What the hell is Rendon Howe's problem? Everything he touches falls to shit, and he is just a miserable person. Even his dying words are just greedy whining.
You only get an explanation if you play as a Cousland who intimidates Rendon into revealing his true feelings. He believed that the Couslands and their successes have held him back for years. Perhaps Rendon believed he sacrificed more than Bryce ever did and yet Bryce reaped the major rewards, while Rendon was stuck as Bryce's underling.
*Sigh* Well, let's do it. First, the Couslands never lost control of Highever. Aldous explains in the human noble origin that the Couslands have *held* the teyrnir of Highever since before King Calenhad united Ferelden. Aldous: At any rate, your family has held the teyrnir of Highever since before King Calenhad united Ferelden. And while Orlais did occupy certain parts of Highever teyrnir, they found it difficult to hold those lands. Several battles were fought *near* Highever, and it was between the Couslands and Orlesians, not the Howes (as you stated). That means the castle itself was not taken by Orlais. World of Thedas is wrong. HN: When did Orlais occupy Highever? Aldous: During your grandfather's rule. Of course, Orlais found it difficult to hold these lands. During the rebellion against Orlais, several battles were fought near Highever. The port village of Harper's Ford was the teyrnir's center. Its arl was Tarleton Howe. Though nearly ninety, he was still as sharp and bitter as cheap ale. Your grandfather openly supported the rebellion, but Howe sided with Orlais. Your family was forced to seize Harper's Ford before it was all over. HN: Unfortunate, but we couldn't lose Harper's Ford. (Alt) HN:We fought the Howes? Aldous: Your grandfather couldn't afford to lose Harper's Ford. In keeping the town, your family drove Orlais from its lands. And there you have it. World of Thedas is wrong. Additionally, the main reason Orlais occupied Highever teyrnir at all is because Tarleton Howe betrayed his oaths to Highever and Ferelden. Vigil's Keep was the first fort taken, remember. Harper's Ford was the teyrnir's center, and it had to be defended. The Couslands defended Harper's Ford and did not lose it to Orlais. They did this from Highever castle, not from South Reach. Bryce's father defended Highever, not any Bann Angus Eremon. Highever castle wasn't lost, and the Couslands held the teyrnir center, thus driving Orlais from their lands. World of Thedas is wrong. On top of all this, the human noble origin also features conversation with Dairren in which he asks who owned the study's collection, with the answer being the human noble's grandfather. This means William lived in Highever castle (as an adult, because these aren't children's books after all) and owned the study and the books within. Furthermore, Dairren can remark that William was something of a scholar with an interest in magical studies. The only way William could have been known as a scholar with an interest in magic is if he lived in Highever castle for a period of years after the occupation to build up that reputation. Otherwise he would have only been known as a teyrn, general, and warrior. World of Thedas is wrong. And by the way, the fact William was the one to defend the lands also proves he wasn't ill. On a separate issue, I question the existence of this Bann Angus Eremon. Is he in Stolen Throne? Because if he's just a WoT character then he's probably not real. I write this because we have some backstory on Alfstanna and Irminric. It's stated that Irminric was chosen to inherit the Waking Sea bannorn, but he believed Alfstanna was a better choice and left it to her. So... if this Angus guy died then... how would this succession of the bannorn play out exactly? Seems like both of them would be too young at the time, if born at all. And the way the backstory is worded, I get the impression that this change in power happened during peacetime. Next, this notion of Rendon Howe returning to his arling contradicts the Vigil's codex. It states that the Vigil, which is the arling of Amaranthine remember, was the last fort to be freed from Orlesian occupation (not counting Fort Drakon, presumably). So if Howe returned to Amaranthine before the end of the war... then he would have gone to a fort full of Orlesians. World of Thedas is wrong. Okay, now back to the Couslands. As stated in The Guerrins video's comments, the rebellion ended with Meghren's death. Florian stated that he would not devote any more resources to fighting Ferelden. There were no Orlesian ships sent to retake Denerim. So Bryce and Eleanor could not have possibly met each other in this way. World of Thedas is wrong. Now, the idea that Eleanor was capable of captaining a ship at fifteen, let alone engaging in high-seas combat and actually WINNING against Orlesian warships and being called a monster by Orlesians, this is beyond stupid, and just smacks of Mary Sue fanfiction. There is no way any of this happened. Next, WoT claims she and Bryce sank a dozen Orlesian warships in the battle of Denerim harbor. Um... how did Orlais make it that far? WoT also states (and I know you didn't mention this in the video, I'm just pointing out another error with WoT) that land forces were stationed along the Storm Coast and Waking Sea bannorn, which are far away from Denerim harbor. So again, how did Orlais make it as far as the harbor? It's a moot question, of course. Florian had no interest in retaking Ferelden, especially when he had no one to rule it for him. Why would anyone be shocked to see a Cousland enter the castle in seventy years? Who would even be old enough to remember a Cousland? Again, moot question since the Couslands never left Highever. Just pointing out another inconsistency in WoT. The story of Bryce and Eleanor being the only ones to go to Howe's wedding seems made-up. And banns swearing fealty to Bryce is actually how it is supposed to be. An arl is just a bann who is selected by the teyrn/teyrna as a vassal to manage sections of the teyrnir. Another problem is in regards to when Bryce and Eleanor married. This sets an arbitrary and cumbersome age ceiling on the human noble. Fergus would be roughly 28 at most, and the human noble would be 27 at most. This is dumb. Anora was 30, by comparison. Nathaniel was 29 or 28. Which reminds me, Nathaniel was born in 9:1 as he was 30 in 9:31, but this would be before Rendon married. But the main point is, why can't the human noble (possible husband to Anora) be the same age as Anora, or older? (BTW, WoT screws up Anora's age as well, making her younger than Cailan.) The Mather/Haelia thing could be that they were married and shared title and rule similar to the Couslands in DA:O. Mather organized the curfew and city patrols while Haelia went out into the wild to kill the werewolves. There are more errors in WoT regarding the Couslands, but your video doesn't mention those errors, so I won't bother to refute WoT here. But this is why the acronym for World of Thedas being "WoT" is so fitting, because you read it and you're like... "wot?".
Well, I think you make some good points. Most specifically, I flat out forgot some of the HN Origin stuff that definitely implies the Couslands fought the Orlesians from Highever. Although that does fly in the face of material from The Stolen Throne where it is indicated that until late in the rebellion any noble who openly defied Orlesian rule had to abandon their holdings to avoid reprisal. It just doesn’t seem likely to me that the Couslands alone among Fereldens held off overwhelming Orlesian forces for almost a century. It’s certainly possible that they did up to a point, explaining some of the material you mention, but the entire occupation seems unlikely. The rest... Bann Angus’ children are never mentioned, so if it fits better in your mind for him to be their grandfather rather than father, there’s no reason he can’t be. I will acknowledge the Vigil codex entry contradiction. It didn’t make it into my list of contradictions, but I have brought it up on Reddit and the BSN forums, where I post links to my videos. I’m not going to rehash the issue of when the last battles of the rebellion were fought nor am I going to discuss opinions about the quality of the storytelling in TWoT. While it is true that the codex says the arls don’t hold the loyalty of the banns, the demonstrated reality in game does not bear this out. The Warden Commander for example had the Bann of Amaranthine sweat fealty directly to them despite being an Arl rather than to Teyrn Fergus Cousland. While Teyrn is a more prestigious rank, in Ferelden that does not mean every Arl or Bann is sworn to a Teyrn. The whole schtick of the central Bannorn is that they all swear loyalty directly to the crown rather than to an Arl or Teyrn. The stuff about age restrictions comes across more as stuff you don’t like rather than stuff TWoT got wrong.
Thanks. Sorry, I didn't check the BSN before making my above post. Define holdings though. "A section of land leased or otherwise tenanted, especially for agricultural purposes." "Legally owned property, especially stocks, bonds, or real estate." Aldous did say Orlais held some lands. That means the Couslands must have logically been forced to abandon some of their holdings to avoid reprisal. This could be a case of William pulling soldiers back to Highever Castle to strengthen the overall fighting force. Some lands were indeed abandoned for strategic reasons, but that doesn't mean the castle was abandoned. If however the novel states that main castles/capitols were abandoned, then I'd say we would have to compare the two sources. I'm not sure on the chronology of when Stolen Throne was written in relation to DA:O. I read somewhere that Stolen Throne was released two weeks before DA:O, but did Gaider write it well in advance of DA:O's plot creation, or did he collaborate with DA:O writers? Did they work off of his drafts or was all of it a work in progress? I ask because it's a question of which source takes precedence, the novel or the game? I tend to side with the game. Not because it's more recent (new doesn't automatically mean correct, I mean just look at WoT), but rather because the game was more popular and more visible to the audience. If the game is just blatantly wrong about something, then yeah I'll chalk it up as a writing error. But if for example the novel is vague about something (makes a general statement about rulers as a group abandoning all their castles) and the game is detailed about it (specifically states the Couslands didn't abandon Highever, and in fact held it), even if slightly contradicting, I'll go with the more detailed source. Well, I could easily counter saying the Couslands have mad skillz. A more serious answer though, it all depends on the strength of their adversary. If Orlais was busy fighting little battles all across Ferelden, then their forces would be stretched thinner than if, say for example, Orlais were invading only Highever. Isn't it less likely that Moria managed to evade Orlesian forces (and Fereldan turncoats) for decades and keep the rebellion effort alive? But she's said to have done it nonetheless (until Maric was old enough at least). Also consider the possibility that the Couslands didn't bother gaining any land during this time, but rather simply defended Highever's territory and built up their own forces. Highever is a coastal city as well, meaning they had access to the sea, and more to the point, the Free Marches. That means food, supplies, and weapons. "I’m not going to rehash the issue of when the last battles of the rebellion were fought nor am I going to discuss opinions about the quality of the storytelling in TWoT." Heh heh heh. "TWoT". That's an even better acronym for it. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. It does kind of seem like my post was taking issue with the banns swearing fealty to an arl at all, but that wasn't my intent. Of course DA:A shows banns swearing fealty to their arl. That's fine. What I meant was that the arl shouldn't be getting all bent out of shape just because the banns swear oaths to the teyrn first, because after all, the arl is just a bann who serves the teyrn as a vassal. WoT seems to be saying the fact the banns were swearing oaths to their teyrn BEFORE their arl was a problem. I don't think that's a problem at all. In fact, DA:A takes place 5 or 6 months after the end of DA:O. I'm sure all those banns swore fealty to Fergus before DA:A began. So I see no problem with banns swearing oaths to their teyrn first and then their arl second. WoT seems to state that this is a problem. Yeah but the lore also states that the King is a "teyrn" of sorts over the whole country. So banns and arls swearing to the king is the same function as swearing to a teyrn. It's stuff I don't like, sure, but it's also stuff that restricts custom character creation and the game as a whole. Who would like that kind of stuff? Say, remember when WoT tried stating that Bhelen was the middle sibling, thus making the dwarf noble the youngest sibling? That was awesome. :)
Well, in The Stolen Throne by holdings I mean the nobles had to literally abandon their homes. Like Arl Rendorn had to abandon Redcliffe. As to how the rebels survived, they did so by staying mobile and benefiting from the charity of sympathetic nobles that paid lip service to Orlais. They basically didn’t have much of army until a decade more or less before 8:96 (exact timeline unclear) when Moira started building it up. Before that it was basically King Brandel and his daughter on the run with a relatively small number of retainers. They were fugitives more than a rebellion for most of the occupation. There’s a difference between that and holding a castle. I don’t know the timeline on when The Stolen Throne was written, though it was likely after a lot of the major plotting was done for the game which, as lead writer for the franchise, Gaider would have been deeply involved in. The Couslands are not mentioned at all in the book. I just don’t agree with your standard of the games being the more “visible” source and therefore taking priority. So I don’t think we’re going to hit a lot of agreement there. In my view, the source books are officially published content created by the same creatives that created the games. They aren’t without problems of course, but neither are the games. I take each contradiction on a case by case basis. As to the fealty issue, it isn’t actually clear that the Teyrn of Highever controls the Arling of Amaranthine, or whether the Arl swears loyalty directly to the crown (I realize the king is effectively a Teyrn, but for this discussion that doesn’t really matter). Even if it did, the point of TWoT was that these Banns, who traditionally swore themselves to the Arl of Amaranthine, snubbed Rendon by trying to swear their loyalty (and incomes presumably) to Bryce instead. As to the age thing, I think it’s pretty clear in the writing of the Origins that the characters are supposed to be young, early-mid twenties-ish. I mean I can make a character look older than Bryce but he’s still going to call me “Pup”. Also, Anora is at most 28, not 30. Loghain didn’t meet her mother until he went to Gwaren after the war ended . I think you’re thinking of the Return to Ostagar letter that says she’s “approaching 30”. I will however acknowledge that one of the flaws of TWoT is it’s tendency to be cavalier with dates. If the timeline there is to be believed, my Mahariel should be 48 at the start of DAO.
Maybe if you could quote the passage, it would help. Not sure how it's worded, but PERHAPS the Couslands left the castle at some point to go and fight the Orlesians, or maybe to defend the city or a nearby town. But I don't see a scenario in which the Orlesians actually take the castle. I agree there's a difference. A big difference. Holding a castle is way easier than being on the lam. A castle has the benefit of fortifications and soldiers. Walls work, and those in a castle can move outside of it to attack and then fall back inside whenever they want. I'd rather be in a castle than dodging troops, traitors, bounty hunters, bandits, and the occasional bear, wondering where my next meal will come from. Oof. Not mentioned at all? Well, I'd say that the Couslands weren't really considered or accounted for then. Perhaps the "all nobles left their homes" claim doesn't apply to them if they weren't even mentioned once in the whole novel. On a side note, if BioWare were to do a tactics game, then maybe it would be good to cover the war between Ferelden and Orlais and have a scenario play out in which the rebellion is covered in extreme detail and presented as canon. We would get to command Highever forces, Redcliffe forces, Maric's and Loghain's forces, and even Orlesian forces for certain parts of it. Well, I wrote that I *tend* to side with the games. But was the novel made by the same creative that made the game? I thought Stolen Throne was made only by Gaider, while DA:O had him and other writers. Those additional writers make the difference. But think about the visibility of the games. More people learned the lore from the games than the novel. How many people who read the novel have also played the game? Now, how many who played the game went out and bought the novel? I think it's safe to assume more people only played the game than bought the novel. So for most, the game is the ONLY source of information. Also, when you are about to make a lore video, is your first instinct to blow the dust off Stolen Throne, crack it open and flip through it for lore info, or do you just go to the wikia and search through the online documentation of codices from the games? Or do you fire up the games and look through the codices yourself, or load the save in which your PC interacts with a character related to the subject because you need a quote from that character? I agree with taking any contradiction on a case by case basis, which is why I write that I *tend* to side with the games. If the game is outright wrong or contradicts itself, then written material is considered. And in cases where written material is consistent with game info, then of course written info is accepted as well. I see what you're getting at with the fealty thing, I just think the way the banns were acting in the story is actually how it is supposed to work. I mean, why would any of those banns swear fealty to an arl when there is no teyrn yet? Like, who is the arl sworn to? Also, banns are normally sworn to a teyrn. That's the way it goes. Arls manage/administrate designated lands on behalf of the teyrn, and to that extent banns swear fealty to that arl as well, but... and here's the important part... only because that arl is a vassal of the teyrn. So based on everything I've read in the relevant codices, banns are supposed to swear to the teyrn. Likewise, any arls (in that region) are supposed to swear to the teyrn as well. So I think the banns in that story were doing it the right way. That seems like the proper sequence of events. Swear to the teyrn first (with the arl also swearing to the teyrn), then to the arl second after the teyrn designates that arl. And the more I think about it, the banns really were right to wait for Bryce (in this story), because how did they know he would want Rendon Howe as his arl? Maybe Bryce would want someone else as arl. Someone not related to the arl who betrayed Ferelden. This is all beside the point of course. William didn't die, so he was always the teyrn. World of Thedas is wrong. The Arl of Amaranthine swears to the Teyrn/Teyrna of Highever. That's stated in the human noble origin. The human noble can say that the Howes are the family's vassals, to which Aldous will remark something along the lines of not trusting in titles and oaths to command loyalty. I understand that the human noble does have a canon age ceiling due to Fergus, but I don't think the origin ever implies that the human noble is in his or her 20's, or any particular age range. Gilmore remarks about you being the better of men twice your age, but in Dragon Age you have men fighting well into their 60's, plus Gilmore's statement is more of a generalized estimation. Mallol says she's known you since you were a babe, but she could have been a kid herself during that time. Nan's old as dirt, so her reading you stories as a kid doesn't indicate your age. Fergus looks to be about 35 to me. So the human noble could be about 18 to 34 depending on player agency. For WoT to set a definite year for Bryce and Eleanor to get married restricts the player in crafting a custom character, and it isn't necessary. As for Anora, that is indeed the letter I'm thinking of, and I stand by that letter. As for Loghain first meeting Anora's mother, Celia according to Loghain himself in the game, "Maeve" according to the perpetually wrong World of Thedas, WoT also states that Loghain married her after returning to Gwaren to become its teyrn. However, according to the codex entry for Gwaren in DA:O, Loghain did not become Teyrn of Gwaren until 9:11. Which means even if Loghain married Celia at the start of 9:11, got down to business immediately thus ensuring Anora was born in 9:11, that would still only make Anora 19 in 9:30 (actually 18 going on 19), and it would also make her younger than Cailan who was born in 9:5, even though Anora herself states she was a child when Cailan was still in swaddling clothes. [Deep breath] Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand it would also mean she married 20-year-old Cailan when she was just 13 years old. World of Thedas is wrong. So wrong. So very VERY wrong. [EDIT: The above is a joke by the way. I know WoT didn't intend to make Anora a child bride. They simply didn't do their homework on Gwaren and assumed Loghain became its teyrn some time around 9:3 or so.] Yeah, WoT is cavalier with dates, and with ages, with names, characters, health/living status of characters, events, titles, races, artwork, just... all categories of information in every general sense. I'm not familiar with the Mahariel backstory, but I read somewhere that the age of one of those characters gets messed up. I thought it was the city elf though. Maybe both?
BelieveIt1051 As an fan of Dragon Age who has played Origins many times as a Female Cousland, I agree with everything you said. I never relied on WoT and only rely on codex entries from the games as I’ve never read the novels. Although I only trust the codex entries as long as the writers don’t contradict themselves from game to game. I’d love to get the chance to read the novels one day. I’ve heard a lot about The Stolen Throne from other UA-cam videos. And are you unfamiliar with the Mahariel back story as you don’t often play as a Dalish Elf? Just curious :)
"the Cousland's send their regards" Me while killing Howe
Wow. This was fascinating. And somewhat exhausting. 😂 Now I know why I usually play as an elf.
Of course... now we're re-writing all of THAT history.
Howe did deserve more than he got.
What the hell is Rendon Howe's problem? Everything he touches falls to shit, and he is just a miserable person. Even his dying words are just greedy whining.
I've been wondering that for years myself. there is like no real motivation behind his actions
You only get an explanation if you play as a Cousland who intimidates Rendon into revealing his true feelings. He believed that the Couslands and their successes have held him back for years. Perhaps Rendon believed he sacrificed more than Bryce ever did and yet Bryce reaped the major rewards, while Rendon was stuck as Bryce's underling.
At best the human noble warden is in his late teens-early 20's Fergus is no older than 30
Im also a fan of the who’s the what’s and the whys
Just found this and really like it 👍
*Sigh* Well, let's do it.
First, the Couslands never lost control of Highever. Aldous explains in the human noble origin that the Couslands have *held* the teyrnir of Highever since before King Calenhad united Ferelden.
Aldous: At any rate, your family has held the teyrnir of Highever since before King Calenhad united Ferelden.
And while Orlais did occupy certain parts of Highever teyrnir, they found it difficult to hold those lands. Several battles were fought *near* Highever, and it was between the Couslands and Orlesians, not the Howes (as you stated). That means the castle itself was not taken by Orlais. World of Thedas is wrong.
HN: When did Orlais occupy Highever?
Aldous: During your grandfather's rule. Of course, Orlais found it difficult to hold these lands. During the rebellion against Orlais, several battles were fought near Highever. The port village of Harper's Ford was the teyrnir's center. Its arl was Tarleton Howe. Though nearly ninety, he was still as sharp and bitter as cheap ale. Your grandfather openly supported the rebellion, but Howe sided with Orlais. Your family was forced to seize Harper's Ford before it was all over.
HN: Unfortunate, but we couldn't lose Harper's Ford.
(Alt) HN:We fought the Howes?
Aldous: Your grandfather couldn't afford to lose Harper's Ford. In keeping the town, your family drove Orlais from its lands.
And there you have it. World of Thedas is wrong.
Additionally, the main reason Orlais occupied Highever teyrnir at all is because Tarleton Howe betrayed his oaths to Highever and Ferelden. Vigil's Keep was the first fort taken, remember. Harper's Ford was the teyrnir's center, and it had to be defended. The Couslands defended Harper's Ford and did not lose it to Orlais. They did this from Highever castle, not from South Reach. Bryce's father defended Highever, not any Bann Angus Eremon. Highever castle wasn't lost, and the Couslands held the teyrnir center, thus driving Orlais from their lands. World of Thedas is wrong.
On top of all this, the human noble origin also features conversation with Dairren in which he asks who owned the study's collection, with the answer being the human noble's grandfather. This means William lived in Highever castle (as an adult, because these aren't children's books after all) and owned the study and the books within. Furthermore, Dairren can remark that William was something of a scholar with an interest in magical studies. The only way William could have been known as a scholar with an interest in magic is if he lived in Highever castle for a period of years after the occupation to build up that reputation. Otherwise he would have only been known as a teyrn, general, and warrior. World of Thedas is wrong.
And by the way, the fact William was the one to defend the lands also proves he wasn't ill.
On a separate issue, I question the existence of this Bann Angus Eremon. Is he in Stolen Throne? Because if he's just a WoT character then he's probably not real. I write this because we have some backstory on Alfstanna and Irminric. It's stated that Irminric was chosen to inherit the Waking Sea bannorn, but he believed Alfstanna was a better choice and left it to her. So... if this Angus guy died then... how would this succession of the bannorn play out exactly? Seems like both of them would be too young at the time, if born at all. And the way the backstory is worded, I get the impression that this change in power happened during peacetime.
Next, this notion of Rendon Howe returning to his arling contradicts the Vigil's codex. It states that the Vigil, which is the arling of Amaranthine remember, was the last fort to be freed from Orlesian occupation (not counting Fort Drakon, presumably). So if Howe returned to Amaranthine before the end of the war... then he would have gone to a fort full of Orlesians. World of Thedas is wrong.
Okay, now back to the Couslands. As stated in The Guerrins video's comments, the rebellion ended with Meghren's death. Florian stated that he would not devote any more resources to fighting Ferelden. There were no Orlesian ships sent to retake Denerim. So Bryce and Eleanor could not have possibly met each other in this way. World of Thedas is wrong.
Now, the idea that Eleanor was capable of captaining a ship at fifteen, let alone engaging in high-seas combat and actually WINNING against Orlesian warships and being called a monster by Orlesians, this is beyond stupid, and just smacks of Mary Sue fanfiction. There is no way any of this happened.
Next, WoT claims she and Bryce sank a dozen Orlesian warships in the battle of Denerim harbor. Um... how did Orlais make it that far? WoT also states (and I know you didn't mention this in the video, I'm just pointing out another error with WoT) that land forces were stationed along the Storm Coast and Waking Sea bannorn, which are far away from Denerim harbor. So again, how did Orlais make it as far as the harbor? It's a moot question, of course. Florian had no interest in retaking Ferelden, especially when he had no one to rule it for him.
Why would anyone be shocked to see a Cousland enter the castle in seventy years? Who would even be old enough to remember a Cousland? Again, moot question since the Couslands never left Highever. Just pointing out another inconsistency in WoT.
The story of Bryce and Eleanor being the only ones to go to Howe's wedding seems made-up. And banns swearing fealty to Bryce is actually how it is supposed to be. An arl is just a bann who is selected by the teyrn/teyrna as a vassal to manage sections of the teyrnir.
Another problem is in regards to when Bryce and Eleanor married. This sets an arbitrary and cumbersome age ceiling on the human noble. Fergus would be roughly 28 at most, and the human noble would be 27 at most. This is dumb. Anora was 30, by comparison. Nathaniel was 29 or 28. Which reminds me, Nathaniel was born in 9:1 as he was 30 in 9:31, but this would be before Rendon married. But the main point is, why can't the human noble (possible husband to Anora) be the same age as Anora, or older? (BTW, WoT screws up Anora's age as well, making her younger than Cailan.)
The Mather/Haelia thing could be that they were married and shared title and rule similar to the Couslands in DA:O. Mather organized the curfew and city patrols while Haelia went out into the wild to kill the werewolves.
There are more errors in WoT regarding the Couslands, but your video doesn't mention those errors, so I won't bother to refute WoT here. But this is why the acronym for World of Thedas being "WoT" is so fitting, because you read it and you're like... "wot?".
Well, I think you make some good points. Most specifically, I flat out forgot some of the HN Origin stuff that definitely implies the Couslands fought the Orlesians from Highever. Although that does fly in the face of material from The Stolen Throne where it is indicated that until late in the rebellion any noble who openly defied Orlesian rule had to abandon their holdings to avoid reprisal. It just doesn’t seem likely to me that the Couslands alone among Fereldens held off overwhelming Orlesian forces for almost a century. It’s certainly possible that they did up to a point, explaining some of the material you mention, but the entire occupation seems unlikely.
The rest...
Bann Angus’ children are never mentioned, so if it fits better in your mind for him to be their grandfather rather than father, there’s no reason he can’t be.
I will acknowledge the Vigil codex entry contradiction. It didn’t make it into my list of contradictions, but I have brought it up on Reddit and the BSN forums, where I post links to my videos.
I’m not going to rehash the issue of when the last battles of the rebellion were fought nor am I going to discuss opinions about the quality of the storytelling in TWoT.
While it is true that the codex says the arls don’t hold the loyalty of the banns, the demonstrated reality in game does not bear this out. The Warden Commander for example had the Bann of Amaranthine sweat fealty directly to them despite being an Arl rather than to Teyrn Fergus Cousland. While Teyrn is a more prestigious rank, in Ferelden that does not mean every Arl or Bann is sworn to a Teyrn. The whole schtick of the central Bannorn is that they all swear loyalty directly to the crown rather than to an Arl or Teyrn.
The stuff about age restrictions comes across more as stuff you don’t like rather than stuff TWoT got wrong.
Thanks. Sorry, I didn't check the BSN before making my above post.
Define holdings though. "A section of land leased or otherwise tenanted, especially for agricultural purposes." "Legally owned property, especially stocks, bonds, or real estate."
Aldous did say Orlais held some lands. That means the Couslands must have logically been forced to abandon some of their holdings to avoid reprisal. This could be a case of William pulling soldiers back to Highever Castle to strengthen the overall fighting force. Some lands were indeed abandoned for strategic reasons, but that doesn't mean the castle was abandoned.
If however the novel states that main castles/capitols were abandoned, then I'd say we would have to compare the two sources. I'm not sure on the chronology of when Stolen Throne was written in relation to DA:O. I read somewhere that Stolen Throne was released two weeks before DA:O, but did Gaider write it well in advance of DA:O's plot creation, or did he collaborate with DA:O writers? Did they work off of his drafts or was all of it a work in progress? I ask because it's a question of which source takes precedence, the novel or the game? I tend to side with the game. Not because it's more recent (new doesn't automatically mean correct, I mean just look at WoT), but rather because the game was more popular and more visible to the audience. If the game is just blatantly wrong about something, then yeah I'll chalk it up as a writing error. But if for example the novel is vague about something (makes a general statement about rulers as a group abandoning all their castles) and the game is detailed about it (specifically states the Couslands didn't abandon Highever, and in fact held it), even if slightly contradicting, I'll go with the more detailed source.
Well, I could easily counter saying the Couslands have mad skillz. A more serious answer though, it all depends on the strength of their adversary. If Orlais was busy fighting little battles all across Ferelden, then their forces would be stretched thinner than if, say for example, Orlais were invading only Highever. Isn't it less likely that Moria managed to evade Orlesian forces (and Fereldan turncoats) for decades and keep the rebellion effort alive? But she's said to have done it nonetheless (until Maric was old enough at least). Also consider the possibility that the Couslands didn't bother gaining any land during this time, but rather simply defended Highever's territory and built up their own forces. Highever is a coastal city as well, meaning they had access to the sea, and more to the point, the Free Marches. That means food, supplies, and weapons.
"I’m not going to rehash the issue of when the last battles of the rebellion were fought nor am I going to discuss opinions about the quality of the storytelling in TWoT."
Heh heh heh. "TWoT". That's an even better acronym for it.
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. It does kind of seem like my post was taking issue with the banns swearing fealty to an arl at all, but that wasn't my intent. Of course DA:A shows banns swearing fealty to their arl. That's fine. What I meant was that the arl shouldn't be getting all bent out of shape just because the banns swear oaths to the teyrn first, because after all, the arl is just a bann who serves the teyrn as a vassal. WoT seems to be saying the fact the banns were swearing oaths to their teyrn BEFORE their arl was a problem. I don't think that's a problem at all. In fact, DA:A takes place 5 or 6 months after the end of DA:O. I'm sure all those banns swore fealty to Fergus before DA:A began. So I see no problem with banns swearing oaths to their teyrn first and then their arl second. WoT seems to state that this is a problem.
Yeah but the lore also states that the King is a "teyrn" of sorts over the whole country. So banns and arls swearing to the king is the same function as swearing to a teyrn.
It's stuff I don't like, sure, but it's also stuff that restricts custom character creation and the game as a whole. Who would like that kind of stuff? Say, remember when WoT tried stating that Bhelen was the middle sibling, thus making the dwarf noble the youngest sibling? That was awesome. :)
Well, in The Stolen Throne by holdings I mean the nobles had to literally abandon their homes. Like Arl Rendorn had to abandon Redcliffe. As to how the rebels survived, they did so by staying mobile and benefiting from the charity of sympathetic nobles that paid lip service to Orlais. They basically didn’t have much of army until a decade more or less before 8:96 (exact timeline unclear) when Moira started building it up. Before that it was basically King Brandel and his daughter on the run with a relatively small number of retainers. They were fugitives more than a rebellion for most of the occupation. There’s a difference between that and holding a castle. I don’t know the timeline on when The Stolen Throne was written, though it was likely after a lot of the major plotting was done for the game which, as lead writer for the franchise, Gaider would have been deeply involved in. The Couslands are not mentioned at all in the book.
I just don’t agree with your standard of the games being the more “visible” source and therefore taking priority. So I don’t think we’re going to hit a lot of agreement there. In my view, the source books are officially published content created by the same creatives that created the games. They aren’t without problems of course, but neither are the games. I take each contradiction on a case by case basis.
As to the fealty issue, it isn’t actually clear that the Teyrn of Highever controls the Arling of Amaranthine, or whether the Arl swears loyalty directly to the crown (I realize the king is effectively a Teyrn, but for this discussion that doesn’t really matter). Even if it did, the point of TWoT was that these Banns, who traditionally swore themselves to the Arl of Amaranthine, snubbed Rendon by trying to swear their loyalty (and incomes presumably) to Bryce instead.
As to the age thing, I think it’s pretty clear in the writing of the Origins that the characters are supposed to be young, early-mid twenties-ish. I mean I can make a character look older than Bryce but he’s still going to call me “Pup”. Also, Anora is at most 28, not 30. Loghain didn’t meet her mother until he went to Gwaren after the war ended . I think you’re thinking of the Return to Ostagar letter that says she’s “approaching 30”. I will however acknowledge that one of the flaws of TWoT is it’s tendency to be cavalier with dates. If the timeline there is to be believed, my Mahariel should be 48 at the start of DAO.
Maybe if you could quote the passage, it would help. Not sure how it's worded, but PERHAPS the Couslands left the castle at some point to go and fight the Orlesians, or maybe to defend the city or a nearby town. But I don't see a scenario in which the Orlesians actually take the castle.
I agree there's a difference. A big difference. Holding a castle is way easier than being on the lam. A castle has the benefit of fortifications and soldiers. Walls work, and those in a castle can move outside of it to attack and then fall back inside whenever they want. I'd rather be in a castle than dodging troops, traitors, bounty hunters, bandits, and the occasional bear, wondering where my next meal will come from.
Oof. Not mentioned at all? Well, I'd say that the Couslands weren't really considered or accounted for then. Perhaps the "all nobles left their homes" claim doesn't apply to them if they weren't even mentioned once in the whole novel.
On a side note, if BioWare were to do a tactics game, then maybe it would be good to cover the war between Ferelden and Orlais and have a scenario play out in which the rebellion is covered in extreme detail and presented as canon. We would get to command Highever forces, Redcliffe forces, Maric's and Loghain's forces, and even Orlesian forces for certain parts of it.
Well, I wrote that I *tend* to side with the games. But was the novel made by the same creative that made the game? I thought Stolen Throne was made only by Gaider, while DA:O had him and other writers. Those additional writers make the difference.
But think about the visibility of the games. More people learned the lore from the games than the novel. How many people who read the novel have also played the game? Now, how many who played the game went out and bought the novel? I think it's safe to assume more people only played the game than bought the novel. So for most, the game is the ONLY source of information.
Also, when you are about to make a lore video, is your first instinct to blow the dust off Stolen Throne, crack it open and flip through it for lore info, or do you just go to the wikia and search through the online documentation of codices from the games? Or do you fire up the games and look through the codices yourself, or load the save in which your PC interacts with a character related to the subject because you need a quote from that character?
I agree with taking any contradiction on a case by case basis, which is why I write that I *tend* to side with the games. If the game is outright wrong or contradicts itself, then written material is considered. And in cases where written material is consistent with game info, then of course written info is accepted as well.
I see what you're getting at with the fealty thing, I just think the way the banns were acting in the story is actually how it is supposed to work. I mean, why would any of those banns swear fealty to an arl when there is no teyrn yet? Like, who is the arl sworn to? Also, banns are normally sworn to a teyrn. That's the way it goes. Arls manage/administrate designated lands on behalf of the teyrn, and to that extent banns swear fealty to that arl as well, but... and here's the important part... only because that arl is a vassal of the teyrn. So based on everything I've read in the relevant codices, banns are supposed to swear to the teyrn. Likewise, any arls (in that region) are supposed to swear to the teyrn as well. So I think the banns in that story were doing it the right way. That seems like the proper sequence of events. Swear to the teyrn first (with the arl also swearing to the teyrn), then to the arl second after the teyrn designates that arl. And the more I think about it, the banns really were right to wait for Bryce (in this story), because how did they know he would want Rendon Howe as his arl? Maybe Bryce would want someone else as arl. Someone not related to the arl who betrayed Ferelden.
This is all beside the point of course. William didn't die, so he was always the teyrn. World of Thedas is wrong.
The Arl of Amaranthine swears to the Teyrn/Teyrna of Highever. That's stated in the human noble origin. The human noble can say that the Howes are the family's vassals, to which Aldous will remark something along the lines of not trusting in titles and oaths to command loyalty.
I understand that the human noble does have a canon age ceiling due to Fergus, but I don't think the origin ever implies that the human noble is in his or her 20's, or any particular age range. Gilmore remarks about you being the better of men twice your age, but in Dragon Age you have men fighting well into their 60's, plus Gilmore's statement is more of a generalized estimation. Mallol says she's known you since you were a babe, but she could have been a kid herself during that time. Nan's old as dirt, so her reading you stories as a kid doesn't indicate your age.
Fergus looks to be about 35 to me. So the human noble could be about 18 to 34 depending on player agency. For WoT to set a definite year for Bryce and Eleanor to get married restricts the player in crafting a custom character, and it isn't necessary.
As for Anora, that is indeed the letter I'm thinking of, and I stand by that letter. As for Loghain first meeting Anora's mother, Celia according to Loghain himself in the game, "Maeve" according to the perpetually wrong World of Thedas, WoT also states that Loghain married her after returning to Gwaren to become its teyrn. However, according to the codex entry for Gwaren in DA:O, Loghain did not become Teyrn of Gwaren until 9:11. Which means even if Loghain married Celia at the start of 9:11, got down to business immediately thus ensuring Anora was born in 9:11, that would still only make Anora 19 in 9:30 (actually 18 going on 19), and it would also make her younger than Cailan who was born in 9:5, even though Anora herself states she was a child when Cailan was still in swaddling clothes. [Deep breath] Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand it would also mean she married 20-year-old Cailan when she was just 13 years old. World of Thedas is wrong. So wrong. So very VERY wrong.
[EDIT: The above is a joke by the way. I know WoT didn't intend to make Anora a child bride. They simply didn't do their homework on Gwaren and assumed Loghain became its teyrn some time around 9:3 or so.]
Yeah, WoT is cavalier with dates, and with ages, with names, characters, health/living status of characters, events, titles, races, artwork, just... all categories of information in every general sense.
I'm not familiar with the Mahariel backstory, but I read somewhere that the age of one of those characters gets messed up. I thought it was the city elf though. Maybe both?
BelieveIt1051 As an fan of Dragon Age who has played Origins many times as a Female Cousland, I agree with everything you said. I never relied on WoT and only rely on codex entries from the games as I’ve never read the novels. Although I only trust the codex entries as long as the writers don’t contradict themselves from game to game. I’d love to get the chance to read the novels one day. I’ve heard a lot about The Stolen Throne from other UA-cam videos. And are you unfamiliar with the Mahariel back story as you don’t often play as a Dalish Elf? Just curious :)