A truly morbid possibility.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Khadgar refers to it as "sacked" in a conversation with Gazlowe (who built it originally) and in the presence of Thrall (who doesn't disagree) in the opening quests of WoD on the Horde side. Whether it was or wasn't a sacking is a matter for debate - but it seems Khadgar, Gazlowe, and apparently Thrall all consider it to have been. Given that the invading armies of the Alliance and Vol'jin's insurgency killed Orgrimmar's defenders and made away with a number of valuables (e.g. the treasures of Pandaria) and other loot I would say it qualifies as a sacking.

Was the name changed?
Which valuables? Where were they taken?
Art and other cultural items?
Was money/gold taken to repair and repay the Alliance?
Was any of the lands gained during the war ceded?
Did the Alliance take control?
Did the Alliance take control of half?
Was it destroyed?
Did the Alliance force a government chosen by them to rule over Org?

Most or all of these would be no, so its not any type of real sacking.

[MatthiasVonTzeskagrad]

Was the name changed?
Which valuables? Where were they taken?
Art and other cultural items?
Was money/gold taken to repair and repay the Alliance?
Was any of the lands gained during the war ceded?
Did the Alliance take control?
Did the Alliance take control of half?
Was it destroyed?
Did the Alliance force a government chosen by them to rule over Org?

Most or all of these would be no, so its not any type of real sacking.

-No, but who cares.
-All orcish industry, the pandaren loot, and any ammount of undefined objects. The first two things were not taken anywhere, but because they were destroyed in the spot, wich is still a sack.
-Orcs lack art and such, but militar (thus cultural, as the orcs are warriors by culture) organizations and clans such as Kor'kron and Dragonmaw were eradicated. Also, their industry.
-Surely, we even killed all the treasure keepers and quartermasters who stood in Orgrimmar, so sacking the gold just HAD to happen. Just Blizz was too lazy to show.
-Were it not for Blizzard amnesia pre-BfA, Ashenvale would be free from the Horde from the very first time since it got into Kalimdor. Not much, but again, it's just Blizz can't apply logic to stuff.
-They left someone who Varian could accept in charge. Not the same, but similar. If someone brings the Ashran stuff in line, I'll just say it is extremely doubtful people at other reality took their time to communicate with their leaders in a situation of mistrust and tension. And since nobody took it as an example of anything...
-No but most likely for design reasons. In reality it should look like burned crap. Also, Underhold was shut, and that thing alone was huge, like half Orgrimmar or something.

Rome was sacked lots of times and usually the only part that got fulfilled is the "let's steal stuff" one.

[Aucald]

Was the name changed?
Which valuables? Where were they taken?
Art and other cultural items?
Was money/gold taken to repair and repay the Alliance?
Was any of the lands gained during the war ceded?
Did the Alliance take control?
Did the Alliance take control of half?
Was it destroyed?
Did the Alliance force a government chosen by them to rule over Org?

Most or all of these would be no, so its not any type of real sacking.

Sacking doesn't require a change of name. Rome has been sacked about 6 times in history but still exists and is still named Rome. Valuables would be the treasures of Pandaria stored in the Underhold, as well as releasing and killing the "tamed" beasts stored there. The foundries and siege equipment was also destroyed. Ownership of both Orgrimmar and the Underhold transferred from Garrosh's True Horde defenders to Vol'jin's revolutionaries. The Alliance briefly held the city in concert with Vol'jin's forces, but Varian ceded control over to Vol'jin on his recognition as the new Warchief of the Horde - meaning total control passed from Garrosh to Vol'jin. The government "forced" into being was that of Vol'jin's regime over the True Horde who previously held the city.

[GreenJesus]

We are going to have Siege of Orgrimmar 2.0 where Sylvanas gets put on trial in panda land because everyone knows the pandas suffered more than anyone and then Tyrande says "Kalimdor is free" and everyone hugs.

[Eggroll]

I consider real-life war mass murder too. Technically a bunch of people kill a bunch of people.
Orgrimmar is the in-game capital of the Horde. Ofc you wouldn't see the effects of a sacking in-game. You don't see that now in Dazar'alor either. It doesn't mean shit wasn't destroyed. I mean yea, not to the point of Teldrassil but still. Teldrassil was not a fortress, it was just a tree, ofc it went down quick.

Because, unlike when Greymane attacked, it was war, and in WoW there is no treaty in war that you 'can't destroy your enemy's infrastructure' or things like that. In fact, it's the actual goal of the war in WoW. The only sad thing with Teldrassil was that Saurfang was too pussy to finish off Malfurion.
Even the Blight is not regulated by any form of treaty, it is just a matter of morality in WoW, but in the end no-one seems to care.
Don't hold up a fantasy world's setting to today's war standards.

Again, not only orcs died in SoO. Soldiers on both sides did. The Horde came off scott free after SoO. Nelves even gave them Aszhara if they left Ashenvale alone. Genn apparently has - unsurprisingly - a score to settle with Sylvanas. I guess now the nelves have to take a number with all the folks that have scores to settle with Sylvanas, hu?

And then again, there is proportion...

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

-No, but who cares.
-All orcish industry, the pandaren loot, and any ammount of undefined objects. The first two things were not taken anywhere, but because they were destroyed in the spot, wich is still a sack.
-Orcs lack art and such, but militar (thus cultural, as the orcs are warriors by culture) organizations and clans such as Kor'kron and Dragonmaw were eradicated. Also, their industry.
-Surely, we even killed all the treasure keepers and quartermasters who stood in Orgrimmar, so sacking the gold just HAD to happen. Just Blizz was too lazy to show.
-Were it not for Blizzard amnesia pre-BfA, Ashenvale would be free from the Horde from the very first time since it got into Kalimdor. Not much, but again, it's just Blizz can't apply logic to stuff.
-They left someone who Varian could accept in charge. Not the same, but similar. If someone brings the Ashran stuff in line, I'll just say it is extremely doubtful people at other reality took their time to communicate with their leaders in a situation of mistrust and tension. And since nobody took it as an example of anything...
-No but most likely for design reasons. In reality it should look like burned crap. Also, Underhold was shut, and that thing alone was huge, like half Orgrimmar or something.

Rome was sacked lots of times and usually the only part that got fulfilled is the "let's steal stuff" one.

-I care? Its important.
-Orcish industry was stolen? That sure seems weird considering we are now seeing industry.... still? Any amount of undefined objects? Where? I guess you just call that a win in your favor since its "undefined" lmao?
-Clans were not eradicated.
-'too lazy to show" = didn't happen
-NONE of the land was ceded....
-Nothing in game said it was "someone Varian could accept...." especially since he was already a Horde leader. You misunderstood that one.
-Wasn't underhold just in the raid? Also, many places in game are destroyed and stayed destroyed ... sooo?

What was stolen? Nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Sacking doesn't require a change of name. Rome has been sacked about 6 times in history but still exists and is still named Rome. Valuables would be the treasures of Pandaria stored in the Underhold, as well as releasing and killing the "tamed" beasts stored there. The foundries and siege equipment was also destroyed. Ownership of both Orgrimmar and the Underhold transferred from Garrosh's True Horde defenders to Vol'jin's revolutionaries. The Alliance briefly held the city in concert with Vol'jin's forces, but Varian ceded control over to Vol'jin on his recognition as the new Warchief of the Horde - meaning total control passed from Garrosh to Vol'jin. The government "forced" into being was that of Vol'jin's regime over the True Horde who previously held the city.

Literally nothing in any account of a city being sacked actually occurred in SoO. Why would the Alliance sack a city and then give it away with zero repercussions, zero land changes, zero anything? Thats just not a sacking. The Alliance assisted the main part of the Horde in taking down a crazed dictator, that isn't a sacking.

[Kallisto]

Why wouldn't you consider SoO as treason? Garrosh was the rigthful ruling authority and you went in to kill him. Hordies even swear blood oath to the Warchief.

What do you mean support? Why do you assume I supported the 'horde regime' after SoO?

"They are no longer part of my horde." This was said by Garrosh about all non orcs before anyone except the Darkspear had done any overt action against him.

Some had made moves to be ready (Lorthemar in Isle of thunder) but Sylvanas was quiet and Baine even said to Volji that he couldn't commit because tauren in orgrimmar.

- - - Updated - - -

Because Tyrande would act in retaliation. You'd say Sylvanas attacked night elves because Greymane provoked her earlier, and that was really one of the reasons of War of the Thorns. However, why would Sylvanas face no consequences for sacing Gilneas? Because the writers decided so. So, Greymane and the alliance must face consequences for his attack on Sylvanas and Sylvanas is untouchable - that's basically the writers decision.

That is what you basically call "attacked her for no reason" - the plot convenience.

Sylvanas should face no consequences for Gilneas for simple reason.

Everyone knew it was a garrosh ordered attack to wipe out the forsaken (Edge of night + war crimes). That war also ended with a peace treaty signed with Genns agreement.

When peace treaty is signed all wrongs are politically forgiven unless stated in treaty. So Genn had no leg to stand on starting a war during armageddon level invasion and Anduin if he wanted peace as much as he professed would have had the mutt and Rogers in chains as a show of good faith to the other power and to show he has authority.

[Eradicator3]

"They are no longer part of my horde." This was said by Garrosh about all non orcs before anyone except the Darkspear had done any overt action against him.

Some had made moves to be ready (Lorthemar in Isle of thunder) but Sylvanas was quiet and Baine even said to Volji that he couldn't commit because tauren in orgrimmar.

- - - Updated - - -



Sylvanas should face no consequences for Gilneas for simple reason.

Everyone knew it was a garrosh ordered attack to wipe out the forsaken (Edge of night + war crimes). That war also ended with a peace treaty signed with Genns agreement.

When peace treaty is signed all wrongs are politically forgiven unless stated in treaty. So Genn had no leg to stand on starting a war during armageddon level invasion and Anduin if he wanted peace as much as he professed would have had the mutt and Rogers in chains as a show of good faith to the other power and to show he has authority.

According to you, Sylvanas should have sent assasins to Genn so he would answer for his attack alone. Instead she attacked the night elves.

[Mehrunes]

According to you, Sylvanas should have sent assasins to Genn so he would answer for his attack alone. Instead she attacked the night elves.

Except Genn (and Rogers) were officially acting on Anduin's orders in Stormheim. And given Anduin's lack of reaction to what they did, to an outside viewer it doesn't seem like Anduin wasn't OK with what they did.

[MatthiasVonTzeskagrad]

-I care? Its important.
-Orcish industry was stolen? That sure seems weird considering we are now seeing industry.... still? Any amount of undefined objects? Where? I guess you just call that a win in your favor since its "undefined" lmao?
-Clans were not eradicated.
-'too lazy to show" = didn't happen
-NONE of the land was ceded....
-Nothing in game said it was "someone Varian could accept...." especially since he was already a Horde leader. You misunderstood that one.
-Wasn't underhold just in the raid? Also, many places in game are destroyed and stayed destroyed ... sooo?

What was stolen? Nothing.

- - - Updated - - -



Literally nothing in any account of a city being sacked actually occurred in SoO. Why would the Alliance sack a city and then give it away with zero repercussions, zero land changes, zero anything? Thats just not a sacking. The Alliance assisted the main part of the Horde in taking down a crazed dictator, that isn't a sacking.

-You must be the only one who cares then. Not the spaniards when they sacked Rome, not the Sea People's when they sacked Near East, not the Asirians, not the Huns, not the Mongols, not even Al Mansur despite being legally forced to do so.
-Did you even bothered to read my comment at all? I stated CLEARLY orcish industry was NOT STOLEN but DESTROYED. And for fucks sake, don't act like Sylvanas could not tell the orcs to rebuild their stuff.
-Where are the Kor'kron and the Dragonmaw now? Ones were banished or terminated, others were pushed out the Horde then killed. By the way, Outlands Mag'har were also destroyed for being Garrosh elite corps.
-Blizz didn't tell us many things. What's the birth rate of draenei, why the huge ammount of night Elves in Feralas did do nothing? Why does suddenly Hammerhold has zero importance? Or Durnholde? What happened with the Mud Camps after Stillwater got executed? Please apply some logic on your own, because if you try to only apply what Blizzard explicitly says, we are going nowhere in this story.
-All orcish lands in Ashenvale were supposed to be given. It's not SoO's fault the devs can't keep up their lore.
-Lets see, Varian, being in a position where he could dismantle the Horde, and showing no display of submission for logical reasons, lets a Horde leader keep up the lead. If that's not accepting a Horde leader, then what the hell does that mean?
-Underhold was everything after Nazgrim, from the pulls before Malkorok to Garrosh Hellscream himself. And please, before WoT there was NO capital that got destroyed, let alone remained destroyed. Storm wind suffered some damages from Deathwing that did not hurt much the whole gaming experience there, and for some reason they took like two expansions to change it.

-Zero repercusions? Horde got humiliated, both sides aggreeded to call it a massacre on Vol'jin side, let alone on Garrosh one, Orgrimmars only displays of technological and economical development were destroyed, and the whole command structure had to be rebuilt, devolving in the process. Horde went from being the top dog in Azeroth to fearing extermination from Alliance hypothetical aggressions (reason from every further conflict initiated by the Horde, from Ashran to Teldrassil).

[Aucald]

Literally nothing in any account of a city being sacked actually occurred in SoO. Why would the Alliance sack a city and then give it away with zero repercussions, zero land changes, zero anything? Thats just not a sacking. The Alliance assisted the main part of the Horde in taking down a crazed dictator, that isn't a sacking.

As I said before, you can call it what you like - I won't argue it's open to debate, but within the canon of the story Khadgar, Gazlowe, and Thrall all agree it was sacked. Barring an objective statement from Blizzard such as in a "Chronicle" volume declaring it that's pretty much tantamount to it being objectively sacked.

The Alliance didn't attack the city to claim it, they simply wanted to remove it's current power-mad tyrant to break the power of the Horde. The Alliance assisted Vol'jin's revolutionaries, who at the time were not the legitimate power of the Horde as Garrosh still held onto the seat of Warchief - the transfer of power and land wasn't Horde to Alliance, it was True Horde to Vol'jin's insurrection, which then re-established itself as the Horde once Vol'jin was promoted to Warchief, having forcibly claimed the title from a defeated Garrosh. The Alliance surrendered whatever claim they then might've had on the city in the name of fostering amity with Vol'jin's regime and his Horde.

[Aucald]

I mean then Blizzard is just using the word poorly. E.g. when Rome was sacked by the Visigoths the citizens were captured and tortured to reveal where their valuables where and many citizens were sold for ransom, into slavery, raped or killed. And this is considered one of the most restrained cases of a city being sacked. The most common modern example is Nanking. The treasures of Pandaria were stolen in the first place, same with the beasts and it was not a case of an army taking away valuables but rather military equipment since that was their purpose.

Blizzard can choose to call it a sacking but that does not really respect the way we use that term in the real world. Using that word seeks to convey a far more brutal situation than anything we see in SoO or anything eluded in the books.

As with most terms, context and exactitude vary based on both usage and scope - perhaps a "sacking" in the Warcraft universe is different than ours, or perhaps the word was just a useful synonym for "besieged" or "infiltrated." It's not really a semantic hill I want to proverbially die on, as it were; which is why I said it was open to debate. You could even say the invading raid taking the loot from the various SoO bosses could constitute a sacking - as well as saying taking Garrosh himself prisoner is an act of plunder (my Death Knight has the Horns of Mannoroth sitting in their bank vault, after all).

If Blizzard calls it a sacking then I call it a sacking as a matter of course.

[Super Dickmann]

If Blizzard calls it a sacking then I call it a sacking as a matter of course.

They also call the Siege of Orgrimmar a siege, even though it's a storming, so I don't think the wording used should be taken as gospel.

[Aucald]

They also call the Siege of Orgrimmar a siege, even though it's a storming, so I don't think the wording used should be taken as gospel.

Storm, siege, sack - these are all effective synonyms. You can use whichever you prefer, really. I'm not sure why calling it a "sacking" is such a huge issue, myself.

[Super Dickmann]

Storm, siege, sack - these are all effective synonyms. You can use whichever you prefer, really. I'm not sure why calling it a "sacking" is such a huge issue, myself.

Its mostly because the connotations imply more collateral damage and greater overall harm to the city than ended up being reflected in-game. It also ties in with how the Alliance basically lets the Horde go with a slap on the wrist. A sacking, in the sense used by the posters you're debating with, would imply a larger price extracted by the Alliane in the process as compared to the pest control on behalf of the rebellion that actually took place.

[Aucald]

Its mostly because the connotations imply more collateral damage and greater overall harm to the city than ended up being reflected in-game. It also ties in with how the Alliance basically lets the Horde go with a slap on the wrist. A sacking, in the sense used by the posters you're debating with, would imply a larger price extracted by the Alliane in the process as compared to the pest control on behalf of the rebellion that actually took place.

Sacking generally implies a city besieged, and duly plundered by an invading force. From the perspective of Garrosh this is indeed what happened - an invading army (Vol'jin revolutionaries) fought their way into his capitol, deposed him, and then took the entire thing for themselves. Damage to the city itself was minimal, but the entire parcel changed hands from one ruler to another. Everything was essentially plundered from the True Horde and given over to Vol'jin's forces who then became the Horde once more. Seems like a sacking to me.

[Super Dickmann]

Sacking generally implies a city besieged, and duly plundered by an invading force. From the perspective of Garrosh this is indeed what happened - an invading army (Vol'jin revolutionaries) fought their way into his capitol, deposed him, and then took the entire thing for themselves. Damage to the city itself was minimal, but the entire parcel changed hands from one ruler to another. Everything was essentially plundered from the True Horde and given over to Vol'jin's forces who then became the Horde once more. Seems like a sacking to me.

That's mostly a semantic argument though in the sense that what was taken never belonged to the Darkspear Uprising in the first place nor did they have any interest in it. Anything the playable Horde would later use, the population and so forth come out unharmed. The process is almost surgical in how only Garrosh's forces suffer any harm. Hence the disagreement. When others, including myself, say sacking, then vis a vis Orgrimmar that would imply killing of parts of the civilian population, looting and burning their houses and so forth.

[HoodKazekage]

I would hate that, just as the nighteleves are getting their teeth back after being MIA for the fast 10 years... You gotta make their leader evil? Nah everything she is doing is justified. First example of victim blaming in wow lmaooo

[Aucald]

That's mostly a semantic argument though in the sense that what was taken never belonged to the Darkspear Uprising in the first place nor did they have any interest in it. Anything the playable Horde would later use, the population and so forth come out unharmed. The process is almost surgical in how only Garrosh's forces suffer any harm. Hence the disagreement. When others, including myself, say sacking, then vis a vis Orgrimmar that would imply killing of parts of the civilian population, looting and burning their houses and so forth.

It's a semantic argument either way, really - we are quite literally debating the definition and context of a specific term. The fact that it never belonged to Vol'jin revolutionaries is part and parcel of it being plundered. I would argue about them not having interest in it, though; they were there to depose Garrosh after all - transfer of the city from his hands to someone else's was a given and even if that person hadn't have been Vol'jin it wouldn't change the basic fact of it. Saurfang and Thrall also suffer a degree of harm in the process, as well; Saurfang appears to have been nearly killed by the Mantid. A sacking doesn't require that citizenry be killed (although many were or could be during the storming of the Valley of Strength), nor does it require uncontrolled burning - and looting was essentially a given as per the previous post.

[Super Dickmann]

It's a semantic argument either way, really - we are quite literally debating the definition and context of a specific term. The fact that it never belonged to Vol'jin revolutionaries is part and parcel of it being plundered. I would argue about them not having interest in it, though; they were there to depose Garrosh after all - transfer of the city from his hands to someone else's was a given and even if that person hadn't have been Vol'jin it wouldn't change the basic fact of it. Saurfang and Thrall also suffer a degree of harm in the process, as well; Saurfang appears to have been nearly killed by the Mantid. A sacking doesn't require that citizenry be killed (although many were or could be during the storming of the Valley of Strength), nor does it require uncontrolled burning - and looting was essentially a given as per the previous post.

As said, sacking has certain connotations that @Nymrohd already pointed out that more ambivalent terms like siege or takeover doesn't have. Even Merriam-Webster explicitly mentions destruction of property and the terrorizing of the population as goals, things that weren't accomplished. Everything was more or less intact after they left. Thrall and Saurfang did suffer harm, but they were the invaders in this case, it was the defending force that harmed them, not the guys invading.

When I say they don't have an interest in it, it's that Vol'jin and so on weren't invested in what was in the Underhold past destroying it. As evidenced by how they shut it down afterwards until Legion and don't use any of the technology he did. So the Alliance taking them isn't really harming the rebellion who ends up owning the place and everything except the bunker is basically untouched.