Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[Jeremius]

Before I jump on the comment tree, I'd like to point out how hypocritical it is for Tullius to criticize the Jarls for not wanting the Moot and not "Putting stock in their own traiditions" considering Ulfric is branded a criminal for doing exactly that.. The duel was Nordic tradition.

For this Rikke even says the Jarls can't AGREE to the moot, so that might have something to do with the criticisms.

I know this.. I'm saying its hypocritical for him to criticise the Jarls for not agreeing to the Moot by Nordic tradition when he wants to kill Ulfric for following Nordic tradition.

Not really. Ulfric is the cause for the bickering. Like the kids and the pizza example.

 

[LegateFasendil]

Was it not you who said one Jarl doesn't change the Moot? He doesn't choose whether the Moot happens or not.

One jarl doesn't decide the Moot.

Ulfric won't agree to the Moot.

He's branded a criminal by Imperial law remember.. How is he even going to legally take part in a Moot if he wanted too lol?

And yet Gen Tully negotiates with Ulfric at High Hrothgar.

 

[LegateFasendil]

Before I jump on the comment tree, I'd like to point out how hypocritical it is for Tullius to criticize the Jarls for not wanting the Moot and not "Putting stock in their own traiditions" considering Ulfric is branded a criminal for doing exactly that.. The duel was Nordic tradition.

For this Rikke even says the Jarls can't AGREE to the moot, so that might have something to do with the criticisms.

I know this.. I'm saying its hypocritical for him to criticise the Jarls for not agreeing to the Moot by Nordic tradition when he wants to kill Ulfric for following Nordic tradition.

Ulfric: "Tell me again why we're wasting time and dwindling resources chasing a legend. We don't even know it exists!"
Galmar: "The Jarls are upset. They don't all support you."
Ulfric: "Damn the Jarls."
Galmar: "They demand the Moot."
Ulfric: "And damn the Moot! We should risk letting those milkdrinkers put Thorryg [sic]'s woman on the throne? She'll hand Skyrim over to the elves on a silver plate."
Galmar: "All the more reason then. The crown would legitimize your claim."
Ulfric: "A crown doesn't make a king."
Galmar: "No, but this one..."
Ulfric: "If it even exists."
Galmar: "It exists. And it'll be the symbol of the righteousness of our cause. Think about it. The Jagged Crown! It heralds back to a time before jarls and moots. Back to the time when a king was a king because his enemies fell before him, and his people rose because they loved him. Skyrim needs that king. You will be that king, Ulfric. You must be."
Ulfric: "You're certain you've found it?"
Galmar: "When have I ever been false with you?"
Ulfric: "Fine. I'll send the Unblooded here with you. Fancy a crawl through a moldering dungeon to see if you can't stir up Galmar's Jagged Crown?"
Galmar: "It'll be there. You'll see."

 

[Lewsean]

One jarl doesn't decide the Moot.

Ulfric won't agree to the Moot.

He's branded a criminal by Imperial law remember.. How is he even going to legally take part in a Moot if he wanted too lol?

And yet Gen Tully negotiates with Ulfric at High Hrothgar.

That's a bloody truce, not a political selection of a new ruler. The fluffing Germans and English had the Christmas truce during WWI where they shook hands and later killed eachother. There's a big, big difference...

 

[Lewsean]

For this Rikke even says the Jarls can't AGREE to the moot, so that might have something to do with the criticisms.

I know this.. I'm saying its hypocritical for him to criticise the Jarls for not agreeing to the Moot by Nordic tradition when he wants to kill Ulfric for following Nordic tradition.

Ulfric: "Tell me again why we're wasting time and dwindling resources chasing a legend. We don't even know it exists!"
Galmar: "The Jarls are upset. They don't all support you."
Ulfric: "Damn the Jarls."
Galmar: "They demand the Moot."
Ulfric: "And damn the Moot! We should risk letting those milkdrinkers put Thorryg [sic]'s woman on the throne? She'll hand Skyrim over to the elves on a silver plate."
Galmar: "All the more reason then. The crown would legitimize your claim."
Ulfric: "A crown doesn't make a king."
Galmar: "No, but this one..."
Ulfric: "If it even exists."
Galmar: "It exists. And it'll be the symbol of the righteousness of our cause. Think about it. The Jagged Crown! It heralds back to a time before jarls and moots. Back to the time when a king was a king because his enemies fell before him, and his people rose because they loved him. Skyrim needs that king. You will be that king, Ulfric. You must be."
Ulfric: "You're certain you've found it?"
Galmar: "When have I ever been false with you?"
Ulfric: "Fine. I'll send the Unblooded here with you. Fancy a crawl through a moldering dungeon to see if you can't stir up Galmar's Jagged Crown?"
Galmar: "It'll be there. You'll see."

Let's just forget it yes? You quite clearly don't understand the point I'm making.

 

[Jeremius]

Let's just forget it yes? You quite clearly don't understand the point I'm making.

Having a problem adjusting to the fact that Ulfric does not put his faith in the moot either?

I am kidding, but I get your point, just do not agree with it.

 

[LegateFasendil]

Let's just forget it yes? You quite clearly don't understand the point I'm making.

 

[Lewsean]

Let's just forget it yes? You quite clearly don't understand the point I'm making.

 

[Lewsean]

Let's just forget it yes? You quite clearly don't understand the point I'm making.

Having a problem adjusting to the fact that Ulfric does not put his faith in the moot either?

I am kidding, but I get your point, just do not agree with it.

My point isn't about Ulfric though It's about Tullius. You can't label someone a criminal for an act of tradition, then criticize someone else for not following tradition. I also don't want the Moot either, so Ulfric's stance doesn't bother me. No need to have a Moot when the Jarls would twerk for the Emperor if he gave them a chest of Septims.

 

[Jeremius]

Let's just forget it yes? You quite clearly don't understand the point I'm making.

Having a problem adjusting to the fact that Ulfric does not put his faith in the moot either?

I am kidding, but I get your point, just do not agree with it.

My point isn't about Ulfric though It's about Tullius. You can't label someone a criminal for an act of tradition, then criticize someone else for not following tradition. I also don't want the Moot either, so Ulfric's stance doesn't bother me. No need to have a Moot when the Jarls would twerk for the Emperor if he gave them a chest of Septims.

If you listen to both sides, the Jarls wan the moot, but cannot agree because of Ulfric, so Ulfric's stance on it is important. Labelling someone a criminal for using one tradition which halts another is not hypocritical.

 

[LegateFasendil]

Let's just forget it yes? You quite clearly don't understand the point I'm making.

Having a problem adjusting to the fact that Ulfric does not put his faith in the moot either?

I am kidding, but I get your point, just do not agree with it.

My point isn't about Ulfric though It's about Tullius. You can't label someone a criminal for an act of tradition, then criticize someone else for not following tradition. I also don't want the Moot either, so Ulfric's stance doesn't bother me. No need to have a Moot when the Jarls would twerk for the Emperor if he gave them a chest of Septims.

How do you know the Stormcloak Jarls doesn't want the Moot too? Who are you to decide for them?

Furthermore, suppose they did meet. Everyone sat down around a kitchen table. You'd have a bi-partisan Moot with all parties represented which could lead to peace with the Empire and save lives. Not allowing the Moot to meet is an act of treason against Skyrim. Never mind the Empire.

If Gen Tullius is willing to give the Moot a chance, like you said earlier, why not hear the pro-Imperial Jarls out? Are you afraid they won't agree with you?

The Empire has extended the Olive Branch to the Jarls of Skyrim, Ulfric included. Ulfric has rejected it because if the Moot meet rights now he could not control them.

The real puppets are the Stormcloak Jarls, with an axe to their necks once the Empire leaves Skyrim. Or if, rather.

As the Freedom loving sycophant the Stormcloaks are, you could not possibly claim to fight for Freedom when you prevent Freedom by locking up the local Gov and denying rep even unto the pro-Imperials.

Ulfric is not fit to rule. I realize Titus Mede II did wrong in signing the WGC, however I also realize the Stormcloaks are not the Freedom Fighters they pretend to be.

If the Empire will allow the Moot to meet, even in the middle of a Civil War, with all sides represented, you have - no room - whatsoever to say the Empire would not protect Skyrim's Freedoms. Not when it is you and you alone who refuses to allow the rep of the people to meet.

 

[Raijin]

Let's just forget it yes? You quite clearly don't understand the point I'm making.

Like Ulfric said

"As for you, General Tullius, I see now that Galmar was right. Talking to the Empire is just as useless as ever."

"As always, the Empire's fine words are worth nothing!"

Talking to the Empire is like talking to a brick wall.

 

[LegateFasendil]

Let's just forget it yes? You quite clearly don't understand the point I'm making.

Like Ulfric said

"As for you, General Tullius, I see now that Galmar was right. Talking to the Empire is just as useless as ever."

"As always, the Empire's fine words are worth nothing!"

Talking to the Empire is like talking to a brick wall.

That argument is laughable at best considering Ulfric went into the meeting with a chip on his shoulder.

You're also leaving out the fact that regardless, they did meet and a peace treaty was worked out.

Furthermore, if the Moot is a meeting of Jarls, what's Gen Tully got to do wit that?

 

[Raijin]

That argument is laughable at best considering Ulfric went into the meeting with a chip on his shoulder.

You're also leaving out the fact that regardless, they did meet and a peace treaty was worked out.

Furthermore, if the Moot is a meeting of Jarls, what's Gen Tully got to do wit that?

It's always painful to be in a room with an ugly short General.

I'd have a chip over my shoulder too, especially when he brings his Chief talos hunter along to the meeting.

 

[Lewsean]

Having a problem adjusting to the fact that Ulfric does not put his faith in the moot either?

I am kidding, but I get your point, just do not agree with it.

My point isn't about Ulfric though It's about Tullius. You can't label someone a criminal for an act of tradition, then criticize someone else for not following tradition. I also don't want the Moot either, so Ulfric's stance doesn't bother me. No need to have a Moot when the Jarls would twerk for the Emperor if he gave them a chest of Septims.

If you listen to both sides, the Jarls wan the moot, but cannot agree because of Ulfric, so Ulfric's stance on it is important. Labelling someone a criminal for using one tradition which halts another is not hypocritical.

That's not what's said though is it? He calls the OTHER JARLS out for not agreeing on the Moot, whilst at the same time the Empire brands Ulfric a criminal for using the Nordic tradition of one Jarl challenging another in combat.

Let's just forget it yes? You quite clearly don't understand the point I'm making.

Like Ulfric said

"As for you, General Tullius, I see now that Galmar was right. Talking to the Empire is just as useless as ever."

"As always, the Empire's fine words are worth nothing!"

Talking to the Empire is like talking to a brick wall.

That argument is laughable at best considering Ulfric went into the meeting with a chip on his shoulder.

You're also leaving out the fact that regardless, they did meet and a peace treaty was worked out.

Furthermore, if the Moot is a meeting of Jarls, what's Gen Tully got to do wit that?

If Tullius has nothing to do with the Moot to elect the new High King/Queen, what has he got to do with the circumstances surrounding the old one?

How do you know the Stormcloak Jarls doesn't want the Moot too? Who are you to decide for them?

Oh God.. I'm not, IT'S IN-GAME DIALOGUE.. You know, the plops you guys use to cement your "proof".

Furthermore, suppose they did meet. Everyone sat down around a kitchen table. You'd have a bi-partisan Moot with all parties represented which could lead to peace with the Empire and save lives. Not allowing the Moot to meet is an act of treason against Skyrim.

Ulfric holds no power over the Moot meeting or not, if the Empire brands him a criminal, he holds no power in political decisions. I shouldn't have to say this again

If Gen Tullius is willing to give the Moot a chance, like you said earlier, why not hear the pro-Imperial Jarls out? Are you afraid they won't agree with you?

One Imperial Jarl can't even control his own City, another is a corrupt kid who deals with Bandits, another is a weird old lady who doesn't even bother to take notice of ANYTHING that happens in her hold & Elisif, by all accounts, is a fluffing idiot who can't handle the position of Jarl, nevermind High Queen.

The Empire has extended the Olive Branch to the Jarls of Skyrim, Ulfric included. Ulfric has rejected it because if the Moot meet rights now he could not control them.

You're forgetting that the Civil War is about getting the Empire OUT of Skyrim, why on earth would any Pro-Stormcloak Jarl want to deal with them?

The real puppets are the Stormcloak Jarls, with an axe to their necks once the Empire leaves Skyrim. Or if, rather.

I think you should perhaps research the Jarls who take over Imperial holds before coming out with such BS.
The Stormcloak Jarl of Morthal takes immediate action to interact with the people, something the Imperial Jarl totally ignored.
The Stormcloak Jarl of Markarth is a Stormcloak through and through.
The Stormcloak Jarl of Falkreath was the previous Jarl..
The Stormcloak Jarl of Whiterun is Stormcloak through and through.

I've no idea how you can possibly come to the conclusion that they have an axe to their throat.

As the Freedom loving sycophant the Stormcloaks are, you could not possibly claim to fight for Freedom when you prevent Freedom by locking up the local Gov and denying rep even unto the pro-Imperials.

Freedom from the Empire.. Why would they treat the Imperials any better than they do when they are the same people they're fighting ? You don't fight against an opressor one day then invite them round for tea and biscuits the next.

Ulfric is not fit to rule. I realize Titus Mede II did wrong in signing the WGC, however I also realize the Stormcloaks are not the Freedom Fighters they pretend to be.

Ulfric is indeed fit to rule, and is following the EXACT same steps that Titus Mede did to gain the Ruby Throne. You can't support one man/dynasty and his actions to gain power whilst at the same time blasting another for doing the same.

'After some time, Mede took the Imperial City by force with only 1,000 men, usurping the current emperor at that time, Thules the Gibbering, and becoming Emperor of Tamriel.'

I guess it's fine to usurp the throne if you're an Imperial?

 

[LegateFasendil]

That argument is laughable at best considering Ulfric went into the meeting with a chip on his shoulder.

You're also leaving out the fact that regardless, they did meet and a peace treaty was worked out.

Furthermore, if the Moot is a meeting of Jarls, what's Gen Tully got to do wit that?

It's always painful to be in a room with an ugly short General.

I'd have a chip over my shoulder too, especially when he brings his Chief talos hunter along to the meeting.

At least you're being honest about it!

 

[LegateFasendil]

If Tullius has nothing to do with the Moot to elect the new High King/Queen, what has he got to do with the circumstances surrounding the old one?

Nothing. The past is the past, it's the future that matters more than anything else.

My point isn't about Ulfric though It's about Tullius. You can't label someone a criminal for an act of tradition, then criticize someone else for not following tradition. I also don't want the Moot either, so Ulfric's stance doesn't bother me. No need to have a Moot when the Jarls would twerk for the Emperor if he gave them a chest of Septims.

If you listen to both sides, the Jarls wan the moot, but cannot agree because of Ulfric, so Ulfric's stance on it is important. Labelling someone a criminal for using one tradition which halts another is not hypocritical.

That's not what's said though is it? He calls the OTHER JARLS out for not agreeing on the Moot, whilst at the same time the Empire brands Ulfric a criminal for using the Nordic tradition of one Jarl challenging another in combat.

Like Ulfric said

"As for you, General Tullius, I see now that Galmar was right. Talking to the Empire is just as useless as ever."

"As always, the Empire's fine words are worth nothing!"

Talking to the Empire is like talking to a brick wall.

That argument is laughable at best considering Ulfric went into the meeting with a chip on his shoulder.

You're also leaving out the fact that regardless, they did meet and a peace treaty was worked out.

Furthermore, if the Moot is a meeting of Jarls, what's Gen Tully got to do wit that?

If Tullius has nothing to do with the Moot to elect the new High King/Queen, what has he got to do with the circumstances surrounding the old one?

How do you know the Stormcloak Jarls doesn't want the Moot too? Who are you to decide for them?

Oh God.. I'm not, IT'S IN-GAME DIALOGUE.. You know, the pl*** you guys use to cement your "proof".

Furthermore, suppose they did meet. Everyone sat down around a kitchen table. You'd have a bi-partisan Moot with all parties represented which could lead to peace with the Empire and save lives. Not allowing the Moot to meet is an act of treason against Skyrim.

Ulfric holds no power over the Moot meeting or not, if the Empire brands him a criminal, he holds no power in political decisions. I shouldn't have to say this again

If Gen Tullius is willing to give the Moot a chance, like you said earlier, why not hear the pro-Imperial Jarls out? Are you afraid they won't agree with you?

One Imperial Jarl can't even control his own City, another is a corrupt kid who deals with Bandits, another is a weird old lady who doesn't even bother to take notice of ANYTHING that happens in her hold & Elisif, by all accounts, is a fluffing idiot who can't handle the position of Jarl, nevermind High Queen.

The Empire has extended the Olive Branch to the Jarls of Skyrim, Ulfric included. Ulfric has rejected it because if the Moot meet rights now he could not control them.

You're forgetting that the Civil War is about getting the Empire OUT of Skyrim, why on earth would any Pro-Stormcloak Jarl want to deal with them?

The real puppets are the Stormcloak Jarls, with an axe to their necks once the Empire leaves Skyrim. Or if, rather.

I think you should perhaps research the Jarls who take over Imperial holds before coming out with such BS.
The Stormcloak Jarl of Morthal takes immediate action to interact with the people, something the Imperial Jarl totally ignored.
The Stormcloak Jarl of Markarth is a Stormcloak through and through.
The Stormcloak Jarl of Falkreath was the previous Jarl..
The Stormcloak Jarl of Whiterun is Stormcloak through and through.

I've no idea how you can possibly come to the conclusion that they have an axe to their throat.

As the Freedom loving sycophant the Stormcloaks are, you could not possibly claim to fight for Freedom when you prevent Freedom by locking up the local Gov and denying rep even unto the pro-Imperials.

Freedom from the Empire.. Why would they treat the Imperials any better than they do when they are the same people they're fighting ? You don't fight against an opressor one day then invite them round for tea and biscuits the next.

Ulfric is not fit to rule. I realize Titus Mede II did wrong in signing the WGC, however I also realize the Stormcloaks are not the Freedom Fighters they pretend to be.

Ulfric is indeed fit to rule, and is following the EXACT same steps that Titus Mede did to gain the Ruby Throne. You can't support one man/dynasty and his actions to gain power whilst at the same time blasting another for doing the same.

'After some time, Mede took the Imperial City by force with only 1,000 men, usurping the current emperor at that time, Thules the Gibbering, and becoming Emperor of Tamriel.'

I guess it's fine to usurp the throne if you're an Imperial?

Hehehe

I think I have finally found the answer I was looking for. Truthfully, most of the above post has already been explained by DrunkenMage. And I'll refer you back to him. I'm just a humble Legate, not the Lore Master.

I usually just discuss one topic at a time, however he's very good at cranking thru lore at an alarming rate.

I've thoroughly enjoyed our little talks. And really, I do feel that I've finally found the answer to this sucker.

So, I'll leave it here for now and you guys can get back on track. Probably Lewsean, I don't have the answer you're looking for. And now that I know the truth, (at least for myself) nothing you might say can change that. (Nor would I try and change you, wouldn't be very Imperial of me now would it? )

Well, party time! I've got another day off tomorrow and am going to go out now and try and have as much fun as possible.

Take Care!!!


"Upon my honor I do swear undying loyalty to the Emperor and unwavering obedience to the officers of this great Empire. May those above judge me, and those below take me, if I fail in my duty. Long live the Emperor! Long live the Empire!"

​

 

[Raijin]

Imperials are known to quit. General Tullius hides behind a Nord woman when the pressure becomes unbearable, and begs to his arch enemy to spare his life by surrendering like the dog that he is.

 

[LegateFasendil]

Imperials are known to quit. General Tullius hides behind a Nord woman when the pressure becomes unbearable, and begs to his arch enemy to spare his life by surrendering like the dog that he is.

Oh the war doesn't end with me, you misunderstand. I've done my service to the Empire here, for now.

*Sigh* as far as I'm concerned, the Stormcloak cause is defeated by denying the Imperial citizens of Skyrim rep in Skyrim's new Gov. And no, throwing some tool on the throne does not count. I understand the Empire forces change on the Stormcloaks as well, however it didn't have to come to this. Ulfric could have allowed the Moot, for all we know, the Jarls could have all agreed with him. However, because of Ulfric's treason and obstructing the normal operation of Skyrim's Gov, we'll never know.

You can... rant... rave... say whatever you want... however if the Empire is willing to give the Stormcloaks the same voice as Imperials, you have no case for rebellion. A new High King/Queen could have been chosen in a reasonable amount of time and they could then have simply declared independence. The Empire has done much for Skyrim and it's abundantly clear Skyrim needs the Empire, at very least, should end things amicably with them esp with another Great War on the way. To do otherwise is a fool's errand and demonstrates gross-negligence in leadership.

Just like with the Attack on Whiterun, Ulfric's cause is un-necessary. I equate Skyrim with where I live, do you think I want to fight a war just because one jackwagon has lost site of the law? NO! Let them sit around a kitchen table and sort the pl*ps out. Leave me out of it. I'm not killing my neighbors over Politics or Religion, save for last possible, un-escapable resort.

We could go round and round, 100's more pages of conflict and this point still stands. I recognize the fact that Stormcloaks are Imperial citizens, so Lewsean should have his say. And so should you.


Long Live the Empire

 

[DrunkenMage]

Don't take emotional seriously. Ulfric was clearly expressing them out of frustration.

Ulfric: "And it is for these reasons that I cannot accept the mantle of "High King." Not until the Moot declares that title should adorn my shoulders will I accept it."

Don't take a political stunt to impress the masses seriously, either.

Ulfric: "How'd I do?"
Galmar: "Eh, not so bad. Nice touch about the High King."
Ulfric: "Thank you, I thought so, too."
Galmar: "It's a foregone conclusion, you know."
Ulfric: "Oh, I know."