This wiki contains inaccurate and out-of-date information. Please head over to for more accurate and up-to-date game information.



This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alliance article.

Be polite
Assume good faith
Be welcoming

Analyse that!
If you wish to discuss the subject itself, please use Talk:Alliance/Analysis.
Non-editorial comments made here should be moved to the Analysis page.


"FYI, The Alliance players typically outnumber the horde 2:1 or greater on most servers. (player population: two thirds Alliance, 1 third Horde)WoW Census -- Tach"

This is not necessarily true - Blizzard has repeatedly said that the way the Census takes information is not correct and that the split is much closer to 50/50. -- Hortnon

Source of your claim? Because I highly doubt that. I'm sure lots of Alliance have believed the grass is greener because of shamans and WotF in the earlier parts of the game and many supposed Horde characters are just dead alts. On an active play basis I think it's easy to say Alliance players outnumber Horde. Whenever I meet someone who plays WoW they always say Alliance.--Grid 19:12, 9 December 2006 (EST)

If yall remember most of the recent blizzcons, when Blizz shouted out "For the Horde" the crowd went wild. Less so when they shouted out "For the Alliance". I think that, despite the fact that Alliance outnumber the Horde on most servers, that the Horde is a more dedicated group of players. Elofan (talk) 16:13, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

What is the source for the population of 800,000 on the Alliance's infobox? (By the same token I might ask where the 292,000 comes from on the Horde's infobox.) If the two are true, then the Alliance would be more than double the population of the Horde, nearly triple. Where did those numbers come from? --JakeARoonie (talk) 02:06, January 22, 2010 (UTC)


I'm a bit puzzled about this picture-text:

"As an interesting aside, the only surviving Hero of this image (Kael'Thas) has betrayed the Alliance by siding with Illidan."

- Kael'thas betrayed the Alliance? So the Alliance didn't betray him when they sentenced him and his people to execution without reason?!

I think it's quite clear who betrayed who.--Odolwa 14:18, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Very few people are pleased with Garithos's... how shall I put this... stupidity? Idiocy? crass incompetence worthy of a transfer? The enitre continent had a small cheer when Varmathras ran him through.--Ragestorm 10:58, 9 December 2006 (EST)

It's all debatable. The naga were tied to Illidan, so by accepting his help and ultimately joining Illidan Kael'Thas committed an obvious act of treason. This was why he was court-martialed and jailed, not because Garithos simply didn't like him. To keep it NPOV I propose it be reworded as "withdrew from the Alliance".--Grid 19:16, 9 December 2006 (EST)

Kael'thas didn't want to accept the Naga's help from the start since they cooperated with Illidan (the Night Elves gave a very evil image of Illidan when they met Kael, so he obviously believed he was evil), but Vashj told Kael'thas that they were on their own now, and simply wanted to help against the Scourge. She also told Kael about their peoples common Highborne ancestry. It would be idiotic not to accept their aid.

(On a side-note, I still don't understand whats so horrible about Illidan. In my book he fulfills every criterion a true hero should have.) --Odolwa 13:21, 10 December 2006 (EST)

While joining with Illidan may have been treason, accepting Naga boats to help kill Dalvengyr was not. Technically, it was an Alliance race accepting aid from a neutral one, the same thing that Kael did with the Night elves, and not worthy of being jailed. If the matter had come up at any sort of trial or council meeting, Kael would not have been found guilty.
What's so horrible (ok, too strong a word) about Illidan is that he sold out both his masters for the sake of magic, jeopardized the survival of Azeroth, unleashed the Naga on innocent Night elves, and I'm fairly certain I'm missing some details from WotA, but those are the major ones. He's the guy we love to hate.--Ragestorm 10:39, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Speak for yourself, Illidan has many fans around the world. And you're missing all the good deeds he's done. He may have risked Azeroth's future during the War of the Ancients and when he tried to rip that spell on Northrend, but he did it for a good sake. If it wouldn't had been for Illidan, neither the Undead or Blood Elves would even exist as playable races in WoW. It was because of Illidan's attack on the Lich King that weakened him enough to enable Sylvanas and her kin to break free of his control. And without Illidan's guidance, the Blood Elves would never had been able to rose to such power and being able to re-taking their homeland. If you want an example of evil, look at Arthas. Illidan is far from that. Despite everything he's been though, he has always been able to keep his mercy.

Anyway, I guess we have gone a bit off-topic, but it's not good for the health to keep things for yourself. I think Illidan is the guy we love to love.--Odolwa 21:16, 10 December 2006 (EST)

You cannot compare Arthas and Illidan. Illidan is an ambitionist, always planning his revenge, and how he will take power. He is extremely intelligent. Arthas is an opertunist, always taking things as they come. He is hard-headed, and very foolish. He only wants power, but only takes it if the moment comes to him. Now I would say you can't say he tried to destroy the Lich King just so he could save the day. Remember, he had an oath to Kil'jaeden, he was like a "hitman", his purpose was to destroy the Lich King for the good of Burning Legion. I would say that is pretty evil, yet even though he had a "contract" without a pay, he was not alligned to the Burning Legion. I wouldn't call him evil, more of an power-hungry, misunderstood, gone-insane antagonist, who only wanted someone to listen. And you forget, no one of the Blood Elves on Azeroth know of Kael'thas treachary. So, what done is done, the past is over, lets just say Illidan is misunderstood, and Kael is that teenager on the block who took too much drugs. Acjpb 06:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I understand I am bit late, but when I read this, I just wanted to put my input in, lol. Acjpb 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC) yes garrithos was meant to be a really moronic and retarded character.his racism was ujustified seeing as he was a human and the only race he is allowed to be racist against is himself because humans are unequal to the horde. i cant believe kalthas actually took orders from him or that someone with his brains actually had that much power. cheers for the Dark Lady and her Male Succubus that did the right thing and killed him.


The info box mentions that the human highlord is the leader of the Alliance, um... can I get a source for that? I always thought Jaina or Tyrande was the leader. Hordesupporter 18:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

See Jaina's article for an explanation of that; Tyrande is only the leader of the Night elves. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
According to the lore in Alliance Player's Guide, the list of "Main" Alliance "leaders" include Bolvar, Tyrande, Jaina, Staghelm, Mekkatorque, Magni Bronzebeard, and even Falstad Wildhammer (although he's more of an ally than actually part of the Alliance). Even the young boy "Anduin Wrynn" is considered a leader, and "officially in charge". Basically covering, the "leaders" mentioned in the original Word of Warcraft Manual, more or less. Of course there is also discussion of "two alliances", the one in Eastern Kingdoms and the one in Kalimdor (of which Jaina is in command). In the lore the leadership is quite a bit more complicated than "gameplay" leaders allow. There isn't exactly a "main leader".Baggins 19:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
OK. What's your idea for who goes in that field (any critique of the box itself can be addressed to me, not this page)? Bolvar, Anduin, and Jaina? I admit that the Alliance's situation is more complex than other factions, so a compromise is needed.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:31, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought the Night Elves were getting more and more control over the Alliance, which made me think Tyrande might of been the leader of the Alliance. Hordesupporter 00:08, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I doubt it. Even with their somewhat more progressive mindset, the night elves (apart from Staghelm and his most zealous supporters) probably don't desire control of the Alliance. Tyrande will definetly be referenced in the "secondary leaders" field, but I think that the "main leader" field should be reserved for the major figureheads. ie, Sargeras, Archimonde and Kiljaeden are "main leaders" of the Burning Legion, while Mephistroth, Tichondrius, Mannoroth and Azgalor are "secondary leaders." --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 00:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The main reason i objected was because it seemed like Bolvar was named the leader just because he was the human's faction leader. (Although technically the leader of the humans in Stormwind is the little kid) Hordesupporter 14:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Humans are (almost) to the Alliance as the orcs are to the Horde: founders, and the major core members. Thrall is also the leader of the orc faction, and the Horde. Bolvar, whether de facto or de jure is the main leader of the Alliance. Given the nature of the Alliance, of course, for the purposes of the infobox, other characters can be named in the field. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, I couldn't post what the Alliance Guide says, yesterday, due to being quite busy.
In anycase like I said yesterday there is no "main leader" but here is what it states;
"The alliance has its fair share of leaders. Some of them are good, others are aren't. How unlikely as it sounds, humans aren't the ones in charge as much as they used to be. Yes they have cities on cites on both continents, but there is one problem - the eastern side has no distinct leader."[1] (APG 162)
"There is no alliance hierarchy. Its a mess. Many people have ranks, but they have no one assigned underneath them. Each race has its own leaders (or lack thereof), and they haven't worked together to assemble an extensive leadership system yet. The various races do not acknowledge each others authority."[1] (APG 167,168)
The book discusses Anduin, and his advisors Bolvar Fordragon and "Lady Katrana Prestor" who are calling the shots. It mentions Bolvar is not one to question her authority, he does everything she tells him to. It says because of Lady Prestor's intervention proper human leadership has become impossible.
The book also states that the Eastern Kingdoms does not have any control with what goes on in the west, where the Theramore alliance, night elves, etc are working together.
In the west,
"the night elves are leading the Alliance and keeping it together politically (with noteable help from Jaina),
It then mentions that in both sides there is no one really leading in the battlefield. The main way humans...
"are still contributing to the the alliance, is with the active "junior" officers, who are willing to do things on their own without orders from higher up."
Yes, the book confirms that Tyrande calls the shots in the Eastern Kingdoms, just above Fandral Staghelm. Luckily Fandral only controls a small percentage of the elven population the druids, Tyrande rules the rest.
Then it goes onto to talk about the leadership of dwarven lands, where Mekkatorque rules the gnomes, and Magni rules the dwarves. Humans are not involved.
"...the gnomes and dwarves are almost as bad as sitting around Ironforge as humans are in Stormwind.",
that is they aren't waging any strong wars against the forces invading their territories.
"The end result is that essentially no high -ranking dwarf or human officer is on the battlefield actually leading a large group."
The Wildhammer clan while not officially part of the Alliance, does have an active leader, Falstad Wildhammer who is busy battling the trolls living in his lands. They also actively offer gryphon riders to help the alliance.
The book also discusses Theramore, where it states that;
"Jaina is the strongest human leader that the Alliance has left, but she can't handle everything by herself. She has problems with Onyxia threatening to burn down her city. She has help from a scary night elf girl with a big hammer and a human archmage."[1] (APG 162-167)
So, yes, calling Bolvar the only main leader is completely and utterly incorrect...Baggins 15:29, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Correction: calling Bolvar the sole main leader is utterly incorrect. Any suggestions for other secondaries? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe Kurdran Wildhammer? Of course, Benedictus. "Anduin", is a "main leader" of the humans in stormwind in name (even if he is only a puppet Katrana so to speak). Oh, ya Ansirem Runeweaver, who currently controls what's left of Dalaran, as well as perhaps Galen Trollbane.Baggins 17:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah we should put the leaders of all the human nations (minus Alterac and Gilneas), but would not that make it cluttered? make 'Human leaders" and "Other leaders"? BTW who is this 'scary night elf girl with a big hammer'? Pained?

Indeed.Baggins 17:53, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I not sure how much personalizing can be done, given that this is the standard factionbox, also used on Horde and Burning Legion (no anayses of those until we've finished this one, please!). Pained is the one with the hammer, I'd guess. Yes to all those secondaries, but Anduin Wrynn is already mentioned, no need to go into more detail than that. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:54, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Here's a question: how does this impact capitals? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:28, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Not too much imo. Since there are "metropolis" capitals and lesser capitals according to lore. Theramore is a capital as well. Although I'd probably put main "metropolis" cities as "main capitals", and something like "Theramore' probably secondary.Baggins 19:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Good point, the Alliance is very loosely allied as far as official organization and structure goes, even though they get along fairly well. Well... The humans are the race that tends to hold things together... Ironforge is important too... Umm... It is not Darnassus or The Exodar... Jaina is sort of leadery... Theramore? --User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 19:34, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Theramore isn't a metropolis? Was it before Thrall's attack? --User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 19:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Well its said that Tyrande is the leader of western Alliance, although Jaina essentially co-leads. So that would make Darnassus very important, and one of the "main capitols". We don't know nearly as much about the draenei as there aren't any books released covering their modern involvement with the Alliance. However, since it is one of the "main capitols" as far as gameplay, it should at least get that designation in Wowwiki. It falls under one of the "metropolis" i'm sure.

As for Theramore, its not a metropolis as shown in game, but it certainly was one during Warcraft III, which showed it having huge harbor system. Sadly this is one of those in-game WoW scale issues. In anycase in-game its not considered a "main capitol", which is reserved to severa racial starting cities".Baggins 19:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

As a side note if you want to go with population numbers, Darnassus is 15,000 people (and one of the most populated cities on Azeroth), and Theramore only 9500. Also if I go through the RPG, I could list any number of "capitals", although majority of them would likely fall under "secondary".Baggins 19:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Darnassus wasn't in WCIII RoC or TFT if you mean what the Naga were attacking in the first bit of the Terror of the tides campain, that was Nendis. --User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 19:53, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Uh I was speaking of Darnassus in Wow, and Theramore in TFT/WoW. Baggins 19:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

All right then; I'm going to upgrade Darnassus to "main," joining Ironforge and Stormwind, and leave Exodar and Theramore as "secondary." I'd like to expand the secondary category, but, short of Dalaran, don't think anything else is quite that important. Shall we rip apart the Horde factionbox next? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry sir. I started wrighting that before you switched out the two names. --User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 20:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, leaving Exodar as "secondary" for now, not until we learn more about it, its status, and population. I may add a list of "capitals" according to the RPG, to this discussion later though. We can rip apart Horde article, just as soon as I have time to read the Horde leadership section and transcribe it for you Ragestorm. Baggins 20:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The Alliance doesn't have a main leader who everyone in the alliance will answer too, in the Horde if Thrall gives an order to Cairne he would have no choice to follow that order, in the Alliance on the other hand, if Tyrande tried to do something to the Draenei Velen could challenge her over it if he disagreed with what she was doing. Hordesupporter 20:27, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Thrall's power isn't entirely absolute, though. There is a Horde council that can make decisions despite his disagreement. Cairne and Thrall didn't want the Forsaken to join the Horde, and don't trust them, but he was forced to consent because of the council and Magatha Grimtotem. Its also said that Forsaken have no loyalty to the rest of the horde, according to the WoW manual for example, and would likely not listen to Horde if if doesn't benefit them.Baggins 20:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

True, but the final word is Thrall's, his council, The Earthen Ring, managed to convince him that the Forsaken were acceptable allies also note that the Forsaken, as members of the Horde, do answer to Thrall and Thrall's authority, altohugh the Forsaken probably believe an order from Sylvanas would overpower an order from Thrall. Hordesupporter 20:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

"managed to convince him that the Forsaken were acceptable allies also note that the Forsaken"

I wouldn't say he was "convinced", he still harbors much distrust for them, and has agents secretly infiltrating them in order to try to find any example of traitorous actions. This also ties to the reasoning as to why "Forsaken" start out as "neutral" to the Horde, rather than "Friendly" or better.Baggins 21:28, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Also the World of WArcraft manual also calls the Horde, "a loose coalition", pg 166.Baggins 21:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but accoridng to Rise of the Horde the relationship between the Forsaken and the rest of the Horde is not as tense as it was originally. Hordesupporter 22:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

IMO, that's somewhat debateable. While I think Sylvanas' heart is softening a bit thanks to the blood elves, neither blood elves or the forsaken are still trusted very well by majority of the horde.Baggins 23:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

You wanna discuss the Horde? Talk:Horde. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 01:13, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to also add that in Theramore's page, there is a part that mentions that the city houses the Alliance Assembly and that Stormwind was challenging Theramore's "new role as the Alliance's capital". This more or less indicates that Theramore is one of the main capitals of the Alliance, at least politically. Mr. peasant 03:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Good point.Baggins 11:57, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Bolvar couuld not have been the ultimate leader of the Alliance, sure he is the human faction leader, however the actual leader of Stormwind is currently the brat Bolvar is standing next to. Hordesupporter 14:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

True, but actually although Anduin Wrynn is considered "King of Stormwind" Varian Wrynn is actually still King but he is "Away" Thus I think the Highlord deals with things while the King is away. I beleive calling Anduin the "King of Stormwind" is somewhat inaccurate because Varian Wrynn is still considered to be alive and so back to my point, Anduin Wrynn is of royal blood but he should really be called Prince, so, Bolvar is the true leader... or at least he is the Highest person there until Varian comes back. Evaristo 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually most of the alliance thinks Varian is dead, thus the reason why Anduin is hte new king. Only those at the top know the actual truth, and its classified information, but they have made Anduin king while they tried to figure out what happened to Varian, to keep morale up and the people at peace.Baggins 03:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I know I am a little late, but if we try to compare the politics between Horde and Alliance, we will have a huge migrain. The names obviously define the government. It's kinda like World War Two. The Axis is like the Horde(not saying the horde are evil, just saying the organization are alike) in which Thrall(which in political power is like Hitler, but not in morals) controls the other Powers(Trolls and Tauren), and although Japan is highly thought of as an ally of the Axis, it had it's own soverignty, very much similar to the Forsaken. The Alliance(in organization) is like the Allies because each nation was separate and had no central leader, but they worked together. The Alliance is the same way, they are simply under a "treaty", if you will, and not a supreme Monarch like the Horde. And again, I am not saying that eithier faction is good or evil, just comparing their politics. Acjpb 19:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, I really don't see that much of a similarity...Baggins 03:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well it does make sense. The Trolls and the Tauren, including their leaders Vol'jin and Cairne, are lead by the Warchief Thrall, while the Alliance races tend to follow their own race leaders, each having a more equal weighing in power, perhaps excepting the gnomes. --Raze 03:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


I am sure it is evident that the Alliance is obviously the "European"-like faction. The Horde is kinda like a mixture of the famous peoples Europeans "raped and/or destroyed" the culture of. Trolls are like a mix of Southern-African, Carribean, and some moderate polynesian culture. The Orcs are like Western and Eastern Africans. The Taurens are primarily the binding of Native American culture. So I am speaking in pure culture wise, and I expect this to be removed, but I really want to spread word of an obvious yet diffucult reference of cultures. To continue, I would say that the Ironforge dwarves are like a mix of Scottish and Scandinavian, with some hints of Irish. The Night Elfs are like old Celtic/Gaelic. I see Humans almost like an English mixed with Itialian based culture. I think the Gnomes are highly influenced by Americans. The Forsaken and Blood Elves I see are like altered states of the Human Culture. I would say the Drainei are like a Greko-Persian culture. So in pure deep perspectives, I am talking in full philosophical ideas, yet I think sterotypical judging of historical culture can be used to determine the cultures of the peoples of Azeroth. So yes, take it down if you truly wish it is unworthy of discussion, but at least I have the approval of some. And yes, I see the Alliance as the Europeans, yet just as Blizzard always does, they altered so that their isn't so much a religious lust for purgery, only a guidence and wanting for revenge upon the Horde. I see it not so much a disaccepting, but more of a one chance only ideaolgy. So to those who think the Alliance is racist, and wish to only accept those who dont look like "monstors", I say to ye, they Alliance may(although maybe not) have embraced any member in the Alliance, yet the Horde members at some point in time showed the races of the Grand Alliance their many aspects of violence through first hand "showing". Acjpb 00:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly I think its jumping the gun to sa the Alliance want revenge on the Horde, I think only a few Alliance have any deep grudges against the Horde, I mean, they work together about as often as they work against each other don't they? And it's not like they're at war is it? It seems to me that most Alliance just want to go about living their lives in peace, and to make it sound like they all have a universal hatred of the Horde is misconstuing their true feelings. Lckyluke372 17:13, October 12 2007

Vereesa ad Alleria

At the bottom of most pages there is tabl with famous people from the Alliance, Horde, Illidari, Scourge, Burning Legion, Dragon Aspects, and other. Could we add Alleria and Vereesa Windrunner since they were important and on the Alliance? Mr.X8 17:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No one wants to add those 2?Mr.X8 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Where?--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Dwarf

Mountain Dwarf is the racial terminology for the Ironforge Dwarf N'Nanz 10:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mountain dwarves includes many clans, and not all of them are fully Alliance. Playable dwarves are the Ironforge dwarves. In reality the racial term is Ironforge dwarf, according to the RPG, and every source. They just happened to be described as mountain dwarves. As a side note mountain dwarf is a very obscure term.
In anycase the main dwarven races are, Ironforge dwarves, Wildhammer dwarves, and Dark Iron dwarves. We know know of a fourth, the Iron dwarves. Mountain dwarves, hill dwarves, shadowy, wild dwarves, and "shadowy, wandering sorcerers" are descriptions of their race and how they live, rather than their formal racial name.Baggins 10:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to change "Jungle Trolls" to "Darkspear Trolls" and "Forest Trolls" to "Revantusk Trolls" in the Horde summary box then. N'Nanz 10:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure that makes more sense. However, just to point it out, Jungle Trolls and Forest Trolls are racial terms, where as Darkspear and Reventusk are clan names.Baggins 08:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure but only the Darkspear and the Revantusk are Horde aligned among all troll tribes, just like the Stonemaul among the ogres and the Alliance aligned Stillpine ;) --N'Nanz 09:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's what I meant when I said, "that makes more sense". I was just pointing out a definition difference as a side note, it wasn't related to the other topic.--Baggins 19:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the hill dwarf and mountain dwarf races cross both into Ironforge, Wildhammer, and Wild dwarves, I've added them to the list of races.Baggins (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Disorganization weakness

This section can be added in, as long as actual citations are made.;

Although the alliance has large numbers and large amounts of resources, bureaucracy and miscommunication often prevent them from being used well. These issues are particularly bad in the kingdom of Stormwind, and the surrounding lands, where threats from the Defias Brotherhood in Westfall, various undead and Worgen in Duskwood, and Blackrock Orcs in the Redridge Mountains must be fought by militias in these areas, while the Stormwind armies do not get involved. The dwarven Kingdom also has organization troubles, as the dwarven armies are not sent to help out against the Troggs in Loch Modan, as seen in the In Defense of the King's Lands quests.
The Horde, by comparison, is better organized, with Trolls, Tauren, and Orcs working together to combat threats in Kalimdor, and the forsaken able to fight the scourge in Tirisfal Glades and the Plaguelands, worgen in Silverpine Forest, humans in Hillsbrad, and help the blood elves in Ghostlands.
The Alliance suffers greatly in psychological and nationalistic terms from the lack of a single charismatic and principled leader, as the Horde has with Thrall. Jaina Proudmoore is arguably the closest the Alliance gets to having a single leader, although the Night Elves in particular have their own leadership and almost certainly would not consider themselves under the dominion of the Humans. Jaina herself has also customarily kept a relatively low profile, and is not often actively seen.

Thank you. While some of these details may be true, they might not be enough to be considered an actual weakness, so specific citations are a must.Baggins 09:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The dwarf source is the linked "in defense of king's lands" quest, the human sources come from various quests in westfall, duskwood, and redridge mountains. The horde sources come from quests in the early horde areas. Some supporting information comes from the in game NPC's who populate areas, humans are all associated with militia, while undead are sending their deathguards, for example. Some descriptions also come from other wowwiki articles (The Stormwind article describes some of this stuff I think, as somewhat does The People's Militia, and the region articles linked to.
The "charismatic leader" part I don't know about, since that was added by someone else. The other information is pretty spread out, though, so sourcing it will be pretty involved in terms of finding enough stuff to cover all the points in the paragraph. Here are some quest series that seems to cover the stormwind sections though:, Minionman 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like King Varian Wrynn is gonna unite the Alliance behind him and "scare" the Horde. So the disorganization may be a thing of the past. Dunnsworth (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Weakness Section

When I read the bit about the weaknesses of the Alliance, I noted many problems. First, it sounds far too colloquial, casual. Second, everyone is arrogant. The Orcs believe themselves superior to the Humans. So I dont see how this is weakness. Third, the comment about arcane magic being weak is foolish. All wizards, warlocks, casters in general, are physically weak. But magically strong. Lastly, the comment about physical strength is rather odd. Note the new book, Tides of Darkness. Though orcs out numbered them, humans had superior skill. So, while a Tauren is physically stronger, there is no guarantee at all that a Tauren would win over a quick thinking human with great skill and tactics. So, in short, all of the given examples seem somewhat moot. However, the disorganization of the Alliance, the lack of leadership, mixing of races, and lack of trust at the new members are major weaknesses. So, should the article be altered? (Shinyou 09:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC))

I've made it less casual, but the information is sourced. Mixing of races is a weakness? Lacking trust in new members is certainly not uniquely an Alliance problem. Kirkburn  talk  contr 13:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Tides of Darkness is a poorly written piece of allaince bias trash, and in my opinion is the worst warcraft novel written, though I haven't read all of them. I'd like to point out that while warcraft lore sends mixed messeges on this, arcane magic is a weakness not in the sense that magic users are physically weak, but in the sense that it is a corrupting, addicting force that can consume those who wield it recklessly.Tweak the Whacked 00:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually liked the book to be honest. I mean yeah they had to portray the horde as demon crazed monsters and the alliance as the heroic group since it was based on warcraft 2. Its no different than Lord of the Clans where Thrall and the orcs are shown to be practically perfect in fighting and morals while most humans (Taretha and Sergeant excluded) were shown as oppressive, cruel, stupid, and inept retards. They even go so far as showing Hellscream, an orc known for his insane bloodlust, letting a child go. Blizzard just likes to show the facts at those times, don't think bias writing is really involved. Oh and while I agree arcane magic is definitely a corrupting force, that can actually go for many things. A man who lets greed rule his heart is technically corrupted, and a warrior who dives to deep into fighting and killing can develop a bloodlust nature which just the same can consume the warrior.BaskinRidge 06:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


i think something should be added about the alliance being much more egalitarion than the Horde

take Stormwind for example, most of its provinces are democratically run, where as Thrall the leader of the Horde is obviously a dictator

Stormwind is ruled by a king. Same with Ironforge. Darnassas and the Exodar are basicly theocracies. They have democratic elements to them, but little more than the horde does, vairous councils and what not run horde settlements on an individual level, but report to Thrall as the highruler.Tweak the Whacked 06:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Eh, I don't really see Thrall as a dictator, I mean sure he is the head of the horde, but both Cairne and Vol'jin seem to hold a great deal of influence and make a lot of decisions with him. In other words he doesn't hold sole and complete power over all. Add this to the fact that his policies to the horde and foreign policies have been quite democratic when dealing with his own people, and people of other races. I believe he even personally sees petitioners to solve problems among the populace, though I can't cite that lol. Oh and to those provinces of Stormwind being democratic, you have to remember Stormwind has pretty much lost control of them recently. Its barely governing itself, before when Stormwind had more control, it prolly selected the ones to lead. Now, in Stormwinds absence the local populations turned to a vote for the people they figured would give them the best chance to survive.BaskinRidge 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dark Lord Mecrosa

I agree, Thrall holds all the authority of a dictator. However, he doesn't use it in a tyrranical manner. For instance, he values the input of Cairne and Vol'jin and, though he dislikes them, the leaders of the Lordaeronian Horde as well. He would never use his executive powers in an abusive manner unless it was an emergency desicion, perhaps during an enemy assault on the Horde as a whole. Otherwise, the Horde is democratic. - Unknown

Okay, here are my thoughts, take them or leave them

On the political level, the two systems are different:

-The Horde is a single entity (in theory anyway) and the various member states give up much of their national sovereignty to be a part of it; all of the member states must obey the decisions of the Warchief, although Thrall allows the various racial leaders to have their say too. In that way the Horde is much like the United States, where the people's first loyalty is to the centralized federal government, not the state they are a part of.

-In the Alliance, the various states retain their national sovereignty, running their separate governments separately, only coming together for mutual defense and a few other things, much like the European Union. Each of these states is run by a ruler who has about as much power as Thrall does, only localized to their separate states. These governments contain two theocracies and two monarchies, hardly very democratic.

So ideally, anyway, the two entities have two differing outlooks. The ideal average member of the Horde should view himself as a Horde citizen first and a (insert race) second, while the ideal average member of the Alliance should think of themselves a (insert race) first and an Alliance citizen second.

Besides that, on a social level, they're different as well:

-The Horde seems to me to be a Meritocracy along the lines of Ancient China, with those who are deemed most qualified appointed to the position of the most power (i.e. the Warchief) and those least qualified given the most menial tasks (i.e. peon.)

-Meanwhile the Alliance is harder to describe than the Horde because of their many different governmental and social structures. However, it seems that feudalism, aristocracy, monarchy, and theocracy are prevalent in the Alliance.

So from a social and and political standpoint, it seems hard to determine which one is egalitarian, because really neither of them really is. However, from a racial standpoint, if one defines egalitarian as accepting those that you may not trust or like and giving them a place in your world, the Horde is certainly more egalitarian than the Alliance, because they were willing to accept both the Blood Elves and the Forsaken into their fold despite their radically different cultures from the original founding races of the Horde. (Most important sentence here) It seems to me that the Alliance is bound by philosophical and cultural ties, while the Horde seems to value a willingness for political solidarity under their banner as its most important trait. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lckyluke372 (talkcontr).

Firstly, this discussion should be moved to an analysis subpage unless we get back to discussing article changes soon. Second, neither side is egalitarian in the least. Third, the Horde is not a meritocracy in the style of ancient China (which wasn't a meritocracy in the least, as the emperor was a hereditary monarch), unless you seriously expect me to believe that Thrall, Cairne, and Sylvanas sat a civil service entry exam (now that's an April Fool's I'd like to see!). Fourth, the political styles of both the Horde and the Alliance are extremely difficult to determine, if they even exist, given their natures, particularly as each constituent nation is radically different in term of government. The human and dwarven kingdoms are monarchies, the Gnomes appear somewhat republican, while the Night elves and the Draenei are theocracies, tied together by a quasi-democratic system. The orcs, trolls and tauren are tribal, and the Forsaken and blood elves are autocracies. --21:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean it was exactly like Ancient China, I know that Thrall did not sit through a civil service exam, only Vol'jin has taken the exam. Lckyluke372 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's more of an oligarchy in the Horde I believe.  IconSmall HighElf Male.gif Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 00:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Muriden Killed By Arthis Menethil.

I quote the alliance page saying "ironicly all exept for kaelthas were killed by Arthas.". Muriden was not killed by Arthas he was killed by Frostmourne's case shattering (Either that or he sliped on ice then fell over and went unconscious.)(Or maybe he was not wearing shoes.. The same can be said about Uther and Antidotas. HOW DO WE KNOW Arthas killed those two??? IT COULD OF BEEN A ACOLYTE UNDER ARTHAS' command. (Remember you don't see them die in cinamatics you can even... no wait shades cant attack) But on a mater of irrelevence HERE IS A PARADY. Uther: Your father lead this country for 70 years and you've round it into dust in a matter of days' Arthas:You can't expect me to get it right on my 1st try."--The last Alterac 04:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as Uther and Antonidas, i think killed can be understood to mean led forces against them, or if not then change it to "caused their deaths" or was "knowingly responsible for their deaths", even Muradin could fall under that category (cept maybe the "knowingly").Warthok Talk Contribs 06:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well there are sources that state that Muradin was killed by Arthas, though technically he died as a result of Arthas actions.Baggins 06:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I would actually include Arthas knowingly killing Muradin, when he said he would pay any price, and showing no surprise or remorse afterward at all tells me he was quite willing to exchange Muradin for Frostmourne to achieve his goal. Though like Warthok said, I'm cool with just killed, just thought i'd add my thoughts.BaskinRidge 07:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly though i think were spliting hairs. IMO "Killed" is appropriate enough.Warthok Talk Contribs 06:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Muradin didn't die though. He survived, but suffered memory loss. He is the leader of the Frostborn. Lagiacrus

You do realize this conversation is nearly two years old right? Look at the timestamps. Furthermore the article was edited to reflect that long ago.Warthok Talk Contribs 08:23, September 22, 2009 (UTC)


Ive noticed theres still same amount of Alliance kingoms as the Alliance of Lorderon:


Today:Stormwind,Ironforge,Kul'tiras,Menethral,Southshore(Last successful part of Lorderon)Arathor(?)Hinterlands,Darnassus,Exodar,Theremore. Airiph/T/C/B 00:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

First note it wasn't that their was "seven kingdoms" (there were actually more during the war), but the fact that they were human kingoms. Menethil is not a kingdom, Sourthshore is not a kingdom. Arathor doesn't exist anymore. Azuremyst Isles aren't really a kingdom, more like vagabonds who ship has just crashed, and they need help to restablish themselves in the world. Theramore's position as a "kingdom" is questionable, although it certainly holds major clout in the world today.Baggins 20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How did the Night Elves join the Alliance??

As far as I'm what I know (which is not that much) the Allience had no contact with the Night Elves besides the recent nation of Theramore lead by Admiral Proudmoore (TECHNACLY Jaina is an Admiral (Admiral = Arabic word meaning commander). The same can be said with the Forsaken HOW DID THEY MANAGE TO ALLY THE CRIPPLES (the Horde is way too small to be considerd a horde (The scourge should get that name since they have hordes of undead) DESPITE HAVING NO CONTACT WITH THEM??--The last Alterac 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Alliance at MT Hyjal + Resentment of Orcs because of cenarius + a little diplomancy with staghelm. Warthok Talk Contribs 03:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Staghelm????. Whats that.--The last Alterac 03:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Read his artical and it still does not explain that there was any diplomacyin the first place. I think I can call it a plothole. (unless any one gives me a source my pathetic arguament stands.)--The last Alterac 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The RPG explains it, but I'm not going to bother going into details... But let's just say their ideals meshed a little better with the Alliance thant he Horde, they still resented the orcs, and needed allies because the Horde was still in Kalimdor.Baggins 03:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it. It's pretty obvious why (but the question was how). From what I understand, the Night Elven leaders were idiots and were like "Oh SHIT we need protection from a faction that we truced, Let's ally their mortal enamies that will make us safe. Despite giving a reason to provoke them". So yeah Baggins the reason is obvious and you don't need a scource. BUT HOW THE F*CK did they ally? it's not like you can play a playstation 3 game on xbox live even if the Xbox 360 has a port of the game.--The last Alterac 08:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC) (Damm that reads harsh no offence.)--The last Alterac 09:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How? Malfurion, Staghelm and others had major and charismatic speeches (a portion of one of these speeches is given in Alliance Player's Guide) before night elves, discussing the need to join the Alliance. It is siad these speeches were deciding and led to night elves joining the Alliance. That is, the night elves agreed with the speeches, and they joined. It seemed fairly democratic decision. Altough it was the Council of Arch Druids made the final decision. How is simple, why is more important.Baggins 20:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ALso try not to yell in the future(Caps) Airiph/T/C/B 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

True, don't do it at all. It can get you in trouble. People see it as rude.Baggins 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Also its not often mentioned, but night elves, horde, and alliance had grouped together as one large "alliance" during the end of the Third War. While the orcs relations with the humans (the attack by Daelin Proudmoore didn't help the initual truce) and night elves soured, and the Horde split. The night elves in a way never did, they found it imperative to maintain their friendship with the Alliance[2] (WRPG 40, 44, 45). The Horde had already split, they already had previous problems with the Horde, and they were still friends with the Alliance. It made sense for them to continue to stay in the Alliance, and declare themselves official members via the decision of the Council of Arch-Druids.Baggins 20:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So according to the "Events of the Second Invasion led to an alliance with both the night elves and the Horde. The former became permanent, while the latter did not" the Horde was once part of the Alliance? Crimsonknight17 (talk)


In the WoW RPG, they're in the Alliance, aren't they? I'm not sure why they're not mentioned... (The Stillpine ones aren't the droids you're looking for) Garm 23:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove strengths/weaknesses

This is outright blasphemy, I'd like to have this removed from both the Alliance and Horde sections. It's quiet obvious someone under the age of 15 wrote this part. For example "[edit] Arcane Magic See also: Alliance magic Though their powerful command of the arcane is a point of strength in the Alliance’s arsenal, it also shows a weakness. The magi are weak and easy to kill, if an enemy can break through their protections." So.. it's a weakness to be advanced in magic? Also there was some crap about Alliance melee being inferior to Horde melee according to what? In WoW it barely matters what race you are when it comes to melee (Besides some racials) and in Warcraft 3 Orcs are inferior to humans in melee, then you're probably gonna scream "HEY! Grunts wtfpwn Footmen!" well then I say "Knights wtfpwn grunts.. even harder". Weaknesses and strengths are perhaps something for the races sections, not the factions. And thinking logically, well then there's a large difference between a Gnome and a Human in terms of culture, abilities, looks, strengths and weaknesses.Thrash 01:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed all those sections were cited from official sources. Contacting an admin is going to do little more than bring your vandalism to their attention. If there are things you disagree with discuss them before removing them. You do have some valid points.Warthok Talk Contribs 05:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you might have a point in that, well I blame fatigue for my rash actions :P. Well I really do think that we at least should change some of the facts, even though a Warcraft RPG book says that the Alliance front line troops are inferior to those of the Horde, all three Warcraft games contradict it. Also I might add that the Alliance makes up for their appearant physical weakness with that of agility and skill (See WoW basestats for Warriors and Paladins). I'd really like to see the opinions of you guys too. Thrash 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Game mechanics 2. If we assume game mechanics are like facts then that would affirm the fact that the horde has stronger units in terms of melee(war1 and war3) or equal(war2,wow)(Marakanis 01:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

But....isn't that true? Mages ARE weak, they wear cloth. The problem is actually hitting them. Infact in almost every game I've ever played the mage class is weak if you can actually reach them.Aliron 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Second point, giant warrior cow vs. gnome. Yes, the Alliance is physically weak, compared to the Tauren and Orcs...that's just commen sence.Aliron 00:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think the magic using weakness is meant to be specifically that magic users are easily killed and physically weak, rather that magic in itself is a weakness, as its a corrupting, addicting source of power, and relying on it in general is a bad idea.Tweak the Whacked 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I was refering to the fact that almost all users of the arcane wear cloth, and are usually not muscular, as they don't fight hand-to-hand. But yes, magic is corrupting.Aliron 19:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Its been said many many times that Trolls, Orcs, and Tauren are better in melee combat than Alliance. Mainly because their species are far more biologically tough and their cultures revolve around hunting and combat. Lckyluke372 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Aliance Strenghts - Tenacity

I don't agreed with this. The facts apresented, is only particular factas and not get in mind the history of Horde. If humans "Given near-extinction due to the double blows of the Scourge invasion and the earlier war with the Orcs" and regrow their population and empire, what we can say about the High Elves? They given a realy near-extinction (more than 90%, as says here) after the Scourge invasion on Quel'thalas.

And about the orcs? Slaves of humans for years, and in first opportunity (rise of Thrall), conquered their own freedom, against a well-equipped Alliance. How they did it? I know: the Tenacity of Horde.

And we have others examples: the Darkspear tribe was saved by the orcs after death of Sen'jin, and now represents a important role in Horde' army; the Forsakens, whom destiny was certain to be slaves of their plague, don't stayed in remorse and grow their influence; the Blood Elves, that was betrayed by the Alliance and devastated by Scourge, refounded Quel'thalas and makes a alliance with the Horde.

I think that the two side have Tenacity. Then, isn't a special strenght of Alliance.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoonx (talkcontr).

Personally, I agree that both sections for the Horde and the Alliance should be removed. It shouldn't matter that it's from the RPG, the writing is bad and at times makes no sense (see the Horde weakness "these guys prefer to talk with their fists"). Overall, I think it's best if they're taken out. Just my two cents. Warchiefthrall 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with them being removed, but I don't really see it as being necessary. People need to stop applying general statements to specific situations. For instance, about the Alliance feeling prideful about itself, in a general sense I could see that as truth. Even though there are those among the horde who are prideful, I would say the alliance, feeling themselves superior in civilization progression, would naturally be more full of themselves. Same thing with the Horde having a greater physical strength, in a general statement I would see this as correct, more Horde tend to be physically stronger than Alliance. No one would argue against the fact that the Horde has been tenacious, but once again in a general sense I could see that applying more to the Alliance. These are official sources whether we like, understand, or approve of them, and overall I think its been pretty fair statements defining two groups differently without making one appear better or stronger than the other. BaskinRidge 02:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Only uncited information should be removed. However official information is valid.Baggins 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's from Dark Factions, the Tenacity paragraph isn't from the RPG books.--Austin P (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Humans vs night elves?

Just a minor gripe of mine, but is there any reason as to why night elves are listed first in the races category? With the horde its the orcs that are listed first, and IMO here it should be humans - they are after all *the* alliance race. Gruul (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Two choices would be good. Either have them in the order listed as they appear in the character selection screen in WoW, or have them listed alphabetical. As for how it is listed now I have no clue.Baggins (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd go with alphabetical. That saves implying that's there's a hierarchy and further questions about why they're ordered in such a way. Same would go for Horde. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I would stick with Blizzards order actually, because I'd say there is a hierarchy or sorts, and the order is there to reflect it. Plus I don't see how anyone could convincingly argue that the official order would be wrong. Gruul (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, that does save us having to decide about Darkspear vs. Troll. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There might have been an alternative "lore" hierarchy given in the Alliance Player's Guide, that may not match the character select screen. But I'd have to check. Not necessarily something that would have to be shown in the list, but would definitely need to be mentioned in the article. Also horde order has nothing to do with hierarchy. Horde is only split into two main groups those in the west and those in the east. The only reason trolls are the fourth choice on the character select screen was because they were the last character to be decided to be added to the game. Gnomes were also the last to be decided on for the Alliance.Baggins (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, yes Alliance player's guide does discuss a hierarchy of sorts...and humans aren't on at the top of it (it seems the Night Elves are). Here are a few bits;
Night elves are leading the Alliance and keeping it together politically (with some notable help from Jaina). As a result of human inactivity, the night elves are working all over the place these days. Tyrande calls the shots from Darnassus.
As unlikely as it sounds, humans aren’t the ones in charge as much as they used to be. While they do have two new cities on both continents, the eastern kingdoms has no destinct leader. It discusses how Anduin is good and tries to do what's best for his people, but he's not the one pulling the strings. Also because Bolvar and Katrana Prestor are always in disagreement very little gets done (not to mention the fact Katrana is trying to undermine the Alliance). Humans traditionally lead the Alliance, and as a result of Lady Prestor’s intervention, proper human leadership has become impossible. Lady Jaina Proudmoore has been uniting the Alliance’s races (and then some) on Kalimdor, while the humans are undoing the Alliance in the Eastern Kingdoms.
The end result of this situation is two-fold; one, the Alliance is stronger on Kalimdor than in the Eastern Kingdoms; and two, night elves are stepping in to lead where humans traditionally have in the past. Not stronger by numbers but through cooperation.
The main way the humans are still contributing to the Alliance these days seems to be in active “junior” officers, who are willing to do things on their own without explicit orders from high-up.
The dwarves and gnomes of Ironforge play a major role in the Alliance, however they are almost as inactive as the humans are in Stormwind.
However, that being said, there isn't a real Alliance hierarchy. Each race has its own leaders (or lack thereof) right now, and they haven’t worked together to assemble an extensive leadership system yet. The races feel they don't have any reason to acknowledge each other's authority right now.[1] (APG 162 - 168)
Its extremely possible that the current order reflects the official lore order given in Alliance Player's Guide.-Baggins (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Alphabetical it is, then?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Alphabetical would definitely make things as neutral as possible. Avoid arguements over "lore" vs. "in-game mechanics".Baggins (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, this one appears to have already been done. However, aren't Kurenai a faction, not a race?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd definitely say faction of Broken. Mag'har aren't a race either, but an orc faction. So we do have a few problems in the articles :p...Baggins (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I would therefore need to raise the issue of Wildhammer and Ironforge Dwarves. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least with Wildhammer and Ironforge dwarves, they are considered different races at this point according to various books (with both cultural and physical differences), they are more than just factions of the same race. It would be kinda like putting night elves and high elves in the same race as different factions, just because they are "elves".
As for the Mag'har maybe "uncorrupted orc" might be a better name. But the term Mag'har is just their faction name, not their race name.Baggins (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless you count Earth-humans on steriods as a subspecies, lose the Mag'har. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it, whats "game mechanics" about the order Blizzard has picked? It's not like this feature is limited or otherwise altered by game mechanics, so that they "couldnt" make night elves the "leader race", it is simply how Blizzard has themselves decided to present the races. It has no direct connection to who in fact commands the alliance, it simply is the order they feel represents the alliance best. I say stick with the one Blizzard has chosen instead of going alphabetical, it creates a much better continuity with WoW and will be much clearer too. Gruul (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Never mind the game mechanics, the main reason for alphapetical ordering is that both the Alliance and the Horde are more than the sum of the ten playable races, lore-wise (which is what the infobox is for, listing lore information. In fact, I think that the other order goes in order of introduction to the Warcraft universe: human, dwarf, gnome, night elf; orc, troll, tauren, Forsaken (ignore expansion races). --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 23:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you about the Mag'har, :). I also changed "Mok'Nathal" to half-ogres, since that better represents the race rather than the faction.Baggins (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


As it was worded was in contradiction to actual lore, see above dicussion for good overview of relations. The main form of factionalization was between Kalimdor and Eastern Kingdoms. However we have a whole section discussing the "two alliances". However this kind of factionalism isn't much different than the "two hordes" those of Kalimdor and those of Eastern Kingdoms. If this is a weakness both horde and alliance share the same one.

Secondly the Kalimdor Alliance is pretty strongly knit. Contrary to what the previous section said, its actually Tyrande that leads the Kalimdor Alliance but more or less jointly with Jaina Proudmoore, and the cooperation is making them strong.

Now its not the same for the Eastern Kingdoms, which are certainly factionalized. Both eastern people of stormwind and dwarven lands are fairly inactive. Dwarves have for the most part chosen to answer to stormwind viewing Marcus Jonathan as their military leader. But since he is stuck in stormwind (due to Katrana Prestor), they aren't actually doing much. The gnomes are simply confused as to who to follow.

The Stormwind humans aren't doing much because of Lady Katrana Prestor's influence, preventing them from helping other alliance members.

While both groups do not have a single hiearchy controling both continents. There is certainly a better conceived hierarchy in Kalimdor side of things.Baggins (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Good, The Bad, The Alliance?

I just finished playing the campaigns in WC3: ROC & FT, and my head started whirring like a bronze gizmo. Now it's clear that making straight lines as who and what is bad isn't that smart, but somehow I feel that Blizzard wanted us to see Alliance as evil? Humans not willing to let old things go (pursuing the Orcs), racists & bigots (against exiled High Elves), and cabable of mass murders, genocide (Stratholme - though could be argued that it WAS necessary and right thing to do at the time no matter how horrific - surviving High Elves under Kael'Thas) and all that even without being pushed to do so by the Burning Legion or some other inherently evil force. Whereas Orcs were corrupted by the Burning Legion - and thus, even though some of their actions were unforgivable, they were not fully responsible of their actions. If the game balance and the understandable schism between the races weren't present and a factor, I'd have thought Draenei would have joined the Horde more likely than the Alliance, due to their similar, persecuted, constantly getting f***d-over backgrounds.

But then again it was shown that some members of the Alliance were able to cast off their prejudices but they were represented as a minority (Those who followed the Light (Paladins, Priests), and the humans with Jaina Proudmoore). Basicly, the only "good" races or part of a race I saw depicted in favourable light in the games were the High Elves and the Druids of the Night Elves. Ah yes, the Night Elves. The race that called the Burning Legion in Azeroth in the first place. Highborne, but their offspring, the High Elves took heart the lessons and created a protective barrier not to repeat the mistake. In the campaigns, the immortal night elves were depicted as having learned very little, being guilty of arrogance and unwillingess to negotiate, opting to outright attack the Orcs enroaching at their land. Also their general nobility diminished as it was revealed that they had killed each other, and some even outright abandoning their brethren to the Scourge to further their own ploys, as was the case between Tyrande Whisperwind, Maiev Shadowsong and Malfurion Stormrage.

And yet again, though, these things only depicted a select few people and their followers and hardly can be taken as representatives of their races as a whole. But, I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter nonetheless. I felt that Blizzard intentionally wanted the players to see the Alliance as cabable of great evil in its own right, where as the future members of the New Horde (with maybe the exception of the Forsaken) were victims of the Alliance or other forces, such as the Burning Legion or the Lich King's armies and hence, not inherently evil, merely labeled as such for things past by the Alliance. That's my two cents. And then some. Please, discuss? --RocketBrother (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok,I'm no bookkeeper, but i'd like to add my own two pence (£>$) to this argument. I have a slight alliance bas, but i hope my point of view stands up well enough. I may not have enough lore knowledge to cover all you say, but i hope i can counter a few points.

  • About racists. Unless I am mistaken, you are refering to Garithos. AS this has been removed, it is probably wrong, but i swear that i read somewhere that said that Dark knights were rather un-educated, which led to such things like racism, this was on and older edit of the dark knight page(was changed with Baggins' edit on the 31st of may, so this information may be incorrect.)THat would explain his racism, and other bad qualities. Could you perhaps mention any other incidents which may be useful in this argument?
  • Imho, Arthas did the right thing. The death of a city By the hands of a person who is not (then) evil, or a city killed, with all its inhabitants being turned into mindless undead, which help slaughter your forces, maybe causing an even greater number to be massacred? (see the talkpage for THe culling of strathholme(sorry there aren't any links to the page, this page is far to slow to work on properly))
  • Ok, about the Night elves. First, my opinion about the HIghborne situation. Firstly, it would almost impossible to forgive a group of people who caused mass destruction not only oce, but in a way that can be percieved as having helped it happening AGAIN. I believe that you may have a slight point about the orcs, but then again, what would you think about a group of what looks like brutes who are chopping down your sacred forests? In fact, i believe later in the evel Grom actually orders The destruction of ANCIENTS to fulfil the lumber demand. NOw, wouldn't you be furiousif someone did that to your land? And about the last point. Firstly, in that situation, AFAIK it was only realy Maiev who did anything anlong the lines of what you mention. Secondly, she was under the effects of the Shadow Orb, which had, by then, almost destroyed her mentally, while she was still reeling from the events at the barrow prison and at the broken isles. Thirdly, imho, there was at least some impracticality about the situation to rescue tyrande (warning, that was incredibly biased, and probably completely wrong. However...) If that is the situation you are pretty much reffering to. Oh yeah, at the moment, and this is probably gonna be permanent (/cry(?))but Maiev doesn't actually have a connection with the alliance. She is only countedunder alliance heros(at least i think) Because she is a night elf, would almost certainly not ally with the horde, and maybe that she is connected with a strictly alliance class, and is the main one of it. Otherwise, no alliance connection.(sorry about over emphasising this bit, i'm not called warden shadowsong for nothing ya know, yes i know there's a talk page for this. However...)

However, i am not quite able i feel to make comments about how Blizzard wanted the factions to be percieved, i'm just trying to put my (slightly biased) opinions to defend the alliance. And please may i not get completely slagged off by the bookkeepers for it. I can't help it, i've never read any of the RPG books. Warden Shadowsong (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC) If anyone wants to cut this down (Within reason), they may do, i went on a bit of a rant, a relevant one, but still a rant . Preferably admin.

This conversion is not cut down, it's over. This is not a forum. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Alliance and Horde debate, its old one by the fans, and its egged on by PVP mentality of the MMO (the kind of mentality that's against our NPOV policies). However, generally speaking the Horde and Alliance are not evil or good organzations, most of the time they are amoral, but it could be said that both are generally good.

Individuals within the organizations can be good or evil. The Horde has its share of evil individuals, and even mostly evil subfactions (I'm speaking mainly of the Forsaken and Grimtotem), as well as evil organizations hidden under the nose of Thrall or at least he turns a blind eye to (certain embers that still agree with the Horde's older ideals, or secret Shadow Council cults).

The Alliance has its share of evil inviduals as well (it has its Garithos and Blackmoores), and hidden evil organizations hidden beneath the noses of overtly good factions and organizations (mainly speaking of the Church of the Light, and Knights of the Silver Hand here).

But above my comments are not meant to allow debate, and as ragestorm said the discussion is over. My comments were mainly to point out that we do not allow the Alliance and Horde debate because it breaks teh neutral point of view policy.Baggins (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Alliance (lore) vs Alliance (playable)

I think Alliance should be split into Alliance (lore), Alliance (World of Warcraft), Human (Warcraft II), Human (Warcraft II) an Human (Warcraft: Orcs and Humans).

Right now WoWWiki is too WoW-centric. Saimdusan (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now WoW IS the lore Azahel (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much until Warcraft IV comes out or some books talking about events that took place before the WoW years, then WoW is a majority of the lore. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 03:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
"Right now WoW is the lore"? So the WoWRPG, the WCRPG, all the Warcraft RTSs, the WoW Encyclopedia on and the novels mean nothing?
What I'm saying is the playable stats of the Alliance in WoW (which only includes dwarves, humans, gnomes, night elves and draenei), from the lore Alliance (which includes Ironforge, the Wildhammer tribe, Stormwind, Theramore, Gnomeregan Exiles, etc.) Saimdusan (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

did u read the article? Azahel (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did, I'm just saying that it should be split. Saimdusan (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
If it was split we would have 5 small pages instead of one medium page. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 05:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
They're different topics though. Most of this is lore, we can split a gameplay page, which doesn't need to be long anyway. Done. Saimdusan (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The article would be only split in two, one for the lore (which would include the in-universe numbers, history, and politics), one for the playable statistical information. Since a few of the races and most of the bosses are already split in this way, it isn't that surprising. However, as this page is about 99% lore anyway, we'd basically be writing a new article for the game stuff. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


This has been uncited for some time. Besides almost all races have survived incredible hardships. Zarnks (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Uncited? Just look at some of the racial traits of Humans. Also, the Humans have survived hardships plus have had an incredible population growth/expansion. I remember in lore they also mentioned that at one point in time the early Humans were at the brink of extinction but rebounded and has become what it is now. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 03:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What Human racial trait relates to tenacity? Every playable race except the dwarves has suffered massive losses. Zarnks (talk)

"The Human Spirit" I would think. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 04:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Still other races have similar named abilities like WIll of the forsaken. Zarnks (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well in lore it is shown that they have a lot of tenacity, and they have been around longer than the Forsaken. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 04:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The point it is uncited and not mentioned in the rpg's strength and weaknesses section, so does not belong. All races but the dwarves have survived incredible issues and almost been wiped out. Stormwind's humans have actually gotten off much easier compared to alot of races in WoW Zarnks (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I will refer you to the Stormwind human article so that you can read about the humans and their "easier" life. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 05:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to start a huge argument. So I will end on this note, the stormwind humans still will have their home, health and numbers. Thats one thing they got over Draenei, orcs, Darkspear, gnomes and forsaken. Just compare their starting areas. Zarnks (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Due to their tenacity. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 06:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

All races have an equal claim to that. I'm just wasting time with this. It is not in the strength and weakness section from the rpg, so it won't be in the article. Zarnks (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is really a strength/weakness point as much as a lore point. To see how the humans have survived so much you have to read about their history versus looking at a table on strength/weakness. The humans for centuries were on the brink of extinction but rebounded to their population numbers currently. Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 07:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
You guys do realize the section isn't even there anymore, right?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I guess it is a moot point. LOL Rolandius Paladin.gif (talk - contr) 02:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


We know where they're from. We know who leads them. The goblins are listed under the Horde, and the worgen keep getting edited out here. It's pretty clear that the Alliance having worgen is not a joke... --Joshmaul (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

They're not part of the Alliance yet. Feel free to add it to the article, but not the infobox, and make sure it's in the future tense. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Race info

Why do the horde races have whole paragraphs while the Alliance has only little stats? We should either delete the Horde's wall of text or add one to the Alliance.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 20:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Return of Varian

With the return of Varian to his position as King of Stormwind and the recent slaying of Onyxia, much of this articles information regarding the Alliances organization is and should be called into question; specifically about the alleged lack of unity between the Alliance in the Eastern Kingdoms and the Alliance in Kalimdor. With Stormwind no longer shackled by Onyxia it seems that the government of Stormwind has become the representative of the Alliance as a whole. The datedness of this articles information is further shown by the apparent positive relations between Stormwind and Theramore, shown by the co-operation between the two during the battle of the undercity, as well as the representation of all Alliance member races in the Valiance Expedition led by Stormwind. This article needs some serious cleaning up in order to reflect these new developments; simply saying "Things may have changed with the return of King Varian" is not nearly enough. (Fojar, 7:05am EST 27 October, 2009)

You raise a good point, though I don't know how much evidence there is for stronger relations between the two sides of the Alliance. You're definetly right about Theramore, though, given Jaina's obvious disagreement with Varian.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 15:28, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
While Jaina has disagreeed with some of Varian's policies, it seems that she ultimately is answering to him; the only real point where she's gone against him is at the tail end of the battle for the undercity, and he honestly doesn't seem too bothered about that. At all other times when she's shown up, she seems to have been answering to him. Relations between the two seem to be very positive, with much of Varian's action in the comics centered around Theramore, and with both Varian and Jaina attending the Argent Tournament and the summit in Dalaran as representatives of the Alliance. The evidence for stronger relations between Stormwind/Ironforge and the Night Elves and Draenei I feel is shown prominently in the Valience Expedition and the 7th Legion's operations in Northrend. Both factions include a large number of Night Elves and the Valience Expedition has a number of Draenei within its ranks as well. Basicall,y what I'm saying is that the tensions between the Kalimdor and the Eastern Kingdoms Alliances are mostly shown in the RPG books, which do not reflect recent changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JakeARoonie (talkcontr).


I noticed that Hippogryph's were removed from the races list on the info bar. However if you read about them on there page it says that they are no less intelligent than most humanoid races. So i'm asking for permission to add them back to the list.--Centaur77 (talk) 11:43, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Sigh its been over a month and no ones said anything so I suppose ill just add Hippogryph's back if anyone wants to remove them again lets talk about it here first.--Centaur77 (talk) 04:09, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone randomly checks talk pages... Using {{comment}} helps sometimes. User:Coobra/Sig4 04:16, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
Apparently it was removed by Snake011, and given his comment on his edit, I agree with putting it back on the list. User:Coobra/Sig4 04:19, July 17, 2010 (UTC)


There are quite a few goblins in the alliance,such as those in the baborshops and there is one in the SI:7 headquarters. Yet they are not included on the Alliance page's races, yet Half-orcs are? This may be me just being ignorant, but i personally havnt seen any Half-orcs in the alliance so far. So just kinda asking permission to add them.

Also, for Gryphons, their page seems to lead toward the fact that they may not be as intelligent as Hippogryphs, but still seem to have sapient intelligence. It seems to suggest that the Gryphons have a sayin their allegiance to the dwarves, and the fact that they are considered a "proud race" and not a species is another reason to put them on the alliance page's list of races. So again, asking for permission. --Nvd23 (talkcontr) 4:02 July 19, 2010 (UTC)

While i understand your point of view on the goblins and gryphons, and i i'll re-add them, but the goblins are not a part of the alliance, those in the barbarshop may be affiliated with the alliance in-game due to game-issues, but lorewise they are not affiliated with the alliance, and instead they are neutral, the reason they are located in stormwind is because they can make money on being barbers, the goblin SI:7 member, is the only true alliance member, therefore i'd say, they aren't members of the alliance as a race, but some may be members without any tie to the rest of thier race. To put in a another way, a Tauren can be member of the alliance (in lore - example: Hellak Darkhorn) but that does not make the race a part of the alliance. Aedror42 (talk) 09:43, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
Most likely they're merchants with the Steamwheedle Cartel, even if it doesn't display their affiliation. Deepred (talk) 13:06, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I understand these points, but they have probably dedicated themselves to the alliance for one reason or another (even if it is for money). There are goblin arena masters in the capitals, yet they dont show any affiliation with the alliance such as the Alliance symbol on their portrait like the ones in the barborshops and the rogue. For whatever their reasons, they (in my opinion) have joined the alliance, whether its for profit, or (in that tauren's case) they dont trust the horde. But again, this is just my opinion. Also in response to what Aedror said, no race is truly part of any faction. The Defias, the Dark Horde, The dark irons, and those are just the hostile factions. Night elves as a race arnt part of the Alliance because there are those who serve the cenarion circle, same with the tauren. Same goes for the Goblins, there are the Steamwheedle who are neautral, the Bilgewater who will be joining the horde, and then these goblins. --Nvd23 (talkcontr) 7:54 July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Broll Bearmantle really head of Druid affairs in Danassus?

Just a minor gripe but is Broll really the head of Druid affairs in Darnassus? Because I kind of think it's Malfurion but maybe there's something in Cata Beta that contradicts this.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 18:47, September 29, 2010 (UTC))

Dryad/Mountain giant races?

It has been proposed that frost nymphs, crystal dryads, and mountain giants be added to the list of races in the infobox. I'd be willing to add the frost nymphs, as there are more than a few that can be found allied with the Alliance; only those that are neutral are available to the Horde. I can't find any mention of crystal dryads even being neutral, let alone Alliance; even though they are considered part of Cenarius's children, they shouldn't be included by default. After all, centaurs are also in that category, and they certainly are not Alliance. As for mountain giants, there are only very few instances where they are Alliance-affiliated. It seems the "few individuals from other races" portion of the infobox would suffice for them. Raylan13 (talk) 20:44, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

  • I think we should therefore put the Crystal dryads and mountain giants under "few individuals from other races" as this term could stand for any one, but if we put them under this heading in the article it would give readers an idea of who else supports the alliance. Plus crystal dryads are basically the "frozen" version of the dryads who are part of the Alliance

So the article would look like this: Few individuals from other races

Also one could add Goblins to the above category as there are quite a few of the creatures wandering around! Jendernai-Eirron (talk) 22:09, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity in the infobox, we should keep the "few individuals from other race" and then make a section within the article that provides such a list. So mountain giants, etc. could go there - I still disagree on the crystal dryads, however. There needs to be some example either in the game or in lore of a crystal dryad (specifically) joining with the Alliance. Raylan13 (talk) 04:50, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d APG, 162
  2. ^ WRPG, 40, 44, 45