Fate/Zero - Episode 11 Discussion / Poll

[Fandal]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Rider describe North Korea? A country where it's people want to follow it's "dear leader", a person they want to become, and a leader who is also just as greedy as any person in the world.

Didn't Saber servant leadership sound more like "Civil Servant" or why being the President of the United States is called one of the worst jobs in the world?

[Izayoi]

This episode is so overpowering that it sent this forum into a political philosophy discussion regarding government and kingship. I always liked the look on Saber's face when other characters points out her faults. I don't know why, but she is so attractive when her's firm ideals waver.

Edit: Oh, and Rider is OP.

[nightwyrm]

Originally Posted by Streetor

Basically Rider's people were willing to die for his cause and believed in Rider because he was able to motivate them into loving what he wanted.

Saber's people died for her because she sent them out on her own actions and what she believed to be right which is not necessarily what her people may have wanted thus shouldering her own ideals for herself.

The fact that Saber regrets the events that happened in her life and Rider embraces them kind of exemplifies the difference in who was a better king. Also shows that Rider's entire army was willing to follow him even after death. It is probably doubtful those who followed Saber felt the same.

I merely hypothesized how both of them came to the philosophy they now hold. It's not like they just randomly picked their views out of a hat. Their different situations influenced how they developed their philosophy of kingship and their philosophy were appropriate for their situation (more or less). Say, if you dropped Iskander with his indulge and live large personality into dark age Britain (a relatively poor nation with no rich neighbours easily accessible), he may fail even more spectacularly than King Arthur.

[Jaden]

Well, I'd rather live in Saber's country than Rider's.

The modern world is proof that a country doesn't need a king. But if a king must hold all the power, it should be someone that works similarly to the way we currently want our goverments to work. That is, serve the people.

[Kanon]

Originally Posted by nightwyrm

One must wonder how the difference between their philosophy of kingship came about due to their different historical situations.

Saber spent her life defending her country from invaders. She was forced into the role of a protector. Austerity, setting priorities and sacrifice are hallmarks of a nation under constant siege. Vices and vanities were probably not something that she can afford.

Rider spent his life invading other countries. He always played the role of an aggressor. He could afford to live large because wealth was just next door to be taken. Living large was what motivated his followers to conquer more land to feed their appetite.

It's not like the world was handed down to Alexander on a silver platter. After he acceded to the throne, several Greek city-states rose up against him and he had to subdue them - something he accomplished in only a few months (as opposed to decades for his father!). Arturia had it tougher, sure, but I doubt it's the only thing that made her what she is today.

I think the difference between their philosophies simply comes down to their upbringing. Alexander received an education befitting his rank, and was even told by his mother that he was the son of Zeus, which must have caused him to develop some delusions of grandeur. It's no wonder he's got such a mindset.

On the other hand, Arturia's lineage was kept her secret from her until she reached 14, and by that time, she had already embraced her step-father -a knight-'s beliefs. Raised her whole life as a knight, she suddenly became a king overnight. It just came crashing down on her, she was never prepared nor wished for it. The people needed a ruler and she felt obliged to answer their call... She simply did what she believed was righteous and eventually became a knight rather than a king. Their entire lives were radically different, so it's only natural she can't share the same point of view as Alexander regarding kingship.

I think Saber's title of King of Knights suit her. The problem is that she wasn't the king of the people.

[Fandal]

Originally Posted by Jaden

Well, I'd rather live in Saber's country than Rider's.

The modern world is proof that a country doesn't need a king. But if a king must hold all the power, it should be someone that works similarly to the way we currently want our goverments to work. That is, serve the people.

This episode feels like a trap for Saber's comeback later on. While Rider's kingdom sounds nice and awesome and adventurous, do we really want to live in such a kingdom? Do we really want to keep on fighting and fighting and fighting even when we don't have too?

Saber's kingdom sounds pretty boring but boring is what most servant based democracies end up being. A kingdom where people basically blame the leaders for all their problems. It's hard to explain but this system somehow just works.

[nightwyrm]

Originally Posted by Kanon

It's not like the world was handed down to Alexander on a silver platter. After he acceded to the throne, several Greek city-states rose up against him and he had to subdue them - something he accomplished in only a few months (as opposed to decades for his father!). Arturia had it tougher, sure, but I doubt it's the only thing that made her what she is today.

Oh, I don't think the world was handed to Alexander. But the reality of the situation was that Greece-Macedonia had room to grow, into a rich but weak Persia while Britain didn't have that option. Alex can offer his people the dream of expansion and glory and kicking their historical enemy's ass, while Arturia can only offer the dream of national defense.

[Lumir]

Sabers way of kingship is by far the grandest. Ishkar is only 1 mortal man, and 1 person holding all the glory/gar/ect means as soon as his mortal life is over, so is his glory and the country that fallowed him. For sabers way of kingship, the country gains the glory, and even when she passes the country retains that glory forever until it is corrupted from within.

Democracy has proven the best means of rule any country can obtain as mortals. Now ofc Ishkars way of kingship would be over sabers if he could beat the limits of mortality, but none can. Thus sabers kingship wins out uncontested. Also a king who empowers his/her people raises them and a country of kings, a king like Iskar raises a country and people bent on fallowing him until his eventual doom. And after his doom, well you get the picture.

As for the episode, awesome! In the middle of a war the greatest of greats get together to drink and discuss matters of the king! Saber being able to hold her liquor suprised iskar haha. And gilgamesh in all his annoying personality provides the drink of drinks! Was it just me or did Iskar and Gil look a lil wasted? While saber didnt look wasted at all. And those SILLY assassins, coming out in the open before kings, WHAT AN INSULT. Not only to the KINGS but to THEMSELVES! What kind of assassin comes out openly?!!? Its true kings have fallen to assassins in history but not ones that come right out in the open... A good chunk of them received a fitting end for their misjudgement.

Iskars reality marble puts anothers from FSN to shame, but then again the FSN reality marble could create an atomic bomb just for the lulz.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Izayoi

This episode is so overpowering that it sent this forum into a political philosophy discussion regarding government and kingship. I always liked the look on Saber's face when other characters points out her faults. I don't know why, but she is so attractive when her's firm ideals waver.

Edit: Oh, and Rider is OP.

I knew even as I was watching, I thought to myself "oh yeah, this is going to make for some interesting discussion in this thread."

Side note, thanks to shots like these

Spoiler for size:

I will forever on refer to this episode as Fate/Picnic

Originally Posted by Lumir

Sabers way of kingship is by far the grandest. Ishkar is only 1 mortal man, and 1 person holding all the glory/gar/ect means as soon as his mortal life is over, so is his glory and the country that fallowed him.

Oh I'd hardly say Alexander's glory ended when he died.

[akei1]

Back then, people were more primitive. Long-distant communication and unity was poor. A democracy would be very hard to obtain and be maintained in the past. I can see why you would need a greedy and conquest-hungry dictator like Alexander to control his subjects by force or admiration. If you like killing, raping, and pillaging, join Alexander on a campaign or two!

In modern times, people have better communication and a greater sense of discipline and ethics. If Alexander were to exist now, he would be seen as a genocidal madman; starting world wars and killing millions of people for fun and so he could be in control. In today's world where it's closer to ideal, Saber would be the better king; one who serves the people. If something goes wrong, we as people want the freedom and right to complain to who's in charge =D

[DragoZERO]

Why wasn't chivalry mentioned once? It's what influenced many kings in medieval times after all. It's really hard to compare two kings from two different parts of the world from different eras too.

Leave it to Urobuchi to make it all work. I think Nasu chose Alexander just to challenge Saber's purpose. These guys are genius.

[Alaya]

Originally Posted by Lumir

Sabers way of kingship is by far the grandest. Ishkar is only 1 mortal man, and 1 person holding all the glory/gar/ect means as soon as his mortal life is over, so is his glory and the country that fallowed him. For sabers way of kingship, the country gains the glory, and even when she passes the country retains that glory forever until it is corrupted from within.

Democracy has proven the best means of rule any country can obtain as mortals. Now ofc Ishkars way of kingship would be over sabers if he could beat the limits of mortality, but none can. Thus sabers kingship wins out uncontested. Also a king who empowers his/her people raises them and a country of kings, a king like Iskar raises a country and people bent on fallowing him until his eventual doom. And after his doom, well you get the picture.

But didn't Saber's kingdom collapsed even before she died? Didn't that mean her ways of kingship led to the ruin of her country within her life time, while Iskandar's kingdom fell only after his death? Doesn't this make Rider's way of kingship superior than of Saber's?

After all, everything is led to demise and destruction. No king will rule forever, and no country will never fall. Saber's tried to prevent an inevitable fate, only to hasten it.

Originally Posted by akei1

Back then, people were more primitive. Long-distant communication and unity was poor. A democracy would be very hard to obtain and be maintained in the past. I can see why you would need a greedy and conquest-hungry dictator like Alexander to control his subjects by force or admiration. If you like killing, raping, and pillaging, join Alexander on a campaign or two!

I think he's far greater than that. He is so charismatic that even his defeated enemies joined his ranks because they are inspired by him. From Ionian Hetairoi, you can see heroes from many nations and not only Greek soldiers.

In modern times, people have better communication and a greater sense of discipline and ethics. If Alexander were to exist now, he would be seen as a genocidal madman; starting world wars and killing millions of people for fun and so he could be in control. In today's world where it's closer to ideal, Saber would be the better king; one who serves the people. If something goes wrong, we as people want the freedom and right to complain to who's in charge =D

The history is only written by the victors, as history is man made and will always has flaws in it. If someone like Alexander exists in the modern time, he would becomes a hero for nation he rules, and a villain for others. And if he conquer them all, wouldn't he becomes an ultimate hero who unite the world? As far as history goes, I am quite certain that he would be portray as such.

[Kieli]

Originally Posted by GDB

How long should she have been given? Everything we've seen indicates that the legend of Arthur is accurate outside of gender. Given that, it's safe to assume that Saber lived until her 50s or 60s. That says to me that her goals would never have been attainable.

That's quite possible. I don't think I was positing a time period per se; more like, in her time King, she hadn't quite gotten the hang of being much more of a ruler and less like a knight, as Triple R so ably details. I agree that I doubt her goals would have been realistically attainable and, as such, that realization would have helped her alter her mindset to become a better King. She didn't give Rider a credible counterargument, IMHO, and that was what I was mentioning.

Personally, I don't think either is entirely right, though Rider is closer to right. Even though he says in this episode that to be a king is to be a tyrant, it's been clearly shown in the earlier episodes that he was anything but a tyrant. So his definition of a tyrant and the modern definition of one seem to differ.

I agree. I thought that I had made that clear in my post but after re-reading it, I realize that my thoughts were vague in this aspect.

Well, frankly Alexander did have a bit of a tyrannical streak, in the modern sense of the word. In fact, watching this episode I kept thinking, "Hey, Alex, you sure you should be drinking so much? You don't exactly have a good history with alcohol"

True! I had a good chuckle at that.

But really, I'm curious if Alexander recognized the pejorative connotations in Saber's use of the word tyrant. Because he comes from a world where the word didn't necessarily carry that meaning, and was often simply a term for a type of ruler of a polis. So when Alexander replied something like "Just so" to Saber, did he have her use of the word in mind, or his? It's an interesting question I think, and if he had his in mind, then it would be more palatable to us I'm sure why he emphasized it as not a horrible thing to be.

Although, Alexander was tutored by Aristotle, who wasn't the biggest fan of tyrants himself. So that just makes things even more complex here.[/quote]
Indeed, and I thought to make that point too but it didn't come out quite as well. I wonder if Saber viewed the Church as tyrannical? Her ideals are certainly based on their teachings without the intent on power and control. I wonder if she ever really noticed the dichotomy?

Switzerland could remain neutral in the past because their army acted as mercenaries. So the price they paid for neutrality was their own countrymen fighting each other for other countries in wars that didn't relate to them.

That's a rough deal. So, if I viewing this correctly, maintaining a policy of neutrality allowed them to save the lives of countrymen being thrown away on various battlefields while, in essence, stunting their growth as a country (and by this, I mean, conquering other lands to create an empire, etc). Though that doesn't seem to have hindered them becoming a banking powerhouse and forging a reputation for themselves in other arenas. It's just not on the scale that Alexander would have approved of.

The episodic discussions are more fun than the episode itself and very thought provoking. While watching the ep, however, I understood more why Saber was drawn to Shirou...they have that same single-minded attachment to ideals and self-sacrifice for a cause without really thinking it through. Kiritsugu probablly had Ilyasviel be her interim Master to keep Saber out of his way while he did the dirty work. She would have driven him a bit mad if would have had to use a Command Seal every time he wanted her to do something.

[Nightengale]

I felt that if we get down to the semantics of it, there's really no 'right or wrong' in regards to how a king of a country should be.

Saber was right in her points that Alexander's nation went to the shithole because he was a crapsack statesman, even if an amazing general. And there was a difference in needs, perspective and historical surroundings of the nation they were kings as.

But Saber may not admit it, but it's obvious Ionian Hetaroi had Saber filled with massive amounts of jealousy, because she obviously wants a NP where she could summon her reverse harem see the embodiment of her power within her people, or at the very least, her Round Table.

But really, within the Fate/context, it was no one's fault but her own ( and Morgan ) that she chose to be a king who kept everyone else at a sword's length away due to her perceived belief that a King must be lonesome, sacrificial, a complete asshole when needed and not share that pain with anyone else.

In the end, Saber's loss was very much amplified by her own personal demons in that Alexander's kingship had ONE thing that she really wanted above all else.

If we were to take all other points in consideration, the tyranny and pain that Alexander's type of rule had caused others... doesn't necessarily makes him a better King. After all, his road of a conqueror is one that denies people the sense of home as they travel to conquer, conquer and conquer.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Fandal

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Rider describe North Korea? A country where it's people want to follow it's "dear leader", a person they want to become, and a leader who is also just as greedy as any person in the world.

here is the difference, Alex's people did want to follow him, even his enemies wanted to follow him. They saw his vision and they wanted to be a part of that grandeur.

[nightwyrm]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

But Saber may not admit it, but it's obvious Ionian Hetaroi had Saber filled with massive amounts of jealousy, because she obviously wants a NP where she could summon her reverse harem see the embodiment of her power within her people, or at the very least, her Round Table.

In the end, Saber's loss was very much amplified by her own personal demons in that Alexander's kingship had ONE thing that she really wanted above all else.

I think you're exactly right. Iskander caused Saber to BSOD not because his proof of kingship (hence his philosophy) was objectively better but because it's the one thing that she felt was most lacking in her own.

After all, she didn't give a damn about Gil's philosophy and proof of kingship - owning all the crap in the world.

[mAc Chaos]

You guys have to take into account what a true tyrant was considered back in Alexander's days. Most warlords would just burn everything to the ground and take what was left for themselves after killing off every last man woman and child who opposed him. Alexander basically told people they could continue living as they were as long as they followed him.

[Moekou]

Originally Posted by Fandal

Didn't Saber servant leadership sound more like "Civil Servant" or why being the President of the United States is called one of the worst jobs in the world?

I don't know about Presidents of United States in general, but George Washington would certainly brofist her if he was around. To them, the important thing was to set the precedents for the future. Just like Saber, Washington was distant and very much aware that he was setting precedents for the country, and certainly did not want to be envied or seize more power-he invented the idea of presidency and stepped down when everyone was rooting for him to be the new king. This is simultaneously why Washington is so revered and yet does not have nearly as many humanizing stories about him compared to other famous presidents.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Kieli

Indeed, and I thought to make that point too but it didn't come out quite as well. I wonder if Saber viewed the Church as tyrannical? Her ideals are certainly based on their teachings without the intent on power and control. I wonder if she ever really noticed the dichotomy?

I'm no expert on the Arthur cycles myself, but I believe they have their origins around the 6th century CE or so. Aka, the very early middle ages. During that time, the Roman and other pagan gods would've still been worshipped in many parts of the country, despite whatever disapproval the still relatively young church might've had. I mean, Christianity was still spreading through Europe, missionaries still doing their thing in Britain, all the initial legwork, basically, was still going on. I doubt the church was yet as far-reaching as in, say, Dante Alighieri's time.

My point being, I'm not sure how high up on an Arthur's priorities the church would've been, with all those invading Saxons to deal with.

Originally Posted by nightwyrm

I think you're exactly right. Iskander caused Saber to BSOD not because his proof of kingship (hence his philosophy) was objectively better but because it's the one thing that she felt was most lacking in her own.

After all, she didn't give a damn about Gil's philosophy and proof of kingship - owning all the crap in the world.

Hah, yes Gilgamesh came off looking quite simple in his philosophy from their conversation.

It's essentially just "All your stuff are belong to me"

[Thess]

Originally Posted by GeostigmataShi

If you look it like that everybody's alone =A=

Not really. Rider's never alone, because the NP he takes are his people. Whereas, Gilgamesh has his treasures and Saber has the ideals (encompassed in Excalibur).