Ulfric used the "Disarm" Shout on the High King!

[BrettM]

I was not aware that Ulfric knew two shouts. All the Lore I have seen indicates he only knows one.

I had believed he only knew Unrelenting Force myself, but on my current character-in-progress I saw Rikke trying to box Ulfric and Galmar after Ulfric Shouted at her. Up until then she was using a weapon. What other explanation is there, since the only other person in the room who knows how to Shout -- me -- was staying out of the fight from reluctance to make it three-on-one?

[MacSuibhne]

I don't know if there is another explanation...I wondered if you had one. Or if you were certain it was Disarm.

[Deleted4666244User]

i believe that even then Ulfric wanted to be High King, and Killed Torygg to prove that the High king is now no more than a figurehead. Look at a real world example of that: United Kingdom, they are doing pretty well. point is Ulfic is one man who wants to relive the Glory days of the Nordic people.

[MacSuibhne]

At best, Skyrim is equivalent to 10th century Gotaland or Scotland, or perhaps England. In all these places and all such circumstances, the King is essentially all-powerful.

 

I might add that wanting to be High King...esp. when the current High King is playing doormat for the Thalmor...could be seen as self-sacrificing rather than self-aggrandizing. Ulfric says that if he could withdraw from the world he would. He also says that he doesn't want to be High King.

 

Parenthetically, in Celtic Tradition, the King is considered a sacrifice for his people.

 

But bottom line, wanting to be High King in an era and a milieu in which an individual...esp. one with vision, strength, and determination...can make a difference, can shape the future, is not necessarily such a bad thing.

[Deleted4666244User]

At best, Skyrim is equivalent to 10th century Gotaland or Scotland, or perhaps England. In all these places and all such circumstances, the King is essentially all-powerful.

 

I might add that wanting to be High King...esp. when the current High King is playing doormat for the Thalmor...could be seen as self-sacrificing rather than self-aggrandizing. Ulfric says that if he could withdraw from the world he would. He also says that he doesn't want to be High King.

 

Parenthetically, in Celtic Tradition, the King is considered a sacrifice for his people.

 

But bottom line, wanting to be High King in an era and a milieu in which an individual...esp. one with vision, strength, and determination...can make a difference, can shape the future, is not necessarily such a bad thing.

 

and yet, the Jarls each rule their hold independent of the High King....so i still say that the High King is a figurehead more than a real monarch. :ermm:

[imperistan]

At best, Skyrim is equivalent to 10th century Gotaland or Scotland, or perhaps England. In all these places and all such circumstances, the King is essentially all-powerful.

 

I might add that wanting to be High King...esp. when the current High King is playing doormat for the Thalmor...could be seen as self-sacrificing rather than self-aggrandizing. Ulfric says that if he could withdraw from the world he would. He also says that he doesn't want to be High King.

 

Parenthetically, in Celtic Tradition, the King is considered a sacrifice for his people.

 

But bottom line, wanting to be High King in an era and a milieu in which an individual...esp. one with vision, strength, and determination...can make a difference, can shape the future, is not necessarily such a bad thing.

 

and yet, the Jarls each rule their hold independent of the High King....so i still say that the High King is a figurehead more than a real monarch. :ermm:

 

In a time when the High King's position is largely redundant perhaps (because of the Empire) but back when Skyrim was still an independent nation? Certainly not.

[Deleted4666244User]

At best, Skyrim is equivalent to 10th century Gotaland or Scotland, or perhaps England. In all these places and all such circumstances, the King is essentially all-powerful.

 

I might add that wanting to be High King...esp. when the current High King is playing doormat for the Thalmor...could be seen as self-sacrificing rather than self-aggrandizing. Ulfric says that if he could withdraw from the world he would. He also says that he doesn't want to be High King.

 

Parenthetically, in Celtic Tradition, the King is considered a sacrifice for his people.

 

But bottom line, wanting to be High King in an era and a milieu in which an individual...esp. one with vision, strength, and determination...can make a difference, can shape the future, is not necessarily such a bad thing.

 

and yet, the Jarls each rule their hold independent of the High King....so i still say that the High King is a figurehead more than a real monarch. :ermm:

 

In a time when the High King's position is largely redundant perhaps (because of the Empire) but back when Skyrim was still an independent nation? Certainly not.

 

even then, the High King would most likely be in charge of mostly diplomatic issues and laws that pertain to the whole kingdom, but in the individual holds, forget the High King, he is not the boss of what happens to you unless you are already known to him....

[imperistan]

At best, Skyrim is equivalent to 10th century Gotaland or Scotland, or perhaps England. In all these places and all such circumstances, the King is essentially all-powerful.

 

I might add that wanting to be High King...esp. when the current High King is playing doormat for the Thalmor...could be seen as self-sacrificing rather than self-aggrandizing. Ulfric says that if he could withdraw from the world he would. He also says that he doesn't want to be High King.

 

Parenthetically, in Celtic Tradition, the King is considered a sacrifice for his people.

 

But bottom line, wanting to be High King in an era and a milieu in which an individual...esp. one with vision, strength, and determination...can make a difference, can shape the future, is not necessarily such a bad thing.

 

and yet, the Jarls each rule their hold independent of the High King....so i still say that the High King is a figurehead more than a real monarch. :ermm:

 

In a time when the High King's position is largely redundant perhaps (because of the Empire) but back when Skyrim was still an independent nation? Certainly not.

 

even then, the High King would most likely be in charge of mostly diplomatic issues and laws that pertain to the whole kingdom, but in the individual holds, forget the High King, he is not the boss of what happens to you unless you are already known to him....

 

Oh no, he'd still be the last word. Its just a matter of whether he's going to bother to be there to give it.

[MacSuibhne]

"But as mighty and influential as each individual Jarl is, Skyrim's true power comes from the strength of its High King. The High King is ruler above all, and is always one of the Jarls, selected by a body called the "Moot" - a specially convened council of all the Jarls, who meet with the express purpose of choosing Skyrim's High King. Or so it is, in theory.

 

The reality, however, is that the High King swears fealty to the Emperor, and as Solitude is the city most directly influenced by Imperial culture and politics, the Jarl of Solitude has served as High King for generations. The Moot, therefore, is more formality and theater than anything else." Skyrim's Rule: An Outsider's View by Abdul-Mujib Ababneh

 

I'm not sure how it works in Skyrim but in Norse culture Jarls owed their positions to the High King and could be deposed or otherwise marginalized. If nothing else, if you didn't curry the King's favour you would not get the Trade or might have prejudicial laws passed against you and someone...maybe an uncle or a brother would sooner or later challenge you.

 

In Skyrim all Jarls all swear fealty to the King...who swears fealty to the Emperor. Jarls do have a degree of independence..but it is based more on travel times and communication lags that inherent authority.

"...by the reign of King Borgas, the last of the Ysgramor dynasty, the Moot had become partisan and ineffective. Upon the murder of King Borgas by the Wild Hunt (see Aldmeri Dominion - Valenwood), the Moot's failure to appoint the obvious and capable Jarl Hanse of Winterhold sparked the disastrous Skyrim War of Succession, during which Skyrim lost control of its territories in High Rock, Morrowind, and Cyrodiil, never to regain them. The war was finally concluded in 1E420 with the Pact of Chieftans; henceforth, the Moot was convened only when a King died without direct heirs, and it has fulfilled this more limited role admirably. It has only been called upon three times in the intervening millenia, and the Skyrim succession has never again been disputed on the field of battle."Pocket Guide to the Empire, 1st Edition

Edited June 20, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[Deleted4666244User]

how it used to be does not really matter to me. currently the Jarls rule their holds individually, and the High King is just a Vassal for Imperial rule. that is how it has been for Centuries and how i personally feel it should be as imperial soldiers, if both them and Stormcloak soldiers are the same level/training would kill the Stormcloaks due to the imperials having better gear...