Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:Horde

100,545pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Revision as of 21:22, August 10, 2010 by Rallas (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Horde article.

Be polite
Assume good faith
Be welcoming

Icon-group-48x48
If you wish to discuss the subject itself, please use Talk:Horde/Analysis.
Non-editorial comments made here should be moved to the Analysis page.

Biblical quoteEdit

What's up with the biblical quote? Vikingkingq

It's gone now. Any kind of 'real-world' quotes like that do not belong anywhere near this wiki. -- Kirkburn (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
The Luke quote was my doing. I apologise; I felt it aptly described what I've seen as the Horde having an extremely inclusive/accepting nature, in terms of having admitted the Forsaken and the Sin'Dorei in the lore.

Petrus4 01:43, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Friends with the Naga, Broken, and Lost Ones?Edit

Was going to edit that part out, but decided it might be better to discuss it first. The Azeroth-BE, with the exception of Rommath and whatever BE returned with him, haven't met the Broken or Lost Ones before. Nor have they met the Naga that are allied with Illidan. So why would these races be friendly with the Horde all of a sudden? Doesn't really make sense to me. Baldr, where's the evidence of this? First I've heard of it. -- Maenos 23:11, 2 October 2006 (EDT)

I'm not happy with that section either - it sounds a little biased, and (for the second part) completely unsourced! -- Kirkburn (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2006 (EDT)
In my opinion, it should be removed. The playable Blood Elves has no relation at all with the Naga and the Broken. They surely don't even know that Kael'Thas even is allied to Illidan and the naga, and probably think the naga as monsters. Kael'Thas rallied the surviving High Elves before he allied with the naga, and most chose to stay behind and rebuild Quel'Thalas, and they surely don't even know that Kael'Thas has allied with the naga, and since Rommath didn't tell anything of the naga and Illidan when he returned to Azeroth, it would be very stupid to say that the naga is allies to the horde.
Nah, only the blood elves who betrayed the ones on Azeroth and allied with Illidan and the Burning Legion are allied with the naga. The blood elves at Silvermoon and the Horde view the naga in the same way the Night Elves and Alliance do, as abominations. Eman91 01:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Eman91



NAGA WHUT!?

In all seriousness though, what was that guy's source? Certainly sounds iffy to me, especially knowing that we still are or will be killing those guys in the expansion.--Grid 12:57, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Blood ElvesEdit

"A group of former high elves shunned by the Alliance for their embrace of demonic magics, they turned to the Horde to help them reach Outland and achieve their dark destiny"

-I was just wondering if this is the specific wording from a Blizzard article or just random description. Particularly the "dark destiny" bit. If it's official, that's fine, but I was thinking there's enough information out there making the Blood Elves look worse than they are, I don't think this kind of "evil" wording is helping the situation at all. ;) --Pure.Wasted 21:07, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

There's a quote similar to that on the website. [1]

"Unfortunately, the blood elves' practice of embracing demonic energies resulted in them being shunned by their former comrades in the Alliance. Thus, the remaining blood elves on Azeroth look desperately to the Horde to help them reach Outland, where they can reunite with Kael'thas and achieve the golden destiny he promised them." --TM41

I dislike the idea of making them sound evil. I mean, the Horde itself is no longer evil so it isn't right to make them evil all over again by adding in races that are well... evil. The Horde now represents those who are repressed and misunderstood. That is probably what the Blood Elves are. Not some "Dark Destiny" kinda thing. --Invin Dranoel 13:19, 19 October 2006 (EDT)

The Forsaken are evil Dsarker 22:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

{imitating Lady Prestor} Proof, please? Garm 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Blizzard hassaid the Forsaken are divided. Some are for the Horde, some are evil.  IconSmall HighElf Male Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A Question Concerning the Horde - Alliance War Edit

Moved to Talk:Horde/Analysis

Those Images...Edit

They aren't meant to be actual characters, at the bottom, they are just the Orc hero units from WarCraft III. Saimdusan 16:53, 20 November 2006 (EST)

Evil Edit

This discussion is closed and has been archived at Talk:Horde/Evil. Ragestorm (talk · contribs)

Horde was screwed up world of warcraftEdit

(Maybe someone should translate this section's topic into English. --Normal 03:01, 13 February 2007 (EST))

You're welcome to try if you want to wade through the discussion below; just don't add anything, as it's been closed.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 08:42, 13 February 2007 (EST)
"was" = "has" Edit: Maybe... // Montagg (talk · contr) 08:54, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Discussion Closed; Moved to Talk:Horde/Naaru

ControversyEdit

Seeing as theres a fair amount of complaints about the horde being ruined in the burning crusade. I suggest we add a controversy section to this page. Angry ogre 20:30, 21 February 2007 (EST)

If you can give evidence to a significant number of other users agreeing to that point, then fine. If such support cannot be evidenced, then no.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:41, 21 February 2007 (EST)

1.Well first of all theres you. You admited it yourself above.

2.Theres also Zexx who admitted it in the blood elf discussion

3.Ring of fire in the horde analysis section

4.Drek'thar

5.I think Odalwa also said he was displeased with the horde's current lore

Thats more then enough people to warrant a controversy section. Angry ogre 20:53, 21 February 2007 (EST)

  • Sigh*... Ogre made a controversy section and was qute naturally, deleated by me, it was swarming with POV comments, and it ignored what a wiki is. (Meaning that rather then showing the reader a point, it argued one) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hordesupporter (talk · contr).
I've already told Angy Ogre that I will not authorize a controversy section based on the evidence he gave me. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it would be deleated, until he can give better evidence there's no way I would allow it in the article, Angry Ogre, give us more then just a opinion, savvy? Hordesupporter 15:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Ogre, if you can give me a long set of points that are more then just an opinion, then we will talk. Hordesupporter 17:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Two Hordes Edit

Although I think the section does belong here, there is one line I think doesn't belong here, the mention of "most" of the Forsaken being evil, I will admit that some of the forsaken quests have a somewhat "evil" tone, but thats not enough to declare them evil, also note that the majority of the Alliance who declares them evil are followers to the holy light, and thus are very baised about the Forsaken's alingment. Hordesupporter 19:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. edit as you see fit. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Also,, there are several horde quests that could be considered "good", same as there are numbers of alliance quests that could be considered "evil"... i dont think either faction is really good or evil, but rather each faction applies all methods that are available in a war.  - CJ talk / cont  05:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
And. "the horde", is not evil.. some factions of the horde could be considered evil (especially if you are alliance).. its just a matter of interpetation.. we are "at war" after all. and in war.. everything is allowed.  - CJ talk / cont  05:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

For example, the Forsaken have humans in the undercity as test subjects, the Alliance would probably conisder this evil, yet the Forsaken are enraged that the alliance makes no attempt at seeing the diffrence between the Forsaken and the Scourge, the humans have no qualms about killing the Forsaken, something the Forsaken certainly see as evil. Hordesupporter 18:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually the RPG says that most Forsaken are evil, and only some are good (actually it says the player characters are usually good ones, and of course mentioning those that just want a cure, or wish to die of old age). This is not only in the brann books but the World of Warcraft core book. I'll go get some of the relevant quotes.
"Not all Forsaken are evil, but many are, and other races definitely view them as such. A non-evil Forsaken must work hard to prove his neutral (or perhaps, good) intentions. Few good Forsaken exist, but many evil ones do, and their leadership is definitely up to nefarious ends."WoWRPG 53
According to the RPG most of the Horde doesn't even trust the Forsaken, instead seeing them as a necessary evil. They feel that they are outnumbered by most factions in the world, and so the dark alliance was more out of necessity than anything else. Most of the ambassors to the Forsaken do not trust them but remain diplomatic understanding the need for the alliance. Thrall hopes that the choice doesn't come back in the future to bite him in the ass. Most of the factions and members of the factions are listed as being evil and/or chaotically alligned in the rpg as well in the HPG for example. This is Blizzard's quantifications, not the fans.Baggins 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok the entire two hordes thing should be deleted. The forsaken joined because they were alone against the Alliance, Scarlet Cursade and the Scourge, they needed allies and the Horde PASSIONATELY UNDERSTOOD and accepted them. Plus the Tauren are trying to make a cure for the curse of undeath...whats more friendly and kind hearted than that? The blood elves that joined joined because they saw the evil in Kael and saw the good in the Horde, they were not stubborn and forgot old hatreds. And whats with the Forsaken "not believing that Thrall is their master"? Thrall is nobody's master, he is a leader equal to Sylvanas, Vol'jin and the rest. The horde is one united body of good. Im not saying the alliance are bad but the lot of them are stubborn, else there wouldn' BE factions. Baldr 15:57 August 9, 2007
Wow you know how much your knowledge of information is off? Its not even close to the explanation given in World of Warcraft manual even, nor does it take into account that the fact that majority of the blood elves and undead are "neutral" to other races of the horde, rather than "friendly", making player characters have to earn the majority of the Horde's trust. The fact is they didn't passionately understood, and accept them. As the manual says, Thrall and Cairne didn't trust them, and only accepted them due to prodding of the council, but still didn't trust them. There are Horde quests in the game that have Horde NPCS voicing their distrust as well. The faction bars are a mirror of this distrust. Also about the blood elves, you don't seem to understand the story in game... When the blood elves joined the horde, they are still allies of Kael, they even have an ambassador from Kael even, and many of their early quests revolve around their reverence to Kael as their king, its not until later that player characters alone travel to outland and find out that Kael's went crazy, and end up having to put the hurt on him. The thing about "Thrall is their master" that should be "leader", he is the Warchief, a position according to lore is above all others in the Horde, but in anycase, the fact is Forsaken have been doing things that are against command of Thrall. He himself actually wants to maintain peace with the Alliance as best as possible, but the Forsaken were busy testing their plague in various parts of the world on humans and night elves (you have to have some knowledge of Alliance quest lines to catch the latter reference). Sure sometimes its only on the Scarlet Crusade but that's not always the case.
No there will not be any removal of that section, as it is part of the body of lore, both in WoW and the spinnoff literature, and we don't remove Blizzard's published information even if players may believe or role play a completely different version of the story, or just ignorant to the complete story that Blizzard has given.Baggins 18:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok so if you refer to thrall's "master" position, as leader change it because all of us do. And you are off there, the title of Warchief is the highes not in the Horde but amongst ORCS, in the Horde it is equal to High Chief of the tauren or others like The Dark Lady... all equals. And no i DONT read through quests to see why they want me to do stuff, I just do it. I'm talking lore and story, not WoW gameplay. And yes the horde accepted the forsaken and blood elves because being a part of the horde is trying to find your place in a world that has come to hate you. The orcs and forsaken were once mindless beings, and now that they are not, yet the Alliance still are too stubborn to see that, they have everyone against them Trolls and Tauren were not stubborn, accepted them and so, they are hated. The races of the Horde know suffering the likes of which most of the Alliance have never imagined. Thonk about that. Baldr 7:08 9/3/2007

And... I am well aware of the complete story that Blizz has given, thats what i've been talking about, lore not how all that got twisted in the game of WoW merely to provide quest givers with something to say. And so what if SOME Forsaken are evil? I guess Blizz couldn't bring the impression of perfection and infallibility to TWO races... by the way... you ALL should read Of Blood and Honor and Rise of the Horde Baldr 7:13 9/3/2007

To quote World of Warcraft Manual;

"Thrall stands as warchief over the entire Horde, holding dominion over the Darkspear trolls and tauren tribes alike.WoWMan 182.

Its also interesting how it intentionally leaves out Forsaken off that list of races he holds dominion over. I didn't make this stuff up, Blizzard has. Baggins 02:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, Thrall is a friend of Carine adn Vol'jin, the forsaken and blood elves are, though newfound, still allies. You think that a person like Thrall would ever call himself a leader, higher than the others? He has twice the morality, the honor and twice the heart of most others Horde AND Alliance. You think he would WANT to be above his own friends? 8:06 9/5/2007

Blood elves Edit

Icon-information-22x22 Relocated to Talk:Horde/Analysis#Blood_elves

Horde Leadership (to assist the faction box)Edit

Alright here is some info from the Horde player's guide (I'll start with orcs, and add info for each individual faction later);

"Unlike the Alliance, the Horde has clear leaders for every race represented in its ranks. The clearer hiearchy makes things a bit more organized for the Horde, although the Horde has the disadvantage of having one rase that is interested in looking out for their own (Forsaken). Each race has its own roles, and as well as a leader that represents each individual race."HPG 177

The cohesion with the Horde is relatively strong, although clearly the Forsaken are seperated by the rest in beliefs and trust as well as geography. It would appear that their are traitors in the midst of every group; not unlike the Alliance. Time will tell how the bonds between races of the Horde hold together."HPG 180

Orcs; Thrall maintains the mantle of Warchief of the Horde. In Eastern Kingdoms Drek'Thar represents his primary representive. He put him in charge, as he is someone he can trust. But its also inefficient, because Drek'Thar's home in the Alterac MOuntains is not readibly accessible to the main body of the Horde.

The warchief delegates most military leadership to other leaders, such as Nazgrel, his captain of security and to other chiefs.

Orcs are the most numerous of the Horde races and act as the bond that links the others together. Without the orcs, the HOrde would likely fall apart overnight.

Thrall might be a reasonable politician, but few orcs are willing to be quite so diplomatic. The orcs are used to ruling by force of arms and only recently has Thrall taught them another path. Many find themselves more suited towards the old ways of slaughter, and it remains to be seen if Thrall's teachings will prove effective in making his people capable of working together with others on a long term basis.

The warchief has long opposed the use of demonic magic, and distrusts all arcane magic, especially warlock magic. However, he has not (yet) issued an edict against either warlocks or magi. Perhaps Thrall follows the old adage of keeping his friends close and his enemies closer. Perhaps he seeks to redeem these wayward orcs, much like he feels Grom was redeemed in his battle against Mannaroth. One thing remains clear, is that there are more practioners of the dark arts in the ranks of the Horde than ever imagined - though they keep their presence discreet. After the butchering of the Shadow council in the Second War, the warlocks and necrolytes of the Horde were all but eradicated, but it would appear a staggering number have fallen back to the old path of destruction. The situation causes a rift within the ranks of the proud orcs, and it grows increasingly difficult to tell friend from foe.HPG 177Baggins 21:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll check that in my recently acquired HPG. However, from what I can tell, Thrall is the clear main leader. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:16, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure that yes Thrall is one of the only Main leaders, besides Sylvanas, who definitely controls the remote Lordaeron holdings far removed from Durotar. She also may still believe she is manipulating the Horde from afar, or at least has a seperate secret agenda that doesn't follow the Horde's common laws. There are alot of things "different" about the forsaken that goes against most standard Horde practices and beliefs, that Thrall is not able to control. This is one of those reasons why Forsaken start out "neutral" to the Horde rather than being "Friendly" ally.

All or most leaders on Kalimdor definitely defer to the Warchief, Cairne and Vol'jin definitely, and Drek'thar and southern eastern kingdom holdings also defer to him. The Forest Trolls in Hinterlands are allies to the Horde but aren't officially part of the Horde yet, as far as I know.

The blood elves, have a similar nature to forsaken, but seem to defer to their own leaders and maybe sylvanas before defering to the Warchief, they are stuck with "neutral" status to the horde (except for the Forsaken), rather than being straight forward "friendly" allies..Baggins 12:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

So, leaving Sylvanas where she is, or upgrade her? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I think upgrade her, but add a note explaining her "contrasting" horde views.Baggins 13:03, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Has the point of an infobox escaped you? the whole point is information at a glance. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Uh, I didn't mean in the infobox, I meant expanding the info in the main article.Baggins 14:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent wolves Edit

Actually, they aren't confirmed as being sapient (the wyverns are, to an extent). It appears that their bond with the Frostwolves and shamans is largely shamanic, akin to a magical familiar. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in Lord of the Clans Drek'Thar confirms your belief. Dsarker (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Members of the horde Edit

Can't we discuss rather then have an edit war? Zarnks 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this doesn't fit my def of an edit war (which, upon refection, is flawed, I bow to you for that one), but yes. Now, I'm prepared to negociate on the wolves, but random allied dwarves and constructs don't count. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see your point on Arcane guardians. They are just unintelligent robots. The dwarves are worth mention, it shows that the Horde is willing to let in members of the Alliance. Zarnks 00:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anyone's assuming that the Horde hate anything remotely connected with Alliance. How many dwarves are we talking here? I'll concede the point if it's any fair number.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Two to my knowledge. It should be mentioned in a footnote Zarnks 00:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so. My point, you see, is that two dwarves shouldn't be listed in the same section as colonies and organizations. On that list, the smallest group (excluding the half-orcs) would be the goblin zepplin runners, who number in the dozens at least. If there were a fair number of dwarves, like a settlement's worth, then they could be mentioned, but just two don;t rate a mention. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the stuff again. For each point:

  • Wolves - not sapient beings, nor are powers/factions.
  • Arcane Guardians - robots.
  • Dwarves - one or two people does not make them an important part of the Horde. Can possibly be mentioned in other sections, but not under the list of member powers.
  • "Most" half-orcs. Need a source for the "most".

Anything I missed? Kirkburn talk contr 13:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that about covers it. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, i'll agree with you on the dwarves. But, if you ever actually go to the half-orc page it says this So they perform feats to be accepted by (mostly) the horde, and (more rarely) the alliance." I know this is not the exact quote, but it is along those lines.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TaurenChief (talk · contr).

Individuals, including Rexxar, are not "smaller powers of the Horde."--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the dwarf section again, as Larion is almost certainly horde aligned for the purposes of the quest, rather than being part of the Horde. For Feegly the Exiled, you only need read his quest text [2] to realise he speaks for no one but himself. That, and that The Barrens is Horde territory, so Alliance players wouldn't expect to get any quest from him, nor be asked to kill allied dwarves! Kirkburn talk contr 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Half-orcs, according to the rpg, they are generally an "independent race". They do show up in Horde Player's Guide, where it mentions they are a "horde or alliance" race. It mentions that half-orcs live in the Alliance, and many live in the Horde. Several sources say that many do not live with either feeling as if they don't belong in either world, becoming more nomadic.

There is also a dwarf in hinterlands that gives quests to the Horde, to kill high elves as I recall, but his NPC is green to the Alliance as well.

I've also removed the mention of centaurs from smaller powers. As they are not currently Horde members. Just because they might join the horde, doesn't mean they have, so they are not a "smaller horde" power yet.Baggins 16:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new section on races and people that may be in the Horde. Zarnks 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're planning to add one of those to Alliance and possibly Scourge, right? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Theres a great variety in the Horde. The Alliance is very strict when accepting members,which is why you never see a Horde race pvped for the Alliance. But if you find an unussual npc factioned the Alliance ingame or rumours of a race joining the Alliance let me know. Zarnks 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because a race is "green" to the horde doesn't mean they are "allied" to the Horde. Often something is given green status just so they can be a quest giver for the faction, not because they a member of the faction. There are actually quite a few "horde" race characters that Alliance can interact with but are not actually "members of the alliance, and vice versa scattered throughout the game. One example being the blood elf in nethergarde keep, or sitting outside in the blasted lands. Most of the time these quest givers flagged "green" to both factions (or at least neutral, but its not always the case). Many of the dwarves you mentioned as being 'green' to the horde for example are also actually green to alliance as well (though not always). Some cases, these quest NPCs are actually members of their own races faction, but they hate some individual in their faction and want horde to do the dirty deed for them (probably to protect their honor, and standing with other members of the alliance). Essentially the guy duped you into doing his dirty work. This kind of thing occurs on both sides, so of course there are "horde members" that dupe alliance players into killing other horde npcs, essentially making alliance players do their dirty work.
In some cases individual green/neutral/red non-hostile flagged races belong to neither faction and belong to one of the miriad non-affilated organizations in the world, and offer teh same quests to anyone regardless of race and faction. These non-affiliated npcs ask for help from which ever faction would most likely be able to help them with their endeavors (this doesn't mean that the individual is a member of the race he asks help from however, they just know who is most likely to get the job done, or have no quelms against fulfilling the request).
The only exceptions is when mechanics dictate that one npc is meant to be target of another related quest giving npc (for example the mario bros). The mario bros for example if you keep track of their stories are not horde or alliance but some non-affiliated weirdos, and members of the expedition there. They are apparently friends who have a bit of a sibling rivarly going on, and are annoyed with each other. Each one just happens to ask members of the opposing race to do complete the same exact tasks to get back at each other, and hopefully get them "back together". Baggins 08:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-sapient membersEdit

Seriously? -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to add "Non sentient servents of the horde" section something like: "Pigs - they serve orcs by dwelling in their farms and allowing orcs to replenish their forces by eating them." Can we nuke this entire section, please? --Rowaasr13 09:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lawl, ya, that section is a bit silly... I mean are we to start tossing every mount creature, every creature they raise to eat, every small pet, or hunter pet? Really its an oxymoron non-sentient creatures don't have "memberships" they are just, "owned", :p... It is just as bad as if someone was to toss up summoned demons as "members", when they are infact enslaved...Baggins 09:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You know exactly who is responsible for this... --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed... In anycase I think either we should remove it or rename it "mounts and livestock" :p... In which case a section of the like should exist on all faction pages for consistency.Baggins 15:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think we should add that to the pages or are you kidding?--SWM2448 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a point to it. The wolves however should get a mention as they have above average intelligence,are big part of orc culture serving as the symbol for the Horde and serve as familiars for shamans. Zarnks 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, wolves and wyverns should stay, The rest should go IMO.--SWM2448 20:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I delete it? Zarnks 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is fine, but I'm not sure about keeping wolves in general, maybe the frostwolves, but only if their is a citeable quote discussing sentient intelligence. Wyverns definitely belong while it can't be seen in game, according to lore they are fully sentient capable of speaking. But basically wolves are not "members of the horde", they are livestock, they don't "apply for citizenship in the horde" they are bred by the horde as mounts much like horses. They are individually owned by members of the horde... pets essentially, domesticated animals.Baggins 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I did say they weren't exactly sentient. Frostwolf warriors treat them as equals. Wolves have much in common with Horde culture,are in their armor,orcs worship wolf spirits,they come from the same planet and are mentioned as a part of the Horde by Metzen and Samwise.

Even if they aren't in members they should be in culture. Zarnks 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually they are more specifically a part of orc culture, and there is an entire page for that.Baggins 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay I moved it. Zarnks 21:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of cited information and sentencesEdit

Zarnks you have been warned several times in the past for this action, have been banned in the past for the action and warned several times in the last few days as well. I'm sorry but I must ban you now as you haven't followed the policies we warned you about following. You will be given a longer period to think on your actions than the last time you were banned, I hope you learn this time not do this kind of thing in the future.Baggins 17:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase the evil no matter the cite is NPOV Zarnks 17:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you really want it in okay. Zarnks 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (and our own policy WW:NPOV). It doesn't mean "don't put in stuff that I might disagree with", nor should it be based on "what Baggins wants in the article". It is information from several sources that should be in the article. Kirkburn talk contr 17:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't pick and choose information as long as it is correctly cited, especially when it comes from official Blizzard sources themselves. But since you have relented you have saved yourself the next level of banning this time(you were banned for 3 days last time, this would have been increased to 5 days, so keep that in mind in the future, I'm sure you really don't want that). So don't let me catch you removing cited quotes again, I really don't want to have to ban you.Baggins 18:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Zarnk's I've warned you about altering or trying to remove cited information in the past... I seem to have also warned you that you must present a change in the talk page before we'll ackowledge your changes to see if they are worth the change. You have not done this, again... I'll give you one warning today (as I'm feeling generous) but please don't do it again...Baggins 01:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Troll distrustEdit

Good quote that points out troll distrust, but it doesn't actually compare or give any quantitive qualifer comparing trolls distrust between the other horde factions towards the the forsaken. Read any number of other sources and essentially you get similar comments about orcs, and tauren that feel the same way as the trolls. Had there been a specific comparison saying they "distrust forsaken more than other Horde" races then your speculation would have been valid. As it is we can only say, that there are followers that distrust the forsaken, and the troll reference can go to the end of the section mentioning that fact. In anycase the ingame quantifier is the differences between the faction's friendly and neutral status seen on each race's character selections screen. Which puts trolls, orcs, and tauren at around the same mistrust and "neutrality" towards Forsaken and blood elves.Baggins 06:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the Troll distrust is mentioned more often. Note that some orcs and forsaken have close relations like Kirith and the fallen hero of the Horde. Zarnks 21:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the references to distrust by each race when mentioned is about equal (there might actually be more for tauren). Still none of the sources give any numerical percentage each race dislikes them. So any speculation trying to define the total and who has the most is speculation at best.Baggins 21:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainly I've noticed the tauren mainy being Earthen ring affilated are focused on creating a cure. This is seen talking to several npcs in Thunder bluff. A notable one being Mani Winterhoof who tirelessy works trying to create a cure for the Forsaken. Zarnks 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Kirith citation [3] Zarnks 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice quote, but I don't see him saying he holds him in "high esteem"... That's the quotation we are looking for otherwise the term needs to be "toned down" a bit. We don't want you putting words in his mouth if its not there to begin with. Quotes are better than opinions.Baggins 22:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Fallen hero seems to care for Kirith and vice a versa Zarnks 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thrall and the Forsaken Edit

Though Thrall does say to Brann he let the forsaken because he needed allies,I don't think he's telling Brann everything. I suspect Thrall has his own motives for Forsaken in the Horde. After all the Horde has many members(Forest trolls,Frostwolves,ogres,goblins,wyverns,and more powerful heroes then the Alliance) more so then the Alliance and the forsaken are so small in numbers (excluding game play mechanics). Zarnks 21:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually number wise the population of the Horde are alot smaller than the population of the Alliance. They really don't have that many forest trolls, frost wolves, ogres, gobins wyvers, etc. Most of those are survivors of previous wars.
It is said that there are more in the Alliance races mainly because most of those races have been on the world for millenia had had time to breed huge numbers.
Most that orcs that found Durotar came over on handful of ships. The population numbers of the horde are given in Lands of Mystery, and Lands of Conflict, and some of the other rpg books, but I haven't done the math. But it seems Alliance races have higher populations, and tend to be larger cities.Baggins 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well they have huge numbers. Gnomes are rare,humans lost half their population,Draenei and night elves are extremely rare. And as seen in Warcraft 3 orcs soldiers are just plain tougher then Alliance soldiers. Compare a Grunt to a footman. The Grunt is much tougher and stronger then the Footman despite wearing less armor. The tauren are extremely powerful. Zarnks 21:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A big downside to humans is that they lost most of their heroes in Warcraft 3. Compare Alliance leaders to Horde leaders,the only one that could stand a chance is Velen. Thrall's the most powerful shaman alive and has the skills of a warrior gladiator. Cairne's a warrior with shaman powers and incredibly strong. Vol'jins a powerful shadow hunter who can turn soldiers into spirit wyverns. Rexxar powerful half-ogre with a giant bear,hawk, and pig. Rok'han another powerful shadow hunter. Zarnks 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Gnomes aren't that rare actually, ("they have been coming out of the word work" as the dwarves would say). Humans had a huge populaiton, if the had 2 million to begin with and horde had 500,000 and humans lost half they'd still have more than the horde. Night elves are not rare either they had a huge civilization in northern Kalimdor for over 10,000 years. They just remained hidden in the forests. But they have good numbers, upwards 100,000 or so according to Lands of Mystery, IIRC. As for draenei not enough information to know anything for them.

...and toughness of warriors has nothing to do with it, really. Numbers always win in battle... As anyone playing the games know zerg manuever wins all :p... In anycase gamemechanics don't convert to lore exactly.

I haven't done the math, but if you add up all the horde numbers given in lands of mystery and lands of conflict I think it comes to probably no more than 200,000 for the horde alone. It comes to almost three times that for Alliance, if my memory serves, 600,000 or so.

Thrall even comments that Horde is much smaller than the Alliance most of his people were killed during the Three Great wars, the tauren were never that many to begin with, and trolls were were a small number saved on ships from their home island. The reventusk haven't fully joined the Horde. As I recall their numbers are few as well. There are less than 1000 ogres in Stonemaul clan, but I'd have to go check again.Baggins 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dang I had a large response written up but I accidently deleted it. Zarnks 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay writting it again. Most of the Alliance is composed of Humans. WIthout them the Horde would outnumber the Alliance

  • Night elves said in the beggining of the game and the manual to be extremely rare.
  • Gnomes low numbers never that high to begin with,at one point being outnumbered by High elves. Never that great fighters to begin with,merely piloting Gyrocopters
  • Dwarves-only Alliance race besides humans with good numbers

Draenei-Small group defies the majority of Eredar in joining with the Burning Legion,more then half of them get get killed by the burning legion controlled orcs on Draenor. Many more mutated and driven mad. Many then die in the crash of the Exodar. A large percentage become death priests Humans*Stormwind alone does not outnumber the orcs only with the aid of the other human kingdoms do they have more numbers. Lost half their population,lacking in skilled fighters

  • Orcs-Decent numbers. About 80% are part of the new Horde with a few outcasts and black sheep joining the dark horde and its affilates. Note the fel orcs in Outland don't count not being naturally born rather being created by a Mo'arg from scratch giving them their large numbers. Because of their rough lifestlye almost all orcs are tough warriors even the elderly. A grunt with little armor is more powerfull then a footman covered in Armor.
  • Darkspear Trolls low numbers but extremely dedicated and skilled.
  • Tauren-probably slightly below average. Incredibly powerful,only the most skilled warriors can beat a tauren in combat.
  • Forsaken-low numbers
*Blood elves slightly below average. Have the most skilled mages on Azeroth.
  • Ogres-Low numbers but like the tauren,inhumanly strong. Seeming all ogres know how to fight
  • Mok'nathal-see ogres.

Zarnks 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quantity doesn't win battles. Quality does. A mass of Footman would have trouble even scratching Thrall. Zarnks 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The alliance have good fighters, just read the comments by Gul'dan and Garona during the first and second war, in Blizzard's warcraft manuals. Discussion of quality is merely a discussion of opinions and is subject to extreme bias on the individuals... Numbers have won battles througout history... but sometimes it works the other way... That arguement is weak at best. As war is more of a matter of luck, weather, and location, than skill.
Like I said before mechanics rarely define lore... if you went by current WoW mechanics there is very little difference between each race stats, other than some minor racial skills that usually mean nothing end game (where weapons and armor become the defining characteristics). I.E. A gnome warrior is equal to a tauren warrior, or can be better. The main differences appear between classes, as to which classes fight which classes better, for balance.
In anycase your initial argeument was who had the most population. I answered your question. The skill of the individuals was never part of that initial question.Baggins

The Horde has a large population of skilled warriors. In the Actual universe,A tauren warrior would be better then a gnome warrior unless he was unexperienced. Zarnks 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope in the normal universe it is controlled by a number of various factors, how trained the gnome warrior was, how much agility that gnome had (can he dodge attacks?), etc. In real life being "bigger" doesnt' make one better. The martial skills repeat that bit of wisdom over and over. There are hundreds of stories many that are true of little guys defeating big guys in earth history. Hell it exists in the natural world as well, where a small creature can battle a much larger creature, and win. So no it has nothing to do with "size". Again that's another biased and speculative opinion on your part. It could go either way, depending on many factors. Things are not so simple or black and white.Baggins 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
To get back to the point the idea that the Horde allowed the forsaken in because of desperation because of limited numbers compared Alliance that fact has been stated in many sources beyond Brann, even beyond the RPG... Its fairly old lore since the novels, and even mentioned in manuals... So basically what your trying to speculate is basically alternate history scenarious... Not worth my time.Baggins 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No Tauren in general are just plain better warriors. Why do you think orcs,trolls,tauren and ogres wear so little armor,because they don't need it. The Horde is not in a desperate sitatuion at all. Zarnks 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before what your trying to speculate is basically discuss an alternate history scenario, the quote and idea that the horde allowed the Forsaken in due to desperation is something blizzard has said beyond the RPG. In discussions with the developers, in the manuals, and even the novels, among other sources. They have said that the Horde accepted the forsaken in desperation. Anything you say contrary to what Blizzard says is basically trying to rewrite the Warcraft Universe into something other than what Blizzard had intended, not to mention showing a truly biased opinion.Baggins 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No Blizzard says they let in the Forsaken due to urgings of the Earthen ring. "Having done battle with the Undead on many occasions, Orc warchief Thrall and Tauren chieftain Cairne Bloodhoof of the Horde were immediately suspicious of the Forsaken's motives. However, due to growing political tensions, the warriors acquiesced to a council of sages known as The Earthen Ring. The council argued that it was the Horde's duty to aid the Forsaken, who wrestled with inner demons just as the Orcs had for generations." Zarnks 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Alliance are small, frail, and are horrible fighters. Horde are superior in every way. Yep. Thats right. *boggle* Tecnobrat t/c 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to say this again but Blizzard has given many reasons was to why the Forsaken was let in, they all make up parts of the complete reason why the Forsaken are let in. Yes the Earthen Ring was part of it but it wasn't the entire part of it, and to think so just points out how little knowledge of what Blizzard has said that you have. To be honest with that lack of knowledge I'd have to question anything you actually claim... Because it seems highly questionable and extremely biased, on your part, not to mention what you say is in contradiction to what the entire story as Blizzard has written it down.Baggins 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Earthen ring urgings was the main reason,it is the reason Blizzard always points out. a lesser reason was to get another base on Kalimdor Zarnks 22:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"it is the reason Blizzard always points out"

Lawl, you said "Blizzard" always points to, wow then you got your facts wrong. You'd have a very hard time qualifying that claim.

There are quite a few places where Blizzard gives even more detailed explanation of which lead to it. Hell some that say the Earthen Ring as is implied a Horde faction was desperate to get them to join. The fact is you hardly know what Blizzard has said, and obviously haven't read all of its sources. Remember Metzen is the end all be all of warcraft Lore and he's on the staff of every source, so what is said in various sources are what Blizzard has stated. If you think one source, the faq, is "always" then I would have to worry about your lack of math skills. There are hundreds of other sources from books, interviews, etc that give even more details, hell they don't even claim that it is the "main" reason, just one of many reasons(you'd have a hard time qualifying your claim of "main"). Even the making of DVD in the collector's set went into a reason IIRC, and earthen ring wasn't the main thing mentioned. One must remember Metzen is the end all for warcraft lore and he's behind all the published sources and games. What he has authorized goes beyond whatever an fan "wishes was said". Baggins 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Zarnks, if they always say it .. I would be interested to see a source. Tecnobrat t/c 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The site and manual say the Orcs let in the Forsaken due to urgings of the Earthen ring,Many tauren are portrayed as eager in wanting to cure the forsaken, not because they were desperate for allies. The tauren in this quote[4] says they allied with out of pity and the urgings of the Earthen ring and elder council. Zarnks 22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Sorry to burst your bubble, but Earthen Ring isn't even mentioend the manual, for World of Warcraft, I searched the PDF file. So strike one, its obviously Blizzard doesn't always say "earthen ring". Not only that but you made a false claim...
Strike two for you is that, the online Faq, is not "always", its only one source in a hundred by Blizzard, that have covered the subject, and give other reasons, or don't mention the Earthen Ring at all, but mention the other causes.
Strike 3, Earthen Ring is not mentioned in 90% of the explanations given by Blizzard that I've seen from RPG, to manuals, to interviews.
Three strikes and you are out. ... and here is strike four, it must not have been a "main" cause, as Blizzard has not said it was a "main" cause in those specific words, you are putting words in Blizzard's mouth. If most references as to why they join never mentions the Earthen Circle, then it must not have been the most important reason.
Now sure the tauren might have said it, but that's only 2 sources in many that never mention Earthen Ring at all. So sorry your claim of "always" and "main" have been proven faulty at best, or at worst your trying to pass off lies.Baggins 23:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Show me that PDF file. I can find the part where they mention the Earthen ring. Zarnks 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you are the one that made the claim, you need to show me the manual, give the page number please. Tje burden of proof rests with you.Baggins 23:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Now your just being malicous. the Manual says the forsaken were let in due to urgings of the shaman in the Earthen,if it wasn't for them,forsaken wouldn't be in the Horde. Blizzard F.A.Q. is completly accurate your just disagreeing for the sake of argument now. Even your rpg book says the urgings of the Earthen ring got the forsaken in the Horde. Zarnks 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being malicious, you are the one making false claims and there is nothing like that in the manual. All I ask for is a page number and you are trying to avoid that... Seems to me you are trying to avoid the question, as you know you are mistaken and are just getting defensive to try to hide the fact you made a mistake. In anycase thanks for the quotes from the tauren quest, its yet another reference that points out that tauren have distrust for the Forsaken, and that those from Ogrimmar also distrusted the forsaken.
No one is saying the Faq is inaccurate, don't put words in my mouth, it just doesn't tell the entire story. Nor does it say in the Faq in specific words, that it was "the main reason". Other sources give many other reasons, that are all part of the complete reason as to why they joined. To correct you, the reference in the RPG to the Earthen Ring is only in 'one RPG book, and you are taking it out of context to the whole article in the book, where it was listed as only one small part of a whole. Like the faq it doesn't say it was a "main reason" but lists it as one of the several reasons that lead the decision. I may actually write up the entire essay so that people can actually see the entire context and understand the complete history behind the Forsaken.
The truth is you are making false claims, not willing to back up that claim with the page number, and those you do you exaggerate beyond what was actually said in the articles, and then you accuse others of trying to make stuff up or disagreeing, or "argueing for the sake of argueing". Sorry, but the only truth is, we can't take anything you say or put into articles at face value. For all we know you may be exaggerating or making things up in your posts. Which as as I have seen in the past is often the case, you tend to spin most of your posts in a pro-horde stance. The truth is we can't allow that. Written material if written by fan opinion must remain as neutral as possible, nor get spun into saying something other than it actually says. Where as most people would just keep the context of what they quote in its original form, rather than using exaggerated terminology.
Sorry, but if I catch you trying to alter the context of anything in any article in the future, to make it read more pro-horde, or simply non-cited speculation posted as fact, I will have to ban you. Since its connected to NPOV issue it will be a 5 day ban. Please don't give me a reason to do it. For you, I want only verbatim quotes, and do not try to paraphrase them. For at paraphrasing you fail at being unbiased, or truly truthful. If no citation is given I'm going to be forced to assume you made it up, and revert it, do not add it back in.
Only add to articles, what you can correctly cite, quote it verbatim, or don't post anything at all. I have spoken.Baggins 23:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


False claims I gave you my source. I happen to not have the manual on me But I do know the Earthen ring is specifically mentioned. The main reason is my personal opinion,they don't give the supposive main reason. But if it wasn't for the Earthen ring the Forsaken would not be in the Horde that is a fact. Zarnks 00:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Claiming something is in a source is not the same thing as giving a source, if its not in the source. It is very easy to read fanfic or other sources and misrember where you read it and assign it to the wrong source. However I checked the manual as did Kirkburn and we both confirm there is no reference to Earthen Ring in the manual your information is flawed, and you are remembering things wrong.Baggins 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I showed you the source ingame and from the Official site. All I'm missing is the manual cite. Isn't that enough? Zarnks 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1 Edit

The source in-game and the faq only repointed out that it was one of the reasons that Forsaken joined the horde, it wasn't the "complete" explanation however. So no it doesn't prove that it was the "main point". It is one of many points sure. You also claimed that Blizzard always claims the Earthen Ring in their sources, well obviously they don't.Baggins 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion its the main reason. Regardless it was a major contributing factor,regardless of opinions. --Zarnks 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Good we have established it is your opinion and your opinions will stay out of articles. Yes it is one of several major contributing factors, but that doesn't make it the "main reason".
However when I write up the article discussing the history of how the Forsaken got into the horde, I will only be using the terminology it uses, not opinions.Baggins
I never attempted or was going to put in the article. Besides I pointed this out way earlier. --Zarnks 00:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If you never intended to put this in the article, why did you bring it up? This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

NumbersEdit

Can anybody tell me the exact numbers of both the alliance and the horde?I'd really like to know since the horde seems like a bunch of desperate people that's fighting a lost battle from what you guys posted.Also Horde military is probably more powerfull since they have lower numbers because blizz always seeks balance .BTW their spirituality is probably a good advantage in any battle not to mention they have Thrall as the Leader,also all of the other leaders are very powerfull and cunning also. let's compare:The alliance :Bolvar probably a good leader but still doesn't have any special abilities,Magni :i personally admire him and think he's the best leader possible but still no special abilities ,Tyrande:powerfull can't say anything about her,Velen:no complaints,Gelbin Mekkatorque:Like him too but still no special abilities.Horde:Thrall:warrior shaman(almost the best) knowing of the human ways and tactics being raised by them,Cairne:Noble leader with great strentgh and shaman powers,Voi'jin:Cunning and with great powers(never underestimate the vodoo),Sylvanas:Cunning and with both banshee and dark ranger powers led the elven army aginst Arthas admirabely also he wouldn't have made her his General only to torment her he's not stupid,and anyway if it would have been this way he must have been very annoyed(due to her special leadership),Lor'themar:Can't say anything about him since I don't know much but i suppose being Sylvanas's second in comand he probably did have some skill i suppose(and anyway Kael pointing him regent lord must have benn for a reason).My two cents please reply with the numbers i asked above if you can please.Cheers(Marakanis 23:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Remember Warcraft 3. Horde races have less number but are known for having tougher and better trained soldiers. While most of the humans and gnomes ar don't know how to fight properly. Think of it as Quality versus Quanity. Zarnks 22:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you'd take the time to read, the quality of Alliance training is actually very good. Read the accounts of First War and they were very surprised how easily they were defeated by the "pink skins" on their initial battles with the Alliance. At that time their forces were about equal. They only lost the war due to interference by Medivh and Garona. Again the forces were about equal in the Second War as well.
One forgets that many humans were trained as warriors or mages from an early age, and had to defend against invading trolls all their lives while trying to hold together kingdoms in some cases an empire. Their history was about as brutal as far as warfare, as life was for orcs on their world as far as history shows.
In modern times however the difference is made at this point is probably that Horde leadership is actually more organized than Alliance. Without a good leadership, even the best trained soldiers can fail, as they have no one to command them in where to fight, and who to take out. Without that information they can't fight properly. On the other hand this has never been tested yet, as humans haven't been forced to go to war against the Horde at this point in time. They are in a cold war. So its unclear on who would actually win at this point. Its not a question of quality vs quantity, until the full-scale hot war happens and answers its.Baggins 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I take the quality from Warcraft 3 where one grunt could beat two footman at once and Etrigg's comment that every orc is a fighter. Zarnks 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"every orc is a fighter."

Except for peons, did he forget about them? Oh ya, I forgot the average orc doesn't acknowledge peons as nothing more than a slave race, and not really true orcs... For that matter, what about shamans, mages, and other classes that aren't "fighters/warriors"? Seems call all orcs warriors is bit of hyperbole to me... I could probably find a credible member of the Alliance who made the same claim about humans or whoever, and it would still be hyperbole as well...

Well first off let me point out that in warcraft I & II grunts and footmen were equal as far as stats, things were changed in warcraft III to balance between the 4 playable races. As for a lore reason for why can one grunt beat two footmen? Let's see they are usually described as bigger, have thick armor-like skin, sometimes wear dark armor above that, have high tolerences to any form of pain. Physically they are more dangerous than humans its true, in the lore, due to physiological reasons. But physiology, has nothing to do with training. Still Horde acknowledges while the "pink skins" are physically "inferior" they are well "skilled" and "dangerous" (in their words, not mine, racist as they might sound), during the first and second war when both sides were about as evenly matched as far as forces went. In Third War, the orcs generally were outnumbered by the Alliance, but never had to fight the whole of the Alliance forces, just small brigades here and there, before they joined forces with each other.Baggins 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Peons can fight and are not a slave race. Many grunts start out as peons but progress. They are probably bettter off then peasants as they can leave thier jobs if they get skilled enough. Most that stay in the job are inferior in all skills of worth. Etrigg means most orcs can fight well if the situation demands it.

"Let's see they are usually described as bigger, have thick armor-like skin, sometimes wear dark armor above that, have high tolerences to any form of pain. Physically they are more dangerous than humans its true, in the lore, due to physiological reasons. But physiology, has nothing to do with training." Your just proving my point for me. Add trolls who can regernate and are pull of backflips with ease,taurens and ogres whose strength is unmatched. Blood elves whose magic skills are inferior to only the mages of Dalaran(who went neutral). Tuskarr,forest trolls and forsaken would be willingly to fight for the Horde. Goblins would undoubetly fight for their Horde if they were attacked,they already gave Horde exclusive priveleges to theri zepplins.

The Alliance is in a pickle. They have also lost thier dragonhawk riders,spellbreakers,Bloodmages,a great deal of their mages due to the Dalaran and blood elves leaving the Alliance. Kul'tiras is in a mess,Dalaran neutral, Stormguarde is destroyed and leaderless,Lordaron is a part of the Horde,Gilneas gone,and Jaina would not approve of an attack on the orcs. Night elves lost many of their numbers with many choosing to go neutral with the Cenarion circle,Mountain giants and chimeras leaving them. They gained shamans but Paladins,mages,priests,druids. While Horde still has a firm grasp on Blademasters,witch doctors,and spirit walkers Zarnks 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Alliance still has high elf dragonhawk riders, although they are not seen in the game, but appear in the written lore, this is an issue where WoW's scale doesn't allow you to see the whole world and everyone that exists in it.
They never had spellbreakers or bloodmages. Those were purely blood elf forces, not connected to Alliance. There were a few that fought under Garithos in his forces, but he wasn't connected to Stormwind alliance nor Theramore. He fought for himself. The other Alliances never had spellbreakers or blood mages in their forces, and also rarely encountered blood elves in those areas. Jaina would only declare war on the Horde if the Horde declared war on the Aliance first, she wouldn't like change sides at this point if Stormwind declared war first, and probably would support Stormwind if it came down to that (in WoW they aren't going to make Theramore a Horde settlement).
Chimaeras didn't leave them many went crazy and mindless, and high elves are forced to kill them now (although from a lore stand point many still are allied with Night Elves during the time of WoW according to Alliance Player's Guide). Mountain giants joined after Battle of Mount Hyjal to help them battle Illidan, and many still are allies of the night elves according to Alliance Player's Guide at the time of WoW. The reason you can't see them in game however is due to the game's lack of scale.
As for classes, don't even begin to try to compare classes unless you take the time to read all the Alliance and Horde classes created in lore, Category:Classes. Both sides have dozens of types of classes fighting for them out of many different races.Baggins 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Mountain giants dont' show up in the game,they can't have that many. Its not as if its hard to make Alliance friendly mountain giant. Zarnks 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Alot of things don't show up in the games that the Alliance have... Like oh half-orcs, and half-elves... Its due to a scale issue, the world in WoW is appears much smaller than it actually is, according to lore. The world in lore is much bigger than can be seen in games. The towns are much bigger than what can be seen in the games. I.E. A town is made up of hundreds of buildings, not five as most appear in the game. Trying to judge the universe based on lower scale used in WoW is ignorance to realism, rather than credible interpretation.Baggins 00:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Half orcs don't show up because they don't have a model ingame. A half elf however does show up. Zarnks 00:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He is a half-elf with a blood/high elf model however, and point out where the rest half-elves are in the in-game world? Where are the rest of the named ones? Remember in lore there is at least 9000 half-elves, I don't think thre is that many named NPCS in the game world, even if all races were combined. Again there is no way to judge the true population of the world based off what is seen in WoW.Baggins 04:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

After seeing Lantresor the blade,I'm glad half orcs don't show up. Zarnks 04:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Inherited the old Horde Edit

I wouldn't say that. Orgim wasn't that fond of the old Horde himself and some mobs are old Horde affiliated. I would consider Rend's Horde,the succesor to the old Horde Zarnks 03:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there would be much disagreement there; however, this is physically the Horde which Orgrim and Blackhand brought together. Rend's Horde is really Blackhand's in spirituality, rather than physically. --Sky (t · c · w) 03:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The so called "true horde" (fel horde), and so-called dark horde are literally break off groups that chose not to follow Orgrim or Thrall's orders. Finding the term "old horde", in official lore however, is rare if nonexistent, as far as I remember. It is more of a description of a time period than a seperate organization, Baggins 03:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember Orgrim sayig Thrall inherited the Horde. Its an argubale point. As the son of Blackhand and a follower of demon worship,Rend would at least be the spiritual successor to the old Horde. Zarnks 05:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way there is no such thing as the term "old horde" its a fan made term, as far as I know, I don't think its been used in any official capacity anywhere. In the lore its always just "The Horde". Its books that use the terminology that Thrall "inherited" the Horde from Orgrim. Play warcraft 1 and you see how Orgrim took over from Blackhand. Orgrim has been the Warchief of the Horde for half-way through warcraft I through Warcraft II and up to his death. You don't seem to know Horde history very well, :p. Obviously Ogrim couldn't say "Thrall" inherited the horde, he was dead already. Thrall took on the mantle of Warchief upon his death. There is a reason why the article is called History of the Horde, and not Old Horde, because fans made up the latter term, and Thrall was just the continuation of the Horde, even if he changed its policies further.)Baggins 06:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, at least in part. Orgrim did give Thrall his blessings in creating the new Horde, by teaching him the ways of a Warchief, as told in LotC. --Sky (t · c · w) 06:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read the book, I didn't know about that. Guess Zarnks was wrong, about there being no blessings for him to inherit the position.Baggins 06:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard the word,old Horde in the games. They have used the word New Horde. So its only natural to call the Horde before the New Horde,the Old Horde.

"I disagree, at least in part. Orgrim did give Thrall his blessings in creating the new Horde, by teaching him the ways of a Warchief, as told in LotC"

Forgot that part. Well anyway he gave him blessings in creating the New Horde not recreating the old Horde. Orgrim was never fond of the Old Horde to begin with. Zarnks 06:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't really a horde to "inherit", so at most saying that Thrall "inherited" the horde is a formality plus a tiny amount of orcs. The rest of the older, burning legion puppet horde was pretty much gone, and none of the other races in the older horde stuck around to the newer one (Except perhaps raventusks.). the newer one of course had to be built up again from the interment camps, darkspears, tauren, etc.

A better description might be that the older horde "splintered" or "split", as the dragonmaw orcs, blackrock orcs, etc. never really gav up their beliefs or organization, they simply did not join with Thralls horde.Minionman 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Goblins Edit

Whats wrong with this edit. "Many goblins are seen in Horde towns and some will even fight for the Horde. Gazlowe an old friend of Thrall had his goblins help build Orgimmar and many never left the city."

The ones who fight for the Horde are the ones in Ashenvale and the Zepplin guards. Honestly why do you have against goblins? Zarnks 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Many goblins are seen in Horde towns and some will even fight for the Horde. Gazlowe an old friend of Thrall had his goblins help build Orgimmar and many never left the city." The ones who fight for the Horde are the ones in Ashenvale and the Zepplin guards."-Zarnks 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Gazlowe is not a horde goblin, he's neutral steamwheedle. Its been written he was hired by Thrall to help build Ogrimmar in many sources.
2. The ones in Ashenvale and Zeppelin guards have been said to be hired by the horde as well.
As 2 actually supports what is written I will add it back in with modifications. however 1 is irrelevent.Baggins 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Gazlowe is not a horde goblin, he's neutral steamwheedle. Its been written he was hired by Thrall to help build Ogrimmar in many sources." Doesn't mean he isn't a close friend of a Thrall

"The ones in Ashenvale and Zeppelin guards have been said to be hired by the horde as well." How do you know they are mercenaries. Can you give me the quote? Whats wrong with goblins being found in Horde towns and helping to build Orgimmar. Zarnks 02:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Horde, not about "friends of the Horde", a reference to him irrelevent to the article. As he's a neutral entity and leader of the neutral city of Ratcher its irrelevent to the article as well. If we added him we'd have to add Jaina, and all of Thrall's "other friends" but that would be completely off the subject of the Horde. I've already given one of the quotes that says that goblins currently found in the horde are hired mercenaries. I'm sure to add more once I track them down again.Baggins 02:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Zarnks 02:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw, its 2 quotes, note the 2 page numbers given. Even if they were the only quotes, they would be more valid than anyone else's opinion, btw. Opinions, personal interpretation, and speculation are always left out of articles, or limited to speculation sections.Baggins 02:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not opinion I gave various citations. The quote doesn't specify that theres not a single Horde goblin just the majority. Zarnks 03:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't even know what a citation is, all you did was list off random goblins seen with the horde. However the lore just says that goblins seen in the Horde are "hired" by the Horde. Any speculation or hypothetical thought that there might be a single horde goblin would is still just 'speculation'. Which is is not allowed in main sections of articles.Baggins 03:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda Edit

Those aren't Darkspear trolls, they are generic trolls. The blood elves are outland blood elves, not Azeroth Blood elves. Zarnks 18:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the most blatantly anti Horde I have seen. I suggest you remove it now. Zarnks 18:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the 'villan races' should go. The Horde are not villans.--SWM2448 18:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

He's going out of his way to bash the Horde now for no reason. Zarnks 18:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the blood elves are in the picture, and so are a troll race (an incorrect one). It may be a mistake. Though, the pic is Pre-TBC with all three races hostile to all. It does seem very biased. Baggins, shame on you.--SWM2448 18:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture was before the non Illidari Azeroth Blood elves were revealed. Zarnks 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the artwork was created the Alliance & Horde compendium, which includes an article for the Darkspear, stating they are Horde affiliated. I have no idea why he called them "Villains".Baggins 18:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Metzen has called them good guys from an evil race trying to steer straight. That must have been a mistake on the part of an incompetent writer,probably the same guy who said Grom was killed by Thrall. That is a non-darkspear troll,this is blatant propaganda and should be removed Now. Zarnks 18:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How come my picture of a goblin listed a Horde race is too old but yours from the same time isn't? Zarnks 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Inccorect, as I said before the article for which that artwork was created is about Dark spear trolls, and no I don't know why Metzen included a Darkspear troll in artwork he decided to call "Villain Races". I'm pretty sure you don't even own these books do you? Well for you here ist he quote from the book about teh trolls in the book;
Affiliation: Horde. Jungle trolls of the Darkspear tribe are steadfastly loyal to the orcs. Though they practice voodoo and many retain their savage nature, Thrall lets them live within his borders and generally do what they want. They feel a great debt to the orcs, and their time fighting alongside the tauren has made them friends of these creatures as well.A&HC 23
The only reason the title of the artwork is included is for citation purposes, as that is the title of the artwork. No, I don't know why Metzen titled it that, when the article was cleary for the Darkspear trolls. One more thing in the book it doesn't even have a title, its just artwork created for the book in order to showcase the new races added in the book. Its only named on Metzen's site.
I suppose its similar to Metzen's artwork "Horde Races" that includes two races that are actually "Independents" and not actually Horde, the Half-orcs, and the Goblins. Independent meaning they can side with anyone.Baggins 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless it is the most biased edit I have ever seen in Wowwiki. That is cleary not inteneded to be a Darkspear as Metzen doesn't think of them that way. Remember my heart belongs to the Horde. Zarnks 18:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Most biased edit you've ever seen in WoWWiki? Which WoWWiki are we talking about here?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This one. I have never seen an edit directly call the Horde or Alliance villains. Zarnks 18:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the artwork was created for the RPG, not the other way around. Metzen was asked to draw the artwork for the RPG, and was told what to include for the related books. The artwork as put in the rpg does not have ever have titles, it was given titles after the fact. The artwork is from two seperate books actually, released close to each other actually, only by a few months, and both copyrighted to 2003. I suggest, you just ignore the titles, I don't think they mean anything, they are just "titles", and are listed for citation purposes.
However, had the titles come from someone not affiliated with Blizzard, I would have removed the information in a heart beat. But since they are the official titles, the fact must be cited. Its the standard wikipedian process, verifiable/citeable information can be included, oppinions can't.Baggins 18:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wheres your proof. Metzen probably drew an jungle troll and some ignorant fellow thought it was a Darkspear. Metzen description on the darkspear "The Jungle Trolls are definitely an evil race, but these guys are doing their best to steer straight." If this stays I will quit wowwiki. Zarnks 19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye. We've had people flame the Draenei in every section of the article, we've had forum moderator vandalizations, people blaming Hellscream for everything, calling Uther evil because of Arthas's later actions, and someone claiming that the night elves lived for nothing more than slaughter!
Baggins wrote the title of a picture. Get over it.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, right we all must really calm down guys. It's just a game, fandom, a thing to be enjoyed, so why cant't we do that without arguing???? Warchiefthrall 22:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the link that the picture had to the sons of the storm website, and I was unable to find where it said that picture was of a Darkspear Troll. It seems to me that it makes sense that would be a regular Troll, as Blizz often describes the mention of Darkspear Ttolls as 'noble' and 'loyal'. Unless someone can prove to me it's a Darksper Troll, I'm going to remove the mention of from the tagline, as it might confuse people unfamiliar with the lore. Also, can anybody confirm to me that it a Quel'thalas Blood Elf? They seem slightly darker than the Darkspears to me but still, when they find out how far Kael'thas has fallen they immediately turn against him, so at the very least they're not ready to ally with demons, I might get rid of that too unless anyone can prove to me these are Horde Blood Elves, All in all, this picture doesn't seem to fit in the article at all, since the article is about horde races, not "people genetically related to Horde races." It seems to me to be like putting a picture of a Dark Iron Dwarf and a Defias Human on the Alliance page entitled "Evil Races" without specifingthey are not, in fact, members of the Alliance. And if they aren't Darkspear Trolls or Quel'thalas Blood Elves, what are they doing on the Horde page? Perhaps we should start a Villain Races page, where the picture would fit better? The image doesn't fit with what we know about the dakspears, who are frequently described in lore as honorable, noble, and loyal. Even if the image does illustrate a Darkspear (which I am far from allowing) it doesn't fit in with all the lore we've received since then, and basing something like that off a caption from four years ago when it flies in the face of all evidence since then seems unfair. Lckyluke372 16:58, October 12, 2007

The image is there for Darkspear trolls. Darkspear trolls are part of the horde. All playable races illustrations from the rpgs are included in the factions articles. the Darkspear Trolls' illustration just happens to be part of a piece of art titled "Villian Races" which is unfortunate but it's just the way things are. And we do know its a Darkspear Troll because the section introducing new races to the rpg from where we get the illustration is about Darkspear Trolls. Specificly the section is about Gnomes, Wildhammer dwarves, furbolgs, and pandaren (which have their own illustration) and independant naga, independant Blood Elves (note this was pre-bc before joining the horde), and darkspear jungle trolls (this image). Each new race/faction got illustrated, meaning the illustrations were made for the article not the other way around.Warthok 02:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to start by saying I have no doubt this image was posted in the article because it represents an interesting alternate viewpoint to a commonly-held opinion, but it is making me VERY uncomfortable for a number of reasons. First off, I am still far from convinced it is a Darkspear Troll, because lore-wise that flies in the face of Blizzard's officia position. Secondly, this is one of only a few scraps of sloppy-looking lore that has ever accused the Darkspear Trolls of being evil. I can't think of many other pieces of lore that would support that conclusion, but what's making me and I think the others who have expressed dismay at seeing this image is that not only is it being presened as a credible viewpoint, but it is presented as the ONLY credible viewpoint, and despite the fact that the vast majority of all related lore points to the Darkspears being good, honorable, and loyal to a fault, I was able to find NONE of it in this article. I wouldn't dream of saying there's no chance of there being lore presented to the contrary inside the article, but I will say that if there is, it isn't nearly as prominently diplayed as this particular piece of lore, which is undermined by a piece of lore directly above it which depicts two non-horde races as belonging to the horde, dmaging the credibility of the related illustration. This raises the question of why it was even put up there to begin with, as both of these ilustrations are factually suspect. Furthermore the fact that the neither the section nor the article has much to do with the image is also damaging (though I'm sure the intentions were pure) making it look like it was put in there specifically as a shot to the Darkspears, fans of the Darkspears, and Darkspear players regardless of whether or not it corresponds to the article or the majority of the evidence presented in other lore. For these reasons, I can see why Zarnks thought it was put in the article just as an insult, although I certainly don't agree with that opinion. Therefore, I respectfully request we either delete the image as being both factually suspect and irrelevant to the article, we add a new explaining that the Darkspears are in fact condidered to be good by the overwhelming bulk of lore, or we need to create a new article about Villain races and add the Darkspears as a pontential/speculative evil race. To reiterate, it is offensive because it has very little to do with the article, is contradicted by most of the lore, and no attempt was made to call attention to either of these things. As a result, the article presents this image s being the absolute truth and the Darkspear Trolls as being officially evil by Blizzard's opinion. Lckyluke372 01:15, October 15, 2007

I don't know why Metzen called the picture "evil" but they certainly aren't evil in Alliance & Horde Compendium from which that artwork originally was printed, in that book the article to which the artwork is related is the Darkspear article and specifically says they are "Horde" members in the "affiliation section" and there is no evidence in the book to them being evil. It is in this article because it originates from that book not because of Metzen's page.
Metzen added the name "evil races" some time after the fact when he posted it up on his page. Only a goony bird would think that the trolls are evil. But its really the only metzen artwork that shows both blood elves and darkspear trolls in the same picture which makes it a good for this article. The old Horde pictures from Warcraft I and II manual would fit better in History of the Horde.Baggins 06:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Understood, but can't we mention that in the caption of the picture or something, because right now, from the look of the page, it seems as though we are endorsing that view as factually accurate, and I don't want to convey that impression, why don't we mention it in the text that that view is not the correct one? Lckyluke372 01:26, October 15, 2007
Its meantioned on the image page. theres a short little disclaimer. Adding an explanation to an image caption might be a bit to bulky. Better yet under darkspear up at the top of the article a note can be written about the darkspears turning away from being barbarians and cannibals and adopting shamanism, trying to find their way in the world, having become "good", etc....kinda like theres a short sentance telling readers the orcs turned away from demonic magic and have embraced shamanism.Warthok 11:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems fair. Lckyluke372 11:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Weak links"Edit

In an effort to get away from Zarnks' kvetching (which he is doing on a forum I frequent, hoping he'd find sympathy), I WOULD like to bring up the "weak links" portion of the article. While I agree that the horde's numbers probably are fewer than the alliance, the savagery and technology parts need to be removed. Very few of the horde's races act savagely, and when they do it is a point of contention for them (in a way, and I hope I do not offend anyone by this, it is similar to an African American being insulted by someone participating in the "gangsta" subculture as it reinforces the belief that they all are "thugs", similarly, an orc would be offended by a savage orc as it would perpeptuate that belief). And while the trolls and tauren do not have much technology, the orcs having marginally more, the forsaken and blood elves seem to have quite a bit (the forsaken having human level technology in addition to their bizzarre alchemy, and the blood elves with their merged magical/technological constructs) and this should be referenced in that part of the article. Agreed? Omacron 17:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Also the part with the blood elves's order of magi being second to dalarans order seems to be a little exagerated from my point of view.These guys are forced to deal with magic all the time that must give them an advantage ,well unless the RPG says different i think that part especially should be removed(Marakanis)

2 points.
1. They are quotes, from written lore.
2. Savage is an informal term for not living like Westerners, used by authors. Every warcraft manual under the sun calls horde "savage", including the World of Warcraft manual, and has nothing to do with horde or biased mentality, but simply a "discription".
Convinced that the primitive races of the Horde can help them achieve victory over their enemies, the Forsaken have entered an alliance of convenience with the savage orcs and the proud tauren. Harboring no true loyalty for their new allies, they will go to any lengths to ensure their dark plans come to fruition.-World of Warcraft Manual, Pg. 188.
All I can say is get over it, its blizzard's description for the Horde, not mine or anyone else. On a side note there is a weak links article for the Alliance as well.--Baggins 21:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It's an unfortunate result of western history that it is 'normal' to view many other cultures that aren't western as "primitive" and "savage", and it seems that Warcraft has also fallen into that trap. Especially in the case of the tauren, the culture has had as much time to develop as any other, it has just done so in a different way.
More specifically for this section, the HPG just precedes WoW, does it not? It could therefore be prudent to expand it with what trends are being seen these days in WoW.
(Meanwhile, Zarnks is welcome back when he doesn't view everything as a fight for justice, doesn't accuse everyone disagreeing with him as biased, doesn't make edits that we continually have to recheck and re-edit, and much more. I unblocked him once on the proviso we didn't have the same stuff happening again, and for a while it was going well. Unfortunately that came to an end, and here we are.) Kirkburn talk contr 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, its sad that western terminology uses terms such as "primitive" and "savage" to describe cultures that are not like western cultures.

Minor correction though HPG takes place during "WoW", and right before TBC, not much cultural/technological changes during that time really especially in Kalimdor. The blood elves/Forsaken are treated pretty much as a seperate Horde unto itself, with most of the tauren/orc/troll horde distrusting them. Your average western horde member distrusts science and technology and tries to keep it to a bare minimum for various reasons, sometimes environmental, other times fear (see techslayer), and occasionally hatred, but that still puts them at a disadvantage against the Alliance that thrives on technological innovations (Alliance has its own problems of course). It's also literally a comparison, to there being 3/5(playable) races in the Horde, which lacks the same level or denying the same level of technology, compared the Alliance which has 4/5 playable races that deeply praise and use technology. Its saying there are less Horde races lore that as a whole use technology compared to Alliance members as a whole that use technology. Baggins 22:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point a few things out here, if I may.
The adjective "savage" has a very different connotation from the noun "savage." The adjective simply refers to something that is prone to causing violence (thus, you can refer to a "savage blade"). The noun is a term historically laden with racist and imperialist connotations. You gave an example of an NPOV official Blizzard source that used the adjectival form to justify a use of the noun form, but the supposedly NPOV heading "[orcs are] savages" sends a very different message than the manual line you quoted.
But regardless of which specific adjectives were used to describe which race, this section (and the corresponding section in the Alliance article) should both be deleted. I don't think it matters much if they come straight out of the RPG books. There's no Wowwiki policy stating that every line from every product released by Blizzard must be on Wowwiki. Basically, they don't contribute anything to the article, and most of them are highly tenuous regardless of where they were said. Take the section on "pride" in the Alliance article. Sure, there are plenty of proud humans and night elves. But blood elves are among the most arrogant races out there. And in fact, the very same manual line you quoted refers to the "proud tauren." Obviously both the Horde and the Alliance have their weaknesses. But to attempt to boil down their flaws into one line descriptions is an insult to the complexity of the factions that Blizzard has created.
Even if you don't take my suggestion, I strongly advise changing the line "Subtlety is a four-letter word to these guys, and most prefer to talk with their fists." Not only is this A) bad writing and B)simply not true, it sounds uncannily similar to "all orcs are fighters," a point Zarnks tried to make earlier in the talk section, albeit for a very different reason.
Lastly, on an entirely different note, what in god's name is the line "According to Thrall, in Rise of the Horde, the Forsaken are merely "befriended"." earlier in the article supposed to mean?
--Flamestrider 03:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with what Flamestrider has said. Both articles on the Alliance and Horde should be moved IMO Warchiefthrall 17:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the sections are fair to be included, but need balance (i.e. the addition of the strengths section) and more context. Same for the Alliance article. I absolutely don't want the site to be Horde or Alliance biased, and it's a fine line to tread - however, unfortunately, there's a fair bit more citable Horde-'negative' info out there due to their history and nature. I guess what I'm saying is - we have to make sure we don't neglect the bad Alliance stuff, even though it's much easier for the Horde. Kirkburn talk contr 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that made me think of one other point - the way people play their characters is rarely "correct" RP-wise. People playing the Forsaken aren't likely to play them as per their 'nasty' archetype, whilst human players aren't always pompous asses. It's hard to keep personal experiences separate. Kirkburn talk contr 19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That's nonsense. There's plenty of anti-Alliance info, in fact if you dig into the history of Warcraft there's much more to damn the Alliance than there is the Horde, it just isn't as promulgated as much. See Weiskregg's comments here: http://www.wowwiki.com/Talk:Horde/Analysis#Horde_lore_jumps_the_shark Coming Second 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There's so much hyperbole in what he said it'd be pointless to list why it's way, way overstating it. Anyway, that was not my point - I said it's easier to talk about Horde problems than Alliance problems because of how they're presented, which you disagreed then agreed with. Kirkburn talk contr 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I now agree that the weak links part should stay, but please, can we take that line "Subtlety is a four-letter word to these guys, and most prefer to talk with their fists."??? I don't think it matters that it's from the RPG or whatever, but as Flamestrider said, it is mostly not true, and, most importantly rubbish writing. Warchiefthrall 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Population Edit

Can somebody please tell me exactly how much of a difference is between the Alliance and the Horde at numbers. Population estimation mwould be great for both sides ,BTW is it true the alliance outnumbers the horde 2 to 1?(Marakanis)

I don't know about exact numbers (RPG gives approximations), but most of the Horde that went to Kalimdor traveled on half a dozen or so alliance ships (according to Warcraft III). Its unknown how many traveled later. Darkspears are limited to those that could fit on those ships, unless they discovered other members of the clan elsewhere. Any others perished on their island as it sunk, most likely.Baggins 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Let's take Durotar and Orgrimmar for now;

Orgrimmar (metropolis, 16,000) around the time of World of Warcraft RPG

For Durotar around the time of Lands of Mystery (takes place after World of Warcraft RPG chronologically),

population 21,000, (65% orc, 20% troll, 15% tauren, 8% Forsaken, 2% human, if you are keeping up with the math that's 110% population). Besides the humans its not counting any other non-Horde members such as Quilboar and others.

That's 13,650 orcs, 4200 trolls, 3150 tauren, 1680 Forsaken, 420 humans (yes the math adds up to more than the 21,000 approximation).

Orgrimmar, 14,000 (80% orc, 13% jungle troll, 12% tauren, 5% Forsaken, yes that adds up to 110% population, :p), Razor Hill (3,000), Sen’jin Village (2,000).

11200 orcs, 1820 jungle troll, 1680 tauren, 700 Fosaken, yes that adds up to more than 14,000 approximation.

-Baggins 17:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's possible the human population of orgrimmar is also forsaken, with only 2% that ISN'T. Omacron 06:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Its human population of Durotar, not Orgrimmar, as in Kul Tiras Navy members.Baggins 06:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but i would also like to know if there is such a big difference of population between the alliance and the horde?For example i hear many tell me that the alliance outnumber the horde 2 to 1(think it's true)(Marakanis)

The Alliance Outnumbers the Horde Pre-Burning Crusade. But during Burning Crusade, the difference in population shouldn't be as bad anymore.

Start of World of Warcraft
Alliance did outnumber the Horde. Human population was badly damaged by the Plague and the Scourge but the Kingdom of Stormwind, Kul'Tiras and Gilneas remained untouched. 3 Kingdoms of Humans. That is a pretty big number on its own.
IronForge was also untouched by the Scourge and Plague. Wildhammer Dwarves as well. Only military forces commissioned to Alliance Generals in Lordaeron are affected but still, these numbers are not that significant.
Gnomes almost wiped out by the Gnomer incident. But then again, Gnomes >.>
Orcs, Thrall saved quite a few clans and tried to bring them to Kalimdor. Obviously quite a few ships sank and the scattered Horde on Kalimdor took a beating when Quillboars and Murlocs probably ate a few. Many probably drowned.
Darkspear Trolls have a very small population. Thrall could only fit so many into those ships. Besides, Darkspear Trolls is only 1 village of Trolls. Not many when you think about it, especially since the village was already screwed up by Murlocs and Humans.
Taurens were already screwed up by Centaurs in Warcraft 3. But since Thunderbuff was founded, Cairne has called for all other Tauren Clans to join the Horde. Significant number boost for the Cow-men here. But still, not many compared to the established Dwarves and Humans.
Forsaken only controls the Trisfal Glades. Not many considering there is only so few who managed to break away from Lich King control, and of those who broke free, only a fraction belong to Sylvanas.
  • Burning Crusade - Azeroth
The entire Quel'Thalas defected from Alliance to Horde. Significant reduction to Alliance and boost to Horde. But still, Blood Elves numbers are pretty low considering the Genocide that took place during Arthas' invasion.
Dranei joined the Alliance. Only a handful supposedly survived Exodar's crash. Probably on par with the diminished Gnome population.
  • Burning Crusade - Outland
Kurenai. Well, I would believe the Outland Dranei population is lower than the Mag'Har population considering the Old Horde genocided them all.
Alliance Expedition. Not exactly a boost, rather a recovery. Return of many experience veterans if a good thing.
Mag'Har. Significant Horde Boost. Mag'Har are still a warrior people much like the Old Horde minus the corruption.
Mok'Nathal. Significant Horde Boost. If a good deal of Mok'Nathal are as powerful as Rexxar... damned...
Ogres. Small Horde Boost. I can't remember which clan but its the one with Lancrestor of the Blade or something like that.

Outland is a significant number boost for the Horde. But still, there is an overall dominance by the Human population in terms of pure numbers. Considering in Wrath of Lich King where the Horde gets those new Tauren things Taunka, numbers should even up soon. --Invin Dranoel 15:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

To expand and correct on the above.

According to a couple of RPG books, Kul Tiras did fight against the Scourge to some extent, but Proudmoore saw that it was hopeless and set sails to Kalimdor. While the island of Kul Tiras may not have suffered any damage, it's forces took a massive beating when Daelin went up against Durotar. According to Lands of Mystery only 350 people man Tiargarde Keep and Northwatch Hold, and logically that'd probably include the Theramore citizens who opposed Jaina's decision to help the Horde and left.

Gilneas does remain untouched, as far as we know, but it's not part of the Alliance so I wouldn't count it.

Don't forget that not all elves became Blood Elves, although their contribution to the Alliance is minimum.

At least one passage from the RPG states that the Forsaken is the most numerous of the Horde races, so that'd be a big boost to their numbers. It's said that some Horde members left the Horde out of disgust, but this number is completely unknown.

The Stonemaul tribe is an official part of the Horde. Lands of Mystery state the Ogre population in Dustwallow Marsh to be 400, but the population of Breckenwall village is listed as 1000.

The Revantusk tribe are associates of the Horde, but have not completely rejoined. I should also note that this probably applies to the denizens of Outland, so don't be too quick to factor them in.

Honestly, I would be willing to calculate the population totals given in both Lands books if the admins will let me. But I should warn you that the population totals are a bit screwy. --Austin P 21:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, the total population of Humans should be higher than the usual Horde Races combined, i.e Human Numbers > Orcs, Trolls, Tauren, Ogre --Invin Dranoel 12:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well blood elves i expect them to be still pretty numerous,After all if humans were milions before the coming of th Scourge the high elves sgould have been a few milions too(even if fewer).10% of 1 milion(speculation of course) 100 thousand elves.At least 90 thousand became blood elves at the begginng with more high elves joining .That is a good number.If half left with Kael in Outland(although i think a third mostly) then that would leave at least 45 thousand in Quel-Thalas.That's a good boost for the Horde population isn't it.BTW does the RPG says anything about the high elf population before Arthas invaded?(Marakanis)

No, it doesn't.

I was mistaken, by the way, in the HPG it says the orcs are the most numerous. It says that the Forsaken are one of the largest and strongest groups within the Horde, if not the strongest overall. --Austin P 12:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Stronger then the orcs?Hm interesting i would't have thought but anyway I expect Blood Elves to be some of the biggest and strongest in the horde(well at least biggest)(Marakanis)

Really? Loads of them were killed ... Kirkburn talk contr 17:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But still if they had a population similar to the humans then it wouldn't matter if 90% of them would have been whiped out because they would still have a good number(Marakanis)

That is nonsense Marakanis. The Elves do not have that high a population. They mere massacared, the word genocide is apporiate for what happened in Quel'Thalas. The only Elves left alive in Quel'Thalas would be the extremely lucky ones who survived and escaped (Very Very Few), Elves who remained in service of the Alliance at that point (Not many), and Kael'thas and Friends who were in Dalaran at that time (A more significant number). All 3 took big hits from the Scourge. The total population of Elves left alive would probably be similar to the population of Orcs. Elves don't repopulate as quickly as humans can either. --Invin Dranoel 11:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you listened to me very much.I said if the high elves numbered to at least a million then if only 10% remained that would still be a good number.After all Quel-Thalas was a vast and powerfull kindom and since humans numbered in the milions ........the high elves even if with less numbers they could have numbered to almost a milion.What's so absurd ?After all 10% of almost a milion is still a good number don't you think?Which WOULD make them ONE of the biggest groups,i have the impression you understood i said they were the biggest in the horde.(Marakanis)

In my opinion, I think that the Orcs would have the biggest population within the Horde, then probably the Forsaken, Tauren, Blood Elf and Troll.

Regards Warchiefthrall 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think the orcs have the biggest population,followed by forsaken and/or blood elves,tauren and then trolls(Marakanis)

The RPG confirms that Orcs have the highest population.Baggins 17:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As for anyone interested in the currently known populations for Undercity and Thunderbluff;

Tirisfal Glades;
18,000, including Undercity's population. (90% Forsaken, 5% other undead, 2% human, 1% Horde jungle troll, 1% Horde orc, 1 % tauren).
Undercity;
13,000 (90% Forsaken, 5% other undead, 3% Horde orc, 1% Horde jungle troll, 1% tauren).LoC
Mulgore;
9,000 including Thunder Bluff's population. (85% tauren, 6% goblin, 5% dwarf, 2% harpy, 2% orc).
Thunder Bluff;
6,000 (88% tauren, 5% orc, 4% Forsaken, 3% troll).LoM --Baggins 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And just to save everyone else the trouble

Tirisfal Glades;
Forsaken 16'200, Other undead 900, Human 360, Jungle Troll 180, Orc 180, Tauren 180
Undercity;
Forsaken 11'700, Other undead 650, Orc 390, Jungle Troll 130, Tauren 130
Mulgore;
Tauren 7'650, Goblin 540, Dwarf 450, Harpy 180, Orc 180
Thunder Bluff;
Tauren 5'280, Orc 300, Forsaken 240, Jungle Troll 180--Austin P 03:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that Tirisfal Glades is taking into account Undercity's population, and Mulgore is taking into account Thunder Bluff's population, so don't try to add the two groups of numbers. If your interested in approximately how many are living outside of those cities, just subtract the city population from the region population.Baggins 05:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added up the listings of trolls (Jungle Trolls in particular) in Kalimdor and Eastern Kingdoms, it comes out to be about 9580 in the entire Horde. Most of the total being the Horde's Darkspear trolls, though may include non-alligned Jungle or Darkspear trolls or random trolls of other types (for example it probably includes Zalazane's Darkspear as well). But it gives a good approximation for how many Darkspear are in the Horde.

2500 - Barrens 880 - Desolace 4200 – Durotar and Orgrimmar 360 – Dustwallow Marsh 120 – Stonetalon Mountains 160 – Silithus 180 – Mulgore and Thunder Bluff 1000 – Stranglethorn Vale 180 – Tirisful Glades and Undercity

= 9580 Darkspear approx.

Baggins 20:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Alliance PopulationEdit

It looks to be somehwere around 800,000 give or take.

For the Alliance population figures, you can look at the various zone articles now. They now include most of the population counts we have been given, and affiliation in those areas. Also note the membership of Church of the Holy Light which is an Alliance organization. Though not all members are necessarily Alliance members most are, and it has a membership of 800,000 people. Which is greater than any horde organization as far as I know, and must include most of Stormwind to even reach that many.Baggins 07:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

800 000 population presuming stormwinds population is 200 000?from what i heard stormwinds population may have been altered (Marakanis 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

The idea that it may have been a "typographical error" in Lands of Conflict, has never been confirmed, and infact the 200,000 population was actually republished in a later book. In other words the written facts take precedent over any unconfirmed rumors that it "may have been a typo".Baggins 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
However, The Church is definitely an Alliance entity, and most members are definitely Alliance citizens. So its membership gives a high range for what the population may be.
While the organization may be Alliance, the only issue is that not all members may actually be members of the Alliance. Some may be non-alligned cultures or people that have joined the church, maybe even a few Horde members. Of course this would count Argent Dawn and Scarlet Crusade members most likely. For example the Argent Dawn favor the Alliance but claim neutrality.
So even if the Stormwind population was later officially retconed in a published work, there would still be the 800,000 number that gives an approximate number of Alliance citizens who are members of an Alliance organization.Baggins 01:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Horde PopulationEdit

Aha thanks , if it's not much trouble can u tell me what could be the population of the horde?(aprox) if it's possible(Marakanis 01:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Alright here is a rough estimate by adding up all the known demographics.

Note that some of the trolls may be generic non-horde alligned trolls, tauren, etc. This includes the known horde ogres however. It doesn't include goblins, as they are generally considered neutral and we have no numbers for horde alligned goblins. It doesn't include blood elves either, as that info is unknown. Although you might be able to work backwords from knowledge known high elves, and find out the number that total is 10% of, to find the Blood Elves's 90%. This won't help to find out what total is Horde and what total is under Illidan however. It would be a rough estimate.

22,680 Durotar and Orgrimmar

7,830 Mulgore and Thunderbluff

11,050 Barrens

490 Ashenvale

630 Azshara

2420 Desolace

1800 Dustwallow Marsh

660 Feralas

250 Moonglade

570 Felwood

1,250 Thousand Needles

600 Arathi Highlands

100 Badlands

2,750 Swamp of Sorrows

18,900 Tirisfall Glades and Undercity

650 Undercity other undead

800 Kezan

160 Dragonblight

Unknown; Silvermoon, Silverpine, Hinterlands, etc

Total, approximately 73,590 (give or take neutral non-aligned race members, and unknown places, and blood elves). Also there is no way to include half-orcs, or half-ogres into the mix either. We do know there are 100-200 half-ogres in Azeroth which might be able to be added to the total as well, as most are horde allies. --Baggins 01:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright here is data for high elves and working backwords we can find the approximate number of blood elves.

20,000 Stormwind
1,500 Elwynn Forest
100 Blasted Lands
650 Hinterlands
60 redridge
300 Westfall
1,000 Zul'aman
960 Dustwallow Marsh
450 Azshara
400 Kezan
300 Kul'Tiras

= 25,720 high elves approximately

25,720 / 10% = 257,200 blood elves --Baggins 02:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding that together you get, approximately 330,790 total (give or take illidan's blood elves, and independent members of the other races, and lack of information from some of the zones). I suppose that goes back to the original question, that Alliance appears to outnumber the Horde 2 to 1.--Baggins 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
However there is one problem with the blood elf/high elf figures, we don't know exact percentage of high elves to blood elves. We only really know the percentage of elves died under Arthas hand, so that total I just figured out might only apply to a fraction of the high elves that died as we don't know total blood elves. Please forgive me if the math is misleading, or any mistakes I might have made. But it still might give a lose ballpark figure howeverBaggins 03:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok the math should be fine, I found a quote that supports the idea that high elfs make up 10% of the total elven race left after Arthas went through and destroyed much of their kind.
"Prince Kael'thas returned home and rallied all the survivors he could find: approximately 90% of the surviving high elves."[5]

--Baggins 03:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright further more from encyclopedia we learn that 15% of those blood elves joined Kael'thas in Outland, that comes out to be approximately 38,580 blood elves in outland. So subtracting that from the total we get 292,210 horde altogether approximately.--Baggins 03:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a lot of Elves. Is it possible for anyone to source or calculate a rough estimate of the number of Elven survivors from Silvermoon compared to Elven survivors from other Elven Bastions? Several thousand survivors seems to be a lot for a "systematic genocide of Elves" in Quel'Thalas described in Warcraft 3's Undead Campaign. --Invin Dranoel 09:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Strangely with the numbers we have been given there would have been at least 25 million elves originally. 300,000 is a drop in a bucket if that's taken into consideration :pBaggins 10:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WoW thanks Baggins :) you clarified alot of things for me ;),I always suspected the blood elves were one of the largest races in numbers since they had such a powerfull kindom (before Arthas came), I really apreciate :D I've been wondering about the population mostly for my fanfiction fic (don't know when I'll have time to start it)BTW if it's not too much trouble ...how do u know around 15% of the blood elves went with Kael in outland?(Marakanis 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

We don't have an exact portrayal of human numbers, but I'd suspect they were at one time higher than elves, but they lost alot during the Three Wars. A huge number of Scourge are probably the undead humans.

As for the 15% quote;

"Approximately 85% of the blood elves still dwell on Azeroth rather than Outland.[6]"

Baggins 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Although, I probably should point out that the numbers of high elves in the alliance at the time of Lands of Conflict do not necessarily reflect the number of high elves at the time of World of Warcraft. Lands of Conflict takes place before World of Warcraft. Its unclear when exactly it takes place, except that it appears to be concurrent with the Sunwell Trilogy more or less. During that time more high elves may have defected either becoming independent and moving elsewhere, or joining the blood elves. This is unclear, although there is some implication in some of the other rpg books. However, they are still the only numbers we have to work with. The only thing that would do to the math actually would just add even more blood elves at the time of World of Warcraft.Baggins 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Horde pop. vs. Alliance pop.Edit

So more or less we have an Alliance that has a population of approximately 800,000. But the Horde itself appears to be less than half that. Probably no more than 400,000 total.Baggins 01:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well let's hopee the alliance don't start to attack the horde en-mass :D (Marakanis 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Well, I doubt Jaina would allow it. Although its possible that Katrana Prestor would push for it in her agenda to destroy both sides :p.Baggins 18:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you added Kaskala into the mix yet. And those Tuskarr could tell everyone that Prestor is Onyxia, thus Anduin sacks her and thus the Alliance attunement for Onyxia is null and void. Garm 21:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but Prestor/Onyxia is set in the past, along with Nef.... according to lore within Outlands, they are dead... timeline issues... User:Coobra/Sig3 21:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The manual didn't say they were dead, and an NPC only said Nefarian "failed", it didn't say he "died". I'm not sure why everyone assumes Onyxia is dead, though. Find a source that SAYS Onyxia is dead. If Onyxia is dead, why is Prestor still alive in Stormwind?Garm 21:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
why is Prestor still alive in Stormwind? if during the Onyxia chain she was found out to be onyxia, then why is she still in Stormwind... answer, TIMELINE ISSUES. User:Coobra/Sig3 21:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that the quest chain is actually official. As of yet, Blizzard is working on the Missing Diplomat chain... Garm 21:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just watch...the reason the king was removed from his prison cell, is that the defias will have some base in Northrend and we'll find the king was transported there...for some weird reason.......of course I'm still waiting for an ending to the eranikus chain /sigh User:Coobra/Sig3 21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Kaskala certainly doesn't belong in the mix considering they have remained neutral to both Horde and Alliance just as they were in the RPG lore.Baggins 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait so there are only 73,590 Horde who aren't blood elves? And the blood elves joined the horde seeking "their" protection? Geez, I knew that the horde-alliance casualty ratio was high, but I didn't know it was that high. Lckyluke372 (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh.Baggins (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The Horde and Alliance are leveling off. Soon they will be equal. BobNamataki (talk) 21:38, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

CombatEdit

I don't think the Horde is too worried, just about every Orc, Tauren, and Troll is a warrior, the Gnomes would be pretty much useless in melee combat, the Horde seems to have far more allies than the Alliance does, many of the has a centralized leadership. Besides, Orcs, Trolls, and Tauren are raised from birth to fight. Lckyluke372 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While gnomes are certainly disadvantaged when it comes to melee combat, their warriors are not something to laugh at (well a little at first). Although their style of combat is a bit different than average Horde warrior. Gnomes have to rely more on their speed and agility. Their size makes them somewhat harder to hit as well. They tend to be more defensive/protection warriors than combat. Its going to depend on the individual gnome however. So a fight between two equally skilled warriors one gnome and one tauren would be interesting fight, both with strenghts and weaknesses. However overall Horde has much better warriors than Alliance (which relies more on magic) although this isn't necessarily based on skill and training of individuals but more on pound for pound; the Horde races are stronger, have better stamina, better endurance, and can take pain better. This gives the the Horde the advantagee. Still some individuals will be better than others. Lothar and Orgrim Doomhammer were largely equals, and the outcome of their fight could have went either way. It was more luck than skill lost the battle for Lothar in the end, and its said as such.Baggins (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was disappointed by Lothar and Orgrim's fight, it seemed much more epic in my head. Actually I was disappointed with that whole book, especially considering how good Rise of the Horde was, I had such high hopes. I suppose that in the end, that fight was never going to be good outside of our heads, because nobody knows how to make a fight between a swordsman and someone armed with any other weapon interesting, in any form of media. And what happened when to the comment I was originally replying to when I first posted? Somebody wrote "why doesn't the Alliance just overrun the horde with their numbers" and I explained that the Horde has better quality warriors. Lckyluke372 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that the warriors of the Western Horde don't have a distinct advantage in skill over the footmen of the Alliance. Throughout history, cultures that have revolved around warfare, the hunt and honor tend to have a rather large string of successes against cultures that aren't so inclined. Sparta, Macedonia, Japan, Germany, Ottoman Empire, Confederate States of America, Britain, China, Rome, and the Norse Norse are all real life examples of this, so we're supposed to believe that in the Horde races where the culture is deeply involved in combat and the hunt (Valley of Trials, the Great Hunt) that they wouldn't be more skilled than some human trained for a brief time in whatever the WoW equivalent of boot camp is? I'm not saying there are no very skilled human warriors, I'm saying I always thought that the Horde has more per capita, at least in the West because thats something they grew up with for the most part, while the majority of the Alliance don't. Lckyluke372 (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You would be surprised of the long history of fighting prowess and culture of the Alliance. For example, take the human city of Stormwind. It was noted for having a particularly fierce and well trained army. They were able to hold off (for quite some time at least) a large force consisting of battle experienced (Draenei War) orcs and ogres, combined with incredible demonic strength and large numbers. Doomhammer himself mentioned in ToD how he felt at the time that they might not be able to conquer Stormwind. A similar thing is said in The Last Guardian book as well. Humans themselves have had thousands of years of fighting in their history. This doesn't mean the Horde doesn't have distinct advantages in physical battle, because obvisouly they do, but so does the Alliance. Its like in DnD, elves don't have the physical strength of many warlike races, yet they can be considered among the best due to their great agility, extreme skill, and tactical thinking (The quality of their equipment can be factored in too). In fact the old human saying "Esarus thar no'Darador" implies a people with honorable fighting roots shedding their blood in the line of duty. The problem most people have is believing the Horde is better at fighting solely based on physical strength when in actuality there are many factors that make excellent warriors. BaskinRidge (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that this is the key difference between the two factions. The Alliance, have lives jobs and families and are not bread just for fighting. They do however have organized training, and make use of Levy (Drafted) Infantry, who do infact greatly outnumber the Horde as a whole. The Alliance soldiers tend to be sword and board, forming shield walls making excellent use of archers and spell casters. Not to mention that from a technological standpoint they are leagues and bounds ahead of the horde. Gnomish and Dwarven engineers craft mighty siege engines in their major cities.

For the Horde the situation is different entirely. Besides being outnumbers 2.5:1 as a faction they are in a bind, having to pay the Goblins a lot of money in order to support and sort of technology. On the other hand they do make excellent use of shock troops. They have excellent warriors who were born to wield a blade, and (in the Orcs case) thrive in bloody combat. They weild large two handed weapons, and go beserk in battle cleaving and heaving their way into the fray. This may be good but it does have disadvantages. You leave much of your body exposed by weilding giant two handers. Yet a well trained Horde soldier, is probably going to be aware and adept to this situation, and could possibly even cleave an Allaince shield in half on occasion.

Overall I believe the sheer number and technology difference puts the result of a war in the favor of the Alliance. With the emergence of King Varian Wrynn, and thew new found leadership, with the death of Bolvar to inspire them they would be a force to reckon with. Though the Horde would not go down lightly. Everyone in the horde is a warrior at heart, ready for battle in the most dire circumstances. They would fight right to the end making the Alliance pay for everything they did, yet I believe that just by sheer numbers, and the Alliance having some very good elite troops, that it wouldnt matter. (talk) 6:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GovernmentEdit

lets face it, the horde is pretty Totlitarion, Thrall is a dictator and most Orc towns are run by appointed military leaders where as the alliance usually elects their officials.

sure Stormwind has a King but the central governemnt doesnt control the political fairs of individual provinces

Ironforge has a monarchy, but it's more of a monarchy like the UK's, there's a senate that probably holds most of the power

and id say Mulgore and Thunder Bluff coulld also be classified as a Federation of sorts

Sign your posts. I should point out that the demographic information on region/zone pages are actually taken from official sources, such as the Lands of Conflict, and the Lands of Mystery books. They shouldn't be altered, or have speculation added to them. Thank you.Baggins 06:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Me? a dictator? :P

Seriously, though, he is most certainly not Warchiefthrall 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically he is. A benevolent dictator to be sure, but still a dictator. Personally I feel its a better form of government so long as you have the right person in charge, Thrall's a good guy, you have a good government. The democratic allaince on the other hand has corrupt nobles weasel their way into power on almost every level.Tweak the Whacked 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Race iconsEdit

Race icons are cute and all but I don't think they should be used in the middle of paragraphs. They look good in bulleted info sections, just not in the middle of written content. It doesn't look very professional.Baggins 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You should take a look at the Alliance page. Same deal. Nonsense0909 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make it a good policy. If they're in the middle of paragraphs, it just doesn't work.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No offense meant. Nonsense0909 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked the Alliance page, they really shouldn't be there either, or any other page, :p...Baggins 04:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

TuskarrEdit

Aren't they Horde members? Why aren't they mentioned? Garm 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't truly know their relations, as far as we know...they are just friends, not members. User:Coobra/Sig3 04:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You could at least say Horde-aligned... Garm 14:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Horde-aligned, and they did... User:Coobra/Sig3 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the tuskarr are neutral.--WoWWiki-Odolwa (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

They are neutral, this discussion is quite old, back when little info about tuskarr existed. User:Coobra/Sig4 00:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove Weaknesses/Strengths Edit

This is outright rubbish, I urge to have this removed from both the Alliance and Horde sections. It's quiet obvious that this doesn't belong in the factions (See my entry at the Alliance article). The Horde and the Alliance are alliances which span many different races with different strengths and weaknesses these however differ from race to race! Not the factions as a whole. Thrash 01:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Alliance. And btw the admins aren't going to sympathize with threats, no matter how silly they may be. Warthok Talk Contribs 05:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I see someone is ageist ... And who are you to threaten the community? User:Coobra/Sig3 06:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably no one to threaten the community, but did I really do that? Well I blame fatigue for my short temper in my previous entry but I still think that we should do something about the low quality of this part of the article. Thrash 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't for the fact that these sections are quoted word for word from the wow rpg, allaince and horde players guides respectively, I'd actually agree with you. Blizzard is having fun bashing the horde lately, but this is a neutral site, regardless.Tweak the Whacked 00:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the Alliance page, as the Alliance weaknesses seem fair and true, and reads like it should. I don't know about you guys, but the Weakness section here reads like some one telling a story, or trying to prove a point. I suggest we shorten all the sections and just state the facts, but not delete it all together. Aliron 17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet it's all cited. Kirkburn  talk  contr 05:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
To be technical, the HPG is from Brann's point of view, boss. But the bottom line is indeed that the information is cited. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It could be paraphrased more, indeed - I meant to imply that we can't say it's breaking NPOV, nor delete it all. Kirkburn  talk  contr
As long as it's cited, that's fine, I thought some random person came along and wrote it so it sounded bad to me. Aliron 22:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The quotes as I recall actually come from one of those player suggestion boxes, which may not come from Brann himself, and are usually used by the authors suggesting how to play characters or developing a campaign. Brann's usual content is limited the main articles themselves. Not all articles in the books are necessarily from Brann, there are alot of these editorial intrusions of both lore and mechanics most are limited to boxed off sections within an article, though some appear with the main article content, such as game/rule content interspersed into item/ability/spell articles.

Edit: Its definitely in one of the editorial sidebars. So definitely less likely to be from brann, but rather its from the real authors & editors POV. Most of the side bars are editorial notes to be used on how to play the game, and how to role play one's character or campaign so that it fits into "lore".Baggins 23:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

NihiliumEdit

Removed the piece about Nihilium. Article is about the horde from a factual and lore perspective, not about generalizations about horde players in the MMO.Warthok Talk Contribs 20:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Horde are not evil. Period. Edit

It seems obvious, but is a common misconception. The Scourge is evil. The Burning Legion is evil. The Horde are not evil, they merely have different views on the world than the Alliance and that is why the two factions are at war. Not satisfied?

Before the events that take place in World of Warcraft (by which I mean in Warcraft III, though I'm not positive about that)the Horde allied with the Alliance to fight the Burning Legion. Still not convinced?

Take a look at the Tauren culture. They are about the most peacable race out there. They are shamanistic. They have a great respect for nature and life. THEY LIVE IN TEPEES!!!!

If you're still not convinced, than you are a dunderhead who knows nothing about Warcraft lore/history and should go ask someone to kick you, but I still have more reasons. There are tons. But for Mr. Stupid who still thinks Horde are evil, I'll whip one out:

The Orcs used to employ demonic magic (and some still do, some are warlocks, I concede that) but in general they switched over to shamanism, in favor of a more spiritual way of life.

Bye. Wakata 00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling people who may be incorrect or not share your views 'dunderhead' and 'Mr. Stupid' is rude. While the Horde and Alliance both have their flaws, both are not evil. What about the Horde in Warsong Gulch?--SWM2448 00:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually... the horde are 1/5 evil. The forsaken are undead creatures using the horde for what they need... and the most evil of evils are the undead warlocks... that pure evil right there. User:Coobra/Sig3 02:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WoW Anger much? Was this in response to anything or just a random childish spastic blurt out?Warthok Talk Contribs 03:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In response. I've had too many Alliance players bombard me with:
"Horde is evil horde is evil hordeisevil HORDEISEVIL Alliance is good come join the alliance we're the good guys etc., etc."
Coobra: alliance uses warlocks too. If you use that standard to gauge evilness, then every single faction's evil: Burning Legion's evil, Scourge's evil, and Horde and Alliance both use warlocks. What's the point if everyone's evil? Burning Legion and Scourge are, but neither Horde nor Alliance are good nor evil. You're right about the Forsaken, though... I don't really count them. They ARE evil, I concede. Forget them, the Horde is questioning their loyalty anyways... Wakata 05:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I was actually joking towards the end of my comment with the warlocks... though they are an evil class. They can be used for good... /snicker. User:Coobra/Sig3 05:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
k btw g2g bye Wakata 05:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add one more thing... yes every faction is evil in one way or another. For one can not have good without evil, even evil creatures can have some good. So while Alliance players might say Horde are evil it is infact a half truth, the alliance may see horde as evil and horde may see the alliance as evil.. it's all about perspective. User:Coobra/Sig3 05:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be dictatorial here: the next person I see posting on this subject will be issued a short ban. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ja, mein Fuhrer! Geez I hope I don't get banned for that. Just Kidding Ragestorm. Lckyluke372 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

'I'm afraid I don't find that very amusing.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Too soon? Seriously though, I wasn't calling you dictatorial, I was making fun of how you called yourself dictatorial. Thank god you managed to at least temporarily stop that topic though. Lckyluke372 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me he did stop it. Though me thinks you wanted to test him. User:Coobra/Sig3 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the Horde who constantly ganked me when I was leveling up? HOW IS THAT NO EVIL!?!?!?!?

But, on a more serious note-I think it was obvious before you even posted this that the Modern Day Horde is not evil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dunnsworth (talk · contr).

Come on that's just racist to say the horde is evil, Arthas turned evil, and what do you call Blackmoore? Before the first war, apparently the orcs were the most peaceful bunch around. They were CORRUPTED, Gul'dan was evil yes. Everyone has to be a bit rough to survive, but compared to the alliance orcs are so pure. (Sweatboy (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

Not only is that flat out wrong, it's also non editorial. if it's not about editing the article then we don't care. This is not a forum.Warthok Talk Contribs 03:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction Edit

In CoH, Thrall says "Another woman in your military. Humans astound me sometimes." Which seems to imply women are not allowed in the Horde military, yet I have heard everywhere else that they are. Can anyone explain this to me? Lckyluke372 (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. There was little to no hint in sources prior to WoW that orcish women served in the military. Come to that, only two orcish women were even mentioned in lore prior to WoW. Prior to Warcraft III, only three female human characters were even mentioned. Addendum: it could simply be that when Thrall said that, it meant that orcish military women were rarer than the were in the human armed forces, which itself was rare.-_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
In the RPG it is said that women in any military(horde and alliance) are rare, but are recently being allowed in (varying numbers dependent on race or faction). Course this info is spread around many articles so I'm not going to hunt them down rigt now..Baggins (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a forum kind of question. The question isn't opinion-based, it is directly related to the article and what might or might not be on the page, as it is kind of important. That being said, thanks for the info. Lckyluke372 (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well not on this one, more like on the Orcs'. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Lckyluke372 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Clans in the Horde Edit

Well I wanted to know what clans are still from the New Horde

  • We know that the Black Tooth Grin clan, Blackrock clan and Dragonmaw clan are from the Dark Horde.
  • We know that the Bonechewer, the Laughing skull clan, Dragonmaw clan (the ones that returned to Draenor), part of Shadowmoon clan, a part of the Shattered Hand clan and a portion of the Bleeding Hollow Clan are from the Fel Horde.
  • Part of the Shadowmoon clan go through a dimensional gateway, the members were ambushed by Kil'jaeden and turned into liches.
  • The few survivors of the Stormreaver clan are living in the Broken Isles.
  • The Twilight's Hammer clan is serving the Old Gods.
  • The Burning Blade Clan and the searing blade are trying to destroy Thrall's Horde.
  • And now the only clans left are: the Frostwolf clan, the Warsong clan, a part of the Shattered Hand clan, a part of the Bleeding Hollow clan, some Shadowmoon, some Thunderlord and the few Burning Blade blademasters.

I think that we should add the Bleeding Hollow and the Burning Blade to the Current members section.

Also i want to know if all this information is correct or if the new Horde has other clans supporting it. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

At the very least one Blackrock orc joined the modern horde Zarnks (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

But do you have a source? I mean, I don't want to put some baseless information. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

LeadershipEdit

"Unlike the Alliance, the Horde has clear leaders for every race represented in its ranks. The clearer hierarchy makes things a bit more organized for the Horde, although the Horde has the disadvantage of having at least one race that is only interested in looking out for its own, the Forsaken A wise general learns to balance the orcs’ battle rage with cunning tactics." i know this has a source but from everything in lorethe alliance is the same way the allince has clear leaders aswell and every race is represnted in there ranks while the night elfs maybe not be close like the article says the forskaen are not close in the horde and a clearer hierarchy? the allience has genrerals majors etc a very ordorly army i think this osuld be removed from the section even if it is sourced it still makes the allience look like a disorderly band of thugs and brutes the alliance has just as good leadership as the horde Dark mage999 (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Horde, while each race has a leader their ultimate loyalty is to the Warchief. For the Alliance, however, things are much more complex. There is no overall leader, although Jaina and Varian seem to be contending for the post. Among the night elves Tyrande is the official leader, but Fandral Staghelm has much influence and many elves owe their loyalty to him instead. And if Malfurion came back things would be even worse. Humans are split between Stormwind, Theramore, Kul Tiras and Stromgarde, as well as those few still in Lordaeron and the Sons of Lothar, each group following their own leader. It's the difference between a friendship of peoples and a friendship of commanders. Jormungand IconSmall Rogue talk · contribs 12:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

but the blood elfs and forsaken they are not extremly close to the horde infact they are planiing to betray the horde (atleast the forsaken are) and the humans are not really that divided each nation sents troops to fight in the allince army and stormwind and ironforge are close allies almost as much as thunderbluff and ogrimnarr also the dranie have alot in common with the humans and night elfs thus bridging the cap between the two races i dont see any thing like that happening to the orcs and forsaken also tyrande and fandral may disagree with eachother but its notlike acvil war is about to start you cant just say becuase the allince has it problems that is is divied and if you do you have to include the horde aswell becuase they are in the same boat as the allince with the blood elfs and forsaken Dark mage999 (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What Jormungand means is that for example if Lor'themar choose to disovey Thrall it will be considered as treason, but if for example Tyrande choose to disovey Varian it would not be considered as a treason but as a diference of ideas as none of the two are leaders but equals. Also use better grammar. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Obviously the Tauren and soon to be Goblins, as well as the Trolls, would not answer to the Forsaken, they would answer to Thrall or their respective leaders more so. Also, Jaina had no true hold on Alliance leadership, not even a say, until very recently with the rebirth of Dalaran, yet she has been the main leadership in the Alliance article solely because she's the only one in mainland Kalimdor.
So I have to disagree, Cairne especially, he is a founding member of the Horde and part of why the Horde exists, and is the largest giver to it in Kalimdor barring the Orcs themselves. Lor'themar I think is subjective, according to the story he is now the official leader of the Blood Elves, and they are full members of the Horde. However, he is not involved in politics as the other three are, indeed all three seem to be neck deep in policy decisions and running the Horde. I think it's obvious founding members, barring those without a home or resources to donate, are part of the main leadership regardless of how much "clearer" the hierarchy is. Part of the reason is, given ideal circumstances such as in the past, the Alliance would consider defying their leader treason, but that is not true of the current Horde.
Thrall is much more welcoming of opposing views and discussion, he's been betrayed quite a few times and responded with exile where Varian would have them executed. He's also had members of the Horde disobey him and not become wrapped up in protocol, but instead dedicated to discovering the reasons before acting. So in summary, Cairne must be considered part of the main leadership, he is a dear friend and confidant of Thrall, he is a founding member of the Horde, his views carry great weight with the other members including Thrall, and he is arguably leading a nation of equal power to the Orcs and Forsaken. Revrant (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually we don't know if goblins, tauren and trolls would not answer the Forsaken, just check out Arathi Basin, all races are fighting by orders of Varimathras. Also, Jaina is considered a main leader of the Alliance just because there is not true leader, every faction has it's own leader and some help each other, like Ironforge and Stormwind (in the Scourge invasion in the comic), but others are just allied (like the night elves, that didn't reinforce Stormwind in the Scourge Invasion). So, as there is no overall leader, we put the most important in the Alliance infobox, but in this case we have an absolute leader, which is the Warchief; we also put Sylvanas because she is the one who gives the orders in the other continent, it would be imposible for one man to give orders across two continents. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Battlegrounds seem to ignore racial attitudes across the board, so I don't think it's anymore valid than my referencing the achievements. Varian is the actual leader, but Theramore is the "lore" leader with the Night Elves, so it's somewhat confusing to say the least. It's obvious Thrall gives the orders overall, Sylvanas leads her own people, who are after all the dominant faction, and the rest seem to draw orders directly from Thrall, including all non-Forsaken outposts. Still, Cairne is a founding member, leads one of the most powerful factions, is responsible in large part with the Trolls for even allowing the Horde to form, and due to his close friendship and sway with Thrall arguably has far more say in the Horde than Sylvanas does, as she is treated with open suspicion(for good reason). Revrant (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, take it to a forum, guys, none of this is going in the article unless something is officially stated. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No, this is what the talk page is for, to decide these things, none of the information on the Alliance page regarding leadership is "official" either, do not discourage discussion on the topic. Revrant (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not hypothetical or general discussion on the subject. Feel free to continue this discussion at our on-site lore forum. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a discussion regarding a change to the article. Revrant (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I apologize profusely. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
No need, the change is regarding why Cairne should be considered a main leader of the new Horde, given his immense significance in both running it, creating it, and guiding its leader. Revrant (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually the Cairne wasn't a founder of the Horde. The Horde has always been the same, besides in Reign of Chaos he just fought against the centaur and was aided by Thrall, then he arrived Mulgore and they parted ways, he later joined to pay the debt to the Horde, but when Hellscream was defeated he returned to his home and Thrall continued his journey to Ashenvale Forest. Cairne didn't rejoin the Horde until Baine was saved by Rexxar in The Frozen Throne.
Although Cairne has lack of recent activity since the decision of allowing the Frosaken in the Horde, he is described as Thrall's right hand in Horde Player's Guide, so I'll put that as a citation. But also, after checking the Forsaken section, it isn't told that Sylvanas rules Lordaeron, just her people. Maybe both should be placed under secondary leaders, though Sylvanas still hold strong ties to the blood elves, so I'm not sure if she should be moved. For now I'll left both Cairne and Sylvanas, but if others disagree they should be put in secondary leaders. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Adding my own views, i don't disagree with the change, my revert was simply because a change was made before being properly brought up. That and the fact that Revrant's first edit was arrogant and stated to "reflect fact". Lets make something crystal clear: that is a complete fallacy, there is no "fact" in this matter of where we decide to place Cairne, and claiming to be so is the easiest way to get your edits marked as vandalism, not to be taken seriously, and to make enemies. But judging by this discussion i don't think those were Revrant's intentions.
That being said i don't feel strongly either way on the issue, and while i'd rather see him under main leaders, if the consensus is to ultimetly not allow the change i won't argue against that. I think the issue comes down to what a main leader is. If Cairne is being called a secondary leader because of his inferior position to Thrall, that's okay but i would argue Sylvanas would also need to be classified under a secondary leader for that reason. As it's been stated: The Horde, unlike the Alliance, does have a single ruler. If main leaders is decided by influence, position etc... i would say Cairne as well as Sylvanas is a main leader. There needs to be a distinct difference between Cairne and Sylvanas' positions in order to label them different, and while some have been suggested here i don't find any of them sufficently convincing. Vol'jin rules a small population in Thrall's city and Lorthemar is a temporary reagent as of right now so i wouldn't argue for those in case anyone is wondering.
Like i said: a distinct difference. If Sylvanas has more or less control or a say in all Horde activity in the Eastern Kingdoms in some official capacity, that would be a good reason. If the Horde in the Eastern Kingdoms are noted distinctly as the horde of the eastern kingdoms or something similar, something more than a direct extension of the horde on kalimdor, which Sylvanas has influence in, hat's a good reason. Like the RPG makes a distinction between the two alliances, the western and eastern alliance. If something like that exists then we have a reason to call Sylvanas a main leader but not Cairne. If someone can find such a piece of info we can use it to settle this matter.
Edit: This page has been reverted again since i began this response.Warthok Talk Contribs 05:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
In Horde Player's Guide Sylvanas is told to just rules her people, not the entire Horde in the Eastern Kingdoms (i.e. Kargath outpost or the Frostwolf clan); there is not that pice of evidence in the citation that was given, so I changed the infobox. But it's also told that the Forsaken may be the strongest organization within the Horde. So, Sylvanas role may be more or less the same than Cairne, just the leader of his/her faction. As I said, I'll leave both in Main Leader but I'm open to suggestions. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Benitoperezgaldos: I don't mean the original Horde, I mean the new Horde, though lore states it always existed I really have trouble calling a bunch of orcs and a small population of wayward trolls stranded on a sinking island "the Horde". He did leave, though it could be argued he came back to aid them, which to me shows he considered them allies before officially co-founding the home of the new Horde in Durotar, Orgrimmar, and helping them build it.
I suppose I recognize a split between the old and new Horde where the lore doesn't, so I'm at a disadvantage when arguing this.
He very well should be, Thrall depends on him for advice regularly, and the added cite is appreciated given I do not own the guide and was unaware of that.
Warthok: For all my time here I cannot see where arrogance is considered a negative among contributors. ;) However I was merely citing the leaders of the Horde achievement as "fact", not my belief that it is fact. I'd like to think I could not be taken seriously and make enemies based largely on my lack of compassion for retconning and my general disdain for how purple people are so important and favored. ;)
Good reasoning, but given the new cite, and the revelation of the incorrectness of the previous cite, I think the debate is largely done with. I would suggest keeping Sylvanas as a main leader, she obviously, after the events of the Battle of Undercity, holds great sway with Thrall and directs the events of everything north of Thandol Span. Though it appears to be true she holds absolutely no sway with the southern Eastern Kingdoms Horde, who appear to answer directly to Thrall by way of Ratchet and Zeppelin, she is still a primary leader and orchestrator of events, especially given her control over half of the Northrend bases and plans therein. Even further, she is personally directing, alongside Thrall, half of the Horde's military, substantiated with her own military might, so that would be enough to qualify her as a main leader, at least in my mind. Revrant (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, and let me reitterate, i don't dispute Sylvanas being called a main leader, just using her to justify Cairne.Warthok Talk Contribs 09:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I just left Thrall as a main leader and moved the others to secondary leaders, if someone disagree please discuss here first. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:50, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary breakEdit

I reestablished this as I feel it is quite obvious Sylvanas is not a "main leader", especially after the events of the Battle for Undercity and Wrathgate not only firmly established her as not entirely trustworthy but not in control of the Horde forces in the capacity that was previously assumed. Revrant (talk) 19:22, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
I, too, agree that Sylvanas should be considered a main leader. My opinion may be a tad biased, however. Sylvanas is my second favorite character in lore, just after Kael'thas. Sylvanas definitely has more of a presence than the other leaders, Thrall aside. IconSmall BloodElf2 MaleIconSmall Rogue Sebreth (talk) 23:41, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
I think that the only difference between Sylvanas' power and other leader's power is that Sylvanas has influence over another faction, i.e. the blood elves. But I think that Revrant is right, with recent events she seems to has less control than she was assumed to. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 00:18, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

The same problem again, all 5 race leaders were moved to main leader. I think that Thrall should be the only one in main leader, while the rest should be in secondary leaders. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:39, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

That has been done according to the Alliance template, which has all race leaders as main.
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 20:57, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
I have two problems with that. 1) Leaders should be reported to be as accurate as possible according to information given, as opposed to being reported in a matter that atempts to make things symetrical on the wiki pages of the two playable factions of the currently prominent game in the franchise. Which leads me to my second point: 2) If were including other leaders aside from Thrall it should not be exclusively those who lead playable races, at least it should not be decided by that specific reason. From an in universe perspective, which this is an article about since i don't see any information about Horde players on here, there is no difference between playable races and non playable ones (ogres, Reventusk, etc...)Warthok Talk Contribs 22:33, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, though Varian seems to be the main Alliance protagonist lately, he is not of the same importance to the Alliance as Thrall, the designated Warchief, is to the Horde. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 11:39, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Well, the infobox appears to be changing without discussion. Sylvanas was added again as the "Leader in the Eastern Kingdoms" when it was proven false and is just speculation.
And in answer to the discussion above, I don't think that Vol'jin or Lor'themar would have the same rank as Thrall. Thrall is supposed to be the Warchief, while currently the Alliance doesn't have a Supreme Commander like Lothar was in the Second War; that's the reason why I would leave all the Alliance leaders in the infobox, but remove the Horde leaders with the exception of Thrall. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 20:03, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

I will stay on top of the infobox, it appears people are changing it on a whim without discussion, that is not appropriate. I agree with your deduction, it's based on solid fact, unfortunately due to stubbornness I don't think much headway will be made, one cannot even assert that the Warchief is the leader of the Horde despite a small mountain of evidence without quite a lot of denial and reverts. Revrant (talk) 11:31, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Command Structure Edit

Why isnt there a command structure like there is for the Scourge and Burning Legion pages? I think one should be added for the Horde and Alliance.--Icon AzgalorMaelstrong 12:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the Sourge or Burning Legion, it seems hard to tell who's who's superior for all the charismatic leaders of both faction.
Lots of debates inc!
IconSmall Hamuul Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 12:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Taunka a major member? Edit

Now obviously the Taunka are not a playable race but aren't they major enough to be listed with the other 5 playable ones a major race? My reasoning for this is because they have A: Racial Leader(Roanauk), B: A substantial population(Probably around Trolls), C: Are full members of the Horde(Taunka Questline in Dragonblight), D: Have a capital(If they reclaim Icemist) or will take one big village already settled and make capital(Taunka'le or Winterhoof). This is just a thought I came up with since Taunka unlike the other Horde allied races(excluding the 5 playable) are the only known race as a whole to follow the Blood Oath of the Horde. Rallas (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Taunka aren't with enough number or land to be called a major member. They only have a few camps, with most of them being evacuated to Horde settlements. They are similiar to the Revantusk, the MAg'har, the Mok'nathal and the Stonemaul clan. Horde-alligned and soemwhat dependant on them. Gorvar (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cataclysm Edit

It seems to me that the tide of the war has turned in the Horde's favor as of the events of Cataclysm:

  • -they've captured Southshore, and parts of Ashenvale,
  • -they've reinforced Zoram'gar and have captured Silverwind post,
  • -they seem to be launching air assaults on Astranaar,
  • -they've established a presence in Darkshore
  • -they've launched an offensive against Gilneas,
  • -they now also occupy Azshara.

They seem to have launched a major all-around offensive that seems to be working. Lckyluke372 (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Where's your source about Southshore, all they've said is the Alliance lost it, that doesn't automatically mean the Horde took it. So far everything you've mentioned is the little info they've released, we don't know whats happened to most of the other zones, the horde heavy zones. Freewind Post could have been destroyed with their mtn bluff knocked over. Hammerfall could have finally been retaken by the Alliance forces. The mountain side could have come crashing down onto Revantusk Village in the Hinterlands... point is we just don't know everything they're planning yet. User:Coobra/Sig4 04:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
On Blizzcon they said "The Horde finally conquered Southshore". Pudim17 (talk - contr) 11:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They recently said it got flooded, but i think the Forsaken finally got the entire area under their control.Gorvar (talk) 21:31, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Confusion in the Apothecarium Edit

I was walking through the Undercity today to look at the changes and overheard a peculiar conversation between Master Apothecary Faranell and Overseer Bro'gosh. I was rather shocked to see the orcs not only ignore the human captives but shut them up as well during the dialogue. It strikes me as strange seeing as the cruel experiments are what the Horde want stopped in the first place.AhotahThunderhorn (talk) 04:18, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, rather major lore inconsistency, the Kor'kron were placed in the city to stop research on the Blight and keep a close eye on the Forsaken, yet the NPCs assist them. Revrant (talk) 11:33, December 30, 2009 (UTC)
They're not there to make the RAS prance around in fields of flowers and sing kumbaya all day. They're just there to make sure they don't betray the Horde. Why should they care about the Alliance prisoners? They're human scum. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:32, December 30, 2009 (UTC)
'Cause they're still using them to research the very thing they used to betray the Horde? Revrant (talk) 08:28, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Why remove "New Horde"? Edit

"This article concerns the Horde's recent history." So the specification "New Horde", to separate it from the old one, fits. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 09:02, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

It was specificly decided New Horde should be removed a while back. Someone managed to sneak it back in without anyone noticing (Rolandius, May 3, 2009). The reason being after long discussion by many people on the wiki the conclusion was reached that while there is a new Horde and an old Horde there is no New Horde or Old Horde. Thus why the Old Horde article was changed to History of the Horde. See the notes at the bottom of that by Baggins explaining the final reasoning.Warthok Talk Contribs 09:18, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Then I vote for a {{for}}, to distinguish right away between the new Horde and the old one. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 11:38, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
I agree but I think a straight out distinguish (i.e. This is about the new horde for the old horde see...) would defeat the purpose. More appropriate would be something like: "This article is about the Horde's current state, for it's history see History of the Horde".Warthok Talk Contribs 11:46, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Leader Change? Edit

Shouldn't you guys change Thrall to something like this: Thrall(Garrosh in Cataclysm) Kyuubinaruto123 (talk) 14:06, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

It is still not completely confirmed that Garrosh becomes the permanent warchief. So, no. ~ Nathanyel (talk) 14:43, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Even if it is permanent, we wouldn't change the leader until Cataclysm actually comes out; it's a future event. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:49, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
If we are only going to put it in once Cata comes out then shouldn't Gallywix be removed from the list of leaders on the Horde's main leaders? Rallas (talk) 21:22, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki