MonteCristo wrote:Ansome was giving Jetstone and ultimatum... If you do not ally with us, then we will take your capitol and end your side.
If GK was not expecting anything from jetstone aside from peace, then why is the alternative to alliance "conquest" when there are other means to end all aggressions and have peace?
They greatly prefer Alliance to conquest, but no where to they say they would settle for a simple end to hostilities.
"Alliance" in Erfworld does not mean the same thing it does in English. (Just like "artifact", or "barter system"). An Alliance agreement is a peace agreement. Otherwise when you send out a group of farmers and run into their farmers they murder each other. We haven't seen any other way to have peace between the normal people. An alliance is a peace agreement. We see no other evidence an alliance has any other effect.
Yes like the peace that Goodminton had with Frenemy and Quisling... Or the peace that Jestone forced haggar into by threatening to conquer them. I was not examine how WE use alliance, but how its been used in erfworld. An alliance is not necessarily a peace agreement, its a mutual military arrangement. Allies move on the same turn thus allow them to move their forces at the same time and thus fight together in battle. Its commonly used for those with friendly relations and mutual enemies, but it is possible to break alliance and attack the former ally; this HAS been used to force concessions on weaker allies as we saw in book 1 with Goodminton and its "allies"
And we do know a peaceful alternative to an alliance; A non-aggression pact. No reason to think the pact is anything that what it sounds like, an agreement that neither side will attack the other, and if they do they will be faced with an agreed upon penalty. No aggression, is peaceful. Though unlike an alliance, their is no obligation to support the other side you made a pact with.
Though to be fair, i must correct one thing i said earlier (or something i had not taken into account); it is possible to bound an alliance to a penalty clause just like the non-aggression pact; haffaton offered a short term alliance to goodminton in exchange for Wanda... though given Haggar's plans, frenemy's and quisling's attempt, and the fact that goodminton suffered no penalty from breaking alliance to strike first at their betrayers, it is not common to add a penalty to such arrangements. And nothing suggests Ansom was offering an alliance with a penalty clause attached(or one that GK could not afford). And this does not change the fact that Ansom threatened to wipe out Jetstone if they did not agree to their alliance...
Oberon wrote:You do not rule your allies. Jetstone never rules Unaroyal, or TV, or any of the other sides in the RCC. Jetstone has used alliance to force concessions, that's supposed to be Trem's specialty after all, and they did a decent number on Haggar even if that was doomed to failure in the end and would have resulted in war with Haggar without Charlies' intervention. So while there can be a claim that an alliance can be used to manipulate, I don't think there is any evidence that GK has ever used an alliance in that manner, or has any intention of doing so in the future. Leave that kind of double-dealing to the royals who are so much better at it.
Except what Ansom was offering jetstone was no different that what Ossomer offered Haggar. Ossomer told haggar straight, "if you do not ally with us, we will conquer your side"... Ansom pretty much offered the same thing, but in much nicer words. He offered them alliance and if Jetstone turned down the offer, then they would be conquered.
Heck after Ossomer was captured, he pointed out that Ansom always had the option to just turn around and go home. Thinking about it, they could end the fighting without an alliance; heck they could just agree to non-aggression and thus put the war to an end, agreeing to not mess in eachother's affairs... But Ansom wanted to push forward. If Jetstone would not join GK willingly, then they would do so by FORCE. Croak and decrypt.