and they hated her guts for being above them. They loathed her from the start solely because she did what they couldn't and wanted her out out of spite. They were so petty that, again, they marched to their certain ruin under Mordred just to quench their butthurt.
So try again. There is no higher authority, there is no one they accept because accepting no higher authority is the entire fucking problem. How do you quench their butthurt which, I remind you, is so spectacularly short-sighted and suicidal that the threat of impending doom isn't even enough to stop it?
>>136214748 They're a bunch of greedy bastards, right? When people are greedy, there're so many weakness you could exploit, unlike Saber, they didn't live solely for the country and the sword, they must have some other interests, wealth, alcohol, fame, women, whatever, just try to win them with what they desired. Or if there're someone who just too obsessed with prophetic artifacts, just created one, made its legend and gave it to them.
>>136215071 There's both desirable functional and desirable decorative positions with a specific, but definable field of action, like being treasurer or master of the swans. Those titles are independent of their lordship.
Just look at the titles in the imperial court of the HRE and how what they entailed kept changing over time, when the emperor or other influential people felt it to be of use.
>>136214876 >Whether it's a medieval system or a modern one doesn't really matter.
You're suggesting "cutting ministries/cabinets" as if a King could just remove vassals' authority at will. Of course it matters. That kind of centralized royal power was only achieved a few times throughout history, and it took GENERATIONS of careful eroding of the nobility to reach the state where the king could simply declare someone no longer in charge of something and expect them to shrug and go away. The French monarchs had to turn their entire lifestyle into a goddamn pony show just to have the nobility so busy with their bullshit that they couldn't plot properly against them, and they only achieved this after generations of careful manipulation and enough stability o waste time in such a fashion.
>>136215266 How about you stop trying to write fanfiction and actually argue on the basis of the story?
If it were self-interest alone, there wouldn't have been a problem. They were going to fucking die without Arturia, the selfish choice was to support her. It was pride, not greed, that motivated them.
All this ceaseless wanking about how there obviously had to be administrative oversights and unfulfilled needs causing her unpopularity go against the story explicitly stating that there weren't, and that it was literally because they were such drama-prone shitheads that they wanted her out because of pride.
>>136215106 >And who the fuck would that be? Depends on the individual. It doesn't have to be someone who is politically at a higher pull. Sometimes it could simply be someone's father, someone's mentor, someone's rival, someone's peers, people that have done great feats, people whom you make pretend to be those people, the public at large...
Surely, the lands and history of Camelot offer a bit more people and lore to think of authority figures.
>>136215301 Look, as someone told you, you're mixing modern politics with ancient politics.
You're assuming that shuffling the cabinet is the same in ancient politics. It's not. You can't merely take away a Lord's title, and if you do you ought to expect some aggressive opposition. You've got to remember that the system's not the same. These lords weren't elected and their responsibilities can't always be taken by Kings (especially in King Arthur's time); the king could say that the Lord's land is his and remove the title of lord from the figurehead, but it wouldn't end with a simple sigh or an angry word.
>>136215405 >That kind of centralized royal power was only achieved a few times throughout history That means it's achievable by flawed mortals. If Saber was really flawless like you claimed, why couldn't she do it? See the contradiction?
>>136215618 >Depends on the individual. It doesn't have to be someone who is politically at a higher pull. Sometimes it could simply be someone's father, someone's mentor, someone's rival, someone's peers, people that have done great feats, people whom you make pretend to be those people, the public at large...
Like whom? No, really, what is your suggestion? That Arturia should have dug up some lord's (probably dead) father, ask him to tell his son "Oh boy, you're doing a great job!" and this would somehow help ease their resentment toward s completely different person?
This is total nonsense. Mention who. C'mon, who? You're so certain of these extremely specific relationships of people loyal to Arturia (instead of being butthurt like the rest) having influence on those not loyal to her, that I'm sure you can name a few. Also explain how being praised for something unrelated would help them not resent being ruled anymore, or worse, how being praised by someone they hate make them not feel patronized.
I'm done arguing with fanfiction writers. Read the fucking VN.
>>136215653 I'm not mixing up modern politics with ancient politics here. This shit, as I've said earlier, happened over and over in the HRE, which is even an example of a system on the more decentralized side.
While I acknowledge (and have done so from the start, even before you kept rambling on the cabinet point despite me offering you a multitude of tools) that the feudal systems' vassals have a much higher influence than ministers in modern democracies, I still think that it allows for subtle, scheming, yet influential intervention from sovereigns and their supporters. The kind of stuff Saber would be inept to do.
>>136215719 I think she was supposed to be closer to 35 or something. She was about 14 when she stopped aging, but then she spent a decade warring to unite Britain, and then spent the decade after that ruling the kingdom and fighting in some major wars waged against her.
>>136215765 >That means it's achievable by flawed mortals.
Throughout generations, you moron. Even the fucking Roman Empire couldn't solidify the Emperor's power that quickly. Julius, Augustus and even Tiberius had to pay lip service to the nobility. Even Augustus was not called "emperor" during his time because they wouldn't have let him get away with it. It literally took until Caligula's reign, by the time which most of the people who remembered republican rule were dead, for shit to get to the level of centralization we normally associate with an almighty ruler.
Again, it was achieved by having the progressively centralized government simply OUT-LIVE the people who remembered how and why they were opposed to it. You're suggesting doing this is a measly decade.
>>136216008 >This shit, as I've said earlier, happened over and over in the HRE, which is even an example of a system on the more decentralized side.
You're actually comparing the HRE to a tiny fucking country carved out of nothing where the bureaucracy consists of King->Petty lords->Fuck all?
Do you have any idea how fucking retarded that is? What "cabinet positions" are you even fucking talking about? What "authority" are you recommending to shuffle when the only authority each of those lords had was number of men-at-arms and territory?
I want to hear this what authority could the king have taken from them that would not have immediately resulted in a tyranny uprising?
>>136215653 No one said that outright removing lords en masses would create no problem. People did it step by step.
The first thing to do is creating a strong, loyal imperial military force answers directly to the king. You must buy their loyalty at all cost, women, fame, wealth, whatever. Saber failed to do this with her knights. The story stated many times they were different from the lords. Good thing was those knight still valued the code of honor and wanted the best for their country. It's just Saber was too stupid to make them love her. They betrayed because she hurt their feeling. Just fucking explained what she think was the best to them, and if they still refuse, just agreed with them, since it's their own choice. They didn't want villagers to die by their hands? Ok, they could do what they wanted, the casualty of the war could be higher, but she still won and won over their loyalty.
After that is dealing with the lords. Creating plot to make them turn into each other first. Then divide them into factions. Side with one faction to destroy the other, use the loyal royal force to maintain the country's stability. By then she should have a considerable amount of central power to let her deal with whichever lords left. Assassination, blaming them for treason, removing their title due to incompetency, there're many way. There are many dudes already did it and succeed in history, not that hard.
>>136216008 >I still think that it allows for subtle, scheming, yet influential intervention from sovereigns and their supporters
Like what? I mean, other than "murder and hope nobody notices the obvus instigator." Which I suppose would be carried out by those followers of hers with loose enough scruples to not mind it, while simultaneously have such a high appreciation for honor that they are loyal to her. Whoever the fuck that would be.
>>136216316 >The first thing to do is creating a strong, loyal imperial military force answers directly to the king.
How? There is no money, the country was created out of nothing, and the entirety of the infrastructure is in the hands of the lords. Arturia inherited a title, not a kingdom. They own all the shit.
Oh, also, even they don't have money to spend in this shit because the country is perpetually being besieged. They are forced to deplete their own villages to sustain their levies, and "standing armies" had not been a concept since the fall of the empire, and wouldn't be a concept again for centuries you anachronistic shithead.
>The story stated many times they were different from the lords
They were the lords. Literally, they were about to chose kingship based on their jousting ability. You just made this shit up completely.
>those knight still valued the code of honor and wanted the best for their country
No they didn't. Kay has a whole speech about how they just wanted to each do their shit and would hate to be forced to unite under a single king.
>They didn't want villagers to die by their hands? Ok, they could do what they wanted, the casualty of the war could be higher, but she still won and won over their loyalty.
The knights understood what was going on and that it had been the correct choice. Nobody failed to understand her decisions. They all realized they were correct, that's exactly why they couldn't find an excuse to rebel. It was the butthurt that motivated because the king was doing everything too perfectly and it shamed them. Lancelot's massive bitchfest encapsulates this above everything.
>After that is dealing with the lords.
These are the people you were just talking about, retard. This isn't Versailles-era France. There is no posh nobility: there's warlords, peasants forced into levies and immediately disbanded back to the fields upon the battle's completion, and jack-shit else.
>>136216174 Can you honestly not think of anything resembling cabinets and shuffleable privileges? There's a very obvious one even in this thread. I'll give you some tips:
3 tips: Galahad round table seat of the grail seeker
Solution: According to legend, Arthur invented the round table to stop fights between rivals over the best seats at the king's table. Obviously, a table is only so big, so it has a limited number of possible participants. Who decided who was allowed to sit with the king, or even next to the king? Usually laws, but even those laws have to come from somewhere, especially in the instances of the creation of new things like the round table. At the creation of such a new forum, Arthur, through what seems to be a mere formality, has a lot of regulating power by being able to select whom to invite. Being able to participate at such top forums is a huge plus in information and possibilities to influence other influential people. An especially interesting seat at the round table was the empty seat: the seat for the most pure knight, the grail seeker seat. Obviously, a very renowned, a very desirable honour seat to have. The kind of seat that is usually granted by the sovereign.
>>136216345 I could show you those sorts of titles in any society. Even in ancient Rome and ancient China, if such old cultures are more to your liking. We can probably go arbitrarily far back, even to hunter and gatherer societies with their shamanistic rites.
Humans seem to have a knack for ceremony and titles.
So in your version of history, instead of King Arthur's legacy being the knights of the round table, the purest and most noble knights in the land, it would have been the legend of a pure king chosen by a magic sword who then decided to surround themselves with the most petty and least loyal shits in order to bribe their detractors into complacency.
Which, in the long run, almost certainly would not have prevented the downfall of Camelot because they have all of the same reason to rebel, but now Arthur has fewer trustworthy allies.
>>136217085 Ok, I'm just going to give you one last reply because it's obvious you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about.
In the story you clearly never read yet are trying to argue about like a complete moron, Galahad was a child who was basically the Teen Titans division of the knights and did not hold any particular privileges granted by Arturia.
Also, other than Agravain, who was a spy from the start, Tristain, who was a bitch and left long before any of the shit started, and Mordred and Lancelot who personally CAUSED all the shit, the rest of the roundies were perfectly loyal to Arturia and stood by her at Camlann. You're suggesting shuffling something that is never mentioned in the story, to appease people who never cared about that thing and weren't even the problem.
>>136217464 Door's right there, if you don't want to talk and are too retarded to understand the purpose of the depiction of an influential closed circle. A keeper of the swans wasn't mentioned in one of the Arthur legends, of which there are a lot of variations, either, by the way.
>>136217720 So your suggestion to appease the people who loathed the king because they were not chosen, was to ask them to leave their lands unattended so they could sit close to the king and be reminded at all times of their indignity while having absolutely no extra privileges granted? 'cause, you know, one of the shared traits among every one of the KotRT is that none of them were landed and could afford to just chill at Camelot without worrying about leaving their shit undefended. Also, they were not honored for being in the table, they were honored for the feats they performed when sent out of dangerous suicidal missions. It was not a "cushy desk job" position, it was Camelot's crack team of legendary monster killers.
Yeah, that should work. Also, how many of these were you planning to invite?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.