I look forward to reading your post on the subject and can't wait to hear your thoughts at length. In the meantime, I will content myself by responding to the material below.
Perhaps I should define with more precision what I mean by "thematic opposition." Take for instance the conflict between Radovid and Philippa Eilhart in the Witcher 2. It is, at heart, a battle between state-centrism, represented by a proto-absolutism that pretty much like our own history is contributing to the birth of the modern state, and internationalism institutionalism, whereby power would not be invested in states but rather in an international organization and non-state actors: the Conclave and the Lodge). It is, as I describe in my articles, a battle between Thomas Hobbes' worldview of the Leviathan being necessary for order and stability, and other worldviews (that are more modern) viewing international organizations as stabilizing elements (in political science literature, it is the position advocated by Neo-liberalism or institutional liberalism, as opposed to the neo-realism or state-centric realism that is represented by Radovid). In the same vein, the war in the Pontar valley was also a war between reactionary forces, and proto-nationalistic revolutionary forces (among many other facets in that war alone, which I have described in my articles as well).
Well, there's your problem right there because the thematic opposition is not the issue but thematic
resonance. The conflict between Radovid and Philippa Eilhart may, on a basic level, be a conflict between the strong nation state and interests within (say, the Catholic Church) but the conflict between Radovid and Emperor Emhyr is the conflict between two fundamentally different groups with the former being forced to become like the latter. I mentioned in both my essay and elsewhere that this is the Hegelian Dialectic at work and sythesis as the result of the larger conflict between the Northern Kingdoms and Southern Empire.
The conflict between Nilfgaard and Redania/The North is represented by the fact Nilfgaard represents an economically prosperous united authoritarian state. A "modernized" nation if we're to use a loose definition of the word modern. The depiction of Nilfgaard and its collection of professional soldiers, advanced military soldiers, and Renaissance-Era garb contrasts visually against the primitive and vaguely Medieval depiction of the North as well as their peasant levies.
If you choose to talk to General Voorhis after Yennefer at the Palace in Vizima, we get a discussion over how the Nilfgaardian Invasion is stalled by Radovid's takeover of Kaedwin. While people have commented on the unlikelihood of this, what actually is on display is Nilfgaard in miniature as Radovid forces a single coherent military rule over the Northern kingdoms and starts modernizing its territory. We only see the full-depth of what is necessary in the Dijkstra ending but the fundamental fact is the only way to defeat Nilfgaard is to BECOME Nilfgaard and that means the North ceases to be a hundred divided kingdoms but becomes a singular military opponent.
The irony is for both book readers as well as game players who pay attention is this process of "Nilfgaardization" is one which has been created ENTIRELY AS A RESULT OF NILFGAARD'S ACTIONS. The unification of the North under King Radovid the Stern could not have been accomplished if not for Emhyr's use of Letho to eliminate the majority of Northern monarchs and plunging their kingdoms into chaos which Radovid is able to exploit into uniting behind his banner as the last man standing. While it's a throwaway line, Vesemir says that the Northerners believe Radovid will restore previous borders but as the "only game in town" Radovid has become the unifer which Nilfgaard has unwittingly created its own worst enemy in. The threat of Nilfgaard and its model provide both a threat and a promise for the North to model itself on as Dijkstra illustrates is his plan in a number of speeches as well as the ending slides.
As with the Didactic, it is easy to surmise Nilfgaard itself is suffering for these kind of changes themselves but we get no real insights into their state as effected by the Northern War so I cannot speculate how the failure to break the North two to three times will affect them.
As for war being properly portrayed. Well it is difficult to take seriously when you learn that Radovid was able to subjugate most of the North in the matter of 6 months, and that the only reason being given is "tactical genius." It is also difficult to take seriously when apparently Redania can single handedly take on Nilfgaard and beat it, again thanks to some godly tactical genius. But the military aspect of it aside, it is very simplistic in terms of the factions involved, the interests involved, and the way it is conducted.
Radovid's subjugation of the North is one which is clearly not complete given that his strongest allies in the remaining Temerian military is actively plotting his death. Likewise, the aforementioned Vesemir is that the North is in an alliance of convenience. As stated, Nilfgaard is it's own worst enemy as there's no way Radovid would have been able to get the forces of the North behind him without their looming threat to make them the lesser evil.
As for the defeat of Nilfgaard, the progress of the war isn't decided merely on Radovid's tactical genius but the fact that the North has been able to repel Nilfgaard in the past as well as inflict devastating casualties on them. This was before the ever-increasing amount of closer ties between factions as well as modernization of both trade as well as military tactics by the Northerners who have been on a war footing for over a decade at this point. Nilfgaard's ability to project military strength is seemingly unlimited but as we discover in the setting, Emhyr's ability to motivate his forces to this war is very limited.
While it's only mentioned a few times, we discover Nilfgaard's Guilds are not supporting the treasury and the defeat of Nilfgaard is through coin rather than blades. On a very simple level, Emhyr does not have the funds to defeat the military, occupy, and subjugate the region. We catch hints of this even in the fact that they are already using local defectors to administrate the Velen region. The Redanian Alliance (for lack of another name for it) merely has to LAST long enough for Emhyr's domestic opposition to kill him and not care enough to continue the conflict.
In a way, the BIGGEST failure of the Nilfgaard war is it's inability to cultivate local allies. Cintra is conquered by doing so and the only scenario that Nilfgaard DOES win the war is doing so with Temeria (just as they did with King Henselt in his partitioning treason during the Second War).
I should have specified what I meant by the exploration of psyche, I meant the exploration of the psyche of the main political actors, in this case Radovid, Emhyr, and Djistkra (they are the only main actors, who represent the 3 endings). The most interesting of the 3 was Djistkra, before they made him into an imbecile, as well as make it virtually impossible to actually role play a Geralt that would side with him. The Witcher 2 did so, with Iorveth, with Saskia, Philippa, Sile, Radovid, Henselt, Stannis, Letho...etc.
I'm not going to argue with you that the final choice of Reasons of State was artificially handled for maximum drama even if I chose to take a third option by believing that siding with Roche would not fit my own view of Geralt's character given the treaty. The absence of a larger political discussion of the implications of the treaty and the nebulous reasons for killing Roche are things I won't defend. I, personally, believe the only sensible ending while preserving the finale of ROS would be that Dijkstra announces his intentions to fight on as Chancellor of Redania only for ROCHE to attack HIM because doing so disrupts the treaty he and Thaler have just painstakingly negotiated.
I also think the Bloody Baron represents an insight into the national psyche of Temeria and the unexpected (but true) knowledge that there will be those who side with the Nilfgaardian oppressors in hopes of being rewarded for it. Part of what I liked about TW3 was that it portrayed collaboration with the quote-unquote enemy not as treason but a valid if contemptible course of action. Too often surrender is unthinkable in media by "heroes" when surrender is needed for most wars to end.
If nothing else, I also like how the game showed not the feelings of the main political actors on the situation but the people on the ground. As Geralt says, "Someone should write a story about war how it really is: the rapes, the murder, the plundering, and the disease." Which the historian dismisses whereas TW3 shows us in unflinching detail.
As for TW2 being more about "the great man theory", I completely disagree. I too completely reject that theory, and I think any reading that posits that TW2 was about that and is more like Game of Thrones is very superficial. Rather, the Witcher 2 dealt with systemic issues and processes, such as the birth of the modern state, the rise of nationalism, the psychological trauma of a dispersed peoples, revolutionary vs reactionary movements....etc etc. I have described all that in length in my articles, which you would see once you catch up with them entirely. The "great men" in TW2 merely represent each movement / trend, reactions to changes that go far beyond their comprehension.
Yes, there is a lot of intrigue in TW2, but they lie on the backdrop of systemic phenomena and processes.
For me, I think there's a lot of very interesting things going on in the background of the Witcher 3: Wild Hunt dealing with the dissolution of the "Old World" of the Northern Kingdoms. We get the Skellige and Crookback Bog representing the old superstitious monster-ridden days but both will have those ways destroyed by Geralt's actions. By contrast, we have Redania becoming Nilfgaard or the latter absorbing the former.
Vesemir's death, while somewhat cliche, also represents the last breath of the Old World. If you believe AOK deals with the rise of nationalism, WH deals with the birth of the Nation State. It's why I tend to think of the Dijkstra as the most interesting one for the North as it shows the transformation of a backwards state into one which is rising power. Skellige, likewise, moves forward into the future.
