I spoke not of this topic. And you have been known to use less then sterling methods.
Indeed, indeed. Unless the two sides are spinning inside a whirlwind of repeating.
This is fair.
Not at the moment, no.
I just wanted an insight into your mind. I often wonder what’s going on inside it!
Show me the source that proves he “subjugated” them.
Don’t bring real life examples into this discussion, please. Reality has a very bad habit of being actually morally grey or utterly black.
Sure, Romans “spread their civilisation”… But “their” civilisation was mostly Greek, their armaments were mostly Celtic and Iberian (Celto-Iberic peoples, to be exact. Legionary’s sword was called Gladius Hispaniensis and his shield was called Scutum - both “Spanish” of origin. Mail armour - Lorica Hamata - was a Gallic invention), so by conquering other countries they actually might have prevented the birth of, who knows, more advanced cultures?
Romans were exceptional soldiers first and foremost. Mainly due to the administrative and organisational branches of their military. And after Marius’ reforms, mere fact that being a soldier was a job.
Their civilisational superiority in comparison to neighbouring cultures is highly debatable. Especially given their favoured treatment of subjugated cultures.
In my opinion, Romans “subjugating” others is the prime example of how subjugating is the absolutely vile tyranny.
I see no difference. They had to subjugate those ogres, so they FORCED them to be ruled. Hence, their way of ruling is tyrannical.
Yes. See above. If they had to be subjugated, then the rule is tyrannical.
Give me one case of a situation when you would defend the Alliance against Horde favouring posters. I, for one, used to defend orcs a lot despite the fact that my favourite are Draenei.
Also, #teamTauren.
Don’t even bother arguing with Zarao about Human lore. His knowledge in that regard is laughable at best.
King Thoradin never subjugated the other tribes as that means that he didn’t give any freedom to the conquered people, whereas Thoradin did the exact opposite. After defeating the other Human tribes through strength of arms, he offered them peace, freedom, and equality.
Chronicles Vol 1. Thoradin was described as needing to force several human tribes into what he envisioned for the human race.
And once they were indeed under him, they were offered appropriate and just treatment.
You are drawing some false equivalencies.
Tyranny is used to describe any ruling that follows a series of characteristics.
Subdued, or subjugated factions, don’t need to be followed by Tyrannical rulerships.
And Arctur kind of proven my point with this:
And curiously enough, Thoradin mindset mirrored the ones of several Roman generals and leaders. As well as other notable conquerors such as Alexander the Great.
Orcs didn’t rob ogres of their freedom. They were left to keep their leaders, rule their own people, and left them at peace while they fought the Draenei.
Only needing to swoop in when ogres started a revolution against them.
Do you have any source that points at the opposite?
That would be key to start considering how the orc subjugation turned tyrannical.
Essential key distinguishing factor:
Cruelty
I don’t care about the Orcs or the Ogres. I care about you throwing around the word “subjugation” when talking about King Thoradin. Subjugation doesn’t simply mean military conquest.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjugate
to bring under control and governance as a [subject] : [CONQUER]
Conquer is considered synonym.
In literally the same website you linked, it is also stated:
"Since jugus means “yoke” in Latin, subjugate means literally “bring under the yoke”. Farmers control oxen by means of a heavy wooden yoke over their shoulders. In ancient Rome, conquered soldiers, stripped of their uniforms, might actually be forced to pass under an ox yoke as a sign of submission to the Roman victors. Even without an actual yoke, what happens to a population that has come under the control of another can be every bit as humiliating. In dozens of countries throughout the world, ethnic minorities are denied basic rights and view themselves as subjugated by their country’s government, army, and police."
You used the wrong word, It’s not that difficult. Your wording implies that Thoradin proceeded to rule with an iron fist the conquered tribes, which isn’t the case. But then again, you always go to extreme lengths to make Humans look evil.
Did orcs force them to do such things?
Should we look up the meaning of every word and etymology involved?
The word is still a synonym of Conquer.
You’d be surprised about how certain words came to be in several languages.
And unless you have tangible proof of having said word being applied to its most negative connotation, I think that point of view seems rather moot.
Edit: And regarding the usage of the word, I used the one that given its definition it refers to simply conquer and bring under governance any collective. I think that the etymology of the word itself is a rather pointless debate.
I already told you, I. Don’t. Care. About. Orcs.
In fact, I don’t even know the names of the orc clans, that’s how much I care for that mongrel race. The problem is that you used an inappropriate word to describe Thoradin’s conquest of the other Human tribes. He never subjugated them as, I was saying at the beginning, that implies that he ruled with an iron fist, which he didn’t.
Show me the quote that states “subjugation”. Just like it is used in regard to what Orcs are doing.
False, because you think so, eh?
Never read Chronicles, I am in no position to discuss it. But if Thoradin conquered peoples and then let them rule themselves anyway, but with him as their superior, then agreed.
How do you know that?
So perhaps, orcish subjugation was conisdered tyranny by the ogres?
Do you have any source that proves your point?
This is really funny because, apparently, I need solid evidence to start any discussion but you do not. All you are using here is your opinions and somehow, this is enough. But I, on the other hand, need “sources” to:
Arctur your highlight sais “can be […] humiliating” not has to be.
Ethymologically it may come from “yoke” but subjugating in todays language just means to conquer. Thoradin brought other tribes under his rule by force, that’s the definition of subjugating.
Tyranny can follow a subjugation, but doesn’t have to. The romans did both, they subjugated most of central and western europe in their time, but not all of the people they conquered suffered tyranny. Some did. Some german tribes under Arminius and some briton tribes under Boedicca rebelled because of clear tyranny by the romans, but the levante, greece and northern africa did mostly well under roman rule.
Given the word is equated to conquer, and forcing a governing body upon someone else, I could really quote the book stating so. Can’t atm as I don’t have it on ebook, but I will if you want.
No. False because subjugation refers to conquest, while tyranny refers to ruling methods.
Subjugation can lead to other ruling forms other than tyranny. And unless you are an anarchist, not every kind of government is a tyranny.
Agreed to what? That the ‘subjugation’ didn’t lead to tyranny?
Because if that’s the case, same happened between orcs and ogres.
Because we visited their settlements, that had their own soldiers, citizens and rulers. Now, do you have any indicator that points at the orc rule as being tyrannical?
Or ogres thought like being them once again the ones in charge.
Contrary to orcs, they did have their subjects as slaves and a culture about turning them such that spans all the way back to the formation of the Ogre Empire and the Apexis.
The fact that the ogre settlement is ruled by an ogre, that he has his own guards, that they have their own territory and resources, that there isn’t a single ogre slave, and the dialogues between Grommash and Geyarah that point at them leaving ogres alone unless they actively revolted or rose in arms against orcs.
Usually, the one making categorical statements (such as proclaiming that orcs were tyrannical), carries the burden of proof in any discussion.
Anyway, I did describe why the situation doesn’t seem like orcs excessively forcing their hand upon ogres, even if after they subjugated their clans.
Now, do you have any proof that says otherwise, aside from some vague interpretation regarding the wording? I’ve already linked the dictionary definition of the word, to show it can be aseptically considered as mere conquest.
And I could link both RL and ingame examples that point at ‘subjugation’ as not necessarily tied to tyranny.
Thank you. Well put.
From what we’ve seen the Orcs didn’t enterfere with the Ogres, unless there was a leader that wanted to pick a fight with the orcs.
Besides the key difference between tyranny and subjugation is cruelty. Latter doesn’t have to involve cruelty, while the former does. Pretty sure i can’t post links yet so referrence to official Cambridge dictionary will have to do.
No, because in the word of subjugation there is the idea of “complete control”, if you look at literally any definition that idea will come up. In the official Cambridge dictionary, It’s even stated that it is the act of conquering a country and ruling it in a way that allows no freedom or equality.
Here’s what I propose: We don’t use the term “subjugation” when referring to Thoradin (which was never used anyway by Blizzard), and instead call his conquest a “unification”, which is the actual word used on multiple sources.
Boys, you don’t get it. The point of the fart rhetoric presented is that subjugation is cool when the Horde does it, bad when the Lightbound do it. Typical case of keeping the cake and eating it, but eh.
Not really. The point being that subjugation doesn’t have the current negative connotations they are trying to associate it in this case.
And the Lightbound didn’t subjugate, they converted or killed anyone that opposed them.
To the point they desiccated the planet with the Light.
I see a lot of dictionary arguing, very little facts. Also, tell me, the gronlings on which the mag’har perch cannons also aren’t treated cruely?
Yet the draenei say the orcs did it. Who’s right? Do you have definitive evidence?
We know ogres kept their lands, infrastructure, and hierarchical structure. They kept their army/soldiers, and even their leaders.
And Grom and Geyarah, arguing about letting them be unless provoked by a revolt.
And still, people argued about their ‘tyranny’. Where was that?
Regarding the gronlings etc, I don’t know if they even categorise as people. If you want to pin Maghar for animal mistreatment, then sure, they are guilty.
Almost every race in WoW is guilty for that tho.
Given every source and indicator, it’s definitely seen as the Draenei fault. Regardless of ingame restrictions, how the landscape is described and the timing of how it turned such, is excessively tied to the Lightbound uprising.
Shamanic orc ways don’t ravage the land in such ways. Throughout Draenors (both AU and MU) history they never did.