I know. But he didn't really sacrifice himself, did he? He was killed, probably by an astray bullet, maybe even assassined by one of his own men. It was not a sacrifice, it was a failure, bad luck.
A better example would be queen Christina of Sweden, who "willingly" stepped down from the thronefor "the better" of Swedish nation, a real sacrifice. (Well, at least according to popular myth, I admit. What the real reason behind her abdication is unknown, and will probably stay so, but it isn't really hard to think up theories about it.)

But perhaps that was your point with the Charles XII example.

I don't know. Charles XII was always ready to sacrifice himself during battle. He was kind of nuts. But the point was that not all sacrifice is made by good people or for good causes. Christina stepped down for a good cause, supposedly as you said.

I like how a discussion of Martin Septim has become a discussion of Swedish royalty.
Edit: If he was in fact killed by his own men, it is not a sacrifice. But I consider being killed in battle by the enemy a sacrifice.

Sorrow on Enlightenment! It has broke an irrational veil over sacrament of human reason. It has taken away belief in the live world, has taken away belief in possibility to create.There is no mystique (secret), there is no true development.

Wow, very nice. First time I've ever heard an argument against the Enlightenment. Industrial Revolution, sure, but Enlightenment?

Sure, it takes away a lot of the mystique of the world, but much of that mystique has been heavily romanticized in the period since the Enlightenment anyway. The truths we know now have proved to be much more vast and mysterious than any popular notions that were dismantled during the Enlightenment.

What makes the TES universe so interesting is that metaphysics are law in the same way that physics are law in our own world. The lore comes not from a lack of understanding, but from a deeper connection to the greater universe than we can ever hope to achieve in reality. But it also means that nobody is going to trust the governing of the empire to a bunch of ignorant farmers when there's somebody who is on an equal footing with the gods avaliable.

The answer is easier than you guess. Maybe not. Not easier. Maybe easier.
In the first.
What is the engine of true progress? What? The answer is: secret (mystic)! What is result, when the man is deprived of secret when he trusts, that it is possible understand all things by reason? It leads to creation of a civilization which is based not on human resources, but on machines; not on belief in, but on estimation. The man becomes more poorly and more poorly and more poorly in spirit. We torment a planet, we exhaust resources. We forget, that it is an alive essence. The Enlightenment is mother of industrial revolution. It is mother of the illegitimate ugly creature, is threatening to destroy a human nature.
In the second.
The Enlightenment has ingrafted that people trusted the person can be formed and brought up. The person from a birth is ostensibly a pure piece of paper. But it is the most awful lie! One person is not equal to another. One person can be equal hundreds others. The person is that the nature incorporated in him. The person is not a product of education, environment, conditions. He is that the nature put in. Instincts, will, aspirations. The Enlightenment wanted to make of the person sterile and insignificant homunculus which becomes more perfect under influence of social factors and education. Quasi the person does not belong to the nature. Quasi he has separated from nature.

P.S. I'm sorry for my english.

I don't have the guts to be poetic in a foreign language.


(Nor yet the ability, but nevermind)

I don't think that he would have made a very good emperor, not without alot of counciling from an aid like Ocato (sp?), he made a good general though and it wouldv'e been my pleasure to kill for him, maybe even die for him irl... but stillI don't think he would be a good emporer.

Is it the end of line of discussion?