A Short Treatise on the Early History of Illyriad

Mr Damage wrote: HM perhaps if you adopt the same demands about revealing true motives yourselves then maybe the bridges of peace can be built. You cannot ask such things from someone if not prepared to afford them the same. H have their skeletons just the same as everyone else, who is prepared to admit to them?

I don't believe I could lay myself much more bare here, and that openness has included Harmless's motives throughout.  If I were to remove moral/character factors and boil our pre-war motives down to simple point form (in priority order), it would look something like this:

• We wanted to prevent escalation of war to epic proportions (we failed).
• We wanted to prevent NC's annihilation (not yet truly decided).
• We wanted NC to be allowed to pick on bullies/take up crusades - in a more general sense, we wanted small wars to be allowed between warlike parties (also not yet truly decided).

Today our motives would be much more fragmented and extensive, colored by the events that have already occurred and especially by some backstabbing collusion which we discovered began several months before this war began.  We would have a hard time accepting peace now even if it were actually offered, unless it at least came with certain heads on pikes.  Even that would be slim consolation to some of the victims of this war.

Mr Damage wrote: Nice post Halc, you guys are probably in a unique situation having been on both sides at different times. I feel there will be closer truths coming from Dark than anywhere else.

I guess it is a cultural thing, but here switching sides makes you less reliable as a source and as a resource in any struggle ... imho that is the sensible thing overall, but I understand that other places in the world do not have the same historical experience with double-dealing and its consequences ... 


Edited by Deranzin - 22 Feb 2014 at 12:17

Deranzin wrote: Mr Damage wrote: Nice post Halc, you guys are probably in a unique situation having been on both sides at different times. I feel there will be closer truths coming from Dark than anywhere else. I guess it is a cultural thing, but here switching sides makes you less reliable as a source and as a resource in any struggle ... imho that is the sensible thing overall, but I understand that other places in the world do not have the same historical experience with double-dealing and its consequences ...

HonoredMule wrote: Halcyon wrote: Before the war Dark and Harmless were still allies and we conveyed to H? leadership our unwillingness to stand by while NC continued their campaign of aggression. The answer was always the same: any action against NC will result in full support to them by H? and The Coalition. That latter statement is patently false.

in my experience, something very similar has been said by *one* director of H?. my interaction with all others has been much more nuanced. for my part, i wish that H? had taken the opportunity to clarify its relationship with NC when i asked about it in the forum. i suspect much bloodshed might have proven unnecessary had H? been prepared to address that publicly and unambiguously.

Halcyon wrote: They expected to win this war as they did all those who came before it. They were wrong.

this is disingenuous at best. Halcyon ought to know how the war was engineered, and it was certainly not on H?'s timetable. whether H?'s efforts to avert it were motivated by a desire to prevent it completely or merely forestall it until H? could be more prepared, those efforts were quite real and in no way indicative of the arrogance Halcyon alleges.

lacing public diplomacy with namecalling and speculative characterisations has contributed more to the cause of this war than any specific action by an alliance. armies can be replaced and cities regrown, but these casual indignities cause wounds that only fester.

Halcyon wrote:   ... There was never a contract between Dark and Harmless?. There was an agreement forged, to my knowledge, by Sisren who since then proved himself to be more an H? agent then a Dark member. There was a long period of similarity in interests and in values (or so we believed). When H? by their support of NC began to show that our interests and values are no longer similar, Dark attempted to see you end support of NC agression. When this too proved futile, it was clear to us that you no longer deserve our alliance.