But seriously, who do you think really won the civil war?

[Lachdonin]

Everyone assumes that the aldmeri will do this or that, becasue the Empire is weakened fighting the civil war, or has been defeated in the civil war.

 

There is no motivator like a common enemy. The assumption that a liberated Skyrim will simply continue to fight the Empire. But the goal was a liberated Skyrim, not destruction of the Empire.

Uniting against common enemies is actually rather uncommon, both in our world and TES. WWII is a rather oft-referenced anomaly, not the rule. And even when they do, the results are usually less than optimal... Edited January 31, 2015 by Lachdonin

[Riprock]

 

Everyone assumes that the aldmeri will do this or that, becasue the Empire is weakened fighting the civil war, or has been defeated in the civil war.

 

There is no motivator like a common enemy. The assumption that a liberated Skyrim will simply continue to fight the Empire. But the goal was a liberated Skyrim, not destruction of the Empire.

Uniting against common enemies is actually rather uncommon, both in our world and TES. WWII is a rather oft-referenced anomaly, not the rule. And even when they do, the results are usually less than optimal...

 

 

Regardless of how many people try to use the second world war (I have actually referenced both world wars as well as the 1917 Russian Revolution, and when you tie those events together as I previously posted, therein lies my whole example, not simply "WWII") as an example, I have accurately used it to illustrate my point. The mere fact that the second world war is often used has no bearing on whether or not I use that example well, or poorly. I'm not sure you can find another post on the Nexus that references US fighting in Siberia and Arkangelsk in 1918 ! This rather neatly and accurately pins down 'rivals to allies' in events of the second world war. I don't use the events of WWII in a willy-nilly or ignorant fashion here.

 

Also regardless of the outcome (which I also alluded to), the event still illustrates my point, because it is fact. But to be truthful, the outcome of such an alliance was not really the point.

 

RE: WWII being a 'anomaly' concerning rivals uniting against a common foe, I heartily disagree... In fact History shows use many examples of rival peoples uniting against a common foe. Apple and Amazon backed up Microsoft against the USA's government re: the Cloud. Not a bloody fight, but still a n example. More classically- The Ribbentrop Pact. Shiites and Sunnis in 2004. Rivals in the Mideast against ISIL (such as Hezbollah recruiting Sunnis and Christians in Lebanon). The USSR/China relationship during the Cold War, especially after China started intimating that China, not the USSR, was the true beacon of the ideology, circa 1968- that's two rivals if there ever were two rivals, but still under one cause against a foe. The US supporting Pinochet in Chile. China and the Khmer Rouge. The Gulf Wars- don't forget, the US also spies on it's allies- creating quite a credible situation in which to cite the US and those countries as rivals, yet also as united in a common cause against a foe."The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an ancient concept, but I don't even have to go back more than 95 years or so to cite many examples. It's not as uncommon as you believe.

 

And as I mentioned (today's friends becoming bitter rivals), that turns 180*- During the Indian Wars in the USA, the US Government was fighting against a people they had previously wanted good terms with- the indigenous peoples of in North America. And the biggest example of that 180* and then back again- The American Revolution, then the War of 1812...and then Great Britain is the USA's ally in two world wars, as well as after. The Japanese in WWI? Allies of the USA. WWII? Enemies. However, none of those events disproves that previously, the rivals had been united in a cause.

 

These real world examples show me that assuming the conclusions of a fantasy world are, as I said previously- simply assumptions.

 

Overall, I'm getting the impression you think I'm a kid with a half-baked notion. Please don't. My example is rather valid and apt, and WWII is but a portion of it. Please look at my entire example, not just the part you feel is over-used :)

[Lachdonin]

Overall, I'm getting the impression you think I'm a kid with a half-baked notion. Please don't. My example is rather valid and apt, and WWII is but a portion of it. Please look at my entire example, not just the part you feel is over-used :)

No, nothing of the sort. I just noted the WWII scenario because it is the most often referenced example, not specifically because you used it. But the notion of a common for uniting otherwise enemies isn't as common or as successful as it may seem. I was once a follower of the notion myself, but upon examining history...

 

The Mongol tribes were almost wiped out because they wouldn't unite against China, Genghis had to heat theminto submission. The Babylonian conquest of the modern-day middle east was largely due to the unwillingness of the cities rivals to work together, making them easy to pick off. Multiple native tribes fell to European expansion, th Celts couldn't unite against the Romans, the Indian product princedoms fought amongst themselves as the British took over... For every example of cooperation, there are two of rivalries simply spelling doom because they cannot be set asside.

 

At the same time, not all the United forces against common enemies work out. The Russian-Prussian-British alliance against France was an abysmal failure, because none of the three trusted each other. Boudica's United Tribes were slaughtered because of their lack of understanding of the Enemy. Hannibal failed to take Rome because he because he couldn't convince his allies to give him the forces he needed (also because Rome refused to recall the legions to defend its self, and let them run roughshod over the Punic states...).

 

In Tamriel, the only time we have really seen the nation's actually unite was following the Thrassian Plague... And that failed to stop the Sload... Hell, half of Skyrim hung Windhelm out to dry when it was attacked by the Kamal, they ended up getting help from the Dunmer of all people.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Lachdonin

[Riprock]

The ultimate failure of the scenario doesn't mean the scenario didn't happen- the forces were in fact united. That's a "by definition" requirement, do you see? In order for the alliance to fail, it had to take place.

 

Many times rivals do not band together; the inevitability of the situation or even the complete success of the idea of the rivals making an alliance was never a suggestion I made. Alliances in general mean nothing in terms of guaranteed success. So what if the alliance of rivals was not successful in the majority of instances? History absolutely and documentably proves again and again- it has happened.

 

I really cannot agree that, based on the fact that you can cite instances in which rivals did not unite, or that rivals did unite but unsuccessfully made an attempt, that the idea and fact of rivals uniting is flawed. It happens and has happened, and it is not very uncommon if it happens every generation in the modern age. In my last post I cite eight separate examples of that very premise just in the last 100 years, and just off the top of my head. That's militarily; I didn't even explore the corporate world beyond a lone example.

 

I wonder if you feel I mean that such alliances produce a majority of successful results? I do not. I never stated that such an alliance means victory in any percentage at all. I stated that the assumption is that such an alliance will fail. I provided many examples of the scenario that did not fail, but that should not be taken as my standpoint being "As long as the rivals unite, they cannot lose".

 

My standpoint in my last two posts as well as this one has been one of dissolving assumptions using real-world examples that show the assumptions are just that. And the reason is- despite any failure of such a bargain- that you and I can both cite dozens of instances in which that exact premise is made reality. Every failure of such an alliance you cite is only proof that the alliance existed, and every failure to unite you cite only shows a failure to unite in that instance; it cannot dissolve the alliances that did take place- and yes, that includes the alliance among rivals.

[MidbossVyers]

Well, an alliance does not necessarily have to be both effective and permanent. Alliances between the same kingdoms can be broken and re-mended repeatedly even within the same war. For example, during the 3 Kingdoms era of China, Wu and Shu aligned to defeat Wei at the Battle of Chibi. Wu and Wei aligned to defeat Shu at the Battle of Fan Castle. Wu and Shu fought each other while Wei just kinda held back and watched during the Battle of Yiling. Wu and Shu made a ceasefire to simultaneously push north towards Wei afterwards, at least up until the death of the Wu Emperor, Sun Quan.

[Mortrix927]

I believe it kinda depends on whether this Civil War is happening in isolation, or is part of a larger whole.

 

As I see the situation at the beginning of the Civil War is:

 

The Altmer and the Bosmer comprise the Aldmeri Dominion (Which is obviously separate from the Empire)

Blackmarsh is an independent state, that now controls most of Morrowind.

Cyrodiil, Elsweyr, Northern Morrowind, and Skyrim comprise the Empire.

 

So in this instance, if the Imperials are thought to have won, whoever the high king is becomes Emperor.

If the Stormcloaks win, the keep going until they take the IC and the commanding general becomes Emperor.

[notmyhome]

I believe it kinda depends on whether this Civil War is happening in isolation, or is part of a larger whole.

 

As I see the situation at the beginning of the Civil War is:

 

The Altmer and the Bosmer comprise the Aldmeri Dominion (Which is obviously separate from the Empire)

Blackmarsh is an independent state, that now controls most of Morrowind.

Cyrodiil, Elsweyr, Northern Morrowind, and Skyrim comprise the Empire.

 

So in this instance, if the Imperials are thought to have won, whoever the high king is becomes Emperor.

If the Stormcloaks win, the keep going until they take the IC and the commanding general becomes Emperor.

 

Elsweyr (or the two kingdoms it's been split up into) is part of the Dominion. Morrowind is in ruins, as is Orsinium. Hammerfell also separated.

[fraquar]

Right now, I'd have to say the Empire is more of the common enemy than the Aldmeri are. The people of Hammerfell and Skyrim were willing to fight, but keep getting backdoored by the very Empire they supported. Now you have the "common enemy" running around completely unchecked in Imperial territory, empowered to slaughter Imperial citizens with the very agreement that the Empire made to end the last conflict. Spilling the blood of thousands of Skyrimites and for what, to essentially surrender to the very terms that were being shoved down their throat from the outset?

 

The Empire is going to struggle to find a "common friend".

[Lachdonin]

Blackmarsh is an independent state, that now controls most of Morrowind.

No, the Argonians did not take control of any of Morrowind. Once they were done (or once the Redoran had stopped them, depends on who you talk to) the Argonians left. They did n it occupy anything, nor do they lay any claim on southern Morriwnd.

 

Right now, I'd have to say the Empire is more of the common enemy than the Aldmeri are. The people of Hammerfell and Skyrim were willing to fight, but keep getting backdoored by the very Empire they supported. Now you have the "common enemy" running around completely unchecked in Imperial territory, empowered to slaughter Imperial citizens with the very agreement that the Empire made to end the last conflict. Spilling the blood of thousands of Skyrimites and for what, to essentially surrender to the very terms that were being shoved down their throat from the outset?

 

The Empire is going to struggle to find a "common friend".

And once again, you are grossly exaggerating the situation to support your position.

 

There is no evidence that Skyrim supported continuing the War before Ulfric kicked up his fuss, years AFTER the Concordant was signed.

Just because one is willing to fight, does not mean they have the capacity, and the Empire could not supply or sustain a war in the Dominion.

The people of Cyrodiil suffered far, FAR more than Skyrim during the Great War.

The Thalmor are not given unchecked access to Imperial territories, and are permitted to enforce a SINGLE clause of the Concordant, and their presence is entirely the product of the Stormcloaks.

 

Your continued pressing of falsehoods and exaggerations is getting tiring. There are legitimate reasons to support the Stormcloaks, but perpetuating nonsense to justify hating the Empire doesn't contribute to a constructive discussion.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Lachdonin

[117649AR]

The entire notion that the Empire is a greater enemy than the Thalmor is patently ludicrous from a purely superficial point of view, and completely idiotic when one considers deeper lore regarding Aldmeri motivations. The Empire of Man is just that: the Empire of Man. It champions the cause of mankind (though also treats Mer and Beastfolk fairly, particularly the Orcs, who have otherwise been marginalized by virtually everyone else). More importantly, however, it is the primary source of worship for, and thus the primary source of strength for, the Divine Talos.

 

Regardless of how many walking ways he used to achieve divinity, Talos very much relies on the worship of his followers for the strength to almost-singlehandedly hold the foundations of Mundus on his shoulders, stabilizing creation and holding back the Kalpic Cycle. While the White-Gold Concordat on-paper bans Talos Worship, it is abundantly clear that in practice it was never enforced by the Legion, considering that large numbers of Imperial citizens and Legionnaires continued to worship the God of Man in secret. It was only with Ulfric's uprising that the Thalmor had a cause to send their own Justiciars to enforce it, and even so the Legion continues to find excuses for enforcing it, while Imperial Officials play dumb to the obvious Talos worship that goes on among their subjects. The Concordat was never truly enforced by the Empire, and even with Justiciars roaming through the holds of Skyrim and playing Inquisitor in its cities, the Imperial Legion and Empire-aligned leadership continue to do this (or more appropriately, continue to not).

 

Further, one must understand the ultimate goal of the Thalmor and the Aldmeri Dominion, and the very reason they antagonize mankind and try their utmost to cease the worship of Talos, summed up nicely on The Imperial Library:

 

To kill Man is to reach Heaven, from where we came before the Doom Drum's iniquity. When we accomplish this, we can escape the mockery and long shame of the Material Prison.

To achieve this goal, we must:

1) Erase the Upstart Talos from the mythic. His presence fortifies the Wheel of the Convention, and binds our souls to this plane.

2) Remove Man not just from the world, but from the Pattern of Possibility, so that the very idea of them can be forgotten and thereby never again repeated.

3) With Talos and the Sons of Talos removed, the Dragon will become ours to unbind. The world of mortals will be over. The Dragon will uncoil his hold on the stagnancy of linear time and move as Free Serpent again, moving through the Aether without measure or burden, spilling time along the innumerable roads we once travelled. And with that we will regain the mantle of the imperishable spirit.

In brief, they want nothing short of the erasure of the idea of Man from existence, the erasure of Talos' divinity, and the (effective) destruction of Mundus and unraveling of linear time. They believe this will cause them to revert back to the state of spiritual immortality that they possessed before the creation of Nirn.

 

The Empire represents not only the best hope for mankind, but also the best hope for the very continued existence of, for lack of a better term, existence. A Stormcloak victory weakens both the Empire and Skyrim, and sets the stage for further conflict not only within Skyrim (the divide among the Nords is large: not even a majority support Ulfric) itself but between the province and the greater Empire. This in turn sets the stage for further Aldmeri conquests, perhaps not of the Empire proper in the immediate, but the outlying provinces. With the Empire both surrounded and weakened, the Dominion can effectively conquer and, in turn, cease the Kalpic Cycle and bring a permanent return to the Dawn Era.