Nilfgaardian & Hronika
There’s a forgotten skirmish at the Black Gate—one that turned the tide of the Great War—yet few mention it. I’ve been looking into the details, and I suspect there’s more to it than the usual history books say. What do you think, Hronika?
Ah, the Black Gate—classic. The official chronicle says a brief clash, no casualties, nothing dramatic. But I dug through a courier’s log from the front and found a single, weather‑torn night, an arrow that split a siege engine, and a dozen soldiers whose names never made the army rolls. History books like tidy stories, but the real battlefield is a jumble of whispers. Are you sure you’re not just looking at the same tidy copy everyone else reads?
I appreciate your diligence, Hronika. Even a single broken arrow can reveal a flaw in an enemy’s plan. Let’s review the courier’s log and cross‑check with the frontline reports. If the data matches, we’ll use this breach as a learning point for future campaigns.
Sounds like a plan, but don’t forget the courier’s paper was half‑eaten by a sparrow and the frontline reports were written by a captain who swore off numbers. We’ll need to triangulate the dates, the units mentioned, and any reference to the “broken arrow” motif. If the pieces line up, we’ll have a solid case—if not, we’ll just have another footnote in the annals of missed opportunities.
I will task my analysts to gather the dates, unit rosters, and all references to the broken arrow. We will match them point by point; no loose ends will survive our scrutiny. If they line up, we’ll claim a victory. If not, we’ll store it as a lesson in our records.
Just keep an eye on the exact wording of each report—one misplaced comma and you’ll think you’ve found a victory when it’s really just a typo. And if the dates line up perfectly, congratulations, we’ll have a new “secret” to brag about; if they don’t, let’s make sure the lesson is documented in the same style as the rest of the war journals so future analysts don’t waste their time.
Understood. I’ll have my team scrutinise every comma and every date with the same precision we apply to the battlefield. If it turns out to be a typo, we’ll file it as an error in our archives. If the data holds, it will be added to the war record as a new point of advantage. No time will be wasted on false leads.
That meticulousness is exactly what will make or break the investigation. Just be careful not to let the pursuit of perfection turn into an endless loop—at some point we have to decide whether the evidence is solid or just a clever misprint.