Join Empire or Stormcloaks? My Thoughts

[Elimc]

@CaptainPatch

 

Titus II was forced to officially renounce Hammerfell as an Imperial province in order to preserve the hard-won peace treaty. So he obviously tried to get them to accept it, but in the end was forced to renounce Hammerfell as a province when they refused the treaty. It is highly unlikely that Hammerfell wouldn't have known rejecting the treaty would get them kicked out of the Empire.

 

There is not enough evidence about Hammerfell for us to make a solid conclusion, it could be there were no more large battles or it could be that the author of the book only considers the Great War to be the war between the Empire and the AD, not the war between the AD and Hammerfell that happened after it, so he wouldn't go into as much detail about that war. And really, in five years there would be big battles, even if they were all colossal defeats for the redguards, the Alik'r wouldn't have given up without a fight.

 

You misread that quote, it says the Alik'r inflicted the casualties on the AD, not the other way around.

 

I know the legions from Hammerfell couldn't win the Battle of the Red Ring on their own, but since they could defeated the AD's army in Hammerfell on their own, it proves the AD had limited forces to commit to Hammerfell. I was saying that unless the AD is keeping these huge numbers of well trained reserves that you have no evidence for, they were running very short on manpower by the end of the Great War.

 

When a nation no longer has the will to continue, it then signs a peace of paper declaring it surrenders. In the case of Germany and Japan, both had the will to continue after they had lost the means to continue.

 

@Kimmera

 

Okay, maybe Decianus commanded two or three legions. I don't see how this changes anything.

 

The Redguards in Hammerfell would have at least a few deserters who went back into Hammerfell to continue fighting the AD. Ulfric wouldn't be blaming the Empire for surrendering if they had been as weakened as you claim, since he would have seen that they couldn't fight on. Instead, he says that they should have fought on, which implies that they could have kept fighting.

[kimmera]

Elimc, you are again assuming that Ulfric's assessments were correct, and using that assumption as proof that Ulfric's assumptions were correct.

 

And all the stalemate in Hammerfell proves is that the AD didn't commit enough forces to do more than hold the line against Hammerfell. That is not the same thing as not having sufficient forces to do more. Right now, numerous countries are bombing ISIS positions. They obviously have considerable ground troops they could commit if they decided to do so, but so far, they have stuck to committing air power and a handful of advisers. The military strength of the nations involved cannot be judged solely on what is committed in Iraq and Syria.

 

A treaty is not the same thing as a surrender. Peace, even with concessions, is not the same thing as being conquered.

[CaptainPatch]

@CaptainPatch

Titus II was forced to officially renounce Hammerfell as an Imperial province in order to preserve the hard-won peace treaty. So he obviously tried to get them to accept it, but in the end was forced to renounce Hammerfell as a province when they refused the treaty. It is highly unlikely that Hammerfell wouldn't have known rejecting the treaty would get them kicked out of the Empire.

The variable was the "in the end". If there was an exchange of communications back and forth several times, undoubtedly the Redguards would have been told, "Obey me or you will be left on your own" by the Emperor. Under THAT circumstance they would know the consequences of their refusal. However, if 1) they receive the notification, then 2) they send back a protest that they simply could not comply with such a decision, and then 3) the Emperor sends back notice that Hammerfell is henceforth NOT a part of the Empire, it most likely would have taken them entirely by surprise. Upon reflection, they may have concluded that outcome was inevitable, but they most likely hadn't been angling for that outcome from the get-go. As to why the Emperor would have been so quick on the trigger, he was dealing with a ticking timebomb. After the BotRR, BOTH sides would have needed some time to regroup and reorganize before they would be able to resume hostilities. TM2 recognized (correctly in my estimation) that the AD would be able to accomplish that faster and far more efficiently than the Empire. Just after the BotRR, he had some negotiation leverage to use for diplomatic terms to be set. But the longer the negotiations dragged out, the more the AD would be able to resume hostilities wholeheartedly -- while the Empire would still be struggling to reconstitute a viable military force. Round Two boded to NOT go well for the Empire. So TM2 was highly motivated to finalize a treaty ASAP. The longer the flow of communications between IC and Hammerfell took, the less diplomatic leverage TM2 would have. Until finally, after enough time passed, the AD decided, "To heck with it; we will just finish kicking the bejeezus out of them!" Which would make TM2 decide that he couldn't afford to spend enough time to make the Redguards come around to his way of thinking (if that was ever even a possibility), so he make an Executive Decision and just cut it off after the first Response.

 

There is not enough evidence about Hammerfell for us to make a solid conclusion, it could be there were no more large battles or it could be that the author of the book only considers the Great War to be the war between the Empire and the AD, not the war between the AD and Hammerfell that happened after it, so he wouldn't go into as much detail about that war. And really, in five years there would be big battles, even if they were all colossal defeats for the redguards, the Alik'r wouldn't have given up without a fight.

One would think there would have been some big battles, but you would think at least ONE of those would have been mentioned. But in the absence of any documentation, all we can safely conclude is, "Nothing of any great consequence transpired in all that time."

 

One has to wonder why for a war that spanned TGW + 5 years, not a single account was written of it? [Maybe we need to compile a petition to Bethesda to at least write that ONE book, just to fill in the gap.]

 

You misread that quote, it says the Alik'r inflicted the casualties on the AD, not the other way around.

And you misread mine. What I said there was that while Imperial forces that were "forcing" the AD southward, it was the Alikr that seemed to be inflicting ALL of the "heavy losses" on the AD.

 

I know the legions from Hammerfell couldn't win the Battle of the Red Ring on their own, but since they could defeated the AD's army in Hammerfell on their own, it proves the AD had limited forces to commit to Hammerfell. I was saying that unless the AD is keeping these huge numbers of well trained reserves that you have no evidence for, they were running very short on manpower by the end of the Great War.

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THAT THE REDGUARDS DID _NOT_ "DEFEAT" THE AD IN HAMMERFELL? DId the Redguards come sweeping in and drive the Thalmor into the sea? Did they recapture Gilane, Taneth, and Rihad? Did they slaughter so many Thalmor that the AD sued for peace? We aren't even told who approached whom to initiate the truce agreement. You can't even cxlaim that "The Redguards never gave up the fight", because that is precisely what they did. In no way, shape or form is that a "victory" or "defeating the enemy". And for every weakness that you point at in the the AD, the Empire had it worse. For one thing, the ENTIRE war was fought on Empire soil.

 

When a nation no longer has the will to continue, it then signs a peace of paper declaring it surrenders. In the case of Germany and Japan, both had the will to continue after they had lost the means to continue.

You are so far removed from being "a student of History" that you are practically an antonym. Both had the means to continue -- soldiers, weapons, defenses, etc. What they lacked was the will to continue, for whatever reason. In the case of Japan in particular: The Allies had drafted up the plans to invade the Japanese Home Islands. (Operation Downfall -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall ) The conservative estimate of Allied casualties was one million, just to subdue all of Japan. And Japan was prepared to suffer whatever consequences it cost Japan to inflict those casualties on the Allies. But then Hiroshima happened, and then three days later it was followed by Nagasaki. Almost immediately thereafter, Japan signed a treaty of unconditional surrender. What had happened is that Japan had lost the will to continue. Once it was demonstrated that the Allies could literally annihilate the entire population of Japan without Japan being able to inflict a single Allied casualty in return, then there was no point in resisting the inevitable.

 

Okay, maybe Decianus commanded two or three legions. I don't see how this changes anything

The difference between "a little bit" and "a lot" maybe?

 

The Redguards in Hammerfell would have at least a few deserters who went back into Hammerfell to continue fighting the AD. Ulfric wouldn't be blaming the Empire for surrendering if they had been as weakened as you claim, since he would have seen that they couldn't fight on. Instead, he says that they should have fought on, which implies that they could have kept fighting.

How do you know that was his reasoning? Ulfric is first and foremost a Nord warrior. Honor is everything -- and surrendering while there is still breath in the body and blood in the veins is dishonorable. It's very probable that Ulfric feels that the only legitimate outcome for TM2 was "Victory or death!" Either he fights until the AD surrenders, or he dies valiantly trying. Anything outside of those two outcomes just "proves" the Empire's lack of honor. (After all, isn't that the one point that Ulfric harps on about endlessly? That the Empire has no honor?)

[Elimc]

@Kimmera

 

Since we didn't see the Battle of the Red Ring, we have to rely on other people's assessments of it to get our proof. Maybe Ulfric was wrong, but maybe he wasn't.

 

There is no evidence for these reserves, just your assumption that the AD doesn't want to take Hammerfell(despite earlier attempts to take it) and that they haven't committed many of their troops. Both of these are completely unfounded, yet you keep saying them like they are proven facts.

 

The WGC was a conditional surrender, but it was a surrender.

 

@CaptainPatch

 

Seeing how the Empire reacted when Skyrim tried to leave it, I doubt they would have just kicked the Hammerfell out without letting it have a final chance to stay in the Empire.

 

The Imperials had officially abandoned Hammerfell by the time the AD was forced back across the desert, so the Alik'r would be the only ones still fighting the AD, so I don't see what you are saying.

 

The Redguards fought the AD to a draw for 5 years, until it ended in a treaty that gave them their land back. This sounds a lot like a victory to me.

 

While two legions would be better than one, we don't know that either of these legions were at full strength by the Battle of the Red Ring.

 

The Empire not having honor could come from the fact that they made a deal with Ulfric, broke it, threw him in jail, and didn't even let him out to come to his father's funeral. I do see that maybe Ulfric would think the only acceptable outcomes of a war are surrender or death, but I do not agree with that statement.

[kimmera]

Elimc,

 

We don't even know if Ulfric was there at the end. All we know is that Galmar (and maybe Ulfric) were there for the treaty signing. On the other hand the Legate who wrote The Great War claims he was there, wounded in battle but survived. And while he admits his book contains some speculation, he actively interviewed people, read documents, etc, indicating not only that he made an active effort to piece together the truth, but was well positioned enough to have access to such information, commanders, etc.

 

What you don't understand about the possibility of AD reserves is that both you and Ulfric are simply assuming there were none, in other words, assuming that the best possible situation applies. You make no allowances for the possibility of being wrong, nor any acknowledgement of the consequences of being wrong.

 

The Empire was in better position when Skyrim tried to leave. For one thing, it is easier to get troops into Skyrim. For another, the Empire had had a few years to recover. And additionally, half the Jarls still supported the Empire.

 

And you are obviously completely right. The troops Decianus arrived with were obviously weak and completely inconsequential. The Emperor was obviously so incompetent that he accepted his general having brought only an irrelevant handfull of troops back, and even though that would have meant Decianus was essentially telling TMII that the Imperial forces in Hammerfell were completely decimated, the Emperor should have realized how powerful wounded, crippled elderly Imperial soldiers are, and should have refused the WGC on the grounds of how powerful those few such individuals were, despite them being less powerful than the completely inconsequential troops Decianus did bring with him.

 

You really aren't very good with logic, are you, Elimc?

 

Edit: and the deal was made with the Jarl of Markarth, maybe with an Imperial advisor present. It is not clear if the Emperor knew about it at all when it was made. Nor is there any evidence Torygg was involved in the deal, despite his being High King. Frankly, since Skyrim was still part of the Empire, I'd think the official response would be to tell the Stormcloaks that Skyrim is still part of the Empire, and their obedience is expected, and failing that, that even if Ulfric does not agree with the WGC, the Reachmen aren't Talos worshipers either, so Skyrim is even worse off losing Markarth than Ulfric thinks it is under the Empire.

Edited September 11, 2015 by kimmera

[CaptainPatch]

 

Since we didn't see the Battle of the Red Ring, we have to rely on other people's assessments of it to get our proof. Maybe Ulfric was wrong, but maybe he wasn't.

I find it interesting that you have only two views and interpretations of the situation after the BotRR: Ulfric's and the author of The Great War, a legate (2nd highest rank in the Legion hierarchy). Being the son of a jarl, Ulfric was most likely an officer, but probably not an officer of any great consequence. (Probably a praefect; a tribune at most.) Between the two, which would you think had a better view of The Big Picture? Your arguments suggest that a Line Captain would undoubtedly have a better grasp of the strategic situation than a Staff Colonel. [Keep in mind that if any other truly knowledgeable officers that had been present at the time disagreed with the author's assessment, they most likely published their own interpretation of the situation to show where the author "got it wrong". No such volume exists; ergo "he got it right" (more or less).]

 

There is no evidence for these reserves, just your assumption that the AD doesn't want to take Hammerfell(despite earlier attempts to take it) and that they haven't committed many of their troops. Both of these are completely unfounded, yet you keep saying them like they are proven facts.

Actually, it _does_ say that the AD's initial focus had been Hammerfell, with Cyrodiil being primarily a diversionary attack to keep the Empire's focus there. However, circumstances suggested an opportunity to the AD, so it shifted its focus from Hammerfell to Cyrodiil. Any followup forces that had been heading to Hammerfell would have been diverted to Cyrodiil. (Similar to how the Empire diverted the Hammerfell Legions to Cyrodiil, just before the big push towards Skaven was about to kick off.) If there was no reallocation of forces from one theater to the other, then there is effectively NO change of focus. Each theater would still have the same force allocation it started with, with no change being made. Which makes the "change of focus" statement utterly meaningless.

The WGC was a conditional surrender, but it was a surrender.

In what way then is a "truce" different from a "conditional surrender"? Both are declarations of what each of the signatories are willing to do in order to have the fighting stop. Neither side is conquered, ground into the dirt, destined to be naught but a footnote in History. Look at several actual surrenders in History. Lee at Appomattox. Napoleon after Waterloo. Cornwallis at Yorktown. A surrender is when the loser gives up his arms, making him unable to continue fighting.

 

Seeing how the Empire reacted when Skyrim tried to leave it, I doubt they would have just kicked the Hammerfell out without letting it have a final chance to stay in the Empire.

And just how different is Skyrim from Hammerfell? The Empire sent ONE man, Tullius, to orchestrate the Empire's forces in Skyrim. I'm sure TM2 would have liked to send even that much to get the Redguards to reconsider, but he didn't. Probably because he didn't have enough time to sort out both Hammerfell and get the WGC signed.

 

The Imperials had officially abandoned Hammerfell by the time the AD was forced back across the desert, so the Alik'r would be the only ones still fighting the AD, so I don't see what you are saying.

Huh? (Again) The AD moved out of Skaven and headed South in 4E 174. Shortly before that, Decianus was forced to take the bulk of the Imperial forces East to Cyrodiil. The BotRR didn't take place until 4E 175, well after the Ad had finished its trek across the Alikr. Besides the Alikr, the Redguards still had viable Forebear and Crown forces involved in the fight. (It certainly wasn't any Imperial forces that broke the siege at Hegathe.) The Empire didn't "officially" abandon Hammerfell until the WGC was signed in 4E 175.

 

The Redguards fought the AD to a draw for 5 years, until it ended in a treaty that gave them their land back. This sounds a lot like a victory to me.

In the end, the heroic Redguards fought the Aldmeri Dominion to a standstill, although the war lasted for five more years and left southern Hammerfell devastated.

"We sure did kick those Thalmors' asses! They killed oodles of us, and they thoroughly trashed our real estate, and we never really did push them out by force. And we never did get the opportunity to trash any of their real estate. And they did have the opportunity to ship out EVERYTHING of value while they Occupied our lands. But they left, and we got our land back! (Though much worse for the wear.) That's a "victory", right?" Good for you! Concentrating on that silver lining, rather than the massive cloud above it.

 

While two legions would be better than one, we don't know that either of these legions were at full strength by the Battle of the Red Ring.

Doesn't matter. By the time of the BotRR, most likely NO legion was at full strength. What mattered was that those troops added to the overall Imperial combat strength, giving it enough to defeat the AD in the IC.

 

The Empire not having honor could come from the fact that they made a deal with Ulfric, broke it, threw him in jail, and didn't even let him out to come to his father's funeral. I do see that maybe Ulfric would think the only acceptable outcomes of a war are surrender or death, but I do not agree with that statement.

Hmm. Is it honorable for a man to force another to lose his? Ulfric NEVER had a deal with the Empire. That would have required that the Emperor to be a participant in making the agreed upon terms. And what Ulfric did was tantamount to blackmail. When the Legion arrived at Markarth, the Stormcloaks in the city were still merrily executing anyone that displeased them. Then Ulfric comes out and declares, "You can't enter the city until you agree to my terms!" Those terms being things that the Legion commander pointedly had no authority to agree to. Something Ulfric would have been VERY aware of, had he been a high-ranking Imperial officer. Which he apparently wasn't. Heck, if he had been the least bit politically savvy, he would have understood immediately that Igmund didn't have the authority to make the initial deal. So, the Legion commander had been put into the untenable position of A) refusing the deal, allowing the Stormcloaks to continue unhindered in their murderous rampage inside Markarth. Or B) agree to the deal, stop the carnage, and then renege at the earliest opportunity. Decisions, decisions.

 

Not allowing Ulfric to attend his father's funeral was only to be expected. He was an incarcerated felon after all. The probability that if he was given a "pass" to go to the funeral, Ulfric and his Stormcloak supporters would take the opportunity to spring him from jail was simply (and obviously) too great. Were they expected to believe someone so hostile to the Empire could be trusted to return to prison after the funeral, just because he said, "Cross my heart and hope to die"?

Edited September 11, 2015 by CaptainPatch

[Elimc]

@Kimmera

 

If Ulfric and Galmar were in the IC when the treaty was signed, it is likely that they fought in the Battle of the Red Ring. They definitely would have seen the condition that the Legion was in.

 

I know that if Ulfric is wrong about Skyrim's ability to fight the AD, and the Empire's ability to recover, a victory for him will result in victory for the AD. But if he is right about the Empire's ability to recover and the AD's ability to walk in and destroy the Empire whenever they want, a victory for the Empire will result in victory for the AD.

 

I was not saying that Decianus' men were weak or not needed to win the Battle of the Red Ring, I was saying that if his army was defeating the AD in Hammerfell, then the AD didn't have many of their forces committed there. I inferred from this that they didn't have forces to commit there, and therefore are not as strong as you believe. While I could be wrong about that, I think it would be the AD's style to try to bluff the Empire into surrendering.

 

 

@CaptainPatch

 

The legates commanding forts in Skyrim don't seem like they would know exactly what is going on in all the other forts, while they would receive reports about how well the other parts of their legion are doing, they wouldn't have enough information to say for a fact if the other legions were "able to continue". If he was a Staff legate, like Rikke, then he probably would but we don't know that Justianus Quintius was.

From the 'Bear of Markarth' "the Empire had no choice but to grant Ulfric and his men their worship." The Empire then broke their deal with Ulfric and had him arrested. While it may have been the the Imperial who agreed to these terms was overruled and didn't want to betray Ulfric, the fact remains that Ulfric was betrayed by the Empire.

 

The shift of focus occurred in 4E172, two years before the AD was stopped in Hammerfell. So while they did want Cyrodil more than Hammerfell, the AD was still planning on taking both.

 

The Empire sent one General to Skyrim, with a legion under his command. While they were forced to recruit locally, he probably was sent with at least a few thousand men.

 

I thought that the Alik'r were just a class of Redguard warriors, like knights in medieval Europe, rather than their own faction.

 

Yes, but the fact that the AD in Hammerfell could be defeated by one or two legions that aren't at full strength proves that they did not have many forces committed there. I think that means that they didn't have any forces TO commit there.

 

There is no proof that the atrocities described in the 'Bear of Markarth' actually happened, especially because no one in Markarth ever mentions them, not Braig, Madanach, or Igmund. Also, there is the fact that the author says the event happened five years before it did. Or that none of the Forsworn in the Reach are mad at Ulfric, instead they are mad at Igmund. That book is obviously propaganda, especially considering that the author is an Imperial Scholar. Regardless of all that, the Empire betrayed Ulfric. The legion commander should have sent a message back to TMII, or said that he couldn't agree to the terms. Instead, he lied.

[JakeCWolf]

This topic has gone on for quite sometime I see, since I don't feel like reading through 104 pages of text, or even the last few I'm just going answer the title's question outright; Niether.

 

And here's why, both the Imperials and Stormcloaks are right and wrong, both ignore something the other doesn't, worse then that both are ignorant of the true scope of Alduin's return, and that if the Dragonborn hadn't practically smashed thier heads togeather for a truce to deal with him there wouldn't be a Skyrim or a Tamirel to fight over.

[kimmera]

This topic has gone on for quite sometime I see, since I don't feel like reading through 104 pages of text, or even the last few I'm just going answer the title's question outright; Niether.

 

And here's why, both the Imperials and Stormcloaks are right and wrong, both ignore something the other doesn't, worse then that both are ignorant of the true scope of Alduin's return, and that if the Dragonborn hadn't practically smashed thier heads togeather for a truce to deal with him there wouldn't be a Skyrim or a Tamirel to fight over.

 

My counter to this is that Ulfric is the one breaking away and forcing a civil war. The Dragonborn can force a truce, or can side with either side and break the impass for a more definitive result.

[kimmera]

@Kimmera

 

If Ulfric and Galmar were in the IC when the treaty was signed, it is likely that they fought in the Battle of the Red Ring. They definitely would have seen the condition that the Legion was in.

 

I know that if Ulfric is wrong about Skyrim's ability to fight the AD, and the Empire's ability to recover, a victory for him will result in victory for the AD. But if he is right about the Empire's ability to recover and the AD's ability to walk in and destroy the Empire whenever they want, a victory for the Empire will result in victory for the AD.

 

I was not saying that Decianus' men were weak or not needed to win the Battle of the Red Ring, I was saying that if his army was defeating the AD in Hammerfell, then the AD didn't have many of their forces committed there. I inferred from this that they didn't have forces to commit there, and therefore are not as strong as you believe. While I could be wrong about that, I think it would be the AD's style to try to bluff the Empire into surrendering.

 

 

@CaptainPatch

 

The legates commanding forts in Skyrim don't seem like they would know exactly what is going on in all the other forts, while they would receive reports about how well the other parts of their legion are doing, they wouldn't have enough information to say for a fact if the other legions were "able to continue". If he was a Staff legate, like Rikke, then he probably would but we don't know that Justianus Quintius was.

From the 'Bear of Markarth' "the Empire had no choice but to grant Ulfric and his men their worship." The Empire then broke their deal with Ulfric and had him arrested. While it may have been the the Imperial who agreed to these terms was overruled and didn't want to betray Ulfric, the fact remains that Ulfric was betrayed by the Empire.

 

The shift of focus occurred in 4E172, two years before the AD was stopped in Hammerfell. So while they did want Cyrodil more than Hammerfell, the AD was still planning on taking both.

 

The Empire sent one General to Skyrim, with a legion under his command. While they were forced to recruit locally, he probably was sent with at least a few thousand men.

 

I thought that the Alik'r were just a class of Redguard warriors, like knights in medieval Europe, rather than their own faction.

 

Yes, but the fact that the AD in Hammerfell could be defeated by one or two legions that aren't at full strength proves that they did not have many forces committed there. I think that means that they didn't have any forces TO commit there.

 

There is no proof that the atrocities described in the 'Bear of Markarth' actually happened, especially because no one in Markarth ever mentions them, not Braig, Madanach, or Igmund. Also, there is the fact that the author says the event happened five years before it did. Or that none of the Forsworn in the Reach are mad at Ulfric, instead they are mad at Igmund. That book is obviously propaganda, especially considering that the author is an Imperial Scholar. Regardless of all that, the Empire betrayed Ulfric. The legion commander should have sent a message back to TMII, or said that he couldn't agree to the terms. Instead, he lied.

 

I am not sure you understand the concept. This wasn't even an open field situation. Even if Ulfric and Galmar were there, they would not have been able to see more than their own unit most of the time. They wouldn't know the supply situation, and they might have delusions about how quickly legions could be rebuilt or supplied.

 

They just saw a huge number of troops brought to IC for the battle and might assume that Empire could do that again.

 

If the AD can step in and wipe out the Empire any time they want then NO CHOICE WORKS. A pre-emptive strike against a superior foe does not make that foe suddenly crumple for no reason. The only situation in which Ulfric's choice works is if the AD are so weak that they would surrender just from a bluff. There is zero evidence of that.

 

You seem to assume that even though the Empire's forces are obviously re-deployable (Decianus being the obvious example) that the AD can re-deploy too, and likely did when Hammerfell seemed to be folding and Cyrodiil seemed similarly weak. Decianus had temporary success when the AD withdrew troops to concentrate on Cyrodiil, and that continued somewhat after Decianus withdrew after IC was captured. Then the battle of the red ring happened, and the vast majority of the Empire's forces were gone. Supply would be problematic. Feeding armies is not easy, and the Empire normally supplies Skyrim, not the other way around.

 

Even to the extent Ulfric could see and assess remaining troop strengths, he had no experience with Imperial supply lines, the Imperial production situation, no way of being able to determine the strategic end of things other than just looking at the surface. Unlike the Legate, there is no evidence of Ulfric having done anything other than being there... maybe. He did not have the superior level of information.