#pol.) future campaign | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ofasturias · 4 years ago

Photo

BACKGROUND

{ death cw, child death cw }

Born in the midst of tragedy, Cécile was the second child and only daughter of duke René de Guise and Therese d’ Anjou, princess of France and sister of the late King Ferrant. Her birth came only a few weeks after the passing of her infant brother; another victim of the plague that was ravaging the land at the time. Heartbroken and mourning the loss of his firstborn and heir, the duke failed to find any joy in the birth of a daughter, at first. His wish for an heir was granted a few years later with the birth of twin boys. At a very young age Cécile was taken to court where she served as companion to the princess of France (née Tsarina of Russia) and placed under the guardianship of queen Hellicent. Being brought up alongside her royal cousins, Cécile received a well-rounded education but her tenure at court was interrupted when another wave of the plague hit France. Cécile, her mother and two brothers were sequestered at an abbey for their protection until it passed.

After her return to Paris and her coming-of-age, Cécile was introduced and instructed under the guidance of her mother in a whole different aspect of life at court. She studied philosophy and perfected her languages while heeding her mother’s advice on courtly affairs. Her “training” was indicant of her own and her family’s ambition and high expectations. Banquets, festivities, innocent flirtations and politics of court came into sharp focus. Soon enough whispers of betrothals to French and foreign noblemen, even some connecting her to her cousin, began to fly in the halls of Saint-Pol. Her mother’s ancestry and her father’s high place among the French nobility made the possibility of a good match a near certainty. Their aspirations were realized when the crown had need of a French noblewoman to pave the way for an alliance with the exiled Aragonese court. However, instead of the Prince of Viana, heir to the throne and of a similar age with Cécile; she was betrothed to his uncle and married within the year. Exile didn’t quite agree with her and the first years were challenging, especially if one considered her previous circumstances, but since then she has risen to the occasion following the king’s and queen’s untimely deaths.

PERSONALITY

As a child, lady Cécile was the apple of her parents’ eye. Her mother instilled a sense of pride in the young girl on account of her noble blood. It was on that note that she was introduced early at court and given a place in queen Hellicent’s household. Often described as a “vivacious and spirited young lady”, her charm arose primarily from the deep-seated confidence in her conduct and accomplishments causing her to thrive under the praise offered generously by courtiers and tutors. Aside from her vitality and good manners, the princess also possesses the temperament and arrogance to back her royal upbringing and sense of self-importance. Passionate in her loves and hates, Cécile is very generous with her feelings but at the same time expects them to be reciprocated; be it loyalty, fondness or respect.

TIMELINE

1432 :: Birth to the Duke and Duchess of Guise {DIJON, FRANCE} 1439 – 1446 :: Placed under the wardship of Queen Hellicent {PARIS, FRANCE} 1446 – 1449 :: Plague outbreak. Sequestration to St. Saviour's Abbey {ÉVREUX, FRANCE} 1449 – 1453 :: Tenure as lady-in-waiting to {Princess of France {TBD}} {PARIS, FRANCE} 1455 :: Betrothal and marriage to {Prince of Asturias} 1456 :: Birth of {Fransisco of Aragon} 1458 :: Lisbon Summit {LISBON, PORTUGAL} 1459 :: Parisian Summit {PARIS, FRANCE}

MOCKBLOG.

PINTEREST BOARD.

INTRODUCTION

What current conflicts does your character face?

THE PRINCES OF VIANA. The burdens and dangers of reclaiming the Aragonese lands had fallen mostly on her husband’s shoulders even before the death of his brother, the King. {The Prince of Asturias} is taking all the risks but dwelling in uncertainty about whether he, and by extension Cécile herself, will reap the fruits of said efforts. By law of succession his nephews, {the Princes of Viana}, take precedent over him on the throne. {The Prince of Viana (1)} has no interest in ruling or stepping into his role as heir but that disposition might change once the dust settles and there is always the matter of his younger brother. As a result, she ponders all possible courses of action - legitimate and illicit - to ensure her husband prevails but she is hesitant to voice her concerns to him out of fear of alienating herself and being accused of seeding discord among them at such trying times.

HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF. Her mind keeps drawing parallels between the Trastámaras and Anjous. The falling out of her own cousin, {the King of France}, and his uncle serves as an example of what the future may hold for {the Prince of Asturias} should his position as head of the family and claim to the throne be challenged by his nephews. Cécile is concerned that after the prince regent’s failed coup and treason, {the King of France} might not support her husband’s ascend to the throne once it is reclaimed. The fact that {the Princess of Viana} is the new French queen only adds to her worries that France’s support will shift towards the young princes once Aragon is under Trastámara rule.

What are some potential plotlines you are interested in pursuing?

A TEST OF LOYALTY. Living in hiding, by the grace of other people’s charity has begun to sour the title of “princess” she bears. Returning now to familiar grounds has only accentuated the lows of living in exile and enhanced her well-concealed frustration with her current circumstances. Cécile prays for the family’s success in their efforts and longs to make herself indispensable. Should the opportunity arise to prove herself in their pursuit, she will make the most of it and assert any and all influence the noble name of de Guise holds in French court to shift the wind in her husband’s favor. Likewise, any further hardship or obstacle in their way; testing the limits of her loyalty and the extends she would go to to ensure her family’s ascend back on the throne would be very interesting to explore.

MARRIAGE. { subject to changes } Despite being married for a few years now the prince and princess of Asturias have been away from each other more often than not whether due to the numerous and long campaigns {the Prince of Asturias} has led or the court’s often and sudden relocations. Regardless of this, they present a united front and Cécile admires his resilience and strength. However the affairs between husband and wife might differ greatly behind closed doors, especially those who might have grown apart. But now is the time for peace or so it seems. Perhaps these last two summits in Lisbon and now Paris will provide the perfect opportunity for them to be reacquainted with one another.

#vi. 𝔟𝔢𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯 𝔥𝔲𝔯𝔱 𝔟𝔶 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔱𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔱𝔥𝔞𝔫 𝔠𝔬𝔪𝔣𝔬𝔯𝔱𝔢𝔡 𝔴𝔦𝔱𝔥 𝔞 𝔩𝔦𝔢 ✢ 𝖆𝖇𝖔𝖚𝖙.#death cw #child death cw

4 notes · View notes

statespacedesign · 4 years ago

Photo

A part of me wished that in an AU TWW was picked up by premium TV and that

1. The didactic ways were handled less egregiously (women as the medium for such, seriously?! I mean CJ had a Master’s in Pol Sci from UC Berkeley and lived in Dayton and yet there were the census and Camp David gaffes)

2. Ritchie-Vinick (the love of his life’s death would have been before 2002) was the GOP ticket during Bartlet’s re-election run. A Hoynes vs Vinick debate would have probably been immense and a Florida-California GOP ticket would have been strong, no? (Not really an American or have a sufficiently thorough knowledge of US Politics then)

3. The military shuttle leak (We all know Toby would not have done it that way) during his affair was the reason why Hoynes resigned.

- Instead of “a nod to mediocrity, a reversion to the mean and a rebuke to the exemplary”, Hoynes was replaced by Leo (Bingo Bob was still on the short list and of course the GOP’s preferred candidate)

- Berryhill became the new CoS (I considered Dr. Nancy McNally but I thought she was needed as the NSA director). He develops a professional fondness for CJ (because of some event/issue I still do not know what exactly) and wanted her to be more involved in policy work.

- Haffley and Congress executes a speedy VP confirmation in exchange for Vinick as the Secretary of State, prepping him as their nominee of course due to his popularity during the previous election and no more Senate votes to be worried about for his future campaign, and most thought Leo would not likely be the presidential democratic nominee because of his “history” (Haffley wouldn’t agree with that)

- Leo explains to Josh that he was not yet ready to be Bartlet’s CoS and that his work as deputy was palpably valued and highly regarded but Josh was more concerned on convincing Leo that he should run Leo’s campaign when the Bartlet administration comes to a close. Toby and CJ thinks Leo would not win against Baker in the primaries. Everyone thinks Vinick would be a formidable opponent. Leo agrees with Toby and CJ. Also, immediately after agreeing to be the VP replacement, he discusses with Jed and the key people in the DNC that he would not be running for the presidency (because he already found his guy)

- Leo chooses someone else as his CoS and tries very hard to convince Margaret to be Berryhill’s secretary but she wouldn’t budge so she “goes where he goes”

- Donna leaves Josh to be an executive assistant or maybe deputy of sort to Leo’s CoS but a key position in Leo’s staff which is also another excuse as to why she’ll still be part of the Gaza delegation

- As I took everything from Josh - well Sam was already taken - he becomes heavily preoccupied with who the democratic presidential nominee should be (which of course led him to Santos)

- Berryhill dies from aneurysm and CJ becomes CoS but with a little net this time, though Toby still thinks she could use her purse to swat the suicide bombers in Ramallah

- Annabeth is still hired as deputy press secretary to hone Toby’s watchable quality but after Josh left, they really hire a press secretary

- Toby and Will share the deputy CoS and major communications office tasks. Toby bears the brunt of it

4. My take on the following too:

- The Charlie-President Bartlet dynamic should have “died” gradually, not like Charlie just disappeared - Mandy, Rina, Ninety Miles Away, interns never happened - Toby proposed to Andy after the birth of the twins. I mean c’mon Toby! She was very pregnant! She still breaks his (and mine and everybody else’s) heart though - The San Andreo nuclear accident happened way before the primaries - Danny accepted an editor position after the Shareef arc

#the west wing #the west wing au #west wing au #donna x josh #danny x cj #toby ziegler #leo mcgarry #jed bartlet #charlie young #josh lyman #cj cregg #arnold vinick

2 notes · View notes

lady-griffin · 6 years ago

Text

Jenny’s Song

Let’s talk about the history of Jenny, the symbolic importance of her character and the actual song itself and what it could mean.

Who is Jenny of Oldstones exactly?

Jenny of Oldstones, by Rae Lavergne

Jenny was the wife of Prince Duncan Targaryen, the first born son of King Aegon V (also known as Egg) and heir to the Iron Throne.

Duncan Targaryen, by Karla Ortiz

Duncan was originally betrothed to an unknown Baratheon daughter, but while in the Riverlands he fell in love with a “strange, lovely and mysterious” woman, aka Jenny of Oldstones.

Despite already being engaged and the fact that there was a severe class difference and protest from his family, the small council and others, the two nonetheless got married. Or I guess more accurately stayed married.

King Aegon V tried to break up the marriage, but to no avail. Duncan, in the end, was given a choice -- be the heir to the throne or stay married to Jenny of Oldstones. He chose the latter and became known as the Prince of Dragonflies.

Now this story is important for several reasons.

For one thing, the choice these two made impacted the existence of current characters and their own family lines. So, let’s get into the literal and historical implications of Jenny and her Prince of Dragonflies.

The Effect on the Present

Jaehaerys II was named heir and later became king, when Duncan abdicated the throne. He is the founder of the specific line that is Daenerys’ immediate family, him and his sister-wife Shaera were the parents of Aerys and Rhaella, who are Daenerys parents and Jon’s grandparents, on his father’s side.

You may think those two pairs of siblings may have ended up together anyway, without Duncan and Jenny, since they are Targaryen siblings and all that, but not so much.

Jaehaerys and Shaera were betrothed to Celia Tully and Luthor Tyrell respectively, but were in-love with one another. Despite their parents marrying for love, they were forbidden to do the same, mostly because they were siblings and Aegon and his wife Betha Blackwood wanted to end that tradition.

But because Duncan married for love, Jaehaerys and Shaera followed suit and it goes further than that.

Jenny brought the Woods Witch to court and she proclaimed that the Prince Who Was Promised would be born of the line of Aerys II (Mad King) and Rhaella. Hearing that, Jaehaerys arranged the marriage between his own son and daughter, who had three children Rhaegar, Viserys and Daenerys.

Because of Duncan and Jenny, Daenerys and Jon (and their right to the throne) exists even at all.

And there is more.

Baratheon Family

Because Duncan snubbed the Baratheon girl, the Stormlands rebelled against the Crown and lost.

Aegon sent his youngest daughter Rhaelle to be betrothed to Ormund Baratheon, which created the current or most recent Baratheon Family - Robert, Stannis and Renly’s grandmother was Rhaelle Targaryen.

In the books, not so much the show, Robert and others even kind of use this as a “justification” for him having the throne, which is basically bullshit. He took it and that’s that.

Tyrell Family

And while this might not be the case in the show, Luthor Tyrell was betrothed to Shaera Targaryen and because she married her brother, he instead married Olenna Redwyne, which created the current (now gone in show) Tyrell family.

And while not directly related to Duncan Targaryen, Ser Duncan the Tall the namesake of this Targaryen Prince is an ancestor of Brienne of Tarth.

So, a lot of the families currently in the show exist because Duncan married Jenny and chose her over the throne.There was a ripple affect with Duncan’s choice that we can still see.

Symbolic Implications

There are a lot of couples we’ve been shown that are a reflection of this couple, but nonetheless fall short of the actual couple.

They main factor being that Duncan abdicated his throne for Jenny, he chose love over power and his duty. And many couples fall short on that idea.

Sidenote: To be clear, whether or not choosing love is a good thing or not in this world is highly debatable. But going with the moral of how Duncan and Jenny are told, love is the positive thing. But the flaws are pointed out to us.

Daenerys and Jon

First off, they have the same first letters. Daenerys and Duncan// Jon and Jenny, so that’s an interesting parallel for the two couples.

In the show, Podrick’s singing ends just as Daenerys and Jon’s scene in the crypt begins. The Florence + The Machine Lyric Video ends on Jon and Daenerys’ crypt scene, with the line ��the ones who loved her the most.”

This seems to be strongly indicating to us, the audience, that we should see a connection between these two couples (if you know the backstory.) But I would argue, the overall surface of Jon and Dany is a closer match than the actual relationship itself.

To be fair though, Jon did give up his throne to Daenerys and Daenerys herself stated that she was in the North, because she loves Jon. Her being in the North is presented as her giving up her desire for the throne for Jon.

So both are meant to be a Duncan-figure to the others’ Jenny.

And yet, it’s still not the same.

Jon didn’t give up his throne for Daenerys. He’s gave it to her. It’s not the same kind of choice, in my opinion (and depending if you believe in Pol!Jon, he’s not giving it up for love).

But, let’s count it for now, because do we think he’s going to do the same thing, again. What would be the point of bringing up Jon’s claim to the throne and then just have him give it up to Daenerys, a repeat from last season.

I don’t think Jon is going to be giving up his claim to Daenerys or for her, anytime soon. Mostly becauseof Daenerys and her own relationship to the throne.

Daenerys is also framed as a Duncan like figure, but is she? Daenerys might talk about her love for Jon and even believe that she is willing to give up her throne for him, but again is she willing to do it?

Sam brings that question right up to the surface, for both Jon and the audience. So the answer isn’t a straightforward yes, if it was the show wouldn’t be bringing our attention to it.

Daenerys’ primary focus when Jon was telling her the truth, was that he now had a higher claim to the Iron Throne than her own. That scene alone, I think disqualifies her as a Jenny figure and goes against her, as a Duncan figure as well.

And even her leaving her campaign for the Iron Throne is temporary, in the sense that she herself seems to see this as a slight change to her path, but not changing the overall course. Once the dead are gone, she was always planning on getting that throne and 7K. The Sansa and Daenerys scene confirms that.

Jon and Daenerys are no Duncan and Jenny, at least not in their relationship together.

There are two other couples who seem to fit the mold of Duncan and Jenny, more so.

Rhaegar and Lyanna

Rhaegar annuls his marriage to Ellia Martell (in the show) to marry Lyanna. And like his ancestor breaks another Baratheon betrothal. And the Lyric Video certainly does imply a Duncan and Jenny filter to Rhaegar and Lyanna.

And again, Rhaegar exists (like his sister and son) because of Jenny and Duncan getting married and Rhaegar was born during the Tragedy of Summehall…which we’ll note a bit later on.

Robb and Talisa/Jeyne

Robb and Talisa/Jeyne are more similar, in my opinion, to the story of Duncan and Jenny, particularly Robb and Talisa. Robb meets this strange and mysterious woman in the Riverlands (Talisa), while she is of noble birth in Essos, she is not of any noble birth within Westeros.

They get marry in secret and Robb breaks the arranged marriage that his mother arranged (like Duncan) that was meant to be advantageous to him and his family. And he refuses to give his “Jenny” up, despite the persistence of his own “Small Council.”

Furthermore, in the books, Catelyn herself hopes that Robb’s song in the end will be a happy one. That despite the current difficulties and struggles, it will all work out for the best.

However, neither Rhaegar nor Robb are Duncan. As both chose to keep their “Jenny” and their Throne. They didn’t make a choice and they both paid dearly and nearly brought the end to their houses.

You can’t have both your Jenny and your throne. You either choose her or the throne. And I would argue choosing the throne, is better than not choosing at all.

Daenerys and Daario.

This connection isn’t really all that applicable in all honestly, but I thought it deserved mentioning.

Daenerys gave up Daario for her pursuit of the throne. While Daenerys said she didn’t love him or wasn’t in-love with him, so it was an easier choice for her overall. It still was a choice.

She chose power and what she assumed might be a future duty for her as Queen. I would say her making the choice, puts her in a better spot than either Rhaegar or Robb.

Now there is another pairing to consider.

Jon and Sansa

Jon and Duncan do have some similarities (which also apply to him and Daenerys, if he is the Duncan in that dynamic)

They are both dark-haired Targaryens and their fathers were Targaryen men, while their mothers were not of the Targaryen line.

Duncan’s mother was Betha Blackwood, Blackwoods are a noble family in the Riverlands who still worship the Old Gods. Jon’s mother is Lyanna Stark, while not from the Riverlands, the Starks as we all know worship the Old Gods.

And while this is more of connection between Aegon V, Duncan’s father rather than Duncan himself, Jon too can be seen an unlikely ruler.

Aegon V was also known as “Aegon the Unlikely” due to the fact that he was the fourth son of the fourth son. No one ever expected him to become king, because he was one of the spares not the heir.

Jon is also viewed as the fourth son of Ned Stark. While Bran and Rickon are younger than Jon, the fact they are trueborn bump them up, making Jon the fourth son.

And because Ned Stark had five trueborn children, Jon was never to going to inherit Winterfell in any normal circumstance. And no one knows, or didn’t know until now, that he was actually Rhaegar’s child, so again, he’s a dark horse in the race to the Iron Throne, at least for the other characters.

And finally, Duncan was known as “Duncan the Small” because his namesake was “Ser Duncan the Tall”. And Jon’s height has been brought up quite a lot, even in this most recent episode, specifically in the scene of Sansa and Daenerys.

Sansa and Jenny, also have some interesting parallels and connections.

The prominent one, being that Jenny of Oldstones was one of Catelyn’s favorite stories and Catelyn is from the Riverlands, like Jenny.

While some fans are currently speculating that Jenny was a red-head, to my knowledge there is no actual evidence of that at all. But we don’t actually know, so maybe?

There is another connection to Sansa, it is a stretch, but I see a connection.

Jenny has a very fae-like quality to her and her story in general. Her story and I think (for me at least) the association with Dragonflies bring to mind fairies and how they appeared in Medieval Stories, particularly those involving knights. Now Westeros doesn’t have fae/fairies, but…

Jenny, apparently, claimed to be descendent of the Old Kings/First Men and also the Children of the Forest. She is described as being “strange, lovely and mysterious” and so maybe she was a “fae” of some kind or a descendent of the Children of the Forest.

Fans have speculated that her claims have some truth to them. But I’m not entirely convinced if Jenny herself was magical.

Similar to Sansa.

Sansa is currently the only Stark who doesn’t have magic in her storyline, but despite that, in the mythos of Westeros she is the one who people are starting to associate with magic. There are rumors, that Sansa magically killed Joffrey and escaped by turning into a wolf with wings.

Obviously, that’s not true.

But it’s still interesting that the non-magical Stark sibling is the one who is already being turned into a magical-tale for the people of Westeros. And that mythos might build overtime, especially as Sansa reunites with her siblings who do have prominent magical abilities.

And won’t that just confirm in people’s minds that Sansa is magical. And then later in the years, won’t future maesters be able to deny the existence of magic of the Three-Eyed Raven and such, because they know that historically King Joffrey was killed by the Tyrell family.

Similar to how the Maesters of Oldtown dismissed Jenny of Oldstones in season 7, while they were also dismissing the Three-Eyed Raven and the White Walkers (2 very real things)

Basically, and we’ll see if this turns out to be true in the end, I think both Jenny of Oldstones and Sansa Stark and the stories they became/will become is part of the blurred line between the real magic that exists and the fake, story-magic that is part of the smallfolk tall tales.

I’ve said this before, but I’m so interested in what the story of Sansa and her siblings will be in Westeros years later, because I’m betting there will be more than a few inaccuracies.

Sansa’s Wardrobe

The show, has made a very interesting connection between Sansa and Jenny and her Prince of Dragonflies, all the way back in the beginning.

In seasons 1-3, Sansa wore dragonfly, moth, and butterfly imagery.

Now the Dragonflies/Moths/Butterflies might have only been used because they represent delicacy and femininity, but also the ability to adapt, change, and evolve. They are metamorphosis and so is Sansa Stark. And that might be it, nothing more.

But the inclusion of the acorn collar for Arya, really does make me think the dragonflies to some extent, links Sansa to Jenny of Oldstones and her Dragonfly Prince. At least, in my opinion.

What acorn collar?

In season 1, Arya wore an acorn embroideredcollar to the Hand’s Tourney. While Sansa was already wearing dragonflies before this scene, it’s an interesting connection.

Not only is Sansa wearing her Dragonfly necklace and Moth ring as well in this scene, but this is where Sansa (and Arya) first meet Littlefinger. In the books, it is mentioned how he and Catelyn would play Duncan and Jenny when they were kids.

Now the acorn collar is a clear reference to the acorn dress Arya wore in the books when she was at Acorn Hall with the Brother-Hood of Banners. And during her time with the Brotherhood, Arya also met the Ghost of High Heart who is the Woods Witch (or believed to be), the same one from Jenny’s story.

She demands a song, known as Jenny’s song (the one we hear in the show). Now Arya notes that the song sounds familiar, but she doesn’t actually know it, however she knows Sansa would’ve known it.

In addition, some of the Ghost of High Heart prophetic dreams relate to Sansa. Joffrey being poisoned at his wedding and Sansa being the one carrying the poison, for instance.

Now in the show, Arya never meets the Ghost of High Heart and a lot of the culture and mythos of the world itself isn’t part of the show.

But still, that link between Sansa and Jenny of Oldstones exists, with Sansa’s dragonfly accessories and Arya’s acorn collar.

Confirming that Michelle Clapton is pulling, some of her costume details from the books and it’s interesting she chose dragonflies and not Jonquil flowers, which I would argue are more closely associated with book Sansa.

So are Jon and Sansa, a reflection of Duncan and jenny?

Well it depends. I think Jon could definitely give up his claim to the throne and abdicate it to someone else, depending on the circumstances.

In order to protect Sansa? A definite possibility.

Shoving the marriage proposal (idea) to Daenerys out the door, now that he knows he’s a Targaryen and Sansa’s cousin. Maybe?

We’ll have to see, though, I don’t think will get that in any real or clear-cut way.

But, is that the same as Duncan and Jenny?

Well not really, but I would say it’s pretty darn close.

I would argue whether or not the throne exists in the end, Jon wholeheartedly and genuinely choosing to give it up in some way for Sansa, would be the important thing. Not to Sansa, but for her.

And again, if Rhaegar and Lyanna and Robb and Talisa can be reflections of Duncan and Jenny, despite those two men never making a choice, than Jon making a choice would be closer match.

But we’ll have to see.

Jenny’s Song

The actual song, despite all of the above, is not about Duncan and Jenny. Or least not entirely. The song is about The Tragedy of Summerhall.

Basically, Aegon V was trying to bring back dragons into the world and his failure led to a fire that killed him, Duncan Targaryen and Ser Duncan the Tall and likely others.

Sidenote: Rhaegar believed, for a time, he was The Prince That Was Promised due to the events of Summerhall, him being born amidst smoke and salt and all that. Later, he started to believe it was his son Aegon Targaryen (not the Jon Snow son, the one with Ellia). So again that prince that was promised and Jenny of Oldstones connection, comes up again.

It’s unknown if Jenny actually died at Summerhall or if she chose to stay there until the day she died, dancing with the ghosts of those she’s known and loved. Now all alone in the world. I’m incline to believe the latter, but it’s vey possible she died as well and the smallfolk would claim to see her ghost.

We don’t know.

What we do know, is that Winterfell is basically being marked to be a place of similar tragedy.

Soon the characters who survive are going to be surrounded by the ghosts of Winterfell. And the song overplays some of the main cast and groupings/pairings.

The Hearth Gang – Podrick, Tyrion, Jaime, Davos, Brienne and Tormund

Gilly, Sam and Baby Sam

Sansa and Theon

Arya and Gendry

Messandei and Greyworm

Jorah

While we could go into the specific lyrics, overplaying the shots, I don’t know how important that actually is (maybe I’m wrong).

It seems clear to me though, that the people shown are going to lose the others who were also shown. Soon, some of the pairings will no longer be pairings. And the living will have their own ghosts haunting them, ghosts they’ll never want to leave.

Basically the song, as of right now (perhaps future episodes will change this) is not about Duncan and Jenny falling and love and being together. It’s about losing your loved ones and being left alone in this world.

Death is coming.

And very soon, some of these characters will have the burden of remembering those who have fallen and keeping them alive in their memory.

#Game of Thrones #GOT #Jenny of Oldstones #Jonsa #Jon Snow #Sansa Stark #Duncan Targaryen #Jenny's Song #Arya Stark #JOnsa Meta #Got Meta #Got Analysis

1K notes · View notes

hergrim · 5 years ago

Text

French tactical developments in the 14th century.

The French get a bad rap in a lot of older scholarship and, as a result, also in pop-history and movies. The near-constant defeat of the French has been taken as evidence that the French, in their arrogance, preferred to keep their "chivalric" tactics and rely solely on the massed cavalry charge and individual prowess for most of the the Hundred Years' War.

The truth, though, is that the French already made massive changes in how they fought by the time of Agincourt and, importantly, they made many of these changes early in the HYW, not late. While they had never relied solely on the cavalry charge, having made extensive use of combined arms tactics all the way back into the 11th and 12th centuries, they altered this dynamic considerably during the first decade of actual combat against the English.

I'm going to trace the development of French tactics through the end of the 1360s, where they had very nearly completely matured their tactics against the English. At some point in the near future, I’ll take up the second half of the story and talk about the very interesting changes made in the 15th century.

French Tactics Prior to the Hundred Years' War

Starting at the Battle of Courtrai in 1302, we see the French combined arms system as it had been more or less for several centuries. Both the French and the Flemish put their crossbowmen out in front of their lines, with the French placing light infantry (bidauts, Spanish javelin men) behind their crossbowmen to bolster their line. Behind the Flemish crossbowmen, though, was a solid formation of infantry, while behind the French crossbowmen were mounted men-at-arms. The French crossbowmen drove off their Flemish rivals, and the Flemish line moved back from the edge of the stream in order to get away from the French missile fire. The French crossbowmen, however, were running low on bolts and the bidauts were not adequate for standing up to heavy infantry, even if they were good at skirmishing. If either force crossed, the Flemish would probably destroy them against the stream.

On the other hand, the Flemish did look to the French like they were in retreat and, if pushed immediately and not given time to regroup, could be defeated. They therefore launched a cavalry charge across the stream. This is where they went wrong - there wasn't enough room on the other bank to fully regroup after crossing, and there were a number of ditches on the other side that were full of water and broke up the French formation further. The result was that the French didn't have the space to launch their charge, except in the center. There they very nearly broke through, and some of the men there began to flee, but reserves came up and reinforced it. As a result, the French were forced back against the stream and into the ditches all across the battlefield, which is where most of the casualties were taken.

It really needs to be understood here that the French were very nearly successful. True, they did underestimate their opponents and also misinterpreted a tactical withdrawal for the beginnings of a rout but, in spite of the sup-optimal battlefield conditions, they came close. Had the battle been fought on open ground, they still might have lost, but the battle wouldn't have been the disaster that it was.

By the time of the next major battle, Mons-en-Pévèle in 1304, the French altered their plan of attack slightly. They brought along siege engines to target the Flemish formation - although the Flemish managed to destroy these before the battle started - and started off by skirmishing and staging a false charge to test the Flemish resolve. When this failed, they tried repeated charges in conjunction with an attack on the wagenburg at the rear, but this failed as well. After retreating to their camp, Flemish went on the offensive and attacked the camp. This plan almost succeeded, but failed when the French rallied and attacked the disordered Flemish infantry, solidly defeating them.

Cassel, in 1328, was the culmination of what the French had learned from Courtrai and Mons-en-Pévèle. The French again deployed some siege engines against the Flemish, but rather than mount cavalry charges they stuck to skirmishing and ravaging the Flemish countryside around the static Flemish position. In essence, they besieged the Flemish camp and forced them to take the offensive. When they did, a mounted reserve was used slam into their flank and crush them. The heavy losses suffered in this phase of the battle meant that the French could then break the final Flemish defensive formation and claim total victory.

French Tactics From Morlaix to Poitiers

Not too long after this, the HYW began. The first two major campaigns, in 1339 and 1340, ended with not battle, but with both sides standing off from the other and daring each other to make an attack. This was in keeping with lessons the French had learned fighting the Flemish, while the English knew they had too few men-at-arms to successfully storm the French field fortifications. It was only in 1342, at Morlaix, that the first land battle of the HYW was fought.

The English army probably had 2400 men, about half archers and half men-at-arms, while the Breton force had, at most, 3000 cavalry, 1500 Genoese and a large number of Breton infantry. The numbers for the Bretons, reported in English chronicles, are probably quite high and can be halved or reduced by 2/3 for the cavalry, as Charles only had 1000-1500 at St-Pol-de-Leon (actually Restellou, see below) in 1346 and 1800 at La Roche Derrien in 1347. The Genoese numbers are more likely, as the survivors of 14 Genoese galleys destroyed as a result of an English attack (11 ships deliberately burned by the Genoese, with 3 escaping) were probably present. However, contracts from 1337 and 1338 show only 25 crossbowmen per ship and that the other 180 fighting men were equipped with coats-of-plate, helmets, mail collars and shields. If 1500 Genoese were present, about half the fighting men of the ships, probably somewhere under 200 of them can be said to be crossbowmen for sure.

What happened at the battle isn't precisely known, but we do know that the English had time to dig pits and trenches in front of their line and disguise them. The French then either launched a cavalry charge at the English or sent their best infantry forward to fight with the English. The confusion comes from Henry Knighton's use of the word "galea" ("helmet") in discussing the first attack. While galea is most often used to refer to knights, as it is by Adam Murimuth, it is occasionally used to refer to well armoured foot soldier. In the absence of any other use of the term by Knighton, it's likely that this was his intended meaning.

What this means is that Charles of Blois had already begun to use the next adaptation of French tactics: the use of heavy infantry. While later it would be dismounted men-at-arms who made the attack, this seems to be one of the first experiments in the new tactic. In this case, the tactic didn't really work and the infantry were beaten off before they reached the defensive trench. The archers aren't mentioned in the battle at all, but they must have played a major role in this phase of the battle.

A cavalry charge was tried next, but the disguised pits and trenches broke it up and the French were hardly able to reach the English lines. Those who did were captured, while those who were driven off before coming into contact had to contend with the concealed traps as much as when they advanced. The result was a French defeat and heavy losses among both the infantry and cavalry, but it was nonetheless an innovation.

1346 sees two battles where the French, although unsuccessful in both, had changed their methods once again. The first, the battle of Restellou (once known as the battle of St-Pol-de-Leon), was a comparatively minor affair, although it was one of the most incredible English successes. 80 English men-at-arms, with 100-120 archers and 80 bidowers (probably Gascon javelin men) fought off a French force that included something between 1000 and 1500 men-at-arms, large numbers of crossbowmen and large numbers of other infantry.

The English took up a position on a hill between the two halves of the village of Restellou, likely forming the men-at-arms between the two sets of buildings with the archers among the buildings themselves. Behind them they formed a defensive barrier of carts and horses, perhaps with the bidowers as guard. Charles divided his force into two sections. The main force, consisting of 500 of his best men-at-arms, was sent up the hill in a frontal assault supported by the crossbowmen and some of the light infantry. The second force, 400 mounted men-at-arms and many of the light infantry, he sent around behind the English.

As Clifford J. Rogers notes, if the two forces had attacked simultaneously then the English would have been destroyed. However, in order to sneak up on the English, the second force would have needed to make a 13km trip and so only arrived after the initial attack had been made. Subsequently, the hill the English were on would have made it impossible for the two forces to co-ordinate an attack and the English must have beaten off one attack only to deal with another. By the end of the day every man of the English was wounded and most of their horses had been killed, but the French withdrew as night fell and the English, not having lost a single man, were able to march overnight to safety.

The frontal assault by the dismounted men-at-arms, supported by crossbowmen, presaged French tactics at Poitiers a decade later, while the mounted assault on the rear would become part of French doctrine in later decades.

The second battle was, of course, Crecy. Wherever the English made their stand - and this has come into question in the last few years - they also used wagons to form a defensive position at the rear of their army and may have even placed wagons in front of their archers. The French adapted their tactic at Courtrai and sent considerable numbers of crossbowmen out in front of their army. This was actually a substantial change. Whereas earlier armies might have had 1-2000 crossbowmen and other missile troops, it's plausible that the French deployed 4000 armoured crossbowmen, both Genoese and crossbowmen from the towns. Some sources suggest the presence of javelin men from southern France/Spain or other infantry behind the crossbowmen, and then a strong force of French cavalry behind all this.

It seems that the French plan was to copy the English to an extent, but to adapt it to their own circumstances. While archery was not unknown in France, and bows were more popular than crossbows in many areas, heavily armoured crossbowmen with pavises offered advantages of their own. Their shields could take the sting out of much of the English archery, while their heavy armour meant that they could stand up to an attack much better than the crossbowmen and light infantry at Courtrai. That, at least, was the theory.

However, at Crecy, Philip VI seems to have advanced with his vanguard very fast in order to try and bring the English to battle before they could link up with the Flemish forces to the North or otherwise escape. As a result, the crossbowmen were marching without their armour or pavises. When they engaged the English, who may well have been protected by the wagons, and with the ground turned to mud by the rain, the Genoese were unable to load quickly under fire and were soon put to flight. This, in turn, put any infantry behind them to flight and caused the French cavalry to launch an ill-advised charge.

This is where the disaster happened. The French cavalry and the fleeing crossbowmen and infantry came together in a mess that stopped the charge and allowed the English archers to inflict heavy wounds on the French horses who, maddened, went every which way. The English vanguard then advanced and carried out heavy slaughter among the French. Subsequent attacks were managed better, but ultimately the French were soundly defeated.

Although the French made some extremely bad mistakes at Crecy, most importantly not waiting until the next morning to attack, it's clear that they had a new plan to deal with the English. It was an evolution of older tactics and, properly carried out, it stood a good chance of succeeding. Unfortunately, the political and tactical situation (Philip had lost a lot of political capital in not fighting the English in 1339/40 and had every reason to think the English might flee during the night) resulted in a bad modification to the plan.

In between the Battle of Crecy and the Battle of Poitiers is the Battle of Mauron, fought 1352 in Brittany between Guy de Nesle on the French side and Walter Bentley on the English side. Bentley, on arriving in Brittany, had quickly destroyed two minor French forces besieging Monfortist castles but was intercepted by Guy de Nesle near the small village of Mauron. The English, according to the Chronique Normandie, had about 1500 archers and men-at-arms and the French 1400 “combatants”, although Jonathan Sumption has suggested the English only numbered about 750 men.

The English had not been able to find an ideal piece of ground, so they settled for forming up at the top of a long slope, with a hedge at their back and archers on either side of the men-at-arms. The French all dismounted, save for a hundred and forty men-at-arms under the lord of Hangest, as they had the year before during the Battle of Saintes (a very minor battle, with few details beyond the French dismounting) and advanced up the slope, which was covered in thick underbrush and tired the French men-at-arms.

While the precise details of the battle are lost to us, we know that the English were forced back against the hedge because the lord of Hangest succeeded in either partially or completely driving off the archers on his flank. For unknown reasons, two large bodies of French men-at-arms suddenly retreated and, as a result, the archers on the flank opposite the lord of Hangest were able to flank the rest of the men-at-arms. This turned the tide in the favour of the English, who managed to rally and defeat the remaining men-at-arms. Somewhat above 800 French men-at-arms were killed or captured but, although we don’t know how many English were killed other than the 30 archers executed for desertion, we do know that Bentley’s force was badly mauled and he himself suffered serious wounds.

Mauron makes clear that cavalry could absolutely charge archers and win through against them if they didn’t have any sort of natural or artificial barrier protecting them. It also demonstrates that the French had settled on dismounting to fight the English before Poitiers. Not only had they done so in the South of France a year earlier, but at Mauron they showed that, when a small force of cavalry was kept in reserve to chase off the archers, it could be used to inflict serious damage on the English. The battle might have been a defeat, but it was the closest the French had yet come to victory.

Only four years later, the French came even closer to winning at Poitiers, and this was again the result of them adapting to the changing face of warfare. The battle plan had been adjusted from Crecy slightly and more resembled Charles of Blois' plan at Restellou. The vanguard consisted of crossbowmen behind shieldbearers who, by number, equaled the English archers, supported by heavily armoured knights on the flanks to ride down the archers and by a further battle of dismounted men-at-arms behind.

The French had intended to fight the English that morning, but the Black Prince, who was in a bad position lacking food or adequate water, attempted a maneuver that would either allow him to either disengage or to fight the French as they moved to intercept him. This caused the two forces of French heavy cavalry to make a precipitous attack that might nonetheless have worked if the English had been less disciplined. The attack on the English right was caught in a lane between two rows of hedges and annihilated, while the attack on the English left was repulsed and the mounted men-at-arms retreated to the flank of their infantry and formed a barrier against the flanking archers with their armoured horses.

The English archers were eventually lead in a flanking movement to attack the rear of the armoured cavalry, where the horses were unprotected, which provoked the horses into flight, crashing through both the vanguard and the battle behind. A mounted attack on the flank of the crossbowmen and infantry then seems to have been made by the English left, in conjunction with the archers, putting it to flight.

A second, stronger, attack was then made by the second battle, led by the Dauphin. In spite of being outnumbered by the English overall (The French likely had only 8-10 000 men-at-arms and 3-4 000 infantry in three/four divisions, while the English were in a single formation of 6000 men), this was a hard fight that the English nearly lost. It was, however, beaten off and the English thought they won the day, as the third battle, under the Duke of Orleans, appeared to flee. This was likely the result of King Jean II's order that, considering the heavy fighting, his youngest sons should be removed from the battlefield being misinterpreted and large numbers leaving with them.

The third and final attack was launched by the king and was quite probably the largest attack of the day, with the king having gathered the remnants of all the previous attacks, including many crossbowmen and shieldbearers from the vanguard. The English archers, exhausted, wounded and running so short of arrows they had to retrieve them from dead or dying men, had little impact as the French formed up a shield wall and advanced to meet the English again. In desperation, the Black Prince sent the Captal de Buch with 60 men-at-arms and 100 archers in an encircling maneuver to attack the French from the rear and, to restore the confidence of his men as they saw what appeared to be the Captal fleeing, advanced to meet the French.

This desperate ploy of making an attack on the French rear was ultimately what saved the English from defeat. Although the attacking force was tiny in comparison to the French forces, it had the advantage of surprise and the brittle morale of the French. already they had been beaten twice, and many of the men who had been beaten were in their ranks. The result was that, attacked from the rear, they broke and fled, resulting in the capture of Jean II of France as he stood defiant and refused to flee.

Poitiers is a good example of how the French had adapted and learned from their experiences so far. This time, in spite of the English provocations, they didn't attack the night they arrived on the battlefield and waited for the next day. As had been the plan at Crecy, before circumstances had changed, they deployed shielded crossbowmen to counter the English archers that, had the English stayed within their initial lines, might have worked. Importantly, however, the French were now using very heavily armoured mounted men to try and charge through the English archers in order to allow the men on foot to reach the English men-at-arms and engage them. The dismounting of their men-at-arms was also, while not unique considering previous variations in Brittany, was the first time it had been done on such a wide scale.

For all they had done right, however, the French had made a mistake: they had split their battles up into forces which were each smaller than the English which meant that, although the French men-at-arms were well armoured and superb warriors, they were always fighting at a numerical disadvantage in spite of their larger army. While this did allow them to wear down the English, it's entirely possible that the Dauphin's battle might have prevailed over the English if it had had the men from the Duke of Orlean's battle to throw into the fight.

French Tactics From Poitiers to Nájera

After Poitiers, there are a couple of interesting smaller battles, almost skirmishes, that are of interest in addition to one large scale battle.

The first is the battle of Nogent-sur-Seine in 1359, between Sir Eustace d'Ambreticourt, a Hainaulter knight serving the English, and Sir Broquart de Fenestrages, a French knight fighting on behalf of the Duke of Normandy. d'Ambreticourt had 400 men-at-arms and 200 archers and had underestimated the size of the French force, which consisted of 1200 men-at-arms and 900 heavy infantry. He drew up on a small hill in the middle of a vineyard, with his archers in his front and had his men-at-arms dismount and shorten their lances to five feet.

The French formed up in three battles, all mounted, and charged. Two attempted to break through the English men-at-arms, first one and then, in support, the other, but these charges were stopped dead by the solid formation and lances of the English. The English archers, who seem to have retreated behind the men-at-arms and taken a position higher on the hill, started to shoot down into the melee but were then forced to beat off the third French battle. While this mounted force was unable to charge down the archers, who continuously re-positioned themselves to avoid being overrun, they did prevent the archers from supporting their men-at-arms. Then, when the French heavy infantry finally caught up with the cavalry, they went around the main fight and pushed up into the archers. Protected by pavises, the 900 foot soldiers were able to ignore the arrows of the English and rout the archers thoroughly, the third battle pursuing and slaughtering or capturing every archer and all the servants with the baggage.

While this was taking place, the first and second battles broke the line of English men-at-arms so badly that there was no chance of rallying. The French then captured or killed the English at their leisure, with only a few managing to escape to the town of Nogent, where the English had a garrison.

Nogent-sur-Seine is an interesting battle for a number of reasons. Firstly, it shows that the French desire for a cavalry charge was not a pointless adherence to an outdated method of war. Even against well positioned, disciplined and armoured enemy the cavalry charge could still defeat infantry when used correctly. Secondly, it shows the use of the flanking attack by cavalry which, as I’ve noted above, became an increasingly important part of French tactics. Thirdly, it highlights the limitations of archers. Philippe de Commynes famously said that archers are only effective when they number in the thousands, and Nogent-sur-Seine is a good small scale example of this. The English simply didn't have enough archers to attempt to flank the French cavalry or to effectively beat off the heavy infantry. Another 200-600 archers might have made all the difference in the battle.

The second battle of note is the Battle of Cocherel in 1364. Fought between the forces of Charles V of France and Charles II of Navarre, it was part of a dynastic dispute over the inheritance of the duchy of Burgundy. Jean de Greilly, also known as the captal de Buch and commanded the Naverrese forces, had 700 men-at-arms, 300 English archers and 500 good infantry of other sorts. Bertrand du Guesclin, who commanded the French army, had around 1500 men-at-arms. The two armies converged near the village of Cocherel in Normandy, with the French blocking the progress of the Navarrese/English and the Navarrese/English taking up defensive positions on a steep hillside.

There followed a stalemate as the French were unwilling to attack such a strong position and the Navarrese/English force was similarly hesitant to advance to the attack. A lack of supplies ultimately decided the manner, as at Poitiers, since the French force began to retreat. Seeing this, the English contingent of men-at-arms and archers immediately came down from the hill to attack the French and the captal was forced to follow. The French, who had prepared for the eventuality of this attack, quickly reordered themselves on foot and stood against their opponents.

As at Nogent-sur-Seine several years previously and at Auray later in the year, the English archery had little effect on the French men-at-arms as a result of their shields and armour. They fell back through the English men-at-arms, who had previously opened to let them through, and fought hand to hand with the French in support of the men-at-arms. The fighting then became a savage melee that the Navarrese/English force had begun to win.

The battle was turned by two measures. Firstly, the French had detailed thirty of the best knights mounted on the biggest and best armoured horses to push through the press and carry off the captal. Aided by some Gascons on foot, they managed to succeed in doing just this.

Secondly, du Guesclin had kept a body of 200 Gascons in reserve, something the captal had failed to do. In the wake of the captal's capture, this reserve flanked the Navarrese/English army and attacked the guard the captal had placed around his flag. Killing the guards, they tore down the captal's standard and precipitated rout by the enemy force who, seeing their standard overthrown, came to the conclusion that the day was lost.

The main lesson we can take from this battle was that the English were continuing to aggressively counter attack when the situation presented itself and that the archers were finding more and more use not just as archers, but also as skilled light infantry who could contribute to the intense hand to hand fighting of battle. Both of these factors would be key at Auray later in the year.

Auray, fought four months after Cocherel, was the final battle in the quarter century long War of Breton Succession between John de Montfort, whom the English supported, and Charles de Blois, who the French supported. Monfort and his English allies had 1600 men-at-arms and 800-900 archers, while Charles de Blois had somewhere between 3000 and 4000 men-at-arms.

Both sides dismounted drew up in a single line, divided into three main battles, with a rearguard. The English mixed their archers with the men-at-arms and, although the precise details of their deployment aren't mentioned, they were likely positioned in front of the men-at-arms in each battle. The French advanced to the attack, climbing a gentle slope to the English. The archers had little effect as at Cocherel, and it’s likely they then withdrew to the rear of their battle to support the men-at-arms by plugging any gaps and fighting around the edges of the battle to prevent any flanking.

Before the battle there were a number of defections on the French side, and these may have been the men of the rearguard, which did not play a role in the battle. In contrast, the English rearguard played a vital role, moving up to support John de Montfort's battle early in the battle when it looked like being overrun and collecting those who were "thrown into confusion" (possibly those trying to sneak away from the battle) and guiding them back to their proper positions. It also made a decisive final attack when Charles of Blois' standard began to waver. The end result was the routing and destruction of Charles of Blois' army, the death of the duke himself and the ending of the Breton War of Succession after almost a quarter of a century in the favour of the English preferred candidate, John de Montfort.

Auray serves to repeat the lessons of the previous battles. Men-at-arms, in plate armour and carrying shields, were for all intents and purposes invulnerable to English archery when there were only limited numbers of archers. An active reserve, as at Cocherel, proved to be an immense asset and significantly contributed to the victory, while the archers' role as good light infantry fighting hand-to-hand with the French helped the English to defeat the French. The increasing role of the English archer in this role would come to its highest level at Agincourt.

The final battle of this period, the largest of them all, was the Battle of Nájera in 1367. Part of the First Castillian Civil War, it was proxy war in a similar vein to the War of Breton Succession, fought between King Peter of Castile (the English preference) and his illegitimate half brother, Count Henry of Trastámara (the French favourite). Henry had managed, with the help of English mercenaries among others, to oust Peter and gain nominal control over the kingdom. Edward III sent his two sons, Edward the Black Prince and John of Gaunt, at the head of a small English army to aid Peter in regaining his throne. Some additional English garrisons from southern France and mercenaries who had been serving Peter and defected now, aided the ousted king, in addition to numbers of Gascon men-at-arms and other, non-English, mercenaries.

At first Henry attempted to avoid battle and wear the Anglo-Castilian force of his brother down by denying them access to reliable food. While this did have some success and the English were desperate for food by the time of the battle, Henry began to lose support as his brother began recapturing towns and the English laid waste to the countryside in their foraging. With one large garrison of 600 men defecting, and hearing of threats of defection from other sources, Henry had to force a battle.

After some initial skirmishing and success on Henry's side, the English managed to flank him by a night march around a high ridge and arrayed themselves for battle on a broad plain. The Castilians, who had been prepared for battle to come from another direction, were nonetheless able to rearrange their lines to fight the English and both sides advanced to the attack. This was an exceptional attack by the English, who almost always stayed in their defensive position for the first part of a battle, that is explained by two factors. Firstly, they were almost out of food and needed to win in order to put Peter back on the throne and gain access to more reliable supplies. Secondly, unlike almost every battle in the Hundred Years War, the English weren't outnumbered by their opponents.

Numbers for the English are hard to estimate but, based on the more reliable chroniclers and other English armies of the period, they probably had somewhere around 5000 men-at-arms and 5000 archers and other light troops. The Castilians had around 4500 men-at-arms and an unknown number of light cavalry and slingers, javelin men and crossbowmen. The fact that the English and Castilian forces had similar numbers of men-at-arms, however, likely gave the Black Prince enough confidence to attempt the dangerous advance.

The dismounted English men-at-arms advanced in a single line, divided into three battles with archers attached to each battle, although the manner in which they were deployed isn't clear from the sources, while the Castilian force had four battles: a dismounted vanguard made up of French mercenaries, two wings of mounted men-at-arms and a large main battle of men-at-arms behind the vanguard. In front of the vanguard were Genoese crossbowmen, and slingers, javelin men and light cavalry were in front of the wings.

Neither the English archers in front of the English center nor the Genoese in front of the French had much effect on either formation, but those on the wings managed to quickly route the Castilian light infantry and, after one attempt to charge, the heavy cavalry there as well. The French had had some success against the English men-at-arms, but with the routing of the Castilians on the wings the English were free to attack the flanks of the French, first by shooting into them and then by sending in the men-at-arms. In spite of an attempted charge by Henry, the usurper, most of the Castilian main battle fled as well and the Gascons were ultimately crushed.

Although it was tactically an English victory, in the long term Nájera was a disaster for the Black Prince, bankrupting him when Peter refused to pay what he owed and, since Henry escaped, the civil war continued and soon ended with Peter's death. Tactically, the main takeaways are that English archers were still ineffective against men-at-arms when facing them head on, although they were more effective when deployed against the flanks, and that the English use of defensive positions was mostly down to being outnumbered rather than an inherent part of their tactical system.

Select Bibliography

Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century, by Kelly DeVries

The Art of Warfare in Western Europe, by J.F. Verbruggen, tr. Sumner Willard

The Great Warbow, by Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy

War Cruel and Sharp, by Clifford J. Rogers

The Wars of Edward III, ed. Clifford J. Rogers

"Sir Thomas Dagworth in Brittany, 1346-7: Restellou and La Roche Derrien" by Clifford J. Rogers, Journal of Military History Volume 3

The Crecy War, by A.H. Burne

The Agincourt War, by A.H. Burne

The Hundred Years' War, Volumes 1-4, by Jonathan Sumption

The Battle of Crecy, 1346, ed. Andrew Ayton and Sir Philip Preston

The Battle of Crecy: A Casebook, ed. Michael Livingston and Kelly DeVries

In the Steps of the Black Prince, by Peter Hoskins

To Win and Lose a Medieval Battle: Nájera (April 3, 1367), A Pyrrhic Victory for the Black Prince, ed. Donald Kagay and L. J. Andrew Villalon

#hundred years war #tactics #medieval warfare

10 notes · View notes

procession-of-blades · 5 years ago

Text

Tagged by @commander-thiernaen

― your muse’s name:

Magister Pukh/Prosthetist Pukh

― a favorite picture/face claim of your muse:

― two headcanons you have for your muse:

- Since the story choice I ran with for my initial run just trying out the game was Synergetics, I decided to keep this for Pukh going forward. This led to the concept of Pukh becoming friends with Zojja during their time with the college, and as such, their entire view of Destiny’s Edge is originally filtered via the lens of the group’s Elementalist. Pukh goes into the meetup at level 40 with a lot of very tainted ideas about how these people actually work. Since the dungeons focus on the members of DE making up, and not us personally bonding with them? Pukh KEEPS a lot of these tainted views well into LW1, LW2, and hell, even into Heart of Thorns. Catch them not bonding with Rytlock until PoF as a result and even now bordering on antagonistic with Logan

- When Pukh went through Omadd’s Machine, it retroactively messed with a few things for them. For one, both in the present, the past, and the future, they became tangentially aware of their own AUs. Via dreams, hunches, gut feelings, deja vu, you name it, Pukh has probably had some awareness of an AU via it. Be it the version of the story where Trahearne somehow survives as a giant centipede monster, or the version of the story where they’re actually an eight-foot-tall Roegadyn woman in Eorzea, or even things with something just slightly to the left. As uncomfortable as it is, it tends to blend in with PTSD symptoms? and is easily ignored during times of great stress. Usually. Maybe

― three things that your muse likes doing in their free time:

- Cooking, baking, and just about anything in the kitchen! Pukh was never fantastic with things like chemistry, but cooking is a hobby that benefits EVERYONE

- Sending letters to old friends who aren’t otherwise kept in touch with. Think people like their old krewemates (shoutout to Pol, hey Anet put him back in the game please?) or people from the Pact who aren’t really in active front-lines stuff anymore

- Pet pampering. Pukh did start as a ranger, and as a result, has a friggin menagerie of collected companions that deserve to be spoiled rotten

― seven people your muse loves/likes:

- TRAHEARNE, to a problematic degree, in fact! Like many commanders, Pukh’s time with the Pact made a big impact, and even if they hadn’t become romantically involved, he’d at the very least be a dear friend. Their start was rocky enough to quite literally count as violent, with Pukh outright injuring him directly once, but fortunately, the two are decent communicators and worked their way up from there

- Aithne, a sylvari demolitionist of @nekhs‘ with a history in the Whispers. Holder of the figurative baby leash in terms of keeping Pukh from acting on anything too rash or inflicting any lasting harm on themselves or others. (Unless necessary or deserved, Phlunt)

- Phari, @tired-gay-and-a-dj‘s norn soulbeast with a thick accent and a heart nearly as big as her snow leopards are. They met during the events of LW2, and while their friendship started incredibly rocky, they had their trauma bonding and would both literally and figuratively kill for each other

- Taliesane, @thelittlestnorn‘s once-ranger, now revenant. Metamour and dear friend, the two met during the campaign against Zhaitan and despite starting as someone Pukh despised, they ended up pillars of each other’s support systems. Though, if they ever find out the extent of exactly WHO Tali’s channeling a lot of the time, blood may be spilled

- Technically in an AU, at the moment at least (who knows about rift shenanigans,) but @addakax‘s Dross and Pukh have a storyline where they’re co-commanders, essentially, much in the same way Pukh is co-commanders with Phari and Aithne in the more ‘mainline’ canon they’ve got. Pukh may see him as an absolute disaster but loves him all the same. Also all of his cats

- @a-blue-tree-man‘s Willamenah is somewhat of a cross-dimensional adopted son to Pukh, despite the fact that he’s approximately....uh... probably many hundreds of years older than they are. Due to the situation with Omadd’s Machine, and the developing...symptoms that Pukh has had from it, it gives the two more in common than either would like

(honorable mentions to the many AUs I have with friends, you know who you are, it just made me pick seven)

― a phobia your muse has:

Pukh is actually fairly afraid of the dark. Not NORMAL darkness, mind you. I’m talking pitch black, not low-light. I headcanon that asura probably have decent low-light vision, but it’s unlikely that they can see in actual pitch-black darkness. The first time Sieran took Pukh into a ruin, she got to experience her new partner stranding themselves on a rocky outcropping and crying until she came back.

Tagging:

uhhh almost everyone has already been tagged oh no....

@addakax, @thelittlestnorn, @esteracussoressi, @resonatingfern?? And whoever else hasn’t been tagged who wants to! That means YOU even if you think I don’t mean you! Yes you!

#ask memes #commander-thiernaen #thank you for the ask!

17 notes · View notes

friendlyneighborhoodmadscientist · 5 years ago

Text

Settle in folks, here’s a story from my most recent gaming session, it’s pretty long but it was such a transcendent moment I have to share it with all of you. Due to length I’m going to try to put it under a cut.

So a bit of background information. We are playing a Kingdom Hearts game and have been for… A while. We can’t quite remember exactly how long. It’s a custom system of the DM and my design (THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SHARE BUT CAN’T GET DISNEY OR SQUARE TO TALK TO ME ABOUT IT).

Our PCs:

Lonnie Clawford, a snow leopard from Zootopia, with an affinity for Ice, and focused on Power abilities (like Terra). Lonnie is functionally immortal in combat, kind of anxious, and grew up in Zootopia’s foster care system until she was like 12 and was picked up by our Master. Played by @thepioden

Lydia, a young woman from The Corpse Bride (in our defense, we knew it was Tim Burton and forgot it wasn’t Disney until we finished the world) with an affinity for Moon (blame Saïx) and focused on Speed abilities; her combat style focuses especially on aerial tricks and abilities. Gravity is a suggestion at best for Lydia, she’s a hopeless romantic (“MISSION OF LOVE” is a common refrain from her), and she grew up an orphan on the streets until she was about 5-6 and was adopted by our Master. Played by @tsukidoesthething

Polaris Caelestis, a young man from ??????????? (likely a Final Fantasy World; we didn’t learn my last name until halfway through the campaign so far) who was found as an infant by their Master in the void between worlds (earning him the nickname “Space Baby” from his friends). He has an affinity for Thunder and is focused on Magic abilities. Pol has spent the most time with his Keyblade, tends to try to solve every problem with his knowledge or magic (earning him the nickname “Mage-Wrists” from his friends), and he tries to be a Fixed Point for his friends. I play Pol.

By this point, we have journeyed through so many worlds. Atlantis, The Rescuers, Wall-E, Princess and the Frog, Wreck-It Ralph, Secret of Mana’s Japan-only Sequel, Zootopia, Corpse Bride, Treasure Planet, The Incredibles, Monster’s Inc. And we have ended our first ‘lap’ in Chrono Trigger. We arrive in the bleak, dead, post apocalyptic future, and pick up Robo/Prometheus as our companion. Together, we visit the remains of human civilization, lightly perform a few miracles for the survivors, and end up making our way up to Death’s Peak. All the while, an oppressive feeling of despair, desolation, and Darkness is mounting. At the summit, we find ourselves face to face with a Lavos-Spawn. A horrible tick-like monstrosity the size of a bus that at least in our game was ALSO a variety of Heartless.

So, it’s already not looking GREAT for us. As the boss fight begins, our DM starts this music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nReqeBSp_WY

Our DM hands us each two notecards taped together along the edges; on one side was a Whisper of Darkness, and the other was a new keyblade (with some flavor text) the Darkness forced us to use.

Lonnie declined to share the Whisper of Darkness she received, but she was forced to use Shattered Steel:

“If someone has to take hits, let it be you, because you deserve them. Maybe you will be remembered fondly if you keep real heroes alive. Better to spend yourself until you’re battered, broken, and shattered, than to let them see what you really are.”

It lightly corrupted her heart with Darkness if she gave or received a buff, which she does automatically when she stands next to an ally.

Lydia heard this Whisper of Darkness:

“Your mother would have lived if you had not abandoned her and run to spare your own petty feelings. You always have, and you always will flee when you fear pain, and it will always harm those you claim to love and protect.”

And she was forced to use Broken Wings:

“Only unburdened hearts can soar. When you think about what you could have done differently, you only drown in doubt and loathing; cast it aside, and the guilt and regret hang around your neck like unseen weights. Better to give up the skies before you crash, broken, to the ground.”

It lightly corrupted her heart with Darkness if she went into the air or used an ability while aerial.

Polaris heard this Whisper of Darkness

“You spout the tenets of hope, desperate to distract yourself from the ugly truth. Your identity is staked upon it; if there really is no hope, no redemption, then you yourself are a cruel lie to those around you.”

I was forced to use Endless Night:

“Light brings not hope, but casts how much is lost and beyond relief into painful clarity. You cannot heal all wounds, and insufficient healing does more harm than good. Better to do nothing, and turn away from a night you cannot dispel.”

It lightly corrupted my heart with Darkness if my MP pool changed.

With each boss fight thus far, our DM showed us an “Information” notecard that gave a hint to the boss fight’s gimmick.

This one was completely redacted out in permanent marker.

Needless to say, the boss had abilities that forced us next to each other, knocked us aerial, and drained our MP. On top of this, our characters could not communicate.

It was bad.

We fought futilely for a time, and I did crit the bastard with a melee attack to the face, but after we dealt about 100 damage, the boss rewound time and healed itself to full. We were on the ropes; I had nearly been knocked out, Lonnie had nearly been halfway corrupted, and Lydia … well she was actually kind of the MVP but it was still Not Great.

Prometheus spent most of the fight trying to get our attention and was very concerned about how atypically we were behaving. He pulled us back, out of the fight and out of the worst of the boss’s aura. Prometheus started playing some recordings of his creator, a Professor Ashtear (likely a descendant of Lucca, but our DM created the character from whole cloth). As the recordings played, the music swapped to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvEJSvgl9Us Our DM’s delivery of the below was quite frankly superb.

“Okay, diagnostics are complete; everything’s in the green. Ready to go offline and get some upgrades?”

“Professor? I have a concern.”

“What’s up, 66?”

“I understand the mission and I will assist to the best of my capacity, as always. However, my calculations all project that I am insufficient for the role I have been given.”

“That’s what all this preparation is for.”

“Acknowledged, but am I not a sub-optimal model for integration? A military unit such as a mobile defense platform--”

“--Wouldn’t have what you have. It’s nothing in the numbers, 66, it’s something you’ve got to feel in your heart.”

“I am a robot. I do not possess a heart.”

“You don’t think so? I’m sorry to hear that. Maybe one day you’ll understand, but in the meantime I guess you’ll just have to trust that you’ve been chosen for a reason. Do you trust my judgment?”

“Of course, Professor.”

“Then believe in my trust in you. Fate has a way of putting us all where we are supposed to be. And if you have doubts, check in with me, or Lumie, or the people you’ll be helping. You won’t ever be alone. Not really.”

“Acknowledged, Professor.”

“But not really understood, right? Hm, maybe a good first step would be to give you a proper name... I think I’ve got just the one. See you again when you wake up, Prometheus.”

“No. I appreciate the thought, Prometheus, but we can’t cut out the groundwork we’re laying for short term gain.”

“But if we do not take any measures to accelerate our action plan--”

“I’m under no illusions. The work ahead of us will exceed my lifetime. Even optimistically, I will never live to see the fruits of our labors. Neither will Lumie, nor any child of hers or grandchild. The world’s going to get worse --a lot worse-- before it gets any better.”

“...Regretfully, I have reached the same conclusions. You are not perturbed?”

“Of course I am. I’m a problem-solver. It’s what I do, and I’ve always been very good at it. To be confronted with something like this, where there’s no possible way I can see it resolved? Especially when it’s so important? It’s a bitter pill to swallow, some days. But I’ve come to peace with it, because I know my efforts won’t go to waste. What I do now, I do to fling a light into the future. Every step I take is one that Lumie can follow forward. She can take what I’ve started and advance it a little further. The rest, we can entrust to you, and to those who come after us.”

“Future generations may not be as capable as you are. How can you be certain that they will know how to use what you will leave behind?”

“I can’t. All I can do is have faith. I won’t be the last good man in the world. Where there’s life, there is always hope. Besides, you’ll be there to tell them what I’ve done, right? Our legacies live on in the hearts we influence. If I know that, through you, my example will continue to guide and inspire --even if it’s in ways that I can’t expect or imagine-- then I can rest easy in the knowledge that I’ve done all I can do.”

“Understood, Professor. I will remember.”

“Registration complete. Administrative access and privileges have been successfully transferred to Mistress Illumina Ashtear.”

(coughs) “Excellent. Thank you, Prometheus. When you go down, would you mind sending Lumie up alone, first? There are some things I want to make sure to tell her before I say goodbye to the rest of the family.”

“...As you wish, Professor.”

“Something on your mind, old friend?”

“Regret. If I had returned to escort you here sooner, your condition would not have degraded so acutely. If I had prioritized repairing the medical facility over stabilizing the foundation, Mistress Illumina might have had time to treat your symptoms or cure them.”

“Maybe. Or maybe we’d have lost a promising young mind to that mutant attack that we’ll need in the future. Maybe the building would have collapsed, and all the functioning medical equipment would have buried Lumie and me both. Or maybe all of that would have worked out and we would have learned that there was nothing that could be done for me anyway.”

“Those are only negative hypotheticals. There are an equally infinite number of positive alternatives, and the only concrete data I have to analyze is from this negative outcome.”

“Listen to me, Prometheus: we all make mistakes, believe me, I know. Heated words regretted, or necessary words left unspoken; time not spent, or misspent. Things we’re not proud of, and can’t do over, and good intentions that don’t work out the way we thought they would. But what do we do when we break something?”

“Attempt repairs.”

“And if we can’t fix it, make something new from what you learned. The only way a mistake leads to a wholly negative outcome is when you choose not to face it. It can hurt. Sometimes it can hurt like hell, but that pain will shape you, whether you acknowledge it or not. It can slow your hands from doubt, or it can guide them with purpose.”

“I do not understand, Professor.”

(coughs) “That’s alright. You will, one day. For now, let me just say this: don’t forget me, but don’t let me haunt you. Keep moving forward, Prometheus, even if you stumble. Be who you are meant to be and do what you’re meant to do. Live on. It’s all I’ve ever hoped for you.”

As these recordings wrapped up, Prometheus turned and addressed the monster directly, (DM’s robot voice is exquisite), and the DM swapped the music track to his leitmotif from his original game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaUNpJAgD4w

“I understand. You are not the creature that has taken so much from this planet. You are its offspring, leaching from our remains as you prepare to invade another world and repeat this heinous tragedy. Defeating you will not restore our resources, or the people we have lost. It will not save our planet; it will only spare a host of strangers I will never meet. And I understand now, that this is a worthy cause.”

“I am a robot. I was not designed or built for this battle. I still have reservations about my aptitude for the role and responsibilities I have been given. I have no statistical evidence to prove that I can prevail. But fate has a way of putting us all where we are meant to be. I have no compunction in my code to fight this battle, but I feel an imperative to achieve victory. It is irrational, but I understand it. Logic and concrete analysis compel me to doubt. My belief in those who chose to invest their hopes and dreams in me instruct me to ignore the odds.”

“I understand now. I am Prometheus, and I am alive. When we prevail over you, I will take what I have learned down off this mountain, and I will get back to work. I will let myself feel loss. I will let myself hurt, and I will grow to be more than I have been. I will continue on, as I know those I have left behind would want me to. I am alive. Their memories are alive in me. There are still people I have to protect. This world is still alive.”

The Professor’s voice sounds one more time. “Where there is life, there is hope.” A woman’s voice answers. “Where there is life, there is hope.” (The phrase echoes again and again, on down through the generations. Finally, the whole host of voices, Prometheus’s among them, rings out in a shout.) We were offered the opportunity to roll an Insight check to join in. Lonnie and Pol rolled first, and we BOTH got nat 20’s; with that, he didn’t even make Lydia roll, and we three joined our voices to the chorus: “WHERE THERE IS LIFE, THERE IS HOPE!”

With this, the DM said we were fully healed, the corruption to our hearts gone in an instant, and the DM instructed us to open the sealed notecard-packets. On the back of the corrupted keyblades were new purified (and mechanically magnificent) ones for each of us (also with flavor text).

Lonnie received Resonant Glass:

“No one voice can sing a chord. If I fear I am unworthy for the melody, then let me be the harmony. If I doubt the character of my soul, let me raise my voice with those that know me best, that I may hear my heart resonate with theirs.”

Lydia received Reclaim the Wind:

“Hopes and dreams have ever been the wind beneath our wings. If I sin, then let the hope to mend what may yet be righted and lift my face to the skies --not to avert my eyes, but to pursue the dream of my better self.”

Pol received First Light

“Not even the brightest star can light the void alone, and a beacon saves only those that pursue it. If my spark must pass before the Darkness, let it seed an ember in the hearts of those that chase the Dawn, a reminder that every night ends.”

Prometheus addresses the boss one last time before the fight begins anew: “Now, Spawn of Lavos. (Dukes up) Prepare for termination.”

It was electric; we all could perfectly visualize the moment. I think we all had tears in our eyes at one point or another.

The DM changed the music one last time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWSB3qL5qs8) and showed us an Information card about how we could disable the boss’s temporal rewinding. Furthermore, any Dual-Tech/Team Attack we performed with Prometheus would automatically critically hit.

We kicked its spiny ass.

#RPGs #Kingdom Hearts #Chrono Trigger #Homebrew #Great Moments

31 notes · View notes

nigeiadigitalmarketingcompany · 5 years ago

Text

Brexit: Boris Johnson’s Impossibility Theorem

Digital Elixir Brexit: Boris Johnson’s Impossibility Theorem

Even though the press paid a lot of attention to Boris Johnson’s taking of office theatrics, and in particular his doubling down on his promise of an October 31 exit and stocking his Cabinet with radicals to help assure that, there were a couple of signals from the EU side that are worth noting, which we’ll cover after a short recap.

We said early on that the course of Brexit was showing troubling parallels to the Greece 2015 bailout negotiations. Specifically, from the outset, the UK overestimated its bargaining leverage. Too many well placed pols and pundits convincing themselves that the EU would be more damaged by a crashout than the UK and therefore would be desperate to avoid a no deal. A more reality-based way of coming to a similar conclusion is that EU pols will always favor kick the can down the road over making a difficult decision, particularly one that will result in real damage. Thus push come to shove, given a way to avoid a Brexit, the EU will take advantage of it.

We now appear to have hit the point we anticipated, that of a game of chicken. The pro-Brexit faction, despite having lost support in the UK population, has embraced a more and more hard-line position, and the peculiarities of the UK system has allowed one of their favorites, Boris Johnson, to become Prime Minister. Some hoped that the fabulously unprincipled Johnson might find a way to reverse himself and call for a face-saving extension down the road, but Johnson looks to be doing everything he can to commit himself to an October 31 departure. The press was agog at Johnson’s Cabinet purge, in which he ousted anyone who was soft on Brexit, and populated his team heavily with MPs from the Leave campaign, leading some to speculate that despite Johnson’s protestations otherwise, he was preparing for an early election. Another indicator: the Tories launched a “blitz” of election ads to test messages.

In a further gesture to show his commitment to leaving on October 31, Johnson said in his first speech to the House of Commons that he will not nominate an EU Commissioner. Express pointed out that that would make it difficult to obtain an extension. The term of the current Commission ends on October 31 and the UK would need to field a new EU Commissioner were it to remain in the EU beyond that date.

A defining characteristic of the Johnson Government is its mediocrity. From vlade:

What’s really staggering the the proportion of people who are totally incompetent and believe their own BS (Raab, Moggie, Patel, Leadsom..). I despair for the UK’s education system with Williamson being allowed anywhere near it.

Johnson, in his first speech as Prime Minister, promised the UK was leaving the EU, “no ifs or buts,” in 99 days with a new deal. He also promised economic unicorns that would make Labour blush for its grandiose patter about “safer streets and better education and fantastic new road and rail infrastructure…higher wages, and a higher living wage, and higher productivity we close the opportunity gap” without any specifics as to how to produce such miraculous improvements. Johnson did acknowledge that there was a “remote possibility” that there would be no deal, and so

…we will now accelerate the work of getting ready and the ports will be ready and the banks will be ready and the factories will be ready and business will be ready and the hospitals will be ready and our amazing food and farming sector will be ready and waiting to continue selling ever more not just here but around the world….

I imagine at least some of you in the UK saw Johnson speak, and I feel very sorry for you. I can’t recall ever reading a major address that had so much hot air and so little substance, and what substance there was was deeply wrongheaded. Let’s start with the fact that Sir Ivan Rogers said it would take the UK five to ten years to be ready to trade with the rest of the world on a free trade agreement basis, and pretty much everyone competent to opine has made a similar assessment, if anything tending to the ten year end of the spectrum. So where is this Johnsonian readiness to be found?

On the other side of the channel, EU officials who prefer to communicate in diplo-speak are resorting to sharper notes in their register to try to penetrate the fog around No. 10 and Parliament. You have to wonder if they are responding to the clangor out of a sense of duty, or to demonstrate to their colleagues and history that they did everything they could.

Entirely predictably, they swatted down Johnson’s happy talk. Michel Barnier’s remarks via a Times reporter:

Barnier rejects Johnson’s plan as basis for talks in note to EU27 pic.twitter.com/Bu5qO24O4a

— Bruno Waterfield (@BrunoBrussels) July 25, 2019

Waterfield focused on Barnier’s intimating that a general election might be in store (the “many strong reactions….in the House of Commons”) and that Johnson’s no deal bluster was a gambit to split the EU. But at least as significant was Barnier’s reference to the mandate and his offer to remain the point person during the summer (“don’t worry about your holiday, I’ll let you know if there is anything you really need to hear about”).

By invoking the mandate, Barnier was reminding the EU national diplomats that there isn’t even remotely enough time to negotiate a new Withdrawal Agreement even if the EU was to have a massive change of heart. Barnier is saying that his hands are tied, that he couldn’t discuss a new deal with the UK unless and until the EU went back to square zero and gave him new marching orders. He’s almost certainly reminding them of this section of Article 50:

In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

Various EU national leaders have backed Barnier’s and Juncker’s position, that the Withdrawal Agreement is the only deal possible given the givens. Barnier is alluding to the notion that in extremis, he could be told to try again, but that would mean having the European Council come up with new guidelines. Even with the addition of an early European Council meeting, no way can this get done by October 31.

Juncker also entirely predictably sent the same message. Notice how closely the language of Juncker’s nein parallels Barnier’s text. From the Guardian:

The European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, has told Boris Johnson that the EU27 will not give in to his demand to renegotiate the Brexit withdrawal agreement.

On Thursday in his first telephone call with Johnson as prime minister, Juncker called the existing deal “the best and only agreement possible”…

Juncker said the EU would analyse any ideas put forward by the UK provided they were compatible with the withdrawal agreement, his spokeswoman Mina Andreeva tweeted in a readout of the phone call.

Politico underscored the significance of the minimalism:

But a Commission spokeswoman, providing a brief summary of the Juncker-Johnson phone call, did not even try to put a positive spin on things. She made clear that Juncker expressed no willingness to budge a millimeter, let alone an imperial inch, on the Withdrawal Agreement, which Brussels has stated repeatedly is not open for renegotiation.

But most important is the one possible spot where the UK might be able to drive a chink that could influence the EU is holding firm. From the Irish Times:

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has told Boris Johnson, the new British prime minister, that an entirely new Brexit deal “is not going to happen”.

He also said negotiating a new deal “within weeks or months” – with Mr Johnson saying he can leave the EU with a new deal by the next Brexit deadline on October 31st – is “not in the real world”.

The press also made much of the fact that Juncker gave Johnson his cell phone number. But Barnier and Juncker appear to have nominated themselves, even more so than usual, to run interference for other EU figures. Juncker seems to like press attention, so putting himself on BoJo’s speed dial will make him less of a lame duck.

Macron has agreed to meet with Johnson in August, while Macron’s spokesperson insisted that the Withdrawal Agreement was not up for discussion. This again is no surprise, given that Macron has been taking a hard line on Brexit.

One wonders how Johnson will fight off a general election. LibDem leader Jo Swinson has written Corbyn to call him out for “aiding and abetting this Conservative Brexit” and insisting he Do Something. On the one hand, despite his bold talk, Corbyn must recognize that Labour is likely to lose seats in a general election, making the noble gesture of ousting Johnson costly. A no confidence motion may fail for that reason, as well as for the fact that previous whip counts found that Tory rebels were outnumbered by Labour MPs who would not vote to derail Brexit.

Will Johnson book so many meetings on the Continent that he can create the impression that motion equals progress? Will the press play along with Johnson, as it did with Theresa May, messaging that a deal is nigh when it was pretty clear no such thing was happening? And even with the Brexit train bearing down on the UK, will party interest manage to keep the opposition from mustering enough votes to turf out Johnson?

Even though politics in the UK still retains the appearance of normalcy, it’s hard to think this false calm will hold once the summer is over. As several astute readers have said, the UK political order is suffering a breakdown. And the early phases of revolutions typically make things worse for ordinary people.

Brexit: Boris Johnson’s Impossibility Theorem

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2OlBg7P via IFTTT

#Digital Marketing #SEO #Social Media Marketing #Nigeria Digital Marketing Company #Lead Generation

2 notes · View notes

libertariantaoist · 6 years ago

Link

The point was less to actually build “the wall” than to constantly announce the building of the wall. “We started building our wall. I’m so proud of it,” Donald Trump tweeted. “What a thing of beauty.”

In fact, no wall, or certainly not the “big, fat, beautiful” one promised by Trump, is being built. True, miles of some kind of barrier —barbed wire, chain-link and steel-slat fencing, corrugated panels, and, yes, even lengths of what can only be described as concrete wall— have gone up along the U.S.-Mexico border, starting at least as far back as the administration of President William Taft, early in the last century. Trump has claimed repairs and expansions of these barriers as proof that he is fulfilling his signature campaign promise. Plaques have already been bolted onto upgrades in existing fencing, crediting him with work started and funded by previous administrations.

And yet Trump’s phantasmagorical wall, whether it ever materializes or not, has become a central artifact in American politics. Think of his promise of a more than 1,000-mile-long, 30-foot-high ribbon of concrete and steel running along the southern border of the United States as America’s new myth. It is a monument to the final closing of the frontier, a symbol of a nation that used to believe it had escaped history, but now finds itself trapped by history, and of a people who used to believe they were captains of the future, but now are prisoners of the past.

#greg grandin #consortium news #border wall #immigration #mexico #donald trump #us history

3 notes · View notes

bountyofbeads · 6 years ago

Text

Stone-Cold Loser https://nyti.ms/2S85c83

Roger Stone, who was arrested in a dawn raid at his home in Fort Lauderdale, has long been fond of the Somerset Maugham line that Florida is a "sunny place for shady people."

"Just as Nixon went down in history as a disgrace to the office of the president, so now will Stone go down as an accomplice to enemies of the republic," writes Eric Caine from Modesto in a comment on @MaureenDowd's column, "Stone-Cold Loser."

"Stone-Cold Loser"

By Maureen Dowd | New York Times Opinion | Published Jan. 26, 2019 |

Posted January 27, 2019 |

WASHINGTON — Roger Stone has always lived in a dog-eat-dog world.

So it was apt that he was charged with skulduggery in part for threatening to kidnap a therapy dog, a fluffy, sweet-faced Coton de Tuléar, belonging to Randy Credico, a New York radio host.

Robert Mueller believes that Credico, a pal of Julian Assange, served as an intermediary with WikiLeaks for Stone. Mueller’s indictment charges that Stone called Credico “a rat” and “a stoolie” because he believed that the radio host was not going to back up what the special counsel says is Stone’s false story about contacts with WikiLeaks, which disseminated Russia’s hacked emails from the D.N.C. and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

Stone emailed Credico that he would “take that dog away from you,” the indictment says, later adding: “I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die (expletive).”

As the owner of two Yorkies, Stone clearly knows how scary it is when a beloved dog is in harm’s way. When he emerged from court on Friday, he immediately complained that F.B.I. agents had “terrorized” his dogs when they came to arrest him at dawn at his home in Fort Lauderdale.

The last thing Stone posted on Instagram before his arrest was a video of a terrier, with a high-pitched voice-over, protesting, “Roger Stone did nothing wrong.”

Always bespoke and natty, living by the mantra that it’s better to be infamous than never famous, Stone looked strangely unadorned as he came out of court to meet the press in a navy polo shirt and bluejeans.

As the master of darkness who had been captured in darkness stepped into the bright light of Fort Lauderdale, he was his usual flamboyant, unapologetically meretricious self. He proclaimed his innocence, flashed the Nixon victory sign and reiterated the old saw from his mentor, Roy Cohn, that any attention is good attention.

But it fell flat. Being Roger Stone had finally caught up with him.

He has always said Florida suited him because “it was a sunny place for shady people,” borrowing a Somerset Maugham line. But now the cat’s cradle of lies and dirty tricks had tripped up the putative dognapper. And it went down on the very same day that Paul Manafort — his former associate in a seamy lobbying firm with rancid dictators as clients, and then later his pal in the seamy campaign of Donald Trump — was also in federal court on charges related to the Mueller probe. Manafort’s hair is now almost completely white.

One of Stone’s rules — along with soaking his martini olives in vermouth and never wearing a double-breasted suit with a button-down collar — is “Deny, deny, deny.” But his arrest for lying, obstructing and witness tampering raised the inevitable question about his on-and-off friend in the White House, the man who is the last jigsaw-puzzle piece in the investigation of Trumpworld’s alleged coordination with Russia: Is being Donald Trump finally about to catch up with Donald Trump?

Stone, who famously has Nixon’s face tattooed on his back, is the agent provocateur who is the through line from Nixon, and his impeachment, to Trump, and his possible impeachment.

As Manafort said in the 2017 documentary “Get Me Roger Stone,” Trump and Stone “see the world in a very similar way.” And that way is theatrical and cynical. Do whatever you have to do to get what you want; playing by the rules is for suckers.

In 1999, when I went on a trip to Miami to watch Trump test the presidential waters, Stone orchestrated Trump’s Castro-bashing speech to Cuban-Americans. The bodybuilding, swinging strategist, christened “the state-of-the-art sleazeball” by The New Republic in the 80s, said he was “a jockey looking for a horse.”

Stone, who was mixed up in Watergate at the tender age of 19, “made the transition from the Stone Age of dirty tricks to today,” as David Axelrod puts it.

He watched Nixon rally the silent majority with a law-and-order message and racial dog whistling. He helped Ronald Reagan create Reagan Democrats.

For decades, believing “past is prologue,” Stone urged Trump to be the successor to those pols, revving up angry, white working-class voters who felt belittled or scared of “the other.” It would be so easy to divide and stoke resentment, as Stone and Trump proved when they inflamed the birther controversy against Barack Obama.

“Hate is a stronger motivator than love,” Stone told the documentarians. “Human nature has never changed.”

The tribal tensions in America made Stone’s favorite tricks easier than ever; he didn’t have to operate in the shadows. He wore a T-shirt with Bill Clinton and the word “Rape” at 2016 campaign rallies. As Stone boasted in the documentary, his “slash-and-burn” tactics “are now in vogue.”

Trump has had periods of estrangement with Stone. In 2008, in an interview with The New Yorker, he called the strategist “a stone-cold loser,” a state Trump himself has been relegated to this past week, courtesy of Nancy Pelosi.

Stone will not go gently. When he is asked about the tattoo of Nixon, he says he got it to remind himself, “A man is not finished when he is defeated; he is only finished when he quits.”

At the moment, though, dogged by Mueller, Stone and Manafort are the dog’s breakfast. The pair has given practicing the dark arts a bad name.

"There's one piece of history about Roger Stone that never gets enough press, Ms. Dowd. That is, Roger Stone was involved in the "recount" in Florida and swinging it to George W. Bush. Specifically, he was behind a political group attacking three Democratic state Supreme Court justices threatening Bush's possible victory: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/07/11/fla-may-fine-gop-figure-for-2000-recount-actions/af72ec6a-082e-4292-913c-f8ed14c2fc62/?utm_term=.9e4d3fc6c5f3 These sleazy political operatives, from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove to Paul Manafort to Roger Stone on the Right have been getting away with this disgusting behavior for decades. Trump is a direct result of this cancer. Lock them all up." V of LA

"The ghost of Nixon past still haunts us. Just when you thought it was safe to trust our democracy, we get the Nixon salute and see his face on Stone’s back, just not quite low enough, in my opinion. The president was bad enough, but now it looks as though he’s merely the apex of a vast pyramid scheme so vile and full of duplicity that only Betsy DeVos could fully appreciate it. But it’s clear that the president didn’t accomplish his takeover on his own. He was socially promoted to a position higher than he could have ever reached without dirty tricks, lies and conspiracies galore. If today’s events aren’t disgusting enough, we’re even picking up echoes of Roy Cohen. There’s even a faint whiff of Joseph McCarthy that you can just make out while watching the nightly news. It recalls a time when powerful people weaponized fear and ignorance, and nearly turned us into animals at each others throats. We can only hope that people who voted for the president were among those fearful of going broke during the government shutdown. You can talk to people all day about why an unread, crotch-groping narcissistic moron is not a good candidate for president of the United States, but until they feel it in their guts, and their wallets, they’ll never fully understand. Do we have your attention now? Have you taken note of the sleazy, lying manipulators who manufactured this presidency with your help? Mueller might undo some of the damage, but it's up us not to let it happen again." gemli of Boston

"Imagine assembling a clown show of Trump, Junior, Jared, Manafort, Bannon, Stone, Flynn, KA Conway and some sideshow characters like Carter Page and Papadopoulus. Deliver some memorable campaign promises for America's future like "Lock her up" and "Build the Wall", while encouraging mobs to beat up reporters. Toss in a few surprise tapes about assaulting young women. Then openly conspire with Russian intelligence to interfere in the US election while being watched by the FBI, CIA and 6 European country intelligence services. And make plain as day efforts to relieve sanctions on Russia, support the pro-Russian cause in Ukraine, make over 100 contacts with Russian government officials during the campaign and transition and attempt to set up a secret communication channel through the Russian Embassy that US intelligence cannot monitor. Even after all of this, the chaos and the soaring deficits of the first two years of the Trump Administration, around 40% of Americans still think he is doing a great job. Based on personal experience working in all 50 states, I don't believe that part of the population is going to change much. But we need to take back the government on behalf of future generations and do it soon." Look Ahead of Washington

"Like Trump, Roger Stone is a man with no redeeming qualities and no morals at all. Cohen and Manafort as well. They admire and emulate the tough guys of organized crime without actually BEING those tough guys. But the Russians working for former KGB agent Putin are those tough guys, and that's who the phonies chose to do business with. Stone is blustering but he's counting on a Trump pardon, not realizing 3 things: 1) Trump WILL throw him under the bus. A pardon is unlikely. 2) A Trump pardon means he cannot use the 5th Amendment to keep from testifying--meaning he must tell the truth or face contempt or perjury charges. 3) He will still be liable to state charges, and the new NY AG would love get him in her cross-hairs. Stone is finished and doesn't even know it!"Dad of 2 /NJ

"Roger Stone is a truly mean-spirited figure. No wonder he, like Trump, his soul mate if you will, were proteges of Roy Cohn. One thing is certain, nobody is going to feel sorry for Stone, Manafort or any of Donald Trump's merry band of mean, vindictive misfits. Once our national nightmare is over, it will take a long time to heal, if we ever can. Because Stone and Trump poked the racist beast of a certain segment of the nation, unleashing virulent emotions, conservative-fed conspiracy theories, and disdain for truth, fact checking, and critical thinking. The president, a man who doesn't read, aligned himself with a man who did but used his reading to polish his dark arts, and tries to make ignorance seem cool. As a result, they got an entire political party to totally overhaul its thinking on foreign policy goals, belief in climate science (indeed, belief in any science) and even, I venture to say, the biggie: immigration. Trump, egged on by Stone, has done more damage to our politics, rule of law, and views of government than any foreign invader could have. Stone, more than Trump, grasped an essential truth: the worst damage a country can undergo is from within."Christine McM of Boston

"If Stone and The Donald have used "revving up angry white working-class voters" as a tactic to win elections, one wonders whether they are themselves authentic racists or whether they believe in nothing but power for its own sake. Are they "merely" impersonating bigots or are they true believers? Either way they represent a pestilence that needs to be driven out of the body politic, and yet if they're being disingenuous with respect to their own feelings about white supremacy (a disease that normally infects only the feeble-minded) one wonders how they manage to live with themselves. Can one ever attain enough wealth and power to compensate for the loss of one's soul? Perhaps it's a moot point but I somehow can't get past it."

Stu Freeman of Brooklyn

"No Stone left unturned, no creatures hiding under rocks. Spring IS coming, the flowers will bloom, the stench will dissipate, the gloom will dissolve. Thank you, Mr. Mueller." Stu Freeman of Brooklyn

Phyllis Dalmatian of Kansas

"Stone is Johnny two-face: he threatens to harm a security dog then uses his own two dogs' reaction to his early-morning arrest as proof of the FBI's perceived heavy-handed tactics. He trumpets his dedication to "the truth" while lying (all his life) and throughout the Mueller investigation--threatening former criminal associates if they cooperate with--i.e. tell the truth to--the feds. He professes patriotism while working in league with his country's greatest adversary to undermine an American presidential election. It is no wonder anyone this duplicitous should be an acolyte of Richard Nixon and a life-long driving force in the Republican Party. That's the way the GOP grows its alleged leaders--by rewarding them for wrecking American values without demonstrating any consciousness of guilt. "CMary of Chicago

"Concerning stones method of arrest, he merely found out how it is to be treated by law enforcement in many zip codes in this county, no sympathy whatsoever."No Party of FLA

"Why is it so many Americans believe whatever they are told? People like Trump and Stone commit crimes and lie in plain sight and many of our countrymen lap it up like duck soup. Was it growing up in the era of Disney and Spielberg that has made so much of the public susceptible to political special effects? "Of course President Obama is a Muslim, my TV said so." You can't fool all of the people, but you certainly will have no trouble fooling half of them. These remain dangerous times."Socrates of NJ

" Looking back....as you do in this piece....there is really only one question “Was your desperate focus on stopping Hilary from being elected worth it?”

David Martin of Paris

"Meanwhile, Trump can't stop telling us about women in vans with duct tape on their mouths. Perhaps his past is catching up with him involuntarily." Jerry Summer of NC

Another day, another Trump associate is arrested... What was that you were saying about HRC's emails again, Ms Dowd? Nick Adam of Mississippi

#donald trump #politics #trump administration #republican politics #legal issues #president donald trump #trump #trump scandals #republican party #russia investigation #2016 election #politics and government #white house #must reads #robert mueller #roger stone

1 note · View note