The Future of Ascalon

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@"Sajuuk Khar.1509" said:The Ebonhawke DRM did nothing to close any story. All of these stories were logically ended in the 8 years of GW2's existence previously, and we knew they were over before the DRM even came out. The DRM just references that, yes, all of those years of destroying these factions actually caused them to be destroyed, something we already knew beforehand. At best it was the epilogue to these already ended stories.

Seriously, you're going to nitpick that argument?

"You're wrong! The DRM didn't close those threads! They were already closed!"

Do you need to argue against everything I say for the sheer sake of arguing with me or something?

I mean, I wasn't even saying the DRM ended every thread, but that the Ebonhawke DRM (and Fireheart DRM for the Flame Legion) closed the last story threads of Ascalon, besides the Foefire ghosts and the Heir of Ascalon. Which are so minor in the grand scheme that it's unlikely it'll be brought up. And you seem to praise your own intelligence enough that you should have understand I didn't mean it closed every Ascalon-related plot, but the last of them.

It would honestly strain credibility beyond the breaking point to try to force these narratives to keep going after all we have done in GW2's timespan.Except they factually did keep some of those narratives - Renegades, Foefire Ghosts, and Flame Legion - going post-PS.

IBS was closing the last of them that remained, such as with Bangar and the Dominion. Only the Foefire ghost issue remains, and instead of including it into IBS in some form they ignore it entirely. Which is why I was saying that we're unlikely to return.

[Sajuuk Khar.1509]

@Konig Des Todes.2086 said:Do you need to argue against everything I say for the sheer sake of arguing with me or something?I honestly don't really look at who made the post before I respond to it. I just respond to the content of the post if I see something thats just demonstrably wrong.

you seem to praise your own intelligence enough that you should have understand I didn't mean it closed every Ascalon-related plot, but the last of them.This is you trying to mock me for something I never stated or implied.

Except they factually did keep some of those narratives - Renegades, Foefire Ghosts, and Flame Legion - going post-PS.I never said they closed them post PS, in fact, I explicitly mentioned them going on into even early-mid IBS. Did you even read the post before you responded to it?

[The Greyhawk.9107]

I kinda wish the both of you would stop responding to each other for a bit, but I've no illusions that this'll happen.

[Telwyn.1630]

@Fueki.4753 said:Why should the Charr give part of Ascalon to the humans, when it was Charr territory to begin with?The humans stole the lands from the Charr, not the other way aroundThe Charr just recovered what is rightfully theirs.

The Humans took it cause the chart couldn't stop fighting the humans who would be Ascalonian came and took it as the chart acted more like animals plus I prefer Ascalonian humans owning the lands of Ascalonian the charr even admit the want to fight the humans of Ascalonian and Kytra so if the Chart keep this up their numbers will dwindle and eventually the won't hold Ascalon I was really bummed out that the Chart were able to take it In was really hoping Ascalon would had Mae a come back with the chart stuck in the north side if the wall and the humans owning the vast southern lands and parts of their North lands and cities. Sides the charr took a hit from that civil war and while it may not have depleted them yet there well on their way and suffering the same decline the humans partly suffered.

[Telwyn.1630]

@TeeracK.3601 said:

@Fueki.4753 said:Why should the Charr give part of Ascalon to the humans, when it was Charr territory to begin with?The humans stole the lands from the Charr, not the other way aroundThe Charr just recovered what is rightfully theirs.

Every war in history ends in either genocide, occupation, or compromise. The two races dont want to war anymore and the first two would only lead to more warring. As things are right now the charr can never enjoy or fully use the land till humanity helps them out, so it's a good opportunity for them to make a compromise.

Also keep in mind those were charr lands over a1000 years ago. Humanity lived there for generations so their connection to the land is still extremely significant. The humans who were born in ascalon arent at fault for the actions of their anchient ancestors. It was the only home they ever knew.

Ascalon was actually originally grawl land but the charr pushed them out even further back.

Added the humans came because they wanted to be free from Orr and Kyrta and build their own kingdom and relay not on ther magic but on their own strength hence Ascalon being more physical where Or and Kyrta were about magic. Yet Ascalon to help build the great wall. Eventually Ascalon became independent and free and able to follow its own path holding onto its human land in the Shiver peaks with their dwarf allies whom the had a good relationship with. Where Kyrta and Off did not have a good relation with the Centaurs.

[Nicholas S Lin.6187]

I think that not enough thought has gone into where white - humanity in Tyria can call their own. Asian humanity has Cantha, Middle Eastern/African humanity has Elona, Latino Humanity/Native Americans has Kryta. And in the original game Northern European/North American humanity had Ascalon. Orr btw was essentially Southern European humanity. Thus why is there a problem acknowledging this now? Why is it so controversal? Seriously why?

[Adamixos.6785]

On 4/3/2021 at 8:23 PM, Fueki.4753 said:

Why should the Charr give part of Ascalon to the humans, when it was Charr territory to begin with?The humans stole the lands from the Charr, not the other way aroundThe Charr just recovered what is rightfully theirs.

For start? The Charr hadn't lived in those lands originally. The Grawl had before them, and the High Legions systematically pushed them out as part of a war campaign. The Charr were notorious conquerors who thought of every other race as inferior, and this mentality lived on for over a millenia - not only that, they were responsible for a massive genocide as well, of which humans, for example, clearly were not. When they humans drove out the Charr from Ascalon around 100 BC, they weren't without the guilt of war and bloodshed, but objectively speaking, they were taking land from a feral race that a lore developer admitted was inspired by the Mongolian Empire (who were likewise genocidal).

To many modern Charr it might seem like fair that they took back their own lands, but a lot of that is propaganda that is painting them as the victims even though they were clearly villains in history with some setback in their imperial agenda. They wanted their lands back so much that they unleashed the Searing which wiped out 90% of the Ascalonian population, and they continued taking slaves for sport and for food. So they were not only genocidal and imperialistic, but also cannibalistic. The worst humans did to them was use their pelts as clothing post-Searing, which was terrible, but a reaction after the literal apocalypse brought down on them by the Charr - and at that point the Ascalonians were only capable of defensive, last-ditch, and guerilla-style warfare because they had already lost the war with the Searing. That's why Ascalonians had to migrate to Kryta (well, some of them - Adelbern and Rurik had different ideas about what is good for their people).

So yes, humans were terrible in the war, but the Charr were a million times more, and it cannot be said that the latter were more justified because they weren't. It all devolved into conflict, where both sides only knew war, but if anything, the erection of the Wall in the first place should have indicated that the Ascalonians were mainly interested in settling and peace, not in conquest as opposed to the Charr. All sources of human aggression in this story were a result of a want for survival, whereas all sources of Charr aggression were a result of a want for conquest. That's a huge difference there. 

Even after the Foefire and the break with the Flame Legion, the Charr still wanted to conquer the last standing Ascalonian stronghold, and it took the Dragonbrand for them to even begin considering a ceasefire (three-way war was okay, but four-way turned out to be too much for them). The Charr have had a society bred for war and conquest with a toxic ideology of meritocratic militarism that shunned not only other races but also all in their society whom they considered weak - nevermind how impractical it was given that they'd expect everyone to die on the battlefield and if not toss them into ghettos and literal sewage-pits to be laughed at as gladium. 

The Olmakhan quit the High Legions for a reason. Charr society is simply-put terrible, and I haven't even talked about how it served as a hotbed to the absolutely fascist-style politics of Bangar. Luckily we are done with the latter and we have better Imperators in charge, but their society is still fundamentally the same and it's going to take more than 4 woke(r) leaders and several decades if not centuries to change it.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Adamixos.6785

[Adamixos.6785]

double post. ignore.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Adamixos.6785

[Adamixos.6785]

On 9/30/2021 at 2:13 PM, Nicholas S Lin.6187 said:

I think that not enough thought has gone into where white - humanity in Tyria can call their own. Asian humanity has Cantha, Middle Eastern/African humanity has Elona, Latino Humanity/Native Americans has Kryta. And in the original game Northern European/North American humanity had Ascalon. Orr btw was essentially Southern European humanity. Thus why is there a problem acknowledging this now? Why is it so controversal? Seriously why?

Kryta got completely white-washed in GW2, if you haven't noticed. 😛 The vast majority of Krytans are white, so somehow, between GW1 and GW2, the white genes of the very tiny Ascalonian refugee population managed to override the brown/black genes of Krytans. Quite odd, and I'd say insulting. The funny part is that Queen Jennah is still described as looking Krytan, yet somehow the majority of the NPCs we see are white. 

[Harak.8397]

Bottom line is, the Charr conquered Ascalon ( as the humans did before them ) and are under no obligation to surrender any part of it to anyone. Their moto being "Victory, at any cost" I don't think they care about having the moral high ground or not. (Maybe the vanquished humans use it to keep warm in their graves? )

Charr society is far from perfect, especially from our 2021 perspective and that's what makes them such an interesting playable race. They have a lot of growing up to do and all the potential to do that from within. They are smart, industrious and now with positive interactions with other races can see other avenues than war. It's only a matter of time before their society shifts to a more balanced perspective. I bolded balanced because I don't think the Olmakhan are that. They are a hard turn away from the main trajectory set for the Charr by the original writers and into something I suspect is more comfortable for the new ones to write for. Regardless, we'll see where that leads in the future but I want my industrialist demon cats to stay recognizable. After the dirty done to Smodur ( who was already a progressive mind whose only crime was having the ambition to reunify the Charr under a Khan-Ur ) who knows what will happen ?

[Adamixos.6785]

2 hours ago, Harak.8397 said:

Bottom line is, the Charr conquered Ascalon ( as the humans did before them ) and are under no obligation to surrender any part of it to anyone. Their moto being "Victory, at any cost" I don't think they care about having the moral high ground or not. (Maybe the vanquished humans use it to keep warm in their graves? )

Charr society is far from perfect, especially from our 2021 perspective and that's what makes them such an interesting playable race. They have a lot of growing up to do and all the potential to do that from within. They are smart, industrious and now with positive interactions with other races can see other avenues than war. It's only a matter of time before their society shifts to a more balanced perspective. I bolded balanced because I don't think the Olmakhan are that. They are a hard turn away from the main trajectory set for the Charr by the original writers and into something I suspect is more comfortable for the new ones to write for. Regardless, we'll see where that leads in the future but I want my industrialist demon cats to stay recognizable. After the dirty done to Smodur ( who was already a progressive mind whose only crime was having the ambition to reunify the Charr under a Khan-Ur ) who knows what will happen ?

Has nothing to do with "2021 perspective." You can objectively verify that the Charr have a much larger kill count than Ascalonians, and that elements of their culture incur physiological and psychological (and often fatal) damage on their enemies and their own people at a much, much, higher frequency than Ascalonians'. You can argue about the morality of being destructive to the self and to the environment, so let us take a look at how their actions impacted the world without passing any moral judgment:

Every time they dabbled with forces beyond their understanding out of sheer ambition and a want for conquest, it were humans that had to clean up after them. And that is to say, every single time the Charr brought closer an apocalypse, the humans delayed it.

1) Their utilization of the Cauldron of the Searing, along with their Destroyer worship a few years later, contributed to the rise of the Elder Dragons, and thus helped bring forth the magic apocalypse Tyria is still experiencing.

The Charr acquired the CotS from the Titans, who served Abaddon, and everything they did furthered the fallen god's plans to bring about Nightfall. Unfortunately, the defeat of Abaddon released so much magic that the Destroyers appeared on the surface again. When the Charr began worshipping the latter, of course, the Humans came and stopped them.

2) The Charr's collective identity crisis which they suffered from the lack of an enemy to fight resulted in a civil war that dragged every other sentient race into it and culminated in yet another dragon apocalypse. And guess what, an ambitious Charr leader thought he could tame an Elder Dragon. 

Guess you could call what the Charr are doing "accelerationism," but in the end they have been contributing to the rapid decay of the world more than any other race.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Adamixos.6785

[Faridah.8431]

Once upon a time Ascalon was referred to as Charr hunting grounds and nothing more. It is extremely clear that Charr do not come from Ascalon from the lore, as their origins are more north/north east of the lands considered Ascalon. As humans settled the area of Ascalon, of course conflict arose because that's how it goes. 

Then GW2 came out and the language turned from "hunting grounds" to "conquered lands" and "homelands". It was like the entire lore around the conflict and area became propagandized by The Charr which had the double unfortunate effect of getting every new player who didn't play GW1 or understand the lore prior to GW2 to spout the same propaganda as lore truth.

Frankly I hope GW2 doesn't do a think with Ascalon anymore. It's been killed as a Human kingdom in more ways than one and I don't see them redeeming it anytime soon. Plus functionally with every map existing within its own time period, nothing is going to change with regards to Charr/Human territory in Ascalon.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Faridah.8431

[Harak.8397]

4 hours ago, Faridah.8431 said:

Once upon a time Ascalon was referred to as Charr hunting grounds and nothing more. It is extremely clear that Charr do not come from Ascalon from the lore, as their origins are more north/north east of the lands considered Ascalon. As humans settled the area of Ascalon, of course conflict arose because that's how it goes. 

Then GW2 came out and the language turned from "hunting grounds" to "conquered lands" and "homelands". It was like the entire lore around the conflict and area became propagandized by The Charr which had the double unfortunate effect of getting every new player who didn't play GW1 or understand the lore prior to GW2 to spout the same propaganda as lore truth.

That's fine and all, the point is, it is theirs now.It has become the homeland of several generations of Charr since the fall of Ascalon City. Having the current day Charr call it the homeland that was "stolen" by the humans is 100% in character for them. Having the humans in GW1 see them as nothing but savage flesh eating monsters is 100% in character for them too. It's perfectly natural and both are propaganda. War is war, you neither see nor care for the good side of your enemy only the suffering they cause you.

Every GW1 player bought into it and really, why not? The human perspective was the only one we were given to experience and we had no reason to doubt it. We showed up a thousand years after the fact and lo and behold: indeed there were monsters at the gates bent on killing us! In GW1 the Charr were mobs, we had the moral high ground and the literal Gods on our side. How could we lose? Yet, lose humanity did, the Charr took over and  there aren't enough Ebon Vanguard in Ebonhawke to change that. It took an Elder Dragon to break the siege of the city after all.

That is why this subject keeps popping up now and again. The sooner people accept that the Kingdom of Ascalon is gone and that those lands now belong to the Legions by right of conquest, the less bitter they will be. Humans regaining Ascalon by hook or by crook would only lead to war again. Now should humans clean up Adelbern's mess instead of hanging on to past dreams then the future of both races might be built on more than mistrust and weariness.

[Harak.8397]

You can be "confused" by my posts all you want, it's still true 😛

[The Greyhawk.9107]

On 10/5/2021 at 5:15 AM, Adamixos.6785 said:

Kryta got completely white-washed in GW2, if you haven't noticed. 😛 The vast majority of Krytans are white, so somehow, between GW1 and GW2, the white genes of the very tiny Ascalonian refugee population managed to override the brown/black genes of Krytans. Quite odd, and I'd say insulting. The funny part is that Queen Jennah is still described as looking Krytan, yet somehow the majority of the NPCs we see are white. 

Well, you underestimate how many Ascalonians survived the Searing.  GW1 put the death toll at a little over half or so.  We don't actually know how many of those survivors followed Rurik (or left Ascalon later on) but it was still a significant amount.  Plus I'd imagine if a people found themselves to be vanishing ethnicity or nationality that they'd put a lot of emphasis of producing as many children as possible, which in a few centuries can dramatically change the gene pool of a host nation.  Its effectively beginning to happen in Europe right now.  All that said, its my understanding that the "White-washing" of Kryta has more to do with a quirk of the NPC mechanics than something Anet intended in the Lore.  Many minor and filler NPCs have more than one appearances they can take on and the game kinda randomly applies different ones at a time.  An example is https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Phil_Thackeray who has two different models he can appear as.

[Faridah.8431]

@Harak.8397 - As I said in the part you did not quote, they should just leave it as it is. I agree that the Charr won the war. Simultaneously however, ANET changed the language around that with regard to the lore and that's where I primarily have a beef.

To this point: 

Quote

Having the humans in GW1 see them as nothing but savage flesh eating monsters is 100% in character for them too.

I see this argument thrown around a lot, but I don't really think the Charr of Prophecies is really the same Charr as EOTN and GW2. Mechanically, this isn't a human perceptive thing, this is simply ANET changing how they wanted to see and use the Charr within the world. Which is totally fine. I think the Charr definitely got more interesting in EOTN. I just wish they did not take it a step further and rewrite lore. I think ANET tried to smooth this over with the Gwen storyline in EOTN as she does see them that way, but I think it's absolutely safe to say Charr in Prophecies and EOTN are not the same Charr. That's not a "perspective" thing. That is a change in the Charr as a race between the two games.

Then again, that is just my opinion, but seems I am not alone.

And what cannot be disputed is that the lore language around the Human/Charr conflict DID change between games. Problem is you now have a bunch of people spouting the GW2 version as truth without really knowing the whole lore which pokes many holes into the whole "reclaimed homeland" angle.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Faridah.8431

[Harak.8397]

No you are right, the shift IS there  between prophecies and EOTN. It's not quite a retcon because there was nothing in its place before, more like an addition that happens to bring a different light on what was known already but it can be easily fitted into the narrative by going the route of perspectives without just invalidating Prophecies' lore because the writers had new ideas.

34 minutes ago, Faridah.8431 said:

And what cannot be disputed is that the lore language around the Human/Charr conflict DID change between games. Problem is you now have a bunch of people spouting the GW2 version as truth without really knowing the whole lore which pokes many holes into the whole "reclaimed homeland" angle.

Yes, and that's the beauty of it, it works just like it would in real life. It would be bad IMO if you could find humans in GW2 saying stuff along the lines of " Yeah we took Charr lands and they took it back from us". Narratively and in a wold building sense, it works better if both sides stick to their biased view.

[Justine.6351]

I think the charr should apologize to the humans of ebonhawk for killing their ancestors and stealing their land. Then give the humans any branded territory since it is in relatively the same condition the charr had conquered it from the humans.

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

On 10/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, Adamixos.6785 said:

For start? The Charr hadn't lived in those lands originally. The Grawl had before them, and the High Legions systematically pushed them out as part of a war campaign.

And dwarves*

On 10/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, Adamixos.6785 said:

The Charr were notorious conquerors who thought of every other race as inferior, and this mentality lived on for over a millenia - not only that, they were responsible for a massive genocide as well, of which humans, for example, clearly were not.

This is false. Humans are also guilty of past genocides (against tengu and centaurs in particular) as well as speciesism (the earliest examples being under Balthazar's guidance, who helped the humans conquer Ascalon).

On 10/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, Adamixos.6785 said:

When they humans drove out the Charr from Ascalon around 100 BC, they weren't without the guilt of war and bloodshed, but objectively speaking, they were taking land from a feral race that a lore developer admitted was inspired by the Mongolian Empire (who were likewise genocidal).

Most empires were genocidal to some degree, the Mongolian Empire wasn't sparkly clean but your wording implies that they had no redeeming value, which is objectively false. While it didn't last because, like almost all empires that spread too quickly, it collapsed on itself, the Mongolian empire under Ghengis Khan did have a particular spread of culture and value that wouldn't have happened without those conquests taking place.

Like most empires, it's a give and take structure. 

On 10/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, Adamixos.6785 said:

They wanted their lands back so much that they unleashed the Searing which wiped out 90% of the Ascalonian population, and they continued taking slaves for sport and for food.

Not 90% of Ascalonian population. While we don't have an explicit number, we can tell from this quest that it was at least slightly over 50%. But there's a pretty huge difference between 50% and 90%. And it's hard to tell how accurate Symon's statement is, given that he only gave it a cursory glance.

On 10/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, Adamixos.6785 said:

So they were not only genocidal and imperialistic, but also cannibalistic.

Cannibalism is defined as eating one's own species. Charr did not eat charr. They were not cannibalistic, though they did (presumably) eat humans during GW1's time. I say presumably because we don't have explicit mention of it, just charr making the taunts and Vael seeing (as linked) a "wriggling, talking sack" being taken to a cooking tent.

On 10/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, Adamixos.6785 said:

The worst humans did to them was use their pelts as clothing post-Searing, which was terrible, but a reaction after the literal apocalypse brought down on them by the Charr - and at that point the Ascalonians were only capable of defensive, last-ditch, and guerilla-style warfare because they had already lost the war with the Searing.

Also false. Humans using charr hides predate the Searing. While we don't see any explicit uses, charr hides are also drops in pre-Searing, which you can salvage and then use as materials for weapons and armor in pre-Searing.

Ascalonians were also producing multiple offenses after the Searing, mostly in the form of the Vanguard under Duke Baraddin (taking Piken Square was an offensive effort, as well as pretty much every quest in Piken Square) and the Ebon Vanguard under Captain Langmar.

On 10/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, Adamixos.6785 said:

So yes, humans were terrible in the war, but the Charr were a million times more, and it cannot be said that the latter were more justified because they weren't.

"million times more" is a massive exaggeration. While humans didn't use weapons of mass destruction (until going insane or under the direction of a mad god), they were far from "million times better" than charr.

While not explicitly Ascalonian, humans were also known to capture and enslave other sapient species - most notably centaurs in Kourna and tengu in Cantha. Naturally, in-game these are typically the "evil humans", but it's notable that entire national governments can be deemed "evil humans" by gameplay mechanics.

On 10/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, Adamixos.6785 said:

It all devolved into conflict, where both sides only knew war, but if anything, the erection of the Wall in the first place should have indicated that the Ascalonians were mainly interested in settling and peace, not in conquest as opposed to the Charr.

Both sides were (initially) bent on conquest, not "settling and peace". Read the Orrian History Scrolls and specifically Balthazar's section. If the Ascalonians were mainly interested in settling, then they wouldn't have expanded so far north as to be bordering charr territory almost an entire Ascalon's-size away from the Great Northern Wall.

On 10/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, Adamixos.6785 said:

All sources of human aggression in this story were a result of a want for survival, whereas all sources of Charr aggression were a result of a want for conquest.

Again false. Humans had no need to survive when they invaded Ascalon in 100 BE. They had Orr, possibly Kryta (which could have been taken from Caromi tengu when it was founded), which was still a far distance away. Charr weren't the aggressors in the human-charr conflict, even if they were aggressors in other conflicts, and this is why they can so easily take the victim stance.

On 10/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, Adamixos.6785 said:

Even after the Foefire and the break with the Flame Legion, the Charr still wanted to conquer the last standing Ascalonian stronghold, and it took the Dragonbrand for them to even begin considering a ceasefire (three-way war was okay, but four-way turned out to be too much for them).

This is also false, as the novel Sea of Sorrows establishes that the Iron Legion imperator at the time, Singe Seigemourn, attempted to negotiate peace with humans. This peace attempt was cut short by Cobiah Marriner (unwittingly) raiding a shipment of holy relics being sent to initiate peace talks with Kryta (no doubt starting there because Ascalonians are less likely to open up at the time).

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

On 10/5/2021 at 12:41 PM, Faridah.8431 said:

Once upon a time Ascalon was referred to as Charr hunting grounds and nothing more. It is extremely clear that Charr do not come from Ascalon from the lore, as their origins are more north/north east of the lands considered Ascalon. As humans settled the area of Ascalon, of course conflict arose because that's how it goes. 

Then GW2 came out and the language turned from "hunting grounds" to "conquered lands" and "homelands". It was like the entire lore around the conflict and area became propagandized by The Charr which had the double unfortunate effect of getting every new player who didn't play GW1 or understand the lore prior to GW2 to spout the same propaganda as lore truth.

Frankly I hope GW2 doesn't do a think with Ascalon anymore. It's been killed as a Human kingdom in more ways than one and I don't see them redeeming it anytime soon. Plus functionally with every map existing within its own time period, nothing is going to change with regards to Charr/Human territory in Ascalon.

Do you have a source for that hunting grounds bit? I neither recall such nor can find such. Searching both wikis for "hunting grounds" comes up only with The Hunting Grounds in Sandswept Isles. No mention in The Ecology of the Charr about them calling it hunting grounds and that's pretty much the primary source of pre-800 AE charr lore.

[Faridah.8431]

6 minutes ago, Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

Do you have a source for that hunting grounds bit? I neither recall such nor can find such. Searching both wikis for "hunting grounds" comes up only with The Hunting Grounds in Sandswept Isles. No mention in The Ecology of the Charr about them calling it hunting grounds and that's pretty much the primary source of pre-800 AE charr lore.

Might be from the original booklet that came with my copy of Guild Wars? Now that you mention it, I am not sure, so will do some hunting. It's possible I am wrong, but I seem to recall that from somewhere.

 

Regardless, Ascalon was never a "homeland" for the Charr.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Faridah.8431

[Loki.4871]

On 9/30/2021 at 1:13 PM, Nicholas S Lin.6187 said:

I think that not enough thought has gone into where white - humanity in Tyria can call their own. Asian humanity has Cantha, Middle Eastern/African humanity has Elona, Latino Humanity/Native Americans has Kryta. And in the original game Northern European/North American humanity had Ascalon. Orr btw was essentially Southern European humanity. Thus why is there a problem acknowledging this now? Why is it so controversal? Seriously why?

Pretty sure Krytra got retconned hard into the caucasian lands, most of it isn't even tropical anymore.

[Faridah.8431]

1 hour ago, Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

Read the Orrian History Scrolls and specifically Balthazar's section. If the Ascalonians were mainly interested in settling, then they wouldn't have expanded so far north as to be bordering charr territory almost an entire Ascalon's-size away from the Great Northern Wall.

 

 

Agree. Ascalonian are not without fault here. If the wall was to mark a border and keep the Charr out, perhaps they should have stayed on their side of it, but the Humans likewise wanted to conquer northward.

[Faridah.8431]

21 minutes ago, Loki.4871 said:

Pretty sure Krytra got retconned hard into the caucasian lands, most of it isn't even tropical anymore.

Bolded part always kinda irked me a bit. Kryta is definitely not the Kryta of GW1. It is fair to say Kryta became the melting pot for all Tyrian Humanity, but seems they lost some of that original cultural flavor they had in GW1 for a more generic human kingdom feel.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Faridah.8431

[Adamixos.6785]

20 hours ago, Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

And dwarves*

This is false. Humans are also guilty of past genocides (against tengu and centaurs in particular) as well as speciesism (the earliest examples being under Balthazar's guidance, who helped the humans conquer Ascalon).

Most empires were genocidal to some degree, the Mongolian Empire wasn't sparkly clean but your wording implies that they had no redeeming value, which is objectively false. While it didn't last because, like almost all empires that spread too quickly, it collapsed on itself, the Mongolian empire under Ghengis Khan did have a particular spread of culture and value that wouldn't have happened without those conquests taking place.

Like most empires, it's a give and take structure. 

Not 90% of Ascalonian population. While we don't have an explicit number, we can tell from this quest that it was at least slightly over 50%. But there's a pretty huge difference between 50% and 90%. And it's hard to tell how accurate Symon's statement is, given that he only gave it a cursory glance.

Cannibalism is defined as eating one's own species. Charr did not eat charr. They were not cannibalistic, though they did (presumably) eat humans during GW1's time. I say presumably because we don't have explicit mention of it, just charr making the taunts and Vael seeing (as linked) a "wriggling, talking sack" being taken to a cooking tent.

Also false. Humans using charr hides predate the Searing. While we don't see any explicit uses, charr hides are also drops in pre-Searing, which you can salvage and then use as materials for weapons and armor in pre-Searing.

Ascalonians were also producing multiple offenses after the Searing, mostly in the form of the Vanguard under Duke Baraddin (taking Piken Square was an offensive effort, as well as pretty much every quest in Piken Square) and the Ebon Vanguard under Captain Langmar.

"million times more" is a massive exaggeration. While humans didn't use weapons of mass destruction (until going insane or under the direction of a mad god), they were far from "million times better" than charr.

While not explicitly Ascalonian, humans were also known to capture and enslave other sapient species - most notably centaurs in Kourna and tengu in Cantha. Naturally, in-game these are typically the "evil humans", but it's notable that entire national governments can be deemed "evil humans" by gameplay mechanics.

Both sides were (initially) bent on conquest, not "settling and peace". Read the Orrian History Scrolls and specifically Balthazar's section. If the Ascalonians were mainly interested in settling, then they wouldn't have expanded so far north as to be bordering charr territory almost an entire Ascalon's-size away from the Great Northern Wall.

Again false. Humans had no need to survive when they invaded Ascalon in 100 BE. They had Orr, possibly Kryta (which could have been taken from Caromi tengu when it was founded), which was still a far distance away. Charr weren't the aggressors in the human-charr conflict, even if they were aggressors in other conflicts, and this is why they can so easily take the victim stance.

This is also false, as the novel Sea of Sorrows establishes that the Iron Legion imperator at the time, Singe Seigemourn, attempted to negotiate peace with humans. This peace attempt was cut short by Cobiah Marriner (unwittingly) raiding a shipment of holy relics being sent to initiate peace talks with Kryta (no doubt starting there because Ascalonians are less likely to open up at the time).

1) I was speaking of Ascalonian humans, and there is a difference between casualty throughout wars and an actual active genocide effort. The Charr did try to erase the humans during the Searing and after, entirely, otherwise they wouldn't have moved on to conquer Kryta and Orr afterwards. Plus in modern times, at least 10 years ago, they were convinced the Skritt should be exterminated despite knowing they were a sapient race. 

2) My wording didn't imply anything about the Mongolian Empire, though to dismiss them as "just another empire while every empire is genocidal to a degree" is likewise false. If anything, people overfetishize them in popular culture while conveniently ignoring facts such as genociding entire villages for sport was a rite of passage in their warrior nobility. And let's not leave out the fact that they also contributed to the destruction of cultures in equal amount. 

3) My use of "cannibalism" was very liberal, but at the moment I wrote the reply in a hurry I had no word for "eats the specimen of other perfectly sapient race". Apologies for that. Unlike the former, this was actually implied though.

4) I haven't said the Ascalonians didn't produce offenses, that's what I referred to with "last ditch" and "guerilla-like" tactics. Small-scale aggressions for the sake of strategy prior to the Searing, and for the sake of vengeance post-Searing. The former can be written off as war, the latter is desperation (and by no means rationale) after a war already practically lost. Although the actions of the Ebon Vanguard and Duke Barradin might have been guided by deluded ambitions of reconquering lands on King Adelbern's behalf, they ultimately served to slow down the total conquest and genocide of Ascalon, so for all intents and purposes, they were part of a largely defensive warfare. 

5) I think you have the order of events wrong wrt. the Gaban Estate. Ascalon was never only the lands south of the Great Northern Wall. The Wall was only finished in the late 800s AE and because the Charr kept pushing back; there is nothing that suggests the areas north of the wall were part of a northern expansion post-erection. The fact that you had entire cities North of wall including the city of Surmia and former capital city of Drascir strongly implies that those lands were part of the initial conquest effort long before the wall's erection.

6) There were 129 years between the Foefire and the earliest known year of Singe's reign and 103 years between it and Kalla's rebellion. What I said is objectively not false, the Charr carried on a three-way war and while we are there, Singe was the Imperator responsible for mechanizing Charr warfare and thus bringing it to a new level of destruction and he also intended to expand the Iron Legion's reign to the Sea of Sorrows and conquer Lion's Arch from Kryta, thus initiating a four-way war (Foefire ghosts, Flame Legion, Ascalon, and Kryta at sea). The only reason he wanted peace with humans was because of the Rise of Zhaitan; i.e.: his ambitions to expand navally had been thwarted. He most certainly wasn't a progressive good guy, more like a pragmatist like Smodur with situational progressivism. 

7) A million times more was a purposeful rhetorical exaggeration. Let's go with "hundred thousand times more" instead, which should be more numerically accurate considering the total death toll. 

Edit: 8 ) As for humans conquering Ascalon in the first place? Balthazar led the effort; they were, in fact, guided by a war-obsessed literal god whom they blindly worshipped at the time, and who was also notorious for straight-up murdering humans he disliked. Not a stretch to assume that disobeying him as a race was simply not an option. But post-that one aggression, Ascalonians only really warred with other humans (Guild Wars) and didn't really show any signs of wanting to further expand into Charr territory. Again, what the Ebon Vanguard did was reactive warfare - disrupt the enemy behind the lines to slow down their conquest. Meanwhile, the Charr chose their gods twice, for the sake of furthering the imperial agenda that they had already had culturally without any divine influence.

Edited October 8, 2021 by Adamixos.6785