Can anybody really justify the Stormcloaks actions?

[El Fonz0]

This is why I hate these debates.

Everyone assumes. Everyone thinks their opinion is fact.

Everyone who opposes the Stormcloaks states they are xenophobic, racist, barbarians who would easily get slaughtered if Skyrim became independent.

But what proof is there?

The Nords have proven they can defend against impossible odds, i.e.; the Night of Tears, where the Snow Elves attacked Saarthal, but the Nords still managed to defeat the Elves because of their higher population growth.

Yes, the Dark Elves living in Windhelm have it bad, but have you seen some of the important political figures and people living in Stormcloak cities? The Housecarl of Sorli, the Stormcloak Jarl of Morthal, is an Argonian. The Steward of Winterhold is a Dark Elf. The Steward and Court Wizard of Riften are both Elves. There are four High Elves living in Windhelm; a couple working at the stables, a merchant, and an alchemist. There is a Dark Elven bard working at Windhelm's inn. There is a Dark Elven sailor on the Northwind, walking around town.
Somewhat unrelated, but in the in-game files, the Dark Elf mage living in Kynesgrove would have been the replacement Court Wizard should Wuunharth had died.

After Nords, many Stormcloak soldiers are Redguard.

It may sound like I support the Stormcloaks(because I do), but I'm trying to show that to debate properly, one must see both sides of the argument. I can see why people would support the Empire. A unified Empire is a strong Empire. They think Ulfric's racist. They've always liked the Empire. So forth.

 

[Diisk]

This is why I hate these debates.

Everyone assumes. Everyone thinks their opinion is fact.

Everyone who opposes the Stormcloaks states they are xenophobic, racist, barbarians who would easily get slaughtered if Skyrim became independent.

But what proof is there?

The Nords have proven they can defend against impossible odds, i.e.; the Night of Tears, where the Snow Elves attacked Saarthal, but the Nords still managed to defeat the Elves because of their higher population growth.

Yes, the Dark Elves living in Windhelm have it bad, but have you seen some of the important political figures and people living in Stormcloak cities? The Housecarl of Sorli, the Stormcloak Jarl of Morthal, is an Argonian. The Steward of Winterhold is a Dark Elf. The Steward and Court Wizard of Riften are both Elves. There are four High Elves living in Windhelm; a couple working at the stables, a merchant, and an alchemist. There is a Dark Elven bard working at Windhelm's inn. There is a Dark Elven sailor on the Northwind, walking around town.
Somewhat unrelated, but in the in-game files, the Dark Elf mage living in Kynesgrove would have been the replacement Court Wizard should Wuunharth had died.

After Nords, many Stormcloak soldiers are Redguard.

It may sound like I support the Stormcloaks(because I do), but I'm trying to show that to debate properly, one must see both sides of the argument. I can see why people would support the Empire. A unified Empire is a strong Empire. They think Ulfric's racist. They've always liked the Empire. So forth.

I agree with you completely. I believe if they did take skyrim, the stormcloaks would be more tolerant of the other races because they no longer are threatened of being over ran by the imperials. Just my opinion

 

[El Fonz0]

A little unrelated, but I heard this line of dialogue when talking with Scouts-Many-Marshes; "I wish the Nords, Argonians, and dark elves would just get along." That just makes me love Scouts even more.
Fun fact: If you poke around in the Creation Kit, the Skyrim NPC Editor, or use Console Commands, you'll find that Ulfric and Scouts are friends. I'm not sure how or why, but apparently, they're friends.

 

[Dagmar]

it's simple: the imperials made a treaty that no self-respecting nord could live with.

The Emperor agreed to the treaty, not the Imperials. Every Nord lived with the treaty for over a quarter of a century so in your world for over a quarter of a century there were no self-respecting Nords. Roughly half the Nords are still okay with it now.

... ulfric killed torygg honorably according to custom....

That's merely your opinion and one not well supported by what we know about Nordic culture. Yes the right of challenge is a Nord tradition, but everything we know about Nord culture implies that it's supposed to be a trial of combat fought with steel, not Thu'um. Magic is an anathema to Nords in general and warriors in particular. It strains credibility to claim that in a trial by combat valued by Nords the use of magic would be seen as a legitimate way of winning the duel. This is notion is supported by Torygg's own words later in the game ("I faced him fearlessly - my fate inescapable, yet my honor is unstained - can Ulfric say the same?").

 

[Dagmar]

of course, that incident has nothing to do with ulfric's righteous decision to go to war with the imperials, however.

the concordat was an abomination and a just war the result.

ulfric's past doesn't matter. he is a changed man who will free skyrim from the immoral empire.

Calling something righteous doesn't make it so. Doing so without actually providing any basis for it makes it sound like mere propaganda. There is nothing in the game that indicates Ulfric is a changed man. If you think ignoring and refusing to pursue diplomatic solutions, murdering the High King to usurp his throne, and instigating a civil war that will kill thousands of Nords on both sides is a just war then the concepts of a just war are clearly outside your grasp.

 

[bulbaquil]

To my knowledge, there are only two sources of information regarding the treatment of the Forsworn at Markarth:

1. A book written by Arrianus Arius, Imperial scholar, entitled "The Bear of Markarth."
2. The Cidhna Mine quest.

Response to #1: The fact that "Bear of Markarth" is a published book does not render it immune to bias. It was written by an Imperial scholar (who presumably favors the Empire), likely published by an Imperial publisher (who presumably favors the Empire), and focuses on Ulfric, who the Empire would be doing whatever they can to discredit. "Bear of Markarth" could be true. It could also be slanderous propaganda published at the behest and with the full knowledge of the Empire to attempt to dissuade Nords from joining the rebellion.

Similarly, there's no way to know how peaceful the Forsworn rule really was, given that the only true source of that is the same book.

Response to #2: The Forsworn, above ground and in Cidhna Mine, never mention Ulfric (to the best of my awareness). They mention "the Nords" and "the Jarl" (meaning Igmund; Ulfric was not a jarl at the time of the Markarth incident).

Personally, I think it's somewhere in between.

 

[osheao]

.

Calling something righteous doesn't make it so. Doing so without actually providing any basis for it makes it sound like mere propaganda. There is nothing in the game that indicates Ulfric is a changed man. If you think ignoring and refusing to pursue diplomatic solutions, murdering the High King to usurp his throne, and instigating a civil war that will kill thousands of Nords on both sides is a just war then the concepts of a just war are clearly outside your grasp.

ulfric didn't murder torygg no matter how many times it is said that he did.

there is nothing in the game that makes me think ulfric is an evil man. however, during the game, ulfric's own words and those of numerous people around him make me feel he has the correct motivation and justification.

lol! "refusing to pursue diplomatic solutions" doesn't even have any value in the debate of a justifiable war. whether he did or didn't is irrelevant.

the only propaganda i know of in the game is from those that have imperial interests, though, i definitely don't know the full extent of this aspect of the debate.

what i do know is that the empire proved its ineptitude and weakness with the treaty. the lawful and customary challenge by ulfric was legit, thereby, rendering the empire's position of the challenge moot.

maybe, i'm missing some pre-war event of significance, but, the nords easily hold the righteous position, in my mind.

in fact, the imperial empire reminds me of the immoral and corrupt Roman Empire at the end of their time of power.

 

[samgurl775]

No. And I am truly baffled by people that unwaveringly support them.

 

[Devoniuk2233]

I like both the Imperials and Stormcloaks. They both have their reasons for war. Stormcloaks aren't completely racist. Thats like saying all Khajiits are theives. The Empire banned worship of their most favored god, so they decided to govern themselves. Also, When have you ever heard Ulfric say anything that would hint that he's only in it for the power. Its alway's Imperial supporters that are sayin this. The Empire wants to keep Skyrim part of the Empire because they becom an easy target for the Thalmor. Causing the Empire to be even more weaker than they already are. The Thalmor are the true enemies in this game. I hope the end up like the Snow Elves... then again they have too much self respect for themselves for that.

I agree with El Fonz0

 

[Psiberzerker]

Well, I guess the Stormcloaks' actions could be rationalized as Just Following the Orders of a Charismatic Leader, while the Stormcloak's (I.E. Ulfric's) motivations could stem from conscious indignation against a Totalitarian Government bent on Global Domination backed by a eu/Genocidal ally on a Crusade against an Ethnic/Religious minority, (meaning the AD/Thalmor.) OTOH, his initial noble cause may have developed into a megalomaniacal lust for more power...

Go ahead, and a pick a "bad guy", but keep in mind, none of the factions involved are wholly good.

(Amazing what a difference the placement of an apostrophe' makes.)

 

[Jeremius]

TBPH, the Nords ancestors took the lands from the Snow elves. The whole Night of tears was likely just the elves trying to keep THEIR lands from the INVADERS. so in a way the elves are right to take down the humans, they see them as the invader the thieves of their lands. just saying.

also look at Skyrim 5 years from now with each candidate, and see which one looks more peaceful. AND DO NOT bring elisif's incompetence into this, she is just new to the ruler thing, and does not have her bearings.

 

[Mr1cammando]

The only way, in my mind, for Ulfric to win is by assassinations. If you cut the head off the snake (kill important generals/captains), you cause great disorder and thus weakness.

 

[Xivia4]

To my knowledge, there are only two sources of information regarding the treatment of the Forsworn at Markarth:

1. A book written by Arrianus Arius, Imperial scholar, entitled "The Bear of Markarth."

Response to #1: The fact that "Bear of Markarth" is a published book does not render it immune to bias. It was written by an Imperial scholar (who presumably favors the Empire), likely published by an Imperial publisher (who presumably favors the Empire)...

The author also wrote, "The 'Madmen' of the Reach," which criticised the treatment of the Forsworn by Imperials and Nords. Also, he makes note of Imperials regarding them as simple savages. Bias? I think not.

 

[Mr1cammando]

The author also wrote, "The 'Madmen' of the Reach," which criticised the treatment of the Forsworn by Imperials and Nords. Also, he makes note of Imperials regarding them as simple savages. Bias? I think not.

Just because one accepts a bias, does not mean that he has no bias himself. That is what hypocrites do right?

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

.

ulfric didn't murder torygg no matter how many times it is said that he did.

No but he fought with dishonorable means, as stated earlier.

there is nothing in the game that makes me think ulfric is an evil man. however, during the game, ulfric's own words and those of numerous people around him make me feel he has the correct motivation and justification.

Still haven't researched the Markarth Incident eh?

lol! "refusing to pursue diplomatic solutions" doesn't even have any value in the debate of a justifiable war. whether he did or didn't is irrelevant.

Yes, it does. It goes to show who you're rallying behind, and any leader that refuses diplomacy in favor of a war that will leave him unscathed while men die for him is a bad leader.

the only propaganda i know of in the game is from those that have imperial interests, though, i definitely don't know the full extent of this aspect of the debate.

Such as?

what i do know is that the empire proved its ineptitude and weakness with the treaty. the lawful and customary challenge by ulfric was legit, thereby, rendering the empire's position of the challenge moot.

Firstly, the treaty saved the Empire. There was no way they could keep up the fight, and surrendering doesn't make them cowards. By your logic, Ysgramor was a coward for fleeing from Skyrim from the Elves. However he came back fighting, just as the Empire intended to do before getting caught in Ulfric's tantrum.

maybe, i'm missing some pre-war event of significance, but, the nords easily hold the righteous position, in my mind.

>The Nords.
This is the kind of thinking Ulfric condones, it's the Nords that are right, everybody else is wrong. I suggest you do your research, without the Empire Skyrim will be wiped out by the Thalmor.

in fact, the imperial empire reminds me of the immoral and corrupt Roman Empire at the end of their time of power.

Talk to the Emperor in game, he is calm, collected, wise and knowledgeable. Unlike Ulfric who says in his court "If Balgruuf is not with me he is against me." Solidifying the fact he has the same attitude as he did when he ordered the slaughter of innocent men women and children.

 

[Jeremius]

just did a little research, Ulfric is a man of ambition. Men of ambition get killed. Look at Ulfric's RW equivilant, Oda Nogunaga, a Japanese Daimyo(Spelling?) trying to unite Japan under his rule, a dream fulfilled by his sucessors, Hideyoshi Toyotomi and Tokugawa Ieyasu. Nobunaga was killed in a revolt. Just saying there is a pattern here.