Imperial VS Stormcloak

[fraquar]

Hard to believe the Empire starting a war soon when they don't even have the strength to put a quick end to the Skyrim uprising - which is pretty much the only territory they have left that can offer them anything to prepare for a coming war (people and resources).

 

Makes no sense to risk losing Skyrim if they were even remotely strong militarily.

Edited March 9, 2013 by fraquar

[Kayyyleb]

Hard to believe the Empire starting a war soon when they don't even have the strength to put a quick end to the Skyrim uprising - which is pretty much the only territory they have left that can offer them anything to prepare for a coming war (people and resources).

 

Makes no sense to risk losing Skyrim if they were even remotely strong militarily.

What are you talking about? At the start of the game the Empire had all but won the Civil War already. Ulfric was seconds away from losing his head and his rebellion with it. Sure, pockets of resistance would've held out for a while but cut the head off the snake and it might writhe for a while but it'll eventually die.

 

Also we keep forgetting High Rock is still a part of the Empire as well, so you've got resources and manpower from them in addition to Skyrim and Cyrodiil.

[RighthandofSithis]

 

You on the other hand show that you mean to secure the Empires future first then Skyrims. I put Skyrim first, and I like to point out that an Imperial victory wouldnt be good for Skyrim in the end.

 

That depends on what you mean by the 'end'. The end to me is when the Thalmor have been subdued, by which time the WGC is not in effect. Repeating points as stated.

 

That end is the same as mine.However, as I have analysed, with the Empire experiencing its own agonizing death, it can't really compete with the Thalmor.

 

Also, i disagree with comparing the Skyrim Civil War to the American Civil War. The US was rising at the time of its civil war, while the Empire is currently dying. I'd say the US Civil War is closer to the War of the Red Diamond.

 

The Skyrim Civil War is more comparable to the Russian Revolution(s). Russia happened DURING a 'Great War', and following said, war, the Entente powers were afraid that without Russia's help, Germany and Austria could regain their strength (and I would guess Mussolini taking over Italy didn't help) and threaten Europe. Similarly, in Skyrim, many people fear that without Skyrim, the Dominion will take over all of Tamriel. Now that is also alongside a number of other, minor, similarities:

 

-Markarth Incident-1905 Revolution

-Killing of Torygg-February Revolution

-Skyrim Civil War-Russian Civil War

 

At the same time, Skyrim represents the Germanic peoples. In the past, many people have equated Ulfric to Hitler, a position I do not feel accurate. However, there are some similarities between the rise of Hitler, and the rise of of the Stormcloaks. The most important is the nature of their support base. Hitler drew his support from the middle classes who were afraid of losing everything to either to the Capitalists or the Communists. Ulfric is not leading a mass uprising (like Russia), and draws most of his support from the Nordic Aristocracy and the Nordic middle classes and peasantry (which is equatable to a middle class). At the same time, there are a few other minor similarities:

 

-WW1- The Great War

-The Treaty of Versailles- The WGC

-Hitler furious about surrender- Ulfric ditto

-Nationalism

[RighthandofSithis]

 

 

Hard to believe the Empire starting a war soon when they don't even have the strength to put a quick end to the Skyrim uprising - which is pretty much the only territory they have left that can offer them anything to prepare for a coming war (people and resources).

 

Makes no sense to risk losing Skyrim if they were even remotely strong militarily.

What are you talking about? At the start of the game the Empire had all but won the Civil War already. Ulfric was seconds away from losing his head and his rebellion with it. Sure, pockets of resistance would've held out for a while but cut the head off the snake and it might writhe for a while but it'll eventually die.

 

Also we keep forgetting High Rock is still a part of the Empire as well, so you've got resources and manpower from them in addition to Skyrim and Cyrodiil.

I've said it before, but I don;t support the assertion by the Thalmor or the Imperials that killing Ulfric will end the war. It's like killing Osama Bin Laden, that didn't put a stop to Al-Qaeda. You need to address the support base before you can kill ulfric, otherwise the Stormcloaks will just find another leader.

 

I think its worthy to note that Galmar was not present that that execution. Galmar most definatly supports trying to keep the Empire off balance, and never give them any time to regroup.

Edited March 9, 2013 by RighthandofSithis

[Kayyyleb]

 

 

 

 

 

Hard to believe the Empire starting a war soon when they don't even have the strength to put a quick end to the Skyrim uprising - which is pretty much the only territory they have left that can offer them anything to prepare for a coming war (people and resources).

 

Makes no sense to risk losing Skyrim if they were even remotely strong militarily.

What are you talking about? At the start of the game the Empire had all but won the Civil War already. Ulfric was seconds away from losing his head and his rebellion with it. Sure, pockets of resistance would've held out for a while but cut the head off the snake and it might writhe for a while but it'll eventually die.

 

Also we keep forgetting High Rock is still a part of the Empire as well, so you've got resources and manpower from them in addition to Skyrim and Cyrodiil.

I've said it before, but I don;t support the assertion by the Thalmor or the Imperials that killing Ulfric will end the war. It's like killing Osama Bin Laden, that didn't put a stop to Al-Qaeda. You need to address the support base before you can kill ulfric, otherwise the Stormcloaks will just find another leader.

 

I think its worthy to note that Galmar was not present that that execution. Galmar most definatly supports trying to keep the Empire off balance, and never give them any time to regroup.

Galmar is not the thuum-using, kingslaying, public-speaking nord hero fashioning himself as a High King that Ulfric is. He's not anywhere close to as inspiring of a leader. Ulfric started the rebellion and Ulfric is the one who motivates them to fight for the cause. Take away the High King claim and the rebellion loses a lot of it's assumed legitimacy and becomes a couple jarls or warlords trying to take the throne no different from what happened to the Empire. A recurring argument for Stormcloaks is that TMII isn't a legitimate emperor because he's not a Septim. But if the Stormcloaks lose Ulfric they have no more legitimacy to Skyrim's throne. Edited March 9, 2013 by Kayyyleb

[fraquar]

 

Hard to believe the Empire starting a war soon when they don't even have the strength to put a quick end to the Skyrim uprising - which is pretty much the only territory they have left that can offer them anything to prepare for a coming war (people and resources).

 

Makes no sense to risk losing Skyrim if they were even remotely strong militarily.

What are you talking about? At the start of the game the Empire had all but won the Civil War already. Ulfric was seconds away from losing his head and his rebellion with it. Sure, pockets of resistance would've held out for a while but cut the head off the snake and it might writhe for a while but it'll eventually die.

 

Also we keep forgetting High Rock is still a part of the Empire as well, so you've got resources and manpower from them in addition to Skyrim and Cyrodiil.

At the start of the game they had captured Ulfric, don't read into that unless you think the only reason people fight is for Ulfric.

[RighthandofSithis]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hard to believe the Empire starting a war soon when they don't even have the strength to put a quick end to the Skyrim uprising - which is pretty much the only territory they have left that can offer them anything to prepare for a coming war (people and resources).

 

Makes no sense to risk losing Skyrim if they were even remotely strong militarily.

What are you talking about? At the start of the game the Empire had all but won the Civil War already. Ulfric was seconds away from losing his head and his rebellion with it. Sure, pockets of resistance would've held out for a while but cut the head off the snake and it might writhe for a while but it'll eventually die.

 

Also we keep forgetting High Rock is still a part of the Empire as well, so you've got resources and manpower from them in addition to Skyrim and Cyrodiil.

I've said it before, but I don;t support the assertion by the Thalmor or the Imperials that killing Ulfric will end the war. It's like killing Osama Bin Laden, that didn't put a stop to Al-Qaeda. You need to address the support base before you can kill ulfric, otherwise the Stormcloaks will just find another leader.

 

I think its worthy to note that Galmar was not present that that execution. Galmar most definatly supports trying to keep the Empire off balance, and never give them any time to regroup.

Galmar is not the thuum-using, kingslaying, public-speaking nord hero fashioning himself as a High King that Ulfric is. He's not anywhere close to as inspiring of a leader. Ulfric started the rebellion and Ulfric is the one who motivates them to fight for the cause. Take away the High King claim and the rebellion loses a lot of it's assumed legitimacy and becomes a couple jarls or warlords trying to take the throne no different from what happened to the Empire. A recurring argument for Stormcloaks is that TMII isn't a legitimate emperor because he's not a Septim. But if the Stormcloaks lose Ulfric they have no more legitimacy to Skyrim's throne.

 

However, killing Ulfric makes a martyr. The horme did not put down their swords when Potema was killed, they just got more violent. Galmar would make at the very least, for a temporary leader, although he is inspiring in his own right (listen to him on the field, he can be quite moving). Hell, Ulfric could have named him as his successor, we never know.

[fraquar]

Nope, Ulfric is the thuum-using, kingslaying, public-speaking nord hero fashioning himself as a High King. He's also just been martyrized by the Empire, seeing as there were witnesses in Helgen that saw the way it was done and the level of collaboration between Tullius and the Thalmor.

 

Take a step back, see it all.

 

In fact, you still have a Jarl on the proverbial fence if you haven't been paying attention - Balgruuf.

[LithiumPower]

I find it likely that if Ulfric had been killed at Helgen, Balgruuf would have stepped in to take his place. It's been implied in some dialogue that Balgruuf's resistance to the cause is at least in part motivated by his lifelong rivalry and with the rebellion leaderless, there'd be room in it for him.

[Kayyyleb]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hard to believe the Empire starting a war soon when they don't even have the strength to put a quick end to the Skyrim uprising - which is pretty much the only territory they have left that can offer them anything to prepare for a coming war (people and resources).

 

Makes no sense to risk losing Skyrim if they were even remotely strong militarily.

What are you talking about? At the start of the game the Empire had all but won the Civil War already. Ulfric was seconds away from losing his head and his rebellion with it. Sure, pockets of resistance would've held out for a while but cut the head off the snake and it might writhe for a while but it'll eventually die.

 

Also we keep forgetting High Rock is still a part of the Empire as well, so you've got resources and manpower from them in addition to Skyrim and Cyrodiil.

I've said it before, but I don;t support the assertion by the Thalmor or the Imperials that killing Ulfric will end the war. It's like killing Osama Bin Laden, that didn't put a stop to Al-Qaeda. You need to address the support base before you can kill ulfric, otherwise the Stormcloaks will just find another leader.

 

I think its worthy to note that Galmar was not present that that execution. Galmar most definatly supports trying to keep the Empire off balance, and never give them any time to regroup.

Galmar is not the thuum-using, kingslaying, public-speaking nord hero fashioning himself as a High King that Ulfric is. He's not anywhere close to as inspiring of a leader. Ulfric started the rebellion and Ulfric is the one who motivates them to fight for the cause. Take away the High King claim and the rebellion loses a lot of it's assumed legitimacy and becomes a couple jarls or warlords trying to take the throne no different from what happened to the Empire. A recurring argument for Stormcloaks is that TMII isn't a legitimate emperor because he's not a Septim. But if the Stormcloaks lose Ulfric they have no more legitimacy to Skyrim's throne.

 

However, killing Ulfric makes a martyr. The horme did not put down their swords when Potema was killed, they just got more violent. Galmar would make at the very least, for a temporary leader, although he is inspiring in his own right (listen to him on the field, he can be quite moving). Hell, Ulfric could have named him as his successor, we never know.

It's a given that someone else will take up the banner. But my point is that they won't be an equal to Ulfric. Martyrs are all fine and good, but when the man instigating the entire rebellion dies, it simply doesn't bode well for them. As far as I'm aware, Ulfric has no heirs, so Galmar is literally the only person of any repute who could take his place but he doesn't have the same legitimacy as Ulfric does since he can't claim the throne nor is he even a jarl. It would make him little more than a nationalistic warlord fighting a dead man's cause to take the throne from a perfectly legitimate High Queen.