Rider

> Supossedly values his friends
> Learns that his friends killed each other over his legacy
> Hurr durr, no regrets
He at least shouldn't have shown a bit more of sadness? Honestly even Gil's ideas sound less stupid.

Attached: rider.jpg (1279x719, 139.77K)

SHUT the FUCK UP

his ideas don't matter, the only thing that matters is that gil and rider gave purpose to their people, while saber didn't and that's the only regret that is explored in the seires(at least i the king debate)

His people ended up killing each other tho, that is a even worse record that Artoria.
Gil remains top king overall, I love that bit of him desu, he is the worse morally but he is so powerful and hedonistic that he becomes a good ruler anyway

>Saber didn't give purpose
She gave them tons of purpose. The Arthurian Myth has some problems to it though. Arthur is supposed to deliver the Britons from the Anglo Saxons, the Saxons being seen as this barbaric people.

But before the Britons were a noble Kingdom they were the barbarians, subdued by the Romans, and after the Saxons conquered England(Scotland was a bunch of land no one went to), the Saxons became the civilized people who were assaulted by the Danes, who were the barbarians. And so on and so forth.

When King Arthur wakes up, are the Britons even going to be remotely the same people he is prophesied to save?

There are many critisms you can say of Rider but saying Gil is better is a no.
Gil is not a human and never understood his people in their perspective. Rider went from bottom up along with his team

I think Gil has the merit that he actually made his people happy.
I would be glad to hear criticism of Rider tho, all scenes with him in Zero were the narrative cocksucking him which felt really odd given how it screwed over every other character.
Most Servants likely would be horrified at seeing the changing demographics of their homelands. The Arthurian myth in modern day UK is just a giga cope

>His people ended up killing each other tho
were they really his people if he was dead already?

>I think Gil has the merit that he actually made his people happy.
So did Rider.

>Most Servants likely would be horrified at seeing the changing demographics of their homelands.
Not really.
Arthur's reign would have been at a time when the Brits were still used to Roman occupation. Romans rotated their troops around their country though, to prevent the soldiers from being too chummy with the locals.
The troops in Britain were Africans (and they probably had sex with locals).
The idea of race and racial purity is much more recent than you seem to think.

I mean stuff as cultural identity, thought I also meant stuff as genocides and ethnic cleansing, knowing that the descendants of your neightboors got slaughtered.

>cultural identity,
Most of what you think of when you hear those two words would also be things that would have been invented much later, with absolutism and nation states.

>Gil remains top king overall, I love that bit of him desu, he is the worse morally but he is so powerful and hedonistic that he becomes a good ruler anyway
One the reasons Enkidu likes him according to his mats:

>If the target has a likable personality (a totalitarian brimming with benevolence, yet thinks of himself first and foremost), Enkidu will display respect and affection as well as admiration from the heart and will delightfully support him as a friend.

Remember, Rider's idea of a happy life is different than the typical person's. Just because his friends killed eachother over his legacy doesn't mean that they didn't enjoy their lives or didn't live a fufilling life by his standards.

Artoria would slay all the religion of peace asians in Britain.

She would probably consider every modern Christian a heretic and slay them.
Your point is meaningless.

What an incredibly false and jewish post.

Attached: 1524092476550.png (773x836, 255.68K)

I'm not saying that she would slay them for religion, but for being a bunch of semi-human beasts.

Nah this is pure nonsense. In arthur's supposed time the country was split into multiple fairly distinct kingdoms. The welsh were far from united and he was the one that unified many of them.

The homogenization that came about was the result of of multiple foreign invaders. The idea that there was some distinct english or welsh culture back then is just completely false. It's like acting as if there was one European culture despite all the wars language differences.

Everything about and the uk was cultural mixing pot of the various tribes and constant invasions. .It's why the language is what it is.

Zig Forums aside, I am interested in hearing user's criticism of Rider because I got frustrated in how hard he got cocksucked for the narrative

No she would definitely slay you as I'm guessing your not pureblood celtic.

Anglo saxons aren't native to the UK. Imagine being this stupid about your own history.

>semi-human
Less neanderhal genes makes them technically more homo sapiens than the average North western European.

Not that this means anything at all.

>pureblood
>accuses others of being stupid about history

Sorry user, this already became Zig Forums

The word barbarian is Greek in origin. It literally refers to the stupid sounds non Greeks make when they speak. Only a lunatic would try and suggest racial or cultural identity don't go back thousands of years. You mention nation states, do you think they came into existence spontaneously? Obviously they required a common history and foundation.

Right up until he died, and then his people became incredibly unhappy due to the civil war and whatnot

Thanks for conceding the point as you clearly don't have an argument.

Are you or are you not an anglo?

I said "Most". I didn't mean to imply that group think was a new thing, but that what user's impression of cultural identity is not the same as what somebody from the early middle ages would think of it.

I am not the guy you were responding to. I was just pointing out that your argument is dumb.

History is just a social construct dude.

Attached: 1557904181091.jpg (1080x1350, 150.68K)

What does understanding matter? What matters is who left behind prosperity and who left behind ruin.

England is one of the world's great powers.
Greece is Germany's lap dog.

>England is one of the world's great powers.
And what does Artoria have to do with England?

She left it behind.

They're not her people, though. Her people were wiped out by invasion and interbreeding.

You never said anything about people. Why are you changing the goalposts?

You clearly have no idea what your on about it's astonishing really?

Do you honestly think the romasn gave a single shit about racial and culture identity?

They stole everything from the greeks. They even worshiped their fucking gods and you have idiots like you who clearly didn't pay attention during their history class thinking they did.

They're thought the barbarians were technologically and culturally inferior but that doesn't they thought their culture was absolute. If they came across a people what they considered to be more civilized they would have copied them also.

It's obviously implied. There's no purpose to leaving behind prosperity if it's not for your people.
In that case it's pretty clearly Gil > Alex > Artoria. Mesopotamia lead to the development of the Mediterranean civilizations thus Greece, Greece led to the development of Rome, Rome led to the development of Britain. Gil is responsible for Britain's success.

In fact, I'm pretty sure their helmets and mail armor were Celtic inventions.

>Mesopotamia
Other than Turkey, the rest is in turmoil.
>Greece
In deep shit since 2008.
>Britain
About to hit a huge economic crisis, but so far still pretty well off.

The one responsible for all these is Mitochondrial Eve

Think we can all agree Rider is best class

Ask yourself that.
We enjoy vilifying the rich and powerful because they never toiled the same grounds that we common folks do.

For me, it's Archer

If those rich and powerful demonstrably lead to a better society for everyone I have no problem with it.

Obviously it isn't the same, what user thought yesterday isn't the same as what he thinks today. Group think? What a juvenile oversimplification of political and genetic clustering as it evolves over time. Btw, if anything it was mostly Arab troops that were sent to reinforce shitholes like Britain, even if they 'African' as you like to suggest, Iranians or Sarmatians are mentioned in particular in the few histories available since no Romans really cared about some mudhuts on the edge of the world and across the sea. And I think the Arab's sense of cultural identity is something we can all identify with.
>Beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other.
>t. Ibn Khaldun, middle ages 'African' historian

Sorry, the fact is that Urobuchi genuinely likes Rider.

As far as utility and everyday purpose goes, Caster.

>There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other.
Based Arabs

Rider's got a very cool versatile fighting style and there's less of a chance of screwing you over like with Archer and the whole independent action thing. Depending on how good the Rider is you summon you could pretty much cover Saber, Archer, and Berserker without much of an issue.

Oh, but did he?
All he did was oppress his people and raped women

All the non-knight classes are dump classes for individuals who don't fit neatly in others, so it's a bit hard to generalize about Riders.