u/Negative_Flower_5360

Mine is Northshire Cleric.

there’s just something about her. I don’t know - her voice, her design, her effect. Everything about her. She somehow made me realize that at some point, I didn’t even care about winning anymore,lol I just wanted to play the game and keep her alive

>!Here you can see the last words of some characters, shortly before they give their lives.!<

1. >!Jessica Edwards!<
2. >!Kircheis!<
3. >!Schönkopf!<
4. >!Reuenthal!<
5. >!Oberstein!<
6. >!Yang!<
7. >!Reinhard!<

>!After Lappe is killed, Jessica says to Trünicht: “I offered up my fiancé as a sacrifice“!<>!Sacrifice. The symbol of sacrifice.!<

>!Sometimes, the characters of the Galactic Empire speak of “Valhalla.” I think of a situation in which Oberstein speaks of Kircheis being in Valhalla in order to appease Reinhard and to justify his actions and what they are doing. Because without this idea, the reality is:!<

>!Kircheis is dead.!<

>!and he is not coming back.!<

>!It transforms these possibly meaningless deaths into heroic deaths. And the entire system is built on this principle.!<

>!The Empire produces destructive people, and destructive people produce the Empire. The two interlock and mutually stabilize each other. There is a reciprocal fit between political structure and psychological structure.!<

>!We can see this very clearly in the example of Reuentahl. The novel explicitly describes, in several places that he believes it would have been better if he had never been born at all; he even develops a peculiar fascination with his own death.!<

>!And then exactly this kind of person ends up in a system that does not see inner conflicts as a problem, but instead turns them into military excellence. In return, Reuentahl receives rewards and status for his primitive defense mechanisms.!<

>!From the outside — to us - it does not even look as though any of these characters are experiencing any real psychological distress when they‘re facing death.!<

>!What cannot be expressed in words they act out in battle!<

klar, ist das alles symbolisch gemeint.

Aber diese Worte kommen mir so vertraut vor.

eure Vorstellungen würden euch von der echten Realität abhalten. Seht ihr das auch so .?

diese „Unart“ wird übrigens bei der Anima des Mannes mit keinem Wort erwähnt, obwohl Männer doch mindestens genauso unter ihren idealisierten Vorstellungen „leiden“, aber halt nicht den „Luxus“ haben, danach leben zu können.

Thank you for being the most coherent and consistent character in the entire series. Even while fighting a war, he manages to show us what it means to stay genuinely happy. Keeping your sanity while staring horror is THE skill.

So happy birthday to my favourite logh-character!

do you think it’s just a coincidence that he’s a Leo? 

Reuenthal’s rebellion wasn’t the beginning of his tragedy - it was the end of it.

How did I arrive at that idea?

I started asking myself why it was Reuenthal who rebelled - and not Mittermeyer.

Why did Tanaka choose Reuenthal to lead the rebellion against Reinhard ? Why not Mittermeyer? Both are loyal and highly competent. Why not Bittenfeld?

I've been thinking about this question for quite some time. So why does only one of them rebel?

As I kept thinking about it, another question gradually took its place: who was he really rebelling against?

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that I was asking the wrong question. The real question isn't why Reuenthal rebelled.

It's why Tanaka chose him.

Tanaka spent the entire story preparing exactly one character for this ending.This is also one of the reasons why I consider Tanaka such a brilliant writer. I also believe that the relationship between Reinhard and Reuenthal is by far one of the most tragic relationships in LOGH. (but I’am opened up for other opinions)

In German, there's a concept called "Wiederholungszwang," which is usually translated as repetition compulsion. It describes the unconscious tendency to recreate unresolved conflicts over and over again in an attempt to finally resolve them. , we don't just carry our experiences within us - we unconsciously reenact them in our relationships.

 Reuenthal is an extremely loyal character. He's competent, courageous, and willing to risk his life to save Mittermeyer. After Reinhard saves Mittermeyer Reuenthal entrusts Reinhard with both his loyalty and his life. I believe that his loyalty is completely genuine.

But before discussing Reinhard, Iets talk about someone we who never truly leaves Reuenthal : >!his mother.!<

 >!The irony that Reuenthal ends up marrying a woman who tries to kill him—after his own mother had already tried to kill him—is, in my opinion, a brilliant move by Tanaka. At the same time, I think it's the first major psychological hint he gives us.!<

>!Shortly after Kircheis dies (which, incidentally, becomes a turning point for many different character arcs), Reinhard eventually regains his composure and says something very interesting to Reuenthal.!<

Paraphrased, he says:

"If you can surpass me, and if you have the courage to do so, then you should." 

(>!One important point :This conversation takes place during a discussion about whether potential future political threats—including children of the defeated nobility—should be killed or spared. Reinhard decides that boys over the age of 10 should be killed. Watch Reuenthals Expression to this )!<

I dont think Reinhard says this to him out of distrust, provocation, or competitiveness. I think he's speaking more to himself than to Reuenthal.

To Reinhard, it's almost a philosophical principle. If someone truly proves to be more capable than he is, then that person deserves to rule instead. In that moment, he's reminding himself of his duty and of the promise he once made to Kircheis. As you can see from the slides he says this to ALL of his Admirals. But only Reuenthal gets acvtivated by his words.

saying something like that to someone like Reuenthal is like throwing a lit match into dry tinder.

Reinhard doesn't realize that he isn't speaking to pure rationality—he's speaking directly into an old psychological wound.

It's not an invitation to rebel. It's not a challenge. It's simply a thought. Yet Reuenthal remembers this exact conversation twice later in the story through flashbacks. That one sentence triggers a psychological dynamic that could never have developed in any other character.

From that moment onward, tension begins to grow. It never decreases—it only increases. Eventually, it becomes almost autonomous. From then on, Reuenthal repeatedly expresses doubts about Reinhard, even when speaking with Mittermeyer.His famous line,"Once the wine has been poured, it cannot be put back into the bottle," is, to me, another brilliant hint from Tanaka. It describes how his mind works.

Reuenthal carries a profound, existential distrust within him—the unconscious conviction that even the closest relationship will eventually turn into betrayal.For someone like Reuenthal, loyalty can never become completely safe. Its simply impossible.

my admittedly bold interpretation: I believe the rebellion itself is the final completion of Reuenthal's repetition compulsion. That makes the ending even more tragic - and at the same time incredibly dramatic**.*>!* He dies just before the person who genuinely cared for him reaches him!<.

For Reuenthal, a small spark of distrust doesn't simply mean: "Maybe he doesn't trust me anymore." For him, it means:"This is about life and death."

 none of the other characters carried the same inner conflict. Interestingly, I also think Reinhard possesses something almost maternal - not in a romantic sense (although people on this forum often knowingly or unknowingly sexualize that aspect), but because he offers protection, stability, trust, and care. To both Mittermeyer and Reuenthal, he almost functions as a rescuer.

That's why I would even argue that the true central figure in Reuenthal's rebellion isn't actually Reinhard. It's Reuenthal's mother.

Reinhard, Elfriede, and Mittermeyer all become different figures through whom the same original psychological conflict is repeatedly reenacted.

Most characters in LOGH die because of external conflicts. Reuenthal dies because of an internal one. Some people are almost irrelevant to our deepest psychological conflicts. Others unknowingly touch exactly the central unconscious wound. And once that happens, a psychological dynamic can develop that becomes so destructive it may ultimately cost someone their life.

What do you think?

Do you think Mittermeyer could ever have led a rebellion ? why not ?

Or did it have to be Reuenthal?

——————————————————————

A few final thoughts before I disappear again.

Everything I have written here is simply my own interpretation. These thoughts begin and end with this post. They are not meant to be the “correct” way of reading the story.

Lately, I’ve had the impression that some people struggle to separate what they read from their own thoughts and feelings. If a post about LOGH genuinely makes you angry there’s a good chance the post itself isn’t the real issue.

That Said I always enjoy reading different interpretations, especially when they challenge my own.

I’m a medical student in Germany with a particular interest in psychiatry. Writing about LOGH is one of my favorite ways to procrastinate. Its simply a place where I let my thoughts wander and sometimes deliberately look at the story from unusual angles. These aren’t fixed theses-just ideas I enjoy exploring.

One of the things I love most about LOGH is that I discover something new every time I rewatch it. I know many people here prefer the original OVA, and I completely understand why. Personally, I also really enjoy DNT. I’ve read parts of the novels and I think DNT captures them very well while paying close attention to small details.

Finally, regarding ChatGPT: I only use it to translate words or sentences into English. The ideas, structure, arguments, the writing and interpretations are entirely my own.

I noticed something that completely changed the way I see Yang Wen-li.

Ironically, I think we learn more about Yang through his interactions with Schönkopf than we ever learn from Yang’s own words.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the author chose Schönkof for this role. He may seem like comic relief at first glance, but I actually think he’s one of the most psychologically perceptive characters in the series. His humor isn’t just there to entertain—it functions as a defense mechanism. He hides behind wit, constantly observes the people around him, and has an exceptional ability to read them.

Throughout the series, Schönkopf repeatedly pushes Yang. He provokes him, as if he’s trying to draw out something Yang doesn’t openly admit about himself. Look at the slides.

I think the author is quietly telling us two things:

• There is something about Yang that isn’t entirely coherent. His actions don’t always match the moral philosophy he constantly articulates.
• Schönkopf can see this.

why Schönkopf?

Because I believe Schönkopf is the character most similar to Yang.

Both are exceptionally intelligent. Both are capable of making difficult—even ruthless—decisions without seeing themselves as monsters.

The crucial difference is that Schönkopf is internally consistent. Yang isn’t.

It’s difficult to explain exactly what I mean, but I think many viewers have experienced the same feeling. Yang gives another speech about democracy, morality, and responsibility… yet he continues to serve the Free Planets Alliance long after it has become hopelessly corrupt.

He repeatedly presents himself as someone who simply has no choice—as someone reluctantly carrying the burden that fate placed upon him. Yet he accepts that role remarkably willingly. He constantly reacts to events instead of actively shaping them.

To me, that creates a tension between what Yang says and what he actually does.

What frustrates me isn’t that Yang refuses power. It’s that he refuses to fully use the enormous power he already possesses while simultaneously condemning the political system he keeps preserving. His restraint has real consequences.

Reinhard, by contrast, is often perceived as the more compelling character, and I think authenticity is one reason why. Reinhard desires. He wants power. He wants to change the world. He suffers, loves, hates, and pursues his ambitions with complete honesty. He’s driven by idealism, but also by pride, grief, and selfishness. , he feels emotionally transparent.

Yang feels different.He often hides behind moral arguments that allow him to avoid confronting what he actually wants. He frames almost every decision as duty rather than desire. And its annoying.

And I think Schönkopf notices this.

Another detail that fascinates me is Schönkopfs character design. Compared to almost everyone else, he’s almost always wearing the same subtle expression—a faint, knowing smile. His eyes are softer, his mouth slightly curved upward, never exaggerated, just quietly observant.

I’ve always wondered whether this was intentional.

To me, it symbolizes that, despite everything he’s experienced, he hasn’t allowed war to harden or spiritually cloud him. Somehow, he has preserved something fundamentally humane within himself.Because of that, he’s able to see Yang as a whole person—not simply as the legendary strategist or the moral hero everyone else admires, but as a man full of contradictions, blind spots, and unresolved internal conflicts.

And yet there’s one striking difference between them. Schönkopf has integrated something that Yang hasn’t. He walks away from systems that no longer align with his values. That’s why he comes across as far more coherent and internally consistent than Yang.

My overall hypothesis is that Schönkopf is the only member of Yang’s inner circle who truly meets him as an equal.

As a small side note, this is also one of the main reasons why Kircheis and Yang are my two least favorite characters in the series.It’s not because I think they’re badly written—quite the opposite. I simply find both of them frustrating for similar reasons and I personally have a hard time connecting with that.

Is Reinhard actually justified in feeling so sorry for himself?

One thing that really stands out throughout the entire series is how prone Reinhard is to self-pity.

I mean, if you drag both yourself and your supposed best friend into a war, you have to expect that at least one of you might die. Statistically, it’s highly likely. The citizens of Westerland lost countless friends and family members. So did everyone else—especially those caught up in the arc where an entire civilization was deliberately starved in order to exploit Yang Wen-li’s moral principles.

When Kircheis is shot, Reinhard says something in the German dub along the lines of: “He’s dying! Mittermeyer, he’s dying! How can he die before me*?!”*

I’ve always found that moment rather disturbing. Even at the very moment his closest friend is dying, the focus somehow remains on Reinhard himself.

By contrast, Yang Wen-li carries the deaths of his comrades with much greater composure and dignity. Arguably, he has even more reason to psychologically fall apart given the sheer scale of the losses he endures. Instead, he internalizes his grief—it manifests as alcohol abuse and emotional withdrawal rather than self-pity.

You could argue that Reinhard himself was used by almost everyone around him. Kircheis constantly projected his own moral ideals onto him. Oberstein used him as the vehicle to realize his political vision. And, if we’re being honest, I don’t think Annerose ever truly loved Reinhard for who he was.

The only person who may have genuinely seen Reinhard as a human being rather than an ideal or a symbol was Hilda. But even she was, in many ways, following her instinct to protect him from Oberstein—or rather, from what Oberstein represented to her.

I know this is probably going to get me crucified, but I will die on this hill:

Oberstein’s personality was exactly what Reinhard needed.

Unlike almost everyone else, Oberstein sees Reinhard objectively. He neither idealizes nor demonizes him.

For example, after Kircheis dies and Reinhard is paralyzed by grief and self-pity, Oberstein essentially tells him:

“You have had your time to mourn. You can continue grieving if you wish—but don’t be surprised by the consequences. No one but you will be responsible for them.”

As cold as that sounds, I think Reinhard desperately needed someone willing to confront him with reality instead of feeding his emotional dependence.

I’m not sure what the proper psychological term would be in English, but whenever Reinhard is around Oberstein, he appears noticeably more emotionally regulated. His thoughts seem more organized, and he comes across as far less overwhelmed or agitated.

Oberstein also never moralized Reinhard over trivial matters. He didn’t lecture him or try to impose his own ethical framework on him. Kircheis, on the other hand, often did. For example, when Reinhard wanted to hold Bittenfeld accountable for his failures, Kircheis immediately turned it into a moral issue rather than treating it as a question of leadership and responsibility.

Ironically, Oberstein’s detached pragmatism seems to stabilize Reinhard far more than Kircheis’ constant moral guidance ever did. Whenever Reinhard is with Oberstein, he tends to think more clearly and act more decisively. With Kircheis, he often ends up emotionally conflicted because Kircheis continually encourages him to prioritize ideals over the practical realities of ruling an empire.

What Reinhard lacked throughout the series wasn’t another person who loved him unconditionally. He needed someone who grounded him—someone who forced him to face reality and, ultimately, himself.

The tragedy is that he never recognized Oberstein as that person. He only ever saw him as a tool, not as someone who could have helped him confront the darker parts of his own personality.

Another interesting aspect is the way Oberstein is deliberately demonized.

In one of the novels—I can’t remember which one exactly—Schönkopf recalls seeing a child without eyes. The image immediately reminds him of Oberstein and leaves him with a profound sense of unease. Later, both Reuenthal and Mittermeyer describe him in similarly unsettling terms.

It’s obvious that the narrative wants the audience to perceive Oberstein as something uncanny—almost inhuman.

And honestly, it wouldn’t be surprising if someone with Oberstein’s history had developed a schizoid personality structure (not schizophrenia—those are very different things).

That raises an interesting question: why would anyone entrust so much power to someone who is psychologically this detached?

There’s a scene where Kircheis questions Oberstein’s recruitment, and Reinhard replies:

“If I can’t even control him, how am I supposed to rule the universe?”

Ironically, Reinhard’s real problem was never Oberstein.

His real problem was that he never came to terms with the deeply disturbing aspects of his own personality. As a child, he nearly killed another boy. His capacity for emotional detachment, ruthlessness, and obsession has always been there.

In many ways, Reinhard has far more in common with Oberstein than with Kircheis.

To me, they represent the active and passive sides of the same psychological coin.

One final observation:

Oberstein functions remarkably well as what psychology would call a container—someone onto whom everyone projects the parts of themselves they refuse to acknowledge.

Almost every major character loads their fears, hatred, guilt, and moral discomfort onto Oberstein. He becomes the convenient repository for everything they don’t want to see in themselves.

Perhaps that’s why he is so consistently portrayed as unsettling.

If it hadn’t been for Kircheis constantly holding himself back with his moral principles, Kircheis would have shot Oberstein that day—and he himself would probably still be alive.

More generally, Reinhard seems much more emotionally stable in Oberstein’s presence. While Kircheis constantly forces him to confront his own human flaws and sends him on moral and emotional roller coasters, Reinhard appears to have far more in common with Oberstein than either the fans—or Reinhard himself—would like to admit.

Moralizing people are exhausting—especially under those circumstances, where they become a burden.

Are Oberstein and von Lohengramm murderers?

A few weeks ago I had a rather strange discussion here on Reddit. In a thread, under a post, I commented that both of them are a) murderers and b) psychotic.

Several users strongly disagreed with both points, which surprised me because I honestly thought this was common sense. Sure, Lohengramm benefits from the halo effect, and fortunately his moral ideals largely align with our own. But that doesn’t change the fact that he has killed people. I’m not even talking about the Westerland Incident, since people argue that they were only “indirectly” involved.

There was also a point where they deliberately let civilians starve and endure suffering in order to use Yang Wen-li’s moral principles against him. It’s never explicitly stated, but it seems very likely that people—especially the elderly and babies—died during that time because they went for several days without food.

Would you say they are murderers, or should be regarded as such, or not?

The second point is whether they are psychotic.

From the very beginning, Oberstein displays schizoid traits—he is withdrawn, solitary, and strongly defines himself through his vision of what the Empire should become. To me, he is definitely schizoid—not because of his artificial eyes, but because of his overall behavior. That’s one of the reasons Reuenthal and the other guy whose name I always forget keep their distance from him. You can only guess what’s going on inside his head, but judging by his actions, he is willing to sacrifice anyone who stands in the way of his worldview, and he is equally willing to die for it himself. He seems to have an existential fear of the kind of system established by Kaiser Rudolf. Definitely psychotic.

As for Lohengramm, I think he becomes psychotic after Kircheis’ death. He begins to fall apart, spends a lot of time lost in fantasies, experiences hallucinations, and becomes increasingly unstable.

What do you think? Psychotic or not?

*I’m not entirely sure whether the plan to starve them out was originally proposed by Oberstein, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was his idea.