Stormcloaks Or Empire (One Of The Three Certainties Of Life)

[Batcathat]

Though, as mentioned upthread, denying the challenge would have likely also led to a war.

Genuinely I think the only "winning" play for Torygg and a unified Skyrim would be for Torygg to accept the challenge and win. As I see it once the gauntlet was thrown there are only a few possibilities

Yes, that would probably be the ideal option, but a very unlikely one. As I've said, I agree that civil war was probably more or less unavoidable, but if Torygg had made a more pragmatic choice he might have been able to stop the Stormcloaks early or at least have been in a much better position to fight them.

Essentially Ulfric put Torygg into a situation where the only moral option is to take up his sword and try to prevent a war.

That's one take on it. Mine is that Torygg put his personal honor ahead of what was best for his country and died a largely meaningless death.

Given that fully half the country (to say nothing of the government they answer to) rejected its legitimacy, I think its safe to say that Torygg accepting did not legitimize it except in the eyes of the people who had already decided that Ulfric was right.

If your definition of "legitimate" in this case is for the result to be accepted by all of the loser's supporters, I can agree it was never going to be legitimate. Do you think Torygg's supporters would have been as upset about it if the outcome had been Ulfric dying?

[druid91]

I mean it's worth noting that it wasn't like Torygg and Ulfric were political opponents. Unless I'm misremembering Torygg idolized Ulfric.

It's one of the main arguments against Ulfric I think is worthwhile despite overall thinking the Stormcloaks are the better option, he could have not killed his king and instead asked him to support his policies. Instead he decided he wanted the crown for himself.

[Keltest]

If your definition of "legitimate" in this case is for the result to be accepted by all of the loser's supporters, I can agree it was never going to be legitimate. Do you think Torygg's supporters would have been as upset about it if the outcome had been Ulfric dying?

Of course not, but the comparison is silly. Ulfric basically came in and declared his intention to kill Torygg. Failing at that is hardly going to be seen the same as succeeding no matter the context.

[Batcathat]

Of course not, but the comparison is silly. Ulfric basically came in and declared his intention to kill Torygg. Failing at that is hardly going to be seen the same as succeeding no matter the context.

Sure, but if the duel was illegitimate and "winning" the duel was actually murder, then that would have been true if Torygg won as well (and I think claiming self-defense after you've accepted a challenge to a duel would be tricky) and somehow I doubt his supporters would focus on that interpretation. Rather, I suspect that it would've been a glorious story of the High King defeating the rebellious jarl in a very legitimate way.

[Keltest]

Sure, but if the duel was illegitimate and "winning" the duel was actually murder, then that would have been true if Torygg won as well (and I think claiming self-defense after you've accepted a challenge to a duel would be tricky) and somehow I doubt his supporters would focus on that interpretation. Rather, I suspect that it would've been a glorious story of the High King defeating the rebellious jarl in a very legitimate way.

Why would it be tricky, exactly? For starters, Torygg could just... not kill Ulfric if it was somehow illegal to kill your opponent in a duel, but Torygg was the challenged party. Ulfric's supporters can hardly complain about him getting killed in a duel to the death that he initiated.

[Batcathat]

Why would it be tricky, exactly? For starters, Torygg could just... not kill Ulfric if it was somehow illegal to kill your opponent in a duel, but Torygg was the challenged party. Ulfric's supporters can hardly complain about him getting killed in a duel to the death that he initiated.

Right, but in this scenario it's not a legitimate duel. That's my point. If Torygg's supporters are actually so upset about the duel being illegitimate (and not about the fact that they don't like who won it), then it would be equally illegitimate if Torygg won.

Anyhow, I doubt we'll ever know enough about the laws of the matter to tell for sure whether or not it was actually legitimate. I stand by the fact that Torygg (not only being the challenged party, but the High King of Skyrim) accepting the challenge makes the duel legitimate enough. He had options, he choose accepting it.

[Grim Portent]

Of course not, but the comparison is silly. Ulfric basically came in and declared his intention to kill Torygg. Failing at that is hardly going to be seen the same as succeeding no matter the context.

There's a big difference to stating an intent to kill someone and challenging them to a trial by combat. In the former case there is no recourse other than self defense when they actually get started on the attempted murder or having them arrested for making threats, in the latter you can just refuse the challenge and deal with the consequences.

Torygg could have refused to fight and Ulfric would have just walked away the de facto victor, but that would shame Torygg, and he valued his honour more than his life. The result would presumably have been a Moot to pick a new High King,* which could have been Torygg again, and maybe a challenge from one of the Thanes of Hjaalmarch looking to become the new Jarl of Solitude now that Torygg is disgraced. Not a great outcome if you value martial honour, family pride and so on, but if your primary goal is to not die then just saying 'yeah you win, now leave my throne room,' is a viable option.


Torygg also seems to have gone in to the duel knowing it would be to the death.

When Ulfric Stormcloak, with savage Shout, sent me here, my sole regret was fair Elisif, left forlorn and weeping. I faced him fearlessly - my fate inescapable, yet my honor is unstained - can Ulfric say the same?

*The other instance of Nords dueling for titles I am familiar with is Skald-King Jorunn and his brother Fildgor Orc-thane dueling for their dead sisters throne in the 2nd era. Fildgor lost and was exiled, but that was two people dueling for the succession of East Skyrim, not someone challenging the nominally elected High King for being weak, so the way things shake out is not necessarily transferrable from one situation to the other.

[Errorname]

It's much easier to spin Torygg getting challenged to a duel and killed as unjust and illegitimate because he did not pick that fight. Ulfric did. He laid down the challenge, he set the terms, if his guys don't like the outcome they shouldn't have played that game

Of course, a key thing here is that Ulfric would have never challenged a Torygg that stood any chance of beating him. That duel was only ever going Ulfric's way

[Cikomyr2]

Legitimate in what way? Just because he agreed to it doesnt mean it has any legal authority, or indeed that he had any practical ability to say no (which Ulfric admits to forcing him into). For that matter, they sure didn't sit there and hash out terms.

Whose laws? The Empire's?

"Sir, the laws of the Empire says the nordic tradition of duelling the High King is not accepted unless you file form 32-B in triplicates before hand".

The laws of the Empire is whatever the Emperor says is the law. And that is the very thing Ulfric is fighting against. He is against the worship of Talos is banned just because the Emperor said so. He is against being branded a criminal for following Nord Tradition just because the Empire said so.

[Keltest]

Whose laws? The Empire's?

"Sir, the laws of the Empire says the nordic tradition of duelling the High King is not accepted unless you file form 32-B in triplicates before hand".

The laws of the Empire is whatever the Emperor says is the law. And that is the very thing Ulfric is fighting against. He is against the worship of Talos is banned just because the Emperor said so. He is against being branded a criminal for following Nord Tradition just because the Empire said so.

Skyrim's, but also yes the Empire's. We already know Ulfric is a power hungry revolutionary, I'm not sure why you felt the need to reiterate that, unless you were trying to imply that he was an anarchist as well.

[Cikomyr2]

Skyrim's, but also yes the Empire's. We already know Ulfric is a power hungry revolutionary, I'm not sure why you felt the need to reiterate that, unless you were trying to imply that he was an anarchist as well.

More like felt the need to reiterate that the "Laws of the Empire" are not exactly couched in a long tradition of rule of law. Its imperialist tyranny, where the guy at the top say what is and the only push back you can do is labelled as treason or dissession.

[Keltest]

More like felt the need to reiterate that the "Laws of the Empire" are not exactly couched in a long tradition of rule of law. Its imperialist tyranny, where the guy at the top say what is and the only push back you can do is labelled as treason or dissession.

Thats starting to touch on forum verbotten topics, but suffice to say that the Septim empire does not work like that. Morrowind, for example, retained several rights when they became an imperial province that were illegal elsewhere, such as slavery.

[Cikomyr2]

Thats starting to touch on forum verbotten topics, but suffice to say that the Septim empire does not work like that. Morrowind, for example, retained several rights when they became an imperial province that were illegal elsewhere, such as slavery.

I am not sure how real world politics have to do with the centralized power of the Emperor in the Elder scroll series.

And Morrowind's status as a somewhat independant province of the Septim Empire was negotiated explicitly when it joined the Empire. All other province just were conquered by heart or arms, and no conditions were made in their subjugation.

[Keltest]

I am not sure how real world politics have to do with the centralized power of the Emperor in the Elder scroll series.

And Morrowind's status as a somewhat independant province of the Septim Empire was negotiated explicitly when it joined the Empire. All other province just were conquered by heart or arms, and no conditions were made in their subjugation.

Thats not the point. Skyrim, as a province, does answer to the Emperor, but it also self-governs. They have their own laws, they have their own king. They have rights and benefits as a member state of the Empire.

But also, again, Ulfric isnt an anarchist. His problem isnt that someone is in charge, his problem is that it isn't him.

[SirKazum]

Thats not the point. Skyrim, as a province, does answer to the Emperor, but it also self-governs. They have their own laws, they have their own king. They have rights and benefits as a member state of the Empire.

Sounds to me like you're missing the whole point of irredentism. The whole idea behind the Stormcloak Rebellion is that Skyrim needs to be independent, and therefore anything having to do with the Empire or its laws or authority is illegitimate and should be ignored. You can agree or disagree with that, but it's a political position that people may have, and which in fact informs the argument used by Ulfric's side in the dispute.

[Cikomyr2]

Thats not the point. Skyrim, as a province, does answer to the Emperor, but it also self-governs. They have their own laws, they have their own king. They have rights and benefits as a member state of the Empire.

But also, again, Ulfric isnt an anarchist. His problem isnt that someone is in charge, his problem is that it isn't him.

But.. thats blatantly false.

Skyrim doesnt govern itself. Skyrim's holds and jarls and high king only have power and authority when the Emperor accepts it.

Otherwise, the Jarl of Markath would have been fully in his right to allow open worship of Talos, since by right and tradition the Jarls of Skyrim are the supreme authorities on their territories.

But no. The emperor can just crush a dissenting Jarl with the full might of his empire, and if he lets disobedience go unchallenged its not because they are amenable to dissension but because the Empire is busy dealing with other challenges to the Emperor's absolute authority.

No province of the Septim Empire except Morrowind had any right to dissent against the Emperor's will. The empire is a centralized autocratic government where the whole is meant to serve the center, not the other way around.

[Keltest]

But.. thats blatantly false.

Skyrim doesnt govern itself. Skyrim's holds and jarls and high king only have power and authority when the Emperor accepts it.

Otherwise, the Jarl of Markath would have been fully in his right to allow open worship of Talos, since by right and tradition the Jarls of Skyrim are the supreme authorities on their territories.

But no. The emperor can just crush a dissenting Jarl with the full might of his empire, and if he lets disobedience go unchallenged its not because they are amenable to dissension but because the Empire is busy dealing with other challenges to the Emperor's absolute authority.

No province of the Septim Empire except Morrowind had any right to dissent against the Emperor's will. The empire is a centralized autocratic government where the whole is meant to serve the center, not the other way around.

Yes, you have described every government everywhere. It turns out no constituent parts can just unilaterally override the higher authority without consequence.

Putting it another way, Ulfric explicitly wants to become the same thing you are describing as bad to the province of Skyrim. He's trying to strongarm the Jarls into going along with his way of thinking by means of force, actively removing the ones who disagree with him.

He isnt revolting over philosophy, he just thinks that might makes right and is trying to press his might.

[druid91]

He isnt revolting over philosophy, he just thinks that might makes right and is trying to press his might.

People in this thread keep saying this, but there's basically no evidence of it. The closest you can get is that Ulfric started a war and he said Torygg was too weak to defend Skyrim.

But the question is why did he start the war? Why did he think Torygg was too weak? The answer is that trouble is on the Horizon. The Empire is dying, the Thalmor are coming sooner rather than later, and harsh remedies are needed now to have any hope of actually fighting them. To add on top of that, he's looking to redeem himself in his own eyes, because he thinks his weakness was responsible for the fall of the imperial city. To make it so that all the people who died in the great war didn't die for nothing. Because the terms of the White Gold Concordat are literally the same terms the Thalmor offered at the start of the war. It was an absolute surrender.

Is he also a flawed, incredibly narcissistic individual? Absolutely.

But the idea that he's just fighting the war because might makes right and he thinks he can is just bizarre and not supported by the game at all.

[Keltest]

People in this thread keep saying this, but there's basically no evidence of it. The closest you can get is that Ulfric started a war and he said Torygg was too weak to defend Skyrim.

But the question is why did he start the war? Why did he think Torygg was too weak? The answer is that trouble is on the Horizon. The Empire is dying, the Thalmor are coming sooner rather than later, and harsh remedies are needed now to have any hope of actually fighting them. To add on top of that, he's looking to redeem himself in his own eyes, because he thinks his weakness was responsible for the fall of the imperial city. To make it so that all the people who died in the great war didn't die for nothing. Because the terms of the White Gold Concordat are literally the same terms the Thalmor offered at the start of the war. It was an absolute surrender.

Is he also a flawed, incredibly narcissistic individual? Absolutely.

But the idea that he's just fighting the war because might makes right and he thinks he can is just bizarre and not supported by the game at all.

You mean besides the fact that he challenged his king to a duel to the death over the right to rule? And then followed it up by declaring war on all the Jarls who didn't support him? Heck, if you side with the stormcloaks and win, he flat out says he's only bothering with the Moot for appearances sake. More generally, he only is able to win by violently overthrowing fully half the jails and putting his own yes men in charge.

If that's not enough, Whiterun is neutral until Ulfric flat out declares war on them for not supporting him.

[druid91]

Using violence to achieve power doesn't mean "Might Makes Right."

He's not out here saying "I'm the strongest therefore I can do whatever I want."

He has specific goals he talks about, He has specific reasons he thinks violence is necessary.

[Keltest]

Using violence to achieve power doesn't mean "Might Makes Right."

He's not out here saying "I'm the strongest therefore I can do whatever I want."

He has specific goals he talks about, He has specific reasons he thinks violence is necessary.

That's literally, explicitly what he was saying when he was fighting torygg. That he should be king because he is stronger. He says as much if you ask him.

[ArlEammon]

That's literally, explicitly what he was saying when he was fighting torygg. That he should be king because he is stronger. He says as much if you ask him.

"Stronger" how? I forget. If he's stronger because he has the Thu'um, that's kind of a given. If you mean stronger as in, muscles, etc, then well that makes sense.

[Keltest]

"Stronger" how? I forget. If he's stronger because he has the Thu'um, that's kind of a given. If you mean stronger as in, muscles, etc, then well that makes sense.

Stronger of arm, deed, character. Take your pick. The Nords at least implicitly seem to believe they're all related.

[Batcathat]

"Stronger" how? I forget. If he's stronger because he has the Thu'um, that's kind of a given. If you mean stronger as in, muscles, etc, then well that makes sense.

Does it matter? Either combat ability isn't a good qualifier for who should lead or it is, in which case the specifics seem less important.

Personally, I think Ulfric and Torygg both seem way too invested in the image of what a good leader should be like, rather than actually being good leaders.

[druid91]

That's literally, explicitly what he was saying when he was fighting torygg. That he should be king because he is stronger. He says as much if you ask him.

No. If you ask him, he says, "I killed Torygg to prove our wretched condition. How is the High King supposed to be the defender of Skyrim, if he can't even defend himself?" When you continue the dialogue line this is what he says.

"I challenged him in the traditional way, and he accepted. There were many witnesses. No "murder" was committed. True, he didn't stand a chance against me. But that was precisely the point! He was a puppet-king of the Empire , not a High King of Skyrim. His father before him perhaps, but not Torygg. He was too privileged and too foolish, more interested in entertaining his queen than ruling his country."

At no point does he say something even close to

"I killed him because I could and for no other reason."

He's very explicit that the issue with his weakness is because he couldn't defend Skyrim from outside forces meaning Skyrim harm. Especially when you ask him why he's fighting.

"We're fighting because we're done bleeding for an Empire that won't bleed for us. Untold numbers of Nords died defending the Empire against the Dominion. And for what? Skyrim being sold to the Thalmor so the Emperor could keep his throne! We're fighting because our own Jarls, once strong, wise men, have become fearful and blind to their people's suffering. We're fighting because Skyrim needs heroes, and there's no one else but us."

[Keltest]

No. If you ask him, he says, "I killed Torygg to prove our wretched condition. How is the High King supposed to be the defender of Skyrim, if he can't even defend himself?" When you continue the dialogue line this is what he says.

"I challenged him in the traditional way, and he accepted. There were many witnesses. No "murder" was committed. True, he didn't stand a chance against me. But that was precisely the point! He was a puppet-king of the Empire , not a High King of Skyrim. His father before him perhaps, but not Torygg. He was too privileged and too foolish, more interested in entertaining his queen than ruling his country."

At no point does he say something even close to

"I killed him because I could and for no other reason."

He's very explicit that the issue with his weakness is because he couldn't defend Skyrim from outside forces meaning Skyrim harm. Especially when you ask him why he's fighting.

"We're fighting because we're done bleeding for an Empire that won't bleed for us. Untold numbers of Nords died defending the Empire against the Dominion. And for what? Skyrim being sold to the Thalmor so the Emperor could keep his throne! We're fighting because our own Jarls, once strong, wise men, have become fearful and blind to their people's suffering. We're fighting because Skyrim needs heroes, and there's no one else but us."

I never said he killed him arbitrarily, I said he killed him to be king. Which he admitted to. The point, as Ulfric eventually reaches, is that Torygg could not beat Ulfric, or even stand a chance, which means he shouldn't be king. He lacked might, so he lacked right.

[ArlEammon]

Stronger of arm, deed, character. Take your pick. The Nords at least implicitly seem to believe they're all related.

Does it matter? Either combat ability isn't a good qualifier for who should lead or it is, in which case the specifics seem less important.

Personally, I think Ulfric and Torygg both seem way too invested in the image of what a good leader should be like, rather than actually being good leaders.

I'm just confused as to whether the Nords are split on whether the Thu'um is magic or not. The Nords hate magic, but the Thu'um is sort of magic, you know? Maybe that's an unexplored nuance.

[Keltest]

I'm just confused as to whether the Nords are split on whether the Thu'um is magic or not. The Nords hate magic, but the Thu'um is sort of magic, you know? Maybe that's an unexplored nuance.

Why are you assuming they have to be logically consistent? It's magic, but they see it as a gift from the gods, so it gets an exception.

[ArlEammon]

Why are you assuming they have to be logically consistent? It's magic, but they see it as a gift from the gods, so it gets an exception.

Probably, but I don't know if all of Nord society is of the same mind as that.

[druid91]

I never said he killed him arbitrarily, I said he killed him to be king. Which he admitted to. The point, as Ulfric eventually reaches, is that Torygg could not beat Ulfric, or even stand a chance, which means he shouldn't be king. He lacked might, so he lacked right.

You're simplifying.

He also says this, if you ask him if he shouted Torygg to death.

"Not entirely true, though not entirely false either. Any Nord can learn the Way of the Voice by studying with the Greybeards, given enough ambition and dedication. My shouting Torygg to the ground proved he had neither. However, it was my sword piercing his heart that killed him."

Like he makes it clear that Torygg is an issue not just because he's weak. But because he was just in general unsuitable for the war to come. He was without ambition, dedication, or strength. He was uninterested in ruling his realm and happy to be a puppet of the empire.

How true that is isn't clear. But his reasoning is more complex than "Strong should rule the weak."