Hearts of the North. The war of the north

Hearts of the North - Guild Wars Wiki (GWW)

Hearts of the North is the second major installment of Guild Wars Beyond. It focuses on the relationship of Lt. Keiran Thackeray and Gwen.

After the War in Kryta content, players can see the events leading up to the reuniting of Keiran Thackeray and Gwen through Keiran's eyes. Players are able to play as Keiran, in the same way that they play as other characters in the Bonus Mission Pack's missions.

The Hearts of the North is part of Guild Wars Beyond — content that bridges the gap between Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2.

Lore background[edit]

Driven north due to the war between Ascalon and the Charr, the Ebon Vanguard have been situated in the Far Shiverpeaks raiding the Charr Homelands. During this time, Gwen, a former prisoner of the Charr, has grown distant from everyone. Lieutenant Keiran Thackeray has been trying to change this, but to no avail.

In their time of need, the Shining Blade requested aid from the Ebon Vanguard against the White Mantle during the Krytan civil war. Keiran Thackeray and the Ebon Falcons left to Kryta to aid them, but at the end of the war he has gone missing.



The charr destroyed everything dear to her when Gwen was a young girl. Her toughness and single-minded hatred of the charr served her well as a member of the Ebon Vanguard, but Gwen was bitter and full of rage – until she met Keiran Thackeray. The noble ranger was immune to her cruelest barbs and took her indifference in stride, and over time Gwen’s frozen heart melted. She finally realized her true feelings for Keiran when he was reported missing in action. Now Gwen leads the Ebon Vanguard alone and waits for any word of Keiran’s fate…

— official website

Keiran Thackeray

An orphan of war, the Ascalonian ranger Keiran Thackeray has endured forced marches, pitched battles, and endless Shiverpeak winters during his time with the Ebon Vanguard, but the fierce, headstrong Gwen is the young ranger’s greatest challenge. Before Keiran’s elite unit, the Ebon Falcons, was sent to war-torn Kryta to aid the Shining Blade, he and Gwen quarreled, and Keiran marched to war questioning his role in her life. The Ebon Vanguard believed that he perished in that savage war, but Keiran Thackeray is a hard man to kill…

— official website

Hearts of the North content[edit]

Hearts of the North is available only to characters who have completed the last quest of the War in Kryta content, The Battle for Lion's Arch and have subsequently reported the disappearance of Lt. Thackeray to Gwen in the Hall of Monuments.

Gwen and Thackeray[edit]

The relationship between Gwen and Lieutenant Keiran Thackeray of the Ebon Vanguard began during Wintersday 2008. The origins of the story of their relationship is not considered to be part of Guild Wars Beyond, but, instead, the Wintersday festival.

Before Guild Wars Beyond[edit]

The relationship between Gwen and Keiran (Lt. Thackeray) began during Wintersday 2008 when he sends you on a quest to bring her a very special, personalized gift to cheer her up. After visiting several Norn tradesmen you bring back a pendant, crafted with her family crest, and imbued with the essence of her mother's spirit. This single act seemed to ignite their interest in one another.

After completion of Wintersday Cheer or A Good Deed, entering the Hall of Monuments had the chance of activating one of two possible dialogues between Gwen and Keiran where you were able to witness further developments between the two.

Guild Wars Beyond[edit]

The introduction of Guild Wars Beyond brought a series of additional dialogues between Gwen and Lt. Thackeray. These dialogues culminated in Thackeray's scavenger hunt, a sort of "minigame" where he has you collect items for a birthday picnic with Gwen, and a final dialogue, where things between them ended poorly. Lt. Thackeray then left for duty to assist the Shining Blade in their war with the White Mantle. The series of events during the war led to Lt. Thackeray becoming missing and presumed dead. In the main content of Hearts of the North, the player is able to search for the missing Lieutenant, as well as view his story, from the time he went missing, through his eyes.

Finding Thackeray: clues, mini-missions, and quests[edit]

Follow the hints and clues to discover why Lieutenant Thackeray has gone missing and what he has been doing.

  1. Exit Eye of the North to Ice Cliff Chasms and speak with the Ebon Vanguard Scout, who hints at the location of...
  2. Look for the Tarnished Emblem next to the west portal of Majesty's Rest (the closest outpost is The Wilds and again use running skills as you can avoid the foes along the route.)
    • Equipped with Keiran's Bow, speak to the Scrying Pool to begin A Vengeance of Blades.
    • Wait for Gwen to say, "How could we have? I was always so busy pushing him away..." before looking for the next clue.
  3. Look for the Broken Sword in Ettin's Back .
  4. Look for the Shining Blade Cloak in Watchtower Coast.
    • Equipped with Keiran's Bow, speak to the Scrying Pool to begin Rise.
  5. Return to the Hall to speak to Gwen to begin Reunion.
    • Go to Anvil Rock with Gwen in your party.
    • Accept the quest reward from Gwen in the Hall of Monuments
    • Rezone to the Hall of Monuments to witness Thackeray's proposal to Gwen.
  6. Enter the Hall of Monuments to find Gwen planning her wedding and get the quests Norn Catering and The Wedding.
Important figures[edit]


Bug.Some dialogues have not been translated into other languages; some that involve Gwen are repeated.
  • Keiran first suggested his interest in Gwen through a series of quests during Wintersday 2008.
  • The first formal Hearts of the North content was introduced during November 2010 and the remainder was released in stages:
    • Two missions and two quests were released on November 18, 2010, along with the Hearts of the North brand.
    • Three more quests and two more missions became available after the bug fix on November 19, 2010.
    • The final installments were released together with the beginning of Wintersday 2010.

External links[edit]


The War of Northern Aggression

On November 6, 1860, the six-year-old Republican Party elected its first president. During the tense crisis months that followed — the “secession winter” of 1860–61 — practically all observers believed that Lincoln and the Republicans would begin attacking slavery as soon as they took power.

Democrats in the North blamed the Republican Party for the entire sectional crisis. They accused Republicans of plotting to circumvent the Constitutional prohibition against direct federal attacks on slavery. Republicans would instead allegedly try to squeeze slavery to death indirectly, by abolishing it in the territories and in Washington DC, suppressing it in the high seas, and refusing federal enforcement of the Slave Laws.

The first to succumb to the Republican program of “ultimate extinction,” Democrats charged, would be the border states where slavery was most vulnerable. For Northern Democrats, this is what caused the crisis; the Republicans were to blame for trying to get around the Constitution.

Southern secessionists said almost exactly the same thing. The Republicans supposedly intended to bypass the Constitution’s protections for slavery by surrounding the South with free states, free territories, and free waters. What Republicans called a “cordon of freedom,” secessionists denounced as an inflammatory circle of fire.

The Southern cooperationists — those who opposed immediate secession — agreed with the secessionists’ and Northern Democrats’ analysis of Republican intentions. But they argued that the only way the Republicans would actually have the power to act on those intentions was if the Southern states seceded. If the slave states remained within the Union, the Republicans would not have the majorities in Congress to adopt their antislavery policies.

And if the South did secede, all bets would be off. The rebellious states would forfeit all the constitutional protections of slavery. The South would get something much worse than a cordon of freedom. It would get direct military intervention, leading to the immediate and uncompensated emancipation of the slaves.

The slaves themselves seem to have understood this. They took an unusual interest in the 1860 election and had high hopes for what Lincoln’s victory would mean. They assumed that Lincoln’s inauguration would lead to war, that war would bring on a Union invasion of the South, and that the invading Union army would free the slaves.

But to read what historians have been saying for decades is to conclude that all of these people — the Democrats, the secessionists, the cooperationists, and the slaves — were all wrong. The Northern Democrats were just demagogues. The secessionists were hysterical. And the slaves were, alas, sadly misguided.

Unwilling to take seriously what contemporaries were saying, historians have constructed a narrative of Emancipation and the Civil War that begins with the premise that Republicans came into the war with no intention of attacking slavery — indeed, that they disavowed any antislavery intentions. The narrative is designed to demonstrate the original premise, according to which everyone at the time was mistaken about what the Republicans intended to do.

It’s a familiar chronology: Under the terms of the First Confiscation Act of August 1861, disloyal masters would “forfeit” the use of their slaves, but the slaves were not actually freed. Lincoln ordered General John C. Frémont to rescind his decree of that September freeing the slaves of rebels in Missouri, and several months later the President rescinded General Hunter’s order abolishing slavery in three states.

As late as the summer of 1862, we are reminded, Lincoln was writing letters to Horace Greeley saying that if he could end the war without freeing a single slave, he would do so. Even after the President finally promised an emancipation proclamation, in September 1862, several months elapsed until the proclamation actually came on January 1, 1863.

Only then, according to the standard narrative, was the North committed to emancipation. Only then did the purpose of the Civil War expand from the mere restoration of the Union to include the overthrow of slavery.

In one form or another, this narrative is familiar to all scholars of the period. Historians who agree on little else will agree on this version of the story, even when they have entirely divergent interpretations of what it means.

But what if the original premise is wrong? What if, during the secession winter of 1860–61, everybody was right about what the Republicans intended to do about slavery? What if the Republicans came into the war ready and willing to destroy slavery? What does that do for a narrative of emancipation?

For one thing, it flies in the face of the prevailing neo-revisionism in contemporary Civil War scholarship. The old revisionist interpretation, which reached its zenith of influence in the 1930s and 1940s, came in many varieties. But it always rested on an essentially negative proposition: whatever else the war was about, it was not about slavery. This viewpoint required one set of claims about the South, and another about the North.

Revisionists claimed that slavery was already dying in the South, that it was unprofitable, that it wasn’t important to Southern economy and society, that it had reached the natural limits of its expansion, and that Southern leaders were more concerned about defending state rights than protecting slavery. Most contemporary historians, though not all of them, now reject these old revisionist claims. Slavery was thriving and the Southern states seceded to protect it.

But revisionists also claimed that the North did not go to war over slavery. If there were “interests” involved, they were the interests of Northern capitalists against Southern agrarians. The Civil War was an accident brought on by bungling politicians. The abolitionists were a tiny, beleaguered minority; most Northerners shared the general conviction of black racial inferiority. 
The South had slavery, the argument went, but the North was racist too. This argument, in turn, was really just a revival of the antebellum Democratic Party’s relentless efforts to shift the terms of debate from slavery to race.

Today, this revisionist interpretation of the North is alive and well. Indeed, it is pervasive among historians. We are repeatedly told that the North did not go to war over slavery. The Civil War is once again denounced as morally unjustified on the grounds that the North was not motivated by any substantial antislavery convictions. Emancipation itself is described as an accidental byproduct of a war the North fought for no purpose beyond the restoration of the Union. A recent study of the secession crisis states that during the war, slavery was abolished “inadvertently.”

Contemporary scholarship is saturated by this neo-revisionist premise. Like the antebellum Democrats and the Civil War revisionists, neo-revisionists have insistently shifted the terms of the debate from slavery to race. Virtually any Republican in 1860 would have recognized this argument as Democratic Party propaganda.

If I sound skeptical, that’s because I am. On the basis of my research, I can no longer accept the thesis that the Union did not begin emancipating slaves until 
January 1, 1863.

It was never my intention to overturn the conventional narrative. I began by accepting the standard assumption that that the first Confiscation Act achieved nothing. But I still wanted to know what Republicans thought they were doing when they passed the law. Why did the Act turn out to be so toothless? Why did it fail to free any slaves? Secondary accounts usually pass over this question; they couldn’t provide me with the answers I needed: who wrote the law, where did it come from, how did people talk about it?

To my astonishment, I discovered that Section Four of the Act, the clause specifically authorizing the forfeiture of slaves, was written by Senator Lyman Trumbull, chair of the Judiciary Committee, as an emancipation clause. Indeed, it was understood by everyone in Congress to be an emancipation clause. Trumbull’s proposal was denounced by Democrats and border-state congressmen as an emancipation clause, defended almost unanimously by congressional Republicans as an emancipation clause. These men thought they were writing an emancipation bill. That’s what they said at the time.

A full-scale congressional debate erupted in July of 1861, focusing on the legitimacy of the emancipation that Republicans were undertaking. When I read those debates I wondered where the arguments for emancipation had come from.

I went back to the secession debates. And sure enough, everything critics had accused the Republicans of planning to do was exactly what Republicans themselves were saying they were going to do.

The great mistake that historians have made, I realized, was a misreading of the constitutional premises of the Republican antislavery agenda. I doubt anything Lincoln said is more commonly repeated by historians than the promise he made in his inaugural address not to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed. That little quotation is all the proof historians seem to require to demonstrate that when the war began, neither Lincoln nor the Republicans had any idea of emancipating slaves.

In fact, nearly every abolitionist (and just about every historian I can think of) would agree with Lincoln: the Founders had made a series of compromises resulting in a Constitution that did not allow the federal government to abolish slavery in any state where it existed.

William Lloyd Garrison wrote that consensus into the founding document of the American Anti-Slavery Society, the 1833 Declaration of Sentiments, which flatly declared that the power to abolish slavery rested exclusively with the states. Theodore Dwight Weld said the same thing. So did Joshua Giddings, Salmon Chase, and Charles Sumner. The federal government had no power to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed.

Which raises the obvious question: how did the abolitionists expect to get slavery abolished? A small group of nonpolitical abolitionists argued for moral suasion. An even smaller faction of antislavery radicals argued that the Constitution was an antislavery document. But most abolitionists believed, on the one hand, that the Constitution did not allow the federal government to abolish slavery in the states, but that on the other hand, political action was necessary for slavery to be abolished. Given the Constitution’s restrictions, what did opponents of slavery think could be done?

Coming out of the 1860 election, Republicans declared that there were two possible policies. The first was to make freedom national and restrict slavery to the states where it already existed. Republican policymakers would seal off the South: they would no longer enforce the Fugitive Slave Clause; slavery would be suppressed on the high seas; it would be abolished in Washington DC, banned from all the Western territories, and no new slave states would be admitted to the Union. A “cordon of freedom” would surround the slave states. Then Republicans would offer a series of incentives to the border states where slavery was weakest: compensation, subsidies for voluntary emigration of freed slaves, a gradual timetable for complete abolition.

Slavery was intrinsically weak, Republicans said. By denationalizing it, they could put it on a course of ultimate extinction. Surrounded on all sides, deprived of life-giving federal support, the slave states would one by one abolish slavery on their own, beginning with the border states. Each new defection would further diminish the strength of the remaining slave states, further accelerating the process of abolition. Yet because the decision to abolish slavery remained with the states, Republican policies would not violate the constitutional ban on direct federal interference in slavery.

The South would simply have to accept this. And if it couldn’t tolerate such a federal policy, it could leave the Union. But once it seceded, all bets would be off — it would lose the Constitutional protections that it had previously enjoyed. The Republicans would then implement the second policy: direct military emancipation, immediate and uncompensated.

Republicans said this openly during the secession crisis. And that’s what they were saying in Congress as they debated the Confiscation Act. It’s time to start rethinking our fundamental assumptions about the causes as well as the trajectory of the Civil War. And we can start by taking the perceptions of its contemporaries a great deal more seriously.


Northern wars - Wikipedia

Look for Northern wars on one of Wikipedia's sister projects:
Wiktionary (free dictionary)
Wikibooks (free textbooks)
Wikiquote (quotations)
Wikisource (free library)
Wikiversity (free learning resources)
Commons (images and media)
Wikivoyage (free travel guide)
Wikinews (free news source)
Wikidata (free linked database)
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Northern wars in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
  • Log in or create an account to start the Northern wars article, alternatively use the Article Wizard, or add a request for it.
  • Search for "Northern wars" in existing articles.
  • Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

  • If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes or try the purge function.
  • Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
  • If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?.


War in the North Free Download « IGGGAMES

Lord of the Rings: War in the North Free Download PC Game Cracked in Direct Link and Torrent. LOTR: War in the North is a co-op Action RPG.

Lord of the Rings: War in the North PC Game Overview:

Lord of the Rings: War in the North is developed by Snowblind Studios and published by Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. It was released in 1 Nov, 2011.

The Lord of the Rings: War in the North is a co-op Action RPG that immerses you and your friends in a brutal new chapter in the War of the Ring. Snowblind Studios is in the unique position of drawing inspiration from both the literary and film rights to world of Middle-earth, allowing players to bloody their axes on a wide range of deadly enemies and traverse both established and never-before-seen locations. The result is a journey that is both epic and intimate, familiar yet unexpected.

Key Fetures:

  • Action Meets RPG – Intense, visceral, and satisfying combat. Rich, layered, and impactful character progression. In War in the North, you get both. Find and equip the best loot, upgrade your hero using a wide range of skills and items, and feel the intense satisfaction of rushing into real-time battles with friends by your side. Fight through the brutal realities of the war on all fronts that were brought to life in the lore. Immerse yourself and make your own mark on Middle-earth.
  • Co-op at its Core – Build your own fellowship of three heroes to confront the growing army in the North. The survival of your group and all of Middle-earth depends upon your uniquely skilled heroes working together. You must fight together or you will die alone, and these high stakes make the experience of playing together both socially engaging and incredibly satisfying. The first time you rescue a friend who has been grabbed by a troll and is desperately yelling for help, you will understand what we mean.
  • An Untold Story – While much attention and focus has been placed on the journey of the One Ring, the assault on Middle-earth hits all corners of the map. War in the North turns our attention towards an integral part of the storyline that is grounded in details within the books and various appendices. This is not someone else’s fight. This is your own effort to forage a way through the dark, dangerous, and unknown landscape, defending all that is yours. This is your war.

How To Install Lord of the Rings: War in the North Free Download:


     1.  Free Download Lord of the Rings: War in the North PC Game Here:

     (All links are interchangeable, please verify all the other servers before Ask Re-Upload)


•    Link Mega.co.nz:     Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5


•    Link Direct:     Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5


•    Link KumpulBagi:     Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5


•    Link ClicknUpload:     Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5


•    Link Go4Up (Multi Links):     Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5


•    Link Uploaded:      Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5


•    Link Uptobox:     Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5


•    Link Google Drive:     Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5

     (Unrar with PASSWORD: igg-games.com )

     2.  Install.     3.  Crack Lord of the Rings: War in the North. (See Tutorial Video below if you don’t know)     4.  Play game.     5.  Have fun ^^.


     (If you don’t know how to install or have some problems, you can ask me on Tag CONTACT ME)     (If download links are broken, you should request Re-upload on Tag GAME REQUEST)

Video Tutorial Install Lord of the Rings: War in the North Free Download on PC:


Don’t have… (It’s easy, you can see tutorial HERE, it same for all games, I only make video tutorial for Popular Games)


System Requirement for Lord of the Rings: War in the North Free Download:


    • OS:Windows XP, Windows Vista or Windows 7
    • Processor:Intel Core2 Duo 2.4 GHz or AMD 64 X2 4400
    • Memory:2 GB RAM
    • Graphics:2006 or later GeForce 8600 or Radeon HD 2600
    • DirectX®:dx90
    • Hard Drive:10 GB HD space
    • Sound:100% DirectX 9 compatible Audio Device
    • Processor:Intel Core2 Duo 3 GHz or AMD X2 5000 or AMD Phenom X4 9600
    • Memory:4 GB RAM
    • Graphics:GeForce 2xx Series or Radeon HD 6xxx series or greater
    • DirectX®:dx90
    • Other Requirements:Broadband Internet connection


Смотрите также