The Great Imperial vs. Stormcloak Debate

[Falconian]

The bottom line is that the whole "Stormcloaks morals" talk here doesn't matter in the bigger picture.

The only thing that matters is the major, era-breaking fact that happened between Oblivion and Skyrim: the Empire betrayed both Skyrim and Hammerfell in one go - they tried to ban humanity's iconic cult to the former and gift the lands of the latter to elves in order to save themselves.

The Empire pushed elves out of Cyrodil during the Red Ring battle so the situation wasn't so terrible and urgent to justify such a major pants-down betrayal-filled panic treaty; either there is something shady behind that, or Bethesda needed a quick excuse to make the Empire lose the alliance of its allies.

If Beth did so it's because they wanted Hammerfell and Skyrim out of the Empire; whether you like the SC or Empire's morals and ethics is irrelevant to the main story, because the main story is about the complete suicide of the Empire.

 

If anything, the Empire will have to do something outstanding to repair to the huge offense TMII did to both Skyrim and Hammerfell.

Forr sure the Empire cannot afford to fight both Skyrim and Hammerfell and waging cold war with elves during the whole - they will either make some big apology to both states, or another ally will be made under very different conditions.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Falconian

[StormHammer81]

Now, while the Empire was wrong or more specifically TMII was wrong by going against the people of the Empire so he could keep his throne, Ulfric was also wrong by usurping the throne of Skyrim from a Democratically elected "High King", Torygg. And it was both he and his father's (A true Nord) wishes that they were not ready to let the Empire fall apart, not ready to let Talos's Empire fall apart, which appears to be a sentiment shared amongst the Empire's leaders.

 

Yeah if Torygg was the last legitimate High King of Skyrim, elected via a Democratic election by the Moot, then technically what Ulfric is doing is a usurpation which would be against the people of Skyrim. The duel may have possibly been legal, however it was still an assassination because no formal petition or opportunity otherwise was publicly offerred unto Torygg or his court for the secession of Skyrim. Typically, a deul was called in the past to cover personal grievances or disagreements, but not to set Gov policy. Again, No Taxation Without Representation works both ways. Especially since Ulfric is also obstructing the normal operation of the Gov to choose a new Moot, one who could unite Skyrim again and then quite possibly stand up him/herself and declare independence. In doing this, he is putting Skyrim at risk for his own personal gain, while at the same time pointing the finger at us for his issues with Titus Mede II (TMII).

 

End of the day at least to me, both of these guys Ulfric and TMII are in the wrong and are going against the will of the people. And since when TMII resigns we can get some new leadership, I think I'll just stick with the Empire. Ulfric represents a "special interest" and technically speaking is not fit to be a jarl because he is obstructing the normal operation of Skyrim's Gov to serve he and his party's "special interest". Special interest groups are not elected by the people, although sometimes Gov officials cater to them. If I have sworn an oath to protect my country from enemies both foreign and domestic, then it stands to reason this would also include protecting against a forced, hostile takeover of the highest Government office in the land.

 

While as I have said, there is no reason whatsoever why Skyrim couldn't secede from the Empire after TMII letting Hammerfell go, the internal affairs of Skyrim are another matter entirely. Ulfric and The Stormcloaks are as much a threat to Skyrim's freedom as the White Gold Concordant. The only real solution is for the Empire to dissolve this concordant OR for the legitimate High King of Skyrim to secede from the Empire. Even though The Stormcloaks do effect some postive change, their actions by themselves are illegal and will result in an hostile takeover of Skyrim, Gov by their "special interest", much the same as the Thalmor's purpose for being in Skyrim. Ulfric would usurp the throne and there would be no Democratic vote, the Jarls would be given their "orders" and thus, the people would no longer have an unbiased voice in the Gov. You will do as you're told... or else. Even the Empire is not that bad as by all indications Skyrim was left to rule itself anyways.

Edited January 13, 2013 by bigmagy1981

[Dantanius]

I did not save Cyrodil from the daedra damned Oblivion Crysis to have some hypocrite pretender attempt to destroy my kingdom when I'm about to claim my rightfull place on the throne as Talos's decendant through Dragonblood and The Dark Brotherhood

 

1: Join Legion

2: Scream "Our number is Legion" as many times as you can before you pass out or get bored.

3: Kill someone. Maybe in the arena.

4: Become Listener of The Dark Brotherhood

5: Kill current washed out emperorg

6: Take his place

7: Bring me the finest maidens, meads, wines and bagles of all the land.

8: Declare edict: Leagal to but rape Thalmor within Tamriel's boarders.

9: Good to SUPREME EMPEROR OF ALL THE MAP (including wheretherebedragons)

10: Invade New Vegas with newfound powers.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Dantanius

[kennxd]

Both in real life and in The Elder Scrolls, i consider myself a rather radical anarchist. Race, tradition, culture, all that stuff, it doesn't really matter to me in any way. The only things i honor, is what is laid before me by a single person, and not by the entire act of thousands of years of history, which is why I am not racially discriminative in any way. So i would not dare interfere in their petty war. The only thing i look towards ending is the Thalmor, because they oppress and seek to eliminate the total freedom I value so much. Also, I'm the mothereffing Dragonborn and a Dunmer (some Septim must've been out exploring and found something rather interesting) and I will assist in any way I can to better Tamriel, but i would never side with anyone, not the Blades, not the Empire, not the brotherhood, or anything else. Azura is the only one above me.

[LadyMilla]

Now, while the Empire was wrong or more specifically TMII was wrong by going against the people of the Empire so he could keep his throne, Ulfric was also wrong by usurping the throne of Skyrim from a Democratically elected "High King", Torygg.

 

I think you really should not confuse a feudalistic political system with the modern election based democracies (or should I say, corporatocracies but that would be another debate). The High King is elected by the moot, a meeting of Jarls, that is convened ONLY when the High King dies and there is no legal heir to the throne. In all other cases, the throne is taken by the heir, mostly the oldest son of the king. There is no democracy involved as only the Jarls get to vote (and not the 'common rubble'), and the moot was convened only three times. And I bet that behind the scenes the Empire carefully ensured that the High King was always a loyal puppet of the Empire, like Torygg was.

 

 

 

 

 

[StormHammer81]

@kennxd

 

Correct. Yes I am definately warming up to the Dark Elves in Skyrim. They are truly beautiful and make an excellent choice for the player. Dark Elves are usually master of only a few classes, which is good because they indeed, make fine Assassins and Spellswords. Getting back to the quests, I wouldn't mine seeing a few more alternatives like they had in New Vegas. Such a great, great, great, great, great, great, GREAT GAME New Vegas was.

 

@LadyMilla

 

I think you really should not confuse a feudalistic political system with the modern election based democracies (or should I say, corporatocracies but that would be another debate). The High King is elected by the moot, a meeting of Jarls, that is convened ONLY when the High King dies and there is no legal heir to the throne. In all other cases, the throne is taken by the heir, mostly the oldest son of the king. There is no democracy involved as only the Jarls get to vote (and not the 'common rubble'), and the moot was convened only three times. And I bet that behind the scenes the Empire carefully ensured that the High King was always a loyal puppet of the Empire, like Torygg was.

 

So, while on any given day I suffer from mild aggrivative-soctocious from dealing with people (outside of this forum of course :) ), I'm not confused.

 

You say High King is elected by a Moot, ok and then it's convened when the King dies which it would be done this way because it's a Feudalisitic system and then we have to think about this. You're saying three things:

 

1) Convened only when the king dies and there is no legal heir to the throne.

2) In all other cases it's taken by the eldest son.

3) There was no Democracy involved in the "vote".

 

So which is it? The moot votes or the kin take the throne? The answer of course is the moot votes. This my dear, is the *fundamental difference* between say a Monarchy or Dynasty and Feudalism. Feudalism is really closer to Republic but as you said, that is another argument.

 

What actually happened was they still had a Democratic vote, even though Torygg was the son and I'm sure an open forum as well along with some heated Dialogue on the matter of choosing the next High King. Torygg was elected High King, because they wanted his son to continue his father's legacy. By all accounts, Islod did an awesome job as High King. Even Ulfric agrees Islod was a good king. Also... there is this... :D

 

The cold frightening truth about Troygg being elected High King... was in order to have a majority vote... the majority has to vote one way... or another and there are no less than 8 Jarls in Skyrim (4 v 4). Right? So, I'm afraid in order to vote Torygg in... at least (1) or more Stormcloak Jarls had to vote for him. This is what I am saying, exactly what I am saying. Not even all of the Stormcloak Jarls are with Ulfric... and... he knows this. Uflric is no dummy, as I'm sure he raised 10 kinds of hell at that meeting, venting his anger and still, at least (1) or more Stormcloak Jarls did not agree with him.

 

And Tyrogg was assassinated, had his young life shouted away like the flesh on his bones, because the moot voted "freely" and "openly", reaching their decision in which Ulfric didn't agree with.

Edited January 15, 2013 by bigmagy1981

[sukeban]

@LadyMilla

 

I think you really should not confuse a feudalistic political system with the modern election based democracies (or should I say, corporatocracies but that would be another debate). The High King is elected by the moot, a meeting of Jarls, that is convened ONLY when the High King dies and there is no legal heir to the throne. In all other cases, the throne is taken by the heir, mostly the oldest son of the king. There is no democracy involved as only the Jarls get to vote (and not the 'common rubble'), and the moot was convened only three times. And I bet that behind the scenes the Empire carefully ensured that the High King was always a loyal puppet of the Empire, like Torygg was.

 

Incorrect. So, while on any given day I suffer from mild aggrivative-soctocious from dealing with people (outside of this forum of course :) ), I'm not confused.

 

You say High King is elected by a Moot, ok and then it's convened when the King dies which it would be done this way because it's a Feudalisitic system and then we have to think about this. You're saying three things:

 

1) Convened only when the king dies and there is no legal heir to the throne.

2) In all other cases it's taken by the eldest son.

3) There was no Democracy involved in the "vote".

 

So which is it? The moot votes or the kin take the throne? The answer of course is the moot votes. This my dear, is the *fundamental difference* between say a Monarchy or Dynasty and Feudalism. Feudalism is really closer to Republic but as you said, that is another argument.

 

What actually happened was they still had a Democratic vote and I'm sure an open forum as well along with some heated Dialogue on the matter of choosing the next High King. Torygg was elected High King, because they wanted his son to continue his father's legacy. By all accounts, Islod did an awesome job as High King. Even Ulfric agrees Islod was a good king. Also... there is this... :D

 

The cold frightening truth about Troygg being elected High King... was in order to have a majority vote... the majority has to vote one way... or another and there are no less than 8 Jarls in Skyrim (4 v 4). Right? So, I'm afraid in order to vote Torygg in... at least (1) or more Stormcloak Jarls had to vote for him.

 

This is what I am saying, exactly what I am saying. The moot should have been called soon after Torygg's death and this is why Ulfric is refusing the Moot - He wants his own INTERESTS and his personal RETRIBUTION to come first. To hell with Skyrim. Because not even all of the Stormcloak Jarls are with him... and... he knows this. Uflric is no dummy.

 

Hello again, old friend!

 

I sort of can't believe that this thread is still ongoing, but alas....

 

I just want to chime in and back up LadyMilla here, not really to dispute much of what you've said before. The Moot definitely is not like an actual democratic election. The Jarls themselves (I believe, it's been a while lol) are not elected and thus only have highly tentative ability to claim that they are "representing" anybody other than themselves and their own interests when they vote. Thus, they are not "representatives" like our members of the House or Senate are in our Republic as they really do not have claim to any popular backing or electoral legitimacy. This, of course, is one of the many differences between democratic (not direct democracy, but republican democracy) and feudalism--that in this case the "people" of Skyrim have no say in who the Jarls are and are not (other than from peasant revolt, I assume [but that is why nobles have knights trololol]).

 

So you cannot say that the vote of the Moot is an expression of the popular will of the people, since the people have no say in determining the composition of the Moot. Individual Jarls are free to then maximize their own "interest" in that vote, meaning voting in whatever way most benefits their political standing and/or money supply. It is referenced again and again in Skyrim that the Empire supply chests of gold to Jarls that are friendly with them. Presumably this is the price for their loyalty--including their vote in the Moot. Vote for "their man" (Torygg) and the chests of gold keep arriving, cross them and they get cut off. Classic fundraising control exactly like you see in American politics with political donors and special interests. The Empire is one large special interest, and they make sure that THEIR representatives (loyal Jarls) are rewarded handsomely. Presumably, this state of affairs has prevailed for quite some time.

 

So anyway, my only point is that LadyMilla is right--that the Moot is not real democracy and does not express the opinion of the people of Skyrim--you would have to hold a plebiscite for that. Whatever else might be said about Torygg and Ulfric, they are both operating within a corrupted political system that does not necessarily represent the will of anyone but the high-level players involved. Sort of sounds like American democracy, actually....

 

The Moot does not provide legitimacy in any modern sense (democratic theory), and is instead an expression of the classic feudal axiom of "might makes right." And in true feudal fashion, Ulfric is testing his "might" against that of the Empire. Ultimately, whoever's "might" is the most enduring must certainly have been "right" all along. Only Bethesda canon will determine this. Elle, oh elle.

[StormHammer81]

@sukeban

 

Hehehe was wondering when you'd show up again! :D How you been?

 

So anyway, my only point is that LadyMilla is right--that the Moot is not real democracy and does not express the opinion of the people of Skyrim--you would have to hold a plebiscite for that. Whatever else might be said about Torygg and Ulfric, they are both operating within a corrupted political system that does not necessarily represent the will of anyone but the high-level players involved. Sort of sounds like American democracy, actually....

 

We have a representative Gov. Our Gov votes on certain issues. The Moot is composed of Jarls. The Jarls represent the people of their holds. Typically, the Jarls are greatly respected by their people. The Jarls are close to their people, they know them and the people know their Jarl.

 

Skyrim has it's own political system SEPARATE from whatever the Empire is doing. That is why in Skyrim, they have their own High King, that is why in Skyrim, the local and regional authorities ELECT their High King whenever the Moot is called. Again, this is Feudalism. However, yes, the High King is answerable to the Emperor because Skyrim is a member of the Empire. But Skyrim's politics still follow Skyrim tradition even with the Empire. Empire cannot possibly choose the High King. No way at all. Again simple math, you have (4) Stormcloak Jarls and (4) Imperial Jarls.

 

At least (1) Stormcloak Jarl VOTED for Torygg.

 

The Moot does not provide legitimacy in any modern sense (democratic theory), and is instead an expression of the classic feudal axiom of "might makes right." And in true feudal fashion, Ulfric is testing his "might" against that of the Empire. Ultimately, whoever's "might" is the most enduring must certainly have been "right" all along. Only Bethesda canon will determine this. Elle, oh elle.

 

Incorrect. The Moot VOTES on the new king. Same as we vote for President, except it's a little different as we do it by electoral votes. Still, logic dictates Torygg would not be High King unless the Moot elected him by a vote.

 

And you can only express tradition in one way or another. Either it's the tradition the High King is voted in by the Moot or it's not. One way or the other. And the other way is not lawful, so there you go. Not to mention how Ulfric stopped the Moot from voting again... which is against tradition, def not something a true Nord would do and is treason too.

Edited January 15, 2013 by bigmagy1981

[sukeban]

@sukeban

 

Hehehe was wondering when you'd show up again! :D How you been?

 

So anyway, my only point is that LadyMilla is right--that the Moot is not real democracy and does not express the opinion of the people of Skyrim--you would have to hold a plebiscite for that. Whatever else might be said about Torygg and Ulfric, they are both operating within a corrupted political system that does not necessarily represent the will of anyone but the high-level players involved. Sort of sounds like American democracy, actually....

 

We have a representative Gov. Our Gov votes on certain issues. The Moot is composed of Jarls. The Jarls represent the people of their holds. Typically, the Jarls are greatly respected by their people. The Jarls are close to their people, they know them and the people know their Jarl.

 

Skyrim has it's own political system SEPARATE from whatever the Empire is doing. That is why in Skyrim, they have their own High King, that is why in Skyrim, the local and regional authorities ELECT their High King whenever the Moot is called. Again, this is Feudalism. However, yes, the High King is answerable to the Emperor because Skyrim is a member of the Empire. But Skyrim's politics still follow Skyrim tradition even with the Empire. Empire cannot possibly choose the High King. No way at all. Again simple math, you have (4) Stormcloak Jarls and (4) Imperial Jarls.

 

At least (1) Stormcloak Jarl VOTED for Torygg.

 

The Moot does not provide legitimacy in any modern sense (democratic theory), and is instead an expression of the classic feudal axiom of "might makes right." And in true feudal fashion, Ulfric is testing his "might" against that of the Empire. Ultimately, whoever's "might" is the most enduring must certainly have been "right" all along. Only Bethesda canon will determine this. Elle, oh elle.

 

Incorrect. The Moot VOTES on the new king. Same as we vote for President, except it's a little different as we do it by electoral votes. Still, logic dictates Torygg would not be High King unless the Moot elected him by a vote.

 

And you can only express tradition in one way or another. Either it's the tradition the High King is voted in by the Moot or it's not. One way or the other. And the other way is not lawful, so there you go. Not to mention how Ulfric stopped the Moot from voting again... which is against tradition, def not something a true Nord would do and is treason too.

 

Haha, I've been pretty awesome actually! Hopefully you too?

 

I'd still have to respectfully disagree with your position. Since the Jarls are not elected (like representatives in a democracy), they cannot be said to represent the will of the people in any means that would be recognizable today (where voting confers legitimacy). A Jarl may "know" his people, but he is not beholden to his people; if he wants to disregard what they think--he is free to do so without consequence (again, apart from the implied threat of revolt). He cannot be "booted out" in the next election for Jarl.

 

I don't disagree that the Skyrim political system is--in theory--independent from the Imperial political system, but I also maintain that it would be naive to think that Imperial influence was not felt within Skyrim and within this system. The Empire is far larger and more powerful than Skyrim alone and thus could have exerted huge influence over the outcome of the votes in the Moot, as well as many other day-to-day governing decisions. And since Skyrim is not a democracy, nor close to it, the actual people of Skyrim could have had but little actual say in the outcomes of those decisions. Given that Skyrim was historically an Imperial province, who do you think a Jarl would listen to: their people or their political patron? Again, like in the US--money talks, public opinion walks.

 

So the Moot being "traditional" has no bearing as to whether or not its decisions are democratic or legitimate. Not giving the vote to women in the US was "traditional"--before we decided otherwise. Tradition, to anybody interested in egalitarianism, does not automatically equal legitimacy. Especially coming from ancient and medieval times, "tradition" was simply code for "we say so" on the part of the militarily trained elite, whose claim to "legitimacy" rested solely on religious mumbo jumbo (divine right of kings) and, if that failed, their ability to outright kill any measly peasants who dared contest their claims.

 

I don't disagree that one Stormcloak Jarl must have voted for Torygg--but that is immaterial to the discussion of popular legitimacy in a modern (democratic) sense. Since the Moot is a feudal, anti-democratic organization--what they do and do not decide doesn't matter--only the fact that the people have no say in the outcome does. Again, the College of Cardinals is NOT a democratic organization simply because they vote on the next Pope. They do not democratically represent anybody (they are appointed by the Vatican, not elected), thus their will does not express anything other than THEIR will--not the people's.

[StormHammer81]

I'd still have to respectfully disagree with your position. Since the Jarls are not elected (like representatives in a democracy), they cannot be said to represent the will of the people in any means that would be recognizable today (where voting confers legitimacy). A Jarl may "know" his people, but he is not beholden to his people; if he wants to disregard what they think--he is free to do so without consequence (again, apart from the implied threat of revolt). He cannot be "booted out" in the next election for Jarl.

 

Oh I get that. However, I would argue that Feudalism is more complicated and intriguing than just blood, duels and mindless barbarians butchering each other. Indeed, history does show us just how complicated a Feudal society was and how different it was from Despotism or Monarchy.

 

First of all, it's disrespectful to a people's culture to refer to their Gods or Religious beliefs as being as you said, "Mumbo Jumbo" nonsense. If you cannot respect a people's tradition and "get down on their level" then you have no business telling them how to run their politics. It's also not very nice to show contempt for the authority of Skyrim's Jarls or Noble Thanes.

 

So the Moot being "traditional" has no bearing as to whether or not its decisions are democratic or legitimate.

 

But the question here was the Moot traditionally chose the High King thru an Open, Free, Democratic election. Again, this is important because here is one of the biggest differences between Feudalism and Monarchy. The injecting of some Democracy. If you deny that any Open, Free election of any kind is not Democratic, well then what can I say. :/ The High King is ELECTED by the Moot's VOTE. A VOTE resulting from an ELECTION makes it Legitimate and it must be so for a Feudal system because the King rules with THEIR consent or not at all. AND another thing, the Democratic nature of the Moot comes from Nord TRADITION, as the Moot meeting and voting is a confirmed Nordic tradition. Kind of like a Tribal Council.

 

In many ways, a Jarl is "beholden" to his people. Take Dengeir for example. Former Jarl of Falkreath. He was dismissed as Jarl because his court, which would be the Thanes, military, landowners, guild members and nobility of Falkreath decided he was too paranoid and too old to keep his title as Jarl. So, here you are wrong. The Jarls are tied to the people. If they don't do their jobs and they don't bring glory and honor to the citizens of their resp hold, they can be dismissed. This is just one example. Granted, special interests can play a part in any political arena.

 

The point is, the Jarl(s) of each hold can be dismissed if they do not ultimately answer to the people. Though no, this would not include the common rabble such as slaves, non-landowners, non-nobility, non-military and non-guild members. So, in other words, people who CONTRIBUTED the most to the Kingdom, were awarded political title or intrigue. How do you become a Thane? Do you... shout down the current Thane? Do you... shout down the current Jarl? Do you arrange to for some poor soul to leave a gate unlocked for you if you loose a deul? Do you... use your influence to obstruct the normal operation(s) of the Gov, thereby weakening the entire Gov? Do you... pay off some bandits to attack those on your land who are racially inferior to you? Do you... challenge other people in your way to a deul based on an obsolete code of laws as an excuse to assassinate them and take their title even though they were elected by the people to their position of power?

 

But that's ok, most Stormcloaks beat their chest and cry for blood and war, yet, they do not even have any RESPECT or ADMIRATION for their own Feudal system. YOUR Gov. I'm an Imperial, we're Imperialism. Ulfric DOES NOT change the Gov type if he wins. Much of how you described the Jarls is based on stereotypes. The actual Gov of Skyrim is much more complicated and beautiful then that.

 

Finally, this is not the church. Skyrim is not in any way the Catholic church. I don't even see how there is a comparison between the two. Skyrim is more like Viking Land or perhaps the Germans, united under the Holy Roman Empire. Where many, many squabbling dutchies, kingdoms and counties were brought together under Frederick Barbarossa.

 

You hate the church, I understand. I don't like them either because of the social crimes that their church committed against Europe. Also, I do not like how they hijacked the Western Roman Empire or how they turned their backs on Constantinople. However, there are several examples of Good Medieval Kingdoms and you can't just pre-judge a Medieval society as being cruel and "beneath". Skyrim is pretty good for a Feudal Kingdom.

Edited January 15, 2013 by bigmagy1981