#which makes it a great inciting incident for the landsmeet arc later in the game

[laurelsofhighever]

It’s hard to separate the effects of Ostagar from the rest of the events in-game that are tied up with Fereldan politics. Having recently played it there are a lot of things that could have gone differently, but in most cveases without Loghain’s distrust of Orlesians it would likely have gone better. For a start, it’s the Orlesian Grey Wardens specifically that are being held at the border, not the army itself, but Loghain vetoes any help from them, despite them being a more established (and presumably better equipped) chapter of Wardens because to him and Orlesian is always an Orlesian no matter what other loyalties they claim. So that’s one less significant force to make use of.

Then there are the armies of Redcliffe and Amaranthine. Loghain is directly responsible for Eamon not joining the force at Ostagar, and it’s strongly implied that the only reason Howe moved against the Couslands instead of taking his army to Ostagar was because someone powerful was going to protect him from the consequences (and it certainly wouldn’t have been Cailan). Both of these series of events happen before Ostagar and suggest Cailan’s death was at least partly premeditated, because Eamon and Bryce are arguably Loghain’s biggest political rivals in the Landsmeet, and the result is two more armies that aren’t available to fight the darkspawn.

The other major problem is that nobody except Duncan seems willing to believe that this is a true Blight. There’s a very 1914 “one good cavalry charge and we’ll be home in time for Christmas” attitude to what’s going on. If Duncan’s warnings had been taken more seriously, maybe the political machinations would have been put on hold to face the bigger threat. As it is, withdrawing his soldiers didn’t really put Loghain ahead, because letting the king die in questionable circumstances causes a civil war that weakens Ferelden significantly, and meanwhile the darkspawn are given an opportunity to regroup.

As for the tactics in the battle itself, it’s difficult to say when most of what we see is a cinematic and we have to lose for plot reasons, but on the whole, it looks like a solid plan: the royal army has a fortified position on the high ground, controlling a narrow pass to funnel the darkspawn into a killing field and (if Loghain had done his part) catch them in a pincer movement that would cut off the retreat. Considering how the darkspawn weren’t expected to take the Tower of Ishal and that we don’t know the exact size of the horde, it’s not possible to say for certain whether there would have been victory, but with a significantly smaller force, tactics become all the more important. Even coming in late, Loghain could have made a difference, and there’s references later that his soldiers knew this, because at least one speaks out about the retreat, and Loghain has him disappeared. aside from anything else, the soldiers in the main army were expecting reinforcements when the beacon was lit, and when they didn’t come, the confusion and despair would have given the darkspawn an edge. We even see it in Duncan when he realises they’ve been left ot fend for themselves.

Having said that, Cailan would have been better off away from the front lines. Yes Loghain tried to talk him out of it, and called him foolish, but I always wonder how much of his recklessness is spurred by the need to live up to the beacon of kingship Maric represented - a king is supposed to lead, a king is supposed to be a warrior, a king is supposed to inspire tales and songs. And yet even in the brief interactions we see between them, Loghain makes it clear he doesn’t measure up. There’s no doubt he regrets Cailan’s death, but it’s debateable how much he also thinks of it as a regrettable necessity.

In the end, Ostagar is a perfect storm of human pettiness, pride, and paranoia, and an overwhelming force that shows no mercy to those in its path.

curious on your ostagar opinions as a player—i’m personally on the side of “ostagar wasn’t anyone’s fault, including loghain’s, though some people cailin couldve minimized the loss better than they did”, (though i still hold loghain very accountable for the way he handles the ferelden civil war and the slavery), but i know you spared him in your main playthrough

ostagar’s an interesting one and it’s taken me a while to develop my thoughts on it. battles are by nature complicated and chaotic and hard to pin down to one factor—there’s a reason real medieval war leaders tended to avoid them if possible—but here’s some thoughts

1. the push to confront the darkspawn as quickly as possible, even when troops from amaranthine, redcliffe, orlais, etc. had not yet arrived. both cailan and loghain seem responsible for this. cailan is reckless and confident, unconcerned with the idea of facing the darkspawn without reinforcements, and loghain actively vetoes the idea of waiting for orlesian reinforcements. as i recall it’s primarily duncan who wants to wait but the grey wardens are on shaky footing and he doesn’t have the influence to press that. if it hadn’t been for loghain’s insistence, cailan might well have waited for the orlesians, but if cailan hadn’t called for the orlesians, maybe loghain would be the one counselling to wait for redcliffe and amaranthine. neither should loghain’s fears of the orlesians be written off as unreasonable imo like yes his choice here went badly but it wasn’t based on unfounded prejudice and there’s no way to know what might have happened

2. the beacon was delayed and mistimed. this isn’t anyone’s fault except the darkspawn. alistair and the warden were supposed to light the beacon at a particular time, but instead of that being an easy job, the tower has been suddenly overrun by the time they get there. alistair comments as you fight through the tower that you’ve probably missed the signal and should light the beacon just, like, as soon as you get up there. this chaos must have affected decisions taken on the ground and, as the main change from the original battle plan, was possibly why the beacon was delayed enough that loghain considered there no longer to be any chance of saving cailan

3. alistair says at flemeth’s hut that he has no idea why loghain would turn away, and that the king’s forces “had nearly defeated” the darkspawn. i’ll make allowances for his perspective being somewhat affected by the losses he’s just suffered, but his judgements are generally very good on this kind of thing and i trust them. i don’t see any reason to write this off, especially combined with other witness accounts. i do believe him that there was a real possibility to win here

4. at flemeth’s hut, all anyone can guess is that loghain wanted the throne—men’s hearts hold shadows darker than any tainted creature, and all that—but there’s no sign of this in loghain later in the game, although supporters of his like howe may have wanted that as an end goal. there’s nothing ambitious in loghain, there’s no intent to betray. loghain claims he remembers “a fool’s death and a hard choice” and that “the darkspawn would either have had him or have had us all”. it seems odd that he consistently blames cailan’s foolishness when it was a battle plan he had agreed to and nothing really changes on cailan’s part, but cailan’s recklessness and lack of care for battle plans is thoroughly set up in the ostagar prologue and i imagine it affected how he was handling things during the battle and also the aforementioned failures to get all of ferelden’s forces there in time. nonetheless my point is that this was purely a tactical decision on loghain’s part, and he regretted cailan’s loss (even if he blamed cailan for it). so either he genuinely thought the battle could not be won, or that it would mean enough losses that it would not be worth winning. and i trust his judgements too—battle leadership and strategy is his whole skillset

SO where does all that leave us. i think ultimately my perspective on the battle, which i think gives it a reasonable balance and a reasonable way to argue both sides, is that if loghain had followed the plan they would have won and cailan and duncan might have lived. thus, loghain can be considered responsible. however it would have left ferelden with significantly higher casualties. loghain’s men would have been lost as well as the king’s. ferelden would have been in an even worse state than it already was, and that with a) a blight still ongoing, since the archdemon was not present at ostagar, and b) a whole orlesian army of reinforcements on the way, with no-one to stop them at the border, and who with ferelden’s defences completely crippled might well fight the darkspawn just like the grey wardens wanted... and then find reason to stick around. celene was obviously trying to regain orlesian influence in ferelden with her letters to cailan, and there are several pieces of minor dialogue in da2 which openly threaten the possibility of orlais retaking ferelden in the aftermath of the blight’s destruction. could they really resist the temptation if their armies had the excuse to already be there? ferelden hasn’t even been free for as long as it was under orlesian rule

(as a side note, me sparing loghain in my main playthrough isn’t me being a Loghain Was Right truther and certainly doesn’t mean i or my warden absolve him of his actions during the blight, especially towards the alienage. ‘is loghain right/morally salvageable?’ isn’t really the decision my warden makes at the landsmeet; it’s ‘is it more important to kill a man for doing evil or to let him live to do good?’. it’s ‘is it more important to publicly make a peaceful compromise or to make a strong statement against my enemies and in favour of my allies?’ more personally to my warden, it’s ‘i have fought so hard all this time so that everyone will know someone like me can save ferelden, but how will the history books remember me if i become the elven mage who killed the hero of river dane?’ those are all far more interesting and relevant considerations to explore for me narratively than assigning blame)