Scorch621 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Did anyone know that if you meet ulfric in sovngarde if he died in the civil war quests he regrets his decision to rebel against the empire?If you can talk to him after you defeat alduinHe says his rebellion only weakened skyrim so the Thalmor could regain strength Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sajuukkhar9000 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 At least in death he realized how big of a tool he was for The Thalmor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorch621 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Yup, he says skyrim was betrayed by war, blood of the sons of skyrim doomed against fate Something like that anyway, ghosts tend to speak very archaicly(sp?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettM Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Also back to the Markarth Incident, after the forsworn were driven out of Markarth and when empire came back to get the place under control, what did Ulfric do ? HE FORCED THE EMPIRE TO ALLOW OPEN TALOS WORSHIP.Awww. Poor wittle Empire was forced by big meany Ulfric to make an evil agreement as the only way to save the suffering Reachmen from his criminal overlordship? I find that very hard to swallow. The author that claims that the Empire was "forced" into the deal is a Thalmor suckup who was trying to divert all blame for the treaty violation onto Ulfric and paint the Empire as his innocent victim. He might as well have written: "Please, dear Thalmor masters, don't blame the Empire! Ulfric MADE us do it! HE'S the Bad One, not us! We just wanted to get the poor Reachmen out from under his iron boot, and that's the only reason the Legions went there at all. It had absolutely nothing to do with the silver mines and other resources that we desperately wanted under Empire control, and we weren't at all grateful that Ulfric got them back for us at no cost to the Legions at all. Honest!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted4666244User Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Also back to the Markarth Incident, after the forsworn were driven out of Markarth and when empire came back to get the place under control, what did Ulfric do ? HE FORCED THE EMPIRE TO ALLOW OPEN TALOS WORSHIP.Awww. Poor wittle Empire was forced by big meany Ulfric to make an evil agreement as the only way to save the suffering Reachmen from his criminal overlordship? I find that very hard to swallow. The author that claims that the Empire was "forced" into the deal is a Thalmor suckup who was trying to divert all blame for the treaty violation onto Ulfric and paint the Empire as his innocent victim. He might as well have written: "Please, dear Thalmor masters, don't blame the Empire! Ulfric MADE us do it! HE'S the Bad One, not us! We just wanted to get the poor Reachmen out from under his iron boot, and that's the only reason the Legions went there at all. It had absolutely nothing to do with the silver mines and other resources that we desperately wanted under Empire control, and we weren't at all grateful that Ulfric got them back for us at no cost to the Legions at all. Honest!" that same author who wrote the book condemning Ulfric's Actions wrote another book condemning the Empire's treatment of the reachmen, namely the fact that the empire treated them like BANDITS when they never took gold from travelers. Plus the legion went there to RESTORE order in a City which was likely chaotic after the battle. Here are links to the in-game books detailing it all: The 'Madmen' of the reach The Bear of Markarth note that the first books describe who the forsworn REALLY are: a people of their own, they have their own culture and their own religion and everything. and the Bear of Markarth mention that the reach while the forsworn were in charge, other than a few crimes here and there, was peaceful overall. so even if they are biased, they are biased toward a party NOT EVEN IN THE CIVIL WAR. Edited August 1, 2012 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettM Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Both books strike me as being very clearly biased. It doesn't matter that the bias is towards a party that is not in the civil war because the bias is against a party that IS involved. The author has a motive for exaggerating the virtues and minimizing the vices of Ulfric's supposed victims because his goal is to paint the darkest picture of Ulfric that he can. It's all pure spin control. Ulfric is now the enemy of the Empire and it's time to revise his entire history. Anything positive must go down the memory hole and everything else must be presented as evidence of long-standing criminal tendencies. I have questions about just how peaceable the Reach really was with the Forsworn in charge. Given the clear bias of The "Madmen" of the Reach, I find it telling that the author felt obliged to even mention any crimes committed by the Forsworn. If a biased author can't sweep those crimes entirely under the rug, they may have been much more extensive and serious than he is willing to admit. Likewise, the author is not able to pin the blame for the Markarth Incident entirely on Igmund but is forced to admit that there was, in fact, an agreement between Ulfric and the Empire. The best he can do with that uncomfortable fact is to portray the Empire as the victim of blackmail, which is extremely hard to swallow given that Ulfric was still a loyalist at that time. The Reachmen may certainly be a distinctive culture and people. However, many Reachmen do not follow the Forsworn or the "old religion" they've revived. In fact, many of them regard those old ways -- a culture that has been dead for centuries -- with clear distaste. Don't they have just as much right to a voice as the Forsworn minority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted4666244User Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 like i said, Brett, it is biased. it is biased towards a neutral party to the War. i do not think the Scholar even cares about who is in charge so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djinx187 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The author that claims that the Empire was "forced" into the deal is a Thalmor suckup who was trying to divert all blame for the treaty violation onto Ulfric and paint the Empire as his innocent victim. He might as well have written: "Please, dear Thalmor masters, don't blame the Empire! Ulfric MADE us do it! HE'S the Bad One, not us! We just wanted to get the poor Reachmen out from under his iron boot, and that's the only reason the Legions went there at all. It had absolutely nothing to do with the silver mines and other resources that we desperately wanted under Empire control, and we weren't at all grateful that Ulfric got them back for us at no cost to the Legions at all. Honest!" You forget a few things. The jarl that lost the reach in the first place. The Empire working with the bretons to establish an independent kingdom for them. How much control of the resources do the Empire have of the mine now currently with the Silver-bloods who got to reclaim their mines when Ulfric took it back over. Why do you think Tuliius wants to get his hands on the deed for the mine's now? The Nords didn't want the Bretons to take over the reach for an independent kingdom while the Empire did so they got Ulfric to make a move before the Empire could make things happen. Independent Reach would have netted the Empire the mines Giving it back to the Nords would have netted them nothing. So yeah the Empire did get forced in to the deal but they really did deserve it for trying to screw the Nords out of their land in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted4666244User Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I personally Think that this whole silly war is just Ulfric trying to get revenge on the empire for locking him up. If they made a deal, like "You can have the silver mines, Heck we would even help you take over Skyrim. Just Please do not do anything else to Incite another War with the Thalmor, we need more time to build up our strength." things would be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RighthandofSithis Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Did anyone know that if you meet ulfric in sovngarde if he died in the civil war quests he regrets his decision to rebel against the empire?If you can talk to him after you defeat alduinHe says his rebellion only weakened skyrim so the Thalmor could regain strength Interesting, but it doesn't contradict the common and probably boring argument that the Empire is collapsing. For two hundred years, the Empire has been falling slowly. But since the Great War, the Empire has been getting worse. Now it has come to the point where Skyrim is in a civil war, Cyrodiil is plagued by riots and gang wars (Cicero) and High Rock has probably returned to its system of fighting itself. When the Empire collapses, it will bring Skyrim and High Rock down with it. Unless, Skyrim and high Rock where to leave (ironically, causing the fall of the Empire early). Furthermore, while I have not met Ulfric in Sovngarde yet, he may have been referring to it helping the Thalmor by remaining undecided, not by it causing (or seeking) Skyrim's independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts