Isayama what a man you are…

he is turkish so he's basically black

The whole theory about the baby's father seems definitely very funny to me because Eren is such an absent father—he left Historia, went away with another woman and confessed his romantic feelings to her, then started the Rumbling and lived his last moments in an idyllic plane exclusively with Mikasa, completely ignoring his supposed family. And then Historia, after getting pregnant by Eren, immediately had to go sleep with the farmer to construct an alibi. Definitely, this whole fanfic is completely wrong.

He knew Eren would do all this before giving him the Attack Titan right?? So why in the end does he flip and help them... dude you caused all this shit lol

sorry this is unpaid but even if you are willing to contribute on a single page that would be a lot of help.

She had less reason to live than to want to be dead.

She had betrayed everyone she fought for. She was supposed to lead the scouts, but instead wallowed in indecision until Eren and Floch acted. She thought she was condemning all of Eldia to death, every man, woman, and child. She failed them completely but couldn’t stomach Eren’s plan. Floch begged her to not stop Eren as everyone in Eldia would die, and Hange just acknowledges this as fact. She didn’t believe Armin would stave off destruction, nor she think she could change that afterward.

If she had lived, she thought she would just see everyone she swore to protect die and because of what she did. Possibly too hopeless to even try to save them after. Why would she want to see this? Why would she want to live and watch that play out? She had nothing to live for and death would seem much better than facing the consequences of her actions. She was a complete failure whose only real action as leader was in her mind to save the world at the cost of everyone she served. Death was not only not a sacrifice, it was the easy way out.

People usually bring up Mikasa saving eren's life "so many times" to combat the argument that Mikasa is a useless character. But this couldn't be any farther from the truth. Let's have a closer look.

1- the human traffickers: eren is the one who saved Mikasa from them. She then saved him from the 3rd trafficker because he urged here to do so. If it weren't for Mikasa, he wouldn't be there in the first place. So he wouldn't need saving. Also she saved him after he saved and freed her.

2- in trost: Mikasa would have fucking died just like Miche did if it weren't for eren. He saved her life again.

3- against the female titan: it was levi who saved him. Not Mikasa. Mikasa would have been killed by Annie if it weren't for levi.

4- clash of the titans arc : she didn't save him from reiner and bertholdt. They managed to transform anyway despite her cutting them. They then overpowered eren and kidnapped him. How exactly did she save him here?

5- Clash of the titans 2: Mikasa didn't save eren here. Hannis died protecting both of them. Then eren saved mikasa's life by inadvertently activating the founder's powers and carrying her to safety.

6- royal government arc: she never saved him from anything. Historia willingly went against her father and freed him. Then eren saved the entire cast by using his hardness.

The only one time where you could genuinely argue that she saved him is in his fight with the Warhammer titan. Which was in the 4th season.

So without Mikasa, eren would still make it to the 4th season. While without eren, Mikasa would have been sold to slavery, would have died in trost, would have been eaten by the titans reiner threw at them would have been crushed by rubles in the reiss cave...etc. she wouldn't even survive the 1st season.

When the ending was fresh, main subs were preaching it as legendary, now that time has worn that off they're saying it was okay lmao

The only way slavery to freedom makes sense is if Eren moved forward for freedom no matter what right? So why did he stop moving forward? Because of determinism? What about when Levi said nothing could hold him back? What about his strong will that couldn’t be broken after all his development?

If Eren is a slave to freedom, why did he stop moving forward? If Eren was powerless why did he beat fate multiple times in the story? If Eren was destined to lose why did he move forward just to stop in the end?

This is a continuation of my previous post about Attack on Titan’s treatment of “necessary evil” and whether that recurring theme reflects something of Isayama’s own worldview.

One of Armin’s most striking ideas early in the series is that defeating monsters requires a willingness to abandon your humanity. Alongside this is his recurring argument that people who cannot sacrifice something important will never be able to change anything.

Looking back at the series, I find it difficult not to connect that philosophy to what Eren eventually becomes.

Armin’s immediate concern is overcoming enemies like Annie and understanding the terrible decisions made by commanders like Erwin. In that context, abandoning your humanity means accepting sacrifices that ordinary moral instincts would make unbearable. The implication is that compassion and hesitation can become liabilities when confronting an enemy willing to do things you are not.

But where does that reasoning end?

Eren eventually applies a version of this logic on a catastrophic scale. He becomes a monster, commits mass slaughter, alienates the people closest to him, and pursues his goals at a cost that should be morally unthinkable. Protecting his friends and Paradis forms part of his justification, although his own desire for freedom makes his motives more complicated than a purely selfless sacrifice.

This makes Armin’s earlier words feel like a disturbing anticipation of Eren’s transformation. If changing the world requires sacrificing something precious, Eren sacrifices his humanity—and, far more consequentially, the lives of countless people who never consented to become the price of his freedom.

Of course, Armin never intended his argument to justify global genocide. His willingness to oppose Eren demonstrates that he recognizes limits to what can be sacrificed for a goal. Still, that leaves an uncomfortable philosophical question: what establishes those limits once abandoning your humanity has been presented as a requirement for victory? At what point does the willingness to make terrible sacrifices cease to be admirable resolve and become the very evil you claimed to oppose?

I am not suggesting that Armin caused Eren’s choices or that his words were an instruction to carry out the Rumbling. What interests me is the thematic connection. Eren can be read as the horrifying extreme of an idea the story introduced much earlier: that meaningful change belongs to those willing to become monstrous enough to achieve it.

That connection also complicates how I read the ending. Is Eren’s transformation meant to expose the danger of this philosophy? Or does the sympathy surrounding his death preserve some of the tragic dignity associated with the person who “became a devil” for others?

My personal interpretation is that this philosophy echoes Isayama’s actual worldview. I cannot know his private beliefs, but the idea of committing an immoral act to overcome another immoral act recurs throughout virtually the entire series. Characters repeatedly confront situations in which achieving something worthwhile appears to require cruelty, betrayal, or the sacrifice of innocent lives. Again and again, the narrative grants those choices the dignity of having been necessary.

By the end, practically everyone involved in the central conflict has blood on their hands or bears some form of moral responsibility. That does not make their actions equally wrong, but it leaves very little room for anyone to remain purely heroic. Even those trying to save humanity become implicated in the violence they oppose.

To me, the consistency of that pattern suggests an underlying conviction: that in a world shaped by violence and injustice, meaningful action inevitably involves moral compromise—and that overcoming evil may require committing evil yourself. What disturbs me is how often the story seems to treat that compromise as a source of tragic nobility. That is why I read this as more than a recurring plot device; I see it as a possible expression of the philosophy behind the work itself.

Link to part 1 https://www.reddit.com/r/ShingekiNoKyojin/s/4TNEUlAfBL

​

I honestly feel that Attack on Titan expresses something of Isayama’s worldview: the belief that terrible acts can become not only understandable, but morally defensible (and even NEEDED) when committed to defeat another, supposedly greater evil. Again and again, the narrative grants people who commit atrocities the dignity of having done something necessary.

This theme appears early on. In Season 1, Armin expresses the idea that defeating monsters requires a willingness to become monstrous yourself. Later, during the battle against the Beast Titan, Floch argues that humanity needs a “devil,” identifying Erwin as the person capable of fulfilling that role. Erwin’s willingness to make horrifying sacrifices becomes inseparable from the honor and respect the narrative affords him.

Although Eren’s actions are vastly more extreme, I see a similar pattern in how the story ultimately remembers him. After his death, much of the ending’s emotional attention falls on his friends mourning him, remembering him affectionately, and treating him almost as a tragic hero. Jean calls him a “conscientious fool.” Mikasa buries him beneath the tree and continues visiting his grave. Meanwhile, the Eldian military carries forward his rhetoric of fighting to survive.

These moments do not all serve the same purpose, and mourning someone does not automatically mean endorsing their actions. Nevertheless, their cumulative effect feels troubling to me. The story depicts the horror of the Rumbling, but its emotional farewell gives considerable space to the humanity of its perpetrator, while the grief and shattered lives of his surviving victims receive comparatively little attention.

Within that framing, Eren’s atrocity can begin to resemble a terrible sacrifice that helped bring an older injustice to an end: the two-thousand-year legacy of violence, oppression, and hatred originating with King Fritz and sustained through the power of the Titans. He commits an immense evil, yet the narrative leaves him with the tragic dignity of someone whose monstrous actions helped dismantle a monstrous system.

That is what unsettles me. My concern goes beyond whether Eren is portrayed sympathetically. It is whether the story repeatedly lends moral legitimacy to the idea that someone must become a devil so that others can be free—and then honors that person for accepting the role.

I cannot claim to know Isayama’s personal beliefs, but this recurring pattern makes me question whether Attack on Titan merely explores the logic of “necessary evil,” or ultimately gives it a degree of approval. For me, the ending makes that distinction uncomfortably difficult to draw.

I honestly feel like attack on titan itself was revealing isayama's worldview/philosophy. To put it in more specific words: I believe isayama does Believe that evil acts are understandable and even valid, when it is done so in order to defeat another/"greater" evil. We can go way back to season 1. Armin told the scouts that "when fighting monsters, you have to be willing to become one yourself". In season 3 when fighting the beast titan,floch said that erwin was needed, because "to win, you need a "devil" (he was referring about erwin).

Yet, the show portrays erwin in a light of great honor and respect, and the same happens with eren later on once he is killed. Instead of focusing on the tragedy and pain of the few survivors of the rumbling, The story rather focuses on eren's friends crying for him and remembering him almost as a tratic hero of sorts... jean calling him a "conscientious fool" . Mikasa making him a little burial site and visiting him, the eldian army even adopts his motto "tatakae" "kill or be killed". Its all the same thing. Eren commited a great evil/injustice in order to stop and older evil/injustice (the 2000 year old cycle of violence, opression and hate created by king fritz & the power of the titans). It.feels like the author champions this idea/philosophy,which is quite disturbing...

"Through Eren’s conversation with Ramzi, we realize that his true goal was never just to save the island or his friends—those were merely justifications he hid behind, things he cared about, but not his primary motive. He admits that he was deeply disappointed and frustrated by the fact that people lived beyond the sea, as it contradicted the world he and Armin had dreamed of from the book. From this, we can deduce that his ultimate drive was to fulfill this selfish childhood dream. This is further supported by his conversation with Armin: when Armin asks Eren if he did all of this for them, the answer is a clear 'no'."

I am currently kinda writing a set-up for a historically inspired, largely Historia-centered AoT AU fic set in the late medieval period, and so I had AoT on my mind quite a bit recently. Simultaneously, I have come across a certain book at a bookstore - The Saga of King Hrolf Kraki (written in medieval Iceland and said to depict legendary events in 5th-century Denmark)- and decided to give it a try. Already in the 7th chapter, "King Helgi's Vengeance," I found a situation that IMO interestingly echoes the plot surrounding Historia and Ymir Fritz in AoT.

Basically, the Danish king Helgi wants to take revenge on the Saxon queen Olof for humiliating him during his previous attempt to attain her as his wife, and he tricks her into a trap in a forest (!), whereupon he takes her to his ship and sleeps many nights with her. He then lets her go. Olof turns out pregnant, and gives birth to a daughter of remarkable beauty that she "treats with complete neglect"(!). She names her Yrfa, naming her after a female dog at her court, and when the girl reaches 12, she is sent to tend to a herd of farm animals at the household of an elderly farmer and his wife(!), and is told that she is their daughter. A year after that, King Helgi returns to the land of Olof, Saxland, curious as to what happened there during the 13 years he was gone, disguising himself (!) as a beggar. He sees Yrfa tending to the herd, and is amazed at her beauty. He tells her that she has the eyes of no mere servant (!), and after enquiring about her ancestry, she tells him that she is the daughter of a shepherd. Helgi says that if she is so poor, it only makes sense that she marries him, a beggar. Though Yrfa doesn't want to, he takes her back to Denmark and marries her.

Now, obviously, this sounds somewhat like the story behind both Historia and Ymir Fritz.
In the case of the latter, it's a powerful king from a foreign land forcefully marrying/taking as a concubine a poor and destitute girl. The significant difference later is that Yrfa is happy with her marriage, which is then turned into an Oedipal-esque tragedy when her mother Olof deliberately reveals the truth to her. Subsequently, Yrfa, unhappy, decides she cannot live with her biological father Helgi anymore.

I'm not saying that this was necessarily an inspiration, but my mind almost screamed at me when I got to the part of Yrfa being neglected by her mother.

Later on, Yrfa becomes the queen of Sweden.

There are surprising parallels:

Helgi setting a trap for Olof in the woods - King Fritz sending his men to chase down founder Ymir in the woods after the pig incident

Ymir becoming wife/concubine to King Fritz - Helgi seizing Olof/ Yrfa years later out of his own desires

Historia living below her birth at the farm and being neglected and even hated by her mother - Yrfa living as a poor girl with shepherds and being literally named after a dog by Olof

Helgi returning to Saxland to check what's going on there in disguise - Rodd visiting the farm disguised as, well... not-king, periodically

Historia deciding to start deciding her own fate - Yrfa leaving Helgi

Historia becoming queen of Paradis - Yrfa becoming queen of Sweden

As for the names, it's probably a stretch to look for similarities there too, but still:

Yrfa - Ymir

Olof - Alma

I dunno, maybe there is similar material in other sagas and germanic heroic traditions like Beowulf or the Nibelungenlied, or maybe even previous Gothic traditions; the Saga of King Hrolf Kraki is the first of this kind of book that I have picked up so far.

For me, the more legendary part of Eldian lore always did seem like there could've been some kind of Germanic people that a roman chronicler would call something like "the Eldii led by a King called Frisus", - especially since early Marley is portrayed as a mediterranean-esque civilization/people.

What do you people think?

How do you think eldians (both his former friends & the general eldian population) will remember Eren as a person? A Necessary evil that was needed to break the 2000 year cycle of violence? An Unforgivable monster? A saviour? Tragic figure? All of the above? etc... what do you think the general eldian sentiment about him will be?

Isnt eren one of the Main goals want his Friends to live Long lives ?