Imperial VS Stormcloak

[RighthandofSithis]

Will the empire again become strong enough to defeat the Thalmor? Even with the help of the dovakiin it will be difficult for the empire to regain their strengt to fight.

A good question. Let me follow it up:

Can the Stormcloak defeat the Thalmor if the Empire can not?

 

Looking at the map, the Legion got 2/3 of the points in Skyrim. With some math, I can now take an estimate the Empire is stronger than the Stormcloak. Now, if the war could end and they could recover some strength, they got a chance.

 

Notice, I am not saying the Stormcloak could not take the Thalmor down, I just mean the Empire is stronger than the Stormcloak as of now, and with the help of Docahkiin can increase their chance. They have defeated the Thalmor once before.

 

Either way, it would be quite the fight to beat the Thalmor. Possible for either side, but a tough fight either way.

 

I have addressed this point. I quote myself:

 

"Empires collapse. Look at history, Both Real and Tamrielic. The Third Empire (the Current one) Has existed for over 600 years (the exact formation of the Empire may vary from one persons opinion to another). To put this into perspective, Ivan the Fourth was crowned Grand Prince of Moscow in 1533. From then he had conquered Modern Russia and some other states to form the Russian Empire. This Empire had lasted until 1917 with the Russian Revolution. This puts the Russian Empire as lasting for 384 years. Another example is the Roman Empire (Which the Cyrodiilics are largely based on). Assuming the Empire started with Julius Caesar (Really he was a dictator, the first Emperor was Augustus, his adopted son). Caesar took power in 44BC. The exact year the Western Roman Empire fell is still being debated, but we shall assume it fell in 476AD. This places the Western Roman Empire as having lasted for 520 years.

 

The Third Empire has out lived these two examples, meaning it is likely on the verge of collapse itself. This is furthered by the Empire facing both external and internal threats (The loss of Hammerfell, the Stormcloak rebellion and the civil strife in Cyrodiil), its military is far stretched (possibly beyond sustainable means) and it's economy is likely waning as a result of these pressures.

 

When the Empire collapses, the economies of all the provinces within it and rely on it, will collapse, meaning they will not be able to sustain their own armed forces (High Rock is an exception, it has proven to be able to simply return to its feudal system). This means that the only powers left that could have any chance to oppose to oppose the Thalmor in any way would be Hammerfell and High Rock. High Rock may be able to boast it's armies and battlemages, But how effected they will be by their own feudal wars cannot be predicted as of yet, and while the Redguards are mightly warriors, it is not known if their own economy has recovered from their war with the Thalmor (and if it has, it is unlikely to be able to match that of the Aldmeri Dominion).

 

However, it may be possible to extend the life of the Empire. The Second Empire was looking like it would fall after the assassination of Reman III and his heirs, but the Akaviri Potentates where able to extend the life of the Empire by sacrificing it's best legions and ruling with an Iron Fist. This made the Second Empire last for 648 years before the Potentate and his heirs where all assassinated. However, the current Empire cannot spare any of its soldiers, and it would be hypocritical of anyone who has used Ulfric's racism and firm rule as an argument in support of the Empire to support brutal repression by the Imperials."

 

In retrospect, I suppose Titus' successor could enforce a mass conscription campaign to put down any revolt and strengthen the Empire. And that can't be ruled out, as Titus is killed because of a 'necessary change in Imperial policy.'

 

And Matth85. I acknowledge and respect that you did not rule out that the Stormcloaks couldn't take on the Thalmor.

[RighthandofSithis]

Bombom, I'd quote you but I don't want to rummage back through the argument when I could be playing Skyrim.

 

First, your comment on nationalism is self contradictory. You say Ulfric is not a nationalist, but then you say he is an extreme nationalist.

Furthermore, just because the Empire rules over Skyrim, doesn't mean he is anti nationalist. He wants to free the Nordic people and Skyrim as a nation. That is nationalism.

 

It's not contradictory. Nationalism and Jingoism are different forms of nationalism.

 

They're not the same...

 

Just because a Ford Mustang is a car, and a Toyota Camry is a car doesn't mean they're the same.

Secondly, you say that only people who use non violence are good leaders. Did Lenin make Russia better for the Russian people? Was he a good Leader? Was George Washington a good leader?

 

Ulfric had the choice to use non-violence, and he didn't,

 

Instead, thousands of innocent lives have to die because Usurp wants his word to be law.

 

Most likely, if you were living Skyrim would have sacrifice yourself fight with this tyrant.

 

I doubt anyone here would want that.

 

Revolution is a bloody affair. And while there may be blood in the short term, Skyrim will be able to leave the crumbling Empire to make itself self sufficient, and able to combat the Thalmor in it's own right. The ends justify the means.

 

Ulfric doesn't offer short-term blood, he offers long term blood by taking an already delicate situation, the peace between the Empire/Thalmor , and use it have more innocents sent to their death. The ends don't justify the means if more killing is to lead to more killing , and less stability.

 

Firstly. You say that Jingoism is a differant form of nationalism. It is a form of nationalism and thus Ulfric is a nationalist. Furthermore, Wikipedia (I'd find a better source, but I can't be bothered with this debate) describes Jingoism:

"In practice, it is a country's advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests. Colloquially, it refers to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism."

I fail to see how that is Anti-Nationalism. If you want an example of Anti-Nationalism, I can give you my ideologies.

 

Secondly. How did Ulfric have the chance to use non-violence? He was called by his people to start a war with the Empire. And where would a non-violent protest lead to in this situation. The Empire is to tied with the Thalmor to even send Tullius reinforcements. Why would they care about ulfrics non-violent protest?

 

Thirdly. I was talking about internal blood in Skyrim. He would have to put down Revisionists. Starting a war with the Thalmor is another matter entirely. Or are you supporting the Thalmor?

[Breaking Dawn]

I'm sorry about how long this is I actually hadn't realized until I posted it, sorry for the wall of text. The first sentence of the three large paragraphs tries to sum each paragraph up, read it if it interests you.

 

I posted on this topic a while back but I'd just like to reiterate some of the things I said before.

 

First, on the Empire and baning Talos worship where is the evidence? This is something I thinl Beth screwed up on, unintentionally, there are actually more open, publicly known Temples/Shrines of Talos in the holds of Imperials then in the Stormcloak ones. I mean the Thalmor in Markarth need the help of somenobody who happens to stroll by them in the Uncercity, seriously for something that has supposedly limitless power to persecure Talos worshippers why on Nirn do they need your help? Given this I think that the Thalmor Justicar activities are publicly permited but obstructed at every possible oportunity, I'm not quite seeing the Imperials crushing Nord culture.

 

Second, on Ulfric killing Torygg legal, but not good or moral. Yes the method of dueling and killing him was unfair and perhaps short-sighted but it was legally done and had precedents in Nord history and law. However, THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT A GOOD THING! Just because something is legal does not make it a good idea, racism, discrimination, violence, slavery, rape, killing, torture, war among others were all legal at one point (and in some places and cases still are). The precednece of challenging and killing leaders makes horrible precedents and leads to extremely unstable socities, Ulfric, with his use of the Thu'um, could probably kill anyone in his country in single combat (except the Dovahkiin) but in his old age everntuall someone will kill him and succeed him. After this all of his successors will have to devote every spare moment of their lives training with a sword/Thu'um to kill anyone that doubts/dislikes them, their opinions, goals, actions or whatever. Eventually someone will get lucky or skilled enough to kill them then this entire mess of a civil war or cycle of killing the top dog will repeat (they know the previous High King was the best warrior by him being able to kill Ulfric the "previous best"). This should actively discourage his successors from actually governing and instead spend time trying to make as few waves as possible, to avoid angering somebody (even then not making decisions will probably anger somebody else) and training so they wont get killed. Actually, if anyone argues that "Killing the High King does not mean you get the job...." not but it means you are the most powerful warrior in the country what do you have to fear from anyone else who gets promoted? Kill them too! And the next one, and the next and the next, eventually no one will be willing/left alive to oppose you. These are the old ways Ulfric wants to restore, the Nords are based heavily on the Vikings to the point of being near clones, why should we expect them to be any less direct, brutal and violent?

 

Third, the replacement Jarl doesn't change, likely caused by Beth's laziness or time constrants that prevented this from being implemented. Someone (I forget who) mentioned that the replacement Imperial Jarl doesn't allow the Dunmer/Argoninas into Windhelm, he literally went within hours of gaining his position to talk to the Dunmer/Argonians about how they could be integrated. I think that actually implementing this was probably something that Beth axed when they realized there was no way they were going to make their 11.11.11 release date (if you doubt this look at the hundreds of buds at the four full threads on their offical forums and this is after they got ban happy on people who were complaing. It was probably an idea to allow the Dunmer/Argonians into Windhelm and give them some property/jobs within the city, it would be easy to explain away that whatever people they replaced were killed in the final battle. In Oblivion, they had the Temple district in the Imperial City change, all of the Oblivion Gates closed and a somewhat answer for what happend with the Blades and Elder Council, so them providing somekind of change after a questline isn't completely unprecedented.

 

Fourth, I'm curious where did we find out that the Empire promised Ulfric relgious freedom? I was pretty sure that the Nords were allowed to worship Talos before Ulfric spoke out and caused the Empire to allow the Thalmor to crack down.

 

Lastly, is it just me or does anyone else see Ulfric as a bit of a hypocrit? Whether or not Ulfric commit War Crimes/Genocide against the native Reachmen (and that is up for debate) he still crushed the Reachmen's attempt to from their own independent nation, just as he is doing now with the Stormcloaks.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Breaking Dawn

[RighthandofSithis]

Fourth, I'm curious where did we find out that the Empire promised Ulfric relgious freedom? I was pretty sure that the Nords were allowed to worship Talos before Ulfric spoke out and caused the Empire to allow the Thalmor to crack down.

 

They never did. Marcarth permitted him freedom of religion in return for retaking the Reach, but the Empire never did. I believe somebody simply misinterpreted their sources.

And they where never actually allowed to worship Talos. They simply did it in secret, and nobody knew.

Edited December 29, 2011 by RighthandofSithis

[Breaking Dawn]

What you said is true, but being allowed to do something and being allowed to do something in public view is extremely different. For example look how society views sex or underage drinking (atleast where I live parents are permitted to give their underage children alcohol as long as they are in private) even publicly show emotian is looked down upon (especailly if you are male).

 

I just realized I had something else to say but didn't want to tack it on to my previous monsterously sized post.

 

RighthandofSithis brought up that real life empires do collapse after shorter periods of time than the Third Empire has existed. I would also like to add that there have been empires that survive a lot longer than that: Egypt as a civilization remained under native rulers, with occasional dynastic changes from the dawn of history itself (3150 BCE) to 332 BCE (that's 2818 years) when Alexander the Great conqured it. It is possible to argue that the empire remained Egyptian even after this point, while their rulers were all ethnicly Macedonian they completely assimilated into Egyptian society until Rome came and conqured it all. China was ruled, as an empire from about 2100 BCE by native dynasties undergoing occasional violent dynastic shifts until it was finall conqured by Tumujin in 1215 CE (that's 3315 years! and it remained "Imperial China" just with different a different ethnic ruling class until 1912 so that empire lasted 4020 years). There are other examples Byzantium or the Eastern Roman Empire was founded somewhere around 667 BCE and finally fell around 1453 CE (that's 2120 years!). There are other examples such as the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted 844 years, the Ottoman Empire, which lasted 624 (however this is if you do not count the 300 years of history of the preceeding Seljuk Sultanate that annexed the Mamuluk controlled Egypt to form the Ottoman Empire), the Kingdom of Kush which existed for 1420 years, believe it or not the Papacy exisited as a land owning and extremely influential theocracy for 1184 years, the Mayan empire was founed around 2000 BCE and existed until the Spanish arrived in 1492 and you know what this is getting old.... but my point is just because an empire has exisited a long time doesn't that is suddenly declines that only occurs when they begin to stagnate, if anything the arrival of the Thalmor will cause the Empire to either create massive reforms and advance for a while or it might not survive the growing pains, but I doubt this personally there is simply too much inertia behind the idea of a united Tamriel.

 

If for some reason you discount these examples because the dynasties change then that could invalidate democracy as a form of continuous form of government the rules were clear in both cases empires were kill anyone who disagrees and democracy is make sure more people agree with you.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Breaking Dawn

[RighthandofSithis]

What you said is true, but being allowed to do something and being allowed to do something in public view is extremely different. For example look how society views sex or underage drinking (atleast where I live parents are permitted to give their underage children alcohol as long as they are in private) even publicly show emotian is looked down upon (especailly if you are male).

 

I just realized I had something else to say but didn't want to tack it on to my previous monsterously sized post.

 

RighthandofSithis brought up that real life empires do collapse after shorter periods of time than the Third Empire has existed. I would also like to add that there have been empires that survive a lot longer than that: Egypt as a civilization remained under native rulers, with occasional dynastic changes from the dawn of history itself (3150 BCE) to 332 BCE (that's 2818 years) when Alexander the Great conqured it. It is possible to argue that the empire remained Egyptian even after this point, while their rulers wer ethnicall Macedonian they completely assimilated into Egyptian society until Rome came and conqured it all. China was ruled, as an empire from about 2100 BCE by native dynasties undergoing occasional violent dynastic shifts until it was finall conqured by Tumujin in 1215 CE (that's 3315 years! and it remained "Imperial China" just with different a different ethnic ruling class until 1912 so that empire lasted 4020 years). There are other examples Byzantium or the Eastern Roman Empire was founded somewhere around 667 BCE and finally fell around 1453 CE (that's 2120 years!). There are other examples such as the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted 844 years, the Ottoman Empire, which lasted 624 (however this is if you do not count the 300 years of history of the preceeding Seljuk Sultanate that annexed the Mamuluk controlled Egypt to form the Ottoman Empire), the Kingdom of Kush which existed for 1420 years, believe it or not the Papacy exisited as a land owning and extremely influential theocracy for 1184 years, the Mayan empire was founed around 2000 BCE and existed until the Spanish arrived in 1492 and you know what this is getting old.... but my point is just because an empire has exisited a long time doesn't that is suddenly declines that only occurs when they begin to stagnate, if anything the arrival of the Thalmor will cause the Empire to either create massive reforms and advance for a while or it might not survive the growing pains, but I doubt this personally there is simply too much inertia behind the idea of a united Tamriel.

 

If for some reason you discount these examples because the dynasties change then that could invalidate democracy as a form of continuous form of government the rules were clear in both cases empires were kill anyone who disagrees and democracy is make sure more people agree with you.

 

Well said. I did not intentionally discount these examples (And it escapes me how I could forget these, I love history).

 

But it does not prove that the Third Empire will survive. You state that the Thalmor will force the Empire to reform, and that is possibly why Titus was assassinated, but then again, it may not be. Such reforms may include the totalitarianism I have described previously (I personally see this as the best way for the Empire to combat the Thalmor.)

 

This seems to put things on hold for both sides of the argument (For me at least), as we cannot make an accurate judgement of the events following Skyrim.

 

It shall be interesting to see how this argument progresses from here.

 

PS. Many humans in Tamriel worship Talos, and the ban on Talos is not viewed well in public opinion. And Alvor states that everybody worshiped Talos in private (ie just quietly at home so the Thalmor don't know about it.)

 

EDIT: The Empire hasn't just suddenly declined. Ever since the Oblivion Crisis, the Empire has been slowly declining (Titus Mede I had dramatically slowed that decline, but ever since the Great War, its started to decline at a much faster rate). Check out the History section of the UESP (below) All it shows is the decline of the Empire.

 

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Fourth_Era

Edited December 29, 2011 by RighthandofSithis

[SaintAnon]

I chose the Stormcloaks not because I like Ulfric; because I don't, but because a Dragonborn and right-hand to Ulfric is in a prime position to become High King upon Ulfrics death at the hands of some well paid Altmeri Assassins. This will temper the steel that is the Sons and Daughters of Skyrim and unite them behind there new Warrior King and his goal of conquering the Dominion and exterminating the Thalmor. :thumbsup:

 

The empires far to fat and bloated with corruption for even the strongest of warriors to reach the position of Emperor. :wallbash:

[Matth85]

The empires far to fat and bloated with corruption for even the strongest of warriors to reach the position of Emperor

The goal is not to become the leader of a certain faction. You are Dovahkiin, you slay dragons, you are a god man, you are not a leader. The goal is to survive and try and take out the Thalmor. In case you didn't know, the Emperor got very little saying in these matters. I suspect all the emperor would do is say "yes" and "no". Thus you would only need to get to the top of the Legion and be able to sweet talk to the elder council -- which is entirely different from becoming emperor.

 

Being an emperor, as being a king/president today, is not about being a strong warrior. It's about being political, being smart and be a peoples person. I doubt Rambo would have a chance for President, for instance. That said, a loyal soldier that got pride and honor, and knows how to lead, can become a general and easily be able to talk to the Elder Council and lay out a plan. Nobody would say no to a Dovahkiin, not easily at least.

 

That said, I'd agree it would be easier to become High King under the rule of the Stormcloaks. However, then you are limited to 1 country and 1 army. Being a commander of an army of the Empire could lead to 3 armies over what, 3-4 countries?

[Deleted2627243User]

I personally went with the Imperials, much to the dismay of my friends, who all bar one picked the Stormcloaks.

 

I suppose the main reason was that I didn't like how the Stormcloaks acted. I mean, I understand being angry about the banning of Talos worship him being a Nord Hero and all that however the Empire was forced to do so through the treaty. It reminds me of the Treaty of Versailles, the Germans (Skyrim) were pissed by the terms but if it was not accepted Britain (Thalmors) would invade and cause more unnecessary death and destruction. Then after that while the province was recovering from the war, Ulfric goes and kills the High King. Way to help, Ulfric. Really helping stop conflict after a war which can take decades to recover from physically and emotionally.

 

When I first took a trip to Windhelm, I expected much of the town to be with him and for the most part, I was correct. I did notice however that many other races especially Dark Elfs, were treated like dirt. I like how he wants a true and free Skyrim, yet he is essentially a racist. His own people openly admit to that, saying how if an Argoninan or Khajiit caravan was attacked there would be no investigation into it.

 

In terms of Imperials, the main argument I hear to go against them is because they try to kill you. But remember, this is shortly known to be a mistake as your name is not on "the list", your character was in the wrong place and the wrong time, nothing more. The fact you were somewhere near Stormcloaks was enough reason to have you killed. Which is understandable as they are trying to quell an rebellion, they want to send a message. Join them and suffer the "block". Cruel yes, but if you wanted to discourage someone from doing something, the first thing you (and I) would do is threaten their life.

 

Really Imperials only try to uphold the laws paced by the Thalmor and try to keep peace. They don't like it but they have to do it. Going back to a war example many people did not agree with Hitler's ideas when he came into power, including solders and Generals. They went with it though because if you questioned him or disobeyed, you would lose your job, home or even life.

 

So those are the main reasons why I joined the Imperials. Cruel and oppressive yes, but not as much as the Stormcloaks in my opinion.

[LobselVith66]

 

Fourth, I'm curious where did we find out that the Empire promised Ulfric relgious freedom? I was pretty sure that the Nords were allowed to worship Talos before Ulfric spoke out and caused the Empire to allow the Thalmor to crack down.

 

You learn about the Empire's deal with Ulfric Stormcloak in Markarth.

 

Your protagonist will need to speak to some of the people in Markarth to hear what happened, which includes one of the natives of the Reach and the pro-Legion Jarl of Markarth. Jarl Igmund talks about the Empire being desperate after losing the Reach, and the response is addressed as Ulfric being angry at the Empire for capitulating to the Thalmor - not at Jarl Igmund specifically. Igmund says, "It all started here. This rebellion. When the Empire lost the Reach during the Great War, we became desperate. We promised a group of Nord militia free worship in exchange for their help retaking the Hold. Then the Elves found out about it. We were forced to arrest them all. Ulfric Stormcloak, their leader, used the whole thing as proof that the Empire had abandoned Skyrim. The rebels called it 'The Markarth Incident.' It was the founding day for the Stormcloaks, and where this war really started."

 

If Jarl Igmund was alone in making the offer, it wouldn't have been used as an example of the Empire abandoning Skyrim, and he wouldn't keep referring to "we" in addressing that he wasn't alone in making the offer. In fact, one of the Reachmen clarifies this by addressing that it was the Empire who specifically offered Ulfric Stormcloak freedom to worship Talos in exchange for reclaiming control of the Reach. The problem was that the Empire was hoping that the Thalmor wouldn't find out about it, but they did. Igmund never says he offered the deal to Ulfric alone. "But that's what we promised Ulfric and his men. It seems foolish looking back, but at the time we were hoping the Elves wouldn't find out. So when they did find out, it was either we arrest Ulfric and the militia, or enter into yet another war with the Aldmeri Dominion. The choice was clear."

Edited December 29, 2011 by LobselVith66