Jarl Igmund - "When the Empire lost the Reach during the Great War, we became desperate. We promised a group of Nord militia free worship in exchange for their help in retaking the hold."

Deal was made before Markarth was taken.

Braig - "My little Aethra didn't want to see her papa leave her. She pleaded to the Jarl to take her instead. And after they made me watch as her head rolled off the block, they threw me in here anyway, to dig up their silver."

Braig(A forsworn prisoner) states it was the jarl executing children. If you talk to Igmund, you'll notice his absolute hatred for the Forsworn pretty quick.


Ulfric was the easiest scapegoat. He isn't a jarl, he's just the leader of a band of mercs. Saying that an imperial sanctioned leader was actually responsible for most of the events would damage their reputation and give Thalmor a position to demand reparations. Pinning it on Ulfric lets you avoid that nasty business.

I don't see what the timing of the deal has to do with it, but yes, there was that deal. The Jarl also says that the stormcloak rebellion started right after the massacre.
You're right and its clear that Igmund has a deep hatred towards the Forsworn. After all they had Markarth for two years and his father lost his life because of that rebellion.

I see the connection you establishing to the massacre, but I doubt that or Braig's story is enough to say that Igmund is responsible for the massacre.
Assuming its true, and his men did the killings and then blamed it on Ulfric... I think Ulfric would loudly protest and reject that claim and even use it against the empire.
Or if "leave no one alive" was part of the deal, that wouldn't make Ulfric a lesser war criminal.

The book states Ulfric took the city and held it ransom until he got what he wanted. Contradicted by Igmund. The book has major trouble providing credible statements. And no the stormcloak rebellion is not the forsworn uprising. Igmund's father died while negotiating with the forsworn(Probably one of Igmund's sources of anger). Igmund states the rebellion started there because it was a rallying point after Talos worship was rebanned and Ulfric arrested.

The story states prisoners were taken and then every single one of them were executed/tortured to death. The fact that Madanach is still alive is strong evidence against the book's claims. It's hard to protest to anyone when you're stuck in prison. I'm pretty sure he even states that he lost all faith in the empire after Markarth. If Ulfric's as "With me or against me" as the story states, there would be no grey quarter, every single imperial jarl would be dead, and he wouldn't have attempted to get Rikke to surrender.

Ah, you're talking about inconsistencies. Yeah, I can see that. Point taken.

There are still a few bits I would interpret differently though.
Like Madanach, the way I understood is that Thonar Silver-Blood stepped in to use and control him, effectively stopping him from being killed. That was done secretively, so if the author of the book writes "everyone" he was probably just unaware of it.
And the conclusion that "With me or against me" from the book needs to imply dead Jarls and no grey quarters seems far-fetched to me The whole incident was what, 25 years ago? Even if Ulfric wanted to do all that back then, I don't think he had the manpower to execute it or turn his own people against him as a result. People change over time, and he might not be so "eager" anymore when facing Rikke 25 years later.

But in the end I can still see arguments for both sides of the story. So thanks for the input!

The only true man in Skyrim is emperor Titus Mede II...
Edit: And the Former High king.

1: The Thalmor's plans. If they can't find out who is worshipping Talos, then their plans and treaties would have been for naught.
3: Actually, If too many people stop worshipping Talos, then the world sort of falls apart. And it is far easier to eradicate man then Talos, which is why people can't afford to be martyrs.

And I assume the blades would use a variety of bladed weapons.

Why does everyone hate the thalmor?

Because they want us all dead, eventually?

Well... yeah, that would be MY personal objection to their presence in this space-time continuum.

if I wasn't tired, I could put space-time continuum together with Dominion and get Star Trek, which would keep Gallarialchiban happy.

ROFL!!! <3

Just a small follow up on this...
I read Thonar's journal again and it states "Madanach is becoming unruly. You'd think that 20 years in prison would calm a beast like him down a bit. Maybe I should have let the Jarl execute him after the uprising after all."

That does seem to confirm two different things.

Thonar snuck Madanach away from the group that was captured during the battle.(Possibly Nepos too? Maybe Nepos just never got caught.)

The Jarl was the one performing the executions.

When/if you talk to Nepos at the proper point, he implies he came along afterward and set up his 'underground' movement after making contact with Madanach. It's not so much what he says, as that's not very informative, but more the way he says it. I can't prove that, of course, as there's no evidence to back it, but it seems pretty clear from his statements. You do have to run through all his dialogue options to see it, though, as the necessary clues are spread throughout said entries.

Ok, I just got this all figured out:

Ulfric is an uncooperative asset because his actions currently benefit the Thalmor without him realizing it. The Thalmor want civil war and strife in the provinces of man as long as they are not presented with a united front unaffiliated with the Empire. But he is uncooperative because he is not taking orders from the Thalmor and he shows hostility towards them. He is at most a rogue element whose actions coincide with the Thalmor's goals for the time being. He will not be considered an asset if he gains too much power and wins the civil war, or if he takes further action against the Thalmor.

Tullius is not an asset because his actions run counter to the Thalmor's goals. The Thalmor do not want a united Empire with a man like Tullius leading it to contend with in the next war, just as an alliance of free nations lead by Ulfric does not benefit, but in fact hinders them. But for now, Ulfric is an uncooperative asset, and Tullius is a troublesome Legion general in their eyes.

/thread

Idiocracy considers you an asset. Reading comprehension does not.

Bro, it doesn't matter who you side with in the end. Both the Empire and Stormcloaks are weak at this point in time; the damn Thalmor win in either situation.

You were doing well and then... The imperials are cooperating with the Thalmor and Ulfric is not. Both sides are responsible for there being a civil war in Skyrim. The empire could have recognized the outcome of the duel with Torygg and let Skyrim secede as they did with Hammerfell. So Tullius and the imperials are much more of an active asset right now than the Stormcloaks.

He's not an asset to them. You must not understand the dossier very well if you think he is.

its the part about direct contact thats throwing me for a loop. Even though I still side with ulfric though...

About the latter, you're connecting it directly with the war crimes. Maybe the planned execution of Madanach was for his rebellion/treason against the Nords? I still hesitate to conclude that the Jarl is responsible for the massacre.
But yeah, it makes me questions the truth of "The Bear of Markarth". Braig's story supports your version, but I still question that too

But Ulfric was the one who started the civil war by killing the High King. Tullius, by trying to stop the civil war and keep Skyrim with the Empire, goes against the Thalmor.

This is not a matter of how cooperative either side is, but rather of which one's actions benefits the Thalmor. Just because the Imperials cooperate with the Thalmor does not mean their actions align with the Thalmor's goals, and just because Ulfric is not cooperating with the Thalmor does not mean they don't find his actions to be benificial.

and its the empires fault for ulfric starting the rebellion. There would be no rebellion if the empire didnt sell ulfric out to the thalmor and back out of offering a place were the empire would protect them after ulfric took back their city. So not only did they lie and betray him but also slandered him and painted him the scapegoat. Ulfric iz the empires creation because of its mistakes.

Actually, the Empire started the civil war, by deliberately interfering in Nord custom after their puppet lost the challenge. Had they not done so, the Moot would have proceeded and a new High King (likely Ulfric, due to how the rules of succession work) would have been chosen, in accordance with ancient tradition, which would have removed almost all of Ulfric's justifications for turning on the Empire in the first place. Without that he would have been unable to rally support for breaking away, which would have averted the civil war entirely.

Had Ulfric been chosen (as was likely) he would have moved to secede from the Empire anyway, although it would have been a significantly harder sell and might actually have failed. Instead, it probably no longer matters who gets picked; the Empire's attitude toward their provinces has been exposed for what it really is, which pretty much guarantees a permanent break.