Well it was said only wc2 itself that they joined the horde, but many people tend ignore lore which was only in wc2. Tides of darkness nor chronicles 2 never say they joined the horde just that they made a deal with them alterac allows horde to move their troops unharrased true their territory to lordaeron and alterac will be spared.
Sounds more like Alterac offers military acceses and conditions for it would be leave alterac alone.
But yeah overall normal double standards with valeera and alterac both.
that's weird, literally in WC2 the Alteraci and the Horde were fighting the Alliance side by side
- - - Updated - - -
Also, the point is still there, they still didn't want to be live baits for the Horde it's a bit justifiable rather than the Horde ransacking them Karabor style
Yeah I know wc2 is my favorite rts but its more lore changing than anything else.
Yeah and as they were equal member of the alliance it makes no sense for alterac to sacrifice itself to protect lordaeron as alliance armies only seemed to care horde attack Quel'thalas or hinterlands but when alterac was in danger they were left to stand alone.
Sorry, Latin nerd here. While "regent" has the same root as "rex", it merely means "one who is ruling, governing". It is often used to specify one who rules in stead of a monarch who is invalid, absent or not of age yet, I'll give you that, but the word itself does not imply a monarchy. Unless of course, you specify "King Regent", a regent subbing for the king
It is likely due to this connotation that the term isn't used for modern heads of states, but the word root has found its way into modern democratic usage, e.g. German "regieren" (to govern) / "Regierung" (government)
Wikipedia lists some other historic uses of the term that didn't imply a monarchy.
But your duty to Azeroth is not yet complete. More is demanded of you... a price the living cannot pay.
That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't really apply to Bob, who was appointed by the ruling king's legitimate successor. Later, Bob had to take the reins of the government once Kael went a little too high on fel !@#$, aka disability (and later, death) of the sovereign. He's as much of a "vanilla" regent as it can get, ala Denethor's lineage in LotR.
Edit: not in their respective stories, of course, but about the source of their legitimity as regents.
And the only alternative use mentioned by wikipedia that has anything to do with ruling a country and forms of government is the case of Dutch East Indies where regents were governors of the Dutch colonies. For some reason I'm noticing a significant lack of Dutch Republics on Azeroth. Even that aside, those regents were still local princes. I.e. monarchs.
If we went by etymology of words, when earlier on in the thread queens were talked about that would mean we were talking about wives. Because etymology is a rather irrelevant tool in most cases. Context is a much more practical one. Because when someone says that Quel'Thalas, a fantasy state in a fantasy universe, is not a monarchy because it has a regent, the answer to the "Well, what is it then?" question isn't exactly "a state ruled by a type of French teachers".
Besides I quite clearly said regency in what you quoted, not regent. Wiki provides alternative uses for the latter.
I know it has no direct relevance to the question of this topic, I just wanted to oppose the statements that "regents" were always appointed by or in stead of a king.
But your duty to Azeroth is not yet complete. More is demanded of you... a price the living cannot pay.