https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/...ingles/sacking
1) They attack the town/cityan attack on a building or town in which a lot of destruction is caused and many valuable things are stolen:
2) A lot of destruction happened
3) Valuable things were stolen
This is the definition of sacking and what happenend, so, it was sacked
they conquered the city with the help of a rebellion force then they left for vol'jin to manage things and retire the army as they plaseThey liberated it from an occupying force and then turned it over to the rest of the Horde.
Concessions happenedThe fact that it was turned over with zero concessions by the Horde is nonsensical
Ingame doesn't matter, a lot of things were not showed ingame, what matter is loreThe fact that nothing in game after the cinematic reflects the Alliancd being "the superpower of the world" makes that standing meaningless.
the horde only stand toe to toe with the alliance now its because of the legion to weaken the alliance and because of the allies they got on the way of BfAEvery step of the way the Horde goes toe to toe with "the superpower" and inflicts heavier loses then they ever experiance.
The problem is the definition doesn't fit what happened. When a city is sacked the invaders go around and purposely cause destruction. Burn buildings down, slaughter civilians, per the dialog in game the Alliance sought to minimize damage to the city and the civilians were left alone. The entire purpose was to remove Garrosh from power. What of value was stolen from the city? The fact is that in game the Alliance went in and deposed a ruler and then washed their hands of the situation. Ogrimmar was not sacked by the Alliance.
What concessions happened?
In game does matter, not everything needs to be shown in game but if the Alliance is supposed to be the preeminent power on Azeroth that needs to be reflected in what the players experience in the game. Instead the opposite is shown with the Horde going toe to toe with the Alliance and winning. The closest they have come to showing the Alliance being the dominant power is the attack on Undercity which would have been a curb stomping if Jaina hadn't shown up.
If the Legion weakened the Alliance then why didn't it weaken the Horde as well? They were just as involved in defeating the Legion.
The definition clearly fit what happened, 3 points happened, and it is the definition
you are putting more variables, by the definition neither of the things of you listed need to happen to consolidate a sack, nothing imply burning things down ( and it happened) slaughter of civilains (who happened anyway, its just something you can't control) vol'jin said to Baine he need to be above o top the bloodshed, so things were rly badWhen a city is sacked the invaders go around and purposely cause destruction. Burn buildings down, slaughter civilians, per the dialog in game the Alliance sought to minimize damage to the city and the civilians were left alone
in the horde side, the alliance want to defeat the Garrosh's horde, not just "remove him from power, onlylate Vrian decide let it beThe entire purpose was to remove Garrosh from power.
you can see then in the representation of thee heirloons the alliance can get by defeating garrosh, all updated models from the horde weaponsWhat of value was stolen from the city?
it is already stated and proved by ingame lore that it was sacked, again, your argument hold no ground when its already provedThe fact is that in game the Alliance went in and deposed a ruler and then washed their hands of the situation. Ogrimmar was not sacked by the Alliance.
lots of territory back to the alliance, horde forces retired from other places, the kor'kron dismantled and finished, varian ultimatoWhat concessions happened?
it can be, but the destruction of the ingame orrimmar is a retarded way to show itIn game does matter, not everything needs to be shown in game but if the Alliance is supposed to be the preeminent power on Azeroth that needs to be reflected in what the players experience in the game.
lots of thing happened but they never show ingame, this is just one of others
where? now? its explained how they can go toe to toe nowInstead the opposite is shown with the Horde going toe to toe with the Alliance and winning
.The closest they have come to showing the Alliance being the dominant power is the attack on Undercity which would have been a curb stomping if Jaina hadn't shown up
the alliance was the dominant power after mop, lots of things happened after that
the horde didn't participate in most of the legion, didn't you saw the expansion? barely had horde, alliance was present even in argusIf the Legion weakened the Alliance then why didn't it weaken the Horde as well? They were just as involved in defeating the Legion.
The Siege of Orgrimmar was the most limp-dicked siege ever. We don't know who actually won it, but if it's the Alliance, their leniency goes beyond what is reasonable considering the first thing they would see once they invest the city is the Kor'kron using Theramore civilians as target practice. Yet still, they give Orgrimmar back, the city shows no lasting damage, they take no prisoners or hostages back with them and they even grant the Horde some concessions in order to preserve the peace despite total victory.
Sorry, that's lenience itself. Look at Stormwind 1.0 for what happens when the Horde wins a siege. Now that's some right and proper sacking. The Horde got off with a slap on the wrist because gameplay demanded it.
Well, it would be a start at least.
Well, the matter is simpler than it seems. We can't say the Alliance single-handely achieved a military victory during the Siege of Orgrimmar because, well, it's not a victory they achieved by just themselves: the Alliance was in no kind of condition to demand anything because they won the war alongside the rebellious Horde. There are people saying that the Alliance totally stomped the Horde and others saying that the Alliance merely did the Horde a favor, but both cases are wrong: removing Garrosh was in the Alliance's best interests, the reason why they achieved that single goal alone is because the Horde shared that goal themselves, which led to both factions finding the common ground to cooperate. Would have been in the Alliance's best interests to achieve much more than that? Obviously, but the Horde itself would have surely liked as well to end the conflict without triggering a civil war within its ranks, getting its main capital invaded and forced to dethrone the Warchief in charge because of his deranged politics.
Whenever the victory is single-handed or not heavily depends on who runs the raid. If it's the Alliance... yes, they kinda did it all themselves. They kill the Sha of Pride, storm the beach, breach the gates, slaughter the Kor'kron, and incapacitate Garrosh. All the rebels did is send soldiers to be massacred by the Iron Juggernaut then vanish until the final cutscene.
That's why to me, the Horde being the ones who actually did the raid is the only story path that makes sense for SoO. If the Alliance did 95% of the work but reap basically no additional rewards, then that's just bullshit. But even if the Horde does it, Orgrimmar is still mighty pristine for a city that gets sacked, and the Horde is still highly fortunate that their enemies did not decide to profit from their civil war.
It's a pretty worthless argument though since player's perspective is irrelevant. The event was canonically a cooperation, outright showed in some occasions and other times ignored due a matter of convenience and game mechanics, since both sides are represented in the same spots depending from the faction played. As a consequence, none of the two versions alone matter because if the Horde would have done that 95% of the job than the Alliance shouldn't have even been in Garrosh's underground throne room to begin with, they should have been, by all means, decimated right after Garrosh's forces were and viceversa.
Nonetheless, the conclusive cinematic and plenty of other lore elements cemented the idea that, in whatever fashion, Alliance and Horde rebellion equally broke through Garrosh's forces and reached the Underhold, leading to the tense confrontation at the end. Failing to acknowledge this is just the vice of certain Alliance players and their snowflak-ish tendencies, unable to apparentely perceive the existence of a story outside of the one played by them.