This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
General Lore Discussions
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Rankkor
He could simply have been lying, or trying to cover up the extent to which Taurajo really was butchered under his orders. For some reason, he reminds me of
Dyer
, but that's just me.
I don't think he was "lieing" per-se (he DID left a gap open, that was no lie) but he IS both sugar-coating what happened, and downplaying the collateral damage of his actions.
wheter he does so out of hypocresy (I don't think this is the case, his gossip text and quest text shows he is a man of honor) or to maintain morale in his army is for the public to judge.
and I say "maintain morale" because as usual, in all wars, both sides of the conflict NEED to believe their cause is the righteous one and that they are not the "bad guys" or else their determination in battle suffers. Thus he sugar-coats what happened to prevent his own men from feeling like they are monsters.
the main reason I choose to believe the "darker and edgier" version of the survivors is presicely because THEY WERE THERE. Hawthorne was safely far behind the battle up in his camp while his forces did the battle (unlike the movies, generals and superior officers rarely get in the thick of battle, they are kinda harder to replace if they get shot)
as
this song
says, "their truth lives with me, believe me NEVER AGAIN!!!!"
Post by
Skreeran
part of being a leader means that any actions made by the people you command is your responsability. He can't just wash his hands saying "well, we used trigger-happy criminals as conscripts, you can't really blame us for things going haywire".
if he knew his troops were that unstable he should had used them for combat against other soldiers as oposed to raiding a town with civilians on it. Is not like he had a lack of troops, he did had TONS of theramoore recon soldiers, wildhammer gryphon riders, and dwarven riflemen complete with steam tanks. He could had saved those conscripts for other battles against wich they would face only horde soldiers, thus any Trigger-happy killing sprees would be against combatants alone.
What happened is his fault for lack of judgement.Well, you don't get to choose who serves under you. Command says "Here's your troops, go fight the war." As a General, he had to make responsible military decisions in regards to what objectives to attack, and so he attacked the most valuable one. Some of his troops were insubordinate to his commands, and so he had them arrested to be put on trial. He's only doing his best to be an effective general while also minimizing casualties.
Although I would agree that he carries just as much responsibility for that event as Sylvanas bears for the Wrathgate, simply because a leader bears responsibility for their people, whether or not its their fault.
exept that at that point the horde and the alliance weren't in open war, thus choosing not to attack it would had prevented the war from starting in the first place. They hit a town with a significant amount of civilian populations by surprise in the middle of the night while the defenders were away (confident that the town was safe because there was no war going on) and proceeded to burn and bomb the place away. This entire discussion bloomed because addam tagged that comic strip that features tauren civilians being butchered as fan fiction that had nothing to do with lore.I found your NPC quote up there very interesting. Initially I was going to argue that while you proved that the Alliance attacked before the Shattering, I wasn't convinced that it was the first act of war. But then I realized that the Shattering actually began in the
book
The Shattering.
This is a bit of an tangent in relation to the current topic, but the way I see it, the Twilight's Hammer's slaughter of the druids was probably considered the first official act of war by King Varian. The Alliance moved on the Crossroads shortly after, before turning around and marching on Honor's Stand during the night that Thrall attended Cairne's pyre and discarded his armor. The Cataclysm then happened in the morning, and the Alliance continued on to Taurajo. The attack on Taurajo then would have happened just
after
the Shattering, which doesn't actually have any effect on the discussion, but I find it interesting nonetheless.
Anyway, yeah, I suppose the Alliance would have made the first actual attack then, since the attack they were responding to was perpetrated by the Twilights.
I disagree. Many people died there. Thanks to Hawthorne's mercy, not ALL of them died, but the fact remains that unlike his claims of many fleeing to safety, the reality of the matter is, that the majority wasn't so lucky.
if we only see 4 civilian corpses, is because they are related to a quest in wich we eulogize their spirits, and it would be too time-consuming if we had to eulogize 300 people as oposed to 4 (not to mention it would lead to confusion if they placed NPC's there that weren't in there before the shattering, because, once more, lorewise there were A-LOT of people there, but gameplay wise, there was barely a dozen people there)I still don't know about a majority. If I were a designer, I would have put down a few dozen "Dead Tauren Civilian" NPCs to emphasize that there was a massacre. I concede that the comic's depiction is indeed plausible, but I still don't think that it was the cold blood slaughter than many have made it out to be.
on this I'm willing to give it a "maybe" but I'm not entirely convinced. Bombs do not spare targets, they fall and they blow up, anyone who wasn't fast enough to move out of the way dies in the blast. The gossip text of just about every NPC on Camp vendetta and Camp Una'fe mentions how very few were able to escape.
he left a gap open, ok, cool. But...... how many untrained, panicked civilians, managed to see it amidst the chaos of combat, the darkness of the night, the massive battle raging across them, and the fires started by both the looters and the bombers? Leaving a gap to allow escape is cool and all that, but people noticing it is a whole diferent' matter.Honestly: What would you have him do? Put yourself in his position. Your duty is to serve the Alliance and win the war, because the Horde has gone too far and needs to be brought under control. If the Alliance doesn't win the war, thousands of your countrymen could be killed by Hellscream's belief in manifest destiny. You have to fight this war as effectively as possible, but you don't believe in making civilians pay the price for the war, and so you hope to minimize casualties. What, honestly, would you have done?
why not? he led an attack that led many to die. In the same light, Saurfang also did the same in his chaos-mode, and so if the families of any draenei he killed when he was on draenor came looking for his blood, they would be completely justified. War is a nasty business, and those can't be won without casualties, however military casualties, and civilian ones are 2 completely diferent matters.
he tried to prevent the deaths of civilians. he failed. thus he earned every ounce of rage the tauren families had agains him.
as for the title of "the butcher of taurajo", while I do agree it's a bit exagerated (he did left a gap open in his attack and refused to take hostages, butchers don't do that) the horde families don't know that, just as they don't know about the machinations of that prick embassador who was pulling the strings, and so you can't really blame them for wanting a little justice.
if a General attacked Maracaibo, and left an opening to allow civilians to flee, yet somehow my wife and kid died during the chaos, you can believe I'd settle for nothing else than that general's death.I agree their their rage is justified, but again, you must pass judgments from an objecive perspective. Subjectively, many Tauren lost their loved ones and want to make the man responsible pay. Objectively, we know that Hawthorne is a good man who was doing his best to prevent those deaths, and I don't think that he should be punished for that. There's a difference between killing civilians in cold-blood, and having a few civilians die in the chaos that is war, despite your best efforts to prevent it. Yes, they are dead either way, and yes, their loved ones have every right to be outraged, either way, but in one instance you are intentionally killing innocent people without care, and in the other you are simply a soldier doing your job and bad things happened even though you didn't want them to.
You cannot fight a war without civilian casualties. It is impossible. Whether you have bad soldiers under your command (as in Hawthorne's case), or they're simply killed the crossfire, it will happen. All a commander can do is do his best to punish the bad soldier and make provisions to minimize the accidental casuaulties. Which is exactly what Hawthorne did. He's only a man doing his best to do the right thing, and I find that to be an admirable quality.
Post by
Rankkor
Well, you don't get to choose who serves under you. Command says "Here's your troops, go fight the war." As a General, he had to make responsible military decisions in regards to what objectives to attack, and so he attacked the most valuable one. Some of his troops were insubordinate to his commands, and so he had them arrested to be put on trial. He's only doing his best to be an effective general while also minimizing casualties.
ejem....
Is not like he had a lack of troops, he did had TONS of theramoore recon soldiers, wildhammer gryphon riders, and dwarven riflemen complete with steam tanks. He could had saved those conscripts for other battles against wich they would face only horde soldiers, thus any Trigger-happy killing sprees would be against combatants alone.
moving on.....
I still don't know about a majority. If I were a designer, I would have put down a few dozen "Dead Tauren Civilian" NPCs to emphasize that there was a massacre. I concede that the comic's depiction is indeed plausible, but I still don't think that it was the cold blood slaughter than many have made it out to be.
maybe it wasn't "coold blood" but it was a slaughter as oposed to "ohh only a few died, yhea" the death toll is big.
Honestly: What would you have him do? Put yourself in his position. Your duty is to serve the Alliance and win the war, because the Horde has gone too far and needs to be brought under control. If the Alliance doesn't win the war, thousands of your countrymen could be killed by Hellscream's belief in manifest destiny. You have to fight this war as effectively as possible, but you don't believe in making civilians pay the price for the war, and so you hope to minimize casualties. What, honestly, would you have done?
for a start? not using unstable troops to do a job that requires tact. He was using thugs and criminals who were locked up in jail for good reasons, and who were in all likelyhood became MORE vicious and violent and insubordinated due to being in jail (I dunno if u've been in a jail before but I can tell you, it's not a happy place)
he did NOT had a lack of troops, he had in fact a frikking steam tank division. He wasn't going to siege a major military fortress armed to the theeth with thousands of troops. He was going to ambush an unprotected town, by surprise, in the middle of the night, with very few protection, and full of untrained, unarmored civilians.
Need I remind you that these are TAUREN? aka the most pacifist race in the game, that would sooner choose to smoke the peace pipe than bash your head on a rock? what necesity in god's name was there to use those thugs for an operation that required discipline?
I get the whole gist that he's a soldier and he was doing what is superiors commanded (And I even aplaud that he disobeyed orders of taking hostages for honor's sake) but he should had seen it comming. Use vicious undiciplined violent troops with neither military training (wich forges a soldier to obey orders no matter if you like them or not) nor any common sence of honor and what you will get is a massacre.
I would had understood the necesity of adding more infantry if he was sieging an ORC town, as orcs are violent by nature, even after their redemption, orcs remain one of the most violent races in the world, and in all likelyhood, even the civilians wouldn't just bend over and take it. They'd fight to their dieing breath, every orc reaches suficcient height and strenght to be roughly about the same as a human adult when they are 12, they begin training since childhood and as such, even a town full of orc farmers and civilians would be a hard target to chew. But these aren't orcs, these are tauren. Aka: Tree-huggers, AKA Hippies, AKA Peace-pipe smokers.
imagine if the president of the united states started offering freedom to rapist, serial killers, muggers, mafiosos, and drug dealers if they join the army. how exactly do you think that will go?
Objectively, we know that Hawthorne is a good man who was doing his best to prevent those deaths, and I don't think that he should be punished for that.
Objectively speaking, he is a man of honor, he did tried to avoid a tragedy, and he failed at it (by making some really dumb moves, I still insist, what necesity was there to use those thugs? when the target is a low-defended town with no towers, or walls, or even a strong regiment (the hunters were away at the moment) and when you have FRIKKING STEAM TANKS and aerial bombers?
come on.........
the word "overkill" rings a bell?
as a result, he reaped what he sowed.
Post by
Skreeran
Overkill is the blood over Warcraft. Blizzard doesn't really understand subtlety very well, which is part of why I take what Hawthorne says at face value, rather than assuming a hidden agenda.
But yeah, in regards to the convicts, I imagine that Blizzard was just giving them an excuse for it. If it was just standard Alliance troops that did it, Alliance players would complain about it. That's just my hunch there. I don't blame Hawthorne.
Post by
Monday
Is not like he had a lack of troops, he did had TONS of theramoore recon soldiers, wildhammer gryphon riders, and dwarven riflemen complete with steam tanks. He could had saved those conscripts for other battles against wich they would face only horde soldiers, thus any Trigger-happy killing sprees would be against combatants alone.
Just thought I'd mention, there would have been an even greater bloodbath if he'd sent the Dwarven riflemen/steam tanks to Taurajo as the main body. Remember that the Tauren attacked Bael Modan already (and nobody is quite sure who is in the right with Bael Modan), so the dwarves would probably be looking for revenge.
he had in fact a frikking steam tank division.
What would you say if the story was different. What would you say if he assaulted the town with a division of steam tanks? The carnage would be spectacular.
I still insist, what necesity was there to use those thugs? when the target is a low-defended town with no towers, or walls, or even a strong regiment (the hunters were away at the moment) and when you have FRIKKING STEAM TANKS and aerial bombers?
And I still insist. It would have been worse if he had used them. There is no precision strike like we have nowadays. He couldn't just take down select targets like soldiers. The massacre would have been even worse.
Post by
Rankkor
I imagine that Blizzard was just giving them an excuse for it. If it was just standard Alliance troops that did it, Alliance players would complain about it
of course..... they don't have any problems with putting standard horde troops doing dishonorable things......
<.<
>.>
Post by
51581
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
He could simply have been lying, or trying to cover up the extent to which Taurajo really was butchered under his orders. For some reason, he reminds me of
Dyer
, but that's just me.
I don't think he was "lieing" per-se (he DID left a gap open, that was no lie) but he IS both sugar-coating what happened, and downplaying the collateral damage of his actions.
Which would be lying. Saying that, for a theoretical example, 20 civilians were killed when in actual fact it was closer to 100 is lying. I think he is sugar-coating it, not only to increase morale, but also to maintain his reputation.
Post by
Monday
He could simply have been lying, or trying to cover up the extent to which Taurajo really was butchered under his orders. For some reason, he reminds me of
Dyer
, but that's just me.
I don't think he was "lieing" per-se (he DID left a gap open, that was no lie) but he IS both sugar-coating what happened, and downplaying the collateral damage of his actions.
Which would be lying. Saying that, for a theoretical example, 20 civilians were killed when in actual fact it was closer to 100 is lying. I think he is sugar-coating it, not only to increase morale, but also to maintain his reputation.
I think what he's saying is that he wasn't lying maliciously or for any personal gain.
Post by
Patty
I think what he's saying is that he wasn't lying maliciously or for any personal gain.
Maintaining his reputation is for personal gain. Maintaining morale is for personal gain. "Oh, I lied to make other people feel better about themselves. Aren't I just such a great person?"
Post by
Monday
I think what he's saying is that he wasn't lying maliciously or for any personal gain.
Maintaining his reputation is for personal gain.
When I said it wasn't malicious or for personal gain, I assumed you would take the extra step and realize that I was saying he wasn't lying to maintain his reputation either.
Maintaining morale is for personal gain. "Oh, I lied to make other people feel better about themselves. Aren't I just such a great person?"
Lol?
No seriously, lol?
You really think that's how morale works?
Post by
Patty
I think what he's saying is that he wasn't lying maliciously or for any personal gain.
Maintaining his reputation is for personal gain.
When I said it wasn't malicious or for personal gain, I assumed you would take the extra step and realize that I was saying he wasn't lying to maintain his reputation either.
Maintaining morale is for personal gain. "Oh, I lied to make other people feel better about themselves. Aren't I just such a great person?"
Lol?
No seriously, lol?
You really think that's how morale works?
No, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying was that generally, when you make somebody feel positive about themselves - the same thing happens to you, you've fulfilled something meaningful and have had a positive impact on that individual(s) due to your actions, which in turn has a positive impact for you.
Edit: There is also a sense of self-preservation. If your military units have good morale, you're likely to be rewarded for that.
Post by
Monday
That's a side effect, sure. Morale is generally used, however, to keep troops spirits up to help them fight more effectively, and to be invigorated and strong in "the cause". You're making it sound like officers only use morale to feel better about themselves.
Which is not how morale works.
There is also a sense of self-preservation. If your military units have good morale, you're likely to be rewarded for that.
If your military unit has high morale, then they will fight better.
That
is what you are rewarded for.
Post by
Adamsm
Heh, might as well make a real thread for this.
Post by
Skreeran
No, I'm getting sick of arguing about it.
My standing judgment, until I can play Horde myself, is the Hawthorne was a good person who did his best to let the citizens of Taurajo escape, even though many of them did not.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
My standing judgment, until I can play Horde myself, is the Hawthorne was a good person who did his best to let the citizens of Taurajo escape, even though many of them did not.
and my final judgement is that while he "tried" to prevent a tragedy, he failed, and the majority of the people died, as oposed to his stance that it was a clean surgical flawless operation, with minimal collateral damage. The survivors clearly say that most didn't made it to safety.
that it was done BEFORE the horde and alliance were at war only serves to reinforce my point.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
My standing judgment, until I can play Horde myself, is the Hawthorne was a good person who did his best to let the citizens of Taurajo escape, even though many of them did not.
and my final judgement is that while he "tried" to prevent a tragedy, he failed, and the majority of the people died, as oposed to his stance that it was a clean surgical flawless operation, with minimal collateral damage. The survivors clearly say that most didn't made it to safety.
that it was done BEFORE the horde and alliance were at war only serves to reinforce my point.
The horde and the alliance are at war since the shattering or shortly after it.
read the NPC quote in the previous page, the alliance moved into the barrens before the cataclysm happened, hitting taurajo, crossroads and Honor's stand before the land was sundered in 2. They were only repelled from the crossroads and that's cuz it was a diversion attack to prevent reinforcements from reaching Honor's Stand and Taurajo.
needless to say that after they hit these targets (read: the next day) the horde tried to retaliate, but then the shattering happened, and THEN it was full blown war between the 2.
Post by
Monday
But we don't know whether the Horde had attacked Ashenvale before hand however (aka began their major offensive).
It could be that the orcs started their offensive, and so the Stormwind troops retaliated.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.