The Elder Scrolls XVIII: "What's So Civil About War, Anyway?"

[Rater202]

If you side with the Imperial Legion, you kill Ulfric after driving the Stormcloaks out of every hold and usurping the Jarls who are sympathetic to him concluding with a successful invasion of his own capital.

By that point the Stormclaks aren't a thing anymore other than some scattered remnants out in the hills, so making him a Martyr has no real effect.

Excuting him at Helgen would have had reasonable odds of backfiring: He still had half of Skyrim on his side.

I think Tullius was looking for a quick win and wasn't thinking it over very carefully.

[Keltest]

If you side with the Imperial Legion, you kill Ulfric after driving the Stormcloaks out of every hold and usurping the Jarls who are sympathetic to him concluding with a successful invasion of his own capital.

By that point the Stormclaks aren't a thing anymore other than some scattered remnants out in the hills, so making him a Martyr has no real effect.

Excuting him at Helgen would have had reasonable odds of backfiring: He still had half of Skyrim on his side.

I think Tullius was looking for a quick win and wasn't thinking it over very carefully.

As of Helgen, the Stormcloak Rebellion hadnt really gotten off the ground yet. Theyve made exactly 0 major military actions against imperial aligned targets yet, and its close enough to the start of the rebellion that the guard in Solitude who opened the gate for him is only just now being executed. If you listen to the gossip in Castle Dour or Ulfric's war room, the attack on Whiterun is Ulfric overtly attempting to demonstrate his military legitimacy to Skyrim, which is probably strongly related to why whichever side you join pretty much just rolls the civil war. Without that initial victory, Ulfric just doesnt have the support to actually attack anywhere else unless the Imperials make a very large mistake. But taking Whiterun instead would give him a very large infusion of support and manpower to enable him to go on the offensive against an Imperial Legion that doesnt have the local backing anymore.

[Grim Portent]

I was so sad how that ended. The Riekling Chief is smarter than a large proportion of the 'civilized' races - he learned a second language, he was able to outmaneuver the Hall's previous residents (something of a low bar but nevertheless proves my point), and unlike so many idiot bandits and thieves actually recognized the power of the Last Dragonborn and did the sensible thing by trying to recruit them! If only he hadn't been so paranoid.

I didn't read his fight challenge to be paranoia, but rather a natural outcome of being a good goblinken.* Tribes need to be lead by a strong leader, they will make the tribe strong. If a member of the tribe is stronger than the leader then they should be leader. The chief needs to prove they are the strongest, if they can't then they aren't a good chief.

You are strong, so the chief has to challenge you or naturally his leadership will be called into question. If nothing else he's calling his own leadership into question by entertaining the idea that you are strong enough to take his place.

The truly sad outcome would have been him trying to get the other rieklings to kill you for him, like Yamarz trying to get you to kill the giants in the shrine of Malacath, instead he does his duty and fights to prove his dominance over a clear contender for his position and dies with dignity.



*It can be assumed rieklings are similar to goblins and riekr, they probably worship some form of Malacath and/or Hircine. Might makes right and all that is part of their code of ethics.

[Resileaf]

As of Helgen, the Stormcloak Rebellion hadnt really gotten off the ground yet. Theyve made exactly 0 major military actions against imperial aligned targets yet, and its close enough to the start of the rebellion that the guard in Solitude who opened the gate for him is only just now being executed. If you listen to the gossip in Castle Dour or Ulfric's war room, the attack on Whiterun is Ulfric overtly attempting to demonstrate his military legitimacy to Skyrim, which is probably strongly related to why whichever side you join pretty much just rolls the civil war. Without that initial victory, Ulfric just doesnt have the support to actually attack anywhere else unless the Imperials make a very large mistake. But taking Whiterun instead would give him a very large infusion of support and manpower to enable him to go on the offensive against an Imperial Legion that doesnt have the local backing anymore.

It's still been going on long enough that Ulfric and Galmar say that Tullius has had enough of an impact that their rebellion lost all of its momentum when he arrived and got the local Imperial army to regroup and organize. Capturing Ulfric was itself a stroke of genius by getting the Stormcloaks to try to attack the Imperial reinforcements before they arrived and ambush them on their way there.

In any case, Tullius' reasoning for a quick execution of Ulfric is sound. The rebellion is named after him, he's the only one with the charisma and the clout to keep it going. With him dead, the Stormcloaks will either fall into infighting, abandon their arms and return to their homes and farms, or fall to petty banditry. Furthermore, not executing him would lead to the Thalmor pulling strings to give Ulfric a chance to escape, something they were undoubtedly trying to do in Helgen when they are seen talking to Tullius.

[veti]

Furthermore, not executing him would lead to the Thalmor pulling strings to give Ulfric a chance to escape, something they were undoubtedly trying to do in Helgen when they are seen talking to Tullius.

You think that's why Tullius decided to execute "nameless, random, non-rebel prisoner" ahead of Ulfric?

I suspect the Thalmor would be pressing for Ulfric to have a fair trial. That's the line I'd be taking if I were in their place - it's an embarrassing request to deny, and it would give Ulfric a splendid bully pulpit and/or opportunity to escape. But that doesn't seem consistent with "murdering everyone else in the caravan out of hand".

[Rater202]

You think that's why Tullius decided to execute "nameless, random, non-rebel prisoner" ahead of Ulfric?

I suspect the Thalmor would be pressing for Ulfric to have a fair trial. That's the line I'd be taking if I were in their place - it's an embarrassing request to deny, and it would give Ulfric a splendid bully pulpit and/or opportunity to escape. But that doesn't seem consistent with "murdering everyone else in the caravan out of hand".

Executing the at Dragonborn wasn't Tullius's call, it was that nameless general whose response was "there's ben some mistake, this one isn't o n the list" was "to bad, they die anyway."

The LAst Dragonborn almost died because of a power-tripping bitch, basically.

[veti]

Executing the at Dragonborn wasn't Tullius's call, it was that nameless general whose response was "there's ben some mistake, this one isn't o n the list" was "to bad, they die anyway."

That captain calls out the order, but Tullius is standing right there watching the whole thing, and he's the CO. Hard to argue that he's not responsible.

[Rater202]

That captain calls out the order, but Tullius is standing right there watching the whole thing, and he's the CO. Hard to argue that he's not responsible.

Watching the scene just now, he's far enough away that he probably didn't hear.

[Fyraltari]

It's also worth noting that the Stormcloak's claim to legitimacy is that Ulfric is the rightful High King following his duel with Torryg and that that the empire is illegally meddling in Skyrim's internal politics. With Ulfric dead, the Stormcloaks don't have a High King to crown anymore. At least until Galmar challenges Elisif to a duel or something.

Edit: As for the execution scene, it seems to me that Tullius simply ordered all the prisoners be executed and left it to the captain to organise things while Elenwen gives him an earfull. I suppose it makes some sense to kill Ulfric last, he's the main attraction, so-to-speak.

[Rater202]

It's also worth noting that the Stormcloak's claim to legitimacy is that Ulfric is the rightful High King following his duel with Torryg and that that the empire is illegally meddling in Skyrim's internal politics. With Ulfric dead, the Stormcloaks don't have a High King to crown anymore. At least until Galmar challenges Elisif to a duel or something.

Yeah, but that point they're rebelling because the Empire murdered their High King.

Half the Holds support Ulfric, it's only knowing whether or not Balgruff s on his side or not that determines whether or not the Civil War goes hot.

With half the Jarls believing in Ulfric's legitimacy and being opposed to the Empire just executing him had a good chance of backfiring.

[Fyraltari]

Yeah, but that point they're rebelling because the Empire murdered their High King.

Half the Holds support Ulfric, it's only knowing whether or not Balgruff s on his side or not that determines whether or not the Civil War goes hot.

With half the Jarls believing in Ulfric's legitimacy and being opposed to the Empire just executing him had a good chance of backfiring.

The soldiers wouldn't lay arms, that's for sure, but without the guy they are literally named after or an heir, the rebellion would surely fracture. I think most Stormcloaks jarls would surrender to the Empire in exchange for a pardon (with probably having to pay a hefty fine and send a few relatives to solitude as hostages honored guests) that the Empire would grant in the name of stability.

The Stormcloaks would have to go in hiding in the hills and become a guerilla resistance like the Renrijra Krin or the Forsworn.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Executing the at Dragonborn wasn't Tullius's call, it was that nameless general whose response was "there's ben some mistake, this one isn't o n the list" was "to bad, they die anyway."

The LAst Dragonborn almost died because of a power-tripping bitch, basically.

My head-canon is that she’s a Thalmor agent, and she’s deliberately stalling so Elenwen has time to maneuver Ulfric out of Imperial custody.

The soldiers wouldn't lay arms, that's for sure, but without the guy they are literally named after or an heir, the rebellion would surely fracture. I think most Stormcloaks jarls would surrender to the Empire in exchange for a pardon (with probably having to pay a hefty fine and send a few relatives to solitude as hostages honored guests) that the Empire would grant in the name of stability.

The Stormcloaks would have to go in hiding in the hills and become a guerilla resistance like the Renrijra Krin or the Forsworn.

I concur this is the most likely outcome. Ulfric doesn’t have any kids as far as I can tell, so they can’t prop up his progeny as his replacement. The closest he has to a second in command is Galmar, and Galmar isn’t a Jarl with his own base of support.

[Grim Portent]

I concur this is the most likely outcome. Ulfric doesn’t have any kids as far as I can tell, so they can’t prop up his progeny as his replacement. The closest he has to a second in command is Galmar, and Galmar isn’t a Jarl with his own base of support.

Ulfric hasn't got any kids, to my understanding he's never really had time to make any. Became a Greybeard at a young age, leaving his life as a noble behind for life as a monk,* leaves the Greybeards to fight in the war against the Dominion. Gets tortured by the Dominion, lied to and traumatised, returns to Skyrim. Retakes Markarth from the Forsworn on the condition he be allowed to worship Talos openly there, gets imprisoned again. His dad dies while he's in jail and he becomes Jarl of Windhelm when released. Spends a while gathering support and then duels Torygg. Shortly after that the game starts.

He could have fit a political marriage in the later half of that somewhere, but I get the impression it was never high on his list of priorities. Doesn't seem his sort of thing, he'd prefer to meet a wife in some sort of battle scenario I imagine. It would make a better song and all that.


*Nothing suggests the Greybeards are celibate, or even chaste, but they also live on a mountain and never come down, so opportunities for meeting someone wouldn't have been great.


While there's no clear heir to Ulfric as leader of the rebellion, I'd give good odds that Laila Lawbringer and Skald the Elder would keep fighting until they were deposed. They both buy into the idea of the empire as a tyrannical regime (true on several metrics to be fair) and they percieve Ulfric's cause as righteous. They wouldn't last long unless the Jarl of Winterhold stayed on their team, and the new Jarl of Windhelm for that matter. But in the event of Ulfric being killed at Helgen I'm not sure who would even take over the city. Maybe the Shatter-Shields?

[Keltest]

Ulfric hasn't got any kids, to my understanding he's never really had time to make any. Became a Greybeard at a young age, leaving his life as a noble behind for life as a monk,* leaves the Greybeards to fight in the war against the Dominion. Gets tortured by the Dominion, lied to and traumatised, returns to Skyrim. Retakes Markarth from the Forsworn on the condition he be allowed to worship Talos openly there, gets imprisoned again. His dad dies while he's in jail and he becomes Jarl of Windhelm when released. Spends a while gathering support and then duels Torygg. Shortly after that the game starts.

He could have fit a political marriage in the later half of that somewhere, but I get the impression it was never high on his list of priorities. Doesn't seem his sort of thing, he'd prefer to meet a wife in some sort of battle scenario I imagine. It would make a better song and all that.


*Nothing suggests the Greybeards are celibate, or even chaste, but they also live on a mountain and never come down, so opportunities for meeting someone wouldn't have been great.


While there's no clear heir to Ulfric as leader of the rebellion, I'd give good odds that Laila Lawbringer and Skald the Elder would keep fighting until they were deposed. They both buy into the idea of the empire as a tyrannical regime (true on several metrics to be fair) and they percieve Ulfric's cause as righteous. They wouldn't last long unless the Jarl of Winterhold stayed on their team, and the new Jarl of Windhelm for that matter. But in the event of Ulfric being killed at Helgen I'm not sure who would even take over the city. Maybe the Shatter-Shields?

Without a clear heir, Windhelm would probably descend into violence as several different factions tried to take over. You'd have Ulfric's spiritual successor (probably Galmar), the Dunmer, the Argonians, any moderates in the city, and people like Lonely-Gale who want nothing to do with the rebellion telling people to get off his property and quit fighting on his land. Windhelm is already a powder keg even with Ulfric in charge there.

[Resileaf]

You think that's why Tullius decided to execute "nameless, random, non-rebel prisoner" ahead of Ulfric?

I suspect the Thalmor would be pressing for Ulfric to have a fair trial. That's the line I'd be taking if I were in their place - it's an embarrassing request to deny, and it would give Ulfric a splendid bully pulpit and/or opportunity to escape. But that doesn't seem consistent with "murdering everyone else in the caravan out of hand".

The first prisoner to be executed is the Stormcloak soldier who walks to the chopping block on his own, Tullius has nothing to do with that. After that, the power-tripping captain orders the Dragonborn to be executed, at which point Tullius is stuck either letting it happen or contradicting her order. He's probably grumbling at her going over her rank like this but if he publicly contradicts her order, he makes a show of using his authority for something that doesn't really matter and causes delays and confusion. He just has to call out for Ulfric to go to the block after the Dragonborn's death before she says anything.

And yes, that is exactly what the Thalmor were more likely asking for, but that's exactly the problem. Delaying Ulfric's execution gives them the opportunity to help him go free, and he can't afford that. He's in Skyrim to protect the stability of the Empire to prepare for the next war against the Aldmeri Dominion and is well aware that the longer the civil war goes, the worse things become for the Empire.

Yeah, but that point they're rebelling because the Empire murdered their High King.

Point of order: It's Ulfric who murdered the High King. He challenged Torygg to a duel he couldn't refuse without relinquishing his right to rule and couldn't win because Ulfric was a clearly more seasoned warrior with powers beyond anything the king could match.

[Fyraltari]

Point of order: It's Ulfric who murdered the High King. He challenged Torygg to a duel he couldn't refuse without relinquishing his right to rule and couldn't win because Ulfric was a clearly more seasoned warrior with powers beyond anything the king could match.

Rater was talking about the hypothetical scenario where Ulfric dies at Helgen and what that would mean to his supporters.

[Keltest]

Rater was talking about the hypothetical scenario where Ulfric dies at Helgen and what that would mean to his supporters.

Even Ulfric knows he isnt high king until the Moot proclaims him so. There are plenty who think he should be, but most recognize the distinction. Plus, Ulfric was captured in battle (again). Its not like they snuck an assassin into his tent.

[Fyraltari]

Even Ulfric knows he isnt high king until the Moot proclaims him so.

"We drink to our youth, and to days come and gone.
For the age of oppression is now nearly done.

We'll drive out the Empire from this land that we own.
With our blood and our steel we will take back our home.

All hail to Ulfric! You are the High King!
In your great honor we drink and we sing.

We're the children of Skyrim, and we fight all our lives.
And when Sovngarde beckons, every one of us dies!

But this land is ours and we'll see it wiped clean.
Of the scourge that has sullied our hopes and our dreams."

[Grim Portent]

Point of order: It's Ulfric who murdered the High King. He challenged Torygg to a duel he couldn't refuse without relinquishing his right to rule and couldn't win because Ulfric was a clearly more seasoned warrior with powers beyond anything the king could match.

That's not really murder though. It's a dishonourable killing, old fashioned and a massive **** move certainly, but not illegal. It's not murder anymore than Roggvir's execution was.

In a technical sense, the killing of Torygg is exactly what such laws are supposed to do. The Nords who established the custom considered martial strength, traditionalism and honour to be the most important things in a ruler. If Torygg upset a vassal who's better at fighting than him, he is supposed to be overthrown in a challenge. That's the whole point in such duelling laws, prevent wider conflict by having two rulers fight to the death and whoever wins gets their way.

The part where it broke down is that rather than just calling a Moot and electing a new High King they decided to fight a war over the matter. What should have been a matter of one dead guy and a few months of political bickering becomes a civil war with thousands dead. One grieving family turned into many.


It is a dumb law mind you, duels to the death often caused blood feuds in real life and thus defeated their purpose, but I'm not going to tell two grown nords they can't fight to the death over a political dispute if it's in their laws. I am going to tell everyone else afterwards that they should honour the terms of the duel regardless of who won.

All hail to Ulfric! You are the High King!
In your great honor we drink and we sing.

Bards singing songs isn't exactly proof of a wider viewpoint, but a lot of Stormcloaks do think of Ulfric as the rightful High King. Ralof and Galmar both do, so do the Jarls of Riften and Dawnstar as I recall. It's certainly not a unanimous viewpoint among the rebels, but it is implicitly widely held.

Ulfric's official stance when talking to Galmar in private seems to be waiting for the Moot to be held, rather than proclaiming himself as the true High King, so I think it's a viewpoint that isn't officially endorsed but also not actively suppressed by Ulfric.

[Fyraltari]

That's not really murder though. It's a dishonourable killing, old fashioned and a massive **** move certainly, but not illegal. It's not murder anymore than Roggvir's execution was.

In a technical sense, the killing of Torygg is exactly what such laws are supposed to do. The Nords who established the custom considered martial strength, traditionalism and honour to be the most important things in a ruler. If Torygg upset a vassal who's better at fighting than him, he is supposed to be overthrown in a challenge. That's the whole point in such duelling laws, prevent wider conflict by having two rulers fight to the death and whoever wins gets their way.

The part where it broke down is that rather than just calling a Moot and electing a new High King they decided to fight a war over the matter. What should have been a matter of one dead guy and a few months of political bickering becomes a civil war with thousands dead. One grieving family turned into many.


It is a dumb law mind you, duels to the death often caused blood feuds in real life and thus defeated their purpose, but I'm not going to tell two grown nords they can't fight to the death over a political dispute if it's in their laws. I am going to tell everyone else afterwards that they should honour the terms of the duel regardless of who won.

It's an antiquated law, though. It wasn't in practice anymore but no-one had got around to make the effort of officially dispelling it. Legally it's a grey area. Like that time a policeman decided to fine every woman in the street wearing trousers, the fact that in Canada you should be fined for starting your car without checking if there's someone under it or the few parliaments that forbid people entering them on horseback or wearing armor.

[Rater202]

As far as the Stormcloaks are concerned, Ulfric is the rightful King, and the Empire is illegally interfering in Skyrim and has been for a while.

The Empire capturing their King in an ambush and executing him without trial is not going to make the Stormcloaks any more favorable to the Empire.

[Fyraltari]

Bards singing songs isn't exactly proof of a wider viewpoint, but a lot of Stormcloaks do think of Ulfric as the rightful High King. Ralof and Galmar both do, so do the Jarls of Riften and Dawnstar as I recall. It's certainly not a unanimous viewpoint among the rebels, but it is implicitly widely held.

Ulfric's official stance when talking to Galmar in private seems to be waiting for the Moot to be held, rather than proclaiming himself as the true High King, so I think it's a viewpoint that isn't officially endorsed but also not actively suppressed by Ulfric.

Yes, what I am getting at is that Stormcloak propaganda is that Ulfric is the High King whether or not the other jarls recognize him or not. But Ulfric is clever enough to know that the High King is whoever the jarls agree to obey. That's literally what the title mean ("one king/jarl over the others) killing Torryg is an argument for him to be High King but it won't mean squat until all nine jarls recognize him.

As far as the Stormcloaks are concerned, Ulfric is the rightful King, and the Empire is illegally interfering in Skyrim and has been for a while.

The Empire capturing their King in an ambush and executing him without trial is not going to make the Stormcloaks any more favorable to the Empire.

The Empire isn't trying to get the rebels to like them, though.

[Keltest]

The fact that Ulfric fled the city and assembled an army rather than calling for the moot would pretty strongly suggest he knew his actions were unacceptable in some way, whether it was the use of the Voice to kill in his duel (which goes against every Nord tradition) or the actual legality of the duel itself. Solitude alone wouldnt be able to stop the Moot if his actions were entirely legitimate by Nordic law.

[Rater202]

The fact that Ulfric fled the city and assembled an army rather than calling for the moot would pretty strongly suggest he knew his actions were unacceptable in some way, whether it was the use of the Voice to kill in his duel (which goes against every Nord tradition) or the actual legality of the duel itself. Solitude alone wouldnt be able to stop the Moot if his actions were entirely legitimate by Nordic law.

He can't call for the Moot if the Solitude Guard gang up on him and stab him to death.

the people of solitude do not, with the exception of the one guy who gets executed, consider Ulfric's claim valid.

I imagine that the moot can't just appoint anyone High King. Ulfric needs his claim to be accepted unanimously

[Grim Portent]

The fact that Ulfric fled the city and assembled an army rather than calling for the moot would pretty strongly suggest he knew his actions were unacceptable in some way, whether it was the use of the Voice to kill in his duel (which goes against every Nord tradition) or the actual legality of the duel itself. Solitude alone wouldnt be able to stop the Moot if his actions were entirely legitimate by Nordic law.

No, but Elisif would likely be able to have him killed on the spot regardless of the legality of his actions making the whole affair pointless. Ulfric fleeing indicates little more than him not trusting Torygg's court, or the Empire, to honour the duel.

Considering they executed Roggvir for not closing a gate I wouldn't be inclined to trust the mercy or justice of the court of Solitude myself, and the Empire's track record on justice is not great.

I imagine that the moot can't just appoint anyone High King. Ulfric needs his claim to be accepted unanimously

I would think a 5/4 split would be enough to elect the High King, they'd almost never pick anyone otherwise. It had become customary that it was the Jarl of Solitude for a while as I recall, no one else had been High King for a good while. Balgruuf would be the deciding vote, and he could honestly go either way up until the whole axe business.

[Keltest]

He can't call for the Moot if the Solitude Guard gang up on him and stab him to death.

the people of solitude do not, with the exception of the one guy who gets executed, consider Ulfric's claim valid.

I imagine that the moot can't just appoint anyone High King. Ulfric needs his claim to be accepted unanimously

Yeah, but he didnt call for the Moot after he made it back to Windhelm either. For that matter, he didnt tell all the Jarls to prepare for the moot before he made his challenge either.

[Resileaf]

That's not really murder though. It's a dishonourable killing, old fashioned and a massive **** move certainly, but not illegal. It's not murder anymore than Roggvir's execution was.

In a technical sense, the killing of Torygg is exactly what such laws are supposed to do. The Nords who established the custom considered martial strength, traditionalism and honour to be the most important things in a ruler. If Torygg upset a vassal who's better at fighting than him, he is supposed to be overthrown in a challenge. That's the whole point in such duelling laws, prevent wider conflict by having two rulers fight to the death and whoever wins gets their way.

The part where it broke down is that rather than just calling a Moot and electing a new High King they decided to fight a war over the matter. What should have been a matter of one dead guy and a few months of political bickering becomes a civil war with thousands dead. One grieving family turned into many.


It is a dumb law mind you, duels to the death often caused blood feuds in real life and thus defeated their purpose, but I'm not going to tell two grown nords they can't fight to the death over a political dispute if it's in their laws. I am going to tell everyone else afterwards that they should honour the terms of the duel regardless of who won.

The biggest problem of the matter is that Ulfric went to demand a duel immediately rather than start a dialogue with Torygg, where he would have learned that Torygg 100% agreed with Ulfric and would have rebelled against the Empire if he had just bothered to ask. It was murder because there was no attempt to reconcile their viewpoints and it was done to remove Torygg from his position and put himself in charge instead. Had Ulfric not killed Torygg, Skyrim would not have suffered a civil war. It would have declared independance instantly or it would have put enough pressure on the Empire to force negotiations concerning the worship of Talos.

[Grim Portent]

I don't think he can unilaterally call a Moot. The Jarls have to agree to have one, and the Empire has to agree not to try and attack or arrest Ulfric in the lead up to one. The Empire loyalists and the Empire are refusing to have one until Ulfric is arrested or dead, the rebels refuse to have one until the Empire is forced to step out of it.

The biggest problem of the matter is that Ulfric went to demand a duel immediately rather than start a dialogue with Torygg, where he would have learned that Torygg 100% agreed with Ulfric and would have rebelled against the Empire if he had just bothered to ask. It was murder because there was no attempt to reconcile their viewpoints and it was done to remove Torygg from his position and put himself in charge instead. Had Ulfric not killed Torygg, Skyrim would not have suffered a civil war. It would have declared independance instantly or it would have put enough pressure on the Empire to force negotiations concerning the worship of Talos.

That doesn't make it a murder, it makes it a tragedy. Murder comes from illegality,* not from misfortune or lack of compromise.

Ulfric has a martyr thing going on, he blames himself for the White-Gold Concordat (Thalmor lies, but Ulfric doesn't know that) and will do anything to try and redeem himself in his own eyes. He sees Torygg as a symptom of the Empire's hold on Skyrim, and he can't shake that hold alone, and doesn't consider that Torygg would be on his side because he's caught up brooding about the stuff that happened in Markarth and how that all fell out.

Ulfric's traumatised, and has been betrayed (at least in his eyes) once before by Empire loyalists, so he doesn't reach out and find allies before making his move. He broods in Windhelm, lashes out at the closest symbol of Imperial authority/betrayal and then, because of his distrust, builds an army rather than trying to immediately move for reconciliation.

[Rater202]

I'm pretty sure he needs his claim to be accepted as legitimate before he can call the moot.

Anyone he sends to a Jarl to deliver a message calling for a moot might be executed for supporting a Traitor and with half of Skyrim opposed they can just not go. I doubt that the people of a hold would accept the results of a Moot their Jarl did not attend, after all.

[Rynjin]

Considering they executed Roggvir for not closing a gate I wouldn't be inclined to trust the mercy or justice of the court of Solitude myself, and the Empire's track record on justice is not great..

I'm trying to figure out what government WOULDN'T execute someone who aided and abetted the escape of a terrorist and assassin.

Ulfric didn't just kill some dude, he killed the High King, and a pretty well-liked one at that. Dosn't even Ulfric say that he regrets it coming down to trying to take the throne by force, because he doesn't actually think that Torygg did anything wrong besides being too sympathetic to the Empire? He wasn't a cruel or unjust ruler, he was just seen as "soft" by a certain splinter set of "might makes right" traditionalist Nords.