RighthandofSithis

Firstly, Skyrim cannot be just steam rolled into by the AD like you think it can be. Skyrim has 4 entry points. 3 passes and a coast. The passes are choke points in which the elves could not advance without moving their forces into a collumn which makes it much easier for the Nords (who know the land very well) to use guerilla tactics to either starve the army out or kill them all with simultanious ambushes. Using these tactics the Nords could drive out any invading force. Also via a sea invasion the shores are full of cliffs and allows for the Nords (Who are very capable seamen) to harass their navy and deplete the Moral of the AD's army and Navy. I still support the phalanx formation in those narrow passes. That said, landing a force of archers on any ridges overlooking the battle would obviously be useful.

Well, I'll start by showing my support for national self determination of the Reachmen. Admittedly, human sacrifice and daedra worship (particularly, Hircine worship) is something I'd oppose. And those quotes. 1. Yes, building without foundations is hopeless, but an Independent Skyrim will have its foundation (Skyrim itself) to build itself upon. Similarly, building a new building on rotten foundations is structurally insane. 2. The Revolutionary situation the Empire is experiencing is the perfect time for a revolution. With most of the Empire's forces thinly stretched in Cyrodiil, and with the Empire experiencing severe issues with corruption and Cyrodiil in ruins and crawling with gangsters and thugs, it is the perfect time to strike. 3. Didn't happen for Rome, Byzantium, Britain, Russian (etc etc). That quote doesn't refer to politics, it refers to how an army reacts when completely surrounded (ie how an army will fight to the death with fierce determination). 4. Why do we advocate an independent Skyrim? The Empire is being plagued by conflict and corruption, making it impossible to rebuild itself. Or ask me for a quick overview of my opinions on the matter.

Eh, I don't agree people should just start posting on a debate thread without reading a bit. Of course there's a hell lot of points to be missed simply because they're all scattered around and the thread's almost bible's length by now! :biggrin:That's why I think we should help with Lithium Flower's idea, make a synopsis and put it right on the beginning so everyone can check a few clear posts before posting themselves. This thread was opened a year ago, and I imagine the guy who opened this thread has fled from the monster that this has become. Perhaps we could organise something with a Mod, but I'm not so sure.

:dance:

In the first paragraph, I will point out that Alvor, an imperial, states that abductions from the Thalmor happened BEFORE Ulfric's uprising. He feels it was even a major part of its beginning. So the Thalmor were in Skyrim, and enforcing the banning of Talos worship BEFORE Ulfric started waving his arms about it. In fact, I can;t remember the source that said the Thalmor only came into Skyrim after the uprising began (unless you count Markarth). In Fact, the markarth incident suggests the Thalmor had a presence in Skyrim well before Toryggs assassination. On the second paragraph, I feel we should not necessarily force newbies to read through pages of debate, but more explain briefly our past discussions to them, or address their points by saying 'As previous discussed' or some such.

3 out of 9 provinces remain, unless you include a ruined and hostile Morrowind. This in itself is to me, a suggestion at imperial weakness (going into the cycle of lose a province, lose money and troops, making you lose another province etc). Its sort of a domino effect. As previously discussed, Skyrim is possibly capable of sustaining itself, and if necessary, can import foods from the Kingdoms of high Rock. The Dossiers state their plan is to prolong the war. A victory to either side (unless they both collapse, or some such) ruins their plans. Some resistance is better than no resistance.

101 pages. I feel sort of stupid. I was even bidding farewell to my first Stormcloak V Imperial debate. So I take it we carry on?

Because there are still 6 spots left, and only 2 of us waiting, I'll give my conclusion separate to my original post up there. With the Empire in such dire straights, it would seem that virtually nothing can be done in order to save it. After the Oblivion Crisis, the Empire began to enter into a spiral of collapse, losing a number of territories, and the Aldmeri Dominion, which would wax as the Empire waned, was born. Although, for a time, the Mede Dynasty was able to patch the Empire together, they were not enough to hold it forever. According to a few sources, it is implied that Elsweyr had rejoined the Empire under Titus Mede. This was not to last, and within the century, the spiral of collapse continued with Elsweyr leaving, and a few influential cities in Skyrim (Riften and Winterhold) being destroyed. it can also be assumed that during this time, the infighting in Hammerfell reopened. Morrowind was (and still, as of 4E201) recovering from the Red Year, and holds anti-Imperial sentiments anyway. So, by the time of the Great War, the only provinces that were peaceful and prosperous were Skyrim, High Rock and Cyrodiil. But this changed with the Great War. Cyrodiil was devastated, along with the Imperial Legions and Treasury (Evident in the Markarth Incident, where the Empire was unable to pay mercenaries, so according to Igmund, they offered Ulfric religious freedom). This is made considerably worse when, according to Cicero and his journals, the entire Imperial Province (Cyrodiil) is wrapped by Gang Wars and Civil Strife, making it impossible to rebuild. The situation is so bad that Valga Vinicia (The Publican for Falkreath) as well as Lucan and Camilla Valerius along with a number of other Imperials migrate to Skyrim to avoid the ongoing conflict and to find better opportunities. This prospect of better opportunities are smashed by the uprising of the local Nords, which I need not go into much detail. So by looking at the entire situation of the Empire, every single blow it took, bringing it to the point where only High Rock is perhaps peaceful and prosperous (and Cicero places doubt on that as well), it would appear rather clearly to be on the verge of collapse. Looking into the situation an independent Skyrim would find itself in, it may not be able to fully challenge the Dominion alone. However, it would at the very least be able to defend itself, which is considerably better than a ruined nation at the feet of the Dominion. Skyrim has a history of self sufficiency, and even now, it holds a number of farms and some fertile areas, making it possible that it could support itself. Similarly, Skyrim doesn't necessarily need to rely upon its own food. Trade will not stop simply because Skyrim became independent. Skyrim has considerable resources, such as ore, wood and arms, that it is able to export (perhaps to neighboring Kingdoms in High Rock) for coin and food. And Skyrim is also, geographically, in a position to resist any Aldmeri invasions. Firstly, the two are on polar opposites of the continent, meaning that for the Dominion to invade, they would have to take and occupy all of either Hammerfell (which they tried, and is evidently impossible), High Rock (where the Bretons could prove an easier target, but can unite to pose a significant threat) or Cyrodiil (Perhaps the easiest option). However, there are two issues with that, one is that the Dominion would need to spend significant troops occupying Cyrodiil, and the other being the theory of Permanent Revolution. Skyrim's Revolutionary sentiment would have flowed into Bruma, a city in Cyrodiil with a high Nordic Population. This means that Bruma, without Imperial Support and the threat of complete capitulation to the Dominion, would probably look to Skyrim for defense in the long run, putting Skyrim at a major geographical advantage, as any force looking to invade Skyrim would need to march up the steep road to the city of Bruma, and from there would need to march through the mountains at Pale Pass, two maneuvers that would most probably end in defeat, or if we are feeling pessimistic, a Pyrrhic Victory. And even after such a move, the Dominion would need to traverse a frozen, mountainous land filled with dangerous wildlife. This is why I believe Skyrim should become independent. At the very least, Skyrim would not need to carry the burdens of the dying Empire, and its resources could be put to good use rebuilding it. Some resistance, is better than no resistance.

Only Jarls can be High King. Why does everyone think any Nord can just walk up and challenge the High King for his title!? Ulfric is Jarl of Windhelm. That's why his challenge to Torygg was valid in the Old Nord Way. I would have liked to at least have the option of becoming a Jarl, perhaps during the civil war questline. Or that Bethesda gave us a sort of Battlehorn Castle DLC.

I really don't think so, screendrop. People on both sides on this thread have both brought up excellent points on why Skyrim could stand up alone or not. Highly simplifying the whole issue, I think we're stuck with either a lonely province or a dying empire. Neither are strong enough to withstand the Thalmor as it is. IF the Empire would get its act together and do something, but it doesn't. IF Skyrim could ally itself with other provinces. But neither of those things are offered ingame. So as far as the Civil War questline goes, in my opinion, no side is stronger than the other. It is purely a question of roleplaying your character's allegiance. While I respect the neutrality on the topic, and ultimately agree, it is virtually a roleplaying thing, i will point out that subtle hints of both are offered in game. Luah al-Skaven suggests at potential Skyrim-Hammerfell ties, while Rikke and Brina Merilis may be suggesting the Empire is trying to work on its problems. And when do these thread close down, when we reach 100 pages, or when we fill the 100th page? If the former, we could ceremonially conclude this thread with each of us regulars giving our conclusions.

I feel that the Empire's ills are out of control, what with the never ending conflict making it impossible to rebuild, political corruption with Officials willing to Murder the Emperor and a military stretched thin as a biscuit.

Just 2 more pages. I may ask this question to Imperial supporters to get some discussion flowing again: With my very public analysis of the Empire's current state (and if anyone wants me to restate it for them, simply ask), I'd like to ask, how is the Empire able to come back from this? Taking into consideration the Economic, Military and Political issues.

Without Jarls and towns on their side, any remaining stormcloaks are no more significant than bandits, from a strategic and political point of view. The remaining Jarls are all on the empire's side, so non of them is likely to do what Ulfric did. Dawnstar, Riften, Winterhold, as pointed out above whiterun would follow without Ulfric in the picture, and of course Windhelm, are all Devoted to the Stormcloaks. Dawnstar's people don't really give a crap about the war. Skald is the only one and he's very unpopular for it so don't expect Dawnstar to keep fighting. Riften is also generally uninterested in the war. Laila supports Ulfric but is more concerned about Riften's affairs than the Stormcloak cause and the people are too busy complaining about the corruption in their own city to care about the war. Meanwhile, Winterhold's population of 5 is completely useless in fighting a rebellion. The hardcore Stormcloaks are pretty much all based in Windhelm, and one hold isn't going to hold out against the Legion. I was talking politically. The people in the TES universe have no say in politics. And in Riften, we know that there are various nobles (Including the Jarls family) who are strongly against the Empire, so I would say they have an interest in fighting the Legion. And by that argument, if Ulfric were to assassinate Tullius, then the Imperials would have no support. A number of Falkreath's population are stormcloak supporters, Morthal and Whiterun are neutral, Markarth has its own problems. And kradus, that makes sense. I said that the only way to win is to eliminate the support base of the enemy. The people in Riften who support the Empire suspiciously end up in jail for it...so obviously the Stormcloaks have more support in Riften than the Empire. But my point was that there's very little support for the war in the common people (which supposedly is who the Stormcloaks are fighting for) and you can't fight a war without soldiers who are willing to fight it. If Ulfric were to assasinate Tullius I don't think it would matter much honestly. The emperor could easily just send down another general to take his place. Tullius isn't as pivotal to the Legion as Ulfric is to the Stormcloaks. He may be an influential person in Skyrim due to his position, but it's because of his position more than the man himself (although I personally find him to be a strong and capable leader). A rebellion of emotional, angry people led by an inspiring hero type suffers far more from losing it's leader than a disciplined military structure with a chain of command in place to fill positions when casualties occur. Rikke would probably temporarily fill in for Tullius until either her official promotion to general or a replacement arrives from Cyrodiil. Regardless, the Legion isn't going to break apart because their CO dies. Legionnaires didn't sign on to fight for Tullius but rather out of either loyalty to the Empire itself or some other reasons. Legionnaires don't swear loyalty to Tullius (rather just the officers in command) like Stormcloaks have to swear loyalty to Ulfric specifically. In regards to the first point, i never said that the Stormcloaks were democratic or fighting for the people. They are in fact fighting for the Nordic Aristocracy, and draw most of their support from a wide varited of people (including the armies of the Jarls). The second point actually undermines the theory of permanat revolution- that once a revolution begins, it will not stop until the people get what they wanted (or that's part of it). We see that now in Egypt. The Stormcloaks and their leaders say they are fighting for the people almost like it's their motto. It would be more accurate to say they want the people to fight for them however. Egypt's rebellion is unlikely to turn out very well in the end due to the tendencies of people in the Middle East in general to fall victim to tyranny, war and internal strife as a result of poverty, religious extremism and the self-interested aristocracy and foreign meddling. Not really a prime example of how you want something like the Stormcloak rebellion to turn out in the long term. That said, what the Stormcloaks want more than anything else is the repeal of the WGC. In the short term you can overthrow the Empire and get it but weaken yourself in the long term or you can tough it out for the time being and work with the Empire to take down the root of the problem by winning the next Great War and accomplishing the same thing. I never said the Stormcloaks were fighting for the people. I believe they are not. Ulfric is fighting for the Nordic Aristocracy to be free of Imperial rule. And I'd imagine there is a no RL politics rule in place, but I shall address the issue of Egypt anyway. Mass revolutions, such as those seen in Egypt do not simply die down and let a Dictator rule them. They continue. Why do you think that Morsi is now being challenged? Because the people have seen that they are capable of fighting for themselves. This is 'class conciousness'. Whenever the people challenge the system and win, they begin to demand more and more. They do not simply sit down, they must either win, or be put down by force. Which is where the Skyrim comes in. The Stormcloaks and their supporters (ie, the Jarls of the Old Holds) will not simply back down if Ulfric dies, they know they can challenge the system, and they will.

Without Jarls and towns on their side, any remaining stormcloaks are no more significant than bandits, from a strategic and political point of view. The remaining Jarls are all on the empire's side, so non of them is likely to do what Ulfric did. Dawnstar, Riften, Winterhold, as pointed out above whiterun would follow without Ulfric in the picture, and of course Windhelm, are all Devoted to the Stormcloaks. Dawnstar's people don't really give a crap about the war. Skald is the only one and he's very unpopular for it so don't expect Dawnstar to keep fighting. Riften is also generally uninterested in the war. Laila supports Ulfric but is more concerned about Riften's affairs than the Stormcloak cause and the people are too busy complaining about the corruption in their own city to care about the war. Meanwhile, Winterhold's population of 5 is completely useless in fighting a rebellion. The hardcore Stormcloaks are pretty much all based in Windhelm, and one hold isn't going to hold out against the Legion. I was talking politically. The people in the TES universe have no say in politics. And in Riften, we know that there are various nobles (Including the Jarls family) who are strongly against the Empire, so I would say they have an interest in fighting the Legion. And by that argument, if Ulfric were to assassinate Tullius, then the Imperials would have no support. A number of Falkreath's population are stormcloak supporters, Morthal and Whiterun are neutral, Markarth has its own problems. And kradus, that makes sense. I said that the only way to win is to eliminate the support base of the enemy. The people in Riften who support the Empire suspiciously end up in jail for it...so obviously the Stormcloaks have more support in Riften than the Empire. But my point was that there's very little support for the war in the common people (which supposedly is who the Stormcloaks are fighting for) and you can't fight a war without soldiers who are willing to fight it. If Ulfric were to assasinate Tullius I don't think it would matter much honestly. The emperor could easily just send down another general to take his place. Tullius isn't as pivotal to the Legion as Ulfric is to the Stormcloaks. He may be an influential person in Skyrim due to his position, but it's because of his position more than the man himself (although I personally find him to be a strong and capable leader). A rebellion of emotional, angry people led by an inspiring hero type suffers far more from losing it's leader than a disciplined military structure with a chain of command in place to fill positions when casualties occur. Rikke would probably temporarily fill in for Tullius until either her official promotion to general or a replacement arrives from Cyrodiil. Regardless, the Legion isn't going to break apart because their CO dies. Legionnaires didn't sign on to fight for Tullius but rather out of either loyalty to the Empire itself or some other reasons. Legionnaires don't swear loyalty to Tullius (rather just the officers in command) like Stormcloaks have to swear loyalty to Ulfric specifically. In regards to the first point, i never said that the Stormcloaks were democratic or fighting for the people. They are in fact fighting for the Nordic Aristocracy, and draw most of their support from a wide varited of people (including the armies of the Jarls). The second point actually undermines the theory of permanat revolution- that once a revolution begins, it will not stop until the people get what they wanted (or that's part of it). We see that now in Egypt.

Without Jarls and towns on their side, any remaining stormcloaks are no more significant than bandits, from a strategic and political point of view. The remaining Jarls are all on the empire's side, so non of them is likely to do what Ulfric did. Dawnstar, Riften, Winterhold, as pointed out above whiterun would follow without Ulfric in the picture, and of course Windhelm, are all Devoted to the Stormcloaks. Dawnstar's people don't really give a crap about the war. Skald is the only one and he's very unpopular for it so don't expect Dawnstar to keep fighting. Riften is also generally uninterested in the war. Laila supports Ulfric but is more concerned about Riften's affairs than the Stormcloak cause and the people are too busy complaining about the corruption in their own city to care about the war. Meanwhile, Winterhold's population of 5 is completely useless in fighting a rebellion. The hardcore Stormcloaks are pretty much all based in Windhelm, and one hold isn't going to hold out against the Legion. I was talking politically. The people in the TES universe have no say in politics. And in Riften, we know that there are various nobles (Including the Jarls family) who are strongly against the Empire, so I would say they have an interest in fighting the Legion. And by that argument, if Ulfric were to assassinate Tullius, then the Imperials would have no support. A number of Falkreath's population are stormcloak supporters, Morthal and Whiterun are neutral, Markarth has its own problems. And kradus, that makes sense. I said that the only way to win is to eliminate the support base of the enemy.

Without Jarls and towns on their side, any remaining stormcloaks are no more significant than bandits, from a strategic and political point of view. The remaining Jarls are all on the empire's side, so non of them is likely to do what Ulfric did. Dawnstar, Riften, Winterhold, as pointed out above whiterun would follow without Ulfric in the picture, and of course Windhelm, are all Devoted to the Stormcloaks.

Its a roleplaying thing. The Nords traditionally hunt and Ice Wraith as a coming of age ritual. it wasn;t meant to be challenging for high level players, only roleplaying. Admittedly, the Game mechanics when it came to being a known hero (be it companion or Dragonborn) could have used some more work (but bethesda had to rush itself, didn't they).

It's a given that someone else will take up the banner. But my point is that they won't be an equal to Ulfric. Martyrs are all fine and good, but when the man instigating the entire rebellion dies, it simply doesn't bode well for them. As far as I'm aware, Ulfric has no heirs, so Galmar is literally the only person of any repute who could take his place but he doesn't have the same legitimacy as Ulfric does since he can't claim the throne nor is he even a jarl. It would make him little more than a nationalistic warlord fighting a dead man's cause to take the throne from a perfectly legitimate High Queen. Ho Chi Minh died before the Vietnam war finished, Osama Bin-Laden has died, yet I assure you, the Afghan War will continue (and judging by the american strategy, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda will probably win the war).

What are you talking about? At the start of the game the Empire had all but won the Civil War already. Ulfric was seconds away from losing his head and his rebellion with it. Sure, pockets of resistance would've held out for a while but cut the head off the snake and it might writhe for a while but it'll eventually die. Also we keep forgetting High Rock is still a part of the Empire as well, so you've got resources and manpower from them in addition to Skyrim and Cyrodiil. I've said it before, but I don;t support the assertion by the Thalmor or the Imperials that killing Ulfric will end the war. It's like killing Osama Bin Laden, that didn't put a stop to Al-Qaeda. You need to address the support base before you can kill ulfric, otherwise the Stormcloaks will just find another leader. I think its worthy to note that Galmar was not present that that execution. Galmar most definatly supports trying to keep the Empire off balance, and never give them any time to regroup. Galmar is not the thuum-using, kingslaying, public-speaking nord hero fashioning himself as a High King that Ulfric is. He's not anywhere close to as inspiring of a leader. Ulfric started the rebellion and Ulfric is the one who motivates them to fight for the cause. Take away the High King claim and the rebellion loses a lot of it's assumed legitimacy and becomes a couple jarls or warlords trying to take the throne no different from what happened to the Empire. A recurring argument for Stormcloaks is that TMII isn't a legitimate emperor because he's not a Septim. But if the Stormcloaks lose Ulfric they have no more legitimacy to Skyrim's throne. However, killing Ulfric makes a martyr. The horme did not put down their swords when Potema was killed, they just got more violent. Galmar would make at the very least, for a temporary leader, although he is inspiring in his own right (listen to him on the field, he can be quite moving). Hell, Ulfric could have named him as his successor, we never know.

The earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth.

What are you talking about? At the start of the game the Empire had all but won the Civil War already. Ulfric was seconds away from losing his head and his rebellion with it. Sure, pockets of resistance would've held out for a while but cut the head off the snake and it might writhe for a while but it'll eventually die. Also we keep forgetting High Rock is still a part of the Empire as well, so you've got resources and manpower from them in addition to Skyrim and Cyrodiil. I've said it before, but I don;t support the assertion by the Thalmor or the Imperials that killing Ulfric will end the war. It's like killing Osama Bin Laden, that didn't put a stop to Al-Qaeda. You need to address the support base before you can kill ulfric, otherwise the Stormcloaks will just find another leader. I think its worthy to note that Galmar was not present that that execution. Galmar most definatly supports trying to keep the Empire off balance, and never give them any time to regroup.

That depends on what you mean by the 'end'. The end to me is when the Thalmor have been subdued, by which time the WGC is not in effect. Repeating points as stated. That end is the same as mine.However, as I have analysed, with the Empire experiencing its own agonizing death, it can't really compete with the Thalmor. Also, i disagree with comparing the Skyrim Civil War to the American Civil War. The US was rising at the time of its civil war, while the Empire is currently dying. I'd say the US Civil War is closer to the War of the Red Diamond. The Skyrim Civil War is more comparable to the Russian Revolution(s). Russia happened DURING a 'Great War', and following said, war, the Entente powers were afraid that without Russia's help, Germany and Austria could regain their strength (and I would guess Mussolini taking over Italy didn't help) and threaten Europe. Similarly, in Skyrim, many people fear that without Skyrim, the Dominion will take over all of Tamriel. Now that is also alongside a number of other, minor, similarities: -Markarth Incident-1905 Revolution -Killing of Torygg-February Revolution -Skyrim Civil War-Russian Civil War At the same time, Skyrim represents the Germanic peoples. In the past, many people have equated Ulfric to Hitler, a position I do not feel accurate. However, there are some similarities between the rise of Hitler, and the rise of of the Stormcloaks. The most important is the nature of their support base. Hitler drew his support from the middle classes who were afraid of losing everything to either to the Capitalists or the Communists. Ulfric is not leading a mass uprising (like Russia), and draws most of his support from the Nordic Aristocracy and the Nordic middle classes and peasantry (which is equatable to a middle class). At the same time, there are a few other minor similarities: -WW1- The Great War -The Treaty of Versailles- The WGC -Hitler furious about surrender- Ulfric ditto -Nationalism

No . We have different opinions like politics. Period.

With respect, he is just generalising. If so, I can actually see the point there. There are a number of stormcloaks other than us, and it seems that a good number aren't overly rational. Look to the beginnings of this thread. I think i was the first Stormcloak to make a rational argument (but then, I wasn't really a Stormcloak, more a neutral observer trying to find some Stormcloak arguements). Similarly, I would like to say that i have a hunch that a majority of Imperial supporters are, in RL, right winged. I take Stormhammer and GeneralTullius for example (they may be the same person, but regardless, best not to jump to conclusions), they sound to me like very nationalist, and very conservative people. That said, I'm generalising (and as such, that is not a definitive rule).

Heh, I'm almost tempted to say I like you. I'm noticing an interesting trend where the less religious/more rational people side with the Empire while the more idealistic and emotional side with the Stormcloaks. While I completely agree with you on separation of church and state I can't see the WGC as being a step in the right direction. It's merely trading one state-controlled religion for a slightly altered version of the same (not to mention witch-hunting for noncompliants) instead of actual secular religious freedom. Are you just generalising, or are you accusing me of not being rational?