Jump to content

Imperial VS Stormcloak


Jackal2233

Recommended Posts

If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.

- Henry David Thoreau

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.

- Sun Tzu

Confront them with annihilation, and they will then survive; plunge them into a deadly situation, and they will then live. When people fall into danger, they are then able to strive for victory.

- Sun Tzu

There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.

- Sun Tzu

 

Yeah see you later! I have to go as well.

 

Well, I'll start by showing my support for national self determination of the Reachmen. Admittedly, human sacrifice and daedra worship (particularly, Hircine worship) is something I'd oppose.

 

And those quotes.

 

1. Yes, building without foundations is hopeless, but an Independent Skyrim will have its foundation (Skyrim itself) to build itself upon. Similarly, building a new building on rotten foundations is structurally insane.

 

2. The Revolutionary situation the Empire is experiencing is the perfect time for a revolution. With most of the Empire's forces thinly stretched in Cyrodiil, and with the Empire experiencing severe issues with corruption and Cyrodiil in ruins and crawling with gangsters and thugs, it is the perfect time to strike.

 

3. Didn't happen for Rome, Byzantium, Britain, Russian (etc etc).

 

That quote doesn't refer to politics, it refers to how an army reacts when completely surrounded (ie how an army will fight to the death with fierce determination).

 

4. Why do we advocate an independent Skyrim? The Empire is being plagued by conflict and corruption, making it impossible to rebuild itself.

 

@Talos926: I'll suggest again that you try reading around a bit. Your opinions look quite limited and short-sighted, in my opinion. It would be good to try to see both sides before defending either so fiercely.

 

Or ask me for a quick overview of my opinions on the matter.

Edited by RighthandofSithis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ulfric is an overly proud ass who doesn't realize just because one side surrenders, doesn't really mean the battle is over. The imperials are already at war with the elves, and him adding to it will likely be what causes the imperials to loss, and then no one will be there to help when the elves decide they want skyrim too.

 

Not saying the war isn't just, I understand both sides, but in the end, it's all ulfrics fault, so I have a hard time siding with him. But at the same time, he's just protect his home, so it's hard to side against him. There are just much, much better ways he could have done it without creating a total civil war, in the middle of another war, in the middle of a dragon crisis. (though he couldn't have known the later)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The imperials are already at war with the elves, and him adding to it will likely be what causes the imperials to loss, and then no one will be there to help when the elves decide they want skyrim too.

The Empire has made no move against the Aldmeri Dominion since the Great War ended (20 years ago!), quite the contrary - they gave the Thalmor even more freedom to act as they please.

Edited by sisterof
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ulfric is an overly proud ass who doesn't realize just because one side surrenders, doesn't really mean the battle is over. The imperials are already at war with the elves, and him adding to it will likely be what causes the imperials to loss, and then no one will be there to help when the elves decide they want skyrim too.

 

 

Firstly, Skyrim cannot be just steam rolled into by the AD like you think it can be. Skyrim has 4 entry points. 3 passes and a coast. The passes are choke points in which the elves could not advance without moving their forces into a collumn which makes it much easier for the Nords (who know the land very well) to use guerilla tactics to either starve the army out or kill them all with simultanious ambushes. Using these tactics the Nords could drive out any invading force. Also via a sea invasion the shores are full of cliffs and allows for the Nords (Who are very capable seamen) to harass their navy and deplete the Moral of the AD's army and Navy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ulfric is an overly proud ass who doesn't realize just because one side surrenders, doesn't really mean the battle is over.

Also, when one side surrenders that means the battle is over, that is the whole point of surrendering.

He should have said "conflict" because that's what he meant. The first war ended in a bloody stalemate for both sides but the fight isn't over yet. The Stormcloaks are the "fair-weather friends" who jump ship when things get rough and are only looking out for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ulfric is an overly proud ass who doesn't realize just because one side surrenders, doesn't really mean the battle is over. The imperials are already at war with the elves, and him adding to it will likely be what causes the imperials to loss, and then no one will be there to help when the elves decide they want skyrim too.

 

 

Firstly, Skyrim cannot be just steam rolled into by the AD like you think it can be. Skyrim has 4 entry points. 3 passes and a coast. The passes are choke points in which the elves could not advance without moving their forces into a collumn which makes it much easier for the Nords (who know the land very well) to use guerilla tactics to either starve the army out or kill them all with simultanious ambushes. Using these tactics the Nords could drive out any invading force. Also via a sea invasion the shores are full of cliffs and allows for the Nords (Who are very capable seamen) to harass their navy and deplete the Moral of the AD's army and Navy.

 

 

I still support the phalanx formation in those narrow passes. That said, landing a force of archers on any ridges overlooking the battle would obviously be useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First war didn't end in a stalemate, the Thalmor got pretty much everything they wanted out of the war that they demanded from the start.

 

If the Great War were compared to a game of chess, the two grandmasters were in a stalemate position and one of them chose to resign instead (to the confused and stunned press an international onlookers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, militarily it was a stalemate. Politically, ya they got everything they wanted.

 

@ Sisterof - No there were no answers that got deleted, I can only edit once or it reformats my post and adds this <rsb> crap. I think its my browser.

Edited by HighkingUlfricStormcloak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole war was started over politics, thats the problem. If you fight someone to a draw (militarily), you should be on far, far better ground to change the political landscape. Stalemate equates to compromise - and there was none it was all take and no give from the Thalmor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...