The two stances don't contradict each other, D'Hara did reconquer because we made no effort to defend them. Unless D'Hara has an army larger and stronger than Aurvandil, which they don't, and capable of beating Aurvandil behind a level 5 fortress, or a level 2 motte and bailey, which they can't, then it substantiates the claim that they would never have taken the lands if we made an effort to defend them, which is perfectly true. The lands were a throwaway to buy us time and weren't worth the renewed war to defend.
Of course they're not contradictory sentences, but the first one sounded something different from the usual disdain I'm getting used to read from Aurvandilians towards their foes. It couldn't last for long.
And no, I'm not selective. Anyone can join Aurvandil within reason, so long as they abandon their previous culture and affiliation for the Commonwealth. We're very accepting of foreign nobles, as the original Orvandeaux was a mixture of Liberite's and Madinian's we don't set much astore to ethnicity.
As you know, I wasn't talking about ethnic origins. I was pointing that I would expect from a realm with a background supposedly based on chivalry and honour to have more scruples towards nobles accused of treason (in a case) and bribery (in another). As Penchant says, Aurvandilians justified their will to keep those regions with the "corruption" issue that some time ago was discussed here. Penchant, Aurvandil has (as far as I know) impeded the spreading of any religion; I think it's something different from a separation of state and religion, maybe rather an imposed state secularism, which could contradict the acceptation of a noble who wants to create a new religion. Anyway I wasn't talking about giving home to a schismatic or heretic noble within a religion's point of view.
We declared war before our arrival, as is the Aurvandilan way. We might have spoken earlier but Blacksheep is famous for refusing any sort of peace talks or negotiations.
I don't know who "Blacksheep" is, and I guess a turn before can be enough for the Aurvandilian way. Which I guess I'd expect from someone from a realm who doesn't complain regularly because can't get a nice war from his enemies. The "Moot forewarning" reason contradicts an announcement one of your realm-mates made in the forum about the invasion of Fissoa. And if it is actually a reason, it surprises me to see so much prudence from you when not even 1/3 of your nobles went for tourism there, and later you challenged in this topic your enemies to attack you in your own lands. And as you know, "jousting" talks about combats under equally conditions amongst gentlemen, rather than furtive landing attacks against a surprised enemy.
Regarding Mendicant's conversations with the Zuma, you say you don't bother about Barca but it seems you "look for the holes on a treaty" to know how to inflict damage to an enemy with no reprisals. Very chivalric indeed.
