Igmund's dialogue

We promised a group of Nord militia free worship in exchange for their help retaking the Hold. Then the Elves found out about it.

We were forced to arrest all of them. Ulfric Stormcloak, their leader, used the whole thing as proof that the Empire had abandoned Skyrim.

The wiki has some of its facts incorrect. Igmund was not the Jarl at the time, his father Hrolfdir was, and it was Hrolfdir who assisted the Empire in arresting Ulfric. In addition, I believe it remains unclear who proposed the allowance for Talos worship, only that the deposed rulers of Markarth ended up promising it. A while back there were some rather heated debates around the Markarth Incident and some wildly varying interpretations of what exactly happened. While I cannot claim to be truly neutral or impartial, as I took part in said debates, here are my musings on the incident.


First, I don't think a lot of the information around the Markarth Incident is as mutually exclusive as it is often led to believe. That Ulfric demanded the right to worship Talos from the Imperial authorities following his conquest of Markarth does not discount someone else proposing it, nor does someone else proposing it discount Ulfric demanding it from the Empire.


The http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Thalmor_Dossier:_Ulfric_Stormcloak indicates that they were manipulating him prior to the Markarth Incident, and were probably behind the whole debacle. Whether they were also manipulating Hrolfdir is unknown. Either way, however, it leads me to believe that the Thalmor were ultimately behind the bright idea of promising freedom to worship Talos, just so they could swoop in and play the victim and fuel anti-Imperial sentiment in Skyrim.


The author of The Bear of Markarth, Arrianus Arius, is an Imperial scholar who also wrote the book http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:The_, a text that indicates he is sympathetic to the Forsworn, but at the same time, is not a mindless follower of Imperial propaganda (which paints the Reachmen as savages). Whilel this strongly suggests a pro-Forsworn bias, it does not discount the events described- Igmund's uncle and advisor, Raerek, is a Talos-worshiping man who is no friend of the Forsworn, but is nonetheless appalled by whatever Ulfric did during the Markarth Incident.


Whatever happened during the Markarth incident, Ulfric was not alone in carrying out brutal, disproportionate punishments against the Forsworn, as indicated by Braig's dialogue that the Jarl- presumably either Hrolfdir or Igmund- had Braig's daughter executed in his place and still let him be thrown into Cidna Mine. It seems that persecution of the Forsworn is one thing that the Empire-loyal Nords and Stormcloaks can agree on.

The Empire because they were opportunist attackers of a city flying the Imperial flag during the Great War, and the Stormcloaks because the Reachmen were getting uppity again.

Warpenergybot did a post on that book a long while ago I decided to save.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6qpq3FrJbxjYWNMZXRZWkdWbzA/edit

Links from the picture:

http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x00092335

http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x00092331

http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x000e1623

http://uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Thonar%27s_Journal

On a more general note, basic source criticism would dictate that since we can show the Bear of Markarth to be contradicted on at least one major point in the story and it is written by an Imperial scholar(a big deal, since the Empire would benefit from getting to scapegoat any involvement of one of their vassals in breaking the WGC. Ulfric wasn't Jarl yet) with a pro-Reachmen bias, no claims that cannot be substantiated with additional sources from the Bear of Markarth is worthy of consideration.

The only "supportive" evidence of the Bear of Markarth correctly portraying Ulfric I know of come from Roerek, which Crimson mentions. His line of Ulfric goes like this: "I know what he is capable of and he is no friend of Markarth". Very vague at best. Pretty meaningless too, because it is so vague, since putting down the Forsworn Rebellion would have had to be a brutal and bloody affair by itself. He says nothing that can be taken to support that Ulfric held the city hostage or executed people after the fighting was over without very impressive mental gymnastics.

That's a bit charitable towards the Empire, isn't it? I mean, the Nords have ruled the Reach with imperial sanction for 640ish years. This is the same Empire that allowed the persecution of the Orcs for some 400 years before being forced to accept them through an incident involving the Numundium. And you could also say "the Stormcloaks because they were opportunist attackers of a city ruled by one of Skyrim's Jarls during the Great War".

Given the general disposition against the Reachmen from both sides and the historical sanction of the Reach's rulers from the Empire, I think you should avoid trying to imply the Empire somehow being morally superior in their oppression against the Reachmen.

So are you putting words in my mouth that I was somehow giving Empire some moral superiority for doing it? The Nords have ruled the Reach for that long, yes. But the Nords bent the knee to the Empire, so therefore Markarth flies the Imperial flag as well. This is why state flags in the US are usually beside a higher-flying USA flag. Is this not the case with Markarth too?

The only "supportive" evidence of Tiber Septim's nastier actions in The Arcturian Heresy is that the book got Tiber Septim's original name correct, yet nobody around here questions that- and the text is in fact held as evidence of some of the stranger, more mythic elements of TES, such as the Talos Oversoul and an example of the Enantiomorph. The only "supportive" evidence for The Common Tongue is that Helseth continued to benefit from people inexplicably dying, and that he tries to kill the player several times. The only "supportive" evidence of Tiber Septim's actions in The Real Barenziah is the account of her scribe, who by his own admission was nearly executed by the Empire for what he wrote. The only "supportive" evidence for Pelinal being a madman with fits of dangerous insanity is an ancient epic, but nobody denies what he was said to be. The only "supportive" evidence for Vivec murdering Nerevar- against his word in TES III- is a dev forum roleplay and some out-of-game art that came years later. People are accused of all sorts of things in TES, but it seems that the only time it is denied as lies until proven unambiguously true is when it is Ulfric.

None of the dialogue you provided or even could provide is mutually exclusive with what the book claimed, nor does it contradict anything stated. First, that Ulfric demands the right to worship Talos from the Legion after he took the city does not discount the deposed Markarth rulers from having promised it prior- regardless of who actually proposed it to begin with (because given the Thalmor were apparently pulling the strings from the start, it doesn't really matter). Similarly, that those same rulers, once restored to power after the incident, continued to execute those suspected of being involved with the Reachman takeover does not mean that Ulfric did not do the things the book claimed he did prior to handing the city over. Frankly, I feel that the fact that Ulfric- the central figure of the polarizing Skyrim Civil War- is involved and accused of doing some dark things has compromised the integrity of the debate since the beginning- too often people are willing to wishfully throw existing lore under the bus as to fit their narrative of what Ulfric is- either a saint or a monster (something that to my shame I may have taken part in too)- and not about trying to find a conclusion that all of the lore can somewhat support and agree upon, as I now feel should be done. And I feel that such a thing can be done without discounting Ulfric's supposed actions during the Markarth Incident.

You show me where I accept as undisputed fact those things you mention and you could have a point. Until then, not so much.

The point I made, which it seems you missed, is that without actually supporting evidence, the Bear of Markarth is presented within the game with quite a few sources that claim versions of the story that are different. And, on top of that, it is written by an author who is an Imperial Scholar and has a pro-Forsworn bias, wheras the other versions of the story comes from people, like Jarl Igmund who incriminates himself in endangering the WGC in telling his side of it.

As I pointed out, I doubt anyone will claim the retaking of Markarth was not a brutal and bloody affair, but things like Ulfric holding the city hostage and carrying out executions after he took the city needs something specific to support it, not a vague line. Kinda like the Ghost of Old Hroldan at least making the beginning of the story of the Heresy more likely or Helseth's established tendency to try to kill potential threats (which we witness first hand), and the additional account of "A Game at Dinner", which makes the account somewhat more plausible.


Putting words in your mouth isn't necessary, as the phrasing you used heavily implies that the Stormcloaks oppress the Reachmen simply because the Stormcloaks are arseholes, whereas the Empire does because the Reachmen were opportunist attackers. My point was that you could flip it around and say that the Empire does because the Reachmen were getting uppity again and so on.

You can accept whatever you want. But what I pointed out is held by the lore community as a whole to be fact.

And the point I have made is that the story given in The Bear of Markarth and the story given by the dialogue and lore you pointed out are not different or mutually exclusive, but simply different parts of the same story. It all fits together without any lore on the Nords' action in Markarth- be they of Ulfric and his militia or the subsequent Imperial-loyal Nord regime- untrue. And given the author's biases, I'm keen on believing that he would lean more towards embellishing Madanach's regime and people (more recent lore from ESO has shown an especially nasty side of the Reachmen, with one clan on record for kidnapping, enslaving, and sacrificing children to Namira) rather than making things up about the man who toppled them. If you wish to defend Ulfric in this regard, perhaps it'd be more fitting to assert that his brutality was necessary to crush a bunch of human-sacrificing, Kyne-disrespecting Daedra worshipers (whether it was or not, I don't really care anymore).

Like I am pointing out for the third time now, this is not about whether or not the beatdown of the Forsworn Rebellion was brutal or not. I take it as self-evident that it had to be, given the hostility the Reachmen showed to the Nords at this point, the swift retribution and the following conflicts with the Forsworn. I'd also say that I rather take the Nords' side in that conflict, given what we know of Reachmen culture, but that is not what is being argued here. This is about specific claims like Ulfric holdling the city hostage.

Given the different versions of the story going around, and the fact that an Imperial Scholar has all the reason in the world to detach any involvement from the Empire or their vassals, it is far from unreasonable to demand additional sources for any claim in that work.

You mean whether the former rulers of Markarth made a deal with Ulfric or whether Ulfric demanded a deal with the Legion? Again, they don't contradict. The deposed Nords went to Ulfric, made a deal with him, and when the Legion came in after the Reachman regime was crushed, Ulfric demanded that they honor the deal that he had been promised. They relented, and then the Thalmor, who were probably pulling the strings the entire time, came in and pretended to be surprised and outraged, and the Ulfric and the other Talos worshipers were arrested. I don't see Ulfric just marching into Markarth of his own volition in hopes of extorting a deal from the Legion, but I also don't see him simply letting the Legion back in without ensuring they'd honor the deal that the deposed Nords promised him.

Ulfric as a character has always been morally gray, but some people seem to only want to think of him as "the perfect, selfless white knight incapable of wrong"