Join Empire or Stormcloaks? My Thoughts

[Lachdonin]

Fair enough on the Reach. I think that such ancestral claims are shallow at best, but realistically the same can be said for the Israel-Palestine conflict. Both bodies, Nord and Reachman, have historical claims to the region. First is somewhat irrelvant, because the Nords took it by force from the Falmer, and then (it can be argued) the Reachmen and Drenni took it from the Nords, and then the Cyrods reclaimed it and gave it to the Nords, though neither Nord nor Reachman have been driven from it entirely since.

 

It strikes me as extremely bizarre that we can trace Nedic presence in numerous parts of Tamriel, including Easten Skyrim to before Harald, but the lack of written accounts of their presence in Western Skyrim is sufficient to discount their presence. I can see the interpretation based on the written accounts, but the Anthropologist in me screams that population distribution doesn't work that way.

 

That said, i cannot disagree that the evidence can support that conclusion.

 

 

Taking advantage of the internal strife in Skyrim, the Hegemony began taking land north and south of High Rock, claiming portions of Skyrim and present day Hammerfell.

-"claiming portions of Skyrim", the Reach??

 

Though this likely refers to Haafingar, as the Reach is directly east of the Hegemony's holdings.

 

TO be totally hones, i can't even remember what the whole argument was about... Something something historical claims to the Reach? The matter is, frankly, largely irrelevant, because the people who hold the oldest historical claim have been driven to near extinction by the Nords, and both Nords and Reachmen have been living there long enough to have legitimate claims of their own.

 

 

 

I disagree, but i don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on the subject.

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you disagree with? With me doubting the book of Arrianus? My interpretation of Braig´s dialogue? ...

 

I disagree with the claim that there is a lack of evidence to support Arrianus' implication (which, while clearly biased, do reflect what happened following the Markarth Incident) of Ulfric's culpability in the acts against the Reachmen.

 

 

 

 

The crown rejected Asurn. It literally refused to be placed upon his head. In a rage, Asurn summoned his loyal followers and threatened to kill every member of the Moot if they didn't name him as the rightful king. He refused to be rejected by a crown. A soft-spoken member of the council rose from his chair. He challenged Asurn to combat, according to the law. The battle was short and to the point: Asurn was struck down. When the soft-spoken man took the crown and placed it easily upon his own head, a new High King of Skyrim was born. That was how Kjoric the White rose to power.

- so we actually have a semi precedent for Ulfric´s challenge of Torygg

 

I've never claimed otherwise. The problem stems from his use of the Voice, and the means by which he learned it. Ulfric's position is one of Nordic Tradition, yet he picks and chooses which traditions he whats to uphold, so long as they serve him.

 

 

 

Admittedly, i've become acutely aware over the last 2 years that i am acutely Orwellian when it comes to the notion of rebellion and revolution. It has almost never, in history, brought about change for the better. Which does, i will freely admit, make me inherently biased against the Stormcloaks.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Lachdonin

[Caerulean]

 

 

Still, Umaril?

 

Which was one of the points of the other thread I started which barely anyone replied to. lol Would one say that Umaril was chosen for his values, or because of his 'lineage' or power? Would one ask however why Meridia didn't sway him from taking vengeance on the Divines for championing Pelinal? I do not know how much 'free will' stands in this universe.

 

 

About the crown, I didn't know that it had a 'mind' of its own. That's interesting. Do you think it will let itself be put on Ulfric's head given the chance?

[Lachdonin]

 

Which was one of the points of the other thread I started which barely anyone replied to. lol Would one say that Umaril was chosen for his values, or because of his 'lineage' or power? Would one ask however why Meridia didn't sway him from taking vengeance on the Divines for championing Pelinal? I do not know how much 'free will' stands in this universe.

 

 

Daedra choose their champions based on loyalty first. He was a loyal follower, who prayed to his god for salvation, and was granted it. What he chose to do from then on isn't necessarily her concern. He was a faithful servant, and was bailed out by her as reward for his service.

 

It's possible that, given Pelinal's somewhat unnatural existence, Meridia may have had something of a beef with him, but for the most part it seems that Umaril was simply a champion of a Daedric Prince, and used that power for his own goals, rather than reflecting any particular agenda of the Prince themselves.

[monganfinn]

It strikes me as extremely bizarre that we can trace Nedic presence in numerous parts of Tamriel, including Easten Skyrim to before Harald, but the lack of written accounts of their presence in Western Skyrim is sufficient to discount their presence. I can see the interpretation based on the written accounts, but the Anthropologist in me screams that population distribution doesn't work that way.

I agree from an RL standpoint, and Lamae´s account actually I think played on the coast of eastern Skyrim before the Nords arrived there. then there are the Nedes in Morrowind you already mentioned. But just think of who else lived in Skyrim - Falmer and Orsimer, there´s a good chance those two killed off any native Nedic population or enslaved them.

 

That said, i cannot disagree that the evidence can support that conclusion.

Thank you, that´s everything I was going for, I fully agree that we cannot be sure and that there is no definitive evidence for my theory, but the Forsworn claim cannot be proven either and shouldnt be taken at face value as it has a lot of holes in it.

 

CW Topic

do reflect what happened following the Markarth Incident

Is there any source at all claiming so beside his the book Bear of Markarth?

I've never claimed otherwise. The problem stems from his use of the Voice, and the means by which he learned it. Ulfric's position is one of Nordic Tradition, yet he picks and chooses which traditions he whats to uphold, so long as they serve him.

Wasnt necessarily directed at you, its just that I heard several times that we know nothing about any such duels for kingship. Reading this text was also the first time I heard of it happening in another instance. The thuum is just another such point where I think everyone has to make up his own mind, we simply have not enough info to argue on bases for either side: thuum use might be seen as bad outside the way of the voice, but no one argued that Wulfharth was using the voice heretically. then there´s the matter of oaths - did Ulfric ever swear to follow the way or was it simply expected of him while staying with the greybeards? I simply believe that there isn´t enough info about the topic to make an informent argument so its up to personal interpretation.

Admittedly, i've become acutely aware over the last 2 years that i am acutely Orwellian when it comes to the notion of rebellion and revolution. It has almost never, in history, brought about change for the better. Which does, i will freely admit, make me inherently biased against the Stormcloaks.

Well I guess the Arabian Spring disillusioned many of us, ... me as well.

But the French Revolution for one, might no have led to anything better, but the circumstances were apparently pretty much unteneable for the people.

 

However I feel that we need to differentiate between revolutions of the common people against the crown and separationist movements. The major problem I see with the first is that there is no functioning government to effectively lead the country afterwards, in the second scenario there might be such a regulating force.

That the US separated from the Commonwealth might not have been good for the native Americans and it can be argued that they did many bad things to themselves and the rest of he world, however WW2 might have ended totally differently if not for them and for the Americans themselves it might not have been that bad after gaining independence.

[Caerulean]

 

 

Daedra choose their champions based on loyalty first. He was a loyal follower, who prayed to his god for salvation, and was granted it. What he chose to do from then on isn't necessarily her concern. He was a faithful servant, and was bailed out by her as reward for his service.

 

It's possible that, given Pelinal's somewhat unnatural existence, Meridia may have had something of a beef with him, but for the most part it seems that Umaril was simply a champion of a Daedric Prince, and used that power for his own goals, rather than reflecting any particular agenda of the Prince themselves.

 

Yes, I agree. :) Finally someone thinks the same! \-(^_^)-/ It wasn't necessarily stated that it was Umaril who prayed for the salvation of the Ayleid race though, I believe.

 

 

 

However I feel that we need to differentiate between revolutions of the common people against the crown and separationist movements. The major problem I see with the first is that there is no functioning government to effectively lead the country afterwards, in the second scenario there might be such a regulating force.

 

Not necessarily no leader for common-people revolutions, The people may already have someone else to support as the nation's leader, I think, expressed or not; at least here in my nation.

[monganfinn]

Not necessarily no leader for common-people revolutions, The people may already have someone else to support as the nation's leader, I think, expressed or not; at least here in my nation.

I meant it as in "there is no fixed governmental system". For example Skyrim as we are all so familiar with it, nothing much changes, there´s still a high king, and the Jarls beneath him. No need to form parties, stage elections etc.

 

Now on the other hand think the chaos that would ensue if all the jarls and any potential jarls would be killed. Anarchy would follow as minor warlords would suddenly fight for power, bandits would roam, all of it would take far longer - interregnum etc.

[Caerulean]

 

 

Now on the other hand think the chaos that would ensue if all the jarls and any potential jarls would be killed. Anarchy would follow as minor warlords would suddenly fight for power, bandits would roam, all of it would take far longer - interregnum etc.

 

Reminds me of when the Earth Queen was killed in A:TLoK. There are still the thanes and the stewards after the jarls though.

[monganfinn]

Stewards are little more than counsilors though, they only have authority because the Jarls grant them such. Also do you think the citizen of Whiterun would respect Avenicci enough to let him rule them??

 

The Thanes would be more of a leader figure, fact is they pretty much are the nobility of a hold. However lets say there are more than 1 thane per hold, and even if every hold quickly settles under the power of a thane, those then still would need to decide on a high king from among their ranks. Lots of potential for squabbles.

 

Also that´s not really what I meant, though I admit my opinion was badly worded, lets say SKyrim suddenly wants to become a democracy and the commoners kill off all the officials: king, jarls, thanes and their family. This is a true revolution from down to top. What I meant previously as "there is no fixed governmental system". The people who are partly badly educated and come from many different backgrounds, millieus and micro cultures suddenly need to come together and decide together without the use of violence on matters that affect them all and often priviliges one part and may doom another. And then there are those natural leader figures, large land or business owners, military leaders who did the coup in the first place etc. - its a recipe for disaster.

 

That happened in the Arabian Spring - it didn´t happen in Skyrim, why I believe we cannot throw revolutions into a single pot. In the first place revolution is a wrong term for the civil war in Skyrim, it was a movement for independence from a part of the people not a revolution.

[Caerulean]

Perhaps my recent re-watching of LOTR: ROTK is still fresh in my memory. xD Similarly I'd assume stewards would be the caretakers of the 'thrones' in the leader's absence. Let's look away from Proventus Avenicci and his seemingly lack of backbone, *shrug* and consider the other stewards like Falk Firebeard who seem to have the values and the resolve to catch the unity of their respective Holds before it collapses.

 

A fully democratic government in Skyrim, or Tamriel as a whole, looks like it won't happen for a very long time, I think. I am not learned in politics nor history though so my opinion on this may be fodder.

 

My immediate concern would be the likely assassination of the present Emperor. If achieved, it would put the Empire into much morale vulnerability, more or less. I'm suspecting Ulfric would say that his death shows the weakness of the Imperials and would likely gain more support. If not, at least more trouble for the Empire to keep itself united.

[monganfinn]

 

stewards would be the caretakers of the 'thrones' in the leader's absence

They probably are technically, but that matters little if the rest of the nobility (thanes) the Jarl´s family or the mass of the citizen is against them or doesn´t respect them. I dont see any regular steward ruling a hold of Skyrim, thanes yes, but not stewards, they simply dont fulfil the "true Nord" criteria, aka they dont wield the necessary respect. We see a further problem with the killing of Torygg, a leader who doesnt command respect is killed off, we dont really know how the Nords chose their jarls if there arent heirs apparent, but IMO we can safely say that if a High King can be usurped by a jarl in a duel, a Jarl can be usurped by a Thane etc.

Just look at Dengeir in Falkreath, according to his dialogue his thanes and steward pretty much dethroned him. Again Whiterun as example: do you really think Nazeem, Battleborns, Greymanes, wouldnt make a grap for the throne if Avenicci (or really any other steward) would sit on the throne because no one else remained?

 

If you are a 1st generation leader, the greatest power you can wield is the respect you receive from people. Doesnt matter how good or intelligent you are (unless you can use it to destroy your political enemies) if you arent respected you will be dethroned quite quickly by the next warlord/politician etc

 

Lotr is IMO a special case as the steward was the only one remaining of the leading circle, everyone else was with the king in Mordor busy getting killed and killing.

 

Wasnt talking of a democracy in Tamriel, the very thought is absurd actually in some regions like Blackmarsh were semi divine beings rule, and the existence of army soloing warlords/mages also is a bad factor for such a system as it simply makes people unequal, the broad mass doesnt wield the ultimate power anymore.

 

Mede s assassination could IMO lead to many diverse and interesting outcomes:

1. what Motierre told you holds true and the Empire somehow pulls together and changes its policies, a fresh wind if you will - IMO unlikely, the Elder Council doesnt change (apart from Emperor + Motierre potentially) and the people would probably see it as a further sign of the decline of the Empire and then we dont even know how it would affect the foreign and not so foreign powers. On the other hand Titus Mede seemed quite unconcerned... he may very well have an ace up his sleeve, or he is simply too tired to care the same as he was too tired to wage another war against the Dominion.

2. another warlord/general quickly takes the reigns and makes the whole Empire more militaristic, could lead to 1.

3. Titus has a clear heir, who takes the throne peacefully and it leads back to 1.

4. High Rock, Morrowind use the opportunity and dont swear fealty to the new Emperor, hardly a better time for them to go without having to fight for it.

5. the Thalmor take over via a puppet or directly (lots of potential how this could happen)

6. the factions in the Empire (Elder Council, Military etc) break into a smouldering conflict, Id wager the Thalmor would finally ignite it and there´s then open civil war in Cyrodiil (this is my favourite as it would easily explain how the end of the civil war in Skyrim becomes meaningless: either way if the player decided to be pro Empire or Stormcloak, in the above situation any High King or Military leader, would try to save what he can save and bunker down beyond the mountains, leading to effectively being independent of the Cyrodiil as it is nothing but a raging battleground - this could lead to another ESO scenario where everyone fights over Cyrodiil)