Join Empire or Stormcloaks? My Thoughts

[Padre86]

 

 

I think your own quote proves my point. The Australians and New Zealanders were still a part of the British Empire (I used the wrong term when I said Commonwealth) until shortly after WWI. It was the bloody defeat at Gallipoli, later known as ANZAC day, that motivated the Australians and New Zealanders to seek more independence from the British. Granted, it was the Statue of Westminster of 1931 that finally made Australia a sovereign nation (with still some ties to Britain), but ANAC day, and the high number of WWI casualties, was one of the biggest reasons why both nations wanted independence; this is widely known:

 

The Commonwealth of Australia became more independent in the aftermath of the Great War, a war in which Australia suffered 60,000 casualties fighting for the British Imperial forces. In 1919, under Prime Minister Billy Hughes, Australia demanded and was reluctantly offered a place at the table at the Paris Peace Conference. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles was, indeed, the first time Australia had ever signed an international treaty. In negotiations, Hughes demanded and gained Australian representation in the League of Nations and significant reparations from Germany.

 

The British signed the Westminster Statute because they knew both Australia and New Zealand were expecting independence, and to not sign it would have caused some tensions. So to say that Britain separated from Australia and New Zealand (and not the other way around), since they signed the statute granting their independence, is a bit misleading.

Your argument would carry more weight if the Westminster Statute of 1931 applied to only Australia and New Zealand. But it doesn't. It included Canada, the Irish Free State, the Union of South Africa, and Newfoundland as well. In the cases of Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland, there was the requirement that their legislatures officially adopt the Statute before they shifted from Dominion to Commonwealth status. Which Australia didn't do until 1942. Further, section nine of the Statute included the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 which permitted the UK's Parliament to create laws that applied to all of Australia's States. That provision wasn't rescinded until the passage of the Australia Act of 1986. To demonstrate just how much independence these Acts gave to to Australia, a referendum on secession held in Western Australia in April 1933 was approved by 68% of the voters there. The results of the referendum were presented to Parliament -- which refused to do anything on the subject... which is precisely what became of the referendum: nothing. And today, Australia and New Zealand are still UK Commonwealth nations.

 

I don't know what you are still arguing about at this point.

 

The fact that Australia and New Zealand are still Common Wealth nations doesn't mean much...they are independent, sovereign nations and have been since 1931.

 

Britain put the Westminster Statute into place because most, if not all, of the countries you mentioned were clamoring for independence. Australia and New Zealand were particularly eager to leave because of their bad experience under British command during WWI. ANZAC day is considered a national holiday in both of those countries for that reason; indeed it is considered the underlying cause of Australia's quest for independence by many of political parties over there.

 

Also the passage of the Australia Act of 1986 was mostly just rescinding an old/outdated law for formality's sake. What laws/acts, if any, was Britain passing and enforcing regarding Australian territory from 1931 to 1986?

Edited January 15, 2016 by Padre86

[Padre86]

 

I prepare for the worst outcome possible, because it is in very poor form (for any strategist) to rely on your enemy not being ready for you than you being ready for your enemy.

 

 

Well that's the key right there.

 

You (being an imperial or imperial supporter) preparing for the "worst" possible outcome would have course want to see Skyrim maintained within the Empire. You want Skyrim for its resources and manpower in any future conflict with the Thalmor.

 

Me (being a Nord, caring about Nordic interests) preparing for the "worst" possible outcome would have plenty of good reasons to see Skyrim leave the Empire, especially if a 2nd War with the Thalmor was on the horizon. If the Nords are to join in this 2nd fight against the Thalmor, it will be on Nordic terms, not Imperial ones.

 

Perspective matters I guess.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Padre86

[Padre86]

 

I realize what the modern definition of a "buffer state" has become. But if you refer back to Ancient and even the Medieval times, nations/empires (like the Romans for examples) would frequently employ or support client states on their borders in order to buffer or impede foreign invasions. Since Skyrim is set in a Medieval environment, I am using the term "buffer state" in that context.

This is called "bypassing". I use a word that has one meaning to me, but upon reading it, you apply your definition which means something else entirely -- and then proceed on the assumption that we are using the term identically.

 

We exist now, and the commonly accepted definitions of NOW are the ones that apply -- unless an alternate definition is specified and clearly stated as being the interpretation being used. Or should we assume that the definitions of Old or Middle English should be used?

 

Your argument is NOT that all buffer states = client states. Rather that some buffers states in Ancient times were also client states. My point is that it is usually a Good Thing to have somebody else situated between two political entities when one or both are aggressively confrontational. If the AD defeats a weakened Empire, there would be nobody between Skyrim and an aggressive AD that really, really hates Talos worship, and would like nothing better than to see it eradicated everywhere.

 

 

Dude, you're really getting stuck in the semantics here. Using a client or vassal state as a buffer state was a common practice in both ancient and medieval times. You don't have to take my word for it; there are plenty of historical examples you can go read about if you want to spend a few minutes on google.

 

I understand what your original point was on why Skyrim should continue to be a part of the Empire. I think I gave a pretty thorough response on why the Empire can potentially survive without Skyrim and why, even if the Empire falls, Skyrim will be able to stand up to a Thalmor invasion. So I won't waste any more space repeating my arguments.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Padre86

[Rethrain]

If it makes you feel better.

[Padre86]

If it makes you feel better.

 

I thought my last response to you was somewhat of an olive branch, since I was acknowledging that a different perspective on this issue can affect how you align yourself, but you still seem bitter....no?

 

And to be frank with you, I feel the same now as I did prior to responding to you. So technically-speaking, I don't feel any better (or worse) than I did before.

[Rethrain]

Naw, I'm not bitter. Not sure why I "still" would be so. Sorry if I seemed that way, though.

[CaptainPatch]

Dude, you're really getting stuck in the semantics here. Using a client or vassal state as a buffer state was a common practice in both ancient and medieval times. You don't have to take my word for it; there are plenty of historical examples you can go read about if you want to spend a few minutes on google.

 

I understand what your original point was on why Skyrim should continue to be a part of the Empire. I think I gave a pretty thorough response on why the Empire can potentially survive without Skyrim and why, even if the Empire falls, Skyrim will be able to stand up to a Thalmor invasion. So I won't waste any more space repeating my arguments.

There were also a LOT of buffer states that were NOT client states in Medieval times, but you seem insistent to totally ignore those in favor of the the model you have chosen to present; there are plenty of historical examples you can go read about if you want to spend a few minutes on Google.

 

Do you realize that by arguing that the Empire can potentially survive without Skyrim actually undercuts your argument? Because if the Empire CAN do that, it's not nearly as decrepit as you suggest. And if events transpire to where the Empire is gone and its just the AD and Skyrim facing off, then if you think Skyrim can succeed where the Empire failed, you're living in a Fantasy. (Oh, wait! That is precisely the situation!)

[Madcat221]

On the subject of Titus Mede being a craven surrender monkey with the White Gold Concordat, I give you this excerpt from "The Great War"; the first paragraph of the section "4E 175: The Battle of the Red Ring"...

 

 

 

During the winter of 4E 174-175, the Thalmor seem to have believed that the war in Cyrodiil was all but over. They made several attempts to negotiate with Titus II. The Emperor encouraged them in their belief that he was preparing to surrender; meanwhile, he gathered his forces to retake the Imperial City.

 

He's done this before. The question is... are the Thalmor wise to it?

 

Mede's war is a war of gambits. The Thalmor won't be defeated by chopping them in the face with an axe. I hypothesize that the renouncement of Hammerfell was a gambit as well; to see whether or not the Dominion were truly still strong or were a paper tiger after the Great War. The Thalmor respond in kind with gambits of their own: Ulfric and his rabble-rousing. He may not be a manchurian agent, but he's definitely an unwitting pawn. Mede had that well-handled by the appointment of General Tullius, until Alduin threw a whole bunch of dwemer junk into that plan.

 

I really don't see Ulfric Stormcloak being able to pull off the guileful gambits needed to defeat the Thalmor; In fact, he IS a gambit of the Thalmor. They wrote the comprehensive manual on all his angry buttons to push to get him to do what they want when they worked him over as a P.O.W. Just look at how he was ready to storm out when Elenwen was present at the truce negotiation.

 

Only through divine intervention do the Stormcloaks ever have any chance of winning. Ulfric's head was minutes away from being separated from his neck once Alduin swooped in, and only through the Dragonborn potentially joining them do they have a chance at victory.

[CaptainPatch]

Only through divine intervention do the Stormcloaks ever have any chance of winning. Ulfric's head was minutes away from being separated from his neck once Alduin swooped in, and only through the Dragonborn potentially joining them do they have a chance at victory.

To be fair, the Empire also must rely on divine intervention (the DB) in order to have any chance to win.

[Lachdonin]

 

Only through divine intervention do the Stormcloaks ever have any chance of winning. Ulfric's head was minutes away from being separated from his neck once Alduin swooped in, and only through the Dragonborn potentially joining them do they have a chance at victory.

To be fair, the Empire also must rely on divine intervention (the DB) in order to have any chance to win.

 

 

Only after said divine intervention saved the Rebellion. Again, Ulfric was moments away from execution, Elenwen's attempt at politicing him off the block didn't work... Unless she was prepared to take him by force (come to think of it... those Bandits take over pretty quickly...) he was dead. And without him, the Stormcloaks have no leader, and would be no worse than the Foresworn.

 

On the subject of Titus Mede being a craven surrender monkey with the White Gold Concordat, I give you this excerpt from "The Great War"; the first paragraph of the section "4E 175: The Battle of the Red Ring"...

 

 

 

During the winter of 4E 174-175, the Thalmor seem to have believed that the war in Cyrodiil was all but over. They made several attempts to negotiate with Titus II. The Emperor encouraged them in their belief that he was preparing to surrender; meanwhile, he gathered his forces to retake the Imperial City.

 

He's done this before. The question is... are the Thalmor wise to it?

 

Mede's war is a war of gambits. The Thalmor won't be defeated by chopping them in the face with an axe. I hypothesize that the renouncement of Hammerfell was a gambit as well; to see whether or not the Dominion were truly still strong or were a paper tiger after the Great War. The Thalmor respond in kind with gambits of their own: Ulfric and his rabble-rousing. He may not be a manchurian agent, but he's definitely an unwitting pawn. Mede had that well-handled by the appointment of General Tullius, until Alduin threw a whole bunch of dwemer junk into that plan.

There's even a theory that Mede ordered his own assassination, knowing that he lacked the political support to properly galvanise the Empire and betting that his death would allow his successor to take the throne without his political burdens.

Mede's character seems to be one of thoughtful warfare. He doesn't just rush into a fight expecting to win through sheer strength of arms. He likes to stack the deck.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Lachdonin