And it's stated that Ulfric was the one who did those things. The records were made before uprising, so they had little reason to pin the blame on Ulfric instead of the jarl

He was dead by that time, during the Uprising. Igmund came back with vengeance, and was made Jarl when the city was retaken.

There are several parts within The Bear of Markarth that don't make sense. To begin with, Forsworn and Reachmen are not the same thing. Forsworn are extremists/terrorists/radicals, whatever you'd like to call them; Reachmen are the native-born of the Reach.

The book first mentions that the Forsworn kingdom was peaceful, but that is very vague. Peaceful doesn't necessarily mean they didn't slaughter foreigners, it means that the Forsworn Kingdom didn't aggress the Empire. The author begurdgingly admits that Nord land owners were infact killed, but then tries to justify it by claiming the Nord landowners killed were known for being cruel to their native workers. Despite that, the Forsworn ruled their lands fairly, even making overtures to be recognized by the Empire as a legitimate kingdom. I don't buy this, Forsworn leaders like Madanach, along with some other books, have made it perfectly clear that the Forsworn despise outsiders, not just Nords. Ironically, the Forsworn have the same 'You're either with us, or against us' attitude. The Forsworn may have petitioned the Empire to acknowledge their kingdom as legitimate, but I doubt the Empire was listening. The Empire was busy dealing with the Great War and its aftermath, and the Forsworn militarily claimed a portion of the Empire. Knowing that the Empire would be unable to address the situation for some time, a very influencial Imperial-supporting family hired Ulfric Stormcloak and his militia to reclaim the Reach. As an under-the-table deal, they are offered unpenalized worship of Talos.

Arrianus Arius tries to make it look like Ulfric and his militia reclaimed the Reach on their own, and that they felt entitled to a reward (free Talos worship).

Here is the next part I have a problem with:

"Every official who worked for the Forsworn was put to the sword, even after they had surrendered. Native women were tortured to give up names of Forsworn fighters who had fled the city or were in the hills of the Reach. Anyone who lived in the city, Forsworn and Nord alike, were executed if they had not fought with Ulfric and his men when they breached the gates. "You are with us, or you are against Skyrim" was the message on Ulfric's lips as he ordered the deaths of shopkeepers, farmers, the elderly, and any child old enough to lift a sword that had failed in the call to fight with him."

I thought that Ulfric's job was to reclaim Markarth and the Reach? I didn't know that dealing with those that surrendered after the battle was part of the agreement. They retook the city, as they were asked, what reason would they have to stay further involved? Torturing prisoners, executing survivors, etc, would fall under Imperial jurisdiction, if Ulfric and his militia performed all this (which again, seems highly unlikely), it would be considered insubordination, and they would risk forfeiting their reward.

Source criticism is a fairly modern invention. Of course, the scholars of Tamriel might have invented it as well, after all, tamrielic history isn't Earth history, but if you read so called research made a few hundred years ago, you might be surprised how theories that sound completely in sane to us are presented as facts.

My guess is that the Bear of Markarth contains some truth and some lies. IIRC, it says that Ulfric ordered the massacre of civilians, but if you listen to the prisoners in Cidhna Mine, they talk about the jarl [of the Reach] as the one behind for instance that little girl's execution. That would be Igmund. Ulfric wasn't even jarl yet then if I'm not mistaken (and obviously never jarl of the Reach).
That said, I have no doubt it was an ugly affair, and Ulfric sure did have some part in it.

In the aforementioned biased book, yes, although dialogue found in-game contradicts this. By talking to the Forsworn in Cidnha Mine we here nothing of Ulfric murdering people but we here quite a lot about the Jarl brutally executing the families of the Forsworn.

What records? And they had every reason to pin the blame on Ulfric instead of the jarl. Igmund is the one who got the city, and Ulfric was the designated scapegoat for the bad PR about the Incident.

And to add, Igmund had a giant bone to pick with the Reachmen, as they took over his city and killed his father, the previous Jarl.

This is a form of Gurilla Warfare. They hit, and they run. Its not cowardice, its how a small army fights a big army. Always has been.

American Revolution, we had a highy underpowered millitary, and the British had the best millitary in the world at the time. There were many things that sided in our favor however.

1. Americans were used to the land
2. British had a long journey to send troops to America, that could take months at a time.
3. We used a tactic of Gurrila Warfare... The art of Hit and Run.
4. They tried to rule in a land that hated them.

Heres how this connects to Skyrim, and the Forsworn.

The Forsworn have always lived in The Reach, so they know the land well.
Forsworn live in the hills, Empire had 100's of miles they had to send troops.
Forsworn can hit a caravan, rather its a military or a civilian, it affects the Nords that own the reach. This is a large form of Gurrila Warfare.
The Reach is full of Forsworn, all of which hate anyone thats not them. Weary to the lone traveler that wanders The Reach.

The legend of the red eagle was hundreds of years ago. Many of the reachmen dont even follow the old ways anymore. The bool is biased, but a scholar wont pull stuff out of nowhere without being discredite, especially something as major as claiming that the reachmen were attempting to make peace with the empire

To also note, the Reachmen, since the dawn of ever, have always been a thorn on everyone's side. They're not friendly people at all, and make the most xenophobic of nords look very welcoming.

Oh, thanks for reminding me! Another good piece of evidence. Jarl Igmund's father died trying to negotiate with the Forsworn, so how exactly were the they being peaceful and negotiating with the Empire?

The Forsworn ruled the Reach for those two years, not Reachmen. Forsworn still follow the old ways, and they are suspicious of everyone who isn't part of their group, including other Reachmen.

No, the Foresworn are Reachmen who ended up becoming terrorists, instead of trying to live their lives, after Ulfric retook The Reach. Historically, the people of the Reach have always been very isolationist, and extremely hostile to anyone who isn't a Reachmen. The Foresworn are just continuing that very isolationist and hostile feelings the Reachmen held since forever.

What do you have that indicates that Reachmen are hostile to outsiders? The ones I've met seemed friendly enough. And the Forsworn existed before Ulfric retook the Reach, they are the ones who drove the Nords out, not the Reachmen. There's more to being a Forsworn, Forsworn are Daedra worshippers, most Reachmen have adopted Nord beliefs or the Divines.

Read the histories of TES. Foresworn are Reachmen who continue to try to drive out any foreigners. It was even said upfront in a few points in Skyrim. And when you read the history of TES, the Reachmen have always been a bunch of isolationists and extremely hostile. They were not called Foresworn, but Reachmen.

The Foresworn is just a group, the Reachmen are a race (though, very closely related to the bretons).

To the person saying that fact checking may not exist yet in Tamriel: it does, as evidenced by the book in oblivion that doscusses the elder scrolls. The author is directly criticizing one of his peers and pointing out flaws in his reasoning. The author of the bear of markarth is biased, but he couldn't have pulled a claim as huge as "the reachmen were making peace talks with the empire" or that "Ulfric committed atrocities against the reachmen, not just the jarl" without having some basis for his claims. Eastmarch would have been up in arms about this the author made such slander against their leader and his army. We already know that some of the eastmarch citizens are avid readers and even authors based on some of the radiant quests in in-game books. Someone there must have read this book, or at least heard of it. Eye-witnesses in Markarth would have been hard to shut up without paying off or killing, and considering the state of the warrens they certainly weren't payed to go along with the whole "Ulfric did these bad things, not just the jarl" claim. Also, the jarl had no power at the time, he was ousted from the throne and had no men, only ulfric was capable of killing these innocents. You can say that the forsworn do this too, and you'd be right, but that doesn't excuse the slaughter of ANY innocents. There are at least some NON-reachmen in the forsworn, as evidenced by the orc who was the king's own bodyguard so it stands to reason that there is enough tolerance amongst te reachmen for their most radical and zealous to coexist with outsiders.

Apparently not, because the book is contradicted at several points by eyewitnesses- even Jarl Igmund. In fact no one in Markarth talks about Ulfric in relation to atrocities- although Madanach may mention him, I'm not sure.

They are up in arms. The Markarth Incident was a major flashpoint in the rebellion.

No I mean they'd be up in arms about the book saying Ulfric killed innocents. Not once does anyone deny it in Eastmarch. Granted, no one confirms it either, EXCEPT the book. I dont remember any contradictions by eye-witnesses. Could you point me to them? I'm actually very interested in what really happened. As I recall, the Jarl was vague, and obviously would be biased regarding how he got "his" land back.

Igmund says his father was killed by Forsworn while trying to negotiate, which contradicts this:

We know this isn't true, because we meet Nepos:

We know this isn't true because Braig says that the jarl executed his daughter, not Ulfric:

This paragraph is at best misleading and at worst a lie, since Igmund says that "we" (which I interpret to mean his family) came up with the idea to offer Talos worship in exchange for the militia's help retaking their city:


Igmund admits he threw Ulfric under the bus, just says he had no choice. The book makes Ulfric a complete scapegoat. It protests a little too much, and the butt-kissing final paragraph suggests the reason why.

Nice point. I forgot his father dying. It could very well be that both these points are true. You've seen how the nords treat the reachmen. The negotiations may have been redicilous. "Leave the reach and your crimes will be absolved"

Braig wasn't a forsworn officer though, he only spoke to Madanach once. He. barely knew him. It would be easy for any reachmen to have spoken to the king when they took over, just like how it's easy for us to talk to a jarl. She goes along with the "innocents that were slaughtered". The jarl had just been put back in power a this point, but he still hadn't amassed his own army. The only army available was Ulfric's. So he had his men kill a little girl on the Jarl's behalf

That paragraph IS misleading and biased, definitely. No one is arguing that the author isn't biased, Just that the core points are based kn facts. You're right here though. The author is saying Ulfric demanded this deal when a Ingmund seems to have gone along with it. I dpnt remember him saying it was his idea though. He may have just felt indebted to Ulfroc, so he went along with it. I think he even says that in dialogue.

Yes it's buttkissing: it's written by a patriot. The patriot is still a scholar however, subject to scrutiny by other scholars, eyewitnesses, etc. Igmund admits he threw Ulfric under a bus, but that doesn't mean Ulfric didn't commit war crimes. Remember: HE was the one with the army. Who could have done these crimes if not his men?

I like this discussion though. Lore is always a fun thing to debate about. Any other comments are welcome!

No the Stormcloaks use guerilla tactics. They hit Imperial troops and move on. The Forsworn slaughter civilians. They're cowards.

Lets not let this turn into stormcloak vs. imperial, but I will mention that SOMEONE killed innocent reachmen in markarth during the incident and ulfric was the only one with soldiers...

Igmund's family must have had some guard, and once the city was taken it was their rule, not Ulfric's.

The whole book makes a lot more sense if it were first written about Igmund/ his father, but due to political pressure the author does a find-and-replace with Ulfric's name instead.

If Ingmund had his own bodyguards it couldn't have been large enough to keep the city stable. Ulfric must have been there. Only an actual army could maintain order, and it would've taken weeks for Ingmund to rebuild his own. That only leaves Ulfric's men.

Edit: I really want to stress the fact that Ingmund had just been ousted from his rule. His army must have been disbanded. I'm no military expert, but it takes months if not weeks to rebuild a militia. That leaves Ulfric.

Evidence shows that Igmund is the more likely one to commit the atrocities than Ulfric. For instance, Braig states that Igmund executed his daughter and threw him in Jail anyway. In addition, reachmen aren't even allowed to own property in the city. Igmund lost his city and father to the Forsworn so it is more likely that Igmund is driven by revenge as a result of what happened as a result of the Forsworn than anything Ulfric did.

Say what you will about Ulfric but what we've seen of him shows that he isn't the bloodthirsty monster he is made out to be in the book. He spares the opposing Jarls and wants to spare Rikke, plus Ulfric has no personal reasons to act like such a monster to the Forsworn whereas Igmund lost his city and father to the Forsworn so he has many more reasons to treat the Forsworn with disdain.