Like I said, Ingmund had no army. It would take weeks or months to rebuilt his militia. SOMEONE had to commit those war crimes. Ulfric was the only one with an army. You're right that it seems out of character for him. That is very strange but I cant find another explanation. Those soldiers must have come from somewhere......

Maybe...maybe Ulfric isn't as merciful as he seems. Maybe he was trying to keep up appearances during the civil war to maintain support, but he knew the average nord wouldn't care about / pay attention to the reachmen. I'm grasping at straws, but there's no other way this adds up.

Edit: Maybe we're overthinking this, and the writers didn't intend us to think this deeply....

Guerilla warefare has nothing to do with right or wrong. It may be wrong to kill innocents, bu everything Lord Sondil mentioned is a form of guerilla warefare.

Or - another thought - it might have been written some years ago, not being particularly widespread, and then, when the civil war broke out, some PR-minded Imperial picked it up, reprinted it and distributed it all around Skyrim. Maybe even "enhanced" it a little, who knows?

The book is definitely biased. The question is how biased. As I said, this is recent history and could easily be fact checked if it was TOO out of line. Ulfric was the only nord with a military in the reach, since he JUST liberated it for Ingmund and he didnt have time to rebuild his militia. Who else could have done these terrible things? Obviously the jarl played the biggest role, but who was his hound dog with the soldiers committing the crimes?

That is a fair question. I don't think Ulfric was a white knight saving Markarth from the evil Reachmen, then nobly handed the power back to Igmund and got out of their before things got nasty. He had some part in it, I'm sure, the question is how big. I'm pretty sure he wasn't the one giving the orders, but it's possible he was the one who was in charge for executing them.

I also think it's interesting to note how soon this happened after he was imprisoned and tortured. Look at it: a young man (in his early 20's, judging from discussion threads on Ulfric's age), traumatized by war and torture, likely filled with hate and anger, in charge of soldiers... Not exactly a good combination, there. I wouldn't be surprised if he took that anger out on the Reachmen, even innocent ones.

Seems to cross over from Guerilla warfare to Terrorism once civilian rather than military targets are chosen to me personally.

Definitely. My point was that both can coexist unfortunetly. Guerillas aren't necessarily good. We tend to have this romanticized, idealized perception of them, but unfortunetly it doesn't always work that way.

Very good point you make here. I'm glad I'm getting my point across. Ulfric was the only one with soldiers. It doesn't add up any other way.

Why do you assume Igmund had no guardsmen? Just because he hired a group of soldiers to retake the city doesn't mean Igmund was completely helpless.

The Jarl was the one that killed the forsworn after the city's control was relinquished back to him



You're wondering why Arrianus would write a propaganda piece about Ulfric before the stormcloak uprising. You need to look at his intended audience. The Thalmor. This isn't for imperial citizens, he's writing it for the Thalmor. The empire was desperate to not go to war again, so they had to paint the blame on Ulfric. Make him out to seem like some crazy militant that was acting on his own and had no affiliation with Empire policy.

Because he was JUST put back on the throne. It would takeweeks or months to rebuild a militia. He had to have help from someone to maintain order in the city and commit the war crimes. A few bodyguards couldnt do all that. Who had the men to do so?

You make a good point about the propaganda bit, but still: it doesn't add up. War crimes were committed, and someone with an army had to commit them, or at least go along with it. Besides, the info had to come from somewhere. He'd be subjected to other scholars and fact checkers, some less loyal to the empire or the thalmor, and it's such recent history that'd be hard to silence a whole city of witnesses.

You're not getting it. Ulfric arrested them. They were incarcerated, they cannot fight back anymore. Igmund doesn't need an army at this point. He still has surviving guardsmen from Markarth that evacuated the city. You're assuming the entire population of Markarth was wiped out when the forsworn came.


War crimes were committed. And you have several sources telling you it was the Jarl. No other scholars feel the need to investigate the issue, it's not that hot a topic for imperial people. Plus you're putting your own career(And possibly life) on the line if you publish something that discredits the empire(Especially here where they're trying to make it seem like they didn't break the WGC. They really don't want the war starting up again).

I think this all has plausibility, the problem is that nothing in the game supports the idea of Ulfric committing terrible atrocities in Markarth other than this biased account. Nobody in Markarth or anywhere else confirms it. The idea of Ulfric being bloodthirsty and war-crazed is also contradicted by his actions in the game. Killing Torygg was ruthless, but it was a calculated ruthlessness. He doesn't carry out pogroms or anti-imperial slaughter, he doesn't execute anyone except Tullius and only kills Rikke because she will not stand down. The imperials also have motive to scapegoat Ulfric. All this means I think at least a cautious interpretation is warranted.

Oh, I don't think Ulfric generally is warcrazed and bloodthirsty, far from (I love the guy, he's one of my favorites, and had I only had a PC instead of a PS3 the "marry Ulfric"-mod would definitely be in my game ). The middle-aged Ulfric of 201 certainly is not. But I'm saying, if there ever was a time in his life when he was unbalanced and might have done things he later would regret, I think that would have been around the time for the Markarth incident, considering what happened to him during the war and all. And a traumatized person (PTSD, anyone?) might do things he ordinarily wouldn't.

I'm not saying he was the one who executed the orders from Igmund. I'm saying it is in fact possible he might still have been around and was involved in it. Sure, nothing except the book suggests it. But nothing contradicts it, either, and considering the circumstances, it is possible.

Sure, I have no problem with that. It wouldn't even be out of line with a normal medieval type campaign. Medieval war leaders would sometimes use calculated massacres to dampen rebellious fervor- it's what Tullius is doing in Helgen- or would turn their men loose to rough the town up a bit. Especially after a difficult siege, and if the Forsworn had also killed Nord leaders in the city then there would be a thirst for revenge. It's more plausible that the Markarth people would be the ones whose blood is up, though. Ulfric had no personal stake in Markarth. It's possible he was following Igmund's orders, but that doesn't seem like him, either. Even as a mercenary he was still a jarl's son, not some underling.

At the very least, the story reads that Nords retook the city and they put down the Forsworn rebellion ruthlessly, but this was a joint venture between Ulfric and Igmund. Only one of those men served prison time for the Incident. The other was rewarded.

Look I see what you're saying, but think about it: have you witnessed a real coup or city takeover? Or heard of one on the news? It doesn't happen very often anymore, thank god, but these things do happen. When they do, you definitelt NEED an army to maintain order. You dont know if you've arrested everyone, the city is in chaos and riots could break out, insurgents could strike at any minute. The jarl was jus put back on the throne, he needed an army, and Ulfric was the only one with an army since the jarl didnt have time to rebuild his.
Edit: Sorry for spelling errors. On a phone. Anyway, you admit that most of the insurgents were arrested. Who arrested them if the jarl had no army? This is probably EXACTLY when many of these crkmes were committed, and by whom?

Oh and to comment on your other point: you're not putting your life on the line for criticizing the empire. The Thalmor, yes, but not the empire. There are countless npcs throughout the series that openly criticize the empire, and the book "Madmen of the Reach" criticizes the empire's views on forsworn. Besides, how would saying Ingmund committed these crimes look worse for the empire than saying a rogue imperial soldier and son of another jarl did it?

Once again, I hate getting off topic, but Tulius wasn't massacring people in Helgen. He was killing "criminals" (if you count rebellion as a crime). You were the only innocent person on those wagons. I dont see how he was massacring anyone at Helgen unless there's something I dont know about.

The Empire had plenty to do with it. They didn't have soldiers to spare and ordered Ulfric and his militia to retake the Reach, promising them the right to worship Talos in return for the service. Which they promptly went back on once the Stormcloaks filled their part of the bargin.

So then why villainize someone you sent on your own accord? Wouldn't it make more sense to pin the whole thing on the jarl, and focus on his wrongdoings, and his acceptance of Talos worship? If I were the empire trying to spread propoganda, I'd downplay the wrongdoings of my soldiers as much as I could, and only barely mention how they convinced a nord king to accept talos worship. Remember this is before the stormcloak rebellion.

Not when the "someone you sent" has since become the focal point, namesake, and acknowledged leader of a growing movement calling for Skyrim's secession from your empire, and the Jarl is the guy who proved his loyalty by throwing the "someone you sent" to the wolves in order to save your bacon. And, incidentally, is also one of the guys who continues to support you all along even in the event of open war with the secessionists.

The Stormcloak rebellion was born out of the fallout from the Markarth Incident, so unless the book was written very soon after it happened I think the reasons for demonizing Ulfric and the name "Stormcloak" would be pretty obvious.

As I said, this is before Ulfric's uprising. The markarth incident was years before that, and the events were recorded before that. The markarth incident was over twenty years ago in the late 170's. Regardless, the most important thing here is that Ingmund did no have a sufficient army since he just got the throne back, it would've taken weeks or months to rebuild his militia, and yet SOMEONE committed war crimes. The jarl obviously was the main person in all this, but whose men did he use?

To be fair. There's no date on the book. No one knows when it was written.

The jarl used his own men. Just because he hired another militia to help retake doesn't mean he has confidence that his own forces could do it alone. (Remember Igmund says he promised free worship in exchange for their help in retaking the hold. Not for retaking the hold by themselves)

You keep saying Igmund had no forces but aren't backing this up with anything.

Why would the forsworn allow Ingmund to have any soldiers when they were in charge? Sure he could have rounded up some nords to form an uprising but it's obvious he needed help. Just like in real city-takeovers, you need a large military presence for at least months to maintain order. Ingmund didnt have a sufficient army, Ulfric did. The massacres happened immediately after the nords were back in control, so whose men could have done this? I find it difficult to believe that Ingmund's few men could accomplish that on his own. At the very least Ulfric witnessed these warcrimes and let them happen, and at worse he participated in some way.

Also, there is no date on the books but as a scholar he must have
based this, however biased his interpretation may be, on actual imperial records, which would have been made right after the incident. As someone getting his doctorate, and someone who knows people workong on their discertations and other scholars, I can tell you that a scholar needs to get info from records and research. Even in Tamriel there are other scholars who wpuld criticize him, some less loyal to the empire than he. We know there are avid readers and even a few authors in Eastmarch, based on npc dialogue, who could have countered his claim. We know that fact checking exists in tamriel based on a book from oblivion about the elder scrolls, when one scholar pointsnout flaws in another's argument.

With this in mind, we know war crimes were commited, and it's unfeasible to say the jarl could acomplish them without help or Ulfric knowing. I think Ulfric was young, rash, and perhaps traimatized by war and the thalmor's tortute, so he did / witnessed things he's not proud of.

The Jarl wasn't IN markarth. The forsworn would have killed him.


He had to flee during the uprising.

I don't think that's really relevant to the question of why the Empire would choose to "demonize" Ulfric and not the Jarl.

The reason is, the Jarl was the one who agreed to go along with them when the Thalmor came calling. Why would they demonize someone who has already proven his loyalty to them, instead of the known criminal (according to the terms of the WGC) who is a far more convenient scapegoat? That would've been an uphill battle, hanging it all on Ulfric was the far easier option and would not require them to risk the continued loyalty of the Jarl.