Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King

[MacSuibhne]

Yes, some of the books are based on conjecture and some are even Imperial propaganda...such as The Bear of Markarth...but I would suggest that in the game, as in real life, there is a hierarchy of credibility. The Lore is as close to credible as we can get, I think. The dossier exists but is written by a biased Thalmor interrogator. How suspect is that?

 

The opinions of bystanders allied with a particular faction are always suspect...that's not to say they are wrong but they are very low on the scale of credibility, and need verification from unbiased sources. And unasked for opinions from random encounters are almost moot.

 

On the road just outside of Windhelm I ran across a dark elf (?) farmer/walker who said he was headed to Windhelm to join the Stormcloaks... Ulfric Stormclaok "has the right of it", he said. Puzzling that a dark elf would join such a "racist" (sic) group. I don't give much weight to such encounters or the opinions expressed. There's probably many more than one such for every point of view in the game.

 

In the end...you can side with the Empire...a corrupt and morally bankrupt servant of the Thalmor--willingly advancing, even if unwittingly, the Thalmor goals of wiping all non-mer off the face of Tamriel (and if it truly is unwitting then all the more reason to reject Imperial leadership). I don't think that a real case can be made to justify the WGC, but even if it could, thirty years of status-quo is simply unconscionable.

 

Especially when you consider that even if the Stormcloaks win, ultimately all of the non-mer population of Tamriel will be forced to unite to defeat the AD. The Stormcloak Rebellion is just the beginning of that process.

Edited June 13, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[BrettM]

Lore in the Elder Scrolls universe is kind of a shifty proposition. What NPCs have to say must be discounted for possible bias, but so must the writings you encounter. Authors can disagree when talking about the same event, and can even be flagrantly wrong. For that matter, you even have to question your interpretation of things that you witness directly. Much like real life, one has to sift through competing claims and evaluate the credibility of sources to hopefully arrive at some semblence of truth, because there is no Revealed Truth to be had. The Aedra never speak to you and the Daedra are not above lies and spin. One can rarely point to something and pronounce it as the Authoritative Lore because there are usually competing versions that others can point to in refutation.

 

Given the political structure and history of Skyrim, I don't believe the High King has anything approaching absolute authority. There are surely limits on the actions that the jarls will accept without rising against him. (The same is often true in Real Life. Ask King John whether the barons regarded his authority as absolute.) This division of authority goes all the way back to the founding of Skyrim, when the 500 Companions split up into separate crews led by their captains after the re-taking of Saarthal. Ysgrammor was accounted High King, but the crews operated independently. Even today the Companions of Jorrvasker have no actual leader. Nor is the authority of the jarls anywhere near absolute within their holds given the example of Dengeir being forced to step down by the nobles of Falkreath. Skyrim has a very strong tradition of self-rule within the holds and a great deal of personal independence.

 

If Nord custom allows a jarl to challenge the High King to prove his fitness to rule, then Torryg would have been the one in violation of custom had he simply thrown Ulfric into jail. Torygg's court might have supported him in doing this, but the jarls might well have been very concerned about a High King who feels entitled to arrest jarls who have violated no existing law or custom. Whether or not Torygg has such authority technically, I don't believe he had it in practice. His only real choice was between trial by combat or trial by a Moot. He chose combat, for whatever reason.

 

The Pact of Chieftains that ended the War of Succession in the First Era established that the Moot would meet to select a High King only when a High King died without a direct heir. Thus, the Moot was not involved in Torygg taking the throne, as he was the son of the previous High King. Elisif, OTOH, is apparently not considered a "direct" heir, so the Moot is needed to confirm -- or reject -- her claim to the throne. This addresses Breakwind's claim that the Moot selected Torygg and has the ultimate power. It isn't like a sort of parliament or the old Norse Althing. Generations may go by without a Moot being called.

 

However, there is no mention in the description of this Pact of any right of challenge. Nor am I aware of any book that gives an example of such a custom being invoked against any High King in all of Skyrim's history. Ulfric's invocation of the custom may be technically right, but equivalent to relying on some old law that allows a man to beat his wife provided that he uses a leather strap no wider than two inches. Skyrim has been subject to imperial law since Tiber Septim took it into the Empire, which might void certain older customs even if the Empire has been hands-off regarding other aspects of the internal political system. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much information that would shed light on any of the questions surrounding this custom or relevant imperial law.

Edited June 13, 2012 by BrettM

[MacSuibhne]

Lore in the Elder Scrolls universe is kind of a shifty proposition. What NPCs have to say must be discounted for possible bias, but so must the writings you encounter. Authors can disagree when talking about the same event, and can even be flagrantly wrong. For that matter, you even have to question your interpretation of things that you witness directly. Much like real life, one has to sift through competing claims and evaluate the credibility of sources to hopefully arrive at some semblence of truth, because there is no Revealed Truth to be had. The Aedra never speak to you and the Daedra are not above lies and spin. One can rarely point to something and pronounce it as the Authoritative Lore because there are usually competing versions that others can point to in refutation.

 

 

I agree with you...up to a point. But you can't discount everything and that's where I see your statement leading. There is, IMO, an applicable ranking of what is dismissible out of hand and what must be...provisionally, at least...accepted as the framework around which the game was conceived and written

 

Given the political structure and history of Skyrim, I don't believe the High King has anything approaching absolute authority. There are surely limits on the actions that the jarls will accept without rising against him.

 

It isn't like a sort of parliament or the old Norse Althing. Generations may go by without a Moot being called.

 

These two statements are contradictory.

 

Either the Moot has the ability to override the High King...and involve itself in policy...or it doesn't.

 

If you know anything about Norse (not Nord) culture...which many suggest is the model for Skyrim's political system...Moots did exactly what you say they did--they selected or confirmed (often after a trial of combat) who they would accept as High King. Beyond that the King had broad powers and absolute authority. When that authority was called into question it wasn't up to the Moot to impeach the king or to replace him. That process was essentially, and always, a challenge process...often, usually to the death. In Norse culture, as well as Celtic, BTW, the High King is law...the ultimate law.

 

Beyond all that there is no evidence to support your position...at least none that you have presented. Nothing that I am aware of says that the Moot shall have any authority to make law or question the King's rulings. Their sole purpose is to come to an agreement as to whom they will follow into battle, essentially.

 

In the case of Skyrim they meet only upon the death of a king without heirs. Not exactly a body capable of creating, interpreting or rescinding law.

 

And I keep coming back to this business of "old laws" and "faded traditions"...it's popular dogma but every aspect of Western civilization is informed by ancient traditions and laws. But if those laws and traditions are not forgotten...or simply forgotten by some...they are not automatically invalid--they mean something. They mean something to a whole race of people in the case of Skyrim. Cynically declaring them passe' doesn't make it true.

Edited June 13, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[imperistan]

Did the Empire have enough to protect the entire southern border of Cyrodiil however? Watching the sea for Thalmor ships is a bit different than finding enough men to watch the northern borders of Elsweyr and Valenwood in addition to being ready for an invasion by sea.

 

Not immediately no, but they had enough that they could be comfortable gambling on there simply not being an immediate Dominion incursion until reinforcements from the North can arrive.

 

 

Considering the Dominion's maniacal goals there's little they could do that would surprise me.

 

That may be, but it still only further proves my point that the Dominion would have been hard-pressed to effectively re-invade Cyrodiil when they were already doomed to stalemate in Hammerfel without having Cyrodiil to worry about.

 

If you follow/actually read (for content) these discussions and the posts of Imperistan and if you actually read and look at the Lor

 

:wub:

[Kraeten]

However, there is no mention in the description of this Pact of any right of challenge. Nor am I aware of any book that gives an example of such a custom being invoked against any High King in all of Skyrim's history. Ulfric's invocation of the custom may be technically right, but equivalent to relying on some old law that allows a man to beat his wife provided that he uses a leather strap no wider than two inches. Skyrim has been subject to imperial law since Tiber Septim took it into the Empire, which might void certain older customs even if the Empire has been hands-off regarding other aspects of the internal political system. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much information that would shed light on any of the questions surrounding this custom or relevant imperial law.

 

I hate to ask, but does it really matter if we can't read of this particular nordic custom in detail? At the end of the day Torygg accepted the challenge. Either the Empire is unwilling to recognize the tradition, or more likely they're willing to use whatever excuse they can to maintain control over Skyrim. And they do need to, seeing as it represents not only the birth place of the Empire but also the only link Cyrodiil has to High Rock.

 

Not immediately no, but they had enough that they could be comfortable gambling on there simply not being an immediate Dominion incursion until reinforcements from the North can arrive.

 

A fair piece of speculation, but that's all it is. The Dominion still had the numbers to continue fighting Hammerfell for five years after the Great War's end. They didn't win of course, but the fact they still had such resources to spend says something for the military strength they still possessed after their crushing defeat in the Battle of the Red Ring.

 

And unlike Hammerfell, Cyrodiil doesn't have a nice desert to deter invasion from most of the east nor was their capital still in good shape like Hammerfell's Sentinel.

 

That may be, but it still only further proves my point that the Dominion would have been hard-pressed to effectively re-invade Cyrodiil when they were already doomed to stalemate in Hammerfel without having Cyrodiil to worry about.

 

That is debatable. Unlike Hammerfell, Cyrodiil's geography is much more forgiving and additionally its defenses were for the most part either destroyed or crippled by the time the war had ended.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Kraeten

[breakwind]

I suppose this debate could go on forever, and it really comes down to your own opinion as to whether you think Ulfric was right. Look at the Nords...half of them supported Ulfric's actions and half of them condemned it. If they aren't sure, being a part of Nordic culture...what hope have we?

[imperistan]

A fair piece of speculation, but that's all it is. The Dominion still had the numbers to continue fighting Hammerfell for five years after the Great War's end. They didn't win of course, but the fact they still had such resources to spend says something for the military strength they still possessed after their crushing defeat in the Battle of the Red Ring.

 

That their numbers still weren't enough to break Hammerfel says much more. Do notice that virtually all of the fighting in Hammerfel (after the Red Ring that is) would have taken place south of the Alik'r, with is fairly hospitable terrain compared to Cyrodiil, so whatever terrain advantages Hammerfel had were minimal at best compared to Cyrodiil. If the Dominion's forces couldn't do it in southern Hammerfel, they wouldn't have been able to do it in Cyrodiil, very much less when they'd have to come up with a totally new invasion army, putting strain on their entire military.

 

 

That is debatable. Unlike Hammerfell, Cyrodiil's geography is much more forgiving and additionally its defenses were for the most part either destroyed or crippled by the time the war had ended.

 

Hammerfel was just as ravaged and as I said above, the area the fighitng took place in isn't much less forgiving than Cyrodiil.

[Kraeten]

*snip* Hammerfel was just as ravaged *snip*

 

For that to be true, Hammerfell's capitol would be sacked as well.

[Brandy1123]

There is a Thalmor Dossier on Ulfric. It talks about his early days working with the Thalmor and how he moved away from their Ideals, but not so far as to be a threat. He appears to be under their direct scrutiny and observation, but not an enemy.

 

Knowing he's not an enemy of the Thalmor and his act, just or not, triggered the cival war, who better gains from it all? If you listen to all the dialect that references ulfric and the Dragonshout incident, it seems his act was within the scope of legal and customary Nord tradition. He is not hot tempered, goto his hall and listen to his conversations. It appears Tulious is the hot head.

 

What is strange about it all, is after your escape from Helgen, if you follow the Stormcloak soldier, he eventually tells a story of how it seems the imperials were waiting for them. as he states it, "Like they knew we were coming". Right or not, there is much cloak and dagger on the whole face of the unrest.

 

I tend to stay neutral in the whole war effort, but I do take the stormcloak point of view when a decision is to be made.

[Archone]

I'd like to note a few things, speaking as someone who started playing TES games back with Arena.

 

One: the Nords have always been rather... rough around the edges. If anything, they've grown more civilized since the time of Uriel Septim IV (which is when Arena through Oblivion were all set, before the sudden time jump forward to the time of the Thalmor). Heck, one of the Morrowind expansions involved coming to a Skyrim where most people lived in mead halls and fought and partied nonstop (as if all of Whiterun were to stay in the Companions' hall and think fighting with mere fists to be a warmup before the swords come out). So Ulfric's challenge was about on par with that of the Nord king who slew his brother in a duel consisting of telling his brother, "you are unfit to lead" and then SLICE!

 

The real reason the Legion is annoyed with Ulfric is because Ulfric's assault on the High King was his way to inaugurate his full bore assault on the Thalmor and renunciation of an Empire that could not protect the rights of his people. The duel was not the crime the Legion is unhappy with; the duel was merely a symbol of what they're really fighting Ulfric over; the dissolution of the Empire itself. And both sides have their own merits and arguments for and against.

 

On Ulfric's side: he fought for the Empire, served as a warrior and slew countless foes alongside brethren who could not return home with him at the end of the campaigns. Now he's watching the Thalmor he fought against oppress his people, and the Empire taking it with a smile. One of the Nine Divines has been "officially demoted" because of blatant racism on the part of the Thalmor, and every time he sees a Thalmor claim that worshipping Talos is a crime, he quite reasonably sees it as spitting on the graves of his dead comrades.

 

On the Empire's side: The Empire did not have a choice when it came to the White Gold Concordiat. To define what the Thalmor are is to risk invoking Godwin's Law. They've perpetrated genocide upon the Bosmer already. They're doing their best to do so in Hammerfell. They made it clear that they'd happily exterminate everyone in Cyrodil if the Emperor didn't submit to a truly humiliating treaty. The Empire is now trying to bide its time and rebuild its strength before returning the favor, and every Nord killed in this stupid civil war is a Nord that's not available to give a Thalmor a proctology examination with a sword. Note that if you attack a Thamor in front of loyal Imperial troops, you'll be charged... with assault. Provoke them into attacking first and they won't even charge you with that. (Even other Altmer don't like the Thalmor).

 

Against Ulfric: he's a blatant racist and a xenophobic bigot. He doesn't care about what happens to Hammerfell or Cyrodill. He doesn't consider the Dunmer or Argonians to be people, per se (which is ironic, given that the former enslaved the latter only a few centuies prior, and now both are in the same boat). He doesn't care if the Empire dissolves, so long as his own part of the continent is taken care of. That makes him the exact opposite of Tiber Septim and those who forged the Empire, those who strove for centuries to turn the continent of Tamriel into something more than a land of petty tyrants ruling over isolated city-states while the common folk lived in fear.

 

Against the Empire: they submitted to the White Gold Concordiat. Even if they did it to save lives, they're still collaborating with the Thalmor. By contrast, Hammerfell has simply gone full bore guerilla mode, and the rest of the Empire would probably join in if the Emperor called on them to do so. The Orcs and Nords and Redguards remain assault warriors beyond peer, the Khajit and Dunmer and Argonians are excellent stealth types, and the Bretons have enough magic to resist the worst of what the Thalmor can hurl at them. This was the Empire's chance to truly band together, to come together as a united nation for the first time. And... they failed to rise to the challenge. And betrayed everything that the Empire represented. You can picture a Dragonborn with a Blocking skill of 100 holding up his magic shield and roaring, "without its ideals, the Empire is nothing but a piece of mammoth dung!"

 

So it's a question of "grey versus grey." Which is exactly what Bethesda had in mind; they did a good job of making it a tricky issue. (note that the issue of whether or not to kill Thalmor isn't so tricky. NO ONE sheds tears when you kill them... :P )