Imperial VS Stormcloak

[Lachdonin]

PS. A few people seem to have missed a few issues. One. Nobody remembers High Rock, they defeated the Cameron Usurper, and are thus capable of unity when the need arises. Two. This talk of magic Vs melee seems to forget that the first empire was forged by the Nords, who had forced the Falmer (who where very capable of magic at the time) out of Skyrim and assisted greatly in the defeat of the elves in Cyrodiil (Again competent at magic). While magic is useful in combat, does that mean your character always dies when facing mages? Three. The Thalmor do not want a Stormcloak victory, they have an article on Ulfric which states this.

 

First, Hightrock has been mentioned several times. To the best of our information, it remains part of the Empire, and wasn't touched by the Great War. However, we know nothing beyond that. It is mentioned in Winterhold that the effects of Red Mountain's erruption were felt as far away as High Rock, so it could be that they suffered from the same type of calamaty as Winterhold did, but on a more widespread scale.

 

Second, The elves of Cyrodiil were already overthrone at the time of Talos. In fact, they had been religated to 'mythic' figures and farytales by the end of the Second Era. We also are given indications that the Falmer used predominantly ice based magic, which the Nedic settlers (Ancestors of the Nords) were apparently resistant to anyway. The war also dates to a time before the whole great collapse in Winterhold, which is the even that made the Nords particularly suspicious of magic. There is nothing to indicate that the Nords have always been so suspicious, and the institution of court wizzards indicates otherwise. Also, Talos only defeated the old Aldmeri Dominion with the assistance of the Dunmer, particularly in the form of the Numidium, so raw magical power has stopped armies in the past.

 

Third, the Thalmor don't want a victory, period. They want both sides to bleed themselves dry. A victory would mean one side prevails and remains at least competant, if not strong. Regardless of whether its the Legion or a Speedbump, the Thalmor would rather not have to fight at all when the enevitably try to rule Tamriel again.

 

As for this oft-mentioned 'Ulfric wants whats best for his people' thing, its rubbish. He wants the throne, he doesn't give a damn about the people he steps on to get there. And suceeding from the empire is hardly 'whats best' for the people of skyrim, becuase it would alienate 3 of the 4 trading partners they have. The statement is also ignoring the fact that less than half of Skyrim supports him, and while the Empire may have like numbers, it seems the majority of people would settle for Imperial rule if it meant the war would stop.

 

As i've said, i sympathise with the Stormcloaks. War-time treaties can really suck, However, i don't give a rats ass whats good for Skyrim, i care about what's good for Tamriel (And future TES games) and the Empire is the only choice there.

 

***** Also,,, Why ever did you quote your own post?

[RighthandofSithis]

Actually High Rock would not have been effect by the calamities of Red Mountain, because if it was, then cities like Solitude, Markarth etc would have experienced catastrophe as well (I would imagine). Also I didn't read the whole topic, I was just interested in making my own point that regardlless of which side wins, Skyrim would be safe from the Thalmor.

 

Second, I was talking about the Alessian Revolt of the First Era. The Nords where instrumental in the capture of White-Gold tower. And I wasn't talking about a nordic resent of Magic, I was talking about racial conflicts. And I was using Alessia, Talos and reman as examples of Cyrodiilic heroes that had defeated enemies of such power (The Ayleids and the Akaviri, and the unity of Tamriel). And I remember reading somewhere that the consistent rise and fall of Cyrodiil never fails to bring back order to Tamriel (Which is corroborated by Tamrielic history). The rise of Cyrodiil has always been conducted by these heroes, and it is likely that another will rise eventually (Bethesda will make sure of that).

 

Third, I was just making the point that the Thalmor are afraid of (or at least don't want) a stormcloak victory, just making the point.

 

And when you say that Ulfric is a selfish bastard, I personally think you are only seeing one viewpoint of the issue, or are being biased. Could you argue the same of Talos, who had conquered Tamriel and became Emperor? Or is he still a hero? And throughout History, many have acted on the people's behalf and didn't seem like it. Hitler for example. While he was a fascist dictator who had slaughtered many Jews, he was a patriot who wanted to restore the pride of Germany (Let's point out, I'm not supporting Hitler or Nazism here, I'm just not being biased). I'll back the point that Hitler wanted to restore German pride because his Anschluss of of Austria and annexation of Poland (half of Poland) was done to restore the German Empire. (I wish to restate, I am an anti-fascist). You can see issues like this in other characters such as Mao. He is seen as a self centered dictator, but his ideologies are based on what he saw was best for the world (I've actually read the Little Red Book). (Please don't give me any anti-communist arguments, I'm making the point that people can often be portrayed as bad, when they could really be good)

 

Also, whatever happens in future TES games, be assured that Bethesda will take care of it. They will have to accommodate everyone's playing style in the next game. Tamriel will be saved at one point or another, it's predictable.

 

**** Sorry, I wasn't meant to quote myself. I don't know what happened there.

[Matth85]

Also, whatever happens in future TES games, be assured that Bethesda will take care of it. They will have to accommodate everyone's playing style in the next game. Tamriel will be saved at one point or another, it's predictable

Gameplay =/= Lore or theory.

 

We do not talk what will happen in a new expansion, or what will happen in a/the new TES game. We talk about why we choose a side, why we do not choose the other one and discuss it. It is not about the gameplay or whatever Bethesda decides.

 

Third, I was just making the point that the Thalmor are afraid of (or at least don't want) a stormcloak victory, just making the point.

A Stormcloak victory is better than the Imperials winning. Neither winning is the optimal goal. Hence Stormcloak winning = better. Not as good as both wiping each other out, but we all know that wouldn't happen. Without Dovahkin, the Imperials would win, and with you - you decide.

 

 

And when you say that Ulfric is a selfish bastard, I personally think you are only seeing one viewpoint of the issue, or are being biased. Could you argue the same of Talos, who had conquered Tamriel and became Emperor? Or is he still a hero?

Talos was at least a person with a tactic. He knew the weakness of the pride of the Redguards, for instance. Ulfric? That guy want the throne, and doesn't care what or how.

The point being: Ulfric is an idiot when it comes to war. He doesn't have any bigger plan than the throne for himself. He would also have lost hard if it wasn't for your help, if you choose to join the Stormcloak. Who do you think would win: 100 Nords versus 100 High Elves/Dark Elves? The Elves using magic to heal, and to burn down strategic points without too much hazzle. The Nords ... they rush in. If Ulfric lead them, they really would be slaughtered.

 

In case you didn't know, the Thalmor have invaded a lot lately, and have done extremely well. Can we say the same about Skyrim?

 

The way I set it: If you want to take over a/the world, you better have a god damn plan for it. If you can't think more than 1 move, you are not worth anything. The Empire got a plan, the Thalmor got a plan and Ulfric got no plan. "Hey! I am giving back Skyrim to the Nords and get back old traditions! Jarls will fight each other and weaken us even more! I will also slaughter thousand of people just to get the throne! Making sure the Thalmor can take us out if they wish!".

 

Besides, if Ulfric have the throne, and cyrodiil gets another invasion -- do you think Ulfric would bother helping? Hardly. Then the Thalmor could break the Empire, and it would be Tarmriel VERSUS Skyrim. A full on every-border fight on Skyrim. There is very little chance to survive that.

An good plan from the Thalmor, if I may add. They get a scenario: Either Skyrim weakens itself too much, and they can take it, or Skyrim cuts itself off the Empire, meaning they can go on a double-border fight and take out 1 of the 2 provinces left. Then they could take out the rest of Skyrim, since they are too damn racistic to let anybody in.

 

Really, the Thalmor is about 5 steps ahead of the Stormcloaks. While the Empire is trying their best to restore peace and repell them.

 

It's like this:

 

Thalmor: Takes over Tamriel.

Empire: Want to defend Tamriel and restore the empire.

Stormcloak: Want Skyrim. Don't care about anything else.

 

Nobody sees the problem here?

 

 

Eh, I really love the play Bethesda added with this! It's so perfectly laid out.

I must *clap* for a great political play, with war as a mean.

 

Cheers,

Matth

Edited December 16, 2011 by Matth85

[xiaoxin20]

The Empire is already going to chaos. The Emperor told you that a lot people want him dead right before you kill him. After he dead, all the provinces will seek for indenpendence. It make little sense to actually help the Imperial, since they don't even have power to unify the skyrim needless to say the whole Tamriel.

 

And what if Imperial general find out you kill the emperor at first place? I am pretty sure they will execute you or at least thrown you into jail.

On the other hand, Ulfric will probably just say: "Good riddance."

[Matth85]

And what if Imperial general find out you kill the emperor at first place? I am pretty sure they will execute you or at least thrown you into jail.

On the other hand, Ulfric will probably just say: "Good riddance."

 

Dovahkin is hardly worth more than Tamriel itself, after you've killed Alduin.

Besides, they wouldn't dare to do so. They know you are a symbol for Skyrim.

 

Besides, Ulfric could throw you in jail, or ban you from Skyrim, if he feared you wanted the throne. What are you most afraid of: Logical thinkers, or mad power hungry people?

[Alex4921]

As for the general finding out you killed the emperor in this conversation we appear to all be having he so obviously will as random city guards walk up to you and say "Is it true about you...and the emperor?" so if the event has hit random public rumour level ill bet about 50 septims that half the imperial leadership knows exactly how,who and why.

[Lachdonin]

As for the general finding out you killed the emperor in this conversation we appear to all be having he so obviously will as random city guards walk up to you and say "Is it true about you...and the emperor?" so if the event has hit random public rumour level ill bet about 50 septims that half the imperial leadership knows exactly how,who and why.

 

This, on top of what the Emperor says to you personally, implies to me that the line of sucession is well in play. I actually see something of a Julius Ceasar thing comming out of it, particularly since we know at least one member of the Elder Council was involved.

 

Which brings up a thought. Since the end of the Septim line, the Elder Council has had a much greater amount of power (We know this from the Infernal City). As such, the Concordant is likely due in great part to the Council, even if the Emperor takes most of the blame.

 

It would be very interesting to explore the destruction of the Elder Council and the establishment of a proper Empire... A rebirth in fire, so to speak...

 

Still, my sword is with the Emperor. Mede was a great man, and it was only because of his leadership that the Thalmor didn't win outright. Living to fight another day is better than dieing for nothing.

[Korodic]

Still, my sword is with the Emperor. Mede was a great man, and it was only because of his leadership that the Thalmor didn't win outright. Living to fight another day is better than dieing for nothing.

I really did feel bad lifting him off his feet as my blade pierced his spine. :hurr:

[Lordofdeath123]

Unquestionably and without a doubt Stormcloaks.

 

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

-- Benjamin Franklin

 

- Ulfric is a great leader of men, who inspires them and people about to be executed (intro) still loved and honored him. If I knew nothing else about him, this would be enough for me to respect him. There are people who say he is a racist. I say I am a racist against everybody who comes in my country and forces me to kneel, give up my tradition, freedom and religion. And I consider this to be a virtue. And unlike the Imperials, he does not execute masses of people. Not even Altmer. The Imperials wanted to execute him, but he did not execute the Jarl of Whiterun or Solitude, in fact she was allowed to stay the Jarl. He not only showed greater love for his land, but greater mercy on these who previously did not show mercy on him.

 

- Their cause is right. Some say, that it would be better to stay in the empire and so defeat the Talmar later. But that is wrong as real life history shows up often enough (I will not bring it up here!!!). Never forget, that one enemy on the inside, hidden, is worse then ten outside, and exposed. An army will NEVER win a war when there are spies operating on every instance, even legally, especially against a foe they could not beat before. Hammerfall alone defeated the Thalmar, and the Nords, who made up the backbone of the empire anyway, could do it tenfolds, not to mention that they can gain allience with the redguard, who hate the empire, but would support the Nords against the hated Thalmor.

 

-The leaders of the empire have no honor and dedication. Some have, but many dont, the general was a coward and the "high-queen" quite easily accepted an offer to stay in power from the men who killed her husband. I consider her to be much more of a power hungry *censored* then Ulfric, as everyone claims. The empire constantly drags around prisoners to be executed and tortured, that alone would be enough for me to hate them. It is one thing to kill a man in open, honest, fair and honorable battle. An other to execute him as a show of power, entertainment and to intimate your own people. Thats the same methods used by dictators, just like their tactics of fear as to why people should accept this miserable life, as otherwise they would be weaker etc. This is the tactic of a cowardly dictatorship, that is rotting inside.

 

"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. "

Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

Think about it you selfs.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Lordofdeath123

[Lachdonin]

Ok, this is going to get somewhat philosophisey, so those with young and impressionable children may want to get them a better education before their heads explode.

 

Anyway, first off, i'd like to say that Franklin was a twit. Take enough courses on the nature of Freedom, and the room starts to giggle whenever 'ol Benny is mentioned. He viewed Freedom as an aboslute, measurable phenomenon, which is absolute rubbish. Because of cultural relativity, what is 'free' to one group of people can be oppression to another. Polygyny is a perfect exampe of this dynamic. In the western world, polygyny (Most commonly found in Polygamy, but also including Polyandry) is seen as oppressive against women. In many polygynous societies, however, limiting to a single marriage is viewed as oppressive to the individual spouce because it burdens them with more work. Who is right? Ben Franklin was a highly ethnocentric individual who was convinced to the validity of HIS culture, but his arguements break down completely under cultural relativity.

 

Now, on to the philosophy. Freedom and Liberty are two different things to philosophers. Freedom is a concept, liberty is an absolute. Freedom is comprised of liberties.Absolute freedom requires individuality. That is, you can't have anyone else around you, simply because you instantaneously start to oppress others when your liberties conflict with theirs. For instance, the liberty to bear arms conflicts with the liberty to live (in this case, not to be shot by your redneck neighbour). This is where social contract comes in. In order for groupds of people to function together, individuals must sacrifice liberties in order work as a cohesive unit. As such, contrary to what Franklin argues, it is manditory that societies give up liberties for security, the security of existance.

 

There are also positive and negative liberties. Contrary to how it sounds, Positive liberties are the right to do something, and negative are the right not to have someone interfere. In other words, the right to own arms, and the right to freedom of expression are examples of Positive and Negative liberties respectivly. The nature of interferance, called coersion, has its own philosophical train which i could go into, with two pervailing arguements, but i won't bother people with that... For the sake of this discussion, lets assume we take the side of Coersion = Someone inforcing their will over yours within the perview of a particular liberty. IE; I want your cookie, you want your cookie, i take your cookie, thus enforcing my will over yours.

 

There is also a gradient system, revolving around Primary, Secondary and Tertiary liberties. Primary liberties are those which permit you to exist. The right to have food and drink, shelter, livelihood. Secondary are social rights, such as collective gathering, religion etc. Tertiarty liberties are 'desires'.

 

Within this dynamic, there is something called the Collective Freedom. That is, the prupose of a society is to maximise the greatest freedom for the population, while minimising the removal of liberties. As such, it is very much the perview of a society (Most commonly represented as the State) to grant and strip liberties, and it only crosses the moral line when it fails to maximise individual liberties in favor of its own. There is also a moral obligation to prioritise Primary over Secondary, and Secondary over Tertiary.

 

How does any of this apply to the situation in Skyrim? Well, it primarilty focuses on the moral responsibility of the Empire. In signing the White Gold Concordant, the Empire sacrificed a secondary negative liberty (Worship of Talos) to preserve two primary negatives (The right not to be killed, the right to not be slaves). As such, the sacrifice of a liberity is morally acceptable, and the Empire is shown to be doing exactly what the State is supposed to do. It made the choice which preserved the most liberties, and is completely free of moral culpability in the act.

 

Thats not to say theres no reason for people to get pissed off about it. Rarely does a societal decision ever ring true for EVERYONE. The point, however, is that the Empire did what it was morally obligated to do. The sacrifice of liberties is a common theme within societies, and the nature of social living isn't about maximising liberties, it's about minimising sacrifices.

 

At the same time, when you look at Ulfric and the Markart incedent, you see the complete opposite. The Foresworn were very obviously oppressed. In fact, based on what information we're given, their lives were akin to the blacks prior to the Civil Rights movements. They rose up, demanding their freedom and equal rights to the Nords. Ulfric put them down. And by down, i mean like a sick dog. Because he is in a leadership role, he has the same moral obligation as the Empire does, except he failed misserably in it. He was presented with an incedent where no primary and secondary liberties had to be sacrifices, but many were to be gained, and he favorted tertiary liberties of some over the primary and secondary liberties of others.

 

Aaaannnnnddd... Thats all for now... I don';t know about the rest of you, but i think my eyes are bleeding.