Breaking Dawn

Ehhh, I know this is really nit picking but I'm really into history. The industrial revolution could never have happened in Ancient Greece or Rome. This is because of social reasons, I.e. slaves are cheap so why do I want to build a labour saving device and both societies looked upon "high technology" as a curiosity, no one ever saw any partical use for it it was something you brought out at a party to show all of your drunk friends. There are also technological reasons, they didn't have the machining capacity to produce all of the small gears, gizmos, sprockets and other pieces to make anything "steampunk." Lastly, how would you desiminate all of this information, copying books by hand is horriblely inefficent and takes forever. I actually think that the time during and after the next Thalmor War would be an excellent time for tech to advance, after all they have a printing press (atleast the Black Horse Curior does), various Universities/Colleges (if not technologically inclined they could definately use the Imperial College of the Voice, or College of Winterhold as models), labour will be scarce during such a huge war so there would be an incentive to create labour saving devices in order to free more people up for the Legions/Stormcloaks/Army/Whatever and increase the production of supplies, and they have to come up with someway to gain an advantage of the extremely magically inclined and powerful Altmer (after all technology can be mass produced and any idiot can use it well and learn to use it in less time than magic). So all and all I see this entire conflict as an extremely good way to start introducing technological advancements its very similar to how the Renissance started in Europe. Thanks for reading my rant.

What you said is true, but being allowed to do something and being allowed to do something in public view is extremely different. For example look how society views sex or underage drinking (atleast where I live parents are permitted to give their underage children alcohol as long as they are in private) even publicly show emotian is looked down upon (especailly if you are male). I just realized I had something else to say but didn't want to tack it on to my previous monsterously sized post. RighthandofSithis brought up that real life empires do collapse after shorter periods of time than the Third Empire has existed. I would also like to add that there have been empires that survive a lot longer than that: Egypt as a civilization remained under native rulers, with occasional dynastic changes from the dawn of history itself (3150 BCE) to 332 BCE (that's 2818 years) when Alexander the Great conqured it. It is possible to argue that the empire remained Egyptian even after this point, while their rulers were all ethnicly Macedonian they completely assimilated into Egyptian society until Rome came and conqured it all. China was ruled, as an empire from about 2100 BCE by native dynasties undergoing occasional violent dynastic shifts until it was finall conqured by Tumujin in 1215 CE (that's 3315 years! and it remained "Imperial China" just with different a different ethnic ruling class until 1912 so that empire lasted 4020 years). There are other examples Byzantium or the Eastern Roman Empire was founded somewhere around 667 BCE and finally fell around 1453 CE (that's 2120 years!). There are other examples such as the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted 844 years, the Ottoman Empire, which lasted 624 (however this is if you do not count the 300 years of history of the preceeding Seljuk Sultanate that annexed the Mamuluk controlled Egypt to form the Ottoman Empire), the Kingdom of Kush which existed for 1420 years, believe it or not the Papacy exisited as a land owning and extremely influential theocracy for 1184 years, the Mayan empire was founed around 2000 BCE and existed until the Spanish arrived in 1492 and you know what this is getting old.... but my point is just because an empire has exisited a long time doesn't that is suddenly declines that only occurs when they begin to stagnate, if anything the arrival of the Thalmor will cause the Empire to either create massive reforms and advance for a while or it might not survive the growing pains, but I doubt this personally there is simply too much inertia behind the idea of a united Tamriel. If for some reason you discount these examples because the dynasties change then that could invalidate democracy as a form of continuous form of government the rules were clear in both cases empires were kill anyone who disagrees and democracy is make sure more people agree with you.

I'm sorry about how long this is I actually hadn't realized until I posted it, sorry for the wall of text. The first sentence of the three large paragraphs tries to sum each paragraph up, read it if it interests you. I posted on this topic a while back but I'd just like to reiterate some of the things I said before. First, on the Empire and baning Talos worship where is the evidence? This is something I thinl Beth screwed up on, unintentionally, there are actually more open, publicly known Temples/Shrines of Talos in the holds of Imperials then in the Stormcloak ones. I mean the Thalmor in Markarth need the help of somenobody who happens to stroll by them in the Uncercity, seriously for something that has supposedly limitless power to persecure Talos worshippers why on Nirn do they need your help? Given this I think that the Thalmor Justicar activities are publicly permited but obstructed at every possible oportunity, I'm not quite seeing the Imperials crushing Nord culture. Second, on Ulfric killing Torygg legal, but not good or moral. Yes the method of dueling and killing him was unfair and perhaps short-sighted but it was legally done and had precedents in Nord history and law. However, THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT A GOOD THING! Just because something is legal does not make it a good idea, racism, discrimination, violence, slavery, rape, killing, torture, war among others were all legal at one point (and in some places and cases still are). The precednece of challenging and killing leaders makes horrible precedents and leads to extremely unstable socities, Ulfric, with his use of the Thu'um, could probably kill anyone in his country in single combat (except the Dovahkiin) but in his old age everntuall someone will kill him and succeed him. After this all of his successors will have to devote every spare moment of their lives training with a sword/Thu'um to kill anyone that doubts/dislikes them, their opinions, goals, actions or whatever. Eventually someone will get lucky or skilled enough to kill them then this entire mess of a civil war or cycle of killing the top dog will repeat (they know the previous High King was the best warrior by him being able to kill Ulfric the "previous best"). This should actively discourage his successors from actually governing and instead spend time trying to make as few waves as possible, to avoid angering somebody (even then not making decisions will probably anger somebody else) and training so they wont get killed. Actually, if anyone argues that "Killing the High King does not mean you get the job...." not but it means you are the most powerful warrior in the country what do you have to fear from anyone else who gets promoted? Kill them too! And the next one, and the next and the next, eventually no one will be willing/left alive to oppose you. These are the old ways Ulfric wants to restore, the Nords are based heavily on the Vikings to the point of being near clones, why should we expect them to be any less direct, brutal and violent? Third, the replacement Jarl doesn't change, likely caused by Beth's laziness or time constrants that prevented this from being implemented. Someone (I forget who) mentioned that the replacement Imperial Jarl doesn't allow the Dunmer/Argoninas into Windhelm, he literally went within hours of gaining his position to talk to the Dunmer/Argonians about how they could be integrated. I think that actually implementing this was probably something that Beth axed when they realized there was no way they were going to make their 11.11.11 release date (if you doubt this look at the hundreds of buds at the four full threads on their offical forums and this is after they got ban happy on people who were complaing. It was probably an idea to allow the Dunmer/Argonians into Windhelm and give them some property/jobs within the city, it would be easy to explain away that whatever people they replaced were killed in the final battle. In Oblivion, they had the Temple district in the Imperial City change, all of the Oblivion Gates closed and a somewhat answer for what happend with the Blades and Elder Council, so them providing somekind of change after a questline isn't completely unprecedented. Fourth, I'm curious where did we find out that the Empire promised Ulfric relgious freedom? I was pretty sure that the Nords were allowed to worship Talos before Ulfric spoke out and caused the Empire to allow the Thalmor to crack down. Lastly, is it just me or does anyone else see Ulfric as a bit of a hypocrit? Whether or not Ulfric commit War Crimes/Genocide against the native Reachmen (and that is up for debate) he still crushed the Reachmen's attempt to from their own independent nation, just as he is doing now with the Stormcloaks.

Its funny, I got stuck with the patch even though I was better off without it. I haven't had any of the game corruption nastiness that other people seem to but I literally get dozens of CTDs after the "fix" when I think I had maybe two or three before. Also, this patch was supposed to fix dragons not giving up their soul? I have to call BS on that one, the only time this happened to me was after the patch when I got attacked my two Blood Dragons. My other main issue is literally forests of textures, as far as the eye can see, that failed to load I shouldn't have to see a lot of failed textures, let alone having to play needle in a hay stack to look for ones that actually loaded. Thank you for listening........better than what Beth can say.......

Ehh, I just wanted to add my two cents. I agree with several people that neither the Imperials or Stormcloaks either good or evil. Sorry for the wall of text. Something I noticed though is that a lot of people keep mentioning how the Empire is trying to destroy Skyrim's culture. Am I missing something? I haven't really seen too much of it, if you walk into any "'Imperial" city in Skyrim you only see local guards, all the laws are made by the local government/Jarls. There aren't any Imperials forcing the locals to do anything so I am not really seeing the oppression, the people are as free as anyone in a fuedal society (which would not change under the Stormcloaks).The only places I have even seen Thalmor is in Markarth (and likely Solitude, but I have not been there yet). They empire does lose points for letting the Thalmor wander the wilderness and arrest people though. I think the Empire is barely permitting the Thalmor to keep up their pursecution 'cause both Whiterun and Markarth have Talos shrines and the Thalmor haven't exactly closed them down. In the end I guess I like the Empire because I don't see a lot of interference, they are gracious in victory and how most of their Jarls/Govenors are likeable.What I don't like is that the Emporeor is a pushover, its seems to be starting to get stagnant and As for them going to execute you, you were caught in the prescence of several traitors and a horse thief, those crimes are punishable by death. The one Imperial seems disinclined to execute you even if they have a fairely good reason, (how do they know you aren't in cahoots with the Stormcloaks? They have you at guilt by association which is illegal not but definately not at that time period/society. Also what proof do you have of your innocence?), to use an example from recent histoy, when the SEALS raided Osama's stronghold they would have shot anyone in the vicinity who remotely looked at them threateningly, (which given how badass your character gets this isn't unreasonable). So what they do isn't right but it makes sense to me atleast and looks fairly reasonable. Something I did not like about the Stormcloaks was their unwillingness to compromise, Ulfric's war crimes and his admitted desire to commit genocide. The thing I really like about them is that they are willing to go out and fight for their beliefs and are fairely straight forward with what they want. They are also willing to stand up to the Thalmor and actually do something against them, the Thalmor are like Hitler, until someone stands up and forces them to stop they won't. They are extreme but you need to be in order to combat someone as batshit crazy as the Thalmor. So yeah, I guess both sides make sense and are equally hateable, it is finally true grey-and-grey morality.