Lore talk:Wars

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
Archive 1: May 2007 - July 2012

Umbriel Crisis (Again)[edit]

I've actually added the umbriel crisis to the page, because I do remember quite a few battles in the books, but I am quite a novice editor, if some one could add references to lord of souls, it would help(Infernal city is already there because someone added it when I made "call of the hist" in the oblivion crisis part) Thanks Emzi43 14:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dates for the War of Righteousness and Thrassian Plague -- Citations???[edit]

Do we have cited sources for the dates of the Alessian Doctrines Enforced 1E 361 and the War of Righteousness 1E 2321? "The War of Betony" by Vulper Newgate only says "the Thrassian Plague coupled with the War of Righteousness slayed over half the population of the Iliac Bay" approx. 1000 years after "the Siege of Orsinium" given in same source as ending in 1E 980. If the dates of the Dragon Break 1200-2208 are correct (no citation here either), that approx. puts the War of Righteousness around 2988 or 2E 68 (68 years into the Akaviri Potentate). Give or takes a few years, the WoR could have coincided with the end of the Reman Dynasty but this is 599 years off the currently posted date. The First Edition Pocket Guide says "The War of Righteousness broke out, and the Order which had almost ruled the world undid itself in a ten year span." So we need approx. start and end dates for 10 years as well (also to be added to "the WoR" section).

The major Thrassian Plague is dated at 2200 (also no citation). So it does not help date the WoR. "A History of Daggerfall" only gives approx. order of these events: "the number of people in all areas of the Iliac Bay was halved once in the First Era by the Thrassian Plague, once again by the War of Righteousness, and a third time by the invading Akavari [sic]." Assuming the Akaviri Invasion mentioned is THE invasion of 2703 (no citation), then the WoR preceded with the Thrassian Plague before that.

I do not have any source except those already cited on "the WoR" and "Alessian Doctrines" articles. Namely, "A History of Daggerfall" and "The War of Betony." It's likely "The War of Betony" has gross approximations but without any other dating sources, where are our dates coming from? I refuse to change dates without knowing current sources as approximations are far too vague if we have better exact dating (from uncited books, dialogue, etc).

As a general note, we need citations on every date or citations of sources used to calculate the dates. Where multiple sources make vague references, we need the most accurate pertinent dating sources not vague approximations. 75.229.42.92 19:24, 19 November 2012 (GMT)

Just found WoR date of 2321 from "Song of Pelinal Vol. 7" and "Cleansing of the Fane." I assume that's the start date but impossible to tell. 75.229.42.92 19:26, 19 November 2012 (GMT)

The Thrassian Plague happened in 2260 (sources on the lore page). The year was specified as 2200, but it was retconned in later sources.
From The Last King of the Ayleids: Then in 361, the Alessians gained control of the Empire and enforced the Alessian Doctrines throughout its domain.
The 2321 year on the WoR is also found in The Legendary Sancre Tor where it's mentioned as the year of the decline of the Alessian Order. In the Cleansing of the Fane the date is mentioned as the year an Alessian monastery was razed. Both of these things sort of imply that was the ending of the war.
Yes, many Lore pages (especially the ones dealing with years, such as the various articles on Eras) are heavily uncited, but a quick search through the Lore namespace usually yields the wanted results without much controversies. In short, the references are there, someone just needs to actually add them. -- Kertaw48 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

Tiber Wars Split[edit]

I have to say I'm in favor of splitting the Tiber Wars into their own article. The whole section appears to be written more for that venue anyway, since it features quotes and specially-named subsections. It doesn't fit the format of the rest of the article, and is much, much larger and more detailed than any of the other wars listed. According to this diff, before the section was expanded there was already a summary of the Tiber Wars in place, so the easiest thing would be to cut the section as it currently stands out to make the separate Lore:Tiber Wars article, then re-add the old summary in its place. Croaker (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2012 (GMT)

K. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 07:11, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
Actually, I've modeled the section to conform to the standard format on this page. And we usually transclude parts of the article rather than write unique summaries.
I must say I see no reason on why to make it a standalone article. There are almost no viable links to Tiber Wars, apart from one in Varieties of Faith. If we do not transclude it as a whole, a major war will remain virtually orphaned, link-wise. The reason why the Oblivion Crisis and Stormcloak Rebellion have their own pages is because they were heavily edited articles, and Tiber Wars is not like that. -- Kertaw48 (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
K. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 20:26, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
"Number of viable links" shouldn't be a factor that prevents the creation of an article for a subject of this importance within the lore (and the amount of material you compiled attests to that importance). I also don't see how a Tiber Wars article couldn't be linked to in dozens of articles where it has some relevance (Third Empire, Tiber Septim, Interregnum, the province articles, etc.), so viable links shouldn't be an issue. Further, I disagree with your assessment that the Tiber Wars section conforms to this article's format; there are clearly significant stylistic differences which must be corrected if the content is to stay, but if a split were carried out instead, the content in its current form could be preserved in the new article. There's more reason to go through with a split than not. Croaker (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2012 (GMT)

() I guess I do see your point. I've created the redirect Lore:Tiber Wars for now. I'll support the move once at least the articles you mentioned are linked to it. In the mean time, we should discuss what to transclude. The way I see it, the only things that don't fit in with the article are the subsections describing the war. So if we only transclude the opening summary and the Major Battles and the Major Treaties subsections would it fit in with the rest of the article then? -- Kertaw48 (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2012 (GMT)

Yes, I think that would work (although I wonder if "Major Peace Treaties" can't just be called "Peace Treaties", unless there really are other treaties of lesser importance mentioned or hinted at. Not that big a deal). I'll see about linking some articles to Tiber Wars. Croaker (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2012 (GMT)
Done and done. I think we can all say "K." now. -- Kertaw48 (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2012 (GMT)

Accession War[edit]

It's not stated in Dragonborn that the "southern half of Morrowind" was conquered by Argonians. They devastated it, and even reached and sacked Mournhold, but we know that Mournhold is under Morrowind's rule again. — Unsigned comment by 85.181.30.208 (talk) at 13:16 on 11 February 2013

I think it's from the Infernal City (page 197). It's sort of implied that some Argonians "settled in southern Morrowind" after the invasion and were destroyed by Umbriel afterwards. -- Kertaw48 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2013 (GMT)
"Implied" is nice, but not good enough to state "the southern half(!) of morrowind was conquered".
One Dunmer woman in Dragonborn (the daughter of the general goods merchant) states that there are "some Argonian clans" left within the borders of Morrowind, that's all. — Unsigned comment by 85.181.39.83 (talk) at 00:09 on 12 February 2013
Sul, in The Infernal City states that the ruins of Vivec city are controlled by the Argonians, and from there to the Valus Mountains, on the border with Cyrodil. It also took House Redoran to repel the invaders, and they are located in the center of Vvardenfell. I think we can safely say that southern Morrowind was conquered. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:40, 12 February 2013 (GMT)
That situation seems to be resolved during the timeframe of Skyrim, though.
And I don't think it safe to assume southern Morrowind was conquered. Can you provide me the quote, please? I have heard that the novels state the exact opposite, and that the Argonians did only lay waste to southern Morrowind, not actually taking territory.
Also, your argument regarding the Redoran does make little sense to me. Of course they have properties beyond Vvardenfell, especially post-Red-Year. — Unsigned comment by 85.181.30.96 (talk) at 04:27 on 13 February 2013‎

() Here's the quotes:

"Ash, lava, and tidal waves had done their work, and when that was calmed, the Argonians had come, eager to repay what survived of his people for millennia of abuse and enslavement. Of course, those that had settled in southern Morrowind were likely regretting it now, as Umbriel moved over their villages."

"“This is all controlled by Argonians now,” he said, “although they obviously don‟t live here. But they do have some ritual associated with this crater, what is now called the Scathing Bay. I arrived here during the ritual, so after running through half the realms of Oblivion, I had to keep running until they gave up, somewhere in the Valus Mountains."

Resolved or not, we're talking about the War, not the events or the situation of Morrowind 200 years later. -- Kertaw48 (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2013 (GMT)

Morrowind after the argonian invasion[edit]

How much of Morrowind does the argonians actually have control of? If Mournhold is being rebuilt, would that mean the argonians have control of everything south of the old capital? — Unsigned comment by Crazydunmer (talkcontribs) at 04:34 on 7 April 2013‎

The page goes into all the detail we know. There some dialogue in Skyrim suggesting the Argonian still heavily patrol their borders, but it doesn't say where exactly those borders are. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 05:31, 7 April 2013 (GMT)

Tense?[edit]

I've seen at least one spot on here where tense is inconsistent. Most entries are written in past tense, which I think is the standard for Lore pages, but I've seen at least one that isn't. Is that intentional, or should it be re-written? eshetalk 15:41, 9 April 2013 (GMT)

I've noticed this, too, but wasn't sure which direction to take it without combing through the histories to see if there was some special consensus on the matter. But ultimately, I don't see any good reason why the page should use present tense. Unless one exists, it should be in past tense like other lore pages. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 15:46, 9 April 2013 (GMT)

Other Conflicts[edit]

Why is certain conflicts such as the Dragon War and Tsaesci Invasion not listed amongst the other greater wars? I mean, we do have enough information to relate to then in a section of their own don't we? --Hlaalu66 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2013 (GMT)

Details about these wars seem to be in very short supply, especially for the Tsaesci invasion. The only info about the Dragon War that I could find was the book of the same name, while all mentions of the Tseasci invasion seem to state the same basic thing (see here). However, there are entries in this article for wars that have similar amounts of information, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to include these two wars here. --Xyzzy Talk 05:21, 27 December 2013 (GMT)
Exactly my point. Now i just wish someone would be able to add it to the page, since my editing skills is not to be counted on.--The Hlaalu (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2014 (GMT)
You could always give it your best shot, and let others clean it up for you. No harm in that. Just keep in mind that in spite of what I said, the consensus opinion of the community may not agree, and you may be reverted. Just sayin'... :) --Xyzzy Talk 06:34, 6 January 2014 (GMT)

Imperial Simulacrum[edit]

Should the simulacrum have its own page? Searching for it directs here and doesn't talk about it except for the resulting wars. I think it's substantial enough to get its own page like the Oblivion Crisis did. — Unsigned comment by 50.72.53.15 (talk) at 02:36 on 20 August 2014 (GMT)

It would be hard to find anything not already covered on Lore:Jagar Tharn or here, but I would be fine with it receiving an article. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:36, 20 August 2014 (GMT)

The Blackwater War[edit]

Most of the information on that war comes from the book series The Blackwater War, which comes from the yet unreleased region of Murkmire. Shouldn't we wait with citing such sources in lore namespace until they get actually released? --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 16:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Its a fair point. The war was already a thing before ESO (Battle of Argonia), so there should have been an entry anyway (albeit less detailed). If anyone feels strongly enough about the policy, I suppose it can be hidden until then, but personally I think it should be ok :/ --Jimeee (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we should at least wait until the texts appear on the PTS. Datamined info is considered out-of-game at best, and we have black letter policy against pre-release info in lorespace. —Legoless (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Time to Split?[edit]

This page is getting longer and longer, and I think it's high time it was split into an article per war. There's nothing wrong with a short article if there's not much to say (Lore:Battle of Duncreigh Bridge has survived intact for nearly 10 years), and we can still transclude leaders to this page as an overview, but splitting them out will also give us a chance to expand more on the ones we do have extra info for. --Enodoc (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Much would have been by just dividing it into eras, still keeping some timeline overview, as some of the conflicts within eras might be relevant to see in connection. Leaving the current page with only a common content page for overall listing.—MortenOSlash (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
This article definitely needs to be split up into separate pages. I've thought this for years now and TES Wiki already does it this way, and Lore:Artifacts were split up into individual articles a long time ago, proving to be a much better system of doing things. Putting every single war in history onto one big list is really hindering it from being well-documented, it seems a lot like each section is trying to be as brief as possible which is the opposite of what we should want. Splitting is really the only option. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
As a major proponent of the Lore:Artifacts split, separate articles sounds like a good idea to me. —Legoless (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)