Talk:Mantle

The Mantle was not a government - it was "awarded" to them by someone else, hinted to be the Precursors, and handed down to humans, who became as a consequence Reclaimers. I'm pretty sure the full name was the Mantle of Guardianship. Honour Light Your Way -   Kora ‘Morhek   The Battle-Net  My Conquests.  04:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your concept of the "Mantle of Guardianship".

The "handing down" of the mantle could come from another species, or perhaps more of a religeous notion, if the Forerunners worshipped the Precursors. However, it could also be part of an appointation of position, given by Forerunner government leadership, like a religeous 'oath" given to superiors, or something along those lines. I suggest this because it appears that in Terminal 7, the rampant AI makes a point of saying they had "rescinded" the mantle.    It should also be noted that the AI's continuing statement was that it was "with far more consideration than it was granted".  This is reminiscent of people making vows and oaths without bothering to understand the full ramifications of the decision to do so.  It also points out that their decision to abandon it was not a lightly determined course of action; it was taken very seriously and with good cause.

It's interesting to note that the Rampant AI was essentially doing to the Forerunners what the Heretic Elite was doing to the Covenant in Halo 2. It sounds as though the Rampant AI was convinced in the superiority of the Flood as a species, and therefore felt it invalidated the oaths of the Mantle.

The mantle appears to be a "prime directive" statement of authority and guardianship over other species/races. Those that "wear" the mantle are those that are required to act as guardians over all other forms of life. This also includes things like cataloging species, and doing what's necessary to ensure the survival of these species. To 'protect all life" appears to be the basic foundation of it's principles. This would include acting as a protector of genetic diversity to strengthen species.  This must have caused some issues with regards to determining whether to protect or destroy the flood species when it proved to be so volitile.

The rampant AI takes a very cynical view of this (Terminal 5 on legendary): "Your history is an appalling chronicle of overindulgence and self-appointed authority. You have spent millennia [navel-gazing] while the universe has continued to evolve. And now you claim the Mantle is justification for impeding nature's inevitable refinement?"

This is similar to arguments agains Historical preservation societies that attempt to mandate that older ways of doing things must be protected, even if it means limiting the ability to advance. Almost as though the rampant AI had said, 'preservation is justification for impeding progress?

It would appear that the Rampant AI noted by the terminal has given up the "mantle's" concepts of diversity and species protection in-favor of the flood's concept of unifying the galaxy through it's infestation. Offering eternal life, eternal companionship, etc. in a compound intelligence setting.

As a side note.. this article should be linked from the occurances of the word "mantle" in the terminal transcriptions (maybe as a footnote?). I'd do it, but I'm very new and don't know how. -Deadguy71 24.73.77.230 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In the trivia section, this following item is a baseless suggestion, isn't it??
 * It could also refer to the planet like object in the legendary ending of Halo 3.

Using that logic, and precedent, Masterchief's helmet could be named Mantle too, and that trivial fact should be posted. I'd remove it, but as noted above.. I'm new and don't want to mess everything up. 24.73.77.230 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Failure of Logic
Is it just me, or is the entire logical premise of the Mantle an outright fool's errand?

The Mantle was the cause of the Forerunner's defeat, near-extinction, and exodus of shame out of Milky Way, and the reason that the Flood remained a threat to life 100,000 years later. It renders the galaxy's inhabitants vulnerable not only to the Flood, but also conflict amongst themselves, exploitation of weaker species, and other threats from outside the galaxy, be it more Flood or some other dangerous force.

If anything, it not only made the lesser species of the galaxy vulnerable, it left the Forerunner sluggish, taciturn, and most of all, weak and naive when their territory and dominion had been compromised.

Besides, the entire notion that life and biodiversity can be protected at all cost to everything else leads to the kind of failure and death that resulted from the Forerunner-Flood War.

A major problem point is the existence of the Flood itself; that, if anything, would logically render the Mantle and all it entails as futile and irrelevant. The existence of any life anywhere as long as the Flood exists renders the rationale for preserving life and even biodiversity pointless and doomed to failure. Given its sheer versatility and virulence, the Flood are not only an "antithesis" to life, they are effectively an invincible force that renders life's existence as an exercise in ultimate futility and naivette.

If anything, the Flood should make it clear that as long as it exists, there can be no life of any kind whatsoever anywhere and any time in the universe. Even using the rationale that biodiversity in a galaxy is a sure-fire way of ensuring it's biosphere's existence is foolish and utterly irrelevant; all conceivable forms of life are subject to the Flood, so it doesn't matter how biodiverse any ecology is- it will be consumed all the same.

The other side to this is that the existence of life itself, anywhere and at any time, especially in an abundant location, is precisely what the Flood need to survive and achieve their victory. The fact that there is life means that the Flood has already won no matter what one does.

The Flood themselves render the Mantle or any other similar ideology obsolete; life cannot be protected no matter what one does if life still exists. Living things will always die, fight, and struggle, and ultimately be overcome by any myriad of cosmic forces and the Flood.

Biology is an ultimately fragile, immensely improbable existence that is at constant risk in a violent, relentless, chaotic, and haphazard universe that is indifferent to its existence or absence.

The Forerunners should have realized this, for the very nature of the universe itself and the existence of life's frailty and sheer improbability combined with the presence of the Flood and/or other similar entities renders the logic behind the Mantle baseless and short-sighted.

At their level, they should have realized, the only things that they really need are themselves, resources, and habitat, because they themselves is all they really should ever need. There is nothing that such a culture could gain from weaker, vastly inferior cultures and species that they couldn't invent and provide for themselves without outside help or interferrence. --Exalted Obliteration 03:35, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

The Mantle and the Great Journey - one and the same?
We've long speculated that the Covenant's belief in the Great Journey stemmed from some misunderstanding or mistranslation of the Forerunner religion. After all, the Forerunners designed the Halo Array to destroy life, not elevate it to a new plane of existence.

After the release of Halo 3 and the Terminals, speculation also erupted over the exact nature of the Mantle. People immediately cited the Librarian's quote, "Our [so-called Guardianship] has stripped those we would keep safe of any capacity for self-defense!" as evidence that the Mantle was some sort of philosophy on the Forerunners' role as protectors of the galaxy.

However, the cover and jacket description of Halo: Cryptum brings with it a new and intriguing idea:

Note that the text says "the next stage of life". Could the Mantle instead refer to some kind of "ascension" from normal, physical existence? Could the Forerunners, and the Precursors before them, have had some way of enbarking on "the Great Journey"?

-- / / STRYKER    [  COM  |  LOG/M  |  LOG/S  |  AAU/HUM  ]  19:38, 1 November 2010 (EDT)
 * It's possible that "next stage of life" just means the next forms of sentient life. -- SFH 19:46, 1 November 2010 (EDT)

Philosophy
The word "mantle" has been used in philosophy before. Google results turned up "The first known atheist who threw off the mantle of deism, bluntly denying the existence of gods, was Jean Meslier, a French priest who lived in the early 18th century" and "In an effort to honor Socrates' memory, Plato took up his mantle and his cause..."

Comparing with the Forerunner "Mantle"... This seems to be more of their philosophy in general than a specific component of it. The Forerunner's mantle appears to be the philosophy of guardianship - that they should protect life. This makes their decision to create the ultimate superweapon more than a "last resort", but showing a civilisation so desperate for their belief in guardianship to prevail that they must sacrifice many of them along with themselves in order to protect at least some of them.-- Forerunner 18:45, 10 December 2010 (EST)

Forerunner-Human War
Hi, in my opinion, the information contained in Halo: Cryptum changes everything. It doesn't only states that Humans weren't "discovered" in a primitive state by the Forerunner, it also states that the Forerunner annihilated humanity. I think it is very unlikely that the Forerunners gave the Mantle to humanity because they considered them their "children", I would rather say they did it because humans were able to defeat the Flood, something the Forerunners failed to achieve. In my opinion, they gave the Mantle to humanity because they were the only specie who could protect life if the Flood returned (an actually they did).

Cheers

Kurt Ambross  ( Talk-Discusión ) 21:51, 7 February 2011 (EST)

While it does certainly put things in a new light, I don't think it necessarily changes anything in a fundamental way. No sources actually say that we were "discovered" during the Forerunner-Flood war; IRIS episode 5 just say that Earth is in "a perilous location beyond the line," which it was. The whole thing about the Forerunners annihilating humanity was so far in the past so as to be almost irrelevant at the time; a lot had changed since then, and I'm guessing the Forerunners (or at least the Librarian and co.) eventually realized that it had been a pretty big mistake. As such, they very well may have come to consider humanity as their successors. I'm sure the whole thing about us being able to defeat the Flood was a big part of it too SPARTAN-347 22:57, 7 February 2011 (EST)

Mantle of Responsibility
As per Halo 4, should this page's name be changed to "Mantle of Responsibility"? It appears to be the formal term; "Mantle" is only used by the Didact as a shorthand. -Kronos101 20:32, 10 November 2012 (EST)


 * The term "The Mantle" has been used way, way more times than "Mantle of Responsibility", which has only been used twice. It's like with "the Covenant" versus "the Covenant Empire". Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 20:42, 10 November 2012 (EST)

Heirs to the Mantle
While I don't deny that the Forerunners (at least the Librarian-oriented faction) intended to pass the Mantle onto humanity, should the article really be definitively saying that the Precursors also intended for humanity to have it before the Forerunner-Precursor war? Given what the Forerunner Trilogy has in its entirety, I would say the exact inheritance of the Mantle is up for debate: I just wanted to point out that the only entities that claim that the Precursors selected humanity are the Primordial and Gravemind, who are speaking to the Didact and have every reason to stretch the truth, if not outright lie. As I recall, one of the two also claimed that the Precursors had simply judged the Forerunners to be unworthy and intended to test humanity next.

Long story short: I want to change the article to reflect the ambiguity of the Precursor's selection of humanity for the Mantle, but I also don't want to tread on any toes. Does anyone else agree that the article presents something that's rather ambiguous as fact, or should I leave it as it is? SNovah (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2014 (EST)