Imperial VS Stormcloak

[Anska]

I think, what he's getting at is, that Skyrim isn't some province that the Empire has captured at some point in the past, but that at least Southern Skyrim was one of the first places the current Empire was build from. So the Empire isn't occupying Skyrim, because Skyrim has been a part of the Empire for as long as there has been an Empire. At the same time, however, the currently dominant culture in all imperial provinces is that of Cyrodil, because Cyrodil contains the Empire's capital city and is home to most people of any importance. It's suggested by some NPC talk, that the imperial officials consider their culture superior to the provincial ones.

Which is, where most of the Stormcloak-complaints come from. Many Nords don't feel that Skyrim is an coequal part of the Empire anymore. They argue that the Empire disregards their culture and uses their resources and people but doesn't give anything back in return. Worse still, in denying Talos the Empire has forgotten its own roots. Which is why these Nords demand an independent Skyrim. So the Nords, who support this claim, separate themselves from the Empire in their parols.

While there isn't an occupation in the military/ political sense, there is a cultural one - or at least several Nords perceive it this way. You both probably just talk about different meanings of the term "occupation".

Edited April 21, 2013 by Anska

[Vanadinit]

In my opinion it is bad that you must choose a side and thats why I never start playing this quest and it would be much better in my eyes if I just skip that. While I do other thinks like kill Dragons and try to find some nice artifacts the story of the war goes on and resolve it automatically while I just do my thing and laugh at the stupid humans who die for nothing on both sides.

 

It is like other quests with persons I really don't like ask the player if he could do something like the thief's guild start their dump quest because the player was around , man the first thing I want to do is smash my 2h weapon in the face and it is done.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Vanadinit

[pheo3309]

I think, what he's getting at is, that Skyrim isn't some province that the Empire has captured at some point in the past, but that at least Southern Skyrim was one of the first places the current Empire was build from. So the Empire isn't occupying Skyrim, because Skyrim has been a part of the Empire for as long as there has been an Empire. At the same time, however, the currently dominant culture in all imperial provinces is that of Cyrodil, because Cyrodil contains the Empire's capital city and is home to most people of any importance. It's suggested by some NPC talk, that the imperial officials consider their culture superior to the provincial ones.

 

Which is, where most of the Stormcloak-complaints come from. Many Nords don't feel that Skyrim is an coequal part of the Empire anymore. They argue that the Empire disregards their culture and uses their resources and people but doesn't give anything back in return. Worse still, in denying Talos the Empire has forgotten its own roots. Which is why these Nords demand an independent Skyrim. So the Nords, who support this claim, separate themselves from the Empire in their parols.

 

While there isn't an occupation in the military/ political sense, there is a cultural one - or at least several Nords perceive it this way. You both probably just talk about different meanings of the term "occupation".

I don't think people are understanding the term 'occupation'. Imperials are enforcing a ban on Talos worship when the citizens of Skyrim don't want it. Either way, that is occupation. When a force moves in to control something, that IS occupation and that IS the military/political sense. Take a gander at occupations throughout history through the library sometime.

 

Furthermore, it doesn't matter if it was part of the Empire from the beginning. Skyrim WAS part of the Empire. When the rebellion broke out and the war (yes war WAS declared according to lore), Skyrim ceded. While it CAN be disputed whether or not it's a true Empiric Civil War due to that technicality, I ask that you research the American Civil War about how the states in the South seceded from the Union. A total of 11. While it may be a stretchy comparison, his opinion doesn't persuade my thinking otherwise. Sorry to him if it upsets him, but until I see links that prove the above wrong according to canon, I'm not going to bother with the debate of "The Empire will always win!" Empires fall all the time throughout history. Don't expect Tamriel's setting to be any different.

[pheo3309]

Links? You're not providing the burden of proof, I will redact the part about the secession as I just read through a few more google searches, however and this is a big however;

"You're trying to say that the Empire is pushing itself on all of Skyrim"
No. I'm saying they're enforcing the White-Gold Concordat. Please don't put words in my mouth or I'll just call it the end of our discussion and be on my merry way.

"Civil War was declared in Skyrim, not one huge Civil War throughout the Provinces like you had said early. " Redacted and noted. Next time however, being the burden of proof, bring subject to debate your point across instead of being spiteful in your responses? Thank you.

"So, it might be best if we left history out of it are else you'll get some example from me." The example was about secession, however I was wrong. See my statement above again please and bring proof with your burden. Thank you.


"Empire always sorts it's sh*t out. Check the Lore / History. We do need a new leader thought, hopefully someone from Talos's line."
I have. Check the history of previous empires in reality sometime. Empires do fall, no matter how many thousands of years they last, they always fall. Why? Because cultures die. You can't stop it. How many Cyrodiilic Empires have there been?

Here, I'll give you an example: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Empires

That's a list of all the Empires sorted by Era. The "Empire" in the fourth is not the same as Empires before it. There no need to be so up in arms about it. If that's how it's going to be, then I'm sorry, but I'm going to 'retire' because I have better things to do. I don't mean to be blunt, but that's the truth. If it's not going to be amicable, I'm not going to be part of it and this definitely isn't the place for it. Hopefully you understand. My initial point still stands. The Thalmor have both sides by the throat, regardless of what the Empire says or does. Unless they want another Great War to break out, then by all means, we can argue that. But as politics stand, ANY war puts a damper on any 'Empire'. Empire is battling the Stormcloaks. The Imperials aren't all set to essential, there's going to be lots of blood. The Thalmor maybe lost... Three? Four? At most in the game through all of the questlines, unless I'm missing some as I stay away from the CW in general due to that reason. The whole thing is a sham for making the Imperials bow before the Thalmor.


Also to Anska about Military Occupations: https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=Military+Occupations
They do exist.

Edited April 22, 2013 by pheo3309

[pheo3309]

SlayerKnight, on 21 Apr 2013 - 21:30, said:

 

Quote

I don't think people are understanding the term 'occupation'. Imperials are enforcing a ban on Talos worship when the citizens of Skyrim don't want it. Either way, that is occupation. When a force moves in to control something, that IS occupation and that IS the military/political sense. Take a gander at occupations throughout history through the library sometime.

You show me a link(s) where all of Skyrim seceded from the Ban on Talos worship and that Skyrim "was part of the Empire" but is no longer such after the WGC and I'll consider your request. You keep talking about Canon but have made two arguments so far in conflict with it.

Quote

>If the Imperials aren't occupying Skyrim, then why are they enforcing the White-Gold Concordat? More importantly, why is there a rebellion against the Empire? I fail to see the logic in this whole statement as the canon backs the perspective I stated above. What you're talking about goes against the political events that have happened. It doesn't matter if they 'share' a hatred, which is a red flag that I can say about you not researching the concordat itself. It's a list of rules and regulations. It's dictated by canon that the Imperials were to enforce the ban on Talos worship, which regardless if the Empire didn't want to enforce it or not, they HAD to, else another Great War would erupt. But you're entitled to your opinion. I also didn't mention that the Empire would 'fall completely'. I said that the Thalmor are doing a great job at weakening them. There's a big difference my friend. The perspective lore above was taken from the canon. If you have links to what backs your statement up, I'd certainly love to read them.

The Imperials aren't the ones enforcing the WGC, they never have been. Nobody was until Ulfric stirred the pot. Now, the Thalmor are because the Emperor can no longer be taken at his word. Empire can't be occupying Skyrim in the name of something they don't even enforce. :/ This is the third anti-Canon argument from you.

 

The rebellion against the Empire is because Ulfric wants to be High King.

 

Canon doesn't back either side, we're both equally right and wrong, with two different positive endings for each side.

 

What I'm talking about goes with the Imperial political events. If you think all of Skyrim left the Empire after WGC, then you have no understanding of recent political events in Skyrim, including the reason for Ulfric rebelling. He is rebelling BECAUSE Skyrim refused to secede.

 

You keep talking about Canon, yet most of your argument conflicts with it.

 

Aye yay yay. This is all I'll be saying to you. I respect your opposing viewpoint(s).

Quoting my above post to you since you didn't bother reading it the first time and this will be my final reply to you due to you not even reading the post at all.

 

 

pheo3309, on 21 Apr 2013 - 21:16, said:

Links? You're not providing the burden of proof, I will redact the part about the secession as I just read through a few more google searches, however and this is a big however;

 

"You're trying to say that the Empire is pushing itself on all of Skyrim"

No. I'm saying they're enforcing the White-Gold Concordat. Please don't put words in my mouth or I'll just call it the end of our discussion and be on my merry way.

 

"Civil War was declared in Skyrim, not one huge Civil War throughout the Provinces like you had said early. " Redacted and noted. Next time however, being the burden of proof, bring subject to debate your point across instead of being spiteful in your responses? Thank you.

 

"So, it might be best if we left history out of it are else you'll get some example from me." The example was about secession, however I was wrong. See my statement above again please and bring proof with your burden. Thank you.

 

 

"Empire always sorts it's sh*t out. Check the Lore / History. We do need a new leader thought, hopefully someone from Talos's line."

I have. Check the history of previous empires in reality sometime. Empires do fall, no matter how many thousands of years they last, they always fall. Why? Because cultures die. You can't stop it. How many Cyrodiilic Empires have there been?

 

Here, I'll give you an example: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Empires

 

That's a list of all the Empires sorted by Era. The "Empire" in the fourth is not the same as Empires before it. There no need to be so up in arms about it. If that's how it's going to be, then I'm sorry, but I'm going to 'retire' because I have better things to do. I don't mean to be blunt, but that's the truth. If it's not going to be amicable, I'm not going to be part of it and this definitely isn't the place for it. Hopefully you understand. My initial point still stands. The Thalmor have both sides by the throat, regardless of what the Empire says or does. Unless they want another Great War to break out, then by all means, we can argue that. But as politics stand, ANY war puts a damper on any 'Empire'. Empire is battling the Stormcloaks. The Imperials aren't all set to essential, there's going to be lots of blood. The Thalmor maybe lost... Three? Four? At most in the game through all of the questlines, unless I'm missing some as I stay away from the CW in general due to that reason. The whole thing is a sham for making the Imperials bow before the Thalmor.

 

 

Also to Anska about Military Occupations: https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=Military+Occupations

They do exist.

Furthermore read the Thalmor's wiki here:

http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Thalmor#Role_in_Skyrim

 

Who is making the Imperials enforce the Concordat? The Thalmor. Anyways, I think I'm done discussing this with you. We're not going to get anywhere with it, being that I've provided you with ample of links and you've to list a one. Burden of Proof is on you buddy. Not me. This is my last response to you. Do take care.

Edited April 22, 2013 by pheo3309

[Anska]

Why, thank you, for pointing out google to me ...

If I interpret what you say correctly, you argue, that when Ulfric killed Torygg and thus started the rebellion, Skyrim separated itself from the Empire. Therefore all the parts that are still loyal to the Empire are occupied by an external force?

 

I don't agree. The Empire enacted an unpopular law, which is most unpopular in Skyrim. The law was forced upon the Empire, but it is still the Empire enacting and enforcing its in their own territory. Though, admittedly, by now the Empire has given the Thalmor liberties to enforce said law in the Empire's stead. Secondly the Imperial Legion has always been in Skyrim (refers to Gen. Tullius in: CW, CWPersonalQuestionsView), they just currently have been given additional troupes to deal with a rebellion on their own territory. If anything ceded from the Empire then it's the North-Eastern holds, not all of Skyrim. Haarfingar never expressed the desire not to be part of the Empire anymore, neither did Hjalmarch, Falkreath or the Reach. They consider themselves parts of the Empire and thus wouldn't consider themselves occupied. (refers to ingame dialogue with General Tullius, Legate Rikke and several other NPC)

Edited April 22, 2013 by Anska

[pheo3309]

No. For the last time, no. Check the links I linked in my previous posts. The Imperial forces in Skyrim are enforcing the ban on Talos worship and cater to what the Thalmor want. That IS a military occupation. I pointed out google because you said they didn't exist. I stood to correct you. I can tell you they do. They've always existed. Everywhere from the Greeks, Romans, Carpathians, Egyptians, to modern wars like the occupying of Iraq. When a force seeks to change something, whether it be in their own 'empire' or not, is still an occupancy. Slayer was right, if he had provided links of where I was wrong, I would have redacted that and corrected the errors, instead he chose to go the brazen route without providing his burden of proof, which is fine. However, I'm going to tell you the same thing I told him, no offense, but I have other things to do than to argue over the internet about a video game. If I'm wrong, point me in the right direction with sources where I can FIX my error. So that being said, I'm going to part my ways with you, no offense or hard feelings like I said. Have a nice evening.

Edited April 22, 2013 by pheo3309

[Anska]

I didn't say military occupations didn't exist, I said that Skyrim isn't occupied by the Empire, "there isn't an occupation in the military/ political sense [in Skyrim]". As I thought the context of our discussion was clear, I didn't think it necessary to spell it out explicitly in every single sentence. I am sorry if this confused you.

 

As to the links you posted. I have looked at them, I knew most before, I disagree with some of the conclusions drawn within them and I still disagree that the Empire is occupying Skyrim. If you'd like to discuss whether said Empire is currently a puppet-state to the Thalmor, that's a different matter. Still, posting links and thinking that once your partner in a discussion has read them, everything will be absolutely clear to him, isn't the most convincing way to use text-evidence to support your arguments.

[pheo3309]

Okay, this is the reason I'm replying to you. Sorry if I sound brazen, but I do think we've gotten our wires a bit crossed, so let's clarify.

 

"I didn't say military occupations didn't exist, I said that Skyrim isn't occupied by the Empire, "there isn't an occupation in the military/ political sense [in Skyrim]". As I thought the context of our discussion was clear, I didn't think it necessary to spell it out explicitly in every single sentence. I am sorry if this confused you. "

 

Being specific in any kind of debate helps. When you said, " While there isn't an occupation in the military/ political sense, there is a cultural one", this doesn't keep with the flow of things and does go off the deep end. While you're entitled to your opinion, I don't see it as that, we're not going to change each other's minds, so let's face that fact. Also with the mention of Nords, Nords aren't only in Skyrim. In fact there's a whole culture of them in our world's history, which you probably already know which is my mistake and I apologize, but the specifics would have helped the topic stay on track. Thank you for clearing that up.

 

When you say "As to the links you posted. I have looked at them, I knew most before, I disagree with some of the conclusions drawn within them and I still disagree that the Empire is occupying Skyrim." Again, if you don't agree, that's fine. You weren't specific about what was being said, however I have to disagree with your deductive reasoning based on what arguments you've presented. Mine is not going to change due to having to know about forces coming in to back up what another force was doing regardless if they were living there or not. I'm sorry. That's not the way military occupancy works. To further this let's break this down.

 

"Control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in it's own territory."

 

Now Skyrim is still part of the Empire (which was my prior mistake). The Imperials force the ban of Talos due to them being forced. Lots of squabbling of the factions, tensions get headed, and then a rebellion starts. Now Skyrim still being part of the Empire, is the Empire's territory. Therefore they send more Imperials to deal with the Stormcloak rebels. That's military occupancy watered down. If you disagree, that's fine, we can agree to disagree.

 

"f you'd like to discuss whether said Empire is currently a puppet-state to the Thalmor, that's a different matter." Actually no. It's not. Imperials aren't acting by their own hands. The Concordat regardless of how you want to point it, states that the Empire are to ban the worship of Talos. Imperials didn't care that the Nords still revered Talos, until the Thalmor threatened them. That's not the Imperials being a puppet, that's the Imperials trying to save more lives than just what was happening in Skyrim. Do you think that the Imperials would want another Great War erupting? I'm seeing it in more ways than just one. There's a LOT that could happen if the Imperials didn't do what they had done. Do I agree with it? No. I don't even agree with the Concordat, which I think is where a lot of these posts are coming from. Would I want to join a Thalmor faction? Yes! Would I want to join the others? Yes! On my current character? No. From a roleplaying standpoint, my character could care less about the war unless he was somehow FORCED into it. Which is how I may present it through the playthrough and adding it into the fiction I've been writing, but it's a "we'll see" sort of thing.

 

"Still, posting links and thinking that once your partner in a discussion has read them, everything will be absolutely clear to him, isn't the most convincing way to use text-evidence to support your arguments." It's not to convince anything and I'm sorry if I came off that way. You have to remember that the way some of the responses are coming off, are brazen, they're taken entirely too seriously over a video game. I mean it when I say I have more important things to do than to argue online about a video game and it's lore if someone isn't going to post a link to me stating where I'm incorrect at so that I can correct myself. My posting those links weren't to convince you. You may have seen them, but does it really hurt to look at them again? I'm laying this out on the table because I'll admit, I was very irritated at the whole "OMGYERWRONG" and not stating any relevant material where I could correct myself, you're guilty of that too, however I will also say this, I still admitted that I was wrong. I was willing to fix where I was wrong if I was supplied with relevant information so that I can learn from my mistake, even if it happens to be in a link that I've already seen. I do so with everything that I have a debate about, it's the only way I will have a dialogue of that sense. I refuse to not have a dialogue where someone says I'm wrong and not give me information to correct it. That shows me that either their not invested, or they're wrong and don't want to admit it. When I debated religion on YouTube for over six years, I've read everything from the Bible (a whopping 8 times), to ancient civilizations dating back to the Assyrians. Over and over. Sometimes I'm wrong. When they tell me I'm wrong and I ask for a source, they quote it so I can go back and read it. If I happen to still be right, I point it out. Doesn't matter how many times I read it. I guess I was wrong to expect the same thing here, but hopefully that clears that up. No hard feelings, but I'm guessing this crowd in this thread is not for me. :smile:

Edited April 22, 2013 by pheo3309

[Anska]

pheo3309, I don't really have the time to reply to your whole text today, so for the time being, I'll settle for addressing the topic in greater detail, which might be of a bit of interest to other users of this forum too.

Your definition of a military occupation was: "Control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in it's own territory." By asking google, I discovered that you probably got it from the Merriam Webster Online Encyclopedia. As with most terms, this definition is not the only one in existence. The English version of Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias states "Military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army. The territory then becomes occupied territory." (link), it also links to a Military dictionary from 2000 which defines a military occupation as "A condition in which territory is under the effective control of a foreign armed force." (link) Finally, the Encyclopedia Britanica states in its article on Military governments that "In international law, territory is considered occupied when it is actually under the authority of hostile armed forces." (link) To make sure there is no misconception here: I don't want to say that one of these definitions is more true than the other. I am sure there are a lot more definitions than the few I found too, especially if you look into historical encyclopedias. What I would like to point out is, that the term "occupation" - or more specific "military occupation" - has a primary meaning, which is consistent in all given definitions, as well as secondary meanings, which only appears in some of them. The primary meaning sums up to "a region controlled by a hostile force". The second half of your quote from the Merriam Webster Online Encyclopedia, "or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in it's own territory", on the other hand is a secondary meaning of the term occupation, as it isn't an essential part of the definition. If you look at this secondary part of the definition and read it with the primary meaning of the term occupation in mind, it most likely refers to a situation in which rebels have taken hold of a part of the country and made sure, its regular government can no longer function in the area. If you compare this situation with the definition of "martial law" given by the encyclopedia of your choice, the Merriam Webster Online Encyclopedia, which reads "the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety" (link), they match nicely. Now looking back at Skyrim, is this situation given in the Holds which are still loyal to the Empire and in which larger amounts of the Imperial Legion are currently stationed, namely Haarfingar, Hjaalmarch, the Reach and Falkreath (in the following referred to as Imperial Holds)?

The Imperial Holds still have the same Jarls they had before the rebellion started. The exception being Elisif who inherited the position from her late husband. Through her position as Jarl of Solitude and wife of the previous High King, she has the best claim to become High Queen of Skyrim at the moment (compare to Falk Firebeard in: DialogueSolitude(DV), DialogueSolitudeFalkView). Her position is, however, endangered by the rebels, who would name Ulfric High King. The Imperial Legion doesn't seem to affect the rule of the Holds. They only offer additional military aid against the rebells and use the Imperial Holds as bases for retaking the Holds currently under Stormcloak rule (in the following referred to as Rebel Holds) for the Empire. In the Imperial Holds there is no sign of the regular government being unable to retain public order or safety, which, as I previously showed, would be the reason for a government to occupy its own territory. The main dangers for public safety - bandits, necromancers, Forsworn, giants, etc. - are dealt with by the Jarls and Stewards of the respective Hold, in the Imperial as well as in the Rebel Holds (compare to most of the bounty-quest ingame). The only topic the Imperial Legion ever deals with, is the rebellion. The one big exception from this rule is the quest Season Unending from the Main Quest, to which I'd like to come back later.

Additionally I don't think that the Imperial Holds are under imperial occupation, because the people themselves don't seem to feel occupied by the troupes stationed in their Holds. If you talk with the Jarls, Stewards or the townspeople, you can ask many of them about their opinions on the civil war (CW). You will get many varying opinions but the most scared responses, that I can currently think of, are those you get from the people in Dragon Bridge. Here the soldiers seem to misbehave terribly: stealing lumber, not paying their tabs and molesting the barmaid. (compare to Azzada Lylvieve in: DialogueDragonBridge(DV), DialogueDragonbridgeAzzadaTopics; Olga in: DialogueDragonBridge(DV), DialogueDragonbridgeOlgaTopics) While the citizens complain about the growing number of soldiers, they don't hint at feeling occupied by the Empire. They just complain that there are a lot of soldiers with little discipline. When on the other hand you talk to some townspeople after a Hold has been captured during the CW, the Hold's new ruler and the occupying force become a dialogue options. Whiterun has several examples for this with Adrianne, Belethor and the Battle-Borns, who complain in varying degrees about the Stormcloaks. (compare to Adrianne in: DialogueWhiterun(DV), DialogueWhiterunAdrianneTopics; Belethor in: DialogueWhiterun(DV), DialogueWhiterunBelethorTopics; Olfrid in: DialogueWhiterun(DV), DialogueWhiterunOlfridTopics) So the Jarls and dominant military forces at the beginning of the game, before any Hold has changed hands, are considered rightful or normal, while they are considered occupational after a Hold has changed hands. This is equally true for the Rebel as well as for the Imperial Holds.

Thirdly there is the issue of voluntariness. From the definitions given above, including the martial law, occupation is a situation forced upon a region. You can't kindly decline a hostile army's progress and usually you don't have any say in martial law either. In the situation in Skyrim however, the Jarls willingly allow the Imperial Legion into their Holds in order to protect them from the rebels. This can be seen in the case of Jarl Balgruuf. Tullius several times requests of Balgruuf to allow him to garrison Imperial Soldiers in Whiterun, Barlgruuf declines and all Tullius does, is write more letters. (compare to Tullius in: CW00SolitudeMapTableScene(S), CW00SolitudeMapTableSceneA) From the military ruler of an occupational force you would hardly expect that he even asks for permission, let alone accepts no for an answer and acts so much in accordance with the Jarls' wishes that he refrains from stationing troupes in a vital area.

This finally leads to the previously addressed Season Unending, the one occasion Tullius acts as a military governor of the Imperial Holds of Skyrim. Here it is him who negotiates the terms of the peace treaty with Ulfric and decides (as far as the Dragonborn lets him have his way) which Holds to trade, while Elisif, the future High Queen, sits by and complains. Of course Ulfric doesn't let this chance pass and taunts Elisif by asking her if the terms are to her liking. She replies by saying, "General, you've proven yourself a good friend to Skyrim. I continue to trust that you will do your utmost to safeguard our interests." (compare to MQ302, MQ302CouncilSceneEnd(S)) True, this answer rings with insulted pride, however that does not necessarily make it untrue. As previously pointed out, Elisif currently has the best claim on the crown but her claim is endangered by Ulfric and his rebellion. Her only chance to actually become High Queen is to shatter the rebellion and to do so, she needs the help of the Imperial Legion to which she is entitled as the legitimate ruler of Skyrim. The Imperial Legion and thus the Empire aren't in Skyrim as an occupying force, they are in Skyrim to support the province's rightful ruler and her rightful claim on the crown, acting largely in accord with the wishes of the Jarls loyal to the Empire. Elisif being Elisif, doesn't have a lot of political or military experience, so she leaves most of the decisions to the experienced General, who was send to aid her by the Empire. Saying that she asked the additional Legionaires to come to Skyrim is probably stretching it too far, but she at the very least welcomes the military assistance highly. Can you bee an occupier and a guest at the same time?

To sum it up, my main reasons for disagreeing that the Empire is occupying Skyrim are, that the people of the Imperial Holds don't show any signs of feeling occupied and that the Legion's presence in said holds isn't forced upon them, but seen as a military aid against an undesired rebellion.




Dialogue references refer to quests in the creationkit following the pattern: Actor in: Quest(DV=Dialogue View; S=Scene), Branch.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Anska