I just finished replaying the quest line and dialogues associated with it, and I've not come across any new information. Braig joined the Forsworn after he was imprisonmed during the massacres following the retaking of Markarth as did many of the people in the mine, and according to Nepos the Nose "Then Ulfric and his men came, and those of us who did not flee where executed" in reference to the aftermath of the battle of Markarth. The Silver Bloods had also muscled their way in on many of those would would have been executed, wanting to use them instead as slave labor for their silver mines believing they could manipulate Madanach into keeping Forsworn raids under control. If I missed anything since you seem pretty sure, i'd like to hear it, but I'm fairly confident I played all possible dialogue.

Read above. Specifically where Bear of Markarth is blatantly wrong.

I have issue with you stating the Forsworn were a peaceful bunch that ruled fairly and wouldn't dream of hurting anyone but the most horrible of nords.

I don't think the issue is the material, it's treating the material as unbiased sources. The PGE is notoriously biased and so is Bear of Markarth. I didn't read your whole treatise, maybe you footnoted these things as biased and I didn't see it.

Braig says that it was the jarl who executed his daughter, which contradicts Bear.

Also note that Madanach himself tells you "we drove the Nords out" of the city. Which contradicts Bear and its vision of a peaceful Markarth under the Forsworn, again.

The dwemer were the original inhabitants of the reach, not the forsworn. And the Nedes and Aldmer after them.(Which then intermingled with the elves and became bretons) The bretons would be highly offended to be lumped in with the reachmen which were said to be an intermingling of nearly every race.(including Nord)

I was unaware you wanted to go back that far, I was merely referencing that the Reachmen had inhabited Markarth and the region long before the Nords did. However, it goes back much further than the Dwarves who are the decedents of the Aldmer, not the other way around. The Aldmer in turn can (in theory, very little is known apart from guesswork and mythology passed down through the ages) trace their roots to the Aedra who are believed to have built many wondrous structures including the oldest known building in Tamriel, possibly even Nirn itself. Elven lore holds that Lorkhan tricked their Aldmer ancestors into giving up their immortality while Humans tell another tale. Regardless, the ancestors of the Dwarves, the Aldmer, had existed long before they themselves splintered away to form a new peoples, similarly to the Chimer and Alyieds which is presumed to have taken place during the same period of time. It's equally reasonable to suggest that the Aldmer maintained a civilization that encompassed the regions historically held by their successor races.

The Holds of Skyrim
Legend of Red Eagle
The madmen of the Reach

I’m not sure what you are saying with theses, could you place these into context? From my understanding the Red Eagle took place place during the first era and dealt with the subjugation of the Reachmen by the 1st Empire. The Madmen of the Reach tried to humanize and explained that the Forsworn are not simply bandits are they are often believed to be, while the Holds of Skyrim was a quickie beginner guide for newly arriving Imperial soldiers to get them up to date on the situation.

Discredited by Igmund(Pro-Empire)
But it's not just that. Parts of Bear of Markarth have been shown to be factually untrue. It throws the entire account into question.[/
Discredited by Thonar(Pro-Thonar) and Braig(Pro-Forsworn).

You’re going to have to explain this part to me; I’ve yet to find any dialogue they offer that disproves the events. From what I’ve seen Braig say at least is that the Silver bloods muscled their way into the executions and sought sought slaves for their mines.

Arrianus either didn't bother to do any research this time, or decided intellectual integrity wasn't important.(This isn't an argument about whether Ulfric was present at the executions. It's throwing into question the validity of the book)

There is no need for such hostility; we are all advlts here and perfectly able to remain civil despite of disagreements.

Not exactly, Braig elaborated upon the situation to incriminate the Jarl and the Silver Bloods into the incident, but this doesn't contradict the Bear of Markarth's account as far as i'm aware of.

I'm not at all seeing how the Bear of Markarth is pro-anything, to me it seemed rather anti-Ulfric and anti-Empire if anything. I'm not a fan of treating lore books as untrue material, although considering the importance of the event I'm gathering information to rewrite the incident into two separate versions, or perhaps a point of divergence.

You do realize that Briarhearts are still being created by the time of Skyrim right? Same exact way as in Red Eagle. You even come across one of the rituals in the ruins by Bard's Summit Leap. Each of these accounts note that the Forsworn are not merciful. They aren't kind. They don't want peace with the people of the land. They want to kill everyone who isn't Forsworn.



You know. The part where he says the Jarl was having people executed and the Bear of Markarth says Ulfric was the one that was giving that order

Or the part where the book claims Ulfric held the city for ransom until he got free worship, but Igmund states it was always a condition.


But it really seems like you want Bear of Markarth to be 100% true no matter how obvious it isn't. I'm not sure what your hangup is on this book, because a lot of TES books aren't 100% accurate. Some are completely false. A lot of your info seems made up.(Ulfric was imprisoned for 3 months to 6 years? Where the hell did that come from? What's this about the empire planning to attack Markarth? Suppositions on Legion movements. All sorts of things without any citations)

I'm sorry, are you Arrianus?

Bear says that Ulfric was the one who conducted executions, not the jarl. The biggest contradictions comes from Igmund's dialogue. He says that "we" offered free worship of Talos in exchange for Ulfric's cooperation. The book makes this entirely Ulfric's idea. Likewise Igmund tells you that his father was killed by Forsworn while trying to negotiate, whereas Bear says that the Forsworn "were making overtures to be recognized by the Empire as a legitimate kingdom."

So the book is contradicted at several material points. But its bias is also in its silence about other relevant facts- most importantly that the whole thing was done in cahoots with Igmund's family, and that the Forsworn were not peaceful, nature-loving hippies just trying to get along. It's obviously impolitic for Arrianus to talk about the empire's man in Markarth as being partly responsible for the Incident. That would water down their attempt to make Ulfric the scapegoat.

BTW I did not see any hostility in Cecilff's challenge of Arrianus. Questioning sources isn't hostility. This is what historians do.

I would like an article like this, but it needs citations on the claims. And it needs all the evidence, it shouldn't leave out one side or the other.

I know that a lot of my posts can seem hostile to people, but it's me trying to get straight to the point. I'm not angry with you or anything. Questioning anothers motives and info will often seem hostile to the one who is making the claims because it is a challenge of what's been posited.

A contradiction is by definition a statement that is in direction opposition to another, such as inconsistencies. It is not the absence of elaboration nor is it how someone interprets somthing. For example, if Braig had said "Ulfric was in no way involved in the incident" that would be a contradiction with the book which claims Ulfric was involved. Similarly, had he said "We waded through the blood of the fallen" one person might interpret this as the blood being literal, while another would realise this is metaphor.

Like I said, Braig testified that the Jarl and Silverbloods had been involved during the massacre, not that Ulfric was not. What he Braig did was expand upon the situation by including more players. This is no more contradictory as to saying Operation Overlord was carried out by American soldiers, than another source saying it was carried out by American, British, Canadian, and French soldiers. It's merely elaborating upon the events. I also wonder why he refers to Igmund as Jarl, to me this infers that Igmund had been Jarl during the time his incrimination which would infer that it didn't just happen in a short time, but rather over a period of time in excess of a year. Talos worship is also not counter to the book, the book itself is about what happened after the invasion. The entire battle is described as "a militia led by Ulfric Stormcloak sieged the gates of their capital,Markarth." Again, this is no more a contradiction than a history book that records 1900-2000 than a history book that encompasses 1500-2000. The same situation is to be had with the Jarl of Markarth, at no point did the book say the Jarl was not killed, this it is impossible for it to be a contradiction to Igmund's accounts regarding his father's death which happened two years before the context of time in the book's sentence.


It was not about questing the validity of a source, it was about the manner in which it was done.

It's not even really hostility to Arrianus to point out that he is what he is- an apologist for the empire. A lot of these in-game historical books are like that, i.e. scholars working for the glory of the empire. You get used to seeing the signs, if you're willing to look for them.

I spend a lot of time reading early military history, so this is just reflexes for me. If I came across this sort of a paragraph in a medieval chronicle of a battle, my [censored] meter would immediately flicker:

Not because the writer was trying to falsify out of poor motives- but because the chaos of battle is difficult to chronicle even if you're trying to be impartial, it is easy to take kernels of truth and blow them out of proportion, and because impartiality isn't even something that court historians aspire to. It's in the nature of the beast that they're out to make their political patrons look good.

And this is not the sort of writing an impartial scholar does:
(emphasis mine)

Note also that Nepos, Madanach and others all survived the ordeal- so "every official" was not executed.

Okay. "In 4E 201, the empire sent a legion of soldiers, aided by Thalmor justiciars, to ensure that Skyrim's citizens would comply with the White Gold Concordat. Untold numbers of people suspected of worshipping Talos were dragged away to be tortured. The empire attempted to massacre those who resisted in a show of force in the town of Helgen."

Is that a fair historical accounting of what is happening in Skyrim? All I did was omit certain things, not falsify anything.

Igmund's father was still jarl when Ulfric's militia was contracted (according to the stable hand in Markarth), but Igmund talks about being present and active in the events. I assume he was of age and was there, but only took over as jarl after his father was murdered trying to negotiate with Forsworn. That may have even been before the city was retaken.

[/color]

You do realize that Briarhearts are still being created by the time of Skyrim right? Same exact way as in Red Eagle. You even come across one of the rituals in the ruins by Bard's Summit Leap. Each of these accounts note that the Forsworn are not merciful. They aren't kind. They don't want peace with the people of the land. They want to kill everyone who isn't Forsworn.




You know. The part where he says the Jarl was having people executed and the Bear of Markarth says Ulfric was the one that was giving that order

Or the part where the book claims Ulfric held the city for ransom until he got free worship, but Igmund states it was always a condition.


But it really seems like you want Bear of Markarth to be 100% true no matter how obvious it isn't. I'm not sure what your hangup is on this book, because a lot of TES books aren't 100% accurate. Some are completely false. A lot of your info seems made up.(Ulfric was imprisoned for 3 months to 6 years? Where the hell did that come from? What's this about the empire planning to attack Markarth? Suppositions on Legion movements. All sorts of things without any citations)


I'm sorry, are you Arrianus?

[/color]

There is no reason to act so defensive over any of this and I think the conversation would greatly benefit if you ceased treating me with a certain amount of hostility and perceived malicious-intent. As far as I can telL I have remained perfectly civil through this discourse despite my disagreements with what you have said, but the limits of my patience is coming to an end. No one is forcing you to partake in the thread, although I would certainly welcome your continued input, but the degree of disdain I feel you are directing at me is not. It was my hope that people could pull their knolages of events together to create a fluid and compregensive timeline of events, but If continue to treat me so maliciously, I won't be responding further.


That said, Yes I am aware of the continued Briarhearts warriors who are born from the magics of the Hagravens, and yes I am aware of the seemingly brutal steps taken during the conversion process. The issue I was raising was that I didn't see how it related to what was being said. I had assumed that you drew a link between the books and the incident that I couldn't, or wasn't aware of, which is what I was asking about.

You know. The part where he says the Jarl was having people executed and the Bear of Markarth says Ulfric was the one that was giving that order

Please refer to my prior post regarding the mater for comments.

Or the part where the book claims Ulfric held the city for ransom until he got free worship, but Igmund states it was always a condition.

I believe you are confusing two separate events. As I had described in my OP, Igmund offered to resume the free worship of Talos in exchange for Ulfric's assistance, this happened prior to the battle to retake Markarth. The reference the book makes happened after the battle when the Imperial legion demanded entry into the city, as which Ulfric demanded that Talos worship be permitted as a condition to handing over the city before allowing their demands.

But it really seems like you want Bear of Markarth to be 100% true no matter how obvious it isn't.

I never made this claim, and I don't see how you can. I believe I was quite clear in my OP that nothing is known for sure and that the entire event could be nothing more than propaganda. Further, had I "desired" (why would i?) for the event to be true, I would not be considering rewriting it from two perspectives, nor would I question the motivation of Ulfric to have done so in the first place.

A lot of your info seems made up.(Ulfric was imprisoned for 3 months to 6 years? Where the hell did that come from? What's this about the empire planning to attack Markarth? Suppositions on Legion movements. All sorts of things without any citations)

It came from an interpretation of the timeline of events that left Ulfric unaccounted for, and my reasoning of the speed of communication between Windhelm, the Imperial city, and the Reach. Maybe if you asked nicely I would elaborate more on it, but as you seem to favor insulting me simply because you do not know, I think i'll keep that part to myself.

This would be contradictory, but specifically because of the reasoning for their presence. Tullius made it clear that his legion was dispatched to quell the rebellion, where as the Thalmor had been granted access due to the terms of the White-Gold concordat. These two things cast an opposing view that is in direct contest to the idea that they had been dispatched together for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the terms of the treaty. An alternative way to phrase it so that it would be misleading, but I don't think a contradiction to anything would be The Imperial legion and Thalmor arrived in Skyrim soon after the signing of the White-Gold Concordat, before countless people had been dragged off under its terms.

I do see what you are pointing out however, but there is a line between misleading information and contradictory statements.


I'm going to pay Jarl Igmund another visit, maybe I missed somthing he said.

"I am here to remind the ruling classes of Skyrim that their loyalty to the Emperor requires cooperation with the Thalmor... Fortunately, those most opposed to the Emperor's wise policy have now branded themselves traitors as well as heretics." -Ondolemar (http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv146/gmosko/ondolemar4.jpg, http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv146/gmosko/ondolemar2.jpg)

You see, it is all a matter of perspective.

Perspective does indeed have much to do with it, someone who views Ulfric as a hero is likely to dismiss any allegations of wrong doing, while someone who has a dislike of him is more willing to accept the idea that he has done wrong. Although I think we both know Thalmor agents are just openly taunting people to hate the Empire. My favorite quote from one o them is silence, right after i killed him and his patrol.

I'd appreciate if you'd stop dodging questions by saying I'm being hostile when I bring up issues with your statements. It's annoying. I've been stating the same thing through several posts, but you keep stating this instead.

It's further compelling evidence that the forsworn aren't some friendly bunch that would act in kindness to the residents of Markarth after the ruling class is kicked out. Celan's pointed out Madanach's "Drove out the nords" line. They were not a kind people. Arrianus has some sort of weird obsession with painting them as noble savages as indicated in his other book.

It's a rather oddly specific line. From two opposing sources even. I don't believe either one specifies Igmund though. Just "the Jarl".


Why does the empire need to take control of the city again if it's already been taken control of by the local Jarl? The jarl is the one with the authority here. Obviously Ulfric's militia either wasn't loyal to him, or it was disbanded upon taking the city, as they didn't end up in jail and Ulfric's arrest was rather uneventful. And what sort of trust issues are you going to have here? The empire's going to let some random son of a jarl make demands of them and not punish him for it? If it wasn't mutual agreement there would've been a much bigger event than what happened in the Markarth Incident. "We couldn't dare to go against Ulfric's wishes, but we'll arrest him no problem when you ask."



You're ignoring evidence contrary to the event and only portraying the Bear's side in your writeup. It doesn't help that when people bring up issues that you ask for corrections on you call them hostile because you don't like the implications. It doesn't need much more. You can say the book's view is contested by local citizens or whatever. If you're wondering about why the book is written the way it is, you need to look at the intended audience. This wasn't for the empire or for skyrim's citizens. This was for the Thalmor. It's apologetics for what happened in Markarth and trying to shy away from blame.

what choice did they have, I ask you? Against the Bear of Markarth, Ulfric Stormcloak, "no" is not an answer.

When you're trying to depict them as facts it is rather necessary.

Why did this thread die?

I'm actually curious if there's any actual information regarding the exact state of the Empire as of the beginning of Skyrim, 4E 201 isn't it? From what I can tell the Empire, if one can call it at at this point, consists only of High Rock, Skyrim, Cyrodiil and possibly the remnants of Morrowind. As to the allegiance of the Orcs in Orsinium I have to assume they'd be counted as part of High Rock. This truncated state would be, I think, untenable entirely if Skyrim were to secede, as there would no longer be any geographic continuity to speak of. This is one issue I have with siding with the Stormcloaks, if they win the Empire is finished. In some sense it almost feels like doing the Thalmor's job for them. On the other hand the lack of any broader geopolitical context makes the ramifications of either side winning extremely difficult to pin down. Would Skyrim fare better against the Dominion alone and unfettered, or would the reunification of the Rump Empire be worth the cost imposed by the war in the long run. Answering that question largely depends on what the Empire is and what it means, a question that I think is exceedingly difficult to answer given the information present. Still interesting to speculate on however.

Oy. I leave this thread for a day and I miss a bunch of stuff.


Indeed but it still took the Thalmor 12 years to consolidate Summerset Isle and Divines know how long to consolidate Valenwood while they hid from the eyes of the world. As to the state of the Empire let me rephrase myself. I have no doubt that they were weaker then they were under the Septims, I just think they weren't as weak as many try to make them to be. The part you quoted is only partially true. The Mede Empire has only five provinces while the Septim Empire had nine and all four of the missing provinces were lost in the 30 years at the beginning of the 4th Era. Most before Mede took over. In addition even the Septim had to deal with the Redguard problem.There is nothing new about it and if it was worse then any of the previous endemic Redguard problems we would have heard. The only drain on the Empire was Morrowind. This wasn't an Empire held together by wishes and wasn't coming apart at the seams. It had its problems but wasn't on the road to death prior to the Great War.


Don't worry it hasn't died yet. Everyone is just rearming their arguments lol.


That is correct. As of 4E 201 the Empire consists of Cyrodiil, Skyrim, High Rock, and (de jure) Morrowind. Also I agree with your assessment. If Skyrim leaves and doesn't come up with some sort of pact with the Empire to work together then the Empire will most likely fall or be reduced to just a rump state. However as long as General Tullius is alive I don't believe the cost would be prohibitive. It's stated near the beginning of Skyrim that Tullius has turned around the situation in Skyrim during the six months he was there.

I just took a day off from the forum, I'd gotten pretty exhausted from the back and forth with someone and just decided I didn't want to do it anymore considering the case of the nasties.

Anyways, I've been wanting to expand and put into better context the prologue of The Great War based on the new information people have brought up, particularly the Thalmor assassination of the chancellor. I'm just having a difficult time finding enough information to make a paragraph about it, I really need to read the Infernal City book instead of just taking snips of stuff from it, it would help give a better sense of context..but that thing is so long and not available where books are sold!

You've read http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Rising_Threat,_Vol._I, I assume?

I got the novels on e-reader.

You really shouldn't take forum discussions personally, especially when they're not. It's just a dumb video game. That's why I like gaming forums, nothing actually matters.

So, this is interesting. Morrowind is still considered to be a De Jure constituent of the Empire? I've heard a number of opinions on this, and from what I know it's hard to know if Morrowind is even a viable political entity, to say nothing of its possible allegiance to Titus Mede II and his Legions. One possibility of Skyrim breaking away from the Empire might be to force Cyrodiil into agreeing to something akin to a mutual defense treaty, or perhaps a lose confederation rather than the existing status quo. The problem is I don't know if Ulfric Stormcloak is wise enough or far sighted enough to even engage with representatives of the Imperial City, considering their "subservience" to the Thalmor, even if such negotiations were to everyone's mutual benefit. It might take an existential crisis to force the issue and by then who can say if it wouldn't be too late?

At any rate, I'm also curious about the losses inflicted by the Great War, and just how long it would take the Empire to rebuild its army to peak strength. I would think the Thalmor would wish to intervene before hand, though they suffered massive losses themselves and for now we have no real indication of the relative strength of either side, or their capacity to replace losses in terms of manpower. It might actually be quite some time before a new war could be fought, but I suspect the Thalmor will wish to push the issue, they might act rashly and that could present an opportunity to catch them off balance. If Skyrim is an independent realm I wonder if there's a chance Ulfric would attempt to capture Cyrodiil for himself, that is to put himself on the Imperial Throne and take the fight to the Dominion. Ahh, so many variables and so little information with which to reach a conclusion. The more that I think about it, the more I worry that TES VI will be in the distant past or future and we wont actually get a resolution to this particular cliffhanger.

Maybe Beth'll be kind enough to put some of the confrontation with the thalmor in the last Skyrim DLC. We'll have to see won't we? Given certain events that happen in skyrim, it's certainly possible the Thalmor may try to strike soon after the events take place.(Mainly referring to a certain spoiler in one of the guildlines) I could see a ship ride or carriage ride that leads to a sort of contested area somewhere in Tamriel. I'm doubting they'll bring us to Valenwood or Summerset, but we may get a glimpse at the beginning of the second war.

Yeah I have, though I was surprised to learn it came in 4 volumes instead of the three I thought it did before this thread...Or maybe i'm crazy and just missed it! It's pretty interesting to learn the Thalmor had been plotting and trying to bring about the downfall of the Empire so much sooner than I had originally thought, all of their scheming is pretty jawdropping.

While Morrowind may be an "official" province of the Empire still I don't believe the Empire has much of a presence there. If I remember correctly I talked to an Imperial guard in Riften who stated that since the Empire now held the city it would be a good forward base for an advance into Morrowind. My theory is that when the Great War started the Empire pulled her troops out of Morrowind and have yet to return. Ulfric is the key in any timeline where he lives. It's possible that once he becomes High King he might be agreeable to working with the Empire but not joining them, I mean he hates the Thalmor just as much as the Empire does. Regardless I hope some new DLC sheds light on this for all of us.

The losses of the Great War would be difficult to find out as we know almost nothing about the military of either side. I will now make some assumptions. If we say that an Imperial legion is roughly the same size of a Roman legion then each would be around 5000 men. If we also consider that each legion is led by a Legate then there are around nine legions alone in Skyrim to put down the Stormcloaks. We know for certain that three Imperial legions were totally destroyed during the war and the rest were reduced to at least half strength. If the nine legions are assumed to be the entirety of the Empire's military force (which I doubt) than we are looking at Imperial casualties of around 37,000 minimum. To me that number sees a little low and the fact that I doubt the Empire would leave her borders undefended means that the total number of legions must be higher than nine. That, of course, means the number of casualties must be higher too. Unless I can find more data it's impossible to know.


To be honest The Great War and Rising Threat were my two favorite books in Skyrim. They finally beat A Brief History of the Empire lol. They made me really dislike the Thalmor but, at the same time, I had to respect their skill. They are pros at manipulation.