It may a stretch, but the fact is that Teagan was the only noble in Denerim to publicly speak out against Loghain. He also likely didn't know he would be holed up in Redcliffe immediately after Denerim.
You will find very few (if any) Loghain supporters defending his political aptitude, but that's not the argument being presented. The argument is that Loghain ignored the darkspawn in favor of fighting a civil war when in fact the opposite is true. Loghain was forced into a civil war when what he needed were troops to fight the darkspawn. And in Loghain's defense, who else was there? Loghain is the only Teryn left and has more experience commanding an army than the rest of the nobles combined. He went about it incredibly poorly, but his title is earned and his experience is not meaningless. The nobility just seem to have very short memories, having somehow forgotten that Orlesians held their lands a mere 30 years ago.
I think your comparison of Loghain's knowledge of the Wardens and the Blight versus the nobility following Loghain is good, but still off. Loghain's reasons for mistrusting the Wardens and the Orlesians are well-established, at least for the player. Even Eamon says something like, "I know Loghain. He never wanted power." The nobility's distrust of Loghain is rooted in nothing more than him being born a commoner, and is more dislike that distrust.
The bannorn were not required to follow his orders, but by choosing not to where does that leave them? Exactly where they ended up, losing the civil war and losing their only commander, however it happens. This is the same bannorn that fought each other over what were essentially property-line disputes, so thinking that they went to war with Loghain because reasons is really not out of the realm of possibility, and there is in fact some evidence for it. There's a power vacuum, so nobles will fight.
Teagan may not have intended his comments to spark a rebellion, but if that is true then he can be accused of the same political ineptitude as Loghain. Publicly speaking against a higher-ranking noble, the father of your queen, and the leader of your armies is going to lead to the kind of reaction Teagan's comments ended up getting. Purposefully or not, he built support for a rebellion merely by stating it.
I'm not getting involved in the broader argument, because, as I said at the end of my post, I think it's completely pointless. The only item I was focusing on is the specific issue of Teagan's role in the outbreak of the civil war.
Your main argument in favor of "Teagan did it!" is "well, we don't see anyone
else do it", but that's not an argument at all. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is certainly not a
proof, which is what you seem to be using it as. Again: I agree that it's entirely possible to construct a narrative of the civil war that hinges on Teagan raising the issue of loyalty in Denerim and then, presumably, zipping off to Redcliffe and watching while the country explodes behind him. It is
possible. It is
not unquestionably true. There is no demonstrated causative link in the game between Teagan saying something and Ferelden turning into Roman Gaul c. 406 AD. There is, in fact, no thorough explanation of the outbreak of the civil war at all. It is perfectly possible, given the absence of a definitive answer, to insert a variety of headcanons in there: one might be that Teagan lit the fuse, but another might be that he didn't, and they are equally plausible and equally supported by the game, such as it is.
You're certainly entitled to your headcanon that Teagan did it, but pushing that on everybody else in the thread is a bit much.
The rest of the post is basically just window dressing. Even if every question that the bannorn might have raised had an answer - answers that in many cases depend on second- and third-order reasoning, headcanon, and
argument - the fact of the matter is that the questions were still raised in the first place, and even if the answers you might give would explain Loghain's conduct to
you they certainly wouldn't explain it to a skeptic. (And, again, that's presuming Loghain bothered to explain them at all.) They are not ironclad responses; there's enough room for doubt there that you could sail a dreadnought into it. Preaching to the choir is not an effective tactic for persuasion: not for Loghain, and not in this thread.
Retour en haut
And, obviously, a Warden is a person and doesn't necessarily need to have some "average" or "typical" for his origin views on things. Oh, and when you think of it - the Warden wouldn't really have much to say 
He says that the military is weakened?
