I would:

1. First and foremost try to find a diplomatic solution before unleashing death, even forceful "knife to the throat" (~submit and pacify or face extirpation) diplomacy, and keep a back door open to a diplomatic solution throughout.

2. Send assassins and/or commando units after their Hagravens and leadership.
3. Offer amnesty to anyone who is willing to turn himself/herself in and pacify.
4. "Evacuate" their civilians and their civilian supporters away from the theater. (<- to deny the militant Forsworn support as much as possible)
5. Destroy and/or occupy the Forsworn supply system.
6. Place strategic attacks, driving them into controllable fortresses.
7. Lay siege to those places.
8. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exstirpo them.

Off course the legion would rely heavily on the dragonborn hero/leader to be victorious. I doubt it'd be able to succeed without his/her prowess.


It did work for the Romans. Rome fell because of a series of events, but rebellion by subjected peoples wasn't really a factor in it's fall, and the massive germanic invasions that ultimately dismantled the western empire were a symptom of an empire that was already ready to fall, not the underlying cause of it.
Rome manly fell due to four factors: it's failed economic system, continuous exterior threat, continuous internal Roman struggle for power, and as it aged it's often paralyzing leadership / internal politics. Also, empires can only expand as much as their area of comfort, their communication lines and their sustainable supply abilities allow. Which means there will always remain enemies, since once an Empire reaches it's maximum ability to expand, those enemies will be more or less out of reach. The Romans reached their limits in the forests across the Rhine and Danube, Mesopotamia and Armenia.
The Roman interior within their borders was relatively peaceful and safe (few exceptions) until the empire had already set on a continuous path of internal degradation.

For it's conquests Rome relied heavily on brute force and "knife to the throat" diplomacy to force subjection or assimilation. Those who wouldn't cooperate were extirpated. It did work for them. Rome and it's empire peaked as a result of the resulting Pax Romana. The Romans themselves broke the Pax Romana, embarking on a destructive series of internal civil wars and struggles for power. It ruined their already flimsy economic system, and readied the empire for dismantling.

Refuse my orders, rally the forsworn with whatever members of my unit stayed with me and begin the rise of the barbarian tribes that take down the empire.

I would resign my commission.

I have characters that are cold-blooded murders, even one that is a sociopath, but none of them would ever consider carrying out an order to commit genocide.

Assassinate a forsworn leader? No problem.
Purge a forsworn stronghold? Just say where.
Wipe out an entire culture? Do it yourself, Adolf.

I remember watching in discovery channel about how englishmen dealt with the natives. Aparently one tactic consisted in killing wild animals to starve the people and force them to abandon the area or die. The colonialists wouldnt starve since they had developed agriculture and keep cattle, also they could import food, but the natives were all hunters. Seeing that the main source of food in skyrim would come from mammoth, an animal that takes years to reach maturity and reproduces slowly, i think that could work. Theres also the posibility that they would flee to other areas, both morrowind and hammerfell are near skyrim and if the forsworm flee there then its not longer a problem of the empire.

It occurs to me that I am not Ulfric Stormcloak. I would rather not try to exterminate people.

Considering it failed to pacify Gemanic populations, the Gauls, nevermind the Jews and Christians I'd say the burn them all strategy was an remitted failure for the Romans. What worked for them was political accommodation that maintained existing power structures. It was one of Romes most important political contributions to the modern world and a major part of the history lesson. A far cry from the strategy you're claiming they used to promote success.

Anyhow, regardless of whatever you believe about the Romans and whether you or I are right about their strategy, this strategy has been tried by factions in the TES universe and come up short. I see no reason to believe it'll work now, with a smaller, less powerful nation trying to achieve it than before.

-Starcrunch

As I am Dragonborn, I'd just call Odahviing. Let him have fun.

You're quite off.

The Germans beyond the Rhine were out of reach, as I already pointed out in what you quoted. The Germans before the Rhine were actually incorporated within the Empire, supplying large amounts of high-valued troops to the legions and the auxilia, even imperial bodyguards since Augustus' praetorian guard was mostly comprised of Germanic recruits.

The Gauls were pacified. In fact the Romans even made Cisalpine Gaul part of Roman Italy after 41 BC. Larger Gaul became one of Rome's most prosperous and peaceful regions during the Pax Romana, it even remained so until the empire ultimately fell. Also the Gauls adopted Roman culture quite well. Gaul, once Rome's nemesis, became it's strongest hold after Rome incorporated it.

The Jews before they revolted were actually allowed a great amount of self rule, even if under puppet rulers. But still the Jews revolted, which led to their extirpation. They gave the Romans no more trouble after that extirpation, but in stead spread throughout the empire and more or less assimilated within it.
The Romans usually went extremely hard on rebellious regions. Most regions after they'd rebelled once were heard of no more thereafter in a militant sense after the Romans regained control. The events of and after the Jewish rebellion, which is one of the examples where the Romans went at it at their hardest, actually proves the point that extirpation greatly expedites submission rather than deny that point.

The rise of the Christian faith gave the Romans an internal struggle of faiths. It wasn't a struggle of peoples or races, it went to the core of Latin/Italic Roman society itself. It is completely besides the point you are trying to make. The rise of Christianity during the late empire gave an extra dimension to the by then already frequent and usually constant power struggle within the empire. It introduced a new faith which, contrary to the preceding polytheistic faiths, accepted no other deities or faiths aside it. The late empire, after Constantine politicized the new faith, was a Christian empire. Christianity wasn't just incorporated, it became the state religion of that late empire. As I pointed out, continuous internal social strife and power struggle was one of the major factors of Rome's fall, the rise of Christianity was just that: another internal strife, especially after the new faith was politicized.


Every empire used (and abused) existing power structures. What was required for those structures to be useful however was a willingness to comply with and submit to the foreign overlord. In many cases the willingness to submit and comply was greatly "stimulated" by extirpation elsewhere of those who refused.

Yes, there are cases where Roman diplomacy seemed benevolent enough to allow a nation to incorporate itself very willingly, as happened with Pergamon and Thrace iirc, and of course Rome used (and required) many allies to accomplish it's expansion. But usually Roman diplomacy was pretty much "knife to the throat". Most allies were coerced into these alliances out of fear, fear to loose social standing or fear of extirpation. Rightly so, so it seems, because after all everything was eventually directly ruled by either the senate or the emperor, the Roman intent was evidently clear.


Submit or face slaughter and destruction?

It was how Talos built and consolidated his empire after gaining Numidian from Vivec. And Vivec admittedly agreed to pacify Morrowind, incorporate it within the empire, and give Talos access to Numidian, because he felt his people had nothing to gain from elongated conflict with Talos and his forces. It's all pretty much in accordance with Roman doctrine imho.


As the matter was raised, the legions have the player-hero at their command. With that in mind anything is possible and anything can be accomplished.

[censored] the children and murder the women...not the other way around. (I'm joking, please don't hate me too much.)

The Forsworn are similar to the Vandals, commanded by Alaric the Visigoth while the Legion is like the Roman Legionaires.

Rome lost because they spead their forces too thin, so I would have special tactical teams that have archers shadowing them everywhere they go, mages in between legionaires and a Legate commanding from the front. The group would hold roughly 20 people plus a few magically enthralled saber cats. They would act as independent cells of 100 (so 5 groups per cell) designated to a very specific area of land and by no means are they to advance past it. Trees would be ordered burned to the ground or cut down to form barriers and Hagravens and Briarhearts would be lured into an ambush of the shadowing archers if the mobile force were to encounter them.

No direct assaults on ANY redoubts. Only patrols that are stationed within the designated land area to wipe out any wanderers. Capturing Forsworn would be encouraged by the cells as bait or as guides that are bound with magical binds to prevent resistance. Each and every member of the cell would have a magical ring that incinerates everything within a 20 ft radius to prevent being captured and tortured.

Each cell would have a HQ stationed in the open with guards posted in all directions with bear traps acting as mine fields that surround the entire camp.

Of course Markarth would be commandeered directly and Forsworn suspects would be exiled from the city if sufficient evidence opposes them.


BTW, I oppose the Empire, so this is only what I'd do assuming I sided with them. As the Cloaks, the problem would be solved entirely differently

And how would the Stormcloaks approach the matter then? The Forsworn aren't exactly friendly to Nordic rule either. In fact, the Nords are the Forsworn's nemesis, before the empire even.

Easy. Walkabout all over the Reach and whenever you see one of those tent symbols on your compass (signifying Forsworn), charge and leave none alive. Also brutally crack down on anybody supporting the Forsworn and publicly humiliate them before having them executed by hanging from above Silverblood Inn.

It would depend on how many men I had. If I had 1000+ I'd simply drive them out by force, sheer manpower, no thinking. Sweep through all of the known camps, they wouldn't stand a chance. Hell, if I co-ordinated it well enough, I could do it in an afternoon. Hagravens would be the only problem, but I could see the Thalmor helping as well. (to maintain their facade of peace, if nothing else. (im with the legion))

Whereas If I only had 10-100, I'd have to slowly drive them out one camp by one, until I destroy them. Starting from whiterun hold, I'd drive them towards Markarth where the local guard wil help clean up. If there's any survivors, then too bad. They don't exactly have a great recruitment drive going on anyway.

i think your inner cicero is showing

I would have requested the Thalmor's aid who would of battled with them until losing / coming to a stand still, and then they would of forged a treaty banning the worship of their god. Leaving the Forsworn to fight among themselves killing each other off as we sit back and watch waiting for the moment they become absolutely weak and swoop in wiping the rest of them out in the confusing of their inner turmoil.

I'm the Dragonborn. I run in there, Fus Ro Dah them all, have my army come in and clear out the rest.

Storm Call = Win

I don't see any other more useful tactic to destroy everyone including the people on your side

What i would do :

Depending on the size of the army i get, i would first send in a recon team.
Check the surrounding areas etc, see if i can't weed them out with a small group from the inside, if that's not possible..well i'll just find a high-point (which there is alot of).
Stand up there with a couple of power hungry mages and just hurl fireballs at them, archers taking out anyone that runs out, swordsmen to protect the passage up.

I would turn every village upside down looking for people that are protecting them, i would torture the forsworn captives.
One of them will talk sooner or later, i would go after their loved ones, i would skin them, pluck their fingers one by one.

I would turn skyrim into a warzone that none has ever seen.

Every has a family right? I would send out spies to try and track down the families of the dragonborn.
None of the Jarls are safe either, i would kidnap their friends and families and force them to do my bidding! or otherwise -.-

I would train a small group of stealthy and skilled soldiers in guerrilla warfare.
None shall live! Force recruitment on villagers and cities, for the ones that refuse...well lets just say a slow and painful death awaits them.


My two cents

Another option convince the Thalmor they are all Talos worshipers sit back wait for victor to emerge kill victor.

LOL I was thinking along these lines but rather that you would deed land to militias who successfully root them out. The Reach is pretty empty and needs to be settled to be defended.

Your trained troops should defend the roads to keep trade flowing.

I wouldn't take the orders from Tullius, though. We've seen how the empire keeps its promises.

I believe the Empire is ill-equipped to fight another native rebellion in one of it's provinces. After the sacking of Windhelm, Imperial armies will be tied down pacifying the region of Stormcloak sympathizers and camps. The easiest solution would be to grant the Reachmen restricted autonomy by granting them the Reach Hold but integrating them as another region of the Empire. The Reach doesn't hate the Empire; it wants independence and hates the Nords and Ulfric, the Bear of Markarth.

But, there are problems. In all likelihood the Thalmor Inquisition will demand special access to the Reach. If you fold to the Thalmor, Justiciars will carry out espionage warfare and attempt to purge the Reach of it's religion. This will probably result in a second insurrection, which would be catastrophic. If you stand your ground, then it would cause frictions with the Nords and with the Thalmor.

But of course, a combative solution may be needed. Obviously espionage tactics, roadlocks, assassins and hit teams. Maybe even implicate the Thalmor by granting powers to the Justiciars to subjugate the Reachmen, indirectly killing two birds with one stone.

So you'd cede the territory back again? Remember what happened to Jarl Igmund's father when he tried to broker peace with the Forsworn. They don't want to be ruled, by imperials or anyone. Read the Legend of Red Eagle if you believe they'd give this up for anything. Or just recall your chat with Madanach. If you're just going to give it back for nothing in return, there was no sense in taking it back in the first place. The irony of that being that it was the retaking of Markarth that led to the Stormcloak rebelllion.


Reachmen don't worship Talos, they worship daedra. What advantage do the justiciars have in doing your dirty work for you? They want to root out Talos and the sons of Talos. That's their battleground.

All you historians and experts on geo-politics see any Carthaginians around lately?

Genocide sorted them out rather successfully, I'd suggest.

There's no Tasmanian Aboriginals in Australia either, a rather distasteful part of my nation's history, I'm afraid, but a fact.

There are a lot of Reachmen who are not Forsworn. Genocide would only create more problems. Aside from being, you know, evil and stuff.

This + subterfuge, sabotage, treachery, and superior numbers. All is fair in love and war after all.