Before I ask this question, I want to say that I know the book "The Bear of Markarth" is likely biased, especially depending on whether or not it was written before or after Ulfric's uprising. If you haven't read the book yet, I suggest either finding it in-game, or reading it on the UESP. Link to the story: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:The_Bear_of_Markarth

So my question is: how much of this story do you think is true? Particularly, I want to know if the reachmen were really considering negotiating with the empire. Before you answer, consider this:

-Despite being biased, a scholar has to get his information from somewhere
-The events of the conflict must have been recorded by the empire and archived in the library before Ulfric's uprising, so it would be difficult for the author to lie without fact checking him
-Records such as these would likely be available to the public or other scholars, as evidenced by the book "Madmen of the Reach" where the author looks through military records in his research.
-Outright lying about several years of history is difficult to do in such an official way when there are so many witnesses. This is the Tamrielic Empire, not Nazi Germany / Aldmeri Dominion. Anyone could get up and say "that's not how it happened".
-The forsworn may be radicals, but not all reachmen are forsworn. It's possible that many of the natives wanted to remain in the empire.

With all this in mind, what does this say about Ulfric Stormcloak? And, more importantly, what does this say about Nord control over the Reach? Is it legitimate? Or should it be considered a kingdom of High Rock again?

FOX News says hello.

No, wouldn't have been hard to lie. The Empire isn't perfect.

Doesn't mean the author'll look through them

Some people do.

True. I don't see how that relates to the book.

There's a difference between a scholar and a journalist. Scholars make discertations that uses research and factual data. That goes for scholars of all fields, especially history, ask my grad school friends.

The records the empire keeps would have been made before Ulfric's uprising. There would be much less logical reason to lie. The author, as a scholar, bases his research off of records. Regardless of the bias in the imperial records, there would have been empirical data, casualties, witness-reports etc. As I said, this was before the stormcloak uprising, so the empire wouldn't have much reason to make up wild stories.

Could you point in the direction of npcs who refute the story? I spoke to the jarl bit he was vague and didnt seem to contradict it. I really would like to find another source.

The last point relates to the book because it states that the reachmen were trying to become recognized by the empire through peace talks, and to become a legitimate imperial kingdom

He did use factual data... he just biased it up a bit.

Again, not wild stories, just bias.

I don't know of anyone in-game right now (though I'm sure Ulfric doesn't approve) but that doesn't mean everyone accepts it.

Well, if they did want peace, than the Empire didn't. The events of the book is when Ulfric was still in the Legion, but it was written after the uprising.

The Nords rule The Reach, simple. There is no such thing as legitimate rule, Tamriel belongs to the strong. If the Forsworn want it back they can try and take it, they clearly lack the strength though and resort to murdering civilians travelling on the roads.

Well according to the book, Ulfric was still in the legion, but wasn't acting on their behalf as it states the empire was negotiating with the reachmen. Also, it said that the empire had no legionares to spare, so it was probably Ulfric's own men. So anyway, depending on how much of this is true, what does it say about Ulfric and the nords rule over the Reach?

Ulfric took back The Reach with a small Nord militia, he crushed them with his use of the Thu'um.

Exactly, so the empire didn't have much to do with it. So they could easily have been having peace talks with the new reachmen government until Ulfric came in and put the jarl back on the throne. So anyway, if we're assuming that the bear of markarth is at least somewhat accurate, then does that mean the nords were excessively violent in their retaking of the reach? There is evidence in markarth that there is still extreme violence against the natives. Who was really the bad guy here?

None. It's all made up. It's a video game. There is no real Skyrim history. There are no facts. Only imagination by people on Beth payroll.

If you believe in the "might makes right" philosophy, then the aldmeri dominion has the right to exert its control over Skyrim, correct? Or the Tsaesci have the right to destroy us outright since there's no Reman Cyrodiil to stop them. Strength may win, but winning does not equate rightness. I find it ironic that nords complain about their gods being taken away when they dod the exact same thing, and worse, to the natives

Oh very funny. Stop splitting hairs haha.

Yes apparently Ulfric and his militia brutally surpressed the rebellion. The Reachmen are no better, they slaughter civilians (wether Nord or not) like deer on the roads of Skyrim. As usual in most wars (if not all) neither side are "the good guys".

Yes the AD do have the right if they are strong enough, however the Empire repelled them and fought them to stalemate, Hammerfell expelled them.. So they don't have the strength. If the Tsaesci invaded and conquered Tamriel tommorow then they would rule it, wether that was viewed as right by the inhabitants or not is irrelevant, they would rule it. I seriously doubt they could though, or they would have.

What right do the Reachmen have to rule The Reach ?
What right do the Nords have to rule The Reach ?

Neither of them have anymore right than the other, which leaves it down to might as always.

Forsworn history suggests they do not make compromises with their enemies. See http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:The_Legend_of_Red_Eagle. Madanach talks in similar terms. To him the imperials and Stormcloaks are all the same- he wants to paint the walls with Nord blood, doesn't matter whose side they're on.

The author of Madmen of the Reach and Bear of Markarth has this idea of Forsworn as nature-loving hippies, the noble savage syndrome. He doesn't have a clue, and in the latter he's obviously kissing up to the Thalmor. Maybe his grant money was running out.

You mean forsworn, not reachmen. That's like comparing Irish to the IRA....BIG difference. The reachmen are regular people, they dont slaughter innocents. Yet apperently the nord government of the reach does, as well as ulfric's militia.

They don't just want to paint the walls with Nord blood, they want to paint the walls with the blood of anybody who isn't one of them.. Redguards, Elves, Orcs, Imperials.. If they aren't Reachmen then they die.

No it's not really, Basically all (at least 90% of) the Reachmen are working for the Forsworn, wether directly or indirectly.

There's an orc forsworn. According to the story, the reachmen ruled the reach fairly. No nords talk about their atrocities when they ruled, and there was no recorded massacre of nords. And 90% of them are NOT with the forsworn. Ainethach is attacked by them as well as the reachmen who work for them. They raided Kolskeggr mine and tried to kill Perth. Cosnach's business is raided by them, Muiri has nothing to do with them, the majority of the ones in markarth became forsworn after they were imprisoned wrongly or their family was killed by nords. The majority of reachmen are NOT with them, yet they're treated horribly and were massacred by the reach's government and ulfric's militia.

That was only a mercenary hired by Nepos the Nose for protection was it not ?


You've mentioned four Reachmen who weren't with the Forsworn. All the others in the game are, which would probably be a number higher than 90% of them.
Remember a Breton isn't necessarily a Reachman. The Reachmen are mostly of Breton origin but they're a seperate people.

Out of all the interactable reachmen npcs, how many are secretly forsworn? The random enemies count about as much as bandits do (If we count them, then we'd also have to say that almost half of skyrim is made up of bandits)

Edit: And I mentioned more than four. Ainethach's employees are mostly reachmen, and most of the people in the warren's aren't either. Also, the lady at the Hag's Cure look down on the Forsworn, even though they used to be her friends.

Also to note, it was the Igmund who called Ulfric to take it back, not Ulfric doing it for the lulz. It was the Imperial backed Jarl who committed those atrocities after the city was retook.

Well the jarl couldnt have committed said atrocities because he was ousted from the throne and had no power. Ulfric came in and had the men, so who did the killing?

When the city was taken back.

Ulfric was fighting for the jarl, and presumably with him. Igmund talks about the idea of using Ulfric's militia as if he was there and in on it (though at the time his father was jarl). Braig in Cidhna Mine says that it was the jarl who executed his daughter.