Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-26213507-20150715194939/@comment-26356342-20150827175208

S&#039;Dalaar the Snowcat wrote: To clarify, Ulfric's was not Jarl during his campaign in the Reach. His father died during his imprisonment, which was after the Markarth Incident. He was just another Nord militia, with no other ambition than to fulfill a request from the Jarl of Markarth. You're right on that part sorry I'm mixing my information together. I agree it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask for some form of compensation. But at this point in time he was an Imperial citizen denying the empire access to the city, he could have handled it so much better to get either the same results or better results. as for furthering his OWN goals, I just personally found it a bit suspect it took Jarl Igmund promising Ulfric free worship of Talos in order to convince him to come and help. It just seems to me Ulfric's decisions to do things stem from him challenging authority to prove he's superior, and part of that involves him using things such as Free Talos worship as a means to challenge said authority. Religious freedom being the biproduct, not the goal. etc etc. I'd say it benefited him greatly, he saved a city and tried to give them free worship, only to have the Empire bow to the Thalmor and deny the gift he gave. it was all just slander against the Empire, which is why they in-turn wrote about how Ulfric did all these "terrible" things while in command (which for the record I don't believe he did).

Just because Ulfric first demanded free Talos worship doesn't mean his mind could not have been chnage. If Ulfric was indeed "greedy and power hungry", they could have easily have bought him off by raising his power status in Skyrim.

Well since it took Igmund having to promise free worship, I really don't think Ulfric would have accepted ANY other terms. It undermines his whole point. The EMpire also couldn't exactly bargain with him either, what he was doing was illegal, and the Empire can't be seen rewarding someone who held a city hostage, it sets a bad precedent. How many bandits would then try the same thing? You are correct on the Empire not wanting to appear weak, I agree to that. Especially RIGHT after the war.

Also, it is a bit wrong to compare the Empire's betrayal and Ulfric's so-called "illegal occupation". Because they are two different things. Unlike the Empire, Ulfric didn't lie and betray anyone. Technically The Empire didn't lie, they gave them the free worship, the lore states "eventually" the Dominion heard about what happened and put pressure on them. Everyone was stupid in this situation, The Empire for agreeing to the terms, Ulfric for demanding those terms, Jarl Igmund for promising those terms, The Dominion for just being the dominion, everyone was dumb... The Empire didn't have a choice in the matter tho, they signed a peace agreement, which Ulfric knew full well about. he jeopardized the entire province by demanding those terms, because had the dominion not put pressure on, and instead said "well you broke the pact, time to attack" it would have lead to more lives lost. Now granted, I know the dominion wasn't in any shape to actually continue to fight either, but thats not something thats well known among the common folk.

That is what they did when the WGC was signed. The WGC doesn't necessarily say that the Empire must fight the enemies of the Dominion. But like I said before, would it make sense if the Empire(Thalmor "allies") helps a Stormcloak ruled Skyrim(Thalmor enemies)? The Dominion would surely object to this. It would make sense if the Stormcloaks didn't kill Imperials to get said independence. Theres nothing in the treaty that would forbid the Empire from aiding any other province, be it Skyrim, Hammerfell, or even Morrowind. I'm sure the dominion wouldn't be happy but there's nothing they could really do about it, especially since trade routes pas directly through Skyrim to High Rock. That would be a BOLD move for the dominion to try and demand the Empire not have peace agreements, or alliances with other nations. Not that they even have to tell the dominion what they're doing in regards to sending ambassadors anyways. At best the dominion could send someone along with them to "ensure" the alliance made doesn't involve the Empire breaking the terms of their agreement. It's not something they'd threaten troops over (they're also still pretty weak) besides, it'd be easier for them to allow the alliance to be made and then try and split them up to cause dissidence between the 2 nations. plus since it's usually part of the Empire's policy to absorb other nations, technically it would give the Dominion free reign into the ally's nation as well, as the WGC specifies ANY Imperial owned province.

Otherwise, if they didn't want to lose soldiers, then they should have let Skyrim go when half of Skyrim stood up against them. Whats the difference this time? Torygg dying? Anti-Empire hate speeches? The Empire hardly gives a damn about either. The difference is exactly that, with Hammerfell they fought the dominion, with Skyrim, Ulfric was fighting the Empire. It breaks down like this, The Empire said "ok fine we'll sign, sorry Hammerfell, but huge portions of your lands now belong to the dominion" Hammerfell in turn said "yeah, no. they can't have those lands, we'll kill them if they try and take them." The Dominion then chimed in and said "If they fight us, it means YOURE fighting us, tell them to stand down" Hammerfell didnt stand down, and kept killing dominion forces, forcing the Empire to just say "Pull the troops they are no longer part of the Empire and therefor no longer bound to the treaty" But in the case of Skyrim, it wasn't "we'll keep fighting the dominion for our religious freedoms" it was "The Empire can Sod off and on, for allowing the dominion to take away our Talos" Then you have the Jarl who kills their High King, it'd be like if the Count of Skingrad killed the Emperor, The Empire couldn't just let that go. Ulfric made it a fight against the Empire, he kept challenging their authority, and any leader who lets that go unchecked isn't a leader. He didn't have to make it a fight against the Empire, he chose to. The Empire can't just let him get away with whatever he wants. He was rebelling against the Empire specifically and "you don't coddle a revolt, you put it down".

if the Empire were trying bully the Redguards into giving away their precious lands to the Thalmor by force, it is pretty safe to say that the Reguards would have made resistance with the Imperials as well. True. But the Empire didn't try to use force on them, nor did they use force on Skyrim either, and yet the Stormcloaks are attacking the Empire. As I said before the Talos ban wasn't even being enforced. There were no Imperial troops FORCING anything on anyone, it was the Empire telling the High King, who told the Jarls "Remove the shrines of Talos" until Ulfric brought force into it. which leads us back to not coddling a revolt. The Empire needs Skyrim, we all agree on that point, why would they want to murder their best vanguard troops in order to get the nation? The Empire is defending itself from the revolt Ulfric has instigated, it's acting just as ANY other nation would given the same circumstances. That's partly why theres only 1 legion there to solve the problem, they don't want to invade Skyrim to bring it to heel, they just want to stop Ulfric. If he had fought the Dominion, the Empire couldn't very well forcefully stop them, aside from it appearing like they're helping their enemy, they'd be reducing their own numbers.

Eh... only Skyrim has someone trying to "further his own agenda", as you put it. In Hammerfell, I don't think there was a power hungry usurper who kept fighting the Thalmor. Well aside from Ulfric, theres the man who hires the Darkbrotherhood to kill the Emperor, we have Black Marsh taking advantage of post-oblivion crisis Morrowind, The dominion coming into power I just meant there was this sudden rush of people taking advantage of the chaos, and the Empire is having a hard time keeping up making them blind to other problems and concerns.

Like we both agree, Cyrodiil would be better of ruling and re-organizing just themselves, rather than trying to divide soldiers and the little resources they have on other countries. In a sense, kicking the Imperials out of Skyrim might even help them realize this and take proper actions before it's too late.

I agree it could help them realize they need to focus on Cyrodiil first, but not at this present time, not with the Dominion on their doorstep with a 3 nation army at the ready. Jarl Balgruuf said it best when he said the 2 countries need eachother, and that mutual benefit could come from being allies, but they can't exactly make nice with Ulfric in charge. The dominion needs to be stopped first, then the Empire should regroup in Cyrodiil and focus on JUST Cyrodiil.

Bronkiin wrote: As I have previously mentioned, the main value of Skyrim to the Empire is its manpower. Half of this manpower would not fight for the Empire anyway, and the rest would fight far more effectively defending the passes of Skyrim than dressed up in Imperial armour in Cyrodil.

Well i mean if we're going by Lore and not mechanics, most of the Stormcloaks are farmers not fighters, and their combat style is offensive, not defensive.And acting defensively on their own turf would also mean allowing the dominion some ground within Skyrim. And if half the manpower in Skyrim is the Empire, if they were to lose or pull their troops you're left with half of skyrim defending the whole of skyrim. If the Empire still owns Skyrim, even with only half it's troops (with the other half unwilling to fight) fighting IN Cyrodiil, theres no need to defend Skyrim, as the dominion wouldn't even make it that far.