Lore talk:Ulfric Stormcloak

Article Cleanup Changes re Neutrality and Accuracy

The article should not take a position regarding the strength of claims by detractors that Ulfric Stormcloak is racist. It violates general standards of neutrality that are supposed to be maintained in a wiki article. It's cited basis for said opinion is also inaccurate. Nothing stated by Jarl Igmund in the game contradicts The Bear of Markarth. The statements attributed to Igmund simply don't exist in the game (see discussion page on the Lore Article for the Forsworn for further details). I'm removing the non-neutral language regarding attributions of racism by his detractors, adding alleged bases for such claims, and correcting the misinformation on Jarl Igmund's in game dialogue. There may be additional problems of accuracy in the article but I'll need to recheck the game content to verify. Basically the article may need significant additional cleanup and corrections.--DagmarH 04:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's possible a few things could be tweaked, but the article should be fine now overall. The portions you have objected to and changed was added by Lobsel Vith last April. I probably should've challenged his assertions, but I didn't want to seem territorial, as I wrote pretty much everything else. Anyways, he may have something to say on the matter, I don't know. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 04:05, 13 September 2012 (GMT)

Elenwen

Why is the factual statement of Elenwen's involvement in Ulfric's interrogation being removed? Its stated clearly in the Thalmor Dossier on him which has no reason to be doubted, being secret information not intended for distribution/misinformation. It also gives pertinent insight into his hateful treatment of her during the possible peace-conference which can take place late in the main quest.--Grieves (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2012 (GMT)

Lots of reasons.

1. Factual Thalmor statements is practically an oxymoron. It's an assertion by an organization known for deceit and subterfuge. The dossier is an inherently dubious source in my opinion. I never bothered to include info from it, and no one else has seen fit to do so until now. At the time it was acquired in-game, it was not apparently intended for distribution yet; it could've been a part of some misinformation campaign the Thalmor prepared in case the Stormcloaks got the upper hand in the rebellion.

2. Gaining insight on Ulfric's treatment of Elenwen during the peace conference is unneeded, as there's no mystery to solve there. His reaction to her presence was hardly unorthodox. Imagine she were any other Thalmor; he would've been saying the same hateful things.

3. Like I said in my edit summary, she's just not that historically important, so mentioning her by name is unnecessary. Spies rarely make it into the history books. In the scheme of things, she's a small actor, on par with Commander Maro or one of those Greybeards that doesn't talk. You're linking to a Skyrim article because no one has bothered to make a lore entry for her. Just because she had some fleeting contact with Ulfric is not good enough. Galmar Stone-Fist was Ulfric's housecarl and presumably one of his best friends; he's not mentioned here, either, although there's certainly more reason to do so for him than for Elenwen. Why is he not mentioned here? Because he's a small fish.

4. Saying she is the emissary "now" is inaccurate, as player actions after the main quest can contradict it. We generally try to write the lore articles to make them timeless, so we will have to make a minimal amount of changes when and if new information is released. The addition will certainly have to be changed/removed in the future anyways, as it dates the page. Trying to clarify and going into further detail about her would needlessly distract from the page's true topic and add filler to an already-lengthy page. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 17:32, 18 September 2012 (GMT)

Considering he refers to her as 'the Thalmor Bitch', one of the only times you'll ever hear(or read) a character swear in any of the Elderscrolls games, I think his reaction to her presence is atypical, yes... even given she's a Thalmor. Considering the accuracy of the Thalmor Dossiers is what leads the Dragonborn to Esbern, I think its assuming a whole lot to think the Dossier on Ulfric is some kind of contrivance when there's no basis in the game for that assumption. If anything, the Thalmor Dossier on Ulfric could be considered one of the more legitimate sources of Lore information in the game, as its clearly intended privacy/secrecy (locked away in a chest in a Thalmor location so secure the Dragonborn needs to use wile to access it) and not for distribution, as its distribution would have a potentially fatal impact on a Civil War the Thalmor very much wants to continue, as well as revealing their involvement in the civil war, which would seriously jeopardize their efforts to dominate diplomacy with the Empire. To consider it a falsehood simply because the Thalmor are unlikable seems very odd when taking it as truth makes so much sense and taking it as false makes so little, and it adds such an interesting element to Ulfric's story. I also think its very interesting, if not essential, to know Ulfic and Elenwen have a personal relationship, even if she's not an exceedingly significant character(though she's really the only named character who represents the Thalmor on a consistent basis, present in that role even from the very beginning of the game.) As I understand it we want these pages to be as comprehensive as possible, so why leave Elenwen out/make intentionally vague or doubtful Ulfric's connection to the Thalmor? If its rooted in a desire to portray Ulfric's intentions as being purer than the Thalmor Dossier suggests, that seems quite the opposite of a neutral stance.

You're quite right about the use of 'now first Emissary Elenwen,', though. I'd happily change that language to 'Elenwen, who would later become First Emissary,' an easy fix requiring minimal space, if you'd allow it. I hope this contention over my minor contribution has nothing to do with our debate about the Padomay/Sithis thing, which I rather enjoyed myself... also finding what you've done with the Padomay page to be a good bit of work. — Unsigned comment by Grieves (talk • contribs) at 21:07 on 18 September 2012

I said that, presuming it is misinformation, they would've been saving it for when and if the Stormcloaks got the upper hand. Or perhaps they abandoned the idea of releasing it altogether, as like you said, it could prove fatal to the Stormcloaks. Either way, the fact that they kept it locked away doesn't prove the authenticity of its information. I think it could be a falsehood because that's what the Thalmor do, spread falsehoods, not because they're unlikable. If you look at their history, they won virtually nothing, but accomplished virtually everything, presumably because of behind-the-scenes meddling and devious misrepresentations.

A good lie makes a lot of sense.

Technically, we don't want these pages to be as comprehensive as possible. They should appear to be summaries, not life stories; in-game reference materials for a citizen of Tamriel. That means no game-specific content, but more to the point, it also means that including every little detail, regardless of the significance, is not really our goal.

I hate Ulfric; I don't understand how anyone likes him. The dossier isn't necessary to reach that conclusion. If anything, it slightly lets him off the hook in my mind, as it claims he's not actively working for the Thalmor during the game.

I think a lot of things on the wiki are wrong, but eventually you just have to sigh and let it go. Most battles are won by the person who cares the most, and I think you got me beat here. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:09, 18 September 2012 (GMT)

Ulfric's use of the thu'um in the Markarth Incident

The Bear of Markarth says nothing about Ulfric using the thu'um during the Markarth Incident. A specific, in-game source is needed or it's getting chopped. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 17:52, 19 September 2012 (GMT)

Kibell has this dialogue: "That's right. Whole group of the natives called the Forsworn rose up against the Nords. Drove them out. Then Ulfric Stormcloak came with his militia. That must have been a sight to see, him shouting folks to death." --Alfwyn (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2012 (GMT)

I can't remember the source of the dialogue, but I very specifically recall a male Nord NPC speaking of how Ulfric 'Shouted men off the walls.' I'll try to track him down in-game. --Grieves (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2012 (GMT)

No worries, it's a moot point now. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:09, 28 September 2012 (GMT)

Ah, lol, just found it much quicker than I could have thought. Thongvor Silver-Blood states, in response to the question "Ulfric saved Markarth? How?" that "He used the Thu'um. Shouted those Forsworn from the walls. Then he led a band of nord warriors in to take the city... just like Talos himself at the battle of old Hroldon, reclaiming the reach from those heathen natives." --Grieves (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2012 (GMT)

When was Ulfric Imprisoned?

UESP claims that Ulfric was imprisoned after the Markarth incident and that his father died shortly after. (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Ulfric_Stormcloak) Elder Scrolls Wikia claims that Ulfric's father died during his son't imprisonment by the Thalmor. It makes no mention of Ulfric being imprisoned by the Imperials after the Markarth incident. (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Ulfric_Stormcloak)

Which source is correct?

Could someone perhaps post the actual dialogue here?

-- Apophis2412

"My father, the great Bear of Eastmarch, died during my imprisonment after the Markarth Incident." is the dialogue, and, Following the Markarth Incident, Ulfric was arrested. His father, The Bear of Eastmarch, died while Ulfric was imprisoned, is the line I see on our page. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 20:28, 2 December 2012 (GMT)

UESP FTW! The Wikia editors are confusing Ulfric's capture during the Great War with his arrest after the Markarth Incident. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 20:45, 2 December 2012 (GMT)

Recent Changes

Well I think we've hit an edit war. None of the changes have any sources and I will remove them on sight as they provide false information. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 20:51, 25 May 2013 (GMT)

Yeah. I'm trying to fix up the article, remove bias. This guy seems to have an equally polarizing effect on editors as he does on people in the game. Also there should be a section added for the time he spent with the Greybeards, which was before the war with the Dominion; there aren't a lot of ingame sources to draw on though, really just some dialogue with Ulfric and with Arngeir. --Morrolan (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2013 (GMT)

Ulfric's "Prime"

I'm a little confused about Ulfric Stormcloak's defeat of High King Toryyg. According to the information on his page it was mentioned that his victory was unfair because Toryyg was young while Ulfric was in his "Prime", but I can't take the phraseology seriously...

I figured it was because of Skyrim's lack of an "Age Slider" that Ulfric was made to look like a man in his Prime (age 30-40) but I've always thought this was for technical reasons with the character creation only. If I'm supposed to take the lore seriously at all then Ulfric Stormcloak is someone who's best days are behind him. Maybe not far behind him... but he's no spring chicken.

Ulfric Stormcloak is at least 50 years old and that's only assuming he joined the Great War when he was a precocious nine year old. Realistically he's at least Sixty, or do Nords have an extended life expectancy as well? (Ebonarm (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2014 (GMT))

I'm not sure where you're getting the 9-year-old figure from. Ulfric was taken by the Thalmor and interrogated immediately surrounding the time the Imperial City was captured, which means most likely sometime in 174. That means he could have joined the Legion as late as 173, and if we assume as the privileged son of an important Jarl he was allowed to join at 16, that puts his birth year at ~157. That would give an age in 201 of about 44 (or 46 if he enlisted at 18), which is not old for a healthy noble. Possibly a little older than the game portrays, but certainly not in his 60s either. -- Hargrimm^(T) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (GMT)

(edit conflict) I'll look over the source material, but Hargrimm's point is valid. I'd guesstimate his age at around 47. And let's not forget that this is a warrior who knew how to use the thu'um, and we've no indication that the ability degrades with age. If anything, it gets stronger. So even assuming he'd lost a little spring in his step, his thu'um capabilities may also skew a bit what people would consider his "prime". If I needed a fighter, I would take a fit, experienced 47-year-old warrior over a teenager any day. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 16:54, 9 April 2014 (GMT)

If Ulfric joined the Great War at nine, then he would be thirty-nine years old, not fifty. (Torygg murdered in 201, Great War started in 171 -> 201 - 171 = 30. Ulfric joined the War at nine -> 30 + 9 = 39) I think he joined the Great War when he was in his early twenties, as he trained with the Greybeards as a boy and ten years later joined the war, so he's now in his early fifties. ("I know more than most. I trained with the Greybeards at High Hrothgar when I was a boy." and "I spent almost ten years at High Hrothgar, learning the Way of the Voice. Then the Great War came... I couldn't stand missing it."). —<({Quill-Tail>> 16:57, 9 April 2014 (GMT)

Going by the sources - he was chosen as a "boy" to study with the Greybeard and was with them for 10 years until he left for the war. War started in 4E 171 so he was a "boy" in 4E 161. Lets say he was about 10 years old - that makes him 20 at the time of the war (which is reasonable). He was known to have killed Torygg a few months prior to Skyrim - the game starts on the 17th of Last Seed, 4E 201, so he probably killed him late 4E 200 or early 4E 201. So that would make him at least 50 by 4E 201, not 60.

The line about Toryyg was young and Ulfric being in his prime I believe stems from the scene during Message to Whiterun:

Proventus: "Torygg? He simply walked up to the boy and murdered him!"

Irileth: "That "boy" was High King of Skyrim."

Balgruuf: "I'm not the High King, but neither am I a boy. If Ulfric wants to challenge my rule in the old way, let him. Though I suspect he'll prefer to send his "Stormcloaks" to do it for him."

That somewhat suggests they saw Torygg as fairly young and inexperienced - probably in his early 20's vs. a grizzled 50 year old veteran. Nordic lifespans are not much different from real life, so 50 might not be considered "prime" by most people - but there are always exceptions. I can understand if your issue is with the word "Prime", so what would you suggest? --Jimeee (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2014 (GMT)

A quick dialogue search turned up nothing on "prime" related to Ulfric, so I tweaked the wording. Think the message is the same, though. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 17:26, 9 April 2014 (GMT)

(←) I would suggest experienced. I was thinking he was older than fifty, but it seems I made a mistake in my "figuring" as everyone else from the great war is depicted as being elderly with Ulfric being the only exception. Except Skjor maybe... maybe... That said if there's an issue with neutrality I do favor an independent Skyrim over an imperial one, but I don't know if that's related here... I recognize Torygg was definitely less experienced and so I do see that as something that should have disqualified him from being High King but even so the idea of Ulfric coming in and butchering a child to death is just hyperbole. An exaggeration. Either way this is a nitpicky issue, but it definitely seemed bigger when that extra ten years got into my head somehow. :P

I guess Ulfric COULD be Fifty... in the right light... when you're REEEAALY close to his face. Ebonarm (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2014 (GMT)

Ulfric's Father

Hello,

In the Skyrim Prima Official Guide, there is this passage in the Ulfric biography:

He become Jarl of Windhelm after the death of his father Hoag in 183

Is the Prima Guide is a qualified source for the article? If I read correctly the guidelines concerning the lore, it can be used as a source, but I prefer to be sure.
--Lady freyja (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2015 (GMT)

I'm fine with that. It's got Bethesda's stamp of approval, and other sources confirm that Ulfric's father was named Hoag. I don't think another source mentions the date of Hoag's death, that's very interesting. That means Ulfric was imprisoned for at least seven years after the Markarth Incident. I'd assumed it was more like a couple years, tops. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 13:51, 28 February 2015 (GMT)

To clarify: yes, it can absolutely be used as a source. However, we're evidently treating it as an unofficial source; see this page for an example. I don't think that's necessary; I think it makes more sense to treat the official guide as an official source, as we already do with the Daggerfall and Morrowind guides. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 14:30, 28 February 2015 (GMT)

Because there's a lot of little lore information like that in the guide, like it mention that "Falkreath" is an elven name of unknown meaning, and the two questions on the Morthal Talk Page about the "Drajkmyr marsh" and the "Poorest hold" status came from this guide, in fact.

Even if English isn't my native tongue (so I'll probably do a lot of typos), I can probably add all of those information. --Lady freyja (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2015 (GMT)

Don't worry about typos or format; we're all here to help with that stuff. Just let us know what source you are relying upon. If you are uncomfortable with the ref template, just mention the source in the edit summary. Others will help fix any formatting or spelling issues. Thanks! Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 15:04, 28 February 2015 (GMT)

I've edited articles on Hoag the Merkiller and "Scourge of the Gray Quarter‎" as someone ridiculously linked the name of Ulfric's father to the Merkiller.93.178.98.207 10:12, 30 April 2015 (GMT)

(←) "There is cause for optimism, though, as Jarl Ulfric is not nearly so tolerant of these substandard beings as his fathers were. Indeed, the soft hand of Hoag can be seen in the cities [sic] Argonian population as well" - I believe it is not about Ulfric's father, it's about his fathers as in predecessors, therefore, removed content was correct.  ~Shuryard (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2015 (GMT)

Yes, I think you are right about the first sentence, as it clearly speak of his predecessors (at least, most recent ones) in general. Still, as we know now the name of Ulfric's father, I believe that SotGQ tells exactly of that Hoag when mentioning this name in the second, as it is more specific.93.178.98.207 09:13, 2 May 2015 (GMT)

Knowing asset to the Thalmor?

Hello, I have a question. Why is it worded as if Ulfric were a knowing asset to the Thalmor? I have read the dossier, and nowhere in there does it intimate Ulfric was willing, or even knowingly, complicit to any of their plans? One can be an asset without being party to the plan. Example: Alduin was an asset in the Dragonborn's escape from Helgen, but you can durn tootin' bet Alduin wasn't there to help! Wynni (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The part about him "becoming generally uncooperative to direct contact" clearly indicates that before he wasn't uncooperative. Phoenix Neko (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That could just as easily be a euphemism. Before Markarth, Ulfric wasn't on a warpath. A Thalmor agent could likely approach, say his peace, and leave with his head still attached and heart still beating. With the emotional triggers they learned of and created in him, that would be all they'd need to make him do what they wanted without him realizing it. After Markarth, Ulfric's rhetoric escalated and he punctuated his point with that farce of an honor duel. While that still serves the Thalmor cause, it means they no longer have direct access to lead Ulfric by the nose.

Regardless of personal agreement with one interpretation or another, the document is vague enough that pushing one interpretation as "true" in the lore article is inappropriate. 173.88.62.181 06:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

By that logic, any piece of information could be handwaved as an euphemism, but we don't do that, especially when it comes from an official intelligence document. Phoenix Neko (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"After the war, contact was established and he has proven his worth as an asset." "Direct contact remains a possibility..." If taken at face value then Ulfric was in contact and providing assistance in some form to the Thalmor. The source itself would need to be undermined or contradicted by evidence, not speculation, in order to undermine those statements as the truth. Until such evidence is presented that is the only truth we have, therefore it is the only truth presented on the page. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe things listed in the Dossier should be taken in context.

The War was a lot longer for the Thalmor than it was for the Empire, as they fought another 5 years against Hammerfell, after this point they likely came to Skyrim as the White-Gold Concordat gave them the right to operate throughout the Empire, upon arriving in Markarth the would likely encounter Ulfric, as he was there at this time, thus establishing contact, which is another term for confirming identification. As for his status as an asset, this is used to denote anything of use to give one an advantage, and the Thalmors dossier goes on to tell us what value he was as an asset, it was in the Markarth Incident, but the Dossier doesn't tell us what exactly this was, for that you need to go to other sources, and Jarl Igmund is one of those. He tells you that the Thalmor came to the city and demanded the arrest of Ulfric and his militia, and that this was the founding day of the Stormcloaks... and if you read the operational notes, you will see that the Thalmors position in Skyrim is to make sure this civil war keeps going.

People who believe that Ulfric was somehow working for the Thalmor willingly, seemed to miss the part of the Dossier where he escaped their custody, he was not set free, they did not part on friendly terms, and there is no good reason to assume Ulfric and Elenwen became pen-pals.

After Ulfric started the rebellion, rejecting the Empires law, there was no reason for him to be cooperate with the Thalmor like those loyal to the Empire, for it was their laws that he was rejecting too... though, the Thalmor did make direct contact during the civil war, at the Peace Summit at High Hrothgar, General Tullius invited Elenwen to attend the talks between him and Ulfric Thorus (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ulfric's status as a "dormant asset" shouldn't be seen as conscious, in my opinion. My interpretation of the intelligence on him and his behavior is that while he hates the Empire, he is definitely no friend to the Thalmor, and any value to them as an asset is unconscious on his part. It looks to me that they seek to influence him through indirect means, in order to prevent him from knowing that his resulting actions may be in fact be helping the elves. --Xyzzy ^Talk 01:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(←) That is simply wrong, and totally unsupported by the evidence. The evidence states that he was an asset, it doesn't elaborate on what sort of asset or how willing an asset he was. The "albeit reluctantly" is the logical reading of the "becoming generally uncooperative to direct contact", and the being in contact comes from "contact was established". The logical assumption is that they would be blackmailing him over the Great War situation. Nothing on the page says he was a willing participant, and there is no question that he hates the Thalmor. However, there is also no evidence to say he was an unwilling participant at that time, so the page cannot say that either. The information is presented as it is given to us, it should be left to the reader to interpret the evidence and decide what is the truth, we cannot force an unsupported opinion on them. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The Thalmor Dossier tells of their use of him as an asset, the Markarth Incident. The Thalmor ordered the Imperials to arrest Ulfric and his men, I doubt Ulfric would have conspired to have himself arrested, it just sounds a little far fetched. I find the article on Ulfric, more or less stating he was an active Thalmor agent before the Markarth incident pretty bias, and not what the lore indicates Thorus (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It would certainly be more accurate to state that the Thalmor considered Ulfric an asset at this time. That avoids the issue entirely by stating only what is known. He might not have even been an asset at all, and maybe the claim that he was one was simply the Thalmor claiming their sneaky little mission wasn't a failure. But, him being an asset is claimed by the Thalmor, which can be stated without any conjecture or speculation.

Assistance of Roggvir

I wanted to add a brief note that Ulfric "managed to evade capture" due to the assistance of Roggvir. Although Roggvir is recusable in some senses, being a Talos worshipper contrary to law, I think it is also relevant to indicate his involvement (as simply as appending "with the assistance of Roggvir" to the previous quoted text), as it indicates Ulfric had some popular/unpopular assistance as well as expressing the convictions of both sides (where Ulfric was willing to engage in an act of extremism to execute the High King, and where Elisif and the Empire were willing to execute a guard for his honest/legally supportable belief in Ulfric's innocence).

Is there any reason this page still needs to be protected some four years after the edit war? --Jtgibson (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Roggvir is a non-entity in the story, he is simply the fall guy during the game. The assistance he provided was because he believed the challenge to be legal, not because he believes in Ulfric's aims. The rulers of the city have decreed Ulfric's actions to be murder, and therefore Roggvir assisted a murderer in escaping justice, there is no sense of "conviction" for the Empire to execute him. He is executed because he opened the gate, not because he believes Ulfric was legally innocent.

I believe the protection is still warranted. The page had only existed for 18 months prior to its protection and the amount of unsourced and pov changes made (especially the removal of sourced claims) in that time is quite rare. The heavy amount of tampering between May and September 2013 when it was protected does not provide encouragement that if unprotected the page would not again suffer. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 13:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"The assistance he provided was because he believed the challenge to be legal, not because he believes in Ulfric's aims." But he wasn't present at the duel so how would he know it was legal? Phoenix Neko (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

We do not know exactly who beyond Toryggs council actually witnessed the duel, nor specifically where they chose to have it, though with Rogvir giving testimony about it, it seems likely it was near one of the Gates of the City. I like to draw a comparison to viking Jarls in this kind of situation, they would not generally fight such a challenge right in the Jarls chamber, but at a determined place Thorus (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The duel was to happen near the Blue Palace for what we know Phoenix Neko (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I was unaware of that stipulation, thank you. where abouts can I verify this as fact? Thorus (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Image of Ulfric's Soul

Considering neither outcome of the Civil War questline has been confirmed as the true outcome yet, isn't it premature and inappropriate to have the image of Ulfric in Sovngarde? In the event the Stormcloaks canonically win the Civil War, that'd make this image non-canon. I think it'd be safe to not have any lore pages contain any post-Battle for Whiterun images or statements in the event they turn out to be proven false in future games. --Rezalon (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I saw that image and wondered the same thing, but considering Ulfric is mortal, his soul will likely end up in Sovngarde eventually, no matter the events of TES5. --Xyzzy ^Talk 00:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Innacuracies in the article

Two, to be more specific. The simplest one (even though it is the one which has the bigger impact in the article) is regarding when exactly the Stormcloak Rebellion started: the article says it started after Torygg’s death when, in fact, it began years prior. It is revealed by Hadvar and Vulwulf Snow-Shod, Hadvar reveals that Ulfric founded the Stormcloaks years before Alduin’s return and that he killed Torygg only a few months prior, and Vulwulf reveals that his daughter “ joined the Stormcloaks many years ago, when the first of the skirmishes broke out across Skyrim” as he says it (Vignar Gray-Mane also says that the Gray-Manes and the Battle-Borns have been feuding for years, and since their feud is directly linked to the civil war... you get the idea). The second one is the claim that the *empire* arrested Ulfric in Markarth, which is less of an innacuracy and more of an oversimplification since the only one who had the authority to arrest Ulfric and his militia was Jarl Hrolfdir (who supported the Empire, but wasn’t exactly THE Empire). Think about it: a loading screen reveals the jarls are largely autonomous from the High King and another (along with the game itself) shows that the degree of autonomy is so great that each hold tracks it’s bounties separately, and also the fact that Cedran reveals the Dominion sent agents to Markarth (not the Imperial City) to demand Ulfric’s arrest, which further strengthens my claim here.

If someone who can edit the article reads this, I would appreciate it if you fixed these. — Unsigned comment by DovahsaurusPaleoKnight (talk • contribs) at 13:40 on 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the page protection here. —Legoless (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2020 (GMT)

So I can edit these parts myself? Just asking to make sure I don’t do anything stupid (better be safe than sorry, after all). And in case I am allowed to edit it, how do I add more references? Gonna need to show them to back up what i said. —DovahsaurusPaleoKnight (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2020

On War Crimes

The first line of the Markarth Incident section reads, "Ulfric led the militia to recapture the Reach, in what would become known as the Markarth Incident, during which numerous warcrimes were commited." I've been looking for evidence of these war crimes, and I've come up with The Bear of Markarth, and nothing else. That book: 1) is pretty clearly intended to be Imperial propaganda, 2) contains inaccuracies, and 3) is the only record I'm aware of that reports this. I think the book shouldn't be taken as fact.

For my #1, I admit this is just my opinion, but it sure seems like silly hyperbole with a tremendous bias. After all, it says the Empire "... sent soldiers to re-establish the rule of law in the Reach." As if Jarl Hrolfdir wasn't reinstated by Ulfric.

My #2 refers to the Forsworn. It could be that the game designer who wrote the book made a mistake, or it could be that the mistake is the fictional author's (which I will assume). The Forsworn Uprising didn't occur until after the city was retaken by Ulfric, but the book says that Ulfric quelled the Forsworn Uprising. Madanach didn't take the city as a Forsworn, he took it as a reachman. The Forsworn aren't a faction at all until Madanach is removed from his throne and they have a mission of revenge to forswear. This shows the author didn't bother to get the facts right, which fits if this is dishonest propaganda.

My #3 is on shaky ground, because I don't know what I don't know. Maybe something else backs up this claim, hopefully a somewhat trusted source. If the war crimes accusation is true, given how utterly horrifying The Bear of Markarth says Ulfric had been, I would expect that there should be at least something, somewhere, that mentions it. Maybe the designers could have forgotten to do that. Or, maybe there is another source to back up the book and I just haven't found it.

I submit a good replacement for the first line of the Markarth Incident section could be, "Ulfric led the militia to recapture the Reach, in what would become known as the Markarth Incident. One Imperial book claims numerous warcrimes were committed by Ulfric's forces, but this is not mentioned anywhere else."

Removed claim that the ban on Talos worship was not enforced until the Markarth Incident

This claim is simply unsupported by the cited dialogue (https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Igmund). There is nothing Igmund says that suggests that the ban was not enforced -- in fact, as is mentioned in the article, Hrolfdir actually offered Ulfric's Nord militia the ability to freely worship Talos as a bargaining chip for their aid. From this information, it stands to reason that the Talos worship ban was indeed enforced, otherwise it would make little sense for Hrolfdir to offer it as reward. Simply put, why would Hrolfdir offer them the freedom to worship Talos if they already had it? However, Alvor's dialogue does support this claim, although it is merely anecdotal (and the word of an avowed supporter of the Empire, and anti-Stormcloak, but the discussion of the credibility of Alvor's childhood memory is a discussion for another time). Perhaps Alvor should be cited here, instead? Anyways, it is very possible I missed something. Please feel free to contradict my argument.

Bear of Markarth credibility?

The article makes use of a claim made in The Bear of Markarth by Arranius Arius, an Imperial Scholar with clear Empire and Forsworn sympathies (also author of The "Madmen" of the Reach). Namely, the claim is that Ulfric "demanded" the condition of free Talos worship before he would cede Markarth -- as if Ulfric was holding Markarth hostage until the Empire met his terms. However, Igmund's (the son of Hrolfdir, who was involved in the Incident) dialogue says that Ulfric was actually "promised" this condition beforehand, not to mention that it was the Jarl of Markarth himself who asked Ulfric for his aid.

This is no small difference. Describing the situation as Ulfric "sieging" Markarth and "demanding" free Talos worship is much different than what Igmund describes; that Ulfric freed Markarth from Forsworn control having been already promised free Talos worship in return.

Concerning the author: both The Bear of Markarth and The "Madmen" of the Reach demonstrate clear ideological bias. Knowing this, it seems to me that such negatively connotative language such as "demanded" should be revised. Further, we have no reason to believe that Arranius Arius was actually present during the Markarth Incident -- TBoM is better understood as wartime propaganda from an Imperial Scholar than as a completely factual primary source. Igmund, of course, wasn't directly involved in the Incident either, but he is arguably less removed from the event, since his father was the Jarl at the time, so it stands to reason his account of things might be more trustworthy.

Regardless of uncertain credibility of the claims, that's no reason not to include them, we have to include all the claims.Tarponpet (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)