Join Empire or Stormcloaks? My Thoughts

[CaptainPatch]

Oh, I am soooooooooooooooo frickin' pissed at this forum software. I'm typing the last line of a wall-of-text, and poof, the whole post vanishes. I suppose that's just the Divines trying to tell me I'm wasting my time.

[kimmera]

Oh, I am soooooooooooooooo frickin' pissed at this forum software. I'm typing the last line of a wall-of-text, and poof, the whole post vanishes. I suppose that's just the Divines trying to tell me I'm wasting my time.

 

It is an obvious Thalmor plot!

[Elimc]

@Kimmera

 

That is a good point. But the same issue also applies to the legate who wrote the Great War, because if he wasn't an adviser to a general, he would have a limited idea of how the other 7 legions were doing. If he went around interviewing all the generals to find out, then he may have received biased answers since TMII wouldn't want anyone to think he could have kept fighting and possibly won.

 

Your whole argument is based around saying that the AD could have stepped in at any time during the Great War and conquered Cyrodil, but instead they chose not to, leaving a huge number of forces in reserve. Also, Skyrim has plenty of farms to supply itself, so I don't think that "the Empire normally supplies them" is a correct statement, more like "The Empire supplies them with luxury food", since half the quests in Solitude have you running down to the dock to get some freshly imported something. Why does supply suddenly become problematic after the Empire has just lost about 2/3 of its men? They had been supplying those men for 4 years, but now they suddenly can't?

 

If the legate was just a field legate, like the fort commanders in Skyrim, he wouldn't know much about the other legions. Since there were 8 legions present after the Battle of the Red Ring, this would make a legate unable to comment on the strength of the Empire's army. Only a general would know that much, or a legate who advises a general (like Rikke).

[kimmera]

@Kimmera

 

That is a good point. But the same issue also applies to the legate who wrote the Great War, because if he wasn't an adviser to a general, he would have a limited idea of how the other 7 legions were doing. If he went around interviewing all the generals to find out, then he may have received biased answers since TMII wouldn't want anyone to think he could have kept fighting and possibly won.

 

Your whole argument is based around saying that the AD could have stepped in at any time during the Great War and conquered Cyrodil, but instead they chose not to, leaving a huge number of forces in reserve. Also, Skyrim has plenty of farms to supply itself, so I don't think that "the Empire normally supplies them" is a correct statement, more like "The Empire supplies them with luxury food", since half the quests in Solitude have you running down to the dock to get some freshly imported something. Why does supply suddenly become problematic after the Empire has just lost about 2/3 of its men? They had been supplying those men for 4 years, but now they suddenly can't?

 

If the legate was just a field legate, like the fort commanders in Skyrim, he wouldn't know much about the other legions. Since there were 8 legions present after the Battle of the Red Ring, this would make a legate unable to comment on the strength of the Empire's army. Only a general would know that much, or a legate who advises a general (like Rikke).

 

Elimc, you again are ignoring the intro to The Great War. That Legate went out of his way to learn everything he could about the situation, to go beyond what he could personally see, interviewing other commanders, reviewing documents, etc. He also was high enough ranking to view interrogation documents. There is no evidence that Ulfric did anything similar, and it is unlikely that Ulfric held similar rank, particularly since there is no evidence that Ulfric had been anything other than a militia commander, i.e. not regular Imperial Army. (and again the evidence for that is that he was just a militia commander during the Markarth Incident, otherwise the 'unavailability of Imperial troops to handle the situation' would have made no sense.

 

Argh, AGAIN THE AD WERE NOT TRYING TO CONQUER CYRODIIL. That was NEVER an AD demand. Holding land is much harder than merely defeating it. There are numerous quotes in Skyrim regarding food and supplies coming from Cyrodiil. There are tiny farms in rocky, cold, far from ideal terrain, compared to Cyrodiil's considerable green spaces. There aren't even any lines about Skyrim losing Imperial markets, i.e. nothing about any Skyrim exports. Supply becomes problematic if you no longer have sufficient troops to guard supply lines, if supply wagons are destroyed, if fields are salted, etc. They needed every man they had to re-take the tower, and did so relatively quickly, so yes, it is quite possible they 'suddenly can't.' Furthermore it isn't necessarily 'suddenly.' Their situation was likely growing worse all the time over the course of the war. THIS WAR WAS 100% ON IMPERIAL SOIL. You really don't seem to understand what that means. Even if the AD didn't salt a single field, it means the AD were using up what would normally be Imperial supply. That means not just a lack of supply for the Imperial army, but also for the Imperial population. As Napoleon is credited with once having said 'An army moves on it's stomach.' That includes the AD army.

 

Again your point regarding the legate might be correct UNLESS THE LEGATE WAS ACTUALLY AT THE BATTLE (which is also confirmed in the introduction) AND ACTIVELY INVESTIGATED THE SITUATION (which again, they did). Seriously, it keeps feeling like you haven't actually read the source material. Don't you go back and re-reference at all? I pity you if you ever go to university and have to write any research paper at all. In fact, frankly, the lack of homework you do despite the effort put in to this discussion likely explain why you are sympathetic to Ulric. Both you and Ulfric seem to just assume facts rather than making any effort to actually determine facts. You have a similar style. Don't get me wrong.... there is a place in the world for that. Trying to learn all relevant facts takes time and resources and is not always viable, and people like me often lose out on opportunities from being overly cautious. Churchill showed how disastrous your kind of approach can be via Gallipoli, but then later how valuable it can be during World War II. He had generals (domestic and foreign) to lean on with respect to guiding the actual war effort during the latter though.

[CaptainPatch]

Churchill showed how disastrous your kind of approach can be via Gallipoli, but then later how valuable it can be during World War II. He had generals (domestic and foreign) to lean on with respect to guiding the actual war effort during the latter though.

Meh. He was still responsible for the stagnation in Italy. He was so married to the phrase "soft underbelly of Europe", he eventually convinced the Allies to go ahead with the invasion. Proved to be anything but soft. It turned out to be almost like Gallipoli on steroids. Probably the biggest Allied boondoggle of the war.

[kimmera]

 

Churchill showed how disastrous your kind of approach can be via Gallipoli, but then later how valuable it can be during World War II. He had generals (domestic and foreign) to lean on with respect to guiding the actual war effort during the latter though.

Meh. He was still responsible for the stagnation in Italy. He was so married to the phrase "soft underbelly of Europe", he eventually convinced the Allies to go ahead with the invasion. Proved to be anything but soft. It turned out to be almost like Gallipoli on steroids. Probably the biggest Allied boondoggle of the war.

 

 

Italy couldn't really be completely ignored though and although it was tough slogging once ashore, the beach landings were considerably easier than Normandy.

[CaptainPatch]

Italy couldn't really be completely ignored though and although it was tough slogging once ashore, the beach landings were considerably easier than Normandy.

A-N-Z-I-O. And the only thing that mad Italy any easier going was that the Germans had bigger fish to fry in France after D-Day. LOTS of casualties for no significant gain. At best, the Italian campaign required 2.5+-to-1 manpower, and the casualties inflicted versus casualties sustained was practically an Even Exchange.

Edited September 12, 2015 by CaptainPatch

[kimmera]

 

Italy couldn't really be completely ignored though and although it was tough slogging once ashore, the beach landings were considerably easier than Normandy.

A-N-Z-I-O. And the only thing that mad Italy any easier going was that the Germans had bigger fish to fry in France after D-Day. LOTS of casualties for no significant gain. At best, the Italian campaign required 2.5+-to-1 manpower, and the casualties inflicted versus casualties sustained was practically an Even Exchange.

 

 

<chuckles> We are getting off topic here again, but every German soldier in Italy was one fewer on the other fronts.

[CaptainPatch]

 

 

<chuckles> We are getting off topic here again, but every German soldier in Italy was one fewer on the other fronts.

That's cuts both ways. The Allies had 2.5 times as many soldiers tied down in Italy that could have been deployed elsewhere.

[MosAnted]

Oh, I am soooooooooooooooo frickin' pissed at this forum software. I'm typing the last line of a wall-of-text, and poof, the whole post vanishes. I suppose that's just the Divines trying to tell me I'm wasting my time.

 

That's a shame. I've been following this thread for a while now and I enjoy the fresh perspective your posts (from a strategic POV) have brought to the discussion.