modder3434 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 People saying that a king needs to be strong are correct, but their are different types of strength. Just because Ulfric had better combat skills then the Toryyg doesn't mean he will be a better king. example from Game of Thrones; Robert was an awesome fighter but he was a horrible king in every other regard, which quite frankly are the areas that matter. This whole ironborn mentality most of you have about paying the iron price for a crown only is relevant when you would be a better king then the current one which Ulric is clearly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 People saying that a king needs to be strong are correct, but their are different types of strength. Just because Ulfric had better combat skills then the Toryyg doesn't mean he will be a better king. example from Game of Thrones; Robert was an awesome fighter but he was a horrible king in every other regard, which quite frankly are the areas that matter. This whole ironborn mentality most of you have about paying the iron price for a crown only is relevant when you would be a better king then the current one which Ulric is clearly not. In general the great capacity as a warrior lends itself to a great capacity for being a great military leader, which is one of two thing's that makes a great king. And Ulfric is certainly both. Ulfric is not very wise (and this is why I don't particularly support him as High-King) but he would be able to wage a successful war against the Dominion if done right (and he's wise enough to see what needs to be done) And for right now that's more important. Given the Nordic culture, Ulfric makes for a better king than Torygg does. He doesn't make the ideal Nordic king, but he's far better than Torygg, who was neither wise nor strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) The strengths that a king needs are not the widely admired (in our world) but ultimately prosaic ones such as the ability to "spin" events/facts to reflect best on you (generic "you") or your interpretation. They are not the skills of making people happy or compromise or oratory or skateboarding. They are not any of the variations of misdirection. Confidence (even 'arrogance" by contemporary definitions), is a strength required by Kings. The ability to make decisions and carry them forward is a royal strength...the ability to make those decisions at the drop of a hat and not second guess yourself, endlessly and ad nauseum, only adds lustre. Even ruthlessness is a regal strength. Strategic and tactical thinking is a strength of Kings. The ability to take the long view is a very desirable strength. And the willingness to give up a normal life and carry the emotional and spiritual burdens of all those people who are counting on you is perhaps the greatest. In Celtic mythology, the King is the sacrifice. He sacrifices himself for his people. Edited June 7, 2012 by MacSuibhne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 In our world, the notion of a monarch is outdated. What a king would do in Skyrim (and back in our own middle ages) is generally not what the remaining monarch's do now. The responsibilities and duties are dramatically different, and while some basic tenants are still there, the actual spirit of the monarch is long-gone. And I disagree that a king needs the ability to spin the flow of information between his rule and his people to be successful. Truly if a king needs that then he is no king but a pretender. Call it a romantic expectation of the monarch, but it is not so foolish to expect a king to be a man of courage and strength. A person who can stand above our lesser natures and do what he has to without sacrificing his own integrity. But I think the single greatest thing a king or indeed any leader could ever realize and accept, is that what he is doing is not a job or a tool for his personal greed or amusement. It's a public service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 And I disagree that a king needs the ability to spin the flow of information between his rule and his people to be successful. Truly if a king needs that then he is no king but a pretender. Call it a romantic expectation of the monarch, but it is not so foolish to expect a king to be a man of courage and strength. A person who can stand above our lesser natures and do what he has to without sacrificing his own integrity. Sorry if I wasn't clear...read that paragraph again... I agree with you and that's the point I was trying to make. The ability to "spin" is almost a requirement for any kind of leadership position today...so much so that even people who don't aspire to positions of leadership adopt the basic posture of spinning everything to suit their own world view. That's how we get the "Ulfric is a racist" bombast. But again I agree any King that needs to spin is a pretender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Ah I see. I do tend to mis-read things. :sweat: But yes, it is true. A true leader would let the ultimate truth of his position be his weapon. He wouldn't try so hard to undermine his opposition just because his own position couldn't hope to stand on its own. I'm personally still waiting for the presidential candidate whose willing to have some....fiber...and kick politics right in the ass. The first candidate I see that will go on air and tell the media to go do something that matters (to put it in a non-vulgar manner) will get my vote in a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StayFrosty05 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Ah I see. I do tend to mis-read things. :sweat: But yes, it is true. A true leader would let the ultimate truth of his position be his weapon. He wouldn't try so hard to undermine his opposition just because his own position couldn't hope to stand on its own. I'm personally still waiting for the presidential candidate whose willing to have some....fiber...and kick politics right in the ass. The first candidate I see that will go on air and tell the media to go do something that matters (to put it in a non-vulgar manner) will get my vote in a second. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that in the real world....Australia (where I am) has had two Prime Ministers attempt something like that, not quite as noble of course, but as close as their going to get....and those two Prime Ministers didn't last long, though the last one was the one responsible for Australia not going into recession as the rest of the first world did, he was politically dispatched soon after his good work and standing up to the bullies, as was the first. As for Ulfric, I do believe he would make a good General, but as a King definitely not....I see the Empire or Ulfric choice as something akin to between a rock and a hard place, neither is a good choice...both choose to 'bully' to achieve their end, instead of choosing to demonstrate themselves as the better choices/leaders....examples being Ulfric killing the High King and the Empire going to war with a province that wishes to secede, thus both revealing themselves as less than palatable choices....having to strong arm it as neither is that credible any other way. But the choices we have been given in Skyrim are the only choices we have and so we work with what we have despite the massive flaws exhibited by both parties....as such I personally side with the Empire, as to why? Eventually the Provinces will have to go back to war with the Thalmor and though the Empire has lost once before, a united front is still the best chance Tamriel has to defeat the Thalmor.....a broken Tamriel leaves no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) I don't see any reasons given to support the notion that Ulfric would not make a good king. Historically there are probably as many examples of good military leaders making good (note I didn't say "benevolent") heads of state as not...especially in an autocratic context. In the US, we automatically think of Ulysses Grant or Dwight Eisenhower, but almost all kings in the archaic era were warriors first. Beyond all that however, no one knows how any person will perform when given the responsibilities of national leadership. I know of no set of metrics that can predict how a person will do as king or prime minister or president. Churchill is a good example of that. Often the times make the man. Given that--that absence of parameters, so to speak--it just comes down to opinion and speculation...both of which, having no empirical foundation are just as apt to be wrong as right. Edited June 7, 2012 by MacSuibhne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modder3434 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 People saying that a king needs to be strong are correct, but their are different types of strength. Just because Ulfric had better combat skills then the Toryyg doesn't mean he will be a better king. example from Game of Thrones; Robert was an awesome fighter but he was a horrible king in every other regard, which quite frankly are the areas that matter. This whole ironborn mentality most of you have about paying the iron price for a crown only is relevant when you would be a better king then the current one which Ulric is clearly not. In general the great capacity as a warrior lends itself to a great capacity for being a great military leader, which is one of two thing's that makes a great king. And Ulfric is certainly both. Ulfric is not very wise (and this is why I don't particularly support him as High-King) but he would be able to wage a successful war against the Dominion if done right (and he's wise enough to see what needs to be done) And for right now that's more important. Given the Nordic culture, Ulfric makes for a better king than Torygg does. He doesn't make the ideal Nordic king, but he's far better than Torygg, who was neither wise nor strong. i should have clarified, I don't think torygg was a good king, and replacing one bad king with another one doesn't help. " well who should be king modder?" the answer is no one. the empire is the way to go. I don't see any reasons given to support the notion that Ulfric would not make a good king. Historically there are probably as many examples of good military leaders making good (note I didn't say "benevolent") heads of state as not...especially in an autocratic context. In the US, we automatically think of Ulysses Grant or Dwight Eisenhower, but almost all kings in the archaic era were warriors first. Beyond all that however, no one knows how any person will perform when given the responsibilities of national leadership. I know of no set of metrics that can predict how a person will do as king or prime minister or president. Churchill is a good example of that. Often the times make the man. Given that--that absence of parameters, so to speak--it just comes down to opinion and speculation...both of which, having no empirical foundation are just as apt to be wrong as right. don't include Grant in that example. he was a great general, but he failed at everything else he did, including being the president of the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 don't include Grant in that example. he was a great general, but he failed at everything else he did, including being the president of the USA. I understand that...I own and have read about every major work written about the Civil War--Foote, Catton, Lewis, McPhereson, and numerous others...I recognize Grant was a mediocre president. Many claim Eisenhower was a so-so president, as well. The point I was trying to make is that generals probably don't do well as leaders of democracies. Churchill was a good, maybe even great war-time leader but as soon as the war was over the Brits turned him out. But Skyrim is not a democracy...no government in Tamriel is a democracy, as far as I know. They are all autocracies. Generals do far better as leaders of autocracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts