Artemisia and the QM theory

[Serapy]

As we all know that Ultimecia is written as Arutimishia in Japanese, but more precisely, it's Artemisia which is a greek name. FFVIII also contain more realigious stuff (latin from the paintings). So therefore, the notions of these words must exist. Why else do you think Square implemented these things into the game?

Here goes:

In real life, Artemisia did exist a long time ago (in Greek times).
In history, there are two different Artemisias (Artemisia I of Caria and Artemisia II of Caria). I believe that Ultimecia is the representation of Artemisia II. From now on, I'm declaring Artemisia II as Artemisia.

Artemisia was a daughter of Hecatomnus.
King Mausolus (the ruler of Caria) was a son of Hecatomnus too.
At one point, Artemisia married Mausolus. They very much loved each other. Just like Squall and Rinoa.

Artemisia had an extraordinary grief (very very very very upset and angry) at the death of her husband Mausolus (he died young) and she went into despair. In FFVIII, Ultimecia also was in despair (crazy).
After his death, Artemisia drank Mausolus's ashes, all in proving herself that she survived Mausolus, similar to FFVIII, Squall almost died (revived by Rinoa, basically she survived him too).
Artemisia has built the tomb (Mausoleum of Maussollos) to honour Mausolus. Similar to Ultimecia's castle (assuming Squall died after the game) and it has a lion statue (a representation of great strength and pride). The Ultimecia castle may don't look exactly the same as the Artemisia's tomb but the notions are the same. If this is false, why do you think Ultimecia made her own castle?
Since Mausolus's death, Artemisia gained powers off him and she basically wanted to rule. Similar to FFVIII, Ultimecia (inside Edea) implied that she wanted to rule (becoming the reign).

Next explanation I'll be writing is based on this thread http://forums.eyesonff.com/final-fantasy-viii/114413-using-her-finger-sign-rinoa-smart.html

Now...

When Mausolus was alive. This particular coin was used during his reign:

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/6717/coingz4.jpg

The first symbolism is a lion.
The second symbolism is a star.

Squall told Rinoa about Lion and he explicitly expressed it (great strength and pride).
Ultimecia's castle having a Lion statue.
Ultimecia summoning Griever out of Rinoa's mind.
Griever on the Moon...

and as for "star".
When a special star displays in the sky, Rinoa expresses this symbolism to Squall (finger sign at the star). She did the exactly same thing in the end of the game. I also found it interesting that the 2nd symbolism looks like Balamb Garden's wheeler (4 rays).

and the paintings in Ulti's castle, most of them are based on greek.

Specific circumstances (appearances, emotions and movements) in FF8 may don't sound the same as the real story because it's a FF game, but! The notions are quite the same. Which means that Rinoa is not exactly Ultimecia at the exact same time BUT BUT you get the idea.

Now, as for this QM theory...

Read BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | New model 'permits time travel' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4097258.stm)

Basically, it states that you cannot change the past, even if you wanted to. Ellone in FF8 also said the same thing.
So this explains why Ultimecia has never successfully killed Rinoa including the others.
For example, Rinoa has suffered many experiences: she nearly died throughout the game as well as with her companions... and yet she lived, regardless of what Ultimecia did to her.

Ultimecia was crazy!
So was Artemisia!
But that wasn't the point, as I said before, White Wing is a represention of good (love) and Black Wing is a representation of bad (evil and crazy) so that gives a good excuse for Ultimecia to attempt in killing SeeDs, even Rinoa. What she doesn't realise is that she can't change the past. Artemisia died because she was in despair, just like Ultimecia (she was defeated in the end).
It's obvious, isn't it? Artemisia wanted to rule since the death of her husband, just like Ultimecia (ruling the world of FF8).

[Big D]

...

I'm both impressed and slightly fearful at the amount of thought, interpretation and extrapolation that's gone into this.

The FF games are rife with references to myth and legend, from beings like Gilgamesh and Ifrit and the names of weapons and artefacts, to the Moai that appear now and then. It can be downright perilous to read too much into these references.

As for that article on changing history... if it's possible to travel through time, then it's possible to change the past. The very presence of a time traveler in the past alters what actually happened, from the position of air molecules that their body displaces to the overall mass of the universe. It's not something that needs to be focussed on too much in an FFVIII discussion...

[BardTard]

Ultimecia was Jewish. Check out her Chanukkah decorations.

[Polaris]

...

I'm both impressed and slightly fearful at the amount of thought, interpretation and extrapolation that's gone into this.


I have never seen a game creating so many theories ^^" I just don't know anymore...

[Ouch!]

...As for that article on changing history... if it's possible to travel through time, then it's possible to change the past. The very presence of a time traveler in the past alters what actually happened, from the position of air molecules that their body displaces to the overall mass of the universe. It's not something that needs to be focussed on too much in an FFVIII discussion...

Gonna be honest and admit I didn't bother reading the link, but I'd like to comment regardless. Your assumption that the existence of a time traveler operates solely on assumption (then again, so does all time travel). Personally, I'm of the mind that if someone travels into the past to change something, it has already been done. By traveling back, one would merely be fulfilling actions which have already been accomplished. Perhaps that's a bit too much of a blow if one buys into anything other than hard determinism, but it's the only thing that makes sense to me. Well, unless you want to start buying into the kind of stuff string theory (which I only understand on a superficial level) is based off of, specifically the existence of infinite alternate universes branching into an infinite number of time lines.

Regarding the actual theory itself: while interesting, I think it's a mistake to take any references made by Square at face value. While Final Fantasy is notorious for referencing mythology and history, it's also notorious for doing it badly. Shiva is the most notorious example of this (although I vaguely remember there being an explanation for that particularly obvious blunder). Anyway, their track record is so poor, I think it's more appropriate to assume that a reference is botched and thus too unstable from which to extrapolate.

[Marky Tee]

now this is realy grasping at straws to prove a theory that has more or less been declared as not true

interesting yes i have to admit

[Goldenboko]

This doesn't really prove anything. Its hardly even a reference. In fact if the name has a Greek name its bound to match up with some person in Ancient Greek History. The fact that this is based on taking to previous theories as truth also stops it from making anything 'obvious'.

[Tallulah]

... So the cops actually knew it was a set-up?

Sorry, when I get bored with threads I make up my own.

[rubah]

Then why didn't the localization have her as Artemisia? They did a pretty excellent job with the rest of the game after all.

[Serapy]

Ultimecia was Jewish. Check out her Chanukkah decorations.

I'm not sure whether she was Jewish or not because the references didn't state that she was (so I'm assuming not), although there have been organized Jewish communities in Greece for more than two thousand years.

But yes, there are a lot of 'Chanukkah' Candles in her castle...

If you remember FE's theory about the skeletons near Esthar:
Well, in that 'Flood' painting, maybe it represents one of the Kislev...

"27 Kislev - (2105 BCE) - Flood rains cease
It is said that the forty days and nights of rainfall which covered the face of earth with water in Noah's time ended on Kislev 27 of the Hebrew year 1656 (2105 BCE). The flood itself lasted a full year (According to Genesis 6-8)."

Would that explain why you see these big skeletons near Esthar?
In the past, Esthar was underwater. So this must mean flood. This disaster has brought these big monsters (skeletons) to the area, why else skeletons were there? How did it all start in the first place? Lunar Cry?
Now in the present, no more flood! no more water on Esthar! The ground is so cold, desert and almost clean. The skeletons are quite visible.

[Big D]

Then why didn't the localization have her as Artemisia? They did a pretty excellent job with the rest of the game after all.The Japanese text could probably be transliterated as either "Ultimecia" or "Artemisia", and they chose the former for whatever reason...

[rubah]

but if they intended it to be a reference to whomever, you'd think that they would you know, name her after that.

[Serapy]

Final Fantasy VIII is very subtle, *sigh*. This game is kind of based on a love theme, right? Well, Artemisia has had the same theme, really.

The point is that if everything what I have said is proven not to be true, then what exactly are they? Are they pointless things that the developers have decided to add onto the game just to fill each disk space out of nothing? Honestly, the developers have spent valuable time on making these things and I don't think that they would spend that time on making "pointless" things. In other words, these things being irrelevant to the story/gameplay.


but if they intended it to be a reference to whomever, you'd think that they would you know, name her after that.

All I could think of is that, well, in FF7, they have named Aerith as Aeris. I'm pretty sure the other FF games have done the same thing.
Or
They just wanted to make FF8 more subtle?

[rubah]

no, the localization in ff7 was terrible. There's broken english all over that thing. whereas, with ff8 you find correct english and english slang interspersed throughout the game, an indication that people who knew what they were talking about translated the game.

[Goldenboko]

There's a large difference between something not being obvious because its subtle, and something not being obvious, because its made up :)

[Jessweeee♪]

I guess it can work .-.

[Marky Tee]

If you remember FE's theory about the skeletons near Esthar:
Well, in that 'Flood' painting, maybe it represents one of the Kislev...

"27 Kislev - (2105 BCE) - Flood rains cease
It is said that the forty days and nights of rainfall which covered the face of earth with water in Noah's time ended on Kislev 27 of the Hebrew year 1656 (2105 BCE). The flood itself lasted a full year (According to Genesis 6-8)."

Would that explain why you see these big skeletons near Esthar?
In the past, Esthar was underwater. So this must mean flood. This disaster has brought these big monsters (skeletons) to the area, why else skeletons were there? How did it all start in the first place? Lunar Cry?
Now in the present, no more flood! no more water on Esthar! The ground is so cold, desert and almost clean. The skeletons are quite visible.


what has any of that got to do with anything at all?[!] google_ad_section_end [/!]

[Goldenboko]

If you remember FE's theory about the skeletons near Esthar:
Well, in that 'Flood' painting, maybe it represents one of the Kislev...

"27 Kislev - (2105 BCE) - Flood rains cease
It is said that the forty days and nights of rainfall which covered the face of earth with water in Noah's time ended on Kislev 27 of the Hebrew year 1656 (2105 BCE). The flood itself lasted a full year (According to Genesis 6-8)."

Would that explain why you see these big skeletons near Esthar?
In the past, Esthar was underwater. So this must mean flood. This disaster has brought these big monsters (skeletons) to the area, why else skeletons were there? How did it all start in the first place? Lunar Cry?
Now in the present, no more flood! no more water on Esthar! The ground is so cold, desert and almost clean. The skeletons are quite visible.


what has any of that got to do with anything at all?[!] google_ad_section_end [/!]


I actually agree with Marky for once xD

:spin:

[Zeromus_X]

no, the localization in ff7 was terrible. There's broken english all over that thing. whereas, with ff8 you find correct english and english slang interspersed throughout the game, an indication that people who knew what they were talking about translated the game.

Yeah. FFVIII's localization is leagues ahead of FFVII's.

Anyway, I think this is another example of something that is being thought into too much. Is there any reason why this specific game has so many theories?

[Goldenboko]

no, the localization in ff7 was terrible. There's broken english all over that thing. whereas, with ff8 you find correct english and english slang interspersed throughout the game, an indication that people who knew what they were talking about translated the game.

Yeah. FFVIII's localization is leagues ahead of FFVII's.

Anyway, I think this is another example of something that is being thought into too much. Is there any reason why this specific game has so many theories?

In my opinion since so many things lack proper explanation or depth, fans try and make it.

[Wolf Kanno]

I think there is way too much thought put into this. As has been stated by Big D; FF uses a wealth of mythology and religious terminology in its games but I find for the most part that many of the games use them in the most shallow of ways. Sephiroth for instance come from Kabbalah and in one form of interpretation it represents the path to God. Sephiroth's story is his quest for godhood. But thats where the similarities end; yet I still find people trying to (crudely) explain how Sephiroth represents the entire meaning of his namesake and the fact of the matter its not there. There are many more and even I'm guilty of starting a few.

The problem with VIII is that it is poorly written (not a bad story just poorly written and explained) and has made it possible for whacked out theories to be made. I feel that VIII like all the FFs has only meaning on a surface level. What you see is what you get an no amount of little nagging nuances in the background represent anything more their face value. Specifically cause they are not properly tied to the story.

Now granted, Ultemacia being based on this Greek figure is not unheard of but I still feel that trying to link it to R=U, which has no real in-game story basis, is putting too much thought into it.

[Serapy]

If you remember FE's theory about the skeletons near Esthar:
Well, in that 'Flood' painting, maybe it represents one of the Kislev...

"27 Kislev - (2105 BCE) - Flood rains cease
It is said that the forty days and nights of rainfall which covered the face of earth with water in Noah's time ended on Kislev 27 of the Hebrew year 1656 (2105 BCE). The flood itself lasted a full year (According to Genesis 6-8)."

Would that explain why you see these big skeletons near Esthar?
In the past, Esthar was underwater. So this must mean flood. This disaster has brought these big monsters (skeletons) to the area, why else skeletons were there? How did it all start in the first place? Lunar Cry?
Now in the present, no more flood! no more water on Esthar! The ground is so cold, desert and almost clean. The skeletons are quite visible.


what has any of that got to do with anything at all?[!] google_ad_section_end [/!]

It's a separate theory based on FF8.



There's a large difference between something not being obvious because its subtle, and something not being obvious, because its made up

Consider this, for example, Ultimecia is one of the main roles in Final Fantasy VIII and how is it that her motives are not "obvious" when she is clearly not subtle? That's almost the whole point.


In my opinion since so many things lack proper explanation or depth, fans try and make it.

Almost everybody who have played FF8 obviously have left to wonder what was going on at some point. Therefore, it's reasonable to think of reasons why and how did they happen, there's nothing wrong with that.


The problem with VIII is that it is poorly written (not a bad story just poorly written and explained) and has made it possible for whacked out theories to be made. I feel that VIII like all the FFs has only meaning on a surface level. What you see is what you get an no amount of little nagging nuances in the background represent anything more their face value. Specifically cause they are not properly tied to the story.

Wolf Kanno, the FF8 plot is not clear whereas other FF games are clearer... so hench... possibilities are endless.

This theory isn't exactly directed to R=U, but it's like saying that there's no hard evidence that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. Two sides (R!=U and R=U) both have flaws.

[Iceglow]

Ok, heres something from me on this. Seraphy on a personal note I personally racked over 500 hours playing this game on my last playthrough and that musc easily have been playthrough 5 or so. Your theories are often of little merit and wildly unsubstantial full of much information but very little satisfactorial facts. If you were to be a lawyer you'd have a hard time winning cases because of the holes in your arguments. Please, please without taking offense calm down on the ideas Square all but said R=U is not true. Theres also many ideas in the game which do conflict heavily with the entire idea.

Now for this material in this thread, Without a doubt you're on to something with the reference to Mausolus' coin yes the lion is a good representation of Griever and the reverse image of the coin would indeed form the shape of the Balamb Garden "halo" ring. However like Big D said theres too many references to ancient cultures in all FF games heres some that are obvious:

Gilgamesh - god
Shiva - godess
Odin - god of gods, asgard, vikings
Ifrit (also spelt Ifreet) - fire demon or god
Minotaur - mythological greek creature
Ramuh - god
Atomos - myth creature
Bahamut - mythological king of dragons
Yojimbo - near mythological but possibly very real japanese renegade samurai or Ronin.
Excalibur - Arthurian
Knights of The Round - Arthurian
Siren - Mythological, greek

This list above is just some of the many. many references in FF games. Not all of them are there for anything other than the guys who were responsible for them think they're cool. I mean look at Biggs and Wedge been in almost every FF game now in some capacity purely in homage to Star Wars.

[Wolf Kanno]

The problem with VIII is that it is poorly written (not a bad story just poorly written and explained) and has made it possible for whacked out theories to be made. I feel that VIII like all the FFs has only meaning on a surface level. What you see is what you get an no amount of little nagging nuances in the background represent anything more their face value. Specifically cause they are not properly tied to the story.Wolf Kanno, the FF8 plot is not clear whereas other FF games are clearer... so hench... possibilities are endless.

This theory isn't exactly directed to R=U, but it's like saying that there's no hard evidence that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. Two sides (R!=U and R=U) both have flaws.

VIII is not clear cause it was written poorly. It lacks a defined world structure and bounces from one unrelated plot element to the next leaving players to piece together its scattered plot. I still feel its pretty good but definetly poor in its presentation and execution.

I feel the lack of meaningful story ties is enough to justify R does not = U actually. If it was relevant (and I think we can all agree that R=U is a big deal storywise) then I feel the game would have been a little more blunt about it instead of hiding it behind minor background information that can easily be taken out of context. Granted, I feel Nojima is a pretty terrible writer so I could actually see him doing this but thats all I will give in defense of the R=U camp.

[Goldenboko]

Wolf Kanno, the FF8 plot is not clear whereas other FF games are clearer... so hench... possibilities are endless.

This theory isn't exactly directed to R=U, but it's like saying that there's no hard evidence that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. Two sides (R!=U and R=U) both have flaws.

Poorly explained plots doesn't mean "possiblities are endless." It means the plot was written poorly. R=/U doesn't has plot-holes, because the game has plot-holes. R=U has little supporting evidence, is usually based on other theories, and takes on many of the plot-holes already in the game, sometimes making it worse with ill-supported theories.

[champagne supernova]

I'm going to address these theories seperately.

Why Artemisia has very little/no relevance to Final Fantasy 8

If Square-Enix were going to base someone on a mythological Greek character, and considering the high quality of translations throughout VIII, one would think that they would give them the correct name when translating it to English.

Also, of interest about Artemisia is that her husband, Maussolus, was her brother. Squall & Rinoa are not brother and sister. And one cannot say that Artemisia was in fact mad. I went looking for the ash drinking reference you made, and could only find it in Wikipedia, at this link: Artemisia II of Caria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_II)
where it states:

She is said to have mixed his ashes in her daily drink, and to have gradually pined away during the two years that she survived him.

Now, "She is said to have" from an article on Wikipedia is definitely not a substantiated truth, especially when what is said to have happened does not have any citation. Who is this person who said this? Seeing that I could not find any other article that referred to this ash drinking, I would think this is usual Wikipedia nonsense. Also, considering the way she tactically outclassed and defeated the Rhodians, I would think that her mental facilities were operating quite well, thank you very much.

The Mausoleum of Maussollos was not started by Artemisia, but by Maussolus. This is substantiated out of Wikipedia by articles such as this: Maussolus (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/hecatomnids/maussolus.html)
There are differing versions on how far along the Mausoleum was when Maussolus' died. One article said that it had just begun, some said that it was almost completed, and some say that Artemisia just commissioned the artists to do the decoration. However, this is irrelevant. The key is that Maussolus, not Artemisia, started the idea.

The lion on the coin was quite interesting. But take a look at this article: Caria (http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/caria/caria.html)
On the bottom left hand corner are some pictures of Carian coins, circa 200. And, one is a lion. This is after Maussolus' time. Also, according to this article: Silver Lion Coinage of Mylasa in Caria (Ancient Coins of Miletos) (http://rjohara.net/coins/lion-scalp/)
the Carians stole the lion coin idea from their neighbour, and it first appeared in the time of Maussolus' father.

The Mausoleum has a greater resemblance to Edea's house, with the pillars surrounding it. The paintings in Ultimecia's castle are on canvas, and canvas painting only occured much after (like 1400 AD) the building of the Mausoleum. There are also carpets, wooden stairs, etc. which gives Ultimecia's castle a resemblance to a Renaissance era castle, not an ancient Greek castle.

Mausoleum would be translated as dedicated to Mausolus. So, Ultimecia's castle should, if your theory is true, should be called the Squalloleum, or something like that.

This Artemisia connection was far-fetched to begin with, even if all the facts were true. But, after doing a little bit of checking of the facts, NOT ONE RELEVANT FACT IS ACTUALLY TRUE!

Oh, and I can answer my first question about why Squaresoft translated it to Ultimecia. It was so people did not get the wrong idea.

[B]Why the QM Theory is also a bit irrelevant

The QM theory is an interesting article. I suggest you read it. But why it is irrelevant to the R=U debate is quite simple.

Firstly, just because someone is able to do something, does not mean that they are going to do it. My car can go x km/h. This does not mean I am going to drive it at x km/h. Same applies to Rinoa.

Secondly, there is no evidence from the game that Rinoa is able to travel forwards in time. Excluding time compression, there is no evidence of a being moving their entire being through time to another point. Time compression is a freak occurence, and obviously has never been completed, as the game would not be able to occur if all time was compressed into one state. Ellone and Ultimecia, through her machine, are moving mental consciousnesses to people in the past. And, in Ellone's case, not changing anything. But that is very different to moving one's entire body through time & space.

Thirdly, the QM theory only states that if one moves backwards through time, you will not change the present. But it is possible that it rules out forward time travel (I am no scientist, so I may be wrong). The way I picture it is that we are kind of like a train. From the present, if I look back, there is only a single railway track. If I move back into the past, I will not be able to change the present. However, the future is still uncertain, and as such there is an infinite number of railway tracks, illustrating all my possibilities. Therefore, one cannot move forwards through it, because one cannot know what the future actually is.

Conclusion
In my opinion, Serapy's use of Artimesia to try and prove R=U is completely flawed, as all the evidence brought forward is flawed. The QM theory is irrelevant to the game because of my first two points, and may actually remove the possibility of forward time travel, if my third point is correct. Perhaps someone wise in the mechanics of time travel can have a look at this article and see what they think the implications of this are in terms of forward time travel.

[The Crystal]

Then why didn't the localization have her as Artemisia?

For the same reason they gave her a weird accent(replacing C with K). The reason is...

Is...

...

???

[Jessweeee♪]

I am disappointed that the person who subbed the Dissidia trailer didn't change the Cs to Ks ;_;

[Marky Tee]

I actually agree with Marky for once xD

:spin:



i am hurt:( lol
infact though your wrong cause i usualy do tend to side with your arguments in these mental threads

[Iceglow]

Then why didn't the localization have her as Artemisia?

For the same reason they gave her a weird accent(replacing C with K). The reason is...

Is...

...

???

Please go speak to anyone with an eastern european accent, in speciffic Polish or one of the Balkland countries (Romania, Czech, Slovakia, Kossovo, Lithuania, Albania to name some) Many people from there do this all the time, due to their accent. It's also something that can occur from having your tongue pierced or jaw broken, words can sound different afterwards even when it's healed. Given that Ultimecia is from the far future way after Squall's time, it is possible that the Gabaldian accent or another accent would have changed slightly and evolved just look at how quickly the american accent was born from the english accent. It's also entirely possible that as a young rebellious sorceress who wanted to be bitchy towards her oppressive parents she got her tongue pierced. We just don't know but I'll bank on it being she's actually from a place where the accent changed slightly. Maybe Esthar being pretty messed up by the lunar cry the Estharians scattered and re-settled parts of Centra?

[Marky Tee]

maybe she just spent too much time on her knees?

[The Crystal]

Or "maybe" she doesn't have any accent in the original/japanese version, but the translators of the american version decided to give her one. :rolleyes2

That's what I'm talking about.

[Sword]

The words on the paintings are Latin, not Greek.

None of what you said makes any sense anyway. WTF is "griever on the moon" about?

[BardTard]

Or "maybe" she doesn't have any accent in the original/japanese version, but the translators of the american version decided to give her one. :rolleyes2

That's what I'm talking about.

She talks like that cus she's Jewish. She's speaking Hebrew. They meant to put the emphasis on the K sound.

[Serapy]

VIII is not clear cause it was written poorly. It lacks a defined world structure and bounces from one unrelated plot element to the next leaving players to piece together its scattered plot. I still feel its pretty good but definetly poor in its presentation and execution.

I feel the lack of meaningful story ties is enough to justify R does not = U actually. If it was relevant (and I think we can all agree that R=U is a big deal storywise) then I feel the game would have been a little more blunt about it instead of hiding it behind minor background information that can easily be taken out of context. Granted, I feel Nojima is a pretty terrible writer so I could actually see him doing this but thats all I will give in defense of the R=U camp.

Well, I'm inclined to believe that the "poorly plot" explanation is based on your opinion. In my opinion, the "poorly plot" term is not right to use at this point, because it's more like a complex plot, which doesn't make the plot poorly. What I mean is that this specific plot is missing something but that doesn't make it poorly written, because it was meant to be like that.



Poorly explained plots doesn't mean "possiblities are endless." It means the plot was written poorly. R=/U doesn't has plot-holes, because the game has plot-holes. R=U has little supporting evidence, is usually based on other theories, and takes on many of the plot-holes already in the game, sometimes making it worse with ill-supported theories.

Like what I said to WK: it's your opinion for calling the plot poorly written.

Let's consider this: if the plot is genuinely poor, shouldn't the Ultimania Guide be having more details to polish the plot? In fact, it has only mentioned crucial information such as the Human Life Span, which isn't good enough because there are much more than just that that need to be explained. Also, why didn't the writers make announcements to tell the whole world something like "Hey guys, we are here to make [clarifications] about the FF8 plot" ?

Or would this increase the chance of them re-making FF8 for the sake of the plot? As far as I can see, they have no plans about re-making FF8.

So, judging by these, you can tell that the plot is working as intended by the writers.


I'm going to address these theories seperately.

Why Artemisia has very little/no relevance to Final Fantasy 8

If Square-Enix were going to base someone on a mythological Greek character, and considering the high quality of translations throughout VIII, one would think that they would give them the correct name when translating it to English.

It doesn't matter if they didn't translate it into Artemisia in the English version, because they already did it in the Japanese version. I think the Japanese version is the most important version of all other versions because it was the first version to be made.

Why did they name it Ultimecia in the English version? I really don't know but I'm guessing:

1) Final Fantasy. Most of the FF games are based on many things in real life history, but usually the names of specific things in FF are different.

2) In risk of having lawsuits? For example: if FF8 actually renamed the main villian to "God". I can bet that Square would either get sued or create a bad reputation for naming the main villian "God". So they just re-named it to Ultimecia just to be safe.

Anyway, her name isn't the only thing to prove something, but also Ultimecia has similarities as Artemisia. Like what I said in the first post, the messages of the paintings in Ultimecia's castle are based on Greek. If Ultimecia wasn't Artemisia or interested in Greek or whatever else then why did she have them in her castle? Why does her castle exist? Why the greek stuff in her castle? At least, this theory kind of fit all the patterns together to me.



Also, of interest about Artemisia is that her husband, Maussolus, was her brother. Squall & Rinoa are not brother and sister. And one cannot say that Artemisia was in fact mad. I went looking for the ash drinking reference you made, and could only find it in Wikipedia, at this link: Artemisia II of Caria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_II)
where it states:
She is said to have mixed his ashes in her daily drink, and to have gradually pined away during the two years that she survived him.

Now, "She is said to have" from an article on Wikipedia is definitely not a substantiated truth, especially when what is said to have happened does not have any citation. Who is this person who said this? Seeing that I could not find any other article that referred to this ash drinking, I would think this is usual Wikipedia nonsense. Also, considering the way she tactically outclassed and defeated the Rhodians, I would think that her mental facilities were operating quite well, thank you very much.

Excuse me? I actually got this information from:

Artemisia II of Caria (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/ArtemisiaII.html)

Consisted of:

Ancient Greek Science and Technology (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm)

Created by Michael Lahanas (he also has demonstrated many other greek stuff), speaks Greek and he was born in Greece. Do you honestly think that he has made all this up? No, I don't think so.

As for Artemisia being Mausolus's sister, I'm aware of that. But FF8 is a fantasy game and the FF series (including FF8) has represented so many metaphors based on the real life history. Not all the elements represented in FF are correct, that's what Final Fantasy is for.

It doesn't matter if they are real brother/sister, because in a sense, Artemisia loved Mausolus, just like Rinoa loved Squall, since FF8 is kind of based on a love theme.



The Mausoleum of Maussollos was not started by Artemisia, but by Maussolus. This is substantiated out of Wikipedia by articles such as this: Maussolus (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/hecatomnids/maussolus.html)
There are differing versions on how far along the Mausoleum was when Maussolus' died. One article said that it had just begun, some said that it was almost completed, and some say that Artemisia just commissioned the artists to do the decoration. However, this is irrelevant. The key is that Maussolus, not Artemisia, started the idea.

Just like Squall started the idea of Griever, alias Lion. It's very possible that Squall has died in prior to the future of Ultimecia's existence. Ultimecia has decided to finish building the castle. Why else did she make the castle for? The castle also has Lion statues.



The lion on the coin was quite interesting. But take a look at this article: Caria (http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/caria/caria.html)
On the bottom left hand corner are some pictures of Carian coins, circa 200. And, one is a lion. This is after Maussolus' time. Also, according to this article: Silver Lion Coinage of Mylasa in Caria (Ancient Coins of Miletos) (http://rjohara.net/coins/lion-scalp/)
the Carians stole the lion coin idea from their neighbour, and it first appeared in the time of Maussolus' father.

Indeed, when Mausolus died, his Lion statues and coins as well as his castle show up. Just like after Squall's time, his Lion statues show up. His love between Rinoa were expressed and represented in the game. The coin has a star symbol as Rinoa pointing at the star. Quite hard to reject that comparison, don't you think?



The Mausoleum has a greater resemblance to Edea's house, with the pillars surrounding it. The paintings in Ultimecia's castle are on canvas, and canvas painting only occured much after (like 1400 AD) the building of the Mausoleum. There are also carpets, wooden stairs, etc. which gives Ultimecia's castle a resemblance to a Renaissance era castle, not an ancient Greek castle.

Yes, but remember that there's a reason why Edea's house existed: it's used as an orphanage.

We don't know the reason why Ultimecia's castle existed. That's why, with this theory, it gives you clues to think of how Ultimecia's castle existence start in the first place. Think about it, Ultimecia is a very powerful being, she has had so many options to do. For instance, Ultimecia can fly through the whole universe through her magic, so why does she need a castle for? Usually, most things represented in games have meanings. If a thing in a game has no meaning, that thing wouldn't have existed. Why would the FF8 designers waste thier time making/putting "useless" things in the game? That wouldn't make sense, right? So I'm more inclined to believe that her castle was supposed to have a meaning, which is a symbolism of a thing (you know which) from the history.



This Artemisia connection was far-fetched to begin with, even if all the facts were true. But, after doing a little bit of checking of the facts, NOT ONE RELEVANT FACT IS ACTUALLY TRUE!

Fact 1) The greeks and other religious things in this game.

^ The paintings, her stuff.... and so on.

Fact 2) Ultimecia didn't clarify her motives / objectives.

^ Dr Odine has speculated this one but speculation is a speculation; never a first hand account from Ultimecia herself or anyone close enough to her to know for sure.

Fact 3) The game doesn't tell us anything about her past. Judging by the story, there's also no guarantee that Ultimecia even remembered anything about her past.

^
Artemisia drank ashes for two reasons: surviving Mausolus whom she was with and she was extremely crazy. Who would want to drink ashes anyways?

If Artemisia was extremely crazy, it's very reasonable for her to forget about her past. Just like Ultimecia.

Fact 4) The game doesn't show us events from each timeline. In the end, we got transported to the future's timeline, but did it show us what happened before that timeline? No, it didn't. Same with other missing timelines. Most people (includingthe FF8 designers) know that Time Travel is usually subjective and definitive. FF8 didn't show us extra timelines, so hench they leave us to make our own interpretations (obviously).

Fact 5) The name of Ultimecia is actually Artemisia in the Japanese version.



Oh, and I can answer my first question about why Squaresoft translated it to Ultimecia. It was so people did not get the wrong idea.

In that case, translating Aerith into Aeris in the English version to ensure that people didn't get the wrong idea doesn't sound right.

But if you were actually correct, then why didn't Square translate it into Ultimecia in the Japanese version, instead of Artemisia?



Why the QM Theory is also a bit irrelevant

The QM theory is an interesting article. I suggest you read it. But why it is irrelevant to the R=U debate is quite simple.

This theory is not heavily based on R=U, but rather Ultimecia being Artemisia.



Firstly, just because someone is able to do something, does not mean that they are going to do it. My car can go x km/h. This does not mean I am going to drive it at x km/h. Same applies to Rinoa.


Secondly, there is no evidence from the game that Rinoa is able to travel forwards in time. Excluding time compression, there is no evidence of a being moving their entire being through time to another point. Time compression is a freak occurence, and obviously has never been completed, as the game would not be able to occur if all time was compressed into one state. Ellone and Ultimecia, through her machine, are moving mental consciousnesses to people in the past. And, in Ellone's case, not changing anything. But that is very different to moving one's entire body through time & space.

Thirdly, the QM theory only states that if one moves backwards through time, you will not change the present. But it is possible that it rules out forward time travel (I am no scientist, so I may be wrong). The way I picture it is that we are kind of like a train. From the present, if I look back, there is only a single railway track. If I move back into the past, I will not be able to change the present. However, the future is still uncertain, and as such there is an infinite number of railway tracks, illustrating all my possibilities. Therefore, one cannot move forwards through it, because one cannot know what the future actually is.


Yes, there is evidence. Ellone/Ultimecia can travel through time. If they can travel through time, then someone else can do too.

There is evidence that the game has contained parts of Time Travel.

Most of all, there's no evidence that the game has told us what would really happen if TC was completed.

So I don't get what you're trying to say here. That was what the theory was about. Ultimecia couldn't kill Rinoa, ever, even if she attempts in doing so. Ultimecia certainly did something: interfering Squall and Rinoa's timelines.



Conclusion
In my opinion, Serapy's use of Artimesia to try and prove R=U is completely flawed, as all the evidence brought forward is flawed. The QM theory is irrelevant to the game because of my first two points, and may actually remove the possibility of forward time travel, if my third point is correct. Perhaps someone wise in the mechanics of time travel can have a look at this article and see what they think the implications of this are in terms of forward time travel.

Once again, this theory is not all about R=U.

The reason why I added the QM theory is because the game didn't tell us about the mechanisms behind the Time Travel that they have used.

Completely flawed? Why don't you make a theory to prove that R=U is truly false? Because it's exactly the same thing, there's no evidence that it's truly false (apart from the Human Life Span explanation).

[dream ending sword]

im bowled over by the sheer depth and utter clarity of the evidence, i was born in England and speak english so i know absolutely everything that has ever happened in England from the beginning of time. I remember how closely FF8 followed all the myths it referenced, such as going into that mayan style pyramid for get quezacotl (who was of course a excellently depicted in his winged snake self) and and how Beowulf slew the Grendal because we were unable to harm it!

[Moon Rabbits]

My theory is that Final Fantasy VIII is a game and you shouldn't read into it so much (for your own sanity).

[Serapy]

My theory is that Final Fantasy VIII is a game and you shouldn't read into it so much (for your own sanity).

If Final Fantasy VIII didn't exist, there won't be any discussion about it.

[Fynn]

My theory is that Final Fantasy VIII is a game and you shouldn't read into it so much (for your own sanity).

Let them do what they want. I like this theory - it's interesting and makes you think. We'll never know what the creators really intended. There's nothing wrong in speculating and these arguments all sound quite solid to me. If you don't want to think, then just don't, but don't forbid others to do that. That way, the atmosphere only gets worse...

[champagne supernova]

I'm going to address these theories seperately.

Why Artemisia has very little/no relevance to Final Fantasy 8

If Square-Enix were going to base someone on a mythological Greek character, and considering the high quality of translations throughout VIII, one would think that they would give them the correct name when translating it to English.

It doesn't matter if they didn't translate it into Artemisia in the English version, because they already did it in the Japanese version. I think the Japanese version is the most important version of all other versions because it was the first version to be made.


Japanese transalation works out as Arutimishia. Granted, it sounds a bit like Artemisia, but not much.



Anyway, her name isn't the only thing to prove something, but also Ultimecia has similarities as Artemisia. Like what I said in the first post, the messages of the paintings in Ultimecia's castle are based on Greek. If Ultimecia wasn't Artemisia or interested in Greek or whatever else then why did she have them in her castle? Why does her castle exist? Why the greek stuff in her castle? At least, this theory kind of fit all the patterns together to me.


Someone has already pointed out that the messages are Latin. So, the Greek stuff must go.





Also, of interest about Artemisia is that her husband, Maussolus, was her brother. Squall & Rinoa are not brother and sister. And one cannot say that Artemisia was in fact mad. I went looking for the ash drinking reference you made, and could only find it in Wikipedia, at this link: Artemisia II of Caria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_II)
where it states:
She is said to have mixed his ashes in her daily drink, and to have gradually pined away during the two years that she survived him.

Now, "She is said to have" from an article on Wikipedia is definitely not a substantiated truth, especially when what is said to have happened does not have any citation. Who is this person who said this? Seeing that I could not find any other article that referred to this ash drinking, I would think this is usual Wikipedia nonsense. Also, considering the way she tactically outclassed and defeated the Rhodians, I would think that her mental facilities were operating quite well, thank you very much.

Excuse me? I actually got this information from:

Artemisia II of Caria (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/ArtemisiaII.html)

Consisted of:

Ancient Greek Science and Technology (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm)

Created by Michael Lahanas (he also has demonstrated many other greek stuff), speaks Greek and he was born in Greece. Do you honestly think that he has made all this up? No, I don't think so.



If you look at the bottom of the information for the first link you provided: Artemisia II of Caria (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/ArtemisiaII.html)
you shall find that at the bottom, it in fact states that this was retrieved from Wikipedia.

The second link you provided: Ancient Greek Science and Technology (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm)
was an index. The only thing I could find that was relevant was the page on the Mausoleum, and that page also had a little statement at the bottom of the page stating that it was retrieved from Wikipedia.

So, unfortunately, you unknowingly have based several parts of your theory on Wikipedia. As I mentioned, in all the links I looked at on Artemisia, the Wikipedia one was the only one that mentioned this strange phenomenon. Clearly, something that gets information from Wikipedia will have the same flaws. Seeing that Michael Lahanas is willing to base his reputation on Wikipedia articles, his credibility is seriously dubious. And therefore, unless you find somewhere else to back up this madness, my point has to stand.



As for Artemisia being Mausolus's sister, I'm aware of that. But FF8 is a fantasy game and the FF series (including FF8) has represented so many metaphors based on the real life history. Not all the elements represented in FF are correct, that's what Final Fantasy is for.

It doesn't matter if they are real brother/sister, because in a sense, Artemisia loved Mausolus, just like Rinoa loved Squall, since FF8 is kind of based on a love theme.


They were incestuous lovers! I'm sorry, from what I've heard of Japan, it is quite a conservative place. I don't think Square would knowingly imply that one of the main characters was having an incestuous love affair with another main character.





The Mausoleum of Maussollos was not started by Artemisia, but by Maussolus. This is substantiated out of Wikipedia by articles such as this: Maussolus (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/hecatomnids/maussolus.html)
There are differing versions on how far along the Mausoleum was when Maussolus' died. One article said that it had just begun, some said that it was almost completed, and some say that Artemisia just commissioned the artists to do the decoration. However, this is irrelevant. The key is that Maussolus, not Artemisia, started the idea.

Just like Squall started the idea of Griever, alias Lion. It's very possible that Squall has died in prior to the future of Ultimecia's existence. Ultimecia has decided to finish building the castle. Why else did she make the castle for? The castle also has Lion statues.


As mentioned before, it is not clearly stated whether Griever is a fiction of Squall's imagination, or a real GF. Also, my point was that Maussolus planned a tomb for him & his wife, not Artemis. So, Artemis, of her own accord, would have done nothing.





The lion on the coin was quite interesting. But take a look at this article: Caria (http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/caria/caria.html)
On the bottom left hand corner are some pictures of Carian coins, circa 200. And, one is a lion. This is after Maussolus' time. Also, according to this article: Silver Lion Coinage of Mylasa in Caria (Ancient Coins of Miletos) (http://rjohara.net/coins/lion-scalp/)
the Carians stole the lion coin idea from their neighbour, and it first appeared in the time of Maussolus' father.

Indeed, when Mausolus died, his Lion statues and coins as well as his castle show up. Just like after Squall's time, his Lion statues show up. His love between Rinoa were expressed and represented in the game. The coin has a star symbol as Rinoa pointing at the star. Quite hard to reject that comparison, don't you think?


Again, missing my point. You were saying that because the coins were similar to in-game events, it reinforced the Ultimecia being Artemisia, and therefore Rinoa theory. My point is that these coins were created before Maussolus' time, and therefore have little to do with him.





The Mausoleum has a greater resemblance to Edea's house, with the pillars surrounding it. The paintings in Ultimecia's castle are on canvas, and canvas painting only occured much after (like 1400 AD) the building of the Mausoleum. There are also carpets, wooden stairs, etc. which gives Ultimecia's castle a resemblance to a Renaissance era castle, not an ancient Greek castle.

Yes, but remember that there's a reason why Edea's house existed: it's used as an orphanage.

We don't know the reason why Ultimecia's castle existed. That's why, with this theory, it gives you clues to think of how Ultimecia's castle existence start in the first place. Think about it, Ultimecia is a very powerful being, she has had so many options to do. For instance, Ultimecia can fly through the whole universe through her magic, so why does she need a castle for? Usually, most things represented in games have meanings. If a thing in a game has no meaning, that thing wouldn't have existed. Why would the FF8 designers waste thier time making/putting "useless" things in the game? That wouldn't make sense, right? So I'm more inclined to believe that her castle was supposed to have a meaning, which is a symbolism of a thing (you know which) from the history.


But the castle bears no resemblance to the Mausoleum of Maussolus. So, how are they related if they bear no resemblance?





This Artemisia connection was far-fetched to begin with, even if all the facts were true. But, after doing a little bit of checking of the facts, NOT ONE RELEVANT FACT IS ACTUALLY TRUE!

Fact 1) The greeks and other religious things in this game.

^ The paintings, her stuff.... and so on.


What Greek paintings, stuff etc. is there in the game that relates to Ultimecia?



Fact 2) Ultimecia didn't clarify her motives / objectives.

^ Dr Odine has speculated this one but speculation is a speculation; never a first hand account from Ultimecia herself or anyone close enough to her to know for sure.

Yes, this is a fact, but what relevance does it have here.



Fact 3) The game doesn't tell us anything about her past. Judging by the story, there's also no guarantee that Ultimecia even remembered anything about her past.

^
Artemisia drank ashes for two reasons: surviving Mausolus whom she was with and she was extremely crazy. Who would want to drink ashes anyways?

If Artemisia was extremely crazy, it's very reasonable for her to forget about her past. Just like Ultimecia.

As mentioned above, find me another article, that doesn't use Wikipedia's article, which says that Artemisia was mad. And I mean a credible article. Because, all the articles I looked at in my original post did not mention anything about Artemisia going mad, or drinking ashes.



Fact 4) The game doesn't show us events from each timeline. In the end, we got transported to the future's timeline, but did it show us what happened before that timeline? No, it didn't. Same with other missing timelines. Most people (includingthe FF8 designers) know that Time Travel is usually subjective and definitive. FF8 didn't show us extra timelines, so hench they leave us to make our own interpretations (obviously).

Yes, there is a missing timeline. And yes, one can form an opinion. But the validity of an opinion must lie in the realm of facts. And I'm still looking for a relevant one.



Fact 5) The name of Ultimecia is actually Artemisia in the Japanese version.

As mentioned above, the translation is actually Arutimishia. So, also not a fact.





Oh, and I can answer my first question about why Squaresoft translated it to Ultimecia. It was so people did not get the wrong idea.

In that case, translating Aerith into Aeris in the English version to ensure that people didn't get the wrong idea doesn't sound right.

But if you were actually correct, then why didn't Square translate it into Ultimecia in the Japanese version, instead of Artemisia?

Back to Fact 5. The direct translation is not Artemisia, it's Arutimishia. Bit of a mouthful! So, they decided that Ultimecia got the message across, and prevented people from thinking - "Hey, that sounds like an ancient Greek person. Maybe it's got something to do with the game."

Is there a historical or mythological creature called Aeris or Aerith, outside of FFVII? Don't think so. So, what does this have to do with anything?





Firstly, just because someone is able to do something, does not mean that they are going to do it. My car can go x km/h. This does not mean I am going to drive it at x km/h. Same applies to Rinoa.


Secondly, there is no evidence from the game that Rinoa is able to travel forwards in time. Excluding time compression, there is no evidence of a being moving their entire being through time to another point. Time compression is a freak occurence, and obviously has never been completed, as the game would not be able to occur if all time was compressed into one state. Ellone and Ultimecia, through her machine, are moving mental consciousnesses to people in the past. And, in Ellone's case, not changing anything. But that is very different to moving one's entire body through time & space.

Thirdly, the QM theory only states that if one moves backwards through time, you will not change the present. But it is possible that it rules out forward time travel (I am no scientist, so I may be wrong). The way I picture it is that we are kind of like a train. From the present, if I look back, there is only a single railway track. If I move back into the past, I will not be able to change the present. However, the future is still uncertain, and as such there is an infinite number of railway tracks, illustrating all my possibilities. Therefore, one cannot move forwards through it, because one cannot know what the future actually is.


Yes, there is evidence. Ellone/Ultimecia can travel through time. If they can travel through time, then someone else can do too.


You missed the first point. Just because someone can travel through time, doesn't mean they actually will travel. There has to be a reason why Rinoa would travel into the future, which has not been provided by you.

Secondly, Ellone & Ultimecia consciousness travels through time, not their whole body. So, there is no evidence of someone moving themselves completely from one time to another.

Thirdly, Ellone & Ultimecia consciousness travel backwards through time. No evidence of it moving forward.



Completely flawed? Why don't you make a theory to prove that R=U is truly false? Because it's exactly the same thing, there's no evidence that it's truly false (apart from the Human Life Span explanation).

Except for the Human Life Span explanation!?! The one that says that Rinoa cannot naturally be alive in Ultimecia's time. That is quite a problem in the R=U theory.

And I have made one that completely disproves the R=U theory.

Ultimecia is actually Aeris. Therefore it can't be Rinoa. During the events of VII, Aeris fell through the fabric of time and space and landed in VIII. She wanted to go back to VII and thought she could achieve this through Time Compression.

Now, Serapy, please disprove this

& for everyone else, I don't actually believe it. But, I'll pretend I do.

[Fynn]

As for Artemisia being Mausolus's sister, I'm aware of that. But FF8 is a fantasy game and the FF series (including FF8) has represented so many metaphors based on the real life history. Not all the elements represented in FF are correct, that's what Final Fantasy is for.

It doesn't matter if they are real brother/sister, because in a sense, Artemisia loved Mausolus, just like Rinoa loved Squall, since FF8 is kind of based on a love theme.


They were incestuous lovers! I'm sorry, from what I've heard of Japan, it is quite a conservative place. I don't think Square would knowingly imply that one of the main characters was having an incestuous love affair with another main character.
Excuse me, but there is something I must say. In ancient Greece it was normal for siblings to marry each other. At least it wasn't seen as perverse or anything like it...

[MushroomZOMBIE]

If I'm right, it also happened in the medieval times, as well.
Edgar Allan Poe married his cousin, in the 1800's.
In case of the people wondering about Shiva, in Hiduism, Shiva is the god of destruction. From what I heard, They used another Shiva; One from the Celtic mythology.

[Fynn]

I heard she was the Slavic goddess of winter or something...

[Serapy]

I'm going to address these theories seperately.

Why Artemisia has very little/no relevance to Final Fantasy 8

If Square-Enix were going to base someone on a mythological Greek character, and considering the high quality of translations throughout VIII, one would think that they would give them the correct name when translating it to English.

It doesn't matter if they didn't translate it into Artemisia in the English version, because they already did it in the Japanese version. I think the Japanese version is the most important version of all other versions because it was the first version to be made.


Japanese transalation works out as Arutimishia. Granted, it sounds a bit like Artemisia, but not much.

But the fact still remain that the English and Japanese versions have different names for the main villian -- Ultimecia and Arutimishia. The question is why? Those two names obviously don't sound similar to each other. There has to be a reason for that existence. On a blank paper, it's probably leading to something significantly.




Anyway, her name isn't the only thing to prove something, but also Ultimecia has similarities as Artemisia. Like what I said in the first post, the messages of the paintings in Ultimecia's castle are based on Greek. If Ultimecia wasn't Artemisia or interested in Greek or whatever else then why did she have them in her castle? Why does her castle exist? Why the greek stuff in her castle? At least, this theory kind of fit all the patterns together to me.


Someone has already pointed out that the messages are Latin. So, the Greek stuff must go.

My apologises, I was meant to refer Artemisia as being Greek. If she was Greek, then that fact still can't be removed from the theory. The castle holds quite a lot of things based on specific cultures and religions. There are connections that are identical to Greek history, such as Artemisia, the castle, lions, star, etc which were displayed in the game. Other Final Fantasy games of course have displayed specific things from reality but they were explained quite easily, apart from Final Fantasy 8.







Also, of interest about Artemisia is that her husband, Maussolus, was her brother. Squall & Rinoa are not brother and sister. And one cannot say that Artemisia was in fact mad. I went looking for the ash drinking reference you made, and could only find it in Wikipedia, at this link: Artemisia II of Caria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_II)
where it states:
She is said to have mixed his ashes in her daily drink, and to have gradually pined away during the two years that she survived him.

Now, "She is said to have" from an article on Wikipedia is definitely not a substantiated truth, especially when what is said to have happened does not have any citation. Who is this person who said this? Seeing that I could not find any other article that referred to this ash drinking, I would think this is usual Wikipedia nonsense. Also, considering the way she tactically outclassed and defeated the Rhodians, I would think that her mental facilities were operating quite well, thank you very much.

Excuse me? I actually got this information from:

Artemisia II of Caria (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/ArtemisiaII.html)

Consisted of:

Ancient Greek Science and Technology (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm)

Created by Michael Lahanas (he also has demonstrated many other greek stuff), speaks Greek and he was born in Greece. Do you honestly think that he has made all this up? No, I don't think so.



If you look at the bottom of the information for the first link you provided: Artemisia II of Caria (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/ArtemisiaII.html)
you shall find that at the bottom, it in fact states that this was retrieved from Wikipedia.

The second link you provided: Ancient Greek Science and Technology (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm)
was an index. The only thing I could find that was relevant was the page on the Mausoleum, and that page also had a little statement at the bottom of the page stating that it was retrieved from Wikipedia.

So, unfortunately, you unknowingly have based several parts of your theory on Wikipedia. As I mentioned, in all the links I looked at on Artemisia, the Wikipedia one was the only one that mentioned this strange phenomenon. Clearly, something that gets information from Wikipedia will have the same flaws. Seeing that Michael Lahanas is willing to base his reputation on Wikipedia articles, his credibility is seriously dubious. And therefore, unless you find somewhere else to back up this madness, my point has to stand.

Why would you call his credibility dubious when he obviously knows about Greek and its history more than you do? I'm sorry if I'm wrong.

He was the one who validated the article and then added it onto his website. So isn't it obvious that if the information were actually incorrect, he wouldn't have added them onto the website in the first place? I'm pretty sure that he will remove them if that was the case. Other articles about Artemisia don't seem inconsistent to each other, so this article is still credible.

About Wikipedia, it's true that some Wiki pages appear to be incorrect (indirectly), but these eventually will be corrected by "genuine" users some day.

There's another proof:

Artemisia drinking the Ashes of Mausolus (http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=l884)

As I have checked that page about three times, I have concluded that it didn't mention wiki, wikipedia or whatever. ;/

Here's the quote


This painting was long known as 'Sophonisba taking Poison' because it was thought to show the suicide of Sophonisba, wife of the Numidian King Massinissa, as recounted by Livy. In fact Creti based his composition on a painting of Artemisia by the Bolognese painter Giovan Gioseffo dal Sole (1654 - 1719). Queen Artemisia drank the ashes of her dead husband Mausolus in order to become his living tomb. She built a great funerary monument (mausoleum) at Halicarnassus to his memory, which became one of the wonders of the ancient world.





As for Artemisia being Mausolus's sister, I'm aware of that. But FF8 is a fantasy game and the FF series (including FF8) has represented so many metaphors based on the real life history. Not all the elements represented in FF are correct, that's what Final Fantasy is for.

It doesn't matter if they are real brother/sister, because in a sense, Artemisia loved Mausolus, just like Rinoa loved Squall, since FF8 is kind of based on a love theme.


They were incestuous lovers! I'm sorry, from what I've heard of Japan, it is quite a conservative place. I don't think Square would knowingly imply that one of the main characters was having an incestuous love affair with another main character.

If Final Fantasy 8 contains a lot of things based on specific cultures and history that appear to be inconsistent, then that doesn't mean Squall and Rinoa were trutly relatives. However, the concepts/symbolisms still remain (e.g. the star and lion). What I'm saying is that same blood or whatever is a physical form, but in Final Fantasy 8, it has shown a lot more mental forms rather than physical forms. So maybe, mentality is more important than physicality, when it comes to theories.

What does that have to do with Japan, anyway? Final Fantasy 8 may have been developed in Japan, but that contradicts the world of FF8 as it was supposed to be somewhere else, not Japan.







The Mausoleum of Maussollos was not started by Artemisia, but by Maussolus. This is substantiated out of Wikipedia by articles such as this: Maussolus (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/hecatomnids/maussolus.html)
There are differing versions on how far along the Mausoleum was when Maussolus' died. One article said that it had just begun, some said that it was almost completed, and some say that Artemisia just commissioned the artists to do the decoration. However, this is irrelevant. The key is that Maussolus, not Artemisia, started the idea.

Just like Squall started the idea of Griever, alias Lion. It's very possible that Squall has died in prior to the future of Ultimecia's existence. Ultimecia has decided to finish building the castle. Why else did she make the castle for? The castle also has Lion statues.


As mentioned before, it is not clearly stated whether Griever is a fiction of Squall's imagination, or a real GF. Also, my point was that Maussolus planned a tomb for him & his wife, not Artemis. So, Artemis, of her own accord, would have done nothing.

If Artemisia didn't take any part in aiding the Tomb's development after her husband's death, it will then become nothing. Also, I think she has inherited things from her husband after he died, so as long as Artemisia is alive, she still owns the tomb.







The lion on the coin was quite interesting. But take a look at this article: Caria (http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/caria/caria.html)
On the bottom left hand corner are some pictures of Carian coins, circa 200. And, one is a lion. This is after Maussolus' time. Also, according to this article: Silver Lion Coinage of Mylasa in Caria (Ancient Coins of Miletos) (http://rjohara.net/coins/lion-scalp/)
the Carians stole the lion coin idea from their neighbour, and it first appeared in the time of Maussolus' father.

Indeed, when Mausolus died, his Lion statues and coins as well as his castle show up. Just like after Squall's time, his Lion statues show up. His love between Rinoa were expressed and represented in the game. The coin has a star symbol as Rinoa pointing at the star. Quite hard to reject that comparison, don't you think?


Again, missing my point. You were saying that because the coins were similar to in-game events, it reinforced the Ultimecia being Artemisia, and therefore Rinoa theory. My point is that these coins were created before Maussolus' time, and therefore have little to do with him.

I can't say I agree with this statement (says different from the Wiki page), but even if it was true, then it still doesn't matter because as what I've said above that if it was more about mentality then the symbolism are more important. Why else were the lion/star represented in the game? That's why I lead to believe that they came from the Greek history.







The Mausoleum has a greater resemblance to Edea's house, with the pillars surrounding it. The paintings in Ultimecia's castle are on canvas, and canvas painting only occured much after (like 1400 AD) the building of the Mausoleum. There are also carpets, wooden stairs, etc. which gives Ultimecia's castle a resemblance to a Renaissance era castle, not an ancient Greek castle.

Yes, but remember that there's a reason why Edea's house existed: it's used as an orphanage.

We don't know the reason why Ultimecia's castle existed. That's why, with this theory, it gives you clues to think of how Ultimecia's castle existence start in the first place. Think about it, Ultimecia is a very powerful being, she has had so many options to do. For instance, Ultimecia can fly through the whole universe through her magic, so why does she need a castle for? Usually, most things represented in games have meanings. If a thing in a game has no meaning, that thing wouldn't have existed. Why would the FF8 designers waste thier time making/putting "useless" things in the game? That wouldn't make sense, right? So I'm more inclined to believe that her castle was supposed to have a meaning, which is a symbolism of a thing (you know which) from the history.


But the castle bears no resemblance to the Mausoleum of Maussolus. So, how are they related if they bear no resemblance?

They don't look exactly the same, but they do certainly bear same resemblance (mentally) from the Greek history. Artemisia was insane when her husband died, she drank ashes in order to be his living tomb, helped finishing the tomb. Her husband resembled as a lion to his wife, his wife resembled as a star to his husband. If Ultimecia was a woman, why in the earth would she have lions statues on her castle? This leads me to believe that MAYBE she has had a husband in the past. In order to respect him is to have lions statues on the castle, I'm guessing. There's another question still remains unknown-- if she's so powerful, why does she need a castle for?







This Artemisia connection was far-fetched to begin with, even if all the facts were true. But, after doing a little bit of checking of the facts, NOT ONE RELEVANT FACT IS ACTUALLY TRUE!

Fact 1) The greeks and other religious things in this game.

^ The paintings, her stuff.... and so on.


What Greek paintings, stuff etc. is there in the game that relates to Ultimecia?

Yes, they all relate to her in a way because she own them in her castle.





Fact 2) Ultimecia didn't clarify her motives / objectives.

^ Dr Odine has speculated this one but speculation is a speculation; never a first hand account from Ultimecia herself or anyone close enough to her to know for sure.

Yes, this is a fact, but what relevance does it have here.

If she has clarified her motives / objectives by herself, I would have never made this thread in the first place.





Fact 3) The game doesn't tell us anything about her past. Judging by the story, there's also no guarantee that Ultimecia even remembered anything about her past.

^
Artemisia drank ashes for two reasons: surviving Mausolus whom she was with and she was extremely crazy. Who would want to drink ashes anyways?

If Artemisia was extremely crazy, it's very reasonable for her to forget about her past. Just like Ultimecia.

As mentioned above, find me another article, that doesn't use Wikipedia's article, which says that Artemisia was mad. And I mean a credible article. Because, all the articles I looked at in my original post did not mention anything about Artemisia going mad, or drinking ashes.

I've gave you another link above.





Fact 4) The game doesn't show us events from each timeline. In the end, we got transported to the future's timeline, but did it show us what happened before that timeline? No, it didn't. Same with other missing timelines. Most people (includingthe FF8 designers) know that Time Travel is usually subjective and definitive. FF8 didn't show us extra timelines, so hench they leave us to make our own interpretations (obviously).

Yes, there is a missing timeline. And yes, one can form an opinion. But the validity of an opinion must lie in the realm of facts. And I'm still looking for a relevant one.

Are you saying that the symbolisms and images in FF8 are not facts? I have already linked them here in this thread. My opinions here are mostly based on the comparisons. Do you actually expect me to find a dialogue that states "Hi scum bags, I have a great obsession with this great legend-- Artemisia!" ? I don't know why, but most people think that dialogues are the true facts, somehow. I can tell that Square didn't want to add information like that. If they did, the plot of Final Fantasy 8 would be so different.





Fact 5) The name of Ultimecia is actually Artemisia in the Japanese version.

As mentioned above, the translation is actually Arutimishia. So, also not a fact.

Oops, I've made a typo. Yes, it was Arutimishia. My point was that the English/Japanese versions have different names for the main villain, which is a fact.







Oh, and I can answer my first question about why Squaresoft translated it to Ultimecia. It was so people did not get the wrong idea.

In that case, translating Aerith into Aeris in the English version to ensure that people didn't get the wrong idea doesn't sound right.

But if you were actually correct, then why didn't Square translate it into Ultimecia in the Japanese version, instead of Artemisia?

Back to Fact 5. The direct translation is not Artemisia, it's Arutimishia. Bit of a mouthful! So, they decided that Ultimecia got the message across, and prevented people from thinking - "Hey, that sounds like an ancient Greek person. Maybe it's got something to do with the game."

That doesn't seem right. If the game has contained completely different symbolisms, plot and culture/religion stuff, her name was still Arutimishia, we would just ignore it as we normally would think like "Oh, that Arutimishia is just a name, which has nothing to do with the game for sure"



Is there a historical or mythological creature called Aeris or Aerith, outside of FFVII? Don't think so. So, what does this have to do with anything?

The point was that if Square wanted to have the same name for both versions. They would have アルティミシア (Arutimishia) translated to Arutimishia for the English version. In this case, they didn't.



Firstly, just because someone is able to do something, does not mean that they are going to do it. My car can go x km/h. This does not mean I am going to drive it at x km/h. Same applies to Rinoa.

No, if she has gained the ability to travel, that doesn't mean she will travel right now but eventually she will.



Secondly, there is no evidence from the game that Rinoa is able to travel forwards in time. Excluding time compression, there is no evidence of a being moving their entire being through time to another point. Time compression is a freak occurence, and obviously has never been completed, as the game would not be able to occur if all time was compressed into one state. Ellone and Ultimecia, through her machine, are moving mental consciousnesses to people in the past. And, in Ellone's case, not changing anything. But that is very different to moving one's entire body through time & space.

The game wouldn't occur if it was completed? That's like saying Ultimecia have destoryed everything too! If that was her main goal, which is quite pointless but then maybe that because she was insane. However, if SeeD didn't exist, Ultimecia wouldn't need to exist as well ...



Thirdly, the QM theory only states that if one moves backwards through time, you will not change the present. But it is possible that it rules out forward time travel (I am no scientist, so I may be wrong). The way I picture it is that we are kind of like a train. From the present, if I look back, there is only a single railway track. If I move back into the past, I will not be able to change the present. However, the future is still uncertain, and as such there is an infinite number of railway tracks, illustrating all my possibilities. Therefore, one cannot move forwards through it, because one cannot know what the future actually is.


Rinoa is worried about her powers. Will she give it to an innocent person? She cannot tell because she doesn't know the future. Why wasn't one of the party members' killed by an attacker from the future? That didn't work, because the past cannot be changed which would explain why the SeeDs didn't get killed.

In the vision of Ultimecia, she's treating the present time (Squall and Rinoa's times) as past. In that certain time, Squall and Rinoa is treating it as present. So technically, it's past which cannot be changed because Ultimecia came from the future and was trying to interfere the past (present).




You missed the first point. Just because someone can travel through time, doesn't mean they actually will travel. There has to be a reason why Rinoa would travel into the future, which has not been provided by you.

It has been provided from the game, she travelled in order to fight Ultimecia.

If you have the ability to travel, of course, you won't just travel exactly right away, but eventually you will.




Secondly, Ellone & Ultimecia consciousness travels through time, not their whole body. So, there is no evidence of someone moving themselves completely from one time to another.

The point still remains, they can travel time.




Thirdly, Ellone & Ultimecia consciousness travel backwards through time. No evidence of it moving forward.

In that case, nobody could fight Ultimecia as she came from the future. In the present time, Ultimecia's castle wasn't there, but it shows up in the future time which was where the party have fought her. Even in TC, you cannot travel in any direction (random) just to face Ultimecia.





Completely flawed? Why don't you make a theory to prove that R=U is truly false? Because it's exactly the same thing, there's no evidence that it's truly false (apart from the Human Life Span explanation).

Except for the Human Life Span explanation!?! The one that says that Rinoa cannot naturally be alive in Ultimecia's time. That is quite a problem in the R=U theory.

And I have made one that completely disproves the R=U theory.

Ultimecia is actually Aeris. Therefore it can't be Rinoa. During the events of VII, Aeris fell through the fabric of time and space and landed in VIII. She wanted to go back to VII and thought she could achieve this through Time Compression.

Now, Serapy, please disprove this

Yes, Final Fantasy 7 and Final Fantasy 8 didn't mate repeatedly.

[Zeromus_X]

But the fact still remain that the English and Japanese versions have different names for the main villian -- Ultimecia and Arutimishia. The question is why? Those two names obviously don't sound similar to each other. There has to be a reason for that existence. On a blank paper, it's probably leading to something significantly.

Ultimecia, Artemisia, and any other variants you can think of are equally valid romanizations of アルティミシア. The reason they went with the spelling Ultimecia is likely because the spell Ultima is rendered as アルテマ and they didn't want to deviate from what was already standardized. I doubt it means anything significant nor does it warrant a conspiracy theory because of a simple name.

[Serapy]

Oh, I see. Maybe the sound-comparison between Arutimishia and Artemisia could be a coincidence after all but then again, why are the symbolisms and other things in FF8 are so similar to Artemisia's history, I wonder.

[champagne supernova]

I'm going to address these theories seperately.

Why Artemisia has very little/no relevance to Final Fantasy 8

If Square-Enix were going to base someone on a mythological Greek character, and considering the high quality of translations throughout VIII, one would think that they would give them the correct name when translating it to English.

It doesn't matter if they didn't translate it into Artemisia in the English version, because they already did it in the Japanese version. I think the Japanese version is the most important version of all other versions because it was the first version to be made.


Japanese transalation works out as Arutimishia. Granted, it sounds a bit like Artemisia, but not much.

But the fact still remain that the English and Japanese versions have different names for the main villian -- Ultimecia and Arutimishia. The question is why? Those two names obviously don't sound similar to each other. There has to be a reason for that existence. On a blank paper, it's probably leading to something significantly.

As Zeromus has informed us, they are both equally good translations. My point is that if Square-Enix wanted to make a reference to Artemisia, why did they choose the name Ultimecia, and not Arutimishia or Artemisia?





Anyway, her name isn't the only thing to prove something, but also Ultimecia has similarities as Artemisia. Like what I said in the first post, the messages of the paintings in Ultimecia's castle are based on Greek. If Ultimecia wasn't Artemisia or interested in Greek or whatever else then why did she have them in her castle? Why does her castle exist? Why the greek stuff in her castle? At least, this theory kind of fit all the patterns together to me.


Someone has already pointed out that the messages are Latin. So, the Greek stuff must go.

My apologises, I was meant to refer Artemisia as being Greek. If she was Greek, then that fact still can't be removed from the theory. The castle holds quite a lot of things based on specific cultures and religions. There are connections that are identical to Greek history, such as Artemisia, the castle, lions, star, etc which were displayed in the game. Other Final Fantasy games of course have displayed specific things from reality but they were explained quite easily, apart from Final Fantasy 8.

I don't know how one can believe that castles, lions & stars are uniquely Greek. And castles come from the medieval era, not from Ancient Greece. Please could you give me some specific examples of a reference to Greek culture in Ultimecia's castle.









Also, of interest about Artemisia is that her husband, Maussolus, was her brother. Squall & Rinoa are not brother and sister. And one cannot say that Artemisia was in fact mad. I went looking for the ash drinking reference you made, and could only find it in Wikipedia, at this link: Artemisia II of Caria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_II)
where it states:
She is said to have mixed his ashes in her daily drink, and to have gradually pined away during the two years that she survived him.

Now, "She is said to have" from an article on Wikipedia is definitely not a substantiated truth, especially when what is said to have happened does not have any citation. Who is this person who said this? Seeing that I could not find any other article that referred to this ash drinking, I would think this is usual Wikipedia nonsense. Also, considering the way she tactically outclassed and defeated the Rhodians, I would think that her mental facilities were operating quite well, thank you very much.

Excuse me? I actually got this information from:

Artemisia II of Caria (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/ArtemisiaII.html)

Consisted of:

Ancient Greek Science and Technology (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm)

Created by Michael Lahanas (he also has demonstrated many other greek stuff), speaks Greek and he was born in Greece. Do you honestly think that he has made all this up? No, I don't think so.



If you look at the bottom of the information for the first link you provided: Artemisia II of Caria (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/ArtemisiaII.html)
you shall find that at the bottom, it in fact states that this was retrieved from Wikipedia.

The second link you provided: Ancient Greek Science and Technology (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm)
was an index. The only thing I could find that was relevant was the page on the Mausoleum, and that page also had a little statement at the bottom of the page stating that it was retrieved from Wikipedia.

So, unfortunately, you unknowingly have based several parts of your theory on Wikipedia. As I mentioned, in all the links I looked at on Artemisia, the Wikipedia one was the only one that mentioned this strange phenomenon. Clearly, something that gets information from Wikipedia will have the same flaws. Seeing that Michael Lahanas is willing to base his reputation on Wikipedia articles, his credibility is seriously dubious. And therefore, unless you find somewhere else to back up this madness, my point has to stand.

Why would you call his credibility dubious when he obviously knows about Greek and its history more than you do? I'm sorry if I'm wrong.

He was the one who validated the article and then added it onto his website. So isn't it obvious that if the information were actually incorrect, he wouldn't have added them onto the website in the first place? I'm pretty sure that he will remove them if that was the case. Other articles about Artemisia don't seem inconsistent to each other, so this article is still credible.

About Wikipedia, it's true that some Wiki pages appear to be incorrect (indirectly), but these eventually will be corrected by "genuine" users some day.

There's another proof:

Artemisia drinking the Ashes of Mausolus (http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=l884)

As I have checked that page about three times, I have concluded that it didn't mention wiki, wikipedia or whatever. ;/

Here's the quote


This painting was long known as 'Sophonisba taking Poison' because it was thought to show the suicide of Sophonisba, wife of the Numidian King Massinissa, as recounted by Livy. In fact Creti based his composition on a painting of Artemisia by the Bolognese painter Giovan Gioseffo dal Sole (1654 - 1719). Queen Artemisia drank the ashes of her dead husband Mausolus in order to become his living tomb. She built a great funerary monument (mausoleum) at Halicarnassus to his memory, which became one of the wonders of the ancient world.

Unfortunately, Michael Lahanas has failed to show any credibility whatsoever. If he was a Professor of Ancient Greek history at a credible university, I would take his word for it. Just because someone owns a website does not make them credible. It is a bit hypocritical that you can sing Michael's fame based on the fact that he owns a website, yet at the same time, imply that my knowledge of Ancient Greek history is minimal. Especially seeing that you know nothing about either of us.

This new link has got to do with a painting. I've known many artists before, and they employ artistic freedom quite indiscrimately. I will believe you when you provide me a link to a study or report by someone who has a Professorship in Ancient Greek History. Anyway, this point is peripheral to the main debate.







As for Artemisia being Mausolus's sister, I'm aware of that. But FF8 is a fantasy game and the FF series (including FF8) has represented so many metaphors based on the real life history. Not all the elements represented in FF are correct, that's what Final Fantasy is for.

It doesn't matter if they are real brother/sister, because in a sense, Artemisia loved Mausolus, just like Rinoa loved Squall, since FF8 is kind of based on a love theme.


They were incestuous lovers! I'm sorry, from what I've heard of Japan, it is quite a conservative place. I don't think Square would knowingly imply that one of the main characters was having an incestuous love affair with another main character.

If Final Fantasy 8 contains a lot of things based on specific cultures and history that appear to be inconsistent, then that doesn't mean Squall and Rinoa were trutly relatives. However, the concepts/symbolisms still remain (e.g. the star and lion). What I'm saying is that same blood or whatever is a physical form, but in Final Fantasy 8, it has shown a lot more mental forms rather than physical forms. So maybe, mentality is more important than physicality, when it comes to theories.

What does that have to do with Japan, anyway? Final Fantasy 8 may have been developed in Japan, but that contradicts the world of FF8 as it was supposed to be somewhere else, not Japan.

Japan accounted for roughly 45% of FFVIII's entire sales (http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=758 (http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=758) & a calculator). Square-Enix would not deliberately try to offend a population of people that are the biggest buyer of the game. As I've mentioned above, I fail to see how stars & lions are uniquely linked to Greek history. Please explain.

And the most important part of theories are facts.









The Mausoleum of Maussollos was not started by Artemisia, but by Maussolus. This is substantiated out of Wikipedia by articles such as this: Maussolus (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/hecatomnids/maussolus.html)
There are differing versions on how far along the Mausoleum was when Maussolus' died. One article said that it had just begun, some said that it was almost completed, and some say that Artemisia just commissioned the artists to do the decoration. However, this is irrelevant. The key is that Maussolus, not Artemisia, started the idea.

Just like Squall started the idea of Griever, alias Lion. It's very possible that Squall has died in prior to the future of Ultimecia's existence. Ultimecia has decided to finish building the castle. Why else did she make the castle for? The castle also has Lion statues.


As mentioned before, it is not clearly stated whether Griever is a fiction of Squall's imagination, or a real GF. Also, my point was that Maussolus planned a tomb for him & his wife, not Artemis. So, Artemis, of her own accord, would have done nothing.

If Artemisia didn't take any part in aiding the Tomb's development after her husband's death, it will then become nothing. Also, I think she has inherited things from her husband after he died, so as long as Artemisia is alive, she still owns the tomb.


Maussolus planned and begun the construction of his tomb. Where in Final Fantasy VIII is it implied that someone besides Ultimecia planned the castle?









The lion on the coin was quite interesting. But take a look at this article: Caria (http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/caria/caria.html)
On the bottom left hand corner are some pictures of Carian coins, circa 200. And, one is a lion. This is after Maussolus' time. Also, according to this article: Silver Lion Coinage of Mylasa in Caria (Ancient Coins of Miletos) (http://rjohara.net/coins/lion-scalp/)
the Carians stole the lion coin idea from their neighbour, and it first appeared in the time of Maussolus' father.

Indeed, when Mausolus died, his Lion statues and coins as well as his castle show up. Just like after Squall's time, his Lion statues show up. His love between Rinoa were expressed and represented in the game. The coin has a star symbol as Rinoa pointing at the star. Quite hard to reject that comparison, don't you think?


Again, missing my point. You were saying that because the coins were similar to in-game events, it reinforced the Ultimecia being Artemisia, and therefore Rinoa theory. My point is that these coins were created before Maussolus' time, and therefore have little to do with him.

I can't say I agree with this statement (says different from the Wiki page), but even if it was true, then it still doesn't matter because as what I've said above that if it was more about mentality then the symbolism are more important. Why else were the lion/star represented in the game? That's why I lead to believe that they came from the Greek history.

Wikipedia is not a credible source of information. Stars have many symbolic references in many cultures. For example, if you make a wish on a shooting star, it will come true. That is a quaint culture, but there are many more in-depth ones. Lions have also appeared in many cultures. King David, in Samuel I of the Bible, killed lions when they attacked his sheep. Chinese culture uses the lion as well (Life of Guangzhou - Lion, a Profound Image in Chinese Culture (http://www.lifeofguangzhou.com/node_10/node_228/node_232/2007/06/08/118128054521373.shtml)).

My point is that the use of stars and lions could point to many different tales and myths. And the coins you have shown are not from the time of Maussolus or Artemisia. So, there is no direct link between the two through the use of stars and lions.









The Mausoleum has a greater resemblance to Edea's house, with the pillars surrounding it. The paintings in Ultimecia's castle are on canvas, and canvas painting only occured much after (like 1400 AD) the building of the Mausoleum. There are also carpets, wooden stairs, etc. which gives Ultimecia's castle a resemblance to a Renaissance era castle, not an ancient Greek castle.

Yes, but remember that there's a reason why Edea's house existed: it's used as an orphanage.

We don't know the reason why Ultimecia's castle existed. That's why, with this theory, it gives you clues to think of how Ultimecia's castle existence start in the first place. Think about it, Ultimecia is a very powerful being, she has had so many options to do. For instance, Ultimecia can fly through the whole universe through her magic, so why does she need a castle for? Usually, most things represented in games have meanings. If a thing in a game has no meaning, that thing wouldn't have existed. Why would the FF8 designers waste thier time making/putting "useless" things in the game? That wouldn't make sense, right? So I'm more inclined to believe that her castle was supposed to have a meaning, which is a symbolism of a thing (you know which) from the history.


But the castle bears no resemblance to the Mausoleum of Maussolus. So, how are they related if they bear no resemblance?

They don't look exactly the same, but they do certainly bear same resemblance (mentally) from the Greek history. Artemisia was insane when her husband died, she drank ashes in order to be his living tomb, helped finishing the tomb. Her husband resembled as a lion to his wife, his wife resembled as a star to his husband. If Ultimecia was a woman, why in the earth would she have lions statues on her castle? This leads me to believe that MAYBE she has had a husband in the past. In order to respect him is to have lions statues on the castle, I'm guessing. There's another question still remains unknown-- if she's so powerful, why does she need a castle for?


Sorry, I really object to this form of argumentation. This is making huge leaps of faith. What symbolic link is there between Maussolus and a Lion? What symbolic link is there between Artemisia and a Star?

Nor do I remember being there any lion statues in Ultimecia's castle. And even if Ultimecia's castle does have lion statues, how can one infer that she had a husband? There are thousands of other reasons why.

So, what it seems like you're saying is that Ultimecia is Artemisia because Ultimecia has a castle that looks nothing like a tomb that Artemisia completed for her husband. But there is a symbolic link because Ultimecia summoned Griever (a lion) and Caria created some coins with a lion motiff a couple of hundred years before Artemisia.

Be serious.









This Artemisia connection was far-fetched to begin with, even if all the facts were true. But, after doing a little bit of checking of the facts, NOT ONE RELEVANT FACT IS ACTUALLY TRUE!

Fact 1) The greeks and other religious things in this game.

^ The paintings, her stuff.... and so on.


What Greek paintings, stuff etc. is there in the game that relates to Ultimecia?

Yes, they all relate to her in a way because she own them in her castle.

What Greek stuff does she own in the castle? The castle does not have any resemblance to Greek architecture. The paintings titles are in Latin. Paintings (on canvas) and castles come from a later era. So, where is this Greek stuff?







Fact 2) Ultimecia didn't clarify her motives / objectives.

^ Dr Odine has speculated this one but speculation is a speculation; never a first hand account from Ultimecia herself or anyone close enough to her to know for sure.

Yes, this is a fact, but what relevance does it have here.

If she has clarified her motives / objectives by herself, I would have never made this thread in the first place.

How is it relevant to the theory? What facet of the theory does this support?







Fact 3) The game doesn't tell us anything about her past. Judging by the story, there's also no guarantee that Ultimecia even remembered anything about her past.

^
Artemisia drank ashes for two reasons: surviving Mausolus whom she was with and she was extremely crazy. Who would want to drink ashes anyways?

If Artemisia was extremely crazy, it's very reasonable for her to forget about her past. Just like Ultimecia.

As mentioned above, find me another article, that doesn't use Wikipedia's article, which says that Artemisia was mad. And I mean a credible article. Because, all the articles I looked at in my original post did not mention anything about Artemisia going mad, or drinking ashes.

I've gave you another link above.

Which refers to a painting, not historical fact. Artists are not historians. Get me a proper historian to verify te facts. Nor is there any implication in the game that Ultimecia had forgotten her past. Judging by her dialogue in her final boss form, I'd say that there is something that she remembers very vividly.







Fact 4) The game doesn't show us events from each timeline. In the end, we got transported to the future's timeline, but did it show us what happened before that timeline? No, it didn't. Same with other missing timelines. Most people (includingthe FF8 designers) know that Time Travel is usually subjective and definitive. FF8 didn't show us extra timelines, so hench they leave us to make our own interpretations (obviously).

Yes, there is a missing timeline. And yes, one can form an opinion. But the validity of an opinion must lie in the realm of facts. And I'm still looking for a relevant one.

Are you saying that the symbolisms and images in FF8 are not facts? I have already linked them here in this thread. My opinions here are mostly based on the comparisons. Do you actually expect me to find a dialogue that states "Hi scum bags, I have a great obsession with this great legend-- Artemisia!" ? I don't know why, but most people think that dialogues are the true facts, somehow. I can tell that Square didn't want to add information like that. If they did, the plot of Final Fantasy 8 would be so different.

No, I expect you to back up your symbolisms and images with some relevant factual information from the game. Which you have not.





Firstly, just because someone is able to do something, does not mean that they are going to do it. My car can go x km/h. This does not mean I am going to drive it at x km/h. Same applies to Rinoa.

No, if she has gained the ability to travel, that doesn't mean she will travel right now but eventually she will.

Missed the point, or if you didn't, that is the most bizarre logic I have ever seen. Because the way I see it, we all have millions of options available. But, just because they're there, it doesn't mean we have to take them. So, if Rinoa had the option to travel forward in time, why would she take it? From the game please, not some hypothetical possibility.





Secondly, there is no evidence from the game that Rinoa is able to travel forwards in time. Excluding time compression, there is no evidence of a being moving their entire being through time to another point. Time compression is a freak occurence, and obviously has never been completed, as the game would not be able to occur if all time was compressed into one state. Ellone and Ultimecia, through her machine, are moving mental consciousnesses to people in the past. And, in Ellone's case, not changing anything. But that is very different to moving one's entire body through time & space.

The game wouldn't occur if it was completed? That's like saying Ultimecia have destoryed everything too! If that was her main goal, which is quite pointless but then maybe that because she was insane. However, if SeeD didn't exist, Ultimecia wouldn't need to exist as well ...

If Time Compression had been complete, Ultimecia would have destroyed everything, except herself. That is sort of the point of Time Compression. The SeeDs defeated her before it could be completed, thus saving the world in typical FF fashion.





Thirdly, the QM theory only states that if one moves backwards through time, you will not change the present. But it is possible that it rules out forward time travel (I am no scientist, so I may be wrong). The way I picture it is that we are kind of like a train. From the present, if I look back, there is only a single railway track. If I move back into the past, I will not be able to change the present. However, the future is still uncertain, and as such there is an infinite number of railway tracks, illustrating all my possibilities. Therefore, one cannot move forwards through it, because one cannot know what the future actually is.


Rinoa is worried about her powers. Will she give it to an innocent person? She cannot tell because she doesn't know the future. Why wasn't one of the party members' killed by an attacker from the future? That didn't work, because the past cannot be changed which would explain why the SeeDs didn't get killed.

In the vision of Ultimecia, she's treating the present time (Squall and Rinoa's times) as past. In that certain time, Squall and Rinoa is treating it as present. So technically, it's past which cannot be changed because Ultimecia came from the future and was trying to interfere the past (present).

Don't see how this relates to my point. I say that QM negates the possibility of moving forward in time, based on a certain logic. Your response does not address that.





You missed the first point. Just because someone can travel through time, doesn't mean they actually will travel. There has to be a reason why Rinoa would travel into the future, which has not been provided by you.

It has been provided from the game, she travelled in order to fight Ultimecia.

If you have the ability to travel, of course, you won't just travel exactly right away, but eventually you will.

I have the ability to travel anywhere in the world right now. It does not mean that I eventually will travel there, otherwise the entire population of the world would have been everywhere within their lifetimes. And I was not talking about Rinoa travelling to the future to fight Ultimecia. I am talking about your suggestion that Rinoa travelled to the future sometime after the events of the game.





Secondly, Ellone & Ultimecia consciousness travels through time, not their whole body. So, there is no evidence of someone moving themselves completely from one time to another.

The point still remains, they can travel time.

The point still remains that they cannot move their bodies through time.





Thirdly, Ellone & Ultimecia consciousness travel backwards through time. No evidence of it moving forward.

In that case, nobody could fight Ultimecia as she came from the future. In the present time, Ultimecia's castle wasn't there, but it shows up in the future time which was where the party have fought her. Even in TC, you cannot travel in any direction (random) just to face Ultimecia.

Time Compression had never been completed. That is a fact from the game. For someone to move forward in time, there has to be an alternative method. There is no evidence that Ellone's ability allows one to travel forward in time. That is also a fact from the game. So, where is it suggested that there is another way to travel forward in time?







Completely flawed? Why don't you make a theory to prove that R=U is truly false? Because it's exactly the same thing, there's no evidence that it's truly false (apart from the Human Life Span explanation).

Except for the Human Life Span explanation!?! The one that says that Rinoa cannot naturally be alive in Ultimecia's time. That is quite a problem in the R=U theory.

And I have made one that completely disproves the R=U theory.

Ultimecia is actually Aeris. Therefore it can't be Rinoa. During the events of VII, Aeris fell through the fabric of time and space and landed in VIII. She wanted to go back to VII and thought she could achieve this through Time Compression.

Now, Serapy, please disprove this

Yes, Final Fantasy 7 and Final Fantasy 8 didn't mate repeatedly.

How do you know that? Where does it say that anywhere?
(I actually think that the A=U theory is more plausibe than R=U. But they're both useless).

[Hyperion4444]

2 hours later after reading all of this...
Don't waste your time arguing about stuff in a game, espescially FFVIII and theses forums, everyone here has his own unterpretation of the game (Not to protect them, but in their minds, they're right no matter what.)

So just don't pay any attention to thoses people because they'll continue trying to prove you wrong.

By the way, how old is this?

[Serapy]

I'm going to address these theories seperately.

Why Artemisia has very little/no relevance to Final Fantasy 8

If Square-Enix were going to base someone on a mythological Greek character, and considering the high quality of translations throughout VIII, one would think that they would give them the correct name when translating it to English.

It doesn't matter if they didn't translate it into Artemisia in the English version, because they already did it in the Japanese version. I think the Japanese version is the most important version of all other versions because it was the first version to be made.


Japanese transalation works out as Arutimishia. Granted, it sounds a bit like Artemisia, but not much.

But the fact still remain that the English and Japanese versions have different names for the main villian -- Ultimecia and Arutimishia. The question is why? Those two names obviously don't sound similar to each other. There has to be a reason for that existence. On a blank paper, it's probably leading to something significantly.

As Zeromus has informed us, they are both equally good translations. My point is that if Square-Enix wanted to make a reference to Artemisia, why did they choose the name Ultimecia, and not Arutimishia or Artemisia?

I have asked the same question before and I've made some guesses, but I think the better question is: Why did they name it Arutimishia in the Japanese version, knowing the fact that it's the original version?







Anyway, her name isn't the only thing to prove something, but also Ultimecia has similarities as Artemisia. Like what I said in the first post, the messages of the paintings in Ultimecia's castle are based on Greek. If Ultimecia wasn't Artemisia or interested in Greek or whatever else then why did she have them in her castle? Why does her castle exist? Why the greek stuff in her castle? At least, this theory kind of fit all the patterns together to me.


Someone has already pointed out that the messages are Latin. So, the Greek stuff must go.

My apologises, I was meant to refer Artemisia as being Greek. If she was Greek, then that fact still can't be removed from the theory. The castle holds quite a lot of things based on specific cultures and religions. There are connections that are identical to Greek history, such as Artemisia, the castle, lions, star, etc which were displayed in the game. Other Final Fantasy games of course have displayed specific things from reality but they were explained quite easily, apart from Final Fantasy 8.

I don't know how one can believe that castles, lions & stars are uniquely Greek. And castles come from the medieval era, not from Ancient Greece. Please could you give me some specific examples of a reference to Greek culture in Ultimecia's castle.

It's not a question of asking where they really come from (physically), because it's a Final Fantasy game. The game is not entirely based on the Greek history, but the game is obviously using some bits from the Greek culture and others, representing them in the game.

It's a question of why they exist, for example, why did Lion and Star exist in the game? I have made a thread about Rinoa's star events (pointing at the Star and showing it to Squall) and it was concluded that it was probably a symbolism. I agreed, because the reason why it was a symbolism was because she did the same thing twice (at the beginning and the ending). There are other symbolisms as well, like feather for example.

So, if you compare (that's the whole point of this thread) the Lion and Star symbolisms from the game to the Greek history (specifically Mausolus and Artemisia). It does make sense, at least, it's better than asking this question "Why the existence of Star and Lion in the game?".











Also, of interest about Artemisia is that her husband, Maussolus, was her brother. Squall & Rinoa are not brother and sister. And one cannot say that Artemisia was in fact mad. I went looking for the ash drinking reference you made, and could only find it in Wikipedia, at this link: Artemisia II of Caria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_II)
where it states:
She is said to have mixed his ashes in her daily drink, and to have gradually pined away during the two years that she survived him.

Now, "She is said to have" from an article on Wikipedia is definitely not a substantiated truth, especially when what is said to have happened does not have any citation. Who is this person who said this? Seeing that I could not find any other article that referred to this ash drinking, I would think this is usual Wikipedia nonsense. Also, considering the way she tactically outclassed and defeated the Rhodians, I would think that her mental facilities were operating quite well, thank you very much.

Excuse me? I actually got this information from:

Artemisia II of Caria (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/ArtemisiaII.html)

Consisted of:

Ancient Greek Science and Technology (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm)

Created by Michael Lahanas (he also has demonstrated many other greek stuff), speaks Greek and he was born in Greece. Do you honestly think that he has made all this up? No, I don't think so.



If you look at the bottom of the information for the first link you provided: Artemisia II of Caria (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/ArtemisiaII.html)
you shall find that at the bottom, it in fact states that this was retrieved from Wikipedia.

The second link you provided: Ancient Greek Science and Technology (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm)
was an index. The only thing I could find that was relevant was the page on the Mausoleum, and that page also had a little statement at the bottom of the page stating that it was retrieved from Wikipedia.

So, unfortunately, you unknowingly have based several parts of your theory on Wikipedia. As I mentioned, in all the links I looked at on Artemisia, the Wikipedia one was the only one that mentioned this strange phenomenon. Clearly, something that gets information from Wikipedia will have the same flaws. Seeing that Michael Lahanas is willing to base his reputation on Wikipedia articles, his credibility is seriously dubious. And therefore, unless you find somewhere else to back up this madness, my point has to stand.

Why would you call his credibility dubious when he obviously knows about Greek and its history more than you do? I'm sorry if I'm wrong.

He was the one who validated the article and then added it onto his website. So isn't it obvious that if the information were actually incorrect, he wouldn't have added them onto the website in the first place? I'm pretty sure that he will remove them if that was the case. Other articles about Artemisia don't seem inconsistent to each other, so this article is still credible.

About Wikipedia, it's true that some Wiki pages appear to be incorrect (indirectly), but these eventually will be corrected by "genuine" users some day.

There's another proof:

Artemisia drinking the Ashes of Mausolus (http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=l884)

As I have checked that page about three times, I have concluded that it didn't mention wiki, wikipedia or whatever. ;/

Here's the quote


This painting was long known as 'Sophonisba taking Poison' because it was thought to show the suicide of Sophonisba, wife of the Numidian King Massinissa, as recounted by Livy. In fact Creti based his composition on a painting of Artemisia by the Bolognese painter Giovan Gioseffo dal Sole (1654 - 1719). Queen Artemisia drank the ashes of her dead husband Mausolus in order to become his living tomb. She built a great funerary monument (mausoleum) at Halicarnassus to his memory, which became one of the wonders of the ancient world.

Unfortunately, Michael Lahanas has failed to show any credibility whatsoever. If he was a Professor of Ancient Greek history at a credible university, I would take his word for it. Just because someone owns a website does not make them credible. It is a bit hypocritical that you can sing Michael's fame based on the fact that he owns a website, yet at the same time, imply that my knowledge of Ancient Greek history is minimal. Especially seeing that you know nothing about either of us.

This new link has got to do with a painting. I've known many artists before, and they employ artistic freedom quite indiscrimately. I will believe you when you provide me a link to a study or report by someone who has a Professorship in Ancient Greek History. Anyway, this point is peripheral to the main debate.

:mad:

Here's another link:

NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Artemisia II of Caria (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Artemisia-II-of-Caria)

It has stated a reference "This article incorporates text from Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology by Sir William Smith (1867)."

Sir William Smith has developed this volume, which is also consisited of Encyclopædia Britannica 32 volumes. I've tried to find the specific volume (directly), I've found that Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia (http://www.britannica.com/) hosts large information of Encyclopædia Britannica. Unfortunately, it's not free. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that's enough information to prove that it was credible. If it wasn't, I'm pretty fairly sure that someone "credible" would of have editted the article in the first place.

If you still don't believe it, then explain why was Sir William Smith knighted before his death? Nobody would want to knight a person who has made fake articles.









As for Artemisia being Mausolus's sister, I'm aware of that. But FF8 is a fantasy game and the FF series (including FF8) has represented so many metaphors based on the real life history. Not all the elements represented in FF are correct, that's what Final Fantasy is for.

It doesn't matter if they are real brother/sister, because in a sense, Artemisia loved Mausolus, just like Rinoa loved Squall, since FF8 is kind of based on a love theme.


They were incestuous lovers! I'm sorry, from what I've heard of Japan, it is quite a conservative place. I don't think Square would knowingly imply that one of the main characters was having an incestuous love affair with another main character.

If Final Fantasy 8 contains a lot of things based on specific cultures and history that appear to be inconsistent, then that doesn't mean Squall and Rinoa were trutly relatives. However, the concepts/symbolisms still remain (e.g. the star and lion). What I'm saying is that same blood or whatever is a physical form, but in Final Fantasy 8, it has shown a lot more mental forms rather than physical forms. So maybe, mentality is more important than physicality, when it comes to theories.

What does that have to do with Japan, anyway? Final Fantasy 8 may have been developed in Japan, but that contradicts the world of FF8 as it was supposed to be somewhere else, not Japan.

Japan accounted for roughly 45% of FFVIII's entire sales (http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=758 (http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=758) & a calculator). Square-Enix would not deliberately try to offend a population of people that are the biggest buyer of the game. As I've mentioned above, I fail to see how stars & lions are uniquely linked to Greek history. Please explain.

The world of Final Fantasy 8 is not based in Japan. If it was, then the game would of have contained Japanese cultures and styles.



And the most important part of theories are facts.

I already have added facts. If you don't agree, then that's your opinion. What I have done was to link events and images (facts) from the game and compared them to the history in real life.











The Mausoleum of Maussollos was not started by Artemisia, but by Maussolus. This is substantiated out of Wikipedia by articles such as this: Maussolus (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/hecatomnids/maussolus.html)
There are differing versions on how far along the Mausoleum was when Maussolus' died. One article said that it had just begun, some said that it was almost completed, and some say that Artemisia just commissioned the artists to do the decoration. However, this is irrelevant. The key is that Maussolus, not Artemisia, started the idea.

Just like Squall started the idea of Griever, alias Lion. It's very possible that Squall has died in prior to the future of Ultimecia's existence. Ultimecia has decided to finish building the castle. Why else did she make the castle for? The castle also has Lion statues.


As mentioned before, it is not clearly stated whether Griever is a fiction of Squall's imagination, or a real GF. Also, my point was that Maussolus planned a tomb for him & his wife, not Artemis. So, Artemis, of her own accord, would have done nothing.

If Artemisia didn't take any part in aiding the Tomb's development after her husband's death, it will then become nothing. Also, I think she has inherited things from her husband after he died, so as long as Artemisia is alive, she still owns the tomb.


Maussolus planned and begun the construction of his tomb. Where in Final Fantasy VIII is it implied that someone besides Ultimecia planned the castle?

If the game is not displaying any missing timelines (in other words, not clear; not enough information), then I think it's plausible to say that nobody from the present timeline knows the answer. If Ultimecia wasn't insane, she would of have told us better information.

So whereas the better question would be: Why would she need a castle when she's so incredibly powerful? If you link that assumption and other symbolisms to the Tomb, Mausolus and Artemisia. It makes sense.











The lion on the coin was quite interesting. But take a look at this article: Caria (http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/caria/caria.html)
On the bottom left hand corner are some pictures of Carian coins, circa 200. And, one is a lion. This is after Maussolus' time. Also, according to this article: Silver Lion Coinage of Mylasa in Caria (Ancient Coins of Miletos) (http://rjohara.net/coins/lion-scalp/)
the Carians stole the lion coin idea from their neighbour, and it first appeared in the time of Maussolus' father.

Indeed, when Mausolus died, his Lion statues and coins as well as his castle show up. Just like after Squall's time, his Lion statues show up. His love between Rinoa were expressed and represented in the game. The coin has a star symbol as Rinoa pointing at the star. Quite hard to reject that comparison, don't you think?


Again, missing my point. You were saying that because the coins were similar to in-game events, it reinforced the Ultimecia being Artemisia, and therefore Rinoa theory. My point is that these coins were created before Maussolus' time, and therefore have little to do with him.

I can't say I agree with this statement (says different from the Wiki page), but even if it was true, then it still doesn't matter because as what I've said above that if it was more about mentality then the symbolism are more important. Why else were the lion/star represented in the game? That's why I lead to believe that they came from the Greek history.

Wikipedia is not a credible source of information. Stars have many symbolic references in many cultures. For example, if you make a wish on a shooting star, it will come true. That is a quaint culture, but there are many more in-depth ones. Lions have also appeared in many cultures. King David, in Samuel I of the Bible, killed lions when they attacked his sheep. Chinese culture uses the lion as well (Life of Guangzhou - Lion, a Profound Image in Chinese Culture (http://www.lifeofguangzhou.com/node_10/node_228/node_232/2007/06/08/118128054521373.shtml)).

That's debating. Nothing is perfect, not everything are in perfect conditions. Not every wikipedia page is correct, that's why they allow the existence of people (in this case, genuine people) to polish "incorrect" pages.



My point is that the use of stars and lions could point to many different tales and myths. And the coins you have shown are not from the time of Maussolus or Artemisia. So, there is no direct link between the two through the use of stars and lions.

Then tell me a better one. I'm pretty sure this theory is good enough to show the non-differentiation of the comparisons between the game and the history.











The Mausoleum has a greater resemblance to Edea's house, with the pillars surrounding it. The paintings in Ultimecia's castle are on canvas, and canvas painting only occured much after (like 1400 AD) the building of the Mausoleum. There are also carpets, wooden stairs, etc. which gives Ultimecia's castle a resemblance to a Renaissance era castle, not an ancient Greek castle.

Yes, but remember that there's a reason why Edea's house existed: it's used as an orphanage.

We don't know the reason why Ultimecia's castle existed. That's why, with this theory, it gives you clues to think of how Ultimecia's castle existence start in the first place. Think about it, Ultimecia is a very powerful being, she has had so many options to do. For instance, Ultimecia can fly through the whole universe through her magic, so why does she need a castle for? Usually, most things represented in games have meanings. If a thing in a game has no meaning, that thing wouldn't have existed. Why would the FF8 designers waste thier time making/putting "useless" things in the game? That wouldn't make sense, right? So I'm more inclined to believe that her castle was supposed to have a meaning, which is a symbolism of a thing (you know which) from the history.


But the castle bears no resemblance to the Mausoleum of Maussolus. So, how are they related if they bear no resemblance?

They don't look exactly the same, but they do certainly bear same resemblance (mentally) from the Greek history. Artemisia was insane when her husband died, she drank ashes in order to be his living tomb, helped finishing the tomb. Her husband resembled as a lion to his wife, his wife resembled as a star to his husband. If Ultimecia was a woman, why in the earth would she have lions statues on her castle? This leads me to believe that MAYBE she has had a husband in the past. In order to respect him is to have lions statues on the castle, I'm guessing. There's another question still remains unknown-- if she's so powerful, why does she need a castle for?


Sorry, I really object to this form of argumentation. This is making huge leaps of faith. What symbolic link is there between Maussolus and a Lion? What symbolic link is there between Artemisia and a Star?

Star represents a falling star and denote a divine quality bestowed from above, whereby men shine in virtue like bright stars on the earth. The star symbolizes honor, achievement and hope. Lion represents a valiant warrior, great strength and pride.

The obverse of the coin represents a lion, and the reverse represents a star. That was during Mausolus and Artemisia reign.



Nor do I remember being there any lion statues in Ultimecia's castle. And even if Ultimecia's castle does have lion statues, how can one infer that she had a husband? There are thousands of other reasons why.

You see the Lion statues before you face Ultimecia, lol.



So, what it seems like you're saying is that Ultimecia is Artemisia because Ultimecia has a castle that looks nothing like a tomb that Artemisia completed for her husband. But there is a symbolic link because Ultimecia summoned Griever (a lion) and Caria created some coins with a lion motiff a couple of hundred years before Artemisia.

Be serious.

I'm always serious when it comes to theories. Did I say Ultimecia is Artemisia? No, but she's a re-presentation of her.

By the way, you are refering to Artemisia I, this theory is based on Artemisia II.











This Artemisia connection was far-fetched to begin with, even if all the facts were true. But, after doing a little bit of checking of the facts, NOT ONE RELEVANT FACT IS ACTUALLY TRUE!

Fact 1) The greeks and other religious things in this game.

^ The paintings, her stuff.... and so on.


What Greek paintings, stuff etc. is there in the game that relates to Ultimecia?

Yes, they all relate to her in a way because she own them in her castle.

What Greek stuff does she own in the castle? The castle does not have any resemblance to Greek architecture. The paintings titles are in Latin. Paintings (on canvas) and castles come from a later era. So, where is this Greek stuff?







Fact 2) Ultimecia didn't clarify her motives / objectives.

^ Dr Odine has speculated this one but speculation is a speculation; never a first hand account from Ultimecia herself or anyone close enough to her to know for sure.

Yes, this is a fact, but what relevance does it have here.

If she has clarified her motives / objectives by herself, I would have never made this thread in the first place.

How is it relevant to the theory? What facet of the theory does this support?

Artemisia was insane, that's a fact. Ultimecia was insane, that's another fact. If Ultimecia wasn't insane as Artemisia and has clarified her motives, it would completely destory this theory. Actually, it wouldn't still explain the existence of Ultimecia's castle.









Fact 3) The game doesn't tell us anything about her past. Judging by the story, there's also no guarantee that Ultimecia even remembered anything about her past.

^
Artemisia drank ashes for two reasons: surviving Mausolus whom she was with and she was extremely crazy. Who would want to drink ashes anyways?

If Artemisia was extremely crazy, it's very reasonable for her to forget about her past. Just like Ultimecia.

As mentioned above, find me another article, that doesn't use Wikipedia's article, which says that Artemisia was mad. And I mean a credible article. Because, all the articles I looked at in my original post did not mention anything about Artemisia going mad, or drinking ashes.

I've gave you another link above.

Which refers to a painting, not historical fact. Artists are not historians. Get me a proper historian to verify te facts. Nor is there any implication in the game that Ultimecia had forgotten her past. Judging by her dialogue in her final boss form, I'd say that there is something that she remembers very vividly.

If Ultimecia was insane beforehand, it doesn't mean that her ending dialogues reflect her past.









Fact 4) The game doesn't show us events from each timeline. In the end, we got transported to the future's timeline, but did it show us what happened before that timeline? No, it didn't. Same with other missing timelines. Most people (includingthe FF8 designers) know that Time Travel is usually subjective and definitive. FF8 didn't show us extra timelines, so hench they leave us to make our own interpretations (obviously).

Yes, there is a missing timeline. And yes, one can form an opinion. But the validity of an opinion must lie in the realm of facts. And I'm still looking for a relevant one.

Are you saying that the symbolisms and images in FF8 are not facts? I have already linked them here in this thread. My opinions here are mostly based on the comparisons. Do you actually expect me to find a dialogue that states "Hi scum bags, I have a great obsession with this great legend-- Artemisia!" ? I don't know why, but most people think that dialogues are the true facts, somehow. I can tell that Square didn't want to add information like that. If they did, the plot of Final Fantasy 8 would be so different.

No, I expect you to back up your symbolisms and images with some relevant factual information from the game. Which you have not.

While assuming that Final Fantasy 8 is not completely clear, it's not plausible to say whether information found is worthy "factual" or not. And yes, I have already linked the symbolisms from the game.

If you were a new player (haven't heard of any theory) you'd start a FF8 game and complete it. There's a good chance that you will become confused about some bit from the FF8 story. Why? Because Square did it differently from other FF games.

There are no "factual" information whether Rinoa is 100% Ultimecia or not, the point same applies to other theories.

The only way to find "factual" information for certain theories is by acknowledging the announcements of Sqaure. They didn't, and they won't.







Firstly, just because someone is able to do something, does not mean that they are going to do it. My car can go x km/h. This does not mean I am going to drive it at x km/h. Same applies to Rinoa.

No, if she has gained the ability to travel, that doesn't mean she will travel right now but eventually she will.

Missed the point, or if you didn't, that is the most bizarre logic I have ever seen. Because the way I see it, we all have millions of options available. But, just because they're there, it doesn't mean we have to take them. So, if Rinoa had the option to travel forward in time, why would she take it? From the game please, not some hypothetical possibility.

I already told you before. If Final Fantasy 8 is missing any timeline, then there's no way to find out whether Rinoa has travelled to the future after the gameplay time. In certain present time, she did travel to the future, along with other members, to face Ultimecia. The point is, if she has travelled once. There's a chance that she will travel again.

I don't see how is it bizarre? If you have gained a powerful ability where so many other people don't have, it's a question of when are you going to use it. Once you have gained it, fate and destiny are already set.







Secondly, there is no evidence from the game that Rinoa is able to travel forwards in time. Excluding time compression, there is no evidence of a being moving their entire being through time to another point. Time compression is a freak occurence, and obviously has never been completed, as the game would not be able to occur if all time was compressed into one state. Ellone and Ultimecia, through her machine, are moving mental consciousnesses to people in the past. And, in Ellone's case, not changing anything. But that is very different to moving one's entire body through time & space.

The game wouldn't occur if it was completed? That's like saying Ultimecia have destoryed everything too! If that was her main goal, which is quite pointless but then maybe that because she was insane. However, if SeeD didn't exist, Ultimecia wouldn't need to exist as well ...

If Time Compression had been complete, Ultimecia would have destroyed everything, except herself. That is sort of the point of Time Compression. The SeeDs defeated her before it could be completed, thus saving the world in typical FF fashion.

Actually, if she has destoryed everything except herself, it will be impossible for her to give her powers to someone else, which would contradict the rule of "Before a witch dies, she must pass her powers onto someone else".







Thirdly, the QM theory only states that if one moves backwards through time, you will not change the present. But it is possible that it rules out forward time travel (I am no scientist, so I may be wrong). The way I picture it is that we are kind of like a train. From the present, if I look back, there is only a single railway track. If I move back into the past, I will not be able to change the present. However, the future is still uncertain, and as such there is an infinite number of railway tracks, illustrating all my possibilities. Therefore, one cannot move forwards through it, because one cannot know what the future actually is.


Rinoa is worried about her powers. Will she give it to an innocent person? She cannot tell because she doesn't know the future. Why wasn't one of the party members' killed by an attacker from the future? That didn't work, because the past cannot be changed which would explain why the SeeDs didn't get killed.

In the vision of Ultimecia, she's treating the present time (Squall and Rinoa's times) as past. In that certain time, Squall and Rinoa is treating it as present. So technically, it's past which cannot be changed because Ultimecia came from the future and was trying to interfere the past (present).

Don't see how this relates to my point. I say that QM negates the possibility of moving forward in time, based on a certain logic. Your response does not address that.

It only negates the possbility of trying to change the past, that's it.

But with your statement, I still don't see how is that relevant to the theory, though. Rinoa was NEVER killed in the game, she was never injured. That's the whole reason why I linked the QM theory.







You missed the first point. Just because someone can travel through time, doesn't mean they actually will travel. There has to be a reason why Rinoa would travel into the future, which has not been provided by you.

It has been provided from the game, she travelled in order to fight Ultimecia.

If you have the ability to travel, of course, you won't just travel exactly right away, but eventually you will.

I have the ability to travel anywhere in the world right now. It does not mean that I eventually will travel there, otherwise the entire population of the world would have been everywhere within their lifetimes. And I was not talking about Rinoa travelling to the future to fight Ultimecia. I am talking about your suggestion that Rinoa travelled to the future sometime after the events of the game.

When fate and destiny are set, you cannot acknowledge when to use it or not, but eventually you will.

I don't see how traveling through time could affect other people, though. I'm talking about Ellone and Rinoa' powers. In the game, there weren't many people who have had the same powers as Ellone and Rinoa's powers. If Ellone has used her powers before Rinoa, then there's no doubt that Rinoa will use her powers in the future.

Rinoa's future was already set, that's why she has gained the powers. Who was responsible? Ultimecia. Will she use them? Yes. Ultimecia has gave her powers to Matron, and Matron has abused them later in life. So will Rinoa.







Secondly, Ellone & Ultimecia consciousness travels through time, not their whole body. So, there is no evidence of someone moving themselves completely from one time to another.

The point still remains, they can travel time.

The point still remains that they cannot move their bodies through time.

It doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with Rinoa being not killed.







Thirdly, Ellone & Ultimecia consciousness travel backwards through time. No evidence of it moving forward.

In that case, nobody could fight Ultimecia as she came from the future. In the present time, Ultimecia's castle wasn't there, but it shows up in the future time which was where the party have fought her. Even in TC, you cannot travel in any direction (random) just to face Ultimecia.

Time Compression had never been completed. That is a fact from the game. For someone to move forward in time, there has to be an alternative method. There is no evidence that Ellone's ability allows one to travel forward in time. That is also a fact from the game. So, where is it suggested that there is another way to travel forward in time?

My point still remains, if nobody could travel-forward in Final Fantasy 8, they won't be able to face Ultimecia.


2 hours later after reading all of this...
Don't waste your time arguing about stuff in a game, espescially FFVIII and theses forums, everyone here has his own unterpretation of the game (Not to protect them, but in their minds, they're right no matter what.)

I enjoy talking about it, though :) Do you have something to share? I'd like to hear! ^_^



So just don't pay any attention to thoses people because they'll continue trying to prove you wrong.

Oh well.

[champagne supernova]

I'll believe you that Artemisia dranks the ashes. As I have said, it is a moot point. But, for the record, I just accessed the Encyclopaedia Britannica database, and searched for Artemisia II, and it didn't mention anything of the sort.

But my points have not been addressed. This theory is founded on a few similarities between the two stories, and very little else. I also do not have to create an alternative theory about the use of lions and stars in the game, but I will anyway.

The male lion has been illustrated in culture as a strong, proud and noble creature. Square-Enix want to re-inforce these characteristics of Squall's personality through the use of this symbol.

Shooting stars are a very rare occurence. They are special moments. The two points in the game (that I can remember) when you see a shooting star are two of the most important events in Squall and Rinoa's relationship. The star therefore reinforces this idea.

Nor was I saying that Final Fantasy VIII was based on Japan. I just said that Square-Enix would not want to offend its largest target market.

Regardless of the possibilities of time travel in Final Fantasy, there has to be an underlying motive for travelling through time. There is no evidence in the game that, sometime after the game ends, Rinoa would have an overwhelming urge to travel far into the future, leaving everyone she knows behind.

I don't mind anyone having their own opinion. But, if one brings their opinion into a public forum, it is there to be judged based on its merits.

[Serapy]

I'll believe you that Artemisia dranks the ashes. As I have said, it is a moot point. But, for the record, I just accessed the Encyclopaedia Britannica database, and searched for Artemisia II, and it didn't mention anything of the sort.

Well, it should be there.



But my points have not been addressed. This theory is founded on a few similarities between the two stories, and very little else. I also do not have to create an alternative theory about the use of lions and stars in the game, but I will anyway.

The male lion has been illustrated in culture as a strong, proud and noble creature. Square-Enix want to re-inforce these characteristics of Squall's personality through the use of this symbol.

I thought you weren't fond of the idea about Final Fantasy 8/Cultures.

There you go. The point is that if we disregard the symbolisms, cultures and history from real life, we still couldn't figure out why [insert event here] is happening or where did they come from.



Shooting stars are a very rare occurence. They are special moments. The two points in the game (that I can remember) when you see a shooting star are two of the most important events in Squall and Rinoa's relationship. The star therefore reinforces this idea.

The shooting star events were meant to represent the symbolism of star.

Star symbolizes Hope, quite a lot.

Is Rinoa a good example of having good hope? Yes, you can tell. That's one of the main reasons why Rinoa has White Feathers (Good). Ultimecia is the opposite, since she has Black Feathers (Bad). A star symbol does not represent bad.

Who pointed at the Star in the first place? Rinoa. Did she encourage Squall a lot, and were she being hopeful in almost the whole game? Did she help reviving Squall in the end? Yes, that proves that she has good Hope.

Basically, Squall represents Lion and Rinoa represents Star.

However, Squall has one exception, Squall's personality wasn't a good example of a lion (he was being emotional) because of his childhood past.

Rinoa has one exception too-- because of Ultimecia.



Regardless of the possibilities of time travel in Final Fantasy, there has to be an underlying motive for travelling through time. There is no evidence in the game that, sometime after the game ends, Rinoa would have an overwhelming urge to travel far into the future, leaving everyone she knows behind.


Well, in your view of point, there's also no evidence when Ultimecia was given birth (exact date). So if Ultimecia was given birth earlier, it'd mean that Rinoa was still alive and could reach Ultimecia. If Ultimecia was given birth later, it'd be of course impossible for her to reach. Unless one of her childrens. Descendant style.

Why didn't Ultimecia travel back to Hyne's time? I'm pretty sure that there were more than one JME in the past. In the game, it didn't tell us much about JME. She only has travelled to the past (present of the gameplay).

Every single thing has a limitation. Even Time Travel, it does not have endless possibilities. It's not like Ultimecia is capable of traveling to about 1,000 years ago (Hyne's time).

Like, for example:

1940 | 1960 | 1980 | 2000 | 2020 | 2040

Let's say, Ultimecia's genetics started existing in 1940. Ultimecia was given birth in 2040, if she has the ability to travel through time. She cannot travel under 1940. Only after 1940.

That would explain why she couldn't time travel back to Hyne's time.
That would explain why Squall met his childhood's Squall.

If Ultimecia has the ability to travel back to the past (gameplay's present), then that means Ultimecia's genetics already have existed in that time. Why and how? Because of Rinoa.

Since it's a game, it's possible to have some certain part of having "endless possibilities". OR I can see that people have different views about Time Travel..



I don't mind anyone having their own opinion. But, if one brings their opinion into a public forum, it is there to be judged based on its merits.

Then based on your point, Final Fantasy 8 will be not always clear. Other Final Fantasy games are clearer, that's why you don't see so many theories. Final Fantasy 8 is exceptional.

[Sir Bahamut]

Umm, the idea that JME's limitation is based on when the genetics of the user existed is completely baseless and pulled out of your imagination only because it supports R=U. Nothing in the game supports it so it doesn't count in any way as a supporting fact for R=U.

The game on the other hand makes it quite clear that Ultimecia lives many generations into the future where none of the main characters could technically exist (i.e. they should be dead by then). Even the most feeble interpretation of "many" still leaves Ultimecia hundreds of years into the future. The only way to make R=U work is to suppose that Rinoa somehow found a time machine and used it to get to the future, which is of course not supported by the game at all.

R=U only works if you imagine it is so. In reality, the game doesn't allow it.

[Marky Tee]

I'll tell you one thing about Artemesia and thats they done a very good track back in the day
deeper love bits and pieces i think it was called if memory serves

[Serapy]

Umm, the idea that JME's limitation is based on when the genetics of the user existed is completely baseless and pulled out of your imagination only because it supports R=U. Nothing in the game supports it so it doesn't count in any way as a supporting fact for R=U.

I brought the idea up because I was asking myself "Why did Ultimecia choose the present time, instead of Hyne's time?" because if Ultimecia went to Hyne's time, which would then cause a huge implication, at least better than what she did to Squall and Rinoa's time.

I didn't make my last post more clear. I meant that if Ultimecia was a descendant of Hyne, it's possible. If not, then no. Same applies to Rinoa.

Actually, JME does have a limitation. Ellone stated that she can only send people she knows in the present time into people she knew in the past. That's a rule of the time travel that Final Fantasy has used.




The game on the other hand makes it quite clear that Ultimecia lives many generations into the future where none of the main characters could technically exist (i.e. they should be dead by then). Even the most feeble interpretation of "many" still leaves Ultimecia hundreds of years into the future. The only way to make R=U work is to suppose that Rinoa somehow found a time machine and used it to get to the future, which is of course not supported by the game at all.

It could be hundreds of years, but still not accurate.

Edea, Squall and Ultimecia mentioned the "generation" word. Not Rinoa.



R=U only works if you imagine it is so. In reality, the game doesn't allow it.

On the paper, this game is not exactly straight out as any person would normally call it.

Anyway, this is irrelevant, this thread is not entirely about R=U.

[champagne supernova]

I brought the idea up because I was asking myself "Why did Ultimecia choose the present time, instead of Hyne's time?" because if Ultimecia went to Hyne's time, which would then cause a huge implication, at least better than what she did to Squall and Rinoa's time.

I didn't make my last post more clear. I meant that if Ultimecia was a descendant of Hyne, it's possible. If not, then no. Same applies to Rinoa.

Possibility and probability are massively different concepts.





The game on the other hand makes it quite clear that Ultimecia lives many generations into the future where none of the main characters could technically exist (i.e. they should be dead by then). Even the most feeble interpretation of "many" still leaves Ultimecia hundreds of years into the future. The only way to make R=U work is to suppose that Rinoa somehow found a time machine and used it to get to the future, which is of course not supported by the game at all.

It could be hundreds of years, but still not accurate.

Edea, Squall and Ultimecia mentioned the "generation" word. Not Rinoa.

What's your point?





R=U only works if you imagine it is so. In reality, the game doesn't allow it.

On the paper, this game is not exactly straight out as any person would normally call it.

Anyway, this is irrelevant, this thread is not entirely about R=U.

There are certain elements of the game that are open to interpretation. R=U is not one of those. The game does not supply any evidence that there is a link. One cannot interpret the game that way because there is nothing that can be interpreted the way. R=U is just speculation and postulation. It has as much merit as the English newspapers touting that Ronaldo would be moving to Madrid.

[Serapy]

I brought the idea up because I was asking myself "Why did Ultimecia choose the present time, instead of Hyne's time?" because if Ultimecia went to Hyne's time, which would then cause a huge implication, at least better than what she did to Squall and Rinoa's time.

I didn't make my last post more clear. I meant that if Ultimecia was a descendant of Hyne, it's possible. If not, then no. Same applies to Rinoa.

Possibility and probability are massively different concepts.

Finding out whether a thing is based on possibility or probability is impossible, because the game is not clear and is a FF game.








R=U only works if you imagine it is so. In reality, the game doesn't allow it.

On the paper, this game is not exactly straight out as any person would normally call it.

Anyway, this is irrelevant, this thread is not entirely about R=U.

There are certain elements of the game that are open to interpretation. R=U is not one of those. The game does not supply any evidence that there is a link. One cannot interpret the game that way because there is nothing that can be interpreted the way. R=U is just speculation and postulation.

There's no pure evidence that Rinoa is not Ultimecia either. What's your point? You realize that there is evidence in the game that R is not U, but there's also evidence that R is U in some ways.

Just because the FF8 U book stated that witches don't have higher human span doesn't mean it will completely destory R=U. R=U is not only based on human span, but also based on many other things which the book didn't disprove.

I was viewing your post history, it seems that you don't like the idea of R=U, so it seems wrong to dislike R=U by claiming that it has no evidence supported. If you believe R is not U, that's fine. It's pointless to agrue about it, anyways.

Let's not turn this thread into another R=U thread...


There are certain elements of the game that are open to interpretation. R=U is not one of those. The game does not supply any evidence that there is a link.

Actually, FF8 is one thing that it has many open interpretations, much more than other FF games. Otherwise, there won't be a lot of FF8 theories.



It has as much merit as the English newspapers touting that Ronaldo would be moving to Madrid.

Cause: bad media portrayal.

[Dr. Acula]

I think they translated Ultimecia as "Ultimecia" instead of "Artemisia" is because she's the last boss, the "ultimate sorceress". So they wanted to put the "ulti" bit in it. I dunno, it's just a guess.:D

[Serapy]

I would retract my statement if they changed the name because of something else not based on the theory, but it's hard to ignore the comparison between symbolisms and ideas from the game and real life greek's history (Artemisia).

The point is that SE probably has NEVER heard of Artemisia or anything related, so the chance of adding such stuff to the game is quite relatively low. Guess what, though? Everything is full of coincidences! Maybe. I think you would need an idea in order to make a coincidence, otherwise, it's no existent.

[NeoTifa]

i think these posts are entirely too long..........

this is nothing but peoples demented fantasies getting in the way of real life