I agree, and it would be just as much of a diplomatic error to say that to a 300 year old King in Exile who had just captured the entrance hall of his hold. If a dwarf is King in Exile and has not gone slayer it is because they believe the Hold can be reclaimed, it is axiomatic to their position so meeting any success with the word 'foothold' is a failure of diplomacy on Thorgrim's part. Even if he had been 100% right it would not have changed the fact.
No, not necessarily even then, actually.
It is only a failure of diplomacy
if, and only if, the King in Exile reacts badly.
And we can't say how most of them
would react. Because that 300 year old might be wise enough -- or have enough temperance with, or have a different relation to Thorgrim; one based more on "Having known each other, as fellow Kings or fellow Nobles or Adventurers, for 2 centuries" rather than "This guy raised me in his own house for decades!" See, somebody who knew Thorgrim more, might know not to take it personally, or might know Thorgrim's moods better, or might know what he really meant, or etc; or even just somebody who had a working relationship with Thorgrim, or somebody who was roughly the same age as him -- to see the "foothold" comment as being and meaning exactly what it is. Historically accurate and truthful.
We can only say how Belegar
did react.
But we can't, necessarily, say that this means it was a diplomatic gaff on Thorgrim's part, just because of how it
did turn out.
Of course you can, again, blame Thorgrim for not realizing "Aha, but then he should have taken all that into account, the thing about Belegar's age, and his being raised in his household, and not being a 300 year old King who's known him or been more temperate and etc" but that's just more goalpost shifting and more blaming of Thorgrim.
Truth be told, what happened is that a High King whose duties and secret knowledge weight heavily on him, ended up saying something that was taken poorly by another King, a young one. And then further future events widened the rift again.
All things which might have been avoided or butterflied. Both by either of the 2 people involved. And also by the events involved in the future. And by Mathilde's decisions and actions too.
And, truthfully, just because some of it
is avoidable or understandable or butterfly-away-able does not mean that it some of the people involved do not bear some fault. ((And given Dwarfs, they probably will assign fault.
))
But, like.
Imagine it from the other side.
Imagine if it was
Belegar's comment of "How long can
your's?" that fucked up the relationship with Thorgrim a lot, due to factors we had no knowledge or control over; namely the fact that Thorgrim is staring at a constantly-depleting battery level and thinking 'This is the end of the Karaz Ankor'
every. damn. day. and that this results in an even testier reaction from Thorgrim.
We get less, or no, support.
Imagine if due to butterflies and causality (i.e. chains of events) the Battle of the Caldera doesn't ever even end up happening, or goes way poorly. Imagine something different happens.
Imagine if the extra support from Karaz-a-Karak could have made the difference 10 or 20 years from then, to our 2-and-a-half-peaks. If the air fleet that
would have been loaned to us -- along with the radical engineer
with a prince's connection to Zhufbar and all the extra guns and engineers from it -- but was not loaned in this scenario, imagine if it could have made a critical difference to Karak Eight Peaks.
Then, it would have been
Belegar who made the diplomatic gaffe, no?
Or even just less speculatively than that! Let's go back to basics:
Thorgrim makes his offhand comment, Belegar makes
his "How long can your's?", and Thorgrim gets mad and sends us away without the extra airforce (or extra runic gear, or extra brigade of Ironbreakers, or extra cannons, or whatever it might have been).
Who would have been blaming themself then? Who would have felt like they made a mistake then?
