Historically, William Wallace absolutely slaughtered those who wouldn't ally with him. Braveheart is so historically inacurate it's painful to me. Even the title is wrong.

lmao
seriously theres nor right or wrong side, its all up to us to determine what we wanna pick. I come on here to debate with others that have ideals different than my own. I know my ideals are not the "true" right, i come here to debate to get a more knowledge to have a more 'complete' view on the situation.

hell its because of these debates i have finally found justification to side with the blades over Paar even though i despise delphie and adore paar. I hope i am not coming across as soemoen tryign to shove my 'truth' down people throats, just here to share my view on my side of the story and see other peoples sides and compare. i enjoy someone opeing my mind ot diffeent points of views to thepoint where i really have to think and weigh the consequences. Hence there are many very intelligent peopel on these forums that do indeed make me question my own reasons and thats why i come here to debate. just wanted to getthat off my chest before i go back into the debate or the thread locks up and wanted to thank the people here for giving excellent arguements.


because there is always more to the story than what we see, alot of times people have coem across nudgets of info that are hiddent hat many people dotn knwo about.

I knew we'd get to this sooner or later,but I thought it fair to mention the movie since we're dealing with another fictional setting (Skyrim). I could've mentioned that Robert the Bruce wasn't quite the wuss he's portrayed as too. I mean, he's a national hero for scots. But as the fictional characters stand, I see reason to compare him to Torryg

Anyways.

but as a whole, when u look from all sides it seems like int he end almost as if ur gonna be the head person of either factions. So its up to weither want an empire alrdy and just have to go thru and clean up the corruption in the politics and ranks of military and renew ur reputation OR you can start from scratch and my example of your conquest methods is how well ur reputation will be.

maybe a lil off topic but was high orck OR skyrim attacked at any point? meaning im thinking the war was just at hammerfell and they used diversion tactics and moved the bulk of thier army into cryodill. Is that how it went?

also above the question is a point of view when im deciding things as far as the end result.

The forces in cyrodiil were meant to be a diversionary force to distract them from seinding forces into hammerfell while they sent their main forces there. The diversionary force proved so successful that they decided to change their original goal and go for broke. Destroy the empire.

Hammerfell and Cyrodill were the theatres of war. I think High Rock was hit at some point though, but not sure if it was actually during the war or if it was an unrelated event.

so this whole threat of the Thalmor...i was under the impression y alot here that they had the strength and numbers to take over the whole continent at one time...now its lookign liek thye would have to conquer piece by piece which would take alot of time....

Si if thye can only really focus on one country at a time then why exactly do we HAVE to have a empire to survive instead of everyone takes care of themselves. Almost like it actually be better for survival if the countrys were able to just focus on thier own, because i mean fromt he way ti looks is that the Empire "high rock/hammefell/skyrim/cryodill" were all focused on the invasion at hammerfell WHEN if it was just seperate lil countrysthen cryodill wouldnt have even gotten attacked because the country would be more focused on its defence. Now i know an invasion that big from an country that NO ONE likes and all knows of its dangers, i really see the countrys lending support but not focusing a full on attack that left for example cryodill open for the ambush..

playing through the stormcloak campaign, i'm starting to wish I could have the option to swap sides at any time during the civil war. I feel so awful about ousting all the Jarls, especially Balgruuf. I die a little inside when i see/talk to him in Solitude.

Indeed. Robert the Bruce was Braveheart. Not William Wallace. The title was given to Robert after he died. His heart was cut out and taken towards the holy land, hence Braveheart. Oh I hate that movie so very, very much.


They have the time. Taking over Cyrodiil is much easier than having to deal with Cyrodiil, High Rock and Skyrim at the same time. Divide and conquer - that's their aim.

It seems like the Thalmor took advantage of the weak leadership in the Empire, and risked a two front war in Hammerfell and Cyrodiil. But the Thalmor were better organized. I think they committed their reserves in Hammerfell, but the Empire was in such disarray they didn't realize it and panicked, which allowed the Thalmor to take the Imperial City. This also allowed the Empire to retake the Imperial City. IMO Mede II bargained from a weaker point than he needed. From what I'm understanding the Thalmor also have their handsful with occupying Valenwood. However the WGC allowed the Thalmor to cause the empire to further rot from within considering the Empire cannot sneeze without permission. Nords don't take kindly to being told how to live their lives.

Tullius seems quite, shall we say corrupt, and Imperial in his thinking like he can force his will over the rest of Skyrim. Ulfric still realizes he needs to get the support of the other jarls even if at swordpoint, which face it is the way things used to be done, and still are done in this world. Remember "you're either for us, or against us." But Balguulf wants to wait to see which way the wind is blowing before he makes up his mind. He's an opportunist. He's a politician.

Whiterun has been an interesting place, being a totally neutral territory. But being neutral with non-defensible terrain (unlike Switzerland) during a civil war is not a good position. Avenicci sells armor and weapons to the imperials, true. Grey-mane sells to the Stormcloaks. Yet Whiterun is awash in used hooded Thalmor robes and Elven Armor.

Even Siddgeir?

I hate the Silver-bloods with a passion but if you listen to what Thongvor says, he is petitioning Ulfric to sent soldiers to clear out the Reach of Forsworn and if you beat the civil war with Stormcloaks, you see him writing petitions to Ulfric. Say what you will about the Silver-bloods but at least the Forsworn will be dealt with and possible eradicated whereas things aren't likely to change under the old Imperial jarl.

I find Vignar Grey-mane to be one of nicer jarls since he personally saved Brill from dying as an alcoholic in a gutter without expecting reward. In addition, his first plans as jarl are to get food, water, and guards for Whiterun so the lives of the citizens won't be disrupted and to help rebuild the city. I say that's a great jarl and plus if Vignar is jarl, those annoying brats won't become jarls like when Balgruuf was ruler.

Morthal's Stormcloak jarl has an Argonian housecarl. That means she's more tolerant than Idgrod who has a housecarl that is attempting to overthrow her based on a letter he gives you.

Falkreath's Stormcloak jarl is WAY better than Siddgeir could ever be.

P.S. About the Stormcloaks not buying from Adrianne. You do realize that she was the daughter of Balgruuf's Steward and implies that she has a lot of influence with her father? You don't think think that the Stormcloaks would be a bit suspicious of someone who had ties to the previous regime? Tell me, would you rather get weapons from someone who had a relative in power in the previous regime and whose allegiance could be questioned, or the best blacksmith in the country who supports your cause fullheartedly?

hate vignar. and no, eorlund doesn't support the stormcloaks whole-heartedly. He takes a very indifferent stance on the regime change.

obviously the replacement Falkreath Jarl is better.

I never minded Igmund.

Balgruuf is the man. He's not an opportunist. He's trying to preserve his damn city as much as he can before he has to make a decision. There's nothing about him that seems opportunistic other than his neutrality, and even that can be explained.

Originally, Hammerfell was the Thalmor's primary target and a secondary force was sent to Cyrodiil to tie up the possibility of Imperial reinforcements. The Thalmor won their leadership position in Summerset Isle through dealing with bosmer and redguard reavers and after taking Valenwood, Hammerfell was the next logical step. Then they won a few unexpected victories in Cyrodiil and believed the Empire and its capital to be weak. Opportunistically, they switched their priorities but the Empire struck back and dealt significant blows to the Thalmor.

At the time of the WGC, the Empire was in a worse position than the Thalmor. Elsweyr, Valenwood and Summerset Isle were still firmly in their grasp, but on the other side, Hammerfell had lost a significant amount of land and Cyrodiil had been sacked. The negotiation platforms were not equal.

I don't think Tulius is corrupt at all, he's simply a soldier in a foreign land with little patience for the politics and traditions of the nords. Rikke is much more in tune with the land, for obvious reasons. Likewise, Balgruuf is anything but a politician. He's for his people and would rather be left out of the war entirely. Tulius and Ulfric forced his hand, which is something he should have expected, but that's more naivety than anything manipulative.

Given how easily cities change hands, it seems only the guards and the jarls fight the battles. This makes me feel the people don't care one way or another who is in charge. If this is true, then it's really just a game for the jarls to play. The empire doesn't exactly "rule with an iron fist" either do they? I mean there's a shrine to Talos in Whiterun and I don't see anyone complaining. I'd frankly like the empire to shut that priest up. The point is that the citystates of Skyrim probably have some obligation to the empire but they seem to be allowed to pretty much rule themselves when a war isn't going on. Remember what happens in Riverwood when you kill a fricking chicken? Just imagine Whiterun with every person running at the Stormcloaks and you will see the difference between a people committed to their leaders and what we have here now.

And it also seems like holding a moot and electing a new high king would solve the civil war too. Either Ulfric would win or he wouldn't (I suspect wouldn't). If he lost he'd have a hard time maintaining he was the real high king -- I mean by what right? And if Ulfric was willing to maintain relations with the Empire, I bet they wouldn't even send soldiers much less fight this war.

It's hard to set up a democracy in this sort of civilization, but if there were some government the people felt they had a stake in, they'd be willing to defend it (as they do with dragon attacks). So by negation, they don't feel they have a stake. Here evidently they don't even choose their jarls from who is the best warrior the way maybe the Vikings might. So apparently it's all inherited titles and empire royal governors etc.

What does that mean? It means the empire only cares that whoever is ruling Skyrim meets its imperial obligations. And the people apparently only wish the jarls and guards would finish up killing each other so that they could get back to business.

Still if the Stormcloaks want a united Skyrim ready to go to war against the Thalmor its no way to go about it
But probably realistic
From Civil Wars I know about (English, American, Spanish) there was always a measure of vengeance taken against the losing side

edit: And to be fair that taken in the game is pretty mild compared to the historical examples

I still don't think the Empire should have signed the Concordat. I doubt the Empire could have outright destroyed the Dominion (and couldn't hace taken Summerset regardless of their strength). However, I do think it was within their grasp to retake Valenwood and Elswyer if they summoned support from the provinces (and assisted rebel groups). Even if that is impossible, they could have repaired themselves without signing because the Dominion's army was battered pretty bad. If Cyrodiil refused to sign the Concordat, I doubt they could just send over another army.

If Titus Mede II could make decisions with the benefit of hindsight he might have agreed with you
What a wonderful thing hindsight is and what a pity its never actually available to us when we have to make decisions

It requried abandoing half a province, who fought just as hard as the Empire against the Dominion. He shouldn't have even considered it. If he didn't think the Dominion could be beaten, it's a message to the provinces "we will sacrifice you to keep the Empire whole."

Plus Moth gro Bagol thinks he's a good man and fine soldier. Everything's authoritative when an orc says it.

I also don't get the Vignar hate. I like Balgruuf, too, but sometimes good men pick the wrong side.

I think it's clear from the way things go in Skyrim that the moot has no real power. It won't convene until there's a winner in the civil war, and practically everyone considers the moot to be just a formality at that point.

Also, for the record, I don't think the moot ever elected Torygg. After the War of Succession the moot only convenes when there's no clear heir to the throne. This wasn't the case with Torygg, who inherited his position from his father.

I'd guess the moot did elect Torygg but it was only a formality, as happened in several of the Scandinavian kingdoms when they were beginning the transition (slide/degeneration) into hereditary kingship

The system of succession in the First Empire is worthy of note, as it proved in the end to be the Empire's undoing. By the early years of the First Empire, Skyrim was already divided into Holds, then ruled by a patchwork of clan-heads, kings, and councils (or moots), all of which paid fealty to the King of Skyrim. During the exceptionally long reign of King Harald, who died at 108 years of age and outlived all but three of his sons, a Moot was created, made up of representatives from each Hold, to choose the next King from qualified members of the royal family. Over the years, the Moot became permanent and acquired an increasing amount of power; by the reign of King Borgas, the last of the Ysgramor dynasty, the Moot had become partisan and ineffective...

.... 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.

From the Skyrim section in the First Pocket Guide.

after finishing the stormcloak campaign, and the imperial campaign weeks prior, I get the impression that Beth will be making the Moot an event in the expansion or a DLC. I also get the feeling it won't be called until the main quest is done, and it might end in the Dragonborn becoming High King/Queen.

Either way, I'll have my private army of Companions, Mages, Thieves, Assassins, Mercenaries, Housecarls, and other followers at the ready to wage my own war for the rule of skyrim.

That's my suspicion as well, and it would be an opportunity to tie the Imperial and Stormcloak questlines together.

Wow, 13 pages?!