Join Empire or Stormcloaks? My Thoughts

[kimmera]

@Kimmera

 

The Empire tried to arrest Ulfric for a crime he hadn't commited, or for something that wasn't a crime, and Ulfric then decided to delcare independence from the Empire. But the Empire started the war because they tried to arrest and execute Ulfric when Ulfric hadn't commited a crime.

 

Tullius has stopped the moot from happening by trying to capture and kill Ulfric. How is Ulfric supposed to travel to Solitude and declare a moot when he will be arrested upon entering the city? Tullius won't allow a moot to happen at all, simply wanting to keep Elisif as his puppet.

 

If the people are never consulted, then how do you explain Vignar's dialoge, other than calling him a liar? And if he did really sieze power by having Galmar choose him, then wouldn't everyone already know that? So what would be the point in lying about it?

 

He does not say "Join me or I will kill you", he says "Join me or I will take your city". He never threatens or plans to kill Balgruuf, only to exile him and take Whiterun. The only people who get killed in the battle for Whiterun are soldiers and that one farmer who could have been killed by either side.

 

Ulfric was already mobilized before his arrest. Since Torygg was the only casualty in Solitude, it seems unlikely that they tried hard to kill Ulfric before he mobilized too. Regardless, the description of Ulfric's speech at the moot that elected Torygg was 'just short of treason.' Furthermore, Ulfric's purpose in killing Torygg was to become High King and declare independence. Even if the duel was legitimate, declaring independence is treason against the Empire. Even if he hadn't raised his forces yet (which seems unlikely), he was plotting treason.

 

Ulfric could be arrested on entering the city, but if all the other Jarls and their personal guards are present and backing him, then it would be tricky for the Empire. There is zero evidence that the Empire said anything against the moot at all.

 

I think a big part of the problem here is that you seem to think of Skyrim as occupied territory, but it isn't. The leaders and troops of Skyrim swore fealty to Tibor Septim, aka Talos and to the Empire because they were impressed, not just because they were forced to do so. Fealty isn't a 'only when convenient' thing. It isn't an 'only when we are winning' thing. Saying "Elsif is a puppet of the Empire" is like saying the Jarls were puppets of Torygg, or the Stormcloaks were puppets of Ulfric. Skyrim is part of the Empire, whether you acknowledge that or not.

 

As for Vignar, I am not calling him a liar. He is likely just a deluded old man who really does believe he represents the people. Like Ulfric, he may well be using the definition that 'the people' are only those who agree with the Stormcloaks, and anyone else isn't a 'True Nord' and therefore doesn't count. And I never said he 'seized power.' Ulfric seized it and tossed Vignar on the throne knowing Vignar is a loyalist, as arranged between them in advance. If he is lying though, the obvious reason is to sound legitimate.

 

The Germans didn't plan on killing all Belgians either, but that didn't mean they were justified in taking over Belgium just to be able to attack France easier. Are you seriously saying you don't understand the concept that attacking people out of convenience or simply because they are in your way is bad? Just because the people aren't killed doesn't make them better off under Ulfric.

[MidbossVyers]

Yes, Skyrim swore fealty to the Septim Empire. Is this the Septim Empire?

[Elimc]

@Kimmera

 

How do you know Ulfric mobilized his armies before Tullius did? You are making an assumption that has no evidence backing it up. What if Tullius demanded that Ulfric surrender himself for a trial, and when Ulfric said he wouldn't since he hadn't commited a crime, Tullius tried to take Windhelm by force, and Ulfric was forced to fight back or die. You could say that Ulfric still started the war by not giving himself up for trial, but it was obvious that he would be executed for treason, regardless of the legality of the duel.

 

But half of the Jarls support the Empire, so why would they back Ulfric? He would have himself, and the Jarls of Winterhold, Riften, Dawnstar and possibly Falkreath. And you are saying that they should just walk into Solitude and hope that they don't face charges of treason? That would be next to suicide. Tullius would have all the rebellious Jarls dead all at once, and he could just march in before their armies could figure out what had happened. If Tullius is for the moot, then why did he try to kill Ulfric at the start of the game? Wouldn't he have waited for Ulfric to make the first move, hoping that they could have a moot.

 

First, did you ever hear Erikur say that "Oh, most certainly. At least, when Elisif herself asks. If you're inquiring whether we have concerns about her age and inexperience, well, let me put it this way... The Thanes have every confidence in General Tullius's leadership." And Falk says he is going to resign after the war is over so he can marry Bryling, so pretty soon Tullius and Erikur will be ruling Solitude. And the whole point of a civil war is when you decide you no longer want to be ruled by the person/country you/your country swore fealty to. How can you say that because Skyrim swore fealty to Tiber Septim, it is wrong for Ulfric to rebel against TMII? At the beggining of the game, the only parts of Skyrim that are ruled by the Empire are Falkreath, Markarth, Solitude, and Morthal. The rest of Skyrim is not under Imperial control, so regardless of what the Empire says, it is not part of the Empire. Also, Ulfric never swore fealty to TMII, Torygg did. And by your logic the American Revolution was wrong, because the leaders of America had sworn oaths of allegiance to Britian.

 

Galmar was in the throne room fighting Balgruuf, so if he was going to choose the Jarl, wouldn't he have done that later, after the battle was over?

 

But Ulfric killed no innocents in Whiterun, only enemy soldiers.

[kimmera]

@Kimmera

 

How do you know Ulfric mobilized his armies before Tullius did? You are making an assumption that has no evidence backing it up. What if Tullius demanded that Ulfric surrender himself for a trial, and when Ulfric said he wouldn't since he hadn't commited a crime, Tullius tried to take Windhelm by force, and Ulfric was forced to fight back or die. You could say that Ulfric still started the war by not giving himself up for trial, but it was obvious that he would be executed for treason, regardless of the legality of the duel.

 

But half of the Jarls support the Empire, so why would they back Ulfric? He would have himself, and the Jarls of Winterhold, Riften, Dawnstar and possibly Falkreath. And you are saying that they should just walk into Solitude and hope that they don't face charges of treason? That would be next to suicide. Tullius would have all the rebellious Jarls dead all at once, and he could just march in before their armies could figure out what had happened. If Tullius is for the moot, then why did he try to kill Ulfric at the start of the game? Wouldn't he have waited for Ulfric to make the first move, hoping that they could have a moot.

 

First, did you ever hear Erikur say that "Oh, most certainly. At least, when Elisif herself asks. If you're inquiring whether we have concerns about her age and inexperience, well, let me put it this way... The Thanes have every confidence in General Tullius's leadership." And Falk says he is going to resign after the war is over so he can marry Bryling, so pretty soon Tullius and Erikur will be ruling Solitude. And the whole point of a civil war is when you decide you no longer want to be ruled by the person/country you/your country swore fealty to. How can you say that because Skyrim swore fealty to Tiber Septim, it is wrong for Ulfric to rebel against TMII? At the beggining of the game, the only parts of Skyrim that are ruled by the Empire are Falkreath, Markarth, Solitude, and Morthal. The rest of Skyrim is not under Imperial control, so regardless of what the Empire says, it is not part of the Empire. Also, Ulfric never swore fealty to TMII, Torygg did. And by your logic the American Revolution was wrong, because the leaders of America had sworn oaths of allegiance to Britian.

 

Galmar was in the throne room fighting Balgruuf, so if he was going to choose the Jarl, wouldn't he have done that later, after the battle was over?

 

But Ulfric killed no innocents in Whiterun, only enemy soldiers.

 

So you are saying that Tullius just up and decided "Hey, lets go conquer Skyrim! Nevermind that it is already part of the Empire, let's go conquer it again!" It makes no sense.

 

If Tullius tried to take Windhelm by force, don't you think someone would have mentioned it? Not to mention, the only reason Tullius would have had to take Windhelm by force would be if Windhelm had already rebelled. You really don't get it do you? Skyrim isn't an area the Empire just decided to take over. It is already part of the Empire. If Tullius marched an army to Windhelm, and they didn't let him in, then Windhelm has rebelled. If the Emperor traveled with the Imperial Army to Imperial City and they didn't let him in, then Imperial City would have rebelled.

 

Sigh..... Tullius isn't a politician. He is a general. In the Empire there is a difference between the two.

 

You had said 'But the Empire wasn't letting Ulfric call a moot.' Now you follow it up with 'if Ulfric called a moot, half the Jarls wouldn't have backed him.' And there you have explained to yourself why Ulfric didn't call a moot. If he had the backing of the Jarls, then he would have 100% support and the Empire would be caught out. But he doesn't have that full support, so he has to go to war to try to force not just the Empire, but the other half of the Jarls as well to submit.

 

By the way, suppose a moot is called and the Jarls choose Elisif? What then? Does Ulfric challenge her to a duel? And keep challenging til he gets his way or is dead?

 

Erikur? Is this the same Thane Erikur that Elisif asks for economic advice from and he advises it would be cheaper not to support the Empire and that if they don't support the Empire, then the rebels will all just go home and stop rebelling? Despite the fact that Ulfric clearly wants the throne and that it is very unlikely that he would simply 'go home' and abandon his ambitions even if the Empire for some reason decided just to leave?

 

Again, Vignar and Galmar knew each other personally. That was clear in the throne room. Why do you assume Vignar couldn't have been chosen in advance?

 

And are you saying that Belgian soldiers were guilty and deserved to die at the hands of the German army? That if no Belgian civilians had been killed, that taking over Belgium would have been just fine? Do you get your concepts of morality from GTA or something?

[kimmera]

Yes, Skyrim swore fealty to the Septim Empire. Is this the Septim Empire?

 

Yes, it is. Even though it is no longer the Septim line, it is still the Empire Tibor Septim founded. The laws and structure didn't all change simply because the line died out.

[Elimc]

@Kimmera

 

Tullius did not decide to conquer Skyrim, he decided to arrest Ulfric for killing the High King in a LEGAL duel. Ulfric fought back and started the rebellion. I find it unlikely that Ulfric decided to conquer Skyrim instead of have a moot while Falkreath still supported him.

 

Yes, Ulfric rebelled, but he probably did so in response to Tullius's legion trying to arrest him. Why would he rebel before he was High King if he had the Jarls of Falkreath, Winterhold, Dawnstar, and Riften with him? That is more than half of the Jarls, so he would have won the moot. Ulfric doesn't need 100% of Skyrim to like him, just more than 50%. And before Falkreath turns Imperial, he does. So why would he need to rebel unless Tullius was preventing him from calling a moot? The reason I gave that he couldn't call a moot was that Tullius would have killed him, not that he wouldn't have won it.

 

If the moot did choose Elisif, then they probably would re-choose her if she refused Ulfric's challenge. Just because you are challenged doesn't mean you have to accept.

 

Erikur never says anything like that. That was Bryling, and the whole converstation is here:

 

Elisif: "As you know, Solitude's coffers are much depleted by the war efforts. Thane Erikur, you have a strong head for business. What do you suggest?"

Erikur: "This is an unfortunate but unavoidable ebb in revenue. But as long as we continue to support the Empire, our sacrifices will be well rewarded."

Bryling: "Listen to you, speaking of sacrifice. You've never gone hungry a day in your life, Erikur!"

Elisif: "And what would my impetuous Thane Bryling suggest, instead?"

Bryling: "Simple. Let the Empire fight its own war, with its own funds, and without hijacking our supplies and soldiers. Let Haafingar rebuild."

Erikur: "My lady... Surely you're not that naïve. Such foolishness would only leave us defenseless. The rebels would storm the palace in an afternoon."

Bryling: "The Stormcloaks only rebel because the Empire uses Skyrim as its personal larder. The more they take, the more support the rebels gain!

Elisif: "That is quite enough. Perhaps I will raise these issues when I have an audience with General Tullius."

 

Erikur likes the Empire's rule, because "The Empire is good for business, and business is good for Skyrim." Of course by Skyrim he means himself.

 

If Vignar hadn't been elected, then everyone in Whiterun would know that, so why would he lie about it. It is hard to lie about something that is common knowledge, like if there was an election or not. If he was lying, all you would need to do to find out would be to ask a random person in Whiterun if there was an election.

 

But half of Whiterun wants to be Stormcloak anyway, and any of the guards that liked Ulfric wouldn't have fought in the battle, and Ulfric did give Balgruuf a chance to side with him. In the Imperial version, it is clear that Balgruuf knows that sending his axe to Ulfric will start a war, and he sends it anyway. So if Belgium had told Germany it was siding with France, and Belgium had previously been a part of Germany and France, but had stayed out of the war, and Germany told it to pick a side, and when Germany attacked Belgium the only people they killed were French soldiers and Belgium soldiers who supported France, then yes.

 

The laws may not have changed because an Emperor had a different last name, but they did change. Also, just because Skyrim swore fealty to the Empire a thousand or so years ago does not mean it is necessarily wrong for Ulfric to want to seceed. By your logic the American Revolution was wrong, because the leaders of America had sworn oaths of allegiance to Britian.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Elimc

[kimmera]

So again, if he has support from more than half the Jarls (and Whiterun is neutral as well) then why would he be afraid at a Moot? The Empire would have to take on the personal retinues of at least half the Jarls, and maybe all of them since the other half might change sides in those circumstances. If Elisif lost a duel, why would you assume she'd still be alive for the Moot to re-choose her? Torygg wasn't given that option.

 

As for Erikur I stand corrected. However, the fact remains that there is no Imperial representative in the throne room, and no indication that Tullius exerts any such actual control. But again even if he did, Skyrim is still part of the Empire and thus subject to its laws.

 

Which half of Whiterun wants to be Stormcloak? Besides the Grey-Manes and Battle-Borns, which clearly have side preferences, most of the city just seem neutral. As for Belgium, it had been fought over by France and Austria, was temporarily French under Napoleon until his forces were chased out by the British, Was invaded by Germany in WWI and taken over by Germany in WWII. None of that changes the face that it was neutral before both world wars and was attacked because it was a convenient way to get at France. Much of Europe has similarly changed hands over time. This 'pick a side' nonsense is pure rationalization.

 

Laws changed under the Septims too. Laws changing doesn't mean much. And wanting secession is not automatically wrong, but it still is treason, whether you are willing to admit that or not. The American Revolution was treason against Britain. Americans just don't care about that because they won and because they believed in their cause. Do you feel the same way about the Russian Revolution? The rest of the world (including the US) stepped in to try to put the Tsar back on the throne. How about ISIS? Just because the American revolution ended up well doesn't mean they all do or that they are all justified.

Edited July 13, 2015 by kimmera

[Elimc]

@Kimmera

 

So Ulfric should basically just get an army together and march up to Solitude, and say that all he wants to do is call a moot? Tullius would think he was under attack, or that Ulfric intended to take the city by force if he lost the moot. I said that Elisif would simply refuse any challenges Ulfric made. You do not necessarily lose a moot just because you refused a challenge. If the Jarls chose her once, they would probably just choose her again.

 

So you basically admit that Elisif is a puppet of both Tullius and Erikur? Just because Skyrim is part of the Empire doesn't mean the Empire is allowed to have direct control over its internal affairs. As Ulfric said, Skyrim needs a true High King, not one that is just an Imperial puppet. Erikur acts like an Imperial representative, even if he isn't officially one, and once Falk resigns he will have much more power.

 

First, what does Belgium being taken over a lot have to do with Whiterun? Second, I meant that as many people in Whiterun support the Stormcloaks as support the Imperials. And life is pretty much the same in Whiterun before and after Ulfric, with the exception of Olfrid complaining about being robbed. I personally think he is lying, because since he is connected to the guild he could probably stop any thieves from robbing him. And in the Imperial version, Balgruuf picks the Imperial side based on fake documents, not Ulfric's threats.

 

Yes, but when a law is made that outlaws a religion, it does mean a lot. And I know the civil war is treason, but it that does not mean it is wrong, like you said. It really does not have any effect on the situation at all.

[kimmera]

Ulfric got his army together regardless. I didn't say he should march on Solitude. Why does a moot have to be in Solitude anyway?

 

..... I don't think Elisif is any more a puppet than any Thane is of their Jarl. How are Ulfric's Thanes not his 'puppets' by your definition? How would the Jarls not be Ulfric's 'puppets?' Ulfric makes it clear that if you don't follow his lead you deserve to lose your lead. Your anti-authority bias is leading you to simply follow a different authority. If Skyrim needs a 'true high king' that isn't an Imperial puppet, then wouldn't it also be true that Whiterun needs a 'true Jarl' who isn't a Solitude puppet? And what of the Reachmen? Why no independence for the Reach?

 

Belgium was a neutral power that had it's neutrality ignored. Whiterun is a neutral power that has it's neutrality ignored. The scope of the game doesn't last long enough to see what happens after Ulfric consolidates his power. Saying 'Whiterun doesn't change' is a 4th wall issue and you know it. What side picking? Balgruuf asks Ulfric to leave Whiterun alone and Ulfric says no, my troops will take you over. Even to the extent Imperial troops support Whiterun it is made clear in the dialogue that it is on Balgruuf's terms, not those of the Empire, and the dialog makes it clear that Balgruuf doesn't 100% believe what he is handed to read. He does send the axe to Ulfric rather than simply tell the Empire 'ok I am with you now.' It is then Ulfric's choice to attack rather than respect. Are you saying the Germans were justified in invading Belgium because Allied troops would later kick them out?

 

At least you are willing to admit the civil war is treason. The Empire makes essentially no effort policing the anti-Talos clause of the White Gold concordat. If the Stormcloaks didn't do their posturing garbage at Markarth (which was also treasonous), then the Thalmor wouldn't be wandering about enforcing it either. Ulfric was either looking for an excuse or doesn't understand diplomacy at all.

Edited July 14, 2015 by kimmera

[Elimc]

@Kimmera

 

You said he and four other Jarls should all get their personal guard and walk up to Solitude. But Tullius would have to be an idiot to let all of those soldiers inside Solitude, and Ulfric would be an idiot to go into Solitude without them.

 

But thanes are supposed to be advisors, not rulers. There is a big difference there. The Jarls wouldn't be Ulfric's puppets because they know how to rule, and don't rely on him to do everything. Elisif does not know how to rule, and basically lets Tullius run the city. Balgruuf isn't anyone's puppet, he just picked the wrong side. And the Reachmen kill innocent people to sacrifice, and don't have a real reason to rebel. In fact, only a fraction of them joined in the uprising with Madanach. Most of them don't really want Madanach to rule.

 

Balgruuf knew that sending his axe to Ulfric would start a war though, so in the Imperial version you could say that he gave up his neutrality before Ulfric did anything. In the Stormcloak version, Ulfric did not completely ignore his neutrality, since he gave him a chance to join him. He attacked it only after the city was under Imperial guard. And how do you think Balgruuf and Tullius are going to stop the Thalmor when they ask to enter Whiterun? Tullius can hardly refuse, and with so many of his men in the city, Balgruuf won't be able to do anything about it. Also, Vignar does say he is trying not to make many changes, and most of the people don't say there is a big change, so I would say that Whiterun didn't change that much. Balgruuf knew sending his axe to Ulfric would start a war, he says so when you bring it back to him. And i don't see what you are trying to say with that analogy.

 

The Empire was making sure all Talos worship was done very secretly, or why would everyone have to hide shrines in their basement, like Hadvar says? The Markarth Incident was not treason, because the Empire agreed to allow worship of Talos in the Reach if Ulfric retook it. It was against the concordant, but it was not treason. The Thalmor would have gotten into Skyrim one way or another, the Empire couldn't have kept them out forever.