Lore talk:Wars

Archives {{Template:FULLPAGENAME0/Line|1=Archive 1|2=|3=May 2007 - July 2012 }}

Umbriel Crisis (Again)

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???

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

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 Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 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 Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 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

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 Golden^{Break 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 05:31, 7 April 2013 (GMT)

Tense?

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? ⇠eshe^talk 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 Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 15:46, 9 April 2013 (GMT)

Other Conflicts

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

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)

(I know it's old, but the issue remains) There's a few other things here and there that can be added from Eternal Champion, Queen Barenziah, and Uriel VII. Perhaps, if nothing else, change the Imperial Simulacrum redirect to go to Tharn's lore page instead of here? --Agiletek (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The Blackwater War

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?

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)

Yes, split it into many articles. Snowarth (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this article should spilt. --Endify (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

100% yes, I have already done a couple, but others doing the same would speed up the process Imperialbattlespire (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(←) Dunno what happened but the idea was to give each War its own article, ideally with an infobox of some sort... not split up the page by eras... that just delays the issue. This isn't the Timeline page. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of these (such as Lore:Tiber Wars) have separate articles already, but the majority of links on this page just lead to book pages or redirects. This split still needs to be completed. —⁠Legoless (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Split by era had nothing to do with creating individual articles. No one has taken on the job of creating and writing individual articles for each war because its a big project. Anyone is free to start. --Jimeee (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sack of Skywatch timeline incosistency

Guide Culast places this event during the ravaging effects of the Thrassian Plague. The Third Pocket Guide's Summerset chapter places it at 2E 1303, which is an impossible date, so sic tags say that this is 1E 1301, 900 years before the plague first started. Auridon Explored supports Culast's placement, further detailing that the Sload held nearby Buraniim isle for decades for a subsequent cleansing force drove them away. The same Pocket Guide's Other Lands chapter implies that Skywatch may have been sacked by the Sload multiple times, though it doesn't state it outright.

The only solution I can see that remains faithful to the information we have is to use both dates as two separate events. Either that, or we can remove the 1301 placement, which, while somewhat misleading, would be reasonable considering 1E 1301 was by no means 'recent' to the Pocket Guide's writing in 2E 864. I'm not sure which to go with, so reaching a consensus seems like an honorable compromise. Mindtrait0r (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

War of Manifest Metaphors vs. Ehlnofey War

Original Research is required to make the connection that these two wars are the same. The Dawn Era may not be linear per se, but that is ultimately irrelevant as linearity has nothing to do with the wars' connection. The below argument is not even needed; even with the reasoning that both wars were in the Dawn Era and important to Lorkhan's plan, that still isn't enough connection to say that they are the same. One could be a greater war while the other is a proxy war, they could be the same umbrella of war fought in different locations, and both classifications would belong on this list. But there is more evidence that these two wars cannot be assumed to be the same.

The War of Manifest Metaphors is only mentioned twice and we don't know what role Lorkhan played.

Den of Lorkhaj Loading Screen Others (it is always Others) contend that the Moons are literally the rotting corpses of Lorkhan himself, spinning in eternal dual ellipses above but ever beyond that creation for which he gave his Heart. But the War of Manifest Metaphors has rendered this (and all narratives) absurd.

All this says is that the war disproves the idea that the moons are Lorkhan's corpse, but not by specific relation to Lorkhan. See next.

The Lunar Lorkhan "I will not go into the varying accounts of what happened at Adamantine Tower, nor will I relate the War of Manifest Metaphors that rendered those stories unable to support most qualities of what is commonly known as "narrative." We all have our favorite Lorkhan story..."

As can be seen here, the last source's rendered absurdity isn't specific to Lorkhan, but everything that is narrative. Furthermore, the last sentence could be interpreted to mean that the war is a Lorkhan story, but this is an incorrect interpretation. With the mention of 'those stories' within the war's explanation, it refers back to 'the varying accounts of what happened at Adamantine Tower'.

The War of Manifest Metaphors is probably related to Lorkhan (even that is an - admittedly rather safe - assumption), but we have absolutely nothing to suggest he led men in the war or was an active participant at all. And even if it did, like I said during the outset, that wouldn't be enough to say the two are the same without significant Original Research. Hope this cleared up my edit, apologies if I have that 'state my stance as fact' attitude, I promise it isn't intentional if it is present. :) Mindtrait0r (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You said:

"but we have absolutely nothing to suggest he led men in the war or was an active participant at all."

We absolutely do:

• "Lorkhan made armies out of the weakest souls and named them Men" - Lore:The Monomyth
• "Finally Trinimac, Auriel's greatest knight, knocked Lorkhan down in front of his army and reached in with more than hands to take his Heart. He was undone. The Men dragged Lorkhan's body away and swore blood vengeance on the heirs of Auriel for all time." - Lore:The Monomyth
• "Atmoran myths depict him as a bloodthirsty warrior king who leads the Nords to victory over their Aldmeri oppressors time and again." - Lore:Varieties of Faith...

"Original Research is required to make the connection that these two wars are the same."

Its not OR because we can make inferences even when something is not absolutely explicit, BUT we have sufficient source material and/or UOL - which we do. We make inferences all the time on the wiki. The narratives (aka "the Lorkhan story") that Fal Droon refers to in The Lunar Lorkhan is everything pre-Convention at Ada Mantia. We are being told that telling any story about the War of Manifest Metaphors is ultimately pointless due to the non linear nature of the Dawn Era.

We know the War of Manifest Metaphors happened in the Dawn Era, but trying to describe it in terms like a "regular" war is folly and is exactly what Fal Droon is warning against. Before and after, proxy and umbrella wars, different locations - none of this matters and all the normal rules don't apply to the non-linear Dawn Era.

There is enough evidence to suggest there was only one truly defining war during the Dawn, regardless of what people call it - and it involved Lorkhan. Especially if we look at what exactly is a Manifest Metaphor? According to Lawrence Schick its a concept - both a reality and replication of reality at the same time. For example the Clockwork City is in a more metaphorical location than physical, because it's a metaphor made manifest. It's both a reality and replication of reality at the same time. And this is literally what happened in the Dawn Era war leading up to Convention. - https://www.twitch.tv/videos/181958467?t=0h0m1s&tt_content=twitch_logo&tt_medium=embed [13:53]

Given Lorkhan is so intertwined with the Dawn Era and man/mer conflict, it actually takes **more** mental gymnastics to separate him from the War of Manifest Metaphors (or to say that there that there was the main Ehlnofey War that involved Lorkhan and also a side war that also had some sort of Lorkhan involvement) than it is to conflate them. Its tantamount to future archaeologist discovering there was some form of conflict in France in the 1940's and another conflict in Germany in the 1940's and both involved some Austrian guy, but claiming that they are not related.</godwin> An inference would be made. --Jimeee (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

In all three of your 'we absolutely do' pieces of evidence, the War of Manifest Metaphors is not mentioned, which is what I was referring to. As far as 'there is enough evidence to suggest there was only one truly defining war during the Dawn' I do not find it so within the evidence you have provided. Ultimately, the difference in our views comes down to this: 'before and after, proxy and umbrella wars, different locations - none of this matters and all the normal rules don't apply to the non-linear Dawn Era'. The Dawn Era may be confusing as far as linearity goes, but events still occur that directly trigger other events, such as the Aldmeri exodus and Velothi dissident movement. Therefore, multiple wars, concurrent wars, and proxy wars can still happen. As such, there is still nothing to suggest that the War of Manifest Metaphors (which, without the word war in its name, probably wouldn't even qualify for this list due to how little we know about what it practically constituted) is equivalent to the Ehlnofey War. Mindtrait0r (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to back up Jimeee's claim on this, the War of Manifest Metaphors is indeed the conflict that took place prior to Convention. The full name of the war need not be mentioned in every source, as the events of the war are confirmation enough (ie many mentions of the Great War just call it "the war", but from context we know what they mean). There's more than enough proof for this. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I have provided transcriptions of my sources and analysis as to how they benefit my argument. I would ask for yours in return; instances that the war is namelessly mentioned corresponding examples to the War of Manifest Metaphors confirming that the same events indeed took place. Because as of right now, the only 'event' that I see the War of Manifest Metaphors involving is the death of Lorkhan, wherein it is said that the War of Manifest Metaphors renders absurd the theory that the moons are Lorkhan's body, and that the stories of what happened at the Convention are also rendered absurd. This does not equate the War of Manifest Metaphors with the Ehlnofey War.

Reading back the primary sources for the Convention, it quite interestingly says that the gods - after Convention - became the Ehlnofey. That's a pretty big contradiction and adds a whole other knot into this. I'm not going to read too far into it, it's probably hand-waved as Dawn Era shenanigans, but it is worth noting.

I keep seeing, in arguments in favor of the wars being the same, that it is clear the Lorkhan was a commander in both wars, so its obvious that they must be the same. First of all, the god of men commanding the men in two wars is not far-fatched. But secondly, and most importantly, the War of Manifest Metaphors is not confirmed to have had Lorkhan, Shor, whatever pseudonym you want to use as a leader. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of supporting my argument more and reinvigorating interest as the discussion has stagnated to inactivity, I have more points to make: precedent, by which similar cases of two terms being conflated have been passed in the past. Kothri was separated from Kothringi and Men-of-Ket were separated from the Ket Keptu in cases very similar to this one. While I was the driving force behind those changes, too, the acceptance of those changes by both editors and administrators speaks volumes to the perceived validity of assumptions of similar regard to this one: the Ehlonfey War and War of Manifest Metaphors referring to the same thing. Mindtrait0r (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Thormar

Putting this here until I work out how to place it. Also includes the Battle of Willowgrove - Bosmer vs Khajiit. The dates of the battles are very vague (Online:Battle of Thormar). NPC's from ESO's time describe it as "ancient" and pre-Dominion (Online:Nethrin, Online:Felari. ("We have diggers at sites near Thormar and Willowgrove, and a team out searching for a third. Both sites saw massive battles between our two peoples."). Given Valenwood was conquered by Reman I in 1E 2714, and Elsweyr around the same time, it makes it very likely these battles happened before this date - but there isn't enough to say even roughly when, so I'm not comfortable placing it anywhere on this page.--Jimeee (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Considering Thormar is the site of Ayleid ruins, I'd say we can safely assume the battle happened sometime after the Ayleid Diaspora. Between that and Reman's conquests, we can firmly place it in the First Era section. —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but that timeframe is vast - about 2,500 years and a lot happened in between. The best I can say is possibly during the Lore:Anequine Conquests of 1E 5th century where Darloc Brae fought up to Arenthia (which is relatively close to Thormar) . --Jimeee (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This battle was part of my recent additions, I placed it about where you estimated. Mindtrait0r (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)