Maintenance for the week of December 16:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 16
• NA megaservers for patch maintenance – December 17, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for patch maintenance – December 17, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 16
• NA megaservers for patch maintenance – December 17, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for patch maintenance – December 17, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
Ebonheart pact storyline
-
Ashfen✭✭✭✭TheShadowScout wrote: »
That is one way to see it, just like you could see WW-II as "*** only wanted to restore germany and make europe prosperous for the aryan race!" or the british empire, or ancient SPQR rome, or Napoleon Bonaparte, or Genghis Khan, or dozends of other would-be conquerors throughout history!The Covenant for example wants to restore the Empire and make Tamriel prosperous. It's not just the "put our king's ass on the throne" thing.
In the end though, it is still "plant their own rulers royal rear on the ruby throne and claim dominion over people who they would have to force to obey them by fire and sword, aka "conquer" - just with an "we are doing it for the greater good, honest" propaganda.
You really love Godwin points, right ?
I know what "to have an opinion" means, thanks. But there is a gap between "say one's opinion even if it's not objective" and act as if fictive characters had personnaly injured you. To be honest, i really dislike the Pact, but i don't spit on them on the forum and i don't accuse their leader of all the wrongs in the world.TheShadowScout wrote: »Well, duh!
I am human, all I say there is MY OPINION!
Its not supposed to be objective, and anyone who tries to sell you THEIR opinion as "objective" is lying to you!
But then, that is why I added the "In my eyes..." bit, you know?
2 -
Grentek✭✭✭
If you consider that people who worship daedric forces and follow Molag Bal (or any other daedric prince) is a good choice for Tamriel, then yup' the Dominion is just a bunch of racists/supremacists.TheShadowScout wrote: »Actually that is still -exactly- why they fight.
"Altmer supremacy" comes in two flavors after all, the nasty one as portrayed by the veiled heritage, "Bow down to the master race", and the condescending one from Ayrenn "Only -my- vision can guide you to a decent future, so the dominion must rule all no matter how many we have to kill and conquer to do so, its all for the greater good!".
I mean, what did you think they went after the ruby throne for? It is quite clear from several quest conversations that ayrenn thinks she is the only possible choice for the new "empress of tamriel", otherwise they would just have dug in at their borders and stubbornly defended their lands without ever bothering anyone who did not bother them, riiight?
If you do care about the fact that your ruler bring science and enlightenment to your country and that she doesn't worship anything daedric then the Dominion is the obvious choice.
The point of the Dominion is to protect Tamriel from all of those who call upon daedric forces, it's not our fault if it seems that in Tamriel they're many to do so...
Yeah and...The Breton were never "loyal imperial citizens" maybe? Or the Khajit? Or the redguards? Or the Orcs? Or the Bosmers? Or the Altmers?TheShadowScout wrote: »You mean, "going to do", right? From an ESO perspectve anyhow...
And yeah, in a way, although for him it will be a bit different, since he is not an outsider wanting to conquer the brken pieces of the empire, but an actual descendant of those loyal imperial citizens who just want to end the time of troubles for his home and restore the empire to its former glory... starting to fight for others, then ending up on the ruby throne himself thanks to alessias bloodline dripping down to him somewhere in the past (And I really hope that someday we might get a questline in western skyrim where we might save a "alessias heirs" family from daedric assassins that may in some centuries time brigh forth talos early-beard...)
In fact, if you look at the Reman Empire, all the races of both the Dominion and the Covenant were "loyal citizens". So what, it counts for Talos but not for Ayrenn or Emeric? Is that it?
The dominion will not flee,
We fight for Eternity!
Hear the singing of our blades,
Death has come, foes be afraid!1 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Tiber Septim is the sort of bloodthirsty warlord who's only legitimate because he's dragonborn, he won the war, and he became Talos, which means he's really in the category of "the winner writes the history books."
Mind you, the Elder Scrolls is pretty much built on the appeal of flawed but captivating leaders. You've got the TES III Tribunal, and wow were they flawed but interesting people. In Skyrim, Ulfric Stormcloak stands out as a polarizing figure. ESO has a lot of them - I was very pleased with their interesting take on Summerset's Ritemaster Iachesis, who's treated with a lot more nuance than Mannimarco or Vanus Galerion.
So the way I see it, the AD and DC questlines bank on the personality of their leaders. Ayrenn is flawed in her approach, but had incredible potential as she matures and learns to actually work with people. Emeric is an experienced ruler, but struggles as his kingdom gets larger than just High Rock.
EP doesn't really have a central character, nor does it really have a single character that exemplifies its growth as an alliance throughout multiple zones. It has King Jorunn, leading the war effort in Eastmarch and the Rift. And honestly, the most memorable character for me was Grandmaster Tanval Indoril from Stonefalls. For me, he was the deeply flawed but captivating leader I was most interested in. He infuriated my Vestige - in a good, roleplaying way - and that made the ending of Stonefalls more impactful.3 -
Olauron✭✭✭✭✭
✭
No alessian magic heritage needed, he was (or will be from the ESO perspective) just a dragonborn like the dragonborn of TES V (who could be of any race and absolutely not connected with Alessia) or Miraak. Like the (main quest spoiler)TheShadowScout wrote: »You mean, "going to do", right? From an ESO perspectve anyhow...
And yeah, in a way, although for him it will be a bit different, since he is not an outsider wanting to conquer the brken pieces of the empire, but an actual descendant of those loyal imperial citizens who just want to end the time of troubles for his home and restore the empire to its former glory... starting to fight for others, then ending up on the ruby throne himself thanks to alessias bloodline dripping down to him somewhere in the past (And I really hope that someday we might get a questline in western skyrim where we might save a "alessias heirs" family from daedric assassins that may in some centuries time brigh forth talos early-beard...)dragonborn that Varen Aquilarios was trying to become
The Three Storm Sharks, episode 8 released on january the 8th.
One mer to rule them all,
one mer to find them,
One mer to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.2 -
TheShadowScout✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Personal experiences.You really love Godwin points, right ?
Around here, grandparents -lived- through that. And I grew up with the stories... about how my grandfather, an intelligent man, school professor for languages, bought the propaganda hook line and sinker. How these guys used the exact same arguments to justify anexxing other territories, "for the greater good". How they threw the agressive rethoric about "saving our people" and "creating prosperity for all" while "defending these people from the red menace". (No, not the pact, the other "red menace", the historical one)
And by the time my grandfather was freezing off his bum in stalingrad, he realized the truth, realized how foolish he had been to believe the propaganda.
Now, my family was lucky, my grandfather was "valuable" because he was a good translator, so the wehrmacht got him out with one of the last flights from the encirclement. And when he got home, he and my grandmother had my mom and the rest is my family history.
But the stories I grew up with stick, and thus I tend to look behind the rethoric and watch what they -do-. Even in fictional universes.
But if it bothers you... the very same arguments were made during many events in history, from ancient rome to british imperialism... they are always "bringing civilization to barbarians" and conquering people because "they cannot be trusted to properly rule themselevs", and then point to all the "improvements and prosperity" they create. All the while keeping their boots at those peoples necks, keeping them forever in bondage... or at least until they can no longer keep them suppressed (which eventually always happens)
You mean to tell us the dominion is all lily-white and without daedra worshippers hiding in their ranks???If you consider that people who worship daedric forces and follow Molag Bal (or any other daedric prince) is a good choice for Tamriel, then yup' the Dominion is just a bunch of racists/supremacists.
You -Do- realize I played the questings and listened to the dialouge, right?
So I know about the dagon worshippers in the veiled heritage, the hircine worshippers among the bosmer, occasional daedris sited theough all of valenwood, the dark mane thing with the khajiit, more cultists in summerset...
If you consider people who worship daedric forces, the dominion is no better then the rest (except the old empire, they legalized that sort of thing, and fell because of it!)
Well, if we were talking -rulers- instead of -alliances-... then I would concede the point, Ayrenn is definitely the best of the bunch. Possibly a bit too idealistic, perhaps a bit too stubborn, and yes, perhaps a bit too entitled in an "follow me I know best and need not explain myself" way... but her heart is in the right place from the start, and her determination to drag the rest of the people into enlightenment is well-intentioned.If you do care about the fact that your ruler bring science and enlightenment to your country and that she doesn't worship anything daedric then the Dominion is the obvious choice.
Picking war as method for it... not so much. Shows again where good intentions alone lead, huh?
And you think the others do not share the point?The point of the Dominion is to protect Tamriel from all of those who call upon daedric forces, it's not our fault if it seems that in Tamriel they're many to do so...
The Pact definitely does, the nords have little use for daedra (excapt axe targets), the tribunal opposes them (if only because they ursuped their place as the "gods", so... yeah, entirely selfish reasons there), and the argonians care more about the hist then some prince from oblivion. And while the telvanni deal with them as they please, and the ashlander still worship them... neither of those formally joined the pact, now did they?
The Covenant... well, redguards generally are opposed to daedra, as are bretons (though individuals among them often secretly turn to oblivion for power - just like everywhere, really). The orcs... well... there is the whole "Malacath" thing... but its more of an orc thing then a "hail oblivion" thing.
So... no advantage to the dominion on the "dealing with daedra" point. The mainstream is against it, like with the others, and parts are more or less secretly doing it anyhow.
The point is the difference between "restoration from within" and "conquest from without". Also, Emric or Ayrenn do not really even make lip sergvice to "restoring the empire", they do not want a renessance of the cyrodillic imperials, they want their own crown to reign over all.In fact, if you look at the Reman Empire, all the races of both the Dominion and the Covenant were "loyal citizens". So what, it counts for Talos but not for Ayrenn or Emeric? Is that it?
Not that Talos is all good and such either, his "restoration" went right on to "conquest" as soon as he was done with cyrodil and cast his eye upon the other provinces...
But that's the point I am trying to make, the pact in this time has no grand design of tamrielic conquest... they are not going out to bring the other races under their rule... they are basically the hikkikomori of the alliances, they just wanna stay at home and do their thing.
I like that. For... uhm... personal reasons.
And how do you know that?No alessian magic heritage needed, he was (or will be from the ESO perspective) just a dragonborn like the dragonborn of TES V (who could be of any race and absolutely not connected with Alessia)...
How do you know that there is not some *** of alessian bloodline in Talos family tree? Or our dragonborns from TES-V:Skyrim? I mean, its been centuries upon centirues of people wandering all over Tamriel! Who is to say some offspring of Miraak, or lesser scion of alessias blood did not have dalliances with lusty argonian maids, drunk nords or unchaste dunmer at some point, to sow a seed that might grow into Talos someday, or the last dragonborn eventually?
Of course, while it seems like that Talos at least is related to Alessia due to the whole "light the dragonfires" thing, it is quite possible that there were other "dragonborn" bloodlines. Like i said, we -know- Miraak was the first, but we do not know if it is even possible anymore to create others as the late emperor tried... and likewise, we do not know how far Miraaks "dragonborn" blood has spread either. It is entirely possible that ALL dragonborn in the whole of TES history are somehow descendant of that one!
Or not. All I was really saying is, the "protect alessias bloodline" shtick would make a nice story to tie things together, agreed? 4 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TheShadowScout wrote: »Or not. All I was really saying is, the "protect alessias bloodline" shtick would make a nice story to tie things together, agreed?
You might enjoy the Imperial City questline. Its not protecting Alessia's bloodline, but it is protecting an artifact to make sure that a true Dragonborn ruler can eventually be crowned.2 -
Ashfen✭✭✭✭TheShadowScout wrote: »
Personal experiences.You really love Godwin points, right ?
Around here, grandparents -lived- through that. And I grew up with the stories... about how my grandfather, an intelligent man, school professor for languages, bought the propaganda hook line and sinker. How these guys used the exact same arguments to justify anexxing other territories, "for the greater good". How they threw the agressive rethoric about "saving our people" and "creating prosperity for all" while "defending these people from the red menace". (No, not the pact, the other "red menace", the historical one)
And by the time my grandfather was freezing off his bum in stalingrad, he realized the truth, realized how foolish he had been to believe the propaganda.
Now, my family was lucky, my grandfather was "valuable" because he was a good translator, so the wehrmacht got him out with one of the last flights from the encirclement. And when he got home, he and my grandmother had my mom and the rest is my family history.
But the stories I grew up with stick, and thus I tend to look behind the rethoric and watch what they -do-. Even in fictional universes.
But if it bothers you... the very same arguments were made during many events in history, from ancient rome to british imperialism... they are always "bringing civilization to barbarians" and conquering people because "they cannot be trusted to properly rule themselevs", and then point to all the "improvements and prosperity" they create. All the while keeping their boots at those peoples necks, keeping them forever in bondage... or at least until they can no longer keep them suppressed (which eventually always happens)
I went to school i know what WWII is. And my grandparents lived it and suffered a lot because of that. But i don't consider it is a reason to throw Godwin point and compare people to the n*zis if their ideas don't please me.
The Covenant's aim is to restore human Empire to make it prosperous and to unify Tamriel. That doesn't mean they're n*zis, or in this case every conquest war could be compare to them. And what about the Nords who exterminated Falmers ? You see what i'm trying to say ?
In my opinion, a unified Tamriel with an Empire which can protect everyone is better for all than a fragmented Tamriel where everyone would fight all the time like it would happened if the Pact wins.
I will stop here for this thread. I already gave my arguments earlier and I don't want to fight for hours for fictive characters.
Have a good day.
Edited by Ashfen on April 23, 2019 8:43AM0 -
Olauron✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Because having a khajiit or argonian descendant of a human is impossible, racial phylogeny and such. Ask Barenziah. She tried.TheShadowScout wrote: »And how do you know that?
How do you know that there is not some *** of alessian bloodline in Talos family tree? Or our dragonborns from TES-V:Skyrim? I mean, its been centuries upon centirues of people wandering all over Tamriel! Who is to say some offspring of Miraak, or lesser scion of alessias blood did not have dalliances with lusty argonian maids, drunk nords or unchaste dunmer at some point, to sow a seed that might grow into Talos someday, or the last dragonborn eventually?
Any dragonborn can light the dragonfires. That's the point of being a dragonborn and having a gift of Akatosh.TheShadowScout wrote: »Of course, while it seems like that Talos at least is related to Alessia due to the whole "light the dragonfires" thing, it is quite possible that there were other "dragonborn" bloodlines.
I'll add that it's not necessary for a dragonborn to have dragonborn ancestors. He (or she) can be the first of that bloodline. All this is in the metaphorical hands of Akatosh and his willingness to give a gift.
Aldmeri Dominion is the last alliance formed. It was formed as a result of a war started ("Invaders were coming to southwest Tamriel" from The Eagle and the Cat, that was before the treaty with the khajiit). And the best defence is a good offence.TheShadowScout wrote: »Picking war as method for it... not so much. Shows again where good intentions alone lead, huh?
The Three Storm Sharks, episode 8 released on january the 8th.
One mer to rule them all,
one mer to find them,
One mer to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.2 -
TheShadowScout✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
And that is -exactly- what I am saying.The Covenant's aim is to restore human Empire to make it prosperous and to unify Tamriel. That doesn't mean they're n*zis, or in this case every conquest war could be compare to them.
EVERY conquest war is a bad thing, no matter how much the would-be conquerors glaim to kill all those people "for the greater good"... I mean, every single arse with an army that went conquering had bright ideas of "unifying the land and making it prosperpous"! And then they went and killed all that opposed them, subjugated the people of those lands, crushed the inevitable resistzance and rebellions, and in some cases they succeeded and were remembered as great statemen, and in other cases they did not and were remembered as terrible warlords.
I am just saying, the best and the worst both had the exact same intentions and desires to "unify the land and make it prosperous (for their people)"
I mean, if you like some more examples... take a look at the US of A. Think any native americans would praise the europeans who unified the land and made it prosperous?
How about those other "colonies" of the british or french or spanish and whatever... you think they were happy to get unified and made prosperous (though in most cases, they themselves never got to enjoy that prosperity)
Think the old gauls, germanic tribes or ancient brittanic picts loved the roman legions coming to unify them and make them prosperous?
Think the first emperor of china was crowned without a mountain of corpses trampled underfoot to get there?
Conquerors are not the good guys.
Really.
Well, actually I reckon it might be quite possible.Because having a khajiit or argonian descendant of a human is impossible, racial phylogeny and such. Ask Barenziah. She tried.
I mean... as long as its a human male with a khajiit or argonian mother, I presume the old "Race of the Mother" thing would apply, just with a bit of the fathers bloodline mixed in, right? Though possibly the chances of conception might be a tad iffy...
Not that it neccessarily has to be that way. It is merely a little mental exercise. But... it would make a nifty story to tie things together, yes?
Well... I was referring to the original covenant, where Akatosh is reported to state:Any dragonborn can light the dragonfires. That's the point of being a dragonborn and having a gift of Akatosh.
I'll add that it's not necessary for a dragonborn to have dragonborn ancestors. He (or she) can be the first of that bloodline. All this is in the metaphorical hands of Akatosh and his willingness to give a gift.
Not "any dragonborn", but "[Alessia] and descendants"... so... there is some indication that maaaaybe I am onto something, right?So long as you and your descendants shall wear the Amulet of Kings, then shall this dragonfire burn
But as I said, its just an possibility. Bloodlines could be important there, or not. The lore would allow both options, so... it would fall to the licenseholders to decree which one they want for their stories.
But it IS an interesting thought, this possiblity that Varen never ever had any real chance to make himself dragonborn in the first place, and all that ritual was just a lie of Mannimarcos... does that sound likely? I think it does!
True enough.Aldmeri Dominion is the last alliance formed. It was formed as a result of a war started ("Invaders were coming to southwest Tamriel" from The Eagle and the Cat, that was before the treaty with the khajiit). And the best defence is a good offence.
But... when your defense-offence does not stop at the one who attacked you, but goes right on to hit your neighbors... well, it is one thing to defend your lands. It is another to decide that the safety of your lands requires you conquering the known world, and exterminating anyone who would stand against you, yes?
And like I keep saying... don't fall for the lies, look at what they DO.
Attempted genocide in Shadowfen?
I am tempted to close the circle again and rack up yet more godwin points here... but this -definitely- is not a good guy plot (to be fair, Ayrenn prolly never would have agreed to that plan... but the hidden, "veiled" rot of racism is there at the core of the altmer nonetheless)0 -
JKorr✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Let's see....
Daggerfall Covenant:Our supplies dwindle. Our trade routes are shut down. Our people suffer.
Why? Because a pretender sits upon the Ruby Throne.
Let us take up arms! Let the fields of Cyrodiil run red with the blood of our fallen enemies!
But let us spare the lives of a few, so that they may return to their homelands to tell their fellows the fate they met at the hands of the Daggerfall Covenant!
One Land! One Emperor!
Who among you will stand with me?
-High King Emeric
Aldmeri Dominion:I have no hatred for the races of Man, but they are young. Like all children, they are driven by emotion. They lack the wisdom that comes with age. I would sooner place an Altmer infant on the Ruby Throne than surrender Tamriel to their capricious whims. The Altmer, the Bosmer and the Khajiit share the common traits of intelligence, patience and reason. We do not seek riches or plunder. Domination is not our goal, nor is the acclamation of power for its own sake. Today we make our stand. Today we take back the Ruby Throne, which is ours by ancient right and the blessings of the Divines. Stand with us."
―Your Queen Commands, Ayrenn Arana Aldmeri
And Ebonheart Pact:Before Ysgramor led the Nord people south, our ancestors flourished in the frozen continent of Atmora, and to this day our people prefer the bitter climes of northern Tamriel.
The Dark Elves abide in Morrowind, a harsh land of ashfall and perpetual earthquakes.
The Argonians endure the treacherous and impenetrable depths of Black Marsh.
The alliance between our races was born in dark times, when Nord, Dunmer and free Argonians fought as one to repel the invasion of the Akaviri slavemasters.
Our greatest strength is the adversity we have overcome.
Our resolve is glacial, our might is forged in fire, and our courage, cultivated by the beasts of the jungle.
We are Ebonheart. We are as one. And by this, our victory is assured.
-Jorunn
So the Covenant is worried about their trade routes....Dominion doesn't want "children" to rule instead of the rightful chosen by the Divines Altmer.... Pact was created by the Nords, Dunmer, and Argonians forming an alliance against slavers from Akaviri because they wanted to remain free....
Sorry, my personal preference is for the Ebonheart Pact. Even though I know it wont endure for centuries, its still my personal favorite of the three factions. Second personal favorite is Aldmeri Dominion [Aryenn is, at least actively trying to do the best she can]. Dead last is the Covenant; if it doesn't involve trade/gold, Emeric will foist decisions [and any fighting] off on the first random passer-by who indicates they might care whether dozens of people die or not.5 -
zaria✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭it was an critic back during beta that the EP storyline was weakest.
And yes it feels a bit fragmented.Grinding just make you go in circles.
Asking ZoS for nerfs is as stupid as asking for close air support from the death star.0 -
Grentek✭✭✭
Yup' they were. Why do you think the Roman Empire lasted so long? (-27 to 1453, as a reminder, or if you like to consider Rome from the beginning -753 to 1453)TheShadowScout wrote: »Think the old gauls, germanic tribes or ancient brittanic picts loved the roman legions coming to unify them and make them prosperous?
Sure Caesar killed a lot but not all of the tribes were hostiles to the romans. Many traded with them, or were allies of the Romans.
Sure Camillus probably killed a lot of Veius' people.
Sure their generals and dictators (wich is a lot different to the meaning this word have nowadays) killed many people all over the Republic/Empire.
Were the conquered territories prosperous afterwards? Yes, they were.
You stick to the "Oh no those vile people are such evil conqueror who want to raze everything" but that's not true.
You're german? Fine, I bet you know that you country is united only because some guy (Otto von Bismarck, for the fact) said "It would be cool if you all guys pledge allegiance to my king". Did they invaded France to do so and killed people? Yup', they did.
Did that made Germany a greater country than what it would have been if it stayed in its "previous stage" with Prussia, Bavaria, Württemberg, Saxony, etc..? Yup'.
Conquerors don't just come to raze everything, they come to annex something into their country. And does it serves you to raze everything and murder everyone when you do so? Nope, it doesn't.
Most of the time, what you could call "terrible warlords" were just people beaten at some point by the guy facing them.
You know a guy named "Attila"? Such a cruel and horrible warlord, killer of men and women, the "flail of god" as some call him.
The Hunnic Empire was based on assimilation of conquered people, because it was of no use to them to slaughter everyone.
Still, we see them as horrible people, juste because they didn't overthrown the Roman Empire.
You seem to see conquerors as the bad guys, but they are not. History (and that applies to Tamriel as well) is not "This guy is trying to conquer me, he must be a ***.". It's over simplistic and absurd.
As Machiavel states, as long as you don't force people on converting to your customs, they will obey you without problem. Problems come when an ambitious men (coughUlfric stormcloak cough) decides to tell people "Those guys who rule us are such bad guys, let's go kill them". The people, unless someone drive them to rebel against their rulers, live their lives quietly as long as you don't become a madman who kill people for fun.
You can argue that it's not true nowadays, but back in time it was clearly true. And, to me, Tamriel is way closer to our Middle Ages than to our Modern World.
The Talos Empire did great things for Tamriel (except for that part with the giant Dwemer golem), yet it was forged by conquest.
The Roman Empire did great things for Western Europe and the Balkans, yet it was forged by conquest.
Remind me who enslaved (and enslaves) argonians? It's the Dunmers, no? Isn't it strange for people so concerned about liberty to not care so much about liberty when they enslave other people?Pact was created by the Nords, Dunmer, and Argonians forming an alliance against slavers from Akaviri because they wanted to remain free....Edited by Grentek on April 23, 2019 2:46PMThe dominion will not flee,
We fight for Eternity!
Hear the singing of our blades,
Death has come, foes be afraid!3 -
Olauron✭✭✭✭✭
✭
The "Race ot the Mother" thing was found for man-mer descendants (as a most probable outcome, not as a rigid rule). The College, it seems, was unable to find half-khajiit or half-argonians and was unable to reproduce (sorry) a child of man (or mer) and someone from beastrace.TheShadowScout wrote: »Well, actually I reckon it might be quite possible.
I mean... as long as its a human male with a khajiit or argonian mother, I presume the old "Race of the Mother" thing would apply, just with a bit of the fathers bloodline mixed in, right? Though possibly the chances of conception might be a tad iffy...
Not that it neccessarily has to be that way. It is merely a little mental exercise. But... it would make a nifty story to tie things together, yes?
Meanwhile Barenziah is known for her very close relationship with the khajiit.
No doubt, any emperor would say that only his heirs can rule after (or instead of) him (that was hinted a lot in the Book of Dragonborn too). But we have, for example, akaviri potentate for very long period of time. And no daedra invasion (like in TES IV). Seems like the Dragonfires were lit. Seems like Versidue-Shaie and Savirien-Chorak found someone with the dragon blood (or one of them or both were dragonborn).TheShadowScout wrote: »Well... I was referring to the original covenant, where Akatosh is reported to state:
Not "any dragonborn", but "[Alessia] and descendants"... so... there is some indication that maaaaybe I am onto something, right?So long as you and your descendants shall wear the Amulet of Kings, then shall this dragonfire burn
But as I said, its just an possibility. Bloodlines could be important there, or not. The lore would allow both options, so... it would fall to the licenseholders to decree which one they want for their stories.
But it IS an interesting thought, this possiblity that Varen never ever had any real chance to make himself dragonborn in the first place, and all that ritual was just a lie of Mannimarcos... does that sound likely? I think it does!
Mannimarco seems to be telling truth when he speaks about using Chim-el Adabal agains Molag Bal. This truth doesn't contradict his words about using an amulet in another ritual. The intent of the ritual (not the false ritual that was done by Mannimarco but the proposed ritual) was to make a new Covenant with Akatosh. This was done by Alessia so we can be sure that it is possible to do. Just we don't know why would Akatosh do it again.
It is possible that AD would stop conquest after getting the Cyrodiil. White-Gold is the key to everything. White-Gold is the main Tower. The biggest Dark Anchor is on top of it. Umbriel was (will be) targeting it. So to keep Tamriel from daedric invasion it is enough to control the White-Gold (and otherwise, you can use its Key Stone Chim-el Adabal to initiate daedric invasion). Ayrenn is rather good-hearted to stop when the main goal is achieved.TheShadowScout wrote: »True enough.
But... when your defense-offence does not stop at the one who attacked you, but goes right on to hit your neighbors... well, it is one thing to defend your lands. It is another to decide that the safety of your lands requires you conquering the known world, and exterminating anyone who would stand against you, yes?
And like I keep saying... don't fall for the lies, look at what they DO.
Attempted genocide in Shadowfen?
I am tempted to close the circle again and rack up yet more godwin points here... but this -definitely- is not a good guy plot (to be fair, Ayrenn prolly never would have agreed to that plan... but the hidden, "veiled" rot of racism is there at the core of the altmer nonetheless)
The Three Storm Sharks, episode 8 released on january the 8th.
One mer to rule them all,
one mer to find them,
One mer to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.0 -
Ashfen✭✭✭✭
Sorry, my personal preference is for the Ebonheart Pact. Even though I know it wont endure for centuries, its still my personal favorite of the three factions. Second personal favorite is Aldmeri Dominion [Aryenn is, at least actively trying to do the best she can]. Dead last is the Covenant; if it doesn't involve trade/gold, Emeric will foist decisions [and any fighting] off on the first random passer-by who indicates they might care whether dozens of people die or not.
You should read the story of characters before speaking about them. I know a lot of people spit on Emeric because "he's just a guy obsessed by money" but curiously, it's never once evoked during his soryline. And a thing a lot a people seem to forget/ignore : he got the throne thanks to his heroic achievements and his skills and not by money or through inheritance.Edited by Ashfen on April 23, 2019 5:45PM3 -
Vigawatt✭✭✭I haven't finished all 3 questlines myself (finished EP and almost done with DC) but so far I've found the EP line to play well with the whole idea of the Alliance War. Across multiple zones there were incursions by other Alliances, and you as EP had to defend against them.
I'm almost done with Rivenspire, then only Bangkorai after that for DC, but I don't think there has been a single instance of another Alliance attacking DC. The Alliance War is wholly independent of what is happening in DC zones. When I was playing EP and fighting the other Alliances, I thought to myself that I was going to hate doing the other quest lines because I'd have to fight my own people. But that hasn't been the case.
I've thought the other comments describing the dynamics of the EP alliance and how the quests play to that have been great. I just also think it more broadly fits in to the ESO backstory that there are 3 alliances at war, whereas if you started with DC you may not even know there was an Alliance war.0 -
Ashfen✭✭✭✭I'm almost done with Rivenspire, then only Bangkorai after that for DC, but I don't think there has been a single instance of another Alliance attacking DC. The Alliance War is wholly independent of what is happening in DC zones. When I was playing EP and fighting the other Alliances, I thought to myself that I was going to hate doing the other quest lines because I'd have to fight my own people. But that hasn't been the case.
The Dominion is attacking the Covenant in Glenumbra. ^^2 -
JKorr✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Pact was created by the Nords, Dunmer, and Argonians forming an alliance against slavers from Akaviri because they wanted to remain free....
Remind me who enslaved (and enslaves) argonians? It's the Dunmers, no? Isn't it strange for people so concerned about liberty to not care so much about liberty when they enslave other people?
Yep. That is one of the underlying reasons the Pact won't last too long. Three groups of rabid individualists who don't want to have rules dictated to them are allied. Once the immediate circumstances fade a little, the alliance will fall apart. The dunmer who would have been targets joined the Pact. The ones who weren't going to be directly affected didn't; House Dres, and House Telvanni didn't, and they still keep slaves, and the slaves are not only argonian. In Shadowfen you can free a female Breton slave.
0 -
JKorr✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
Sorry, my personal preference is for the Ebonheart Pact. Even though I know it wont endure for centuries, its still my personal favorite of the three factions. Second personal favorite is Aldmeri Dominion [Aryenn is, at least actively trying to do the best she can]. Dead last is the Covenant; if it doesn't involve trade/gold, Emeric will foist decisions [and any fighting] off on the first random passer-by who indicates they might care whether dozens of people die or not.
You should read the story of characters before speaking about them. I know a lot of people spit on Emeric because "he's just a guy obsessed by money" but curiously, it's never once evoked during his soryline. And a thing a lot a people seem to forget/ignore : he got the throne thanks to his heroic achievements and his skills and not by money or through inheritance.
I have read the information about Emeric. At the present time, 12 of my 15 characters have dealt with Emeric. One will be dealing with him shortly. He's a waffle.When he tells you to fix Rivenspire:Can you tell me any more about the situation in Rivenspire?
"Honestly, I deserve some of the blame for Rivenspire's troubles myself.
After Ranser's war, I didn't trust any of the nobles enough to give them the throne, so I appointed three houses to share rule of the kingdom. Seemed like a smart strategy."
Now the nobles are fighting each other?
"So it seems. Maraya actually counseled me to appoint a single ruler in Rivenspire more than a year ago.
I should've listened, but after the mess with Ranser … there's something about nearly having my head on a pike that's hard to forget."
You were nearly killed in Ranser's War?
"Well yes. My decision to marry Maraya instead of King Ranser's daughter really stuck in the man's craw. He had Wayrest surrounded at one point.
I remember—I even dreamt about my head on a pike. Of course, as you know, I've had worse nightmares."
And after you've slaughtered your way across the countryside he's oh so gracious:"So here we are. Baron Monclair's dead and that damn artifact is destroyed. Yes. You can part yourself on the back all right. You've saved Rivenspire and that's no small thing.
You do realize this creates a predicament for me, though, don't you?"
What is the problem?
"Well, I can't very well go on pretending the nobles can share the throne. Everyone knows what a colossal mistake I made there.
I'm going to have to crown someone—a king or a queen of Shornhelm, someone to rule Rivenspire, don't you think?"
It does look like the people are expecting that.
"Exactly. So I have to choose. Countess Tamrith or Baron Dorell. Frankly, since you've recently fought alongside the two of them, I would appreciate your counsel.
Speak to them if you wish, think about it, and then give me your recommendation."
After speaking with the Countess and Baron:
"Take as much time as you like, my friend.
It's only the High King and the entire kingdom of Rivenspire waiting."
He not only continues to duck the decision and his responsibility, he snarks you should hurry up and make the decision about *his* kingdom. He'll rubberstamp whatever you say. His wife really should be the actual ruler instead of him.
As for his fighting.....He is at the fight for the garrison. He does say ""I quite forgot how it feels. The rush of blood to the head; the sound and fury of battle! So what if I've put on a few years? This is where I belong. I'm going to take back this garrison or die trying." right before sending *you* into the sewers and reminding you that if you fail, he, Emeric, the Queen Arzhela and all the guard will end up dead. After you do most of the work to clear the garrison he goes and annoys Septima Tharn. The one got every one of his royal guards killed instantly, himself kidnapped and ultimately dead in the Redguard afterlife. If he once had common sense and ability to rule, I do believe he's lost it now.
1 -
Grentek✭✭✭
Didn't said they had only argonian slaves.The ones who weren't going to be directly affected didn't; House Dres, and House Telvanni didn't, and they still keep slaves, and the slaves are not only argonian. In Shadowfen you can free a female Breton slave.
The dominion will not flee,
We fight for Eternity!
Hear the singing of our blades,
Death has come, foes be afraid!0 -
Hurbster✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭The Pact came together because of the Akaviri invasion, the storyline keeps this going as everyone and their bloody dog had a go at the Pact.So they raised the floor and lowered the ceiling. Except the ceiling has spikes in it now and the floor is also lava.0 -
Gluedog✭✭✭I actually liked that emeric’s faults, weaknesses, mistakes, etc. were shown. It made him a more realistic and interesting character.1 -
Fermian✭✭✭I think the pact quest line is fine. The idea of an alliance leader is the problem imo. Why should there be one leader when 3 nations work together?0 -
TheShadowScout✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Let's see....
Yup, pretty much.So the Covenant is worried about their trade routes....Dominion doesn't want "children" to rule instead of the rightful chosen by the Divines Altmer.... Pact was created by the Nords, Dunmer, and Argonians forming an alliance against slavers from Akaviri because they wanted to remain free....
You may want to pick up a history book once more...
Yup' they were. Why do you think the Roman Empire lasted so long? (-27 to 1453, as a reminder, or if you like to consider Rome from the beginning -753 to 1453)TheShadowScout wrote: »Think the old gauls, germanic tribes or ancient brittanic picts loved the roman legions coming to unify them and make them prosperous?
Remember the Goths? Not the "dress in black and write poetry" guys, but the "Swing axes and sack rome" guys! The roman empire -FELL- around 476 AD, though it had been in decline for long before that.
Some centuries later, Karolus Magnus founded a new "Holy Roman Empire", which lasted a while longer, though it ALSO crumbled because... wiat for it... loads of people didn't like other people lording over them.
And the original SPQR rome only lasted that long because they were really good at the military side, but they had their legions busy with conquest and uprising repression pretty much all the time, historically.
And if you think that the "barbarian tribes" liked roman legions coming to their home to conquer and enslave them in the name of unity and prosperity... then you probably also think the african slaves in america were happy to finally get a bit of civilization.
More like... I say those people had grand dreams of unity and prosperity, but ended up razing everything anyhow because no dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.You stick to the "Oh no those vile people are such evil conqueror who want to raze everything" but that's not true.
And that is actually a good example of how it can -work- unity by alliance instead of conquest.You're german? Fine, I bet you know that you country is united only because some guy (Otto von Bismarck, for the fact) said "It would be cool if you all guys pledge allegiance to my king".
Also, I am austrian, actually. You know... "Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube."
And that one was less on an war of conquest and more of an war for concessions. After all, they did not try to occupy france, did they now? Or "unify europe" like a certain frenchman tried about a century earlier (and failed in moskva)Did they invaded France to do so and killed people? Yup', they did.
Also true.Conquerors don't just come to raze everything, they come to annex something into their country.
And from their point of view, the unity and prosperity (of -their- country) is worth all the bloodshed.
From the others point of view... not so much.
And yeah, when they succeed they are grand statemen, and when they fail, terrible tyrants.
I am just saying, starting a load of bloodshed just because you want to conquer is a jerkling move, historically speaking.
I beg to differ.You seem to see conquerors as the bad guys, but they are not.
I know too much of history to think conquerors are the good guys.
I know too much of what usually happens during conquests, and to those conquered.
I mean, take a look. How do the chinese feel about the japanese imperial army occupation back in WW2? How to the poles, french, russians feel about the german wehrmacht? How do the irish feel about the british? How do palestinians feel about israeli, or isreali feel about arabs?
People do not want to be conquered, in a general sense. No matter how much the conquerors tell them its for their own good, and that they will be unified and prosperous if they only bend the knee...
Also true.The people, unless someone drive them to rebel against their rulers, live their lives quietly as long as you don't become a madman who kill people for fun.
The thing is... conquest IS usually seen as the madman who kills people for fun.
Otherwise it would not be conquest, it would be peaceful anexxation, unification by alliance, or something along those line.
Oh?You can argue that it's not true nowadays, but back in time it was clearly true.
So when xerxes came calling, the greeks meekly submitted? When alexander made a return visit, it was all sweets and honey? When the roman republic rose and built towards empire, the cartagians were happy to submit, the gauls couldn't wait to join up? When the Willian conquered england, the saxons were all happy and prosperous, loving their new norman overlords without thoughts of rebellion? And the whole hundred year war between england and france about who is king of what never happened?
I say again, people do not like to be conquered.
And they generally oppose conquerors until enough of them are killed that they give up. And even then they harbour resentment, and it is -quite- difficult to keep them subjugated without exterminating them entirely and replacing them with your own people (cough, america, cough)
And again, true as it stands.The Roman Empire did great things for Western Europe and the Balkans, yet it was forged by conquest.
But they still killed a lot of people to do it, riiight?
And if the success or failure of conquest is the measure... well... we do KNOW both covenant and dominion will fail. So all that bloodshed... and for what? Just because they think themselves great conquerors?
I still say I do not like the whole "Lets get together to go out and conquer our neighbors" thing, and much prefer the "lets band together to not be conquered" idea. Thus... Pact!
Granted. And if everyone was like her and not like "lets exterminate all the subelven argonians" AD might be a lot better looking... but its not exactly like this is how it goes.Ayrenn is rather good-hearted to stop when the main goal is achieved.
Also, see above. The whole "the younger races cannot be trusted to rule" thing is part of her mission statement, so... trusting even her to stop at stopping the daedra is kinda like trusting a politician to not raise taxes...
The "money" thing is more slander of his enemies.You should read the story of characters before speaking about them. I know a lot of people spit on Emeric because "he's just a guy obsessed by money" but curiously, it's never once evoked during his soryline. And a thing a lot a people seem to forget/ignore : he got the throne thanks to his heroic achievements and his skills and not by money or through inheritance.
Emric has his faults, but he eventually grows beyond them (with the help of the vestige). He is not that bad... for a breton. And if he had not started to feel his mortality and wanted to do something grand before his life ended... we might not have a PvP region in cyrodil, so... no surprise the powers that be depicted him this way
But consider all the other rulers in that corner of the world, and Emric is still the best of the bunch, right? I mean, the redguard king lets necromancers grow to a real problem while snubbing the exact people that could have fought them in the first place and the Orc King... well, any who play through orsinium know.
But then, not like others are without fault. That is the fun thing, noone is perfect, all have their faults, be it individuals or whole people, or complete alliances!0 -
jainiadral✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Pact was created by the Nords, Dunmer, and Argonians forming an alliance against slavers from Akaviri because they wanted to remain free....
Remind me who enslaved (and enslaves) argonians? It's the Dunmers, no? Isn't it strange for people so concerned about liberty to not care so much about liberty when they enslave other people?
Yep. That is one of the underlying reasons the Pact won't last too long. Three groups of rabid individualists who don't want to have rules dictated to them are allied. Once the immediate circumstances fade a little, the alliance will fall apart. The dunmer who would have been targets joined the Pact. The ones who weren't going to be directly affected didn't; House Dres, and House Telvanni didn't, and they still keep slaves, and the slaves are not only argonian. In Shadowfen you can free a female Breton slave.
Not to mention all the Khajiit slaves in Stonefalls.1 -
Olauron✭✭✭✭✭
✭
They are trying to get rid of Hist argonians but at the same time they welcome the Green Pact argonians and even allow them to settle in the Dominion territory.TheShadowScout wrote: »Granted. And if everyone was like her and not like "lets exterminate all the subelven argonians" AD might be a lot better looking... but its not exactly like this is how it goes.
Also, see above. The whole "the younger races cannot be trusted to rule" thing is part of her mission statement, so... trusting even her to stop at stopping the daedra is kinda like trusting a politician to not raise taxes...
As for the trust to rule, that is about Ruby throne and White-Gold. It is not about going to Wayrest. But even if it is, the empire in not better, especially the 3rd empire with its weapons of mass destruction like dragons and Numidium.The Three Storm Sharks, episode 8 released on january the 8th.
One mer to rule them all,
one mer to find them,
One mer to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.0 -
Grentek✭✭✭
Funny that you tell me to get an history book when you don't seem to know that the Roman Empire lasted until 1453.TheShadowScout wrote: »You may want to pick up a history book once more...
Remember the Goths? Not the "dress in black and write poetry" guys, but the "Swing axes and sack rome" guys! The roman empire -FELL- around 476 AD, though it had been in decline for long before that.
Some centuries later, Karolus Magnus founded a new "Holy Roman Empire", which lasted a while longer, though it ALSO crumbled because... wiat for it... loads of people didn't like other people lording over them.
And the original SPQR rome only lasted that long because they were really good at the military side, but they had their legions busy with conquest and uprising repression pretty much all the time, historically.
And if you think that the "barbarian tribes" liked roman legions coming to their home to conquer and enslave them in the name of unity and prosperity... then you probably also think the african slaves in america were happy to finally get a bit of civilization.
It's the Western Roman Empire that crumbled in 476, not the Roman Empire.
For your information, this is the Roman Empire in 555 under the rule of Justinian I.
About the Goths, you may be interested in the fact that they probably more swing swords than axe. They became Foederati of the Roman Empire (around 380), plus the most important of their incursions in the Roman Empire were because some of them fled the Huns, found themselves facing Roman Legions who refused to let them pass, so they (the Goths) forced through. (Blabla, war, blabla romans saying "kay, go here stop murdering our armies plz", rebellion, sack of Rome (wich happened only once), installation in Italy/Spain after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, got wrecked by Justinian in the 550's, then by the Umayyad.)
The Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne lasted only 124 years, or 88 depending on if you consider it's end at the death of Charles the Fat or at the death of Berengar I wich controlled only northern Italy (and wasn't named the "Holy Roman Empire"), the "real" Holy Roman Empire (962-1806) was founded by Otto I.
The Carolingian Empire crumbled because lords wanted the title of Emperor for themselves and because after Louis the Pious his sons decided to get Kingdom for each of them (spoiler alert: That's not how you keep your realm united).
The Roman Empire didn't lasted not just because they were "good at the military side", they conquered because they had a professionnal and well supplied army. They kept their conquest because they were administrators and politicians. They knew how to make a rebellious king a loyal subject of the Emperor. They brought roads, aqueducts, sewers, a stable government and peace to tribes who fought each other for centuries.
Don't compare what's not comparable, the triangular trade is certainly not the same thing as what slavery was under the Roman Empire. They didn't enslaved everyone, the vast majority of conquered peoples were just added as a part of the Empire.
Once again, when you conquer a state you don't casually raze everything...Sure Hit.ler did it (And it's not entirely true), but you do know History is not just WWII right?TheShadowScout wrote: »More like... I say those people had grand dreams of unity and prosperity, but ended up razing everything anyhow because no dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
See, when someone come to a land to conquer it, except if they have a special reason on destroy what's built (Like the Mongols did, because they wanted the lands to become a steppe), the conqueror don't burn everything. Why? Because war cost a lot of money, and it cost you even more if you burn what you just conquered. (Oh and, the people is more likely to rebel if you do that, so you don't do it.)
Hey sure, The Franco-Prussian War was clearly not a conquest war and no German ever occupied French territory after it. *cough* Wanna ask to Alsace-Lorraine about that one?TheShadowScout wrote: »And that is actually a good example of how it can -work- unity by alliance instead of conquest.
Also, I am austrian, actually. You know... "Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube."
And that one was less on an war of conquest and more of an war for concessions. After all, they did not try to occupy france, did they now? Or "unify europe" like a certain frenchman tried about a century earlier (and failed in moskva)
Oh and sorry for the misunderstanding about your origin.
Firstly most of the French just sat around during the occupation. I know that Charles de Gaulle said "We were all in the Résistance" but that's clearly not true.TheShadowScout wrote: »I beg to differ.
I know too much of history to think conquerors are the good guys.
I know too much of what usually happens during conquests, and to those conquered.
I mean, take a look. How do the chinese feel about the japanese imperial army occupation back in WW2? How to the poles, french, russians feel about the german wehrmacht? How do the irish feel about the british? How do palestinians feel about israeli, or isreali feel about arabs?
People do not want to be conquered, in a general sense. No matter how much the conquerors tell them its for their own good, and that they will be unified and prosperous if they only bend the knee...
As for the others...Seriously, Hit.ler didn't want to occupy Russia or Poland, he wanted to kill everyone here to create a Lebensraum for his "superior race". If you want to compare it to TESO, not a single faction want to exterminate the two other.
(Same goes for the second Sino-Japanese war)
As for the Irish, Israeli and Palestinians...You do realise that the major problem here is the religion not the conquest?
Nope, conquest is what we call "War". A fairly common and natural thing during antiquity and middle ages.TheShadowScout wrote: »Also true.
The thing is... conquest IS usually seen as the madman who kills people for fun.
Otherwise it would not be conquest, it would be peaceful anexxation, unification by alliance, or something along those line.
Just to be clear, when I said "problems come when an ambitious men [...]", it's also true when there is already someone governing the land you try to conquer.TheShadowScout wrote: »Oh?
So when xerxes came calling, the greeks meekly submitted? When alexander made a return visit, it was all sweets and honey? When the roman republic rose and built towards empire, the cartagians were happy to submit, the gauls couldn't wait to join up? When the Willian conquered england, the saxons were all happy and prosperous, loving their new norman overlords without thoughts of rebellion? And the whole hundred year war between england and france about who is king of what never happened?
I say again, people do not like to be conquered.
And they generally oppose conquerors until enough of them are killed that they give up. And even then they harbour resentment, and it is -quite- difficult to keep them subjugated without exterminating them entirely and replacing them with your own people (cough, america, cough)
The greeks didn't bended the knee to Alexander or Xerxes because people like King Leonidas, Demosthenes or Miltiades convinced their people to fight.
The Cartagians and Romans fought for control over the Mediterranean Sea (and Sicily). Rome never wanted to control Cartago, after the Punic Wars they wanted it burned down as a revenge for all the deads during the three wars (and for the occupation of Italy during the Hannibal campaign).
As I stated before, all the Gauls were not hostiles to Rome. Some willingly joined Caesar during the Gallic Wars. Gauls were very different from one tribe to another. You can't just say that they were all as one against Rome because it's not true. Some probably prefered to be ruled by Rome than by their neighbours.
William the Conqueror took the titles of the saxon lords to put his friends and allies at their place. Sure they weren't happy about it. But the people? Except in the northern part of the kingdom... (Yeah, you know that place where most of the old lords who were hostile to William fled, doesn't that remember you about something I said before? Something about "Problems come when ambitious man...".)
For the Hundred Year War...Kings on both side, one wanted the crown for himself, the other wanted to keep his crown. Nothing to do with the people in the Kingdom of France or England, it's all about kings. (And, fun fact, some barons, counts and dukes didn't care about what king was the ruler as long as they kept their titles. I'll redirect you to Gaston III Febus who just followed the side that offered him the more benefits.)
You do know they will fail because you can read the Lore. The fact is, they don't know the future.TheShadowScout wrote: »And again, true as it stands.
But they still killed a lot of people to do it, riiight?
And if the success or failure of conquest is the measure... well... we do KNOW both covenant and dominion will fail. So all that bloodshed... and for what? Just because they think themselves great conquerors?
I still say I do not like the whole "Lets get together to go out and conquer our neighbors" thing, and much prefer the "lets band together to not be conquered" idea. Thus... Pact!
If Napoleon knew what would happen if he rushed to Moscow, would he have done it? Probably not.
Was it a good idea a the time to go right to Moscow? Yes, it was.
Edited by Grentek on April 24, 2019 8:03PMThe dominion will not flee,
We fight for Eternity!
Hear the singing of our blades,
Death has come, foes be afraid!2 -
TheShadowScout✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
So, you are basically saying... when part of an empire splits off, it still counts as the same empire? That america is still path of the british empire? Puh-leeze.It's the Western Roman Empire that crumbled in 476, not the Roman Empire.
The classic, ancient Roman Empire fell with rome. No more SPQR for them!
The Byzantine Empire rose from those ashes as the eastern provinces reorganized, and survived until around the fall of constantinople in, yes, the fifteenth century.
Yeah, they -called- themselves the "Roman Empire" too, which was pretty pathetic considering they did not control the eternal city at that time, but... eh... I guess it did make for good PR? Still does not mean the "Roman Empire" continued as gloriously and uninterrupted as you would have us believe... and especially not that everyone subjugated by them was happy with it, because if they had been... It. Would. Not. Have. Fallen. That. Way!
Also, when you post maps, you really should mention which parts of the ones shown were actually lost in the fall of western rome and later re-conquered by the byzantines...
Like in AD-395 the imperator decided on the split for (more or less) administrative purposes:
Western rome falls, and gets overrun with "barbarians" - eastern rome re-conquers parts of it a century later (in orange), and by AD-565:
...but a mere century or so later it looks more like:
...because... wait for it... their conquests did not -last-!
Oh, my, seems it -does- take a lot more then mere conquest and good PR to get the people to keep following their rulers, huh?
...and practially mercenaries, killing for rome. And when rome could no longer pay them... they just lost the "for" in that bargain. In a nutshell anyhow.They became Foederati of the Roman Empire
(Note to all empires - when you can no longer fight your own battles, the end is nigh! )
True enough. Karolus Magnus more or less gave them the idea, but... his own empire did not last much past his person.The Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne lasted only 124 years, or 88 depending on if you consider it's end at the death of Charles the Fat or at the death of Berengar I wich controlled only northern Italy (and wasn't named the "Holy Roman Empire"), the "real" Holy Roman Empire (962-1806) was founded by Otto I.
Yeah, same as with Alexander the great and his great conquests... that crumbled the moment he was gone.The Carolingian Empire crumbled because lords wanted the title of Emperor for themselves and because after Louis the Pious his sons decided to get Kingdom for each of them (spoiler alert: That's not how you keep your realm united).
...and how is that not being "good at the military side?"The Roman Empire didn't lasted not just because they were "good at the military side", they conquered because they had a professionnal and well supplied army.
Oh?They kept their conquest because they were administrators and politicians. They knew how to make a rebellious king a loyal subject of the Emperor.
Which rebellions leader of forces opposing them did that work with? Who of those who actively fought rome ended up a loyal subject later on? Hannibal? Vercingetorix? Arminius? Boudica?
I mean, sure the romans were great administrators and politicians! And yeah, that is part why their empire held together that long... BUT, that does not mean they did not have to constantly deal with rebellions and further wars. In fact, their economy kinda depended on it... because they needed fresh slaves from those defeated!
Empires built on slavery? And not in the half-assed way -parts- of the USA were, but throughout all of it? Maybe -not- the best case to make for how conquest is a good thing for the conquered...
Never said they did not drive civilization forward by leaps and bounds.They brought roads, aqueducts, sewers, a stable government and peace to tribes who fought each other for centuries.
Just... that there was a cost, in blood, and slavery, and exploitation, and rebellions, and punitive campaigns to cast down those rebellions, and pain, and resentment, and more bloodshed down the road...
Did the good outweigh the bad?
Hard to say, I myself would be inclined to say "maybe" - but I would not want to paint over all the bad sides to it as well. And I personally would much rather have seen the same improvements come a bit slower yet without the drawbacks through trade and commerce, but... I guess that is my personality.
True.Don't compare what's not comparable, the triangular trade is certainly not the same thing as what slavery was under the Roman Empire. They didn't enslaved everyone, the vast majority of conquered peoples were just added as a part of the Empire.
Thuse who bent the knee, paid their taxes and sent their sons to serve in the legions were happily added to the empire as proper citizens.
Of course... walk up to someone and tell them that, and most will go like "Yeah, up yours!" and that#s when the legions come and crush the resistance, enslave the ones who survive, and move on to the next campaign.
And that brings with it resentment, and there is a reason why rome fell when it no longer had the strength to keep that resentment suppressed.
Well, that guy was the kind of jerk who would break his toys rather then let others have them.Once again, when you conquer a state you don't casually raze everything...Sure Hit.ler did it (And it's not entirely true), but you do know History is not just WWII right?
Not that others too "razed everything" as strategiv move... from romans poisoning wells when they withdrew to russians going "chuy tebe!" and giving napoleon only scorched earth to forage on until he runs smack into "General Winter"...
The fact remains that wars of conquest cause a LOT of breakage. Mostly in the human capital sector, at least back in medieval times... if people go to War, they are not there to go to harvest, and Famine always follows, if people get killed in War, Pestilance grows from their corpses... and either way, Death claims more people who never wanted to go to war in the first place.
There is a reason the four horsemen always come together after all!
You mean, Elsass-Lothringen?Hey sure, The Franco-Prussian War was clearly not a conquest war and no German ever occupied French territory after it. *cough* Wanna ask to Alsace-Lorraine about that one?
See, that's the thing, it was a war not to conquer france, but to force a concession about one -disputed- territory. (well, and to show all the world how powerful the newly united german reich was, in the somewhat childish hope it would make others back off, without realizing it would scare them, and as a species... we humans tend to strive to kill what scares us...)
Personally I thought it silly. But then, I often think that of sending That many people to die over such territorial disputes throughout history, when they could just have made an agreement to declare it a neutral territory, make it a trade hub and -both- get rich and prosperous trading goods with each other instead of tading blows... but eh, that is me I guess.
And enough even collaborated. Duh. And some did their best to resist. Also duh.Firstly most of the French just sat around during the occupation. I know that Charles de Gaulle said "We were all in the Résistance" but that's clearly not true.
Not quite... that guy had an issue with jwes, as was well known, but the rest was not so much "extermination" but "subjugation". After all, if they exterminated -everyone- who would their "master race" have to order around to do all the dirty work??? The general idea was more or less copying imperialistic britain... "aryan" overlords lording over "untermensch" slaves all day long.As for the others...Seriously, Hit.ler didn't want to occupy Russia or Poland, he wanted to kill everyone here to create a Lebensraum for his "superior race".
They were not the first trying that by far... just the worst.
Tell that to the argonians after the shadowfen questline!If you want to compare it to TESO, not a single faction want to exterminate the two other.
Oh?As for the Irish, Israeli and Palestinians...You do realise that the major problem here is the religion not the conquest?
How was the religion between jews and arabs a problem... before the british gave the jews the arabs lands to create their "israel" after feeling bad for them?
How the catholic/protestant split... yeah, that was sort of a problem when it happened, and we in europe had a thirty-year war to prove it. But the british-irish issue is more that someone from the outside was trying to tell them what to do, which way to worship... if the isle had not been occupied, you think they would have given a leprechauns fart about what the blokes over at the other island were doing in their churches?
Yup. And how do those who face a conqueror see the war? Like... maybe... some guy with a crown and an army coming to their lands for no good reason, killing them and killing them, and killing them... until they beg for mercy and kneel before Zod... no, wait, wrong conqueror.Nope, conquest is what we call "War". A fairly common and natural thing during antiquity and middle ages.
Seen from the other side, the conqueror IS the manman who kills people for fun!
You know how it is, I presume:
...that sounds like you think this is not always the case. I mean... no matter if "king" or "tribe chief", someone is always already governing the land (unless you want to conquer antarctica I guess, then its just... penguins)Just to be clear, when I said "problems come when an ambitious men [...]", it's also true when there is already someone governing the land you try to conquer.
And you think people only ever fight when someone tells them to? I mean, technically correct but... there is always someone rising from the people to give voice to their desires!The greeks didn't bended the knee to Alexander or Xerxes because people like King Leonidas, Demosthenes or Miltiades convinced their people to fight.
It would be really hard to convince people to fight if they did not want to. And generally "defend your family" will get even mild-mannered people fighty (and by extension home, country and such)
True enough. And carthago also never really wanted to conquer rome from what I know, they were more fighting to make the other back off and let them bi the big boy in the aegean. And in the end... rome won. And that's all to it.The Cartagians and Romans fought for control over the Mediterranean Sea (and Sicily). Rome never wanted to control Cartago, after the Punic Wars they wanted it burned down as a revenge for all the deads during the three wars (and for the occupation of Italy during the Hannibal campaign).
But... do you think cathagians went like "Oh, these romans are so great, why not let them be our rulers"?
...for a price, usually. A trick the romans often used... turn one tribe against the other with bribes and promises of spoils, then either conquer the other alongside them, or offer "roman protection" to the injured tribe and conquer your eastwhile catspaw tribe with them to get both under roman rule.As I stated before, all the Gauls were not hostiles to Rome. Some willingly joined Caesar during the Gallic Wars.
"Divide et Impera"
Old concept... happens to work!
True enough. Doesn't change the fact that those facing legions coming a-conquering were not happy about it. And neither the fact that when rome lost their military strength, the gauls did not prop them up, but were quick to tear down all the roman eagles and weite off the empire as a bad idea, right? (only to make their own united realm a while later, but that's another story)Gauls were very different from one tribe to another. You can't just say that they were all as one against Rome because it's not true.
I would think they would prefer to be ruled by themselves... but yeah, some smaller tribes would have seen rome as the lesser evil.Some probably prefered to be ruled by Rome than by their neighbours.
I know that all too well.
Back in a different time, people here saw the mustache guy from germany as the "lesser evil" after a near-civil war between mussolini-sponsored austro-fascists and stalin-sponsored socialists. Wanna take a guess how gamps baldy of mine thought about it later?
...were what? Happy about the new lords, who didn't even speak their language, and demanded new taxes?William the Conqueror took the titles of the saxon lords to put his friends and allies at their place. Sure they weren't happy about it. But the people?
Really???
I would need more then your word for that...
More like the land. As in "I have a claim to your land through this family connection" - "Yeah, go shove that family tree up yours..." and the rest is kings sending soldiers to die just because of their pride and delusions of "divine right to rule"For the Hundred Year War...Kings on both side, one wanted the crown for himself, the other wanted to keep his crown.
...
Pretty much like DC and AD claiming rights to the ruby throne if you think about it, huh?
Yeah, the people prolly didn't give two tugs of a dead donkeys d... uhm... anything about whose arse warmed the trone, if they would just stop drafting their sons for soldiers, plundering their food for provisions and trampling their crops with their armies, huh?Nothing to do with the people in the Kingdom of France or England, it's all about kings.
People of cyrodil are prolly the same.
So, who will the people be happier with? The one who drafts their sons, confiscates their winter stores and then rides off to conquer following their visions of glory, or the one who just wants to stay at home and keep things calm?
And that... is why I prefer EP over AD and DC.
...but they assume it will go their ways nonetheless. And when it doesn't... they double down and feed more meat into the grinder.You do know they will fail because you can read the Lore. The fact is, they don't know the future.
As I said. Good intentions, in a general sense, sure. Not much thought about the price, doubly so as they seem to assume it will only the other side paying it. Bad way of going about realizing those intentions, miring themselves ever deeper, too much pride to reconsider their stance, and in the end... all for naught.
Either way, its not something I can look up to.
Was it?If Napoleon knew what would happen if he rushed to Moscow, would he have done it? Probably not.
Was it a good idea a the time to go right to Moscow? Yes, it was.
With winter coming?
With the french army depending on foraging to fill their bellies?
Withg the russians having had ample warning from the rest of europe how things went when they were fighting a traditional battle?
Its a classic case of conquerors madness.
They win, and win, and win... until they overreach, and then they loose big time.
Had Napoleon stopped before that blunder, had he considered it well enough... who knows, I might be typing this in french today! 0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lPPNJCPHDY
