#i like it because i do also view the commander as a sort of war machine at this point

[cantareincminor]

Hi! What do you think about Sylvia Sherwood's spike and the dude in the photo? I think they have a nice dynamic, and I don't mind if you write a couple of hedcannons about them

Hello! I wasn't sure what you meant by spike, but regarding Handler and this unnamed WISE agent's dynamic, I don't see them romantically involved, more like old friends and long-time coworkers who have been through a lot together.

My opinion may be colored by my own experience. A while ago, I worked on a startup with a man significantly older than me. I was senior to him in the company despite my youth and professional inexperience. He was married with kids, and was in a very different life stage. But we worked together well, and were able to argue and shout at each other but not take it personally. I also made some business decisions that he disagreed with, but he ultimately had to go along with them because I was his senior. Startup life had a ton of ups and downs, and naturally tackling all the challenges together made our friendship stronger.

My headcanon for Sylvia and this agent (let's call him Stratus for now, that's the codename I use for him in my fics), is that they sort of have that dynamic. In an upcoming chapter of 21 Eden Street, we will dive into Stratus' past. He'll reminisce on his decades as a spy, and the various superiors he worked under before Sylvia became his commanding officer. He has many more years of field missions and life experience than her, but he respects Sylvia immensely for her sharp intelligence, leadership skills, and ability to get shit done like none of the leaders before her did.

Still, due to the fact he's much older, and he's been through so much crazy stuff (two wars, close calls with the SSS, missions gone wrong etc.), he's kind of jaded and laid-back about all the risks of spy life at this point. He's not scared of Sylvia's intimidating personality and threats. He sees who she is as a person underneath the Fullmetal Lady reputation. Another human struggling to get by, dealing with the ghosts of her past, carrying a huge weight on her shoulders that she can't set down.

We can see some of his laid-back, "I've been around the block and seen this before" attitude at the end of the tennis arc:

His objection to throwing away the postcards is hilarious to me. He doesn't let the pressures of undercover life get to him too much. He probably has some eccentric hobbies of his own. This also hints that he may have been married at some point, and understands Zacharis' point of view on a personal level.

Later during chapter 78, we see how he isn't afraid of criticizing Handler to her face. It's again hilarious, and from a storytelling perspective it helps to humanize Handler (which is the point of this whole chapter).

Finally their camaraderie is apparent during the opera singer chapter. They're totally on the same page throughout the whole ordeal, with a mindset of "let's solve this problem and move on." No dwelling on tabloid drama, condescension, or naivete here.

Stratus is the WISE uncle that all the agents, including Sylvia, need to maintain some sanity and lightheartedness amid the soul-crushing work they have to do day in and day out. 🫡

[phoenixyfriend]

Can you explain the Iran-Israel situation please?

Alright, let's get to it. Please note that I'm writing this on mobile during my lunch break, so I can't include reference/source links as much as I'd like. Thankfully, most of what I'm going to be telling you should be easily located by searching for an article on one of the following: APNews, Reuters, BBC Global News Podcast, Democracy Now!, NPR, or The New York Times. Long-term background is probably best found in videos by the YouTube channels Real Life Lore or tldr global news, or on Wikipedia if you prefer text.

The short version: Israel attacked Iran's consulate in Syria to get at some of the military commanders that were there, which is legally equivalent to attacking Iran itself. Iran responded by sending about 300 bombs at Israel, most of which were shot down in transit. Given that they still called it a success, even though it seems only one person was even hurt, my understanding is that it's very likely that they only intended the rockets to be a show of force, rather than an actual escalation, because Iran can't afford a war right now.

To support my blogging so I can move out of my parents’ house, I do have a ko-fi. Alternately, you can donate to one of the charities I list in this post OR this post.

The long version:

Okay, let's start with some background on Israel, then Iran. This is... a lot, so if you already know the broad strokes skip down to 2023.

Israel was established following WWII by the English and French, following borders the two countries had secretly drawn up decades earlier in the Sykes-Picot agreement. The intent was to give the Jewish people a place to go... or, depending on who you ask, a place to send them. Their ancestral homeland was viewed as the best choice, sort of like a deportation millennia after a diaspora. Given that WWII had just ended by the time Sykes-Picot was actually put into effect, 'getting out of Europe' was something a lot of Jews were given to agree with.

The Arab world was not happy, as that land had belonged to the Ottomans for centuries, and had long since 'naturalized' to being Arab. I'm not going to pretend to know the nuances to when people do or do not consider Palestine to have been its own nation; it was an Ottoman state until WWI, at which point it came under British control for just under three decades, and that period is known as the British Mandate of Palestine; it ended after WWII, with the creation of Israel. Palestine's land and people have sort of just been punted around from one colonizer to another for centuries.

Iran is the current form of what was once Persia. They were an empire for a very long time, and were a unitary monarchy up until the early 20th century; in 1925, Iran elected a Prime Minister who was then declared the monarch. The following several decades had Iran's monarchy slowly weakened, and occasionally beset by foreign interventions, including a covert coup by the US and UK in 1953. The country also became more corrupt throughout the 1970s due to economic policy failing to control inflation in the face of rising oil prices.

In 1979, there was a revolution that overthrew the monarchy and the elected government, replacing the system with a theocracy and declaring Iran to be an Islamic Republic, with the head of state being a religious authority, rather than an elected one. This was not popular with... most countries. 1980 saw the closure of all universities (reopened in 1983 with government-approved curriculums), as well as the taking of over fifty American hostages from the US Embassy in Iran. You may have heard about that in the context of Ronald Reagan encouraging Iran to keep the hostages until the end of Carter's term in order to force the election.

So, the West didn't like having an Islamic state because it claims to like democracy, and also because the Islamic state was explicitly anti-American and this has some Bad Effects on oil prices. The Soviets didn't like having an Islamic State because a theocracy goes directly against a lot of communist values (or at least the values they claim to have), and weakened any influence their supposedly secular union could have on Iran and the wider middle east. The other countries in the Arab world, many of them still monarchies, didn't like the Islamic republic because if the revolution spread, then it was possible their monarchies would be overthrown as well.

(Except Oman, which is not worried, but that's the exception, not the rule.)

This is not a baseless worry, because Iran has stated that this is its goal for the Arab world. Overthrow the monarchies, overthrow the elected governments, Islamic Rule for everyone. That is the purpose of its proxies, like Hezbollah (Lebanon), the Houthis (Yemen), and Hamas (Palestine), along with less well-known groups like the Salafi Jihadists in Mali, who are formally under the umbrella of al-Quaeda, which Iran denies having any relation to but is suspected of funding. In areas where these proxy groups have gained power, they are liable to enact hard Shari'a law such as has happened in Northern Mali and other parts of the Sahel region.

While other conflicts have occurred in these countries, I think the above is most relevant.

Israel has repeatedly attacked, or been attacked by, other nations in the middle east, as they are viewed as having taken over land that is not theirs, and as being a puppet of the US government. The biggest conflicts have been 1947-1948, 1968/1973, and 2014.

And then, of course, 2023.

Now, Iran, more than any other nation in the Middle East, hates Israel. They have for a very long time, viewing them as an affront to the goal of spreading Islam across the whole of the middle east, and as being a front and a staging ground for the United States and other Western powers. Two common refrains in the slogans of Iran and its proxies are "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."

Due to Iran's military power and virulence towards Israel, the United States has been funneling money to Israel for decades. It has more generally been to defend itself against the Arab world at large, but it has narrowed over the decades to being about Iran and its proxies as relations have normalized with other nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Cue October 7th, 2023. Hamas invades Israeli towns, kills some people, and takes others as hostage. Israel retaliates, and the conflict ramps up into what is by now tens of thousands of dead, some half of which are children.

In this time, Hamas's allies are, by definition, Iran and the other proxy forces. Hezbollah, being in Lebanon, share a border with Israel's north. They have been trading rocket fire across the border in waves for most of the past six months. The Houthis, down in Yemen, claim to be attacking the passing cargo ships in order to support Palestine. Given that the attacks often seem indiscriminate, and that the Houthi's control over their portion of Yemen is waning in the face of their poor governance, this is... debatable. It's their official reason, but given that "let's attack passing ships, claiming that we only attack Israeli or American ships and that it is to support Palestine" is rallying support domestically for their regime, it does seem to be more of a political move to garner support at home than about supporting Palestine.

Iran, however, has not attacked Israel. They've spoken out about it, yes, but they haven't done anything because nobody wants a regional war. Nobody can afford it right now. Iran is dealing with a domestic crisis due to oil subsidies bleeding the states' coffers dry, and the aging Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of Iran, refusing to pick a successor. They are looking at both an economic crisis and succession crisis, and a regional war would fuck up both situations further. Iran funds most of its proxies, and they can't do that, and fight a war on top of it, while their economy is in its current state. Pure self preservation says they don't want a war, especially with the ongoing unrest that's been going on for... well, basically since the revolution, but especially since the death of Mahsa Amini.

Meanwhile, in Israel, Netanyahu has been looking at corruption charges and legal issues since before the Hamas attack. It's generally agreed that if Israel were to hold new elections right now, he would lose and be replaced, and also immediately taken to court. Netanyahu wants to stay in power, and as long as the war on Hamas lasts, he is unlikely to get voted out. A change in leadership in the middle of a war is rarely a good idea for any country, and he's banking on that.

However, the war on Hamas rests on the shoulders of American money and supplies. Without that military support, Israel cannot fight this war, and America... is losing patience.

Officially, America and most of the western world have been telling Israel to not fucking escalate for the majority of the war.

There have been implied threats, more or less since Schumer's big speech about how Israel needs a new election, of American legislators putting conditions on any future aid. There have even been rumblings of aid being retracted entirely if Israel follows through on invading Raffah.

So...

American aid to Israel has, for a very long time, been given in the name of defending Israel against Iran and its proxies.

Israel has been fighting this war against Hamas for six months, killing what is by now innumerable civilians, on the power of US military aid.

Netanyahu benefits from the continued war due to domestic troubles.

Iran does not want a regional war, or really any big war, due to its own domestic troubles.

The US is, in theory, losing patience with Israel and threatening to pull the plug on unconditional support. It's very "we gave you this to fight Iran. Stop attacking civilians. If you keep attacking civilians, then you're going to have to rely on what we already gave you to fight off Iran so that you won't keep wasting it on civilians."

Israel... attacks Iran, prompting a response, and is now talking about escalating with Iran.

I am not explicitly saying that it looks to me like Israel, which is already fighting a war on two physical fronts and even more political/economic ones, has picked a fight with Iran so that America feels less like it is able to withdraw support.

I just... am finding it hard to understand why Israel, which is in fact fighting both Hamas and Hezbollah, would attack the Iranian consulate in Syria otherwise. They can't actually afford to fight this war, escalating to a full regional conflict, on a third front.

Not without pressuring American into keeping the faucet of military funding open at full blast.

To support my blogging so I can move out of my parents’ house, I do have a ko-fi. Alternately, you can donate to one of the charities I list in this post OR this post.

[pub-lius]

Hyper niche question for my autism warrior: What was the perception of aide-de-camps during the AmRev like? I assume it would be viewed as a softer position - though of course, the extent would vary depending who your CO was - but many did see action and a few were reassigned so they could fight

Hey y’all… how y’all doing… i know its been yet another period of many moons since ive posted or answered (i hope this information is still relevant btw), but ive had a lot going on with getting a job, finding colleges, my mommy issues, travel, etc. anyway, im back, and im here to tell you about my main men

It actually was not viewed as a softer position at all! The station of aide-de-camp was highly desirable for several reasons, which i will describe approximately right now

1) people had to compliment you a LOT to get in

Most of the results I got from my research on this ask were letters of recommendation for potential aides-de-camp. Letters of recommendation were high honors for any station, especially for that of a military capacity. According to my favorite source on the American Revolution (which you should know by now), George Washington’s Indispensable Men by Arthur S. Lefkowitz, it was practically impossible to get a job as an aide-de-camp if you did not have a widely positive reputation or a letter of recommendation from someone reputable (or both if you wanted to clerk for the Commander-in-Chief).

I found one letter of recommendation from j*hn ad*ms that i think serves as a very good example of the sort of statements that could land you a seat at a Continental officer’s writing desk:

“There is another Gentleman of liberal Education and real Genius, as well as great Activity, who I find is a Major in the Army; his Name is Jonathan Williams Austin. I mention him, sir, not for the Sake of recommending him to any particular Favour, as to give the General an opportunity of observing a youth of great abilities, and of reclaiming him from certain Follies, which have hitherto, in other Departments of Life obscurd him.”

-John Adams to George Washington, June 19-20, 1775, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Founders Online, Washington Papers)

Those are my italics btw. These compliments are carefully chosen to suit the honor culture that was so pervasive throughout the 18th century and first half of the 19th century. A liberal education at the time was very hard to come by, and would be of great importance in a clerical position. Great activity also helps, because you dont want some lazy ass writing to Congress under your name, or god forbid George Washington himself, you might get hung (not really). The mention of youth is also intentional, since young men have always been preyed upon by the military. I think it’s especially noteworthy the final phrase of “reclaiming him from certain Follies”, which indicates that he might have previously had a negative reputation- whether it was warranted or not, im not sure.

2) the pay was fucking fire

For this we’re going to be utilizing my super amazing math scores that im renown for throughout the math community (yall dont know about my math tumblr), and we’re going to be using Alexander Hamilton as our lab rat, as per usual.

Alexander Hamilton joined Washington’s staff in early 1777 where a regular aide-de-camp (not a military secretary) made $33 dollars a month, which averages to about $1.10 a day. Meanwhile, according to the University of Missouri, the highest paid laborer in Massachusetts in the same year made $0.50 a day, which is about $15 a month, others making as little as about $0.22 a day, so around $7 a month. If you’re looking for ratios, by the end of the war, a pound of raisins was around $0.30. So, the highest paid Massachusetts laborer could save up every paycheck from 1777 to 1782 and buy 324 pounds of raisins, and Alexander fucking Hamilton could waltz up next to him and buy 712.8 pounds of raisins and rub it in his sad, poor face. And he wouldn’t even share because he was a congressman by that time and congressmen HATE THE POOR.

Disclaimer: Hamilton’s numbers dont include the time he quit the office bc I didn’t feel like googling how long he was away for and also i dont care. And yeah he probably would share his raisins with the guy, Hamilton was pretty nice, but i dont think he’d buy 712.8 pounds of raisins in Massachusetts anyway. Or maybe he would, I dont fucking know, stop asking me questions

3) it gave you a lot of street cred

There are many instances of aides-de-camps rising to higher status after their service, but i dont give a fuck about those nerds going into politics and law and stuff.

Most people now only know about Washington’s aides (or if you’re really autistic you know Lafayette’s too), but at the time, being an ADC to any general would get you fairly well known in society. General Sullivan’s aides seem to have been pretty well known and admired, as they are frequently mentioned in John Adams’ correspondence with other congressmen, as well as that of Benjamin Franklin with French diplomats all the way across the Atlantic.

But I imagine you’re also wondering (or at least i am) about what the everyday enlisted man thought of the ADCs, and that answer doesn’t really change. Of course, the men sitting out in the rain and mud without food for the past week are going to be envious of the guys who get to sleep in a house, but their quarters weren’t the most comfortable either. Aides-de-camp were probably the most connected out of the disconnected officers, if that makes sense. They weren’t fraternizing with the enlisted, but they were seen by them more frequently than the generals, and they were the ones advocating for the needs of the enlisted men. Even if they didn’t have any battle experience whatsoever (which really was never the case, i cant think of an aide who WOULDNT have seen battle), they would still be respected by the men as hardworkers and the only people who might actually get them food and clothes.

Thank you for the ask! I really enjoyed researching it and my family had a great time joking about me hunched over my ipad reading through the national archives while we all watched jeopardy, misspelling like every other word because its hard to type on an ipad. Im going to try to be more active, so please feel free to send further questions! I forgot how cathartic research is for me so id be very happy to do more. I have one more ask in my inbox i’ll try to get done sometime in the next few days. Love yall!

[audreyscribes]

What do you think it would be like for a child of aphrodite to have potent powers but a very skewed and twisted view of love, like seeing love as a way to control people because as they've been taught love makes people weak and causing them to harness some of the darker and more cruel aspects of their mothers power. Also, how do you think aphrodite would react to figuring out they use their powers that way?

a/n: I maaaay have rambled off with this so forgive me if it seems to run off a little bit. Tried my best and hope it gave some ideas or something to go off of. Hope you enjoyed this and have a nice day!

I mean we sort of got a peek at what this would be like in Drew Tanaka with her own power of charmspeaking where she uses her charmspeaking powers to control her siblings (and probably many other victims) to her own whims, and based on my own interpretation of Drew’s reaction towards Silena, she does give off the impression where (true) love is a weakness and love and beauty is something not everyone have, and those who do have it are ‘special’ hence her shallowness and rudeness. 

So going off from that, I’m going to assume that the twisted child of Aphrodite has a really strong charmspeaking power, and is considerably beautiful/handsome; the stuff of where their beauty would/could entice war over them alone (think of Helen), and would use love and their beauty as a tool, weapon to their advantages. I can see with all of these, they did try to seek out authentic forms of love but because of their environment, they received shallow love themselves, love towards their outward selves then themselves as a person, and being able to get scott free with so many things with little to no consequences with many things. So they began to view love as nothing but something that fools believe in, to be blinded in, and that makes them weak and malleable to their whims and desires, making them do things to their command because “But didn’t you say love me right? You would do anything for me because you love me right?” and any rebuttal would only reaffirm the child of Aphrodite’s POV that love is twisted and fake, that they’re the ones in the wrong, and they were never truthful; which leads to a lot of manipulation and gaslightling. An example I can think of is Miss Heed from Villaino(u)s, Boa Hancock from One Piece if you make it more twisted, the Star Sapphire Corps, Queen Bee or Poison Ivy from DC comics, C.C from Code Geass, etc- It also makes more sense if their other, mortal parent knew Aphrodite was well, Aphrodite herself, it would lead to them with an inflated self because the goddess of Love and Beauty fell in love with them! But then became shocked when Aphrodite didn’t stick around or anything like that, so they believed Aphrodite used love to control them and made people weak like they once were, and it just keeps spiraling. (Before you say that Aphrodite may not reveal themselves to her lover as a goddess, there is a chance she would’ve if yo remember how she talked to Piper about Tristan and how his mind was fragile, and she made the deliberate conscious effort not to reveal herself for him.)

In a sense, they’re not wrong because in actual Greek mythology Aphrodite is both loving and motherly but also fickle and temperamental, and many things were done at her own whim. To least a few: Aphrodite being the cause for the War of Troy with her kidnapping Helen for Paris; Aphrodite being jealous of Psyche for her worshipping of her beauty and with her son Eros; and the amount of people Aphrodite made fall in love with others for one reason or another). 

So in a sense the Twisted Child of Aphrodite represents the other side of Aphrodite’s nature as a love goddess, and in general the other kind of love. The darker, unhealthier, side of Love basically. This is furthered by their surrounding environment that love makes people and others pliable and at your mercy, so why not take advantage of it? As for Aphrodite’s reaction, well, if we’re going off solely off PJO’s Aphrodite or at the point of time that Aphrodite is like, she probably disproves of the child of Aphrodite’s way of viewing love but then again, it is a sort of consequence of love and Aphrodite has done it herself; it's probably more disapproving the method (whether its not right or simply not as effective) than the actual concept of it.

I can see her not liking it because it’s causing problems which reflect badly on Aphrodite and may be getting out of hand, which may only motivate her to put things in place to have it addressed. Otherwise, she’s pretty hands off.

[broken-clover]

(Over)Analyzing the Cards in Johnny’s Joker Trick (Part 2)

Part 2 of 2. Here’s the original post for the sake of a more fleshed out explanation and for the Joker/King cards, but to keep it simple this is just for analyzing the cards used for every character in Johnny’s Joker Trick Overdrive to see if there’s any sort of symbolic or spiritual meaning that might be behind the use of that particular card. A lot of this uses cartomancy, which isn’t always as straightforward and clear-cut as something like tarot, but this is jus all in good fun

-

Queens

Queen of Clubs- Shared between Sol Badguy, Ramlethal Valentine, and Bridget. And, first of all, let’s be real, Sol’s was first and foremost made for the reference. Queen is about 80% of his personality, if they didn’t use a queen card I’m sure he would have come to life and burned down the office. Outside of the Jacks, Sol is the only character who has a card that doesn’t match the character’s gender. Character-wise, Sol and Ram do have a bit of an overlap, being aloof, struggling socially, and having their interests fixate on a few things, but Bridget is a bit of an outlier here. The symbolism varies a lot, but generally is appears to lean into themes of self-confidence and self-reliance, as well as change. That is something that fits all three quite well, being powerful, independent and experiencing life changes (Sol attempting to settle down, Ram discovering more about being alive, and Bridget’s transition). In the Paris pattern, the Queen of Clubs is the only one not directly modeled after a historical figure, only being a generic queenly character. This may indicate a bit more open-endedness, as all three do care about identity and who they really are. In a more literal suite motif, Sol and Bridget do both primarily fight with blunt weapons, which could be seen as a metaphorical ‘club,’ and while Ram has swords, they often remain sheathed in battle instead of revealing the sharp ends.

Queen of Diamonds- Curiously, no character appear to be assigned to this one? Perhaps it is being saved for someone in the future.

Queen of Hearts- Shared between May and Jack-O Valentine. This is one of the more commonly-seen cards in this sort of motif, likely due to its inclusion in Alice in Wonderland. Because of this, it can have some dual symbolism, being a heart card that’s associated with a cruel, loveless, domineering figure. In a more general motif, both characters fit as being associated with romance and tying a lot of their character and plotline towards love and relationships with men (Johnny and Sol, respectively). The Paris pattern has the Queen of Hearts designed after the biblical Judith, a widow who saved Jerusalem by charming and killing a general that had previously sieged her city. Both characters have attempted to take the initiative to save a group of others (May running away from home in Xrd to keep her family from getting sick and Jack-O attempting to stop I-no at the cost of herself in Strive) which may also contribute. Both also command underlings in battle, which may contribute to the overall ‘queen’ motif

Queen of Spades- Shared between Millia Rage and I-no. This card has some symbolism directly from card games, as it is often viewed as being unlucky. It’s also given such flattering names as ‘the bitch’ in seven card stud poker and is often used as the old maid card as well. Both are characters who are frequently commented on for their beauty, yet have complicated issues with relationships in different ways. As a card it also tends to lead towards level-headed intellectualism and practicality, but is often less associated with emotions than the other queen cards. Both characters are often seen as cold and distant, intelligent and capable but lonely and closed off. The Paris pattern is designed after Pallas (Athena), goddess of war strategy and wisdom. In Greek mythology, the ‘Pallas’ epithet likely referred to the goddess’ battle proficiency, as it can be translated as ‘to brandish (as a weapon’) and while it is a fighting game, the two of them narratively encounter a lot of conflict with others

-

Jacks

Jack of Clubs- Shared between Axl Low, Anji Mito, and Sin Kiske. Jack cards, in general, tend to have less symbolic meaning, but the Jack of Clubs tends to mention witty intellect and memory. All three characters are defined by personal memories that they treasure, though to varying degrees, and have a playful, trickster wit to them at times. It can pertain to luck and charisma that may also prove dangerous, and, at the very least, Anji does tend to his his glib words to cause trouble. On a note of consistency, Sin is of the same suite as Ky and Sol, making them collectively a three-card straight flush

Jack of Diamonds- Shared between Nagoriyuki and Giovanna. Curiously, both are newcomers to the series. This card tends to have an association with messages and messengers, which in a meta sense may refer to the newness that they bring to the game. There also seems to be repeated mention of a lack of loyalty and an unfaithful assistant, which could fit both in Giovanna’s blase attitude towards her work and Nagoriyuki’s role as an unwilling underling to Happy Chaos. 

Jack of Hearts- This card has the most people sharing it, being a four-way appearance between Faust, Goldlewis Dickinson, Testament, and Asuka R. Kreutz. This one also has a lot of heart-based themes similar to the King and Queens, often mentioning traits like kindness, good intentions, and sincerity. Though all four of them vary in many ways, their characters tend to involve sincere intentions towards others, though it might not always pan out the way they would have hoped (especially for Asuka). All four are definitely willing to show their emotions, especially when it comes to trying to bond with others, such as Faust with Ramlethal, Goldlewis with Bridget, Testament with Dizzy and Johnny, and Asuka with Raven. There is also a poetry motif with the card that depicts the Knave of Hearts as a trickster, and while all four are not necessarily trickster figures, Faust is known for his peculiarities, Goldlewis for his alien causing mischief in fights, Testament for being unpredictable in earlier games and mysteriously surviving several near-death instances, and Asuka being a mysterious and indecipherable problem-causer for most of the series. Also, in another consistency of the suites, Testament shares the heart suite with Johnny and May

Jack of Spades- Held solely by Baiken. Spade cards in general seem to veer towards more aggressive interpretations, and that definitely suits her just fine. It often mentions violence, though there is also mention of intense passion and ruthless determination, which also fit pretty nicely. It also tends to mention riskiness, either in the form of violence or unhealthy habits like drinking. Aside from the Joker and the King of Diamonds, Baiken is the only character to have a card all to herself, which may reflect the solitary nature she held onto for many years. Though, similar to the club and heart suites, she has a connection with Bedman and Delilah in the spade suite.

[former-general-geshu-lin]

((love love love your reblog chain with jiyan, what are your thoughts on geshuyan?? cuz im torn and need opinions..))

(Glad to see that someone else is enjoying the interaction, it’s really fun to be a bit of a menace to Jiyan honestly (apologies to the Jiyan mod))

(As for the ship, I do like it, I think it has a lot of depth— Geshu himself has this sort of obsession with dragging Jiyan down with him, saying that they’re “two desperate souls doomed to be forsaken” (quote from Jiyan’s showcase) in Geshu’s mind I think he likes it that way, it may be his personal view of what being a general means, and how war digs its claws into you but he’s definitely got some sort of attachment to Jiyan.)

(Geshu doesn’t want to think that he himself failed in his role, and he takes it out on Jiyan because Jiyan assumed his responsibility and his role as general. The negative part of him overrides the positive part, and is likely haunted by the soldiers that died under his command.)

(In Jiyan’s character showcase and in the cutscene, he asks how Jiyan will respond to the dead’s pleas and cries— Geshu is very emotionally charged in these lines and I think that’s perhaps because he feels an inkling of guilt for how things turned out, and Jiyan is an outlet for that anger at himself.)

(When he was alive, I also think it’s entirely possible that he was fond of Jiyan. In the cutscene at the beginning of the quest Great Warstorm, we see that Geshu valued Jiyan’s opinion as a medic, and acknowledged that he may have even been right about the retroact rain— but that trust in Jiyan’s judgement was overridden by the fact that it was their only chance to launch an attack at the Threnodian, leading Geshu to sacrifice himself.)

(Geshu Lin by no means thought little of Jiyan, he was likely the closest person to him, and I can’t say much for Jiyan, but since the phantom of Geshu haunts him, it isn’t a completely unfounded belief to say that he feels some sort of attachment to the former general too.)

(This turned into a mini study, so my apologies for that. What I mean is that I do like the ship, I think it’s angsty and has a lot of potential… but in terms of the interaction I have with the Jiyan mod, I just like terrorizing him. We’ll see where it goes.)

[zarvasace]

Absolutely LOVED reading A Long Walk, and now I'm curious: what's turning back on after 'passing out' like for Four?

Hello! :) this was meant to just be an answer but it turned into a little fic... It isn't long! Less than 1k.

---

It's slow.

Four did not give the command to shut down as he usually does, so his programs treat this as an emergency and prioritize waking up Green first.

Green becomes conscious alone. He wakes up to detailed diagnostic reports that tell him exactly what's wrong—and it's... a lot more than he wishes it was. There's external damage, of course, some stress damage, some emergency-shifted mechanisms that will be a pain to sort out, and of course there's the battery situation. In the interest of efficiency (delaying the inevitable), Green chooses to delay start-up procedures while the battery charges to full.

When the start-up begins in earnest, the rest of Four joins Green, and he returns to normal function—mentally, at least. He opens his eyes to see his room aboard the Epona, then sits up and attempts to pull the charging cable from the back of his neck. His arms move, but his hands are immobile. He'd forgotten. He pulls them back around and stares at the bandages wrapped and tied carefully around each finger.

There's love in those knots. Even Four can tell.

...that doesn't make the nonfunction of his hands any less frustrating, though.

"I didn't want them to get damaged any more."

Four looks up sharply to see Wind, whose presence he somehow hadn't registered until now. Wind sits in Four's desk chair, the one that swings out from the wall, and he looks a little sheepish, fiddling with a screwdriver in his fingers.

"Thanks," Four says, his voice coming out lower than he meant it to. He turns his focus to his hands again. Both repair estimates are high in time, power, and materials. He sighs. "Sorry to make you carry me the whole way back."

"You carried me," Wind replies. "And you're not exactly heavy. Are you able to fix your hands?"

"It will take me a while. But yes. I'm just useless until then."

Wind smiles, one side higher than the other. "Nah, I don't think you are. Oh! Wild asked me to let him know when you woke up. I think he has a question." He turns to tap at a screen on the wall.

Four blinks, and remembers Wild's hint that he knew an engineer who might be able to help. And then he remembers that Warriors is going to be furious at him. He makes a face.

The screen that lights up when Wild answers Wind's call is uncannily similar to the view Four had seen in his head... Probably because they're still using the same camera. Wild says hello, and the others on the bridge look over. Wind waves back and sits on the chair again.

Four notices a distinct lack of Hyrule, Legend, and Twilight. He hopes they're resting.

Time doesn't get up, but does nod over to the camera. "Good to see you up."

"You're okay!" Sky says, getting up from his seat to look over Wild's shoulder.

"Of course I am," Four replies. "I didn't damage anything integral... or, well, integral to core function."

Warriors comes to stand on Wild's other side. "I am also glad to see that you're just fine. We do need to talk, though."

Four winces. "I know."

"For now, though, do you have an estimate for when you might be able to return to normal duties?"

"Wars," Sky says as if about to scold him.

"Three days," Four interrupts. "Minimum. Um... plugged in." He holds up his hands to show them Wind's careful bandaging. "The biggest obstacle is fixing this damage. After that, I'll be pretty much fine."

"Take the time you need," Time says, looking over. "Please."

Four turns his head away from Wind, who's giving him pleading eyes to emphasize Time's message. "I will."

"Good. Sky?"

"Yes, sir!" Sky rushes back to his pilot's seat and takes the controls back into his hands.

"Okay," Wild starts, working on something else but keeping the connection open. "So about that engineer I know..."

[billywigsting]

More lyrics from Family Tree, Ethel Cain that are Draco Malfoy

The idea that Lucius taught Draco prejudice and arrogance whilst Narcissa taught him cruelty and decorum is like. Ugh. Narcissa Black this beautiful, strong, graceful witch who can command a room if needs be but glide through unnoticed when necessary. Who is a descendant of the stars, the noble house of black, holy and glorious and superior. Her etiquette immaculate in all things, including duelling, and her tongue and mind sharp. She knows how to pander and how to win. Knows what to say to give herself the upper hand, where to strike and how to hurt without getting her hands dirty (because she wouldn't want to be seen doing something as unbecoming as Arguing or Fighting in public). She can twist words and spark rumours and tear people down without having to be in the room. And so, as her mother taught her, she teaches Draco. Attempts to prepare him for a world that will not readily bow to him as they do at home, attempts to give him a leg to stand on when everything Lucius has fed him falls flat.

She knows fullwell that Lucius is mostly bark rather than bite and his cowardice rules superior, coats his spine and teeth, he will Always turn tail. She knows that what Lucius teaches Draco will lead him to failure, and she cannot have that. Her son, born of the stars in the far north, be led to ruin by a man she is bound to. Now this isn't me saying she doesn't love Lucius and isn't loyal to him because that is simply not the case. But at the end of the day if their views aligned 100% then they wouldn't be human, it is inevitable for disagreement to occur in any relationship. Anyway she has high standards for Draco, as every pureblood mother should, and knows she must teach him standards and etiquette that Lucius will focus less on in favour of politics and history and prejudice. She also knows that Draco is a mouthy, entitled, arrogant little boy who (like most children) will recklessly spout whatever his father says to him or to other people. And despite these beliefs of pureblood supremacy being prevalent in pureblood culture she isn't disillusioned enough to believe that everyone else agrees with it outside of these circles. In fact many people openly DISagree with these sentiments and thus she takes on the responsibility of preparing him to defend himself when he inevitably upsets people.

This is entirely typical of Lucius' aforementioned cowardly disposition. He has shirked responsibility for his wrongdoings by turning his back, paying it away, or simply ignoring it for years and years. A loyal death eater throughout both of the wars even during Voldemort's dormancy. He almost kills Ginny. He drags his family into a mess he created. He manipulates the ministry. He throws galleons around like they're sweets and with a saccharine tone slinks his way into high ranks and high responsibilities just so that he can avoid prosecution and do more harm without consequence.

At the end of the day he will always flee, and Draco this young boy who looks up to his father as some sort of untouchable God, a being who represents everything he aspires to be one day. And so Draco, devoted and completely blinded by loyalty, internalises and imitates his actions, beliefs, mannerisms. Anything he can feasibly achieve. And thus he adopts his father's cowardice, his penchant for avoiding responsibility and running away from his own problems. And yet, despite this, he is the one who holds his head high beside his mother, while Lucius scrambles after them frantically and slimey and cowardly.

So yeah, his father taught him to do and then run, fuck the consequences, you don't need to know them because what you don't know can't kill you.

I feel as though a hierarchy like that of which is implied in a pureblood household brings with it expectations. And when these expectations are failed to be met it brings ridicule. A public spectacle of failure and the only ones that know it are those who have lived it. Any mistake, a low grade, being second best, an untucked shirt, a wrinkled robe. Any small mistake that that can be picked upon will be and punishment will range depending on the the slight.

Yet they all share one common theme. Whenever Draco fails his father never forgets to remind him that Draco was raised better than this. He was raised to be perfect and each little thing that proves he isn't is an insult to Lucius. And Lucius, having been treated the same by his father (who was likely treated the same by His father and so on), teaches him the only way he knows how. Punishment and ridicule.

And when his failings are revealed in a drunken rant to other pureblood fathers, they will laugh at him in tandem. Pass him around and pick apart those failings as they do with all of the children, especially the heirs. Because why wouldn't punishment motivate them to be better? If you, as an heir, are not at least slightly afraid of your father, than he is soft and you are both unworthy of the family name.

HAHA ANYWAYYY thank you for reading !! Enjoy your time !

[josefavomjaaga]

Laure and her memoirs for 1812/3 (part 5/?) - A digression: Junot at Smolensk

Laure does take her sweet time until she talks in detail about the great injustice that, according to her memoirs, had been done to Junot and was the main reason for the extreme changes in his character during the last months of his life. She only really adresses it in Volume 15, chapter VIII, though it does play a role earlier. But in this chapter, she has Junot tell the story from his point of view, and the story is, of course, the one of the combats around Smolensk and Valoutina (17 and 19 August 1812).

But I would like to start a bit earlier, at the beginning of he campaign, mostly because… well, Laure felt she also needed to drag Eugène into this 😁.

We’ve already seen Laure claiming in Volume 14 that Napoleon had given Junot a particularly brilliant command when he sent him to Milan. Turns out, Junot’s job in truth merely consisted in leading the Italian troops, destined to take part in the Russian campaign as 4th corps, into Prussia and Poland and command them until Eugène arrived (Eugène, similar to Napoleon, as administrator of a country would only leave for the campaign at the latest date possible). While Napoleon may have toyed with the idea of leaving Eugène in Paris as some sort of representative of the crown, he ultimately decided against it, and Eugène took command of his troops himself.

Leaving Junot without a job. Napoleon and Berthier tried to cover it up by claiming that, as Eugène technically was at the head of two army corps, Junot would still be in command of 4th corps somehow, but factually he was a second-in-command without anything to do.

Presumably, Junot had imagined that he would play in 4th corps a role similar to Vandamme in Jérome’s 8th corps: King Jérome officially at the head of the army corps, with Vandamme factually in charge. This kind of job sharing already fell apart in the case of Jérome and Vandamme, and as far as Eugène was concerned, it never was an option. So when Junot demanded to have his own staff at 4th corps, in addition to Eugène’s staff, either Napoleon or Eugène or most likely both put their foot down. Doubling the existing and experienced état-major of the Army of Italy was unnecessary at best, dangerous at worst. It was also pretty clear that Eugène did not need a second-in-command who would take care of 4th corps, as long as 4th corps had nothing to do but march.

In her memoirs, Laure – as she does so marvellously – while belittling Eugène as much as she can, takes great care to imply that the decision to give superior command to him had been a political one, i.e., one motivated by the fact that Eugène happened to be Napoleon’s stepson and an Imperial prince, something that an old war horse like Junot simply could not accept.

It was simple enough to think, and the emperor must have done so, that, whatever Junot's friendship for Prince Eugène, he could not forget that ten years before he had known him as a child and as a colonel in his stepfather's guard; that the antecedents of this were not the familiarity of children, but a kind of almost protective friendship, such as one could have for a young man of high hopes like Eugène, a man already famous among the brave. Of all this, there were too few days... there were especially too few for his head, old with scars, to bow with resignation before the young moustache of viceroyalty: all the trappings of sovereignty and power had never had their effect in the emperor's family except on his own person.

Not that Junot was in any way

… reluctant to serve under Eugène, a loyal and brave child whom [Junot] had put on horseback...

of course.

Let’s leave aside the question when the F Junot had ever shown "protective friendship" or tutorship for Eugène (I at least could not come up with any example). The assumption that the army would not follow anyone in the Imperial family other than Napoleon is not true, as events in 1813 would show, when the remaining officers, one Marshal Davout among them, rallied around Eugène not only willingly but even with a sort of relief. But it is also completely irrelevant in this case, and Berthier tried to explain this to Junot in two different letters that Laure both quotes in full: The Army of Italy was simply Eugène’s army, the same army he had commanded during 1809 and led ever since. Why would he not be in command of this army if he was present? In summer 1812, Eugène was thirty years old (also balding and loosing his teeth) – hardly a child anymore. While he may not have been a particularly good or inspired general compared to the marshals (I lack the knowledge to evaluate this), he did have some experience with independent command and had an overall successful campaign against the Austrians under his belt. Beating Junot’s battle record – at least on paper, without regarding the circumstances – was not a particularly high bar either. In short, there was very little factual reason why Junot should not be put under Eugène’s command if he remained with 4th corps.

However, by doing so, he was almost reduced to the position of a mere divisionary general, and that had to sting and was decidedly an awkward position. I also find it interesting that Napoleon did not call him to his own entourage, like he did with Soult in 1813 (and maybe Lannes in Spain in 1808, too?). To me this makes it look as if Napoleon already had given up on Junot a long time before whatever happened at Smolensk. – As to Junot, he obviously felt that his situation hurt his pride. As late as in the two letters from 3 December, to Berthier and Napoleon, that Laure quotes in her memoirs, he keeps mentioning his high rank that does not agree with so lowly a command – making it sound as if the job simply was beneath Junot. (It also has to be said that a the same time, Ney, Eugène and probably many other superior officers were not above marching on foot among their soldiers, musket in hand and fighting like a private, commanding a mere handful of men that they still managed to rally under arms, without feeling this somehow hurt their pride.)

So we have Junot being a miserable supernumerary general already at the beginning of the campaign, and it was only after the infight between Vandamme, Jérome and Davout that Junot was relieved of his awkward situation and called up to take command of VIIIth corps, consisting of the troops of the Kingdom of Westphalia, with two divisionary generals under his command, French general Tharreau and Westphalian general von Ochs. The book by Paul Holzhausen "Die Deutschen in Russland 1812" ("The Germans in Russia 1812", Morawe & Scheffelt Verlag, Berlin 1912) lists several Westphalian sources in its introduction, and quotes some of them directly with regards to what happened at Smolensk. One huge caveat is true for all of them – they were, like Laure’s memoirs and unlike the letters intercepted by the Russians, written after the events, sometimes a long time later. So they suffer from precisely the same problems as Laure’s memoirs, and it is quite possible for them to be influenced by earlier reports like Ségur’s book on the Russian campaign, that had put all the blame on Junot.

That being said, these sources also often are very detailed, show events from different perspectives, and while they (and their authors) disagree in details, they do agree in the main aspects.

So, what did happen at Smolensk? In short, the Russians first, on 16/17 August, tried to defend the city before abandoning it and retreating on 18 and 19 August. On the 17th, the French attacked with only three army corps, as 4th corps had been sent on another route in order to cover the main army’s flank, and Junot’s VIIIth corps arrived too late to take part in the action.

Which occasioned the first of two army bulletins (13th bulletin, 21 August 1812) mentioning Junot in a not particularly flattering way:

[…] The Duke of Abrantes, with the 8th corps, had lost his way and made a false move. [...]

Two days later, as the Russians continued their retreat, Junot’s 8th corps at Walutina Gora (sometimes also: Valoutina or Valontina) came into a position that, during a certain time, might have allowed them to cut off a part of the Russian army. The occasion passed, however, without 8th corps acting. At least that is what the 14th bulletin (23 August 1812) claimed:

The Duke of Abrantès had crossed the Borysthene two leagues to the right of Smolensk; he found himself on the enemy's rear; he could, by marching decisively, intercept the main road to Moscow and make the retreat of this rearguard difficult. However, the other echelons of the enemy army that were within range, informed of the success and speed of this first attack, retraced their steps [...]

To put things in perspective: These are two brief remarks in two extremely detailled army bulletins literally tens of pages long. But they stung Junot enough for him to try and defend himself in a letter he wrote to Napoleon much later, on 3 December, shortly before Napoleon left the army in order to return to Paris. The letter is quoted by Laure (only in parts, as a footnote states) in Volume 15, chapter VIII of her memoirs:

To the Emperor Moladetchno, 3 December 1812 Sire! This memorable campaign is coming to an end. I began it with a command intended to bring glory, and I am ending it with a command too low for my rank and in which I can only continue to dishonour myself... Two bulletins have hit me hard, Sire, and I have not complained. But if public opinion is not what I value most, Your Majesty's opinion is what I value more than my life. The bulletin talking about the army's march on Smolensk says that I got lost and that I made a false move... Well, Sire, I did not lose my way, but on the second day of the march I travelled six leagues instead of the eight that I wanted to travel (something that was easy to repair on the other days). General Tharreau got lost through disobedience, and despite the fact that I had left him some cavalry plantons to direct him towards Boullianow... At ten o'clock in the evening, when I sent for my generals to tell them about our march, General Tharreau was not to be found in the position I had designated for him. I thought he had stayed behind and I sent to find him... The officer in charge of this mission returned to camp at three o'clock in the morning without having met him; then, remembering his opinion of the previous day on our direction, and knowing his character, I had no doubt that he would have wanted to follow the right in order to reach the road to Mitislaw that we had to join. I immediately sent Colonel Revest, my chief of staff, who indeed found him more than four leagues away from us, and he did not return to camp until after four o'clock in the evening... I had learned that Your Majesty had reason to be dissatisfied with this officer-general; I hoped, by dint of marching, to right his wrongs, and in order not to destroy this man, I bore the punishment for his fault. The whole 8th Corps witnessed this... but all I care about is that Your Majesty knows the truth: this act of justice cost me dearly. The report on the affair of 19 August, in front of Smolensk, accuses me of not having acted firmly enough... so I was FEARFUL?... Well, Sire, Your Majesty will know my conduct; it was witnessed on that day by General Valence, General Sébastiani, General Bruyères and many others. I received the order to go and protect the construction of the bridges over the Boristhène; I did so, and we crossed this river rather slowly, because of our artillery, the ramps of the bridges being very bad... The roads that we had been obliged to make also delayed us a great deal, and I was only able to emerge from the wood at two o'clock, and I took up my position... I HAD RECEIVED NO ORDER TO FIGHT, I did not even know, Sire, what troops were fighting on my left; but after half an hour, and when the Gudin division arrived, the fire having started up again much more strongly, I mounted my horse and crossed a large ravine which I had in front of me with two battalions of light infantry and my cavalry, I arrived in a superb position in the rear of the enemy; the plain or rather the plateau which separated us from the position of the Russian rearguard was covered with skirmishers and cavalry. Nevertheless, convinced that we could be useful in the frontal attack, I sent my small vanguard through, which recognised that the artillery had to rebuild a bridge in a village on the right in order to be able to pass, which was carried out, while I sent the order to the 8th corps to come and join me in its entirety and as quickly as possible.

So, we have two points of defence here: 1) Junot according to himself only arrived too late to take part in the battle of Smolensk because he covered up the disobedience of one of his divisionary generals (who, conveniently, at the time Junot sent his letter could not comment on this anymore as he had died of wounds received at the battle of Borodino). 2) Junot did not take part in the action at Valontina because he never received any order to do so and because he needed more time to understand the situation and to deploy his troops.

(The second argument does sound a bit weak, considering how both Bernadotte and Grouchy to this very day are accused by armchair generals for not having "marched to the sound of the guns". But whatever, I don't know enough about military matters to truly comment.)

Junot in his letter cited 8th corps as witnesses. So, what do the witnesses have to say to all this?

As to the first incident, 8th corps arriving too late for the battle of Smolensk, Holzhausen summarises the different Westphalian sources briefly as follows:

Hauptmann v. Linsingen relates that during the concentration of the army preceding that battle, the Westphalian corps was led astray for a whole day on 15 August by a Jew who knew the area and whom the duke had taken with him as a guide. But others also speak of a country house where Junot had had too good a breakfast.

(Biting my tongue here in order not to speculate about how long it takes to eat 300 oysters...)

I’ve checked von Linsingen’s "diary" (it’s not really one, but a day-by-day report that may be based on one) for more details: Jérome left the army on 16 July, Junot received command of 8th corps on 30 July/1 August. In the interim, Tharreau, as the senior-most divisionary general, was in command. About the reason why 8th corps was late to the battle of Smolensk, Linsingen has this to say:

On 15 August, the birthday of Emperor Napoleon, we crossed the border of old Russia. It was generally rumoured that there would be a battle today. We had already left the bivouac at 2 o'clock in the morning. With brief interruptions, we marched until 9 o'clock in the evening, when we realised that we were barely four hours away from our marching point. The local guide who had been attached to the avant-garde was a Jew. Had he deliberately led us astray, had he been mistaken himself? Who can tell? In any case, the army corps had had an extremely strenuous march and had not reached the point it was supposed to reach. The duke had the Jew shot immediately.

That’s a pretty straightforward report, and it does not need any oysters or disobedient French generals in order to explain 8th corps’ delay. A bit later, Linsingen comments:

At about 8 o'clock in the evening [on 16 August] we set up a bivouac beyond the little town of Wolkowo. As soon as we had lit a fire and put our meagre food in the pots, we had to set off and march on for another hour so that the duke could be quite safe in his quarters, a castle. In general, the Duke of Abrantes, unlike our other senior officers, was very noticeably concerned about his person and, unlike our other superiors, showed no care for his soldiers.

Another source is the very long and convoluted report by Friedrich Wilhelm von Lossberg that has been given the form of letters "Briefe in die Heimath geschrieben während des Feldzugs in Rußland", published in Kassel in 1844. He describes the first impression the troops had of their new commander as follows:

Near Orsza, 2nd August. All of us officers of the 2nd Infantry Brigade paid our respects to the Duke of Abrantes. Judging by his appearance, he is a man of some 40 years of age, blond and of stocky build. Judging by his features, one would not think he was French. The man spoke quite well, but (especially as a soldier) his appearance did not inspire confidence, which was not helped by the reputation that preceded him. In his lower military ranks he is said to have shown much courage and to have had the good fortune to be noticed by Napoleon. As I compared him in my mind with Vandamme, this comparison could not be favourable to him [...].

In a footnote he clarifies:

His unfortunate campaign in Portugal, as well as the defeat he suffered against the Austrian General Kiemaier in the 1809 campaign at Hof, was no secret to anyone.

So, very little trust in this new commander already from the very beginning.

About the delay of 8th corps before the battle of Smolensk Lossfeld writes:

Close to Triana, 15 August. We have been on the road for 16 hours, but have only gained 4 hours of ground, as the army corps marched too far to the right for several hours and finally, when they noticed this, turned left onto a crossroad. We are currently at 12 o'clock at night, marching in brigades, jammed between defiles. In addition, the bridge collapsed due to an ammunition wagon from the regiment following us, […] [...] Close to Smolensk, 17. August. Left the last bivouac at 2 AM, marched until 9 AM and stopped six hours from Smolensk in a small village that burned down due to soldiers’ carelessness [...]. We probably would have remained here all day, if not around 2 PM an officer from headquarters had hurried up to us in order to fetch our army corps, that in vain had been expected at Smolensk since yesterday; he accomplished his task towards Junot, who happened to be at one of the campfires at that moment, in such a loud voice, that the news immediately spread throughout the whole army corps. We at once set off to march and I may assure that among all superior officers irritation was voiced both about this unnecessary halt and especially about the detour that we had made on the 15th that had us cost 24 hours of time. In order to excuse Junot, it is claimed that the similarity of Russian and Polish names and the difficulty to pronounce them correctly, in addition to a lack of good maps of Russia may have caused a mistake […], which is quite probable and which I would be inclined to believe, if the great indolence and idleness of our corps commander did not, at least in outward appearance, make itself felt in all things. Truly! The man is not made to inspire the least bit of confidence, which Vandamme, seen as a soldier, had in such a large degree.

Lossfeld a fan of Vandamme. Check. In any case, he also corroborates the story that 8th corps really had gone astray due to an error. No mention of any insubordinate French generals being missed.

Finally, as a third example of the early difficulties, here’s an excerpt from the biography of general von Ochs, one of the two divisionary generals under Junot’s command, written by his relative Leopold von Hohenhausen based on Ochs’s papers and published in 1827.

On 4th August the Duke of Abrantes reviewed the corps; he found it to be above his expectations both in bearing and in manoeuvrability, and promised to become its protector, also, as he phrased it, to teach the Westphalians how to live well in the field. Several Westphalian officers who had previously served under Junot in French service did not pass a favourable judgement on his character and military abilities; they confirmed this by citing the facts, which is why they had no confidence in the new general in chief even before the start of hostilities. As, however, he was one of the Emperor's first favourites, which was supposed to stem from the excellent service he had rendered the latter as sergeant at the siege of Toulon, for which Napoleon promised him lifelong gratitude, the Westphalians hoped that the Emperor would give his favourite the opportunity to perform glorious deeds and would not treat the corps entrusted to him with neglect. The future has shown, however, that the Westphalian corps could not have met with a greater misfortune than having the Duke of Abrantes as commanding general in this campaign.

[…] 8th Corps was ordered to leave Orsza on 12 August in order to advance on the right of the army road leading to Smolensk, at the same height as the 1st Army Corps, which was marching on that road. [...] On the 12th the corps arrived on the right of Dombrowna, on the 13th at Romanowa, on the 14th at Buewo, without seeing the enemy. As it had to pass many defiles on the bad side roads, including several boggy places and creeks [...], it was necessary to stop several times and the troops were almost never able to reach the bivouacs before nightfall. [...] Up to this point, however, the Duke had carried out his march according to orders. On the 15th, however, he was to remain on the right wing of the army until he reached Tezerkowikky, three hours to the right of the post station Korydnia on the main road, which is today the Emperor's headquarters. He therefore set off at 2 o'clock in the morning without, however, informing his generals of the destination of the march, the name of which he probably did not understand correctly or had mispronounced to the man leading him. One hour from Buewo, the Old Russian border was passed, and the column then travelled through the small town of Ziurowizy, which was deserted by its inhabitants. There were no more Jews in Old Russia, who due to their knowledge of the German language and their willingness to serve had made themselves very useful to the army, and from now on the inhabitants were fleeing far away; it was therefore not so easy to get back on the right track if one lost one's way. The corps marched without stopping for several miles in a direction that deviated almost perpendicularly to the right from the Smolensk road. The duke, who himself led the avant-garde, must have been convinced that he had lost his way in the afternoon, as he was out of contact with the other corps and the reconnaissance sent out for hours could not discover any troops. He therefore turned back and marched back in almost the same direction, but along roads that were barely passable, in order to gain Bojanowa not far from Krasnoy, where he hoped to obtain precise information from the army and find a convenient road for the column. The troops therefore marched until 12 o'clock at night and had barely gained two miles of terrain from Buewo. [...] Napoleon attacked the city of Smolensk on the 17th; [...] Napoleon sent an officer to seek out the Duke of Abrantes and to order him to hasten his march as much as possible and to advance on the extreme right wing as far as the Dnieper, so that Smolensk would be completely surrounded on the left bank. Although the duke had marched off after daybreak on the 17th, he lingered for several hours at a beautiful castle to have a lunch and had his corps halt during this time, despite the fact that the cannon fire from Smolensk could be clearly heard and even at a great distance the smoke rising from the conflagration could be recognised. Here the imperial order reached the duke and now we set off as quickly as possible for Smolensk, three miles away. The light infantry had to cover most of the distance at a run, the cavalry almost always at a trot. Towards evening the avant-garde arrived, and in the dark of night the infantry arrived in front of Smolensk. However, as the encounter had already been decided, the 8th Corps was immediately assigned a bivouac not far from that of the Imperial Guards.

That is pretty close to Lossfeld’s report, except the author also speculates about a motive for the unnecessary halt on 17 August.

So maybe there were some oysters involved after all?

I guess that’s enough examples to show that, as far as the first incident is concerned, the Westphalian witnesses support what was claimed in the bulletin.

About the second incident, the lack of action at Walutina Gora, it’s pretty much the same, and I do not want to bore people too much with lengthy repetitions as this has gotten extremely long again. Just as a brief example, von Linsingen has this to say:

On 19 August, our army corps set off at 8 o'clock in the morning. It was to cross the Dnieper on two pontoon bridges about an hour below the town. [...] The Duke of Abrantes led the army corps about two hours further east and then took a concealed position behind a wooded hill and behind a village on the main Moscow road. We could clearly see the Russian army retreating along this road. Opposite us were Cossack pikets, of whom we could recognise man for man with the naked eye. Towards midday we heard heavy firing to our left, we saw the Russians perform a fighting retreat from the French - and we didn't move. Finally, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, the King of Naples arrived in a fury and brought the Duke of Abrantes the imperial order to attack immediately.

Which several units, mostly cavalry, then were sent to do. However, by that time, the Russians already received reinforcements, and the great opportunity was lost. Linsingen resumes:

It was made clear to all of us through just how difficult a defile we had allowed the Russians to withdraw unhindered along the Moscow road. We could easily have forced the retreat of the entire enemy army guard, if not also of Grand Duke Constantine's corps, if we had intervened decisively and in good time. The fact that we were too late for the affair at Smolensk may well be partly the Jew's fault, but the fact that we did not strike a crushing blow against the Russians on the 19th is not something for which anyone shares the blame with you, Monsieur le Duc.

Linsingen not a fan of Junot’s. Check.

But at least he (and as far as I’ve seen all other Westphalian sources, too) do confirm that Murat really at some point showed up in order to get Junot to act. Laure in her memoirs does try to throw some doubt onto the story for the sole reason that it’s Murat’s story.

I’ll wrap it up here before I break the character limit for a tumblr post – especially as the Westphalian reports with regards to the inaction at Valoutina/Walutina are all vicious towards Junot. If there is interest, I can translate more (there's more complaints from von Ochs about Junot's overall attitude during the march, and even more Vandamme-fanboyism from Lossfeld 😜) but I feel for now it suffices to say that no, the Westphalian eye witnesses unfortunately do not support Junot’s and Laure's version of the story in the least.

[goblins-riddles-or-frocks]

What is your view of Aemond and Daemon?

Aemond is really fun. I love that he’s like such an over-the-top kind of anime character aesthetically but also all of the overlooked second son tropes.

It’s fun how strongly him having been picked on and ignored in childhood informs the false glass jaw ego he’s developed for himself in adulthood. And how he’s become overly cruel as a result. He always wants to get his own, he wants to prove himself. He’s so quick to try to crush anyone else underfoot if given any sort of advantage because he has such a tremendous chip on his shoulder and he needs to feel powerful to make up for his youth/how much no one cares for him now because he’s so annoying lol.

The entire scene where he stole a dragon— because he kept being picked on for not having one– and then immediately attacked the other kids because he finally had the upper hand and then lost an eye and went crying to his mom really exemplifies all of this! He really doesn’t know how to be normal. And in the present he’s still trying to constantly prove himself and to command respect while just being… kind of a fuck up.

I’ve said this before, but I did love him trying to just be kind of an asshole and scare Luke in the season one finale, talking up such a big game and demanding that Luke cut out his own eye. Then Luke leaves (normal reaction!) and then Aemond tries to scare him… upon dragon back and then shdhfhfd accidentally kills him and is like “oh fuck I accidentally started a war fuck fuck fuck.” Like that is such good character writing!

I was worried that season two was going to squander it tbh with the pilot just not doing anything with his feelings about that. But now that we have episode two, I nominally enjoy him pretending that he totes did it on purpose and was just out for blood. And then in episode two he’s crying in the lap of a prostitute in a brothel, while drinking milk, and telling her that he didn’t actually mean to do it 🥺🥺 but at least B&C means that Daemon considers him a threat and wants him dead. Like yayyy he was noticed 🥺🥺

Idk he’s just so embarrassing! It’s great!

As for Daemon, I started re-watching season one recently and it’s really interesting how little anyone respects him! He and Aemond are def similar while being kind of the inverse of each other in terms of what makes them tick. Daemon is similarly a volatile fuck up, but he seems to be more genuine of a wildcard whereas Aemond is consciously trying to look cool all the time. Daemon just kind of… does stuff, hoping to get some attention from his loved ones, and is bewildered when it’s perceived as some sort of big political move. He also just seems more genuinely loyal while always being perceived as a serpent. Like imo Aemond just is happy to overtly betray people. But Daemon is more untrustworthy because he’s fucking insane, rather than deliberate malice.

There is a consistent line in the show of people just fucking up or allowing things to happen and then that being perceived in a more dramatic way they never anticipated. A lot of people have complained about how a lot of the choices in the show are accidental, and I can agree that sometimes it does go a touch too far, but with a lot of these characters I think that’s a compelling choice— like Aemond! I think it works particularly well for Daemon too. On rewatch, it really stood out to me that after Aemma and her newborn die, there’s that point where Daemon’s out drinking and the crowd, somewhat pushed by Mysaria, start cheering that Daemon’s going to be the heir now that the kid’s dead, and he’s going to be the future king etc. Essentially celebrating the deaths.

And Daemon’s just drinking, barely listening and is half heartedly like “yeah, sure. fuck it” because the crowd is cheering. He doesn’t even seem particularly ambitious in that moment. So when Viserys is completely outraged and confronts him he seems kind of surprised that it’s something that comes up at all. I get the sense that he really wasn’t thinking about it!

Frankly, I think the late season one writing, in general, flags a little bit. Once we start getting time skips, there’s a little less continuity in terms of what these characters are doing and where they’re coming from. It’s just harder to follow their day to day priorities. I find Daemon particularly the most interesting early on, because he especially just drops off the map for a bit.

But in general, I think it’s really interesting how Daemon seems mostly motivated by just wanting attention and recognition. He wants the crown as a status symbol, but he doesn’t want to rule necessarily, like I doubt he has any strong policy opinions or any desire for administrative duties lol. But he wants to be treated like he’s someone of consequence, like it wouldn’t be a joke for him to rule.

I’m not really a Daemyra shipper. Shockingly, I guess, they’re just a bit too creepy for me. But the early Daemyra dynamic was the most interesting imo. I see people frequently say that he’s only ever been interested in her for the throne and I think that’s distinctly untrue!

Before they get married, his desire for her is framed as directly at odds with him wanting the crown actually. This is encapsulated by that moment where she shows up at Dragonstone and she’s literally like “I’m the thing that standing between you and the throne” and she’s right! He could literally just punt her off the bridge where they’re having that standoff, and Viserys would no longer have an heir. Would it be smart? No, it would be catastrophic! But he was obviously ready to throw down with Otto, who is literally there representing Viserys. It clearly wasn’t good sense holding him back.

He’s a character without much strategy, he’s just ready to do what the fuck ever, at any given moment, just to get people mad at him. He wants attention. I think it says something about Daemon, that he is so emotionally unregulated, and so immature, that he does have this continued bond with his 15-year-old niece. He’s grooming her for sure, but there’s this element of like shdgd that’s his buddy, you know? He emotionally relates to a 15-year-old, and then suddenly Rhaenyra’s grown up, but he’s the same. I think the last episode highlighted that very well when Rhaenyra says that she used to view him as a challenge as a child, but now she has too many challenges of her own. (If they lean more into their relationship fracturing and her disillusionment with him I might actually give a damn about them lol)

In season two, it’s so shocking he’s somewhat briefly the voice of reason. Frankly, he’s correct to point out that Rhaenyra should not be just randomly looking for her dead son alone and in enemy territory. And, sorry, he’s right, but she is shirking her duties while they’re in a civil war. I’m not really arguing about whether or not he’s like correct about everything now (Blood and Cheese was… a terrible fucking choice) but like it’s interesting that in his old fucking age he’s trying to rise to the occasion and strategize where he can. I honestly think that suggests that, while he has his own entitled feelings about power, and what he views more as his brother’s crown etc, he does love Rhaenyra and is trying to do right by her. But he’s just… such a perverse mess.

I also remember it was extremely controversial that he choked her at the end of season one, but I mean it’s in keeping with him as a person. He’s volatile, he’s awful. He killed his first wife with a rock, he barely mourned his second wife at all, like he was fucking Rhaenyra at the funeral. He’s just a terrible, terrible mess but that’s what makes him compelling.

[lord-squiggletits]

MegOP questions *3 (and great news that you're feeling a bit more like writing them again, though it transpires that I do also love your Pharma...):

(a) what's an in-joke between the two of them; the sort of thing that will make one of them smile for what seems like no reason from the outside?

(b) your idea of M very subtly teasing OP and turning him on really gets to me; I suspect neither one is as discreet as they think, though, so what does that look like from the outside?

(c) You've argued in the past that OP makes on-page peace offers: what's your guesstimate for why they don't work out, at least early in the war?

(A) In-jokes between them:

Honestly, I've sat here for a while at a loss of how to answer this lol, I'm not really good at coming up with inside jokes since (naturally) I'd need some sort of context or specific events to references that would make them HAVE material for "inside" jokes specifically.

I suppose Chaos Theory's conceit always works: they reminisce a lot over all the ways they've nearly killed each other, and (to add a bonus for the next question) other people find this particularly shocking to watch Optimus participate in, since he's supposed to have a more dignified, anti-violence aspect to himself. I suppose that just means that Optimus' responses to Megatron's jabs are way more subtle in the references they make, giving the impression that they're playing a game together but Optimus is the one keeping his composure while Megatron has the goal of breaking it (even if it's just to make Optimus laugh at something impolite or snark back in irritation).

(B) Outside view of elaborate courtship rituals:

I think depending on the person, it's variable as to how much they perceive the flirting happening and whether they notice the sexy vibes to it.

A lot of the times I'd say people do notice (the only people who don't would be like, complete neutrals like Camiens and other colonists), but they don't get more than a sense that Megatron and Optimus are having some sort of silent conversation expressed entirely through pointed stares and paperwork. I'm sure that to even casual onlookers, it's very obvious that M and OP talk/interact in a way that's clear they're having whole invisible conversations.

As for people who perceive the more flirtatious elements? It's honestly variable because I have different Schrodinger's headcanons about Megatron and Optimus' sexual behavior/vibes depending on the specific scenario I want to write. But I suppose in general I'd go from the perspective of "Megatron and Optimus have sexual tension, but they still behave with decorum publicly and keep such personal things to private places." I think there'd actually be a decent mix of people who know them well and perceive/don't perceive the sexual intent going on, as well as vice versa. I'm pretty sure High Command on both sides recognizes it and finds it incredibly annoying (Prowl, Starscream, Soundwave) and Optimus has at least one personal friend (Ratchet, also Ironhide but that's less explored in IDW) who knows him well enough to know when he's being stupid as hell. Megatron on the other hand has few to no personal relationships, much less lets his emotions show, so I think he has the advantage in that people don't perceive Megatron as the kind of person that has feelings/desires and so they don't notice as a result.

But the subtle and elaborate courtship rituals probably become more obvious whenever Optimus has a visibly irritated/flustered vibe and Megatron looks unusually smug/satisfied. I imagine it leaves people equally bewildered as they are grossed out; bad enough that Megatron and Optimus were flirting publicly to begin with, but they were doing it with such weird, tiny signs that they were doing it right in front of other people? During meetings and conversations? And the onlookers just have to deal with the fact that M and OP constantly bounce off silent/invisible flirtations at all times? The psychic damage...

(C) OP's peace offers and why they didn't work:

I imagine the biggest sticking point was on foreign policy related to colonization and dealing with organics. For all his flaws and evil, I do think Megatron genuinely believed that there was no peace to be found with organics and that the best thing for Cybertron would be to preemptively attack and grow Cybertron's power. OTOH, Optimus is completely opposed to such imperialistic methods even if they would have the benefit of helping out Cybertron's homeland security. Setting aside the obviously moral choices, I think purely in terms of policy, OP and M wouldn't be able to compromise on that: OP wouldn't be able to accept continued/worsening bad relationships with the galactic community, and M wouldn't be able to accept leaving Cybertron to languish/decay for the sake of appeasing other species/empires who hate them. Even before Cybertron was made completely uninhabitable, from the early days of the war resource scarcity was a huge deal, and population exodus severely cut Cybertron's manpower down, so I think a lot of peace treaties would fall apart sheerly on the basis of Megatron and Optimus not being able to agree on what the goals/policies/actions of a unified Cybertron should be.

Then there's also the pre-war tensions of the issues with Optimus being a Prime, lots of the Autobots being part of the existing government that the Decepticons rebelled against, even the New Institute being a thing still thanks to Prowl. Then the crimes the Decepticons committed, not only against organics (which as mentioned before, M would be pissed about crimes towards organics being weighed as equal to crimes against Cybertronians) but also their flagrantly destructive and reckless actions as individuals (since Megatron regularly employs and encourages soldiers that do crazy shit like blow up energon refineries, start gladiator death pits, and just randomly attack whole planets for the fun of it). Negotiations would MAJORLY fall apart in that regard: if they reconcile, who gets punished and who doesn't? Who gets to keep their leadership positions and who doesn't? What about the fact that both factions have hair-trigger tempers and will perceive every suggestion of punishment as an attempt by the other faction to dominate them or punish them disproportionately?

I know that's all just political stuff and not really MegOP in the sense of personal interactions, but given who M and OP are as people, I think the political differences are fundamental to however their personal relationships could/would develop, since not only are they tied to their personal convictions as people, but political policy is also tied to the obligations they have towards their respective armies (countries, in a sense). I mean, OP not wanting to compromise on organics is tied to his beliefs related to freedom and equality, and M not wanting to collaborate with Autobots is tied to his trauma and political beliefs concerning the previous regime. Though it is interesting to consider whether M and OP coming to a peace agreement would happen because of changing personal beliefs allowing them to compromise on policy, or if compromises on policy force them to adopt new routines which then slowly change their worldviews in order to deal with it?

[from-a-legends-pov]

Star Wars Legends Highlight of the Week: Dorset Guards the Fake Falcon

In this feature, a fan will share one thing they love from Star Wars Legends — a book, a comic, an author, a character, a scene, an event, or anything else they want to highlight — and tell us more about it.

If you, too, love Legends, follow @from-a-legends-pov and check out our From a Legends Point of View fanfiction event, where we’ll be bringing together writers (maybe you?) to build a collection of Star Wars Legends fanfiction set during the time of the Original Trilogy. Writer signups are open through June 2 — use our Signup Form to pitch your story concepts (Signup Guidelines available here), and please encourage your favorite writers to participate!

Today’s Legends highlight is a scene from Aaron Allston’s novel X-Wing: Solo Command in which Polearm Squadron pilot Dorset Konnair is guarding the Millennium Falsehood in battle (after working with the Falsehood to mimic a YT-2400 freighter), and we’re talking with WraithFourteen.

Tell us about your Legends highlight. What is it? What’s it about?

My highlight involves a scene in X-Wing: Solo Command where Wedge and other characters are flying a fake Millennium Falcon as bait to lure forces of the main villain, Warlord Zsinj. There’s several notable elements, including a protocol droid wearing a Han Solo mask and clothes because Wedge can’t speak the Wookiee language to Chewie, but my focus is on the single fighter assigned to guard the fake Falcon (called the Millennium Falsehood) here - and how baiting the enemy in this case meant taking on two full squadrons of TIE Interceptors.

What makes this a highlight for you? What do you love about it?

This scene stands out for a few reasons, but especially because it involves Dorset Konnair, a more minor character from the Wraith Squadron trilogy, flying an A-Wing to escort the Falsehood. Dorset was in just three scenes before this — two in Wraith Squadron flying with Kell Tainer, and one in this book depicting her a small, quiet woman with a star-flare tattoo around her right eye and others that are unspecified but also varying shades of blue.

During this scene, Dorset logs at least two kills and outflies the other enemy pilots despite their numbers. Since Rogue Squadron ace Tycho Celchu previously flew an X-Wing in the Falsehood escort role, it’s also subtly impressive that Dorset was selected in the first place. This implies to me that Dorset is a capable minor character who doesn’t brag about it, sort of like Wedge was in the OT movies.

Fellow pilot Myn Donos had interpreted her quiet nature to be a sign she felt out of place as a native of Coruscant, the former Imperial capital. That and her tattoos created a bit of mystery around her even when I first read the novel as a kid.

Do you have a favorite detail or moment?

Going back to the bit where Dorset’s A-Wing detaches from the YT-1300, it reminded me, even when I first read the book, of how small planes would be dropped from a larger one in the late 1940s through mid-1960s. That was mostly done with test planes (like the first supersonic flight depicted in The Right Stuff) but also attempted unsuccessfully with a tiny fighter jet. It helped that I’d seen both that tiny jet and the larger plane that carried it at a museum as a kid.

The YT-2400 shell being dropped away as well also reminded me of how the Apollo program’s rocket had lower sections and rings that were detached along the way to the Moon - an image of that inspired how I envisioned the book scene. (As you’ve probably noticed, I was really into stories of air/space exploration as a kid, and so the pilots were what drew me into Star Wars. I also had a hand-drawn image of the first supersonic plane being released on my wall as a kid, similar to the “you can’t look dignified when you’re having fun” OP.)

To learn more…

If you’d like to read more about Dorset and the Millennium Falsehood, check out X-Wing: Solo Command at your library or favorite bookstore, or read the entry on Dorset Konnair or the Millennium Falsehood on Wookieepedia.

And be sure to check out @from-a-legends-pov and our From a Legends Point of View fanfiction event. Writer signups are now open — access the Signup Form (step-by-step Signup Guidelines available here) as well as our Event Overview and FAQ.

[supervisormeero]

i just want to see what you do if i give you the choice between Cereal and Debra

I panicked because I cannot choose between them, and then another mutual sent me Syril, so I'm okay now. This'll be for Dedra —

How I feel about this character: I WOULD DIE FOR HER, AND SHE WOULD LET ME. Actually, she might even shoot me. (An honor, to be shot by a blaster bolt from her weapon.) Really, though, I adore Dedra because I've never seen a woman like her in Star Wars before; she's chilling, but messy; she's competent, but privately plagued by self-doubt; she's incredibly put-together at work but her personal life is non-existent. She's terrible, and she's fascinating, and I want to know everything about her.

All the people I ship romantically with this character: I have a very hard time imagining her with anyone except for Syril, at least in show canon. Even then, I doubt she's going to actually fall for him — my prediction is that she'll become increasingly unnerved and perplexed by Syril's romantic overtures, while he gets his heart ripped out and trampled on every time she shuts him down. There is, however, a Dedra/Blevin fic on AO3, and if not for Syril, I might've shipped Dedra and Blevin in a sort of hatefuck-type way. My heart is also open to Dedra/Krennic, even though any relationship between them would just be them tormenting each other psychologically.

My non-romantic OTP for this character: Partagaz and Heert. Her relationships with them are so intriguing to me, because there's respect there that we don't often see within the Imperial chain of command. Partagaz obviously likes Dedra a great deal, so much so that Lonni's taken note. Why? What makes her stand out to him? Is it her background? Is it her determination? Why bother warning her to "watch [her] back?" Heert, on the other hand, is notable to me because of the respect Dedra shows him. Often we think of Imperials as treating their underlings like droids, but Dedra shows concern for Heert — she tells him to go home when it's late, and he says he'll stay if she's staying. I wouldn't go so far as to call them friends, but there's clearly an appreciation of each other's competence.

My unpopular opinion about this character: I don't think this is unpopular on here, but immediately after Rix Road aired there was a lot of "so, Dedra's going to [INSERT SEXUAL ACT OF YOUR CHOICE] Syril next season, hahaha" on the Internet. Plenty of people seem to want to turn her into a dominatrix, which, in my view and Denise Gough's, she isn't. Her whole existence is work. She's frozen her personal life. There's a significant chance she's never even... Done It. There's a significant chance she's never been kissed. So, I'm of the firm belief she's not a dominatrix, and instead she's every bit as awkward as Syril when it comes to interpersonal relationships and intimacy.

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon: I really want to see her out of uniform. I need to know what she wears on weekends. For that matter, I'd also love to see her apartment. I have a feeling it's very sparse, because she's hardly ever there.

Send me a character, and I'll break them down!

[miralines]

Little infodump about what I think Rose being King Cole’s finest warrior looks like! This is mostly taken from discord messages, but I wanted to have it out here for reference, and to share.

So to me Rose’s family line has always served as like. The leaders of parliament. Snow, as the older twin, works with their mother in lawmaking and administration of the kind Cole can’t/doesn’t attend to himself. But all their family has served Cole in some way, and Rose’s interests lie in the military. She entered Zantine’s most prestigious military academy at twelve, graduated at eighteen, and went out to be an officer as soon as she did. She’s worked her way up the ranks since, bolstered by nepotism and natural talent in about equal measure. She’s a very, very young officer, but she’s something of a fast-rising star in Cole’s army– the last rank she sort of earned (as much as she earned any of her ranks) was Colonel at only 22. (she was promoted to General just before the wedding, but she was never intended to actually be one– that was purely a political move on Cole’s part to add to the mythos when he took her to make the Rose Reds.)

As far as her approach to war goes, I do think she tends to prioritize tactics that minimize loss of life, especially to her own troops. She isn’t going to put someone in a position she isn’t willing to assume herself. The troops under her command appreciate this about her– it certainly is not a universal guarantee, especially among officers from the upper echelons of society.

However, when it comes to enemies, she’s a lot less careful. She expects other commanders to do the same as she does and to keep their troops as relatively safe as possible— not realizing that part of the reason she’s even *able* to do that is because she’s on the side that has all the advantages. She’s got a weird sort of cognitive dissonance about it, because she’s very aware of the Empire’s power, and she can assess enemy threat levels and advantages and disadvantages, but this does not translate into the kind of empathy for the enemy as she has for her own soldiers, or a realization of her own privilege.

She generally takes the position of “it’s best to fight honorably, but as efficiently as possible to end the fight quickly.” She tries not to commit war crimes, but only as she understands them from her position— there are probably tactics we and her enemies would view as war crimes that she views as perfectly normal, because that’s how she was taught to fight. Her sense of honor is very strong and also very based on the culture and propaganda she was raised on.

She has lines she will not cross. Aside from that, she goes in and crushes the opposition as quickly as possible. In her mind, this minimizes loss of life, and allows the opposition to be brought into/back into the Empire as soon as possible, which is obviously what is best for everyone. After she wins, she is a huge proponent of aid to the places she and her troops have devastated, and of treating the conquered peoples as equal citizens of the empire immediately. This is morally just to her.

Cinders gets her thinking about some of this, and by the wedding some of this worldview has started to unravel, but certainly not all of it— in particular, she still believes the empire is just and can exist, it just doesn’t need to keep expanding, and maybe it can give some planets (like Perrault, Cinders’ planet) back, or loosen their political hold on them. Crucially, she still believes this is a mistake Cole is making, rather than his rule working exactly as he intends it to. She does not get the chance to further consider things, or to further drift away from the king, before the Wedding Day Slaughter.

[lyledebeast]

One aspect of Gladiator that has stuck with me since my rewatch earlier this month and through subsequent discussions with @malicious-compliance-esq is how well the opposition of the hero and villain works. Part of the reason, ironically, is how much they have in common. Maximus and Commodus are not only both Roman men. they are both sons of Marcus Aurelius, which allows comparison from multiple points of view within the story: Marcus himself, Lucilla, and the Roman people collectively. Commodus references the list of Roman Virtues his father wrote to him about, confessing that he has none of them. Marcus agrees, describing Commodus as "not a moral man" and telling Maximus, "You are the son I should have had." Lucilla tells Maximus that she is terrified every hour of what Commodus will do to her and her son and that "The only time I ever felt safe was with you." The more Maximus defies Commodus as a gladiator, the more the people love him. Their proximity is used to highlight their opposing traits, making for clear, clean, simple, effective storytelling.

The Patriot's opposition of Benjamin Martin and William Tavington is far murkier. One reason is the jingoism that lies in the film's framing of difference in terms of binary opposition. The British and American Patriot characters are on opposing sides in a war but are more alike than different. They share the same language, religion, even military customs as we see when Martin attempts to school Tavington on the rules of war. Martin is himself a former officer of a Colonial British regiment. A slightly more effective, but still questionable binary the film sets up is gentleman/rustic. Cornwallis extolls the virtues of "gentleman in command" to both lead and restrain their men and is mortified at the end of the film to find himself defeated by an army of "peasants." Martin, however, manages to be both at the same time. He is equally comfortable in a rowdy tavern and an assembly of South Carolina landowners, or even a meeting with a British general: a man for all seasons. When Gabriel has reservations about the men his father has recruited, Martin says. "They're exactly the sort of men we need. They've fought this kind of war before." He is not referring to their uncouth appearance and manners but the ferocity and unconventional approach to warfare that made them effective guerilla fighters. Who else has these traits?

Though Cornwallis describes Tavington as coming from an esteemed family, his fellow officers clearly do not recognize him as a peer. We see this when he arrives at a gathering with blood on his cravat from the battle the British just won and they look at him like he forgot to wear pink on Wednesday. Cornwallis reprimands him for executing surrendering enemy soldiers, the same thing Martin forbids his men from doing (also after it's too late to stop them). While Martin being neither gentleman nor rustic but somehow both at once wins him the respect of both sides, the traits Tavington shares in common with rustics make him a pariah among gentlemen, but this is less a difference between the two men than between British and Patriot values. That Martin and Tavington both collapse this binary means not only are they more alike than different, but they have more in common with each other than either one has with anyone on his own side.

No one in the film can comment on this similarity because no one has enough proximity to Martin and Tavington to notice it. The focus of the few scenes they share is on a third binary the film attempts to construct: child killer/father. Again, these things are not opposites. For one, the two are not mutually exclusive. Whether through intent, accident, or negligence, fathers are regularly responsible for the deaths of their own children. The opposite of a child killer would be a child protector. Does Martin fit the bill? Well, let's see. In the scenes immediately following Tavington's murder of his son Thomas, he abandons his youngest children in a field by his burning house, orders his next youngest sons to shoot British officers, and when the son he did all this to free is used as a human shield, Martin throws a tomahawk at his head to take out his captor. The only scene where Martin may be said to protect his children comes when he lures the Green Dragoons away from the burning plantation. However, the dragoons are only there in the first place because Martin blew his cover at Fort Carolina to save his captured men. The majority of Martin's children survive his negligence, but those of his men are not so lucky. He has no qualms about both making them targets of British aggression and eliminating their main source of protection from that aggression by recruiting their fathers. So much for "I am a parent; I can't afford principles."

Gladiator's comparison of Maximus and Commodus is effective because they are judged by the same standard: Maximus meets, even exceeds it, while Commodus does not. The Patriot, however, applies very different standards to strikingly similar characters. All of Tavington's reprehensible choices are made with an end goal of British victory, yet neither he nor anyone else can imagine a future for him in England in which those choices are not harshly condemned. Meanwhile, Martin's past war crimes and more recent abandonment/endangerment of his children are presented asforgivable, even laudable, because of the results he achieves. "The honor is in the ends, not the means," or something like that.

[theredqueenandthebloodwyrm]

Wait so was that it for episode 1 of HOTD S2?

I know it’s early in the second season but…ehhh.

Major Spoilers Below! Basically recounting most of the episode tbf though I did leave out a few minor scenes/characters. Whooop whoop, Spoilers below for House of the Dragon, Season Two, Episode One!

Hah! Hypothetical Alicent Hightower hooking up with Ser Criston Cole, Lord Commander of the Kingsguard.

You know, when we first got the short scene with Jace and Cregan, I was like cool, so they’re taking their time to build up the alliance whatever, maybe more north scenes then! But that was it?? Jace just flies back, with Cregan only promising the 2,000 men? Why couldn’t we have gotten them bonding with say a hunting scene or feast or something more? And no Pact of Ice and Fire? Like, Jace promising one of his future children to Rickon Stark (Cregan’s son) was what sealed the deal so to speak. (Granted, I’m no die-hard book fan, haven’t had the chance to read Fire & Blood yet but I did know of some of the canonical events either way). And no mention of House Manderly yet? Granted, not sure if that alliance by betrothal was made during the Arryn/Stark alliances or sometime later? But the future marriages that Jace set up in the books were what gained him the support of the more reluctant regions (Joffrey betrothed to a Manderly girl).

Do wish we got a scene of Jace and Lady Arryn.

More scraps of Lady Baela and Rhaena but I’ll take what I can get so far. Baela walking with Jace to Rhaenyra’s room was a nice background touch, sounds how close the two are. Rhaena crying at Lucerys’ funeral made me cry. JOFFREY! Jace holding Joffrey, Joffrey throwing the seahorse in the funeral pyre, the seahorse that Corlys gave Lucerys in S1.

Tangent: I get why they’re paralleling / juxtaposing Luke’s funeral with Alicent remembering the dead but I don’t like it. Why is she saying Viserys’ name? Why bother with doing such a ritual(?) of honoring/remembering the dead with a man who you seemingly didn’t like / was coerced to marry / hated how he treated you and your children. It feels weird for her character? Also the nerve she has to say Lucerys’ name made me to hit her because only a few scenes ago she had the audacity to try and excuse Aemond and somehow still think Rhaenyra would accept any sort of peace after the death of her son. They (the writers) need to just have Alicent commit to a characterization because she’s felt so wishy-washy throughout S1 and the start of S2! “I love Rhaenyra!” “I HATE Rhaenyra!” “Rhaenyra will kill my children!” “I am plotting to usurp Rhaenyra and put Aegon on the throne!” “How dare you (Otto and everyone else) plot to put Aegon on the Throne!” “I still love Rhaenyra”.

Aemond, funnily enough, says it quite aptly himself. “She blames me for starting this war after she plotted with my father’s council to usurp his throne. “Her Grace” speaks with two tongues.”

S2 EP1 is a perfect show of why Aegon is unfit to be King, and I imagine any casual fans of the show would be further persuaded to think Rhaenyra is the one to be rooting for. As they should. I do like how they’re showing how Otto is getting pushed out by Alicent’s sons who are driven by their emotions, anger, and their own pride that makes them think they are invincible.

Aegon doesn’t love his wife nor his children, the only time he’s shown to bother with any of them (so far) is in episode 1 s2. He shows that he only views Jaehaerys as an extension of himself, as something to further boost his ego. Think I’ll make a separate post (with spoilers) about the scene with Aegon and Jaehaerys in the Quiet Council

Blood & Cheese: Changing Daemon to arranging for Aemond’s death rather than Helaena’s children is certainly a move. I can see why that would be changed, though I’m not sure if it really worked. It feels like an illogical change, that a ratcatcher and hired man would be able to kill a trained Prince (he’s what? 19? 20?). Why not just have Daemon either ambiguously say “a son for a son” rather than specifying Aemond or just outright say he wants one of Aegon’s sons killed? Having him kill Rhea Royce was a change I think was unnecessary but if they were already trying to make him even more darker than what was written, what not do it for the big scene of Blood & Cheese?

I do like the foreshadowing(?) with the man and his dog (Cheese) constantly walking back and forth in the background of scenes in the Red Keep before Daemon arranges it. It gives you this kind of tension because we (well most of us) know what’s going to happen, it’s only a matter of when.

(I’m partially writing as I watch)

You have got to be kidding me! What the fuck did they do to Helaena’s character? Why didn’t they give the actress (Phia Saban) anymore lines? Oh fucking spare me. Look, I’m pretty solidly Team Black, but having Alicent and Criston having sex during the Blood & Cheese ordeal felt stupid. Unless we’re supposed to dislike Alicent and Criston more than we already do?

Comparison Time because fucking hell how do you make such an anticipated scene so underwhelming at the end? It’s like screwing up shooting the Red Wedding.

As quoted from The Princess and the Queen (I love a Search for Ice and Fire), “The hidden doors and secret tunnels that Maegor the Cruel had built were as familiar to the rat-catcher as to the rats he hunted. Using a forgotten passageway, Cheese led Blood into the heart of the castle, unseen by any guard. Some say their quarry was the king himself, but Aegon was accompanied by the Kingsguard wherever he went, and even Cheese knew of no way in and out of Maegor’s Holdfast save over the drawbridge that spanned the dry moat and its formidable iron spikes.” So, fair, there were rumors that Aegon was a target, so the show seemingly references that + makes Aemond an explicit target.

“The Tower of the Hand was less secure... Instead they slipped into his daughter’s chambers. Queen Alicent had taken up residence there after the death of King Viserys, when her son Aegon moved into Maegor’s Holdfast with his own queen. Once inside, Cheese bound and gagged the Dowager Queen whilst Blood strangled her bedmaid. Then they settled down to wait, for they knew it was the custom of Queen Helaena to bring her children to see their grandmother every evening before bed…”

This line establishes their relationship, shows that Helaena and Alicent were at least somewhat close or that Helaena at least liked taking her children to see their grandmother. Yet we get none of that in the show / by fundamentally changing the setting of Blood & Cheese.

“Queen Helaena kept her calm, it is said. “Who are you?” she demanded of the two. “Debt collectors,” said Cheese. “An eye for an eye, a son for a son. We only want the one, t’ square things. Won’t hurt the rest o’ you fine folks, not one lil’ hair. Which one you want t’ lose, Your Grace?”

“Once she realized what he meant, Queen Helaena pleaded with the men to kill her instead.” I know that everyone’s favorite argument for and against their own favorite characters are “these are historical accounts with heavily biased narrators.” And yeah sure, but it’s not wild to imagine a mother sacrificing her own life for her children or at least offering to. We know Helaena has somewhat of a personality! She can be blunt with others, attempts to wield what little power she has / can be firm (demanding Aegon not interrupt Jaehaerys’ lessons, have I mentioned I fucking hate Aegon?) Yet what little they gave her was stripped away during the scene! Once she realized they were adamant and refused her offer of her expensive necklace, she should have been pleading for her childrens’ lives.