#vendée wars | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

maelor321 · 2 months

Text

The wasted narrative potential of the Church of Seiros' weakness.

The church of Seiros is rather infamous, as it is the organization overseeing the main Faith of Fódlan, akin to the Catholic Church in medieval Europe, including for the small territoires.

The Church is seen by the Fandom and by many in-universe as truly powerful, controlling the Land through the devotion of the people, with a goal of ruling all of Fódlan as puppet masters at best.

That however is factually false.

The Church of Seiros is not some all-powerful organization, and isn't even unified.

Rhea refuse to use her power to dictate policies of the nations, in fact, she many times is too meek, though it make sense.

The Eastern Church are weaponless and puppets of the lords of Leicester, the Southern Church was destroyed, and Faerghus is divided between the western and Central church, with the Western Church and it's aligned lords being traitors to both the Crown and central Church, and puppets of the Agarthans.

Furthermore, the ideology of the Church, that promote the restraint from abusing Crests, is utterly ignored whenever convenient.

And just look what happened with the Central Church being invaded! Many lords of Leicester and Faerghus swore themselves to Edelgard, and even in Adrestia, Edie didn't seem to face opposition.

Though that last point is a bit horseshit, I'm French, and our own first revolution caused a Civil War with the Vendée region's commoners being the most famous for fighting to defend Crown, lords and Faith, it also show how Hresvelg propaganda against the Church, Hresvelg, not merely Edelgard, destroyed the ability of the Church to call to aid anyone south of Garreg Mach, or even East of it.

The matter really is a wasted opportunity narratively, because the Church being all powerful is something done often in fiction, but beside the actively treacherous and xenophobic Western Church, none of the Churches is really doing manipulation, and the western Church's plots are guided by the Agarthans anyway.

I think there's a lot of possible stories from a Church-centric POV about how the Faith's weakness and scapegoat status, and the fact that so few care for it in favor of treating the organization as the genderbend Catholic Church on steroids is disappointing.

I've seen the comparison with the schrodinger cat being done with the Church and Rhea, the idea being that they're blamed whenever they "overstep", ignoring how their actions are usually justified, but at the same time blamed when they stay out of shits.

If anyone do know stories which exploit this potential, do tell.

#fire emblem: three houses #fire emblem discourse #rhea positive #church of seiros #church of seiros discourse #canon vs fanon #fanfiction #lady rhea #rhea fire emblem

35 notes · View notes

nesiacha · 19 days

Text

Short post concerning a fed up for a category of people including certain politicians or certain people: there are several films on the Vendée war. Without denying the horrors of Turreau or Carrier (including revolutionaries Billaud Varennes who wanted to have him executed for that or Robespierre who wanted to have Carrier executed for his drownings), I love the double standard which consists of not mentioning the massacres of prisoners of Jaffa, the oblivion of the fight of independance of Haiti, the massacres of slaves in Guyana or Haiti (it's strange there are fewer films on this period), or the fact of trying to justify the repressions of former slaves in those times by saying that they were not left out of killing white people, the reestablishment of slavery by putting out the false argument of pragmatism or that it was in his time. Okay, but in this case it is an invitation to justify the massacres in Vendées by saying that the Vendées committed massacres in Machecoul, and the fact that France was in a hellish situation (even more so than the departements of Outre Mer ) therefore that it is “pragmatism”, and the fact Louis XIV was not above carrying out more violent repressions so it was on the time that revolutionnaries make repression. Can these people can be more consistent? The worst is that a politician Philippe de Villiers advocates the collapse of statutes like Robespierre and advocates a genocide of Vendée. Okay, if he wants. In this case, if he wants his own ideology to be applied, his works must also be debunked because his father was part of the OAS and he paid homage to colonial Algeria. Finally, let him be consistent (but generally as the saying goes, a politician is never consistent, perhaps I should have put it in my post when politicians get involved in history) because he who is moral regarding the Vendée is less so regarding the colonies of France. Not to mention that I had the misfortune of going to Puy du Fou, great rubbish in terms of history, in addition to the bookstore side this site finds excuses for Napoleon while the mountain revolutionaries do not. Bizarre this double standard of morals… I am more and more desperate about the popularity of this site (although I believe in freedom of expression and that he has the right to say what he wants, it is frightening to see how many people believe his nonsense).

#Frev #politicians #double standards #Haiti #slave #guyane française #Puy du fou #turreau #robespierre #vendee #carrier #billaud varennes

13 notes · View notes

frevandrest · 6 months

Note

Did Robespierre, Danton, Desmoulins and Saint Just approve of the drowning of civilians including children in Nantes? It says on wikipedia that the National Convention approved if the extermination of the people of Nantes in 1793

Full disclaimer: I don't know enough about Vendée because it makes me sick to my stomach tbh (civil war is a trigger for me). So I never researched details of it, nor did I research Carrier and what happened in more detail. (And also full disclaimer: I have a strong dislike/fear of that man so I never wished to look more closely into it.)

What I do know is that the context of this was civil war (namely, brigandins taking arms against the Republic and Republic fighting back). However, I don't see how the list of victims in the Nantes drowning included brigandins (?) So Carrier (or whoever was responsible for it) definitely acted outside of the orders. I need to see what was said in 1793; I know of speech(es) Carrier did when he was recalled by Robespierre in early 1794, where he insisted on the need to fight and kill brigandins (those who take arms against the republic). That was supported by the Convention, I believe (even if fighters were women. For children, I don't know - by law, executing anyone under 16 was illegal and not endorsed (?) so I don't think that was supported? If anyone knows better, please let us know). But there was no talk of exterminating the general population, and that was not approved (again, as far as I understand). And what happened in Nantes went beyond that, and into general population. So that was a big problem.

As I understand, Carrier was denounced for his behaviour - I know that the young Marc-Antoine Jullien (he was 18-19 at the time) was Robespierre's spy and he reported on Carrier's behaviour, which made Robespierre recall Carrier (and also Carrier asked to be recalled? No idea what happened there).

As who enabled Carrier... None of the names you mention in your post were Carrier's allies (and Robespierre was his big opponent*). But this whole thing does bring up a bigger problem in frev, that is, the vague/unclear orders AND lack of proper centralized control. In short: the representatives on mission had way, way too much power that was not fully and strictly defined and limited. So they could do many things that were not exactly ordered by the Committee of Public Safety or the Convention... but that were not illegal, either (because they were given all that power and were allowed to do measures as they saw fit. It was assumed that they would do it fairly and without war crimes but eeeh. It was a naive assumption). There was a good post around here that went something like "there is a representative on a mission coming to your area. Will he make things better? Will he do war crimes? You never know."

So yes, a lot depended on the individuals in charge, and there was no effective way for Paris to control their behaviour (which is one of the reasons why the Republic in Year II could not be called a strong centralized state, no way). Paris relied on reports from the representatives (who obviously made themselves sound great), spies and general population, and it was often "this guy's word against that guy's word". They had no fast method of communication, no photographs, no reliable ways to tell wtf was going on). It is not an excuse (I do think not strictly defining and limiting representatives' power was a huge problem). So this is how we got the situation to have CSP/Convention say "fight harshly those who take arms against the Republic" and then going surprise Pikachu face when hearing about war crimes. (News flash: you can't just give all that power to people and leave it to their consciousness without imposing some limits). I do think many were honestly shocked/appalled at what happened, but my dudes, you carry your share of responsibility for not defining what's allowed and what's not. (That, and I also the Convention did want to destroy soldiers/fighters/brigandins fighting against the Republic and win the civil war, just like it wanted to destroy the enemy armies and win the war with the foreign armies. So while general population was not supposed to be targeted, representatives often used "those people were actually brigandins" as an excuse).

*Carrier and Robespierre loathed each other and wanted each other dead (so Carrier won at that, at least briefly), but I am not sure what was the exact reason for their mutual hate and what were the reasons for their disagreements. (I assume, like with Collot and Fouché, war crimes might have played a role, but I also feel - just like with Collot and Fouché - there were probably other reasons. So I am not claiming that Robespierre wanted Carrier dead (just) for what he did in Nantes).

So that's all I know, I am afraid. Anyone else?

#ask #anonymous #frev

26 notes · View notes

randomnameless · 2 months

Note

So considering how feudal nations work and if one is willing to focus on the lesser nobles, actual people (so not just showing Edelgard loyalists but those who dislike her too) and if Ludwig manage to escape capture, it would be reasonable to have a civil war happen?

I think it can since Hubert wouldn't just be able to get the network system of his father after murdering him, and the nobles of Adrestia are the worst in terms of opposition to social mobility and primitive form of gender equality, so the lack of civil war is stupid.

I base my thoughts on how France (I'm French too) had the Vendée rebellion and subsequent massacre and how devotion to the Church fueled support to the Spanish nationalists.

Adrestia is somehow the least interesting nation because of how it lack any of the noticeable internal strife shown, and Hubert being so effective at killing dissidents despite being only 20 (before the war) and having been at odd with many of the Seven who would actually have networks on their own is really Mary-sue ish.

I was a Edelstan at first (though I don't think too extreme) , but the more I see things, the more CF, SB and Edie annoy me (though the toxic fans are key in me stopping from preferring Edie).

Ooh!

Cher compatriote,

Thing is, Fodlan has been shown to be... not so feudal at all, especially the Empire.

I mean, Ludwig is jailed by word of the newest Emperor, when Ludwig is the PM and Edel was only the Imperial Princess at that time.

If we assume PM is just a big title (like the Fraldarius being Dukes) and in a feudal setting, Ludwig would have had a lot of lesser Houses and feudal Lords under his authority - the Emperor jails him? I can't see his bannermen - especially since this imprisonment isn't in reaction to anything he did (recently?) - just stand still and continue with their lives - how come no one reacts "wrongly" when he is jailed, in his territory, or the people affiliated to his name (maybe cousins, cadet branches, or what not)?

FWIW, Ludwig managed to escape and sort of mount a small army of men in SB... But that's nowhere what I would expect from the former PM - when we are told he was the one running things at the end of Ionius' rule - to have/raise, the number 1 of the country drops to a nobody by the heir of the puppet ruler, and apparently, the only ones number 1 can have to help him is 15 guys ?

I mean, Ferdie can have his Aegir personal battalion when he ends his paralogue (i know, it's a gameplay mechanic!) - can't we imagine the Aegir Astral Knights would have been something else than 10 dudes following Ferdie in gameplay, and be instead an entire battalion Ludwig could have used to defend himself, or at least run away with? Or imagine those knights tried to locate and liberate him from his prison in Enbarr?

Adrestia is so not developed that, as you say, it ends up being the most boring place of the three (even if I'll argue on this point : both Adrestia and Leicester are completely empty and without interest, but at least, Adrestia had some history landmarks to imagine things, when the Alliance has... Gloucester and his sheep, I guess?) - but at the same time, it could have been much more : Adrestian Emperors claim to descend from Jesus... but there's an Archbishop around (who is actually Jesus and not their ancestor (or is she?), but that's a secret!) so, to everyone who is supposed to buy the official story... Why should the CoS be administred/ruled by a random archbishop, when Jesus' direct line is still alive and kicking? Why should the Emperors share Fodlan - that was liberated by Seiros herself from corrupted people in the North ! - with the descendants of those corrupted people in the North?

The game instead gives us MAGA "Make Adrestia Great Again" with a resentment for the CoS that isn't explained (in Nopes, it's suggested the Emperor who disbanded the Southern church already was pissed with the Central Church!) and we can only guess it's either about Faerghus existing or something else...

I confess my only interest in Adrestia stems from the country being seemingly, during the WoH and post WoH the country were people are happy and peaceful etc "country of a blue lord", and then, 10 years after the end of the War of Heroes, instead of having some "and Renais was rebuilt and Ephraim became the new King of Restauration and helped everyone" we have "and then Lycaon dies mysteriously and the political situation is so "stable" that his successor duels for her throne", complete with a novel having in the background "and Adrestia still didn't leave the Roman Ludi and had northerners being torn apart by beasts as a form of entertainment"* which is, uh, very very very far removed from Marth'n'Tiki finishing their adventures and returning home.

As you pointed out, Adrestia, for what is developed in-game or mentioned about the place, is incredibly bleak and involves child prostitution, heavy class divide and an extreme misoginy in the current times... when it was created/overlooked, at least in the beginning, by Rhea herself ! When Rhea's current home is a rather peaceful place, Adrestia by comparison is a chamber pot, so what the frick happened there? 1000 years are 1000 years, but damn.

We don't have any intel about it - only mentions here'n'there that Hubert and Supreme Leader (but mostly Hubert because he can be criticised in game having a very... biased view of events and refusing to reconsider, but in the end, Adrestia... cannot be developed or have a civil war, because Adrestia isn't the focus of the story - from what we have, we already know it's a bleak place before and after Edel's coronation so... Her goal is to bring reforms to the world, but it's fitting enough that she doesn't deal with her own turf before bringing "reforms" to the rest of Fodlan.

There's also the very doylist reason of Edel having to be marketable, so in Houses, we cannot have people rebel on-screen for what happens in the Empire, else the Emperor... will not sell. Hell, Nopes had to have her brainwashed to have people react to Agarthans killing her randoms right and left, while the Nobles aren't doing a thing - always hammering the fact that "she's brainwashed so it's not her doing this or condoning this by not moving her army to protect her people it's Thales's fault".

Hubert being hyper-competent is an assumed trait at this point lol, unless he really really works with the Agarthans who lend him their tech and spy reports and whatnot. FE isn't a "realistic" as, say, ASOIAF, but without Hubert, Adrestia doesn't function and Edel's plans don't work so Hubert is both a McGuffin plot device (apparently he can pinpoint shambala because Thales fire nukes? Without access to any satellite?) and the character we all love.

Given how Supreme Leader planned her coup coronation and subsequent attack on GM - especially since Leopold already was in her pocket during the mock battle - I'm pretty sure Hubert, or Leopold's army or hell, some of her "allies" already envisaged this, and had either Aegir's "close allies" Hubert'd or monitored.

Or worse, imagine a scenario where Aegir runs to his friend Varley to explain him what happened, how the Emperor sent an army against him to usurp the throne and how they must warn everyone and Leopold to raise the army against her... Only to have Varley reveal he is now the Bishop of the Southern Church, and Leopold sided with her since the beginning...

I know it's not comparable, but Seteth (or some nuns?) mentions how he hasn't heard a thing about the faithful in the Empire... so either they were killed because they were practicionners of the Seiros faith, or because they rebelled/protested against the war and were, uh, disposed of (tfw the games never care about telling us who were the humans used to create the various imperial demonic beasts we see).

FWIW, I have a plotbunny idea where someone pretending to be Hresvelg bastard - with a crest of Seiros - wants to ask for Nopes!Rhea's help to support his claim to the throne, since Supreme Leader declared her war against the Church, he can put an end to it if he becomes Emperor, right? The CoS is torn between accepting "it would create at least some instability in the Empire, so the Kingdom could breathe a bit and maybe use this opportunity to finally fend them off if the Emperor calls back her troops in Enbarr" and "the CoS doesn't meddle in the affairs of humans like succession issues and only does so if it's to prevent a war but here you want us to create a civil war??"

*it's a novel so historical accuracy isn't that high, and yet, even if it's a porn book, why adding this detail in the background - just like people listening to music - I doubt it was written by a Faerghian writter so what, was this detail "northmen were slaughtered by beasts in the background and it was very funny lol" added just as a background thing, like fish being served as a meal ("historical" detail that might have been true!) or...?

#maelor321 #idk if it makes sense lol #adrestia stuff #i was just very interested in Adrestia starting as something Rhea (and willy!) made #which knowing Rhea was supposed to be at least a sort of nice place to live in or where people could at least live in peace #and then it became the stinkhole where Doro has to sleep around at age 12 to become a diva #and where Hanneman watches his sister being impregnated to death but doesn't do a thing to rescue her #or the place where the Emperor can destroy a House if he feels like it #en vrai je pense que la mentalité 'stan' a un peu pourri le fandom si bien que parfois tt le monde est automatiquement sur la défensive #dsl si j'ai donné cette impression #on peut aimer les persos qu'on veut sans chercher à imposer et pourrir le débat pour faire valoir son opinion #il y a dire qu'on est pas d'accord en restant poli et si on est toujours pas d'accord ben on se quitte en gens avec du savoir vivre #genre 'au revoir' de vge #et le 'pas d'accord' de principe qui finit par des insultes gratuites ou en mode 'tu sais pas lire boloss' sérieux on est plus au collège l #je crois qu'avec le fandom on m'a traitée de sexiste de transphobe et de cannibale lol parce que je suis pas fan d'edel? mdr

11 notes · View notes

alpaca-clouds · 7 months

Text

War in the Vendée

Someone asked me to talk about this. So, I am going to try, even though I do not know a lot about this, because the stuff I read on the French Revolution barely covered this.

But... Nocturne is set in Vendée in the summer of 1792.

Vendée takes a special role within the history of the French Revolution. Because it was the one place in France where the resistance against the Revolution was so big, that it ended up sparking an outright big conflict between rebells of Vendée and the Revolutionaries.

Now, why was this?

Reading through some papers, there seem to be two big factors in this: The gentry and the church. Some historians seem to push for one more than the other, but in general everyone agrees that those two are the main factors.

Let me explain: One of the big differences between Vendée and most of the rest of France was, that nobility kept to a lot of the more rural areas of the region. A part of the driving factors of the Revolution was, that the nobility had grown apart from the peasantry. A lot of nobles had moved to the cities, where they basically lived in their own little communities away from everyone else and became more distatched from the normal folks - and the normal folks became distatched from them as well.

Meanwhile in Vendée the nobles kept often to old heritage estates that even the peasantry had some sort of relation to, because those estates and their noble families had been there for generations. It made the people of Vendée more sympathetic towards the nobility. And the nobility of course was royalist, because... well, their status was kinda bound to the royal family staying in power.

The other factor was the church. I talked about the complicated relationship the Catholic Church had to the French Revolution, with some priests and monks supporting the revolution, while others were very, very much against it.

One of the central points was, that the Revolutionaries, holding their enlightenment ideas, were very firm about the Catholic Church no longer having independence. You know, stuff like the Church getting special treatment and all of that, not having to pay taxes, owning land, having their own laws to go by... The Revolutionaries thought that this was too far and that while the people could have their churches, the clergy needed to behave like every other citizen and swear upon the new constitution and what not.

And... some clergy did not take this well. Like the clergy in Vendée. And Vendée was a more rural region, and everyone of you who has relatives in rural areas will know clearly how much more influence the church has in those. So, yeah. With the clergy in Vendée falling so clearly on the side of "no, absolutely not" and the clergy holding a lot of soft power over the people... The people also ended up falling on that side of it.

And while there were some counter-revolutionaries elsewhere, those were usually smaller splinter groups. In Vendée it was a lot of people. A lot. Which was why the first attempt to suppress them did not work out - and that... led to an allout war between the Revolutionaries and the rebels of Vendée.

Something you also need to know: Vendée is a complicated topic. Mostly, because Vendée ever since has been used as a propaganda tool for all sorts of things. Part of the issue is once again, that there is little written accounts surviving from the peasants in Vendée. Just from some of the nobility, a lot from the clergy, and some from the Revolutionary leaders fighting down the rebellion.

As such you will find a lot of differing claims reaching from: "The nobility and clergy manipulated the poor folks of Vendée to die for their cause." To: "Evil revolution did a genocide to proof a point."

And I personally honestly do not know enough about the entire thing to know which side of the argument I fall into.

But yeah, that is Vendée. That is the history of the region Nocturne is set in.

#castlevania nocturne #castlevania #castlevania netflix #history #french revolution #war of vendee #history is complicated #counter revolution

23 notes · View notes

vapaus-ystavyys-tasaarvo · 1 year

Text

For Les Mis Letters context: A quick timeline of French history from the Revolution to 1806, when Myriel becomes the Bishop of Digne:

(I'm marking all the years just to make it easier to visually follow the timeline, but I'm only noting a few events that I think are relevant. Too much happens in this era to list it all.)

THE TIMELINE:

1789: Estates General, the storming of the Bastille (14 July), the National Assembly -> the National Constituent Assembly, abolition of feudal privileges

1790

1791: Constitution of 1791, the Legislative Assembly, France becomes a constitutional monarchy, the Haitian Revolution begins

1792: The Revolutionary Wars begin; the "miraclous" French victory at Valmy, France is declared republic, the National Convention replaces the Legislative Assembly, the Republican Calendar established, etc.

1793: Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette executed, the counter-revolutionary uprising in the Vendée begins, Constitution of year I, Reign of Terror begins

1794: Reign of Terror ends

1795: Constitution of year III, the more conservative Directory replaces the National Convention, First White Terror

1796: The War in the Vendée ends

1797

1798

1799: Napoleon Bonaparte's coup d'état (18 Brumaire); the Consulate replaces the Directory, Bonaparte becomes First Consul

1800

1801

1802: Bonaparte First Consul for life, the Revolutionary Wars end*

1803: The Napoleonic Wars begin*

1804: Napoleon declares himself emperor (and Myriel has a little chat with him), the Napoleonic Code

1805: Great French victory in Austerlitz against the Russo-Austrian forces, decisive British naval victory against the French in Trafalgar, Republican Calendar abolished

1806: Decisive French victory in Jena against the Prussians (Myriel becomes the Bishop of Digne)

NOTES:

Don’t worry, I won’t list any more specific battles, aside from Waterloo.

Valmy was the first victory of the French Revolutionary army, which proved that French volunteers could match against professional soldiers, Austerlitz is the big one for Napoleon, Trafalgar is the big one for the British, Jena is another big one for Napoleon, and finally Waterloo will of course end it all once we get there.

The only reason I’m even bringing up this many battles is because Hugo is a Napoleon nerd, so unfortunately you will have to hear about them (and many more) sooner or later anyway. (Also I added Valmy just for myself, Hugo only mentions it once in Les Mis)

* I'm not bothering to mark all the different wars; France was almost continuously at war from the 1792 to 1815 (the entire period of the First Republic plus the entire period of the First Empire) with only a few short breaks. People can't even agree on when the Revolutionary Wars turn into the Napoleonic Wars.

I also left out all the constitutions after year III, because there are too many of them and nobody cares.

#les mis letters #i was a bit hesitant to post this #because it seems like such a boring post to make tbh #but whatever yall can skip it if it's boring #long post #sorry #corrections v much welcome btw #im not a frev expert #there are also so many more things i wanted to include but decided not to

88 notes · View notes

racefortheironthrone · 1 year

Note

I remember you once said that at the height of the Terror in revolutionary France their trials had an acquittal rate of 1 in 4, or even a conviction rate—do I remember right? Do you remember your citation?

Here's your citation. (p.7) As someone who's studied the history of Revolutionary France in some detail, I think that the modern historical imagination of the pitiless revolutionary tribunal, the whole Tale of Two Cities/Scarlet Pimpernel thing, is something of a mistake in focus if you want to understand where the violence was actually happening during Revolutionary France.

The real story was the French civil war that was going on in the Vendée that almost no one learns about in school - and the irony is that, while the Jacobins fought the civil war, they weren't really the ones who caused it.

Instead, we have to go back to 1789 and all those Enlightenment liberals in the National Aseembly and Constituent Assembly who are considered part of the "good" Revolution. These guys tended to be pretty damn anti-clerical - hence abolishing the tithe and ecclesiastical privileges in the August Decrees, hence the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen including freedom of religion in a country that had been officially Catholic, hence the confiscation of Church land, and most especially the Civil Constitution of the Clergy that required Catholic priests to swear an oath of loyalty to the French Constitution over the Pope.

All of this, together with the abolition of feudalism and the introduction of the levee en masse, was really unpopular in the heavily conservative, royalist, and Catholic Vendée region and in 1793 a revolt began which saw the people of the Vendée form a "Royal and Catholic Army" which aimed at nothing less than a full-blown counter-revolution with support from Great Britain.

From the beginning, the War in the Vendée was a civil war without quarter, without restrictions, and without mercy. Rebels massacred revolutionaries, revolutionaries massacred rebels, cities were routinely sacked, military prisoners were executed en masse, and every kind of war crime was legitimized as general policy to punish the enemy under the logic of retaliation. The numbers tell the tale: while around 50,000 soldiers died in the fighting, anywhere from 100-200,000 civilians died.

Compared to the Vendée, the Terror was a sideshow.

#history #french revolution #the vendee #revolutionary france

35 notes · View notes