This annoys me a little its a rebellion against a force of occupation a civil war would be the empire fighting itself.

Umm. Wrong. It's the population of skyrim that has split itself into two forces and those forces fight each-other. =civil war.

But it is the Empire fighting against itself: Skyrim wasn't occupied territory, it was an Imperial province.

Yes, it is a civil war. The Nords of Skyrim are trying to secede from the Empire. They are still are state, if you would, of the Empire.

From an Imperial point of view, it is a civil war, and as they hold the power and write the textbooks (at least for now) they can call it what they like.

I actually think that was quite a smart move by Bethesda, as calling it an insurrection or a struggle for liberation would lead to players and the media drawing parallels with real-world situations, potentially leading to political difficulties in various territories where they want the game to sell. "Civil war", for most gamers (cetainly British and American gamers) has a ring of the old world about it, and such matters are long since settled. "Liberation" smacks of rather more current situations, and just does not equate to fun.

It's also worth noting that there are a large number of Nords who oppose the Stormcloaks and fight for the Empire, which further cements this as a civil conflict rather than a rebellion.

I think the war of Thalmor aggression would be a nice description, but of course I'm an old rebel.

Skyrim is a province (state) trying to be indenpendent from the empire (nation/country) so yes, this is a civil war in my book.

Did the empire conquer skyrim or not ? how did they come to be there in the first place ?. The romans allowed Gauls to join its military yet the Gauls staged numerous rebellions non of which is ever referred to as a civil war. When the natives of an occupied province rise up against the occupiers its a rebellion thats not the same thing as a civil war.

Seconding this.
It's not "Skyrim vs. The Empire" (Skyrim is the Empire, anyway). There are two factions in the land, both with a large number of local supporters. What is that other than a civil war?

It most definitely is a civil war. The people of Skyrim are fighting against the people of Skyrim. Four holds support the Empire, the other four support Ulfric.

That's a fair point but I would still say its a rebellion rather than a civil conflict. If the empire upped and left leaving a power vacuum and Ulfric used force against those that didn't support him that would be a civil war. A group a natives rebelling against an occupying force that is looking week due to commitments elsewhere is more of a rebellion than a civil war. The rulers of the empire are not fighting amongst themselves for control of the empire. The closest thing you can liken stormcloaks vs the empire to is the romans dealing with a rebellion in one of its provinces where they still have some local support.

Talos did that. It's funny how the Stormcloaks start a war for a man who handed over Skyrim to the Imperials to gain status as an Imperial general.

I think "civil war" would imply a struggle for the government of the Empire itself, whereas the Skyrim conflict is confined to one province. As the goal of one side is independence and not control of the central government, one could argue that this is a rebellion or war of secession and not in fact a civil war.

The American Civil War was an attempt by part of the US to secede from the rest. If that was a civil war so is this. The Empire was never a monolithic entity ruled with an iron fist from the IC. Elder Council and local nobility always held a considerable amount of power.

I was wondering about that as my TES knowledge is limited to skyrim. So Talos meekly handed over skyrim in order to become an imperial ?. That rasies the question of why do these so called true Nords that hate the empire worship him as a god ?, isnt he more of a traitor to the independence of skyrim and the Nords ?.

You say as if Rebellions and Civil Wars are two completely different things while they are often not. Rebellions often lead to Civil Wars as is the case with Skyrim. Or looking at the real world Libya and Syria are a perfect example.

I think the point at which something could be called a civil war vs. a rebellion is kind of a fuzzy line. To the Imperials from Cyrodiil, it's more of a rebellion (I think some of them referred to it as "Ulfric's rebellion" at times. To the Nords on the Imperial side, it's like "civil war between two factions contending for the throne of Skyrim, one of which has Imperial support."
I thought the Nord armies joined mostly-willingly out of respect for Talos's thu'um and military achievements, and the were instrumental in creating the Empire. So they might not've considered themselves in an "occupied province" situation for most of the Empire's history; independence wasn't really something many Nords wanted until the ban on Talos worship came along.

Hjalti showed up in Skyrim, the Greybeards shouted at him, and he lived. The nords were so impressed they joined his army and aided in his conquering of Tamriel and eventually formed the Empire.

They were never conquered or handed over, they joined of their own free will.

The rebellion/civil war is due to some nords feeling like Cyrodiil is no longer looking after their interests. They remember the times of Tiber/Hjalti and notice the distinct difference between the emperors of his day, and the emperor of today.

Skyrim is not under Imperial occupation.

1) As I read http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Tiber_Septim, the Empire did not conquer Skyrim. Rather, it was much the other way around: Tiber Septim marched into what is now Cyrodiil under the banner of Cuhlecain, king of Falkreath, and established the Empire. If anyone was occupied territory, it was Cuhlecain's/Septim's Nord and Breton forces occupying the Imperial heartlands, not Nord territory being occupied by Imperials.

2) Even if the Nords had been brought into the Empire through occupation, the Empire was formed (with the Nords a part of it from the start) at the dawn of the Third Era. Oblivion took place (and ended the Third Era) in 3E 433 and Skyrim is set in 4E 200. That's 633 years of Skyrim being a willing, peaceful member of the Empire with no evidence of subjugation by Imperial forces. Calling it "occupied territory" by virtue of Imperial conquest after that long, even if it had originally been brought into the Empire as conquered territory (which, again, it wasn't), seems unreasonable. If Skyrim is still "occupied territory" after six centuries, then most of Europe must also be "occupied territory" today, owing to having been captured in medieval- and renaissance-era wars.

I thought Skyrim pretty much was where the empire began, so Skyrim was never conquered - It was at least one of the first provinces in the Empire when the empire formed, it was always part of the empire, just like Cyrodiil. If people in Cyrodiil rebelled, it would be a civil war there, too, wouldn't it?

What Im getting at is this Im assuming that skyrim is a province of the empire in the same way that Briton was a province of Rome. Some Nords have banded together in an effort to push the occupied force of the empire out of skyrim. Thats not a civil war thats a rebellion against a military force of occupation in your homeland. If a number of the empires generals had banded together to attack the emperor and wrestle control of the empire from him and forces loyal to him that would be a civil war. Libya was a civil war yes it was fighting itself but could you say that a rebellion in a province of Rome Judea for example was a civil war ?.

Well that makes more scene then from what you and others say skyrim is not simply a conquered province there is more to it than that. To someone new to TES like me skyrim makes that about as clear as mud.

Except, as others have already pointed out, it isn't.
In the Roman Empire, there was nothing like Skyrim is to the Septim Empire.
Ulfric was a Jarl in the Imperial province of Skyrim, one of those ruling the province as regional Lords. He was very much part of the very government he tried to topple later on. He turned away from the Empire only after the White-Gold Concordat banned Talos worship, and after the High King reneged on the promise to allow Talos worship in Markarth. At that moment, the Imperial Jarl Ulfric of Windhelm went Nord secessionist.
That he doesn't try to assume power over the whole of the Empire, but to secede from it, doesn't make that war any less internal.

I wrote that while others were still posting and now have a fuller understanding of the history leading up to Ulfric filliping his lid about the situation.