Lore talk:Forsworn

Origin of "Forsworn"; verification needed

The article implies that Reachmen took on the title of the "Forsworn" following the Markarth Incident. I lifted this proposition from the Skyrim page, though there's no apparent source for it. It might be spelled out in-game dialogue. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 09:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Here is some dialogue that I believe confirms that: "Markarth and the Reach are our lands. That is why we are the Forsworn. We cannot claim the home that is rightly ours."64.135.48.170 19:40, 7 May 2013 (GMT)

The Markarth Incident

The article incorrectly states that Jarl Igmund's dialogues contradict the accounting of Arrianus Arius when they do no such thing. Igmund never states that the Empire gathered a Nord militia. He says "When the Empire lost the Reach during the Great War, we became desperate." It's reasonable to assume when Igmund uses the term "we" he means the Nords of Skyrim and not the Empire. He then states "We promised a group of Nord militia free worship in exchange for their help in retaking the Hold." This clearly implies the militia was already in place, i.e. it was Ulfric's militia, not one formed by the Empire, which, in and of itself makes little sense because with the Great War over, the Empire would have used its own Legions, not a Nord militia, to deal with the Forsworn. This fact is further reinforced when Igmund refers to Ulfric Stormcloak as their leader. I'm revising the section to reflect these facts.--DagmarH 02:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Distinction

I think it's worth noting the distinction between the Forsworn and the Reachmen. The Reachmen are the native tribe/pseudo-race of the Reach, descended from Bretons, and have lived there for centuries. The Forsworn are a faction/group of Reachmen formed by the Markarth Incident in the Fourth Era. As Igmund says "When the Aldmeri Dominion invaded the Imperial City, the Legion all but turned a blind eye to the other provinces. Many of the disgruntled natives of the Reach used the opportunity to depose the Empire, and founded what they called an independent kingdom. It was little more than a chaotic uprising, but the Reach was removed from Imperial authority for two years before we reclaimed it. But the leaders of the uprising refused our offers of peace. They fled into the hills and became the Forsworn." Thongvor also mentions how the Empire created the Forsworn: "Through neglect. During the Great War, they let the unwashed natives retake the Reach and declare their own sovereignty. The Stormcloaks were forced to retake the Reach on our own, but that taste of independence emboldened them. And the Forsworn were born. In the end, we took back Markarth, but those damn Forsworn still stalk the hills and roads, looking for revenge." Thus before the Markarth Incident, there were just Reachmen. Now because of the Markarth Incident, there are a particular group of Reachmen who are the Forsworn. Anton Virane suggests that about half of the Reachmen joined the Forsworn. --Enodoc (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2013 (GMT)

PS. I do note the note which notes: It is important to note that not all Reachmen are aligned with the Forsworn; what I'm suggesting is a more severe split – the info about the Reachmen and their history on a separate page, while the page about Forsworn details them as a faction of Reachmen. --Enodoc (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2013 (GMT)

Anyone opinions? I think the distinction may be beneficial for ESO, which will have "Reachmen" but no "Forsworn".[1] Alternatively to a split, we could just move this page to Lore:Reachmen. --Enodoc (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2013 (GMT)

Anton's dialogue does suggest that only roughly half the Reachmen became Forsworn. Never noticed that. A split is definitely appropriate. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:42, 7 May 2013 (GMT)

Is the split something you were/are/may be working on, or shall I have a crack at it? I don't want to conflict with something you may have already started doing. --Enodoc (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2013 (GMT)

Oh, no; by all means, go ahead. I've got a full plate. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 02:14, 27 May 2013 (GMT)

Braig and Aethra

The article implies that Ulfric had Braig's daughter executed in front of him sometime during the Markarth Incident. If we do some simple math, Aethra would have been at most 2 years old. As the owner of a 3 year old myself, I really don't think that she would have had enough situational awareness to volunteer herself for prison at that age, not to mention the fact that the idea of the militia executing a toddler is a little bit extreme. I don't think it belongs in that area of the article at all. Rouxez (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2013 (GMT)

Your math is a little off, the Forsworn Uprising, as Braig calls it, took place 27 years before Skyrim. Your logic is sound though. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 23:55, 25 May 2013 (GMT)

What are you saying? Last I checked, it was the Jarl of Markarth that executed his daughter. Ulfric had nothing to do with it. He was not in Markarth four years after the uprising. Other than that. She would be twenty three during Skyrim. That means that she would be four.[2]--Br3admax (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2013 (GMT)

Braigs daughter. He says she would've been 23 in 201, meaning she would've been born in 178, 4 years after the uprising. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:22, 26 May 2013 (GMT)

The way I remember the sentence being structured, it went straight from talking about Ulfric's actions in the Reach to "the Jarl something something." Ulfric's referred to as "the Jarl" all the time, and while I recognize he obviously WASN'T a jarl back then, my brain put the two together as it saying Ulfric had it ordered. And my math came from subtracting 23 from 201 and brain farting the difference between the two dates, so obviously my error there, oops. Rouxez (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2013 (GMT)

Actually, now that I think about it, wasn't Madanach supposed to be dead in the public eye? He says that he was sentenced to death but it never came, and Braig had a daughter executed because he talked to Madanach once, but that daughter wasn't even born until 4 years after Madanach's "execution"... am I over thinking this?Rouxez (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2013 (GMT)

I feel that the confusion about this is due to people not knowing when the Native uprising in Markarth was put down. A loading Screen state that a native uprising was put down 20 years ago and the survivors are now known as the Forsworn. Thonars Journal says Madanach has been in prison for 20 years, and Nepos Dialogue also states hes been receiving Madanachs orders from prison for nearly 20 years... seems pretty clear from this that it was indeed 20 years ago 4e181. The seemingly contradictionary statement by Jarl Igmund that the Reach was removed from Imperial Authority for two years before they reclaimed it, is not a contradiction at all, for one meaning of Reclaim is to demand something back... The city wasn't instantly taken back, in 4e176, it was just demanded to be returned to the rightful leaders, and so, when the uprising was put down in 4e181, this would presumably be the same time they retook the city of Markarth, Aethra would be 3 at this time.Thorus (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

(←) While that is a legitimate interpretation, we have a source (The Bear of Markarth) giving an exact year for the end of the uprising. Even had the uprising been quelled in 181, it would then imply that a 3 year old volunteered for prison and was executed. Either way Braig's statement is incorrect. In the light of an exact date, the "20 years" can be seen as a rounded number, the kind of rounding that happens all the time in informal dialogue. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 22:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you really think a Loading screen and a journal entry would round 25 down to 20 or in Nepos case say it was nearly 20 years ago rather than over?

... seems far fetched, and it outright dismisses too much of the Lore to supportThorus (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does happen, and no it isn't farfetched. This topic was about Braig and Aethra, and both 176 and 181 are out-of-sync with Braig's assertion that Aethra would have been 23 in 201. Children aged +3 or -2 would not have been executed. If your issue is only with the date of the rebellion, then leave your comments for a related topic. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If you read the book "The Bear of Markarth" it says that when the city was retaken, the Empire sent soldiers to establish order, and that there was reports of chaos and deaths inside the city rising every day. seeing as the Empire wasn't able to send any soldiers initially (or were reluctant to), they may have had other set backs as well due to the backlog of stately matters, and persecutions in Markarth may have been going on for some time after the city was retaken, perhaps years, and in that time Aethra would have had time to grow upThorus (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)