Both were leaders, not heroes.
Uriel V was a miltary leader.
Uriel IV was political leader.

Like this qoute from "Brief history of the empire says:






Unlike Uriel V, most heroes don't have an army under their command. Secondly, heroes save the world from danger. All that Uriel V did was conquer another land. He sounds more like a conqueror then a hero.

The two titles aren't mutually exclusive. A hero doesn't necessarily have to save the world, they must do something great. Adding vast spreads of land to your empire is great, and many people benefit from it. (Many suffer from it as well, of course, but you can't please everyone)

Martin wasn't stupid, methinks. Knowing he was never groomed for politics, he'd have probably surrounded himself with people of experience...a moot point, since he'd probably end up a pawn of their scheming. So, yeah, he'd probably svck as Emperor.

on the contrary apophis. he may have been a commoner and too nice. but an emperor cannot be absolutely ruthless and massacre an entire city just for peace within the province. a good emperor would send someone to root out the violence and stop the city from rebelling. and Martin growing up poor, taught him that hard work and perserverence can give you wealth, peace, and other great benefits.

1) Martin didn't grow up poor. He was a priest. He was even trained in magic. He was fairly well off.
2)The question is whether he could manage to outwit political lions like Ocato, Helseth, or Elysana. No one wants him to massacre a city or says that is good leaders do.
3) Hard work and perserverence do not lead to wealth, peace and other great benefits in a feudal system. They lead to more hard work and an early death. It svcks to be a medieval commoner. Luckily for Martin, he wasn't one.

About #3:


Indeed! Literacy was often an ARTIFICIAL roadblock against climbing the ladder. Being able to read and write was usually a skill reserved for commercial historians, scribes, or clergymen, who often guarded such secrets HEAVILY without heafty financial contributions.

Simply being able to read and write in historical dark-age Europe granted you benefit of clergy, which was a powerful thing to have.

I smiled brightly when I saw the dunmer guy in Ald Ruhn mage's guild learning to read.

Uriel Septim did a pretty good job being a selfless Emperor. At least while he wasn't trapped in Oblivion. And he had the foresight to ensure that the CoC had plenty of Ebony, Dwemer, and Glass equipment.

Psh, he didn't have the foresight to get those materials for the CoC, he did it because he loves to sleep in it, like how other people like to sleep with their money.

I only meant that medieval leaders sometims have to make tough decisions or have to do dirty things, like blackmail, torture or extortion. These maybe not the things that an ideal leader would do, but in reality I don't think he has much of a choice.

Most commoners wouldn't make great emperors. Nor do most spoiled princleings but inheritence is a lousy way to select a leader. The rare commoner who actually manages to climb the ladder tends to have a great deal of ability. The person who inherits might be mad, stupid, weak-willed etc.

That also depends on whether the "commoner" (which I doubt would climb anywhere, since he lacks both money, armies, or friends) gets the title through work or through the whim of luck. A man who by him self climbs the ladder, must struggle greatly to do so, but when (and if) he reaches the aimed position, he will have crushed a lot of the opposition allready, making the ruling time (somewhat) easier for him. There is also few ways for a commoner/lower-middle class man to accomplish this without lying, murdering and outwitting your enemies, as well as your friends.

If he is put on the throne by chance or luck, like Martin, it is different.
While the position-reaching part in such circumstances is much, much easier, it will be much harder to keep the throne. He will have overcomed no or few opponents/competitors on his way up, nor has he hurt them or weakened them in any way. They are still at the same power as before, while the New King/Martin would have a much weaker position, having no allies or friends he can trust, and since he has showed little or none ability to lead, neither in political nor military matters, he will be neither respected, feared, or loved.

(And yes, I am semi-quoting Machiavelli. I'm reading Il Principe right now. Quite a good read, gives me many good ideas for my political career :dance: )

The obvious route for a common man to gain power is through the Legion. The military gave Rome emperors like Vespasian, Diocletian and Constantine, very capable men without great advantages of birth. Hereditary rule gave it some of its worst rulers - Nero, Caligula, Commodius.

The only real advantage to hereditary rule I can see is stability. Succession should be a matter of course. Whether you get a good or bad ruler is a matter of luck.

That is true, I didn't think about the Legion. However, you still need contacts if you want to promotion. If one joins the Legion as a foot-soldier, I don't think there's much chance of advancing, let alone being noticed at all. Being a soldier in any army means you have to fight together and alongside the other soldiers, as an organism of sorts, and leaves no opportunity for any soldier to shine on his own (unless you're a errand-running could-be Nerevarine in times of peace). Nobles always got the better positions, at least in the real world. I really don't know how medieval/feudal the Empire is in this matter.

True. I suspect given that one of the Counts in Oblivion was a jumped up Dunmer merchant that the Empire is more open to talent than feudal Europe was but a good birth would help. I don't expect many peasants get far. Still, I don't think Imperial birth helps make a good ruler. In many cases in history Emperors and kings were reluctent to give their sons any real power or responsibility in case they got impatient.

I doubt martin would make a great emperor , Not better than anyone else.
I think the elder council would have to much influence on him.

Talent? Count Indarys did not become count because he was a good leader. He was only elected count because he is a good friend of Helseth.

He saw the gates of Oblivion open. He recognized the future CoC in prison. He knew he would not survive the assassination attempts. Sounds to me like he would have that kind of foresight.

I don't agree with that. If he had such foresight he would not died, or at least have bought some better guards.

No, seriously, I doubt the emperor "stockpiled for the future" at all. It's the imperial center for crying out loud, of course they're going to live lavishly without want or measure. Babylon, Rome, Thebes, Cyrodiil it's all the same.

Then that brings up the whole predestination paradox. He felt it was better not to try and defy fate. And he was no ordinary man. Or ordinary emperor for that matter.

Another question is : Did he himself have some sort of ability to see the future or did the gods show him the future?

In-game, they believe that the Dragon Blood allows him to see things ordinary people cannot.

But Talos was not a dragon, so where did this Dragon Blood come from? Are they refering to the Amulet of Kings perhaps?

I'm not sure, but he was referred to as the "Dragon of the North". The visions may be from when he got his vision from Akatosh in the Reman Tombs, allowing him and his descendents to wear the Amulet. And yes, there is a possibility that the visions may be due to the Amulet itself.

And he was not decsended from Tiber Septim. I thought he got the foresight after his imprisonment. I think I heard that somewhere. Could be wrong, though.

He seems to imply that he's had his visions for a pretty long time.