[Edict]

I've combined statements and rearranged others to organise responses, please correct me if I have misconstrued or overlooked something important to the discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by Thess

Anyway, none of the kings ever mentions the people outside their army. At most, there are mentions in Fate of the villages Saber destroyed in her own country to support her military units overseas.

one of the kings differs quintessentially in their emphasis of just rule and protection of all as defining of the king''s true duties. As before, without knowing intentions or the the context, I cannot specifically comment on the actions described. Though it isn't all that appropriate to unknowingly speculate about specific ideas, a tentative guess is that purpose was not one of conquest but presumably to quell or meet an oncoming threat in advance of incursion.

They are treasured because he puts the bond between them as his most cherished possession....She envied Rider because he could bond with his followers personally while she couldn’t. If you want to sum her strength, is on the glory/ideals, Iskandar's strength is on relationships/bonds, while Archer's strength is on treasures....There are also contextual differences but that is the gap between them.

if I understand the background then Saber believed that adhering to the paragon of kinghood would entail loyalty and respect, which can be thought true yet fully understanding just what the same means -- even with the upmost intent -- cannot be so impossibly simple. The ideal king is not simply the ideal saint or knight (as Saber had first expected) but one who in knowing how ideals relate to and thereby enrich humanity unites virtue with understanding. I would surmise Saber's act to be king not only superseded her human life with its idealised aspirations but fate of the same as well.

Any leader in basic management needs communication skills. Saber lacked them. She didn’t smile (not even to her closest knights), she didn’t talk much, people were at loss what to do because of that. She had withdrawn so much to follow her ideals that people could not understand it anymore. And that brought the downfall of her kingdom.

it would seem probable then that the outcome reflects the multiplicity of influences with their culminating not in misunderstanding but lack of reciprocal unity. If Saber's commitment both upheld and safeguarded the kingdom, yet the same was not duly reciprocated then it becomes no longer possible to serve in the fullest capacity. As the one given to rule by the sword, and having shown this much in deed rather than speech, predicaments, as they were, somehow contrived on the later belie divisions that would not be so casually resolved though any amendment of misunderstanding.

The best thing for Iskandar would have been killing Saber, Lancer and Berserker in episode 5 when he had that opening. Or grievously damaged them. He pretty much told Saber he just saved her because he felt like (out of good will) and shrugged off any strategy or scheme he had.

This good nature of his is a flaw, IMO. Because Servants MUST die to have their wish granted. Rider seems stubborn to avoid this because of his ‘greedy’ nature.

haha well it is noteworthy that a few heroes share a value for battle on an even field. Tactically speaking Iskander chancing an attack could have polarised what was a transitioning set of arrangements. Whereas interjecting at the time he did restored the previous status quo as it was already predisposed (i.e. to battle each other) and if nothing else continued the opportunity to better gauge the capabilities of those involved.

His intention is in the narrative. There is no interpretation but actual text? It’s spelled aloud.

explicit formulations (e.g. the king's speeches of episode 11) tend to frame attributions (ideas, motivations, acts etc), in conjunction with an expectation of holistic structure not all abstractions however astute are going to be consonant. Elucidation of Iskander's aspirations and his (in)actions evince a pattern of character concept which varies in cogency with the otherwise prima facie propensity to consign nations to war if deemed expedient. Depending on how these polarities are perceived a basis for contradiction of one form or other is somewhat ascertainable. Furthermore, although the writing could perforce subsume characteristics to aid consistency the rendition is at times construed to avoid outright portrayal of tyranny, such as incidental wars of conquest, whilst at others lapses into less equivocal depictions. Which taken as an observation of character concept not so soundly combined into a single representation would partially denote disparities for what they are.

in short, with consideration of the text's apparent divergences (and/or liberal composition), it becomes sufficiently reasonable to arrive at an appreciation of concepts independent of their (conceivably discrepant) orientation. Of course individual appraisal determines whether that is necessary or useful concerning Iskander's multifaceted characterisation.