Imperial VS Stormcloak

[HighkingUlfricStormcloak]

True.

 

-

 

I just want to add - Forsworn -

 

Igmund states that it was "Little more than a chaotic uprising." So theres one account that conflicts with the Book "Bear of Markarth" And he also states that they offered peaceful terms to the Reachmen and they declined and fled to the hills. So thats just to add onto that argument.

[LithiumPower]

The Thalmor got precisely what they wanted. They sacked the White Gold Tower after which they had no further interest in Cyrodiil. But because the Empire was cowardly, they pressed forward with their next objective, the Adamantine Tower in Balfiera and Snow-Throat in Skyrim. The territory they demanded in Hammerfell would have given them a nice corridor from which to advance on Balfiera and the access to Skyrim, handed them the latter on a silver plate.

 

The stormcloaks didn't jump ship in foul weather - they remained firmly in the ship they'd started out with, the one that was fighting the Thalmor - the Empire jumped ship, and then stabbed their principle allies in the back by agreeing to a treaty with extremely adverse terms for both. The only one who benefited (and benefits even now) from the Concordat is Cyrodiil as it allows them some semblance of assurance that they won't be invaded again.

 

HighKing, they've since fixed the forum bug that was causing those html artefacts - do try editing again (I just did) or use the full editor to avoid the issue.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Lithium Flower

[Kayyyleb]

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.

TMII is a crap negotiator. He's also dead and out of the future picture. Letting all of Cyrodiil fall to the Thalmor because of one man's mistake as the Stormcloaks want is hardly what I'd call the right decision. If Skyrim's Nords turn on then abandon the Imperials then that speaks volumes of their own character. Betraying your allies on the brink of a war for your own short-sighted self interest is neither admirable nor excusable. Nords claim to be honorable and value loyalty but the Stormcloaks certainly aren't showing it.

 

You've really got to do better than use the WGC as an excuse for the rebellion. You don't abolish empires or betray allies in time of war over one politician's bad call. Especially when the stakes are so high. I don't even feel like beating the blatantly obvious dead horse of the Stormcloaks following through with precisely what the Thalmor want them to do since the evidence of that is everywhere. The Thalmor are cautious of a military engagement with a now fully prepared Empire so they're manipulating the Nords to do through coercion what they failed to do through battle. Worst of all, you're all falling for it hook, line and sinker.

[kradus]

I just want to add - Forsworn -

 

Igmund states that it was "Little more than a chaotic uprising." So theres one account that conflicts with the Book "Bear of Markarth" And he also states that they offered peaceful terms to the Reachmen and they declined and fled to the hills. So thats just to add onto that argument.

 

The Forsworn uprising was the 'little more than chaotic' one, dont mix information. The reach was at peace under native rule, for obvious reasons. They fight, because they dont want to live under precarious nord rule.

And I'll add that Igmund never implicates the emperor, he called on Ulfric himself to solve the problem, under the promisse of an illegal reward.

 

 

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.

 

 

The Thalmor got precisely what they wanted. They sacked the White Gold Tower after which they had no further interest in Cyrodiil. But because the Empire was cowardly, they pressed forward with their next objective, the Adamantine Tower in Balfiera and Snow-Throat in Skyrim. The territory they demanded in Hammerfell would have given them a nice corridor from which to advance on Balfiera and the access to Skyrim, handed them the latter on a silver plate.

 

The stormcloaks didn't jump ship in foul weather - they remained firmly in the ship they'd started out with, the one that was fighting the Thalmor - the Empire jumped ship, and then stabbed their principle allies in the back by agreeing to a treaty with extremely adverse terms for both. The only one who benefited (and benefits even now) from the Concordat is Cyrodiil as it allows them some semblance of assurance that they won't be invaded again.

 

The Thalmor couldn't hold Cyrodiil, and Hammerfell for that matter because of indirect imperial help.

 

"In Hammerfell, General Decianus was preparing to drive the Aldmeri back from Skaven when he was ordered to march for Cyrodiil. Unwilling to abandon Hammerfell completely, he allowed a great number of "invalids" to be discharged from the Legions before they marched east. These veterans formed the core of the army that eventually drove Lady Arannelya's forces back across the Alik'r late in 174, taking heavy losses on their retreat from harassing attacks by the Alik'r warriors."

 

About the WGC

 

" No part of the Empire would have accepted these terms in 4E 171, dictated by the Thalmor at swords-point. Titus II would have faced civil war. By 4E 175, most of the Empire welcomed peace at almost any price."

 

The majority vote.

 

http://www.imperial-library.info/content/great-war

Edited March 16, 2013 by kradus

[LithiumPower]

The Thalmor couldn't hold Cyrodiil, and Hammerfell for that matter because of indirect imperial help.

 

"In Hammerfell, General Decianus was preparing to drive the Aldmeri back from Skaven when he was ordered to march for Cyrodiil. Unwilling to abandon Hammerfell completely, he allowed a great number of "invalids" to be discharged from the Legions before they marched east. These veterans formed the core of the army that eventually drove Lady Arannelya's forces back across the Alik'r late in 174, taking heavy losses on their retreat from harassing attacks by the Alik'r warriors."

 

About the WGC

 

" No part of the Empire would have accepted these terms in 4E 171, dictated by the Thalmor at swords-point. Titus II would have faced civil war. By 4E 175, most of the Empire welcomed peace at almost any price."

 

The majority vote.

 

http://www.imperial-library.info/content/great-war

Thank you for bringing both those points up!

 

Firstly, the Concise History is a great book with a lot of good information. The author also generously tells us about himself right at the outset, which of course is crucial to analysing the account contained in that book. This is what Legate Jusitianus Quintius says about himself:

 

I myself commanded the Tenth Legion in Hammerfell and Cyrodiil until I was wounded in 175 during the assault on the Imperial City.

 

So, an imperial, a legion commander and a Great War veteran. That will tell us a lot about his affiliations and leanings and in analysing the book, we can keep an eye out for when he veers off the facts into editorial territory. We can also assume he would try to paint the legion, the emperor and the empire itself in the best light. Still it's not terribly hard to separate fact from opinion, let's try it out.

 

"In Hammerfell, General Decianus was preparing to drive the Aldmeri back from Skaven when he was ordered to march for Cyrodiil. Unwilling to abandon Hammerfell completely, he allowed a great number of "invalids" to be discharged from the Legions before they marched east. These veterans formed the core of the army that eventually drove Lady Arannelya's forces back across the Alik'r late in 174, taking heavy losses on their retreat from harassing attacks by the Alik'r warriors."

 

The first line is definitely fact. Even if it's not possible for us to do it personally, the information is verifiable in-universe. There would be records obtainable somewhere.

 

The next line is editorial - it is the opinion of the author that General Decianus was "unwilling to abandon Hammerfell completely" - no one has any means of verifying Decianus' real feelings and motivations, we have similarly no way to verify the state of mind of the 'invalids' he discharged. But that doesn't mean that line is junk - on the contrary it tells us a great deal - we now know that a large number of legionnaires in the Hammerfell legions stayed back and continued the fight instead of marching to Cyrodiil as ordered. This would be verifiable information. Records would exist of how many troops were discharged in Hammerfell. Since the legion in Hammerfell would have been drawn from the province, it would largely consist of redguards that had just been ordered to abandon their homes to the Thalmor and march to Cyrodiil.

 

Could Decianus have faced a mutiny when he said 'we're going to Cyrodiil, never mind your homes - that's an order, soldier' and decided to write off the mutineers as invalided rather than explain his disastrous failure of command? Or perhaps Decianus sympathised completely with his rebellious men and invalided them as a 'get out of the legion free' card instead of trying to court martial and execute them all for mutiny.

 

Either one of these scenarios is much more likely than marching orders recalling the legion to Cyrodiil to defend the emperor also including the addenum that some of them be invalided and left behind - why? The emperor could just ask for half the legion instead of all of it if he wanted to keep the fight going in Hammerfell.

 

I wouldn't call it indirect imperial aid, I would call it a delicate imperial cover up of a possible mutiny in Decianus' legion.

 

On the matter of the Concordat again when Quintius says:

 

"No part of the Empire would have accepted these terms in 4E 171, dictated by the Thalmor at swords-point. Titus II would have faced civil war. " This bit is corroborated by later history but the second part-

 

"By 4E 175, most of the Empire welcomed peace at almost any price." - this is outright contradicted by later events.

 

Hammerfell rejected the WGC-bought peace and rebelled, seceding successfully. Skyrim followed suit, erupting into civil war - 2 out 3 provinces in revolt hardly constitutes 'most of the empire welcoming peace at any price'.

 

 

Either Quintius wrote the book before Hammerfell and Skyrim rebelled (a very, very short window of time Hammerfell revolted in 175, Skyrim in 176) or I'd really like the special brand of skooma he was on when he wrote that line. Maybe it was the pain meds for his war wound!

[kradus]

Most of the empire includes Cyrodiil, High Rock and skyrim, who remain largely loyal. I've said it before, you just can't change lore to justify your choice in the civil war. You have to accept the facts and live with it, that part is not up for discussion, bethesda doesn't give us more info. Even the messages in the loading screen state that only by signing the WGC was the empire halt the onslaught of the war, or something. Where imperial propagandists able to hack into bethesda softworks by any chance?
If you can't live with the facts, too bad, but dont complain here about something you can't change. Either live with your choice or change it, not the lore.

Edited March 16, 2013 by kradus

[Kayyyleb]

So, an imperial, a legion commander and a Great War veteran. That will tell us a lot about his affiliations and leanings and in analysing the book, we can keep an eye out for when he veers off the facts into editorial territory. We can also assume he would try to paint the legion, the emperor and the empire itself in the best light. Still it's not terribly hard to separate fact from opinion, let's try it out.

Aka: allow me to criticize anything opposing my viewpoint in this source as propaganda or "veering into editorial territory" so that I can ignore anything that damages my position on unproven but highly convenient accusations of pro-Imperial or pro-Legion bias. Because the "truth" couldn't possibly be anything other than what YOU want it to be, correct?

 

The dishonesty and counter-propaganda in your post is plain as day.

 

You're now going so far as to claim in-game canon is false so that you can rationalize the rebellion. You can't do that. Sorry, but if we're throwing out the lore then there's no point in this discussion at all.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Kayyyleb

[fraquar]

 

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.

TMII is a crap negotiator. He's also dead and out of the future picture. Letting all of Cyrodiil fall to the Thalmor because of one man's mistake as the Stormcloaks want is hardly what I'd call the right decision. If Skyrim's Nords turn on then abandon the Imperials then that speaks volumes of their own character. Betraying your allies on the brink of a war for your own short-sighted self interest is neither admirable nor excusable. Nords claim to be honorable and value loyalty but the Stormcloaks certainly aren't showing it.

 

You've really got to do better than use the WGC as an excuse for the rebellion. You don't abolish empires or betray allies in time of war over one politician's bad call. Especially when the stakes are so high. I don't even feel like beating the blatantly obvious dead horse of the Stormcloaks following through with precisely what the Thalmor want them to do since the evidence of that is everywhere. The Thalmor are cautious of a military engagement with a now fully prepared Empire so they're manipulating the Nords to do through coercion what they failed to do through battle. Worst of all, you're all falling for it hook, line and sinker.

TMII is alive and kicking at the start of Skyrim - so I'm not sure what exactly your point is. That just because I killed him thats it, problem solved, you can kindly leave Skyrim now Thalmor?

 

Furthermore, when the Nords look around and all they see are Thalmor roaming their countryside - do they even need any more reason than that? The Thalmor are there for 1 reason, the Empire tolerates their presence - and even lets them set up shop and torture Imperial citizens at their own whim.

[fraquar]

 

I just want to add - Forsworn -

 

Igmund states that it was "Little more than a chaotic uprising." So theres one account that conflicts with the Book "Bear of Markarth" And he also states that they offered peaceful terms to the Reachmen and they declined and fled to the hills. So thats just to add onto that argument.

 

The Forsworn uprising was the 'little more than chaotic' one, dont mix information. The reach was at peace under native rule, for obvious reasons. They fight, because they dont want to live under precarious nord rule.

And I'll add that Igmund never implicates the emperor, he called on Ulfric himself to solve the problem, under the promisse of an illegal reward.

 

 

>>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.

 

 

The Thalmor got precisely what they wanted. They sacked the White Gold Tower after which they had no further interest in Cyrodiil. But because the Empire was cowardly, they pressed forward with their next objective, the Adamantine Tower in Balfiera and Snow-Throat in Skyrim. The territory they demanded in Hammerfell would have given them a nice corridor from which to advance on Balfiera and the access to Skyrim, handed them the latter on a silver plate.

 

The stormcloaks didn't jump ship in foul weather - they remained firmly in the ship they'd started out with, the one that was fighting the Thalmor - the Empire jumped ship, and then stabbed their principle allies in the back by agreeing to a treaty with extremely adverse terms for both. The only one who benefited (and benefits even now) from the Concordat is Cyrodiil as it allows them some semblance of assurance that they won't be invaded again.

 

The Thalmor couldn't hold Cyrodiil, and Hammerfell for that matter because of indirect imperial help.

 

"In Hammerfell, General Decianus was preparing to drive the Aldmeri back from Skaven when he was ordered to march for Cyrodiil. Unwilling to abandon Hammerfell completely, he allowed a great number of "invalids" to be discharged from the Legions before they marched east. These veterans formed the core of the army that eventually drove Lady Arannelya's forces back across the Alik'r late in 174, taking heavy losses on their retreat from harassing attacks by the Alik'r warriors."

 

About the WGC

 

" No part of the Empire would have accepted these terms in 4E 171, dictated by the Thalmor at swords-point. Titus II would have faced civil war. By 4E 175, most of the Empire welcomed peace at almost any price."

 

The majority vote.

 

http://www.imperial-library.info/content/great-war

 

Huh? Most of the Empire?

 

Cyrodill

Hammerfell

Skyrim

High Rock

 

Skyrim is rebelling because of that decision and Hammerfell left because of it. Might want to reconsider what "most" really means.

 

The fact that it's easier to sell only means you compromised the very priciples which cause you to go to war in the first place. In reality it means they really, really wanted to sell Hammerfell and Skyrim short in the first place.

 

You seem to forget that Skyrims compliance was bought with Imperial coin - that alone should make people understand why there is a rebellion.

Edited March 16, 2013 by fraquar

[kradus]

It's Hammerfell and less than half of skyrim vs Cyrodiil, High Rock, all the non stormcloaks in skyrim + nord legionaries, and even the Dunmer as inconsequentional as they are. All of them remained loyal/non rebelious. So the idea that most of the empire accepted the WGC compromise as a means for peace is more than logical, as they remained loyal afterwards. And even the stormcloaks didn't rebell right afterwards, it took time, Ulfric, the Markarth incidend, and the intensified Thalmor persecution that followed to tip the bucket, not the WGC alone.

Edited March 16, 2013 by kradus