The Great Imperial vs. Stormcloak Debate

[LadyMilla]

But the question here was the Moot traditionally chose the High King thru an Open, Free, Democratic election.

 

1) Open: false. The "elections" are not open, at least not to the general population (and they are not real elections, except under extraordinary circumstances, see point 2). Only the Jarls are allowed to attend, and they are not elected representatives. Whether or not they can be removed traditionally by the nobility is irrelevant in this case (nobility is not equal to the general population). Certain parts of Skyrim's political system could be described as aristocratic meritocracy but even that would be a rough and questionable approximation, and using Dengeir as an example is risky, to say the least. The game presents two different accounts of why Dengeir was removed from office: one claims that he was too frail to rule, the other account - Dengeir's own words - claims that he was removed through Imperial bribery and intrigue because he supported the Stormcloaks (don't forget that even though Dengeir seems to be paranoid, it does not mean that his words can be automatically discounted). If you have doubts about Imperial espionage, Margret's presence and hidden objective in Markarth is a solid proof of Imperial covert operations. Also, the position of Jarl is hereditary and stays within a single family: even when Dengeir was forced to abdicate, another member of his family (Siddgeir is his nephew) became the new Jarl. Siddgeir's general laziness (he tells you that you too should become a Jarl because then you won't have to do anything, and it is mostly his steward who takes care of official matters) raises the question: "Why a bad apple, a paranoid and allegedly frail man was replaced by another bad apple, a lazy no good doer? What is the difference between the two men? Obvious: one of them supports the Imperials, the other one the Stomrcloaks." Unfortunately, the game offers no means to ascertain if the nobles acted on their own or as a result of Imperial subterfuge. This single example cannot be used as proof of the Jarls' accountability.

2) Free: this term is meaningless in this context. The Moot is a ceremonial procedure mostly, except when the High King dies without an heir, in which case it is convened to prevent a power struggle between the eligible Jarls. And, as I said in my previous post, the moot was convened only three times to deal with such a situation. Parading an institution that, under normal conditions, is hardly more than a ceremony as proof of 'democratic values' is like claiming that the communist dictatorships were democratic because they held elections where the general population had the right to vote (in fact, in many so called communist states, voting was mandatory), but ignoring the uncomfortable fact that the population could only vote for a single party.

 

3) Democratic: meaningless in this context. Tamriel has no concept of democracy. Democracy means the rule of the people ('demos') and I might add that even today there is no consensus about its precise definition. The modern or even the ancient interpretations of democracy are not applicable to Tamriel, and trying to shoehorn an anachronistic concept ('open, free and democratic election') into this debate lends little weight to your argument, to put it mildly. And the image of a democratically elected leader is definitely not applicable to the High King, who ruled until his death or abdication. The only traditionally accepted way to remove an inept High King was challenging him to a duel (really democratic, eh?). No election, no impeachment, no democratic recall procedure.

 

 

So in nutshell: except when it is convened to defuse the risks of a potentially prolonged interregnum when the High King dies without an heir, the moot is a formality, a traditional precursor of the coronation. Attributing democratic values to a formality is pointless. Skyrim is a hereditary monarchy with a traditional procedure that only gains significance when the hereditary character of the monarchy is threatened by the lack of an heir. In every other case, the throne goes to the heir and the moot's approval is formality. .

 

Finally, I would like to point out that Bethesda carefully balanced the pros and cons of siding with Imperials or Stormcloaks, and they ensured that we would not have sufficient information to form a well-founded opinion on who was wrong and who was right in this conflict. Not to mention that the main story is about the Dovahkiin saving the world from a potentially apocalyptic event. As important as the civil war may seem, it is still 'only' a side story. As I see it, the two most important threats against Tamriel in TESV are Alduin and the Aldmeri Dominion. The first is defeated by the Dovahkiin. Eliminating the second threat may or may not involve the player. I think in a way the civil war is similar to the quest 'In My Time of Need' in that you have to rely on unverifiable information when you make your decision to side with one of the parties. You need to resort to conjecture, and for this reason, saving Saadia or betraying her and siding with the Imperials or choosing to help the Stormcloaks are equally justifiable.

[StormHammer81]

I'm kool with Dengeir, he could be in the right, the nobles and everyone else could be wrong. It doesn't matter to me. My point which was glazed over was that the Jarls do not have Ultimate power and they must do their jobs, they must represent the people of the hold. Just like when you become Thane, you have to help out the Hold's citizens. Then there's the chain of command, Thane's represent the citizens directly (common rabble), Thanes answer to the Jarl and the Jarl anwers to the King and then the King answers to the Imperial Council and then the IC answer to the Emperor. Very intricate and complex arrangement, these are not just guys banging rocks together here. Neither is Skyrim a brutish an oppressive Gov like Sukeban and you seem to think it is. Like Alvor says, that was how things were done in the "bad old days". Which is another good reason to have the Empire around, as we probably wouldn't have a vote or any kind of civility at all in Skyrim if it wasn't for the Empire, although in truth, the Moot is by tradition.

 

You're both "Judging" Skyrim by what has happened in the world after the Industrial Revolution. Women's rights, blah blah blah. None of that stuff is equivalent relative to how Skyrim works. You said it yourself, Democracy is a strange critter, it had to start from somewhere. And, I'm coming from how the Nords would describe themselves in our terms. Because, a Democracy is relative to whom we consider the "people" to be. Or perhaps more specifically, who the Nords consider should "vote". Again, you guys are trying to bash me over the head with how different this glamerous "modern society" is from the Nords. Had nothing to do with Skyrim. To the Nords, like I said, the Deomcracy or political power goes to those who have EARNED IT by serving the people somewhere in the chain of command. Those who have contrbuted to their society, the people they "know". That's very important to a Viking or even the Germans, we want to "know" who in the hell you are and then, then before we let you partake in our political process, you need to prove yourself, earn the right to make these decisions.

 

The term "Free" is not meaningless at all. Seriously wtf? Every Nord wants to be Free. And to this point, I was tempted several times to go Stormcloak. But freedom isn't free and this is especially true in Nord society. Freedom is something discussed quite frequently throughout Skyrim, even by the Khajits. A "Free" election would be one where the Jarls and their courts can choose the new King, not having their orders shoved down their throats by a tyrant. I maintain the Jarls represent the people if via nothing but thru their Thanes and by this right it is still proper for them to vote on the new King. Nord people have no problem with this. You Judge the Nords as being un-Democratic just because everyone isn't allowed to vote. Ok, well the Nords don't want everyone to vote. Their society isn't set up that way. They will never meet your expectations on what a true Democracy again, "in theory" is supposed to be. And yet, in our terms, some of their society has similarities to the way ours works. Hence, the representatives of the people still elect the High King even if the entire country doesn't vote on it. Although in Imperialism, at least with the Roman Byzantines, the Emperor was chosen by a (3) votes: The People, The Gov, The Military.

Edited January 16, 2013 by bigmagy1981

[LadyMilla]

I'm kool with Dengeir, he could be in the right, the nobles and everyone else could be wrong. It doesn't matter to me. My point which was glazed over was that the Jarls do not have Ultimate power and they must do their jobs, they must represent the people of the hold.

 

Again, no. Now it is you who are glossing over the fact that many of the Jarls are useless and they are not doing their jobs (they have a bunch of unresolved issues, and they hire you, a mostly unknown factor, to do their job). Laila, the Jarl of Riften is useless. De facto the city is ruled by a "Mafia Lady", Maven Black-Briar. As I described in my previous post, Siddgeir, the Jarl of Falreath is a lazy no good doer. Idgrod Ravencrone focuses too much on mystical things and visions instead of dealing with the daily matters of her town (and the people's mistrust is almost tangible, you stumble upon a crowd gathering in front of the Jarl's residence when you visit Morthal the first time). There is much disapproval for Skald, the Jarl of Dawnstar, among the citizens as he is fascinated too much with war. Igmund seems to be a decent Jarl, not counting the fact that he was unable to deal with the Silver-Bloods who pull the strings in the city from behind the curtains, thanks to their secret liaison with the Forsworn. The Jarls may see themselves as 'representatives of their people by tradition', but in reality they are little more than feudal lords who rule their holds because their familiy carried out great deeds... not recently... but in the past, and now the tradition dictates that the position of Jarl must be filled in by a member of their family.

 

You're both "Judging" Skyrim by what has happened in the world after the Industrial Revolution. Women's rights, blah blah blah. None of that stuff is equivalent relative to how Skyrim works. You said it yourself, Democracy is a strange critter, it had to start from somewhere. And, I'm coming from how the Nords would describe themselves in our terms. Because, a Democracy is relative to whom we consider the "people" to be. Or perhaps more specifically, who the Nords consider should "vote". Again, you guys are trying to bash me over the head with how different this glamerous "modern society" is from the Nords. Had nothing to do with Skyrim. To the Nords, like I said, the Deomcracy or political power goes to those who have EARNED IT by serving the people somewhere in the chain of command. Those who have contrbuted to their society, the people they "know". That's very important to a Viking or even the Germans, we want to "know" who in the hell you are and then, then before we let you partake in our political process, you need to prove yourself, earn the right to make these decisions.

 

You are accusing me and the other poster of something that you are doing yourself. It was you who used the term 'democracy' and used it in a modern meaning ('free, open and democractic'). That sentence would have never been used by a Nord. A Nord would say: 'By tradition, the Jarl of X is always a member of the Y family.' or 'Because of their family's great deeds in the past, they earned the right to lead us' or 'By tradition, the moot votes for the heir of the High King, and by tradition it is always the person whom the High King nominates as his successor' and so on.

 

The term "Free" is not meaningless at all. Seriously wtf? Every Nord wants to be Free. And to this point, I was tempted several times to go Stormcloak. But freedom isn't free and this is especially true in Nord society. Freedom is something discussed quite frequently throughout Skyrim, even by the Khajits.

 

First, you are using a strawman argument here. I said "free is meaningless in this context" (i.e. in the context of 'elections'). You say every Nord wants to be free. Now it's my turn to say WTF? That has nothing to do with the original argument about 'free elections'.

 

A "Free" election would be one where the Jarls and their courts can choose the new King, not having their orders shoved down their throats by a tyrant. I maintain the Jarls represent the people if via nothing but thru their Thanes and by this right it is still proper for them to vote on the new King.

 

Neither the Jarls nor the High King are truly elected or voted into office. As I wrote previously (something that you conveniently ignored) the moot is now a ceremonial process, the voting is formal and the only time when it gains significance is when the High King dies without an heir (or, as I have recently discovered - see in game conversations with Sybille Stentor - when the High King breaks some tradition). The position of Jarl is hereditary: whatever great deeds their families performed in the past is now a basis of their legitimacy, and it is due to tradition and ancient deeds that the title of Jarl is passed to them, not because of their personal qualities (as proven by the ineptitude demonstrated by many of the current Jarls). Some of them might pick the right man for the right job, but that does not mean that they are also capable of making strategic decisions. Also, it is interesting to note that, for example, Elisif grants you the right to purchase property in Solitude after you complete a quest that involves a personal favor (you take Torygg's horn to a Talos shire), and the same is true of Igmund (you bring back his father's shield). You would think, resolving the Potema crisis is somewhat more important than doing a personal favor, eh? So it seems you can become a Thane simply by getting on the right side of the Jarl via small favors. There goes your argument about "Jarls representing their people thru their Thanes". It is more like certain Jarls using tradition to gather supporters.

 

Let me summarize it because I tend to digress:

 

The Nords of Skyrim is a tradtionalist feudalistic society that is influenced by their ties - political and economic - with the Empire. The Nord society has tribal origins, with chieftains earning the right to lead their tribe via great feats of strength. As time passed, this society - or rather, this tribal alliance like setup - slowly transformed into a tradition and inheritance based feudalistic organization. Entitlement at and above the level of Jarls is based not on current deeds, but inheritance and tradition that are, in turn, based on past deeds.

 

The only forum that bears a passing resemblance to a democratic voting/election process was the moot. Well, it was, until the War of Succession, and the Pact of Chieftains. After that, the moot became a simple inauguration process, a ceremony where the heir to the throne is traditionally recognized by the Jarls. So there goes your 'democratic forum'. Sticking strictly to in-game resources and conversations you can learn that: a moot is convened a) when the heir to the throne is formally approved, b) when there is no heir and a new High King must be elected, c) when the High King breaks some tradition (e.g. refuses a duel). There is no word about the High King's skills or ability to rule. You cannot legally depose a High King because he is a bad leader. You can only remove him if he breaks some tradition.

 

So what we see here is a slow transition from a society where leadership was granted on the basis of personal valor into a society where leadership is inherited and retained through tradition. How do the Empire and Ulfric fit into this picture? Well, you can say that by now Imperial rule (through the Nede (pre-Nordic) origin of Tiber Septim) has become a tradition. You can also say that by giving up the worship of Talos, the Empire has broken that tradition. You can say, Ulfric would be a tyrant. But how is the Empire any better than Ulfric? Torygg was little more than an Imperial puppet. You face the same dilemma that people who are interested in Roman history encounter: was Ceasar a positive or negative historical figure? Sure, he esentially stripped the Senate (a 'democratic' institution) of its power and started the process that would lead to the period called 'the Principate', but his actions reinforced the Roman Empire and restored its power. You see, "democracy" or "democratic solutions" are not always the best choice in every historical context. Sometimes a tyrant, a strong leader with a vision, can serve his country/Empire/nation better.

[StormHammer81]

Hey, that's kool you have some good points in there, I think we both do. However...

 

Again, no. Now it is you who are glossing over the fact that many of the Jarls are useless and they are not doing their jobs (they have a bunch of unresolved issues, and they hire you, a mostly unknown factor, to do their job). Laila, the Jarl of Riften is useless. De facto the city is ruled by a "Mafia Lady", Maven Black-Briar. As I described in my previous post, Siddgeir, the Jarl of Falreath is a lazy no good doer. Idgrod Ravencrone focuses too much on mystical things and visions instead of dealing with the daily matters of her town (and the people's mistrust is almost tangible, you stumble upon a crowd gathering in front of the Jarl's residence when you visit Morthal the first time). There is much disapproval for Skald, the Jarl of Dawnstar, among the citizens as he is fascinated too much with war. Igmund seems to be a decent Jarl, not counting the fact that he was unable to deal with the Silver-Bloods who pull the strings in the city from behind the curtains, thanks to their secret liaison with the Forsworn. The Jarls may see themselves as 'representatives of their people by tradition', but in reality they are little more than feudal lords who rule their holds because their familiy carried out great deeds... not recently... but in the past, and now the tradition dictates that the position of Jarl must be filled in by a member of their family.

 

So then in other words, it's your opinion that the Jarls of Skyrim are useless and they never do their jobs. Hmmm. That's a little uh.. harsh? Don't you think? That's what I was saying before about being judegmental and over-critical of another society's culture. While not all evangelists are bad, some do severe damage to foreign cultures when they go waltzing into some 3rd world country trying to force-convert them. I think it's always best to get to know someone before being super critical of them. But that's just me. It would seem however, that most of the rulers in Skyrim have their hands full with the war and the dragons. That's probably one major reason why they need help on the side. You should also realize, that even though the Jarls need your help, the Jarls manage to resolve all of their resp hold's issues eventually.

 

Now, we really don't know what happened in Falkreath. I mean, Siddgeir is not the best Jarl but Dengeir was still dismissed as Jarl for some reason. Still a smoking gun their. Although Siddgeir does appear to be cleaning up his act. I dunno. Time will tell on that one.

 

Jarl of Riften is useless, I agree. She was probably the weakest link from that Moot. Was thinking about that today. Maven could have put it in her to vote whichever way. Makes perfect sense.

 

With Morthal now, this is a Master Vampire we're dealing with here. You know, this is, this is not just some bandit rabble or a wolf cave needing to be cleared. It's like lvl 8 Mario Bros in there. Although there are much more dangerous places in Skyrim, such as Fort Hraagstat, any of the civil war forts and Fort Greenwhich? All of these locations have 1+ npcs which can generally kill you in one hit. Also, an angered, emotional, chaotic crowd of people will accomplish nothing in the war room. Trust me on that one :)

 

Skald is full of War Lust, but then again, for the Stormcloaks the Civil War is a very large Enterprise they're conducting and they all want a piece of that action. This is the first impression I got walking into Windhelm. They are out for blood, glory and they're pissed. Can't say I blame them, as that is their nature. "Nords have never been fair-weather friends."

 

In spite of the fact I'm kool with Igmund. F*ck the Silver Bloods. Made me proud to be an Imperial when I found that out. Not to mention how General Tullius was trying to put a stop to the insanity going on in that mine.

 

It's not at all impossible that they're ancestors put them on the throne. However, even if this be the case, some of the Jarls such as Jarl Baalgruff are thought of very highly by their people and have advisors and a court of some form to assist them. It's not all one-sided. And in feudalism, it's more about he regions than about the king. King rules with consent of the regional uhh "Governors" or "Lords". They have the power because the king can't do sh*t without their approval. This is just me, but I would rather the family whose knows my town, has lived in it, knows the people and the land, rule over my town then someone coming in their with the sword and putting a stranger in charge. This goes for Imperials or Stormcloaks, however, IMO the Imperials make better Jarls in the end. Skyrim would be better off with their leadership, this is my opinion. Ulfric never asked me what I wanted, he is forcing me to choose.

 

You are accusing me and the other poster of something that you are doing yourself. It was you who used the term 'democracy' and used it in a modern meaning ('free, open and democractic'). That sentence would have never been used by a Nord. A Nord would say: 'By tradition, the Jarl of X is always a member of the Y family.' or 'Because of their family's great deeds in the past, they earned the right to lead us' or 'By tradition, the moot votes for the heir of the High King, and by tradition it is always the person whom the High King nominates as his successor' and so on.

 

First, you are using a strawman argument here. I said "free is meaningless in this context" (i.e. in the context of 'elections'). You say every Nord wants to be free. Now it's my turn to say WTF? That has nothing to do with the original argument about 'free elections'.

 

Look, ok? Let's just drop the whole Democracy thing because it's a word that has been too politicized and has become a dirty little tool used by social criminals. I agree with you, Democracy can be weird and is dangerous in the wrong hands.

 

However, I would argue this whole "heir to the throne" business is not a done deal. The Moot decides who will be High King/Queen. It is an election. Now, you're welcome to take that, whichever way you will. However, there is still a vote and someone is elected. This is an accurate statement and there are numerous sources in the game which confirm at least this much of it.

 

You ever watch, "The Wizard of Oz"? That strawman was pretty kool. Sh*t, he was probably the smartest one there. Let's show a little love for the strawman, c'mon! :D

 

Neither the Jarls nor the High King are truly elected or voted into office. As I wrote previously (something that you conveniently ignored) the moot is now a ceremonial process, the voting is formal and the only time when it gains significance is when the High King dies without an heir (or, as I have recently discovered - see in game conversations with Sybille Stentor - when the High King breaks some tradition). The position of Jarl is hereditary: whatever great deeds their families performed in the past is now a basis of their legitimacy, and it is due to tradition and ancient deeds that the title of Jarl is passed to them, not because of their personal qualities (as proven by the ineptitude demonstrated by many of the current Jarls). Some of them might pick the right man for the right job, but that does not mean that they are also capable of making strategic decisions. Also, it is interesting to note that, for example, Elisif grants you the right to purchase property in Solitude after you complete a quest that involves a personal favor (you take Torygg's horn to a Talos shire), and the same is true of Igmund (you bring back his father's shield). You would think, resolving the Potema crisis is somewhat more important than doing a personal favor, eh? So it seems you can become a Thane simply by getting on the right side of the Jarl via small favors. There goes your argument about "Jarls representing their people thru their Thanes". It is more like certain Jarls using tradition to gather supporters.

 

High King is voted into office, just explained that, again it's all over the game. You know he is. So, next topic please. Now, the Jarls is a different matter because every hold is different. I never said it was universal Democractic-Utopia thingy, never ever said that. Wouldn't be very Nordish if it was.

 

I am however, all about convenience baby. After a very looong night of looting and pillaging, it's always nice to be near a city merchant(s) or local tribes who will trade with you. Never hurts to diversify your bonds.

 

Elisif is errr... in training. I will say nothing good or bad about her other than I feel for her loss. When I was younger and a much nicer person, I lost someone whom I truly loved due to the actions of EVIL PEOPLE who enjoy causing other's misory... like "him". So I in a way, can feel her pain on this subject. As for her leadership abilities, she has heart and will eventually get her feet.

 

As for becoming a Thane, you're not really helping the Jarl as much as you're helping out the people in the Hold itself. Whether you see it otherwise, is up to you. Can be argued either way. However, the Jarl(s) is helping the people because they came to him for help in the first place. :thumbsup:

 

Let me summarize it because I tend to digress:

 

The Nords of Skyrim is a tradtionalist feudalistic society that is influenced by their ties - political and economic - with the Empire. The Nord society has tribal origins, with chieftains earning the right to lead their tribe via great feats of strength. As time passed, this society - or rather, this tribal alliance like setup - slowly transformed into a tradition and inheritance based feudalistic organization. Entitlement at and above the level of Jarls is based not on current deeds, but inheritance and tradition that are, in turn, based on past deeds.

 

"tradtionalist feudalistic society" - The Nords would never refer to themselves as this or even understand what it is you're talking about.

 

Well, the Empire is the Gov. They're technically not a special interest at all. They are the senior Gov of the provinces. Although I would argue the WGC was a special interest. Because no one in Skyrim had any say in that law. This too was wrong. But it's a special interest because it is not the norm, not even for the Empire. The WGC came about because of the Thalmor's dealings with TMII initiated by them alone but later signed by TMII. WGC was born from "special interest" associations between TMII and the Thalmor... It was not voted on or crafted legitimately.

 

I wouldn't call the office of High King an entitlement, that's, that's your opinion. That's not accurate because it seems the Nords take their Gov pretty seriously. It wouldn't be an entitlement at all if there's a vote for High King. I would also like to take this time to point out that most Jarls and well, the High King, have considerable responsibility with a Dragons and Civil War going on. Whether or not they profit greatly from their office is a matter of them doing their job. If they are, then to them go the spoils. Otherwise everyone including them will either be dead or under new mgmt. It's Nord custom to honor their victorious bretheren.

 

The only forum that bears a passing resemblance to a democratic voting/election process was the moot. Well, it was, until the War of Succession, and the Pact of Chieftains. After that, the moot became a simple inauguration process, a ceremony where the heir to the throne is traditionally recognized by the Jarls. So there goes your 'democratic forum'. Sticking strictly to in-game resources and conversations you can learn that: a moot is convened a) when the heir to the throne is formally approved, b) when there is no heir and a new High King must be elected, c) when the High King breaks some tradition (e.g. refuses a duel). There is no word about the High King's skills or ability to rule. You cannot legally depose a High King because he is a bad leader. You can only remove him if he breaks some tradition.

 

Correct. This is a good paragraph. Or in the last sentense, if he/she breaks the law. There is Imperial Law and every citizen is expected to uphold the law. Some more than others, but much is expect from the High King by both his people and the Empire. That is the purpose of the Moot, to decide whose skills and abilities would best serve Skyrim.

 

So what we see here is a slow transition from a society where leadership was granted on the basis of personal valor into a society where leadership is inherited and retained through tradition. How do the Empire and Ulfric fit into this picture? Well, you can say that by now Imperial rule (through the Nede (pre-Nordic) origin of Tiber Septim) has become a tradition. You can also say that by giving up the worship of Talos, the Empire has broken that tradition. You can say, Ulfric would be a tyrant. But how is the Empire any better than Ulfric? Torygg was little more than an Imperial puppet. You face the same dilemma that people who are interested in Roman history encounter: was Ceasar a positive or negative historical figure? Sure, he esentially stripped the Senate (a 'democratic' institution) of its power and started the process that would lead to the period called 'the Principate', but his actions reinforced the Roman Empire and restored its power. You see, "democracy" or "democratic solutions" are not always the best choice in every historical context. Sometimes a tyrant, a strong leader with a vision, can serve his country/Empire/nation better.

 

Personal valor is judged against tradition. For example, "He has the courage of Ygramor", "She has the might of 100 Companions" etc... That's one issue with traditon, everyone is expected to at least be the best according to xyz hero person. The Empire has F*CKED UP royally by publicly dishonoring Talos. I agree with you whole-heartedly on this. However, this was done by TMII and NO ONE, not one Imperial citizen had a say in this. He just signed it. That was a horrible way for TMII to thank his saviors. But it's ok, it was done and now it's time to focus on what to do about it. This is not the time to be making irrational, knee-jerk decisions based on our feelings. Great care must be taken in deciding whether or not to keep the Empire around. TMII only thought about himself, although his father was a good man and pretty much all Emperors prior to him were quality sons of the Empire. Empire is not all bad. Please do not judge all of us based on what TMII did. The Legion would never have signed that treaty. Neither would the Blades.

 

Now, to answer your question: "Was Ceasar a positive or negative historical figure?" I think you are correct for the most part. To me Caesar was both pos in the shortrun, neg in the longrun. He was positive for the then and now. So in other words, his actions did much good for Rome. However, he was too Good, too Squared-away, too Powerful, too much of a Good thing. This is why he was assassinated, his political opponents were intimidated by him, their only recourse for power was to kill him. He also rose the standards bar up so high, no Roman again would be able to out-do or over accomplish him in well, anything. They had to try and emulate it, not just in person but in policy as well. So in other words, Caesar gave Roman eternal Glory and most of the Emperors after him couldn't maintain it but obligated to try just because they were supposed to, which made their Gov somewhat dellusional at times, always looking to the past and not facing the reality of their situation as Caesar (Tullius) would. Tradition and honor and all that sounds good, however, "Battles are won by trained and dsiciplined men. Wars are won by talented and exceptional individuals."

Edited January 19, 2013 by bigmagy1981

[Pogiforce]

I always side empire. Even when I want to side Stormcloaks, I can never bring myself to do it. Each side has their fair share of assholes. The captain at the beginning of the game, "dun care, kill 'em all." for the empire, the beligerent drunk Nord in Windhelm threatening all the dark elvees for the Stormcloaks, just to give some examples. Each however has their fair share of good guys. I'd consider both Ralof and Hadvar good people.I personally admire Legate Rikke, and I have nothing but respect for the Gray-Mane family. In the end though, none of that matters. Because in the end, it's the guy who's in charge who pulls the strings. In the case of the STormcloaks, that's Ulfric. In the case of the Empire, that's, of course, the Emperor. General Tullius is simply an extension of the Emperor's will.

 

I can understand the cause, I can sympathize with it. but I can never back Ulfric. I have been unable to find any redeeming quality to that man. He ignores entire sections of his own city that are suffering just because they aren't nordic, while he's constantly aiming to further his own political position. He ignores the needs of others to the point of neglect, where Brunwulf Free-Winter has to step in and help out. if Brunwulf was the leader of the STormcloaks, I would probably actually find them a joinable faction. There's also the fact that Ulfric is a "Ever problem is a nail" type of guy. he responds to everything with brute force.Jarl Torygg sympathizes with Ulfric's position, but refuses to go to war because he understands the far reaching consequences. Ulfric's solution? Abuse his Thu'um training to murder Torygg and start a scivil war. Whiterun just wants to remain neutral and protect their own people from the conflict. Balgruuf just wants to stay out of it. Ulfric's solution? attack whiterun and take over. Good ol' "If you're not with us you're against us!' villain logic. I greatly respect and understand jarl Balgruuf's position and I can't abide a group that would willfully attack what is, effectively, an innocent bystander. From what I've seen on the Imperial side Balgruuf even extends Ulfric an Olive branch, and Ulfric's response is an act of war. It's like Ulfric doesn't know the meaning of the word peace. Even during what is supposed to be a peace treaty he's maneuvering to improve his military position. And finally, Ulfric's actions just scream selfish desire for political power. Perhaps a sense of entitlement. I'm the bloody hero of the Reach, the Nord hero of the Great War! How dare they make Torygg High King and not me!

 

In a Skyrim ruled by Ulfric's tyranny, I can see Skyrim's borders being closed to desperate dunmer fleeing Morrowind, leaving them to die. I can see Khajiit caravans being harrassed to the point of leaving, hurting trade. Nords will be given preferential treatment in everything, leaving some who are maybe more diserving out in the cold, literally and figuratively. As he did Whiterun, he'd threaten military action against anyone who does not align with his views. He'd be a xenophobic tyrant, who just weakened the country by effectively rendering SKyrim without allies, making an enemy both of the Empire, and leaving htem weakened for the Aldmeri Dominions to finish them off.

 

On the flip side, The Emperor is more deep thinking htan ULfric. He ended the great war with a peace treaty because he understood that a pyric victory isn't a victory at all. It was arrogance similar to ulfrics that had started the war, when the emperor refused their initial demands. The emperor also fought in the war. he made difficult choices and put the Aldmeri Dominion in a position where a treaty was possible. Do you think the Aldmeri Dominion would have accepted a peace treaty if they could have simply overrun the Empire with minimal casualties? They're arrogant, not stupid. From waht you see of the emperor in the Dark Brotherhood quest line, he's a very respectable man. Winning the Civil war would bolster morale in the Empire and allow them to focus on the real threat: the Thalmor. By suffering the Thalmor for now, they can build up for a proper second great war. The empire understands that in fighting right now can only make both Skyrim and the Empire vulnerable.

 

and if you want to just say "jarl elisif" as high king, rather than the big picture ruler that is the Emperor, yes Elisif is inexperienced, yes she's a bit naive. She also listens to the concerns of her people, if her immediate response to the Wolf Skull Cave issue is any indication, and has a full court full of experienced advisors to help her.

[StormHammer81]

ELDER SCROLLS ONLINE!!!

 

http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/

 

Please note, this all takes place from the "Second Era" ~ Skyrim happens much later on.

 

Graphics look pretty good, bearing a heavy resemblance to Oblivion and the actual world design is a cross between latest Wow and Skyrim. Gameplay looks very good, but still MMO style.

Edited January 21, 2013 by bigmagy1981

[Mox2]

Call me naive but I have one main reason as to why I joined the Stormcloaks. And mind you, I only joined after about 75 hours into Skyrim(and already played both sides with separate chars), and I went with Hadvar in the beginning, so I heard a bunch of bad things about Ulfric.

 

Simply put: freedom of belief/speech, as well as compassion(sort of). My main char in tES is always a Redguard, and during the events of Skyrim the belief of Talos was banned in the Empire. As a result Hammerfell rebelled, and the Emperor was forced to give it up. And when I found that out I was like "We(redguards) are free, and so should Skyrim is they want to."

 

Also, Empire is in shambles. Most of their forces are either in Skyrim or Cyrodil(and maybe next to the borders of the Aldmeri Dominion). Skyrim doesn't want to go down with it, and I think they deserve not to.

 

And while I admit that most of the Nords are racist bastards(including Ulfric to some extent), not all of them are.

 

/me awaits the loopholes in his reasons to be exploited to their fullest extent.

[StormHammer81]

Well, there are loop holes to be exploited in either choice.

 

I think with you, you really took your time and gave yourself time to decide and to really think about your choice.

 

In the end, it is your decision. Although, you know, Titus Mede II was vindicated for abandoning the Imperial city after the battle of the Red Ring. There is nothing that says he might have been in the right regarding the WGC. Pretty nice guy too, you know he wears a Talos amulet right?

 

I dunno... I play as Orc. Stormcloaks are very racist towards us and they don't like having our cities in Skyrim, even though we were in Skyrim before they were, before Ysgramor ever arrived. And I really don't care for being told, "Screw you Orc Skyrim belongs to the Nords" by every other Stormcloak and bandit I run across.

 

Hmmm.......

 

Yeah I'll take my chances with the Empire. Tullius is not a very nice person and he told the Thalmor "no" at Helgen when Elenwen showed up to rescue her "boy" Ulfric. I re-read that dossier, seems like the Thalmor are confident of their influence/control over Ulfric. They know the score, they know what's up.

 

Not trolling, I was just reading some more books and other things online, thought about changing my stance, however there is no way I could follow some guys cause for "freedom" whom the Thalmor consider important enough to try and rescue from the Empire. I also don't care for the fact that the Stormcloaks were dead silent about me not being one of them at Helgen. That Imperial Captain was wrong, but they were also in the wrong.

 

Another thing, Ulfric is of Ysgramor's line. I didn't care for him either. The reason the Falmer are so bad today is because of Ysrgamor's blood lust. I mean, the Nords basically invaded the Snow Elf's lands, started building their own cities, basically stole it. No surprise the Snow Elf's went biblidy over it. Nords lost one city, so then Ysgramor and his companions went back to their homeland, Atmora, and then basically went back to Skyrim and committed genocide. There was no reason to "hunt down" the Snow Elf's in Solsteim. The elves were practically begging for peace and beaten. It should have ended in Skyrim.

 

So then another guy like him, can't run his own city, can't handle the social issues plaguing his own people, can't do his job as Jarl, thinks that Skyrim owes him everything AND now he wants to be High King too, even though both the Stormcloak and Imperial Jarls are asking for the moot?

 

No... f*ck way Ulfric. I understand some of where he's coming from, but his intentions are not clean and his motives are still somewhat a mystery. You may have Talos worship restored, however I really don't think the end for Skyrim will be worth it. Not with the Thalmor waiting at the gates.

 

Dragonborn is the descendant of Talos, Talos would want his Empire to be saved. That's another thing I don't understand, "Why do the Nords worship Talos?" I mean, he was a great Nord so what? Talos lives on thru the Empire. Ysgramor was for Skyrim - not the Empire. Two different ideologies here. In a way it's kind of funny... they worship Talos, but hate the Empire? I know the Empire is f*cking up right now, in the most blasphemous way imaginable, however it's still the Empire. A lot of people died for the WGC, so the Empire could survive, did Ulfric ever consider this?

 

Talos was the first human Imperial. Unlike Ysgramor, his will extended beyond Skyrim although they both fought the Elves. So, I know that sometimes good institutions and good associations can go "bad" and alienate those members who care the most about them. It's a tough decision to make and I think to be an Imperial, you have to be an optimist - Not a pawn and not to agree with everything the Empire has done.

 

For you Stormcloaks, the war ends with Solitude. The Stormcloaks don't believe in Imperialism, nor would they ever have any part in restoring even an legitimate Empire. They, like Ysgramor, care only about their kingdom in Skyrim and Ulfric even says in the beginning, he's tired of Nords dying on foreign soil. Although he flip-flops in that final speech.

 

I may be wrong in still fighting for the Empire, however I will not be the reason why Talos's Empire falls to the Elves. There is still hope for the Empire, as long as TMII is gone and justice is done on Ulfric. It's easy to take your ball and leave when things don't go your way, indeed there have been several times when I've had to rescue myself from Thalmor like people. However, it takes faith and dedication to hold a family together. That's the difference here, least for me - The Empire is family.

 

If you really want to understand it, you have to really think about where Titus Mede II was going with this. Redguards don't need the Empire, they can survive on their own, he knew they would break away eventually AND could finish off the Thalmor. Hammerfell itself was not least at that time, a prosperous province. It was engulfed in the middle of a Civil War. WGC wasn't originally enforced into people's lives, that treaty was in name only until Ulfric became involved. Even at Titus Mede II's death he seems to not be worried about the Empire or his throne. In closing, I think TMII is smarter than any of us realize. With what he said about you ascending to the throne, I really feel that keeping Skyrim with the Empire was apart of whatever his plan was.

 

The damage was already done by the Great War, so signing the WGC or letting a province already engulfed in it's own Civil War leave the Empire isn't going to make that big a difference. What matters most is: Cyrodil, Skyrim and Highrock.

 

Most of you I feel will not like/agree with this. However, the core provinces of the Empire have to become stable again before the Empire can expand or deal with external threats. The ship (Aka Empire) was seriously damaged by the Thalmor, with fires on all decks, massive infrastructure damage, and could no longer sustain all of the crew/cargo, so TMII had to throw some people overboard or just let them go to deal with their own problems, so he could work to plug the hull breaches, put out the fires and save the ship before everyone went under.

 

I have been in the same situation before. There was a time when something really horrible happened to me and I could not maintain. Friends, hobbies, a job and some other things had to be let go. During this time, I was alone and many of my former friends/"allies" mocked me and ridiculed me over what had happened. Time past and I stayed positive and kept my faith in God, even though I could no longer openly profess my beliefs, over my "Disaster" which in and of itself was engineered by another party to spite me. Ultimately, I was fine and came out of it stronger then ever before and the people who caused this, know better now not to mess with me. So it is with the Empire.

 

Again, something very few out there can understand because many times the days, people have everything handed to them or when some tragedy strikes they don't have to literally "pull themselves back together" on their own. Titus Mede II did NOT abandon Hammerfell to spite them, he did NOT sign the WGC to keep his throne. He did this things and reshaped the land out of LOVE for the Empire. For it was Talos's Empire and he was not ready for it to fall apart.

 

This will probably be my last post for awhile. So for this new year has not been

very nice.

 

 

LONG LIVE THE EMPIRE

Edited February 5, 2013 by bigmagy1981

[Mox2]

Yeah I'll take my chances with the Empire. Tullius is not a very nice person and he told the Thalmor "no" at Helgen when Elenwen showed up to rescue her "boy" Ulfric. I re-read that dossier, seems like the Thalmor are confident of their influence/control over Ulfric. They know the score, they know what's up.

 

I've read that Dossier. Keep in mind that the Thalmor wanted a balance kept on both sides, so that both sides waste resources and eventually lose. By pushing the war in favor of one side, you're doing a disservice to the Thalmor...

 

But also, keep in mind that Northern Morrowind(or at least its citizens), Skyrim(somewhat half of it), Black Marsh and Hammerfell are all dissatisfied with the Empire. if the war continues without Dragonborn's inteference the Empire is definitively going to lose. If Skyrim's regained by the Empire, all they gained was some extra income and soldiers. They're losing the cold war, and the inevitable open war later on, regardless if Skyrim's theirs or not. But if Skyrim is on its own, when the Empire falls, the Thalmor have 4 or 3 fronts to fight on: Skyrim(which would still be probably fueled by the anti-Thalmor rage), Hammerfell, Black Marsh and possibly Morrowind(if their Redoran army is still up and running in the Northern Morrowind). The Thalmor would have a pretty difficult time taking over Tamriel, even if none of the surviving provinces ally.

 

 

Feel free to attack my views, I'm open to any criticism so that they(my views) may develop...

[StormHammer81]

@Imperistan

 

I removed this post about TMII, esp after witnessing "Cyrodil Justice" at Helgen. Not to mention how the WGC primarily served Cyrodil's interests. Yeah, it might have been a little far-fetched :) Hopefully, his Empire will die with him.

 

Got to admit though, the man has style :D

 

 

LONG LIVE THE EMPIRE

Edited February 9, 2013 by bigmagy1981