Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King

[MacSuibhne]

^^ I haven't taken sides yet...but I will admit I'm leaning towards Ulfric. The only thing holding me back is sentimentality...I also would regret having to sack Whiterun.

 

The thing is that no one has made a case for the Empire or against Ulfric that is not fraught with emotion.

 

The charges that Ulfric is racist are Thalmor inpired slanders, as far as I can make out. The charges of incompetence, arrogance, unfairness, etc., are just opinion, sometimes bordering on hysteria, and not grounded in anything rational.

 

When it comes right down to it, you can't find a better example of tyranny...and absolute tyranny, involving what is nothing less than mind control...than the suppression of religious beliefs. The fact, that it is not enforced is neither here nor there. Neither the Empire nor the AD controls all of Skyrim (maybe to Ulfric's credit) but the fact that it is on the books not only says a great deal about the motives of the AD but their ultimate intentions, as well.

 

If I were a Nord, I'd feel nothing but contempt for the Empire and a certain desperate impulse to drive the Thalmor out.

 

Almost all of history's heros arise from just such motivations.

Edited May 18, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[MacSuibhne]

 

I never said anything about compromise or equivocation. But since you brought it up....

 

A. I think you need to re-learn the actual definition of compromise.

 

B. Regarding Equivocation.... we know an awful lot about the Empire's actions... we know an awful lot about Ulfric's actions.... but unless I'm mistaken we know very little about Toryg (sp?)'s policies and political actions.

 

C. If you really believe what you said about suicide, then I think you need to find more value in life, because having poor leadership is not cause to off yourself. We have some pretty poor leadership in america right now, and there were some pretty strong people who made a name for themselves persevering against terrible conditions such as nazi's, and the slavery you speak of.

 

 

As for the word "compromise" I am picking up on other people's usage. For me I would have to find a stronger word to describe the relationship that the Empire has with the AD. Chamberlain used the word compromise with regard to the Gemany. As did many others at the time.

 

But as I understand it, the Empire's pact with the Thalmor is based on compromise. People have said it repeatedly in this and other threads--"the Empire is best for Skyrim because it ensures peace and stability."

 

At what cost? The absolute tyranny of religious intolerance?

 

C...I didn't know that this thread was about me and my quality of life. Or about the state of affairs in the US today. But perhaps you are reflecting your own uncertainties. I've lived a lot of years and done a lot of (semi) interesting things. I've never had the urge to retire from the stage.

 

But societies can suicide...

[etang2]

I thinking this isn't an argument of why Ulfric was right to kill the High King but why it would have been criminal for him to have not killed him. In killing, one shhould never kill with the intention of it being right or morally just but rather kill because of the fact that it would be infintitely immoral to continue because murder itself is an immoral act and therefore it must be approached with due caution. In addition, one must consider not only the instant gratifications but also the long term payements, the extra affects rought by the act of killing. Ulfric killing the High King with the intention of freeing Skyrim but also caused a war that in reality, would have claimed the lives of thousands if not millions of people, many of them innocents. What in essence he did was sacrifice the safety of his people for freedom, a choice that I strongly believe he had absolutely no right to make based on the fact that there is no proof that he consulted these victims of war.

BEcause he made this descision of his own wind, he surenderred the moral high ground, allowing the slaughter of his own people without the general populace being able to make a descision.

[Stemin]

When it comes right down to it, you can't find a better example of tyranny...and absolute tyranny, involving what is nothing less than mind control...than the suppression of religious beliefs. The fact, that it is not enforced is neither here nor there. Neither the Empire nor the AD controls all of Skyrim (maybe to Ulfric's credit) but the fact that it is on the books not only says a great deal about the motives of the AD but their ultimate intentions, as well.

 

If I were a Nord, I'd feel nothing but contempt for the Empire and a certain desperate impulse to drive the Thalmor out.

 

Almost all of history's heros arise from just such motivations.

 

There was no real suppression of religion until Ulfric made a big stink about it. Then the Empire had little choice but to honor the contract they had already signed.

 

As for the word "compromise" I am picking up on other people's usage. For me I would have to find a stronger word to describe the relationship that the Empire has with the AD. Chamberlain used the word compromise with regard to the Gemany. As did many others at the time.

 

But as I understand it, the Empire's pact with the Thalmor is based on compromise. People have said it repeatedly in this and other threads--"the Empire is best for Skyrim because it ensures peace and stability."

 

At what cost? The absolute tyranny of religious intolerance?

 

Compromise is a very poor choice of words depending on your meaning. Since your statement was pretty vague I thought you were talking about the definition which involves both sides coming to an agreement that meets in the middle. You were apparently using it in the context in which it actually is referred to as a sacrifice such as when one refused to "compromise their dignity", or some such. I am not a historian, or an english major, but I have a feeling the second definition I gave is an adaption of the word, and a poor one, IMO.

 

There was very little compromise (definition 1) in what happened. The Empire was holding back the Thalmor, but had very little chance of winning the war. They signed the agreement with the intent to recover themselves and buy themselves time. There was no enforcement of the treaty within Skyrim until the Markarth incident where Ulfric demanded that worship of Talos be made legal. This of course resulted in his imprisonment by the Thalmor.

 

C...I didn't know that this thread was about me and my quality of life. Or about the state of affairs in the US today. But perhaps you are reflecting your own uncertainties. I've lived a lot of years and done a lot of (semi) interesting things. I've never had the urge to retire from the stage.

 

But societies can suicide...

 

Well, like I said above. You made a pretty vague statement without explaining your meaning.

 

Without taking this discussion too far off topic, I don't personally see 100% freedom of religion as being a positive thing, nor do I believe it's a necessity for human (or elven) life. I think there are obviously some religions out there that wish to promote practices that are not healthy to a society. There is also something to be said for the fact that there have probably been more people who have died in the name of religion than for any other cause.

 

Logic goes out the window and people start throwing the word "heart" around as if it justifies their actions.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Stemin

[Stemin]

I thinking this isn't an argument of why Ulfric was right to kill the High King but why it would have been criminal for him to have not killed him. In killing, one shhould never kill with the intention of it being right or morally just but rather kill because of the fact that it would be infintitely immoral to continue because murder itself is an immoral act and therefore it must be approached with due caution. In addition, one must consider not only the instant gratifications but also the long term payements, the extra affects rought by the act of killing. Ulfric killing the High King with the intention of freeing Skyrim but also caused a war that in reality, would have claimed the lives of thousands if not millions of people, many of them innocents. What in essence he did was sacrifice the safety of his people for freedom, a choice that I strongly believe he had absolutely no right to make based on the fact that there is no proof that he consulted these victims of war.

BEcause he made this descision of his own wind, he surenderred the moral high ground, allowing the slaughter of his own people without the general populace being able to make a descision.

 

I also agree with this.

[etang2]

Leadership based on physical prowess is an open invitation to tyranny.

Incorrect. Tyranny requires an unchallengably powerful frame of mind with the ability to exert absolute control over MANY people, something that physical strength may never bequeth.

Eg, Hitler.

[etang2]

Just off topic, even more. What shout did Ulfric use, if he did nearly tear him apart, because even the Dragonborn with absolute mastery over the Thuum, you can never kill someone with one Thuum.

Also, some would argue that it was cowardly for Ulfric to disarm him, either way as "The Nord Way" decrees fair combat, not disarming and killing, as one would say. This is process is derived from the Viking tradition of leadership from Strength, which bears remarkable similar traits with that of the Orcish ways/

[Stemin]

Leadership based on physical prowess is an open invitation to tyranny.

Incorrect. Tyranny requires an unchallengably powerful frame of mind with the ability to exert absolute control over MANY people, something that physical strength may never bequeth.

Eg, Hitler.

 

Tyranny only requires that you can exert your will over others. Period. Whether you back it by single handedly defeating all your enemies one on one, or convincing an army to join you and defeat others is irrelevant. The end result is the same.

[etang2]

Leadership based on physical prowess is an open invitation to tyranny.

Incorrect. Tyranny requires an unchallengably powerful frame of mind with the ability to exert absolute control over MANY people, something that physical strength may never bequeth.

Eg, Hitler.

 

Tyranny only requires that you can exert your will over others. Period. Whether you back it by single handedly defeating all your enemies one on one, or convincing an army to join you and defeat others is irrelevant. The end result is the same.

I would believe, however, that is cases where tyrants have been able to fully exert their will over a large number of people, you find very few cases where they have single handedly defeated their enemies. Scientifically, T=SxNxT

That means a Tyrants total strength would have to equal strength times number of people being oppressed by time taken as his age deteriorates.

So, I rephrase my statement.

THeoretically Incorrect, but in a practical world, tyranny by single strength is a largely impractical solution because of the nature of tyrany and the nature of strength.

[Stemin]

 

I would believe, however, that is cases where tyrants have been able to fully exert their will over a large number of people, you find very few cases where they have single handedly defeated their enemies. Scientifically, T=SxNxT

That means a Tyrants total strength would have to equal strength times number of people being oppressed by time taken as his age deteriorates.

So, I rephrase my statement.

THeoretically Incorrect, but in a practical world, tyranny by single strength is a largely impractical solution because of the nature of tyrany and the nature of strength.

 

I'm not going to argue with you anymore, but the phrase "practical world' is pretty subjective when the world is fictional. There have been many cases of single villains who built a place of power single handedly, which is usually the basis for the hero to do his thing in the story. Eragorn, LotR, X-men, etc. I could site a ton more but they would largely be considered obscure. Yes, the villain in most stories DOES have an army at his disposal, but you shouldn't overlook the fact that many of these story based armies were created out of fear. In some cases, there are even underlings who plot to take over the villains empire by overthrowing them, or through backstabbing and duplicity, and usually find out the villain is too powerful for even their top soldiers. (picture Starscream from the original transformers cartoon)

Edited May 19, 2012 by Stemin