[GRIMDARK] Fallout Equestria: Project Horizons Discussion

O. Hinds wrote:Equestria's technological advancement was about to push it to the point of being unstoppable, and its societal "advancement" was ongoing and had already pushed it to the point where the zebras could quite plausibly have been made a slave species.  To say nothing of the potential for Equestria to launch further wars of conquest in the future…

And now I'm picturing Nightmare Moon leading an Equestrian space-fleet against the universe with Hoofington as the flagship.

I need to go listen to some heavy metal now.

Derpmind wrote:In Silver's defense, he has used quotes as recently as the previous page.

Silver136 wrote:I've been typing most of these on my phone, quoting is annoying and buggy on it, however with the number of posts I've been making I migrated to my PC.

I'm sorry. I was receiving the new posts as fast as I could reply, and I had some trouble shifting gears from the post I'd just finished to a reply to a previous post without the context.
I apologize for snapping.  

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:I'm inclined to go so far as to say that the very Armageddon outcome justified one or both sides in not seeking a controlled surrender: if your enemy is willing to make a nuclear first strike within a MAD scenario, then you may have some good reason not to surrender.

Equestria's technological advancement was about to push it to the point of being unstoppable, and its societal "advancement" was ongoing and had already pushed it to the point where the zebras could quite plausibly have been made a slave species.  To say nothing of the potential for Equestria to launch further wars of conquest in the future…

The way the propaganda was placed and the way the zebras were rounded up into ghettos, I doubt they would be a slave species but rather just be exterminated and their provinces resettled with ponies.

Derpmind wrote:And now I'm picturing Nightmare Moon leading an Equestrian space-fleet against the universe with Hoofington as the flagship.

I need to go listen to some heavy metal now.

Um.
Er.
Uh.
I can't think of anything but Hot-Blooded Pinkie Pie now.
http://askhotbloodedpinkie.tumblr.com/post/39577510149

Am I the only one who somehow has equated the Tokomare with a Marker? I don't know why exactly, it just happened.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:I can't speak for the Pax Roamana, but bearing in mind the lengths that the Zebra Empire went (war over a a couple of mild insults, one legitimate, one not;

Um, it was Equestria that declared war.

Was it? I guess I misinterpreted what happened, or forgot. I thought they just seized a coal shipment, which while provocative, I'd characterize as less than an act of war; the leadership were just recklessly welcoming of the prospect of the zebras declaring war in retaliation.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:countering one massacre with two greater;

I'm not sure what you mean here.

The escalation after Littlehorn: the massacre of the refugees against the release of the Littlehorn agent and the burning of Hoofington.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:sending tens of millions to die even as the shadows of the Equestrian government are offering the olive branch;

We have no idea just what the terms were.

The back channels and later on Celestia's peace. Admittedly, it wasn't much, but there was at least some degree of openness.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:a stunningly ill-advised assassination/ransom attempt in response to an open offering to negotiate, which, incidentally, if anything makes less sense if they believe Luna is Nightmare Moon;

I like the hypothesis that Celestia was actually in on the events there and was planning to head to Roam to force peace.

I prefer to believe the opposite.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:And if you can't receive or are unable to trust the terms of your surrender, well, it's a hard move to justify. Especially when under many measures it looks like your standard of living, at least away from the front, improved during the course of the war (I don't exactly recall there being anything about blackouts and famine in the latter days of the conflict).

If the Princesses and the Ministry Mares all backed a surrender, I don't think that even end-of-war Equestria had gotten bad enough off for a coup to succeed.

Yeah, I wasn't going to bring that up, but since you did let's get it out there: it's generally incumbent upon the losing side to offer to surrender, or the winning to offer terms. Actually, that's why I was thinking in terms of armed withdrawal: Equestria could sit behind its impenetrable shields with its super soldiers, complete air superiority, and MAD capability, and just stop caring about the zebras.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:I'm inclined to go so far as to say that the very Armageddon outcome justified one or both sides in not seeking a controlled surrender: if your enemy is willing to make a nuclear first strike within a MAD scenario, then you may have some good reason not to surrender.

Equestria's technological advancement was about to push it to the point of being unstoppable, and its societal "advancement" was ongoing and had already pushed it to the point where the zebras could quite plausibly have been made a slave species.  To say nothing of the potential for Equestria to launch further wars of conquest in the future…

As I said, one or both.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:Now, what I may have liked to see at any point was an armed withdrawal and offer to cease hostilities, with the one side limiting military action to their own territory for a time as a sign of goodwill. Now, unfortunately I don't really know what the battle lines looked like, since it's skewed by what the pony-characters have seen. All I'm sure happened outside of Equestria proper are sabotage, air strikes, and an assassination. The Celestia and Luna suggest probable naval conflict as well, but would likely have had problems operating in Zebra waters if they had much ground-based air power available.

FoE Chapter 37 wrote:There were markings indicating battle lines where the zebras had managed to push into the country.  Most of the war, however, was being waged in the zebra’s homeland, and in the seas and lands between.

The withdrawal would pretty much have to be made by Equestria.  Which would have been great, and might indeed have lead to a negotiated white peace.  If nothing else, it might have improved relations enough for the backchannel attempts to succeed.  Equestria made not such attempt, though.

Yeah, sounds like that move would have better come from the Equestrians, but there's still some room for the zebras to make that attempt, too, if from a weaker position. Also, it's not like they weren't the ones that used a diplomatic meeting to, at best, facilitate an act of treason or, on the surface, kidnap or assassinate royalty.

Exodus Hero wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:I'm inclined to go so far as to say that the very Armageddon outcome justified one or both sides in not seeking a controlled surrender: if your enemy is willing to make a nuclear first strike within a MAD scenario, then you may have some good reason not to surrender.

Equestria's technological advancement was about to push it to the point of being unstoppable, and its societal "advancement" was ongoing and had already pushed it to the point where the zebras could quite plausibly have been made a slave species. To say nothing of the potential for Equestria to launch further wars of conquest in the future…

The way the propaganda was placed and the way the zebras were rounded up into ghettos, I doubt they would be a slave species but rather just be exterminated and their provinces resettled with ponies.

I don't know, considering there wasn't even anything approaching extermination on Equestria's own soil, and the sympathy for non-hostile zebras from the upper echelons of the government and the people—notably Rainbow Dash, Fluttershy, I believe Rarity, Applejack, Goldenblood, and I think the CMC—I don't quite see it actually happening. That that would be the zebras' perception, I could certainly believe.

Derpmind wrote:And now I'm picturing Nightmare Moon leading an Equestrian space-fleet against the universe with Hoofington as the flagship.

I need to go listen to some heavy metal now.

:D

Exodus Hero wrote:The way the propaganda was placed and the way the zebras were rounded up into ghettos, I doubt they would be a slave species but rather just be exterminated and their provinces resettled with ponies.

Oh, there'd likely be mass executions, including just for convenience, but the war probably would have had to continue a bit longer before a total extermination and replacement plan became politically viable; otherwise, there'd be too many ponies left who'd grown up before or early in the war and would object.  I suppose that the plan could have been implemented later after the war anyway, but that would increase the difficulty of justifying it.  Diplomatically, especially… though that would give a nice excuse for taking over any country that objected too strongly…

There's also the issue that, at least in my headcanon (as may be seen in my maps), the Pax Roamana was geographically much larger than Equestria; Equestrian megaspells could easily wipe out the majority of the zebra population, but that would leave a lot of empty land to fill.  Even if Equestria experienced a big baby boom after the war, they'd have difficulty.

Oh, and while there'd usually be the argument about the danger of slave revolts, mass mind-altering magic could take care of that.

And it is for reasons like this that my signature identifies the SACII as "The Missile that Won the War".

Valikdu wrote:Am I the only one who somehow has equated the Tokomare with a Marker? I don't know why exactly, it just happened.

…You mean from Vision?

Icy Shake wrote:Was it? I guess I misinterpreted what happened, or forgot. I thought they just seized a coal shipment, which while provocative, I'd characterize as less than an act of war; the leadership were just recklessly welcoming of the prospect of the zebras declaring war in retaliation.

I suppose that it could be interpreted that way, but:

“True,” Princess Celestia said with a soft sigh.  “So then, this is how it starts.  I only hope the Caesar realizes how dire our need is and reconsiders.”  She levitated a scroll of parchment and pen, deftly writing with the practiced ease of a thousand years.  Then she coiled it up and approached my host and a unicorn guard beside him.  “Take this executive command to Captain Lighthorn. He is to take custody of the coal shipments.  Take care to keep casualties to an absolute minimum.  Understood?”

"So then, this is how it starts" does not sound to me like something said by someone who didn't expect this to lead to war.

Icy Shake wrote:The escalation after Littlehorn: the massacre of the refugees against the release of the Littlehorn agent and the burning of Hoofington.

What's the first one?  I still don't remember or am not understanding.
As for the second one, we don't know the details behind that.

Icy Shake wrote:I prefer to believe the opposite.

Might I ask why?  You've said yourself that it doesn't make sense.

Icy Shake wrote:Yeah, I wasn't going to bring that up, but since you did let's get it out there: it's generally incumbent upon the losing side to offer to surrender, or the winning to offer terms.

Generally, yes, and full surrender would be rather extreme.  The fact of the matter is, though, that the Equestrian government could easily have gotten peace if peace was really what it wanted; instead, it pursued victory.

Icy Shake wrote:Actually, that's why I was thinking in terms of armed withdrawal: Equestria could sit behind its impenetrable shields with its super soldiers, complete air superiority, and MAD capability, and just stop caring about the zebras.

That's an example of just one of the many ways they could have done it, yes.  And the zebras, even with the Zebra Empire instead of the Pax Roamana, probably would have been quite happy just to have the threat ended; they, after all, were not the aggressors.  Equestria didn't do that, though, which only further weakened their covert attempts at peace.

Icy Shake wrote:As I said, one or both.

…I think I see what you're saying.  Not entirely sure, though.

Icy Shake wrote:Yeah, sounds like that move would have better come from the Equestrians, but there's still some room for the zebras to make that attempt, too, if from a weaker position.

…
"Okay, everyone, here's the new plan.  We're going to pull back from our lines and try to use the cessation of hostilities to negotiate peace."
"You mean the lines that are deep inside our ancestral territory, sir?"
"Yes, those are the ones."
"Won't the Equestrians just move forward, shoot us in the back, and grab even more land from us?"
"Yes, which is why we'll have to retreat really quickly so we stay out of their range until we can get the treaty signed."
"Which will lead to them taking even more land."
"Yes."
"And not having to give it back, since we're basically offering a conditional surrender."
"True."
"And therefore doing nothing to help the displaced zebras or curb Equestria's expansionism.  And we'll probably be making our own government fall due to the resultant instability."
"Possibly."
"Which will weaken us even further and possibly give Equestria cause to declare the treaty made with the old government invalid so that they can press the attack?"
"…"
"Why are we doing this again?"

Icy Shake wrote:Also, it's not like they weren't the ones that used a diplomatic meeting to, at best, facilitate an act of treason or, on the surface, kidnap or assassinate royalty.

Treason?  Explain to me how Celestia going to such lengths to bring peace would be treason.

Icy Shake wrote:I don't know, considering there wasn't even anything approaching extermination on Equestria's own soil, and the sympathy for non-hostile zebras from the upper echelons of the government and the people—notably Rainbow Dash, Fluttershy, I believe Rarity, Applejack, Goldenblood, and I think the CMC—I don't quite see it actually happening. That that would be the zebras' perception, I could certainly believe.

Among the upper echelons?  I don't think so.  Among a few people in the upper echelons.  A few mortal people, who could be replaced.  Luna, who, even without brining in the religious angle (which I discount a fair bit), is still doing nothing to try and stop the war; quite the opposite.  The general population, on all levels, was being increasingly conditioned from foalhood to see zebras as less fellow equine sentients and more a clever, malevolent, and alien sort of animal or monster.  The zebras who bowed to ponies were herded into a reasonably nice town but kept there under Equestrian guard, and there was still hostility to them.  The zebras who resisted were placed into definitely not reasonably nice camps.  Presumably, also, things were much nicer in Equestria than in the occupied lands and the fronts.  And really, again, just look at that propaganda and at how much ponies bought into it.  And if they didn't buy into it, well, the government could just reach into their heads and fiddle around until they did.  And, bad as Equestria looks with the information we have, I imagine that it would indeed look worse with the incomplete information available to the zebra leadership.

O. Hinds wrote:

Valikdu wrote:Am I the only one who somehow has equated the Tokomare with a Marker? I don't know why exactly, it just happened.

…You mean from Vision?

The ones from Dead Space.

Valikdu wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:

Valikdu wrote:Am I the only one who somehow has equated the Tokomare with a Marker? I don't know why exactly, it just happened.

…You mean from Vision?

The ones from Dead Space.

Is it because they are mutated and reanimated corpses, reshaped into horrific new forms or the fact that the Tokomare causes all kind of shit like flesh melting just like the marker causes mass suicide.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:Also, it's not like they weren't the ones that used a diplomatic meeting to, at best, facilitate an act of treason or, on the surface, kidnap or assassinate royalty.

Treason?  Explain to me how Celestia going to such lengths to bring peace would be treason.

Celestia was acting against Luna. Luna had directly told her not to go, but Celestia decides to go anyway.

Equestria's technological advancement was about to push it to the point of being unstoppable, and its societal "advancement" was ongoing and had already pushed it to the point where the zebras could quite plausibly have been made a slave species.  To say nothing of the potential for Equestria to launch further wars of conquest in the future…

And now I'm picturing Nightmare Moon leading an Equestrian space-fleet against the universe with Hoofington as the flagship.

I need to go listen to some heavy metal now.

Oooooo! And it turns out Shadowbolt tower's true purpose is to take off as a rocket and wage war through space! 

Icy Shake wrote:Was it? I guess I misinterpreted what happened, or forgot. I thought they just seized a coal shipment, which while provocative, I'd characterize as less than an act of war; the leadership were just recklessly welcoming of the prospect of the zebras declaring war in retaliation.

I'm pretty sure Shake is right here.

Dutcher wrote:

Valikdu wrote:The ones from Dead Space.

Is it because they are mutated and reanimated corpses, reshaped into horrific new forms or the fact that the Tokomare causes all kind of shit like flesh melting just like the marker causes mass suicide.

Silver136 wrote:Oooooo! And it turns out Shadowbolt tower's true purpose is to take off as a rocket and wage war through space!

Luna! Remember your voice lessons with Fluttershy!

Also, the 'green' signal that comes from space. And the fact that the Tokomare is accumulating souls.
Well, it's probably a good thing that the world ended when it did.

Or... well...:

Now I'm hoping for a Fluffle Puff cameo

Fluffy as fuck

Valikdu wrote:Also, the 'green' signal that comes from space. And the fact that the Tokomare is accumulating souls.
Well, it's probably a good thing that the world ended when it did.

Or... well...:

The green signal might be from Mothership Zeta.
Or at least the equestrian version of that DLC

Ever since Celestia stepped down, peace was impossible. When Luna became the ruler of Equestria, the only way for zebras to end the war was having her killed, because they were seeing her as Nightmare Moon (and before somebody will point out to what she said in the latest chatper - if she were NMM, she would have tried again to bring eternal night or something along those lines. I mean, she can walk in dreams, couldn't she send nightmares on zebras?). So they would never surrened. Now, Equestria, on the other hoof, I could see surrendering... except that the zebra would demand Luna to be killed. And ponies would either not agree for that, or shortly afterwards they would want vengance, would see her as martyr, they would rebel, start the war anew, and this time they would also fight for religious belief. In that scenario I think the war would have ended even worse.

Goldenblood... he isn't evil, but he isn't good either. He didn't kill that mare out of malice, but out of what he deemed necessity. But he still killed her. And, in my opinion, he was able to end the war. How? I don't know, but I think it was in his ability to come up with it... if he had help. He tried to do everything alone, by himself, and failed. He forgot - or, quite possible, never learned - about the magic of friendship. Had he treated Luna, mane6, Trottenhaimer, and everypony he worked with, as equals and true friends, had he been honest with them since the beginning, I'm sure that working truly together with them he would find a way to make everything right somehow. But instead, he chose to deal with everything by himself, so that he would take blame if things went to far. Too bad they went further than he anticipated. By the time he realized, it was too late.

I once pondered how Mothership Zeta would work in equestria version. I mean, those could be still the same aliens, and that would kinda explain quite a lot as to why the hell they were strangely excited about this:


but they could also be humans! Or those ghouls from Fallout New Vegas that flew off into space! Or heck, that talking raptor from World of Warcraft from Azshara that also flew off into space with her kids! The possibilities are endless!

Borsuq wrote:Ever since Celestia stepped down, peace was impossible. When Luna became the ruler of Equestria, the only way for zebras to end the war was having her killed, because they were seeing her as Nightmare Moon (and before somebody will point out to what she said in the latest chatper - if she were NMM, she would have tried again to bring eternal night or something along those lines. I mean, she can walk in dreams, couldn't she send nightmares on zebras?). So they would never surrened. Now, Equestria, on the other hoof, I could see surrendering... except that the zebra would demand Luna to be killed. And ponies would either not agree for that, or shortly afterwards they would want vengance, would see her as martyr, they would rebel, start the war anew, and this time they would also fight for religious belief. In that scenario I think the war would have ended even worse.

Goldenblood... he isn't evil, but he isn't good either. He didn't kill that mare out of malice, but out of what he deemed necessity. But he still killed her. And, in my opinion, he was able to end the war. How? I don't know, but I think it was in his ability to come up with it... if he had help. He tried to do everything alone, by himself, and failed. He forgot - or, quite possible, never learned - about the magic of friendship. Had he treated Luna, mane6, Trottenhaimer, and everypony he worked with, as equals and true friends, had he been honest with them since the beginning, I'm sure that working truly together with them he would find a way to make everything right somehow. But instead, he chose to deal with everything by himself, so that he would take blame if things went to far. Too bad they went further than he anticipated. By the time he realized, it was too late.

Exactly! Finally! That's what I've been trying to say! Yes! You are my favorite person at this point in time!

Oh god, just what we need, humans in Fallout Equestria

We could always kidnap you and hold you hostage until you spill the beans

swicked wrote:*that feel when you're aching to tell the forum about a theory you have that is SO flippin' obvious in retrospect but that is substantiated (not proven) in the unreleased material you were reading when you came up with it and so is likely inadmissible until chapter drop*
......grrrrrr......

Is it aliens?
Is it the marker?
Is Goldenblood actually Black Pony Mountain?

Yes Goldenblood turned into a giant rock nobody thinks is important. Cause of killing joke.
This is my headcanon till proven otherwise.

Valikdu wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:

Valikdu wrote:Am I the only one who somehow has equated the Tokomare with a Marker? I don't know why exactly, it just happened.

…You mean from Vision?

The ones from Dead Space.

Ah, I'm not familiar with that; thanks.

Silver136 wrote:Celestia was acting against Luna. Luna had directly told her not to go, but Celestia decides to go anyway.

Hm. Yes, I suppose that it would technically be treason, thanks. Against the government on behalf of the people, though.

SilentCarto wrote:I'm pretty sure Shake is right here.

How do you interpret the bit I quoted, then?

Borsuq wrote:Ever since Celestia stepped down, peace was impossible. When Luna became the ruler of Equestria, the only way for zebras to end the war was having her killed, because they were seeing her as Nightmare Moon (and before somebody will point out to what she said in the latest chatper - if she were NMM, she would have tried again to bring eternal night or something along those lines. I mean, she can walk in dreams, couldn't she send nightmares on zebras?). So they would never surrened. Now, Equestria, on the other hoof, I could see surrendering... except that the zebra would demand Luna to be killed. And ponies would either not agree for that, or shortly afterwards they would want vengance, would see her as martyr, they would rebel, start the war anew, and this time they would also fight for religious belief. In that scenario I think the war would have ended even worse.

Well, I discount the religion angle somewhat anyway, as I said, but even ignoring that, consider that (and I believe that this was mentioned in PH at some point, though I do not have time to search for it) stepping down and surrendering power for peace would be a very un-Nightmare-Moon-like thing to do. Merely by making the offer, and probably offering generous trade terms besides to make sure that it was accepted, she'd be showing that she wasn't Nightmare Moon.

swicked wrote:*that feel when you're aching to tell the forum about a theory you have that is SO flippin' obvious in retrospect but that is substantiated (not proven) in the unreleased material you were reading when you came up with it and so is likely inadmissible until chapter drop*
......grrrrrr......

Oh, I know that family of feelings.

Borsuq wrote:Ever since Celestia stepped down, peace was impossible. When Luna became the ruler of Equestria, the only way for zebras to end the war was having her killed, because they were seeing her as Nightmare Moon.

We really don't know how widespread that belief was or how deeply it was held.  Even if it was widely held, there's a really good chance that it was wartime propaganda as much as "villainous stripes" and such were and wouldn't have outlasted the war by very much except in the case of a few religious extremists.

Now, Equestria, on the other hoof, I could see surrendering... except that the zebra would demand Luna to be killed. And ponies would either not agree for that, or shortly afterwards they would want vengance, would see her as martyr, they would rebel, start the war anew, and this time they would also fight for religious belief. In that scenario I think the war would have ended even worse.

They wouldn't necessarily demand the death of Luna, and in any case you're talking about an unconditional surrender on one side or the other, which isn't what we're discussing.  Most wars don't end with a surrender.  They end with negotiations (which it doesn't seem like either side took very seriously) or conditional surrenders or just because the territory-grab stops.

Claiming Equestria had no choice but to keep fighting seems like willful blindness to any other options.

Goldenblood... he isn't evil, but he isn't good either. He didn't kill that mare out of malice, but out of what he deemed necessity. But he still killed her.

Oh, well okay then.  As long as he didn't do it maliciously then it's clearly not evil.

Dude.  Doing terrible things because they're convenient is practically the definition of evil.

Goldenblood never tried to Do Better.  He did the opposite.  He tried to Do Worse because he figured he'd die before taking the responsibility and could be the scapegoat for others.  He turned on his own ideals because it was easier to do that than to avoid doing the bad things.  (Go back and read young Goldenblood's comments, right after returning from the Zebra lands.)  As Carto said, he never tried to reach peace, he tried to reach victory (for Luna).  He did awful things and helped awful things happen, and while he isn't completely reprehensible, he's way too far over the line to be anything but a villain.

Carto mentioned the concept of the "anti-villain", and it fits him perfectly.  From TV Tropes:

The Anti-Villain is a villain with heroic goals, personality traits, and/or virtues. Their desired ends are mostly good, but their means of getting there are evil... Most of them are probably well aware that what they're doing is "evil", but strive to maintain a facade of good PR. They'll see it as a viable means to a (possibly) good end.

Well-Intentioned Anti-Villain:
They may believe in a good goal, but use whatever means there are to achieve it. The sympathy the audience can garner for this character comes from the fact that they basically share the same goal as the hero, but are pragmatically, expediently, or pessimistically, ruthless about it. They can very much be conscious about their morally questionable actions, but feel that there is no other way...

FeatherDust wrote:We really don't know how widespread that belief was or how deeply it was held.  Even if it was widely held, there's a really good chance that it was wartime propaganda as much as "villainous stripes" and such were and wouldn't have outlasted the war by very much except in the case of a few religious extremists.

And it just so happens that in both Project Horizons and original FoE those few religious extermists keep appearing? While I don't remember now if the Remnants ever brough that one up, the fact that they believed in the "Maiden of the Stars" thing points out to them being a bit superstitious.

FeatherDust wrote:They wouldn't necessarily demand the death of Luna, and in any case you're talking about an unconditional surrender on one side or the other, which isn't what we're discussing.  Most wars don't end with a surrender.  They end with negotiations (which it doesn't seem like either side took very seriously) or conditional surrenders or just because the territory-grab stops.

Claiming Equestria had no choice but to keep fighting seems like willful blindness to any other options.

They tried peace talks. Zebra started shooting. Ponies started shooting back. Ponies started shooting ponies.

How exactly Equestria was supposed to stop fighting? I mean, yes, they were winning, and they had claimed much of the zebra's territory, but if they were to halt their advance or even pull out, what would zebra do? Especially with Caesar with the small d**k syndrome in charge? I mean, the zebras even started making robots because they no longer had the soldiers to send into battles. Instead of trying to reach out, they continued to fight. Some, seeing how bad had things become, tried to defect, but then they got killed by insubordinate equestrian soldier. About... what, 20 years? About 20 years of war, of killing and seeing your close ones killed makes things difficult. It's an endless circle of hate...

And while Equestria might have been winning on the frontline, there were also battles inside the country. Saboteures, infiltrators, spies, assassins, et cetera. Just stopping fighting on frontlines wouldn't be enough.

FeatherDust wrote:Oh, well okay then.  As long as he didn't do it maliciously then it's clearly not evil.

Dude.  Doing terrible things because they're convenient is practically the definition of evil.

Goldenblood never tried to Do Better.  He did the opposite.  He tried to Do Worse because he figured he'd die before taking the responsibility and could be the scapegoat for others.  He turned on his own ideals because it was easier to do that than to avoid doing the bad things.  (Go back and read young Goldenblood's comments, right after returning from the Zebra lands.)  As Carto said, he never tried to reach peace, he tried to reach victory (for Luna).  He did awful things and helped awful things happen, and while he isn't completely reprehensible, he's way too far over the line to be anything but a villain.

Mind you, I dislike Goldenblood a lot. And I never said that I don't think he's a villain. By my count, he deserved a death penalty for hitting Twilight alone, not to mention everything else ;p. But you can't see the world in black and white and just say that he was evil. He did those things because he didn't think there was another choice (again, if he had a group of friends working truly together with him, he might have found another way).

Also, he did suggest to Luna to end the war by surrendering before he came up with the ministries.

But yeah, he's closer to evil than to good.

O. Hinds wrote:

SilentCarto wrote:I'm pretty sure Shake is right here.

How do you interpret the bit I quoted, then?

I don't quite know what bit you mean. Celestia signed an executive order to take the coal by force, but that is not equivalent to a declaration of war, which is a formal document that lays out who one is going to war against and why. Celestia knew it was a provocative act, certainly, but if the zebras had failed to respond, the ponies would not have carried hostilities any farther. It was the zebras, as the aggrieved party, that actually declared war.

Celestia gave that order with the full expectation that it would cause a war, and there was no doubt about who the chief belligerents would be or what they'd (initially) be fighting over. Was it a formal declaration of war? No. But I would argue that it was indeed an informal one.

O. Hinds wrote:

Exodus Hero wrote:The way the propaganda was placed and the way the zebras were rounded up into ghettos, I doubt they would be a slave species but rather just be exterminated and their provinces resettled with ponies.

Oh, there'd likely be mass executions, including just for convenience, but the war probably would have had to continue a bit longer before a total extermination and replacement plan became politically viable; otherwise, there'd be too many ponies left who'd grown up before or early in the war and would object.  I suppose that the plan could have been implemented later after the war anyway, but that would increase the difficulty of justifying it.  Diplomatically, especially… though that would give a nice excuse for taking over any country that objected too strongly…

There's also the issue that, at least in my headcanon (as may be seen in my maps), the Pax Roamana was geographically much larger than Equestria; Equestrian megaspells could easily wipe out the majority of the zebra population, but that would leave a lot of empty land to fill.  Even if Equestria experienced a big baby boom after the war, they'd have difficulty.

Oh, and while there'd usually be the argument about the danger of slave revolts, mass mind-altering magic could take care of that.

And it is for reasons like this that my signature identifies the SACII as "The Missile that Won the War".

Yeah, I think that what we have here is essentially a conflict in headcanon: it looks to me like we more or less see the two sides in reverse.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:Was it? I guess I misinterpreted what happened, or forgot. I thought they just seized a coal shipment, which while provocative, I'd characterize as less than an act of war; the leadership were just recklessly welcoming of the prospect of the zebras declaring war in retaliation.

I suppose that it could be interpreted that way, but:

“True,” Princess Celestia said with a soft sigh.  “So then, this is how it starts.  I only hope the Caesar realizes how dire our need is and reconsiders.”  She levitated a scroll of parchment and pen, deftly writing with the practiced ease of a thousand years.  Then she coiled it up and approached my host and a unicorn guard beside him.  “Take this executive command to Captain Lighthorn. He is to take custody of the coal shipments.  Take care to keep casualties to an absolute minimum.  Understood?”

"So then, this is how it starts" does not sound to me like something said by someone who didn't expect this to lead to war.

Well, if you want to go that way, why not push it back further?

“Your Majesty, this goes beyond insult!  That coal was paid for nearly two years ago.  It is illegal for the zebras to halt shipments due to a… political disagreement!” a fancily dressed mare snorted in disdain.

“The Caesar remains adamant.  The coal will not be released until his government can verify the legality of our claims,” Celestia said softly as she looked at the models.  “His representative also hinted that we should re-evaluate our own gemstone embargo.”

Precipitating a famine to score political points? If that had been done to his own people, it would be pretty comparable to the Ukrainian genocide under Stalin. Lightening up a bit, it's bog standard (possibly even relatively weak tea) gunboat diplomacy. This sort of limited and isolated raid very often doesn't result in a war, unless, of course, those on the "receiving" (not enough scare-quotes in the world) end were looking for a war in the first place. Which, incidentally, seemed to be the case here.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:The escalation after Littlehorn: the massacre of the refugees against the release of the Littlehorn agent and the burning of Hoofington.

What's the first one?  I still don't remember or am not understanding.
As for the second one, we don't know the details behind that.

There were two escalations following Littlehorn, as I recall: the gassing and soon after the burning of Hoofington. One possibly proportional response, one massively disproportionate. We do know that hundreds were killed, and thousands displaced. I suppose it's possible it wasn't done by the zebras, but given the pieces in play at the time it was probably either them or the Legate. And sorry, but this is where you're saying "we don't know the details behind that"?  

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:I prefer to believe the opposite.

Might I ask why?  You've said yourself that it doesn't make sense.

For one thing, I think it doesn't make sense from the zebras' side, because if they believe she's the evil star child out to plunge the world into eternal night and drink from their skulls, who incidentally hated and resented Celestia, how does this play well in terms of government policy? I think that, if successful, it was more likely to work, and less likely to backfire, if nice-Luna is in charge than The-Night-Shall-Last-Forever–Luna. Also, if you take, as I do, it as obvious that if they really, really believe Luna is Nightmare Moon then their only coherent position is that she can't merely be deposed, but must be banished once again or killed, I think you'll see how "Ha ha! Surrender your princess to us, that we may kill her, or we will murder this other princess!" seems like a questionable negotiating stance, and unlikely to bear much weight with the Equestrian populace, in fact being more likely to stoke the fires of their hatred. Much like, you know, what happened.
On Celestia's side, for one, it very much wasn't her place to do something like that, as it could very well endanger herself, her sister, and her country. Also, it seems like an unconscionable escalation compared to, say, going to the press or making an effort to talk to Twilight comprehensive enough to get past a firm secretary. Granted, I don't think she was ever presented as very capable in FoE, and let's bear in mind my feelings regarding her in-show have been on a long decline due to one stupid or morally dubious decision after another in seasons two and three, admittedly mostly after the FoE canon-break, but when she wasn't shown as anything that great in FoE either . . .

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:Yeah, I wasn't going to bring that up, but since you did let's get it out there: it's generally incumbent upon the losing side to offer to surrender, or the winning to offer terms.

Generally, yes, and full surrender would be rather extreme.  The fact of the matter is, though, that the Equestrian government could easily have gotten peace if peace was really what it wanted; instead, it pursued victory.

So I should have said "sue for peace." Far as I can tell, the point stands: in the conventional war, the Equestrians were greatly outperforming on both fronts, but, crucially, were still under attack on their own soil. Would it have been nice if they had made overtures, or dropped a bunch of fliers saying "Here is the starting point of the terms of surrender/armistice/whatever we are offering your government: [bulleted list]"? Yes. Whose responsibility was it to shout at the top of their lungs "We're ready to stop throwing our lives away in a losing war"? The zebras'. If they make a good-faith effort along those lines then yes, we're looking at very bad behavior, possibly illegal, on the part of the Equestrians. By all indications, that. Didn't. Happen. Again, it's incumbent on the side losing the war to sue for peace, especially when, by continuing to attack the homeland of the side that's winning the war, they are offering prima facie evidence that in order for the winning side to accomplish legitimate aims, here, getting the attacks to stop, merely by holding and fortifying what they already have will be insufficient.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:Actually, that's why I was thinking in terms of armed withdrawal: Equestria could sit behind its impenetrable shields with its super soldiers, complete air superiority, and MAD capability, and just stop caring about the zebras.

That's an example of just one of the many ways they could have done it, yes.  And the zebras, even with the Zebra Empire instead of the Pax Roamana, probably would have been quite happy just to have the threat ended; they, after all, were not the aggressors.  Equestria didn't do that, though, which only further weakened their covert attempts at peace.

Icy Shake wrote:As I said, one or both.

…I think I see what you're saying.  Not entirely sure, though.

Let me put it this way: if either side knows the other is willing to pull the pin of a grenade, tackle them, and keep pressed to them with the live grenade between them until it goes off, then they're better off not sticking their legs in buckets of cement and wearing an elastic band around their neck so the other can instead leave them a grenade ball gag.
Remember, the very premise of MAD is "We really don't like you, and we know you don't like us, but let's be serious: we both know better than to do anything so terrible to the other that killing us both for spite looks like a good option." It's when that trust isn't there that a preemptive first strike starts looking like a remotely plausible idea ("We could get lucky") even to a relatively rational actor.

Also, unlike the zebras broadcasting "We are interested in ending this war; here are some terms that we can start to negotiate from that don't include the laughably unreasonable condition that you change your government," Equestria never had the opportunity to sit behind its impenetrable shields with its super soldiers and air superiority and MAD capability, did it? Sure, they likely wouldn't have, but then, we'll never know for sure.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:Yeah, sounds like that move would have better come from the Equestrians, but there's still some room for the zebras to make that attempt, too, if from a weaker position.

…
"Okay, everyone, here's the new plan.  We're going to pull back from our lines and try to use the cessation of hostilities to negotiate peace."
"You mean the lines that are deep inside our ancestral territory, sir?"
"Yes, those are the ones."
"Won't the Equestrians just move forward, shoot us in the back, and grab even more land from us?"
"Yes, which is why we'll have to retreat really quickly so we stay out of their range until we can get the treaty signed."
"Which will lead to them taking even more land."
"Yes."
"And not having to give it back, since we're basically offering a conditional surrender."
"True."
"And therefore doing nothing to help the displaced zebras or curb Equestria's expansionism.  And we'll probably be making our own government fall due to the resultant instability."
"Possibly."
"Which will weaken us even further and possibly give Equestria cause to declare the treaty made with the old government invalid so that they can press the attack?"
"…"
"Why are we doing this again?"

I think you misunderstood what I was proposing. It might go more like this:
…
"Okay, everyone, here's the new plan.  We're going to pull back from our lines in prewar Equestria and try to use the cessation of hostilities to negotiate peace."
"You mean the lines that are deep inside our ancestral territory, sir?"
"Yes, those are the ones.""The fuck are you talking about? No, I mean we stop pointlessly sending wave after wave of men and valuable war capital into the meatgrinder of Hoofington, which incidentally has been Equestrian territory for over a millenium, and where by my understanding we have been more of a considerable nuisance than a credible threat of conquest or destruction anyway. We can even divert those resources to protecting our ancestral territory."
"Won't the Equestrians just move forward, shoot us in the back, and grab even more land from us?"
"Yes, which is why we'll have to retreat really quickly so we stay out of their range until we can get the treaty signed.""If anything this gives us a better chance of holding that land which was legitimately ours before the present conflict."
"Which will lead to them taking even more land."
"Yes.""I'm not sure you're listening. We're losing this conventional war as it is; by shortening our supply lines, concentrating our forces, and not giving continued reason for them to attack our homeland merely to defend theirs, we may be able to get better terms than in the counterfactual."
"And not having to give it back, since we're basically offering a conditional surrender."
"True. That's what happens when you lose a war and are smart enough to try to end it before the only alternative is annihilation or unconditional surrender."
"And therefore doing nothing to help the displaced zebras or curb Equestria's expansionism.  And we'll probably be making our own government fall due to the resultant instability."
"Possibly. Your alternative is what, exactly? All that, while continuing to make largely futile attacks on the pony homeland that have been more costly to us than them? Also, regarding that Equestrian expansionism, remember that we started this war in order to soothe our Caesar's bruised ego after he nearly precipitated a famine in their country."
"Which will weaken us even further and possibly give Equestria cause to declare the treaty made with the old government invalid so that they can press the attack?"
"…"
"Why are we doing this again?"
"Soldier, I now see why you didn't ever make it to command."

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:Also, it's not like they weren't the ones that used a diplomatic meeting to, at best, facilitate an act of treason or, on the surface, kidnap or assassinate royalty.

Treason?  Explain to me how Celestia going to such lengths to bring peace would be treason.

First, bear in mind the situation: at best, they are helping her to defect so they can use her as a hostage against Luna and Equestria, that is to say, what you like to think Celestia was doing there—that's the treason. Now, using the fairly narrow definition in the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," how wouldn't it constitute treason? I have adhering to them, giving them aid, and quite likely comfort as well.

O. Hinds wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:I don't know, considering there wasn't even anything approaching extermination on Equestria's own soil, and the sympathy for non-hostile zebras from the upper echelons of the government and the people—notably Rainbow Dash, Fluttershy, I believe Rarity, Applejack, Goldenblood, and I think the CMC—I don't quite see it actually happening. That that would be the zebras' perception, I could certainly believe.

Among the upper echelons?  I don't think so.  Among a few people in the upper echelons.  A few mortal people, who could be replaced.  Luna, who, even without brining in the religious angle (which I discount a fair bit), is still doing nothing to try and stop the war; quite the opposite.  The general population, on all levels, was being increasingly conditioned from foalhood to see zebras as less fellow equine sentients and more a clever, malevolent, and alien sort of animal or monster.  The zebras who bowed to ponies were herded into a reasonably nice town but kept there under Equestrian guard, and there was still hostility to them.  The zebras who resisted were placed into definitely not reasonably nice camps.  Presumably, also, things were much nicer in Equestria than in the occupied lands and the fronts.  And really, again, just look at that propaganda and at how much ponies bought into it.  And if they didn't buy into it, well, the government could just reach into their heads and fiddle around until they did.  And, bad as Equestria looks with the information we have, I imagine that it would indeed look worse with the incomplete information available to the zebra leadership.

I'll chalk this up to a difference in headcanon: I tend to trust that the people at the top don't consume the Prolefeed and stand ready to tone things down given the opportunity, after victory has been achieved, at least in this case. As for the propaganda itself: on that basis, why are there still Germans in Germany or Japanese in Japan? You can have as propaganda that your enemy is there to eat your babies and burn civilization to the ground, yet push for a peace more lenient than Versailles. It happens.

O. Hinds wrote:

Silver136 wrote:Celestia was acting against Luna. Luna had directly told her not to go, but Celestia decides to go anyway.

Hm.  Yes, I suppose that it would technically be treason, thanks.  Against the government on behalf of the people, though.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that merely going to the conference was treason, given it was ultimately allowed. However, extrapolating to the planned defection, that's clearly treason. And I'd argue that it wasn't treason on behalf of the people, but doing what she thought was best for the people, regardless of whether they agreed.

O. Hinds wrote:

SilentCarto wrote:I'm pretty sure Shake is right here.

How do you interpret the bit I quoted, then?

Probably pretty close to how I interpreted it.

SilentCarto wrote:

O. Hinds wrote:

SilentCarto wrote:I'm pretty sure Shake is right here.

How do you interpret the bit I quoted, then?

I don't quite know what bit you mean. Celestia signed an executive order to take the coal by force, but that is not equivalent to a declaration of war, which is a formal document that lays out who one is going to war against and why. Celestia knew it was a provocative act, certainly, but if the zebras had failed to respond, the ponies would not have carried hostilities any farther. It was the zebras, as the aggrieved party, that actually declared war.

I think I'm a little more ambivalent on the aggrieved party in general, if not for this act in particular, so I won't call that a ringer, but I trust SilentCarto will correct me if it is in fact not close enough for horseshoes.

O. Hinds wrote:Celestia gave that order with the full expectation that it would cause a war, and there was no doubt about who the chief belligerents would be or what they'd (initially) be fighting over.  Was it a formal declaration of war?  No.  But I would argue that it was indeed an informal one.

And I'd argue that seizing goods that were already paid for and precipitating a famine, then demanding tribute, are belligerent actions that warrant the seizure. She knew it might cause a war, but surely the Caesar knew or should have known that he was making a blatant and egregious provoking action, not to start a war but to seize the goods. That he could then claim the seizure as provocation to war doesn't change who began the belligerent actions.

Icy Shake wrote:I think I'm a little more ambivalent on the aggrieved party in general, if not for this act in particular, so I won't call that a ringer, but I trust SilentCarto will correct me if it is in fact not close enough for horseshoes.

I'll grant that the Caesar's actions were offensive and not in good faith, but it still doesn't constitute Initiation of Force. To scale this down, imagine you paid for a coke, but the cashier then refused to give you the coke. You respond by punching him and taking the coke. He wasn't right to withhold it, but you've become guilty of a far greater crime by committing assault and battery to rectify the situation. Two wrongs don't make a right.

SilentCarto wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:I think I'm a little more ambivalent on the aggrieved party in general, if not for this act in particular, so I won't call that a ringer, but I trust SilentCarto will correct me if it is in fact not close enough for horseshoes.

I'll grant that the Caesar's actions were offensive and not in good faith, but it still doesn't constitute Initiation of Force. To scale this down, imagine you paid for a coke, but the cashier then refused to give you the coke. You respond by punching him and taking the coke. He wasn't right to withhold it, but you've become guilty of a far greater crime by committing assault and battery to rectify the situation. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I feel like that's still lacking a few details specific to the Equestria-Zebra conflict. After all, we know the caeser was having issues pacifying his people. I think the metaphor would be a little more accurate if we say the clerk was close to losing his job. After you steal the coke, he pulls a weapon and fights back, hoping that his manager will let him keep his job if he "stands his ground". The wrongs not making a right still applies, definitely, but escalation occurs as well.

SilentCarto wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:I think I'm a little more ambivalent on the aggrieved party in general, if not for this act in particular, so I won't call that a ringer, but I trust SilentCarto will correct me if it is in fact not close enough for horseshoes.

I'll grant that the Caesar's actions were offensive and not in good faith, but it still doesn't constitute Initiation of Force. To scale this down, imagine you paid for a coke, but the cashier then refused to give you the coke. You respond by punching him and taking the coke. He wasn't right to withhold it, but you've become guilty of a far greater crime by committing assault and battery to rectify the situation. Two wrongs don't make a right.

There might be a difference in ethics here too: For the Equestrians, they're used to being the heroes of their stories so violating statehood (or whatever it's called) isn't as important as preventing the bad thing, which in this case is famine, but for the Zebras an attack on their soil by another country, regardless of the reasons, is enough to declare war. The Equestrian government saw muscling in and taking what they need to be better than leaving it up to good faith in the Caesar, whereas the Caesar fully expected Equestria to negotiate and was blindsided by their assault. Maybe I'm not saying it the right way, but it seems like the kind of thing that an outside perspective could see as a possibility and try to manipulate to happen.

Silver136 wrote:

SilentCarto wrote:

Icy Shake wrote:I think I'm a little more ambivalent on the aggrieved party in general, if not for this act in particular, so I won't call that a ringer, but I trust SilentCarto will correct me if it is in fact not close enough for horseshoes.

I'll grant that the Caesar's actions were offensive and not in good faith, but it still doesn't constitute Initiation of Force. To scale this down, imagine you paid for a coke, but the cashier then refused to give you the coke. You respond by punching him and taking the coke. He wasn't right to withhold it, but you've become guilty of a far greater crime by committing assault and battery to rectify the situation. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I feel like that's still lacking a few details specific to the Equestria-Zebra conflict. After all, we know the caeser was having issues pacifying his people. I think the metaphor would be a little more accurate if we say the clerk was close to losing his job. After you steal the coke, he pulls a weapon and fights back, hoping that his manager will let him keep his job if he "stands his ground". The wrongs not making a right still applies, definitely, but escalation occurs as well.

Let's not forget that you are on the edge of great personal danger from dehydration or diabetic hypoglycemia and he's using that to extort more from you. Or maybe it's your kid who's about to die. Still not saying the raid was the first-best answer available, but I really do think that absent the zebras' government itching for a fight it would have fallen short of a legitimate, or at least practical, cause for war, and again, there's no reason it couldn't have ended right there, or at least simmered until negotiations broke down again later as supplies ran out again.

Icy Shake wrote:Yeah, I think that what we have here is essentially a conflict in headcanon: it looks to me like we more or less see the two sides in reverse.

Ah well.

Icy Shake wrote:Precipitating a famine to score political points? If that had been done to his own people, it would be pretty comparable to the Ukrainian genocide under Stalin. Lightening up a bit, it's bog standard (possibly even relatively weak tea) gunboat diplomacy. This sort of limited and isolated raid very often doesn't result in a war, unless, of course, those on the "receiving" (not enough scare-quotes in the world) end were looking for a war in the first place.

A famine would have happened soon if the coal had not gotten through; it was not ongoing at the time. We do not know that the zebras would not have released the coal at the last minute to avoid such a thing. A power failure was about a month away, and presumably the electricity would be cut before the food trains stopped running.

Also, the phrasing would appear to indicate that the gemstone embargo happened first.

Icy Shake wrote:Which, incidentally, seemed to be the case here.

Incidentally? It is incidental that Equestria was eager for war? Especially since the zebras had more or less every right to expect it to be eager to avoid war?

Icy Shake wrote:There were two escalations following Littlehorn, as I recall: the gassing and soon after the burning of Hoofington. One possibly proportional response, one massively disproportionate. We do know that hundreds were killed, and thousands displaced. I suppose it's possible it wasn't done by the zebras, but given the pieces in play at the time it was probably either them or the Legate.

I'm still not remembering this gassing.

Icy Shake wrote:And sorry, but this is where you're saying "we don't know the details behind that"?

I will not go so far as to attempt to say that the civilian casualties were justified, but I will say that I believe them to be understandable given the deaths of the refugees at Littlehorn and Equestria's attempt to blame the bombing there on the zebras; no doubt the soldiers who carried out the attack on Hoofington (assuming that that wasn't something Equestria did, which seem unlikely but which I'm not willing to rule out) were more unpleasantly zealous than they'd otherwise have been. As for the original reason for the attack, we do not know that Hoofington didn't contain a legitimate strategic target.

Icy Shake wrote:For one thing, I think it doesn't make sense from the zebras' side, because if they believe she's the evil star child out to plunge the world into eternal night and drink from their skulls, who incidentally hated and resented Celestia, how does this play well in terms of government policy? I think that, if successful, it was more likely to work, and less likely to backfire, if nice-Luna is in charge than The-Night-Shall-Last-Forever–Luna. Also, if you take, as I do, it as obvious that if they really, really believe Luna is Nightmare Moon then their only coherent position is that she can't merely be deposed, but must be banished once again or killed, I think you'll see how "Ha ha! Surrender your princess to us, that we may kill her, or we will murder this other princess!" seems like a questionable negotiating stance, and unlikely to bear much weight with the Equestrian populace, in fact being more likely to stoke the fires of their hatred. Much like, you know, what happened.

…I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

Icy Shake wrote:On Celestia's side, for one, it very much wasn't her place to do something like that, as it could very well endanger herself, her sister, and her country. Also, it seems like an unconscionable escalation compared to, say, going to the press or making an effort to talk to Twilight comprehensive enough to get past a firm secretary. Granted, I don't think she was ever presented as very capable in FoE, and let's bear in mind my feelings regarding her in-show have been on a long decline due to one stupid or morally dubious decision after another in seasons two and three, admittedly mostly after the FoE canon-break, but when she wasn't shown as anything that great in FoE either . . .

She was locked out of Equestria's government. She could have tried literally running to the press, maybe, or giving a very public speech somewhere, but I wouldn't be surprised if she already tried to do this quietly and was unable. And if she'd gone public like that, what would have happened? Princess Celestia standing in a square in Manehattan and ranting about the war needing to stop? She'd be diagnosed with Wartime Stress Disorder, and the matter would be hushed up as quickly as possible.
But Princess Celestia standing in Roam, holding a joint press conference with the Caesar, and declaring that a fair and just peace must come and come now? How long could even Luna, much less the ponies under her, fight on with her sister on the other side and begging her to stop? Shattered Hoof Ridge was Celestia's attempt to grow a backbone, to try and keep things from spiraling out of control. She knew that the manner of her flight would likely leave people on both sides dead, but she was likely under guard too heavy for anything else. And then Shattered Hoof Ridge failed too, and was indeed used to justify worsening the war even further.

Icy Shake wrote:So I should have said "sue for peace." Far as I can tell, the point stands: in the conventional war, the Equestrians were greatly outperforming on both fronts, but, crucially, were still under attack on their own soil. Would it have been nice if they had made overtures, or dropped a bunch of fliers saying "Here is the starting point of the terms of surrender/armistice/whatever we are offering your government: [bulleted list]"? Yes. Whose responsibility was it to shout at the top of their lungs "We're ready to stop throwing our lives away in a losing war"? The zebras'. If they make a good-faith effort along those lines then yes, we're looking at very bad behavior, possibly illegal, on the part of the Equestrians. By all indications, that. Didn't. Happen. Again, it's incumbent on the side losing the war to sue for peace, especially when, by continuing to attack the homeland of the side that's winning the war, they are offering prima facie evidence that in order for the winning side to accomplish legitimate aims, here, getting the attacks to stop, merely by holding and fortifying what they already have will be insufficient.

…And on this point I am thinking we may be too greatly divided in viewpoint to usefully converse.

Icy Shake wrote:Let me put it this way: if either side knows the other is willing to pull the pin of a grenade, tackle them, and keep pressed to them with the live grenade between them until it goes off, then they're better off not sticking their legs in buckets of cement and wearing an elastic band around their neck so the other can instead leave them a grenade ball gag.

…Nope, lost, sorry. I can see that this metaphor is related, but I'm not sure how.

Icy Shake wrote:Remember, the very premise of MAD is "We really don't like you, and we know you don't like us, but let's be serious: we both know better than to do anything so terrible to the other that killing us both for spite looks like a good option." It's when that trust isn't there that a preemptive first strike starts looking like a remotely plausible idea ("We could get lucky") even to a relatively rational actor.

In my eyes, it was less "We could get lucky" and more "We're probably at least as dead anyway, so let's have a go at saving the world with our last shot", but pretty much.

Icy Shake wrote:Also, unlike the zebras broadcasting "We are interested in ending this war; here are some terms that we can start to negotiate from that don't include the laughably unreasonable condition that you change your government," Equestria never had the opportunity to sit behind its impenetrable shields with its super soldiers and air superiority and MAD capability, did it? Sure, they likely wouldn't have, but then, we'll never know for sure.

And why would Equestria have negotiated? They were winning and about to be winning even more easily. Their economy was structured around warfare. Their propaganda was about zebras being fundamentally evil and inferior. The attempts at negotiation failed. The members of the government sympathetic to peace were unable to prevail. And, hey, about those shields: I bet Equestria could have put a bubbles around a lot more cities if it wasn't focusing its megaspell research on new and exciting ways to kill people. Despite megaspells originally being made for shields and healing. There's some good faith that Equestria was itching for peace, yup.

Icy Shake wrote:I think you misunderstood what I was proposing.

Okay, so the fighting in Hoofington ends. Equestria's R&D can now focus entirely on killing zebras and not have to worry about missiles flying in the windows. Meanwhile, most of the fighting, as indicated in the passage I quoted, continues to be in zebra lands. The diverted soldiers bolster things a bit, certainly, and might even push Equestria back. Equestria laughs at the zebra's attempts to say that they withdrew to try and get peace, points at the bolstered zebra lines as evidence, and then opens up on said lines with its brand new Stripe Melter Plus 2000 (tm).

Icy Shake wrote:First, bear in mind the situation: at best, they are helping her to defect so they can use her as a hostage against Luna and Equestria, that is to say, what you like to think Celestia was doing there—that's the treason. Now, using the fairly narrow definition in the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," how wouldn't it constitute treason? I have adhering to them, giving them aid, and quite likely comfort as well.

Yes, sorry; someone else already pointed out to me that you were right about it being treason. I still believe it to have been commendable, however, and that it would have been good for the people of the world if it had worked.

Icy Shake wrote:I'll chalk this up to a difference in headcanon: I tend to trust that the people at the top don't consume the Prolefeed and stand ready to tone things down given the opportunity, after victory has been achieved, at least in this case. As for the propaganda itself: on that basis, why are there still Germans in Germany or Japanese in Japan? You can have as propaganda that your enemy is there to eat your babies and burn civilization to the ground, yet push for a peace more lenient than Versailles. It happens.

Aye, I'd say that this is a difference in headcanon. You seem to still be comparing Equestria to the Allies.

Icy Shake wrote:I wouldn't go so far as to say that merely going to the conference was treason, given it was ultimately allowed. However, extrapolating to the planned defection, that's clearly treason. And I'd argue that it wasn't treason on behalf of the people, but doing what she thought was best for the people, regardless of whether they agreed.

And how could she have asked them? And if she'd phrased the question "Would you like to try and return to the good old days of peace and plenty, trust and friendship, and stop sending your daughters and sons and grandfoals to kill and die in foreign lands? y/n", how many of them would have hit the n?

Icy Shake wrote:And I'd argue that seizing goods that were already paid for and precipitating a famine, then demanding tribute, are belligerent actions that warrant the seizure. She knew it might cause a war, but surely the Caesar knew or should have known that he was making a blatant and egregious provoking action, not to start a war but to seize the goods. That he could then claim the seizure as provocation to war doesn't change who began the belligerent actions.

I don't think that the cessation of an embargo, which is all that's mentioned, IIRC, counts as tribute. That's not a demand that the exchange of goods be forced, it's a demand that it be allowed.

swicked wrote:"Seem" nothin'. The war, in a large part, was an act by the newly-elected Caesar, if you'll recall. The wonderbolts had shown that he couldn't protect his own people and all that, and so he tried to show his dominance in regard to Equestria by holding them over a barrel and trying to force unfair negotiations strictly to show them who was the big dog. They then simply took the coal out from under him by force. Easily. He was furious and possibly losing his support, risking the clans breaking up again... so yes, he declared war.

And if the Princesses had thrown their weight around a bit, said "No" to the nobility, and given in in the name of peace and cooperation, the immortal Goddess Queens would lose a little bit of face. Which some of their population. While post of their population was happy just to have the lights dependably back on. And they the Princesses could wait until the troublesome nobles and zebra leaders were dead of old age and see about talking to the new ones about fixing anything that still needed fixing. In PH's universe (I'm not sure about my headcanon, but it was probably similar), the Caesar was weak. The Princesses were so very, very strong. Could they not have been gracious?

SilentCarto wrote:I'll grant that the Caesar's actions were offensive and not in good faith, but it still doesn't constitute Initiation of Force. To scale this down, imagine you paid for a coke, but the cashier then refused to give you the coke. You respond by punching him and taking the coke. He wasn't right to withhold it, but you've become guilty of a far greater crime by committing assault and battery to rectify the situation. Two wrongs don't make a right.

To combine this with the above, if you were very, very rich and very, very thirsty (and known to at least try to be very nice) while the store is struggling, why not just massively overpay him for the coke and deal with any fallout later? You can afford it, after all.

Derpmind wrote:There might be a difference in ethics here too: For the Equestrians, they're used to being the heroes of their stories so violating statehood (or whatever it's called) isn't as important as preventing the bad thing, which in this case is famine, but for the Zebras an attack on their soil by another country, regardless of the reasons, is enough to declare war. The Equestrian government saw muscling in and taking what they need to be better than leaving it up to good faith in the Caesar, whereas the Caesar fully expected Equestria to negotiate and was blindsided by their assault. Maybe I'm not saying it the right way, but it seems like the kind of thing that an outside perspective could see as a possibility and try to manipulate to happen.

The nobles, maybe. The Princesses knew what they were doing and should have put their hooves down.