Is the Horde weaker than the Alliance?

[Highlord Hanibuhl]

Sure she has been out for herself but technically he took the future of an entire population, at least for the horde. Who knows if the undead for the Alliance will have a future.

With what the forsaken have already done.. I think they're pretty even-steven... what Sylvanas did was wrong to begin with. I don't get how so many people flock to defend her actions.

I got no problem with badguys.. like Arthas or Kil'Jaiden, but humanising them and making it seems justified is just stupid.

[Mehrunes]

Again, they don't care. Naaru are big picture-kind of creatures, a mentality that "infected" even Velen himself until Anduin didn't slap him, reason he was going to leave Azeroth and not giving a shit about his supposed allies.

I mean, we had a full-out war between Alliance and Horde not long ago and you saw the extent of what they're willing to give (aka, not much).

To paraphrase the greatest poster of all times: You're conflating "Tripzzz" with "someone that can be reasoned with" and "someone that can be convinced with data." I can't help you with your expectations, unfortunately; I can only advise you seek the assistance of a confidant or therapist depending on the severity of your disappointment.

Damn, this quote is so versatile.

The Alliance hasn't had anything close to Siege of Orgrimmar or Battle for Undercity. Yeah civil war is common, but saying the horde sticks together more than the Alliance isn't true. Horde has had 2 civil wars in recent times that led to the Alliance attacking two horde cities (Undercity, Orgrimmar). What has the Alliance had in comparison? The only twilight father and onyxia. Neither led to civil war.

Battle for Undercity wasn't any more of a civil war than the fight against Defias.

That wasn't an internal war within a faction though. That was the Burning Legion's invasion plan set in motion through their pawn who had no support whatsoever within the Alliance.

Alterac betraying the Alliance then.

My point still stands, the Alliance have done a better job sticking together than the horde has in recent years.

That's why Genn went against Anduin's orders and attacked the Horde.

Neither resulted in an entire major city(agruably the Horde's most important cities at that) being overrun by traitors to the point that both horde and Alliance showed up to "help"(Varian was not really trying the help UC but he did end up doing so.) What jaina did to daelin was fucked up but that is WC3, shit has change dramatically since Wow. And since the start of wow, the horde have had more civil wars and lost 2 major cities for a while.

In SoO the traitors were the ones outside. And while Alliance didn't lose cities in recent times, Stormwind lost its kings for years. And Fandral poisoned Malfurion for years.

It counts. But that was pre-wow. Post-wow the horde lost the Sunwell, Undercity and Orgrimmar all to civil war. Alliance haven't had a massive betrayal like Arthas since... Arthas.

Sunwell suddenly counts? Wasn't your point about capitals? Then so does Defias running rampant in Westfall. Twice.

I doubt they count as "massive" but Benedictus and Fandral weren't exactly nobodies, and their betrayal surely bore some consequences.

Also, Gnomes lost their city and a fuckton of their people due to a betrayal as well.

Well, I'm only counting civil wars from the start of Wow until now. But even if you include betrayals from WC3 the horde have a betrayal that tops even arthas' betrayal (imo) with Gul'dan.

How does it top Arthas'? Arthas' betrayal decimated Loraderon and even other Alliance (or formerly Alliance) kingdoms. Horde survived Gul'dan's betrayal. Hell, even Galen's betrayal affected Stromgarde more than Gul'dan's affected the Horde.

Sorry but your current arguing is incoherent with the previous one. Let me quote you:

Arthas had uncorrupted Alliance members doing his dirty work and did that because they felt it was the way to go. They were definitely a seizable number, they were definitely living and didn't need to be killed to serve Arthas or Kel'Thuzad, who himself was very much alive and willing to betray everything he once stood for.

You're trying to draw an irrelevant difference by using arguments like official military status and the like, which means nothing. If the Burning Blade, pawns of the Burning Legion, would have attempted a coup d'etat in Orgrimmar would have indeed caused a civil war, which didn't happen because their attempts were crushed before they could go anywhere. The Cult of the Damned on the other hand succeded in overthrowing Lordaeron, thanks to the rather convenient betrayal of its very heir.

Expectations. Don't have them. It is easier that way.

Which Alliance officials, structures, official groups and organizations assisted Arthas in killing Terenas and sending Lordaeron into the fold of the Scourge, except his two most loyal(and by then undead) lieutenants that he grew up with and those that were raised into servitude?

Part of the nobility did. And nobility kinda meets all four criteria.

[Tripzzz]

To paraphrase the greatest poster of all times: You're conflating "Tripzzz" with "someone that can be reasoned with" and "someone that can be convinced with data." I can't help you with your expectations, unfortunately; I can only advise you seek the assistance of a confidant or therapist depending on the severity of your disappointment.

Damn, this quote is so versatile.




Battle for Undercity wasn't any more of a civil war than the fight against Defias.




Alterac betraying the Alliance then.




That's why Genn went against Anduin's orders and attacked the Horde.




In SoO the traitors were the ones outside. And while Alliance didn't lose cities in recent times, Stormwind lost its kings for years. And Fandral poisoned Malfurion for years.




Sunwell suddenly counts? Wasn't your point about capitals? Then so does Defias running rampant in Westfall. Twice.




Also, Gnomes lost their city and a fuckton of their people due to a betrayal as well.




How does it top Arthas'? Arthas' betrayal decimated Loraderon and even other Alliance (or formerly Alliance) kingdoms. Horde survived Gul'dan's betrayal. Hell, even Galen's betrayal affected Stromgarde more than Gul'dan's affected the Horde.

The defias weren't able to take control of Stormwind and kick out the King.. Nothing you wrote is as bad as Siege of Orgrimmar and Battle for Undercity. Both situations the Horde were kicked out of their own major cities by their own people and as a result the Horde AND Alliance were able to attack the inner parts of the city. One was in wotlk the other in MoP, both are pretty damn recent.

Genn attacking the Horde was good in the end since he prevented Slyvanus from getting what she wanted. And that is in his character with to do something like that. SLYVANUS on the other had hasn't been seen since Stormheim. Didn't she retreat on the broken shore in order to regroup and come back to defeat the Legion? Why isn't​ the great warchief fighting demons? Maybe she thinks Warchief means sitting around doing nothing like lol'jin? Or maybe she got too scared of Genn sneaking up on her again so she is hiding in a corner like a coward?

The sunwell is much more Important than defias in westfall. And Kael'thas betrayed his people for the Legion. The defias ain't working with the Legion.

The Horde did not survive Gul'dan's betrayal. That Old Horde died out completely and a new Horde​ was created in it's place. The Alliance survived Arthas' betrayal.

[Spiffums]

Yes Horde is weaker but they work together better......just run a random BG for proof.

[Mehrunes]

It means everything. It is the baseline requirement for something to be called an internal faction war. Otherwise, we can just state that the Horde went as far as betraying themselves and their own souls by alligning with the Burning Legion and just lock the thread.

So if Stormwind had a massive, organized peasant uprising it wouldn't count as a civil war?

[Gaidax]

Without a doubt the puny horde is at mercy of glorious Alliance which could end it with one fell swoop, but since the horde is too pitiful and insignificant Alliance focuses on actual threat as opposed to harassing the pathetic maggots which are horde.

[Mehrunes]

The Eredar didn't conquer worlds in the name of the Alliance though, did they now. An Alliance banner didn't fly on Argus when they betrayed their own nor did the current draenei within the Alliance go along with it, unlike the current Horde's orcs?

But Orcs betrayed the Horde by trying to conquer a world in the name of the Horde. This twist (that came from nowhere and only after it's been pointed out to you that two parts of your argumentation about Lordaeron outright don't work with each other) is fascinating.

[Aucald]

I think this thread has reached its conclusion. Closing now.