Martin actually doesn't have any of Tiber's blood in his veins. And there have been plenty of Jesus figures in TES and fantasy in general. Tiber Septim himself is a Jesus figure, as is Reman. I could argue that Alessia is a Muhammed figure. It's because all fantasy mythos is based off of RL myths.

And at last, before I will leave the Internet for today, one more post.
In general it is necessary to say thanks Bethesda for two characters it has created. They are: Caius Cosades from "Morrowind" and Martin Septim from "Oblivion". They are characters that for ever sink deep into the mind and cannot be forgotten. The great spy who really possessed inexpressible charisma, and the great emperor who has put a life on an altar of empire. Obeisance to Bethesda and its command.

Well, I can't say they're utterly AMAZING characters, but certainly some of the best in-game in the Elder Scrolls series. Barenziah, of course, has them both beat out. By a LONGSHOT.

On the subject of Martin, I stand by what I said before -- he seems to me to be the sort of person who'd surround himself with people of experience in the field of politics in order to not be overwhelmed by people like Helseth; however, since that is fighting fire with fire, he'd likely get manipulated BY those same people that he put trust in and end up either betrayed or having lost the integrity that was once his biggest boon. Politics is a dirty business, really, and you can't be both an idealist and a politician unless you're willing to sacrafice some integrity behind closed doors...something I don't see a priest of Akatosh and generally nice guy like Martin doing. So, no, he wouldn't make a good Emperor. Perhaps it is best that he went out the way he did, after all.

Its common in societies that have reached a certain level of social development. Thats different from natural. Monarchies, empires, despotisms, dictatorships etc have a common element. The rulers will is maintained by force. If it was natural to humans to accept a single leader force wouldn't be needed.

Tell it to the Lions.

Yeah thats why so many of the governors are freaking man[censored]s.

Force is necessary because there are always other people who wants the power of the Single Leader. These "opportunists" might say that they act on the behalf of the rest of the people, but in the end, they're always doing it for themselves. Like in the French Revolution. People just ended up with a different set of Oppressors.
That is also exactly why Tamriell won't evolve into a rebublic, at least not a democratic one. People who have power, wants to keep the power. And even within the republic, there will be people who have more power than other, because of money, military forces, or just plain influence, and these will strive to undermine their competitors. In the end, there will just be one or a few such people left, and they will rule as they will, just like a Great Single Leader.

Nomads are not necessarily democratic. I think it's common to have tribal elders and/or sheiks that their clans will follow. Of course, there can be democratic elements within the tribe, such as the tradition of a day each week when the people of the tribe can have an audience with the sheik, appealing for justice on various disputes.

Tamriel has no tradition of republics or constitution, or even democratic philosophy that I can see, so it's more likely that Tamriel is now faced with a choice between anarchy and monarchy. The Council is not going to "rule by committee" as far as I see, and are probably concerned with their own fiefdoms anyway.

It was a comment of the system overall (republicanism) not modern politics.


That is pretty democratic. Even in a democratic system or a republican system, the people don't make every decision. They choose a group of people to make that decision. Nomads actually have a greater say in their politics than modern democracies or republics. They are also generally presented with fewer options, as they are nomads and much of what they do is ruled by the necisitty of survival.



The Council has "ruled by committe" plenty of times before, and for much of the Septim Empire, the Council has had all the true power with the Emporer just being a figurehead. Why can't it happen again?


It is natural for humans to have a leader, as we are a tribal species. We have always had leaders. Even in mesolithic times (ie, no social development)

Force is necessary to keep the current leader alive and out of reach of others who want to be leader. If people don't want to be ruled, they won't be ruled. Humans usually accept being ruled by one person. If they don't, that one person won't rule much longer, because force won't stop the whole of a people. Examples are the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, fall of the USSR and many modern African states. When the majority of the people says that the government has not right to rule, it doesn't. That happens in democracies and Republics, which are also led by people who say that are fit to be our leaders. Just for different reasons.

Exactly, and they're not going to give that power up to the people for no good reason. Which is why I think it's much more likely that the Council will choose a candidate for emperor that they think they can control. The people want an emperor, it's a symbol of stability and prestige (especially within Cyrodiil), but it will be somebody who will willingly act as a puppet while the Elder Council pulls the strings.



All of your examples are post-Enlightenment. Tamriel is a lot of things, but it's not an Enlightened society by any means. The "divine right of kings" is alive and well in the world of the Elder Scrolls (the last emperor appeared to transform himself into a god, after all). Until Voltaire and Rousseau start being read in Tamriel's intellectual circles, the idea of social revolution will have to wait.

I agree. Sounds like a sensible thing to do,


I think I may of muddled my point. Sorry. Amazon Queen said that social revolution was the natural thing and that one might happen in Tamriel. I disagreed. The reason all my examples are post-Enlightenment, is because their were no anarchies or social revolutions before the Enlightenment. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Politics is a dirty business for those who wants that it was dirty business. All depends on the person. At all times there were people, which overcame a dirt and ugliness of the world to govern just. Martin is character from this category.

And Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama probably also fit into that category.

But really, for most politicians in the history of the world politics was a dirty business.
Being nice and morally has just never worked out for most medieval leaders.

Martin nevered governed. He got himself killed first. And those that governed "justly" usually did so at another's expense. And what is a just rule? Is it one where the people are happy at the time, but afterward everything goes bad. OK. I'll use a Russian Example (since you are Russian). Wasn't Gorbachev one of these leaders? He allowed many new freedoms, he lowered tensions with the West, and he tried to reform the economy from a failed sytem. Yet, he is hated and Russia lost a lot of power.

Most the time good and great don't equal the same thing (paraphrasing Winston Churchill). Just leaders come about from time to time, but rarely are the considered good leaders (Jimmy Carter). It is hard to win a game when you're the only one that are using the rules.

Also Che Guevara. The leader should not be nice. He should be clever. Cold mind and hot heart.



You are completely right! Unfortunately I cannot respond completely as it will lead to that the moderator will remove posts. Only those leaders lead the state to prosperity which combine good judgement and devout belief in the state. And it is based on national traditions.

True. Wasn't the same happening on Vvardenfel with the Redoran? They were losing against Hlaalu and Telvanni because Redoran had to do things by the book, while the Hlaalu and Telvanni had no such limitations.

Nice little quote, isn't it. I made it up in an essay, and now like using it.

And Che Guevara is the opposite of Martin Septim. Che was brutal, ends justify the means character, and get it done by whatever means necessary, while Martin believed in morals and ethics.

But they were united by one. Both of them were ready to give (and have given) a life for the state.

So did Hitler and King Charles the XII of Sweden, but it doesn't say anything about how good of a person they wer. It is what you do with that death. Martin is a hero, because he sacrificed himself to save the world. Che sacrificed himself for he common people as well, but not with as obvious results. Is he a hero? Many says yes. Charles the XII sacrificed himself to give another people to be ruled by the Swedes. Is he a hero or a good person? Most say no. Hitler sacrificed himself in the end in hope. Is he a hero? Hell no!!!

The sands are running out. We will continue tomorrow.

"Divine right" is actually a relatively recent concept in monarchy; in English-speaking countries, it goes back only as far as James I.

The notion of the king being a god himself or enjoying special communication with the gods is ancient, though, as is the notion that the presence of the king is needed to prevent chaos or maintain divine favor on the land.

Principled revolutions against monarchies or oligarchies received great impetus from the Enlightenment, but the Enlightenment did not create this notion out of thin air. Events such as Savonarola's revolt in Florence, the Reformation, and the English Civil War preceded it and served as examples.

The situation in Cyrodiil always seemed to me to be more like Antonine Rome, except there is a greater urgency in Cyrodiil to maintain the post of Emperor as hereditary in the Septim line, and the Elder Council continues to wield greater power than the by-then emasculated Senate.

Yeah, I put the "divine right of kings" in quotes because that's just one way to generalize the idea that a ruler is ordained by a higher power. The position of Cyrodiil's emperors is almost more similar to that of the Chinese emperors than it is to any Western examples of divine rule, but it's always easier for us Westerners to think in Euro-centric terms.

And no, revolutions weren't invented by the Enlightenment, but it was the first movement that emphasized the people in allowing the king to rule.

I do not understand that statement. "To give another people to be ruled by the Swedes"? Maybe I'm just too tired, but what do you mean?

If Tamriel gets another Emperor at some point, I hope it will be someone like Gustavus Adolphus, who was enlightened as well as a great military leader. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/gustavus_adolphus1.htm

Charles XII died conquering Norway. He was trying to subjegate another people.