Which one is "good", which one is "evil"?

[imperistan]

Because the failure of one man thirty years ago is not an argument for the competency of another.

 

Except it wasn't just one man that failed. All the generals and leaders of the Empire, including Mede himself, all had the power to stop what happened and none did. And if some did in fact do so, then they were clearly silenced (as evident in the absolute lack of evidence that anyone actually tried to stop the WGC) in which case it only further proves my point that the leadership was not only incompetent but completely selfish.

 

: he weakened the Empire by creating the situation that allowed the Thalmor to force the Empire to send the Legion up to Skyrim

 

Fallacy. This presumes that the weakening of the Empire actually counts as a negative. No matter your stance, these issues are simply not so black and white that you can presume that.

 

and he weakened his own ability to rule Skyrim by creating the Forsworn with his brutality, who will continue to sabotage Skyrim's source of wealth for as long as they live.

 

The Forsworn are nothing more than glorified bandits that are focusing on one particular area of Skyrim that, in all honesty, wouldn't be had for Ulfric to completely conquer again if the need ever actually arose. You may be able to cite the difference between in-game representation and lore representation (and if so, please feel free to correct me on this), but from what I know of the Forsworn issue, calling them a real threat to Ulfric's potential stability as leader of Skyrim is like saying Bandits and rogue mages are also an equal threat, which is a silly argument because then the entirety of Tamriel's governments ought to be only gripping by the finger tips their rule over their territories if these groups actually represented a significant threat to the government in question that would prevent that government from adequately carrying out its actions.

 

We also have to remember that Ulfric was enlisted to retake the Reach, who to everyone concerned (and rightfully so) was a region of Skyrim taken over by a bunch of people that had no right doing so. Sure the Reachmen claim that they are the true owners of the Region, but there is no evidence to that. No evidence of some previous statehood (in whatever form it could have taken) that was destroyed by the Nords. Just a bunch of natives to the region that are trying to assert rights to the land that, as all evidence seems to show, they never actually asserted their right to in the first place. There is no evidence that I can find that actually shows that the Reachmen claimed large swaths of the Reach as their territory and shows that they actually maintained this territory as political entity.

 

Indeed, all evidence seems to point to the idea that the Reach belongs to the Reachmen to be a relatively contemporary idea. Even lore says they've only maintained this for a matter of centuries, and well, the Nordic Skyrim has existed for FAR longer than that with its borders fairly well established throughout that time. Say what you want about natives having some natural right to the land they're native to, but that ship sailed a long time ago. You as a people can't cede your native lands (that, as I said, you never asserted your right to in the first place in virtually any way) to an entity for thousands of years and then suddenly decide that you want to assert your right over it and push everyone else out.

 

 

And as for Ulfric's brutality, lets remember that our only sources on the matter are the people he was fighting against (that would never paint him fairly) and an Imperial scholar that is so grotesquely biased against Ulfric and in all likelihood was being paid/forced to slander him that you can almost feel the loathing and contempt drip from his pages. I have no doubt that Ulfric was brutal in his retaking of the Reach (like any Nord would be), but I am quite certain that the reality was a far cry from the picture painted by parties that have all reason to paint him the villain.

 

It's not unreasonable to say the Thalmor would have faced the same problems and, given their lack of experience invading deserts, likely made all the worst mistakes. Fending off an army that's been beaten down by heat, starvation, and thirst (easy to accomplish by expending minimum military effort to disrupt the supply line) is hardly proof that the Empire overestimated the Thalmor's real strength.

 

Perhaps, but is proof that if the Dominion did indeed have the strength to even touch the Empire, very much less harm it to even remotely the same extent it did in the Great War, then it would certainly have had the strength to beat Hammerfel.

 

Say what you want about the realities of the desert, but if the Dominion had the strength to mount a second invasion of the Empire proper AND continue the fight in Hammerfel AND actually secure victories then it most certainly would have, WGC or not. But it didn't. It got stuck in Hammerfel and couldn't break out of the stalemate. That stalemate is the proof of the Dominion's actual might, and this would have been seen well before the war in Hammerfel actually ended, and if Mede had chosen this moment, when the Dominion was stuck in stalemate to break the WGC and rekindle the war, then I at least would have respected his choice to agree to the WGC as a legitimate breather. But he didn't, he let Hammerfel continue on on its own and maintained the WGC, despite the advantage he would have had to gain an unconditional truce with the Dominion, and all without having to really expend much effort other than giving Hammerfel what support it could and focusing its remaining troops (Lets remember that Hammerfel didn't need help to keep on fighting, so even if the Legions could spare no extra troops, it wouldn't have been a dire situation) on Cyrodiil's southern borders.

 

If the goal is to bring about the eventual defeat of the Thalmor, then I see no advantages in supporting Ulfric since he's no better a general than Tullius (considering the civil war stalemate and the fact that Tullius captured Ulfric in the beginning); if Ulfric can defeat the Thalmor with Skyrim's (and only Skyrim's) resources, then I believe Tullius can do just as well with Skyrim and the Empire's combined resources. However if the goal is to create an isolated Skyrim that clings to independence while allowing the rest of non-Nordic Tamriel to be crushed under the Thalmor invasion, then I suppose Ulfric's the right guy for the job.

 

Couple things:

 

1. I believe Ulfric's capture had more to do with poor recon on part of his troops (Darkwater Crossing is a fair bit of ways into Stormcloak territory after all) in the area and in general the ultimate question of why he was even running about in the open like that in the first place. I don't remember if Ralof or Ulfric ever actually said what they were doing, but I can't imagine it was something that couldn't have been better executed. Not necessarily the mark of a bad general, but perhaps a bit of overconfidence on his part, both in his own safety and in that of his men in the Rift. After all, the Civil War had stalled at that point so I wouldn't be surprised if Ulfric was perhaps getting a small bit of a strut due to how well he was doing.

 

2. No one's suggesting that Skyrim fight alone, and indeed, no province alone can take on the Dominion. (at least, not to the point of actually fully defeating them anyway) No, what would likely happen following Stormcloak victory (and for that matter the collapse of the Empire that would seem to be on the horizon, what with Skyrim being lost, the Emperor dead, and the Empire effectively split in half with no effective highway between either side) is that whats left of Cyrodiil (that isn't clinging to the idea of the Empire) would cede to Skyrim's authority. High Rock would either go independent or, as Cyrodiil might, cede to Skyrim.

 

And then, when it comes to finally facing down the Dominion, Hammerfel's allegiance would have to be secured, and if Ulfric employs the right diplomat to that end, then he'll have their allegiance. Perhaps not the right to rule over them, but definitely their military might in the coming war. Hammerfel was the original big target of the Dominion during the Great War, so to suggest they won't eventually go after it again is foolish, and a smart diplomat will get the Redguards to realize this.

 

Now granted, this could all just blow up in Ulfric's face, but thats the chance you take. You take the same chance with the Empire. The Emperor's dead with no apparent heir (Lets remember what happened the last time that happened) and has a parasite currently running around its insides ready to totally shred the Imperial intestines should hostilities begin to surface, and indeed, has very, very little hope of securing Hammerfel's allegiance. While a smart diplomat may try to use the same argument that eventually Hammerfel would have to fight, the Empire would have the great disadvantage of having thrown Hammerfel under the bus for its central provinces sake. We also have the problem that the Empire would very likely try to push Hammerfel towards rejoining the Empire, which would only further weaken any talks of allegiance.

 

3. As I"ve said multiple times, nothing is stopping the Dominion from face-stomping the rest of Tamriel. With their ulterior motives and plans, things like the WGC and peace mean nothing if you have the power to actually carry out those plans. That they aren't currently doing so is proof that they simply do not have the power to rofl-stomp Tamriel. And this isn't even getting into how suggesting that the Dominion could just rofl-stomp everyone on a whim completely ignores the past.

[imperistan]

Yes. The Solitude court wizard points out that Torygg respected Ulfric and his view enough that he would have declared independence if asked, and that's what a lot of them thought Ulfric was going to do when he showed up... but instead he disabled his king with a Shout, then "honorably" gutted him with his sword (Ulfric admits this, but claims it was to prove Torygg's weakness). Haafingar, Eastmarch, Falkreath (remember Dengeir was Jarl before Siddgeir and he supported Ulfric), The Pale, The Rift, and Winterhold would have immediately supported independence, leaving only Hjaalmarch, The Reach, and Whiterun Hold as potential unknowns (but would have likely joined out of loyalty to Torygg).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp1mzx5O4ao

 

The two duels have the same overall point. To demonstrate the strength, authority, and actual legitimacy of the party being challenged. In the movie, the King's son doubts the ability of the warriors to actually solve their problem and trusts in his friend to show that they're just weak old men who are past their prime. And the warrior put up against the friend feigns this exactly, and in the final bout slays him as easy as pie, proving that the King's son was wrong and that even his strongest friend could be slain by these men as if he was a child.

 

And in the game, Ulfric takes a more direct approach in his challenge of Torygg. He sought to disprove that Torygg had the true right to be King of Skyrim and he proved this by slaying him with ease. That the High King of Skyrim, land of the fiercest warriors in Tamriel, a land of a people whose lives almost completely revolve around battle in some sort, could be slain by some Jarl's son whose only achievement up to that point was beating back some natives from the Reach. Say what you want about Ulfric's tactics during the duel, but that all completely misses the point and indeed, seeks to actually misdirect from the actual point of the duel. A true High-King would have looked this Jarl's son in the eye as he cut off his head and smiled and laughed all the way through. Thu'um does not make you a god, and any true warrior can fight through its power, especially when its the voice of someone like Ulfric whose voice is a whisper compared to the likes of the Greybeards the Dragonborn or even mere Draugr.

 

And also, if Torygg was truly ready to assert Skyrim's independence, then he should have done it on his own. No High-King who is strong in his convictions and bold in his actions is going to wait on the validation of some Jarl's son. And that is why Torygg had to die, either at that duel or some time after. Because no matter what Ulfric did, he would have had to take the throne for himself if Skyrim were to truly obtain independence. That he laid claim to the throne in the way he did only made it harder, and while yes that was rather short-sighted of him, well, no one said Ulfric was a brilliant politician. A fantastic war-time leader for sure, but we all know eventually he'd get ousted as High-King once the dust settles and the battlefields made to grow daisies again.

 

Note that the revolutionary sentiments in Skyrim were wholly the product of Ulfric. Skyrim remained a part of the Empire for thirty years without any problems and the Nords basically gave lip service to the WGC while worshipping pirivately, Ulfric was the one who called for rebellion, and he was the one who created the situation (by blackmailing the Jarl of Markarth to grant his people religious freedom, then turning around and reporting it to the Thalmor) that allowed the Thalmor to invade Skyrim under false pretenses and force the Empire to spread out its forces and embroil it in a war with its own people.

 

This is completely wrong.

 

1. The revolutionary sentiments are indeed originated far more closer to the present, but Ulfric is not the sole origin. If that were the case, half of Skyrim would not have almost instantly agreed to join him. They would have slowly and individually joined him as his arguments reached their ears and they had time to digest them. No, much of Skyrim had revolution on their minds, but it was indeed Ulfric that sparked it into action. But that is no slight against the revolution itself nor the idea of it. Any man could have sparked the revolution, and that you use the fact that it was Ulfric in particular that did it as a slight against the revolution just shows that you're conflating your own personal issues with the man with the revolution itself.

 

Ulfric is not the revolution. He never was. He only gave it structure and motion. Any man could replace him.

 

2. You have it backwards. The Jarl of Markarth and the Empire promised Ulfric and his city free worship of Talos, and then when the Reach was retaken and Ulfric went to claim his prize, he was thrown to the wolves. He was betrayed for serving the Empire and his country.

 

3. The Thalmor were coming to Skyrim no matter what. Ulfric did little, if anything to speed up that process. And indeed, they had free reign to do so. There was no "invasion".

 

4. Worshiping in secret is fine for a while, perhaps a couple of years at best. But after a while, it becomes tiring to continue to hide your religious convictions or else risk being executed. Yes the Nords didn't automatically start rebelling on the banning of the worship of Talos, but that doesn't mean that its not a problem. There's a big difference between hiding it temporarily while the fight continues on for your own sake, and having to hide them perpetually, long after hostilities have ended.

[luzburg]

2. No one's suggesting that Skyrim fight alone, and indeed, no province alone can take on the Dominion. (at least, not to the point of actually fully defeating them anyway) No, what would likely happen following Stormcloak victory (and for that matter the collapse of the Empire that would seem to be on the horizon, what with Skyrim being lost, the Emperor dead, and the Empire effectively split in half with no effective highway between either side) is that whats left of Cyrodiil (that isn't clinging to the idea of the Empire) would cede to Skyrim's authority. High Rock would either go independent or, as Cyrodiil might, cede to Skyrim.

 

Why? The Stormcloaks won't be in any fit state to do anything after a brutal civil war. Hammerfel is in ruin. High Rock already rejected Ulfric's request for support, and they are too divided in any case. Cyrodiil will probably break into civil war over the throne. Skyrim will still be deeply divided and theres nothing stopping an anti-ulfric uprising happening even if he does drive the empire out.

 

To quote Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson:

 

"Rake was silent for a time, studying his hands clasped on his lap. ' Baruk, as any commander of long standing knows, treachery breeds its own. Once committed, whether against an enemy or an ally, it becomes a legitimate choice for anyone in your command, from the lowest private to your personal aides, bodyguards and officers.'"

[imperistan]

Awfully pessimistic aren't you.

 

Anyway, calling the Civil War "brutal" is a bit generous, and indeed if we take the game as an indication then the Civil War was largely a painless effort for the Stormcloaks (or the Imperials, whichever) once the Dragonborn chooses a side, with the Dragonborn proving the main instrument of war that wins that side the vast majority of the war. The Dragonborn's involvement ends the Civil War relatively quickly and with far less losses to their chosen side compared to what might have been if they had to fight without the DB"s help.

 

Only the south of Hammerfel was in ruin following the war, and with that region being extremely concentrated in terms of what was actually there, it would likely prove to be very quick to recover after 30 years. Hammerfel might not necessarily be in the same state it was before the war, but its far from still being in ruin, as that begs the question of how Hammerfel is standing as an independent state. And again, one has to remember that eventually Hammerfel will have to fight, ruin or not. And if never has to fight, well, we need not worry about Hammerfel because Skyrim is doing well enough on its own.

 

I don't know about High Rock. A source on their rejection would be nice as I'm not aware of one. And as for their strife, High Rock has largely always been like that. But the five kingdoms, at least as far as we know anyway (Skyrim, AFAIK, doesn't go too much into whats actually going on in High Rock beyond what sounds fairly normal) are not at a point of warring with each other and indeed, I'm inclined to think given the precedent set by the Great War that if they were convinced that the Dominion could actually touch High Rock that they'd be willing to unite against the Dominion, if only for that one war to stamp out the threat they pose.

 

Cyrodiil in general isn't going to matter much, at least not as an actual military ally anyway, and indeed will probably be the initial battleground of the eventual war. The Dominion will have little in their way and Skyrim would need to secure Cyrodiil in order to have a land route into the Dominion territory. Who Cyrodiil decides to side with, if anyone, won't matter because they're going to be in the middle of it all anyway.

[luzburg]

I don't know about High Rock. A source on their rejection would be nice as I'm not aware of one. And as for their strife, High Rock has largely always been like that. But the five kingdoms, at least as far as we know anyway (Skyrim, AFAIK, doesn't go too much into whats actually going on in High Rock beyond what sounds fairly normal) are not at a point of warring with each other and indeed, I'm inclined to think given the precedent set by the Great War that if they were convinced that the Dominion could actually touch High Rock that they'd be willing to unite against the Dominion, if only for that one war to stamp out the threat they pose.

 

 

Ulfric himself says it. If you listen long enough to him you'll get the line.

[AnimeOtaku102]

Except it wasn't just one man that failed. All the generals and leaders of the Empire, including Mede himself, all had the power to stop what happened and none did. And if some did in fact do so, then they were clearly silenced (as evident in the absolute lack of evidence that anyone actually tried to stop the WGC) in which case it only further proves my point that the leadership was not only incompetent but completely selfish.

Sorry, but that's really speculative and there is no lore that supports (or refutes) what you're saying and lack of evidence that any of the Imperial military leadership objected is not evidence of them being silenced. As anecdotal evidence, recall what Brina Merilis says about Horik Halfhand still wearing his old Legion armor: "He's proud of his service, Skald. The Legion taught us loyalty. And we're loyal to Dawnstar." Presumably anyone who rises to the upper echelons of the Imperial army have been taught the same lesson, or at least learned not to publicly naysay their Emperor.

 

Fallacy. This presumes that the weakening of the Empire actually counts as a negative. No matter your stance, these issues are simply not so black and white that you can presume that.

If Ulfric's eventual goal is the weakening and/or defeat of the Thalmor, then engaging in an action that leads to the deaths of Imperial and Stormcloak soldiers with absolutely no loss to Thalmor forces is quite plainly a negative. Even if Ulfric doesn't like the Empire and doesn't want to be a part of it, causing them to deplete military strength (along with his own) that could be used against the Thalmor in the inevitable resumption of the Great War makes no sense.

 

The Forsworn are nothing more than glorified bandits that are focusing on one particular area of Skyrim that, in all honesty, wouldn't be had for Ulfric to completely conquer again if the need ever actually arose. You may be able to cite the difference between in-game representation and lore representation (and if so, please feel free to correct me on this), but from what I know of the Forsworn issue, calling them a real threat to Ulfric's potential stability as leader of Skyrim is like saying Bandits and rogue mages are also an equal threat, which is a silly argument because then the entirety of Tamriel's governments ought to be only gripping by the finger tips their rule over their territories if these groups actually represented a significant threat to the government in question that would prevent that government from adequately carrying out its actions.[...]

Honestly, the issue of the Reachmen's rights and truth behind Ulfric's brutality isn't relevant to the issue of the Forsworn threat: they believe it's their land and hold enough hatred for non-Forsworn that their leaders apparently cut out their hearts and replace them with roots (at least that's what I'm assuming a briarheart is, won't use it in cooking any time soon though). According to the lore (which is also consistent with what we see in-game) the Forsworn act much like terrorist cells, but like terrorists there's a central figure coordinating efforts (not Madanach, several notes in the larger camps refer to a "Matriarch") so they're not simply glorified bandits.

 

The reason I call them a real threat is because Ulfric would require Markarth's silver mines to rebuild Skyrim and prepare to defend it when the Thalmor come knocking. The Forsworn are just rabid enough that they don't care about invading elves (everyone in the Reach who isn't Forsworn is an enemy, after all) and are likely to happily sabotage every mine and silver shipment that would support Ulfric's rebuilding efforts. Ulfric's only solution to this problem would be to engage in a long and costly guerrilla war with the Forsworn, further depleting his resources against the Thalmor, because they aren't helpfully lining up on walls for him to Shout off anymore.

 

Perhaps, but is proof that if the Dominion did indeed have the strength to even touch the Empire, very much less harm it to even remotely the same extent it did in the Great War, then it would certainly have had the strength to beat Hammerfel.[...]

True, if Mede took advantage of the Dominion's troubles in Hammerfell it would have been the ideal choice, but that's assuming he had access to enough information to make this decision. Information he probably would have received if he hadn't foolishly agreed to disband the Blades and let the Thalmor hunt them to extinction. Like you said, it's not black and white; Mede's decision not to break the WGC to support Hammerfell turned out to be a bad decision, but it can be argued it was a correct one at the time because he had no more spies (which is clearly his own fault, but still a separate nonetheless).

 

But, that's just speculation on my part.

 

Couple things:[,,,]

1. Fair 'nuff.

2. I can't really agree with those scenarios because they make certain assumptions about the timing and political decisions that would be made. I honestly can't put up a counter argument without making a lot of assumptions as well, so I'll just leave it at "Would be ideal, but the same goes for the Empire as well".

3. I'm not saying that the Dominion is at full strength, or even strong even to resume hostilities right away, but that it's a bit of a race between the Empire and Dominion to see who gets back to full strength first. The Skyrim rebellion does absolutely nothing to slow down the Dominion rebuilding and an Ulfric victory undeniably leaves both Skyrim and Cyrodiil with less than if they were still united. That puts the Dominion ahead in the race, they'll be ready to resume war before the Empire or Skyrim can muster up the same amount of strength.

[AnimeOtaku102]

The two duels have the same overall point. To demonstrate the strength, authority, and actual legitimacy of the party being challenged. In the movie, the King's son doubts the ability of the warriors to actually solve their problem and trusts in his friend to show that they're just weak old men who are past their prime. And the warrior put up against the friend feigns this exactly, and in the final bout slays him as easy as pie, proving that the King's son was wrong and that even his strongest friend could be slain by these men as if he was a child.[...]

Where exactly did you get the impression that Ulfric's voice was weaker than even the draugr? There might be some exaggeration going on in the retelling of Ulfric's retaking of Markarth, but he's described as shouting them off the walls. Maybe it was unimpressive in the game mechanics, but plot-wise the Greybeards, Solitude court members, and Jarl of Markarth all seem to suggest his Shout was pretty well developed.

 

I won't even bother arguing the cultural issue around Ulfric's challenge, because we can go around circles all year and not come to an agreement on something that objective, but like you said (and is related to my point), it was a short-sighted political move. I believe Ulfric's motives are much darker, but even if they aren't such short-sightedness is not the hallmarks of a good ruler.

 

 

This is completely wrong.[...]

1. You forget that Ulfric's been preaching independence long before murdering Torygg, at least since the moot that named Torygg High King and possibly earlier. It wasn't an instant conversion and he did have plenty of time to let the message settle in.

2. Listening to Igmund and going over the Bear of Markarth again, I concede that I may wrong about who initiated the offer of free worship, but nowhere does Igmund mention the Imperials being the first to offer the deal (he just uses the royal we, which could easily refer to the Markarth court), and the book mentions Ulfric forced the Imperials to recognize the deal before letting them in. The Imperials were only forced to "throw Ulfric to the wolves" after the Thalmor found out, yet according to the Thalmor dossier (internal report, no reason for falsehoods), they were in contact with Ulfric since before the Markarth Incident. He was a Thalmor asset, the Markarth Incident proved to be the spark he needed to call for a rebellion, and the Thalmor want the rebellion to happen. Circumstantial, yes, but you can't ignore the connection.

3. How can you say that? The Markarth Incident is the only major incident of Talos worship mentioned by anyone, it's what the Thalmor use as an excuse to send Inquisitors up to Skyrim, and what Ulfric uses as his rallying cry against the Empire. Maybe the Thalmor could have engineered another event to get into Skyrim, but the fact is Ulfric was the one who did it.

4. Eh, that's a cultural thing that I can't really understand. I'm religious, but I'm not of a religion that really bothers with public assemblage and such. If we're assuming Nord culture is patterned after real-life, ancient Nordic culture, worshiping privately probably wouldn't be any different than their usual practices, but if it's patterned more after Abrahamic religions, then denial of public worship would obviously be a big thing. I don't really get a sense that the average Nord cares to run off to one of the big cities just to sit in one of the few churches scattered around Skyrim.

[Lachdonin]

I don't really get a sense that the average Nord cares to run off to one of the big cities just to sit in one of the few churches scattered around Skyrim.

 

Particularly when almost every temple in Skyrim has priests mumbling something about a lack of attendance.. There just really isn't enough evidence to support the kind fo communal gathering one sees in western religion. If we want to pull this more towards a religious arguement, and one pertaining to liberties and relative freedom, i can get out a few of my 3rd year textbooks to explain why Mede was right in what he did.

 

Imperistan, you are also ignoring the fact that, as Sithis and i discussed ealier, there are several sources, from Riften to Solitude, who indicate that Skyrim is largely dependant on trade with Cyrodiil. Be it food stuffs, exotic materials or just offering a market for Skyrim's plentiful ores, Skyrim's economy depends on trade with the Imperial heartland, If you think Cyrodiil would still allow such trade after Ulfric declares Skyrim independant, you would be sorely mistaken.

[RighthandofSithis]

 

And the Empire is far to weak to be able to confront the Thalmor. In fact, its too weak to sustain itself, with the revolutionary sentiments in Skyrim and the civil disorder in Cyrodiil, along with the financial issues it must be facing. An independent Skyrim would not not have to carry the burdens of a crumbling Empire, and could easily holds its own (as you where saying about Hammerfell).

Note that the revolutionary sentiments in Skyrim were wholly the product of Ulfric. Skyrim remained a part of the Empire for thirty years without any problems and the Nords basically gave lip service to the WGC while worshipping pirivately, Ulfric was the one who called for rebellion, and he was the one who created the situation (by blackmailing the Jarl of Markarth to grant his people religious freedom, then turning around and reporting it to the Thalmor) that allowed the Thalmor to invade Skyrim under false pretenses and force the Empire to spread out its forces and embroil it in a war with its own people.

 

That aside, I don't actually know the scope and the depth of the civil unrest going on in Cyrodill. I may have missed it, but the only references I really got was when Alvor mentioned that people in Cyrodill had "their own problems to worry about" and Cicero's journals that mentioned Sanctuaries being closed and/or raided, so I can't really comment on what the strength of the Empire might be.

 

Revolutionary sentiments are not the result of one man. Revolution is the result of a class becoming conscious, through a revolutionary situation. The WGC, the loss of the Great War, the corruption of the Empire, and its inevitable economic issues. These are the signs of a revolutionary situation, and the Nordic Aristocracy have come to realise that they should not be so subservient to the EMpire any longer. Ulfric is simply a symbol, and in some respect may be considered the vanguard of the revolution.

 

And we can get an idea of the situation in Cyrodiil. Reading Cicero's journals makes you understand why he said "The Imperial province is ravaged by strife, nowhere is safe, at present".

 

 

2. No one's suggesting that Skyrim fight alone, and indeed, no province alone can take on the Dominion. (at least, not to the point of actually fully defeating them anyway) No, what would likely happen following Stormcloak victory (and for that matter the collapse of the Empire that would seem to be on the horizon, what with Skyrim being lost, the Emperor dead, and the Empire effectively split in half with no effective highway between either side) is that whats left of Cyrodiil (that isn't clinging to the idea of the Empire) would cede to Skyrim's authority. High Rock would either go independent or, as Cyrodiil might, cede to Skyrim.

 

Why? The Stormcloaks won't be in any fit state to do anything after a brutal civil war. Hammerfel is in ruin. High Rock already rejected Ulfric's request for support, and they are too divided in any case. Cyrodiil will probably break into civil war over the throne. Skyrim will still be deeply divided and theres nothing stopping an anti-ulfric uprising happening even if he does drive the empire out.

 

 

Its been about 20-25 years or so. A strong leader can turn even the most bakward nation into an industrial powerhouse, as we've seen a few times in Modern History (real life). It took Stalin 5 years to turn the USSR from an argrarian peasant society into an Industrial giant. Hitler did the same, bringing Germany back from the Treaty Of Versailles and forging the Third Reich.

Edited December 5, 2012 by RighthandofSithis

[AnimeOtaku102]

Revolutionary sentiments are not the result of one man. Revolution is the result of a class becoming conscious, through a revolutionary situation. The WGC, the loss of the Great War, the corruption of the Empire, and its inevitable economic issues. These are the signs of a revolutionary situation, and the Nordic Aristocracy have come to realise that they should not be so subservient to the EMpire any longer. Ulfric is simply a symbol, and in some respect may be considered the vanguard of the revolution.

 

And we can get an idea of the situation in Cyrodiil. Reading Cicero's journals makes you understand why he said "The Imperial province is ravaged by strife, nowhere is safe, at present".

As I pointed out in my reply to imperistan, Ulfric has been preaching rebellion for a while and he was the central figure in the only major Talos worship incident mentioned in Skyrim. Furthermore there's evidence that Ulfric was in communications with the Thalmor and "proving his worth as an asset" up until after the Markarth Incident. So the central figure in being persecuted for the Markarth Incident, who capitalizes on it as his justification to start a rebellion, and uses the rhetoric he has been espousing along with the "evidence" of his arrest by the Imperials to murder the High King instead of calling for a new moot, also happened to be a Thalmor asset. Ulfric isn't listed as a dormant asset until after he becomes difficult to communicate with, so it's not incidentally acting in the interests of the Thalmor that makes a person "active" or "dormant" (Ulfric would still be listed as an active asset otherwise, since the Thalmor approve of the civil war); therefore during the events of the Markarth Incident he was at the very least an informant and at worst an agent.

 

Ulfric's arrest was essentially a manufactured event that gave the Thalmor the excuse to send Inquisitors up to Skyrim and force the Empire to arrest Nord citizens under the WGC, and as Alvor and Igmund will tell you that was what allowed Ulfric to really bring his rebellion into full swing. He helped (I would argue solely responsible rather than helped, since I don't see any lore about other figures being as loud as he was about it, but giving him the slight benefit of a doubt) seed the belief that the Empire was weak despite having (false) information that he played a role in the Empire's defeat (nothing suggests he learned the truth), he helped bring about the religious persecution by facilitating a breach of the WGC while in direct communications with the Thalmor, and he forced a civil war in Skyrim by choosing to murder his king instead of asking for him to declare independence (regardless of what cultural norms there are surrounding ritual duels in Skyrim, don't forget that Ulfric was trained by the Greycloaks, so he's not some frothy berserker and should be aware of diplomatic solutions), so it would be wrong for me to say he was wholly responsible for the current state of the civil war (since he used the Thalmor and vice versa), but he had the opportunities and information to bring it in a different direction and didn't.

 

Ah, thanks for reminding me about Cicero. I only had one character run across him outside the farm, so I didn't recall that particular statement about the provinces. I still don't think that's enough to support Ulfric, though, given my interpretation of his character and motivations.

 

Its been about 20-25 years or so. A strong leader can turn even the most bakward nation into an industrial powerhouse, as we've seen a few times in Modern History (real life). It took Stalin 5 years to turn the USSR from an argrarian peasant society into an Industrial giant. Hitler did the same, bringing Germany back from the Treaty Of Versailles and forging the Third Reich.

To be fair, neither of them were trying to build on top of a desert and both had the benefit of advancing technology. Limitations of arable land, a nomadic culture, and interruption in trade can all limit the speed in which you rebuild your population and what portion of them are viable as soldiers.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Anime_Otaku102