Board Thread:Skyrim/@comment-12599067-20130928060857/@comment-58.107.101.98-20140225095735

Firstly, thank you for detailing the lore connected with the Forsworn earlier in this thread. To summarize what I draw from these details:

1. The Reach was originally occupied by the Snow Elves and the Dwemer.

2. The Reach, and the rest of Skyrim, was subsequently settled by migrating Atmorans who, later, became known as Nords.

3. Descent of viable (as in fertile) Proto-Reachmen occurred from the joining of Breton/Altmer bloodlines (proving the commonality of species for men and mer in the context of this lore).

4. The viable offspring, of such healthy diversification, begin migrating into the Reach and integrating with the local community.

I would point out, at this juncture, the inevitable consequence of this healthy integration of genetically distinct peoples would be the Reach's acquisition of a culture which is correspondingly distinct from the rest of Skyrim (which disqualifies foreign non-Reach rulers by reason of cultural incompetence – eg. Otto von Bismarck expressed some very enlightened views about competence of rulership).

5. During the War of Succession (Secession?) the Reach secedes from the existing kingdom just like all the other holds.

6. Due to some unknown social catastrophe (ultimately, I think, this is always a failure of the community to serve its original function of guarding the fundamental needs of individuals against the ravages of the 'Law of the Jungle') the Reach finds itself in a state of dire civil war which must be hopelessly chronic due to the sheer number of warring factions (ten if I recall?).

7. Alessian troops (who could have been out conquering or a'viking for all we know) effectively liberate the Reachmen from a fate which is arguably worse than death (ie. unending civil war).

8. The Reach, once again alongside other holds, regains independence in 2e430 during the Interregnum.

9. The Reach then has to be reconquered by Tiber Septim and Cuhlecain after... was that centuries of war? Obviously the Reachmen did not think Tiber Septim sufficiently educated in their culture to freely consent to his rule.

10. The Forsworn, a potentially unrepresentative demographic of the Reach, attempt secession of the Reach in 4e174 while the Empire is out battling with yet more ignorant would-be rulers who chronically confuse might and right.

11. Only 2 years later, Markarth is retaken and the Forsworn leader, Madonach, is captured. However, this is not sufficient to secure the surrender of the Forsworn who are, evidently, seeking something more relevant than yet another idiotic display of force – otherwise known as argumentum ad baculum – which is neither a valid nor legitimate nor even honest form of contention.

So based on this perspective, it seems to me to be a matter more complicated than just that of who got where first - or who owns what. People are not property and, contrary to certain cultural viewpoints people are more important than property because, for example, without people there would be no such thing as property.

Thus, I think that the apartment analogy is more like this: You (the Nords) move into an apartment (the Reach) under a rental agreement with a housing operator (the King). A proto-Reachwoman (or proto-Reachman, whichever is opposite your gender) moves in, contributes to rent and you have children. However, the housing operator stops collecting the rent (because he has died with no surviving heirs) and, by the time your grandchildren take over, your children own the apartment as freehold by reason of adverse possession. However, a complete stranger with no better claim than a bloody sword one day menaces your grandchildren claiming the right to collect rent and, in all probability, to do all manner of strange and despicable things which are quite taboo in your grandchildren's culture (perhaps the Baronial right of adulterously bedding every bride on her wedding night may seem bizarre enough to some to make the point understood – i.e. that some things we find quite normal, people of other cultures may find highly offensive; and vice versa).

So I don't think any of this is nearly as cut and dried as some may think. It gets even better when we analyse the diction of the name "Forsworn" in the context of the period of cultural development represented by the setting. In this particular context, the noun, “forsworn”, means oathbreaker - and not just any oathbreaker but one who plans the taking and breaking of an oath for the purpose of achieving a specific goal by deception (ie. perjury). This is peculiar because the history we see portrays a people who deny a covenant (as opposed to strategically taking and breaking an oath) which would be more precisely communicated, again, in the context of the represented period of cultural development, by the word, “Warlock”, or perhaps, “Waerloga”. Maybe, the period diction has been dropped and the word “Forsworn” is meagrely used to communicate the apparently 'Spartan' lifestyle of this group. Or perhaps, Bethesda's resident language expert has chosen the term, “Forsworn” to communicate some inherent untrustworthiness of this group's way of doing things. Killing under the flag of truce, as was done at a negotiation attempt on the part of Jarl Hrolfdir, is the kind of thing which, rightly or wrongly, could get an entire people targeted for extermination because a culture which tolerates dishonesty and dishonour to the point of abusing the white flag remains a deadly threat to every other culture, with which it has contact, for as long as such a culture endures. Again, however, can we ever be certain that the abuse of this negotiation truce was committed with the consent and support of the represented community? This question can only really be addressed by ongoing patterns of behaviour.

At the end of the day, it boils down to what is happening and whether people who are minding their own business are being allowed to go about their own business unmolested. This would seem not to be the case, with the Forsworn who, in practice, are evidently not targeting the Jarl's family, the Jarl's City Watch, the Stormcloaks, the Thalmor or, for that matter, the Silverblood family. Instead they hit the softest targets they can find which are, often enough, neither dear nor relevant to any of the above. This raises questions about the motives of the Forsworn and whether those motives actually serve the goal of attaining self-rule in the Reach or something far more sinister - e.g. vilifying all those who contend or otherwise petition for self-rule. And, maybe those Hagravens, which appear to lead the Forsworn tribes, have an agenda which supercedes self-rule - to the point of exclusion....? Either way, Forsworn target demographics contradict their claimed agenda which establishes, if anything, that the Forsworn are definitely not who they claim to be. Moreover, are not the other residents of the Reach Reachmen (and Reachwomen)? If so, the Forsworn behaviour seems designed to alienate these specific people from any movement working towards self-rule. In this highly speculative kind of analysis (which is for determining investigative priorities rather than drawing any form of conclusion), the big question concerns sponsorship and incitement which revolves around who benefits most from the behaviour in question. This is not always obvious as benefit is not always financial. Organised crime often partners up with terrorists, for example, so that each can muddy the waters on the other's behalf when a planned crime will draw abnormally high investigative scrutiny. I would be tempted to hazard the guess that there may be a very intimate relationship between the Silverbloods and the Forsworn.