Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[Grogmar Ghrobash]

Okay. Fair enough. Dagmar is pretty darned credible when it comes to lore. But she's not here, right now.

Aside from the suggestion that Dagmar says the site might not always be right... can you point me to a source that tells me exactly when these events occurred?

I'm on my xbox so I can't post any links, but I can assure you UESP is very credible. What you found on the Skyrim wiki may very well be correct, I'm just saying for future references that you shouldn't rely on that site. Just look up 'The Markarth Incident' on google and click the one that has UESP on it. The site should provide you other sources reguarding the topic also in case you want to double check.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

In the Bear of Markarth, it says:

In the wake of the aftermath of the Great War, you can imagine the backlog on stately matters the Empire had. Before a peace treaty could be resolved with the Forsworn, a militia led by Ulfric Stormcloak sieged [sic] the gates of their capital, Markarth. What happened during that battle was war, but what happened after the battle was over is nothing short of war crimes.

Any other primary sources to contradict?

This really does nothing to contradict the main article on Igmund.

I think the real issue here is how exactly Ulfric handled the situation.

 

[Moris]

This really does nothing to contradict the main article on Igmund.

I think the real issue here is how exactly Ulfric handled the situation.

Well, I think the issue is the timing.

--

How Ulfric handled things is another matter altogether, and I have seen no evidence that the Empire did not completely condone his methods.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Yeah, I was about say that this from The Bear of Markarth gives a date: "Yes, from 4E 174-176, the Forsworn did in fact rule over the Reach as an independent kingdom from Skyrim." We know the Concordat was signed in 175.

I always found this line intriguing when it came to the Markarth business. Here's a line from the Thalmor Dossier on Ulfric:

The so-called Markarth Incident was particularly valuable from the point of view of our strategic goals in Skyrim, although it resulted in Ulfric becoming generally uncooperative to direct contact.

[Link on the Imperial Library]

With the dates provided, it all gets curiouser and curiouser, really. Or maybe I've just got a wildly paranoid, overactive imagination.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

Well, I think the issue is the timing.

The Empire didn't sign the concordant thinking about the timing of Ulfric's retaking of Markarth.

--

How Ulfric handled things is another matter altogether, and I have seen no evidence that the Empire did not completely condone his methods.

It's one thing to actually commit the action and entirely another to condone such, you assuming the Empire condoned what went down is just that; an assumption with no basis or ground. Furthermore there is proof if the author of the Bear of Markarth is to be believed, hence the Empire wanted to handle the situation with diplomacy.

 

[Moris]

The Empire didn't sign the concordant thinking about the timing of Ulfric's retaking of Markarth.

--


It's one thing to actually commit the action and entirely another to condone such, you assuming the Empire condoned what went down is just that; an assumption with no basis or ground. Furthermore there is proof if the author of the Bear of Markarth is to be believed, hence the Empire wanted to handle the situation with diplomacy.

There's no definitive proof that any author of any book is to be believed. History is written by the victors. It is both biased and completely vulnerable to revision. This is no less true in Elder Scrolls games than in real life.

ETA: If we are going to eliminate the author of this book as not credible, then we must eliminate his accusations of war crimes as well

We cannot use him and abuse him willy-nilly, just because here his argument fits ours and there it does not.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

There's no definitive proof that any author of any book is to be believed. History is written by the victors. It is both biased and completely vulnerable to revision. This is no less true in Elder Scrolls games than in real life.

The amount of implications found throughout the game and the lack of contradicting evidence make it safe to assume that the Markarth Incident did happen. Just how it is.

 

[Moris]

The amount of implications found throughout the game and the lack of contradicting evidence make it safe to assume that the Markarth Incident did happen. Just how it is.

I never said it didn't happen.

I shall quote what I added to my post:

If we are going to eliminate the author of this book as not credible, then we must eliminate his accusations of war crimes as well

We cannot use him and abuse him willy-nilly, just because here his argument fits ours and there it does not.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

I never said it didn't happen.

I shall quote what I added to my post:

If we are going to eliminate the author of this book as not credible, then we must eliminate his accusations of war crimes as well

We cannot use him and abuse him willy-nilly, just because here our argument fits ours and there it does not.

When did we declare the author's account of the incident as not credible? The book offers the most credible and clear account of the Incident, and the lack of contradicting evidence on your part does little to prove otherwise.

 

[That one wood elf...]

And why should I pick one over the other? So far neither have shown me that one is better or worse than the other, they both have their bad and good qualities. Many say Stormcloaks because the name sounds cool, but I want to side for a reason, not the name.

I'm a male Khajiit (Destruction mage)

Please help me D:

EDIT: I really want to keep being a mage so does one of them have classes or can I just stay been a mage.

I only started playing 4 days ago and i have never played any other TES.

In my opinion, you should be a imperial. I just generally like them more, but neither are truly "good" or "bad."
yes,yes I know they were the ones that tried to execute you in the beginning but you just have more of an advantage because imperials are more on the "good" side than stormcloaks. I like that. Plus it's pretty epic to defend whiterun spoiler alert

 

[Ozan]

The Colovian allowed another city to be conquered. He liberated through brute force. Perhaps ALL would judge the Empire far less, should their actions have been exactly the same.

Unfortunate that the Empire lacks the backbone to commit to anything.

 

[Moris]

When did we declare the author's account of the incident as not credible? The book offers the most credible and clear account of the Incident, and the lack of contradicting evidence on your part does little to prove otherwise.

I must concede this one point. Sincere apologies. I misread one of yours posts by inserting in my mind a single word where it did not in fact appear. Oops.

 

[That one wood elf...]

Well, I think the issue is the timing.

--

How Ulfric handled things is another matter altogether, and I have seen no evidence that the Empire did not completely condone his methods.

I just want to say all of this arguing about Skyrim is pretty damn epic I still go imperial.

 

[Moris]

In any case, I was quoting the author of the Bear of Markarth to indicate that he believed the timing of the Markarth incident to have occurred AFTER the conclusion of the Great War.

If he is credible, then this disputes the claim that the Empire did not deal with the Forsworn because they were concerned with the "Aldmeri at their gates", as one poster put it.

Aldmeri were not at their gates. To be sure, Empire was devastated and lacking resources. But to suggest that the Empire could not protect the Nords from the Forsworn because they were in the midst of a battle against the Aldermi is, in my opinion, hugely overstating the case. The war was over.

 

[Grogmar Ghrobash]

The Colovian allowed another city to be conquered. He liberated through brute force. Perhaps ALL would judge the Empire far less, should their actions have been exactly the same.

Unfortunate that the Empire lacks the backbone to commit to anything.

What are you talking about? If you're refering to the cities taken during the civil war than that is entirely up to whichever side the player chooses.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Here's something that might be useful, from A Concise Account of the Great War Between the Empire and the Aldmeri Dominion:

The White-Gold Concordat and the End of the War

Although victorious, the Imperial armies were in no shape to continue the war. The entire remaining Imperial force was gathered in Cyrodiil, exhausted and decimated by the Battle of the Red Ring. Not a single legion had more than half its soldiers fit for duty. Two legions had been effectively annihilated, not counting the loss of the Eighth during the retreat from the Imperial City the previous year. Titus II knew that there would be no better time to negotiate peace, and late in 4E 175 the Empire and the Aldmeri Dominion signed the White-Gold Concordat, ending the Great War.

[Link on UESP]

In short, the Concordat was signed late in the year 175, while the Markarth "deal" was struck in 176. We don't know when in 176, it could have been mere days or weeks after the Concordat was signed. Which would explain the confusion and lack of awareness on both sides, and why the Legion was still pretty well tied up in Cyrodiil then.

If someone has the Concordat and "Markarth Incident" dates down to the month and day, please inform me.

 

[Ozan]

What are you talking about? If you're refering to the cities taken during the civil war than that is entirely up to whichever side the player chooses.

Khajiit refers to the Markarth incident.

 

[feliciano182]

When did we declare the author's account of the incident as not credible?

When we chose to rationalize The Stormcloaks' actions simply because joining something called The Empire "is icky".

Well, some among us at least !

 

[Moris]

When we chose to rationalize The Stormcloaks' actions simply because joining something called The Empire "is icky".

Well, some among us at least !

Allow me to point you to my own post, where I wrote:

I must concede this one point. Sincere apologies. I misread one of yours posts by inserting in my mind a single word where it did not in fact appear. Oops.

--

Joining either side is "icky".

I mean, the Imperials make you wear a skirt, for the divines' sake. I find that decidedly icky, and I'm a girl. I can't imagine what kind of sacrifice it must be for the men.

 

[Grogmar Ghrobash]

Khajiit refers to the Markarth incident.

Then I'd have to ask, how is it that you blame the Empire for allowing a city to be conquered during the middle of a very devastating war with the Thalmor? They aren't going stop battling to retake a city in a whole other province away while their homeland is being ravagly destroyed.