Join Empire or Stormcloaks? My Thoughts

[kimmera]

@Kimmera

 

So now Legate Justianus Quintius is always correct about everything, just because he wrote a book? He was only a legate in the war, and like fraquar said, he acknowledges that some of what he writes is opinion and conjecture.

 

Ulfric said that the Empire died the day it surrendered to the AD, so he obviously believes they should have kept fighting, and since he believes they should have kept fighting, he must believe that they could have kept fighting. I never said Ulfric knew anything about Hammerfell, other than they won their war with the AD. The Great War is a history book written by a Imperial legate who might be biased towards the Empire, and who acknowledges that some of what he writes is opinion.

 

@CaptainPatch

 

You assume that Ulfric was in Skyrim when the Empire surrendered, but during the battle for Solitude Galmar says ""You were there with US. You saw it. The day the Empire signed that damn treaty was the day the Empire died." So Ulfric must have been there when the Empire surrendered, or Galmar would have said "You were there with ME."

 

Yes, Ulfric believes things. However if you are going to toss The Great War out the window, then just agree to disagree. It is just your imagination as to what you think Ulfric knows against those of us who disagree with you. By the way, a Legate outranks a Captain. Rikke is a personal aide to a general. Uflric was not (or at least there is no evidence whatsoever that he was).

 

Being there for a signing does not equate to being there during the negotiations let alone being any part of them nor to having any background information whatsoever. This may be hard for you to understand, but peace treaties don't just magically appear out of nowhere.

[CaptainPatch]

@Kimmera

 

So now Legate Justianus Quintius is always correct about everything, just because he wrote a book? He was only a legate in the war, and like fraquar said, he acknowledges that some of what he writes is opinion and conjecture.

 

Ulfric said that the Empire died the day it surrendered to the AD, so he obviously believes they should have kept fighting, and since he believes they should have kept fighting, he must believe that they could have kept fighting. I never said Ulfric knew anything about Hammerfell, other than they won their war with the AD. The Great War is a history book written by a Imperial legate who might be biased towards the Empire, and who acknowledges that some of what he writes is opinion.

 

@CaptainPatch

 

You assume that Ulfric was in Skyrim when the Empire surrendered, but during the battle for Solitude Galmar says ""You were there with US. You saw it. The day the Empire signed that damn treaty was the day the Empire died." So Ulfric must have been there when the Empire surrendered, or Galmar would have said "You were there with ME."

You forget about the Nords' obsession about Honor. As in, "It's better to die fighting than to live a life of shame for having surrendered" kind of thing. So just because Ulfric says that the Empire should have kept fighting does NOT necessarily equate to him thinking that the Empire would inevitably win. He is just disgusted to think that he actually worked, fought, and bled for such miserable looooossssers!

 

Don't disparage Legate as if it was like, "he was only a legate": Legion table of ranks --

Miles -- Private (no combat experience)

Auxiliary -- a veteran soldier

Quaestor -- @Sergeant, in charge of a squad or section

Praefect -- lowest rank of the officer class. @ lieutenant

Tribune -- commands a centurio (century = 100 men)

Legate -- commands 1000 men = a legion

General -- commands a grand legion = 10,000 men

 

General is the top rank, and in cases where there may be more than one general present, there will be a hierarchy of who-answers-to-who determined by a combination of seniority and whoever the Emperor or government designates to be the one in charge. So, Legate, being the rank just below the most senior rank, is nothing to sneer at.

 

What other sources do you draw info from on the Great War besides The Great War? That's the most comprehensive text on the subject that I am aware of. Other accounts like A Brief History of the Empire are rather short on details and are really just a synopsis instead of any kind of detailed account. [And in case you didn't know it, EVERY History text comes with the biases of the author sneaking into the sub-context. Even when they are trying to be unbiased and objective, their attitudes toward the subject matter gets shaded, simply by the way they choose to phrase passages.]

 

Galmar could very well be linking different events, and applying his own bias towards the interpretations he draws. For example, his quote could easily be, "You were there with us (in Cyrodiil). You saw it (how poorly led we were). The day the Empire signed that damn treaty (proving that the Empire has no Honor) was the day the Empire died (because it showed the world just how cowardly the Empire is)." Galmar's quote does not confirm that Ulfric was there for the signing of the WGC; only that he had fought for the Legion in Cyrodiil. The when is not specified. Had Galmar said, "... when they signed that damn treaty..." that would have nailed it down. But that is NOT the way Galmar phrased it.

 

For that matter, given that Galmar is Ulfric's senior military commander, where was Galmar when the Markarth Incident was happening?

[MidbossVyers]

Does auxiliary just mean reserve troops? That's why, as an auxiliary, Tullius sent you to go tomb raiding, rather than onto the battlefield.

[fraquar]

If the only source of the Great War is the book "The Great War", then we should all resign ourselves to realizing we really don't know what happened in the most critical parts of the Great War - because as the author said it's pretty much conjecture. Without corroboration, taking that book as gospel is essentially exercising blind faith. If anything, we should be questioning why that is the ONLY reference published in regards to the most significant event in the Empire in recent times. You'd have to figure there would be a truckload of people writing about that.

Edited September 7, 2015 by fraquar

[fraquar]

@ Elimc

 

The Empire essentially agreed to surrender to the very terms they were asked to surrender which started the war. I'm not sure Ulfric was wanting to keep fighting as he was probably sick to his stomach to think the Empire apparently had no ability to negotiate better terms of a cease fire - and that every drop of blood shed was for absolutely nothing. The Empire couldn't have been in a better position to negotiate from - they wiped out an entire AD army, successfully prevented it from being reinforced and hung their General in the Imperial City for an entire month. To turn around and accept the very demands that were thrust upon them initially after that is lunacy - and Hammerfell essentially says that very thing when they refuse to abide by the terms.

[Elimc]

@CaptainPatch

 

The legates in Skyrim command only one fort, and I don't think that fort can hold 1,000 men, even accounting for gameplay doesn't equal lore.

 

If you know that the Great War is at least slightly biased, why do you discount my claims that maybe the Empire could have kept fighting, with your only evidence being the Great War, and multiple other people disagreeing with you(Ulfric and the Redguards).

 

But the US implies that Ulfric was there as well, which is what I was proving with that quote.

 

@Fraquar

 

You have a good point, the Empire didn't need to keep fighting as long as they could get reasonable terms on a peace treaty, but instead they just outright surrendered.

[kimmera]

Does auxiliary just mean reserve troops? That's why, as an auxiliary, Tullius sent you to go tomb raiding, rather than onto the battlefield.

 

I think Auxiliary in this context is a specific rank.

[kimmera]

@CaptainPatch

 

The legates in Skyrim command only one fort, and I don't think that fort can hold 1,000 men, even accounting for gameplay doesn't equal lore.

 

If you know that the Great War is at least slightly biased, why do you discount my claims that maybe the Empire could have kept fighting, with your only evidence being the Great War, and multiple other people disagreeing with you(Ulfric and the Redguards).

 

But the US implies that Ulfric was there as well, which is what I was proving with that quote.

 

@Fraquar

 

You have a good point, the Empire didn't need to keep fighting as long as they could get reasonable terms on a peace treaty, but instead they just outright surrendered.

 

The cities can't hold a thousand people, yet we are told the troop strengths are in the thousands. Game scale has to be taken with a healthy dose of salt.

[kimmera]

@ Elimc

 

The Empire essentially agreed to surrender to the very terms they were asked to surrender which started the war. I'm not sure Ulfric was wanting to keep fighting as he was probably sick to his stomach to think the Empire apparently had no ability to negotiate better terms of a cease fire - and that every drop of blood shed was for absolutely nothing. The Empire couldn't have been in a better position to negotiate from - they wiped out an entire AD army, successfully prevented it from being reinforced and hung their General in the Imperial City for an entire month. To turn around and accept the very demands that were thrust upon them initially after that is lunacy - and Hammerfell essentially says that very thing when they refuse to abide by the terms.

 

At the start of the war, the Empire had 100% of its troop strength available. At the end of the war, the Empire had called everyone who would come to the Battle of the Red Ring, and although they won, what they had left was 'in no condition to fight.' Yes, the primary source on that is the writings of one Legate. Yes, that includes some speculation, but he doesn't say it is completely speculation, and we don't have anything to contradict that other than Ulfric and Galmar's objections.

 

So at the start of the war, the Empire thought it could withstand the AD better than it actually could. It is possible they also didn't take the AD seriously enough. The blood was spilled finding out the truth. This may come as a shock, but going to war doesn't mean you will win, does not mean you can win.

 

Note that after the Civil War, 20 years after the WGC, Ulfric feels Skyrim will have to prepare for war with the Thalmor, not that they are instantly ready.

 

Similarly if the Empire wins, Tullius tells us that the Empire with Skyrim still a part will have to prepare for war with the Thalmor.

 

This tells us two things:

 

1) That the Empire is working on continuing the war

 

2) Since we know (1), the treaty must have been based on necessity, since if the plan is to continue, they would have just continued.

 

Ulfric wants to do what the Emperor did at the start of the war, namely make an educated guess that the AD are weak and act agressively. Except he wants to do so to the point of tossing away lives in both Skyrim and the Empire to do so immediately, despite the fact that even after taking over, Skyrim will still need more preparation, something with the Empire was apparently already working on anyway.

 

So how is Ulfric's plan strengthening Skyrim's position other than just from a pride perspective?

[CaptainPatch]

Does auxiliary just mean reserve troops? That's why, as an auxiliary, Tullius sent you to go tomb raiding, rather than onto the battlefield.

In the Roman Legion (which the Empire military is more or less modeled after), "auxiliaries" were most often hired mercenaries of a given type. Cavalry unit, javelineers, light or heavy infantry, etc. The Romans were actually very fond of hiring tribals that were generally feuding with whoever the Romans were currently warring with. That way, after the dust settled, and the Romans revealed just how big of jerks they were, the locals would still be feuding with each other instead of finding common cause fighting the Romans. So "auxiliary" usually was equivalent to "support unit". In game terms, an auxiliary is being used as a generic "soldier with at least some experience under his belt" with no rank implied. That is, there would be auxiliary quaestors, praefects, etc. for their command structure, but the large majority of soldiers would simply be "auxiliaries".

@CaptainPatch

 

The legates in Skyrim command only one fort, and I don't think that fort can hold 1,000 men, even accounting for gameplay doesn't equal lore.

 

If you know that the Great War is at least slightly biased, why do you discount my claims that maybe the Empire could have kept fighting, with your only evidence being the Great War, and multiple other people disagreeing with you(Ulfric and the Redguards).

 

But the US implies that Ulfric was there as well, which is what I was proving with that quote.

 

@Fraquar

 

You have a good point, the Empire didn't need to keep fighting as long as they could get reasonable terms on a peace treaty, but instead they just outright surrendered.

Did you ever do a playthrough as a Legion supporter Dragonborn? There are legates all over the place. Most of them serve the local jarl as their Legion liaison and garrison commander. And yes, a fort most likely would be commanded by a legate. But like kimmera says, do NOT go by ONLY those figures you see on screen, otherwise cities would have a population of less than 100. (More like less than 50.) It's safer to assume that for every character you see, there would be at least 100 others like him/her that Bethesda chose to not create a graphic for them. (Except in the case of key figures, such as jarls.)

 

Because while The Great War may be biased, there are NO texts that present your arguments anywhere. If there was a body of facts that coincide with your assertions, there would most likely be at least a couple that you could point to and say, "See there? That proves I'm right!" Especially since in the game there are several hundred book titles floating around.

 

Proof? If there are potentially different interpretations, it isn't proof; it's conjecture. Proof is, "This is a FACT." Not, "This could be interpreted to maybe be a fact." Show me in canon anywhere where it clearly states, "Ulfric Stormcloak was in the Imperial City when the WGC was signed" and I will accept it as a fact.

 

To get those better terms would require that they not simply just keep on fighting, but that it also hold it's own, creating a stalemate situation like in Hammerfell. Anything other than that, and treaty terms would NOT be offered, or else what would be offered would be harsher than the WGC (if the contestants used your logic). If the Empire kept fighting and was winning, it would push for a bigger victory. If the Empire kept fighting, but was losing, the AD would push harder to totally crush the Empire. Or require Cyrodiil to dissolve the Empire entirely. Would you, as the emperor, have decided to "fight and win, or fight and die"? Where the consequence of losing would be an end of the Empire entirely? If you did fight on, it would prove that you were a VERY selfish, egotistical ruler. You would be risking the lives of ALL of your citizens should the Imperial forces fail to bring home a victory. Thousands/tens of thousands more soldiers killed or maimed. ALL of the empire being Occupied and abused by the Thalmor, for generations to come.

 

It's easy to second guess a ruler's decision when it isn't you that History will curse as a foolish failure, and every family will use your name as a curse for generations to come. (If they survive to have future generations. Which even then would be the lives of slaves.)