Hah. I should edit.

Hippocratic, You see everything with Stormcloak-colored glasses.

6. Ulfric isnt even full out fighting yet in the civil war, which we see him bidding his time to let the people of skyrim decide for themselves, giving them time.

Also would like to add that their wouldnt be a civil war if the empire didnt ban something that was allowed with their culture. Wthen nordic culture for a king that is challenged is first theres the duel, and then if the king loses the duel, then a moot is called and all thejarls and are called to dominate who is the sucessor. Theres no war and the only blood shed is in the duel.hell ulfric mighta not won seeing how half was for and half was against him. He started the legal chain to becoming high king to which the empire stepped in and sparked the civil war. As far as it going thru bloodshed, I doubt that it would have led to that bc even in the civil war, ulfric makes certain the nordic jarls remain alive and even gives reket a chance to walk away or give up, trys to talk her outta the fight.

Also I believe 30 years of the abuse of the treaty and no solid evidence that the empire was even close to rdy for war, I think ulfric waited long enough and gave the empire plenty of time to fight back. When it showed they wasnt, he stepped up and decided thru legal means to get the ball rolling. The empire starting the war when they stepped in and baned the cultures ways and sparked the civil war themselves. Ulfric is a pretty good scapegoat for them to blame their problems and mistakes to which the bear of markarth was pretty much that. The empire jarl hired ulfric to retake the city in exchange for protection to worship talos and then betrayed him when the thalmor found out so they wouldnt go into another war to early, straight from the jarls mouth. Also ulfric wasnt the ones executing everyone, even the jarls states those were his orders.

Difference being I don't try to pretend that there's no other way to look at these things, as you claim.

"Bear of Markarth isn't biased." Sure, the fact that it was written by an Imperial scholar for the High Court obviously makes it the premier source of information for accurate, nonbiased information on Stormcloaks /sarcasm.

Honstely if you disregard information due to Stormcloak hate, it just shows how most Empire supporters don't bother looking deeper into things.

One of the most common excuses I hear from multiple storm cloak's is on the lines of " Milk drinking imperials dogs"...

Then focus ur goggles on what the empire loyal jarl says about the incident.

Its a book for the empire to save face and blame their mistakes and dirty work on the scapegoat they abandoned to a thalmor cell. And that was said not by a stormcloak supporter, but the info that disputes the book for 90% garbage and propaganda is straight from the empire loyal jarl who hired ulfric for in incident.

This isn't a middle school playground. There are good points for each side and a lot of ambiguity that is certainly left deliberately by the writers to allow for player interpretation and forum debates.

One thing is for certain- the in-game books are almost always written with the IC author's point-of-view in mind. That means that looking at who the author is and reading subtext is not just valid but absolutely necessary to understand them. So is comparing them to other in-game evidence. "The Bear of Markarth" is contradicted on some of its points by in-game dialogue, so that does call its accuracy into question.

Indeed, the Jarl of Marlarth himself tells another story than the Bear of Markarth does. It is not a good sourse for understanding what happened at the Markarth incident, as some major details seem to be fabricated.