Fate/Zero - Episode 11 Discussion / Poll

[Kokukirin]

However, there is the undeniable fact Rider was a tyrant. He may have had comrades in droves - but history doesn't remember them or his people. Ishkandar and his conquest is what history remembers - and that his kingdom was sundered once he fell. That is the legacy Rider left behind - he may not regret it but a lot of people would have. Those he conquered, those he lived gloriously off. Short-term glory is great when you're living it, but when you leave your country ruined in the aftermath from being reckless, that's a real blight on your legacy as a king.

This is just wrong. Alexander's conquest made Greek culture dominant in the entire Persia and Egypt. It was a legacy that had long lasting immense impact. And besides, Macedonia fell apart because Alexander died young without a born heir. There was not much he could do to prevent the eventual collapse.

I think the main point of Rider's speech is that he and his people had played their part and did what they could. So while he may grief for the outcome, he does not regret what he did.

As for Archer, he certainly viewed himself as superior and that anything in the world he wanted should be his. He loved nothing but himself. He didn't care for the wealth or treasure he collected - he simply thought it should be his by default. However, if there is an aspect of Archer that outdoes Rider, it is that he doesn't have contempt for those that are genuinely strong but differ in ideals/methods. Rider now resents Saber and refuses to acknowledge her as a king because their set of ideals are pretty much opposites. Archer's stance is in the same vein, but he respects Saber to no end. Gilgamesh - a person saturated in greed, blood and the wealth/power he accumulated by being a tyrant - sees in Saber a person so pure and divine that even he can't taint it. To Gilgamesh, Saber is the greatest treasure of all. It isn't love, but infatuation and admiration would be apt terms for how Gilgamesh feels about Saber.

Archer does not really respect Saber. He just enjoys watching her suffer from shouldering the burden of a nation, and in his twisted mind he finds Saber in agony beautiful to behold. Rider does not have contempt for Saber: he acknowledges that Saber is a noble martyr. But Rider believes that Saber is not what a king should be. I think Rider feels sorry for Saber's self-sacrificial ideals and wants to correct her idea of kingship.

[Alaya]

Originally Posted by DragoZERO

That is excellent.

I was surprised there was a Reality Marble without any chant though. I thought it was necessary to invoke one.

That is what make his kingship even greater. A Reality Marble is not just a simple magecraft. It is one of the highest rank, closest to miracles. Even the most impressive margus would not be able to use it, unless they have some kind of special affinity or realization the true nature of his/her own soul. Generally, only a magus who lives more than hundreds years would be able to cast it.

But why Rider can use it, even though he is not even a magus? That's because his soul and vision is so strong and dazzling, that his followers also take it as their own. They see what their King see, dream what their King dream. The shape of their souls become of their King's. The image becomes so vivid that Alexander can paint his image in his soul on reality because his servants also paint it at the same time.

Quote of Alexander's explanation from the novel:

Spoiler for Ionian Hetairoi:

“How could this be….you could materialize the environment inside your mind…You aren’t a – magus?!”

“Of course I’m not. This is not something I can do alone.”

Alexander laughed proudly as he majestically stood in the center of wide, everstretching field.

“This land is the land in which my army once crossed. It is imprinted upon the hearts of every single one of my warriors who shared in my joys and sorrows.”

As the world changed, the positions of the five who were initially surrounded also changed.

The Assassins, originally surrounding the group have been moved aside to one side. Rider stood in the center. In the other side stood Saber, Archer, and the two Masters. This is to say that Rider stood before the Assassins by himself.

– but, could it be said that Rider fought alone?

The eyes of everyone widened as they noticed the mirage-like images that appeared around him. One, two, four….there were more and more images, ever increasing. The colors become clearer and more solid.

“The reason why this world can exist again... is because it is printed upon all of our hearts.”

[Iron Maw]

Originally Posted by Last Sinner

I don't think Rider resents Saber for specifically her approach. I think it's more the fact Saber took nothing positive from her life as Arturia. She ruled and made Britain great, but she was alone and her heart was cold. Essentially, Saber did not value her life and thinks she failed - which was a major point in FSN. Rider appreciates the fact that any kingdom of rule will eventually fall and that nothing lasts forever. Rider enjoyed his rule and lived life to the fullest - admirable qualities. He had the admiration of his soldiers - also admirable.

Yeah, this pretty much how I see it. Frankly while I really like Rider's character and agree with some of what he said, I would still prefer Saber's way of Kingship. Her rule provided a strong country that could continue even without her leading. Her fault really only lies in rather her lonely and fatalistic views than govermentship.

[Clarste]

I think Archer sees Saber as sort of a reinforcement of his belief that others are not strong enough to bear the burden of kingship. By having her try and fail through no fault of her own it makes him seem more special by comparison.

[Alaya]

Originally Posted by Iron Maw

Yeah, this pretty much how I see it. Frankly while I really like Rider's character and agree with some of what he said, I would still prefer Saber's way of Kingship. Her rule provided a strong country that could continue even without her leading. Her fault really only lies in rather her lonely and fatalistic views than govermentship.

Well, her country fell before even before her died :P

I don't know, why people always say that "Saber's way of kingship will make a country strong that continue after her" when her way of kingship led her country to ruin, ridden with civil war and her own countrymen killing each others.

Sure, her way of governance is definitely not wrong, but she just takes it too extreme. She can be a protector of people by being a king, but she can't be a king and a martyr at the same time. They are completely different things. A king can't be alone. A king needs support from his followers, while his followers need inspiration and vision from their king. Saber can't give the latter, thus she lack the former (at least from half of her country).

[Rethice]

That was beautiful.

A very cliche' battle of morals, but written and delivered excellently. Never before have I seen a character that we've been shown to respect and admire as much as Rider take a viewpoint that is usually associated with a villain - to then further expand on the argument to the point where I fully agree with him.

Saber got owned, hard. I'm starting to enjoy seeing Saber's naive and smug ideals get dragged through the dirt, and finally I see Rider as more than an ignorant brute. Now I can truly worship his GAR.

When I had someone describe this episode to me, I was puzzled to hear that Archer would associate with these two in a casual manner, but after seeing it myself it does make sense, and having him there as well really added a lot more weight to the debate of Kingship, giving us a full spectrum from white to black ruling.

We also learned that in a case of leadership, "Gray" will more likely agree with "Black" - makes sense!

Looking forward to the next episode.

[Iron Maw]

Originally Posted by Alaya

Well, her country fell before even before her died :P

I don't know, why people always say that "Saber's way of kingship will make a country strong that continue after her" when her way of kingship led her country to ruin, ridden with civil war and her own countrymen killing each others.

Yeah, but it's still around even if it's not the way she wanted it opposed to poor Alex. It's not as if Rider's reign was "sunshine and roses" either especially near his end when stuff like his generals and soldiers backstabbing each other, revolts etc was going on.

Sure, her way of governance is definitely not wrong, but she just takes it too extreme. She can be a protector of people by being a king, but she can't be a king and a martyr at the same time. They are completely different things. A king can't be alone. A king needs support from his followers, while his followers need inspiration and vision from their king. Saber can't give the latter, thus she lack the former (at least from half of her country).

Mostly agreed, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But she did have a strong vision, it's just that pushing people anyway from was her issue.

[MeoTwister5]

As awesome as all of this was, what makes it even sadder for Saber is that she learned little of what both other kings had to say when the next Holy Grail war comes to pass.

[Geburah]

In my opinion three types of kinship was presented:

A king who lived as a saint, a king who lived as a man and a king who lived as an existence that trascends mankind..

Saber wanted to follow a path of righteousness but not many can reach happiness following that path, since is so unnatural to normal people, thats why her country fell apart. Theres a limit on how much people can feed on ideals.

Rider wanted to live to their fullest, so that when he died he didnt have any regrets. Thats obvious that everyone wants to live to the fullest so thats why he earned an undying loyalty since his followers also made his wish their own. His early death caused his empire to crumble quickly but none can deny his feats. That desire to live to the fullest was manifested on his "conquer"

Archer (ill try to not spoil about his identity for those who dont know it yet) lived as a tyrant but was such a brilliant and powerful existence so detached from humans, that people venerated him despite his whimsical nature. Saber was also a brilliant one but she was human and at the same time she didnt act like one, something that caused people to be wary of her, since she couldnt understand the hearts of her people

[Thess]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter_Toki

I am the rider of my bulls
Manly is my body, GAR is my blood
I have conquered over a thousand lands
Unknown to defeat, nor known to weakness
Have withstood pain to defeat many foes
For those hands will someday hold everything
So as I roar, Unlimited Servant Works!

Congratulations. This is now canon.

Originally Posted by Rethice

When I had someone describe this episode to me, I was puzzled to hear that Archer would associate with these two in a casual manner, but after seeing it myself it does make sense, and having him there as well really added a lot more weight to the debate of Kingship, giving us a full spectrum from white to black ruling.

They were all more casual in the novels. Gilgamesh and Arthuria were wearing normal clothes, not their armors. The studio changed it. I was a bit miffed about that (plus I was hoping "The Mad Feast of Kings" would be the title.

Originally Posted by Geburah

Archer (ill try to not spoil about his identity for those who dont know it yet)

His identity was disclosed in episode 3 by Tokiomi? It's not a spoiler...

[kuroishinigami]

How ironic is it that although Rider's noble phantasm is the materialization of his bond with his generals, the end of the real Alexander's dream was caused by mutiny from said general/friends. Not to mention that although he said he lead his people by giving them dreams, the real Alexander died from (allegedly) being poisoned by his own countryman.

Well, at least his countryman didn't start a civil war before he died so I guess his leadership and conquest mentality is indeed "better" than Arthur's in a way.

[Last Sinner]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

This is just wrong. Alexander's conquest made Greek culture dominant in the entire Persia and Egypt. It was a legacy that had long lasting immense impact. And besides, Macedonia fell apart because Alexander died young without a born heir. There was not much he could do to prevent the eventual collapse.

I think the main point of Rider's speech is that he and his people had played their part and did what they could. So while he may grief for the outcome, he does not regret what he did.

Certainly Alexander had a positive legacy in terms of military prowess, strategy, Hellenization and influencing the Roman Empire to a degree. As for not having an heir, that was more to do with Alexander not having much interst in women/producing an heir despite having a harem and respecting women overall. He could have produced heirs - he simply didn't. That is one of the most important parts of providing some form of stability/longevity to a kingdom and he didn't do it. Alexander dug his own hole in some ways. Hard to know whether it was anything to do with how his father Phillip II lived. Maybe it was due to Alexander's highly impulsive nature despite being tutored by Aristotle. Probably was the death of Hephaestion that did it. In terms of ambition, conquest and military prowess, hard to match. But I dare to say that while living life like he did, he didn't set any safeguards or insurance for the future. And after his death, while Hellenization did spread, it wasn't a cultural influence his successors promoted.

I still consider the Roman Empire to be the best legacy within that era because it had more longevity, greater annexation, longer-reaching influence, engineering marvels that were lost in the Dark Ages that took nearly a millenia to find again and a cultural significance that is still globally recognised today. Were any of its specific leaders better than Alexander? Perhaps not, but despite the infighting and bloodshed, the kingdom prospered for far longer. For an empire that started with Julius Caesar and lasted all the way to the Byzantine Empire losing in the final fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empite in 1453, that's a better legacy than Alexander's. No big disrespect to the guy but he made some key mistakes in the way he lived. Phillip ensured Alexander would be well equipped to be a leader since he was ten. Then after Phillip was assassinated, Alexander was ready to take over the reins of kingship. If Alexander had learned from what his father Phillip did, maybe Alexander would have left someone behind ready to take on the reins. But after taking Persia, he overdid it by going for India and having his army revolt, not to mention trying to merge too many Persian influences into his court. And that is a consequence of his belief of the king being superior to all and that everyone should follow his suggestions. Grandeur is great for a while but in the aftermath, it isn't what it's cracked up to be. Only took two years after his death for his empire to split. The Roman Empire is still the true mark of old world success for me.

Archer does not really respect Saber. He just enjoys watching her suffer from shouldering the burden of a nation, and in his twisted mind he finds Saber in agony beautiful to behold. Rider does not have contempt for Saber: he acknowledges that Saber is a noble martyr. But Rider believes that Saber is not what a king should be. I think Rider feels sorry for Saber's self-sacrificial ideals and wants to correct her idea of kingship.

Look, certainly Gilgamesh loves seeing others suffer since he thinks he's superior to all. But Archer generally despises all life. He makes a rare exception for Saber since she's something he can't control. And something like that in the presence of someone as all-powerful and greedy as him - wouldn't he want that more than anything?! Wouldn't he want it to be his at all costs? Oh, I personally think while Archer loved seeing Saber suffer for the path she chose, he still respected Saber because she never gave into greed and tyranny. She was always the selfless martyr and fought for others. She was an elusive beauty that he could never capture or tame. It has always been within the nature of humanity to covet what we don't have. For someone like Gilgamesh to have next to everything a person could have and then have a person like Saber cross his path - it really is the ultimate challenge/conquest. And I do believe that will have an effect on how this Grail War ends.

As for Rider - I think there's two sides to that. Alexander had been tutored and bred to rule as he did. He lived for the moment and was very impulsive. Conquest and greed were crucial parts of him. He believed the king should be superior. So of course Saber's approach offends him. But the fact he went to the point to declare Saber unfit to be called a king was going too far. Alexander called himself the 'King of Kings' after conquering Persia and challenged Saber calling herself the 'King of Knights.' As for wanting to 'correct' Saber, that is a character flaw within Rider/Alexander. He was convinced his way was always the right way. (Queue Rider's grandiose speech at the start of Episode 5) And that is a fatal flaw to have. Look, overall as a person, I consider Rider superior to Archer, don't get me wrong there. But in terms of how they consider Saber, I think Archer wins that one. His contempt and disrespect for all of life is obvious. But I honestly believe Archer thinks Saber is an opponent that is a worthy challenge and a rare example of defiance and elusiveness in his otherwise boring, perfect existence whereas Rider thinks Saber was unfit to be king and has never really considered Saber as a legitimate challenger. For Rider to say right off the bat to Saber the first time they met 'Fight for me!' and then 'Yeah, wanted to see your castle, drink and figure out who's the worthy winner by kingship rants' - he seems rather sure of himself and that he will always win. Rider's manly nature is hilarious and admirable in some ways - and I love watching the guy - but all in all, he is rather full of himself and sure he will win the Grail War by default. And I'm sure it will cost him in the long run. Archer may be arrogant and cruel, but the guy makes plans via Kotomine and determining who are legitimate threats for him. Rider was the active one in that episode but Archer probably gained the most by keeping his cards close to his chest, getting to hear Saber and Rider detail their ideals in detail - as well as seeing Rider's Noble Phantasm. Most heroes usually disguise their Noble Phantasm to help them win but Rider is so sure of himself he produly proclaimed how his works. Archer gained the most from this episode and has plenty in the works to give himself multiple options.

Ultimately, the episode was meant to show there is no one truly good way to rule a country or kingdom. Saber, Rider and Archer all had good points to their approaches but all had glaring flaws to them as well, which is what will ultimately determine their fates in this Grail War. No kingdom or empire lasts forever. However the legacy you leave behind can.

And on a final note, I think Triple H would like to have a word with Rider and settle one-on-one who really deserves to be called the 'King of Kings'.

[Xagzan]

No heirs?

Looks like everyone's forgetting about poor Alexander IV. It's understandable though. His entire life was mostly spent as a political pawn until one of the diadochi decided he'd be better off without the boy as a threat to his rule and had him killed.

[Last Sinner]

Well, Alexander did have a son - but it wasn't born before Alexander died. Therein lied the problem. The people in power used the opportunity to put Alexander's half-brother in charge and take him out. For a child to be a viable heir in the immediate future, it needs to be of an age considered old enough to take the role or be advised/groomed for it.

[Kaiba]

Alexander called himself the 'King of Kings' after conquering Persia and challenged Saber calling herself the 'King of Knights.' As for wanting to 'correct' Saber, that is a character flaw within Rider/Alexander. He was convinced his way was always the right way. (Queue Rider's grandiose speech at the start of Episode 5) And that is a fatal flaw to have.

If what you're saying is true, then why didn't Alexander really have a problem with Gilgamesh's method of kingship and what he stated about breaking and upholding the law? The way I see it, Alexander considers Gilgamesh a king, one whom has different ideals, but is still a king. But Saber? From Alex's perspective, it's the concept of "that's not right, and that's not even wrong." Saber's ideal isn't that of a king, from Alex's perspective. It's that of a hero, which is completely different thing.

Archer may be arrogant and cruel, but the guy makes plans via Kotomine and determining who are legitimate threats for him.

When has Gilgamesh ever done such a thing? After all, why should Gilgamesh plan? He is the King of Everything, the King of Heroes. Such a King does not worry about the struggles of mongrels to defeat him, and Gilgamesh has shown that he openly dislikes Tokiomi's scheming in the shadows.

I think the thing is that you act like winning the Holy Grail War should be the overwhelming priority for the Servants. For most of them, it really isn't, and especially not for Rider - otherwise, he would have gone along with Waver's plan of letting Lancer and Saber fight. Remember his lines in Episode 4, "To win, but not destroy, to conquer, but not humiliate, those are the ideals of a king." And that's what he'll do.

[Paranoid Android]

The only problem Alexander has for Saber is pride. She has no pride in her history of leading her country. She regrets her actions and wishes a qualified king to take her place. Where both Gilgamesh and Alexander think highly of themselves as accomplished Kings.

Nobody want's a king who always thinks of himself as a failure.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Last Sinner

Well, Alexander did have a son - but it wasn't born before Alexander died. Therein lied the problem. The people in power used the opportunity to put Alexander's half-brother in charge and take him out. For a child to be a viable heir in the immediate future, it needs to be of an age considered old enough to take the role or be advised/groomed for it.

But he was, on the surface anyway, being groomed for it. The result of the first partition of Alexander's empire was that the half-brother Arrhidaios and the unborn child, assuming it was male, should eventually "rule" together. Even prior to that compromise, though, Alex's successors weren't all united in their opinion of who should "rule." Perdiccas, one of the most prominent of the group, supported the unborn son before the agreement was reached.

So he was viable, although it's pretty obvious by how quickly Perdiccas assumed control as regent that neither of the two kings were ever intended as anything more than figureheads. Arrhidaios had a mental disability, and Alex IV was an infant; neither were in any position to assert control over the successor generals.

And Alex IV did eventually become the sole king once Arrhidaios was taken out, though he was still to young to do anything about it. And that didn't last long either, as Cassander came sweeping back into Macedon, held Alexander prisoner for a few years, then had him killed when it looked like the boy would actually become a threat to his power (and honestly, his death was probably appreciated by the other generals as well, who could now feel safe to assert their independent authority without the pretense of ruling in the boy king's name).

[Malkuth]

Originally Posted by Kanon

As a matter of fact, it kind of peeves me that a brilliant and heartfelt speech by Alexander the Great had less of an effect on her than the hypocritical words of a 16 years old boy who kept telling her her place was in the kitchen.

Well, that's because however nicely, pompously, or charismatically anyone makes his point, it's the substance that matters, and frankly Saber would be more useful in a kitchen rather than leading people to their idealistic doom

By the way, I also read some comparisons between Arthur and Alexander here... should I remind everyone that one is a historical figure and his kingdom did exist in reality, while the other just a character of legend without any substantiated archaeological evidence to even hint to a real world equivalent... so comparing the too is somewhat invalid

[Kokukirin]

@Last Sinner

Why are you comparing Macedonia and Roman Empire? The former preceded the latter by 300 years. Hellenistic culture had long taken root in Syria and Egypt as Ptolemic Egypt and Seleucid Persia lasted hundreds of years. When Roman Empire took over, it absorbed Hellenistic culture into its own. In this way Alexander's conquest shaped the Roman culture, which was in turn spread across the world by the Romans. You are just admiring the tall building while neglecting its foundation.

And you got Archer completely wrong. He sees Saber as a pretty thing to behold, but shows no little respect for her as a king. He repeatedly calls her a clown because he finds her ways amusing.

As for Rider, I don't see him thinking that he will win by default in any way. He is confident but never lowers his guard, as shown in his brief encounter with Assassins in Caster's hideout. The anime does not explain it, but he is forced to use his strongest NP against the Assassins because he has no other way to protect Waver from so many Assassins.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Last Sinner

Well, Alexander did have a son - but it wasn't born before Alexander died. Therein lied the problem. The people in power used the opportunity to put Alexander's half-brother in charge and take him out. For a child to be a viable heir in the immediate future, it needs to be of an age considered old enough to take the role or be advised/groomed for it.

The issue at heart was that Alexander did not name a successor with witnesses. On his deathbed his generals were begging him to tell them who would succeed him but he never did.

This is why Octavius who would become the first Emperor of Rome easily took control of Caesar's armies as Julius had named him as his heir in his will.

Ghenghis Khan realized the same thing and named his third son as his heir before he himself was killed on his campaigns.

The only problem Alexander has for Saber is pride. She has no pride in her history of leading her country. She regrets her actions and wishes a qualified king to take her place. Where both Gilgamesh and Alexander think highly of themselves as accomplished Kings.

Nobody want's a king who always thinks of himself as a failure.

Aside from Gilgamesh Alexander was quite suprised and impressed that the King of Britain was ruled by a woman so he had respect for her in the first impression so yeah he was disappointed by her negativity.