Don Quixote=Max?

[Gandalf]

exactly what i was trying to say!

[Lemmy Claypool]

Actually, I disagree that Barbarossa's generals betrayed him. If anything he betrayed them for love. They were loyal to him, would die for him, and he turned his back on them and the country they served for a woman he knew was using him and bringing the country he loved into ruins. Besides, Barbarossa knew that Windy was using the Black Rune to corrupt his army and his generals and still refused to open his eyes eventhough he was not influenced by her magic. Clearly, Barbarossa betrayed them and not the other way around. They just behaved as they should have.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm talking literally. Surely all five (six if you include Georg Prime, though he only "signed up" for the duration of the Succession War) would have sworn an oath of loyalty to Barbarossa at one point. By joining the Liberation Army they would be breaking this oath and therefore betraying Barbarossa. It is a soldier's duty to follow the will of their lord for better or for worse. If you rebel against your lord by, for instance, joining the Liberation Army then there's nothing more treacherous.

[demon eye]

My point is that he was no longer the same lord they swore their oath to. He was no longer the same Emperor. He betrayed them. And a soldiers oath is first to their country and then to its ruler. That is the way it always has been. There can be no soldiers without a country. The ruler is just that country's leader, but their is no emperor without that country. So, like I stated, the soldiers and Generals serve their country first.

Barbarossa was the most traitorous. He betrayed his country and his people. Any loyal general under an oath is sworn to the duty of protecting their people against a tyrant. So, they did their duty and were in no way traitorous or rebellious. They stuck to their oath. Barbarossa was the one to have broken it once he became a tyrant and forget about his people and country. They had no obligation to serve or protect him since he was no longer the proper ruler that they had made their oath under.

[Night]

My point is that he was no longer the same lord they swore their oath to. He was no longer the same Emperor. He betrayed them. And a soldiers oath is first to their country and then to its ruler. That is the way it always has been. There can be no soldiers without a country. The ruler is just that country's leader, but their is no emperor without that country. So, like I stated, the soldiers and Generals serve their country first.

Barbarossa was the most traitorous. He betrayed his country and his people. Any loyal general under an oath is sworn to the duty of protecting their people against a tyrant. So, they did their duty and were in no way traitorous or rebellious. They stuck to their oath. Barbarossa was the one to have broken it once he became a tyrant and forget about his people and country. They had no obligation to serve or protect him since he was no longer the proper ruler that they had made their oath under.

I see what you're saying, and from a moral standpoint it makes sense. However, it doesn't work with what we know. With the exception of Sonya, the generals of Scarlet Moon more than likely swore an oath to Barbarossa during the Succession Wars, before he even became ruler. Their first allegiance was to Barbarossa, and to the empire second.

A good analogy (I hope) is with the armed forces today. Soldiers are supposed to follow the orders of their superiors, even if they believe that those orders may cause harm to their country. Similarly, by joining the Liberation Army, the generals of Scarlet Moon may have been doing the morally right thing, but they were still betraying their oaths to serve Barbarossa loyally.

Incidentally, many armed forces swear loyalty to the leader first (the Emperor, the monarch, the President etc).

*Edit* I believe many armed forces swear loyalty to the leaderof a nation-state first. I don't know for definite, having never sworn allegiance to anything beyond my own ego

[demon eye]

Even in the armed forces they swear loyalty to their country first and their leader second. And again, even if we use what we know in the game, Barbarossa is not the same leader thus they are not going against the oath at all.

He no longer was the sane Emperor they made an oath to due to the fact that he no longer had his country or people in the forefront of his mind, thus they did not betray any oath they may have sworn to him. He betrayed them, became a tyrant, and gave up his right to being the rightful Emperor for his love of Windy, thus they no longer had any obligation to him as emperor.

Any way you look at it, there was no longer an oath once he forfeited his right as the rightful emperor. As loyal generals to their country and to the throne it was just for them to give him death to relieve the country of a misguided tyrant. There are tales of this in every culture and books about actions such as these. Even Barbarossa respected what they did. The generals did everything they were supposed to do. Barbarossa was the one who betrayed and not them.

And again, soldiers swear loyalty to their country first and their leader second. Check out the statements that US Armed Forces have to state when they are sworn in. It is how it always has been written in the pages of history.

Even in Ancient Chines history, upon swearing loyalty to their leader, there is a certain mandate from Heaven that states that a ruler can be removed from the throne if he does not serve his people and his people have the right to do so.

[Night]

Even in the armed forces they swear loyalty to their country first and their leader second. And again, even if we use what we know in the game, Barbarossa is not the same leader thus they are not going against the oath at all.

And again, soldiers swear loyalty to their country first and their leader second. Check out the statements that US Armed Forces have to state when they are sworn in. It is how it always has been written in the pages of history.

Apologies, I should have thought of that considering the Revolutionary War. However, coming from the UK, our British Army swears allegiance specifically to the Queen and her successors. So, not all forces swear allegiance to a country first, not all swear allegiance to a leader first.

However, your argument that Barbarossa was not the same leader is not valid. He may be following different policies, but he is still the same person. He is still making his decisions of his own free will (as opposed to being under the control of a black rune). IF they swore allegiance to Barbarossa, then they are duty-bound to follow him in all his decisions. IF their oath is to Scarlet Moon as a political entity (which it may well be), then they have equally betrayed that, as they contributed to the destruction of the Scarlet Moon Empire and the creation of a new country in its place, which has a completely different political system (as a Republic).

For example, you say their oaths were to their country and the throne. However, they destroyed both of these in the war, replacing it with the Toran Republic and a Presidency. So, in this instance they certainly were the betrayers. If I think the PM is doing a bad job, then loyalty to my country requires I elect another man to the job. My loyalty does not require me to get rid of him, the entire system of government, and the existence of the UK, and setting up the Republic of Night in its place. However preferable that may be

But, in an extremely roundabout way, I agree with you. Now that I've thought about it more (thanks to you) I like to think that their oaths would be to the PEOPLE of Scarlet Moon. And if this were so, they were entirely loyal and true to their oaths.

Incidentally, the US army swears an oath to the Constitution first, then the President. It does not swear an oath to the United States itself. However, the argument goes that the Constitution IS the United States (constitutes it, if you will) so it still works.

[ShardStar]

Ain Gide, Teo McDohl and Sonya all seem to think their Emperor was the same, thus why Ain and Teo couldn't leave Barbossa's service. Sonya decided if she couldn't serve the Emperor, that she would serve the people by living through that conflict.

[demon eye]

Ain Gide, Teo and Sonya Shulen did not think their Emperor was the same. Teo clearly states that he was stubborn and refused to turn his back on his Emperor eventhough he had clearly changed. Sonya only remained loyal to Barbarossa because of Teo and Ain Gide thought that betraying Barbarossa would be the same as betraying the Empire. He was loyal to a fault and hence he met his demise. Neither of those three would have argued that Barbarossa had not changed. They blindly followed him for their own selfish reasons.

And even in the British Army I believe they swear loyalty to their country somewhere in there when they make their vows. A ruler that does not serve their country and puts their people in harm is an unfit ruler and therefore no ruler at all. That's why there are clauses for righteous removal of unjust leaders, also known as tyrants.

No one would say that the warriors who liberated their countrymen from tyrants betrayed their country. They returned the country back to its rightful state and freed them of unjust rule. That's not betrayal that's the code of a soldier. When their ruler has lost the mandate of Heaven it is their just duty to remove him form his position of leadership in order to put the country back on its right path.

However, your argument that Barbarossa was not the same leader is not valid. He may be following different policies, but he is still the same person.

This statement is untrue. He was not only following different policies but he put the fate of his people in the hands of a mad woman. Barbarossa Rugner was named the Golden Emperor for how he fought to help liberate his people from tyrannical rule much like his ancestor did before him when he liberated Rupanda from Harmonia.

Barbarossa was known to be a kind and just Emperor who cared for his people first and foremost. He even states that it was time for his life to end at the end of the game due to his unjust rule. He knew he was unfit as a ruler and he had clearly changed due to his love for a woman which made him lead his kingdom into ruin.

Barbarossa was not the same man since he lost his wife, Claudia. He had clearly changed into a puppet ruler to appease the needs of a woman he loved instead of tend to the needs of his people. He was no ruler. Oppenheimer, Kazim and Kwanda reached out to him only to ge ignored. Kazim was sent to the border and Oppenheimer and Kwanda were made to wear the Conqueror Runes.

And they were only obligated to follow his rules if they were just and tended to the needs of the country in which they served. Like I said, there would be no Emperor without an Empire and an empire is made of people to which they serve. The Emperor is the servant of the people that he is entrusted to lead. The generals are not obligated to follow the orders of a tyrant and that was what Barbarossa had become. They loved him, but he betrayed their trust and it was their duty to correct his wrongs.

And they did not contribute to the Scarlet Moon's destruction. Barbarossa had already done that for himself. The people needed a new political system established so another Barbarossa could not happen, thus they made it possible for their leader to be elected for a finite term..hence a presidency. Barbarossa could have remained ruler for life and ran the country into the dirt and there would have been no way to move him from his position. It needed to be done.

But, all in all I do agree with alot you are saying, but I see how the Generals betrayed him. They just did what needed to be done for the sake of their ruler and their country.

[Lemmy Claypool]

So, unless I've become confused on this topic somewhere along the line I believe we're all agreed that the generals betrayed Barbarossa (as a person and a leader), but by doing so were remaining loyal to their country?

[ShardStar]

I can agree with that.

[demon eye]

No, I still don't agree that they betrayed Barbarossa. I still say he betrayed them because I still can't find any way to prove that they betrayed him. Even up until the last moments his generals were with him and tried to convince him of the errors in his way. He refused to listen to reason, betrayed them and turned his back on them and his country. I still say there was no betrayal on their part, but it seems like it's just me.

[aydas_arrow]

i agree with demon eye, barbarrosa turned his back on his people, he betrayed them and let the empire fall into direpair, all becaus of his own fixation on windy.

and also he betrayed milch and Kwanda because he knew that windy was using conquor rune on them, yet they still tryed to save him.

[Lemmy Claypool]

It's probably worth pointing out that Milich and Kwanda accepted the black runes of their own accord. The other generals were offered them aswell but didn't want them.

[Oppenheimer]

True, but they only thought it helped them control animals. What purposes they originally had in mind for using this control is unknown, as what actually happened as a result of the rune's power was Windy's doing.

[Fu Su Lu]

It will probably depend on the point of view you look at the question, as Greeks said 600 years before Christo.-cough-pedant-cough-

On the other hand is it my ill imagination or this thread was about Don Quijote? Oh my god, the way things evolve...