Schattenu Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 You kind of have to use it in a debate revolving around games where god-granted powers and fairly common, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkwingDirk Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 My thought process as I played through: >Screw the Empire, they tried to kill me! Time to join the Stormcloaks, Viva la Resistance! >Wow, Windhelm looks like crap. And this racism? Not cool. >Add to this the various Nord NPCs talking about how Ulfric's motives are probably less than noble. >Thalmor douchbaggery >Well, I guess the Empire has the best chance to deal with the Thalmor in the future, I guess I'm going to have to back them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettM Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I've followed most of your thought process myself, DarkwingDirk, except for the last point. The Empire's claim to be the bulwark between Tamriel and the Dominion just seems to fail the laugh test. Despite such claims, the Empire accepted a treaty that resulted in the complete loss of Hammerfell and the presence of Thalmor "observers" and "advisors" all over Skyrim. What strength does the Empire have left? A war-torn Cyrodiil is now separated from High Rock by a Thalmor-infested Skyrim, which is a disaster even if there were no rebellion taking place in Skyrim. Everything else once held by the Empire is now gone. The Empire also seems very prone to "kill them all and let the Divines sort them out" justice. They did it to our characters in the beginning, and they seem to still be doing it or allowing it elsewhere, such as in Markarth. After the Empire regained Markarth and betrayed Ulfric, are we really supposed to believe what imperial apologists now tell us about Ulfric's "war crimes" and their pious claims that the Empire would have gladly recognized the Reach as an independant state? The imperials are still there and still keeping Madanach in prison, so books like "The Bear of Markarth" read more like propaganda designed to put a good face on the Empire getting exactly what it wanted. Ulfric is a racist? Maybe so. But, is the Empire so squeaky-clean of crimes against other races and cultures? I think not. Any way you look at it, there is no way to pick a side that removes all doubts about the correctness of your decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkwingDirk Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I kind of saw the White-Gold Concordate as the Empire opting to live to fight another day. If the Empire couldn't beat the Thalmor, how could a rag-tag band of bigots? Of course the Empire isn't without corruption, but in this case I think it is the lesser of the two evils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terzho Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I kind of saw the White-Gold Concordate as the Empire opting to live to fight another day. If the Empire couldn't beat the Thalmor, how could a rag-tag band of bigots? Of course the Empire isn't without corruption, but in this case I think it is the lesser of the two evils. Except for the fact that the Stormcloaks aren't a rag-tag band of biggots and are an actual capable fighting force with military grade equipment and what not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkwingDirk Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I mean rag-tag in comparison to the Empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettM Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) I kind of saw the White-Gold Concordate as the Empire opting to live to fight another day. If the Empire couldn't beat the Thalmor, how could a rag-tag band of bigots? Of course the Empire isn't without corruption, but in this case I think it is the lesser of the two evils.I'm a little confused on this point, since it appears that the Empire DID beat the Thalmor at the Battle of the Red Ring. At the time the Concordat was negotiated, the Thalmor army was wiped out, correct? So, even though the imperial troops were decimated and exhausted at the time, what could the Thalmor have done if the Empire had refused to give in regarding Hammerfell and Talos worship? The Empire had little power left, but the Thalmor apparently had none at all, so why did they get to dictate the terms of the treaty as if the Empire had surrendered unconditionally? Usually the winner gets more say in the terms of a treaty, yet the Empire apparently got nothing at all out of it. We are never told of any concessions the Thalmor made as part of the Concordat, but only the issues on which the Empire gave in. This is puzzling me greatly. (P.S. -- Love your user name. I take it that you are the "terror that posts in the night"? :biggrin:) Edited February 21, 2012 by BrettM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenu Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 It wasn't wiped out. The Thalmor lost that particular battle, and were willing to come to some kind of truce afterward, but they weren't 100% decimated. The Empire won that battle, but from what I gather, they weren't in any shape to keep fighting after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RighthandofSithis Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 A view by critics of the Concordat was that Titus Mede II overestimated the strength of the Dominion. But yes, after the Battle of Red Ring, Titus wouldn;t have been able to fight on, having no legions even at half strength (he would need to occupy captured cities). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sukeban Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 @Sithis: As a critic of the Concordat, I agree with your characterization. I think it would be unrealistic to have expected the Empire to dictate the terms of the Concordat to the Thalmor, as the Thalmor obviously had the upper hand (heck, no battles were ever fought on their land--that definitely counts for something). BUT--if the Thalmor really were as strong as Mede II believed them to be, they would have just absorbed the Red Ring losses and pushed on. Given that it is thirty years later and they have still not attacked the Empire, I believe is also testament to the devastation that befell their military at Red Ring. They don't need a casus belli in order to re-invade; I mean, it was via a cowardly sneak attack that they initiated the Great War to begin with. So they are definitely not standing on ceremony. Rather, I'd imagine that they really aren't as strong as is popularly believed. The Thalmor were only successful in the Great War because of their sneak attack. They are not all-killing military gods, merely dishonorable and cunning... with a dose of martial competence thrown in. Going back the actual Concordat, Mede II had, of course, anything but perfect intelligence on the Thalmor's strength. For all he knew, the Thalmor could have had countless hordes waiting in Valenwood, poised to cross the border. But, IMO, he acted too hastily in making peace. I give him all the credit in the world for managing to re-take the Imperial City, but he should have at least waited for some intelligence to reach him or allow himself time to better gauge the Thalmor's next move. IMO, the Thalmor straight bluffed him into signing the Concordat, meaning that he "won" the war but "lost" the peace. He was an excellent warrior, but, sadly, a less competent statesman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts