Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Taras_Potatos and 20 guests

What exactly Grimaldi did?

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
What exactly Grimaldi did?
Post by Dilandu   » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:47 am

Dilandu
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Something interesting that I noticed in ASOT:

How did they do it? his brain demanded of itself. How could they do it?

He never doubted that it had to have been the false seijins—no, the demons who pretended to be seijins!—but how?

There’s nothing like this in the records—not in The Testimonies, not in the Book of Chihiro, and not in the Inquisition’s secret files. Nothing! Never. Not at Shan-wei’s hands or during the War Against the Fallen. Not even Grimaldi accomplished anything like this after his fall!


So... what exactly Grimaldi done to be awarded with such special mention? Notice that she is mentioned AFTER the Shan-Wei and War Against the Fallen both, which suggest that her actions were particularly "notorious". And according to the Wiki,

According to scripture, Grimaldi sided with Shan-wei when she rebelled against the Archangel Langhorne, and Grimaldi's twisted version of the healing teachings of the Archangel Truscott became the cause of pestilence.


Considering that "something that even Grimaldi could not accomplish" was the sudden death of everyone inside St. Thyrmyn’s, I could not help but wonder: what exactly Grimaldi tried to accomplish? Considering that she is associated with pestilence, it was probably something nasty and biological. Some kind of biological warfare - but against whom? Maybe some mad attempt to kill the majority of colonists with bioweapon released, so the majority of the command crew would be forced to stuck with Shan-Wei original plan simply because they would be the last human beings alive, and without advanced tech they would not be able to maintain the existence of human race?

Interesting, huh?
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: What exactly Grimaldi did?
Post by mhicks   » Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:42 am

mhicks
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:53 am
Location: WA

Could it be that Grimaldi tried to heal people who had been exposed to the radiation from the pocket nukes and the pestilence was a form of radiation poisoning. I don't she Shan-wei's troops hurting civilians on purpose, I do see them trying to use tech to heal and being called Devils for it.
Or it could be that Grimaldi is being blamed for a biological weapon used by the command crew on the population and then saying "Grimaldi did it". We have no real life evidence of armies doing just that here on Earth. :roll:

I think Grimaldi is getting blamed because the victors write the history books.
Top
Re: What exactly Grimaldi did?
Post by Dilandu   » Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:00 am

Dilandu
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

mhicks wrote:Could it be that Grimaldi tried to heal people who had been exposed to the radiation from the pocket nukes and the pestilence was a form of radiation poisoning.

And why he was blamed for this?

I don't she Shan-wei's troops hurting civilians on purpose, I do see them trying to use tech to heal and being called Devils for it.


Please. We didn't even know was Grimaldi associated with Shan-Wei at all. More likely not - the majority of Shan-Wei supporters were killed in Alexandria. It is more possible that he was one of Langhorne's loyalists, who rebelled against Chichiro & Shueller during War Against The Fallen.

Let's not automatically put all "Fallens" into "misjudged heroes". There were probably enough lunatics & megalomaniacs among them too, considering the deep psychological traumas of knowing about Earth destruction. Shain-Wei may retain moral high ground, but even among her supporters were probably enough those who were perfectly willing to target civilians.

Or it could be that Grimaldi is being blamed for a biological weapon used by the command crew on the population and then saying "Grimaldi did it". We have no real life evidence of armies doing just that here on Earth. :roll:


...For what possible reason the command crew may use bioweapon on population? It make no sense for them; most of population were on their side, and Fallen have access (albeit limited) to modern medicine.

My point is, that basically both the Archangels and the Fallen were unlikely to suffer from bioweapon, especially some jury-rigged one. Both sides of the war have access to modern medicine. The ones who were clearly the most vulnerable were Safehold colonists, but there were little reasons to target them - unless they were the only reachable target for someone.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: What exactly Grimaldi did?
Post by Dilandu   » Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:07 am

Dilandu
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Again; let's not forget, that for all sides of the ancient conflict (Langhonre's loyalists, Shan-Wei followers, Chichiro's supporters, "Fallens") the price of victory was the ultimate fate of humanity. They knew that they are the last of all humankind; that the Earth was destroyed and Terran Federation was no more.

With all respect, but with the stakes were so high, I rather doubt that ANYONE was really unwilling to pay the price in innocent lives for the ultimate victory. Even the more "moderate" factions - Langhorne's loyalists & Shan-Wei followers - could probably resort to indiscriminate violence, if pushed too far (this was basically what Langhorne's loyalists done with Alexandria, albeit there are SOME clues that it wasn't Langhorne's idea). And War Against the Fallen were portrayed as much more brutal and destructive.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: What exactly Grimaldi did?
Post by Dauntless   » Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:12 pm

Dauntless
Commodore

Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:54 am
Location: United Kingdom

tough question. the evidence is so small it is hard to judge what was done, let alone how big a scale.

and yet because they knew that they were the only humans left in the galaxy I find it hard to believe that ANY (fallen or command crew) would have done wholesale massacre deliberately.

now not all fallen will be the same I agree, and yet St khody himself found that many preferred to fight Guerilla type warfare and that, surprise, much of what was laid at their feet was not done by them.

what little info we have on the war indicates an effort to keep deaths, on both sides, to as few as the fallen could manage.

basically deliberate biowarfare by any seems unlikely. but it could well be someone was desperate and something designed to make people very ill mutated and killed. blame later placed on Grimaldi as they were conveniently dead and known as a former angel of healing.

safehold speculation is always tricky. there are some many gaps RFC has yet to fill in and this one in particular is impossible to make any real judgement of.
Top
Re: What exactly Grimaldi did?
Post by mhicks   » Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:30 pm

mhicks
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:53 am
Location: WA

Dauntless wrote:tough question. the evidence is so small it is hard to judge what was done, let alone how big a scale.

and yet because they knew that they were the only humans left in the galaxy I find it hard to believe that ANY (fallen or command crew) would have done wholesale massacre deliberately.

now not all fallen will be the same I agree, and yet St khody himself found that many preferred to fight Guerilla type warfare and that, surprise, much of what was laid at their feet was not done by them.

what little info we have on the war indicates an effort to keep deaths, on both sides, to as few as the fallen could manage.

basically deliberate biowarfare by any seems unlikely. but it could well be someone was desperate and something designed to make people very ill mutated and killed. blame later placed on Grimaldi as they were conveniently dead and known as a former angel of healing.

safehold speculation is always tricky. there are some many gaps RFC has yet to fill in and this one in particular is impossible to make any real judgement of.


If the War of the Fallen was mostly guerilla style tactics then why would Safehold go back to the multiple line fighting and be so surprised by guerilla tactics introduced by merlin?
Top
Re: What exactly Grimaldi did?
Post by dobriennm   » Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:13 pm

dobriennm
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:44 pm

mhicks wrote:
If the War of the Fallen was mostly guerilla style tactics then why would Safehold go back to the multiple line fighting and be so surprised by guerilla tactics introduced by merlin?


'Cause multiple line fighting infantry are the tactics dictated by slow-firing muzzle-loading matchlock smooth bore muskets.

Even American revolutionaries who had flint lock muskets and preferred guerilla tactics in the beginning eventually adopted the multiple line fighting tactics to win against the British.

And also remember that wars were between Princes mainly and was somewhat formalized. Patriotism as we know it (my country, my flag) didn't really exist. Loyalty was more local and if your local prince accepted defeat and swore loyalty to the opposing Prince, then there was no reason to rebel and fight a guerilla war. And if a new local prince was installed, everyone swore loyalty to the new prince.
Top
Re: What exactly Grimaldi did?
Post by Dilandu   » Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:02 am

Dilandu
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

dobriennm wrote:
And also remember that wars were between Princes mainly and was somewhat formalized. Patriotism as we know it (my country, my flag) didn't really exist. Loyalty was more local and if your local prince accepted defeat and swore loyalty to the opposing Prince, then there was no reason to rebel and fight a guerilla war. And if a new local prince was installed, everyone swore loyalty to the new prince.


Exactly. Before the era of nationalism (which started only in late XVIII century, albeit there WERE examples of earlier), the general population was generally not inclined to participate in military actions, except out of obligation to sovereign (and said obligations were STRICTLY limited - sovereign could NOT demand of his peoples to fight guerilla warfare) or for self-defense (like the militia in besieged city). The whole idea of feudalism - from economical point of view - was to have a SMALL number of professional warriors, who are supplied by other population, so said population could be fully involved in economical activity.

Before XIX century, the guerilla warfare was relatively rare things; mostly in religious conflicts (because religion WAS an important factor), or in large-scale peasants rebellions (where the usual balance of interests was disrupted by definition). Considering that there were no religious wars on Safehold before Merlin, there weren't that many situations when guerilla warfare could be implemented outside of peasants rebellions (and they were clearly NOT considered "standard warfare", more like police actions).
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: What exactly Grimaldi did?
Post by Bluesqueak   » Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:04 am

Bluesqueak
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:04 pm

Dilandu wrote:
dobriennm wrote:
And also remember that wars were between Princes mainly and was somewhat formalized. Patriotism as we know it (my country, my flag) didn't really exist. Loyalty was more local and if your local prince accepted defeat and swore loyalty to the opposing Prince, then there was no reason to rebel and fight a guerilla war. And if a new local prince was installed, everyone swore loyalty to the new prince.


Exactly. Before the era of nationalism (which started only in late XVIII century, albeit there WERE examples of earlier), the general population was generally not inclined to participate in military actions, except out of obligation to sovereign (and said obligations were STRICTLY limited - sovereign could NOT demand of his peoples to fight guerilla warfare) or for self-defense (like the militia in besieged city). The whole idea of feudalism - from economical point of view - was to have a SMALL number of professional warriors, who are supplied by other population, so said population could be fully involved in economical activity.

Before XIX century, the guerilla warfare was relatively rare things; mostly in religious conflicts (because religion WAS an important factor), or in large-scale peasants rebellions (where the usual balance of interests was disrupted by definition). Considering that there were no religious wars on Safehold before Merlin, there weren't that many situations when guerilla warfare could be implemented outside of peasants rebellions (and they were clearly NOT considered "standard warfare", more like police actions).


This isn't accurate- the era of nationalism was simply the era that named Guerilla warfare. It also wasn't the case that Guerilla warfare was mainly religious or peasant rebellion before nationalism. Guerilla warfare was predominantly a response to invasion , it was often a way for locals to support more formal armies. They'd pin down the invaders, bleed them, buy time - and the bigger forces would then make a comeback and kick the invaders out.

And it's in Sun Tzu.Bit before the Eighteenth Century.

Anyway, I'd guess that the reason Safehold has forgotten Guerilla warfare is that most of its warfare has been arguing over where the border is, rather than trying to take over the entire country - and the few invasions they've had were of smallish countries. There's hints that there's been small scale Guerilla warfare in Zebediah, and other places taken over by Prince Hektor, but it's called rebellion and brigandage.

Until the Sword of Schuelerite, they've never had a large scale invasion that was only partially successful. Meaning that untrained locals can make a genuine contribution, stopping the Temple armies in their area and letting the big battles be fought elsewhere. Until the army can be rebuilt, the Charisians can reinforce, and the Temple boys kicked back over the border.
Top
Re: What exactly Grimaldi did?
Post by dobriennm   » Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:43 am

dobriennm
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:44 pm

Bluesqueak wrote:
This isn't accurate- the era of nationalism was simply the era that named Guerilla warfare. It also wasn't the case that Guerilla warfare was mainly religious or peasant rebellion before nationalism. Guerilla warfare was predominantly a response to invasion , it was often a way for locals to support more formal armies. They'd pin down the invaders, bleed them, buy time - and the bigger forces would then make a comeback and kick the invaders out.

And it's in Sun Tzu.Bit before the Eighteenth Century.

Anyway, I'd guess that the reason Safehold has forgotten Guerilla warfare is that most of its warfare has been arguing over where the border is, rather than trying to take over the entire country - and the few invasions they've had were of smallish countries. There's hints that there's been small scale Guerilla warfare in Zebediah, and other places taken over by Prince Hektor, but it's called rebellion and brigandage.

Until the Sword of Schuelerite, they've never had a large scale invasion that was only partially successful. Meaning that untrained locals can make a genuine contribution, stopping the Temple armies in their area and letting the big battles be fought elsewhere. Until the army can be rebuilt, the Charisians can reinforce, and the Temple boys kicked back over the border.


You're right, it was usually called rebellion and brigandage. After all, guerilla war somewhat implies a legitimate opponent, at least from the standpoint of the guerillas (given the modern day usage). Saying the opponents are a bunch of rebels against legitimate authority or simply robbers and brigands de-legitimizes them (at least in the history books).

And, as you say, most of Safehold's wars were probably over borders, at least within recent memory (at least the last two to three hundred years). And it most likely took a while for those to occur until the various enclaves grew big enough to "bump" into each other. Up until then any conflicts were probably "daughter" colonies from the enclaves refusing to acknowledge the original enclaves authority (consolidation into nation states).

Safehold history is liable to be as complicated as European history. But then, that's what Safehold is sort of based on.
Top

Return to Safehold