So he's arguing for something that he doesn't believe is true? Great! Like I said, I welcome you to prove with FACTS that it did happen but of course nobody can, because it didn't.
Prove with facts that Sancre Tor happened, prove with facts that the Battle of the Red Ring happened, prove with facts that Talos the God is the joining of three beings, prove with facts that the College of Winterhold caused the great collapse, prove with facts that Riften was burnt to the ground and rebuilt around eighty years ago.
Nobody can 'prove' majority of things, the only way something is considered fact is when it isn't contradicted by another book, someone outright denying it happened, or seeing something with our own eyes in-game.
To quote what someone on UESP mentioned once about lore in TES.
Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence.
No one talking about something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
1. The author is a forsworn sympathizer which is obvious from his only other book.
2. The author was not present at the time the events took place, how do we know this its not mentioned anywhere? From his words its obvious he would not fight with/for Ulfric so if he where there then according to his own words he would have been murdered along with everyone else - unless what he says is a lie.
3. The author is an Imperial and has an imperial agenda to make Ulfric look bad. In the book he says:
"We allowed them to worship Talos, in full violation of the White-Gold Concordat with the Aldmeri Dominion (which recognizes the elven belief that Talos, as a human, cannot be one of the Divines).
In jeopardizing the treaty that so many sacrificed for during the Great War, the Empire was wrong. But what choice did they have, I ask you? Against the Bear of Markarth, Ulfric Stormcloak, "no" is not an answer."
Now if you look at the Wars page of the UESP you will see under the Battle of the Red ring:
"Critics note that the terms of the Concordat are almost identical to those of the original ultimatum presented by the Thalmor prior to the war."
So he is disappointed in Ulfric's actions "jeopardizing the treaty" yet the Empire could have avoided a war all together if they signed the first one. The "treaty that so many sacrificed for during the Great War" was all in vain, they sacrificed for the empire to sign away what they started fighting for in the first place.
4. Apart from the book, there is no other in game evidence to support any of the claims made in the book. You think maybe one or two people who lived in Markarth at the time would have remembered such a massacre? The author claim that the Forsworn were mostly peaceful during their rule, yet when you first enter Markarth a Forsworn is
murdering an innocent women. Every single Forsworn you meet in the wild will attack and try to kill you on sight, and for what reason? The Forsworn are savages and worship hagraven's and make human sacrifices, this is how they live outside Markarth why would they be any different inside?
The book states:
"True, some crimes were committed against former Nord landowners (often those accused of being the harshest towards their native workers), but on the whole the Forsworn ruled their lands fairly"
So basically how I interpret that - they killed a whole bunch of Nord's but don't don't pay any attention to that, they are only rebels that fight our glorious empire, Ulfric massacred these peaceful people!
My thoughts are:
- Some forsworn where most likely killed/executed
- Every women and child killed is a huge overstatement.
- This book is an imperial attempt to damage the Ulfric's name and cause, and to paint the empire in a better light.
A brilliant response given by somebody on UESP, basically sums up my points in one post.
