I will give Ulfric credit

[LobselVith66]

 

I doubt so with Ulfric leading it.

 

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree then.

 

 

Lachdomin explained it perfectly: He couldn't refuse. Remember they had a different mindset than ours. His name would go in the books, and his family would pay the price for decades.

He was forced too. Not because he had a gun pointed at him, but because the tradition are hard and he'd be seen as a coward -- which would hit more than himself. Very selfless of him.

 

Torygg made a choice. If he wasn't capable of defeating an opponent in a challenge, then he shouldn't have taken on a role that would have placed him at risk of accepting challenges from people who would think he was unfit to be High King.

 

 

My point: Hit the right switch, and Ulfric will bark for you.

 

If that was the case, Ulfric would have worked for the Thalmor instead of violently opposing them. Even when Ulfric is about to be killed, he doesn't hesitate, he doesn't surrender.

 

 

You mix up the worlds. This i not earth. This was based on the nordic times. He would not be a Jarl, he would probably have to run from Solitude. If Ulfric then made the situation worse, Torryg would get the blame.

 

I don't agree. Winning the duel certainly didn't make everyone in Solitude side with Ulfric, after all. I don't think everyone would have villified Torygg for refusing.

 

 

Yet you assume the majority wants to fight the Thalmor, and would do fine in war? The morale is not strong in Skyrim, other than in a few Stormcloaks. Add on top the sight of dragons, and I am suprised they would dare fight.

 

All I stated was that we don't know what the majority wants. I didn't make any claim otherwise.

 

 

Look at the map of Tamriel. Look what the Thalmor just did. Look where the Thalmor scouts are. Look what tactics the Thalmor are using.

Do you need a big Neon sign?

 

It's your right to think that is what the Thalmor are planning, and you can have your protagonist act based on what he thinks is going to be the case. I don't dispute it as a possibility, but I don't think it's a certainty, either. The Thalmor dossier makes it clear that they don't want a victory for either side, and I don't think the Stormcloak victory would make them any more eager to try to usurp Skyrim when the Empire is already submitting to the whims and wishes of the Thalmor.

 

 

I think his problem with tou is that you are very narrowminded. Wether that is bad or not, is up to you. You really don't see this from any perspective other than your own. You assume, and you bash other for not assuming. You are in denial, and call anything "Personal insult".

Try to look at this from more than 1 side, and perhaps we can have a "adult" discussion, as you put it yourself.

 

I tend to refer to personal insults as personal insults - referring to me as an idiot for not sharing his opinion, for one.

 

 

But nevertheless, this is getting out of hand. We are going in circles, and getting nowhere. It is clearly we share a totally different view on both discussions, and life in general.

This would be awesome if I was hellbent on getting my postcount up, but I am not. I will then leave, and you can discuss what you want, with who you want.

 

Merry Christmas!

 

Fair enough. Merry Christmas.

[Lachdonin]

So your problem with me isn't my argument, it's that you're anti-American?

 

First off, no. I am anti-poor arguement.

 

The Bear of Markarth is written by a scholar who admits in a later book (The Madmen of the Reach) that he lacks actual knowledge about the Forsworn, while the pro-Legion Jarl Igmund and others are recounting what they witnessed happened from first-hand knowledge. Why would Jarl Igmund lie when he is allied with the Legion, and opposing Jarl Ulfric?.

 

Second, Your entire arguement about the historic innacuracy of the book is based on the Jarl's admission that they 'offered' him free worship of Talos. As i have already addressed, TWICE, the word 'offered' is an ambigious term, particuarly when dealing with diplomacy. That one word does not instantly invalidated the claim that Ulfric demanded worship. To make such a claim is subject to OPPINION and INTERPRETATION.

 

I've addressed what characters have explicitly stated, and all you've done is throw some insults at me and claim that characters voicing their opinions is indusputable fact. None of those characters claimed that the Empire was planning to attack the Dominion; even Ulfric addresses that he is willing to fight alongside the Empire if they chose to wage war with the Dominion. Again, I'm not disputing that the Empire may fight the Dominion without being provoked into a war, but it's not a certainty.

 

Third, and again, you have called out what people had said to support our arguements as OPINION, while reinforcing what statements support you are fact. Point and case, you do it right in this very quote. How is Ulfric's claim that he'd side with the Empire against the Domminion somehow more factual than Tullius's claim that the Empire will take a stand?

 

You mean soldiers who weren't officially, or unofficially, working for the Empire, but were acting of their own accord?

 

Fourth, you clearly have no military association. A solider almost always associates himself with the army in which he has served, even after leaving. Look at the Legionaire in Dawnstar. Long retired, still wears his armour, even if he's loyal to Dawnstar.

 

Fifth, it is heavily insinuated in The Great War that the disscharged soliders who were responsible for driving out the Domminion and then keeping them at bay were under orders.

 

Sixth, You clearly do not understand either the concept of Coersion, or cultural relativism, so i won't try to argue the point of whether Torygg had a choice or not any more.

 

All of this deals directly with Ulfrics character. Through ingame quotes from various people, from Windhelm to Markarth you get representations of Ulfrics rampant racism. From history books you get an outline of the political spectrum of the world. From direct quotes to insinuated tones you get a representation of Ulfric's duplicity in his duel with Torygg.

 

The ONLY reason to support Ulfric (And this is to say the man, as there are some merits to the Stormcloak cause) is if you ignore the weight of evidence. Admitedly, the quality isn't the best, but neither is that in favor of Ulfric. In such a case the only way to accurately judge is based on Volume, and the scales are heavily tipped against.

[Handofbane]

 

Where is your 'proof' that the Empire is not? Wher eis our 'proof' that The Bear of Markarth is innacurate? Where is your 'proof' that everyones oppinions about using a Shout in a duel are wrong?

 

The Bear of Markarth is written by a scholar who admits in a later book (The Madmen of the Reach) that he lacks actual knowledge about the Forsworn, while the pro-Legion Jarl Igmund and others are recounting what they witnessed happened from first-hand knowledge. Why would Jarl Igmund lie when he is allied with the Legion, and opposing Jarl Ulfric?

 

If someone claimed that the Empire was going to go against the Dominion, that would be a different story, but nobody makes such a claim - people address that they think is going to happen. Tullis never says, "The Empire will go against the Dominion soon," he addresses that he thinks they are a threat, and that the Empire is keeping an eye on the situation. This isn't ireevocable proof that the Empire is going to go to war against the Dominion of their own accord.

I have reread this several times and completely fail to see what the connection of "The Madmen of the Reach" is to the battle of Markarth beyond the discussion of who the Forsworn were. It has zero mention of the battle, no mention at all of Ulfric, and says nothing about the aftermath of the battle. For that matter, the book has no date in it, either, making it impossible to state it is a "later" book than The Bear.

 

What your argument boils down to is you insisting that your single source of information must be absolute fact, while any other sources must be wrong. Had it ever occurred to you that the Jarl (who would have been put in his position after the uprising was put down, by the way) might be mistaken or wrong? It is not beyond reason for anyone ingame to be incorrect or embellishing the truth (see: Saadia/Kemato at Whiterun for a fun case of he said/she said). If nothing else, the author of the two books adds credibility to himself by his willingness to commit to the second book, and paint a deeper picture of the Forsworn (not just as the oppressed murdered folks of the Bear, but as potentially vicious primitives unafraid to die for what they believe is theirs).

[Linsolv]

Wow. This argument... I thought I'd catch up on this thread. Page 6 or so, I had a point. And now that point is STILL RELEVANT. This never happens. :|

 

It seems like a lot of people are getting caught on the "he had to" point. Yes, Torryg had to accept, culturally. However, culturally, Ulfric had every right to challenge him to a duel, and should that duel be accepted he had every right to kill his opponent. In fact, tradition demands it.

 

There's a second point of contention, in the fairness of using the Voice.

 

However, let's not define duels by the dictionary definition, but in terms of how they have been in practice forever.

 

A duel is declared, and then someone (often the seconds of the duelists, but not always) determines the rules of the duel. Anything not covered by the rules is allowed. For this reason, the rules are usually very specific about what is allowed and do not allow anything outside those specific things. If the Voice was not brought up and explicitly banned, then given the full and public knowledge of Ulfric's ability to use it, it can only be assumed to be allowed. Duels explicitly state rules because the duelists are both expected to do whatever they can, within the terms of the duel, to win. This includes being so much more skilled as a warrior that the fight cannot be lost. And, in spite of all challenges to the contrary, dragon speech is a skill. The real comparison would not be "imagine a man pulling out a gun in a duel," but "imagine a man dropping his sword in the middle of a duel and then putting his opponent into a choke-hold and choking him into unconsciousness." Which I can easily imagine, and would be completely allowed.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Linsolv

[Lachdonin]

 

A duel is declared, and then someone (often the seconds of the duelists, but not always) determines the rules of the duel. Anything not covered by the rules is allowed. For this reason, the rules are usually very specific about what is allowed and do not allow anything outside those specific things.

 

This is actually historically innacurate. Few cultures which allow duels do not have very strict, codified rules pertaining to the duel its self. You only really see 'choice' involved in duels which arrose in Europe with the advent of gunpowder, and this is born out of the fact that, in the beginning, not every lord had a pistol. As such, it was required to increase the mutability of dueling to encompass the chance that both combatants did not posess the same kind of weaponry. Of course, then there's also the French, but they are hardly a representation of formal dueling. Or functional Warfare... useful government... economic responsibility... Why is France still a country again?

 

The closest representation of a formal duel we have in Skyrim is brawling (Which, admitedly, can hardly be considered a concrete representation, as peasents tend to be more lax with rules). When brawling, i for one receive cries of outrage if i shout.

[Zephyr2011]

This point deals greatly with the idea of coersion. You seem to support the idea that coersion does nto happen until you are physically prevented from choosing an option, and all options chosen therin are of free will, regardless of other factors.

 

To illistrate the point, assume you are being held at gunpoint and the attacker demands your wallet. By your arguement, if you hand over your wallet, you are doing so of your own free will, despite the fact there is a threat arrayed against you should you choose NOT to hand it over. By your argumentation, the only way you are coersed into handing over your wallet if is the attacker takes it, physically, himself, either after shooting you or by reaching into your pocket.

 

Admitedly, this is a fully acceptable philosophical outlook. I dissagree with it on a philosophical level, but its one of those debates which has persisted for thousands of years, and we will NOT resolve it here.

 

I'd like to point out this reeeeeally famous and historically significant event that deals with this issue...Hmmmmm...what was it called again? OH YEAH! The Nuremburg War Trials! The Trials were held to determine the fate of Nazi soldiers and leaders who did various heinous things throughout the course of WWII and the preceding years under Hitler. The trials determined that EVEN IF FACED WITH DEATH any soldier is responsible for HIS OWN ACTIONS regardless of if it were under orders. You always have a choice. Most people choose self-preservation or honor or what have you but you ALWAYS have a choice. If I'm held at gun point hell yes I'm going to give up my wallet. But the situation isn't quite like that. It's I can either commit a crime/shame myself what have you and then shortly thereafter lose everything but my life or I can refuse and then I will invariably die but I'll still have my honor and so will my children. It's a classic between a rock and a hard place situation but you can indeed choose weather you prefer the rock or the hard place. It just depends on which is IN YOUR OPINION the lesser of two evils. Torryg had a choice an it's lunacy to say that he didn't. Neither option was very good but they were both still options.

 

Which refusal? He accepted, for the very reason we all know. He ruled fine, unless you got source otherwise.

 

As a matter of fact I do. It's stated many times in game that he was basically an Imperial puppet. He didn't lead anything. He was just a figurehead, much like a lot of coaches in college an proffesional sports have been. They look good and they're a well-known, well-liked figure so they are kept around but it's the people behind the scenes that call the shots. The Empire made the decisions not Torryg.

 

Wether you attack now or tomorrow, I see no different. At least not when tomorrow you can get 3 times the army.

 

This is quite true. But in Ulfric's eyes the Empire isn't going to attack the Thalmor. You can't villify Ulfric purely because of this (yes you can villify him for other things but here not so much) Ulfric earnestly believes that the Empire isn't going to fight the Thalmor anytime soon and Ulfric can't stand the thought of his fellow Nords going through the same torture he did so he opts to try and take them out as soon as possible. Is it rash? Yes. Is it less tactical than the Imperials? Yes. But does it completely disregardhis people? No. Without implicitly knowing that the Empire is in fact going to attack the Thalmor (which if that is the Empire's plans, which is heavily insinuated, they have to be pretty quiet about this so that the Thalmor themselves can't make a preemptive strike) then Ulfric is just doing the best he can in forcing the Thalmor out immediately as he sees no evidence that the Empire is going to ever do so. We know that the Empire will quite likely attack the Thalmor but Ulfric and the Stormcloaks, and the people at large, have no way of knowing this because in order for the Empire to prepare for such an attack they have to keep it quiet. Without this critical knowledge the Stormcloaks are VERY justified in ceceding from the Empire so they can force out the Thalmor because they don't think that the Empire will ever do so. And the Empire can't tell them they will and especially once the civil war starts theres no hope of getting this message across, otherwise they'd probably all simmer down and either have a peacable cecession or Skyrim would just remain a part of the Empire because everyone is on the same page.

 

What we can see is not the point. If you get tortured and manage to survive, and get caught again: I assure you, you will do anything in the world for the person. He is broken, it's just hidden. Press the right button, and Ulfric would jump when you said so. He is a Nord after all: Fighting is their way of supressing memories.

 

This is only assuming that they managed to break him the first time. It's entirely possible that he would have broken or did break but we have no idea how long it would take to break Ulfric. If they didn't have long enough to break him (which is ultimately the question) they only strengthened his resolve and made him even less likely to ever be broken. It's a 50/50 chance but since Ulfric is so passionate about destroying the Thalmor I'd say he had less breaking and more resolve-strengthening happen while he was tortured. This isn't fact but its a fairly likely possibility. If he was broken the first time and did talk then yes, the Thalmor could make an excellent puppet out of him but the fact remains that we have no idea if they did break him or not.

 

Clearly, Ulfric isn't alone in wanting to deal with the Thalmor and stand independent of the Empire. Even Nord members of the Legion point out that their family often disagrees with their choice to stand with the Legion. Also, Torygg made his choice. If he wasn't capable of fighting Ulfric, he didn't have to fight him. It was his choice to accept the challenge, and his choice lead to his death. He knew the risks that came with the role of High King, and took the position regardless.

He isn't alone, no, but doesn't got the whole country with him. That is my point. It is not the majority who wants it, yet he feels entitled to turn the country upside down for his own benefit and hatred.

I don't mind the High King being beaten in a duel. I do mind the way it was done, and the fact it was not needed. Why challenge a King that is young, can be manopulated without problems and rules pretty fine? Why throw Skyrim into utter chaos for no reason? Why do this when the Thalmor is about to invade? I simply do not see the logic in it.

 

Again Torryg was a puppet. Various ingame references point this out, as does your own argument that he can be easily manipulated. Also Ulfric has no way at all of knowing just how easy it would be to manipulate Torryg, by all accounts Solitude is far and away in the Empire's pocket, which would mean that by extension so was Torryg. Ulfric would never have had a chance to manipulate Torryg because of how thick the Empire's prescence in Solitude was. Ulfric severely undercut Imperial authourity by killing Torryg which was faaar easier than playing an excessively long, drawn out political game to be able tofinally put a bug in Torryg's ear and get him to jump ships. Ulfric's main goal was to get rid of the harmful Thalmor, he started the civil war because he thought that that would bring about quicker change than political maneuvering, it's never stated that he believes that diplomacy was impossible but war is definately faster and you have less toes to worry about stepping on.

 

When Ulfric "Threw Skyrim into utter chaos for no reason" it wasn't for no reason. Ulfric had no way of knowing that the Empire wanted to get rid of the Thalmor as well. We do but that's because we know the legions side. Ulfric can't because the Empire can't just fly zepplins around with giant light boards saying "Hey, just tolerate these stupid gold skinned pricks a little while longer, we're building up an army so we can go kick their arses!" or the Thalmor would launch a preemptive strike that, even if it failed, would cripple any support for another war. The Empire is waging a subtle war against the Thalmor, because of its clandestine nature of course Ulfric wouldn't know about it and very people outside the Legion seem to think that the Empire is building up again to take out the Thalmor because it has to be kept quiet. Ulfric doesn't know this, he just thinks that the Empire is making concessions and has gone soft, he doesn't see the ultimate goal of the Empire because THEY CAN'T TELL HIM. Ulfric's hatred of the Thalmor and is concern for his people are what drive him towards civil war and he thinks the Empire doesn't give a rat's about all of this so he goes for it. If everyone had a nice little group therapy session and the shrink asked Ulfric "why do you want to cecede from the Empire?" Ulfric would probably say, "Because they're weak and they won't kick these magical bastards out of my homeland when they're torturing my people." and then Tullius would say, "We are weak but we're rebuilding, faster than those elven pricks and when we're back to full strength we're going to kick their asses all the way to Oblivion." Ulfric: "Really?" with a sniffle and tear, wiping his nose with a tissue, "Really." insert heartfelt hug. No Civil War because everyone's on the same page. The war was started because of a lack of information on Ulfric's part and then the Empire won't even sit down to discuss the issues with Ulfric, If Tullius say ransomed a hold city for peace and they discussed why the war started things would probably become hunky dorey. But he doesnt. Both men are too stubborn to talk about their feelings and this results in the continuing conflict. If there was no misunderstanding over the Empire's goals there probably wouldn't be much bad blood between the Nords and the Empire, the Nords could probably suck up the whole Talos worship being banned thing and just do it in secret until the Empire was built up enough to go kick some elven arse. The principle reason for this whole conflict isn't because Ulfric just wants more power (although he does) it's because he has no way of knowing the motives of the Empire and realizing that ultimately they are the same, they're just being realized in a different way.

[Lachdonin]

 

I'd like to point out this reeeeeally famous and historically significant event that deals with this issue...Hmmmmm...what was it called again? OH YEAH! The Nuremburg War Trials! The Trials were held to determine the fate of Nazi soldiers and leaders who did various heinous things throughout the course of WWII and the preceding years under Hitler. The trials determined that EVEN IF FACED WITH DEATH any soldier is responsible for HIS OWN ACTIONS regardless of if it were under orders. You always have a choice. Most people choose self-preservation or honor or what have you but you ALWAYS have a choice. If I'm held at gun point hell yes I'm going to give up my wallet. But the situation isn't quite like that. It's I can either commit a crime/shame myself what have you and then shortly thereafter lose everything but my life or I can refuse and then I will invariably die but I'll still have my honor and so will my children. It's a classic between a rock and a hard place situation but you can indeed choose weather you prefer the rock or the hard place. It just depends on which is IN YOUR OPINION the lesser of two evils. Torryg had a choice an it's lunacy to say that he didn't. Neither option was very good but they were both still options.

 

Ok, i'm going to ahve to explain this again...

 

There are two veins of thought regarding Coersion.

 

One, coersion exists when one exerts their will over yours to directly influance the attractivness of choices. This is done by making one choice much more or less favorable than others, usually through threat.

 

Two, coersion only exists when you are physically incapable. of making a particular choice.

 

The former is, in my mind, the most philosophically sound, simply because it makes the most logical sense. By the second one, i can tell you you can't fly by flapping your arms really fast, and you can say you can. When you jump off a building and fall to your death, its MY will thats playing out, even though i myself have no part in it. How, then, an i guilty of coersion?

 

I am not saying that Torygg did not have a physical choice. He did. Thats not something one can argue against. He did not, however, have a cultural choice. One must also consider the fact that, in TES universe, cultural choices have real impact on individuals. By refusing the duel, Torygg would have been denyed access to Sovengarde. When given the choice between living another day, and spending eternity in purgatory, it is more of a chocie category called Avoided Decisions. Theres a more technical term, but i don't have my philosophy books with me at the moment. Anyway, the idea is that you are presented with 2 choices, one of which is so absurdly bad that is really functions are more of an illusionary choice than a real option.

 

As for the Nuremburg Trials, there have been several studies on human responce to authority since then, which directly counters the decisions of the judges. Legal judgement does not equate to good judgement, and the decision of the Nuremburg Trials was for the express purpose of gaining convictions to placate the survivors of the Holocaust. In doing so, they violated moral, philosophical and legal due diligence, to the point where they have become almost as infamous an occurance in the field of Ethics as the Holocaust its self.

[LobselVith66]

 

First off, no. I am anti-poor arguement.

 

Then maybe you should keep out the anti-American rhetoric from your arguments. It makes it difficult to take you seriously.

 

 

Second, Your entire arguement about the historic innacuracy of the book is based on the Jarl's admission that they 'offered' him free worship of Talos.

 

Along with other people from Markarth who attest to the same version of events.

 

 

As i have already addressed, TWICE, the word 'offered' is an ambigious term, particuarly when dealing with diplomacy.

 

No, it's no ambiguous. The Jarl and others state that Ulfric was offered religious freedom by the Empire because they thought the Thalmor wouldn't find out. The Jarl even laments the decision after the fact, but says that keeping the peace with the Thalmor was more important than the deal that was made with Ulfric to re-take Markarth. If the "Bear of Markarth" contradicts what the people living in Markarth attest to, including the pro-Legion Jarl residing there, I don't see a reasn to take the book as accurate when it directly contradicts what others are stating - specifically, the people living there and the Jarl who was personally witness to these events.

 

 

That one word does not instantly invalidated the claim that Ulfric demanded worship. To make such a claim is subject to OPPINION and INTERPRETATION.

 

Wrong. It's addressing what characters explicitly state as the actual events that transpired, which you chose to ignore.

 

 

Third, and again, you have called out what people had said to support our arguements as OPINION, while reinforcing what statements support you are fact. Point and case, you do it right in this very quote. How is Ulfric's claim that he'd side with the Empire against the Domminion somehow more factual than Tullius's claim that the Empire will take a stand?

 

I've addressed possibilities as opinion, such as the possibility of an independent Skyrim being able to hold itself against the Dominion due to historical precedence. And Tullis makes no reference that the Empire is planning to attack the Dominion without being provoked into another war - he's addressing that he thinks they are a threat.

 

 

Fourth, you clearly have no military association. A solider almost always associates himself with the army in which he has served, even after leaving. Look at the Legionaire in Dawnstar. Long retired, still wears his armour, even if he's loyal to Dawnstar.

 

In other words, the soldiers weren't working for the Legion, they weren't operating under orders from the Empire, and Hammerfell effectively stood on their own because the Emperor distanced himself from the province and the Redguards' refusal to submit to the Thalmor.

 

 

Fifth, it is heavily insinuated in The Great War that the disscharged soliders who were responsible for driving out the Domminion and then keeping them at bay were under orders.

 

By "insinuated," you mean there's no evidence to actually support those version of events.

 

 

Sixth, You clearly do not understand either the concept of Coersion, or cultural relativism, so i won't try to argue the point of whether Torygg had a choice or not any more.

 

It's not too difficult to grasp the concept of free will and how no one was coercing Torygg to put his life on the line when all he had to lose was his role as High King. You seem to be conflating the issues here. Torygg had a choice. It's asinine to claim that a grown man couldn't say no when he had a choice given to him, and one of the choices avaliable was to refuse the challenge.

 

 

All of this deals directly with Ulfrics character. Through ingame quotes from various people, from Windhelm to Markarth you get representations of Ulfrics rampant racism. From history books you get an outline of the political spectrum of the world. From direct quotes to insinuated tones you get a representation of Ulfric's duplicity in his duel with Torygg.

 

That must explain why Ulfric has absolutely no problem with a non-Nord protagonist, thinks highly enough that he bets that the Dragonborn will survive the ancient Nord rite of passage, and even provides him with a title and the opportunity to purchase a home in his Hold. The Dunmer came to Windhelm after the eruption of Red Mountain many years ago and settled into what is now the Gray Quarter, and Argonians can't be welcomed into Windhelm even if the Legion takes over because the general Nord populace is racist enough that they would likely kill them. So far, I don't see evidence of what you're claiming as a facet of Ulfric's personality.

 

 

The ONLY reason to support Ulfric (And this is to say the man, as there are some merits to the Stormcloak cause) is if you ignore the weight of evidence. Admitedly, the quality isn't the best, but neither is that in favor of Ulfric. In such a case the only way to accurately judge is based on Volume, and the scales are heavily tipped against.

 

You mean the main reason to support Ulfric is if you want to remove the Thalmor and effectively support a group that you know has no intention of submitting to them or trying to appease them.

[Lachdonin]

Yep, i'm done. You are clearly as blind as a Falmer, and have the argumentitive skills of a Nord. Continueing this arguement will only resort to a waste of space, as no evidence given against ulfric will pass your muster, while you sling all manner of rhetoric and filth in support of a psychotic tyrant.

 

Issued strike for this post. Insults directed toward other users and baiting them is not appropriate conduct on this forum.

 

-Vagrant0

Edited December 25, 2011 by Vagrant0

[LobselVith66]

 

I have reread this several times and completely fail to see what the connection of "The Madmen of the Reach" is to the battle of Markarth beyond the discussion of who the Forsworn were. It has zero mention of the battle, no mention at all of Ulfric, and says nothing about the aftermath of the battle. For that matter, the book has no date in it, either, making it impossible to state it is a "later" book than The Bear.

 

What your argument boils down to is you insisting that your single source of information must be absolute fact, while any other sources must be wrong.

 

I'm addressing that a book that contradicts what is explicitly stated by the people living in Markarth is likely inaccurate because the author wasn't privy to the actual events, and even the Jarl who supports the Legion reveals what actually transpired. What you're suggesting is that it's a massive conspiracy by everyone living in Markarth to intentionally mislead the protagonist - even the Jarl who supports the Legion over Ulfric and the Stormcloaks.

 

 

Had it ever occurred to you that the Jarl (who would have been put in his position after the uprising was put down, by the way) might be mistaken or wrong?

 

So one author, who wasn't actually there, is completely right about what happened, while all the people living there who provide this version of events - from one of the Reachmen who says the old ways should be forgotten because of how vile some of them were, to the Jarl who was witness to these events unfolding and is the son of the Jarl who Madanach executed - are completely wrong? That seems like quite a stretch.

 

 

It is not beyond reason for anyone ingame to be incorrect or embellishing the truth (see: Saadia/Kemato at Whiterun for a fun case of he said/she said).

 

This isn't Rashoman. This is multiple characters attesting to the same version of events, while one book written by a man completely ignorant about the facts gives us what seems to be pro-Forsworn Propaganda instead.

 

 

If nothing else, the author of the two books adds credibility to himself by his willingness to commit to the second book, and paint a deeper picture of the Forsworn (not just as the oppressed murdered folks of the Bear, but as potentially vicious primitives unafraid to die for what they believe is theirs).

 

What credibility is there in writing a book that contradicts what actually happened by the people who were actually living in Markarth?