Talk: Horde

Template:Analysis

Biblical quote

What's up with the biblical quote? Vikingkingq

It's gone now. Any kind of 'real-world' quotes like that do not belong anywhere near this wiki. -- Kirkburn (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

The Luke quote was my doing. I apologise; I felt it aptly described what I've seen as the Horde having an extremely inclusive/accepting nature, in terms of having admitted the Forsaken and the Sin'Dorei in the lore.

Petrus4 01:43, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Friends with the Naga, Broken, and Lost Ones?

Was going to edit that part out, but decided it might be better to discuss it first. The Azeroth-BE, with the exception of Rommath and whatever BE returned with him, haven't met the Broken or Lost Ones before. Nor have they met the Naga that are allied with Illidan. So why would these races be friendly with the Horde all of a sudden? Doesn't really make sense to me. Baldr, where's the evidence of this? First I've heard of it. -- Maenos 23:11, 2 October 2006 (EDT)

I'm not happy with that section either - it sounds a little biased, and (for the second part) completely unsourced! -- Kirkburn (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2006 (EDT)

In my opinion, it should be removed. The playable Blood Elves has no relation at all with the Naga and the Broken. They surely don't even know that Kael'Thas even is allied to Illidan and the naga, and probably think the naga as monsters. Kael'Thas rallied the surviving High Elves before he allied with the naga, and most chose to stay behind and rebuild Quel'Thalas, and they surely don't even know that Kael'Thas has allied with the naga, and since Rommath didn't tell anything of the naga and Illidan when he returned to Azeroth, it would be very stupid to say that the naga is allies to the horde.

NAGA WHUT!?

In all seriousness though, what was that guy's source? Certainly sounds iffy to me, especially knowing that we still are or will be killing those guys in the expansion.--Grid 12:57, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Blood Elves

"A group of former high elves shunned by the Alliance for their embrace of demonic magics, they turned to the Horde to help them reach Outland and achieve their dark destiny"

-I was just wondering if this is the specific wording from a Blizzard article or just random description. Particularly the "dark destiny" bit. If it's official, that's fine, but I was thinking there's enough information out there making the Blood Elves look worse than they are, I don't think this kind of "evil" wording is helping the situation at all. ;) --Pure.Wasted 21:07, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

There's a quote similar to that on the website. [1]

"Unfortunately, the blood elves' practice of embracing demonic energies resulted in them being shunned by their former comrades in the Alliance. Thus, the remaining blood elves on Azeroth look desperately to the Horde to help them reach Outland, where they can reunite with Kael'thas and achieve the golden destiny he promised them." --TM41

I dislike the idea of making them sound evil. I mean, the Horde itself is no longer evil so it isn't right to make them evil all over again by adding in races that are well... evil. The Horde now represents those who are repressed and misunderstood. That is probably what the Blood Elves are. Not some "Dark Destiny" kinda thing. --Invin Dranoel 13:19, 19 October 2006 (EDT)

A Question Concerning the Horde - Alliance War

Moved to Talk:Horde/Analysis

Those Images...

They aren't meant to be actual characters, at the bottom, they are just the Orc hero units from WarCraft III. Saimdusan 16:53, 20 November 2006 (EST)

Evil

This discussion is closed and has been archived at Talk:Horde/Evil. Ragestorm (talk · contribs)

Horde was screwed up world of warcraft

(Maybe someone should translate this section's topic into English. --Normal 03:01, 13 February 2007 (EST))

You're welcome to try if you want to wade through the discussion below; just don't add anything, as it's been closed.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 08:42, 13 February 2007 (EST)

"was" = "has" Edit: Maybe... User:Montag/sig 08:54, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Discussion Closed; Moved to Talk:Horde/Naaru

Controversy

Seeing as theres a fair amount of complaints about the horde being ruined in the burning crusade. I suggest we add a controversy section to this page. Angry ogre 20:30, 21 February 2007 (EST)

If you can give evidence to a significant number of other users agreeing to that point, then fine. If such support cannot be evidenced, then no.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:41, 21 February 2007 (EST)

1.Well first of all theres you. You admited it yourself above.

2.Theres also Zexx who admitted it in the blood elf discussion

3.Ring of fire in the horde analysis section

4.Drek'thar

5.I think Odalwa also said he was displeased with the horde's current lore

Thats more then enough people to warrant a controversy section. Angry ogre 20:53, 21 February 2007 (EST)

• Sigh*... Ogre made a controversy section and was qute naturally, deleated by me, it was swarming with POV comments, and it ignored what a wiki is. (Meaning that rather then showing the reader a point, it argued one) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hordesupporter (talk · contr).

I've already told Angy Ogre that I will not authorize a controversy section based on the evidence he gave me. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it would be deleated, until he can give better evidence there's no way I would allow it in the article, Angry Ogre, give us more then just a opinion, savvy? Hordesupporter 15:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Ogre, if you can give me a long set of points that are more then just an opinion, then we will talk. Hordesupporter 17:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Two Hordes

Although I think the section does belong here, there is one line I think doesn't belong here, the mention of "most" of the Forsaken being evil, I will admit that some of the forsaken quests have a somewhat "evil" tone, but thats not enough to declare them evil, also note that the majority of the Alliance who declares them evil are followers to the holy light, and thus are very baised about the Forsaken's alingment. Hordesupporter 19:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. edit as you see fit. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Also,, there are several horde quests that could be considered "good", same as there are numbers of alliance quests that could be considered "evil"... i dont think either faction is really good or evil, but rather each faction applies all methods that are available in a war. User:CrazyJack/Sig 05:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

And. "the horde", is not evil.. some factions of the horde could be considered evil (especially if you are alliance).. its just a matter of interpetation.. we are "at war" after all. and in war.. everything is allowed. User:CrazyJack/Sig 05:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

For example, the Forsaken have humans in the undercity as test subjects, the Alliance would probably conisder this evil, yet the Forsaken are enraged that the alliance makes no attempt at seeing the diffrence between the Forsaken and the Scourge, the humans have no qualms about killing the Forsaken, something the Forsaken certainly see as evil. Hordesupporter 18:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually the RPG says that most Forsaken are evil, and only some are good (actually it says the player characters are usually good ones, and of course mentioning those that just want a cure, or wish to die of old age). This is not only in the brann books but the World of Warcraft core book. I'll go get some of the relevant quotes.

"Not all Forsaken are evil, but many are, and other races definitely view them as such. A non-evil Forsaken must work hard to prove his neutral (or perhaps, good) intentions. Few good Forsaken exist, but many evil ones do, and their leadership is definitely up to nefarious ends."Template:Cite

According to the RPG most of the Horde doesn't even trust the Forsaken, instead seeing them as a necessary evil. They feel that they are outnumbered by most factions in the world, and so the dark alliance was more out of necessity than anything else. Most of the ambassors to the Forsaken do not trust them but remain diplomatic understanding the need for the alliance. Thrall hopes that the choice doesn't come back in the future to bite him in the ass. Most of the factions and members of the factions are listed as being evil and/or chaotically alligned in the rpg as well in the HPG for example. This is Blizzard's quantifications, not the fans.Baggins 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Blood elves

Relocated to Talk:Horde/Analysis#Blood_elves

Horde Leadership (to assist the faction box)

Alright here is some info from the Horde player's guide (I'll start with orcs, and add info for each individual faction later);

"Unlike the Alliance, the Horde has clear leaders for every race represented in its ranks. The clearer hiearchy makes things a bit more organized for the Horde, although the Horde has the disadvantage of having one rase that is interested in looking out for their own (Forsaken). Each race has its own roles, and as well as a leader that represents each individual race."Template:Cite

The cohesion with the Horde is relatively strong, although clearly the Forsaken are seperated by the rest in beliefs and trust as well as geography. It would appear that their are traitors in the midst of every group; not unlike the Alliance. Time will tell how the bonds between races of the Horde hold together."Template:Cite

Orcs; Thrall maintains the mantle of Warchief of the Horde. In Eastern Kingdoms Drek'Thar represents his primary representive. He put him in charge, as he is someone he can trust. But its also inefficient, because Drek'Thar's home in the Alterac MOuntains is not readibly accessible to the main body of the Horde.

The warchief delegates most military leadership to other leaders, such as Nazgrel, his captain of security and to other chiefs.

Orcs are the most numerous of the Horde races and act as the bond that links the others together. Without the orcs, the HOrde would likely fall apart overnight.

Thrall might be a reasonable politician, but few orcs are willing to be quite so diplomatic. The orcs are used to ruling by force of arms and only recently has Thrall taught them another path. Many find themselves more suited towards the old ways of slaughter, and it remains to be seen if Thrall's teachings will prove effective in making his people capable of working together with others on a long term basis.

The warchief has long opposed the use of demonic magic, and distrusts all arcane magic, especially warlock magic. However, he has not (yet) issued an edict against either warlocks or magi. Perhaps Thrall follows the old adage of keeping his friends close and his enemies closer. Perhaps he seeks to redeem these wayward orcs, much like he feels Grom was redeemed in his battle against Mannaroth. One thing remains clear, is that there are more practioners of the dark arts in the ranks of the Horde than ever imagined - though they keep their presence discreet. After the butchering of the Shadow council in the Second War, the warlocks and necrolytes of the Horde were all but eradicated, but it would appear a staggering number have fallen back to the old path of destruction. The situation causes a rift within the ranks of the proud orcs, and it grows increasingly difficult to tell friend from foe.Template:CiteBaggins 21:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll check that in my recently acquired HPG. However, from what I can tell, Thrall is the clear main leader. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:16, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure that yes Thrall is one of the only Main leaders, besides Sylvanas, who definitely controls the remote Lordaeron holdings far removed from Durotar. She also may still believe she is manipulating the Horde from afar, or at least has a seperate secret agenda that doesn't follow the Horde's common laws. There are alot of things "different" about the forsaken that goes against most standard Horde practices and beliefs, that Thrall is not able to control. This is one of those reasons why Forsaken start out "neutral" to the Horde rather than being "Friendly" ally.

All or most leaders on Kalimdor definitely defer to the Warchief, Cairne and Vol'jin definitely, and Drek'thar and southern eastern kingdom holdings also defer to him. The Forest Trolls in Hinterlands are allies to the Horde but aren't officially part of the Horde yet, as far as I know.

The blood elves, have a similar nature to forsaken, but seem to defer to their own leaders and maybe sylvanas before defering to the Warchief, they are stuck with "neutral" status to the horde (except for the Forsaken), rather than being straight forward "friendly" allies..Baggins 12:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

So, leaving Sylvanas where she is, or upgrade her? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I think upgrade her, but add a note explaining her "contrasting" horde views.Baggins 13:03, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Has the point of an infobox escaped you? the whole point is information at a glance. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Uh, I didn't mean in the infobox, I meant expanding the info in the main article.Baggins 14:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent wolves

Actually, they aren't confirmed as being sapient (the wyverns are, to an extent). It appears that their bond with the Frostwolves and shamans is largely shamanic, akin to a magical familiar. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Members of the horde

Can't we discuss rather then have an edit war? Zarnks 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this doesn't fit my def of an edit war (which, upon refection, is flawed, I bow to you for that one), but yes. Now, I'm prepared to negociate on the wolves, but random allied dwarves and constructs don't count. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see your point on Arcane guardians. They are just unintelligent robots. The dwarves are worth mention, it shows that the Horde is willing to let in members of the Alliance. Zarnks 00:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anyone's assuming that the Horde hate anything remotely connected with Alliance. How many dwarves are we talking here? I'll concede the point if it's any fair number.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Two to my knowledge. It should be mentioned in a footnote Zarnks 00:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so. My point, you see, is that two dwarves shouldn't be listed in the same section as colonies and organizations. On that list, the smallest group (excluding the half-orcs) would be the goblin zepplin runners, who number in the dozens at least. If there were a fair number of dwarves, like a settlement's worth, then they could be mentioned, but just two don;t rate a mention. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the stuff again. For each point:

• Wolves - not sapient beings, nor are powers/factions.
• Arcane Guardians - robots.
• Dwarves - one or two people does not make them an important part of the Horde. Can possibly be mentioned in other sections, but not under the list of member powers.
• "Most" half-orcs. Need a source for the "most".

Anything I missed? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that about covers it. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, i'll agree with you on the dwarves. But, if you ever actually go to the half-orc page it says this So they perform feats to be accepted by (mostly) the horde, and (more rarely) the alliance." I know this is not the exact quote, but it is along those lines.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TaurenChief (talk · contr).

Individuals, including Rexxar, are not "smaller powers of the Horde."--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the dwarf section again, as Larion is almost certainly horde aligned for the purposes of the quest, rather than being part of the Horde. For Feegly the Exiled, you only need read his quest text [2] to realise he speaks for no one but himself. That, and that The Barrens is Horde territory, so Alliance players wouldn't expect to get any quest from him, nor be asked to kill allied dwarves! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Half-orcs, according to the rpg, they are generally an "independent race". They do show up in Horde Player's Guide, where it mentions they are a "horde or alliance" race. It mentions that half-orcs live in the Alliance, and many live in the Horde. Several sources say that many do not live with either feeling as if they don't belong in either world, becoming more nomadic.

There is also a dwarf in hinterlands that gives quests to the Horde, to kill high elves as I recall, but his NPC is green to the Alliance as well.

I've also removed the mention of centaurs from smaller powers. As they are not currently Horde members. Just because they might join the horde, doesn't mean they have, so they are not a "smaller horde" power yet.Baggins 16:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new section on races and people that may be in the Horde. Zarnks 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're planning to add one of those to Alliance and possibly Scourge, right? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Theres a great variety in the Horde. The Alliance is very strict when accepting members,which is why you never see a Horde race pvped for the Alliance. But if you find an unussual npc factioned the Alliance ingame or rumours of a race joining the Alliance let me know. Zarnks 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because a race is "green" to the horde doesn't mean they are "allied" to the Horde. Often something is given green status just so they can be a quest giver for the faction, not because they a member of the faction. There are actually quite a few "horde" race characters that Alliance can interact with but are not actually "members of the alliance, and vice versa scattered throughout the game. One example being the blood elf in nethergarde keep, or sitting outside in the blasted lands. Most of the time these quest givers flagged "green" to both factions (or at least neutral, but its not always the case). Many of the dwarves you mentioned as being 'green' to the horde for example are also actually green to alliance as well (though not always). Some cases, these quest NPCs are actually members of their own races faction, but they hate some individual in their faction and want horde to do the dirty deed for them (probably to protect their honor, and standing with other members of the alliance). Essentially the guy duped you into doing his dirty work. This kind of thing occurs on both sides, so of course there are "horde members" that dupe alliance players into killing other horde npcs, essentially making alliance players do their dirty work.

In some cases individual green/neutral/red non-hostile flagged races belong to neither faction and belong to one of the miriad non-affilated organizations in the world, and offer teh same quests to anyone regardless of race and faction. These non-affiliated npcs ask for help from which ever faction would most likely be able to help them with their endeavors (this doesn't mean that the individual is a member of the race he asks help from however, they just know who is most likely to get the job done, or have no quelms against fulfilling the request).

The only exceptions is when mechanics dictate that one npc is meant to be target of another related quest giving npc (for example the mario bros). The mario bros for example if you keep track of their stories are not horde or alliance but some non-affiliated weirdos, and members of the expedition there. They are apparently friends who have a bit of a sibling rivarly going on, and are annoyed with each other. Each one just happens to ask members of the opposing race to do complete the same exact tasks to get back at each other, and hopefully get them "back together". Baggins 08:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-sapient members

Seriously? -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to add "Non sentient servents of the horde" section something like: "Pigs - they serve orcs by dwelling in their farms and allowing orcs to replenish their forces by eating them." Can we nuke this entire section, please? --Rowaasr13 09:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lawl, ya, that section is a bit silly... I mean are we to start tossing every mount creature, every creature they raise to eat, every small pet, or hunter pet? Really its an oxymoron non-sentient creatures don't have "memberships" they are just, "owned", :p... It is just as bad as if someone was to toss up summoned demons as "members", when they are infact enslaved...Baggins 09:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You know exactly who is responsible for this... --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 12:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed... In anycase I think either we should remove it or rename it "mounts and livestock" :p... In which case a section of the like should exist on all faction pages for consistency.Baggins 15:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think we should add that to the pages or are you kidding?--SWM2448 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a point to it. The wolves however should get a mention as they have above average intelligence,are big part of orc culture serving as the symbol for the Horde and serve as familiars for shamans. Zarnks 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, wolves and wyverns should stay, The rest should go IMO.--SWM2448 20:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I delete it? Zarnks 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is fine, but I'm not sure about keeping wolves in general, maybe the frostwolves, but only if their is a citeable quote discussing sentient intelligence. Wyverns definitely belong while it can't be seen in game, according to lore they are fully sentient capable of speaking. But basically wolves are not "members of the horde", they are livestock, they don't "apply for citizenship in the horde" they are bred by the horde as mounts much like horses. They are individually owned by members of the horde... pets essentially, domesticated animals.Baggins 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I did say they weren't exactly sentient. Frostwolf warriors treat them as equals. Wolves have much in common with Horde culture,are in their armor,orcs worship wolf spirits,they come from the same planet and are mentioned as a part of the Horde by Metzen and Samwise.

Even if they aren't in members they should be in culture. Zarnks 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually they are more specifically a part of orc culture, and there is an entire page for that.Baggins 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay I moved it. Zarnks 21:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of cited information and sentences

Zarnks you have been warned several times in the past for this action, have been banned in the past for the action and warned several times in the last few days as well. I'm sorry but I must ban you now as you haven't followed the policies we warned you about following. You will be given a longer period to think on your actions than the last time you were banned, I hope you learn this time not do this kind of thing in the future.Baggins 17:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase the evil no matter the cite is NPOV Zarnks 17:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you really want it in okay. Zarnks 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (and our own policy WW:NPOV). It doesn't mean "don't put in stuff that I might disagree with", nor should it be based on "what Baggins wants in the article". It is information from several sources that should be in the article. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 17:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't pick and choose information as long as it is correctly cited, especially when it comes from official Blizzard sources themselves. But since you have relented you have saved yourself the next level of banning this time(you were banned for 3 days last time, this would have been increased to 5 days, so keep that in mind in the future, I'm sure you really don't want that). So don't let me catch you removing cited quotes again, I really don't want to have to ban you.Baggins 18:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Troll distrust

Good quote that points out troll distrust, but it doesn't actually compare or give any quantitive qualifer comparing trolls distrust between the other horde factions towards the the forsaken. Read any number of other sources and essentially you get similar comments about orcs, and tauren that feel the same way as the trolls. Had there been a specific comparison saying they "distrust forsaken more than other Horde" races then your speculation would have been valid. As it is we can only say, that there are followers that distrust the forsaken, and the troll reference can go to the end of the section mentioning that fact. In anycase the ingame quantifier is the differences between the faction's friendly and neutral status seen on each race's character selections screen. Which puts trolls, orcs, and tauren at around the same mistrust and "neutrality" towards Forsaken and blood elves.Baggins 06:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the Troll distrust is mentioned more often. Note that some orcs and forsaken have close relations like Kirith and the fallen hero of the Horde. Zarnks 21:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the references to distrust by each race when mentioned is about equal (there might actually be more for tauren). Still none of the sources give any numerical percentage each race dislikes them. So any speculation trying to define the total and who has the most is speculation at best.Baggins 21:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainly I've noticed the tauren mainy being Earthen ring affilated are focused on creating a cure. This is seen talking to several npcs in Thunder bluff. A notable one being Mani Winterhoof who tirelessy works trying to create a cure for the Forsaken. Zarnks 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirith citation [3] Zarnks 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice quote, but I don't see him saying he holds him in "high esteem"... That's the quotation we are looking for otherwise the term needs to be "toned down" a bit. We don't want you putting words in his mouth if its not there to begin with. Quotes are better than opinions.Baggins 22:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thrall and the Forsaken

Though Thrall does say to Brann he let the forsaken because he needed allies,I don't think he's telling Brann everything. I suspect Thrall has his own motives for Forsaken in the Horde. After all the Horde has many members(Forest trolls,Frostwolves,ogres,goblins,wyverns,and more powerful heroes then the Alliance) more so then the Alliance and the forsaken are so small in numbers (excluding game play mechanics). Zarnks 21:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually number wise the population of the Horde are alot smaller than the population of the Alliance. They really don't have that many forest trolls, frost wolves, ogres, gobins wyvers, etc. Most of those are survivors of previous wars.

It is said that there are more in the Alliance races mainly because most of those races have been on the world for millenia had had time to breed huge numbers.

Most that orcs that found Durotar came over on handful of ships. The population numbers of the horde are given in Lands of Mystery, and Lands of Conflict, and some of the other rpg books, but I haven't done the math. But it seems Alliance races have higher populations, and tend to be larger cities.Baggins 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well they have huge numbers. Gnomes are rare,humans lost half their population,Draenei and night elves are extremely rare. And as seen in Warcraft 3 orcs soldiers are just plain tougher then Alliance soldiers. Compare a Grunt to a footman. The Grunt is much tougher and stronger then the Footman despite wearing less armor. The tauren are extremely powerful. Zarnks 21:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A big downside to humans is that they lost most of their heroes in Warcraft 3. Compare Alliance leaders to Horde leaders,the only one that could stand a chance is Velen. Thrall's the most powerful shaman alive and has the skills of a warrior gladiator. Cairne's a warrior with shaman powers and incredibly strong. Vol'jins a powerful shadow hunter who can turn soldiers into spirit wyverns. Rexxar powerful half-ogre with a giant bear,hawk, and pig. Rok'han another powerful shadow hunter. Zarnks 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Gnomes aren't that rare actually, ("they have been coming out of the word work" as the dwarves would say). Humans had a huge populaiton, if the had 2 million to begin with and horde had 500,000 and humans lost half they'd still have more than the horde. Night elves are not rare either they had a huge civilization in northern Kalimdor for over 10,000 years. They just remained hidden in the forests. But they have good numbers, upwards 100,000 or so according to Lands of Mystery, IIRC. As for draenei not enough information to know anything for them.

...and toughness of warriors has nothing to do with it, really. Numbers always win in battle... As anyone playing the games know zerg manuever wins all :p... In anycase gamemechanics don't convert to lore exactly.

I haven't done the math, but if you add up all the horde numbers given in lands of mystery and lands of conflict I think it comes to probably no more than 200,000 for the horde alone. It comes to almost three times that for Alliance, if my memory serves, 600,000 or so.

Thrall even comments that Horde is much smaller than the Alliance most of his people were killed during the Three Great wars, the tauren were never that many to begin with, and trolls were were a small number saved on ships from their home island. The reventusk haven't fully joined the Horde. As I recall their numbers are few as well. There are less than 1000 ogres in Stonemaul clan, but I'd have to go check again.Baggins 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dang I had a large response written up but I accidently deleted it. Zarnks 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay writting it again. Most of the Alliance is composed of Humans. WIthout them the Horde would outnumber the Alliance

• Night elves said in the beggining of the game and the manual to be extremely rare.
• Gnomes low numbers never that high to begin with,at one point being outnumbered by High elves. Never that great fighters to begin with,merely piloting Gyrocopters
• Dwarves-only Alliance race besides humans with good numbers

Draenei-Small group defies the majority of Eredar in joining with the Burning Legion,more then half of them get get killed by the burning legion controlled orcs on Draenor. Many more mutated and driven mad. Many then die in the crash of the Exodar. A large percentage become death priests Humans*Stormwind alone does not outnumber the orcs only with the aid of the other human kingdoms do they have more numbers. Lost half their population,lacking in skilled fighters

• Orcs-Decent numbers. About 80% are part of the new Horde with a few outcasts and black sheep joining the dark horde and its affilates. Note the fel orcs in Outland don't count not being naturally born rather being created by a Mo'arg from scratch giving them their large numbers. Because of their rough lifestlye almost all orcs are tough warriors even the elderly. A grunt with little armor is more powerfull then a footman covered in Armor.
• Darkspear Trolls low numbers but extremely dedicated and skilled.
• Tauren-probably slightly below average. Incredibly powerful,only the most skilled warriors can beat a tauren in combat.
• Forsaken-low numbers

*Blood elves slightly below average. Have the most skilled mages on Azeroth.

• Ogres-Low numbers but like the tauren,inhumanly strong. Seeming all ogres know how to fight
• Mok'nathal-see ogres.

Zarnks 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quantity doesn't win battles. Quality does. A mass of Footman would have trouble even scratching Thrall. Zarnks 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The alliance have good fighters, just read the comments by Gul'dan and Garona during the first and second war, in Blizzard's warcraft manuals. Discussion of quality is merely a discussion of opinions and is subject to extreme bias on the individuals... Numbers have won battles througout history... but sometimes it works the other way... That arguement is weak at best. As war is more of a matter of luck, weather, and location, than skill.

Like I said before mechanics rarely define lore... if you went by current WoW mechanics there is very little difference between each race stats, other than some minor racial skills that usually mean nothing end game (where weapons and armor become the defining characteristics). I.E. A gnome warrior is equal to a tauren warrior, or can be better. The main differences appear between classes, as to which classes fight which classes better, for balance.

In anycase your initial argeument was who had the most population. I answered your question. The skill of the individuals was never part of that initial question.Baggins

The Horde has a large population of skilled warriors. In the Actual universe,A tauren warrior would be better then a gnome warrior unless he was unexperienced. Zarnks 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope in the normal universe it is controlled by a number of various factors, how trained the gnome warrior was, how much agility that gnome had (can he dodge attacks?), etc. In real life being "bigger" doesnt' make one better. The martial skills repeat that bit of wisdom over and over. There are hundreds of stories many that are true of little guys defeating big guys in earth history. Hell it exists in the natural world as well, where a small creature can battle a much larger creature, and win. So no it has nothing to do with "size". Again that's another biased and speculative opinion on your part. It could go either way, depending on many factors. Things are not so simple or black and white.Baggins 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To get back to the point the idea that the Horde allowed the forsaken in because of desperation because of limited numbers compared Alliance that fact has been stated in many sources beyond Brann, even beyond the RPG... Its fairly old lore since the novels, and even mentioned in manuals... So basically what your trying to speculate is basically alternate history scenarious... Not worth my time.Baggins 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No Tauren in general are just plain better warriors. Why do you think orcs,trolls,tauren and ogres wear so little armor,because they don't need it. The Horde is not in a desperate sitatuion at all. Zarnks 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before what your trying to speculate is basically discuss an alternate history scenario, the quote and idea that the horde allowed the Forsaken in due to desperation is something blizzard has said beyond the RPG. In discussions with the developers, in the manuals, and even the novels, among other sources. They have said that the Horde accepted the forsaken in desperation. Anything you say contrary to what Blizzard says is basically trying to rewrite the Warcraft Universe into something other than what Blizzard had intended, not to mention showing a truly biased opinion.Baggins 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No Blizzard says they let in the Forsaken due to urgings of the Earthen ring. "Having done battle with the Undead on many occasions, Orc warchief Thrall and Tauren chieftain Cairne Bloodhoof of the Horde were immediately suspicious of the Forsaken's motives. However, due to growing political tensions, the warriors acquiesced to a council of sages known as The Earthen Ring. The council argued that it was the Horde's duty to aid the Forsaken, who wrestled with inner demons just as the Orcs had for generations." Zarnks 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Alliance are small, frail, and are horrible fighters. Horde are superior in every way. Yep. Thats right. *boggle* User:Tecnobrat/Sig 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to say this again but Blizzard has given many reasons was to why the Forsaken was let in, they all make up parts of the complete reason why the Forsaken are let in. Yes the Earthen Ring was part of it but it wasn't the entire part of it, and to think so just points out how little knowledge of what Blizzard has said that you have. To be honest with that lack of knowledge I'd have to question anything you actually claim... Because it seems highly questionable and extremely biased, on your part, not to mention what you say is in contradiction to what the entire story as Blizzard has written it down.Baggins 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Earthen ring urgings was the main reason,it is the reason Blizzard always points out. a lesser reason was to get another base on Kalimdor Zarnks 22:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"it is the reason Blizzard always points out" Lawl, you said "Blizzard" always points to, wow then you got your facts wrong. There are quite a few places where Blizzard gives even more detailed explanation of which lead to it. Hell some that say the Earthen Ring as is implied a Horde faction was desperate to get them to join. The fact is you hardly know what Blizzard has said, and obviously haven't read all of its sources. Remember Metzen is the end all be all of warcraft Lore and he's on the staff of every source, so what is said in various sources are what Blizzard has stated.Baggins 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Zarnks, if they always say it .. I would be interested to see a source. User:Tecnobrat/Sig 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)