# Horus - greatest Primarch?



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Carrying over from the discussion on whether or not Horus was the greatest primarch...

When you try to argue whether or not Horus was the greatest, you have to take into consideration background material that "the official party line" sometimes needs to be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of what is written about Horus benefits from hindsight, and the evolution of fact into myth. Secondly, we should take into consideration the Primarch Discovery Order that was revealed by Laurie Goulding:

1. Horus
2. Leman Russ
3. [DELETED FROM IMPERIAL RECORDS]
4. Ferrus Manus
5. Fulgrim
6. Vulkan
7. Rogal Dorn
8. Roboute Guilliman
9. Magnus the Red
10. Sanguinius
11. Lion El'Jonson
12. Perturabo
13. Mortarion
14. Lorgar
15. Jaghatai Khan
16. Konrad Curze
17. Angron
18. Corax
19. [DELETED FROM IMPERIAL RECORDS]
20. Alpharius

Horus was, without a doubt, an individual who possessed superhuman genius and charisma. He undoubtedly benefited from the fact that he was the Emperor's sole understudy for a time, though. We don't know for how long he was the Emperor's sole son, but no one should underestimate what an advantage this sort of apprenticeship would provide.

Additionally, we should look a what role the primarchs discovered after Horus played in his development. For a variety of reasons, the brothers who were discovered next would have reinforced Horus' position as the Emperor's "field commander", rather than giving the Emperor an incentive to diversify command.

Leman Russ, for instance, focused on a specific role as opposed to becoming a comprehensive commander. Perhaps he accepted the mantle of executioner; perhaps the savage nature of the Vlka Fenryka precluded him from becoming the leader of men (and not just Astartes) that Horus was. 

This inability - or unwillingness - to integrate with their father's larger empire is increased with Ferrus Manus. In fact, he and the X Legion made a point of contrasting themselves to the rest of humanity, which they viewed as weak and frail by default.

Fulgrim possessed many of the attributes needed to be a true peer to Horus... but his Legion was almost destroyed, and this forced him to be an understudy to Horus for a large part of the Great Crusade, rather than a field commander in his own right.

Vulkan likewise had one of the smallest Legions. This, added to his mutation - which would have certainly earned him a negative mark in the eyes of the Imperium - undoubtedly limited his prospects at true command. I'd add to these aspects of the Promethean Cult itself, whose practices would have been viewed as bizarre and alien by many humans (branding, tests of pain, etc.).

See what I'm getting at? By the time Rogal Dorn and Roboute Guilliman - the next two primarchs qualified as being comparable to Horus in terms of generalship - were found, Horus had been the Emperor's only true field commander. And even then, the politics of seniority and experience meant it would be some time before those two could prove to be his peers.

We don't know when Magnus and Sanguinius were found in terms of calendar years, but we know when Horus' next true peer - the Lion - was found: a little more than fifty years before the Heresy. That means that for a very considerable portion of the Great Crusade, Horus was the most well-rounded, most trusted, and most experienced primarch in all the Legiones Astartes. He would have been the primarch trusted with the most complex operations. He would have been the one most qualified to lead disparate Legions and Army regiments.

So was Horus the greatest? To a degree, yes. He was the most successful, the most experienced, and - until Guilliman (as depicted thus far) arrived - he was the most well-rounded of the primarchs. Until the Heresy, the Emperor had no real reason to consider someone else for the position of Warmaster.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Something else:

I don't think most of the specializations are necessarily here or there where this topic is concerned. Meaning, they don't merit enough to determine whether someone was or was not "the best primarch".

Angron's specialization, for instance, is taken to an extreme where it's _qualified_ that it detracts from his Legion's effectiveness. The World Eaters are so focused on assaults and close combat that they suffer unnecessary casualties.

Corax's penchant for stealth is admirable, but does it trump command of the greater, overall battlefield? Will it win him full-spectrum campaigns? We've seen more than once that Corax and the Raven Guard have to rely on maneuver forces and brute firepower to win battles and wars.

Does being the best at defending a fortress make you the best overall? Of course not, otherwise Rogal Dorn would not be convinced that Horus will overcome his defenses. Does being the best at attacking a fortress achieve that, then? Similarly not, since there is no guarantee that your opponent will always sit behind a wall, a dome, or a ring of orbital fortifications.

So on, so forth.


----------



## Lost&Damned (Mar 25, 2012)

Phoebus said:


> Until the Heresy, the Emperor had no real reason to consider someone else for the position of Warmaster.


What bugs me is, why have a warmaster anyway?
why not an enclave of primarchs?stick 3 to monitor each other, dorn ,sanguinius ,Horus why would he ever give all power to one person?power has always corrupted.
or better yet,no masters at all, let individual legions progress as they see fit.


----------



## Brother Lucian (Apr 22, 2011)

From what I recall reading, Horus grew up at the Emperor's side as he was found early in his life and was the only of the Primarchs for 30 years, then the next one was found.

Horus landed on the world of Cthonia
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Cthonia

This planet allegedly existed in one of Earth's closest neighbouring systems. Being within reach even for non-warp spacecraft, Cthonia had been colonised, built upon, tunnelled and mined probably since the dawn of space travel. As such, all natural resources had been stripped away and used up millennia before, and the ancient mining technology had long since been rediscovered and removed by the Adeptus Mechanicus of Mars. The planet that remained was largely redundant and abandoned, completely riddled with catacombs, crumbling industrial plants and exhausted mine-workings.[1] 
After the arrival of the Emperor, the Space Marines of the Luna Wolves Legion were created using the human inhabitants of the violent gangs inhabiting the planet's Hives.[1] 
The planet was destroyed after the Horus Heresy.[2] 


So Horus was probably found nearly instantly, given the close proximity to Terra.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I don't there was any confusion over that, Brother Lucian. 

Everything you mentioned is a key part of how and why Horus got so much experience so fast, and how he developed his unique relationship with the Emperor.


----------



## Chompy Bits (Jun 13, 2010)

I highly doubt the whole Lion being found only 50 years before the heresy thing will still be canon. If you consider the fact that Lorgar and Magnus' meeting occurred not much after that, it doesn't really make sense at all. Lorgar was found after the Lion, and we know Lorgar had been doing his religious nut thing for a long time before Monarchia. It totally conflicts with the timeline having him only be discovered that late in the Crusade. Because even ignoring the issue with Lorgar, I don't see how it took the Emperor 150 odd years to find 11 primarchs, and then found the other 9 in one decade, and sanctioned one of them to boot during that time (because this had already happened before the encounter between Magnus and Lorgar, after Monarchia).

It also has never sat well with me how the Lion seemed to gather so much acclaim and awe, even from his brothers, as well as establish himself as Horus' first serious peer (at least in Horus' eyes if _The Unremembered Empire_ is anything to go by), in such a short time. Would have made much more sense if he'd been around for a century or more to validate the reputation he had in the Great Crusade.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Chompy Bits said:


> I highly doubt the whole Lion being found only 50 years before the heresy thing will still be canon. If you consider the fact that Lorgar and Magnus' meeting occurred not much after that, it doesn't really make sense at all. Lorgar was found after the Lion, and we know Lorgar had been doing his religious nut thing for a long time before Monarchia. It totally conflicts with the timeline having him only be discovered that late in the Crusade. Because even ignoring the issue with Lorgar, I don't see how it took the Emperor 150 odd years to find 11 primarchs, and then found the other 9 in one decade, and sanctioned one of them to boot during that time (because this had already happened before the encounter between Magnus and Lorgar, after Monarchia).
> 
> It also has never sat well with me how the Lion seemed to gather so much acclaim and awe, even from his brothers, as well as establish himself as Horus' first serious peer (at least in Horus' eyes if _The Unremembered Empire_ is anything to go by), in such a short time. Would have made much more sense if he'd been around for a century or more to validate the reputation he had in the Great Crusade.


Horus was the first to be found but he's not the first legion. The lion holds that honor. It's heavily implied that the reason why he got so much respect is that the dark angels were privy to technology no one else had.

In terms of who could be a leader anyone including angron is a king.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I'm not a fluff expert but if I recall correctly, this isn't right.



Phoebus said:


> This inability - or unwillingness - to integrate with their father's larger empire is increased with Ferrus Manus. In fact, he and the X Legion made a point of contrasting themselves to the rest of humanity, which they viewed as weak and frail by default.


The reaction of the iron hands, viewing humanity as weak had its basis in ferrus manus' death. He wanted them to be more human, but from what I remember reading they saw it as exposing their need to be even tougher, to excise all weaknesses, and be even tougher than their primarch. Though I don't have a source, just my recollections.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

Phoebus said:


> Carrying over from the discussion on whether or not Horus was the greatest primarch...
> 
> When you try to argue whether or not Horus was the greatest, you have to take into consideration background material that "the official party line" sometimes needs to be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of what is written about Horus benefits from hindsight, and the evolution of fact into myth.


Perhaps. As I acknowledged in the other thread, although we are often told (quite matter-of-factly) that Horus was the greatest Primarch, we haven't really been shown that is the case, certainly not the in the Heresy series anyway. The limits of his genius within the series (at least what we've directly seen) hasn't been spectacular: His manipulations and scheming prior to and after Isstvan III were only logical. But then, we haven't really been shown too much genius or the near supernatural capabilities of any Primarch outside of personal combat or feats of strength. We have seen some of Guilliman's logistical capabilities in _The Unremembered Empire_ and some of Alpharius' manipulations in _Legion_, but nothing which consistently portrays their genius on a monumental scale. 

However, we know from reading between the lines and elements of the story (like the remainder of your analysis) that Horus was a genius, I guess its just hard to portray the Primarchs in a novel as the old articles describe them. His greatness seems to stem from quite general things such as his tutoring by the Emperor, his intermittent command of the Great Crusade, his achievements during the Great Crusade, his charisma and ambition, and his key relationships with everyone of import (bar Corax). Rather than something more specific like Guilliman's logistical capabilities or Alpharius' tactical nous. 



Phoebus said:


> Horus was, without a doubt, an individual who possessed superhuman genius and charisma. He undoubtedly benefited from the fact that he was the Emperor's sole understudy for a time, though. We don't know for how long he was the Emperor's sole son, but no one should underestimate what an advantage this sort of apprenticeship would provide.


Index Astartes informs us that he was the Emperor's sole understudy for around 30 years, until Russ was found. It also says that Horus took "overall strategic command" of the Great Crusade numerous times before he became Warmaster as the Emperor's "time was pulled more and more in other directions".

And I agree, the advantage of this sort of apprenticeship should not be underestimated. Compare the time, tutoring and training that Horus received from the Emperor (over 30 years of campaigning together) to the amount received by the other Primarchs and it should be obvious how much of an advantage Horus had (especially considering some Primarchs, such as Alpharius, received next-to-no time with the Emperor at all).



Phoebus said:


> Additionally, we should look a what role the primarchs discovered after Horus played in his development. For a variety of reasons, the brothers who were discovered next would have reinforced Horus' position as the Emperor's "field commander", rather than giving the Emperor an incentive to diversify command.


Another good point. When the Emperor travelled to Fenris to incorporate it into the Imperial fold, Horus was given "command of the massed Legions of the Great Crusade". Even before another Primarch had been discovered Horus was trusted with overall generalship of the Great Crusade, something which no other Primarch was ever given the honour of. In retrospect it does seem that Horus's appointment as Warmaster was never in doubt - only reinforced, as you say _P_, because of the roles the immediate few Primarchs discovered after Horus took on.



Phoebus said:


> So was Horus the greatest? To a degree, yes. He was the most successful, the most experienced, and - until Guilliman (as depicted thus far) arrived - he was the most well-rounded of the primarchs. Until the Heresy, the Emperor had no real reason to consider someone else for the position of Warmaster.


Obviously, it is subjective. But if there has to be a 'greatest' Primarch, I can't see it being anyone but Horus. 



Lost&Damned said:


> What bugs me is, why have a warmaster anyway?
> why not an enclave of primarchs?stick 3 to monitor each other, dorn ,sanguinius ,Horus why would he ever give all power to one person?power has always corrupted.
> or better yet,no masters at all, let individual legions progress as they see fit.


The Primarchs bickered as brothers and were fiercely competitive (some were even openly hostile to one another), even the more stable ones such as Sanguinius (Horus manipulated dispatches from the Blood Angels' and World Eaters' campaigns to make sure they reached each other to promote rivalry between the two similar Legions). I don't think a council of Primarchs would have worked without the authority of the Emperor, or a proxy, as part of the system. 

I think, with the Emperor completely removed from Imperial politics as he was during the webway project, and with Malcador reigning as regent of Terra, the Great Crusade needed an overall leader to direct it.


----------



## zerachiel76 (Feb 12, 2010)

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> (especially considering some Primarchs, such as Alpharius, received next-to-no time with the Emperor at all).


I think this just goes to show how good Alpharius and Corax were since they didn't spend much time with the Emperor but they were both acknowledged to be amongst the greatest tactical commanders.


----------



## Lost&Damned (Mar 25, 2012)

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> The Primarchs bickered as brothers and were fiercely competitive (some were even openly hostile to one another), even the more stable ones such as Sanguinius (Horus manipulated dispatches from the Blood Angels' and World Eaters' campaigns to make sure they reached each other to promote rivalry between the two similar Legions). I don't think a council of Primarchs would have worked without the authority of the Emperor, or a proxy, as part of the system.
> 
> I think, with the Emperor completely removed from Imperial politics as he was during the webway project, and with Malcador reigning as regent of Terra, the Great Crusade needed an overall leader to direct it.


I agree with this, however, as i believe was highlighted in the audiobook "The sigillite" the Emperor has by far favoured the idea that he himself would one day step down and allow mankind to steer itself, i feel this idea of decentralizing power to be something he had vehemently hoped to acheive, i would have expected that his leave to create the webway would be the first of his steps into relinquishing power, and so instead of simply setting up another leader, allowed greater autonomy.

After all who cares for Angrons rages and the Night haunters sadism when they coul just be thrown at alien civilizations, where casualties dont matter.
There are enough level headed primarchs to balance the less mercurial ones.


----------



## Chompy Bits (Jun 13, 2010)

Reaper45 said:


> Horus was the first to be found but he's not the first legion. The lion holds that honor. It's heavily implied that the reason why he got so much respect is that the dark angels were privy to technology no one else had.
> 
> In terms of who could be a leader anyone including angron is a king.


That's not really the point I was trying to make. My point is that having the Lion only discovered 50 years before the Heresy doesn't mesh at all with the current timeline, especially with the now revealed primarch discovery order.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Chompy Bits said:


> I highly doubt the whole Lion being found only 50 years before the heresy thing will still be canon.


It's hardly the most glaring issue with the timeline Laurie Goulding presented.

That having been said, I have a far bigger issue with the fact that it took a decade to find the last nine primarchs _and_ delete one of them. By contrast, the Lion racking up accolades so fast would have been part and parcel of being one of four or five primarchs with a balanced approach to warfare and an absence of psychosis, berserker implants, mutation, illegal activities, etc.

My guess is that it took short periods of time for Guilliman to make a name for himself as well, and that Ultramar wasn't a prerequisite for that. 



Reaper45 said:


> It's heavily implied that the reason why he got so much respect is that the dark angels were privy to technology no one else had.


Where did you get that impression?

*EDIT:* I know you are referring to _The Unremembered Empire,_ but I'm curious about what part of the novel you're citing. 



Kreuger said:


> The reaction of the iron hands, viewing humanity as weak had its basis in ferrus manus' death.


See "Feat of Iron". Ferrus Manus' treatment of the Imperial Army auxiliaries assigned to his Legion is deplorable. They are never seen as anything more than an irritant and a hindrance until the "moral lesson" at the end of the novella.

*CotE,*

Very good analysis!


----------



## Lost&Damned (Mar 25, 2012)

Phoebus said:


> I
> 
> *EDIT:* I know you are referring to _The Unremembered Empire,_ but I'm curious about what part of the novel you're citing.


I remember in a codex, the fact that the Dark angels were the first legion meant they were the first to mobilize, they were given weaponry from the dark age of technology and were outfitted with the cream of teh crop, even in relation to other legions.
i'll try and find the exact quote and book i got it from when i have more time.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I remember that exact point being made in the novel I mentioned, but not in a Codex. In neither case was that cited as a reason for the Dark Angels earning acclaim, though.

If you do find that quote, though, let me know. I don't mind eating crow if it means I get to learn something new!


----------



## Brother Lucian (Apr 22, 2011)

Do remember that a Legion can have been active for a long time before their primarch was found, whom then waltzes in to harvest all the acclaim for the deeds done by his gene-sons.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I don't think we should _assume_ that absent any supporting evidence, though.


----------



## Chompy Bits (Jun 13, 2010)

Phoebus said:


> It's hardly the most glaring issue with the timeline Laurie Goulding presented.


But it kind of is a really big one now IMO. Part of the reason Monarchia and the Emperor's censure made such a big impact on Lorgar is because he had been crusading in that manner for over a century. And Monarchia happened roughly 40 years before the Heresy. Meaning Lorgar himself had to have been around for over 90 years before the Lion was found. Which we now know is impossible seeing as the Lion was found before Lorgar.

On to Horus though, it seems he had rivals in Dorn, Guilliman and the Lion, in terms of skill as a military commander. But like others have noted, compared to those 3 he was far more charismatic and enjoyed far better relationships with the other primarchs than they did. Guilliman himself notes in _Know No Fear_, I think, that there are very few primarchs he truly considered friends. We know how the Lion is in terms of keeping secrets and trusting others, so I am inclined to think many primarchs were mistrustful of him, even if they did respect him (like Guilliman did). Dorn I think would be very similar to Guilliman in this regard. Kind of aloof, and slow to make friends with the other primarchs. So from that point of view Horus was a better overall choice to take on military command of the GC. None of the others who could be considered his peers in terms of military or logistics could compete with him in terms of his ability to handle his brothers. So as a military leader (including handling potentially difficult subordinates), he really was the most well-rounded amongst the primarchs.

In terms of singular combat, I also would rank Horus high up there. If we consider that Corax, who considers himself among the best fighters of the primarchs (confident enough in his own abilities that he thought he could kill both Lorgar and Curze at the same time), thought only Horus and Sanguinius stood a shot at beating Angron (where he was positive he would fail), we can put Horus up there. This is also reinforced in _Betrayer_ where Lorgar says, in a kind of reverse scenario, that only Angron or Horus could stand against a bloodlusted Sanguinius. So in terms of combat (in general, barring having favouring circumstances) I'd probably put Horus at the top tier there, along with Angron and Sanguinius.

On a random note, Ferrus Manus seems to be more competent than most in terms of military leadership too, if _The Unremembered Empire_ is anything to go by. Guilliman listed him along with the likes of Dorn and himself and the Lion as potential rivals for the Warmaster spot, when he explained to the Lion that Horus cared the most about besting him for the spot above any others. And later when pondering what to do with the shattered legions, he immediately thinks to put the Iron Hands remnants as the base command structure, and then worries if the other legions would take orders from them. And Guilliman would only be considering that if he viewed the Iron Hands as the best choice to lead the remnants. But I am wandering off topic now... sorry...


----------



## Emperorguard500 (May 5, 2010)

can't it be argued that Macharius was a greater commander and had a greater military mind then Horus?


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Emperorguard500 said:


> can't it be argued that Macharius was a greater commander and had a greater military mind then Horus?


No, no it can't. Alexander the Great in space conquered about a thousand worlds or so and left them with next to no leadership base; Horus was noted to have led the combined might of the legions astartes multiple times as they reclaimed tens or hundreds of thousands of human worlds (most of which were left with some form of leadership.)


----------



## Emperorguard500 (May 5, 2010)

darkreever said:


> No, no it can't. Alexander the Great in space conquered about a thousand worlds or so and left them with next to no leadership base; Horus was noted to have led the combined might of the legions astartes multiple times as they reclaimed tens or hundreds of thousands of human worlds (most of which were left with some form of leadership.)


ahh ok...maybe he didn't have the mind of horus..... but where would he (macharius) be listed in terms of military intelligence among the other primarch generals like guillemon and the lion


----------



## Brother Lucian (Apr 22, 2011)

Emperorguard500 said:


> ahh ok...maybe he didn't have the mind of horus..... but where would he be listed in terms of military intelligence among the other primarch generals like guillemon and the lion


You do realize that the primarchs forged the imperium of a million worlds? A thousand worlds is naught but a drop in the sea of that.


----------



## Emperorguard500 (May 5, 2010)

Brother Lucian said:


> You do realize that the primarchs forged the imperium of a million worlds? A thousand worlds is naught but a drop in the sea of that.


togeather but im talking as a singular primarch

in terms of military intelligence, would people put Horus, The Lion, Roboute above Macharius


----------



## Brother Lucian (Apr 22, 2011)

Emperorguard500 said:


> togeather but im talking as a singular primarch
> 
> in terms of military intelligence, would people put Horus, The Lion, Roboute above Macharius


The Luna Wolves reputedly had the highest amount of compliant worlds over all of the other legions.

Macharius doesnt come close to those 3


----------



## Emperorguard500 (May 5, 2010)

Brother Lucian said:


> The Luna Wolves reputedly had the highest amount of compliant worlds over all of the other legions.
> 
> Macharius doesnt come close to those 3.


ok........well at least Macharius was the best human general, then

anyways....i think Horus was greatest .... i think his 17 brothers liked him and had no problem with him


----------



## Brother Lucian (Apr 22, 2011)

Emperorguard500 said:


> ok........well at least Macharius was the best human general, then
> 
> anyways....i think Horus was greatest .... i think his 17 brothers liked him and had no problem with him



Mach was brilliant no doubt about it, but he was only a mere mortal, a candlelight compared to the raging supernovae of the demigod primarchs.


----------



## Emperorguard500 (May 5, 2010)

Brother Lucian said:


> Mach was brilliant no doubt about it, but he was only a mere mortal, a candlelight compared to the raging supernovae of the demigod primarchs.


true..... Horus was just the greatest military mind in imperium history....although i think The Lion was a close second.....

however do you guys think the Emperor should of named Sanguinius "Warmaster" instead?


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Emperorguard500 said:


> however do you guys think the Emperor should of named Sanguinius "Warmaster" instead?


No, while Sanguinius was well liked by the vast majority of his brothers he had still not spent nearly as much time with the Emperor nor had he previously been given overall command of the great crusade when the Emperor's attention had been called elsewhere.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

zerachiel76 said:


> I think this just goes to show how good Alpharius and Corax were since they didn't spend much time with the Emperor but they were both acknowledged to be amongst the greatest tactical commanders.


Corax was never known for being one of the greats of tactical command.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Tactical, yes.

Strategic, no.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Brother Lucian said:


> You do realize that the primarchs forged the imperium of a million worlds? A thousand worlds is naught but a drop in the sea of that.


You also have to keep in mind what forces each had available to them and over what sort of time span they were each given.

Simply saying "Horus did more" is comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## zerachiel76 (Feb 12, 2010)

Malus Darkblade said:


> Corax was never known for being one of the greats of tactical command.





Vaz said:


> Tactical, yes.
> 
> Strategic, no.


Thanks Vaz, you answered this for me. Corax was a tactical genius but not a strategic one. Do you think Alpharius was tactical or strategic?


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

*darkreever,*

The "no leadership base" bit is an unfortunate carryover from exaggerated criticisms of Alexander himself. The Macedonian king had the bad fortune to die months before his legitimate heir was born. This led to his very much established leadership base - including military and regional commanders - embarking on a dispute as to who the legitimate heir was. Undermining the idea that his empire was on the brink of his collapse is the fact that, during the better part of two decades of conflict stretching from Greece to northwest Pakistan, the conquered provinces themselves did not rebel. On the contrary, Alexander's governors and deputies successfully recruited tens of thousands of warriors with which to fight their dynastic struggles.

Macharius' fate parallels that of Alexander, and thus the same unfortunate - and unfair - criticism is leveled at him. Macharius shouldn't be faulted for the subsequent actions of his marshals. Fault would lie with him if it becomes clear that he failed to appoint planetary governors and sub-sector/sector leadership, or if he failed to see an Administratum apparatus set up to process tithes.

Otherwise, his record - a thousand worlds in seven years - is quite remarkable. It definitely has to be up there with ANY of the Great Crusade campaigning records.


----------



## emporershand89 (Jun 11, 2010)

Horus was nothing but a scheming, greedy panzy who let his emotional "WANTS," get ahead of his greatness and the "NEEDS" of his people; the Imperium. As far as the man goes he is below dirt, crappy tactician, poor excuse of a fighter, and better be enjoying his painful Damnation.

On the flip side he was a brilliant politician and probably would have put Obama, Hitler, Stalin, and others to shame. He was a great leader in the sense of inspiring his warriors to greatness. However in the end he got what he deserved.....enough said


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

The fuck are you chatting about, emperorshand89?

How was he "scheming" (before he needed to find a way to remove opponents to defeating the Emperor), what were his "emotional wants" (actual quotes, please), what "needs" did the still forming Imperium have; he had a singular role; WARMASTER. He was looking past that. 

As for the rest of your post, you are chatting complete and utter fucking bollocks. Crappy Tactician? 

Look at the Castigation of Terentius. He was able to command elements 3 other legions in addition to his own, while it was expressly noted that Horus planned in advance; note that this is a Primarch planning (look at Rowboat during the battle for calth), and the notation that it was something "novel" that he did; suggesting a level above normal. He was able to utilise Alpha Legion operatives to disable fleets and high level strategic command, while Infrastructure was removed, which finished just before the Night Lords already well established Terror Tactics destroyed the morale of the defenders - the defenders which then mobilized to assault Iron Hand Siege armies, which as soon the defenders moved out of position and left gaps were assaulted by Luna Wolves, while in Orbit, Horus was able to drop out of the Warp within range of Terentius's fleet, annihilate much of the command fleet, before teleporting aboard the Flagship and killing the traitor. While no time frame is given, it is a particularly short and brutal campaign, consisting of combating an enemy who was general who had the respect of many, including the Sigillite and several Primarch's, who honestly had not a single chance of victory, despite having complete control of "hundreds of planets" for supply lines.

The only thing mentioned is Horus's Pride being slighted and not particularly stating why, but its likely due to his anger that there would be a Traitor at this level in Imperium command structure, resulting in the complete desolation of this empire.

And politician is the wrong word; especially as you suggested that he was not for the citizens of the Imperium "his people"; no seriously, please go and find a definition of politics for me. Make my day.

If you mean he was a grand manipulator, then yeah. Sure, he knew how to push buttons to get the best out of people, how to defuse a situation.

As for inability in combat... 

What a complete and utter bell...

____________________________
@zerachiel76; all Primarchs were Strategic genius's (even Angron); they were bred to be; some however were more well suited to it. Saying that Corax was not suited to Strategic Command is like saying a general is not a soldier. A general might not exactly be super-ally SF with gucci kit, but they are still more than adequately capable of unit command, especially when compared to pleb off the street. And bear in mind "Pleb off the street" is referring to Astartes Legion High Command to put that in perspective.

In my experience, many of the Marines I have fought alongside have some idea of the general strategy in play. Strategy is the end game, tactics is the methodology, you cannot have tactics without a strategy to build towards.

Like making a cake; "Stage 3; mix in the egg" makes no sense without the knowledge of the other stages, or what your aiming towards; "mix in the egg" could be for omelette, or meringue, for example.

Think of strategy as "setting goals" in the simplest way. The better strategists are able to break the end game into more manageable goals. This is where it begins to get hard to define the two; for example check out Op Frankton during WW2 (or Cockleshell Heroes). The desire was to reduce German access to supplies, and possibly shorten the war.

There were numerous tactics available; conventional beach assault on a mainland fortification; air raid, or commando raid. The commando raid was of immense ingenuity, and shortened the war by ~6 months in Churchill's eyes.

The capability of Blondie Hasler's tactical strength was matched by a higher command's correct assertion that destroying the supplies in Bordeaux would be detrimental to enemy war efforts in a significant scale. Without the determining strategy with which to allow Hasler to apply his tactics, there would have been no cause.

How to put this in 40k...

Corax was more than capable of commanding his units, but by necessity, his employ was primarily in assisting with attacks which the RG were not as skilled in aspect (i.e open warfare against Sons of Horus); and amplifying their strength where it was required; maximum pressure, weakest point etc.

Alpharius was capable of maximising the Macro; letting his units work without the need to use him. He needed to allocate all of those resources to getting what he wanted. He was not averse to tactical applications; but even without the aid of Astartes, to actually make his way to Horus' Sanctum on the Vengeful spirit says a lot. Omegon on the other hand...

Of course that information is prior to "Legion's" revelations.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

zerachiel76 said:


> Thanks Vaz, you answered this for me. Corax was a tactical genius but not a strategic one. Do you think Alpharius was tactical or strategic?


Both.

His legion were fluid and could theoretically adapt to any situation or mimic any of the other legions.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

*Chompy Bits,*

Your points made me think about the pertinent passages from _Descent of Angels_ and _Fallen Angels_ regarding the Lion's chronology. I double-checked the books in question, and - surprise: the rumors of the books being updated to match the new discovery order are true!



> “Our training cadre has worked diligently for the last century, refining our recruiting and training procedures to meet the challenges that the Emperor has set for us. I believe that my reports – as well as the constant flow of warriors and supplies – testify to our dedication and success.”
> 
> Excerpt From: Mike Lee. “Fallen Angels.” iBooks.


The speaker, Zahariel, was sent back to Caliban along with Luther a century prior to the events of Isstvan V. This was following the first "major campaign" (Zahariel's words) undertaken by the Dark Angels. The original version of the novel used the words "fifty years" instead of "century". That would mean the Lion would have been found around the hundredth year of the Great Crusade. My guess is that this was to make the order in which he was discovered more plausible.

Still, that couldn't be right, because...



> “Since then I have crusaded across his empire for over a century, raising icons and faiths in his image – and only now he objects? After a hundred years, only now am I told that all I’ve done is wrong?”
> 
> Excerpt From: Aaron Dembski-Bowden. “The First Heretic.” iBooks.


... the above quote was - as you mentioned - said forty-three years before the events of Isstvan V. Meaning Lorgar had been around since around the sixtieth year of the Great Crusade.

Laurie has stated that discovery order does not necessarily constitute the order in which each Primarch took command of their Legion, but I think it's rather disingenuous to assume that the Lion served an apprenticeship of at least four decades. Unfortunately...



> “It was an optimistic time, a period of fine ideals. It was an age of discovery, and he was a part of it.
> The early days were great days. Decades of conquest in the name of the Emperor.
> Afterwards, Zahariel would look back on these years as the happiest of his life. ”
> 
> Excerpt From: Mitchel Scanlon. “Descent of Angels.” iBooks.


... that's precisely what appears to be the case (based on what I assume to be a change to this novel, as well).

I think it's going to be very difficult to reconcile this discovery order with the novels that tell the tale of the Lion's origins and first years as a Primarch. As things stand, the changes make sense only in the plainest way - in the sense that X is before Y. Unless an editor - or Mitch Scanlon himself - sits down and re-writes a few sentences or paragraphs, then the mission to Sarosh and its place in the chronology of the First Legion makes no sense. There's no way that "decades" after the Lion was found the first "major campaign" the Dark Angels were assigned was supposed to be the completion of purely administrative matters on a planet about to become Compliant. The author even informs us that the tasking was considered to be appropriate for a secondary task force, not a primary Expedition Fleet, and the White Scars whom the Dark Angels replace there make it plain that they are relieved to be done with such a boring duty.

I get the need to fix the timeline of one Primarch as opposed to those of two others, especially when the latter have backgrounds that are much more established and integrated in the chronology of the Great Crusade. As of right now, though, better efforts need to be made for this fix to make sense.


----------

