Survived torture and war. Resilient and hardy, check.

Won't bow down to their enemies even when their so-called allies do it and try to buy them off. Stubborn and choleric- check.

Huh?

"The Nord creation story is whatever makes a good story." Loves legends and stories and respects a great warrior- check.

Lol, so?

What?

Shall we really go into the imperial jarls? You really want to go there?

He says Istlod maybe was high king material. He also respects Balgruuf. Men can respect each other and yet be opposed. However, he didn't respect Torygg at all.

As for killing him: "Violence is an accepted and comfortable aspect of Nord culture; Nords of all classes are skilled with a variety of weapon and armor styles, and they cheerfully face battle with an ecstatic ferocity that shocks and appalls their enemies." -description of Nords in TES III

"As if to compensate for their freezing environment, the Nords are famously hot-blooded and the political climate can be as shifting and dangerous as the winds… For brief periods, one ruler has managed to unite all of Skyrim, but the Nord character is one essentially of conflict, and the confederacies never last…” -PGE 3, Skyrim

The priestess says he prays at the Talos shrine regularly, for strength.

Why am I not surprised. She is naturally entitled to her opinion, as are you.

Here's the line BTW.

http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x0005b3ce

Note she also says this:

http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x0005b3d1

The Stormcloak Officers say it, how Torygg and the Jarls who supported him took the Emperors gold for a treaty. Which is odd, cause they all supported Torygg at the time. It was only Ulfric who voiced things about independence.

So the Stormcloak Skyrim won't last. Good to know.

Not quite, Ulfric mentions when he got to windhelm that people were calling out for justice and war. Balgruuf also mentions the Jarls were forced to accept it, so they didn't get a say whether they liked it or not.

The Jarls didn't have to like the treaty, that was accepted by Istlod. Skyrim isn't a democracy. They're saying the Jarls that supported Torygg, which must of been all of them with Ulfric the only one voicing independence. (Which made Torygg greatly respect him.) If the people were calling out for justice and war, it was against Istlod. Since he was the High King when Ulfric was made Jarl.

So how does that show that Ulfric is insincere in his Talos worship?

Talking about Helgen?

They say a lot of things at that party. Some of it is very unflattering to the empire's cause.

Undoubtedly not. Just as the Mede empire was bound to fall, without its Akatosh mojo.

In fact Titus Mede I and Ulfric share many similarities. I've challenged people before to tell me what the difference between the two is. Mede I was considered an outlaw when he started consolidating power in the Estates. He was ushered into the Ruby Throne by a corrupt minister. He had no more claim to it than your average warlord. Why that means he has a divine right to rule the continent forever and ever amen, no matter what the empire does or how little it can uphold its agreements, is a mystery to me. Loyalty is a two way street.

To answer the title:

No.

If that were the case, Ulfric wouldn't have immediate support when Torygg was killed. And yea, they probably were mad at Torygg's father. Ulfric didn't call him a true Nord, he said "perhaps" he wasn't just a puppet. He called Balgruuf a true Nord despite him sending guards to fight his Stormcloaks.

http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x000c347e

Not sure what you're trying to prove anymore. That the other Jarls didn't want to rebel before? Irrelevant even if true, as they are now.

Talking about a Dragon attacking Windhelm. They mention that a rumor is going around that Ulfric died defending Windhelm from a dragon attack. Which they say "Too good to be true, most likely started by him to bolster recruitment"

Which is why I said apparently started by him, not confirmed but interesting none the less.

The Covenant with Akatosh was about him holding back the gates of Oblivion. Which doesn't matter now since Martin shattered the amulet, the whole Empire descend into darkness on Tdroid's signature has a last line of text about the Demon Lords of Misrule will claim lordship etc etc. Talking about Daedric Princes and Oblivion Crisis.

To be honest I quite liked Mede I, but you have in Rising Threat series mentioning Skyrim itself endorsed Titus Mede also. Ulfric is someone who is fighting for what he believes, which is noble and even Tullius admits he almost wants to join the Stormcloaks. But it all depends, emotions are quite high in the Stormcloak ranks which is understandable. But Stormcloaks and the Empire share things in common, the Jarls require Ulfric's armies to rule and he's forced himself onto the other half of Skyrim. Same as the Empire, their Jarls require the Legions to rule and force themselves onto the other side who don't want them.

Difference is that Ulfric was forced to do this when the Empire interfered in the process of the moot. So now the moot's process of voting for a new High King is obviously a sham now that he had to replace the Jarls. Same vice versa. Lets not forget that Ulfric killing Torygg didn't necessarily guarantee him being the High King, even though it was likely. So instead of it being purely a political decision, it is now one of war.

You're really using a line given by imperial hobnobs schmoozing with Thalmor to discredit Ulfric? Really?

It conferred more than that. The emperors became dragonborn, they gained the Amulet of Kings which allowed them to confer with past emperors and in some cases read the Elder Scrolls or otherwise discern the future. With it they also gained the power of White Gold, which by the Medes' time has diminished.

Any different than using the brother of Ulfric's second in command to suggest why Argonians are locked outside?

Don't you mean using Brunwulf Free-Winter, who is not affiliated with the Stormcloaks, and his reasons for keeping the Argonians outside as a possible motive for why Ulfric might do something, as a counter to the prevailing "he did it just because he is a dirty racist" assertions? You know, since Ulfric never says anything about the affair at all, and neither does anyone affiliated with the leadership of the city, ensuring that we get a limited and one-sided view at best.

Brunwulf's reasons are that it is for their safety against those who believed as Ulfric did. So if removing them for their own safety against your own ideology, works for you. By all means, use that.

I have to ask if you lack a certain reading comprehension. I did not state that their reasons are the same, at least not exactly the same. However, it is possible to make an inference based on the fact that Brunwulf can't simply let them back in. There happens to be three races at the heart of the racial tensions in Windhelm; the Nords, the Dunmer and the Argonians. The Dunmer have previous problems with both the others, going back millennia. Nords and Argonians doesn't seem to have much history.

Do you really think that it is a one-sided issue where the Nords are the only ones creating tensions, and only so because Ulfric is in power? I think there is more to it than that. However, if you want to wave away all other factors that could come into it, by all means.

This is in part touching on one of the things I hate about these discussions. Ulfric has people badmouthing him about being a racist, so people dismiss him and his cause for it. However, the Imperials hold the stance that without them the provinces just fall into barbarism and lawlessness and most people don't even seem to see a problem with this when you bring it up. Talk about a double standard.

Mostly mild(especially for Tamriel standards) racism and xenophobia is a no go. Imperialism that actively suppresses the locals cultures and way of life in favor of a Cyrodilic one is a-okay.

You're just kind of throwing stuff at the wall now, eh? The point is that people gossip. Controversial figures will set tongues to wagging. At a party of Thalmor and their lackeys, what did you expect to hear about Ulfric?

Now, as to the OP, finally: I don't think that a Stormcloak win will be canon. I do think the empire is finished regardless, and that the story will be better off with it gone.

Given that the other reason being suggested by Stormcloak supporters is due to problems with Dunmer, which a Dunmer spends basically her entire day down at the docks without any issues of hostility, or negative conversations between her and any Argonian. Or we have the fact that Nords seem to be the issue, which seems to be the main thing suggested by the Dunmer and Argonians.

So if you want to wave away all of their complaints, all of what they're saying. By all means. It is showing one-sided without contradiction or refutation by those in question.

In the Imperials defense for lawless and barbarism. 1) Who is wearing bear hats? 2) Who is committing open rebellion?

WTF is so bad about a bear uniform. this is just stupid now.

http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x00034fa9

Alright now, just what have you got against bear hats.

So, using furs from native beasts for clothing and armor is barbarism? Instead of, you know, practical application of the available resources? That point is entirely silly. "They dress differently, therefor they are barbarians!" is the gist of it, and if you'd accept that argument for anything short of a culture the uses the skins of humans flogged alive as clothes, I have no way of respecting you as an individual.

And, of course, committing rebellion against those who seek to rule you always means lawlessness. It is not like the law of Skyrim is upheld in the cities that the Stormcloaks control, or in Skyrim as a whole if they win. Oh wait, it is. Which makes that point complete BS too.

Opposing one particular government and rebelling because of their actions and lack of actions does not equal lawlessness. If Ulfric was an anarchist that would be the case, but he isn't.

I mentioned it was interesting and said 'apparently'. Didn't say it was truth or fact. So is that anymore throwing stuff at the wall than saying the Empire is around because of timely assists by Daedric Princes? Due to Malacath aiding Attrebus and Sul, and an unconfirmed report of Titus II wielding Goldbrand. Yet somehow forgetting to mention that the Septim Dynasty had also Daedric artifacts used, which was confirmed on one to have been wielded by the Shadow Legion. Hell, even Martin Septim once possessed Sanguine's Rose.

Yes, because it is coupled with an argonian's dialogue suggesting the same thing, and Brunwulf as well.

What do you think a Roman-type Empire would consider barbarism? I have nothing wrong with the bear hats, that was a joke. Skyrim by culture is considered barbaric. So Tullius' comment about the provinces would fall into lawlessness and barbarism, especially Skyrim. Is about culture, so yes to a native Cyrodiil, Skyrim is barbaric. Has been thought that way for awhile, even in Oblivion they say things like that about Nords.

They send young men to fight an ice wraith in some parts.

Yea, it's getting beyond ridiculous, but it does just go back to this:

If you just dislike the Stormcloaks because they're more Nordy and you dislike Nords, please just be honest and say so. Saves me the trouble of debating with you.

Ironic, since imperial Roman standard bearers frequently wore bear or wolf heads over their helmets.

"Barbaric" is just a word imperialists use to justify their expansionism.

The Septims had Akatosh mojo, as we've already been over. Martin was a daedra worshipper, that's neither here nor there. But are you really contesting that the empire is on a downward slide and has neither the mythical nor practical resources that it once had? I would think that saying the Medes had kept it together with spit and daedric assists would be taken as a compliment, an evidence of their spirit and derring do. But apparently you're just in an arguing mood.