StormHammer81 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) @fraquarIn any feudal lands, this is exactly what happens. If you can't defend yourself, how can anyone expect you to lead from the front? From bandit leaders, to Orc chieftans, to Skyrim High Kings - you periodically are going to be challenged. You either defend yourself or step aside. Correct. The moment Ulfric challenged Torygg, he should have abdicated. Could have just stayed Jarl and come up with any justification that he wanted. I can't stop but think he could have gotten out of that deul if he wanted to. Of course, he was brave to try. I'm ok with the deul, I'm not ok with Ulfric denying the Moot. Now THAT was treason... Leaving your country leaderless and open to attack. Not to mention disrupting the normal operation of the lawful Gov. There's a fine point between treason and espionage. Annnd IMHO Ulfric crossed it by blocking the Moot. See the lie in this is even Ulfric could have been chosen as the next High King. The Moot is or was rather split 50/50. Even the Stormcloak Jarls wanted the Moot. Edited March 5, 2013 by StormHammer81 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kradus Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I know what isnt right. It isnt right to forcefully keep a people whom you have religiously oppressed to comply with your agenda in a fashion that they dont agree with. It isnt right to ignore your peoples suffering to do ^. Yet the sormcloaks started a war that most of skyrim didn't want (imperial supporters + neutral individuals), that by itself causes a lot more harm than any thalmor jurisdiction before and after Ulfric provoked them into going all gestapo on Talos worshipers. It isnt right to accept terms that force the secession of a province that helped you during the war. The Thalmor already occupied hammerfell at that point, if that's what you're reffering to. They forced the situation, not the emperor. It isnt right to call upon the help of the men and woman who are the backbone of your army then make them deny their god and occupy their homeland. Thats whats not right. The empire didn't occupy anything, it was there from the start. This is what I mean, you have the wrong prespective about the war. It's not an imperial invasion, at least half the nords remain loyal to the empire, and fight to defend it. It's the duty of the empire to help its people fight against rebells in their own lands. Calling my arguments baseless isnt really an argument either. We can go down the road of "Im right your wrong." All day and get nowhere. It's an argument that you are wasting people's time. The Empire signed the WGC. Which allows the Thalmor to roam the Imperial provinces to prosecute the worshipers of Talos. It allows for them to be present at all Imperial meetings and events. They have headquarters in Solitude, they have Northwatch keep, the Embassy. All present in Imperial controlled Holds. The Thalmor have a say in all Imperial matters because the WGC allows for that. No, they are not present in all imperial meeting and events. You only see Elenwen at the greybeard council, and even then, she doesn't have a say in the agreement, that's purely between the heads of state. And even with a HQ in solitude, the Thalmor dont take place in any war meetings or in the court. So, no, the Thamor do not have control over the empire. @ Kradus Yes I understand the COC, probably better than you do. The Emperor has the final say. And the Legions were assigned the task of rooting out rebellion in Skyrim which they know is there job. So, yes, when the Emperor dies they can still complete their task. But what about after? The Elder council doesnt want a war with the Dominion because they are in power and dont want to risk losing that power gained. So after they lose the Emperor they lose the only man who would lead them against the dominion. Tullius cannot make this choice himself. Bingo, the Elder council know what the Thalmor are up to, and they have legions gathered in Cyrodiil. I dont see why they wouldn't want to defend their lands any less than the emperor. Ulfric wasnt Jarl when Torygg was elected. He was in Markarth. In prison. Ulfric respects tradition because he allows for the moot to take place instead of just taking the throne. He isnt going to allow the moot to decide whos going to be High anything without securing his own position because thats the smart thing to do politically. Why waste the time to wage a war then allow the leaders to elect someone else when you have the power to keep it from happening. So thats not Ulfric ignoring traditions, its Ulfric being smart.Smart and Opressive. If Ulfric cared about tradition, he'd simply let the Jarls decide. No Empire in their right mind would agree to a treaty that would allow the enemy to come into their sovereign territory and torture/murder their civilians. If any Emperor (or High King for that matter) agreed to such a treaty, they deserve to have their head on a platter - by their own subjects hand. And most warriors/generals/heads of state in the empire, exept mainly for the stormcloaks, support the emperor. Consider all the support he retained after the WGC and you'll come to the conclusion that the smashing majority of people in lore disagree with your point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraquar Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I don't see the blocking of the moot as such a bad thing, if the voices at the moot are paid off by Imperial coin. I'm almost positive that was Ulfric's reason for blocking the moot. A corrupt moot is no better than not having one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraquar Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 And most warriors/generals/heads of state in the empire, exept mainly for the stormcloaks, support the emperor. Consider all the support he retained after the WGC and you'll come to the conclusion that the smashing majority of people in lore disagree with your point of view. Those are hardly the "subjects" that will be the targets of persecution that I'm talking about. Those are the protected ones, in fact those are the VERY people that are supposed to be protecting their citizens in the first place in an Empire. When you allow an enemy to start maiming/killing people in your own country, your very seat of authority is being compromised. Sooner or later, people will rise up to hold you accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormHammer81 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) @fraquar I don't see the blocking of the moot as such a bad thing, if the voices at the moot are paid off by Imperial coin. I'm almost positive that was Ulfric's reason for blocking the moot. A corrupt moot is no better than not having one.I respect your stance on this. However, please consider that only half the delegate Jarls to the Moot were Imperial. The other half consisted of Stormcloaks. It's 50/50 and yes, both sides will be bias in some way. Ulfric blocked the Moot to block the Imperials from having a say. Not just the Empire, "The Imperials". See what I mean? It's not just that Ulfric *Blocked the Moot* for admin purposes, he willfully and intentionally hindered the normal operation of Skyrim's Gov for a significant period of time.It could be surmised he also blocked the Moot to fit in with his ambition to be High King. This is a Stormcloak "Final Solution" and one of their main objectives. Whatever the reason, THAT was still just as illegal as when TMII signed the WGC. Edited March 5, 2013 by StormHammer81 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraquar Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 You can't have an impartial moot with Imperial troops on the ground. That would be like expecting to have a "democratic" election with troops at the polling stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormHammer81 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) @fraquar And then what about the Stormcloak troops on the ground?If the right or the left holds a gun to my head, it's still a gun is it not?As a case in point, consider Helgen or on working together, the Peace Summit. Edited March 5, 2013 by StormHammer81 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraquar Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Fair point. I'll raise you one though, what about Elenwen, because you know she will demand to be at the proceedings and you know the Empire doesn't know how to say no. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraquar Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 @fraquar And then what about the Stormcloak troops on the ground? If the right or the left holds a gun to my head, it's still a gun is it not? As a case in point, consider Helgen or on working together, the Peace Summit.Problem is where are the Stormcloak troops supposed to go? High Rock for a sabatical? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighkingUlfricStormcloak Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) I did not make this. But I wish I had. "Transcend political correctness and strive for human righteousness." ~Anthony J. D'Angelo, The College Blue Book Edited March 5, 2013 by HighkingUlfricStormcloak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts