CaptainPatch Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 There is a difference between goals, ideals, and strategic objectives. The Stormcloaks' goal is to have a unified Skyrim under the Stormcloak banner with the Empire entirely gone (along with ALL Thalmor). The Stormcloak strategic objective is to control the vital Whiterun crossroads. But the Stormcloak ideals.... Those are the "What are we fighting for?" answers. For the religious freedom to worship Talos unhindered. (Which is NOT the same as Freedom of Religion.) For the predominance of Nord culture within Skyrim. ("Skyrim belongs to the Nords!") For restoration of respect for the Old Ways. How does attacking Whiterun improve any of those things beyond what is already the case in Whiterun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Because, like any crusade based on ideals, those notions can't drive a military campaign. Ulfric knows he needs to control Whiterun to make any strategic headway. It's not about the ideals, because the ideals are just a rallying call to the disenfranchised and the gullible. Like the Muslim threat to Christianity, the over-taxation in the colonies, the Jews being responsible for the Depression, or the infidels in America, all ideals do is draw recruits. They don't win, or even dictate, wars. The Stormcloak campaign isn't driven by ideals, it's driven by military strategy. It is that need for strategy that drives the attack on Whiterun, that has Ulfric writing for aid from the Bretons even as using 'Skyrim is for the Nords' as his rallying call, that has Ulfric placing loyal Jarls on the hold thrones to ensure he wins the Moot... Strategy drives any successful war, and ignorant, manipulated Ulfric is intelegent enough to realise that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgir001 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Because, like any crusade based on ideals, those notions can't drive a military campaign. Ulfric knows he needs to control Whiterun to make any strategic headway. It's not about the ideals, because the ideals are just a rallying call to the disenfranchised and the gullible. Like the Muslim threat to Christianity, the over-taxation in the colonies, the Jews being responsible for the Depression, or the infidels in America, all ideals do is draw recruits. They don't win, or even dictate, wars. The Stormcloak campaign isn't driven by ideals, it's driven by military strategy. It is that need for strategy that drives the attack on Whiterun, that has Ulfric writing for aid from the Bretons even as using 'Skyrim is for the Nords' as his rallying call, that has Ulfric placing loyal Jarls on the hold thrones to ensure he wins the Moot... Strategy drives any successful war, and ignorant, manipulated Ulfric is intelegent enough to realise that.And that's exactly why in my Skyrim, I gladly kill him every time........And I don't use Tullius' sword. I use Poetic Justice. Unrelenting force enhanced with Dragonborn Force. Thus revealing his true nature........An ash hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeddBate Posted December 23, 2015 Author Share Posted December 23, 2015 And that's exactly why in my Skyrim, I gladly kill him every time........And I don't use Tullius' sword. I use Poetic Justice. Unrelenting force enhanced with Dragonborn Force. Thus revealing his true nature........An ash hole. Ooooh, you can actually do that to him? For the first time I really want to complete the Civil War now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPatch Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The Stormcloak campaign isn't driven by ideals, it's driven by military strategy. It is that need for strategy that drives the attack on Whiterun, ....This is pretty much the same rationale the Germans used in two world wars for invading Belgium, just to get at France. "There are no Neutrals in war; just highways to be traversed to get at one's opponents." The righteousness of the attacker -- or lack thereof - is that the opponent did NOT use the same rationale to trample on the Neutral. That is, NOT attacking a Neutral was an option and restriction that applied to BOTH combatants. The one that decides that "My need supersedes their right to be Neutral" is the one that is more morally bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidbossVyers Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) The quote "Skyrim belongs to the Nords!" has nothing to do with Stormcloaks, as it is said by all Nord combatants, be they Stormcloak, Legionnaire, bandit, random farmer who carries a dagger for some reason, etc. Please stop using it in civil war debates. Also, I find it hard to imagine that the Legion would have let Whiterun stay neutral either. Ulfric just made the first move. To the Legion, all the holds of Skyrim are part of the Empire and must follow Imperial decrees. Edited December 24, 2015 by MidbossVyers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Also, I find it hard to imagine that the Legion would have let Whiterun stay neutral either. Ulfric just made the first move. To the Legion, all the holds of Skyrim are part of the Empire and must follow Imperial decrees.The actions of the Legion indicate otherwise. They make no hostile moves towards Whiterun, and instead try to win it through diplomacy. Despite their lack of control of the region, they are shown being more than able to opperate in Stormcloak territory even without Whiterun (likely due to control of Falkreath). The evidence indicates that the Empire doesn't NEED Whiterun, whereas the Stormcloaks do. There's just nothing to indicate that the Legion has any military aims on Whiterun. They are perfectly content to let diplomacy deal with the situation, or to at least not have Balgruf support the enemy. Tullius seems to be smart enough to realise that the city isn't important enough to him to justify making another enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidbossVyers Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 But let's say that the Legion does win the war without Whiterun declaring allegiance to one side or the other. Are you saying that the Empire will continue letting Whiterun remain "neutral" afterwards? According to Imperial law, as bended by the Thalmor, Heimskr's preaching is illegal, but he is able to do so freely because Whiterun is neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 That won't be much of an issue, because Balgruf only wants to remain neutral in the war. He's basically saying he likes both sides, and doesn't want to pick ans choose, bit will back whoever comes out on top. Which isn't really that ethical either... Basically refusing to pick a side but expecting to be all friendly with whoever wins... But thats beside the point really... Balgruf doesn't seem to be under any illusion that his neutrality is permanent. He just doesn't want to he involved in the fighting, but will bow to the victor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidbossVyers Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 ... So he has the same diplomatic abilities as Khajiit merchants? If you stick around the caravans enough, you will hear a talk about which side to sell arms and supplies to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts