There's really no supposedly, The Bear Of Markarth reports that Ulfric ordered the execution of the people who didn't join the effort to remove the reachmen from Markarth, this is stated as factual content within the lore of the game, and there's really no evidence to support the claim that Ulfric didn't do otherwise.
The Bible reports that the world was created in seven days, that the first woman was grown from the first man's rib, that Moses magically parted a sea, and that God committed a mass genocide of every human being on Earth except for Noah and his family by flooding the world for a year. Do you believe all of that is true, too?
Not everything reported in a book is 100% accurate.
The Markarth Incident did, obviously, happen. Forsworn were captured and killed; that much can be taken as fact. Ulfric was clearly involved. But The Bear of Markarth is the
only piece of evidence against Ulfric's supposed merciless massacre of innocent men, women, and children. Jarl Igmund doesn't say anything of the sort when you speak to him about the Markarth Incident. Neither does Madanach, in Cidhna Mine, strangely enough; he was the leader of the Forsworn in the Reach at that time, after all, so you'd think that he might have something to say about Ulfric's brutal execution of his people. But nope, not a word.
It's also interesting how Ulfric behaves after capturing holds and cities throughout the civil war... which is to say, not at all like The Bear of Markarth accuses him of behaving after retaking the Reach. After winning the battle for Whiterun, does he put all citizens who didn't fight for him to the sword? No; the staunch Imperial-supporting Battle-Borns remain in the city, as does the Imperial smith Adrianne Avenicci, and everyone else, Nord and non-Nord alike. Does he order the execution of the Jarl that sided with the Empire, his children, his steward, his housecarl? No, he allows them to be peacefully moved to the Blue Palace in Solitude. The same goes for all of the other Jarls and their families and courts in other holds that the Stormcloaks take control of. This is factual, as we are a witness to it happening, and it characterizes Ulfric in an entirely different manner than the questionable reports in The Bear of Markarth do. I'm more inclined to believe what I see than what some potentially biased person writes in a book that isn't backed up by any other secondary source. But that's just me.
Still, it's possible that Ulfric did do all those horrible things in Markarth. I'm not denying that. But, even if he did, his motive was not necessarily rage and bloodlust and sadistic cruelty. He was, after all, hired by the Jarl of Markarth to retake the Reach; isn't it possible that the Jarl also gave him the order to kill anyone who didn't take up arms to help? Or perhaps Ulfric had gone off the deep end after all he suffered in the Great War, killed innocents in an incident of post-traumatic stress dissociation, and later deeply regretted his actions. Or maybe the supposed innocents weren't so innocent after all; most of what we see of and hear from the Forsworn indicate that they themselves are brutal and indiscriminate killers. I don't think it's completely out of question that even the sweet little old ladies could have risen up against the militia—just look at Nana Ildene.
Second, Ulfric admits that he entered the court not with the purpose of demonstrating he was the better warrior, the most honorable nord, or the worthy High King, but to kill Torygg, that's called "malicious intent", and that's precisely what separates murder from any other type of killing.
Do you think Ulfric should have strode into the Blue Palace and challenged Torygg to a game of chess? Of course he went in with the intent to kill him. That's what single combat means. That's the goal of challenging a High King for the right to rule. If he'd snuck into the keep and stabbed Torygg in the back with a dagger, then you could say that it was murder. But it wasn't murder. Ulfric declared his intent, and Torygg accepted knowing that he could (and likely would) very well be killed.
And third, you don't enter a knife fight with a gun, if you want to prove you are the better warrior and the better ruler (an absurd notion for starters, as if good kings automatically were good fighters) then you fight this person and demonstrate your prowess in fair combat, killing someone by shouting them away is not fair combat.
If Ulfric had been born with the natural ability to use the Thu'um, I would agree with you. But he spent ten years learning how to Shout—something
any Nord could choose to do. It's a learned skill, just as much as swordsmanship or pyromancy is. You don't go into a fight with a handicap so you're at the same level with your opponent's skills and abilities. If Torygg didn't know how to use a sword, what then? Would you expect Ulfric to throw down his weapons and just use his fists? And if Torygg did have much strength in his arms, should Ulfric resort to slapping him a few times across the face instead of throwing punches? You know, just to ensure that he wasn't entering a knife fight with a gun, as you put it.
This may be splitting hairs, but I should also say that Ulfric did not, in fact, "Shout him away," despite most guards gossipping as such. According to Ulfric, it was his sword that killed Torygg, not his Thu'um, and Elisif or Sybille Stentor (I can't recall who at the moment) corroborates the claim. You might say he still, in essence, used a Shout to kill Torygg as it did certainly aid in Ulfric's victory, but I think of it as just one of many ways to gain the upper hand in a fight. If you're fighting outdoors, you might maneuver your opponent to face the sun to limit his visibility. You might choose to wear light armor versus heavy armor to give yourself the advantage of speed, or to be able to stretch the battle out until your opponent, carrying around all that heavy steel, gets tired and can't block you as effectively. You might use a spear instead of a sword for the advantage of reach, or a mace instead of a sword to better bash your opponent's skull in. How are any of these choices different from using a Shout to get the advantage? Because Torygg didn't have the luxury of using Shouts, too? Please refer to my last paragraph.
He refuses He refuses Balgruuf's claim for neutrality in the war, no matter the questline, Ulfric implicitly gives him, and all the other jarls, a single ultimatum:
"Join me or die"
Are you sure you're not thinking of Darth Vader? I'm pretty sure he's used that line...
I can't recall Ulfric ever speaking those words, but if he did, I stand corrected. Ulfric threatened Balgruuf. Fine. But, clearly, it was an empty threat, because Ulfric makes no move to attack Whiterun while Balgruuf is still deciding where his allegiance will lie. I'm not inclined to believe that Balgruuf took such a threat seriously, anyway, since, when you take him Ulfric's axe, he laughs as though he's rather amused by it all, and says, "The man is persistent, I'll give him that. I suppose it's time I gave him an answer." If he really believed Ulfric's "Join me or die" threat, I doubt he would be so flippant and casual about the situation. In any case, Ulfric leaves Balgruuf and Whiterun alone as long as Balgruuf remains neutral; it's only after Balgruuf declares for the Empire that Ulfric moves to take the city. So, no, Ulfric didn't refuse Balgruuf's claim for neutrality; he responded to Balgruuf's declaration for the Empire.
Ulfric could perfectly bypass Whiterun and attack the other imperial holds
I suspect you've never played the civil war on the side of the Stormcloaks. If you had, you would have heard Ulfric make several statements about the importance of having Whiterun: "Things hinge on Whiterun," "Whiterun is only a means to an end," and after taking the city, "We now control the center. It's a powerful position." Simply put, Whiterun is prosperous, influential, and the most strategically located city in Skyrim. To bypass it,
especially after Balgruuf declares for the Empire, would be a downright idiotic move.
He did, he invaded his city without any reason nor provocation after threatening him to join his cause, this is a behavior you never see from Tullius
He invaded his city
with reason and provocation: Balgruuf declared for the Empire, thus becoming an open enemy to the rebellion.
And no, you won't see Tullius storming Whiterun's gates, but you will see him ordering Rikke to "embellish" details of Ulfric's plans to Balgruuf in order to manipulate Balgruuf into allowing the legion into his city, and make him think it was his own idea to do so. That is much more honorable.
First, Tullius was not a nord, and he had surrendered, or is it the way of nords to also impose their morality on others ?
Treating a person in a way that follows your own moral code does not equal imposing your moral code onto others. On the contrary, setting aside your own moral code in order to appease that of someone else's is, in a way, allowing that someone else to impose
their morality on
you. If you expect Ulfric to treat Tullius based on what Tullius believes, then Tullius should in turn treat Ulfric based on what Ulfric believes... and that certainly doesn't happen, does it?
Second, those comments from Ulfric and Galmar are funny, considering how Ulfric explicitly says at one point (if you do the Dark Brotherhood and Stormcloak questlines together) that he cannot risk a war with The Empire if he dares to kill Titus Mede II, funny, I thought the Empire was weak.
He's not hesitant to go to war with the Empire because he fears the Empire. He's hesitant to waste time and resources on a war with the Empire when the
real threat is the Aldmeri Dominion, with whom he expects to soon be at war once Skyrim secedes from the Empire.
It's a political maneuver, if he kills Elisif then he further loses any hope of support he might gain from those who sided with The Empire, by letting her live he can use her to channel more support to his claim.
He killed the
High King while the Empire still controlled Skyrim but is worried about what killing Elisif might do to his political position after driving the Empire out of the province and securing the control and support of every single hold? Right.
the reality of the matter is that the moot is going to pick him no matter what, because he has made sure of that by killing almost everyone that could threaten his position
Will the Moot vote for Ulfric to be High King? Yes, most likely. But as I said before, what would be the point of fighting for control of a country but then
not putting your own people into power? But he certainly didn't kill everyone that could threaten his position. He didn't kill Elisif. He didn't kill Balgruuf. He didn't kill any of the other Empire-aligned Jarls he deposed. Really, the only person he who might have threatened his position that he
did kill was General Tullius.
if he actually was selfless, then perhaps he could've let Whiterun have neutrality, and when the moot came, he could've sit back and perhaps even risk losing to Balgruuf, Skyrim would've still been free nonetheless.
I never said that Ulfric was selfless. Does he want to be High King?
Obviously. Why would he have challenged Torygg for the
title of High King if he didn't want that title?
And in what world do you see a free Skyrim with Balgruuf sitting on the throne? Balgruuf, who had sworn fealty to the Empire and who believes that Skyrim should remain a part of her? What makes you think that, should he become High King in Ulfric's stead, he wouldn't call the legion back in to retake Skyrim? Certainly not out of fear that Ulfric would just kill him, too, because as High King, Balgruuf could very easily have Ulfric arrested and perhaps even executed for treason, thus removing that threat entirely, and opening the doors to allow the Empire back in unimpeded.
Because Tullius is not demanding for a moot, he does not aspire to become High King, he is removing the Jarls who have sided with a traitor.
Of course Tullius isn't demanding a moot; he's not the one challenging the leadership of Skyrim. I'm sure he'd be perfectly content to sit back and let the Empire seat whoever best suits their purposes on Skyrim's throne, as they've done for decades. And of course Tullius doesn't aspire to become High King; he isn't a Nord and he doesn't live in Skyrim. What does any of that have to do with it?
He's removing Jarls who have sided with a traitor, and Ulfric is removing Jarls who have sided with what he believes to be a corrupt Empire who has by and large abandoned Skyrim and her people. They are both doing what they think is right, and they are both making choices that serve their own purposes. There's no difference.
!
