Imperial VS Stormcloak

[pheo3309]

Like I said, we agree to disagree. Anything else or are we done? And the dialogue I was talking about was between you and I. I wasn't talking about the dialogue you quoted. My post earlier was a stretch to reach out and say we disagree, not to continue the dialogue we're having. Is that more clear? Because I'm not going to point out how Ulfric shouted the High King dead and is leading a rebellion for the Imperials to bring in more troops again other than this final time. I'm not going to change your opinion, you're not going to change mine; I accept it, which was my post prior. If you wish to continue it with someone else, by all means, do so. But with me, I no longer wish to participate. Please understand my wishes. Edited April 22, 2013 by pheo3309

[Anska]

Actually, I wasn't trying to convince you of something. I had considered to write a line about agreeing to disagree below the text, but it all sounded rather unfriendly, so I left it out in the end. We both argue from opposing directions with little chance to meet somewhere. You were just for at least the last one and a half pages complaining that Slayer and I didn't properly support our arguments, so I thought I might as well write out my reasoning once. I don't really care about who is right either, because at least in a fictional context, I am much more interested why people do what they do, than if it's especially clever, stupid, right or wrong. Please, don't feel forced to reply.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Anska

[pheo3309]

Good, then it's settled. And for the record, I wasn't complaining. I asked for links relevant to how I was wrong so I could correct it. Is that so much to ask? If that's complaining, then I'm guilty that I'm willing to learn from mistakes. And for future reference, if you don't want people feeling forced to reply, then saying that I was complaining isn't the right way to go about that, but I've also took extra measures to not feel forced to reply to your posts. Anyways, that's out of the way, sorry for the inconvenience, I will no longer be participating in this thread. I will continue it elsewhere, where I know that where I'm wrong, people will link me where I can correct myself. Have a lovely evening.

[Anska]

ehm, isn't "complain" a totaly neutral word for saying that one doesn't like the current state of things and would like the responsible people to do something about it?

[MightyZ0G]

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.

 

wow Anska, that is a fantastic argument supporting the Empire :D

 

not wishing to stir the pot again, my feelings are that outside the dame, it doesn't make any difference which side you take, by the time TESVI comes out the Dominion will either have won the 2nd Great War (in game they refer to the Great War as "The First Great War" ) or TESVI will take place during the 2nd Great War. for the canonical Lore to tie up all the loose ends it won't matter who wins the civil war in Skyrim.

 

within the game you can either be pro Empire or pro Ulfric, but choosing either of those options doesn't mean you are not pro Skyrim. it just means you see different solutions to the Thalmor problem

[LadyMilla]

The real question is how the major factions in the game regard the Imperial Legion, and how the population regards Imperial troops. The conformists consider Skyrim a part of the Empire and for them the Imperial Legion is not an occupying force. The Stormcloaks believe that the Empire has lost its right to rule Skyrim, and for them the Imperial Legion is a hostile occupying force. And, as proven by in-game dialogue between Rikke and General Tullius (the one that you can overhear when you visit Castle Dour before picking sides) more and more Nords believed that the Empire was the wrong side.

Once the majority make up their mind and support the Stormcloak rebellion thenm encyclopedia definitions become irrelevant, and a military presence that was treated with indifference or acceptance before will be regarded as hostile and undesirable. If they back the Empire then the Empire's legitimacy is upheld.

 

 

If you simply work with definitions from a dictonary, a textbook or an encyclopedia then one might even argue that the Eastern-European countries were not occupied by the Soviet forces during the communist era as the local population did not treat them as a hostile force (there was no active resistance) - at least not until the revolutions in the fifties. And even then, the population mostly fought their own governments and not the occupying Soviet forces, at least until those governments decided to ask for military assistance from the Soviet Union to quell the insurgents.

[Anska]

*grins* Thank you, Zog. Looking back at what I wrote, I probably should have added a "from the point of view of the supporters of the Empire" somewhere to my last paragraph though. As LadyMilla pointed out above and I started to argue myself on the previous page, it's only half of the argument. If you look at the setting from the rebels' point of view, the Empire will turn out to be a occupying force and most likely a Thalmor puppet-state as well.

LadyMilla, I agree with what you say about the dictionary, etc. definitions. What I wrote about them was mainly my way of defending myself against being forced to accept one very specific definition as the ultimate truth. Had I thought about what you wrote above at the time, it might have been the wiser thing to write. Concerning your example, I think that, even when people in an occupied country don't actively resist the intruders, the feeling of being occupied usually reflects in their thinking, writing and other forms of expressing themselves. I can't give you an example from the Eastern-Europe countries, you mentioned, but there's for example a whole genre of literature that deals with the occupation of Korea by Japan and its aftereffects by Korean authors. Returning to Skyrim, I still think that the generalized statement, that the Empire is currently occupying Skyrim is too one-sided. After all bethesda took great care to present the country's opinion on the matter as rather evenly divided. In the end it depends on who's point of view you take in the matter again.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Anska

[TheLoreSeeker]

The real question is how the major factions in the game regard the Imperial Legion, and how the population regards Imperial troops. The conformists consider Skyrim a part of the Empire and for them the Imperial Legion is not an occupying force. The Stormcloaks believe that the Empire has lost its right to rule Skyrim, and for them the Imperial Legion is a hostile occupying force. And, as proven by in-game dialogue between Rikke and General Tullius (the one that you can overhear when you visit Castle Dour before picking sides) more and more Nords believed that the Empire was the wrong side.

Once the majority make up their mind and support the Stormcloak rebellion thenm encyclopedia definitions become irrelevant, and a military presence that was treated with indifference or acceptance before will be regarded as hostile and undesirable. If they back the Empire then the Empire's legitimacy is upheld.

 

 

If you simply work with definitions from a dictonary, a textbook or an encyclopedia then one might even argue that the Eastern-European countries were not occupied by the Soviet forces during the communist era as the local population did not treat them as a hostile force (there was no active resistance) - at least not until the revolutions in the fifties. And even then, the population mostly fought their own governments and not the occupying Soviet forces, at least until those governments decided to ask for military assistance from the Soviet Union to quell the insurgents.

 

*golf clap of appreciation*

[LadyMilla]

Concerning your example, I think that, even when people in an occupied country don't actively resist the intruders, the feeling of being occupied usually reflects in their thinking, writing and other forms of expressing themselves. I can't give you an example from the Eastern-Europe countries, you mentioned, but there's for example a whole genre of literature that deals with the occupation of Korea by Japan and its aftereffects by Korean authors. Returning to Skyrim, I still think that the generalized statement, that the Empire is currently occupying Skyrim is too one-sided. After all bethesda took great care to present the country's opinion on the matter as rather evenly divided.

 

The population's attitude towards an occupying force depends on many factors, and may change abruptly. In Europe, the history of Hungary saw a few revolutions, and two major uprisings broke out against the lawful Hapsburg ruler (one led by Francis II Rákóczy (between 1703 and 1711) and the Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence in 1848). (The rule of the Austrian holy Roman Emperors was lawful as the Hungarian Diet elected Ferdinand I King of Hungary in 1526). Why did the Hungarians rebel against their lawful kings? Obviously because their rule hurt Hungarian interests. Such interests can be manifold - economic, religious and so on. (A good example for a war that started as a religious conflict: Thirty Years' War).

 

 

I still think that the generalized statement, that the Empire is currently occupying Skyrim is too one-sided. After all bethesda took great care to present the country's opinion on the matter as rather evenly divided.

 

I agree, especially with the last sentence. Bethesda took great pains to avoid even the appearance of supporting one faction over the other. They even added cities that mirror each other in terms of internal corruption: in Markarth it is the Stormcloak mafia (Silver-Blood family) that pulls the strings, in Riften it is the Black-Briar family with its strong Imperial connections. It will be interesting to see how Bethesda will answer the 'who won' question in the next game.

[MightyZ0G]

the "who won?" question isn't that important.

the lore will probably just say that "the civil war in Skyrim weakened the Empire and allowed the Dominion to invade Cyrodiil again"