Know Your Lore: The war begins

It's going to get worse before it gets better.
In his Dev Watercooler about faction favoritism, Blizzard's Dave Kosak made this point, and it's a good one to make. In a World of Warcraft, the lore works to drive us forward, cresting on the waves of what's coming next. In patch 4.3, we're finally going to get to see the events of the War of the Ancients, fight alongside dragon aspects and the great heroes of the past and secure Azeroth's future. But in so doing, we find ourselves forced to deal with the aftermath of Deathwing's actions. The Azeroth we inherit is one that bears the legacy of the Wrathgate, where Horde and Alliance forever surrendered tentative attempts at peace and cooperation. The Azeroth we save is battered by years of conflict against terrible adversaries, and in this diminished, broken world, the Horde eyes the Alliance like a wolf views a sick elk.
This is where the war starts. The Fourth War, it may be called. The War for Azeroth, the battle between mortals, for mortal concerns. At last, at long last, the battle postponed by the Third War can finally happen.
WIth Deathwing's end, so dies the world that was
So far, following Deathwing's initial assault on Azeroth, the Horde has taken the opportunity to expand its borders. The Horde has moved further than ever before. We've seen the Horde offensive from the eyes of those who have lost their dearest to it and from the perspective of those who made it possible.
What we have yet to see is the ramifications of this offensive. As yet, the Alliance still sleeps. Each nation seems to drift in its own concerns, fitfully responding here and there but with no cohesion or coordination.
We know the future, however. We know that Theramore will burn. Despite the fact that it was Horde members responsible for the Wrathgate debacle (Putress was found and punished by the Alliance, not the Horde, who were busy dealing with their own rebellious Dreadlord) and that since that time, the Horde has used dishonorable tactics against Alliance forces fighting the Scourge, declaring all-out war, the Alliance still seems to want to deal with them by not dealing with them. But once Theramore is destroyed, this path cannot continue. It can no longer be paralyzed by the struggle within itself, or it will be destroyed.
With Theramore destroyed, the Alliance will now see its territorial gains in the Southern Barrens almost completely encircled by Horde forces. There is little chance of Theramore surviving as an Alliance base. This means that the Alliance will have lost its major eastern port on Kalimdor. This cuts the night elves off from any support (which was the original purpose for the expedition from Theramore into the Southern Barrens and Stonetalon in the first place), leaving the Horde effectively in total control of the entire east of the continent.
The worg meets the lion
Ironically, this move simultaneously weakens the Alliance (because it removes the supply line that cut across the continent) and yet may well be what is needed to finally rouse the Alliance war machine into action. The attack on Theramore will have three immediate consequences.
- It removes Jaina Proudmoore as a limiting factor standing between Horde and Alliance conflict. Jaina has always had strong ties to the Horde, having worked personally with Thrall and Cairne Bloodhoof during the Third War. With Cairne dead and Thrall no longer Warchief, Jaina was the last holdout from that period a decade ago when the mortal races united to stand off the Burning Legion. With Theramore destroyed, it's likely Jaina's peace argument will stall out, and even if it doesn't, she will lack a platform from which to spread it.
- Varian Wrynn is now the only human leader with a standing kingdom. Like him or hate him, the loss of Theramore removes one of the two heads of the human nations. Stormwind stands alone, the last bastion of humanity's once-great seven kingdoms. Kul'Tiras is lost (possibly even moved by the cataclysm). Gilneas is now a war zone; its crowned head of state sits in Varian's throne room. All of humanity's hopes and fears now rest entirely on the shoulders of her last remaining king.
- Every Alliance leader will now have an example of what happens to those who try diplomacy with the Horde. Theramore supplied troops for the Southern Barrens invasion while simultaneously trying to talk to the Horde and reach some kind of settlement. Now, everyone from Velen to Tyrande to the Council of the Three Hammers will see that Jaina's long friendship with Thrall, her having given sanctuary to Baine Bloodhoof ... none of her years of work to bring about peace did anything to protect her city-state.
Now, only the battle between Horde and Alliance matters. Furthermore, by destroying Theramore, the Horde are the ones who have elevated the conflict to a full-fledged war. Much as in the Second War, the Alliance moves into this conflict at a disadvantage.

Now, at last, the Alliance can have no distractions. There's no one for the Horde to wait for the Alliance to fight so they can attack them from behind. The Horde must engage a numerically superior foe who has at last nothing to lose by fighting them and no possible motivation to do anything but kill them. From a story perspective, we're watching the end of the period of time when the aggressor nation grabs land in a series of easy victories against soft targets that real wars have displayed over and over again. Now, we head into the phase of the conflict when the Horde and Alliance must directly contend with one another.
From a story perspective, it's been a painful year or so of expensive victory leading to constant defeat for the Alliance. Hoping to see an end to war after the frightful battles in Northrend against the Lich King, they've instead been given natural upheaval, mad cultists, and Horde aggression. Therefore, either the Alliance surrenders or it fights. And the Alliance has never surrendered to the Horde. Not even after 10 years of battle when the Horde burned Stormwind. Not when Doomhammer besieged Lordaeron, his teeth literally at the Alliance's throat. So we know that the war between the factions must get worse, must plunge the entire planet into war. The one-sided battle we've seen so far, where the Horde is so successful that the loss of Camp Taurajo counts as their biggest defeat, must change.
World at warcraft
With Theramore gone, the Alliance has lost its strongest base on the eastern coast of Kalimdor. With a massive, goblin-built weapon aimed right at Stormwind from Azshara, just north of Orgrimmar, the situation becomes clear. There's nothing to lose in attacking Orgrimmar with a massive force and perhaps quite a bit to gain. As players, we know that Orgrimmar won't be destroyed, but it doesn't have to be. An attack on Orgrimmar doesn't need to raze the city or even be designed to do so. It could serve as a feint to allow night elf forces to sabotage the goblin weapon at Bilgewater Harbor.
It doesn't have to be Orgrimmar, of course. Both sides will suffer now. Both sides will see slaughter and death. Even the Forsaken, who can now increase their numbers, may still find themselves terrified in time as war churns even their decayed flesh into mulch, spades over the very land and crushes them beneath it. The one-sided war declared by the Horde while the Alliance is looking elsewhere can no longer be maintained. The narrative demands blood, and blood it must have, from both factions.
The fact remains: The story can no longer absorb the one-sided, creeping expanse of the Horde. Battle must finally be joined. And both sides must bleed and die for the ambitions of their leaders. War, declared or imposed, has always been the destiny of Azeroth. All must suffer. Now, at last, at long last, the war begins.
While you don't need to have played the previous Warcraft games to enjoy World of Warcraft, a little history goes a long way. Dig into even more of the lore and history behind the World of Warcraft in WoW Insider's Guide to Warcraft Lore.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Lore, Know your Lore, Cataclysm, Mists of Pandaria






Reader Comments (Page 5 of 11)
Vai Nov 30th 2011 6:08PM
"Every Alliance leader will now have an example of what happens to those who try diplomacy with the Horde."
"Theramore supplied troops for the Southern Barrens invasion"
"talk to the Horde and reach some kind of settlement."
"Theramore supplied troops for the Southern Barrens invasion"
"none of her years of work to bring about peace did anything to protect her city-state."
"Theramore supplied troops for the Southern Barrens invasion"
Call me cynical if you really must, but I don't believe that any country would accept the professed neutrality or diplomacy of another country who were providing men, materiel and access through their territory for the purposes of launching an invasion.
Theramore declared war on the Horde alongside the Alliance. They had a perfect right to as members of said Alliance, but you can't say that they're being subjected to an unprovoked attack despite selfless neutrality and peacemongering.
PonTelon Nov 30th 2011 6:41PM
Correct. And during questing in Southern Barrens, you collect "Theramore Badge"s from the people who burned down a non-military village(Camp Taurajo).
Theramore is far from neutral, even if their leader is.
ColbaneX Nov 30th 2011 6:48PM
Okay you need to realize something RIGHT now. If you know anything about WW2 you would know that France had the biggest defense of any country in known history(The Maginot Line). However, Nazi Germany went through "neutral" Netherlands to hit France. In this scenario Theramore is like the Netherlands. THEY didn't actively do anything. A bigger power(germany/alliance not making a nazi link between those two so don't read too much into it) forced troops through there making it seem like a target. The Netherlands wanted to stay neutral, the way things happened, they were forced to make an affiliation, which, as history has shown, ended poorly. Same thing with Theramore.
vocenoctum Nov 30th 2011 6:51PM
Theremore is certainly not "neutral", though Jaina herself was always (quite irritatingly) trying to mitigate stuff. Though I still believe the road was labeled for "getting supplies to the night elves via overland route" rather than how the orcs present it as "invading orgrimmar and cutting off Mulgore".
And yeah, same quests also mention the tauren hunters/snipers that were harassing construction and aiding the horde war effort. They were based and trained out of a "hunting camp", so the camp was attacked. It's a war, no one is neutral when they're providing men and materials to the forces. Not Theremore and certainly not Taurajo The Martyr Town.
Vai Nov 30th 2011 8:27PM
Colbane I'm English mate, I don't need a WW2 lesson, my parents both lived through it. Your comparison fails because Nazi Germany invaded Belgium and the Netherlands forcing their troops through to bypass the Maginot line, whereas Theramore is a full member of the Alliance and willingly contributed their aid and troops to the operation.
A comparison would have been if the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg were part of the Axis and willingly allowed, supplied and reinforced German troops passing through to France while still arguing for peace.
The moment Jaina let Theramore become the anchor for this cross-continental supply line through the middle of Horde territory it became a threat nobody would ignore. I doubt even if Thrall was still Warchief he could avoid the necessity of sacking it and cutting off the road from Stormwind into the heart of Kalimdor.
Also, with regards to attacking Orgrimmar directly, that'd be a good way to lose entire armies. The place is a nightmare of impossible terrain, massive defences, large standing army and well placed ally reinforcements.
I'd suggest the Alliance would need to strike over the Thandol Span, seize the Arathi Highlands and retake Stromgarde. It'd stop the Forsaken's relentless march east, fortify the supply lines to Aerie Peak and refounding one of the old Human kingdoms would be a huge morale boost. If they let Sylvanas take Arathi and found a new Undercity at Stromgarde they'll never get a foothold back in Lordaeron.
Methuus Nov 30th 2011 8:46PM
Let me make one point clear, no Alliance defender should ever question the in-game military strategy of the Horde taking out Theramore, given the current in-game situation.
It makes absolute perfect sense for Garrosh to attack Theramore, now that the Alliance has used Theramore as a staging post to attack the Horde heartland. Any Alliance player who argues against the Theramore attack from an in-game, military strategy perspective is a fool.
That said... that's a strawman argument.
Alliance partisans, like myself I admit, aren't arguing against the specific action of the Horde attacking Theramore. We're criticizing that Blizzard, at a more out-of-game, meta-fictional level, is not telling a satisfying, heroic story for Alliance players; when you consider the entire story. The Theramore situation is just the proverbial "final straw", that broke Alliance player's backs.
Theramore being attacked, as a single point, makes sense. Theramore being attacked, as the next step in a long string of Blizzard directed story points humiliating the Alliance, is a problem; from a game/story/lore/player retention perspective.
vocenoctum Nov 30th 2011 9:09PM
Agreed, no one can say "the horde attacking theremore makes no sense!" and mean it.
But the difference is, from what we've seen Theremore is destroyed. The Horde attacking it makes sense, but that doesn't mean the Alliance has to loose the battle. It's a well fortified city, with a road full of tanks and a powerful archmage at the helm.
"The Horde formed up and attacked the city of Theremore. Jaina's forces managed to hold their city, but at great cost and the surrounding settlements were destroyed" is a far cry from "the horde destroys theremore". And again, the story elements are the important part and they just won't be there.
Hobstadt Nov 30th 2011 11:28PM
Actually, the Horde HAS to destroy Theramore and kill as many people as they can in it, and fast.
And when that is done, they have to march EVERYTHING on Ashenvale and slaughter the entire Night Elf population and as many Ancients as they can swiftly.
Because what will happen if the don't massacre the Alliance troops on Kalimdor?
The war against Twilight's Hammer in Twilight Highlands and on Mt Hyjal is over. Now the dwarves and humans can move troops out from Eastern Kingdoms and land them in Theramore, and the Night Elves that helped the Cenarion Circle can go pack to protect their homeland in great numbers.
The Horde will be flattened between two Alliance fronts if Theramore stands.
BigRed Dec 1st 2011 3:32AM
Indeed - I was wondering myself whether "diplomacy" was supposed to be newspeak for "backstabbing". And this would be a welcome lesson, I believe: if you wanna take on the horde, stand up to them and stay your course, backstabbing will get you killed.
telser Nov 30th 2011 7:29PM
I love this. I never really cared for the supposed bias towards the horde, but I do think the alliance needs to step it up.
Murdertime Nov 30th 2011 6:14PM
Can we stop saying Theramore is some neutral party recieving an unprovoked attack?
You can go there and see the huge line of tanks aimed staight at Orgrimmar. And the pile of dead Horde allies. And then more tanks. And the attack on Tauren-Town. And so on.
I mean, yes, the attack on Theramore will be a big deal but it won't be the duplicitous Horde attacking the city of poor 'I just want peace' Jaina for no reason.
Hobstadt Nov 30th 2011 7:01PM
Agreed. If Jaina wanted a safe Theramore, she shouldn't have sent troops to help the Night Elves. If she had just idly let Ashenvale burn, then the Horde would have no reason to attack Theramore.
You are either at war, or not.
Brevalaer Dec 1st 2011 1:55AM
I have always found her desire to sit on two chairs at once opportunistic at best and stupid at worst.
Granted, she was helping everybody (Mulgore was taken back from the Grimtotem with her kingdom's money, remember) and not just the Alliance, but acting as Stormwind military base was a sure way to get her perky bumroll handed to her by Garrosh and it was dumb of her not to realize it.
She couldn't have been that dumb. Or could she?
Muse Dec 1st 2011 9:38AM
Note that there was a very specific order of progression though:
FIRST diplomacy/truce, THEN Garrosh becomes Horde warchief, THEN peace no longer looks like it's working, THEN Theramore builds Big Road of Doom.
It's kind of fail to think Theramore shouldn't have armed itself and taken a proactive stance after the Horde became far more aggressive.
razion Nov 30th 2011 6:28PM
The article makes a hopeful assumption (a logical one, at that)--that the Alliance will go out guns blazing, because peace is 'no longer an option' (because of Theramore's destruction and Jaina's supposed lack of influence with her city destroyed). I'll concede to that--neutral factions and Velen notwithstanding, let's go with it. Let's assume the Alliance will get up.
So let's assume the Alliance does this, and goes to war with the Horde. Well, wait, aren't we already doing that? Well, if we haven't, we've been in skirmishes. Skirmishes we've had a tendency to lose, with the ones we have won been used as footsteps for further Horde retaliation, revenge, heroism and more importantly, victory.
Well, what does this mean? That the Alliance hasn't been 'trying' until now? That somehow declaring open war with the Horde will make military conflict somehow different than it has been? Bottom line I'm trying to get across here is I'll see the Alliance fighting back and grabbing militaristic, permanent, meaningful victories that we can participate in when I see them--but that won't stop me from crossing my fingers.
joshua.sims Dec 1st 2011 4:15PM
There's quite a bit of a difference. Imagine, if you will, a very large army (army A) and a relatively small army (army B). Let's call it a 5:1 difference in manpower, for the sake of argument. Now, let's assume the smaller army has better soldiers in general (Orcs are MUCH bigger and stronger than humans), maybe a time and a half as good, but they're still outnumbered big time. The deal is, though, the army A is focused elsewhere, say, on a 3rd common enemy army, army C. While the army A is throwing the bulk of its resources at this 3rd party, it's committing about 20% of its strength dealing with the smaller army B. Now things are down at 1:1. Then army B has the advantage of individual troop strength while negating the numerical disadvantage, and so in the skirmishes, army B tends to win.
Now think what happens if army C quits the field.
Have you ever seen what happens when a bear get surrounded by a pack of wolves?
mariodcole Nov 30th 2011 6:32PM
I like the article but as others have pointed out, Rossi uses jingoism as a writing style in KYL which can be a bit distracting.
Killik Nov 30th 2011 8:02PM
Can't speak for the others, but this article is very particularly crafted that way, to prevent the comments devolving into a "Horde sucks!"/"Alliance sucks!"-type flamestorm. And it appears to be working.
vocenoctum Nov 30th 2011 6:37PM
I won't bother getting into the "final push" that Theremore provides where all the other defeats didn't.
What I'd like to get into is... who wants this massive war? They talk about wanting more open-world pvp, but I played on pve servers for a reason. I pvp in battlegrounds when I feel like it, not before.
This epic battle of horde vs alliance? It's not epic, one side can't win. The losses either side takes are not part of some great story, they're mini-stories. There is no war, there is a series of events stretching back to before the initial game release, hence the battlegrounds. There is no overarcing give and take. It's an MMO, the events are written in quests. In the manner of such things (persistent world), they generally occur after the fact, though phasing has made it better.
I didn't mind the horde vs alliance stuff in Wrath. It explained why the heroes took center stage, because the armies were getting into hissy fits. Now, suddenly I'm supposed to care. Cataclysm didn't tell me the story of the Alliance war machine on the defensive or offensive. It told me a couple isolated stories of alliance forces fighting in a disoriented manner.
It's easy really, if neither side can win, than we need the stories that make up the "war" to be the payoff, not something "down the road", because the road never ends. If Theremore is destroyed, and it's interesting than maybe that'll work. If it's like Southshore (which, afaik, has not a single alliance quest related to it's destruction), then it's just bad story telling, IMO.
Al Nov 30th 2011 7:21PM
If they don't, all the FPSers who never played the old Warcraft games start screeching about "lulz, y WAR in title if no WAR? Moar WAR nao, plox." To which the developers say, "I think they're asking for more PvP.. let's piss away the story set-up by Warcraft 3 and bring in characters like Garrosh." "Yaysauce, WAR in WARcraft. Nao nerf those classes who beat me kk"
(I wonder if these geniuses complain about Starcraft. "Y it set on planets? Have everything in STARships and put STAR back in STARcraft!")