Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

  • Welcome to Skyrim Forums! Register now to participate using the 'Sign Up' button on the right. You may now register with your Facebook or Steam account!

Mikulas Black-Blade

The Cave Bear
Ulfric killed Torygg because Torygg did not agree with him at the moot, and that is emotion. Ulfric gets upset and almost destroys the peace summit when Elenwen shows up. A good high king would be able to pull himself out of a situation and look at what is best for his people in the long run, not just in one aspect. IF a Jarl had to choose between a village and a farm that is vital to his people's well-being, the logical choice would be the farm, as the village can be rebuilt, but the farm being lost means food that cannot be harvested soon enough to prevent starvation.

I agree that Elisif has no knowledge right now. that does not mean a thing in the long run. A person with no experience or knowledge can learn, while a person that runs on emotion has a hard time looking out for the people's literal well-being.
You know damn well that Thalmor bitch had no place in High Hrothgar, and seeing that the man was mercilessly tortured by the same woman it's hardly fair to hold it against him for acting aghast when she was there, even so he realized his mistake and moved on and decided to continue the peace summit. As for why he killed Torygg: He killed Torygg as a message to the other Jarls. Ulfric and Sybille both say this as well as Balgruuf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

LegateFasendil

Imperial Legate
Ulfric killed Torygg because Torygg did not agree with him at the moot, and that is emotion. Ulfric gets upset and almost destroys the peace summit when Elenwen shows up. A good high king would be able to pull himself out of a situation and look at what is best for his people in the long run, not just in one aspect. IF a Jarl had to choose between a village and a farm that is vital to his people's well-being, the logical choice would be the farm, as the village can be rebuilt, but the farm being lost means food that cannot be harvested soon enough to prevent starvation.

I agree that Elisif has no knowledge right now. that does not mean a thing in the long run. A person with no experience or knowledge can learn, while a person that runs on emotion has a hard time looking out for the people's literal well-being.
You know damn well that Thalmor bitch had no place in High Hrothgar, and seeing that the man was mercilessly tortured by the same woman it's hardly fair to hold it against him for acting aghast when she was there, even so he realized his mistake and moved on and decided to continue the meeting. He killed Torygg as a message to the other Jarls. Ulfric and Sybille both say this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



You're right. Even though ~ What about later on down the road? I mean, -meh- if Ulfric can't handle himself during a negotiation involving (1) Thalmor Representative, what's he going to do when the Empire pulls out and they send him an entire Delegation wanting to sort things out with New Skyrim?
 

Mikulas Black-Blade

The Cave Bear
You're right. Even though ~ What about later on down the road? I mean, -meh- if Ulfric can't handle himself during a negotiation involving (1) Thalmor Representative, what's he going to do when the Empire pulls out and they send him an entire Delegation wanting to sort things out with New Skyrim?
Ulfric did compose himself with the witch still in the room and negotiated with the Empire, so what's your point here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

LegateFasendil

Imperial Legate
You're right. Even though ~ What about later on down the road? I mean, -meh- if Ulfric can't handle himself during a negotiation involving (1) Thalmor Representative, what's he going to do when the Empire pulls out and they send him an entire Delegation wanting to sort things out with New Skyrim?
Ulfric did compose himself with the witch still in the room and negotiated with the Empire, so what's your point here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Well first of all, Elenwen is a spiteful hack and rides around spreading misery on her horse, not a broomstick.

As for Ulfric, he stumbled several times and not surprisingly, the Greybeards are what got him thru that negotiation.
 
J

Jeremius

Guest
Ulfric killed Torygg because Torygg did not agree with him at the moot, and that is emotion. Ulfric gets upset and almost destroys the peace summit when Elenwen shows up. A good high king would be able to pull himself out of a situation and look at what is best for his people in the long run, not just in one aspect. IF a Jarl had to choose between a village and a farm that is vital to his people's well-being, the logical choice would be the farm, as the village can be rebuilt, but the farm being lost means food that cannot be harvested soon enough to prevent starvation.

I agree that Elisif has no knowledge right now. that does not mean a thing in the long run. A person with no experience or knowledge can learn, while a person that runs on emotion has a hard time looking out for the people's literal well-being.
You know damn well that Thalmor bitch had no place in High Hrothgar, and seeing that the man was mercilessly tortured by the same woman it's hardly fair to hold it against him for acting aghast when she was there, even so he realized his mistake and moved on and decided to continue the peace summit. As for why he killed Torygg: He killed Torygg as a message to the other Jarls. Ulfric and Sybille both say this as well as Balgruuf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
She kind of did. As a representative of the Thalmor, she had to make sure the negotiations did not break the WGC.

I agree that it was hardly fair to hold it against him, but it is a good example of what happens when emotions can go wild.

As for the Torygg thing. I am don arguing that. HE is dead and why anything related to him happened is no longer all that important except for the Stormcloaks to prove a point and win any argument by using Torygg as an example.
 

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
In the eyes of Ulfric and the Stormcloaks(50%+ of Skyrim...) he did do something wrong.. And that was stand idley by whilst the Empire/Thalmor destroyed everything Skyrim stood for. He wasn't doing his job properly, else nobody would of rebelled.. His father held Skyrim together after the Great War, and still supported the Empire, yet Ulfric see's him as a true Nord and holds the upmost respect for him. Doesn't that tell you something? Two people, seemingly sharing the same views yet judged completely differently by one man.

Not even 50%, both the Empire and Stormcloaks generally have about 25% support. The other 50% of Skyrim either don't care, hate both, wish the war would end etc.

The fact that Tullius is forced to bring her with him shows what the Empire has become, a god damn companion to the very people who want all men enslaved again.

The very same Empire that constantly hints about war with the Aldmeri Dominion happening soon?

Don't mistake political public appearance with personal belief. The Empire and Thalmor have been fighting behind the scenes for a hundred and fifty years. Tullius is a Military General, his orders aren't to cause problems with the Thalmor. Until the Empire goes to war, the Imperials put on the show and play nice in public. Welcome to politics 101.

Tullius won't risk war with the Aldmeri Dominion until the Empire is prepared and ready. It doesn't mean he likes the Thalmor, he hates them with a passion, just like every true citizen of the Empire. It is easy trying to paint Tullius as a bad guy, but once you learn about him:

"I swear Elenwen holds these parties just to make the Empire look bad. Almost makes me want to join the Stormcloaks." - Tullius

In what way is it logical to tear apart the Empire on the brink of a Second Great War?

But, I'm biased. I simply don't believe religion and politics mix. That Ulfric causing a Holy War on the ideology of "With us or against us" and some of his followers already start to compare him to Talos... I don't see that ending well, there is a thin line before they become fanatics. You already have slavery and racial segregation, what comes next?
 

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
There was no duel even mentioned between Ulfric and Jarl B. And the only reason Jarl B sided with the Empire was through lies constructed by Tullius. Ulfric fully expected Jarl B to support him, they had no quarrel before the battle of Whiterun.

There was a duel mentioned, Balgruuf challenged Ulfric in the Old Way. It was Ulfric seeking to prove the strength of his army that chose to send his Stormcloaks to attack.

Tullius didn't lie to Balgruuf, the Stormcloaks were prepared to take the city by force should Balgruuf not submit to Ulfric and declare him High King.

"Ulfric has made it clear. In his mind, to refuse his claim is to side with the Empire." - Irileth

 

Lewsean

Member
There was no duel even mentioned between Ulfric and Jarl B. And the only reason Jarl B sided with the Empire was through lies constructed by Tullius. Ulfric fully expected Jarl B to support him, they had no quarrel before the battle of Whiterun.

There was a duel mentioned, Balgruuf challenged Ulfric in the Old Way. It was Ulfric seeking to prove the strength of his army that chose to send his Stormcloaks to attack.

Tullius didn't lie to Balgruuf, the Stormcloaks were prepared to take the city by force should Balgruuf not submit to Ulfric and declare him High King.

"Ulfric has made it clear. In his mind, to refuse his claim is to side with the Empire." - Irileth
No, he didn't. Not once was a duel even considered between Ulfric and Balgruuf, it was simply mentioned once during the conversation in Dragonsreach.

Balgruuf: "I'm not the High King, but neither am I a boy. If Ulfric wants to challenge my rule in the old way, let him. Though I suspect he'll prefer to send his "Stormcloaks" to do it for him."
Irileth: "True. He's already proven his personal strength. Now he seeks to prove his army's."
 

LegateFasendil

Imperial Legate
There was no duel even mentioned between Ulfric and Jarl B. And the only reason Jarl B sided with the Empire was through lies constructed by Tullius. Ulfric fully expected Jarl B to support him, they had no quarrel before the battle of Whiterun.

There was a duel mentioned, Balgruuf challenged Ulfric in the Old Way. It was Ulfric seeking to prove the strength of his army that chose to send his Stormcloaks to attack.

Tullius didn't lie to Balgruuf, the Stormcloaks were prepared to take the city by force should Balgruuf not submit to Ulfric and declare him High King.

"Ulfric has made it clear. In his mind, to refuse his claim is to side with the Empire." - Irileth
No, he didn't. Not once was a duel even considered between Ulfric and Balgruuf, it was simply mentioned once during the conversation in Dragonsreach.

Balgruuf: "I'm not the High King, but neither am I a boy. If Ulfric wants to challenge my rule in the old way, let him. Though I suspect he'll prefer to send his "Stormcloaks" to do it for him."
Irileth: "True. He's already proven his personal strength. Now he
seeks to prove his army's."



The thing they did with the axe was the challenge. If Jarl B had accepted Ulfric's "Axe of Cowardice" then they would have had peace. Because he didn't accept it...

So by the quote you posted, a duel was considered.

*UPDATE*

You cut out the part of the conversation where the duel is discussed.​
 

LegateFasendil

Imperial Legate
Balgruuf: "Proventus, what do you make of all this? If Ulfric were to attack Whiterun..."
Proventus: "As in all things, Lord, caution... I urge us to wait and see."
Irileth: "Prey waits."
Balgruuf: "I'm of a mind with Irileth. It's time to act."
Proventus: "You plan to march on Windhelm?"
Balgruuf: "I'm not a fool, Proventus. I mean it's time to challenge Ulfric to face me as a man, or march his Stormcloaks up to the gates."
Proventus: "He'll do no such thing! A dagger in the back is all you could expect!"
Irileth: "He was rather straight forward with Torygg."
Proventus: "Torygg? He simply walked up to the boy and murdered him!"
Irileth: "That "boy" was High King of Skyrim."
Balgruuf: "I'm not the High King, but neither am I a boy. If Ulfric wants to challenge my rule in the old way, let him. Though I suspect he'll prefer to send his "Stormcloaks" to do it for him."
Irileth: "True. He's already proven his personal strength. Now he seeks to prove his army's."
Proventus: "Then might I urge you to consider General Tullius's request? I mean, if you are bent on offending Jarl Ulfric..."
Irileth: "Ulfric is the one who has offended. But, Proventus has a point. Ulfric has made it clear. In his mind, to refuse his claim is to side with the Empire."
Proventus: "And what harm is there in letting a few legionnaires die in place of your own men?"
Balgruuf: "It seems cowardly."
Irileth: "Was it cowardly then to accept the White-Gold Concordat?"
Balgruuf: "This again?! That was different. Was I given a chance to object to the terms of the treaty? No. The Jarls weren't asked. We were told. And we had to like it."
Proventus: "The chests of gold didn't hurt."
Balgruuf: "Damnit! This isn't about gold!"
Irileth: "It's time to decide."
Proventus: "Lord, wait. Let us see if Ulfric is serious."
Balgruuf: "Oh, he's serious. But so am I."
Irileth: "Finally."
 

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
No, he didn't. Not once was a duel even considered between Ulfric and Balgruuf, it was simply mentioned once during the conversation in Dragonsreach.

Balgruuf: "I'm not the High King, but neither am I a boy. If Ulfric wants to challenge my rule in the old way, let him. Though I suspect he'll prefer to send his "Stormcloaks" to do it for him."
Irileth: "True. He's already proven his personal strength. Now he seeks to prove his army's."

The entire 'axe' thing appears to be part of some ancient ritual. Balgruuf mentions "challenge my rule in the old way" he also talks about Ulfric facing him man to man.

Look at it from the view of say ancient Nordic Jarls, great warriors. The guys who would fight and die on front lines, known to charge into battle first. How do you think they'd settle disputes between another Jarl? Send soldiers to die for them, or fight in single combat to prove themselves.

Honor and glory in battle was the way of life. Put two and two together, the axe is a challenge in the old ways. A duel is at the least expected should one refuse to keep the axe.

Jarls killing each other was common in the "old days" with the infighting and various rivalry between Holds. It seems fairly logical to gather a duel was issued, should it have been properly followed through by tradition.
 

Lewsean

Member
No, he didn't. Not once was a duel even considered between Ulfric and Balgruuf, it was simply mentioned once during the conversation in Dragonsreach.

Balgruuf: "I'm not the High King, but neither am I a boy. If Ulfric wants to challenge my rule in the old way, let him. Though I suspect he'll prefer to send his "Stormcloaks" to do it for him."
Irileth: "True. He's already proven his personal strength. Now he seeks to prove his army's."

The entire 'axe' thing appears to be part of some ancient ritual. Balgruuf mentions "challenge my rule in the old way" he also talks about Ulfric facing him man to man.

Look at it from the view of say ancient Nordic Jarls, great warriors. The guys who would fight and die on front lines, known to charge into battle first. How do you think they'd settle disputes between another Jarl? Send soldiers to die for them, or fight in single combat to prove themselves.

Honor and glory in battle was the way of life. Put two and two together, the axe is a challenge in the old ways. A duel is at the least expected should one refuse to keep the axe.

Jarls killing each other was common in the "old days" with the infighting and various rivalry between Holds. It seems fairly logical to gather a duel was issued, should it have been properly followed through by tradition.
It doesn't matter what way you or I see it, a duel wasn't even considered between the two of them which can be seen by the conversation between Jarl B, his steward and Irileth. They are discussing the possibilites of what could happen next, and they agree that after killing Toyrgg that it is more than likely he'll use his army to storm Whiterun rather than a fight between Jarl B and Ulfric, which I'm going to reiterate was a discussion between the three of them, not an option given by Ulfric/Jarl B(Whichever side you choose). Jarl B mentions a duel in the old way because it was only recently that Ulfric killed Toyrgg in the 'old way'. Proven even more by the fact that as soon as he reject's the axe he starts mustering troops, why would he do this if the axe is a sign of a duel?

Accepting the axe = peace, not accepting = war.
 

LegateFasendil

Imperial Legate
No, he didn't. Not once was a duel even considered between Ulfric and Balgruuf, it was simply mentioned once during the conversation in Dragonsreach.

Balgruuf: "I'm not the High King, but neither am I a boy. If Ulfric wants to challenge my rule in the old way, let him. Though I suspect he'll prefer to send his "Stormcloaks" to do it for him."
Irileth: "True. He's already proven his personal strength. Now he seeks to prove his army's."

The entire 'axe' thing appears to be part of some ancient ritual. Balgruuf mentions "challenge my rule in the old way" he also talks about Ulfric facing him man to man.

Look at it from the view of say ancient Nordic Jarls, great warriors. The guys who would fight and die on front lines, known to charge into battle first. How do you think they'd settle disputes between another Jarl? Send soldiers to die for them, or fight in single combat to prove themselves.

Honor and glory in battle was the way of life. Put two and two together, the axe is a challenge in the old ways. A duel is at the least expected should one refuse to keep the axe.

Jarls killing each other was common in the "old days" with the infighting and various rivalry between Holds. It seems fairly logical to gather a duel was issued, should it have been properly followed through by tradition.
It doesn't matter what way you or I see it, a duel wasn't even considered between the two of them which can be seen by the conversation between Jarl B, his steward and Irileth. They are discussing the possibilites of what could happen next, and they agree that after killing Toyrgg that it is more than likely he'll use his army to storm Whiterun rather than a fight between Jarl B and Ulfric, which I'm going to reiterate was a discussion between the three of them, not an option given by Ulfric/Jarl B(Whichever side you choose). Jarl B mentions a duel in the old way because it was only recently that Ulfric killed Toyrgg in the 'old way'. Proven even more by the fact that as soon as he reject's the axe he starts mustering troops, why would he do this if the axe is a sign of a duel?

Accepting the axe = peace, not accepting = war.



Ok, so are we going to just disregard the dialogue I just posted then? That what we're doing?

Obviously, Jarl B took Ulfric's gesture with the axe the same as a challenge to a duel. That was very clearly his interpretation of it. Now whatever Ulfric is doing in the kitchen is something else - fine. However, Jarl B took it as his leadership being challenged according to the "old ways" and his intention was to deal with Ulfric man to man.

Stormcloaks for whatever reason always shy away from this part of the discussion, and you can do the same however, the dialogue directly contradicts what you're saying. A duel was considered and it also sheds some light on the duel with Torygg. There's a relationship here which disagree feel free, but it should not be ignored.

It's like I know, I have always said, what if High King Torygg had answered Ulfric's duel by sending his army instead? And furthermore, you guys talk up this duel between High King Torygg, but if you're willing to turn your back on in game dialogue that indicates a duel, then why should anyone believe what Ulfric said about his conduct during the duel with High King Torygg?

And you know, that goes without saying, you have one side who banned Talos worship, yet, ironically, puts a premium on honoring the old ways, then you have another side, who claims to honor Talos yet uses the old ways to suite themselves. Wouldn't it have been honorable for Ulfric to duel with Jarl B instead of all those people having to die? The Jarl was ready to face Ulfric... why send his army to answer a personal challenge? Because Jarl Ulfric was challenging Jarl B's leadership... that is something very personal in almost every culture I've studied. It's almost like issuing someone a "summons".

However you choose to digest this, remember one thing. While Jarl B had his day in court, Ulfric "the accuser" was not there. And, if Jarl B challenged Ulfric's leadership instead, Ulfric did not show up to defend his honor, he sends others to fight and die in his place.

So yes. If someone challenged Tiber Septim's leadership... think he wouldn't have at least shown up to answer his enemy(s)?
 

Mikulas Black-Blade

The Cave Bear
Well first of all, Elenwen is a spiteful hack and rides around spreading misery on her horse, not a broomstick.

As for Ulfric, he stumbled several times and not surprisingly, the Greybeards are what got him thru that negotiation.
I can't argue with that, if be pretty pusses too if some bitch that tortured me and made me believe that I collapsed the Imperial City showed up in a sacred worshipping ground for Nords too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Mikulas Black-Blade

The Cave Bear
You already have slavery and racial segregation, what comes next?
Locking up murderers and making them mine for silver is hardly slavery, just as well that same racial segregation took place many years before Ulfric was even alive.
 

Lewsean

Member
The entire 'axe' thing appears to be part of some ancient ritual. Balgruuf mentions "challenge my rule in the old way" he also talks about Ulfric facing him man to man.

Look at it from the view of say ancient Nordic Jarls, great warriors. The guys who would fight and die on front lines, known to charge into battle first. How do you think they'd settle disputes between another Jarl? Send soldiers to die for them, or fight in single combat to prove themselves.

Honor and glory in battle was the way of life. Put two and two together, the axe is a challenge in the old ways. A duel is at the least expected should one refuse to keep the axe.

Jarls killing each other was common in the "old days" with the infighting and various rivalry between Holds. It seems fairly logical to gather a duel was issued, should it have been properly followed through by tradition.
It doesn't matter what way you or I see it, a duel wasn't even considered between the two of them which can be seen by the conversation between Jarl B, his steward and Irileth. They are discussing the possibilites of what could happen next, and they agree that after killing Toyrgg that it is more than likely he'll use his army to storm Whiterun rather than a fight between Jarl B and Ulfric, which I'm going to reiterate was a discussion between the three of them, not an option given by Ulfric/Jarl B(Whichever side you choose). Jarl B mentions a duel in the old way because it was only recently that Ulfric killed Toyrgg in the 'old way'. Proven even more by the fact that as soon as he reject's the axe he starts mustering troops, why would he do this if the axe is a sign of a duel?

Accepting the axe = peace, not accepting = war.



Ok, so are we going to just disregard the dialogue I just posted then? That what we're doing?

Obviously, Jarl B took Ulfric's gesture with the axe the same as a challenge to a duel. That was very clearly his interpretation of it. Now whatever Ulfric is doing in the kitchen is something else - fine. However, Jarl B took it as his leadership being challenged according to the "old ways" and his intention was to deal with Ulfric man to man.

Stormcloaks for whatever reason always shy away from this part of the discussion, and you can do the same however, the dialogue directly contradicts what you're saying. A duel was considered and it also sheds some light on the duel with Torygg. There's a relationship here which disagree feel free, but it should not be ignored.

It's like I know, I have always said, what if High King Torygg had answered Ulfric's duel by sending his army instead? And furthermore, you guys talk up this duel between High King Torygg, but if you're willing to turn your back on in game dialogue that indicates a duel, then why should anyone believe what Ulfric said about his conduct during the duel with High King Torygg?

And you know, that goes without saying, you have one side who banned Talos worship, yet, ironically, puts a premium on honoring the old ways, then you have another side, who claims to honor Talos yet uses the old ways to suite themselves. Wouldn't it have been honorable for Ulfric to duel with Jarl B instead of all those people having to die? The Jarl was ready to face Ulfric... why send his army to answer a personal challenge? Because Jarl Ulfric was challenging Jarl B's leadership... that is something very personal in almost every culture I've studied. It's almost like issuing someone a "summons".

However you choose to digest this, remember one thing. While Jarl B had his day in court, Ulfric "the accuser" was not there. And, if Jarl B challenged Ulfric's leadership instead, Ulfric did not show up to defend his honor, he sends others to fight and die in his place.

So yes. If someone challenged Tiber Septim's leadership... think he wouldn't have at least shown up to answer his enemy(s)?
Ulfric didn't challenge Toyrgg by sending him a bloody axe.. He went to Solitude and challenged him face to face. And yes I'm disregarding it because it all was said within a matter of minutes, totally throwing any suspect of a duel being proposed right out the window. If sending an axe meant challenging them to a face to face, then a face to face would've happened.. Obviously it didn't, because it never happend. It's so painfuly obvious what was meant by it that I can't believe it's even being debated.

If he accepts the axe, they're friends, if not, they're enemies and what happens after that is down to the Jarls.
 

LegateFasendil

Imperial Legate
It doesn't matter what way you or I see it, a duel wasn't even considered between the two of them which can be seen by the conversation between Jarl B, his steward and Irileth. They are discussing the possibilites of what could happen next, and they agree that after killing Toyrgg that it is more than likely he'll use his army to storm Whiterun rather than a fight between Jarl B and Ulfric, which I'm going to reiterate was a discussion between the three of them, not an option given by Ulfric/Jarl B(Whichever side you choose). Jarl B mentions a duel in the old way because it was only recently that Ulfric killed Toyrgg in the 'old way'. Proven even more by the fact that as soon as he reject's the axe he starts mustering troops, why would he do this if the axe is a sign of a duel?

Accepting the axe = peace, not accepting = war.



Ok, so are we going to just disregard the dialogue I just posted then? That what we're doing?

Obviously, Jarl B took Ulfric's gesture with the axe the same as a challenge to a duel. That was very clearly his interpretation of it. Now whatever Ulfric is doing in the kitchen is something else - fine. However, Jarl B took it as his leadership being challenged according to the "old ways" and his intention was to deal with Ulfric man to man.

Stormcloaks for whatever reason always shy away from this part of the discussion, and you can do the same however, the dialogue directly contradicts what you're saying. A duel was considered and it also sheds some light on the duel with Torygg. There's a relationship here which disagree feel free, but it should not be ignored.

It's like I know, I have always said, what if High King Torygg had answered Ulfric's duel by sending his army instead? And furthermore, you guys talk up this duel between High King Torygg, but if you're willing to turn your back on in game dialogue that indicates a duel, then why should anyone believe what Ulfric said about his conduct during the duel with High King Torygg?

And you know, that goes without saying, you have one side who banned Talos worship, yet, ironically, puts a premium on honoring the old ways, then you have another side, who claims to honor Talos yet uses the old ways to suite themselves. Wouldn't it have been honorable for Ulfric to duel with Jarl B instead of all those people having to die? The Jarl was ready to face Ulfric... why send his army to answer a personal challenge? Because Jarl Ulfric was challenging Jarl B's leadership... that is something very personal in almost every culture I've studied. It's almost like issuing someone a "summons".

However you choose to digest this, remember one thing. While Jarl B had his day in court, Ulfric "the accuser" was not there. And, if Jarl B challenged Ulfric's leadership instead, Ulfric did not show up to defend his honor, he sends others to fight and die in his place.

So yes. If someone challenged Tiber Septim's leadership... think he wouldn't have at least shown up to answer his enemy(s)?
Ulfric didn't challenge Toyrgg by sending him a bloody axe.. He went to Solitude and challenged him face to face. And yes I'm disregarding it because it all was said within a matter of minutes, totally throwing any suspect of a duel being proposed right out the window. If sending an axe meant challenging them to a face to face, then a face to face would've happened.. Obviously it didn't, because it never happend. It's so painfuly obvious what was meant by it that I can't believe it's even being debated.

If he accepts the axe, they're friends, if not, they're enemies and what happens after that is down to the Jarls.


Then by your logic, the axe gesture was not a personal challenge to Jarl B. Even though, it's something very personal between Nords, but Jarl Ulfric presenting his axe to Jarl B was according to you, by no means a personal challenge or threat from Ulfric by any means.

Why then, did Jarl B mention this:

Balgruuf: "I'm not a fool, Proventus. I mean it's time to challenge Ulfric to face me as a man, or march his Stormcloaks up to the gates."
Proventus: "He'll do no such thing! A dagger in the back is all you could expect!"
Irileth: "He was rather straight forward with Torygg."
Proventus: "Torygg? He simply walked up to the boy and murdered him!"
Irileth: "That "boy" was High King of Skyrim."
Balgruuf: "I'm not the High King, but neither am I a boy. If Ulfric wants to challenge my rule in the old way, let him. Though I suspect he'll prefer to send his "Stormcloaks" to do it for him."

Was the good Jarl out of his mind? About Ulfric facing him as a man and Ulfric challenging him in the old way... was he referring to someone else other than Ulfric? I don't see anything in here about going to war with the Stormcloaks... the Jarl B said he didn't want to march against Windhelm, just wanted to face Ulfric according to the old ways, so... if Ulfric's so honorable why didn't he seek the same?

They expected Ulfric to face Jarl B in duel, according to the "old ways" the same as Ulfric did with Torygg, or moreover, as Ulfric did with Torygg.

Irileth betrays your argument here because the duel is implied, listen very closely to what she said.
 

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
It doesn't matter what way you or I see it, a duel wasn't even considered between the two of them which can be seen by the conversation between Jarl B, his steward and Irileth. They are discussing the possibilites of what could happen next, and they agree that after killing Toyrgg that it is more than likely he'll use his army to storm Whiterun rather than a fight between Jarl B and Ulfric, which I'm going to reiterate was a discussion between the three of them, not an option given by Ulfric/Jarl B(Whichever side you choose). Jarl B mentions a duel in the old way because it was only recently that Ulfric killed Toyrgg in the 'old way'. Proven even more by the fact that as soon as he reject's the axe he starts mustering troops, why would he do this if the axe is a sign of a duel?

Accepting the axe = peace, not accepting = war.

The duel was the first thing considered, then dismissed because they realize Ulfric would prefer to send his army instead. They're not discussing a duel simply because Ulfric had killed Torygg that way.

Why does he muster troops after rejecting the axe? Because he knows Ulfric and they all agree he'd rather send his Stormcloaks.

Ulfric didn't challenge Toyrgg by sending him a bloody axe.. He went to Solitude and challenged him face to face. And yes I'm disregarding it because it all was said within a matter of minutes, totally throwing any suspect of a duel being proposed right out the window. If sending an axe meant challenging them to a face to face, then a face to face would've happened.. Obviously it didn't, because it never happend. It's so painfuly obvious what was meant by it that I can't believe it's even being debated.

If he accepts the axe, they're friends, if not, they're enemies and what happens after that is down to the Jarls.

Torygg was the High King of Skyrim, Ulfric's challenge was to either face him in a duel or a new Moot will be called. That is nothing like the axe, and Torygg's challenge could only be issued to a High King.

The face to face wouldn't happen, because Ulfric wanted to test his army in battle. It is painfully obvious, the duel was the very first thing considered.

Of course what happens next is down to the Jarls, which is why Ulfric sends his soldiers instead.

If accepting the axe means they're friends, why does Ulfric reject Balgruuf's axe? Didn't he apparently want to be friends with Whiterun?

Edit: You're not wrong, there is just more to it. The duel considered is indeed part of it.
 

LegateFasendil

Imperial Legate
It doesn't matter what way you or I see it, a duel wasn't even considered between the two of them which can be seen by the conversation between Jarl B, his steward and Irileth. They are discussing the possibilites of what could happen next, and they agree that after killing Toyrgg that it is more than likely he'll use his army to storm Whiterun rather than a fight between Jarl B and Ulfric, which I'm going to reiterate was a discussion between the three of them, not an option given by Ulfric/Jarl B(Whichever side you choose). Jarl B mentions a duel in the old way because it was only recently that Ulfric killed Toyrgg in the 'old way'. Proven even more by the fact that as soon as he reject's the axe he starts mustering troops, why would he do this if the axe is a sign of a duel?

Accepting the axe = peace, not accepting = war.

The duel was the first thing considered, then dismissed because they realize Ulfric would prefer to send his army instead. They're not discussing a duel simply because Ulfric had killed Torygg that way.

Why does he muster troops after rejecting the axe? Because he knows Ulfric and they all agree he'd rather send his Stormcloaks.

Ulfric didn't challenge Toyrgg by sending him a bloody axe.. He went to Solitude and challenged him face to face. And yes I'm disregarding it because it all was said within a matter of minutes, totally throwing any suspect of a duel being proposed right out the window. If sending an axe meant challenging them to a face to face, then a face to face would've happened.. Obviously it didn't, because it never happend. It's so painfuly obvious what was meant by it that I can't believe it's even being debated.

If he accepts the axe, they're friends, if not, they're enemies and what happens after that is down to the Jarls.

Torygg was the High King of Skyrim, Ulfric's challenge was to either face him in a duel or a new Moot will be called. That is nothing like the axe, and Torygg's challenge could only be issued to a High King.

The face to face wouldn't happen, because Ulfric wanted to test his army in battle. It is painfully obvious, the duel was the very first thing considered.

Of course what happens next is down to the Jarls, which is why Ulfric sends his soldiers instead.

If accepting the axe means they're friends, why does Ulfric reject Balgruuf's axe? Didn't he apparently want to be friends with Whiterun?

Edit: You're not wrong, there is just more to it. The duel considered is indeed part of it.



I would say the lesson to take home here is the axe was a ploy either way, Jarl B would have accepted and intended a duel with Ulfric according to the old ways, although Ulfric had other plans. Still doesn't change the fact that Ulfric was given the axe -meant for him alone- and instead sent someone else to answer a personal challenge.

Compromising on these things is fine, however there are some things you don't compromise on. I remember back in the day, when I first joined the Empire, the Stormcloaks never compromised with use on -anything-. Like Ulfric said in that video, "And don't ever question Me or Galmar".

Well, I think this about does it for me and I'm glad to see how well the Empire has pulled together on here. I am, perhaps a little disappointed about one or two items, however the cause comes first and I'm proud to have been a part of it. Still, I've always believed in change for the Empire as well as it's survival, I've never been an Imperial apologist by any means, or a fan of the Mede Dynasty.

Hopefully, TES VI will be worth all the time and effort we've all put into this. Have fun everyone! :)
 

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
I would say the lesson to take home here is the axe was a ploy either way, Jarl B would have accepted and intended a duel with Ulfric according to the old ways, although Ulfric had other plans. Still doesn't change the fact that Ulfric was given the axe -meant for him alone- and instead sent someone else to answer a personal challenge

It doesn't really matter, given some thought I'm probably wrong on the axe thing. It is such a minor part and not really important to debate on.

Chances are the axe can lead to a duel or it could lead to armies clashing.
 

Latest posts

Top