Imperial VS Stormcloak

[Kayyyleb]

 

from the Thalmor Dossier on Ulfric

"Operational Notes: Direct contact remains a possibility (under extreme circumstances), but in general the asset should be considered dormant. As long as the civil war proceeds in its current indecisive fashion, we should remain hands-off. The incident at Helgen is an example where an exception had to be made - obviously Ulfric's death would have dramatically increased the chance of an Imperial victory and thus harmed our overall position in Skyrim. (NOTE: The coincidental intervention of the dragon at Helgen is still under scrutiny. The obvious conclusion is that whoever is behind the dragons also has an interest in the continuation of the war, but we should not assume therefore that their goals align with our own.)"

Ah, bloody Thalmor. Thanks for the correction, mighty zog! I wonder what Elenwen would do since Tullius was obviously going to go through with the execution despite her calling him to the sidelines. She apparently gives up anyway and leaves - so it shows they aren't willing to go very far to keep Ulfric alive. Though they should, given their interest in the Civil War, even if it could continue without him.

 

Once again, thank the Gods for Alduin!

And with that, let me crash in utter exhaustion before I reach that point when you're too tired to sleep and end up spiralling into a vortex of madness. I'm sure everyone can relate. .... Right?

There's only so much she could do to try and save his life while avoiding any suggestion that they are behind the rebellion in the first place. Plus, Tullius is unlikely to give in to their demands anyways. The WGC might control some of the Empire's actions but the rebellion is an internal affair that the Thalmor have no jurisdiction over and Tullius knows it.

[TheLoreSeeker]

but how do we know that our character is really innocent? the horse thief kept saying he was innocent then contradicts himself by saying that if it wasn't for the Stormcloaks he'd have been away on that horse. @TheLoreSeeker well whoever it was, he was a loyal citizen of the Empire and for a Nord to give territory away to the Dunmer probably means that the suggestion came from the Imperial court

 

Isn't it stated that the character was "caught trying to cross the border"?

 

I mean....its odd that its BAM straight to execution....did we fence jump or something? They don't even bother with deportation.

[Anska]

Isn't it stated that the character was "caught trying to cross the border"?

 

I mean....its odd that its BAM straight to execution....did we fence jump or something? They don't even bother with deportation.

 

When playing the intro sequence for the first time a German saying came to mind which literally translates to "caught together, hanged together". I guess they simply caught everybody in the area who wasn't supposed to be there and looked somewhat suspicious to make sure none of the rebels or their sympathizers got away.

 

Also executing the rebels and their leader (who are regarded as heroes by some people in Skyrim) in the company of common criminals, symbolically demotes the rebels to the ranks of common criminals as well (which is what they are in the eyes of the Empire). In a way you could argue that the executions at Helgen were Tullius's way of trying to make a statement. The horse thief and the player character just were unfortunate enough to get supporting roles in the staging.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Anska

[MidbossVyers]

Well, when the casting sucks, kill the director.

[Anska]

Tullius could have decided to take Ulfric and his cronies back to Solitude, but he decided to get rid of them in the next best imperial Stronghold. I am no expert in Martial Law, but I don't think executing every prisoner as soon as possible is demanded by it. The executions in Helgen were for one thing a way to get rid of Ulfric as soon as possible so he didn't get a chance to escape himself or to be freed by his followers and additionally they were - probably decidedly - arranged in a way to make them as humble and demoting as possible - a Jarl of Eastmarch would have certainly been entitled to a more formal execution than getting his head chopped off in some small town. I mean even Roggvir got a more pompous execution than the man he died for. (Not that it would make the head any less off, but Ulfric is certainly one for pathos and grand exits.) I am not trying to say that was Tullius did was wrong given the circumstances, I am just saying that by arranging the executions the way he did, he tried to make a point and the prisoners who would have otherwise only been submitted to jail for couple of days became unfortunate victims of this arrangement. Certainly this can be justified by Skyrim being under Martial Law, but then again Ulfric challenged Torygg to a duel by the book - both obeyed to the rules, both were neither especially fair nor nice.

 

As for the Stormcloak prisoners not helping the citizens of Helgen during the dragon attack, while the Imperials did: The Imperials had to. It was their town, their garrison and their job to protect the people. The Stormcloaks were disliked prisoners who's death was cheered upon by the townsfolk only a few minutes prior. Had they stayed and helped, their heads would have been back on the chopping block again very soon afterwards. Certainly, it would have been very noble and heroic, but I can't blame them for thanking their lucky star and just trying to get out.

 

Edited for typos and such.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Anska

[blacksupernova]

One thing I hate about the duel of Ulfric is that he used the Shout. Of course, based on traditional rules, he could do it. But the tradition was made long long time ago, back then many Nords could shout. Now, only Ulfric, Greybeards, Dragonborn and Ebony Warrior can shout. Isn't that unfair to use the technique on some one who knows nothing about it to defend himself? So the process would be, Ulfric challenged, he shout UR at Torygg and rushed in, if Torygg was not killed or injured because of broken neck or limbs, he would finish him off while he was trying to get up. Quick, simple and easy. Even a child can achieve that (provided the child can shout ^^). That was no murder like the Empire said, that was no fair combat like Stormcloaks said either. Why didn't he choose to use his sword skill instead? Why didn't he let Torygg use his sword skill to defend his life and title? And why did he have to kill the High King? Just defeat him is enough to leave him in disgrace and fall and the Moot will choose the new High King.

Should he not use the shout, he would have won many more supporters

Should he not kill the High King, no one would view him as a power thirst barbarian who yearns for the seat of High King

Should he done both thing, he would have won my alliance.

[Anska]

I didn't say that it was a honorable duel or a fair one, actually I said the opposite, I said that apparently Ulfric had the right to walk up to Torygg and challenge him, which was what he did, just as Tullius probably has the right to lock up, torture or execute would be rebels. (At least I haven't heard a NPC deny that the tradition of challenging the High King for a duel exits, they just remark that it was absolutely unfair for several reasons.) And to come back to the original reason for this comparison: You said above that the executions at Helgen were justified by some Martial Law and a necessity because of the rebellion. (At least that is the way I understood you.) What I was trying to point out through my comparison is, that while it might be this way, it still seems pretty harsh and arbitrary to just kill everybody on the cart, no matter who they are even if you have the right to do so and that I assume, that Tullius had his reasons for doing it anyway. - Or to put it differently, I can understand "why" he did what he did, I just still don't like it very much.

 

Sorry, I thought you meant both, that they should have first defended the none-rebels and later on the town, my mistake. But somehow I don't really blame the rebels for not pointing out that the horse-thief and the player-character weren't Stormcloaks either. I somehow always took it for granted that the Imperials knew well enough that Lokir and the player just had been in the wrong place at the wrong time, they had after all already put down the personal data of all of their prisoners except for one.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Anska

[MightyZ0G]

the duel wasn't honourable or fair.

Ulfric could have had a united Skyrim leaving the Empire and tearing up the WGC just by talking to Torygg (who thought very highly of him) and that is what Torygg thought Ulfric was in Solitude for.

also, if Ulfric was challenging Torygg in an honourable way, why did he need to arrange for a gate to be opened when it should have been locked shut?

 

and as Torygg says, if/when you meet him in Sovngarde, "I faced him fearlessly - my fate inescapable, yet my honor is unstained - can Ulfric say the same?"

Torygg knew he was going to die as soon as Ulfric challenged him and he did the only honourable thing and accepted the challenge.

basically Ulfric's challenge wasn't fair if they had only used swords as he was garanteed to win.

using a shout in the duel was completely dishonourable by all Nordic traditions as Ulfric isn't Dragonborn.

Torygg also implies that it was Ulfric's Thu'um that killed him when he said "When Ulfric Stormcloak, with savage Shout, sent me here, my sole regret was fair Elisif, left forlorn and weeping." which would make Ulfric a liar when he tells you that he killed him with his sword.

Edited April 5, 2013 by mighty zog

[NightmarePhantom]

The small, sometimes unnessecary things define the nature of a man. Ulfric's goal wasn't to unite Skyrim, his true goal was to usurp the throne and RULE Skyrim, and he can't do that as long as the Empire is around, so he started a rebellion as well.

[Anska]

Quote

[ ... ] which would make Ulfric a liar when he tells you that he killed him with his sword.

I don't want to come across too much of a Stormcloak supporter but ... not necessarily. It could also mean that they both perceived different things. From Ulfric's narration I imagined, that he shouted and then lost no time to pierce Torygg with his sword. Meaning, Torygg was probably still dazed by the shout when the sword hit him, making the shout the last thing he ever felt. So Torygg assumed the shout killed him while it actually was the sword. (Just because someone is dead he isn't automatically all knowing ... or honest for that matter) It just makes no sense for Ulfric to lie in this case and to deny what definitely is the better story.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Anska