Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

Gunnbjorn · Feb 7, 2013

feliciano182 said:
Not really, I didn't say my argument was the absolute truth, only what I find it to be more likely.

Uhm........no, they did attack Sarthal, and they did commit several atrocities against the atmoran settlers.

However, "The Night Of Tears" seems rather tame compared to forcing an entire civilization to crawl underground, those actions don't even have a fancy name, as a wise woman once said, the worst kinds of tragedies can't have no name nor words to describe them.

I.....wasn't insulting you when I said you were making a dangerous assumption, just to be clear.

Regardless, I mostly agree with this part, the nords kicked the pl*** out of the snow elves, and they probably ended up burying the eye in the end, considering how it's The College itself that later uncovers it.

Now, what followed later, that is quite inexcusable to me, and it begs me to look at a pattern that seems rather forced by nord tradition, the idea that battle and war is "glorious" seems to be rather destructive to anyone who isn't a nord, as a result, we have several groups throughout Skyrim's history that have served as instigators for several conflicts, Ysgramor and the atmoran settlers being the notable exception.......so to speak.

OH COME ON !

*crosses arms and sits angrily*

But yes, this debate is over, at this point we would just be disagreeing with each others opinion on the motives of people from history.

A lot of what you posted here I agree with, I can't argue against the patterns in Nord tradition, the glory that Nords find in battle, or many Nords being instigators in several conflicts.

My motives behind this argument was to defend my one Nord Idol, Ysgramor - and to try to prove to you that he is a Nord who justified the war(s) he was involved in, and judging by that last sentence, I may or may not have accomplished that.

DrunkenMage · Feb 7, 2013

OckhamsFolly said:
Would Tullius, though? What reason would he have for not saying anything? Pretty convincing argument to make against your opponent right there.

I'm not saying it's definitely not true, Feliciano, but there's such scant evidence for something that really seems like it should be a bigger deal that I write it off. It is a perfect example of your point that lore books can be deemed unreliable, and maybe even end up being ruled that way. Lore in TES is not constant.

What reason would he need by bringing up something that happened 26 years before he even arrived in Skyrim?

feliciano182 · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
Adding to that, I do not see how it can be called Propaganda it seems to have been written before the Stormcloak rebellion. Imperial Scholar simply indicates the race of the author.

That's mostly the issue at hand, if the author had been a bosmer, would the propaganda thing still hold ?

OckhamsFolly · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
Adding to that, I do not see how it can be called Propaganda it seems to have been written before the Stormcloak rebellion. Imperial Scholar simply indicates the race of the author.

You don't have to actively be involved in a war to spread propaganda, DM. To some in Skyrim, Ulfric was a martyr. Why wouldn't they want to discredit him, and try and snip that problem in the bud? Igmund himself says the rebellion truly started at the Markarth Incident, 25 years ago. The Colovians, manipulators that they are, sought to sway public opinion without direct confrontation. The fact that it seems to be entirely disregarded says a lot to me.

OckhamsFolly · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
What reason would he need by bringing up something that happened 26 years before he even arrived in Skyrim?

The same reason people in here bring it up. It's important to know the character of your enemy, and if what you know is detrimental to them, then it is valuable to spread it around. It's a weapon to cut uncertainty into the hearts of his followers and discourage new people from joining him. It should be shouted from every street corner that Ulfric is a brutal man of genocide, a man who doesn't balk at massacre. But it isn't. And that casts a lot of doubt on the whole account.

I mean, you're essentially saying here "what's the point of propaganda at all?" After all, mostly TRUE propaganda is the most effective.

DrunkenMage · Feb 7, 2013

OckhamsFolly said:
You don't have to actively be involved in a war to spread propaganda, DM. To some in Skyrim, Ulfric was a martyr. Why wouldn't they want to discredit him, and try and snip that problem in the bud? Igmund himself says the rebellion truly started at the Markarth Incident, 25 years ago. The Colovians, manipulators that they are, sought to sway public opinion without direct confrontation. The fact that it seems to be entirely disregarded says a lot to me.

Why would Colovians have to sway public opinion, many in Cyrodiil wouldn't of even heard about it, I do not see how the Colovians would be involved in that issue, if you speak with Hadvar asking about the Civil war I believe he mentions something about it must not be a large issue in Cyrodiil that many don't even know is happening, so I don't see how the Markarth incident would be in large light while Cyrodiil is busy repairing their cities and mourning thousands that are dead. If you mean the Legion why would a mainly Nord legion want to sway public opinion while Ulfric himself was still apart of the Empire. He was sent to prison after the incident and was released when his father died.

feliciano182 · Feb 7, 2013

OckhamsFolly said:
The same reason people in here bring it up. It's important to know the character of your enemy, and if what you know is detrimental to them, then it is valuable to spread it around. It's a weapon to cut uncertainty into the hearts of his followers and discourage new people from joining him. It should be shouted from every street corner that Ulfric is a brutal man of genocide, a man who doesn't balk at massacre. But it isn't. And that casts a lot of doubt on the whole account.

Hmmmmmmmm, I think I'd file the Markarth Incident's tragedies next to Helgen's executions.

Meaning that they could be seen as horrible ocurrences to us, sensitive videogaming modern people, but completely mundane for tamrielian folk.

DrunkenMage · Feb 7, 2013

feliciano182 said:
Hmmmmmmmm, I think I'd file the Markarth Incident's tragedies next to Helgen's executions.

Meaning that they could be seen as horrible ocurrences to us, sensitive videogaming modern people, but completely mundane for tamrielian folk.

If it was written by a Nord Scholar no one would question it. People only question it because of the authors race.

OckhamsFolly · Feb 7, 2013

When was the Bear of Markarth written? We don't know, but given the dating conventions, almost certainly not the same year as the Markarth Incident.

Think about it. For many, as it says in the book, Ulfric was a hero. But at the same time, he was loudly critical of the WGC and by extension, the Empire. Unrest among his sympathizers were growing, the Stormcloaks following the Incident (the ones that seem anachronistic until we bear in mind Igmund's testimony that they started gathering after Ulfric's imprisonment, not his ascent to jarl). Mutterings of unrest abound, all over great respect for an imprisoned "hero." So you discredit them. It's not written for Cyrodiil, it's written for Skyrim, but its origins are unquestionably Colovian. Somewhere between then and now, the Imperials, a group that are well known for machinations (heck, Imperial machinations are the entire impetus of the plot of two TES games), decided some libel was in order. Book is published, book is read, and then NOBODY TALKS ABOUT IT. To me, that says it was dismissed out of hand as ridiculous, like we do with propaganda.

It just makes more sense for it to be a twisting or exaggeration of the truth than a realistic history.

OckhamsFolly · Feb 7, 2013

feliciano182 said:
Hmmmmmmmm, I think I'd file the Markarth Incident's tragedies next to Helgen's executions.

Meaning that they could be seen as horrible ocurrences to us, sensitive videogaming modern people, but completely mundane for tamrielian folk.

If that were true, no one would bother to write the Bear of Markarth, now would they?

DrunkenMage · Feb 7, 2013

OckhamsFolly said:
When was the Bear of Markarth written? We don't know, but given the dating conventions, almost certainly not the same year as the Markarth Incident.

Think about it. For many, as it says in the book, Ulfric was a hero. But at the same time, he was loudly critical of the WGC and by extension, the Empire. Unrest among his sympathizers were growing, the Stormcloaks following the Incident (the ones that seem anachronistic until we bear in mind Igmund's testimony that they started gathering after Ulfric's imprisonment, not his ascent to jarl). Mutterings of unrest abound, all over great respect for an imprisoned "hero." So you discredit them. It's not written for Cyrodiil, it's written for Skyrim, but its origins are unquestionably Colovian. Somewhere between then and now, the Imperials, a group that are well known for machinations (heck, Imperial machinations are the entire impetus of the plot of two TES games), decided some libel was in order. Book is published, book is read, and then NOBODY TALKS ABOUT IT. To me, that says it was dismissed out of hand as ridiculous, like we do with propaganda.

It just makes more sense for it to be a twisting or exaggeration of the truth than a realistic history.

'"You are with us, or you are against Skyrim" was the message on Ulfric's lips' From the Bear of Markarth is actually very much in the Stormcloak nature. When you walk into the Palace of the Kings and listen to Galmar and Ulfric.

Galmar: "If he's not with us, he's against us."
Ulfric: "He knows that. They all know that."

feliciano182 · Feb 7, 2013

OckhamsFolly said:
Think about it. For many, as it says in the book, Ulfric was a hero. But at the same time, he was loudly critical of the WGC and by extension, the Empire. Unrest among his sympathizers were growing, the Stormcloaks following the Incident (the ones that seem anachronistic until we bear in mind Igmund's testimony that they started gathering after Ulfric's imprisonment, not his ascent to jarl). Mutterings of unrest abound, all over great respect for an imprisoned "hero." So you discredit them.

You can discredit them because you think they're douches.

Not denying it could also be propaganda, but there are countless reasons to write a book about the subject, maybe the author had a fling with Bothella and felt like denouncing Ulfric.

OckhamsFolly said:
It's not written for Cyrodiil, it's written for Skyrim, but its origins are unquestionably Colovian.

How do we know it's not written for Cyrodiil ?

DrunkenMage · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
'"You are with us, or you are against Skyrim" was the message on Ulfric's lips' From the Bear of Markarth is actually very much in the Stormcloak nature. When you walk into the Palace of the Kings and listen to Galmar and Ulfric.

Galmar: "If he's not with us, he's against us."
Ulfric: "He knows that. They all know that."

How he says it "He knows that. They all know that." How would they know. How would the Jarls know that if you're not with him you're against him. Unless he's done it in the past, shown the rest of Skyrim that you're either with him or against him. Must be a reference to the Markarth Incident.

Gunnbjorn · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
How he says it "He knows that. They all know that." How would they know. How would the Jarls know that if you're not with him you're against him. Unless he's done it in the past, shown the rest of Skyrim that you're either with him or against him. Must be a reference to the Markarth Incident.

All of your posts are very logical and can be true, but you can't completely prove them, as the game left holes in which we must fill with educated guess and assumptions.

Sure it could be a reference, but one could never prove it.

Hopefully your ultimate goal on this thread is not to prove Imperials are better than Stormcloaks, but more-so use your powerful rhetoric and your logical and valid guesses and assumptions you used to fill up the holes to persuade people on the other side to come on over.

red rover, red rover.

Ilrita · Feb 7, 2013

Drunkenmage, that seems a big stretch though. He could very well be referring the Civil War confrontation after the Helgen incident, or even by the fact that the Stormcloaks and Ulfric have said it millions of times.

OckhamsFolly said:
When was the Bear of Markarth written? We don't know, but given the dating conventions, almost certainly not the same year as the Markarth Incident.

Think about it. For many, as it says in the book, Ulfric was a hero. But at the same time, he was loudly critical of the WGC and by extension, the Empire. Unrest among his sympathizers were growing, the Stormcloaks following the Incident (the ones that seem anachronistic until we bear in mind Igmund's testimony that they started gathering after Ulfric's imprisonment, not his ascent to jarl). Mutterings of unrest abound, all over great respect for an imprisoned "hero." So you discredit them. It's not written for Cyrodiil, it's written for Skyrim, but its origins are unquestionably Colovian. Somewhere between then and now, the Imperials, a group that are well known for machinations (heck, Imperial machinations are the entire impetus of the plot of two TES games), decided some libel was in order. Book is published, book is read, and then NOBODY TALKS ABOUT IT. To me, that says it was dismissed out of hand as ridiculous, like we do with propaganda.

It just makes more sense for it to be a twisting or exaggeration of the truth than a realistic history.

I agree.

It is weird that nobody talks about it, not even the Imperials if I recall correctly. It is also completely out of the norm for Ulfric. What other instant do have where he and his people committed such heinous acts before? It is a completely different MO than what we have seen of Ulfric.

DrunkenMage · Feb 7, 2013

Gunnbjorn said:
All of your posts are very logical and can be true, but you can't completely prove them, as the game left holes in which we must fill with educated guess and assumptions.

Sure it could be a reference, but one could never prove it.

Hopefully your ultimate goal on this thread is not to prove Imperials are better than Stormcloaks, but more-so use your powerful rhetoric and your logical and valid guesses and assumptions you used to fill up the holes to persuade people on the other side to come on over.

red rover, red rover.

No my goal is not to try prove Imperials are better than Stormcloaks on this issue, but try prove that because something is written by an Imperial doesn't mean it is propaganda, doesn't mean that the Author is pro Empire. There have been many Colovians that dislike the Government. He is an Imperial Scholar, not an Imperial Legionnaire, not a member of politics like a Count or member of the Court. He is a Scholar.

Gunnbjorn · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
No my goal is not to try prove Imperials are better than Stormcloaks on this issue, but try prove that because something is written by an Imperial doesn't mean it is propaganda, doesn't mean that the Author is pro Empire. There have been many Colovians that dislike the Government. He is an Imperial Scholar, not an Imperial Legionnaire, not a member of politics like a Count or member of the Court. He is a Scholar.

I was just wondering your motives on this thread in general

I haven't been paying attention to the current debate ensued.

I'll have to tell you, I was reading the first couple of pages of this thread, and it's come a long way.

Many people simply blurting out random statements without backing them up, or almost RPing their opinion - wierd.

You're a great debater though, I like your posts - regardless of you being an Imperial

OckhamsFolly · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
'"You are with us, or you are against Skyrim" was the message on Ulfric's lips' From the Bear of Markarth is actually very much in the Stormcloak nature. When you walk into the Palace of the Kings and listen to Galmar and Ulfric.

Galmar: "If he's not with us, he's against us."
Ulfric: "He knows that. They all know that."

Good point, but I think it's equally likely to be a reference to how he handled Torygg, if not more so. From your argument, they supposedly don't consider the Reachmen worth worrying over, but they certainly consider their king, one who was almost but not quite with him, as a good indication of what he'll do with them.

feliciano182 said:
You can discredit them because you think they're douches.

Not denying it could also be propaganda, but there are countless reasons to write a book about the subject, maybe the author had a fling with Bothella and felt like denouncing Ulfric.

How do we know it's not written for Cyrodiil ?

I don't think they're douches. I think they're crafty people who believe in laying political groundwork before engaging in a war. It's a good strategy that aims to minimize your opponents support, and thus both the loss of life and the resistance from the population if you win.

Re: the second point, wouldn't that be propaganda, just for more personal reasons?

And you're right on the last part, we don't know. It just plays into the propaganda angle, which I believe for my other reasons.

DrunkenMage · Feb 7, 2013

Ilrita said:
Drunkenmage, that seems a big stretch though. He could very well be referring the Civil War confrontation after the Helgen incident, or even by the fact that the Stormcloaks and Ulfric have said it millions of times.

I agree.

It is weird that nobody talks about it, not even the Imperials if I recall correctly. It is also completely out of the norm for Ulfric. What other instant do have where he and his people committed such heinous acts before? It is a completely different MO than what we have seen of Ulfric.

The with us or against us has only come up twice. Bear of Markarth and from Palace of the Kings.

It isn't weird nobody talks about it. It happened basically 25 - 26 years ago. Because it is heinous act to us, doesn't mean it is to the Nords. They dislike the Forsworn and retaking their city and slaughtering them is a good thing to Nords. Because Imperials do not talk about it? Well only Imperials that would properly know about it would have to be quite older than the Soldiers you see walking around. I suppose one would have to be I don't know say probably in their 40's? To even remember it. It did happen around 26 years ago and you would have to be old enough to understand what happened, so at least a teenager when it happened.

Ozan · Feb 7, 2013

((Everybody was saying Colovian for a while there...

Ozan said it before it was cool.))

Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

Latest Videos

Formerly known as Arillious

Intoxicated Arch-Mage

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Intoxicated Arch-Mage

Well-Known Member

Intoxicated Arch-Mage

Active Member

Active Member

Intoxicated Arch-Mage

Well-Known Member

Intoxicated Arch-Mage

Formerly known as Arillious

The Imperial Storm

Intoxicated Arch-Mage

Formerly known as Arillious

Active Member

Intoxicated Arch-Mage

the Magnificent Bastard

Share this page

Recent chat visitors