Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[Lewsean]

Well, yeah, before the wars Rome was buying up that grain like crack. However, Caesar actually invaded Egypt for Egyptian coin to finance his war in Gaul and of course the grain to feed the growing Empire. Right? Kinda like Rome was on top of the 'food chain' hehehe.

You didn't like Jarl Sindgeir? On man. I thought he was one of the nicest Jarl's of all, at least to some wandering menace who stumbled upon Falkkreath while running like hell from an angry mob of Spriggans.

I mean yeah, Sindgeir was doing wrong but he cleaned up his mess, did right in the end. Sort of. I dunno bro he at least tried to clean up his hold as opposed to Ulfric who would not repent of his failings. Like them Raiders conveniently going after non-Nords and other 'undesirables' which Ulfric turned a blind eye to.

Well he did invade Egypt, but that was after/during the Civil War and (If I remember correctly) his military action came about due to his relationship with Cleopatra and his hatred of Ptolemy for what happened to Pompey, though they were enemies at the time Caesar viewed Pompey as a friend, she basically used him to get the throne lol. And whilst I do agree Imperial holds do seem to be in better shape, I think it's harsh to judge the Jarls as the main cause of it, I mean the North and North-East of Skyrim is insanely harsh and Windhelm is in the harshest place of that region lol. In a City that is designed very closely to the Atmorans of old in such a harsh climate, I don't think it's fair to expect it to look like Falkreath which is located in one of the more propserous locations.

Yeah I remember reading about the 'Triumvurate' and the first thing that popped into my mind was "yeah" that pl*ps ain't going to last.

There were two of these, first one was ended in fav of Caesar. Second was the Civil War w/ Marc Antony and Cleo. A complete waste of time, money and assets.

Although I can sorta sympathize with the position Caesar was in during 1st Trium. Caesar lost his dad at a young age, they exiled his brother, then the pricks from the Senate tried to assassinate him, then they stabbed him in the back because he was successful.

Funny how 'the people' of Rome did not give Brutus any support after he did the deed.

Caesar was all in all a good man, the people loved him and more importantly his soldiers loved him, he was definitely a man for the common folk which is why the senate hated him(It was basically a power struggle, the senate were just power hungry nobleman) The second triumvurate was definitely a fragile thing, Augustus basically followed in Caesars footsteps which gave him the support of the people, which was VERY important at the time due to the nature of Roman politics, nobody really liked a dictator, until of course when Caesar came a long and changed it all. Pretty amazing the effect he had on the world.

 

[Rimfaxe96]

he was definitely a man for the common folk which is why the senate hated him(It was basically a power struggle, the senate were just power hungry nobleman)

Nope. Caesar refused to follow the deal and step down after the Republic was out of its crisis again, which is why they killed him (Rome wasn't supposed to be a dictatorship). The only reason Augustus was "loved"/accepted afterwards is because he managed to play everyone a fool, making them believe that Caesar had become a God after he had apparently seen him drive into the heavens in one of those horse wagon thingies (don't know the English term for it, sorreh).

 

[Lewsean]

he was definitely a man for the common folk which is why the senate hated him(It was basically a power struggle, the senate were just power hungry nobleman)

Nope. Caesar refused to follow the deal and step down after the Republic was out of its crisis again, which is why they killed him (Rome wasn't supposed to be a dictatorship). The only reason Augustus was "loved"/accepted afterwards is because he managed to play everyone a fool, making them believe that Caesar had become a God after he had apparently seen him drive into the heavens in one of those horse wagon thingies (don't know the English term for it, sorreh).

The Republic was in crisis for years after Caesar died.. And if you knew your Roman history you would know he wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the backing of the Senate, he had NO public opposition. He wiped out debts, enlarged the Senate, built the Forum Iulium, revived the calendar, he was responsible for the regrowth of Italty, he stopped individuals from controlling the grainary, he abolished the tax system, he created the police, he extended human rights granted only to Latin people throughout the whole of the Roman Empire, he basically gave a big fluff you to the wealthiest familys and cared for the poorer familys.. Without Caesar you could kiss goodbye to the Roman Empire, which is exactly what the rich nobles of the Republic wanted, Caesar cared more for the people than polticians, which ultimately led to his assassination. I adore Roman History, and I will gladly argue any single point you make

 

[Jeremius]

he was definitely a man for the common folk which is why the senate hated him(It was basically a power struggle, the senate were just power hungry nobleman)

Nope. Caesar refused to follow the deal and step down after the Republic was out of its crisis again, which is why they killed him (Rome wasn't supposed to be a dictatorship). The only reason Augustus was "loved"/accepted afterwards is because he managed to play everyone a fool, making them believe that Caesar had become a God after he had apparently seen him drive into the heavens in one of those horse wagon thingies (don't know the English term for it, sorreh).

The Republic was in crisis for years after Caesar died.. And if you knew your Roman history you would know he wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the backing of the Senate, he had NO public opposition. He wiped out debts, enlarged the Senate, built the Forum Iulium, revived the calendar, he was responsible for the regrowth of Italty, he stopped individuals from controlling the grainary, he abolished the tax system, he created the police, he extended human rights granted only to Latin people throughout the whole of the Roman Empire, he basically gave a big fluff you to the wealthiest familys and cared for the poorer familys.. Without Caesar you could kiss goodbye to the Roman Empire, which is exactly what the rich nobles of the Republic wanted, Caesar cared more for the people than polticians, which ultimately led to his assassination. I adore Roman History, and I will gladly argue any single point you make

Question: How does this relate to this particular thread? Other than Imperials being "based" off the roman empire and the Stormcloaks being "based" off of the "barbarians"of the roman era, their histories do not really connect to the real world.

 

[Lewsean]

Nope. Caesar refused to follow the deal and step down after the Republic was out of its crisis again, which is why they killed him (Rome wasn't supposed to be a dictatorship). The only reason Augustus was "loved"/accepted afterwards is because he managed to play everyone a fool, making them believe that Caesar had become a God after he had apparently seen him drive into the heavens in one of those horse wagon thingies (don't know the English term for it, sorreh).

The Republic was in crisis for years after Caesar died.. And if you knew your Roman history you would know he wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the backing of the Senate, he had NO public opposition. He wiped out debts, enlarged the Senate, built the Forum Iulium, revived the calendar, he was responsible for the regrowth of Italty, he stopped individuals from controlling the grainary, he abolished the tax system, he created the police, he extended human rights granted only to Latin people throughout the whole of the Roman Empire, he basically gave a big fluff you to the wealthiest familys and cared for the poorer familys.. Without Caesar you could kiss goodbye to the Roman Empire, which is exactly what the rich nobles of the Republic wanted, Caesar cared more for the people than polticians, which ultimately led to his assassination. I adore Roman History, and I will gladly argue any single point you make

Question: How does this relate to this particular thread? Other than Imperials being "based" off the roman empire and the Stormcloaks being "based" off of the "barbarians"of the roman era, their histories do not really connect to the real world.

Nothing wrong with a bit of off topic discussion, like many things in this thread one thing lead to another. But anyway, the Empire is pretty much following the same fate as the Roman Empire in which they were once a super power, they got complacent, Emperor bends knee to foreign power, Empire erupts into civil unrest, Empire fades away.

 

[Raijin]

Question: How does this relate to this particular thread? Other than Imperials being "based" off the roman empire and the Stormcloaks being "based" off of the "barbarians"of the roman era, their histories do not really connect to the real world.

Hey now I'm actually enjoying the refreshments of the ancient Roman Empire I admit I'm a bit rusty when it comes down to it.

Education RULES!

 

[Swingbo]

Read some more, seems everyone who is siding with the stormcloaks because the imperials were going to kill them should know that if you sided imperial at the beginning you get attacked shortly after by a band of stormcloaks who want to kill you for no reason also >.>

Are you talking about the part where you enter with had at and their are two stormcloaks are, and hadvar says let's try to negotiate but they still attack you.

 

[LegateFasendil]

Nope. Caesar refused to follow the deal and step down after the Republic was out of its crisis again, which is why they killed him (Rome wasn't supposed to be a dictatorship). The only reason Augustus was "loved"/accepted afterwards is because he managed to play everyone a fool, making them believe that Caesar had become a God after he had apparently seen him drive into the heavens in one of those horse wagon thingies (don't know the English term for it, sorreh).

The Republic was in crisis for years after Caesar died.. And if you knew your Roman history you would know he wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the backing of the Senate, he had NO public opposition. He wiped out debts, enlarged the Senate, built the Forum Iulium, revived the calendar, he was responsible for the regrowth of Italty, he stopped individuals from controlling the grainary, he abolished the tax system, he created the police, he extended human rights granted only to Latin people throughout the whole of the Roman Empire, he basically gave a big fluff you to the wealthiest familys and cared for the poorer familys.. Without Caesar you could kiss goodbye to the Roman Empire, which is exactly what the rich nobles of the Republic wanted, Caesar cared more for the people than polticians, which ultimately led to his assassination. I adore Roman History, and I will gladly argue any single point you make

Question: How does this relate to this particular thread? Other than Imperials being "based" off the roman empire and the Stormcloaks being "based" off of the "barbarians"of the roman era, their histories do not really connect to the real world.

"How does it relate to this thread"

Why wouldn't it? Barbarians vs Empire. Is an excellent fit for this thread. Esp because Empire of Tam has similar probs to Rome. The question that this thread asks is, "Imperials or Stormcloaks, which one?" And personally, I can't think of a better way to answer this question than to cover where it all started... in Rome and Tamriel.

Moreover to answer your concern proper, Bethesda drew part of their inspiration, 'Skyrim', from Roman history/culture as well as from 'Barbarian'. So, if Gen Tullius was created from the likeness of Caesar, wouldn't it be nice to know something about the man himself?

 

[LegateFasendil]

he was definitely a man for the common folk which is why the senate hated him(It was basically a power struggle, the senate were just power hungry nobleman)

...he basically gave a big fluff you to the wealthiest familys and cared for the poorer familys.. Without Caesar you could kiss goodbye to the Roman Empire, which is exactly what the rich nobles of the Republic wanted, Caesar cared more for the people than polticians, which ultimately led to his assassination.

"...he basically gave a big fluff you to the wealthiest familys and cared for the poorer familys.. Without Caesar you could kiss goodbye to the Roman Empire, which is exactly what the rich nobles of the Republic wanted..."


Exactly.

 

[LegateFasendil]

Read some more, seems everyone who is siding with the stormcloaks because the imperials were going to kill them should know that if you sided imperial at the beginning you get attacked shortly after by a band of stormcloaks who want to kill you for no reason also >.>

Are you talking about the part where you enter with had at and their are two stormcloaks are, and hadvar says let's try to negotiate but they still attack you.

I dunno about drawing conclusions based solely on Helgen, however, it's got to be said, 'Hadvar' shone like the sun. He kinda reminds me of that Imp Watch Capt back in Oblivion. You know, the nice guy who was assassinated in the end. If it weren't for Jarl B McBallin' and Ulfric's aggression towards Whiterun, Hadvar's actions / testimony would be another reason I would join the Empire.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Yes, the Civil War is against the Empire... If the Empire left Skyrim like it did Hammerfell, none of this would be happening because Skyrim wouldn't be required to follow the WGC.

Skyrim isn't fighting the Empire. Ulfric isn't all of Skyrim, he and his Stormcloaks were a minority until he killed High King Torygg. Why would the Empire leave Skyrim? They had accepted the treaty, High King Istlod agreed to it. Ulfric wasn't even against the Empire until his father died during his imprisonment after the Markarth Incident.

If the Empire simply packed up and left Skyrim, there would still be infighting. Not everyone wants Ulfric as their High King and the Holds were having skirmishes years before the Legion got involved. Only Ulfric spoke about independence during the Moot, seven other Jarls didn't. They didn't take sides until Torygg was killed.

The difference is, they DID reject the treaty and the Legions who were told to abandon their posts saw the betrayal in doing such a thing so they stayed, thus no Civil War..

What? Is this Hammerfell or Skyrim you're on about?

If the Empire stayed then obviously there would be Civil War. Simple right?

No, Hammerfell as an entire province rejected the treaty. If it was Crowns rejecting the treaty and the Forebears wanting to remain part of the Empire then it would be a comparison.

Skyrim, if they did reject the treaty, they would have had rebellion nearly thirty years ago. They wouldn't have had to wait for Ulfric to start the thing in motion. Why didn't Ulfric challenge Istlod, he was the one who accepted the treaty for Skyrim? He had to wait for his boy who had limited martial ability to take the throne? He waited until the Legions went south and Istlod died.

Now according to the Stormcloaks, it was Torygg who accepted the treaty and the Empire surrendered when the Aldmeri nearly destroyed the Imperial City. Lies are often easier to accept than the truth, Ulfric is more a cunning politician than he lets on. Even Falk Firebeard realizes it at the end of Stormcloak victory.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Only problem is that the Empire is weak by lore standards, and the Dominion sees right through it, and deliberately exploiting this weakness for their own benefit.

Thirty years ago the Empire was weak and unprepared. The Empire has been building up their forces and preparing for the second conflict. The only reason Tullius isn't getting the reinforcements he's requested is Titus II won't send them. Tullius as a General knows there are enough soldiers in Cyrodiil for him to crush the rebellion, he wouldn't be requesting them otherwise.

The Aldmeri Dominion can see the Empire is getting close to being ready, the Imperials had a six year head start while the Aldmeri were fighting in Hammerfell. The Thalmor are trying to distract the Empire with the Stormcloak rebellion, to weaken them and turn their attention to other problems.

For all their boasting, the Thalmor were desperate enough to kidnap a Skaal smith to make them weapons, and later on even buy weapons off the player on Solstheim.

The fact to the matter is that TMII rejected the ultimatum the first round while his own Generals are warning him not to do anything that will ignited a war, and the consequences from his actions cost him dearly as it further weaken his military.

His Generals warned him of Military weakness, Titus II rejecting the ultimatum was good. The Empire would have destroyed itself with Civil Wars everywhere. Not to mention the Thalmor didn't intend to destroy the Empire until they found out it was weaker than they believed. Your argument here is pointless, your whole "I would support the Empire had Titus II agreed to the Ultimatum" you sometimes bring up is hard to believe.

Lets just say Titus II agreed to the Ultimatum. Civil War breaks out in Cyrodiil, High Rock, Skyrim and Hammerfell is attacked. The Aldmeri invade Hammerfell, they overrun the province. The Redguards put up very little resistance, it was actually the Legions that halted their advance. Take away the Legions, they're not stopping the Aldmeri. The Empire is now dealing with uprisings, the Legions are trying to control the people. Even Legions would probably fight other Legions.

Then the Thalmor turn towards the Empire, their spies report the Empire is far weaker than they estimated. Even moreso being divided, and infighting.

So I ask you Raijin when you bring up this argument, why the fl*ff would the Aldmeri suddenly leave the Empire alone? They going to do a complete change of character? Go against everything we know about them?

"The Empire is weaker than we thought, they're falling apart with infighting... Well we'll just leave them be, cause we're nice." - Thalmor.

 

[Lewsean]

If the Empire simply packed up and left Skyrim, there would still be infighting. Not everyone wants Ulfric as their High King and the Holds were having skirmishes years before the Legion got involved. Only Ulfric spoke about independence during the Moot, seven other Jarls didn't. They didn't take sides until Torygg was killed.

And not everyone wants the Empire in Skyrim. They obviously had the same views, if they didn't agree even a little with Ulfric's ideals then it would be 8 holds vs Windhelm, not East vs West.

No, Hammerfell as an entire province rejected the treaty. If it was Crowns rejecting the treaty and the Forebears wanting to remain part of the Empire then it would be a comparison.

Skyrim, if they did reject the treaty, they would have had rebellion nearly thirty years ago. They wouldn't have had to wait for Ulfric to start the thing in motion. Why didn't Ulfric challenge Istlod, he was the one who accepted the treaty for Skyrim? He had to wait for his boy who had limited martial ability to take the throne? He waited until the Legions went south and Istlod died.

Now according to the Stormcloaks, it was Torygg who accepted the treaty and the Empire surrendered when the Aldmeri nearly destroyed the Imperial City. Lies are often easier to accept than the truth, Ulfric is more a cunning politician than he lets on. Even Falk Firebeard realizes it at the end of Stormcloak victory.

You assume all of Hammerfell rejected the treaty, because no Civil War happened, but like I said the Empire left, leaving no possible way for a Civil War against the Empire to happen... If the Empire treated Hammerfell & Skyrim the same, they would both be in the same situation. Hammerfell rejected it and seceeded from the Empire because the terms were they had to give up the southern part of their lands, Skyrim accepted because the terms didn't really effect them until 30 years later when citizens are being abducted and murdered by Thalmor & Imperial agents, people got sick of it, thus the Civil War. Torygg was the High King who allowed Ulfric and his militia to be arrested after the Markarth Incident, basically confirming what the Stormcloaks say, he was a puppet King. I'm sure if that situation happened under Istlod's rule, Ulfric would've challenged him also. And now the Empire want Elisif to be High Queen, a woman who can't even handle being a Jarl.. Que another puppet ruler.

 

[Raijin]

I dunno about drawing conclusions based solely on Helgen, however, it's got to be said, 'Hadvar' shone like the sun. He kinda reminds me of that Imp Watch Capt back in Oblivion. You know, the nice guy who was assassinated in the end. If it weren't for Jarl B McBallin' and Ulfric's aggression towards Whiterun, Hadvar's actions / testimony would be another reason I would join the Empire.

Wrong. Ulfric never attempted to show any signs of aggressive nature whatsoever on Jarl Balgruuf and Whiterun. In fact it was Tullius himself who orders Rikkie to embellish a letter to send to Balgruuf in an attempt to scare him into believing that Ulfric is making an attempt to attack Whiterun so that he can side finally cave in, and allow the Imperials to garrison troops into his hold.

 

[DrunkenMage]

And not everyone wants the Empire in Skyrim. They obviously had the same views, if they didn't agree even a little with Ulfric's ideals then it would be 8 holds vs Windhelm, not East vs West.

Ulfric killed Torygg as a message to the other Jarls. I'm not saying they don't agree with him, the Empire and Stormcloaks both have the same views about the Thalmor. Doesn't mean they're siding with each other.

You assume all of Hammerfell rejected the treaty, because no Civil War happened, but like I said the Empire left, leaving no possible way for a Civil War against the Empire to happen...

No, I assume all of Hammerfell rejected because the Crowns and Forebears united. The two political factions, rejected to give up their land. Big difference to Skyrim's Stormcloak rebellion.

If the Empire treated Hammerfell & Skyrim the same, they would both be in the same situation. Hammerfell rejected it and seceeded from the Empire because the terms were they had to give up the southern part of their lands,

Unlikely, Hammerfell rejected, Skyrim accepted. They wouldn't be anywhere close to the same situation. Stormcloaks aren't all of Skyrim, Forebears and Crowns are all of Hammerfell.

Skyrim accepted because the terms didn't really effect them until 30 years later when citizens are being abducted and murdered by Thalmor & Imperial agents, people got sick of it

That had been going on for awhile, only to those who were very open about Talos worship. Got worse when the rebellion popped up.

Torygg was the High King who allowed Ulfric and his militia to be arrested after the Markarth Incident, basically confirming what the Stormcloaks say, he was a puppet King. I'm sure if that situation happened under Istlod's rule, Ulfric would've challenged him also.

Istlod was the High King during the Markarth Incident (The Markarth Incident is Ulfric being arrested, the rebels named it) Torygg would have been a baby or not even born yet.

The White-Gold Concordat, the Markarth Incident. All happened under Istlod, and Ulfric didn't ever go near him. He waited until his son became King.

And now the Empire want Elisif to be High Queen, a woman who can't even handle being a Jarl.. Que another puppet ruler.

The Empire doesn't decide who rules Skyrim, even after Imperial Victory her Steward makes mention it is still a question to what happens, only that she has claim. Tullius backing Elisif doesn't mean anything, the Jarls have to decide.

Ulfric wants to be High King, his ability as a Jarl isn't top notch. He uses his Stormcloaks to ensure the Jarls "vote" for him, he also has Galmar who will keep the Jarls in line making sure they follow orders.

 

[LegateFasendil]

I dunno about drawing conclusions based solely on Helgen, however, it's got to be said, 'Hadvar' shone like the sun. He kinda reminds me of that Imp Watch Capt back in Oblivion. You know, the nice guy who was assassinated in the end. If it weren't for Jarl B McBallin' and Ulfric's aggression towards Whiterun, Hadvar's actions / testimony would be another reason I would join the Empire.

Wrong. Ulfric never attempted to show any signs of aggressive nature whatsoever on Jarl Balgruuf and Whiterun. In fact it was Tullius himself who orders Rikkie to embellish a letter to send to Balgruuf in an attempt to scare him into believing that Ulfric is making an attempt to attack Whiterun so that he can side finally cave in, and allow the Imperials to garrison troops into his hold.

Hehehe

If I was to say that whatever that was you just posted was 'pretentious' ... in your mind, would that be me 'embellishing' or would I be displaying an 'aggressive nature'?

Are you aware of the difference between the two?

 

[Lewsean]

Ulfric killed Torygg as a message to the other Jarls. I'm not saying they don't agree with him, the Empire and Stormcloaks both have the same views about the Thalmor. Doesn't mean they're siding with each other.

Really doesn't matter why he did it, they supporter him after the fact. If they didn't agree with him at all the Civil War would not have even got off the ground. It's obvious the Jarls who support him now had the same views as him whilst Torygg was alive, they just didn't have the stones to do anything until Ulfric made the move.

No, I assume all of Hammerfell rejected because the Crowns and Forebears united. The two political factions, rejected to give up their land. Big difference to Skyrim's Stormcloak rebellion.

AND THE EMPIRE LEFT, LEADING TO NO CIVIL WAR. If Hammerfell rejected the treaty whilst still under Imperial occupation, then of course there would have been war.

Unlikely, Hammerfell rejected, Skyrim accepted. They wouldn't be anywhere close to the same situation. Stormcloaks aren't all of Skyrim, Forebears and Crowns are all of Hammerfell.

You still don't get it? It's not a hard concept to understand.. If the Empire left Skyrim under the same circumstances they left Hammerfell, there wouldn't be a Civil War in Skyrim, because there'd be no treaty to uphold....

The Empire doesn't decide who rules Skyrim, even after Imperial Victory her Steward makes mention it is still a question to what happens, only that she has claim. Tullius backing Elisif doesn't mean anything, the Jarls have to decide.

Ulfric wants to be High King, his ability as a Jarl isn't top notch. He uses his Stormcloaks to ensure the Jarls "vote" for him, he also has Galmar who will keep the Jarls in line making sure they follow orders.

That doesn't change the fact that they want her to be the ruler, she's easy to control, even her own Thane's dislike the current situation regarding her and Tullius. They want her to rule, using the Legion to ensure the other Jarls vote for her.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Wrong. Ulfric never attempted to show any signs of aggressive nature whatsoever on Jarl Balgruuf and Whiterun.

Besides invading the Hold setting up a camp? Balgruuf's Housecarl also mentions Stormcloak assassins. There is the "With us or against us"

In fact it was Tullius himself who orders Rikkie to embellish a letter to send to Balgruuf in an attempt to scare him into believing that Ulfric is making an attempt to attack Whiterun so that he can side finally cave in, and allow the Imperials to garrison troops into his hold.

Only if she has to.

Tullius: "If Ulfric's making a move for Whiterun, then we need to be there to stop him. Draft another letter with the usual platitudes, but this time share some of your intelligence regarding Ulfric's plans. Embellish if you have to. We'll let it seem like it's his idea."

When he gets the letter, he sends Ulfric his axe. When Ulfric sends his axe, Balgruuf still rejects.

Besides it doesn't matter, Ulfric attacked and makes Balgruuf devoutly allied to the Imperials. You Stormcloaks and your "Tullius lied! The Imperials were unfair and acted devious!"

Fair? This is war, soldier. War's about winning, not being fair to the enemy. - General Tullius

 

[DrunkenMage]

Really doesn't matter why he did it, they supporter him after the fact. If they didn't agree with him at all the Civil War would not have even got off the ground. It's obvious the Jarls who support him now had the same views as him whilst Torygg was alive, they just didn't have the stones to do anything until Ulfric made the move.

It does matter, they sided when the threat was clear.

Your supporters didn't have the balls until Ulfric stepped up? What happens if Ulfric is killed in battle, assassinated, or eaten by a Troll? How will these Jarls lead Skyrim?

Your plans for Skyrim only work when Ulfric is alive, his political supporters are all plops.

AND THE EMPIRE LEFT, LEADING TO NO CIVIL WAR. If Hammerfell rejected the treaty whilst still under Imperial occupation, then of course there would have been war.

USING ALL CAPITALS DOESN'T HELP YOUR ARGUMENT. HAMMERFELL REJECTING THE TREATY IS DIFFERENT TO ULFRIC STORMCLOAK REJECTING THE TREATY.

There would have been war, but it would be Hammerfell vs Cyrodiil.

You still don't get it? It's not a hard concept to understand.. If the Empire left Skyrim under the same circumstances they left Hammerfell, there wouldn't be a Civil War in Skyrim, because there'd be no treaty to uphold....

You still don't get it. Stop comparing Hammerfell to bloody Skyrim. Ulfric Stormcloak is not all of Skyrim, the Forebears and Crowns are all of Hammerfell.

Why would the Empire leave Skyrim? They accepted the treaty. If the Stormcloaks left Skyrim there wouldn't be a Civil War either.

That doesn't change the fact that they want her to be the ruler, she's easy to control, even her own Thane's dislike the current situation regarding her and Tullius.

Considering Elisif is one of the few good Jarls on the Stormcloak side... The Empire doesn't care who is ruler, she's easy to control now, but that that stems from her grieving. She's also irritated with Tullius, so if we truly wanted a puppet we can control, Jarl of Falkreath is easier.

Legate Rikke will be incharge of Skyrim for awhile, Elisif isn't lacking solid advisors and good Jarls.

They want her to rule, using the Legion to ensure the other Jarls vote for her.

Do you have an in-game quote for that?

 

[Rimfaxe96]

The Republic was in crisis for years after Caesar died.. And if you knew your Roman history you would know he wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the backing of the Senate, he had NO public opposition. He wiped out debts, enlarged the Senate, built the Forum Iulium, revived the calendar, he was responsible for the regrowth of Italty, he stopped individuals from controlling the grainary, he abolished the tax system, he created the police, he extended human rights granted only to Latin people throughout the whole of the Roman Empire, he basically gave a big fluff you to the wealthiest familys and cared for the poorer familys.. Without Caesar you could kiss goodbye to the Roman Empire, which is exactly what the rich nobles of the Republic wanted, Caesar cared more for the people than polticians, which ultimately led to his assassination. I adore Roman History, and I will gladly argue any single point you make

No need, wouldn't want you to throw a tantrum again. Having visited Rome 2 times already (you MUST visit it at least once in your life by the way, I'm serious, wonderful place) please forgive me when I have more trust in those people who work in the museums there.