Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King

[Deleted4666244User]

my original point when i started posting here is that i thought that Ulfric may have went a little to rash in Killing the high king, when there were other options for him to follow.

[BrettM]

Like others, I have to question whether Torygg was really the High King involved with Ulfric's arrest. At one point Ulfric says it was "the High King" who allowed the Dunmer into Skyrim, and some people make the mistake of thinking that he means Torygg because they don't connect that statement with the fact that the Dunmer became refugees more than 150 years before the time of the game. A similar mistake could have been made by whoever wrote that UESP article. I know of no canonical source that explicitly states that Torygg was High King at the time of the Markarth Incident. Sybile Stentor's dialog seems to indicate that he was not, but stops short of making this a certainty. We do not know for an absolute fact whether the High King in question was Torygg or his father by any firm evidence I've seen, and the UESP article in question cites no references containing such evidence. I can't place any reliance on it under those circumstances, though I think it's going a bit far to brand the article fanboi fanfic. Simple sloppy scholarship is enough to explain the problem with it.

 

But I'm not sure it matters, unless one is trying to pin most or all of the blame for the Markarth Incident on Igmund and/or Torygg. I believe there is plenty of evidence that this is not the case. I think it is a logical certainty that the Empire was more than pleased with Ulfric's action in reclaiming the Reach, whether there is any evidence of their explicit involvement before the fact or not. Ulfric had their tacit consent, at least, beforehand and their collusion afterward.

 

To the extent that we can believe the biased author of The Bear of Markarth, it WAS the Empire -- not Igmund -- that agreed to allow Talos worship as the price of Ulfric doing the dirty work that they were too weak to do themselves at the end of the Great War.

 

So when a "grateful" Empire accepted Ulfric's victory and sent soldiers to re-establish the rule of law in the Reach, it was no surprise that he would demand to be allowed to worship Talos freely before the Legion could enter. With chaos running through the streets of Markarth and the reports of deaths rising every day, the Empire had no choice but to grant Ulfric and his men their worship.

 

The author is unable to disguise the fact that the Empire made a deal with Ulfric. There is no mention of an agreement with Igmund. The best he can do is try to propagandize the situation, putting scare quotes around "grateful" and making it appear that the Empire was concerned with nothing more than defending the poor, suffering Reachmen against the war crimes of the lawless Ulfric. According to the author, Ulfric was somehow able to use the tender feelings of the Empire to blackmail them into agreement with his demands. The author is nothing but another apologist trying to suck up to the Thalmor and divert blame from the Empire. Awww, poor wittle Empire! How can they be blamed for risking war with the Thalmor to save the Reachmen? The Empire only agreed to a treaty violation because mean old Ulfric made them!

 

The Empire made no attempt to give the Reach back to Madenach after they repudiated Ulfric, demonstrating that they had been negotiating with Madenach out of weakness rather than a heartfelt desire to see the Reach free of Skyrim. Anyone who thinks that the Empire restored, or even tried to restore, "rule of law" to Markarth is not paying attention to their own experiences there. Arrianus Arius's spin control on these points just falls apart in the face of our own observations. Can we really trust an apologist like Arius to be fully truthful in reporting that the agreement with Ulfric was only after the fact? I think this is open to serious doubt.

 

When Ulfric restored the pre-war status quo in the Reach, the Empire was truly happy to accept it, and I have no doubt that they were equally happy to give Ulfric the reward he wanted, treaty or no. The Empire tried to pull a fast one on the Thalmor, and then they threw Ulfric -- and all of Skyrim -- under the Thalmor bus when they were caught, proclaiming that Ulfric made them do it. Trying to minimize the role of the Empire while emphasizing the actions of Igmund and Torygg seems like a serious distortion of the affair.

[imperistan]

Wow, this thread. More attacking each other than attacking the actual issues. Literally debating the terms of the debate.

 

But that's the thing though, using the Thu'um against a person that was known to respect you, and would have probably done what you said anyways, only shows to people Ulfrc is a giant ass.

 

Perhaps, but this forgets the entire point of the duel, and regardless the High King was going to be deposed in one way or another. He was no general and politically he relies heavily on the Empire for his position so if he can't hold it militarily eventually its going to be taken from him, either by Ulfric or someone else. Fact of the matter is, the High King was going to lose his throne if the Empire was rebelled against. Ulfric doing what he did during the duel only asserts his claim to that vacant throne.

 

i am sorry Mac, but can you point out a MEDIEVAL example of your thought that religious freedom beats all citizens being safe from bandits.

 

Sorry, but Tamriel doesn't work like that. Its actually more accurate to look at the situation in Tamriel as the European crusaders coming to the Middle East, except the actual reasons for the wars are swapped. Instead of a land grab veiled in religious zeal, its religious zeal veiled in a land grab.

 

The nations of Tamriel and the cities within them all have their own methods and practices of policing within their borders. The Legion isn't and never was the sole defensive force within the Empire, as it served more as peacekeeping between provinces and as the Emperor's personal army than the city guard for every city in the Empire.

 

here is how i see siding with the empire is at least a good idea:

 

The Redguards won't join the entity that originally abandoned them to be completely destroyed. Khajiit have never and in all liklihood never will actually fight for the Dominion.

 

Everything else you said was your own invention.

 

i am not questioning anyone's personal choice, it is just that i personally cannot stand for religious freedom when it runs the risk of the non-natives being treated as second class citizens and having to protect themselves from bandits by hiring nord mercenaries who care only about the gold or fighting for themselves when they cannot rely on their government which seems so bent on focusing on honor and the nordic way that non-nords look like wimps who do not need protection because the do not "deserve" it

 

To quote one Martin Niemöller:

 

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

 

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

 

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

also has anyone thought that siding with the Stormcloaks makes one a hypocrite, y'know with the Forsworn and all (they can't worship their own gods, but the nords want to worship theirs)? also wouldn't living what a god represents=worship? if so, then every nordic warrior is guilty of it. empire and stormcloak alike.

 

They can worship their own gods. The problem was all in who occupied what land. Religion had nothing to do with it.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but fanfic doesn't override what's actually in the game. Just because someone on a wiki made up some stuff about that, doesn't mean anything. Point out where it is said in the game, or in official canon materials, or basically who cares?

 

lol

 

You only need to enter Windhelm to witness it, you know? So try Suvaris Atheron for a start. It's also very clear that the guards overlook that harassment, and generally don't do much to help the dark elves

 

All that says is that there are two drunken racist beggars who roam the streets at night being racist. In a feudal society, these men aren't actually doing anything worthy of the guards nor the Jarl's time. They aren't attacking anyone physically and they aren't doing any property damage.

 

Also, I think I should point out that the Dunmer are self-governed in their "slum". If those beggars are a problem, they have every right to deal with them on their own. Source: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Decree_of_Monument

 

So again, the Dunmer make their own slum. That Decree alone proves it, and unless you have an objective reason for denying the legitimacy of that Decree (and I know you won't), you must accept this and concede defeat on this matter.

 

inb4denouncesourcebecauseitclearlydisprovesthatthedunmeractuallyhaveaproblemotherthantheirownlaziness.

 

But anyway, even fish-wife gossip in game is more canon than stuff pulled out of the butt by some fan.

 

Not if you take it at face value it isn't. If you're going to use gossip and what not as a source, you need to get rid of all the bias within it. Otherwise your source is worthless. With bias gone, you can at least derive some sort of truth from it.

 

BS. Something being the simplest explanation is what makes it the preferred one under Occam's razor.

 

Problem is is that Occam's Razor doesn't apply. Nothing about these issues are simple, and especially not to the point where any one explanation (note that by explantions I mean explanations that are actaully thought out, fully encompassing (as in going from when this all started straight to where we are now) and well supported. Not one-off pseudo-arguments that aren't explained at all nor supported other than through the emotional weight of the sentences) can really be said to be more simpler (without going into a severe issue of semantics that is) than another.

 

To the extent that we can believe the biased author of The Bear of Markarth, it WAS the Empire -- not Igmund -- that agreed to allow Talos worship as the price of Ulfric doing the dirty work that they were too weak to do themselves at the end of the Great War.

 

And Torygg is a vassal of the Emperor. There is a very clear chain of command and in this case its the actions of that entire chain, not just part of it, that were wrong. Regardless of Torygg's actual amount of involvement, he was still responsible for what happened, just as everyone else who could have put a stop to it (as what happened was wrong) is responsible for it.

[fraquar]

Well, considering the Nords even treat their own with disdain until they prove themselves, I'm not sure where the argument is going here. Not just in Windhelm but most of Skyrim, you aren't getting special treatment till you prove yourself.

 

so the Nords are free to treat the Dunmer as second-class citizens while Ulfric just lets them until the Dunmer do something? i know what would happen: the dunmer start killing Nords=>Dunmer getting arrested=>more Nord murders at the hands of Dunmer=>Windhelm Being destroyed by infighting.

 

also Adrienne in Whterun post-stormcloak victory begs to differ, without her husband, the stormcloaks won't even talk to her.

 

I'm a second class citizen till I prove myself. The Dunmer complain about not being able to buy property, yet I have to basically win the Civil War AND find a serial killer. Sounds like the Dunmer simply aren't doing enough to prove themselves - not all of them though because there are a couple merchants.

[SFBryan18]

I didn't read the thread...

 

The fact that it was fair combat and a Nord tradition was enough justification.

 

Beyond that, the fact that the High King was allowing the ban of Talos was enough justification for the challenge.

[Moraelin]

To quote one Martin Niemöller:

 

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

 

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

 

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

But again, the same can be said about the ones squeezing the elves into a ghetto. In fact, it's funny you should mention coming for the Jews, since, as I already mentioned, the Nazis rationalized it as RACE thing, not a religious thing. In fact, the Nazi propaganda often stressed that baptism doesn't turn a Jew into a non-Jew. Also, you know, funnily enough, when they did came for the Jews. it was first to move them out of the gentile businesses and the gentile parts of the town. The Wannsee Conference and the plan to actually exterminate the Jews didn't come until 1942. Until then, at the time when they came after the Jews before coming for Niemöller (which happened in 1937, some 5 years before 1942), what they came to do with those Jews were ideas like kicking them out of businesses. Then came such "why can't they just go somewhere else?" plans as the Madagascar Plan, but even that was signed after Niemöller's arrest and the moment when Niemöller thought he should have spoke out. And then ideas like squeezing them into ghettos, the most famous being the Warsaw Ghetto, but even that was one step later.

 

It's offensive and stupid to use THAT quote in support of a junta which does squeeze people into a ghetto for being the wrong race. You know, actually going two steps further than even the Nazis had at the time when Niemöller thinks he should have spoken against it.

 

Not that it's any surprise to see those trying to use that kind of emotionally-charged BS propaganda not actually know what they're talking about...

 

You only need to enter Windhelm to witness it, you know? So try Suvaris Atheron for a start. It's also very clear that the guards overlook that harassment, and generally don't do much to help the dark elves

 

All that says is that there are two drunken racist beggars who roam the streets at night being racist. In a feudal society, these men aren't actually doing anything worthy of the guards nor the Jarl's time. They aren't attacking anyone physically and they aren't doing any property damage.

 

Also, I think I should point out that the Dunmer are self-governed in their "slum". If those beggars are a problem, they have every right to deal with them on their own. Source: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Decree_of_Monument

 

So again, the Dunmer make their own slum. That Decree alone proves it, and unless you have an objective reason for denying the legitimacy of that Decree (and I know you won't), you must accept this and concede defeat on this matter.

 

Since you're the one who brought up the Niemöller quote, I'll point out that the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were also free to govern THEMSELVES. It doesn't follow that they had any power to govern anyone ELSE or enforce their rules on anyone else. Nor does it make the fact that they were forced into a ghetto less of an injustice.

 

Ditto for the dunmer here. Not only there is nothing to indicate that that "self-govern" extends to any other race being a nuisance in their quarter, but everyone who has anything relevant to say indicates that they're still dependent on the guards and the Jarl when they need something enforced.

 

Basically I don't have to accept and concede anything that's based just on your being unable to read and comprehend simple English.

 

inb4denouncesourcebecauseitclearlydisprovesthatthedunmeractuallyhaveaproblemotherthantheirownlaziness.

 

Cute, but trying to be insulting doesn't change the fact that you don't actually have valid sources. Being condescending isn't an alternative to supporting your claims, and isn't turning some glorified fan-fic into a valid source. So show your evidence or get lost, really.

 

But anyway, even fish-wife gossip in game is more canon than stuff pulled out of the butt by some fan.

 

Not if you take it at face value it isn't. If you're going to use gossip and what not as a source, you need to get rid of all the bias within it. Otherwise your source is worthless. With bias gone, you can at least derive some sort of truth from it.

 

I'll point you at the Argument From Incredulity and at that the Ad Hominem Circumstantial fallacies. What disproves some information is information to the contrary, not just your rationalizing why you disbelieve some or all of it.

 

Those sources MAY be wrong, but what disproves it is other information from a canon source. Your failure to understand basic logic doesn't turn your own handwaving into an acceptable canon source, and doesn't make your delusions a valid alternative to what's actually in the game.

 

BS. Something being the simplest explanation is what makes it the preferred one under Occam's razor.

 

Problem is is that Occam's Razor doesn't apply. Nothing about these issues are simple, and especially not to the point where any one explanation (note that by explantions I mean explanations that are actaully thought out, fully encompassing (as in going from when this all started straight to where we are now) and well supported. Not one-off pseudo-arguments that aren't explained at all nor supported other than through the emotional weight of the sentences) can really be said to be more simpler (without going into a severe issue of semantics that is) than another.

 

Not really. What you just said is just that you don't understand Occam either.

 

Occam is a general principle that applies to anything, from "why did an accorn fall on my head", to social effects, to quantum mechanics, to everything. The thought out explanation that goes on for pages, is simply to be discarded, if it doesn't actually have DATA that it explains, and the simpler one doesn't. Just bloviating nonsense for pages and pages doesn't make a theory have more merit. What matters is whether there is data that the simpler one doesn't explain. Do you have any?

 

E.g., if I take a walk in an apple orchard when the apples are ripe, and an apple falls on my head, between the following explanations:

 

1. It just fell off the branch above me, and

 

2. The Illuminati hired the Dragon Ninja clan from Japan to buy an apple from the USSR, fly it over here, and drop it unseen on my head as a warning.

 

If there is no data that #1 can't explain, then go with #1. Now if you have some extra data that #1 doesn't explain, like, say, it's an apple sort that totally doesn't match the trees there and it has Japanese letters painted on it, THEN #2 might have some merit. But otherwise, just because someone put some pointless and unsupported extra thought into #2 just means they have an active imagination, not that #2 has more merit.

 

Same here. If the simplest explanation is that the Stormcloaks are racist, then that's it. Incredulity and writing whole pages of unsupported nonsense don't matter for anything. IF there is anything in the game that, for example, shows them to actually be a lot more equal minded and helpful to those guys in the Grey Quarter, now THAT would be a reason to look for a more complex explanation. But as long as both explain the same things, the simpler one wins every time. It's that simple.

[imperistan]

But again, the same can be said about the ones squeezing the elves into a ghetto.

 

Except no one is being squeezed into a "ghetto". The quarter is land within the city walls set aside for the original Dunmer refugees, to be self-governed with no obligation to any Jarl in Skyrim. There is literally no room in the city for the Dunmer other than what was already set aside for them.

 

The fact that the Dunmer don't have to do anything and still retain their rights and control over the quarter is justification enough for Ulfric not to bother doing much for them.

 

The Grey Quarter was originally a refugee camp, and in many ways still is. It isn't Ulfric's obligation to turn it into the Elven Garden, and especially not so when it generally doesn't even fall under his jurisdiction. Ulfrics only real, substantial charge and obligation to the Grey Quarter is its defense from hostile invaders. Nothing else. (And before you say it, no, a couple of drunken, racist beggars do not count as foreign invaders)

 

In fact, it's funny you should mention coming for the Jews, since, as I already mentioned, the Nazis rationalized it as RACE thing, not a religious thing

 

Its funny that you're assuming this has any relevance and that you're also missing the point pretty hard. The Neimoller quote makes the point I was making: that ignoring persecution just because it doesn't affect you personally is going to be your ruin. The Thalmor want to eventually reverse mankinds ascension into importance (and probably just reverse mankind period) and the elimination of the worship of Talos (Talos essentially being the patron god of Mankind, mind you) is the first step in that plan.

 

And besides that, you completely miss the point of the analogy with the Nazi's. We compare the Thalmor with the Nazi's because they are essentially the same sort of entities. The Nazi's killed because of race, the Thalmor because of religion. Its two vastly similar entities doing largely the same things but for different though very, very similar reasons.

 

Since you're the one who brought up the Niemöller quote, I'll point out that the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were also free to govern THEMSELVES. It doesn't follow that they had any power to govern anyone ELSE or enforce their rules on anyone else. Nor does it make the fact that they were forced into a ghetto less of an injustice.

 

The Jews =/= Dunmer, and what power was given to the Jews is the exact opposite of what was given to the Dunmer. See above for the differences.

 

And again, no one is forced to live there.

 

Not only there is nothing to indicate that that "self-govern" extends to any other race being a nuisance in their quarter, but everyone who has anything relevant to say indicates that they're still dependent on the guards and the Jarl when they need something enforced.

 

Which again proves the Dunmer's own laziness. The Dunmer are naturally some of the more capable people on Tamriel. They could easily raise their own guard if they took the iniative. But if they took the initiative, rather than sit around and whine when they're fortunate to even have a place to live (that they don't have to do anything to have mind you), then they wouldn't need to raise their own guard because Ulfric won't spare any, but because their new city needs a garrison.

 

Basically I don't have to accept and concede anything that's based just on your being unable to read and comprehend simple Englis.

 

Nice, throwing around insults when I've insulted no one.

 

Cute, but trying to be insulting doesn't change the fact that you don't actually have valid sources.

 

As I predicted, you denounce the source yet don't explain why its illegitimate.

 

What disproves some information is information to the contrary, not just your rationalizing why you disbelieve some or all of it.

 

Ulfric says the duel was legimate. Elisif says it wasn't. Some say Ulfric's a loon, some a hero among men. Some say the Dunmer are just lazy, others persecuted. Some say the Imperials are good, some say they're bad.

 

What, precisely, disproves what? Sorry to break it to you, but he-said, she-said doesn't work as evidence.

 

Same here. If the simplest explanation is that the Stormcloaks are racist, then that's it. Incredulity and writing whole pages of unsupported nonsense don't matter for anything. IF there is anything in the game that, for example, shows them to actually be a lot more equal minded and helpful to those guys in the Grey Quarter, now THAT would be a reason to look for a more complex explanation. But as long as both explain the same things, the simpler one wins every time. It's that simple.

 

Or it just proves that you're missing the entire point of this topic and don't want to actually debate (HINT: Debates aren't short and simple).

 

And I'm not getting into how I"ve already supported much of what I've said. Sorry if I don't write out a bibliography with every post but this topic has been going on for 50+ pages. If you want my sources, read through the topic. I"m not listing them every time someone new hops into the topic for a couple pages, probably without even reading the rest of the topic.

[BrettM]

If the simplest explanation is that the Stormcloaks are racist, then that's it.

The problem here is circular reasoning. Why are the Argonians kept out of the city? Ulfric is a racist. How do we know he's a racist? He keeps the Argonians out of the city.

 

Brunwulf also keeps the Argonians out of the city. If the simplest explanation for this is racism, then Brunwulf is also a racist. If there is some non-racist explanation for Brunwulf's restriction, then why doesn't it apply equally well to Ulfric?

 

(This is not a matter of the developers failing to carry through on changes following an Imperial victory, stopping the story before such changes would have time to take effect. Brunwulf is deliberately continuing Ulfric's restriction by his own statement. If he takes the throne, you can ask him if he intends to allow the Argonians into the city.)

[SFBryan18]

Fact: The Thalmor are also racist.

 

The only difference is that the Stormcloaks aren't shoving their religion down everyone else's throat.

[FreeeLancer]

Which again proves the Dunmer's own laziness. The Dunmer are naturally some of the more capable people on Tamriel. They could easily raise their own guard if they took the iniative. But if they took the initiative, rather than sit around and whine when they're fortunate to even have a place to live (that they don't have to do anything to have mind you), then they wouldn't need to raise their own guard because Ulfric won't spare any, but because their new city needs a garrison.

Just for the sake of an argument, what do you think would happen if Dunmer really created their own guard and threw the drunken racist Nords in the brig for public disorder, harassment and assault on a officer of law (the drunken guys pick a fight with Dragonborn, I think they'd be quite happy to have a chance to take some of their drunken anger on darkies given proper incentive). How do you think this hypothetical, yet not unlikely event would influence actions and opinions of local Nords, Windhelm authorities and Ulfric himself ?

 

 

EDIT: But if dem niggs took the initiative, rather than sit around and whine about living in the ghetto (that they don't have to do anything to have mind you), they'd make their own city with blackjack and hookers with their own garrison and rules..

Edited July 9, 2012 by FreeeLancer