Rasha

If you believe that I am trying to declar that slavery is good or bad based on its temporal proximity, then I have not made myself clear enough and I am sorry.Slavery in itself is neither good or bad. It is a process that fitted the old times, but no longer fits our modern ideas of society. Our ideas of society evolved in the 17th / 18th century ( based on Greek / Roman philosophy, but still), and as a consequence slavery didnt fit anymore. Our ideas evolved even further, and slavery still don't fit in there. What I should have said, is that slavery in Europe and Ancient Greece were not built on the same premises. At what point does a society outgrown the need for slaves ? Well, when it has operated the division of Labor that renders slavery necessary. Society has evolved upon this division of labor since Anciant Greece. In a Feudal Society, the serf replaced the slave, granting its force of work, keeping the kingdom fed and provisionned, in exchang for Law, Order and Protection from the Lords. This allowed the apparition of some progress, such as the imprimery, the developement of Art and Science due to the patronage of some Lords. Does it means that Serfdom is good, or evil ? Such questions are meaningless as it does not explain how or why Serdom appeared or survived so long. Was the apparition of Serfdom in Europe progress ? I guess you could argue so if you compared it to the conditions in which it was born. Serfdom was made possible due to a demographic explosion that took place at the tim. Thus, in Europe, slavery was disappearing, due to the absence of necessity for it, and an edict of the Church that made it forbidden to enslave another Chrisitan. Still, it would have been possible for Christian to enslave Muslim populations, but it was never done, for the absence of necessity, and due to a rust ton of other reasons I am not aware of. Slavery was replaced by serfdom. So that's progress. Was it necessary ? I have no idea. The resurgence of slavery in the 16th century with the Triangular Slave Trade was a matter of opportunity. The slaves mostly originated from prisonners of war during the intern tribes conflicts. or prisonners of war taken during the colonization that were sold to the Europeans. The European society was at an altogether different stade of developement than the ancient Greeks. The slave Trade was not necessary for the development of the European continent, which had all the cheap labor necessary for its development. It allowed the Europeans to colonize America at a faster rate that's for sure. Was it incorporated deeply in the society ? No, it was juste a trade like another. Did it led to progress ? I don't know. Was it necessary ? I doubt it. Was it driven by greediness for more land and riches and rampant imperialism ? In my opinion, yes, there is no doubt about that. The idea of necessity is a flimsy one, and you can always find people eager to provide justification for their deeds. And yet. Was the Terror necessary ? I would say yes, that it was necessary as the product of its circumstances, but some historians disagree and label it as the darkest period of the French Revolution. I hope someday in the future, we will judge our 21th century as barbaric, for it would mean that we have progressed enough to leave behind some our our most reprehensible ways.

Many around here judge slavery by our modern occidental standards. I even saw people quoting American law to further up their points, which is a total nonsense when attempting to understand slavery in an old society. Allow me to give you a quote for thoughts : "It was only slavery that made possible on a scale large enough, the division between labor and industry, and later on, the apogee of hellenism. Without slavery, no Greek State, no Art and Science produced by Greeks. Without slavery, no Roman Empire. Without the basis of hellenism and of the Roman Empire, there would not have been a modern Europe. We should never forget that all our economic, political, and intellectual evolution has for condition a situation in which slavery was as obvious as necessary. We could say that we have the right to say: without ancient slavery, no modern socialism. [note : the author is Engels, and he would be considered on the far left spectrum in America. Nevertheless, you can substitute socialism by capitalism in this phrase, if it better suit you as a motor of progress]. It cost us nothing to wage war against slavery with generic formulae, and to scorn such an infamy with all of our superior moral wrath. Sadly, we only announce by that what everyone already knows, that these antic institutions no longer correspond to our actual lifestyle, and to the sentiments bred by our modern lifestyle. But that teaches us nothing on how these institutions were born, on the causes of their survival and their role in history. And if we take a closer look at this problem, we are constrained to say that, as contradictory and heretic as it seems, that the introduction of slavery in the past circumstances was a great progress. It is an established fact that humanity was born of animals, and that it needed barbaric means, nearly bestial, to get out of its barbaric phase. The ancient communities, where they survived, constitute since thousands of years the basis of the most rough form of State, the oriental despotism, from India to Russia. It is only where they dissolved that people progressed, and their first progress consisted to an increase in productivity and production, by the development of [conscripted?] work. As long as human work was so unproductive that it did not produce much more than what was necessary to survive, the increasing of productive forces, the expansion of trade, the development of State and Laws, the foundation of art and science were possible only due to a reinforced division of labor that could only have as founding principles the great division of work between the masses dealing with simple manual work, and the few privileged that were in charge of distributing the work, dealing with the trading, the State's business, and later, busying themselves with art and science. The most simple, and most natural form of this division of labor was precisely slavery. Given the historical antecedents of the elder Greek world, the progress to a society founded on class opposition could only be achieved with slavery. Even for slaves, this was a progress. War prisoners from which the masses of slaves were made, at least now had their lives spared, whereas before, they were butchered, and even before that, in the older times, they were put in a cooking pot. If Mr. Eugen Dühring gargles at the sight of hellenism because it was founded on slavery, he would be also right to blame the Greeks for not having industrial steam machines, or the telegraph. " Engels. I love this quote because it shows that judging an ancient society by our modern standards is absurd. Of course that we find slavery abhorant. It saddens me to no end that it still exists in the 21th century (hello Dubai) and if it depended on me and an easy omnipotent wish, I would make it disappear. But that's not a sufficient for me to judge the principle of slavery as evil (I don't even believe in the concept of evil). I just recognize that once a society has evolved enough, slavery shouldn't exist in it (and yes, Europe had no necessity to enslave some of the African population, it was just pure greed). Just like once a society and its neighbors have evolved enough, there is no need for the death penalty, forced mass conscription, or the colonization of what is perceived inferior population. As it stands, we still have not evolved enough, we still have racism, bigotry, anti intellectualism, sexism, and modern forms of exploitation in our "modern" society. We may have better laws than the Alethi or the elder Greeks, but don't be so fast to cast your judgment with modern standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Erikson Author of the Malazan Books of the Fallen, one of the greatest fantasy serie written (yeah I'm a fanboy, it shows). If you have months of time on your hands, do not hesitate to start

The author's contract is not to fulfill expectations, but to go beyond them. Sanderson is getting is way up there among the giants like Erikson in delivering. Trust in him, he will deliver tenfold what we expect with our little theorizing around here.

I like it ! It is better than the weak Stormlight cop out (which has many inconvenients). And it would explain why Sanderson would spend so much time emphizing the watch on the start of the chapter (other than just cool world exposition).

@OathKeeper Lift's boon is not failing. It is just that she asked for resistance to change, but the Nightwatcher doesn't give you what you ask, she gives you what she feels you deserve. Lift doesn't understand why her body change, because the Nigthwatcher never froze her in time (Wyndle says so), but she gave her the capacity to metabolize food into stormlight and something else. We don't know which is the boon / curse, but Lift's ability to metabolize food hasn't disapeared yet. You may also say that the old magic cannot be bested because the curses are adaptive and not set in time, which also fits with Cultivation intent's. The boon / curse may evolve to suit the Intention the Nightwatcher had when placing them, which makes it impossible to break the curse / boon by lawyering your way up and trying to twist the Nightwatcher's Intent. It would also be very fitting with BS's system of magic where Intent rules the results desired. As an aside note, we don't know weither Dalinar forgettign Evi is his boon or his curse. Never in Stormlight Archive does Dalinar states what is his boon or curse, the only info we have on Dalinar's visit is that he totally forgot his wife. Dalinar forgetting his wife could very well be an act of compassion on the Nightwatcher's part if for example Dalinar felt too guilty about something that happened to her. Dalinar remembering Evi might not be a cake walk in the park, he may have to face something horrible he did in the past. Or not. Maybe, after all, everything will end up well.

Ah you said what I had confusely in mind with far more precision. Thank you !

As I said in the original post, it is not an instantaenous process. Dalinar now recalls her name, and recalls her face. My theory is that he will gradually remember more of Evi, while gradually forgotting Navani in the reverse order. So let's say that he now has forgotten some old memories of Navani, he wouldn't know right on the spot that he is missing these memories. But as time progress, he may wonder how it's hard to remember the Navani of when he was young. Or maybe if it doesn't happens in reverse chronological order (why should it ?), he may lose at first some minor memories of Navani (like if she'd rather have a red or yellow dress). And as time passes, he will gain more memory of Evi and less of Navani, until he has completely forgotten her face, her voice and her name. Edit: Memory is a tricky thing, as we are mostly ignorant of how it works. But in this case, I see it as a case of Alzeihmer on a very focused subject (his wife). Alzeihmer is not an instantaneous process. Of course, Alzeihmer here is just an analogy as I wouldn't have the knowledge to diagnose any disease if it could save my life, and it may very well prove that it is a very different case.

Where is Wit ? I need to see Pattern and Wit interact for maximum hilarity ensuing.

We know that Stormlight healing works the same way than Feruchemical gold healing on Scadrial. When ingesting Stormlight, it tries to align your Physical form to your Cognitive(or Spiritual ? I can't remember) form, which depends on the way the person getting healed percieve himself. Lift doesn't cure herself because she welcomes the fact that she can transform food into awesomeness, and sees it as a part of herself. Just like Dalinar seems to have accepted that he has no memory of Evi. He is even shocked that he can hear her name. Which is not consistent with the few eavy (ie just not healing minor bruises) Stormlight healings that occured so far. Kalladin had to push the Stormlight into his arm so it could heal, it was not a passive effect the first time it happened. As to the Bondsmiths intervention to modify Parshendis, I am sorry to say that I fail to see what is the relevance to the discussion.

The problem with Stormlight healing is that it is based on Perception. I doubt Dalinar could have restored his memories via Stormlight healing precisely because the Cognitive image he has of himself (on which Stormlight bases itself to heal) does not include the memories of his wife. Juste like Kalladin kept his slavery brands, because he percieve himself as soemone with the brands. Dalinar percieves himself with someone with a memory lapse when it comes to his wife, which make it very hard (imposssible ?) to just regain memories with Stormlight.

No one expects the copycat murderer ! Among his weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to copying !

Hello, This is a theory on Dalinar's lapses of memory concerning Evi, and the implications that it might have in the future. My theory bases itself on the premise that Dalinar's visit to the Nightwatcher made him lose all memories concerning his wife, Evi, and made him unable to hear her name again. I would suppose (and this is a supposition, in no way based on facts) that the Nightwatcher operated by severing his connexion to his wife, separating all memory, feelings and stimulus about Evi, and placed it in a Box inside Dalinar's mind that he is unable to access. Now, Dalinar has married Navani, his oaths of marriage witnessed and approved by the Stormfather. Navani has replaced Evi as his wife, and I think that what is happening is that the Box in Dalinar's mind is being filled by Navani, while Evi leaks out of the Box. I think that slowly, Dalinar will mix feelings and memory between Navani and Evi, slowly confounding the two, and Navani will bleed away into the Box until Dalinar forgets everything about her, and is unable to have any stimulus of Navani. In the end, he will remain married to someone he cannot remember and has trouble to have even basic interactions with. I think it would be truly tragic for both characters, as as the Stormfather noted, his Oaths are binding forever, and breaking them has huge consequences. When he stated that, some sharders theorized that Navani would be the one to break them, due to maybe hidden motives or agenda. But I will find it more fitting story wise if Dalinar ends up being the one screwing up his marriage performed by the Stormfather just because of a visit to the Nightwatcher a long time ago. It is strongly implied that the switch is happening now because of the change of wives, and not because Dalinar is being healed by Stormlight. Dalinar inhaled Stormlight to heal himself before in WoR, and it didn't have this effect. Furthermore, the problem with Stormlight healing is that it is based on Perception. I doubt Dalinar could have restored his memories via Stormlight healing precisely because the Cognitive image he has of himself (on which Stormlight bases itself to heal) does not include the memories of his wife. Juste like Kalladin kept his slavery brands, because he percieve himself as soemone with the brands. Dalinar percieves himself with someone with a memory lapse when it comes to his wife, which make it very hard (imposssible ?) to just regain memories with Stormlight. He wasn't in contact with the Everstorm, and therefore didn't benefit from the same effects than the Parshmen did (a healing of the soul to make it whole). Plus, it would make for an awesome, (even if it is tragic) story.

If Rayse took up two other shards, his intent would be changed, and we have no idea what it would be. Even if we knew his character, it would be hard to judge what his intentions would become.

If Preservation could, he would stop time, to have the world crystalized into something that never change. Is freezing the whole world better than simply destroying it ? I would say that at this level of extremes, the distincion is moot. All the virtues of Adonalsium, taken separately as Shards are neither good or evil. But we know that the intent of the Shards corrupt the weilder, and pushes him/her to extremism to fulfil the Shard's intent. It is why Preservation and Ruin created Scadrial: in their opposition, the original weilders searched balance, so they would not stray into fanaticism. Of course, over time their intent took over, and Preservation had to cage Ruin so he wouldn't destroy the world. And Ruin had no choice but to follow its intent.

I had time on my hands, decided to do it correctly rather than do a botched attempt Thanks! For the conscription I only put the number of conscripts at the creation of the committee, it is true that the final number of conscripts is far higher in total. As for the trolling by historians, I don't know enough on the subject (I am not one, I am just an engineering student with a mild fascination for the topic). Besides, the Revolution is a serious business in France, so I am not sure many French historians risk their hides by doing a trolling take on it But I feel that you have a whole lot of interesting things on the subject, so feel free to elaborate And yes, religion is a specialty in France. Laïcité was a principle slowly built, as a result of the continuous battle between the clergy (and its followers) and the anti-clerical crowds. It had a lot of unforeseen consequences. The culmination of that was the 1905 law of separation on of Church and State.

What will follow is not the objective truth, for I will not pretend to be an historian and I don't possess the self discipline to make an historical account of these time. I took the time to research some parts that were dusty in my memory as to be sure not to crem dung you. Among French historian, the first French Revolution is still a subject open to debate, in which it morality is still debated. According to some historians, Robespierre is a bloodthirsty tyrant, to others he is one of the few man of virtue that participated in the Revolution. Was the French Revolution the spark that ushered a new age of progressism in Europe, or was it a bloodbath in which innocents were slaughtered ? Gather close, friends for these questions will drive us as the tale unfold. 1789 - 1791: Creation of the National Assembly and its Constitution. We are in May 1789. Due to a serie of economic decision made by Louis XVI, who implemented the deregulation of the grain market, and the necessity of implementing new taxes, due to the States increasing deficit, the popularity of the government is at the bottom of the abyss. To solve this situation, Louis XVI decide to invoke the General State Assembly to create new taxes and tolls and reform those already existing. The General State Assembly is constitued of 3 "parties" : the Nobles, the Clergy, and the Third State (or Tiers Etat, could not find a better translation), aka everything that is neither a member of the clergy or the nobility. At the time, the Third State pay taxes to both the clergy and to the nobility. The clergy is most often exempted of taxes, and the nobility paye taxes to the King. The Votations in the General State Assembly are similar to the One Man, One Vote in Ankh Morpohk: each assembly gets one vote, and the majority wins the decision. The Clergy and the Nobility, being bound in interests (even more when the subject is taxation) you can imagine that the results of votation are seldom favorable to the Third State. Seing that their demands are clearly not heard the deputy ask that the votes are counted by head, and not by Order. Refusing to comply, the King order the evacuation of the room in which the Assembly takes place. On June the 17th, the deputies of the Third State declare themselves National Assembly. On the 20th, the Tennis Courd Oath (named because so bcause the Third State had been releguated into a Tennis room) is given, declaring that the assembly will not be dissolved until a Constitution is drafted. On the 23th, the King himself visit them to conceide some fiscal points on the condition that the Assembly be dissolved. To which Mirabeau replies: "We are here by the will of the people, and we shall retire only by force". Finally, on the 27th June, the King dissolve the three Orders (Nobility, Clergy and Third State) and accept the Assembly in charge of creating the Constitution. This is important to note that at this point the Revolution is not yet started as such. This is only the transition from an absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional Monarchy. Until 1792, the Revolution is built on the idea to destroy absolutism without destroying the State, or the King. Creating check and balance to the absolute power of the nobility is so far the main goal. While the creation of a new Assembly takes place in Versailles, all is not well in the kingdom of France. On the 13th of July, in Paris a rumor spreads like plague: royal troops are coming to arrest the deputies. And suspiciously, corps of royal troops are Stationed on the Champs de Mars, and on several gates of Paris. A comity is created to react to the threat: the insurectionnal municipality. On the morning of the 14th of July, riots start, and rioters go to the Invalides, looking for weapons. Here, they would seize 28000 rifles and 200 cannons. They have the weapons, but they are lacking the powder to use them. The rioter decide then to go to the Bastille, where powder is stored. The Bastille is manned by 82 veteran soldiers called invalids, and by 32 Swiss soldiers. THe garnison commander is the Marquis de Launey, a noble without military experience. Trying to buy time, he vow not to fire on the offenders, as long as they do not try to enter. Alas, an assault is mounted, and de Launey panicks, ordering to fire causing more than a haudred casualties among the assaillants. Everything changes when two regiments of French guards. These soldiers, tasked to protect the peace in the city decide to side with the people. The Bastille is assaulted. The swiss guard had the time to ditch their uniforms and therefore blended into the popluace easily. The 82 guards were lynched by the mob, and the Marquis (who tried to sucide before getting taken but failed) was beheaded by a butcher and his head spiked. The Bastille is so freed. It was the symbol of the King's power and of an itransigeant absolutism. inside, seven prisonners are found. Their crimes amount to thievery, counterfeit, and sexual delinquancy. Surprised by the people's violence, the King decide then to not dissolve the popular Assembly. And thus the Revolution went on. The 4th August 1789, the end of privileges and the end of the feodal sytem are ratified by the National Assembly and the King. On the 26th the declaration of human and citizen right is ratified. You probably heard of it, it starts as : " Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.". It takes it roots in the theories developped by Jean Jacques Rousseau, a Swiss/French Philosopher who created the notion of Social Contract (Social_contract ). Those right are mean to be taken as natural laws and to remain true in every country, independantly of the government and laws in place. According to the text, the first mission fo the State is to assure that these right remain unviolated. It is good to note that despite the adhesion to these laws, slavery would not be abolished until 1794 (to be reinstated by Napoleon in 1802 and abolished definitely in 1848. If you want to know more about that read Victor Hugo, as he was a huge militent for the abolition of slavery, and was active in the government in 1848) and would not stop colonialism to happen. The text also define the basis of being a citizen and establishes a difference between an active and passive citizen. Active citizenship was granted to men who were French, at least 25 years old, paid taxes equal to three days work, and could not be defined as servants. This meant that at the time of the Declaration only male property owners held these rights. It was believed by the assembly that only those who held tangilbe interests in the nation could make informed decision. This model is largely based on the model developped in Athens, where only the active citizens had a say in the governance of the cities as such, slaves, womens were passive citizens, in that they had a status far above filthy foreigners, but were not granted the privileges and duties of active citizenship. The clergy is also assigned to serve the State. This created a schism between the refractory priests (who refused to swear) and the juring priests. The Refractory priests would later have a huge influence on the French Revolution, as they ignited the Vendee Wars and other counter revolutionnary movements. Unknown to the public eye, since the 5 October 1789, the King is brewing a project to exile himself in a neighbouring country to organize a reconquest of his throne. Constantly under guard of La Fayette (Yes, the same), he couldn't find the well placed moment to spring his plan to execution. Finally, the 20 and 21th June 1791, in what is called the Varennes flight, the royal familly tries to flee, assuming false identities with false identification papers, and Louis XVI leaves behind a political manifesto. La Fayette dispatches troops in every direction to find where the King could have disapeared, and decide to censure the manifesto and not publish it. Mirabeau and the members of the Society of the friends of the Convention (which are in charge of the whole mess at this point) decide, as to quell the panic that would inevitabily rise at the news, to masquarade the flight as an abduction. The Varennes flight and the position adpoted by diferant factions will later cause the schisms between the factions pushing for a Constitutional Monarchy and the Mountain (named so because they sitted on the higher seats of the National Assembly) who want to pursue to their full extent the Revolutionnary Ideals. The King is finally caught on the 21th, and assigned to residence. It was later revelled that the King conspired from 1789 to 1792 with foreign power to bring back an absolute monarchy in France. 1791 - 1793: Start of the Coalition Wars, and the fall of the Constitutional Monarchy In September 1791 a coalition of Kings and Emperors is formed across Europe, afraid to see the Revolution spread to their lands. In reaction, the different political parties adopt different reactions. The Mountain (Robespierre, Danton, Marat...) pushed for peace, to let the chance to grow a strong State to be able to apply the ideals of the Revolution fully in France while the Jacobins pushed for war, to export the Revolutionnary ideals in Europe. Feeling the war is on the brink, in April 1792, France declare war on Austria. Prussia rallies Austria and they immediatly proceed to invade France together, to be rebuffed at Valmy. Other European powers came to play, deciding to crush this Revolution in blood, to make an exemple of it so that it would not spread. The Kingdom of great Britain assiged the city of Toulon, and fomented local peasant and clergy revolts loyal to Louis XVI. The 22th September 1792, the Republic is proclaimed. Accused of treason and collusion with foreign powoers, Louis XVI is judged guilty and sentenced to be guillotined the 21th January 1793. Horrified by the King's execution, Great Britain, Spain, Holland, Austria and Prussia ally together to crush the Revolution in blood. At the same time, the Vendee War was starting. Refractory priests ignited a part of France, championing for a return to monarchy, and a Clergy assermented to the Pope rather than to the State. They are financed and backed by monarchists, parts of the old army, counter-revolutionaries and foreign interests. Foreign agents are plotting mayhem on behalf of the Kings. The economical situation is catastrophic as profiteers and speculation on scarce ressources are uncontrolled. Corruption runs rampant as order is fragile. Ancient Noble Officers desert to the foreign coalition as they are more aligned with their ideology. As the Revolution was on the brink of collapse, on the verge of behing washed in Revolutionnary blood, exceptionnal mesures had to be taken: -The conscription of 300.000 voluntaries into the Republic armies. - The comittee of Public Safety is created. Led by the Mountain, and primarily by Robespierre, Danton, and Saint Just, it was given supervisary powers over military, judicial, and legislative efforts to deal with the ennemies of the Republic, intern of extern. Be it military threats, ideological or economical threats. It is worth remarking that before 1791, Robespierre (and other members of the Mountain) were adamently opposed to death penalty. And yet. What values are personnal opinions when the Nation herself is in danger ? Peronnal beliefs are the least that the members of the Comittee would grow to forsake. 1793 - 1794 : The Comittee of Public Safety, the Terror, and the Vendee Wars. "The first of all Laws is the preservation of the Republic. " - Saint Just. “Ask Robespierre. Ask the man with the conscience which is more important, your friend or your country— ask him how he weighs an individual in the scheme of things. Ask him which comes first, his old pals or his new principles. You ask him, Camille.” -Hillary Mantel This is the part where people are the most opiniated about. Some consider the Vendee Wars to be a génocide against the vendeen, while forgetting that atrocities and senseless killing were comitted on both sides. Both side were pushed to fanaticism by circumstances: Vendeen were (mostly) the only French willing to counter the revolution, which led them to desperation. The Revolutionnary forces faced stacked odds on multiple fronts. No side took the time to take prisonners, every opponant was cut down when the opportunity arose. Zealots, weither religious or revolutionary zealots commited atrocities against civilians or soldiers on a scale without precedent. People often talk about the Terror as the bloodiest part of the Revolution, but they couldn't be more wrong. The bloodiest part was in the battlefields, and in the Vendee Wars, we would be hard pressed to know which side was bloodiest. The Vendee uprising was quelled, but at a very high cost for the Revolutionnaries. It took more than 12 battles to settle the matter, and not every one of them was a Revolutionnary victory. As for the comittee,the comittee itself debates to know which decision to take. While the comittee is most heavily influenced by Robespierre, Danton, and St-Just it is also conprised of a myriad of factions. Some call for more extremist measure, other for more conservatory measrues. One of it's first act was the arrestation and execution of all the Girondins, given their nature to resist the spiralling of the Revolution. Next on the table were the Hébertists and the Dantonists. The Hébertists were a group known for their anti-religious zeal, extremist demands, and their propencity to erupt into violent insurections. Deemed too dangerous, they were arrested, judged and condemned. Camille Desmoulins, originaly writing a newspaper supporting the comittee, began to write to denounce it. External criticism of the comittee being to close to sedition, Camille Desmoulins, close friend of Robespierre was guillotined. Exectuion were not the sole privilege of the comittee. The Ventose Decree (named so because it was passed on the revolutionnary month of Ventôse) confiscated all goods of the exiles of the revolution (typically nobles fleeing) to distribute them among the most needy. It also passed the Law or 22 Prairial, which accelerated the rate at which criminals were processed by the Revolutionary Tribunal, hich led to 5 executions a day in Germinal (Revolutionary month) to 17 in Prairial (next month) to 26 in Messidor. This is the period known as the Great Terror. In 5 months, the Tribunal sentenced 2156 people to death, and acquitted 684 people of any wrongdoing. While this is far from perfect, and there are without doubt many innocents guillotined during the Terror, going before the Revolutionary Tribunal was not an automatic death sentence. Feeling unsecure and threatened by Robespierre, Joseph Fouché and Tallien started to organize what would be named the Thermydorian Reaction. The fall of Robespierre was organized a combination of those wanting more power for the comittee (that was previously reigned in by Robespierre), and the moderates that completely opposed the revolutionnary governement. Robespierre was arrested, and was guillotined the same day, on the 28th of July 1794 (or Thermydore, in Revolutionnary calendar). However, the Terror did not stop with Robespierre's death as all of its collaborators were excecuted. The people who plotted the fall of Robespierre were later called the Thermydoriens, and they are mostly the cause for Robespierre's réputation as a bloodthirsty tyrant, eriged in sole dictator during the Terror. Some of these people (such as Joseph Fouché) were mostly motivated by greed and ambition. During the Directory, Fouché concentred himself on position that would see his wealth rise. He had a hand in Napoléon's coup that suppressed the Directory, which allowed him to work in Napoléon's government, he was notabely charged to quell conspiracies against Napoléon, which he was very proefficient at, and charged with conscription. In 1814, feeling the wind turning, he conspired against Napoléon with the foreign coalition. Initially to form a Republic with him as head of the state, then seeing it was impossible, he helped restore the monarchy. Which is kind of funny, knowing he voted in favor of the execution of Louis XIV in 1793. He was then both a regicide, and a member of the ultra royalist party that instaured the Restauration. 1795 - 1799 The Directory, or the Fall of the Roman Republic yet again, starring Napoléon Bonaparte in the role of Julius Caesar. The Directory was formed, and drafted a new Constitution, which goal was to dilute the power at the head of the State. For that purpose, 5 consuls were delected by deputies (and not by the citizens, active or not) which were renewed at the rate of one member per year. Each member would rule for three months, during which he had access to the seals officitating him as head of the State. The result of this form of governement was one of the more corrupted, criminal and incompetent governement France ever had. It would only be surpassed by the Vichy governement in the magnitude of its failing. As influence was diluted, it was not rare to have consuls or deputies exchanging, bribing or selling fervors, which would result as you imagine as a golden opportunity for a mafia to to develop. Which it kind of did. Economic regulation were non existant, which allowed the thriving of war profiteers and unscrupulous speculators. Highway banditry became common, which further hurted the economy. Some firms contracted by the state simply pocketed the money and never fulfilled their part of the barguain, without repercussions. Food shortage were so current that the government tried to give ration of rice instead of bread, but most people didn't have the firewood necessary to cook it.The intransigency of Robespierre and the Pubic Safety Comittee let place to a shitshow of privileges, back room arrangements, where important and key positions in the State could simply be bought. Nevertheless, the Directory defused several conspiracies against him, one led by Joseph Baboeuf. Joseph baboeuf was kind of Karl Marx, before Karl Marx, except he didn't bother doing any of the theorizing. He proned, in his newspaper (the People's Newspaper) that the people should auto gouvern themselves. But recognizing that the people were not yet ready to do so, he offered himself as a benevolent dictator until the mass were educated and an "anarchist" governement was put in place. The other was more sublte. As royalist deputees were not allowed to siege openly, they wore discreet articles of black clothing, to mourn the execution of Louis XIV. In 1797, the elections were a success for the royalists. Those royalists were divided between Constitutionnal Monarchists and Absolutists. They were also pushing for fiscal policies and more tolerant policies concerning the clergy. Many priests refused to give their oath to the State before and were therefore exiled. They profited of the occasion to come back quietly. Nobles exiles were also starting to come back quietly. The absolutists longued to return Louis XVIII, in exile in Germany to his throne, which would happen eventually in 1815 with the help of Joseph Fouché. Judging their numbers of deputy suffisent to give them cause, they tried a military coup which was boodily repressed. During this time the Coalition Wars were not finished. A young Napoleon Bonapart profited of the glory and credi he earned during the first and second coalition war to return to Paris in 1799 to overthrow the Directory and found the Consulate. The Consulate had much to do to mend the damages done by the Directory. For example, to solve the problem of highway robbery, the Consulate had to create special tribunals, where justice was even swifter and more severe than in the Terror tribunals. Reasserting the sovereigntey of the State so it can assume the regalian function is no easy thing, when the sovereignety has been sold to the highest bidder for 5 years straight. There would be seven coalitions wars until 1815, which is the date of Waterloo, the ultimate defeat of the Emperor Napoléon by the seventh Coalition. After which, the Restauration takes place and Louis XVIII takes the throne of France. The coalitions would have finally reached their goal. But the monarchy restaured was less than absolute, and no King after Louis XVI had an easy reign. More often than not, their reign would end under the assault of bricks and blood, for the Revolution was not forgotten. Bonus: The first and second Coalition wars fought by Napoleon Bonaparte, explained with maps: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/1600s-1800s/napoleon-bonaparte/v/napoleon-and-the-wars-of-the-first-and-second-coalitions Hope it pleased you all. I honestly should read to see the mess of grammatical errors I made, but I don't have the faith for it. I hope I have redacted it in a way funnier to read than just a dry accounting.

I could go on another tangent on the French Revolution, but I am not sure it would be enjoyed by people around here. Just tell me if you're interested, I would gladly tell more.

@Maxal,As @Dlyolsaid, you lack an understanding of how revolution happened in our world. Before the French Revolution happened in the full scale, there had been several uprisings in the century before. What were these uprisings asking for? The intervention of the king, so that their local Lords would behave more fairly when the harvest was bad (seems familiar, huh?) Of course, they were quelled violently. The French Revolution was started in Paris in 1789 (well, not really, it started when the king invoked a "general state assembly" in Versailles to reform the country) and it was mostly led by thinkers and members of a class called the small bourgeoisie that rallied the people for change. Change for what? Do they wanted to get rid of the king? No. Mostly they wanted to be more represented in politics, via a popular assembly. After the battle of La Bastille in Paris, they created a constitutional monarchy. The king himself would not lose his head until 1793,when he was convicted as a collaborator with the foreign invaders (England, Prussia and Austria). Without that, I am willing to bet France would have stayed a constitutional monarchy, just like the UK. The French revolution was only possible because there was a middle class between poor and nobles that gave us the tools to build a constitution and to have the ideas necessary to invent a regime different from a simple monarchy. They drew upon the ideas of thinkers going back to ancient Greece (democracy, how to vote, ad which system is best), ancient Rome (for the Res Publica, where the State is only an émanation of the people's will and interests) and Rousseau (Social contract, right to autodetermination). There were other thinkers and sources and different ideas, but I will not list them there. Roshar has nothing like that. No thinker ever questioned the monarchy (and survived to write publicly about it), no ancient idealozed civilization to draw from, no middle class riddled with ideas of liberty and auto determination, nothing. Roshar has been set-in stone for millenia, with frequent setbacks. The French Revolution has zero probability to happen in Roshar during a desolation with the setting Brandon gave us. There is just no time for it, and the birthing circumstances are simply not there. The only thing that MAY ressemble it is the way of kings, written by a king, which state that the king should serve its people. Not the most revolutionary manual. I will bet anything that the riots are either an intervention of Odium (directly or indirectly) or people asking for a change of Queen / governance, because people at the top just throw food to rot while the city starve. No democracy will be born there I am afraid. The social constructs are too set in stone for it to happen.

First, I thought you were just making a crude joke on Eshonai's mother that I didn't get, and then I remembered that she is old and getting senile, which made me sad

You're tinfoil-worthy, I will happily share mine!

Sure I don't see where that shortcut could go wrong

Most of the people here are overlooking a part of the murder. They try to think how the motivation of the killer relates to the kholin / Adolin, when in fact we are not even sure of that. Let's imagine that the killer has an alibi for the first murder (Sadeas), and then decide to profit from it. He can now murder whoever he wishes as long as he takes care of making the crime scene exactly like the first one. It is an opportunity that benefit more people than just secret societies or enemies of the kholin family. Everyone can go on a murder rampage as long as they are careful enough to dress the scene and careful enough to not get caught while doing it. The potential for chaos is enormous and I believe that there won't be only one murderer to catch, but several opportunists.

On a completely unrelated note, I thought directly of this version of the apocryphal poem : Do not stand at my grave and weep, I am not there, I do not sleep. I am in a thousand winds that blow, across Northrend's bright and shining snow. I am the gentle showers of rain, on Westfall's fields of golden grain. I am in the morning hush, of Stranglethorn's jungle, green and lush. I am in the drums loud and grand, the thunderous hooves across Nagrand. I am the stars warmly gleaming, over Darnassus softly dreaming. I am in the birds that sing, I am in each lovely thing. Do not stand at my grave and cry, I am not there. I do not die. You can get back to theorizing, I don't think I will be able to contribute to this thread, although my instinct tell me that jasnah is a red herring and that finding the author will be far more rewarding than saying "ah. I knew it was jasnah".

I could not help but notice that Brightlord Hatham's colors are red and gold, exactly like Odium. /tinfoil