Lord it’s gonna be so depressing in about 2-4 years when the writers demand another faction war so the Horde is villain batted for the 3rd time and instigates the Faction War Plot yet again, causing another 2-3 members of our Roster Of Lore Relevant Characters to die.
19 Likes
The purpose of the Horde council is nominally to be that the decision for the Horde to go to war won’t be made unilaterally by the whims of a single individual and if that structure can be maintained I’m not sure why they would go to war again at this point.
Frankly it’s kind of hard to think of any strategic interest to the Horde that’s worth going to war over that they don’t already have. Their position in Kalimdor is as unassailable as ever and while the Horde has been crippled in the Eastern Kingdoms, the Eastern Kingdoms isn’t a core strategic interest for the Horde. And despite that, the Alliance has barely capitalized on that anyway and it looks like they’re basically going to let the Horde walk right back in.
The only real motive the Horde has to go to war with the Alliance again (if they even have the material capability) would be for some kind of abstract sense of vengeance, which is why Talanji wanted to renew the war but her ambitions were checked by the rest of the council, as it was set up to do.
1 Like
Eh, my feelings in my first post go the other way on that too. If a horde race decides to take the initiative to force a war, shouldn’t the other members be obligated to line up with them too? Leaving, say, the Zandalari to die does nothing but weaken the rest of the horde, and the action will have already proven (again, apparently) that the horde can’t keep to a treaty and there’s no in-universe reason to expect that the alliance would be weirdly amicable to peace again for the third time in a row.
4 Likes
That would defeat the entire purpose of a council, if one member decided to act unilaterally and the rest of the Horde either supported them or did nothing. It’d be the tail wagging the dog.
If the Horde is going to be set up as a sort of confederacy like they’ve been suggesting, then Talanji deciding to unilaterally invade Kul Tiras would be roughly tantamount to the Governor of Texas deciding to use the National Guard to invade Mexico.
It’s unlikely that the result would be the rest of the USA saying “Well, we’re in now so what can we do?” and more likely that it would result in the US government removing that Governor, by force if necessary, for infringing on the authority of the US Government to control the nation’s foreign affairs.
So the expectation would be that if a member of the Horde went rogue, it would be the responsibility of the rest of the Horde to rein them in. If they don’t do that, then the Horde Council is a failure.
5 Likes
That’s literally how the US Mexican war started that led to the treaty of Guadalupe btw
8 Likes
No, they were surprised that given how much Darnassus had been ignored by the playerbase that there was that much and that strong a reaction.
4 Likes
Which just reifies the reality that they’re thoroughly out of touch with the playerbase and why the playerbase plays this game and feels attached to this game in the first place.
6 Likes
That was also 170 years ago and predated the American Civil War, prior to which the federal government as we know it today did not exist.
4 Likes
You’re wrong but go off
No. It’s literally impossible to convince you in particular of anything.
1 Like
The Federal Government of the United States began effectively in 1789, when the Constitution went into effect.
The Mexican-American war took place in the mid 1800s, which was after the annexation of Texas which resulted in a huge border dispute the US was very keen on taking advantage of.
4 Likes
Yes, as an institution, but its power and influence over the states at the time was far, far less than it is now. Federal rule overriding state rule was very rare prior to the Civil War, at which point it greatly expanded (and kept on expanding throughout the next two centuries) for obvious reasons.
In fact, the entire notion of an American identity was pretty rare. People’s identity and legal deference was almost always to their state over the feds.
The function of the federal government at the time aside from “keep the peace and get out of the way” was pretty much exclusively in the form of congress, and congress exercised its powers largely as a means of managing the American economy (for their own benefit, natch.) The office of President at the time was considered that of a caretaker. In fact, becoming President was usually interpreted as a dead end for one’s political career.
Andrew Jackson, widely considered one of the first “activist Presidents” was only able to do a lot of what he did by capitalizing on cronyism and corruption in Congress.
But this is all beside the point. I don’t think anyone here thinks that the Horde should emulate the Americans in the Mexican-American War.
3 Likes
But foreign policy is completely the domain of the Federal Government. That has never changed.
2 Likes
Ehhh, kind of. In the War of 1812 the bulk of New England basically ignored Washington’s declaration of war on Britain and continued to trade with the UK and British North America like nothing was amiss, because they knew that Washington didn’t have either the authority or the will to force them to fight.
The inverse is also true. As you’ve pointed out, the start of the Mexican-American war was largely because of things that Texas did unilaterally. The federal government went along with it because
A) They wanted Mexican territory anyway, and
B) The ability of the federal government to rein in the Texans even if they wanted to was questionable. Texas had been annexed into the USA literally only a year earlier and was still de-facto sovereign in terms of its military and government.
1 Like
Washington was not power when the War of 1912 broke out, Madison was. It was Thomas Jefferson who pushed the people of New England to the point of breaking because of his trade embargo that left many sailors of New England unemployed.
I’m not even American, but it was definitely Thomas Jefferson and mostly James Madison who started the War of 1812. George Washington died in 1799.
3 Likes
I was talking about the city, not the person. Referring to the capital is a common shorthand to use when referring to a government. Like “Washington demanded that Moscow withdraw the missiles from Cuba.”
2 Likes
I’m gonna go listen to The War of 1812 by the Arrogant Worms because it gives me patriotic pride.
Also “The British” were just British Settlers of Acadia, we actually got zero help from Britain. Due to successful American naval battles against the British, which also affected new England because the New England economy was entirely about trade with British settlers.
3 Likes
The War of 1812 was fought between the USA and the British Empire. Principal theaters were Upper Canada, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico.
Upper Canada was defended almost entirely by British Regulars, with local Canadian militias and Indigenous Confederacies providing support.
I’m not sure why you’re referring to Acadia, which was a French colony in modern day Nova Scotia that ceased to exist almost 100 years earlier. Are you referring to the Cajun population of Louisiana, which was part of the Gulf Theater?
1 Like
how does this relate back to Warcraft again?
The history lesson has been great but maybe we should bring it back around to the topic at hand. Getting a little derailed over here.
1 Like
The Horde needs to avoid one of the major historical pitfalls of confederacies, which is “what happens when one member does something stupid and tries to drag everyone else into it.”
4 Likes