Imperial VS Stormcloak

[Handofbane]

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

-- Benjamin Franklin

Please do get that quote right, it does make a difference from the overabused paraphrasing which does change the original meaning a bit: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Though I would ask, where exactly is the essential liberty that Ulfric offers to those who live under him before any expansion beyond Windhelm? You know, the Dunmer who are intentionally denied protection by the guards, or the Argonians and Khajiit who are not even permitted within the walls.

 

- 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.

Do yourself a favor and read "The Bear of Markarth", you can find a copy inside Dragonsreach on the shelves not too far from Farengar and the throne. Then please do come back to us and feel free to repeat that "he does not execute masses of people" bit and see if you can remain sincere in that belief. Or do the Forsworn and every Nord man, woman and child of age to be able to lift a sword not count?

 

-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.

Ahh yes, fair and honorable, open and honest, just like how Ulfric came to Solitude under false pretenses before demanding the duel with High King Torygg (which could not have been refused without causing a Moot to be called to potentially replace the King), then shouting and crippling him before he could even get within blades-reach, and executing him as he lay there on the ground. Nothing says a fair, honorable and upright man like a man who lies to get in the door, refuses to even ask if what he wants will be supported (which it likely would have had he asked), then commits an open act of regicide because he wants the throne for himself. Feel free to talk to Jarl Elisif and the Solitude court wizard to find this all out for yourself, though.

 

Edit: grammar at almost 3am sucks.

[luxwing0go]

Haven't picked a side yet, so I just kill everyone. Hail Sithis. :P

[Lordofdeath123]

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.

 

Disagree 100%.

 

You can use all the fancy words you want, while sitting in front of your PC in a comfy chair, eating chips and drinking cola, while you mommy cleans up your room every day, but for people of honor and faith, banning the worship of a God is worse then death. Why do you think so many people were ready to die for their religion so often?

 

I do not argue that Franklin was a *censored*, but that does not make his statement wrong.

 

You say the empire protected the liberties of his people not to be enslaved and killed?

What about Hammerfall? What about their rights? Were they not part of the empire, and its people?

What about the Nords draged around every day to be killed and tortured by the Thalmor?

 

The empire gave up, it was not defeated. And the emperor was a cowered who fled the capital and took his troops, abondening his people to a massacre. Even Stalin and his likes had more honor.

 

Hammerfall alone was strong enough to defeat them, trust me Hammerfal AND 6 other provinces could have done the same, if their leaders were not such useless twats.

 

 

 

 

Please do get that quote right, it does make a difference from the overabused paraphrasing which does change the original meaning a bit: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Though I would ask, where exactly is the essential liberty that Ulfric offers to those who live under him before any expansion beyond Windhelm? You know, the Dunmer who are intentionally denied protection by the guards, or the Argonians and Khajiit who are not even permitted within the walls.

 

 

He is a nord, and Skyrim is the land of the Nords, as such he has no responsibilites to protect anyone but the Nords. It is no longer the empire, as such they are no longer Citizens.

You get the point right?

 

Ulfric wants a Skyrim outside of the empire, not selfgoverned in it. It becomes a nation once more, and as such protects national interests.

 

 

Do yourself a favor and read "The Bear of Markarth", you can find a copy inside Dragonsreach on the shelves not too far from Farengar and the throne. Then please do come back to us and feel free to repeat that "he does not execute masses of people" bit and see if you can remain sincere in that belief. Or do the Forsworn and every Nord man, woman and child of age to be able to lift a sword not count?

 

 

No the Forsworn do not count. As he is the leader of the Nords, his only responsibility is to protect the Nords, and kill all these who threaten them. Thats what every leader should do, at all times. Protecting others, while part of a civilized way, is secondary.

 

 

Ahh yes, fair and honorable, open and honest, just like how Ulfric came to Solitude under false pretenses before demanding the duel with High King Torygg (which could not have been refused without causing a Moot to be called to potentially replace the King), then shouting and crippling him before he could even get within blades-reach, and executing him as he lay there on the ground. Nothing says a fair, honorable and upright man like a man who lies to get in the door, refuses to even ask if what he wants will be supported (which it likely would have had he asked), then commits an open act of regicide because he wants the throne for himself. Feel free to talk to Jarl Elisif and the Solitude court wizard to find this all out for yourself, though.

 

 

If by Nord law, a High king may not refuse any challenge, then whats wrong with it? I do not understand you point. If using the Thu'um forbidden? Do you think that he did it because he was afraid he could not best him otherwise? Learning the Shout for a non-dragnoborn takes years of dedication. I think such a warrior could have killed him otherwise as well. He did it to show the weakness of the Highking. Not cause he was scared.

And not, a Jarl should not ask the High kind if his ideas will be supported, a High King should do that himself. Why else is he the High King? If he cant even start a rebelion in his own kingdom, then he is a puppet..

Edited December 18, 2011 by Lordofdeath123

[Schattenu]

What? Good God, Lordofdeath123, where do I even start?

 

You say the Empire gave up and wasn't defeated. Incorrect. As I've said before, no one is under the delusion that there won't be another fight against the Thalmor. The Empire openly admits that they will start up another Great War with the Thalmor once they get some strength back. The Thalmor are well aware of this, hence why they want to keep the civil war going, they don't want the Empire regaining any strength. If they gave up, like you say they did, they wouldn't be bothering worrying about the Thalmor. Giving up implies that they willingly allowed the Thalmor to win 100%, and that's clearly not what happened. Their "relationship" could at best be described as a ceasefire.

 

I'm also a little confused as to why you think Skyrim is no longer part of the Empire. Er... yes, it is. That's the whole point of the civil war. They want to be self-governing and not part of the Empire, if they already were, what the hell are the fighting about? Just the Talos thing? If they weren't part of the Empire, the Thalmor wouldn't be there enforcing anything.

 

I'd really hate to live in a world with you as a leader if you think a leader's duties to protect only extend to his specific people. The Forsworn are the natives of that area. Yeah, they may be out of their damn minds at this point, but it doesn't change the fact that the Nords invaded their land and conquered them. Whether Ulfric likes it or not, they still live in "his" land and therefore has some responsibility for them. Honestly, it kind of frightens me that you think a good leader should slaughter anyone they perceive as a threat first and foremost, instead of at least trying to solve things peacefully first.

 

You're still missing the point everyone's trying to make about the duel with Torygg. He challenged Torygg to a FAIR duel. As in equal terms. And then he uses an incredibly powerful magic that Torygg had no way of using or defending against, and killed him while he was down. How does ruining Torygg's body with a power Torygg didn't know prove he's a coward? It just means that Ulfric went out of his way to ensure he couldn't possibly use. Everything about that goes against the definition of a fair duel.

 

And yeah, he's a puppet for not starting his own rebellion. Because that's never, ever happened to a king or ruler before, right?

Edited December 18, 2011 by Schattenu

[Handofbane]

 

Do yourself a favor and read "The Bear of Markarth", you can find a copy inside Dragonsreach on the shelves not too far from Farengar and the throne. Then please do come back to us and feel free to repeat that "he does not execute masses of people" bit and see if you can remain sincere in that belief. Or do the Forsworn and every Nord man, woman and child of age to be able to lift a sword not count?

 

 

No the Forsworn do not count. As he is the leader of the Nords, his only responsibility is to protect the Nords, and kill all these who threaten them. Thats what every leader should do, at all times. Protecting others, while part of a civilized way, is secondary.

I will direct you once again to "The Bear of Markarth", you did take the time to read that book ingame, yes? You say yourself that his responsibility is only to Nords, well what about the Nords he ordered the execution of there, not any who fought against him, but those who simply chose to hide in their homes protecting their families rather than come out and die fighting alongside his militarily trained forces? I will even give you the passage itself, directly from the book:

Anyone who lived in the city, Forsworn and Nord alike, were executed if they had not fought with Ulfric and his men when they breached the gates. "You are with us, or you are against Skyrim" was the message on Ulfric's lips as he ordered the deaths of shopkeepers, farmers, the elderly, and any child old enough to lift a sword that had failed in the call to fight with him.

 

Where was his responsibility to protect the innocent Nords who had survived the Forsworn takeover of Markarth and did not feel confident enough in their own combat abilities to grab a sword and throw their own lives away in Ulfric's name? How did they threaten him or threaten the remaining Nords of Skyrim? In what way is ordering a repeat of the Battle of Jericho "a civilized way" of defending the land and its people?

 

 

Ahh yes, fair and honorable, open and honest, just like how Ulfric came to Solitude under false pretenses before demanding the duel with High King Torygg (which could not have been refused without causing a Moot to be called to potentially replace the King), then shouting and crippling him before he could even get within blades-reach, and executing him as he lay there on the ground. Nothing says a fair, honorable and upright man like a man who lies to get in the door, refuses to even ask if what he wants will be supported (which it likely would have had he asked), then commits an open act of regicide because he wants the throne for himself. Feel free to talk to Jarl Elisif and the Solitude court wizard to find this all out for yourself, though.

 

 

If by Nord law, a High king may not refuse any challenge, then whats wrong with it? I do not understand you point. If using the Thu'um forbidden? Do you think that he did it because he was afraid he could not best him otherwise? Learning the Shout for a non-dragnoborn takes years of dedication. I think such a warrior could have killed him otherwise as well. He did it to show the weakness of the Highking. Not cause he was scared.

And not, a Jarl should not ask the High kind if his ideas will be supported, a High King should do that himself. Why else is he the High King? If he cant even start a rebelion in his own kingdom, then he is a puppet..

Tell me this, then. How do you define a fair and honorable duel? Can you not see the hypocrisy of such a statement that "oh well he learned all this and therefore wanted to show the High King weak", when it would be a more telling message to show his weakness by defeating him on equal footing? If anything the sign of weakness is on Ulfric, for having to resort to overwhelming force (the Thu'um) to defeat a younger man with nowhere near the combat experience that he had. And your last sentence makes no sense under any sense of logic I can find - "If he cant even start a rebelion in his own kingdom, then he is a puppet.." Who is the puppet? The High King for listening to one of his Jarls' suggestions and agreeing with them? Or the Jarl for believing his High King, that was voted into his position by the faith and agreement of the majority (if not all) of the Jarls, would never dare agree and go along with an idea that Jarl had about the future of the realm? You do realize that in Skyrim, while the new High King is typically the direct descendent of the previous one, they still must be approved by a Moot of the Jarls before ascending to the position upon the previous High King's death (or vote of no confidence as Ulfric was trying to force upon Torygg had he refused the duel).

[Falconian]

Talking about similarities with real world.

 

Ulfric:

- takes power with shady ways.

- builds a reign based on racism.

- claims he would go on a complete genocide of the elf race if he had the power to do so.

- executes people who disagree with him and his faith

 

Pretty much the alter-ego of a certain German dude from WW2.

 

Empire:

- globalization-freak, trying to get everyone under their government

- executes/imprisons "unwanted" people

- imperialist behavior, starts wars with excuses like "bringing peace and uniting"

 

Pretty much the alter-ego of a certain continent below Canada, albeit much worse of course.

 

They are both terrible, terrible governments; living under their reign requires you to meet certain criteria or be beheaded.

No freedoms of any kind from either side.

 

Though, the Empire is much easier to live with for anyone, because it's a lot less strict on rules and you can always find a workaround.

More flexibility and less craziness generally.

[Lachdonin]

I.. I don't even know what to say. I spend all this time not only making a rational arguement, but expaining the philosophical base, and you (lordofdeath) dissmiss it out of hand? Whats worse, you accuse the Empire for not caring about the people under its domains, and then completely dissregard the Nordic treatment of the Foresworn? Do you even read your own work? There are at least 3 logical contradictions in that post. I mean... I dont... ugh.

 

If someone wants to make a logical, informed arguement on behalf of Ulfric and the Stormcloaks, go for it. I'll come back when i don't have to deal with an ostritch.

[justwannaddl]

@Falconian: You forgot to list the Thalmor

 

Thalmor:

- takes power with shady ways.

- builds a reign based on racism.

- claims they would go on a complete enslavement/destruction of the human race if they had the power to do so.

- executes "unwanted" men, mer and beastmen who disagree with them and their faith

- rewrites history to suite their agendas

- globalization-freak, trying to get everyone under their government

- imperialist behavior, starts wars with excuses like "bringing peace and uniting"

 

It still baffles me how they came to power.

[ufw7]

I just studied the lore of tamriel on the site of uespwiki and read this whole topic and my opinion is that the stormcloaks and the legion are equal. It doesn't matter who wins the civil war because the thalmor don't want the civil war to end (my opinion).;)

 

 

[Matth85]

I just studied the lore of tamriel on the site of uespwiki and read this whole topic and my opinion is that the stormcloaks and the legion are equal. It doesn't matter who wins the civil war because the thalmor don't want the civil war to end (my opinion).

 

Eh, there is a big different who wins. If the Imperial win fast, they can rebuild and fight the Thalmor.

If the Stormcloak wins fast, Skyrim can keep it defenses. Generally, Hammerfell and Cyrodiil is screwed.

If none wins: The Thalmor can first take out Skyrim with no casualties, then work their way over.

 

Generally, the different is who will rule Skyrim afterwards.

Look how Ulfric lead: Kill anybody who does not agree with you.

Look how the empire lead: Look at how it is in Oblivion. A lot better, no?

 

Though I doubt I can add any more information than is allready given in depth.