Open main menu

UESPWiki β

Lore talk:Borgas

Outlawing the deitiesEdit

"During his reign, he outlawed the traditional Nordic pantheon of deities". This line has been marked for citation which I sort of found. Five Songs of King Wulfharth has this passage:

The first song of King Wulfharth is ancient, circa 1E500...Immediately thereafter the scribes wrote down the first new law of his reign: a fiery reinstatement of the traditional Nordic pantheon. The Edicts were outlawed, their priests put to the stake, and their halls set ablaze. The shadow of King Borgas had ended for a span.

This says that the Nordic gods were abandoned, and suggests that Borgas was attributable for it. I'm not 100% sure as its not fully clear, but I believe it to support the line as it currently is, especially with the many sources noting his Alessian tendencies. The line after that "...in favor of doctrine based on the Alessian Order in Skyrim", however, is pure assumption. He may have outlawed the Nordic gods but there is no evidence to suggest he implemented an Alessian based doctrine, or any other doctrine for that matter. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 01:21, 8 May 2013 (GMT)

Five Songs say Wulfharth outlawed the Alessian Edicts. It doesn't say Borgas had originally outlawed the tradition Nordic pantheon. Maybe he did, but we don't have a source for that. The High King holding a particular religion is sure to increase support for that religion in many circles, but we don't have a source saying that Borgas tried to transplant the Alessian Doctrines into Skyrim using the force of law. He could have just as easily tolerated both belief systems in his domain. Edit - Borgas was a chief proponent of Marukh; it's a fairly easy to infer that he supported Marukh's teachings within Skyrim. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 01:31, 8 May 2013 (GMT)
@ Minor Edits - My reasoning for adding "During his reign, he outlawed the traditional Nordic pantheon of deities" is how Legolas explained it. Specifically the use of the word "reinstatement". This no doubt suggests that the Nordic pantheon was at some point outlawed - and the next line ("The shadow of King Borgas had ended for a span.") no doubt suggests it was Borgas himself who banned it. Why would the book mention Borgas (a ruler 100+ years prior to Wulfharth) at all if he was not the one who was responsible.
@ Legolas - The line "...in favor of doctrine based on the Alessian Order in Skyrim" - I will admit is a stretch. While he was a chief proponent of Marukh, I don't believe both belief systems were present in Skyrim due to him banning the Nordic pantheon. That act (to me) that screams out that he was trying to push the Alessian doctrine into Skyrim - although this is my assumption so I have no problem if that line is reworded or just removed, as it can't be 100% proven.
--Jimeee (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2013 (GMT)
This is too big an assumption to make from one word. Something need not be banned in order to be reinstated. The only reliable inference that can be garnered from something being reinstated is that it fell out of use at some point. For instance, a person may be reinstated to a job which he had quit; he need not have been fired first. All we can say is that Borgas favored the Alessian Doctrines, we can't assume that he banned it competition. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 17:28, 9 May 2013 (GMT)
But it's not an assumption from just one word - I am also taking into account the line that mentions the "shadow of King Borgas" that is written right after it. While I agree that something need not be banned in order for it to be reinstated...what other reason would the book mention Borgas at all? There is no reason for the author of the book to mention him if it didn't mean something. If Borgas wasn't mentioned, then we wouldn't be discussing this, but he is. What does the line "The shadow of King Borgas had ended for a span." mean to you when reading the book? --Jimeee (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2013 (GMT)
All the more reason that readers will make this assumption on their own. But it's still that: an assumption. There are circumstances where it may be acceptable to make small leaps in logic, like for organizational convenience or to substantially improve reader comprehension. However, every time we do so, we risk harming the credibility of the UESP. I don't see any substantial reason here to state a fact not in evidence. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 15:33, 16 May 2013 (GMT)

Borgas' 'appearance'Edit

Does it really count as an appearance in Skyrim if there isn't a named NPC? It's real weird seeing an appearance link to a disambiguation page. ParadoxPraxis (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Borgas" page.