Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[DrunkenMage]

While you Imperials, and Stormcloaks fight over the southern lands of Skyrim, our navy will bring our armies through the Sea Of Ghosts. We will launch a three headed attack, taking Solitude, Winterhold, and Windhelm. Then we will unite the three armies and annihilate Whiterun.

Through the Sea of Ghosts? Well that is smart, if they're looking to lose majority of their fleet. The Sea of Ghosts is known for wiping fleets out. Sea wrecks are many in Skyrim's coast. Single ships using a shipping lane perhaps, but not a fleet. Emperor Uriel discovered this during his invasion of Akavir, the weather destroyed many of his East Imperial Navy.

You see Nords are impressive warriors, up close anyway. We Altmer will incinerate you at a distance. While our Bosmeri counterparts will pick yo off one by one, as thy are unquestionably the finest archers in Tamriel. And for those few and unlucky to survive this onslaught. They will have to face the Claws and speed of the Khajit.

Aldmeri troops will run out of supplies, and reinforcements with help being months away. They'd be constantly engaged and ambushed, by hit and run guerrilla tactics. Slow moving army through the province, no outsider army has ever been able to conquer Skyrim.

In one swoop we will take the Capitol, the provential capitol, and the center of Magick from Skyrim. What will that leave you. The Reach? The Imperials and Stormcloaks alike already have their hands full with the Forsworn. The Rift? an expanse of petty thieves.

The force needed to achieve this, you just abandoned Valenwood, Elsweyr and left an open route to Summerset Isle for the West Imperial Navy.

What does that leave you? Stuck in a frozen province, while the entire Imperial army simply marches unopposed and takes back the provinces.

All Hail The Aldmeri Dominion.

There won't be a Dominion after that one, sport.

If the High King is too weak to defend himself from a shout, how can one expect him to know how to defend the province properly if the Thalmor do come to Skyrim, and he needs to be out there to defend his people?

Many Kings couldn't defend themselves from a shout. Ysgramor wouldn't of been able to, does that mean Ysgramor was a weak King?

 

[Snake-Brother282]

Does anyone know how to defend themselves from a shout? Yeah it is kinda the overpowered talent of the Elder Scrolls let alone the province of Skyrim.

There has been throughout history men who were weak physically but strong enough mentally to actually lead. Just saying most weak of mind depend on pure strength...

Just saying, that if someone cannot defend themselves, they should hardly be considered strong enough to defend their homeland if needed.

sometimes the strong need to rule, because they are the only ones who can properly defend the people, whether they want it or not.

No, this is why civilization exists, because nobody wants to live in a place ruled by people who only know how to exist through mindless violence. It's also not a very productive way to rule your province, nothing would ever get done. I'll take the smart guy over the meathead any day of the week!

 

[Jeremius]

DrunkenMage: Again, the strength parts were an example of how the old days were run. There was no moot to decide by popular vote who should be High King if the old one dies without an heir. That is the moot in a nutshell, popularity=get to rule.

 

[DrunkenMage]

DrunkenMage: Again, the strength parts were an example of how the old days were run. There was no moot to decide by popular vote who should be High King if the old one dies without an heir. That is the moot in a nutshell, popularity=get to rule.

Since there were Kings and Jarls, there has been the moot.

The moot changed after the First War of Succession when they couldn't reach an agreement. The Pact of Chieftains was made. Which the Moot will only meet when there are no direct heirs to do their main duty. When there is an heir, they meet as a mere formality.

 

[Jeremius]

DrunkenMage: Again, the strength parts were an example of how the old days were run. There was no moot to decide by popular vote who should be High King if the old one dies without an heir. That is the moot in a nutshell, popularity=get to rule.

Since there were Kings and Jarls, there has been the moot.

The moot changed after the First War of Succession when they couldn't reach an agreement. The Pact of Chieftains was made. Which the Moot will only meet when there are no direct heirs to do their main duty. When there is an heir, they meet as a mere formality.

what I meant. The moot was important. Now, if there is no heir, there is a popularity contest to decide. Does not matter how good of a Jarl you are, if you are popular among the Jarls.

 

[DrunkenMage]

what I meant. The moot was important. Now, if there is no heir, there is a popularity contest to decide. Does not matter how good of a Jarl you are, if you are popular among the Jarls.

It's always been a popularity contest. How do you think the War of Succession started?

 

[Jeremius]

what I meant. The moot was important. Now, if there is no heir, there is a popularity contest to decide. Does not matter how good of a Jarl you are, if you are popular among the Jarls.

It's always been a popularity contest. How do you think the War of Succession started?

It should not be. The person who is right should be the one to rule, whether he/she is liked or not.

 

[Anouck]

Does anyone know how to defend themselves from a shout? Yeah it is kinda the overpowered talent of the Elder Scrolls let alone the province of Skyrim.

There has been throughout history men who were weak physically but strong enough mentally to actually lead. Just saying most weak of mind depend on pure strength...

Just saying, that if someone cannot defend themselves, they should hardly be considered strong enough to defend their homeland if needed.

sometimes the strong need to rule, because they are the only ones who can properly defend the people, whether they want it or not.

No, this is why civilization exists, because nobody wants to live in a place ruled by people who only know how to exist through mindless violence. It's also not a very productive way to rule your province, nothing would ever get done. I'll take the smart guy over the meathead any day of the week!

I agree with Snake-Brother here. Who would be a better ruler? Arnold Schwarzenegger or Steven Hawkins? I think, even though Hawkins is in a wheelchair, he would be the better leader. He would lose every physical fight from Schwarzenegger, but muscles are no good leadership qualities. Look at Ghandi - he didn't ever hurt a person but was a strong and capable leader.
Many people think it is always the strongest animal that leads the pack. This is not true. Calm and assertive energy always wins from physical strength. The point is that most physically strong animals happen to be confident and assertive as well - which means they will usually have better leadership qualities. But a Chihuaha can dominate a Pit Bull if his personality is stronger.

So even in nature a body won't win from a mind...
It is actually a very interesting topic to look into...

EDIT: removed all my grammatical errors. Errrr

 

[Anouck]

what I meant. The moot was important. Now, if there is no heir, there is a popularity contest to decide. Does not matter how good of a Jarl you are, if you are popular among the Jarls.

It's always been a popularity contest. How do you think the War of Succession started?

It should not be. The person who is right should be the one to rule, whether he/she is liked or not.

And does not everybody have a different opinion on who is in the right? You see, the problem is that EVERYONE always believes they are doing the right thing. Heck, even Hitler thought that he was a good person for causing WWII. You need 'popularity contests' to see who is liked most. And the person who is liked most, is the person most people agree with. And the person most people agree with, is the person THEY think is 'in the right'.

 

[Snake-Brother282]

what I meant. The moot was important. Now, if there is no heir, there is a popularity contest to decide. Does not matter how good of a Jarl you are, if you are popular among the Jarls.

It's always been a popularity contest. How do you think the War of Succession started?

It should not be. The person who is right should be the one to rule, whether he/she is liked or not.

How exactly would you determine that? Right about what? I don't want to assume, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're arguing the idea that "Might makes Right"

 

[Seanu Reaves]

Look at Ghandi - he didn't ever hurt a person but was a strong and capable leader.

Ghandi's regime was actually Brutal as I understand.

 

[Anouck]

Look at Ghandi - he didn't ever hurt a person but was a strong and capable leader.

Ghandi's regime was actually Brutal as I understand.

Skies.. Ghandi is famous for fighting for a cause without using violence at all. He got his country (India I think) independent without raising a sword against his enemy. He was known for using compassion and intelligence in order to get what he wanted. Not a single person died or got harmed by his hands. He is the only known world leader who fought an independence war without blood shedding.

 

[Seanu Reaves]

Ghandi's regime was actually Brutal as I understand.

Skies.. Ghandi is famous for fighting for a cause without using violence at all. He got his country (India I think) independent without raising a sword against his enemy. He was known for using compassion and intelligence in order to get what he wanted. Not a single person died or got harmed by his hands. He is the only known world leader who fought an independence war without blood shedding.

Anouck I know how he got to power. I was talking about how he maintained it. Admittedly we are not taught about what happened after Gandhi won.. Could you enlighten me about what his regime did?

EDIT: Sorry. I love you teaching me So be gentle.

 

[Jeremius]

And does not everybody have a different opinion on who is in the right? You see, the problem is that EVERYONE always believes they are doing the right thing. Heck, even Hitler thought that he was a good person for causing WWII. You need 'popularity contests' to see who is liked most. And the person who is liked most, is the person most people agree with. And the person most people agree with, is the person THEY think is 'in the right'.

And what if that person does not know what they are doing? OR leads the province to ruin? Sometimes what people NEED, is not always what they WANT.

 

[Anouck]

Jeremius really? Another plopsty rating again? Why not just arguing a point instead of spamming ratings? If I have to track down every single post of yours that did not make any sense, I would be busy all night. And your ratings bar would look like a light saber. Please tell me how my post was incorrect?

 

[Jeremius]

Jeremius really? Another pl***ty rating again? Why not just arguing a point instead of spamming ratings? If I have to track down every single post of yours that did not make any sense, I would be busy all night. And your ratings bar would look like a light saber. Please tell me how my post was incorrect?

So there has to be something wrong with the post for someone to simply disagree with it?

 

[Anouck]

And does not everybody have a different opinion on who is in the right? You see, the problem is that EVERYONE always believes they are doing the right thing. Heck, even Hitler thought that he was a good person for causing WWII. You need 'popularity contests' to see who is liked most. And the person who is liked most, is the person most people agree with. And the person most people agree with, is the person THEY think is 'in the right'.

And what if that person does not know what they are doing? OR leads the province to ruin? Sometimes what people NEED, is not always what they WANT.

I didn't say that means they are in the right. When everyone voted for Hitler, they were doing something stupid too. I KNOW that what people need is not always what they want.

You gave me a rating for a post you don't even understand. What I explained to you, is the concept of democracy. And the point you mention now, is the error of democracy. Because a crowd makes bad decisions - like they did with Hitler. But basically EVERY selection is a popularity contest. That is the point I was trying to make. I was not saying it was a good thing.

Know what a person says before fluffing up their ratings with your endless disagree-spammings

 

[Anouck]

Jeremius really? Another pl***ty rating again? Why not just arguing a point instead of spamming ratings? If I have to track down every single post of yours that did not make any sense, I would be busy all night. And your ratings bar would look like a light saber. Please tell me how my post was incorrect?

So there has to be something wrong with the post for someone to simply disagree with it?

Do you even have an idea how often you used incorrect arguments that were proven wrong already to back up your point? I could've given you a rating - but I didn't. Because I don't see the point. I don't see why I'd give disagree ratings on a forum because their are so many people you disagree with. It would only fluff up their stats.

And from your reply to me, you didn't even seem to get my post to begin with. Let me repeat myself:
"I didn't say that means they are in the right. When everyone voted for Hitler, they were doing something stupid too. I KNOW that what people need is not always what they want.

You gave me a rating for a post you don't even understand. What I explained to you, is the concept of democracy. And the point you mention now, is the error of democracy. Because a crowd makes bad decisions - like they did with Hitler. But basically EVERY selection is a popularity contest. That is the point I was trying to make. I was not saying it was a good thing"

 

[Jeremius]

Jeremius really? Another pl***ty rating again? Why not just arguing a point instead of spamming ratings? If I have to track down every single post of yours that did not make any sense, I would be busy all night. And your ratings bar would look like a light saber. Please tell me how my post was incorrect?

So there has to be something wrong with the post for someone to simply disagree with it?

Do you even have an idea how often you used incorrect arguments that were proven wrong already to back up your point? I could've given you a rating - but I didn't. Because I don't see the point. I don't see why I'd give disagree ratings on a forum because their are so many people you disagree with. It would only fluff up their stats.

And from your reply to me, you didn't even seem to get my post to begin with. Let me repeat myself:
"I didn't say that means they are in the right. When everyone voted for Hitler, they were doing something stupid too. I KNOW that what people need is not always what they want.

You gave me a rating for a post you don't even understand. What I explained to you, is the concept of democracy. And the point you mention now, is the error of democracy. Because a crowd makes bad decisions - like they did with Hitler. But basically EVERY selection is a popularity contest. That is the point I was trying to make. I was not saying it was a good thing"

??? If you like somebody, you are going to agree with them, and choose them because you think they are right. They might not be. how is that not disagree with anything you explained?

People liked Hitler because they THOUGHT he was RIGHT. People pick a president in the US because they THINK that person is RIGHT. Popularity is bad.

 

[NENALATA]

Thing is that the moot is basically a popularity contest. As NENALATA said, Ulfric wants to bring back the old days, where the strong ruled and the weak accepted their lot in life, because they had the strong to defend them.

Torygg became High King only because of his father being the previous High King. If a High King dies without an heir, the more popular among the Jarls becomes the High King. If the High King is too weak to defend himself from a shout, how can one expect him to know how to defend the province properly if the Thalmor do come to Skyrim, and he needs to be out there to defend his people?

*sigh* I suppose I'm still needed here. No rest for the wicked... no change for that which won't be changed.

Here's the thing. We're putting the horse on the man instead of putting the man on the horse here.

And I'm going to say upfront I agree with Jeremy's contribution here.

Guys, physical strength and "Your argument is invalid because my hair is braided", Nords are mighty, that sort of thing... is the mark of a HERO. Does anyone out there understand this?

During and esp after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, WARLORDS rose to power because they were HEROs. ie "A Champion". They were not Presidents or Gov or any of that nonsense. Their deeds were so HEROIC, so Profound... that people followed them because they were inspired to do so.