n the 28th of June, Sir Ortellus faced a military trial accused of disrupting the armistice and conspiring to undermine the King’s peace. The reasons for this trial go back to the end of February, when, according to what was said in the court, the men under Ortellus’ command started a fight and attacked a group of Sin’dorei believing they had killed a group of traders. But this is not the only reason as the 22nd of the last month another incident happened where they fought another group of Sin’dorei, thinking they were spies ready to set a trap to them and steal information. During the trial, several questions were asked to try to make the facts clear, not only to Sir Ortellus, but to two others of his men. This is how Sir Ortellus explained the first incident:
“On the twenty-seventh, we rode to Hillsbrad in searching of the missing traders, bound to Newstead from Dun Baldar. We encountered the elves at the crossroads near Tarren Mill, who claimed that the Forsaken had murdered the traders and taken their bodies to Tarren Mill itself, and that they could do nothing about that fact. We questioned the elves for some short time, but ultimately a fight began. None of us believed that the Forsaken had raided the wagon-- the wagon was right there, after all, with the elves beside it. At the time - yes - it was a difficult decision to make, but some weeks later the elves did admit that they had murdered the traders and did so before members of the Silver Hand. There wasn't much of a transition, sir. They answered the questions increasingly vaguely, as I recall.”
Here he was questioned about who started the fight, he admitted it was one of his men and that he did not ask them to stop. After he was also asked about the actions taken that day, and admitted he took justice into his own hands and did not discipline his men after as he thought he did not deserve to be punished. Other questions were also asked to judge the character of Sir Ortellus in the words of his men, who was described as a strategic genius, kind and honest. As well as to judge if Sir Ortellus and his men regretted their actions, even making one of them cite his oath as knight and asking him if he thought he followed said oath when attacking the elves.

Horse Lords

Before we could move to the second incident, it is not a surprise that a trial like this could not go smoothly, as a man started to yell about how he did not agree with a trial judging “our own” for killing elves. He was asked to stop, but got violent, trying to hit a guard, and was finally knocked out and removed from the room. But this was not the only incident during the trial. At one point some shoots could be heard and even screams as a group of Arathi Horse Lords created some problems, sadly I am not aware at what happened exactly, but with those that were implied it is easy to guess they were up to no good. For those that do not know them, I asked someone that has dealt with them in the past to describe them and their behaviour in the past in their own words, I decided to preserve the anonymity of said person to prevent any type of revenge or attack against them for what is just an explanation of past behaviour:
“Feuding and political bloodshed has no place within our city. The Arathi Horse Lords are known to have caused trouble in the past. We hope those times remain behind us. If there is lawbreaking, they shall be treated as any other citizen or visitor to the city. Their past actions are beneath those who would call themselves knights, of any realm or creed.”
On the second incident, one of the men of Sir Ortellus, Sir Nathanael Hartell was asked about the incident, here is a summary of his answers explaining what happened:
“The blood elves were spying upon Alliance forces and infrastructure across the realms beyond the Span - both human, dwarf and high elven alike. When they confronted us on Alliance soil, they were met with resistance. (…) Officially, we were there to safeguard an archaeological expedition. But, as we knew they were spying on us, we used this lie to lay a trap. The fact that they showed up, with hostile intent, proves that they were spying on Alliance forces and were interested in capturing or killing any they could find.”
When asked about why they attacked them if they were just a spy unit, he said:
“How am I supposed to know? They were arrogant, more than likely. This isn't the first time the Horde have been the aggressors."
However, when Sir Ortellus was asked a simple question, if he is loyal to the Alliance because these actions can influence a bigger scale, his answer seemed to show they attacked first once more:
“I am loyal to the Alliance and its people, milord. It is my opinion that the blood elves do not care at all for our aggressions - that THESE elves that we've faced relished in it, in fact, as they seek to undermine the peace themselves! We made the decision to attack before they - the elves - upped their game and sought to provoke us with more than just meagre spy work.”
This maybe led to the questions asked to Sir Nathanael about if —after he admitted he hates Sin’dorei— made him biased to the attack:
“You expect my answer to be no, when they ally themselves with the trolls and greenskins, whilst they butcher traders sent from Stromgarde? Are you this far removed from reality that you are blind to their crimes? I fight so that the blood elf may never harm those I hold dear. Make of that what you will.”

Disrespectful judge?

Speaking of hate towards races, a certain incident cannot go unmentioned. Sir Morvuk Anvilfist, from the Silver Hand, offered to give testimony about the incident. He barely started to talk about how he met with Sir Ortellis to return the corpses of the trades when he was interrupted and dismissed by the person asking the questions. Why?
“Let us have a testimony that actually speaks Common, and -actually- represents the Alliance. Even if I could understand a word you are saying. Your neutral position leads me to dismiss this testimony.”
I must clarify that Sir Morvuk was speaking in Common, and it is not his fault that Lord Gabriel Voss is unable to understand the accent of a dwarf, but what is more important, it is unacceptable that someone that says to represent the Alliance and who is judging a case about disrupting peace makes such a comment in a public court. I asked Sir Morvuk if he would like to make a statement about such a disrespectful act, to which he explained that he did not expect that someone that carries the symbols of Light and its philosophy for justice and peace would be dismissed when statements from the Horde had been accepted, and that, in his opinion, Lord Uther would be aggrieved by this action.

The verdict

After some other statements about the behavior of Sir Ortellus and the elves, the three verdicts were given by those judging him.
Brother Ormor of Northshire: “What we have here is a commander appointed during times of war, unable to navigate the diplomatic complexities of peace with morale dignity. A man who would all too willingly see a threat in a former enemy, rather than a potential ally as our very king has intended. And who could deny the High King as true paragon of the Light? An example must be set, and I deem the defendant guilty on all charges! The very integrity of Sir Ortellus' Faith stands tested, and I suggest he be not only stripped of his colours but also of his standing in our church! Until redeemed and re-earned. Our High King is missing, this is no time for half measures. This is the clergy's verdict.”
Lord Gabriel Voss: “Marshall. Your men look up to you, you are meant to be a beacon of their hope. Though you put us in a difficult situation--you did show them we will not allow them to attack innocents so close to our borders, on the first charge, I do declare you, not guilty. However, a second incident, especially a premeditated one when all you had to do was stay within our borders, riding out of our territory and setting a trap is premeditated, and inexcusable. I pray you learn from this mistake so your men may put their faith in you once more, one day. On the second charge, I declare you guilty.”
Sir Richard Fairer: “Second charge - conspiring to undermine King's peace. Not guilty. No law states that a man cannot write attacks plans and keep them in his cabinet. If he was indeed to conspire, he would hide them better or not even have them in written form to begin with. The first charge - Breaking the Armistice. I am afraid it is guilty by technicality. Sir Ortellus Falheim choose to engage elves both times without substantial evidence. If not for the current political situation it would not be such a delicate matter. But the severe death toll has crippled the people of Alliance too much. We simply cannot allow careless leaders like that to stay in command. Diplomatic approach should be enforced at all costs, or we risk another war... Another war which I would do anything to prevent and so should you all.”
In short, he was found guilty of both charges and punished with being removed from his position as deputy commanding officer to the second division and moved to a position appropriate for brilliant tactician as he was described. He has also forbidden to carry weapons within Stormwind unless with explicit permission of the Alliance High Command. After this, Sir Renald Cousland, one of the men under Sir Ortellus’ command made the following speech:
"I will follow Sir Ortellus, as I am sworn, I will aid him and his good heart. But I shall not acknowledge your verdict. As a Knight of the Silver Hand and of the Alliance, as a veteran of more wars than hair left on your head. Your verdict was null and void when you tossed the Silver Hand to the side. Your verdict was null and void when you took the gold of the Sin'dorei. Your verdict was null and void, when you let the blood of innocent men and women be forgotten and their corpses risen into undeath, because you liked the wink of the Elven diplomat. You are not Men of the Alliance, you preach the of the King, but no Alliance King would spare you a glance or stand by what you have said and done today. Disgraceful."

Final thoughts

I will leave the judging of this sentence to our readers, was it fair? Did he do well or bad? Is a change of position and not carrying weapons in Stormwind a fair punishment for someone guilty of disrupting the armistice and conspiring to undermine the King’s peace? But I cannot finish this article without what is already a common thing, pointing to those sentences that seem to contradict things in trials. Because apparently for Sir Richard Fairer, one cannot be guilty of conspiring, if you -find- the plans said person has made to attack something or someone, because if he was conspiring to attack, why would we have the plans to attack, right?