Join Empire or Stormcloaks? My Thoughts

[kimmera]

 

 

I have heard that theory that Ulfric was in jail, however according to the Thalmor dossier on Ulfric, he was captured, interrogated and allowed to escape. What evidence do you have that he was still in jail 2 years after his arrest?

 

 

Ulfric was captured by the Dominion during the Great War. That's what's mentioned in the Dossier.

 

However, both Ulfric and Igmund indicate that, sometime following the Markarth Incident, Ulfric was handed over to Imperial custody for violating the White Gold Concordant. He even had his eulogy for his father delivered to Windhelm while he was still in prison. He was released at some point before Skyrim begins, and became the Jarl of Windhelm.

 

 

That was as a result of Markarth though. He was arrested for his actions there. As you say, sometime following the Markarth incident. The allegation I was challenging was a suggestion that Ulfric was in jail during the Markarth incident and thus couldn't have led it.

 

And it wasn't just for violating the Concordat. Ulfric refused to surrender the city to the Empire unless they agreed to his terms. Not sure where, exactly that holding a city hostage and blackmailing the government is legal. The amazing thing is that it took pressure from the Thalmor to get him arrested, despite the fact his act was treasonous. And yet the Empire is accused of treating Skyrim like a puppet......

[MidbossVyers]

He didn't "hold the city hostage". The Markarth government practically invited him there to drive out the Forsworn. It's just that the price of Ulfric's help was the reinstatement of Talos worship, something that the Markarth government reneged on (although you may argue that the deal itself was illegal, but the Markarth government certainly didn't complain at the time).

[kimmera]

He didn't "hold the city hostage". The Markarth government practically invited him there to drive out the Forsworn. It's just that the price of Ulfric's help was the reinstatement of Talos worship, something that the Markarth government reneged on (although you may argue that the deal itself was illegal, but the Markarth government certainly didn't complain at the time).

 

It is holding the city hostage when you refuse to relinquish control unless you get your way. It was Jarl Igmund that made the promise and Jarl Igmund kept the promise. It was Imperial troops afterwards that declared it illegal and Ulfric who refused to accept that. Jarl Igmund had no authority to set aside the Concordat, not even locally. Igmund was only recently a jarl, too, his father having been killed in the uprising.

 

Edit: Consider if there was some trouble in a Texas town from Mexican invaders and rather than wait for the US Military or even Texas's State forces, the governor made a deal with locals to re-take the town in exchange for exemption from all taxation (including Federal). Then when US federal forces showed up, the local militia refused to surrender the town unless the deal regarding taxes was honored. Good luck to them on that.

Edited July 27, 2015 by kimmera

[MidbossVyers]

So, in your opinion, should Igmund have made that deal?

[CaptainPatch]

To a large extent though, Igmund was agreeing to something that was outside of his authority. Federal (Empire) Law supercedes State (provincial) supercedes City Law. The terms of the WGC applied to the entire Empire. Local rulers didn't have the authority to abridge those terms locally. Ulfric performed a service for which Igmund offered something he pointedly did not have, the right to alter the terms of the WGC. It's not at all surprising that when the Imperials arrived on the scene they declared the deal null and void. HAD Ulfric simply agreed to the change of local status quo, he would most likely have been allowed to return to Windhelm. But instead he kicked up a fuss and was arrested for nothing more than being a publicl recognized Talos worshipper. By the terms of the WGC, Ulfric needed to be arrested of be guilty of willfully breaching the agreement. The Empire was actually doing Ulfric a favor by putting him in an Imperial prison. The alternative was to turn him over to the Thalmor. I doubt very much that the Thalmor would have treated him gently.

[Elimc]

@Dusara217

 

First, there is no evidence that Ulfric is racist. It isn't his fault the Dunmer just live in the slums and complain about life not being fair, the elves who do work have no complaints about Ulfric's policies. Niranye says "It was difficult at first. The Nords of this city are, at best, suspicious of outsiders. But in time, I made the right friends and proved myself useful enough that they don't give me trouble anymore. The dark elves are too proud and naive to understand the way things truly are, and so they continue to dwell in that slum." Nurelion even owns a shop, and since you can't buy property without the Jarl letting you, Ulfric had to have let him move into the city. And there is one dark elf who owns a farm outside the city, which he could not do without Ulfric's consent. There is however, evidence that Tullius is racist: "The Legion's always been here. Without us to keep order, the provinces would fall into barbarism and lawlessness. Especially Skyrim". And: "Well, if he wants to stand outside the protection of the Empire, fine. Let Ulfric pillage his city." And: "Well, if he wants to stand outside the protection of the Empire, fine. Let Ulfric pillage his city." He has no respect for the Nords and just sees them as a resource to help Cyrodil survive. Also, did you read the book Dunmer of Skyrim, or hear the Dunmer who says he won't care about the butcher until a dark elf is killed. Even if Ulfric is slightly racist, he is no more than Tullius is and much less than the Dunmer are. And who exactly is Ulfric oppressing?

 

Also, sending his axe to Balgruuf was his way to try to get Balgruuf to join his side. Tullius's was to send false reports about Ulfric planning to attack Whiterun. Where is your source for Ulfric not liking Balgruuf? I have never heard that before. The Forsworn are a bunch of Daedra worshipping, human sacrificing bandits who took over Markarth. Ulfric just took it back, with the approval of the Empire and Igmund. The Empire picks Morthal and Falkreath as allies, both of which are equally as weak as Ulfric's two minor holds. And Igmund is much worse than Laila, so I don't agree with that point either. The Thalmor brought themselves into Skyrim, with or without Ulfric, they would have been in Skyrim by 4E201. All Ulfric tried to do was get freedom of religion, and while that was against the concordant, that is the Empire's fault for surrendering after winning a major battle. The Empire will never be able to defeat the Thalmor now, though, read Cicero's journals if you really think Cyrodil is doing all that great. Cities are being burned to the ground by drug lords, for Pete's sake. Cyrodil isn't going to be a strong nation for much longer. They needed to not surrender to the AD so they could build back up without having to send tribute to the AD, as well as keep Hammerfell with them.

 

@Kimmera

 

The Empire did agree to let Ulfric have free worship of Talos in Markarth, and then they broke their deal because they are too cowardly to stand up to the AD. The Empire did not come in and say that the deal wasn't valid, they accepted it, and then betrayed Ulfric.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Elimc

[kimmera]

So, in your opinion, should Igmund have made that deal?

 

Igmund should not have, but was only very recently made Jarl by way of his father's death at the hands of those who had taken the city. Meanwhile, Ulfric would have known that, and should have been willing to take back the city unconditionally. Even setting aside the question of whether he was still on the Imperial payroll or not (the Stormcloaks did serve as Imperial troops in the Great War after all), he should have been willing to re-take the city out of duty to Skyrim. He certainly still considers it part of Skyrim during and after the Civil War.

[Elimc]

@Kimmera

 

Also, the Empire shouldn't have agreed to the deal. But they did, making it valid.

[kimmera]

 

 

@Kimmera

 

The Empire did agree to let Ulfric have free worship of Talos in Markarth, and then they broke their deal because they are too cowardly to stand up to the AD. The Empire did not come in and say that the deal wasn't valid, they accepted it, and then betrayed Ulfric.

 

The Empire said that under duress, while Ulfric was holding the city and refusing to surrender it to Imperial forces. And it is very unlikely that any field commander present would have had the authority to make such an agreement either. Tullius doesn't have that kind of authority.

 

Even setting aside how the Dunmer and Alrmer are treated, Argonians are forbidden from living within the city at all.

 

As for Tullius, saying that without Imperial troops, there will be lawlessness isn't 'racist.' It is a safe bet he has the same attitude regarding Cyrodiil. There is even evidence regarding barbarism, or have you changed your attitude towards the Foresworn? And saying "If you reject our protection, we won't protect you" is a simple truth, not racist. Do you consider police racist for opposing criminals and warning people who don't cooperate with them that it is hard to protect someone who is resisting any attempts to protect them?

 

Saying "Will you join me" is fine with respect to Balgruuf and the axe. Saying "Since you won't, I'll take what you have by force" is not fine. Next you'll be arguing that if a robber holds you at gun point and says "Your money or your life!" that they aren't guilty of murder if they shoot you...... or that they aren't guilty of robbery if you hand them your money. You are completely ignoring the pointed gun and open threat.

Edited July 27, 2015 by kimmera

[CaptainPatch]

@Kimmera

 

Also, the Empire shouldn't have agreed to the deal. But they did, making it valid.

You are confusing "Empire" with "Province". The deal struck was between Igmund, essentially just the Governor of the Reach, rather than with the actual Imperial government. http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Markarth_Incident Governors do not have the authority to revoke, repeal, amend, or alter treaties or agreements created by the national government. But like when dealing with terrorists, authorities usually take the stance of "Say anything now. Later, when WE are in control, rescind whatever terms were illegal." Ulfric wasn't letting the Imperials into Markarth until they agreed to his (illegal) terms. Meanwhile, his Stormcloaks were conducting their own Night of Terror campaign: "With chaos running through the streets of Markarth and the reports of deaths rising every day," What choice did the Imperials have? Stick to their guns, allowing death and destruction to continue unabated in the city until finally half the city gets destroyed by an Imperial assault on the city? Or simply "Say anything" and then renege later, thereby saving hundreds/thousands of live?