#cause of civil war

[my-midlife-crisis]

[vigilskeep]

when you first start the cousland origin, you can have some conversations with arl howe, teyrn cousland, and duncan that shed some interesting light on the political situation in ferelden. it’s definitely the origin where you get the most context on the rebellion and on cailan and his father. while howe isn’t exactly the most trustworthy of sources, he is also one of the most openly critical of cailan that we have access to, which i think is worthy of interest

howe remembers maric with what the toolset describes as “genuine fondness”: “your father hasn’t spoken of our time with him? that man took care of his friends. as they say, he was large as life and twice as tall!” i think we should pay particular attention to that man took care of his friends.

what howe’s talking about is a really important aspect of kingship, where you win the consent and enthusiasm of the nobility for your rule by offering rewards like wealth, land, and prestige to the loyal. kingship is always less stable than it’s portrayed, and this is one of the ways that kings must essentially sell to the nobility that answering to them is worth their time, which would be especially important in ferelden given everything we know about its culture. fereldans believe someone only has power when it is given by the loyalty of those below them, who have the right to freely rescind that loyalty. the dao codex says that “the sight of [fereldan kings] asking for—and working to win—the support of ‘lesser’ men is a source of constant wonder to foreign ambassadors.”

i suspect howe is remembering a maric fresh from the victories of the rebellion, who was able to reward those who had followed him with the spoils of those victories. at the end of the stolen throne, we see that in the final days of the rebellion, maric was killing those who had betrayed his mother to the orlesians even when they arrived under truce to meet him on holy ground. in dao, we see no lingering orlesian nobility except for those who married in and continue to be met with marked hostility. i think we can safely surmise that maric elected to make no conciliatory measures and give everything to those who had followed him; with the orlesians on the run and his people out for blood, he was in a strong enough position to do so, and it certainly served to win the fond memories of men like howe.

by contrast, howe goes on to say, “it’s too bad cailan isn’t half that.” the toolset notes establish very clearly that it’s the same issue, elaborating on howe’s thoughts: “bitter turn, i don’t get as much from the current king”, and “disdainful, i have no use for him, he does me no favours”. this isn’t a minor character detail, if howe’s last words when killed by the player are anything to go by. “maker spit on you... i deserved... more...” whatever it is that howe feels he should have been given, by the crown or anyone else, it characterises his actions and his defining treachery.

it’s in these same conversations that we see another side of this demonstrated. there are two points where howe can openly criticise the king, and bryce immediately admonishes him for both. one even has the toolset note: “speaks sharply, as a lord to a lesser man, not a friend to an equal”. it definitely comes across that way; the way he tells howe “that’s enough” is not far off the voice he uses when the player, his child, displeases him. bryce can’t tolerate any criticism of cailan, as the couslands in dao are ardent supporters of the king. to venture some hc, i suspect that this is not merely royalist fervour, and that howe’s resentment for having been given less is matched by bryce’s awareness of the precariousness of having more.

over the centuries, the theirins have consolidated their power and eradicated almost all the teyrns (the noble rank that is second only to the king). with the only other lingering teyrn being loghain, who is essentially part and parcel of the royal family, the couslands stand alone as the only real rivals to theirin power within ferelden. there are rumours that bryce was once considered for king instead of the theirins; he too could have decided to believe he “deserved more”. but unlike howe, and perhaps understandably given his strong position and happy growing family, he is satisfied with what he has. he will not take the risk of even the slightest challenge being made within his hall

(i expect that bryce’s satisfaction with the current situation further spurred howe’s dissatisfaction to its heights, given the complicated cousland-howe history and the fact that he was expected to accept a friend he had fought beside as a superior for the rest of his life.)

i don’t think howe’s judgement on cailan is likely to be without basis. we don’t hear about any victories the young king has to his name, from which he could have passed around spoils. (to be fair, cailan had harder luck than maric in this regard. a king who raises a successful rebellion gets to bring glory and prestige to everyone who follows him, whereas a king trying to rebuild after that rebellion mostly gets to bring, uh, taxes probably. especially on wealthy centres of trade like howe’s amaranthine, one might assume.) cailan also takes a far more diplomatic approach to the question of orlais, which perhaps predictably did not win over many nobles of howe’s generation. it makes sense that cailan’s strongest supporters would instead be men like bryce who hope for things to simply continue, peacefully, as they are. perhaps in another world where cailan had won the battle of ostagar, he might have earned wider respect. (you could actually argue on this basis that there’s more sense and purpose to cailan’s glory-seeking than he usually gets credit for.) but howe already acts before ostagar, which can only demonstrate his certainty in cailan’s failings at this point: his belief that even if cailan could win, he would not be stable enough to pursue justice for the couslands

[odinsblog]

Idk, but if Putin doesn’t want the Wagner Group to continue challenging him, maybe he should just give the Wagner Group whatever Russian territory they control. Do it for peace and to stop unnecessary bloodshed, like he told Ukraine to do.

[brother-emperors]

And the experience of each man was peculiar. For Pompey's name and power were greater in the city when he was away from it, owing to his campaigns; but when he was at home, he was often less power­ful than Crassus, because the pomp and circumstance of his life led him to shun crowds, retire from the forum, and render aid to a few only of those who asked it of him, and then with no great zest, that he might keep his influence the more unimpaired for use in his own behalf. But Crassus was continually ready with his services, was ever at hand and easy of access, and always took an active part in the enterprises of the hour.

Plutarch, Crassus

from the vault of half finished one shots and rejected scenes! what a pair of guys! some real complementary personality stuff going on with these two!

bsky ⭐ pixiv ⭐ pillowfort ⭐ cohost

[doloneia]

as an academic i believe every lost greek epic is a tragic loss of valuable material that could have provided modern scholars an immense amount of insight into homeric tradition. however as an odysseus enjoyer, i think the telegony was kinda cringe and ooc

[lnsfawwi]

Rumlow said Bucky and all of sudden I was a 16-year-old kid from Brooklyn

yes, Steve froze bc Rumlow said Bucky's name, but it's the 16 yro Steve that froze, not the 30ish Steve! which means 16yro Steve froze when Bucky was mentioned!

So imagine back when they were still in school, Steve overheard random classmates chatting in the hallway

Person A: Bucky won another boxing match. gosh, he's so cool!

Steve: *blushes for no reason*

Person B: we have math together. he's so smart, he even corrected the teacher today.

Steve: *heart pounding so hard he's gonna have a cardiac arrest*

(after school) Bucky: what's with the asthma attack today? what caused it?

Steve: nuthin'

[negasonic9403]

Because I love being in pain, imagine an au where Spiderman getting hurt stops Civil War

Tony recruits Spiderman and knows he's on the younger side, but never would he have guessed how young he was. He tracked down Spiderman as his hero self and doesn't know he's Peter

Peter lies to his aunt May and says he's going on an Academic Decathlon retreat so she won't worry while he's gone

Meanwhile, Peter's in Germany being Spiderman and most of the events proceed as normal, but imagine Peter not listening when Tony benches him after he gets hurt

Peter listens for a little while and hangs back, but then he sees someone falling out of the sky and knows he can save them. He doesn't know what team they're on, but it doesn't matter. Peter sees someone he can save and he'll be damned if he doesn't try

So Peter swings after Rhodey, only realizing that it was the War Machine after he made it up to the man. Peter shoots webs connecting Rhodey to Tony's suit. He knows it's not the best fix, but it's better than Rhodey hitting the ground

Just when Peter thinks they're in the clear, the wind has other ideas and suddenly Peter is falling. He tries to save himself, but he used the last of his webs connecting Rhodey to Tony

Peter hits the group with a sickening thump and when Tony gets to him, he pulls off Peter's mask to better assess the damage. He didn't expect the face of a 15 year old kid to be looking back up

Peter is alive, but just barely. Suddenly the Accords aren't nearly as important as they seemed moments before, not when they realized a kid had been in this fight

[nabnab-official]

we are never gonna find those fucking kids bro

[glauces-notebooks]

rewatching night at the museum for the first time in a while and wow. i missed this film.

[wonder-worker]

"It is too easy to dismiss [Leonor of Navarre] as an overambitious schemer who would do anything to obtain a crown, shedding the blood of her own siblings and her subjects in order to attain the throne. However, a deeper investigation of her long lieutenancy and ephemeral reign shows a woman who fought tenaciously to preserve her place but also worked tirelessly to administer a realm which was crippled by internal conflict and the center of the political schemes of France, Aragon, and Castile. She tried to broker peace, fight off those who opposed her, repair the wounds caused by conflict, protect the sovereignty of the realm, and keep the wheels of governance turning. Leonor was not always successful in achieving all of these aims but given the background of conflict and the lack of cooperation she received from all of her family members, bar her loyal husband, it is a huge achievement that she survived to wear the crown at all. Many writers have argued that Leonor deserved the troubled lieutenancy, personal tragedies, an ephemeral reign, and a blackened reputation, basing their assumption that she committed a crime that cannot be [conclusively] proven. However, a more fitting description of her would be that of a resolute ruler who successfully overcame a multitude of challenges in order to survive in a difficult political landscape and gain a hard-fought throne.”

-Elena Woodacre, "Leonor of Navarre: The Price of Ambition", Queenship, Gender and Reputation in the Medieval and Early Modern West, 1060-1600 (Edited by Zita Eva Rohr and Lisa Benz)

[kacievvbbbb]

This to me is obviously Bucky and Steve. Like this is Bucky in Civil War, not quite Bucky not quite the Wintersoldier just someone looking for peace.

His memory is spotty at best, still comes and goes. He remembers the good times but he remembers the horrors as well, he’s not sure what’s real and what’s not. Doesn’t quite know when the torture started or which one it was. Which time was he saved by Steve and which time did he lose his arm. It all blends together.

he doesn’t always remember Steve and Captain America are the same person, he can’t remember their differences either. But he knows that they both make him feel the same way. That one of them, both? Is a promise of safety. That he could weep and never stop and they’d still be there.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * * *

Why Nikki Haley’s answer omitting slavery as a cause of the Civil War matters.

What happened.

At a campaign event in New Hampshire, a member of the audience asked Nikki Haley to identify the causes of the Civil War. She gave an evasive answer that omitted slavery as a cause of the Civil War. She said,

I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do.

Haley was immediately attacked, mocked, and condemned for failing to identify slavery as a cause of the Civil War. During a Thursday morning interview, she attempted to walk back her prior answer with an equally offensive and unconvincing answer. As described in Forbes,

During the Thursday morning interview, she said the goal of the Civil War was to ensure each person has their freedom, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the “freedom to do and be anything they want to be without anyone or government getting in the way . . . Yes, I know it was about slavery. I’m from the South, of course I know it’s about slavery.”

Why it matters.

Haley has a history of minimizing or dismissing the role of slavery in the Civil War. The incident on Wednesday is merely the latest episode that reveals her willingness to cater to white nationalists in pursuit of elected office. As former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said,

She's smart and she knows better. And she didn't say it because she's a racist. Because she's not. I know her well and I don't believe Nikki has a racist bone in her body . . . the reason she did it is just as bad, if not worse, and should make everybody concerned about her candidacy. She did it because she's unwilling to offend anyone by telling the truth. If she is unwilling to stand up and say that slavery is what caused the Civil War because she's afraid of offending constituents in some other part of the country, if she's afraid to say that Donald Trump is unfit because she's afraid of offending people who support Donald Trump, . . . What's going to happen when she has to stand up against forces in our own party who want to drag this country deeper and deeper into anger and division and exhaustion?”

Christie is right that Nikki Haley is afraid to tell the truth. But she is also a reactionary conservative posing as a moderate. As the NYTimes noted, her failure to include slavery threatens to destroy her image as someone attractive to moderate Republicans and independents. Per the Times,

Ms. Haley’s appeal as a candidate of moderation is mixed. As governor of South Carolina, she signed some of the harshest immigration and anti-abortion laws in the country at the time, as well as a stringent voter identification law that required photo ID at the ballot box.

But Haley’s omission of slavery was not merely an act of cowardice on her part. She was promoting a dangerous revisionist history of the Civil War that has taken root in the former Confederate states. Haley is promoting the myth of the “Lost Cause” of the South—a romanticized transformation of the brutal practice of slavery into (in the words of Haley) “traditions that are noble — traditions of history, of heritage, and of ancestry.”

I highly recommend a thoughtful and detailed discussion of Haley’s dangerous answer by Joshua Zeitz in Politico, Opinion | Why Was It So Hard for Nikki Haley to Say "Slavery"? Civil War History Has the Answer.

Zeitz writes,

The Lost Cause mythology was more than bad history. It provided the intellectual justification for Jim Crow — not just in the former Confederacy, but everywhere systemic racism denied Black citizens equal citizenship and economic rights. [¶] With GOP presidential candidates waffling on the Civil War, rejecting history curricula in their states and launching political fusillades against “woke” culture, it remains for the rest of us to reaffirm the wisdom of Frederick Douglass, who in the last years of his life stated: “Death has no power to change moral qualities. What was bad before the war, and during the war, has not been made good since the war. … Whatever else I may forget, I shall never forget the difference between those who fought for liberty and those who fought for slavery.”

Nikki Haley wants to forget “the difference between those who fought for liberty and those who fought for slavery.” In pursuit of the presidency, she recasts “fighting for slavery” as “noble traditions of history, heritage, and ancestry.” Shame on her.

Haley is telling us who she is. We should believe her.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[sugurugayto]

on the other hand, the funniest thing in jjktwt is that the biggest shipwar that's happening is between goge and gego 💀 like why are y'all fighting you're of the same blood 💀

[incorrectskyrimquotes]

ralof could have an uncle if he and hadvar got married

youre so right

i think everyone in riverwood would be thrilled w that too! esp alvor and gerdur who are explicitly pretty close friends!!

[queenalicentofravka]