Lysander, The Concordat and the Faction Wars (VERY Deep Theorizing)

Lore
#1

Lysander and “The Faction Wars,” Destiny Lore Speculation:

In the following post below, I will offer some insightful speculation into the History of Destiny, specifically to the “Faction Wars,” and to the history and legacy of the mysterious figure, “Lysander.”

This in large part, speculation, theory and hypothesis, and is open to interpretation by the community. I invite you all to join me in discussion and speculation below in the comments, as I offer my own interpretation and insight into this segment of Destiny Lore, and I will also offer some additional speculation to the “Real-Life Parallels” that may or may not offer some insightful connection and validity to my theories.

I hope those of you who love the Lore of Destiny will enjoy the post and speculation that follow.

Destiny; The Concordat:

The Concordat was a Guardian faction and member of the Consensus, led by an individual named Lysander. While the Concordat’s central ideology is unknown, at some point the faction unsuccessfully attempted to overthrow the Consensus and the Speaker in a coup. The Concordat made its last stand at Bannerfall, where it was defeated by New Monarchy Guardians and ejected from the Last City.

It was believed that Lysander would refuse the call to disband his faction and continue his “crusade”. In order to avoid banishing those Guardians who had pledged to the Concordat and provide them a chance to realign, as well as assuage the Speaker’s anxiety to reclaim ground lost in the Battle of Twilight Gap, the Consensus decided to grant Future War Cult access to the Tower and a seat among them.

According to Hidden intelligence, and rumors of in-Tower sympathizers, Lysander is currently plotting his return and reorganizing his faction.

Bearing this in mind, there are several questions I’ll be asking, and attempting to answer to the best of my ability.

  1. Why was Lysander opposed Osiris’s appointment to the Vanguard?

  2. Why did Lysander feel it was necessary to use Conflict and War to overthrow the Consensus?

  3. Why didn’t the New Monarchy join with the Concordat to overthrow the Speaker and Consensus?

  4. Was the Concordat more important/significant than the other two factions of the Consensus?

  5. What is the significance of New Monarchy dealing the “Final Blow” to the Concordat?

Destiny; The New Monarchy:

New Monarchy is one of the three factions of The City, dedicated to maintaining the haven and bringing back the Golden Age. Dissatisfied with the fragmentation within the City, New Monarchy advocates abolishing the Consensus and transferring governmental power from the Speaker to an elected Monarch.

Despite being wary of the Consensus, New Monarchy and the Guardians who pledged themselves to the faction are credited for laying the killing blow to the traitor, Lysander and his Concordat, who sought to overthrow the Consensus and the Speaker, at Bannerfall.

The New Monarchy adheres strictly to the Seven Tenants of it group, which are:

  1. To secure our walls from the enemies without.

  2. To secure the rights and liberties of every upstanding citizen.

  3. To sponsor the sciences of the City, and salvage the ruins beyond, so that our Golden Age might be reborn.

  4. To support the Guardian Orders by leading the City in technological innovations.

  5. To support the natural harmony of the City, and to actively dissuade any group or individual that might disrupt that harmony.

  6. To hold all individuals, compacts, and alliances to the highest standards of productivity and right behavior.

  7. To, by vote of the Consensus, abolish the Consensus, and transfer ultimate power, in order that the rights and liberties of all citizens be secured, to a single sovereign of unimpeachable character.
    In the “Present,” The Vanguard seems to be the most closely-related group to the Speaker, with Zavala as their defacto-leader and apparent “Right-Hand” of the Speaker; they are essentially the military-force that enforces order in the City, for the Speaker, and provides direction for the Guardians.

But in the past, when the City was in its infancy, and the Speaker was seeking to establish the Vanguard and himself as the City’s significant, prominent leader, is it possible that the Concordat was not only one of the first Factions of the Consensus, but may it have also been the First Faction to join the Speakers Consensus?

⦁ Could the Speaker have reached out to the Concordat to help solidify himself and the Vanguard as an established and un-contended force?

⦁ If this is the case, then why? More specifically, why reach out to the Concordat? Why not to one of the other Factions? The New Monarchy, Dead Orbit, or some other faction formed in the City?

⦁ Is it because the Concordat, at the time was the largest and most-powerful Faction in the City? One that the Speaker knew he would need the support of, if he was going to achieve his goal of unifying The Last City under the Vanguard’s control?

⦁ What would the Speaker have had to offer the Concordat, and specifically Lysander, their leader, in order to gain their support? And what caused them to ultimately divide and come to war?

Let us assume, going forward in this discussion, that the Concordat was the first faction, and the largest faction present in the City at the time. If this is the case, it’s likely that the Speaker would have put a significantly larger amount of value to what the Concordat’s opinions on City matters were, knowing that he needed their support to help keep unity in the City, even after the New Monarchy and Dead Orbit (presumably the next-two-largest factions) joined the City’s Consensus.

Now, let’s look at Question 1: “Why was Lysander opposed Osiris’s appointment to the Vanguard?”

We know through the Grimoire that after the Battle of the Twilight Gap, the legendary Titan known as “Saint-14,” who was as good as a “Son” to the Speaker, urged for the Warlock, Osiris, to be appointed to the City’s Vanguard, an idea that Lysander was vehemently opposed to. But why was Lysander opposed to this idea?

Lysander believed, as others apparently did as well, that Osiris was mis-incarnated by a Faulty-Ghost, and that he was untrustworthy, despite his prowess in battle at the Twilight Gap, largely due to his infatuation and interest in studying the Darkness and the Vex.

Yet, in spite of this outspoken opposition form Lysander, the Speaker eventually accepted the proposal of Saint-14, and appointed Osiris to the Warlock Vanguard Order, and this, I believe, was where everything began.

Now for question 2: “Why did Lysander feel it was necessary to use Conflict and War to overthrow the Consensus?”

It’s not difficult to believe that Lysander became offended by the fact that the Speaker ignored his outspoken opposition of Osiris’ appointment, especially under the premise that he and the Concordat were used to feeling as if they were essentially “Equal” to the political voice of the Speaker and the Vanguard.
For him to then to be outright subverted by the Speakers decision, as the Speaker has “final-say” in such matters, I believe was the instigating factor that lead to Lysander’s rebellion, but I don’t believe that it happened right away.

Lysander strikes me as someone more politically and personally intelligent; “savvy,” if you will. Too smart to immediately resort to the use of violent, disruptive force. I believe it’s likely that after this incident was when Lysander first decided that he wanted to see the Speaker and possibly the entire Consensus removed from power, and I believe it’s likely that in this time-period, Lysander first adopted this ideal from the New Monarchy.

(We’ll revisit this question to answer it, as it’s answer will ultimately stem from the answer to Question 3, when we continue in, Part 2.)

3 Likes
Did any guardians join the Darkness?
#3

Now our 3rd Question (Which we’ll revisit again, later near the end): “Why didn’t the New Monarchy join with the Concordat to overthrow the Speaker and Consensus?”

If this is the case, and the New Monarchy and Concordat were, even just for a brief time, in agreement that the Speaker and Consensus needed to be abolished, then why wouldn’t Lysander’s Concordat and Executor Hideo’s New Monarchy simply have voted together for the abolishing of the Consensus? Under the assumption that the Consensus consisted of, at the time, three factions; New Monarchy, Dead Orbit and the Concordat, even if Dead Orbit had voted against them, New Monarchy and the Concordat would have had the majority-ruling vote, 2-to-1, right? Feasibly, this would have resolved the entire problem diplomatically, without the necessity for a Civil War, wouldn’t it?

Well, maybe not…

I don’t believe the Consensus is made up of just the three factions, even back then. I believe the Consensus is made up of four branches; at the time, the Concordat, the New Monarchy, Dead Orbit and The Vanguard, itself, separate from but loyal to the Speaker.

If this is the case, then the Vanguard would also have voted for the retention of the Consensus, which would have left the vote dead-locked at 2-votes in favor and 2-votes against… And in the likely event of a tie-breaking vote, it probably would’ve been left to the Speaker to decide, and obviously, the Speakers vote would have been the same as the Vanguards, which again, would have now made 2 conflicts of interest, politically, between the Speaker and the Concordat.

So, answering the question: I believe the two factions likely DID make a joint-effort to overthrow the Speaker, at least initially, when that effort was limited to use of peaceful politics and diplomacy, by way of a vote between the factions, but the effort ultimately failed, and when it did, the New Monarchy was not willing to go to the extent that Lysander and the Concordat was willing to go to…

And this also gives us the answer to Question 2: “Why did Lysander feel it was necessary to use Conflict and War to overthrow the Consensus?”

To put it simply: Because diplomacy failed.

I believe it was at this point that Lysander finally became so disenchanted and angered by the Speaker, and by what he perceived as the ineffective-nature of the Consensus–(or rather, by the fact that the Consensus had now twice ruled against him, where as he believed he and his faction should be the most important and valued members of the Consensus)–that he became enraged, and decided that War was the only way to remove the Speaker from power.

I believe now is the ideal time to answer Question 4: “Was the Concordat more important/significant than the other two factions of the Consensus?”

In Lysander’s mind, if we hold the previous beliefs and assumptions to be accurate, I believe that Lysander was likely given the belief from the Speaker, when everything began, that he and his Faction would be held with a particular level of esteem and regard, as the “First Faction” to join with the Speaker and Vanguard in their efforts to form a United City.

In this aspect, I believe that the Concordat, at least in their own minds and the mind of their Leader, were of great importance than the other Factions of the Consensus.

Now, the reason I believe, as I stated before, that the Concordat was the first and largest faction of the Consensus, is because I believe Lysander was/is an intelligent and opportunistic Leader. I don’t believe the Speaker would have reached out to the Concordat first if they were not considered to be a very large, very influential Faction, and I don’t believe that Lysander would have started a War against the Leader of the City, that he wasn’t confident of winning.

You can also speculate that the “Bannerfall” map, itself, is evidence in support of this belief. It appears that the Concordat was such a large and influential faction that they actually held their own individual “Tower” in the City, outside of where the Vanguard, Dead Orbit, New Monarchy and Future War Cult currently reside.

I don’t believe this would have been the case, unless their importance and their numbers were so significant and substantial that they warranted their own, individual “Strong-Hold” of sorts, for operation out of. As for the “New Monarchy” banners that occupy one half of the Bannerfall Map, I believe it’s likely that they were erected either during the battle as New Monarchy secured half of the tower for themselves, or after the battle was Won, in order to establish that they had claimed their victory. But, I digress.

Returning to our original question; Lysander must have believed that he had the numbers and the support to defeat the Vanguard and Dead Orbit, and over-throw the Speaker, and I believe this confidence was bolstered by a crucially-mistaken belief on his part, that the New Monarchy would likely also join his side in the War.

If New Monarchy was, indeed, the second-largest faction as I’m speculating, this would have given them an overwhelming numbers-advantage, and likely assured them victory.

However, this is where we’ll revisit the Question: Why didn’t the New Monarchy join with the Concordat to overthrow the Speaker and Consensus?" as we draw close to the end now; and the reason is because of one of the Seven Tenants of the New Monarchy, which is, as follows:

  1. To support the natural harmony of the City, and to actively dissuade any group or individual that might disrupt that harmony.

Bearing this in mind, I believe that the New Monarchy likely felt it was their obligation to side against Lysander, even though it’s likely that when it came to political voting, the two factions had sided together. Ultimately, this is why the New Monarchy did not join the Concordat in their coup against the Speaker and the Vanguard.

And now, as to the 5th and final question of: “What is the significance of the New Monarchy dealing the ‘Final Blow’ to the Concordat?”

To bring our Lore-Speculative to a conclusion with this final question, I’m going to try and explain why it was so crucial and important that the New Monarchy was the faction was the faction that eventually put an end to the Faction War, and more importantly, why they were the ones specifically to win the final battle against the Concordat.

I believe that when Lysander began his rebellion, it was with the belief that New Monarchy would join his cause and give him the over-whelming advantage needed to defeat the Vanguard and remove the Speaker from power. I believe it was likely also a belief that was shared by the Vanguard and the Speaker, as the looming War became more unavoidably inevitable, and because of this believe, it most likely brought New Monarchy under great scrutiny and suspicion from the Speaker and the Vanguard during the course of the Faction War.

Because of this, I suspect that the New Monarchy was desperate to prove themselves loyal to the City and the Vanguard, and more-so, they were desperate save themselves from sharing a similar fate to what they knew would become of Lysander and the Concordat, forced “Disbandment” and exile from the Last City. And I believe the reason they did not side with the Concordat, was because of how devoutly the New Monarchy adheres to their Tenants, specifically the 5th Tenant of maintaining harmony in the City, and preventing other groups from disrupting it.

Because of this need to exonerate themselves from the scrutiny of siding against the Speaker, It’s very likely that the New Monarchy put it upon themselves to spear-head the conflict on behalf of the Vanguard and Speaker, and with the combined might of all three factions against just the Concordat, they ultimately attained victory, and New Monarchy made sure they were the ones to win the final, decisive battle of the War, and put the Concordat to rest, once and for all, and eventually, Lysander’s Concordat was replaced by the addition of the Future War Cult to the Last City and the Consensus.

I believe the addition of the Future War Cult was done for several reasons, but most prominently because:

1.) The Speaker and Vanguard felt the necessity to re-bolster the fortification and military strength of the City, after the casualties of the Faction War and Loss of their Largest Faction.

2.) Because the City had been based for so long on a 4-Faction Consensus, and the Speaker and Consensus felt this was the best form of Functioning-Government to ensure the safe, continuing functionality of the Last City (with of course New Monarchy still advocating politically for the dissolving of the Consensus, as they always have and still continue to, to this day).

(I’ll offer my “Additional Speculation” in the conclusion, Faction Lore, Part 3.)

3 Likes
#5

Additional Speculation/Hypothesis:

1.) The Definition of “Concordat” is: "An agreement or treaty, especially one between the Vatican and a secular government, relating to matters of mutual interest. One historically significant Concordat was The Concordat of 1801, which was an agreement between Napoleon and Pope Pius VII. It remained in effect until 1905.

⦁ It sought national reconciliation between revolutionaries and Catholics.
⦁ It solidified the Roman Catholic Church as the majority church of France, with most of its civil status restored.

In Destiny, with our preceding speculation, the merging of the “Concordat” Faction with the Speaker/Vanguard would have ultimately been the significant act that Solidified the Speaker and Vanguard as the “Standing Force” and “Government” of the Last City.

This seems to parallel the “Concordat of 1801,” which solidified the Roman Catholic Church as the “Standing Religion” for country of France.

2.) “The New Monarchs” was a concept developed by European historians during the first half of the 20th century to characterize 15th-century European rulers who unified their respective nations, creating stable and centralized governments.

This centralization allowed for an era of worldwide colonization and conquest in the 16th century, and paved the way for rapid economic growth in Europe. Many historians argue the Military Revolution made possible, and indeed made necessary, formation of strong central governments in order to maximize military strength that could enable conquest and prevent being conquered.
The Achievements of the New Monarchs:

⦁ Limiting the power of the feudal aristocracy
⦁ Creating efficient, centralized systems of taxation
⦁ Maintaining a standing army loyal to the monarch
⦁ Encouraging some sense of national identity (but by no means nationalism yet)
⦁ Fostering trade, both internally and externally
⦁ Enforcing religious unity within their countries.

In the preceding Speculation of the “Faction Wars” with the Concordat, the New Monarchy is credited with ultimately ending the War by dealing the “Final Blow” to the Concordat Faction, led by Lysander.

This offers some parallels with the “New Monarchs” of Real-History, specifically in the aspects of: “Maintaining a standing army, loyal to the Monarch.” If we place the Speaker to the role of the “Monarch” in Destiny’s Lore. The New Monarchy, despite agreeing politically with the Concordat Faction, and by siding with the Speaker, they effectively “Enforced Political Unity” within the Last City, in the way the “New Monarchs” enforced Religious Unity in their respective countries.

This concludes my 3-Part Lore-Speculation for the Faction Wars of Destiny. Thank you very much for reading; feel free to discuss, speculate and offer your own input in the comments below.

Have a great Summer, Guardians. Be Safe, and here’s to new adventures in Destiny 2!

4 Likes
#6

I’m not completely sure that the Consensus considers the Vanguard as a fourth branch. The grimoire seems to consistently refer to the groups separately, like the New Monarchy card does:

the New Monarchy maintains a watchful eye on the Speaker, the Consensus, and the Vanguard[…]

The reason for this split between the Consensus and the Vanguard could be that the factions are primarily for the City’s non-Guardian occupants, while the Vanguard are representing each Guardian class. The Factions card says that pre-Faction War, the factions were specifically aiming their messages at civilians:

In the City’s earliest days, various factions vied for the hearts and minds of the refugee masses.

The Vanguard Marks card implies that the Vanguard is Guardian-focused, which definitely matches what we’ve seen in-game:

When a terrible threat rises, Guardians look to the Vanguard, the closest thing they have to a command structure.

I’m pulling a bit of a 180 here, but an idea hit me: do we know if Lysander is a Guardian? He was a faction leader, and factions (presumably) either care about civilians having a say in the Tower’s government or pretend they do in order to further their own goals.

Lysander is quoted saying this:

“Each Guardian wants something: greater speed, a rare weapon, a secret. Learn what it is. Use it.”

It’s full spinfoil hat, but this line implies some disconnect between him and Guardians, though this could be explained away by saying that he’s simply talking about Guardians who are not part of the Concordat.

Additionally, no current faction representative is outright named as being a Guardian. Hideo was explicitly a citizen before joining the New Monarchy:

An upstanding citizen, Hideo […] moved from plasteel manufacturing to the New Monarchy[…]

I don’t think that the Speaker’s appointment of Osiris to Warlock Vanguard alone was monumental enough to cause Lysander to attempt a coup, or even the Speaker’s perceived “final say” or overriding of the Consensus (although I don’t think there’s a very clear picture of how the Vanguard leaders are appointed; it may be set up so that the Speaker is allowed to appoint whoever.) Lysander’s war is said to be specifically against the Vanguard:

This site marks a legendary battle where New Monarchy’s Guardians rose to deliver the final blow to the Concordat, unraveling the war effort Lysander sought to bring against the Vanguard.

Some more spinfoil: What if the Concordat was opposed to Guardians being in any position of power? Osiris’ appointment and subsequent exile would make a good case for the dangers of letting Guardians have such a say in the City’s government. We don’t really have a timeline for when Bannerfall happened, but what if it was a result of Osiris’ exile, of the “proof” that the Vanguard was unfit to be making decisions concerning the City’s future? Such a high-profile exile could easily give the Concordat the numbers it needed to stage a coup, especially if it was already a large faction. While NM was concerned with the complete abolishment of the Consensus, the Concordat could have been trying to facilitate a government that was purely faction-led, with no Guardian input.

4 Likes
#7

The Speaker is a Warlock, as per the Zavala trailer for D2, and the de facto head of the Consensus.

#8

Definitely, though we don’t really know if the Concordat was anti-Speaker, like New Monarchy is, or not. If it’s the former, then the abolishment of the Speaker as a position of power would certainly follow the abolishment of the Vanguard, and if it’s the latter then, well, this line of thinking hits a pretty dead end.

The Vanguard is the faction that is most closely aligned with the Speaker. If the Vanguard is gone, then the Speaker would be more vulnerable to New Monarchy’s goal of abolishment. If the Concordat had its hypothetical way, then the Consensus would simply be the Concordat/Dead Orbit/New Monarchy.

#9

I don’t know if this would add anything to the the current discussion, but a concordat is an actual thing, or well it used to be from my understanding.
A concordat, as Wikipedia defines it,

A concordat is convention between the Holy See and a sovereign state that defines the relationship between the Catholic Church and the state in matters that concern both, i.e. the recognition and privileges of the Catholic Church in a particular country and with secular matters that impact on church interests.

A convention being an agreement between countries covering particular matters, especially one less formal than a treaty.

And to go a little further, there are differing perspectives on concordats depending on what side you’re on.

The church side,

From a Catholic perspective, the Church has the moral and theological right to enter into diplomatic relations with states in order to reach agreements regarding the care of its members residing there.

The state side,

from a non-Catholic perspective, Catholic church privileges pose certain concerns regarding religious freedom, such as:

  • concordats give to the Church a privileged position that other religious groups are denied.

  • concordats may not be “the same as treaties” because they are entered into by an entity that is BOTH religious and political in nature, viz., the Catholic Church, with exception to states which are expressively atheist or are identified as choosing anti-religious views, whereas any other treaty is regularly between two sovereign entities on a horizontal level, i.e., purely political in nature, and

  • depending on the negotiations agreed upon in the concordat, some religious groups face the threat of being marginalized. For example, in Spain, although the Constitution guarantees religious freedom (theoretically), yet in practice, the Church is mentioned by name and holds a pre-eminent position among other religious groups. In recent years, debate has occurred regarding whether the Spanish government should maintain a concordat with the Vatican.

I’m sorry for all of that but I just found it very interesting and wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention.
Also I apologize if that the formatting isn’t very good.

#10

Thank you for all the information! The historical aspect of the word concordat was brought up in the initial post, but it didn’t mention the two opposing viewpoints of the concordat itself.

Given how the concordat is traditionally a “treaty” between a church and a state, I’m curious if the Traveler/Light/etc. is meant to be a religious figure, at least metaphorically. In Ghost Fragment: The Traveler 3, the Traveler is referred to as “godly”:

And you were giant, powerful and swift. But the knife pinned you. Cut your godly flesh away.

And the Trinary Star calls it a God, too:

“We were fools to trust this god-machine, this bringer of death and Darkness.”

So, hypothetically, let’s say the Vanguard/Speaker is the “church” in this argument, and the other factions/Concordat is the “state.”

If so, then the Speaker/Vanguard could take the “church” view:

the [Speaker/Vanguard] has the moral and theological right to enter into diplomatic relations with [The City] in order to reach agreements regarding the care of its members residing there.

Which fits, considering that both parties are part of the Consensus.

1 Like