Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[Moris]

Then I'd have to ask, how is it that you blame the Empire for allowing a city to be conquered during the middle of a very devastating war with the Thalmor? They aren't going stop battling to retake a city in a whole other province away while their homeland is being ravagly destroyed.

How can you blame the Nords? Their best fighters are employed fighting with the Empire against the Aldmeri?

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

The Colovian allowed another city to be conquered. He liberated through brute force. Perhaps ALL would judge the Empire far less, should their actions have been exactly the same.

Unfortunate that the Empire lacks the backbone to commit to anything.

Because slaughtering your own kin and using torture tactics is having a backbone?

 

[Grogmar Ghrobash]

How can you blame the Nords? Their best fighters are employed fighting with the Empire against the Aldmeri?

I didn't blame anyone.

 

[Moris]

Then I'd have to ask, how is it that you blame the Empire for allowing a city to be conquered during the middle of a very devastating war with the Thalmor? They aren't going stop battling to retake a city in a whole other province away while their homeland is being ravagly destroyed.

Also, as already established, even after the conclusion of the war, when they are NOT "in the middle of a very devastating war", they cannot protect the Nords from the Forsworn...

hence the Markarth Incident.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

In any case, I was quoting the author of the Bear of Markarth to indicate that he believed the timing of the Markarth incident to have occurred AFTER the conclusion of the Great War.

If he is credible, then this disputes the claim that the Empire did not deal with the Forsworn because they were concerned with the "Aldmeri at their gates", as one poster put it.

Aldmeri were not at their gates. To be sure, Empire was devastated and lacking resources. But to suggest that the Empire could not protect the Nords from the Forsworn because they were in the midst of a battle against the Aldermi is, in my opinion, hugely overstating the case. The war was over.

I said this earlier, something along the lines of the Thalmor knocking on the Emperor's door. But I was wrong, and cited a source that stated so.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Allow me to point you to my own post, where I wrote:

I must concede this one point. Sincere apologies. I misread one of yours posts by inserting in my mind a single word where it did not in fact appear. Oops.

--

Joining either side is "icky".

I mean, the Imperials make you wear a skirt, for the divines' sake. I find that decidedly icky, and I'm a girl. I can't imagine what kind of sacrifice it must be for the men.

...I dunno, I very much dig the Roman armor look. "Skirts" and all. It's not really so different from those tartan kilt wearing warriors.

.....Mmm, Romans. Mmm, Tullius.

 

[Grogmar Ghrobash]

Also, as already established, even after the conclusion of the war, when they are NOT "in the middle of a very devastating war", they cannot protect the Nords from the Forsworn...

hence the Markarth Incident.

Ozan had refered to when the city had been conquered which was during the war.

 

[Ozan]

Then I'd have to ask, how is it that you blame the Empire for allowing a city to be conquered during the middle of a very devastating war with the Thalmor? They aren't going stop battling to retake a city in a whole other province away while their homeland is being ravagly destroyed.

Khajiit can blame because of the absolute foolishness and the naiveness and the simple fact that the Empire has a convenient history of neglect.

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

 

[Moris]

Ozan had refered to when the city had been conquered which was during the war.

The city was conquered during the war -- a very convenient time for the Forsworn to attack, indeed.

But it was liberated after the war.

 

[Grogmar Ghrobash]

Khajiit can blame because of the absolute foolishness and the naiveness and the simple fact that the Empire has a convenient history of neglect.

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

The Empire doesn't decide how a province runs, their governement does. Much like how states are run by their own government. I've never heard of people being neglected by the Emperor or his counts in Cyrodiil. Whatever happens in Skyrim is entirely up to the High king.

 

[Docta Corvina]

I still wanna know when the Concordat was signed and the Markarth deal was brokered, down to the month and day. Because that can help explain a lot of the current controversy. I think it's worth noting that the former was late in 175 and the latter some unknown time in 176. I almost think Bethesda purposefully made it so maddeningly ambiguous.

 

[Moris]

Okay. Wait. Hold on just a minute.

No matter what side you support...

Isn't this fun?

--

Okay, carry on.

 

[Grogmar Ghrobash]

I still wanna know when the Concordat was signed and the Markarth deal was brokered, down to the month and day. Because that can help explain a lot of the current controversy. I think it's worth noting that the former was late in 175 and the latter some unknown time in 176. I almost think Bethesda purposefully made it so maddeningly ambiguous.

There is none from what I can tell.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

And that's precisely why about half of Skyrim's own fighting force is taking up arms against Ulfric now.

 

[Docta Corvina]

There is none from what I can tell.

So annoying. And frustrating! Damnit, Beth!

 

[Grogmar Ghrobash]

Okay. Wait. Hold on just a minute.

No matter what side you support...

Isn't this fun?

--

Okay, carry on.

Well supporting the SCs would mean leaving it to Ulfric, supporting the Empire leaves things as they've always been but with a new High king.

 

[Moris]

I still wanna know when the Concordat was signed and the Markarth deal was brokered, down to the month and day. Because that can help explain a lot of the current controversy. I think it's worth noting that the former was late in 175 and the latter some unknown time in 176. I almost think Bethesda purposefully made it so maddeningly ambiguous.

Well, late 175 and sometime in 176 are still close enough for me.

I can get from Markarth to Riften in less than a day on foot. Couriers are arguably even faster. So I expect the news arrived fairly quickly. I can buy no argument that suggests that it took longer than several days.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Well, late 175 and sometime in 176 are still close enough for me.

I can get from Markarth to Riften in less than a day on foot. Couriers are arguably even faster. So I expect the news arrived fairly quickly. I can buy no argument that suggests that it took longer than several days.

A day from Markarth to Riften on foot? Dang, you must have speed shoes! Takes me longer than that. As for the couriers, they're omniscient for godsakes, they hardly count in all their magicalness.

The way I see it, the news has to travel from quite likely the Imperial City northward into Skyrim and then to Markarth. If things are in such predictable disarray as might be expected after a long, devastating engagement, I'm a bit more liberal on the time it would take for such news to travel on foot. I don't see how it could exceed a month, or really even a couple weeks. But I still have a sneaking suspicion that Beth has it all written in a file somewhere that essentially says the Concordat was signed within a couple days or so of the Markarth Incident (literally evilly pushing the "late 175/176" time-frame), but they'll never let us know that because it's fun to watch us go back and forth like so.

 

[Grogmar Ghrobash]

Well, late 175 and sometime in 176 are still close enough for me.

I can get from Markarth to Riften in less than a day on foot. Couriers are arguably even faster. So I expect the news arrived fairly quickly. I can buy no argument that suggests that it took longer than several days.

Well considering how Ulfric thought by taking the city meant free worship of Talos by Igmund it was probably after.

EDIT: Sorrry, I mean long enough to where he would already know.

 

[Moris]

...I dunno, I very much dig the Roman armor look. "Skirts" and all. It's not really so different from those tartan kilt wearing warriors.

.....Mmm, Romans. Mmm, Tullius.

Maybe it's the short hair and shaved chins.

Somehow, in my mind, it's manlier to wear a skirt and also sport a beard. That way you will never be mistaken for a woman.

And if you're going to salivate over Tullius, please let me drool over those baby blues. Well, how they would appear in my own mind, at any rate.