Artemisia and the QM theory

[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
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

Consisted of:

Ancient Greek Science and Technology

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
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
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

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 & 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
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
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)
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).

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).