Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

feliciano182 · Feb 7, 2013

OckhamsFolly said:
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.

You misunderstand, I said the author probably wrote the book because he himself thinks the nords that re-took The Reach are douches, and thus he needs to speak his mind about it.

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

You were supposed to laugh............it's Bothella for crying out loud !

OckhamsFolly · Feb 7, 2013

No, it also comes up when he kills Torygg.

And like I said early, this is the kind of information you spread among both your army to heighten their conviction and the enemy army to weaken their resolve. It doesn't matter that it's a little dated, because the Empire's leaders would know about it and disseminate it down the line.

OckhamsFolly · Feb 7, 2013

feliciano182 said:
You misunderstand, I said the author probably wrote the book because he himself thinks the nords that re-took The Reach are douches, and thus he needs to speak his mind about it.

You were supposed to laugh............it's Bothella for crying out loud !

You kidding me? She may be old now, but you can tell Bothella was a fox in her hey day.

Ilrita · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
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.

Time is hardly a factor into why it isn't talked about. They talk about other events that happened in the past (way long ago), why not this one? It is especially weird that the Empire, the one that had to act against the incident, does not mention it at all throughout the game. The only source that says anything about it is the author and only Arrianus Arius.

It is very suspicious. That is like taking the Stormcloak's word over an event they talked about once only once made by someone that supports them.

And false. Tullius would be able to remember it. Rikke would. Plenty of Jarls. Elenwen. Yet they don't mention it.

He was tortured and resented it, why would he himself do it or let anyone else do it? The MO does not match Ulfric or his men at all. Couple that to the fact that the event doesn't have any legitimate sources, that makes this out to be either an enormous lie, an exaggeration, or just propaganda.

feliciano182 · Feb 7, 2013

OckhamsFolly said:
You kidding me? She may be old now, but you can tell Bothella was a fox in her hey day.

Well jeez, next to hargravens who wouldn't be beautiful !

OckhamsFolly · Feb 7, 2013

feliciano182 said:
Well jeez, next to hargravens who wouldn't be beautiful !

Hey, that's unfair. She's so flirty, and so comfortable with it, you know she was the girl who turned all the boys heads back in the day.

DrunkenMage · Feb 7, 2013

Ilrita said:
Time is hardly a factor into why it isn't talked about. They talk about other events that happened in the past (way long ago), why not this one? It is especially weird that the Empire, the one that had to act against the incident, does not mention it at all throughout the game. The only source that says anything about it is the author.

It is very suspicious. That is like taking the Stormcloak's word over an event they talked about once only once made by someone that supports them.

And false. Tullius would be able to remember it. Rikke would. Plenty of Jarls. Elenwen. Yet they don't mention it.

He was tortured and resented it, why would he himself do it or let anyone else do it? The MO does not match Ulfric or his men at all. Couple that to the fact that the event doesn't have any legitimate sources, that makes this out to be either an enormous lie, an exaggeration, or just propaganda.

1994 Rwandan Genocide.
1968 My Lai Massacre.

Just because something isn't talked about doesn't make it false. 26 years have passed people don't talk about it, happens today also you ask someone to bring up some heinous act or crime against humanity they will bring up World War 2. In Skyrim many talk about the great war because that was such a large impact.

Just because the Imperials don't talk about it, or other Jarls doesn't make it propaganda.

feliciano182 · Feb 7, 2013

OckhamsFolly said:
Hey, that's unfair. She's so flirty, and so comfortable with it, you know she was the girl who turned all the boys heads back in the day.

You've just said boys and made me think of a young Madanach................and that guy freaks me out.

Thanks for the nightmares !

Ilrita · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
1994 Rwandan Genocide.
1968 My Lai Massacre.

Just because something isn't talked about doesn't make it false. 26 years have passed people don't talk about it, happens today also you ask someone to bring up some heinous act or crime against humanity they will bring up World War 2. In Skyrim many talk about the great war because that was such a large impact.

Just because the Imperials don't talk about it, or other Jarls doesn't make it propaganda.

No, you are right, but is is suspicious that only one source can be quoted on these events. In our world, you can find various sources for uncommon subjects, not just one. It can be buried deep, but it is still there and I am sure you will agree?

It isn't just that they are not talked about that makes Arius' claims suspicious, but also that no one else references this or the events described by Arius.

But it also doesn't make the events Arrianus Arius' "recorded" to be true.

OckhamsFolly · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
1994 Rwandan Genocide.
1968 My Lai Massacre.

Just because something isn't talked about doesn't make it false. 26 years have passed people don't talk about it, happens today also you ask someone to bring up some heinous act or crime against humanity they will bring up World War 2. In Skyrim many talk about the great war because that was such a large impact.

Just because the Imperials don't talk about it, or other Jarls doesn't make it propaganda.

If our enemy were the Akazu, then yes, yes we would talk about it. Like when we talked about Saddam gassing his own people when the USA went to war with him.

They are directly involved in a war with this man. If you were in a position of power, and he was your enemy, and you knew this about him, would you really just not talk about it? It would be an egregious political and strategic error.

DrunkenMage · Feb 7, 2013

Ilrita said:
No, you are right, but is is suspicious that only one source can be quoted on these events. In our world, you can find various sources for uncommon subjects, not just one. It can be buried deep, but it is still there and I am sure you will agree?

But it also doesn't make the events Arrianus Arius's "recorded" to be true.

The people inside Markarth Jail might disagree with you. You have to understand even though the Jarl of Markarth brings it up a little doesn't make it false, he took part in some bad things.

"I had a daughter, once. She'd be 23 this year. Married to some hot-headed silver worker or maybe on her own learning the herb trade."

"The Nords didn't care who was and who wasn't involved in the Forsworn Uprising. I had spoken to Madanach once, that was enough."

"But my little Aethra didn't want to see her papa leave her. She pleaded to the Jarl to take her instead. And after they made me watch as her head rolled off the block, they threw me in here anyway, to dig up their silver."

"I'm not Madanach. I was never a leader of the Forsworn. The only anger I can justify is my own. But every family in the Reach has a story like mine. There are no innocent onlookers in this struggle. Just the guilty, and the dead."

feliciano182 · Feb 7, 2013

Ilrita said:
No, you are right, but is is suspicious that only one source can be quoted on these events. In our world, you can find various sources for uncommon subjects, not just one. It can be buried deep, but it is still there and I am sure you will agree?

It isn't just that they are not talked about that that makes Arius' claims suspicious, but also that no one else references this or the events described.

But it also doesn't make the events Arrianus Arius' "recorded" to be true.

This is a probably a technical issue, if not a deliberate one, I would guess the lore is written separately from the in-game content, so it was probably a little late to put in conversations about such topic.

Or it was just meant to be one book written by an imperial scholar, leaving the players to decide for themselves what to believe.

For my part, somebody tells me Ulfric killed his own people because they weren't nord enough ? Sounds just like him.

feliciano182 · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
The people inside Markarth Jail might disagree with you. You have to understand even though the Jarl of Markarth brings it up a little doesn't make it false, he took part in some bad things.

"I had a daughter, once. She'd be 23 this year. Married to some hot-headed silver worker or maybe on her own learning the herb trade."

"The Nords didn't care who was and who wasn't involved in the Forsworn Uprising. I had spoken to Madanach once, that was enough."

"But my little Aethra didn't want to see her papa leave her. She pleaded to the Jarl to take her instead. And after they made me watch as her head rolled off the block, they threw me in here anyway, to dig up their silver."

"I'm not Madanach. I was never a leader of the Forsworn. The only anger I can justify is my own. But every family in the Reach has a story like mine. There are no innocent onlookers in this struggle. Just the guilty, and the dead."

Forgive the double post everyone but that dialogue always gets me, that quest is amazing.

OckhamsFolly · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
The people inside Markarth Jail might disagree with you. You have to understand even though the Jarl of Markarth brings it up a little doesn't make it false, he took part in some bad things.

"I had a daughter, once. She'd be 23 this year. Married to some hot-headed silver worker or maybe on her own learning the herb trade."

"The Nords didn't care who was and who wasn't involved in the Forsworn Uprising. I had spoken to Madanach once, that was enough."

"But my little Aethra didn't want to see her papa leave her. She pleaded to the Jarl to take her instead. And after they made me watch as her head rolled off the block, they threw me in here anyway, to dig up their silver."

"I'm not Madanach. I was never a leader of the Forsworn. The only anger I can justify is my own. But every family in the Reach has a story like mine. There are no innocent onlookers in this struggle. Just the guilty, and the dead."

Good propaganda has its root in truth. But that's evidence against Igmund, not Ulfric, anyway, whom the Bear of Markarth is about. Already we're disproving it, as wouldn't Ulfric have slaughtered those folks before barring the city to Igmund, according to the book? At the very least, it attributes other people's crimes to Ulfric in addition to whatever he may have done.

I've never said it was certain sure that it was propaganda. But given what I know, I would dismiss it until I had seen some real sources, and thus that's what I do.

DrunkenMage · Feb 7, 2013

OckhamsFolly said:
If our enemy were the Akazu, then yes, yes we would talk about it. Like when we talked about Saddam gassing his own people when the USA went to war with him.

They are directly involved in a war with this man. If you were in a position of power, and he was your enemy, and you knew this about him, would you really just not talk about it? It would be an egregious political and strategic error.

The Legion isn't interested in a political strategy, they are the hammer. If it doesn't kill Stormcloaks or capture forts Tullius isn't all that interested. It wouldn't be easy for people who lost loved ones to talk about it and those that did may have lost more to the Forsworn raids afterwards. The end of the Great war, the ban on Talos and the Forsworn in the hills attacking and killing merchants and travelers, the Death of the High King and dragons returning would just make the Markarth incident seem like a side show a distant memory.

DrunkenMage · Feb 7, 2013

OckhamsFolly said:
Good propaganda has its root in truth. But that's evidence against Igmund, not Ulfric, anyway, whom the Bear of Markarth is about. Already we're disproving it, as wouldn't Ulfric have slaughtered those folks before barring the city to Igmund, according to the book? At the very least, it attributes other people's crimes to Ulfric in addition to whatever he may have done.

I've never said it was certain sure that it was propaganda. But given what I know, I would dismiss it until I had seen some real sources, and thus that's what I do.

He didn't refuse Igmund to rule. The book states he refused the Legion entry when they returned.

feliciano182 · Feb 7, 2013

OckhamsFolly said:
Good propaganda has its root in truth. But that's evidence against Igmund, not Ulfric, anyway, whom the Bear of Markarth is about. Already we're disproving it, as wouldn't Ulfric have slaughtered those folks before barring the city to Igmund, according to the book? At the very least, it attributes other people's crimes to Ulfric in addition to whatever he may have done.

I've never said it was certain sure that it was propaganda. But given what I know, I would dismiss it until I had seen some real sources, and thus that's what I do.

.................................

.................................

Raijin, is that you ?

OckhamsFolly · Feb 7, 2013

DrunkenMage said:
The Legion isn't interested in a political strategy, they are the hammer. If it doesn't kill Stormcloaks or capture forts Tullius isn't all that interested. It wouldn't be easy for people who lost loved ones to talk about it and those that did may have lost more to the Forsworn raids afterwards. The end of the Great war, the ban on Talos and the Forsworn in the hills attacking and killing merchants and travelers, the Death of the High King and dragons returning would just make the Markarth incident seem like a side show a distant memory.

That doesn't sound at all like the Imperial Legion I've learned about across the course of four games. They've used every advantage they've had, including in the Great War, and considering with this information you'd be laying the blame of the Forsworn raiders, another of your points, at the feet of your enemy, it's an additional advantage.

DrunkenMage said:
He didn't refuse Igmund to rule. The book states he refused the Legion entry when they returned.

You are correct, I was mistaken. But that still doesn't address the attribution of Igmund's crimes to Ulfric, as there is no mention of Igmund at all in the book. It could have been done entirely at his behest, for all we know.

Ilrita · Feb 7, 2013

feliciano182 said:
This is a probably a technical issue, if not a deliberate one, I would guess the lore is written separately from the in-game content, so it was probably a little late to put in conversations about such topic.

Or it was just meant to be one book written by an imperial scholar, leaving the players to decide for themselves what to believe.

For my part, somebody tells me Ulfric killed his own people because they weren't nord enough ? Sounds just like him.

That is something I can agree on and it makes sense more than it being the truth throughout because we are given the chance to pick between the Civil War sides and it is an open-world game.

Then why doesn't he kill the people around him who are not Nord? The accusations in the report do not fit Ulfric at all and nothing supports the notion he kills non-Nords. He may be racist, but throughout the game he has never killed someone who was not Nord.

So again, the MO does not fit.

And then there is my part in my post concerning why it isn't mentioned by others like Tullius.

DrunkenMage · Feb 7, 2013

OckhamsFolly said:
That doesn't sound at all like the Imperial Legion I've learned about across the course of four games. They've used every advantage they've had, including in the Great War, and considering with this information you'd be laying the blame of the Forsworn raiders, another of your points, at the feet of your enemy, it's an additional advantage.

You are correct, I was mistaken. But that still doesn't address the attribution of Igmund's crimes to Ulfric, as there is no mention of Igmund at all in the book. It could have been done entirely at his behest, for all we know.

Tullius just doesn't strike me as the General who dabbles into political strategy, especially Nord politics. Like his reaction to the Jagged crown.

Edit: Forsworn raiders are to blame for a Stormcloak supporting family the Silver-Bloods who use the Forsworn as assassins.
What has the Legion done in the last four games using every advantage? I am curious of this.

Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

Latest Videos

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

The Imperial Storm

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Intoxicated Arch-Mage

Well-Known Member

The Imperial Storm

Active Member

Intoxicated Arch-Mage

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Intoxicated Arch-Mage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage

Well-Known Member

Active Member

The Imperial Storm

Intoxicated Arch-Mage

Share this page

Recent chat visitors