A different perspective on Arranius Arrius and 'The Bear of Markarth'

I've currently been on a bit of a Forsworn booze-cruise for the past week, so I've decided to just spew all my thoughts on reddit before the momentum dies down. This post is kinda-sorta tangentially related to the Forsworn, though it's more of a re-examination of ol' Arrianus Arius' motives in writing the The Bear of Markarth than anything directly Reachman-related. My eyes kinda glazed over by the end of this so sorry if there are any mistakes (namely spelling the dude's name wrong in the title. GAH).

Hope you enjoy!

> "Every official who worked for the Forsworn was put to the sword, even after they had surrendered. Native women were tortured to give up names of Forsworn fighters who had fled the city or were in the hills of the Reach. Anyone who lived in the city, Forsworn and Nord alike, were executed if they had not fought with Ulfric and his men when they breached the gates. "You are with us, or you are against Skyrim" was the message on Ulfric's lips as he ordered the deaths of shopkeepers, farmers, the elderly, and any child old enough to lift a sword that had failed in the call to fight with him." - 'The Bear of Markarth' by Arrianus Arius

Whenever bickering over the Imperials and Stormcloaks takes place on the internet, someone, somewhere down the line will eventually mention the brutal subjugation of the Reachmen attributed to Ulfric Stormcloak and his men in the book 'The Bear of Markarth', written by Imperial scholar Arrianus Arius. While his account of the The Markarth Incident of 4E 176 is certainly not favourable to Ulfric, 'The Bear of Markarth' is often completely - and quite unfairly - dismissed as little more than "Imperial propaganda" simply because of the assumption that the author's race and support for the Empire is the sole reason for his antipathy towards the Stormcloaks.

Though this may often be the case, this is not necessarily always the case. Even in fantasy settings like 'The Elder Scrolls' games, race is not so much the defining factor that shapes people's views and beliefs as is background, culture, and experiences. In the same way that not all Nords despise the Empire, not all Imperials despise the Stormcloaks. Not all people of the same race stick together, examples of which are seen notably in Reburrus Quintilius, who is an Imperial yet refers to you as "kinsman" if you are a Nord, shares the same kind of antipathy towards "outsiders" (read: non-Nords) as other Markarth citizens, is even appointed as the steward of Thongvor Silver-Blood should the Stormcloaks gain control of the Reach; and Borkul the Beast, who is an Orc yet fights for the Forsworn.

"But, what if race is the case for Arranius Arius?!", I hear you cry. Certainly, being an Imperial would not endear him to the leader of a faction as nationalistic (or xenophobic, at worst) as the Stormcloaks, and passages such as "we allowed them to worship Talos, in full violation of the White-Gold Concordat with the Aldmeri Dominion" reveal that he is an Imperial, both racially and politically. But what if the majority of his sympathies lie not with the Empire, but with the Forsworn?

Upon examining 'The Bear of Markarth' in context of Arranius Arrius' later study of the Forsworn, 'The "Madmen" of the Reach', it becomes clear that his main motivation in writing these books is not necessarily to excuse the actions of the Empire, but to excuse the actions of the Reachmen, painting them as sympathetic a light as possible without stretching the bounds of credibility.

> Since the legendary victory of Tiber Septim over the "barbarian natives" in the Battle of Old Hroldan, Imperial and Nord scholarship has cast the people of the Reach as little more than savages , prone to irrational fits of violence, worshipping old, heretical gods, and fetishizing beasts and nature spirits that any civilized person would best well avoid. In truth, these accounts are little more than "victor's essays," a perspective narrowed by the Empire's constant strife with the ancient, proud people that lived in this land far before Tiber Septim walked the soil of Tamriel. In light of this, I hope to create a more complete, accurate, and fair assessment of a group that has long suffered under the role of "enemy," "troublemakers," and "them.

Right in the opening passage, the author strongly criticises both both Nord and Imperial view of the Reachmen, and disagrees with their view of them as "barbarian natives", "madmen", "enemies", and "troublemakers". Instead, he depicts them here as an "ancient, proud people that lived in this land far before Tiber Septim walked the soil of Tamriel"; similarly, in 'The Bear of Markarth', their short-lived kingdom is described as having been "peaceful for those 2 years they were in power", ruling their lands fairly, and dispensing justice against the only "harshest" of Nord landowners (for the most part). Whether or not these depictions are actually accurate is debatable, but the image of the 'proud and noble' Reachman quickly emerges in contrast to the 'elitist' Imperial scholars and the 'obstinate', 'brutal' Ulfric Stormcloak.

> The Imperial Legion classifies them as little more than brigands, noting their constant raids and ambushes within the Hold. But none of their military reports asks the question of "why?" If they were merely a group of bandits, surely they would be focused on acquiring gold and minimizing deaths among their own. But the opposite is true in Forsworn attacks. Large sums of coin are often left behind, and their fighters easily throw away their lives rather than risk capture by Imperial soldiers.

Here, Arranius Arius even takes issue with the way the Imperial Legion considers the Forsworn as "little more than brigands". The Forsworn's attacks on civillians and travellers in the Reach, though portrayed as violent and bloody, are not explicitly described as being done with the motivation of vengeance, but with the Forsworn warriors "easily throw[ing] away their lives rather than risk capture by Imperial soldiers" - "death or glory", "victory or Sovngarde". There is no sense of admiration for the Forsworn's actions on the author's part in this passage (the Forsworn are still murderers, after all), but their motives are elevated above those of "mere" brigands and bandits, who simply harm others out of greed.

> There [Markarth], I met one of the native peoples, an old woman who preferred to not be named in my writings. She told me of her family's long history. [...] How the Nords came and took their lands, their gods, and their culture from them. When asked about the Forsworn, the old woman would say that they are the "real" men and women of the Reach: those that refused to give in to the Nords. Those that still practiced the ancient traditions that the rest of their people had abandoned in exchange for peace.

> In time, I was able to create trust with many more natives in my search that corroborated the old woman's story. By chance, one of them arranged a meeting between myself and what I thought was an elder member of his village. I was shocked to find that I was led to a camp, filled with the animal skulls, severed heads, and still beating hearts that I had read about from the military reports back in the Imperial City. There, I met Cortoran, a Forsworn, who seemed amused at the prospect of me writing down his story.

Once again, the 'righteousness' of the Forsworn's cause is emphasised: the Reachmen were victims of not only cultural and religious genocide, but of literal genocide as well (in fact, Arranius Arius describes the actions of Ulfric Stormcloak in Markarth as "war crimes" in 'Bear of Markarth'), and the Forsworn are simply fighting for the right to practice their ancient traditions - ironic, considering what the Stormcloaks are fighting the Empire for. Perhaps it is a subtle political point about the hypocrisy of Ulfric? Or a sentiment of sympathy the Reachmen? Or both?

Also of significance is how shocked the author is when he discovers for himself that the macabre spiritual practices of the Forsworn; is this out of disgust at their religion, or disbelief, having been so dismissive of the opinions of Imperial scholars that he is surprised that Reachmen did actually practice their "barbaric" Old Ways? Either way, Arranius Arius was insistent on getting the Forsworn's point of view out to the open world and held up to the same, if not higher, standard of the Nord and Imperial scholarly accounts of the Forsworn.

> "You want to know who the Forsworn are? We are the people who must pillage our own land. Burn our own ground. We are the scourge of the Nords. The axe that falls in the dark. The scream before the gods claim your soul. We are the true sons and daughters of the Reach. The spirits and hags have lived here from the beginning, and they are on our side. Go back. Go back and tell your Empire that we will have our own kingdom again. And on that day, we will be the ones burying your dead in a land that is no longer yours..." - Cortoran in 'The "Madmen" of the Reach'

Is Arranius Arius biased, an Imperial supporter, and hostile to Ulfric and the Stormcloaks? Certainly, yes. Can every word written in 'The Bear of Markarth' and 'The "Madmen" of the Reach' be trusted as 100% unembellished fact? Definitely not. And is the author's analysis of the situation completely correct? Meh. But what his writings reveal is that the root of his antipathy towards the Stormcloaks and the reasons for his negative portrayal of them in his work lies not from his Imperial race or his allegiance to the Empire, but in his pity for the plight of the Reachmen and his subsequent outrage at their unfair treatment at the hands of the Nords - the very same anger and outrage which led to the Rebellion of 4E 174 and the rise of the Forsworn.