This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
An article on Varian Wrynn being right
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Supremacy
Exactly. I'll fight your war if you like, but I don't want to do it while I'm also fighting the Scourge and Yogg-Saron. And don't go bringing up the Broken Front, I think we've all agreed that it was at the very least a stupid move.
No.
Realizing you've accidentally made a date with two women on the same night at the same restaurant is a stupid move.
Leaving your wallet stuffed full of cash and identifying information on a lunch table at the mall is a stupid move.
Attacking soldiers from behind who are fighting against the same enemy as you are, someone who literally wants to destroy all life on the world, right as they're about to secure a foothold against him is not "a stupid move".
At the very least, that is a horrible, unforgivable affront that you go out of your way to assure whoever can hear will never, ever happen again...followed by a public punishment for all of those involved.
But, really, it's an act of war. You can't downplay that.
"We don't want a way, but we won't hesitate to stab you in the back."
I just think that things should be settled a little more diplomatically than just "OMG you guys must have known about this! I'm gonna kill you!" If Varian could have a nice long talk with Thrall (do it in Dalaran so you don't get ambushed by an assassin, and tell Garrosh that the meeting is in Un'goro), then they could come to a mutual understanding. War is not necessary and I really don't want a useless war killing both our people.
Yeah, see?
It's stuff like this.
Constantly having to worry about an orcish assassin on the way to diplomatic meets.
"Why are you just automatically assuming it would be an orc--"
BECAUSE IT'S BEEN AN ORC THE LAST TWO TIMES.
"Garona was under evil control. Wait, are you counting Garro--"
YES, I AM COUNTING GARROSH. PUT HIM ON A LEASH.
In all seriousness, the fact that Thrall cannot control his own people, coupled with the fact that he doesn't seem to know what's going on within the Horde would make me more than a little...hesitant...to really take his word for anything, if I were in Varian's shoes.
Post by
Skreeran
And declaring war on the Horde will make it stop.
Post by
Skreeran
No.
Realizing you've accidentally made a date with two women on the same night at the same restaurant is a stupid move.
Leaving your wallet stuffed full of cash and identifying information on a lunch table at the mall is a stupid move.
Attacking soldiers from behind who are fighting against the same enemy as you are, someone who literally wants to destroy all life on the world, right as they're about to secure a foothold against him is not "a stupid move".
At the very least, that is a horrible, unforgivable affront that you go out of your way to assure whoever can hear will never, ever happen again...followed by a public punishment for all of those involved.
But, really, it's an act of war. You can't downplay that.
"We don't want a way, but we won't hesitate to stab you in the back."
Yes.
It was a stupid move because the Lich King ended up winning because the overestimated their power. (They thought they could take the Alliance and the Scourge). But they were already at war. It was in fact an Act of War in that it the attack itself can be justified (against the Alliance, the fact that it ended in the Scourge winning was what made it a stupid move. If it had just been against the Alliance it would be entirely justified.)
Attacking your friends while they're under attack by their enemies is treason. Attacking your enemies while their enemies is justified. Attacking your enemies while they're fighting your enemy and you do not have sufficient troops to win is stupid.
Yeah, see?
It's stuff like this.
Constantly having to worry about an orcish assassin on the way to diplomatic meets.
"Why are you just automatically assuming it would be an orc--"
BECAUSE IT'S BEEN AN ORC THE LAST TWO TIMES.
"Garona was under evil control. Wait, are you counting Garro--"
YES, I AM COUNTING GARROSH. PUT HIM ON A LEASH.
In all seriousness, the fact that Thrall cannot control his own people, coupled with the fact that he doesn't seem to know what's going on within the Horde would make me more than a little...hesitant...to really take his word for anything, if I were in Varian's shoes.Thrall has also had attempts made on his life by human assassins and ambushes. Just look at Daelin Proudmoore. He called Thrall to a diplomatic meeting and it turned out to be an ambush. Thrall even managed to remain peaceful with Jaina Proudmoore, and continues to use diplomacy with the Alliance.
Also, Garona was not in the service of the Horde.
I agree with you on Garrosh though. I don't know why Thrall keeps him around, I hope Blizz does something about him soon.
Like I said, War is not going to solve anything, while diplomacy could actually make a difference.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Wait, what betrayal from the Draenei? Are you talking about the one where the horde went insane and murdered them on the word of the deciever or.......? The eredar race never betrayed the alliance, they were transformed into the man'ari 21 thousand years before the horde/alliance were even a gleam in some little rat creatures eyes.
Post by
342791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Supremacy, Varian is a bonehead because:
The Alliance is well and truley <bleep> against all the Old Gods, Legion, Scourge and so forth if they go it alone. Varian is justified in fighting a war due to all the times the "Horde" (Old, New, Splinter factions, angry loners, Mankriks Wife) has shafted him. He isn't seeing the big picture.
Fighting the Horde: Regardless of outcome, will be too weak to survive 3rd party attacks.
Not Fighting the Horde: Can, with Horde aid, fend off outside attacks, however people will die due to "disagreements"
Fighting the Horde does ward off any knifes in the back, either offical, unofficial, or cleave style, but in doing so, the Alliance is doomed from an attack from the front. Now is not a good time to fight a war with the Horde. Very unwise. But, it does make perfect sense in the short term.
Varian thinks in Short Term
Thrall thinks in Long Term
Garrosh thinks about cleaving
Mankrik things about his wife
And thats all their really is to it!Couldn't have said it better myself. :)
Post by
344679
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Garrosh hadn't attacked him yet. Varian only exacerbated the problem. If Garrosh had charged and Varian drew his weapons in defense, then it would've been totally Garrosh's fault. But that's not what happened. Garrosh challenged Varian, Varian stepped up and challenged Garrosh right back. It was a mutual agreement to fight.
The Broken Front was because of war. This is truth. So far, the conflict had just been between one group of Forsaken and Varian, and Varian dragged the whole rest of the Horde in by declaring war on the Horde. It was a poor move tactically, but as it's a war, that's all it is. You can't say it was a stab in the back of an ally, because the Horde and Alliance were now at war.
You're right in that Garrosh has no reason to hate the Alliance. Personally, I think it's Yogg-Saron using his mind like a marionette. But the Orcs, Tauren, Troll, Blood Elves, and Forsaken all have plenty of good reasons to hate the Alliance. Many of the Orcs alive today would be too young to have fought in the First or Second wars, so their imprisonment and further persecution would be unjust in their eyes. Case in point, Thrall. Thrall never did anything to Daelin Proudmoore, and in fact saved his daughter. If it hadn't have been for Thrall and the Horde, Jaina would have died on Mt. Hyjal. Jaina knows this and attempted to persuade her father, but he refused to listen, dismissing her and continuing his suicidal war on the Horde. The Tauren and Darkspear Trolls never did anything to the Alliance, and still are attacked just because they support the Horde. The Dwarves are even attempting to strip mine Mulgore and the Barrens. The Forsaken are/were systematically wiped out as Scourge by the humans, specifically the Scarlet Crusade, while the Blood Elves were outright betrayed by the Alliance. The Alliance has plenty of good reasons to hate the Old Horde, but not so much to hate te New Horde. Both sides are equally justified.
I can understand not trusting the Horde. That's one's own decision. Varian is perfectly justified in not trusting them. Going to war with them is an entirely different matter, and is both unwise and unfair. Take my Orc, Nakresh, for example: He does whatever the Warchief asks without question. He does not want war with the Alliance, and does his best to pay for the mistakes of the past. He doesn't agree with Garrosh or the Broken Front. But now, Varian, by declaring war on Thrall and the Horde, has pulled him into the fight. Now the Alliance is a threat. It's a threat to his Warchief and it's a threat to his family. What was once peace on a large scale has been turned into all-out war by several small scale events and people. Garrosh, Varian, and a group of Forsaken now have created a threat on a much larger scale.
War is not only unwise, but unnecessary. Instead of declaring your intent to kill every member of the opposing faction, the two sides should be using diplomacy instead.
The Warsong Clan is but a small part of the greater Horde. The Warsong Clan may not want peace very bad, but the Horde majority do at least want to keep up the truce. Why waste so many lives unnecessarily? Like I said, there are six outcomes to war, and they all mean thousands of relatively innocent lives being taken. While peace has certainly been shaken up, it has certainly not cost as many lives as war would.
I look at the Orc children running around the Barrens or Durotar, and Varian's intents sicken me. Does he plan to kill them all or simply keep them locked up in cages? Does he plan to simply leave them as orphans with a lust for vengeance? Varian has every right to not trust the Horde, but war isn't good for anyone.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Strength and honour. Thats what Orcs respect and respond too. How would Varian look in Garrosh's eyes if he had backed down? It would look like weakness and spur Garrosh further imo, not necessarily at the summit but in future encounters with the alliance. Conflict therefore is not only inevitable, but is approaching fast. And Varian knows this.He didn't need to back down. He needed to wait and let things play out a bit, see if Thrall did anything, see how Rhonin responded. Who knows, if he hadn't have called Garrosh on his challange, the fight may have not happened at all.
While it is debateable that Varian started that war, or merely realised that it has already begun I personally believe it was just a realisation that war with the horde was upon him whether Varian wanted it or not) the horde sure didnt wait long before making the next attack did they? There was no waiting for mediation, nor stargazing, no attempts to back down and defuse the situation. All they did was continue to escalate a conflict that they had already begun. The Broken Front was simply more fuel to the flame and if anything, continues to support Varians stance on the horde.
Aside from which, isn't it usual when one nation declares war on the other that the other side declares it back (assuming they want to fight). I dont remember any such statement from the horde declaring there intention for war with alliance.
And if the alliance began the war, where is there first strike? or any strike for that matter. The only aggression I see on any sides part in this 'war' is from the Horde. But I thought they didnt want a war....Honestly, I believe it was Varian's choice to bump it up to "War" status. The Horde had not yet attacked the Alliance on a scale that merited a war. There was the Wrathgate tregedy, which can be blamed on the Horde, but it's less deaths than a war would cost. There's the prisoners in Undercity, but still less pain and death than war would cost. Diplomacy gets more things done than war, if you care about minimizing death. Varian could have acted civilized and talked things over instead of just declaring war on a whim. Hell, he didn't trust the Horde and suspected an ambush, send someone else to talk it over. That's what ambassadors are for.
The Broken Front was not the Horde's response to Varian's declaration. It was one scouting groups response. Varian attempted to kill our Warchief and declared war upon the Horde and so now the Alliance was an enemy.
Ahhh the old 'think of the children' arguement. Im sure Garrosh is o so concerned about the orphans running around stormwind.He may not, but I do. I want as few deaths on either sides as possible. War is bad for the Alliance innocents too.
Like I said, six outcomes, and none of them are good.
In my opinion, Varian is nearly as bad as Garrosh. Garrosh is far less justified (meaning, not at all), but Varian apparently wants war just as bad. He doesn't seem like the caring, reserved and wise figure that a king should be, but rather the vengeful, warlike and merciless figure that a gladiator is.
Post by
Supremacy
Varian thinks in Short Term
Thrall thinks in Long Term
Garrosh thinks about cleaving
Mankrik things about his wife
And thats all their really is to it!
Anytime someone says "And that's that", or anything like that? It usually just makes me think "Why, because you said so?"
Things are rarely that cut and dried.
The initial article, by the way, made an excellent case for the fact that Varian is not thinking short term. And that he is not simply blinded by hatred. To quote that
article
:
The underlying causes of Varian Wrynn's anger are all unconditionally justified. Varian Wrynn is not angry at the Horde because of a series of misunderstandings and misinterpretations. He's been witness to or victim of multiple wrongdoings and atrocities perpetuated by the Horde time and time again, both the new Horde and the Old. Most, if not all of these times, the wrongdoings have been the result of outright maliciousness on the part of the Horde or its members, and in the case the so-called "peaceful" New Horde, there's been no sign whatsoever that Thrall is punishing or disciplining the perpetrators of these acts, and at the least, it is clear that he is not properly dealing with the consequences.
It's those first three sentences that I really like.
Fighting the Horde: Regardless of outcome, will be too weak to survive 3rd party attacks.
Not Fighting the Horde: Can, with Horde aid, fend off outside attacks,
however people will die due to "disagreements"
That's funny. No, I like that spin you put on it.
"Oh, sure, there's going to be a few bumps in the road, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggshells!"
By "bumps in the road", we mean that we'll continue to attack you whenever we damn well please, frequently at at moments when we're trying to work together. And by "eggshells", we mean your people.
Seriously, you consider the Wrathgate a disagreement? Don't try to downplay what happened there.
Specifically, though, nothing in Northrend has worked well for the Alliance with Horde Aid. Something about, you know, that betrayal thing.
Fighting the Horde does ward off any knifes in the back
, either offical, unofficial, or cleave style, but in doing so, the Alliance is doomed from an attack from the front. Now is not a good time to fight a war with the Horde. Very unwise. But, it does make perfect sense in the short term.
That bold part alone is justification for waging war on a faction.
Q: Why are you waging war on them?
A: Because if I don't, they keep stabbing me in the back.
And you think it is wise to ignore the constant acts of Horde aggression? To fight the Scourge and the Old Gods, and just hope that maybe you won't be attacked from another side? Again?
Just hope that maybe your settlements on Northrend won't be attacked by Horde raiding parties? Your farmers and craftsmen making supplies in the Eastern Kingdoms won't be kidnapped and tortured?
It's not fun staging a war on two fronts. It's not easy. But it cannot be done if you're going to just ignore that third party that keeps attacking you from behind.
While Varian may have waged this war?
He did not start it.
Post by
Supremacy
In all seriousness, the fact that Thrall cannot control his own people, coupled with the fact that he doesn't seem to know what's going on within the Horde would make me more than a little...hesitant...to really take his word for anything, if I were in Varian's shoes.
As I see it, the only ones that worked directly against the Alliance in Northrend were either the Undead (they do hate humans for those always hunted forsaken without asking first, not only the Scarlet ones) or the Warsong Clan.
That implies that the vast majority of the Horde is under Thrall's control, which isn't the reality of the Alliance.I doubt that the all of the Alliance Races are as united as the Orcs, Trolls and Tauren are.
The "unity" of the Horde races is a mixed blessing in this case. For one, it makes it harder to assume that any negative actions are the result of just some renegade faction, or even another race. It wouldn't be, for example, "the trolls attacked the dwarves", it would be "the Horde attacked the dwarves."
So, when one part of your group does something...
And as for your first point, you mention it's not the Horde as a whole that are attacking the Alliance, just the Forsaken and the Warsong. Even if you don't agree with what I said about one of the problems of unity...
...are you arguing that Varian is overreacting because the "only" people that attacked his people are an entire race and one of the strongest military factions of the Horde?
Because that's, you know, not a small thing.
Also, please, stop using that argument "Thrall can't control the Horde", I still believe it isn't relevant as every race in the game has a story of betrayal in it's past.Including the Draenei.
I think the only race without some grand betrayal are the Tauren. Anyway, the fact that Thrall cannot control the Horde
now
is extremely relevant. Because his lack of control over his subjects is screwing things up for everyone.
People aren't blaming Thrall for what happened waaaaaaay back when. They're blaming him for things that are happening, you know, like a week ago.
Post by
Skreeran
Anytime someone says "And that's that", or anything like that? It usually just makes me think "Why, because you said so?"
Things are rarely that cut and dried.
The initial article, by the way, made an excellent case for the fact that Varian is not thinking short term. And that he is not simply blinded by hatred. To quote that article:
The underlying causes of Varian Wrynn's anger are all unconditionally justified. Varian Wrynn is not angry at the Horde because of a series of misunderstandings and misinterpretations. He's been witness to or victim of multiple wrongdoings and atrocities perpetuated by the Horde time and time again, both the new Horde and the Old. Most, if not all of these times, the wrongdoings have been the result of outright maliciousness on the part of the Horde or its members, and in the case the so-called "peaceful" New Horde, there's been no sign whatsoever that Thrall is punishing or disciplining the perpetrators of these acts, and at the least, it is clear that he is not properly dealing with the consequences.
It's those first three sentences that I really like.Like what? The Wrathgate is all I can think of before he flew off the handle and declared war. The Wrathgate was a tragedy, but it was not a malicious act by the Horde at large, but rather, either an incompetent mistake in not seeing the potential for Forsaken betrayal, or a blindsided betrayal by a hidden group. Argue whichever you like, but the Thrall's Horde was hurt just as much by it, and then dealt with it. Garona's assassination attempt also, but that could have been dealt with by a little diplomacy. Thrall was fighting off the Twilight's hammer right nest to Varian.
That bold part alone is justification for waging war on a faction.
Q: Why are you waging war on them?
A: Because if I don't, they keep stabbing me in the back.
And you think it is wise to ignore the constant acts of Horde aggression? To fight the Scourge and the Old Gods, and just hope that maybe you won't be attacked from another side? Again?
Just hope that maybe your settlements on Northrend won't be attacked by Horde raiding parties? Your farmers and craftsmen making supplies in the Eastern Kingdoms won't be kidnapped and tortured?
It's not fun staging a war on two fronts. It's not easy. But it cannot be done if you're going to just ignore that third party that keeps attacking you from behind.
While Varian may have waged this war?
He did not start it.You're totally ignoring the threat from the front. A bigger threat. What if Warsong Hold hadn't have been there? Valiance Keep would have had twice as many Nerubians to worry about, plus the forces Kel'thuzad had stationed there that the Horde dealt with. The Alliance would have lost the initial battle at the Wrathgate if it weren't for the Horde. The Alliance would have had to deal with the Vrykul in Howling Fjord all by themselves if it weren't for the Horde. The Alliance wouldn't have made the progress in Icecrown that it has without the Horde, even taking the Broken Front into account. The Alliance and the Horde need eachother to survive in Northrend. Even if the Horde is constantly picking fights, fighting the other instead of the threat is not going to help anyone. If the Alliance turns to fight the Horde, it loses, plain and simple. If the Horde wins. The Alliance loses. If the Alliance wins against the Horde, the Scourge wins against the Alliance, and the Alliance still loses. I don't like what the Horde is doing in Northrend, but we can't afford to stop our war with the Scourge and fight about it, and we also can't afford to split our forces between the two wars.
Think of it this way. You are fighting a big strong guy who has a weapon. Another person is also fighting a similar brute behind you. He starts throwing punches at you while he tries to fight his own guy. It is going to be very difficult to fight off this big threat while the other guy punches you, but if you turn around and fight the guy who keeps punching you, you're going to die when the bigger guy stabs you in your now vulnerable back.
Post by
Supremacy
No.
Realizing you've accidentally made a date with two women on the same night at the same restaurant is a stupid move.
Leaving your wallet stuffed full of cash and identifying information on a lunch table at the mall is a stupid move.
Attacking soldiers from behind who are fighting against the same enemy as you are, someone who literally wants to destroy all life on the world, right as they're about to secure a foothold against him is not "a stupid move".
At the very least, that is a horrible, unforgivable affront that you go out of your way to assure whoever can hear will never, ever happen again...followed by a public punishment for all of those involved.
But, really, it's an act of war. You can't downplay that.
"We don't want a way, but we won't hesitate to stab you in the back."
Yes.
It was a stupid move because the Lich King ended up winning because the overestimated their power. (They thought they could take the Alliance and the Scourge). But they were already at war. It was in fact an Act of War in that it the attack itself can be justified (against the Alliance, the fact that it ended in the Scourge winning was what made it a stupid move. If it had just been against the Alliance it would be entirely justified.)
Perhaps I was not as clear as I assumed I was.
My problem with the initial summary of the Broken Front wasn't that the move was tactically unsound. My problem was with people referring to it as some "stupid move".
Because that just diminishes how horrific it is.
That's like locking up your enemies in a cage and setting it on fire, then realizing the smoke and stench makes your dog nervous, who then bites you. While you're getting your hand treated, you call it a stupid move because you didn't realize your dog would bite you.
You're missing the actual problem.
You should not attack people from behind while they're trying to save the world. Especially if you're supposed to be working together. Especially if you can't do a better job.
Post by
Supremacy
While it is debateable that Varian started that war, or merely realised that it has already begun ( I personally believe it was just a realisation that war with the horde was upon him whether Varian wanted it or not)
Thank you.
Varian is not starting a war. Varian is declaring that this war is official.
Which just seems prudent. At least now these "surprise disagreements" won't be a surprise, anymore.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Perhaps I was not as clear as I assumed I was.
My problem with the initial summary of the Broken Front wasn't that the move was tactically unsound. My problem was with people referring to it as some "stupid move".
Because that just diminishes how horrific it is.I said "At the very least." I think it is a stupid move. You think it was a stupid and horrific move. We both agree that it was stupid is the message I was making there.
That's like locking up your enemies in a cage and setting it on fire, then realizing the smoke and stench makes your dog nervous, who then bites you. While you're getting your hand treated, you call it a stupid move because you didn't realize your dog would bite you.
You're missing the actual problem.
You should not attack people from behind while they're trying to save the world. Especially if you're supposed to be working together.And like I said, it was a skirmish on the enemy in a war. The Alliance and Horde were at war. If the Horde and Alliance had fought in a clearing and just as many people died on both the Horde and Alliance sides, it would have been perfectly fair. If the Horde had attacked the Alliance from behind and just as many died on both sides it would have been perfectly fair. The fact that the Lich King won is what makes it stupid. The Horde made a stupid move by attacking a force that was attacking their mutual enemy, but the Horde did not commit any sort of treason simply by attacking an enemy they were now at war with.
Especially if you can't do a better job.I actually laughed in real life at this part.
Edit: Replying to Parrazell...
Bottom line is this.
The alliance have 4 main threats to their safety. Arthas, Burning Legion, Yogg (or old gods in general) and the Horde.
If you ignore the Arthas and fight the other 3 your dead
If you ignore the Burning Legion and fight the other 3 your dead.
If you ignore Yogg and fight the other 3 your dead.
Guess what happens if you ignore the Horde?
ofc there is a good chance any one of these will kill you anyway
Saying the alliance needs to work with the horde to defeat Arthas is like saying the need to work with the Burning Legion to defeat Arthas.
Both are enemies of your enemy, should we not then be friends in that conflict?
Quite obviously not. Just because your enemy shares the same goal as you does not mean you should suddenly start trusting them.
The Horde have proven time and again that as a whole they cannot be trusted.Well, for one, the Horde had not previously been at war with the Alliance. They had conflicts over resources, but never open war. The Horde had not been an active threat. It was an unpredictable possible threat. If that is the case, it is not wise to go and rile them up to come attack you in force. It would be more effective to put up defenses and watch them as a threat, rather than tell them that your are now at war.
The Horde is not like the Burning Legion. The Horde majority do in fact want non-conflict, if not peace. The Warsong Clan and the Forsaken are exceptions to this, but in that case don't tell the whole Horde that they're now at war. Send someone so talk to the Horde leaders and give them a warning. Tell them that if they cannot control the Forsaken and the Warsong, then the Alliance will be forced to retaliate. If Thrall can, problem solved. If Thrall can't, then at least it's understandable when you do retaliate. If Varian suddenly just up and makes an attempt on Thrall's life, Cairne Bloodhoof will certainly see Varian as an enemy. If Varian sends a letter copy to Cairne, stating that if the Warsong continue to attack Alliance in Northrend, he will strike back, and then Varian makes good on his word, Cairne would understand. Same goes for all the other leaders. By making an enemy in the Horde as a whole, rather than attempting to engage in diplomacy, he has ensured that war will take place.
For those of you who agree with Varian, tell me this.
Do you agree that the Alliance should be at war with the Horde? Do you agree that Thrall should be killed? Do you agree that upon Thrall's death, the Horde will not stop until they have gotten vindication? Do you agree that, with the Horde will not be stopped until it is wiped out? Do you agree that the Horde should be wiped out?
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
You keep saying that they were already at war. Why? What warlike actions ever happened before the Wrathgate? Warsong Hold was returning deserters the the Alliance. Do you think that Bolvar thought he was at war with Saurfang Jr.?
The Wrathgate was a mistake on behalf of the Horde, yes, but Varian pleasantly ignored the fact that both sides took heavy casualties because of it. He was just mad because he lost so many people and one of his best friends, and decided to kill whoever was responsible. He then decided that Thrall was responsible, even though Thrall was already there dealing with the problem. Thrall also lost many of his best soldiers, and was doing his best to fix the problem. But Varian didn't have all the facts and didn't make any attempts to get all the facts, blaming Thrall for it instead. Even if Thrall allowed it to happen by being either uninformed or too trusting (or both), he was trying to fix it, and Varian tried to kill him. Imagine what would have happened if he had succeeded? Thrall dies and the Horde instantly goes insane for Varian's blood. He didn't try to find out what role Thrall had in it, or what Thrall planned to do about it, or anything, instead maknig the snap decision to kill the Warchief of the Horde. Thrall is also at fault for not sending emissaries or ambassadors, but overall, Varian was just not thinking in there.
Varian's own personal experiences with the Horde are the only thing that defines his beliefs about them. Tirion accepts the Horde, and Tirion is the one making the most progress against the Lich King. Varian should place some weight on his say. Alexstrasza trusts the Horde. I don't care what you say, Alexstrasza suffered more at the hands of the Orcs than any member of the Alliance. But yet she trusts and has forgiven them. Varian certainly should place weight on her beliefs. He not only does not trust them (which is justified, given that certain members of the Horde are liable to attack), he actively declared open war upon them and attacked the Warchief.
Which brings me to my next point. What happens to the other members of the Horde and Alliance that are not fighting? With the peace that has settled between the Horde and Alliance in say, Desolace, continue? Let's hope so, but with the Leader of the Alliance attacking the Leader of the Horde, it seems less likely. If all of the Horde forces end up at war with all the Alliance forces, thousands will die because of local conflicts isolated in Northrend. Varian either grossly underestimates the Horde in declaring war, or he is so consumed with vengeance that he doesn't care who has to die to punish those he feels need to be punished.
This is just a big feud. A fight brought on by one action that causes hatred to boil over everywhere else. Why can't they solve this like civilized people and talk it out? So much more could be solved with diplomacy than war.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.