Why Is The War In BFA Called "The 4th War" And Not "The Fifth War"

[Wylyth1992]

I mean, wasn't the fourth war the war that took place between the Alliance and the Horde and later the Alliance+Darkspear Rebellion and Garrosh's Horde?

[Raetary]

That one's called the Alliance-Horde war.
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Alliance-Horde_war

[rayvio]

well Warcraft 3 didn't actually feature a war between the Horde and Alliance so I guess Cata/MoP should really be considered the third war

you could even argue that Warcraft 2: Beyond The Dark Portal expansion should be considered as a separate war, although it's probably just as fair to call it a revival of the second war

[Super Dickmann]

Because if they called the war from Wrath to Mists the Fourth War and this the Fifth War someone might look up the Fourth one on wowpedia, realize it was exactly the same shit and get a stroke at the brazen audacity of the writing staff, costing them a subscriber as all the man's money has to go for medical bills.

[Wylyth1992]

well Warcraft 3 didn't actually feature a war between the Horde and Alliance so I guess Cata/MoP was the third war

The Third War refers to the war between the Alliance+Horde+Night Elves and the Scourge+Burning Legion.

[Thage]

Because ultimately, how wars are named are pretty arbitrary and the WotLK-MoP war apparently wasn't on the same scale as the Fourth War because it had multiple time-outs, I guess?

[Nevcairiel]

Ultimately the answer is because the last "numbered" war before it was the Third War, and other conflicts had different names. Naming things doesn't always follow the strictest rules and patterns, sometimes a conflict is named while its going on, sometimes its named or renamed later by historians.

The Third War is the war of the mortal races of Azeroth against the Burning Legion, which is depicted in WC3: Reign of Chaos. Conflicts in the story-line of WoW before BfA have not been on the scope of that war, and thus were not elevated into the category of the "numbered wars".

[Arikara]

Because the writers didn't think to be consistent with naming things at the time it was happening, so now that they've decided to name this war something, they've realized that they cant just name that war the fourth war in hindsight, as it was never referred to as such during its course.

[Ardenaso]

probably because the war didn't really stop at SoO and it was just a truce?

[Varodoc]

Because Sylvanas starting the Fourth War better conveys the idea that she is more evil than Garrosh.

That's it. There's no other reason why.

[owbu]

The writers either kinda forgot about Garrosh, thought it would make Sylvanas look cooler if the got a numbered war or wanted to make a commentary on how subjective and inconsistent the naming of world wars can be (the first, second and third war are not actually the first world wars or the biggest wars or the most globald wars - they are just the ones that were really important to the people who named them (Storwindians) just like WWI and II are mostly named that, because the Europeans thought they were important.
Garrosh's war mostly happened in Pandaria and Kalimdor - not where Stormwind is - so it doesnt count as a real war.


I would bet my raptor that its not that last reason, though. Its probably the Sylvanas thing.

[Mehrunes]

Because numbers are just a man-made concept. It was Blizzard's deep philosophical commentary on that.

Because ultimately, how wars are named are pretty arbitrary and the WotLK-MoP war apparently wasn't on the same scale as the Fourth War because it had multiple time-outs, I guess?

From the time it was restarted in Cata, it really didn't. And the Cata-MoP period of the war alone lasted three years in-lore (meaning that if BfA follows the usual trend and has lasted only one year in-lore, it was three times shorter). The previous faction war also spilled across more territory.

[Daronokk]

That one's called the Alliance-Horde war.

They are all Alliance-Horde wars, so the name is completely redundant.

And what number does this war have if it's after the Third war and before the Fourth war? The 3.5 war?

No, Blizzard made a mistake and BfA logically should've been the Fifth war. It's the only conclusion that makes sense. They messed up.

[Mehrunes]

They are all Alliance-Horde wars, so the name is completely redundant.

And what number does this war have if it's after the Third war and before the Fourth war? The 3.5 war?

No, Blizzard made a mistake and BfA logically should've been the Fifth war. It's the only conclusion that makes sense. They messed up.

How dare you spread such heresy? Blizzard would never make a mistake. It's all a part of their plan.

[Aucald]

Generally speaking, "The X War" with X being a given number isn't used for specific or smaller-scale conflicts - but basically as an umbrella term for a larger scale conflict after which the context of those participating in the war was changed. The Fourth War in this case is pretty much supposed to mean it's an end to the Alliance/Horde conflict that started in Cata and ended with the reformation of the Horde's leadership at the close of BfA. The Third War, in its case, caused a restructuring of the Alliance due to the loss of Lordaeron its entirety to the Scourge and the movement of Alliance power from Capitol City, Lordaeron to Stormwind.

So basically each "X" war needs to have the following general attributes:

• Significant political restructuring at its closure.
• Spread out over multiple regions/nations/continents.
• Huge losses of life and/or significant changes in territorial control.

The Fourth War, in the case of the conflict closed at the end of BfA, basically contains the Horde-Alliance war of Cata/MoP, the War of Thorns, and the Blood War. It's the umbrella for all those and a few additional conflicts.

[Zuben]

I aim to use Blood War instead to avoid this very confusion.

[TheVaryag]

I mean, wasn't the fourth war the war that took place between the Alliance and the Horde and later the Alliance+Darkspear Rebellion and Garrosh's Horde?

Because Blizzard can't count, It's legit a problem they just haven't noticed and are too proud to ever rectifie properly. And besides, without even looking to other comments I already know most of them are making excuses as to why It's actually the 4th war and pandering to their Blizzard Overlords.

Blizzard making mistakes? E gadz man, impossible!... No seriously, Blizzard can't count. A world wide global war starting since the Wrathgate when Varian declared war on the Horde in the First Siege of Undercity and ending with Garrosh being toppled in Orgrimmar WAS THE FOURTH WAR. And this one with Sylvanas at the helm and once again the ALLIANCE declares war on the Horde and It ends with Sylvanas being toppled.

Come back during the 7th war when another Alliance Leader declares war on the Horde and another Warchief is toppled.

[Aucald]

Because Blizzard can't count, It's legit a problem they just haven't noticed and are too proud to ever rectifie properly. And besides, without even looking to other comments I already know most of them are making excuses as to why It's actually the 4th war and pandering to their Blizzard Overlords.

Blizzard making mistakes? E gadz man, impossible!... No seriously, Blizzard can't count. A world wide global war starting since the Wrathgate when Varian declared war on the Horde in the First Siege of Undercity and ending with Garrosh being toppled in Orgrimmar WAS THE FOURTH WAR. And this one with Sylvanas at the helm and once again the ALLIANCE declares war on the Horde and It ends with Sylvanas being toppled.

Come back during the 7th war when another Alliance Leader declares war on the Horde and another Warchief is toppled.

It's not a counting problem, it's just nomenclature. Beyond the whole strange "Blizzard Overlords" aside, it's called the Fourth War for the same reason we're still talking about a possible WW3 despite the fact there have been about 20+ multinational conflicts called wars since WW2 (e.g. the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Laotian Civil War, the War in the Congo, the Rhodesian Bush War, the Ethiopian Civil War, the Iraq War, etc. etc.)

They didn't call the first World War "WW1" or the second "WW2" when they were being fought, either. It's only in hindsight that we generally term wars by all-encompassing numbers.

[Kralljin]

I aim to use Blood War instead to avoid this very confusion.

Even that is rather confusing because all this "Muh Azerite" pretty quickly took a backseat.
Azerite was the catalyst, but major Battles such as the War of Thorns, Siege of Lordaeron and Battle of Dazar'alor had nothing to do with Azerite.

Not to mention, no one within the game even refers to it as such, that name stems from some description in a Blizzard museum.

[Maljinwo]

The writers were probably proud of coming up with a "Fourth war" to advance the story but forgot they already did that during Cataclysm and MoP, but...

Oh hey, Dickmann beat me to it

Because if they called the war from Wrath to Mists the Fourth War and this the Fifth War someone might look up the Fourth one on wowpedia, realize it was exactly the same shit