I mean there's a whole archetype of character that Walhart belongs in, the Red Emperor. He shares similar beliefs to Arvis, Edelgard, Ashnard and Rudolf
This is actually a very good convo. While being wrong, Walhart's motivations are just as true if not more true than Chrom's, since they are his own ideals and not something borrowed.
It's basically the situation of, "would you kill 100,000 people or let 1,000,000 die, Walhart is doing what he knows how to in order to unite the world, and eventually kill grima, whereas Chrom knows how to find a solution with.. less bloodshed
@@fyra_cat2119 I would kill 100,000 people, me being one of them if I had to make that choice. If one is willing to start an war over something like that, then they are too dangerous to live and should be removed from existance. Also, I would sooner "borrow" the ideals of a true god, then to follow a human's potentially flawed reasonings. Gods know better than us, they are better guides than ourselves.
@@DiogoJ1 maybe in a fantasy world, but in this modern age religion is causing more war and murder than it helps anyone, and the gods are very likely just manmade fabrications to begin with so you re still just following another humans ideals under the "alleged name of god". Plus the gods don't lead, if they exist they simply watch over us. Praying might give you blessings, but not money and food, and it won't stop global warming either. People have to still live for themselves, and if gods created us I doubt they gave us free will and thinking so that we don't use it.
@@deadaccount968 In this modern age, Islam is causing war and murder you mean. Even if they are fabrications, if the gods don't exist, one will be created all the same eventually anyway. And that's all I would ask of them. They shouldn't be answering the prayers of the weak willed anyway. Living for ourselves is all and good, but one should still show due respect to such divine beings, and since they have the right idea, "borrowing" from them is the way to go in order to be a proper human being.
@@DiogoJ1 I can understand that last argument, if christians were actually as holy and peaceful as they try to paint themselves to be, a lot of problems and tragedy could have been avoided, all across history. But so many people don t just borrow, they start conflict over anything they deem as "blasphemy" (not just islam), and they do horrible things to anyone who isn t one of them or goes against their "beliefs". Many people who can t think for themselves like that feel their existences threatened when you tell them their heaven might not exist, and they go crazy over it. Wich is why I still support to encourage people should live and think for themselves. Nothing wrong with borrowing ideals, they just happend to easely become warped if they are connected to worship
Walhart is a very similar character to Edelgard, both are about whether its right to serve the greater good, and whether the end justifies the means. Both are depicted as revolutionary characters with a strong conviction, and though they are brutal, they are not cowards. They did not only sacrifice the lives of others, but everything they themselves had. You could argue Walhart wasnt really a bad guy, his aim was ultimately to defeat the Grimleal and prevent the return of Grima. In doing so, he would literally be saving everyone alive, and humanities future. You could argue it is Ylisses fault for not surrendering and helping in his cause, though he is ultimately depicted as being a bad guy. In Edelgards case, she does the exact same thing, starts a war that kills thousands that would otherwise not happen, but it ends in the liberation of the people of Fodlan, and at least in the crimson flower route, she is seen as the hero. I think what can be learned from this is that the truth is violence isnt always bad, some things can only be stopped with action, and sometimes a revolution is needed. The French revolution for example, many people died from that, and without the revolution perhaps less people would have died in the short term. Yet it meant that France eventually became a democracy, and you could argue started the trend of democratic governments globally. This was not something that would happen if all people did was complain about not having a democracy, and with peaceful protests its highly likely protesters would have been slaughtered.
Very well-put. Walhart is described by Virion as "Alm without his Celica" which encapsulates him perfectly. Walhart's end-goal isn't evil, he's just cold and has hardened himself, he lacks compassion and tries to take the burden of taking on the Grimleal almost entirely upon himself rather than attempting to form an alliance with others. This makes him even more similar to Edelgard in that regard, as we can see in how much colder and brutal she is on the routes where she doesn't have Byleth on her side. Without that warmth, the heart goes cold and dulls the person's perception of the world to seeing people as merely obstacles rather than fellow people. Fire Emblem has so many wonderful characters and villains honestly, will always be a shame how most disregard the majority of them.
The one that rebirthed the series, it really is esthetized that way, while being what you awaits from good video game companies reposing in the conception and not some Justin Bieber crap like EA or some bullshit like Afro Americans thinking they're totally African. The same as you, my all times all pains all deaths all lifes all paths all words all interpretations fire emblem game!!
What? Like Genghis Khan? Then Kublai Khan of the Great Founder of The Yuan Dynasty, although to be fair, Kublai Khan is not a grandson of Genghis Khan. But still a great point about Walhart conquering the entire Yiilse continent, Under Valmese Empire Rule.
If you haven’t heard of getting Walhart well, you can get him in chapter 25 in bonus maps. Also, if you are interested in the music, the OST of this theme is called Mastermind. And Also plus, back in the good old days, Walhart was a lobster lord coming from his helmet. lol
@@optimaltt6070 Indeed. Utilitarism goes by the logic that only results matter. That is a dangerous mentality. Deontologism, is the way to go, the ends are justified by the means.
@@DiogoJ1 Complete deontology is also not that good, since it can lead to results that are harmful. The best case is a balance of deontology and utilitarianism.
@@amaanb1923 That's fine by me. The means used are more important than the ends. If both the results and the means are good, then that's fine, obviously. But if the means are tainted by evil, then heads need to roll, no matter the result.
My goal is to recruit every boss I had to kill to defeat Grima so they all can feel like they got their revenge for being manipulated (Gangrel by Aversa and Walhart by Excellus)
Honestly, now that I think about it, Edelgard from FE3H has a very similar goal to Walhart, she started a war, aware of the bloodshed it caused, in order to slay the gods/remnants of the gods and unify the world, only Edelagrd is a much more likable/relatable character, and shes significantly more successful, as in every route, even if she didnt win the war, Fodlan ended up united, and Rhea gave up her position as Archbishop to Byleth, so they and their house leader if it isnt silver snow, rule a united Fodlan
I disagree, Edelgard was not only far less justified, but she’s also campaigning based on exaggerated truths and complete lies about the church and so on. She also deluded herself into thinking she’s unequivocally the good guy with no wrongdoings while Walhart doesn’t even try to hide his cold philosophy.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 exactly! Walhart while morally wrong he was objectively right about history, tradition & ideals, but he's not delusional or decietful like Edel who is factually wrong about literally everything from history to origin of crests to Nemesis to the Nabateans.. Besides Edel never wins anything without Byleth & failed every plan she concieved, her ending is the bad/villain ending where u create a far worse Fodlan than ever before (military rule, supreme ruler, imperialism, censorship, Byleth losing their enlightment/goodness at the end...). Basically Walhart is much better written than Edel, has a clear vision, isn't motivated by trauma & false history but Edel is a cute short waifu that u can romance ig. I honestly wish Walhart had a path too lol.
@@shadowsquid1351 Mhm, and like, I dont even see Edelgard as this awful person or character, shes just an amazingly frustrating individual who started a "ends justify the means" war based on what has to be a record LEAST JUSTIFIED in the series history. Mind you, NONE of the "ends means" villains in Fire Emblem are wholly correct for starting their wars, from Arvis to Walhart and other such individuals, but I feel like Edelgard is one of the least justified. I think there MIGHT be one or two that are lower than her? I think? I think Nergal is one such individual? He's DEFINITELY worse than Edelgard, if still better written.
Walhart, what Edelgard should have been. Because he came to his ideals by his own thoughts instead of blindly believing what some mole men told her and her family.
The thing is that Walhart also has the more justified cause too. It’s still needlessly cruel through execution but at least he had his head screwed on straight. Edelgard is a self-proclaimed “enlightened empress” who started a pointless blood bath based on both over-inflated truths and complete misunderstandings and slander against the church. Edelgard is also severely lacking in self awareness too. Sure she has sparkles of it but Walhart does NOT act like his goals are clean or perfect, he knows he’s running a well oiled war machine here and he feels it to be necessary for the greater good, while Edelgard flat out deluded herself into thinking she’s flat out the pure and do-no-wrong good guy unless Byleth is with her.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 This. Walhardt is doing what Alm did, but with far less patience and compassion. But ultimately, he *would* have defeated Grima, if Chrom didn't stop him.
@@supergoodadvice853 I seriously wanna play THAT game now. The alternate timeline where you wake up in Valm and go on a conquest, just to see how it plays out.
I agree. Even though the way he chose to go about it may have been questionable, Walhart’s true goal was completely justified. If chrom and everyone weren’t being tricked by validar and aversa, I would’ve loved to see chrom and Walhart unite against the grimleal.
![Fire Emblem 7 Three Turn Nergal Final Chapter + One Turn Dragon [Hector Hard Mode]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vfbSPmTeJLQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Walhart: "By whose laws do you judge me? Your sister's? Or the gods?"
Jotaro Kujo: "I will judge you myself!"
Walhart is basically Alm minus compassion.
Mastermind Isn't he also kind of like the male equivalent to Edelgard from Three Houses?
TMX1138 yup, Edelgard is female version of Ashnard/Walhart
@@TMX1138 exactly
Or Emperor Rudolf. In terms of appearance at least.
I mean there's a whole archetype of character that Walhart belongs in, the Red Emperor. He shares similar beliefs to Arvis, Edelgard, Ashnard and Rudolf
That was a decent proc quotes combo there.
"Stand up and fight" to "I will not fail"
Walhart is Fire Emblem's Senator Armstrong. Making the mother of all omelettes here, Chrom. Can't fret over every egg!
This comment needs more like right now, love it
Chrom: *Uses Noble Rapier* Why won't you die?!
Walhart: Conquest skill, son!
Exactly!!!
This is actually a very good convo. While being wrong, Walhart's motivations are just as true if not more true than Chrom's, since they are his own ideals and not something borrowed.
It's basically the situation of, "would you kill 100,000 people or let 1,000,000 die, Walhart is doing what he knows how to in order to unite the world, and eventually kill grima, whereas Chrom knows how to find a solution with.. less bloodshed
@@fyra_cat2119 I would kill 100,000 people, me being one of them if I had to make that choice. If one is willing to start an war over something like that, then they are too dangerous to live and should be removed from existance.
Also, I would sooner "borrow" the ideals of a true god, then to follow a human's potentially flawed reasonings. Gods know better than us, they are better guides than ourselves.
@@DiogoJ1 maybe in a fantasy world, but in this modern age religion is causing more war and murder than it helps anyone, and the gods are very likely just manmade fabrications to begin with so you re still just following another humans ideals under the "alleged name of god".
Plus the gods don't lead, if they exist they simply watch over us. Praying might give you blessings, but not money and food, and it won't stop global warming either. People have to still live for themselves, and if gods created us I doubt they gave us free will and thinking so that we don't use it.
@@deadaccount968 In this modern age, Islam is causing war and murder you mean.
Even if they are fabrications, if the gods don't exist, one will be created all the same eventually anyway.
And that's all I would ask of them. They shouldn't be answering the prayers of the weak willed anyway.
Living for ourselves is all and good, but one should still show due respect to such divine beings, and since they have the right idea, "borrowing" from them is the way to go in order to be a proper human being.
@@DiogoJ1 I can understand that last argument, if christians were actually as holy and peaceful as they try to paint themselves to be, a lot of problems and tragedy could have been avoided, all across history.
But so many people don t just borrow, they start conflict over anything they deem as "blasphemy" (not just islam), and they do horrible things to anyone who isn t one of them or goes against their "beliefs".
Many people who can t think for themselves like that feel their existences threatened when you tell them their heaven might not exist, and they go crazy over it. Wich is why I still support to encourage people should live and think for themselves.
Nothing wrong with borrowing ideals, they just happend to easely become warped if they are connected to worship
Walhart is a very similar character to Edelgard, both are about whether its right to serve the greater good, and whether the end justifies the means. Both are depicted as revolutionary characters with a strong conviction, and though they are brutal, they are not cowards. They did not only sacrifice the lives of others, but everything they themselves had.
You could argue Walhart wasnt really a bad guy, his aim was ultimately to defeat the Grimleal and prevent the return of Grima. In doing so, he would literally be saving everyone alive, and humanities future. You could argue it is Ylisses fault for not surrendering and helping in his cause, though he is ultimately depicted as being a bad guy. In Edelgards case, she does the exact same thing, starts a war that kills thousands that would otherwise not happen, but it ends in the liberation of the people of Fodlan, and at least in the crimson flower route, she is seen as the hero.
I think what can be learned from this is that the truth is violence isnt always bad, some things can only be stopped with action, and sometimes a revolution is needed. The French revolution for example, many people died from that, and without the revolution perhaps less people would have died in the short term. Yet it meant that France eventually became a democracy, and you could argue started the trend of democratic governments globally. This was not something that would happen if all people did was complain about not having a democracy, and with peaceful protests its highly likely protesters would have been slaughtered.
Very well-put. Walhart is described by Virion as "Alm without his Celica" which encapsulates him perfectly. Walhart's end-goal isn't evil, he's just cold and has hardened himself, he lacks compassion and tries to take the burden of taking on the Grimleal almost entirely upon himself rather than attempting to form an alliance with others. This makes him even more similar to Edelgard in that regard, as we can see in how much colder and brutal she is on the routes where she doesn't have Byleth on her side. Without that warmth, the heart goes cold and dulls the person's perception of the world to seeing people as merely obstacles rather than fellow people.
Fire Emblem has so many wonderful characters and villains honestly, will always be a shame how most disregard the majority of them.
Best Boi and Edelgard going against some holy lizards
Friendly reminder that Walhart is Richard Epcar, aka Old Joseph Jostar, Raiden, and many more.
Wonderful VA, one of my favorites.
He also voices Jedah in Fire Emblem Echoes, though that character is very very less cool than any of the aforementioned.
@@nicholast6893 Man, Walhart in Awakening... I love his performance there so much, like 👀
Favorite fire emblem game. In my opinion, perfection.
The one that rebirthed the series, it really is esthetized that way, while being what you awaits from good video game companies reposing in the conception and not some Justin Bieber crap like EA or some bullshit like Afro Americans thinking they're totally African.
The same as you, my all times all pains all deaths all lifes all paths all words all interpretations fire emblem game!!
Did you know that Richard Epcar also voices Jedah in Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia?
And in Heroes, he voices Oliver and Hardin
And Zephiel.
And Joesph Joestar.
Felicia And Raiden in the recent Mortal Kombat games.
Jedah sounds like hannaman too
0:28
Me at age 12: "Why would blood be spilled in any new birth?"
Me at age 22: "Oh god damnit"
Old Joseph now wants to conquer the world!
And the one standing in his way just so happens to be his grandson
What? Like Genghis Khan? Then Kublai Khan of the Great Founder of The Yuan Dynasty, although to be fair, Kublai Khan is not a grandson of Genghis Khan. But still a great point about Walhart conquering the entire Yiilse continent, Under Valmese Empire Rule.
Yo Chrom gonna get straight-up bodied by Walhart xD
Man is like Roah from Fist of the North Star.
If you haven’t heard of getting Walhart well, you can get him in chapter 25 in bonus maps. Also, if you are interested in the music, the OST of this theme is called Mastermind. And Also plus, back in the good old days, Walhart was a lobster lord coming from his helmet. lol
1:05 he got a point
If you think about it and read between the lines, Walhart is completely right. He is a Utilitarian.
Atrocities are not right though. Even conquest is one thing, but many of his crimes could have been prevented were he not possessed by his goals.
You speak as if utilitarianism is s flawless or justifiable philosophy. It REALLY isn't.
@@optimaltt6070 Indeed. Utilitarism goes by the logic that only results matter. That is a dangerous mentality. Deontologism, is the way to go, the ends are justified by the means.
@@DiogoJ1 Complete deontology is also not that good, since it can lead to results that are harmful. The best case is a balance of deontology and utilitarianism.
@@amaanb1923 That's fine by me. The means used are more important than the ends.
If both the results and the means are good, then that's fine, obviously. But if the means are tainted by evil, then heads need to roll, no matter the result.
My goal is to recruit every boss I had to kill to defeat Grima so they all can feel like they got their revenge for being manipulated (Gangrel by Aversa and Walhart by Excellus)
Honestly, now that I think about it, Edelgard from FE3H has a very similar goal to Walhart, she started a war, aware of the bloodshed it caused, in order to slay the gods/remnants of the gods and unify the world, only Edelagrd is a much more likable/relatable character, and shes significantly more successful, as in every route, even if she didnt win the war, Fodlan ended up united, and Rhea gave up her position as Archbishop to Byleth, so they and their house leader if it isnt silver snow, rule a united Fodlan
I disagree, Edelgard was not only far less justified, but she’s also campaigning based on exaggerated truths and complete lies about the church and so on.
She also deluded herself into thinking she’s unequivocally the good guy with no wrongdoings while Walhart doesn’t even try to hide his cold philosophy.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 im not having this argument, but I disagree
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 exactly! Walhart while morally wrong he was objectively right about history, tradition & ideals, but he's not delusional or decietful like Edel who is factually wrong about literally everything from history to origin of crests to Nemesis to the Nabateans.. Besides Edel never wins anything without Byleth & failed every plan she concieved, her ending is the bad/villain ending where u create a far worse Fodlan than ever before (military rule, supreme ruler, imperialism, censorship, Byleth losing their enlightment/goodness at the end...).
Basically Walhart is much better written than Edel, has a clear vision, isn't motivated by trauma & false history but Edel is a cute short waifu that u can romance ig. I honestly wish Walhart had a path too lol.
@@fyra_cat2119 Thats fair, sorry if I came off as too aggressive.
@@shadowsquid1351 Mhm, and like, I dont even see Edelgard as this awful person or character, shes just an amazingly frustrating individual who started a "ends justify the means" war based on what has to be a record LEAST JUSTIFIED in the series history. Mind you, NONE of the "ends means" villains in Fire Emblem are wholly correct for starting their wars, from Arvis to Walhart and other such individuals, but I feel like Edelgard is one of the least justified. I think there MIGHT be one or two that are lower than her? I think? I think Nergal is one such individual? He's DEFINITELY worse than Edelgard, if still better written.
That fight though
Best rap battle
When Middle Eastern music meets FE
Does anyone know the pre battle theme
Mastermind (Intro)
Walhart, what Edelgard should have been.
Because he came to his ideals by his own thoughts instead of blindly believing what some mole men told her and her family.
Even then, Walhart was manipulated by Excellus, a grimleal.
In the end, both got steered, Walhart seemed less oblivious about it though.
The thing is that Walhart also has the more justified cause too. It’s still needlessly cruel through execution but at least he had his head screwed on straight.
Edelgard is a self-proclaimed “enlightened empress” who started a pointless blood bath based on both over-inflated truths and complete misunderstandings and slander against the church.
Edelgard is also severely lacking in self awareness too. Sure she has sparkles of it but Walhart does NOT act like his goals are clean or perfect, he knows he’s running a well oiled war machine here and he feels it to be necessary for the greater good, while Edelgard flat out deluded herself into thinking she’s flat out the pure and do-no-wrong good guy unless Byleth is with her.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 This. Walhardt is doing what Alm did, but with far less patience and compassion. But ultimately, he *would* have defeated Grima, if Chrom didn't stop him.
@@supergoodadvice853 I seriously wanna play THAT game now. The alternate timeline where you wake up in Valm and go on a conquest, just to see how it plays out.
Nietzsche would have loved this character
WALHART DID NOTHING WRONG
I agree. Even though the way he chose to go about it may have been questionable, Walhart’s true goal was completely justified. If chrom and everyone weren’t being tricked by validar and aversa, I would’ve loved to see chrom and Walhart unite against the grimleal.
Now i know chrom wouldn't have choose Edelgard
Walmart.