UESP Forums

Can you please cite some of this evidence? It doesn't need to be comprehensive, but I would like to hear some of it. How can you know that the Thalmor can't do anything without the Empire allowing it? Are the Thalmor much weaker than the Empire? Are the Thalmor actually agents of the Empire? I'd also like to know how you can support your last claim, that "the Thalmor can't tell the Empire what to do because it is in the power of the Emperor to tell the Thalmor off."

Of course the Empire could turn on the Thalmor, treaties are only as binding as the relevant parties want them to be. However, the fact that the WGC and its terms are still respected by the Empire shows, to me, that the Empire still perceives the Thalmor to be a credible threat. Ulfric's rebellion made matters worse as far as taking the war to the Thalmor is concerned, for now the Empire is definitely not in a place to break the treaty, supposing that that was ever a goal for the near-future.

Does a book on the great war not count as evidence? I guess it does not when you are looking for confirmation bias. and I think the Empire "respecting" the terms of the WGC, which they do not really respect, or the Thalmor would not be the ones doing the enforcing of the ban, is a sign that the Empire is now a puppet state of the Dominion.

The book on the great war mention that the ENTIRE/majority of the invasion force was destroyed, and the only way the Thalmor did anything in the war was because they caught the Empire off-guard. This time the Empire won't be caught off-guard and any real military they have left will have to be used to control the populace in their territory. IS this what you wanted?

Not when said book does not actually prove your claims. That text can lead to many different conclusions. I'm still not convinced, and that's fine. I suspect that nothing I say will change your mind, and vice versa. As this has been going on for some time and is not strictly related to "Empire vs. Stormcloaks" I think it might be best to end the discussion here and move to PMs if you wish to continue.

The only way that the Dominion can be defeated is by being united. The Empire is good for Skyrim but not in it's current state. It needs to change and form alliances with other provinces. Such as Black Marsh and Hammerfell. I know they are both former provinces of the empire but if the Empire or what's left of it can gain the help of the Redguards and Argonians, they would stand a decent chance against the Thalmor. However, the Empire needs Skyrim more then they need it.


But by allowing the Thalmor to enforce the Talos ban, the empire has commited the worst sin possible in the eyes of the nords. They are not known for standing by and letting their enemies walk around in their homeland thus are [&@%!] off when Titus signed the WGC although he had little choice. Whilst Hammerfell wiped the floor with the Thalmor, they did so at a heavy cost. Southern Hammerfell is uninhabitable and thousands perished.

The Stormcloaks are bad for Skyrim because of Ulfric. Now, we can't tell for sure if Ulfric wants the crown or actually cares about Skyrim but he would be an awful king. Look at the state of Windhelm. Admittly, he has a lot on his plate and can't deal with everything in his city but he could have hired mercs to take care of bandits in his hold regardless of who they attacked. He attacked Whiterun because Balgruuf the Greater refused to get involved in the war. Instead telling him to stay out of his way and i suspect Balgruuf would have done that. It's not untill Ulfric sends him a message that he is forced to turn to the Legion for help.

You just summed up all my thoughts on the war.

good for you to admit that the Empire would be just as bad for Skyrim because of the White-Gold Concordant costing the Empire its war dogs.

I feel the Empire is good for business but not for political haven stuff. The nords are not innocent because the Jarls are paid to not have a choice in the matter of Skyrim and the White-Gold Concordant (in case anyone disagrees, look it up her on the UESP). IT was that way until Ulfric came along and tried to "steal" the province out from under the feet of the Empire, wich is bad in and of itself.

I'm going to destroy this post. I apologize in advance.

This is a stupid plan. The Argonians aren't going to be anybody's ally. As for the Redguards, they aren't going to align with the people who abandoned them. That's just common sense. Also saying the Empire is good for Skyrim but not in its current state is like saying poison is good for you, but not in it's current state. That's an obvious fact to everyone, but I'm not going to keep drinking it just because it could be medicine one day or before this time. It's poison now, and I refuse to drink.

You're point being? What does defeating a weakened Dominion show of Hammerfell's strength except that the Empire should have done more.

1. That's one of the most narrow minded, ignorant, and Empire propagandizing things I have ever heard. Seriously, give actual evidence from in game that isn't, Windhelm is dirty, for a city that is thousands of years old in the most barren part of Skyrim. Yeah, it's not going to be that great there.
2. People are attacked all the time in the wilds everywhere, including Whiterun. Is Whiterun a mess? No. Do you even hear of anyone else even supporting Free-Winter's claim? No. You guys just shoveled down the first thing some random dude who walks up to you in Windhelm says. Let's think for ourselves, shall we.
3. That's a very false statement to believe that Balgruuf would stay out of Ulfric's way. Have you played Season Unending? On whose side does he sit on? Tullius'. Balgruuf is a loyal supporter of the Empire, whether he wanted to admit it or not. I can admire that, he's loyal through the thick of things. I'm not going to pretend that he was bullied into supporting the Empire though. That doesn't even make any sense, especially considering he would have to pick a side in the end anyway.

I'm not saying these things to be venomous, but this entire debate has become ridiculous. None of you are using any actual evidence, you're just restating the same speculation over and over again as fact. Seriously, I don't get why people keep making up things in this debate. Not only are these theories factually disproven in game, they don't even make logical sense; almost none of this does. And then what is said in game, doesn't even match the actual evidence we are shown, it's just more propaganda, and obviously a lot of you just take random guys in the street for their word. You don't make it far in life living that way, I can tell you that.

Only because he gets paid to support them. If the Empire's coffers dried up, Skyrim would nto be in the Civil War right now. Gold=power, and Ulfric's gold is being used to pay for the war, not buy the loyalty of the other jarls.

Balgruuf is not some corrupt Jarl who takes money for loyalty. I see no evidence to support this claim, and he would be paid regardless of whose side he was on. It's just more of you proving the point that you guys don't even actually look in game for anything, you're just hate mongering for each side.

Doesn't his steward mention the gold lining the Jarls pocket?

No, he mentions that everyone, including Ulfric, was given money to accept the terms of the WGC, that was thirty years ago. This war started a little under three months ago.

and yet, Ulfric turned around and warred with the Empire, and Balgruff didn't. Coincidence?

every man/woman has his/her price, and the Empire found Balgruff's.

Balgruuf supports the Empire, because he believes that's whats best for Skyrim. He doesn't car about his coinpurse.

I see that the Empire paid him his price and he took it. The stormcloaks ate jsut as bad though, if Adrienne is to be believed, which she is not.

You are, once again, making up things to support your argument. None of this is shown to be true in game, and quite frankly, it's insulting that you keep trying to make anyone believe that you absolute speculation is fact.

everything is made up, either by us or the "in-game" sources. the true facts are that there are no facts.

How very philosophical of you.

Well, still, there's no in game source that mentions Balgruuf being paid off by the Empire, and since we treat in game sources in the game as, well, "truth," that's really the way to go about it.

I think Balgruuf was trying to keep Whiterun out of the war, and he probably suspected that stalemating was the best way to go around it. Whether or not that was good or bad, I'm not entirely sure, but we're led to believe that he did what he assumed was in the best interests of his citizens, who he does seem to care about (i.e., he agrees to send soldiers to protect Riverwood and mentions that no one in his Hold should go unprotected).

Anyway, let's not get too carried away in this topic!

There is no in-game source that is not biased in some way so...

I would take a biased source over no source.

Nobody likes a circular argument, guys, so let's move on.

All I was saying was that if the sources for which side of the Civil War to be on are biased, then there is no logical unbiased way to find out which side is the right side, so it is better to stay neutrally unbiased.

The Stormcloaks sound like they are trying to convince you to join. The Empire does the same thing. If there is a totally unbiased set of information on the Civil War that just lists the facts of the civil war without getting into the Bias of each side, then I will be willing to choose a side. Until then, I will decide to not decide as the war is only bias versus bias.

Evidence being bias does not give you the right to just make up your own evidence, especially when it is all based on nothing but your own speculation. Also, there is no such thing as a bias free piece of evidence. We can only make do with what we have, which is not that which is impossible to find, let alone use.