Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

IIRC, Index Astartes has it that the whole thing about beating up Dorn and destroying Nostromo did not cause Curze to be considered a traitor at all. Indeed, he still participated in the Great Crusade: IA is not totally clear on this point but it seems to suggest he was still "pacifying" already-conquered worlds -- albeit in a very obsessive, disproportionate way.

As near as I can tell, the Night Lords had always done this kind of work but somehow what they were doing at this point was considered worse. IA indicates they crossed the line by invading helpless worlds. IMO, however, I still wonder what the difference is -- isn't the point of the Astartes that non-compliant powers would stand no chance against them? This is the question that eventually drove the Night Haunter to conclude that the Emperor was a hypocrite.

Assuming IA is still valid, the Emperor eventually called Curze to Terra for a scolding. How exactly the Emperor was going to rein in the VIII Legion is not described -- he used the UM against the WB and the SW against the TS. I wonder who he would have sent for Curze. In any case, the HH broke out before anything could be done.

So there we have it: in the shadow of Istvaan III, Curze was not considered a traitor -- even if he was on the outs with Dorn and wanted for questioning by the Emperor.

 Pilau Rice wrote:
Am I not allowed to have an opinion Manchu?

Whether you're allowed to hold an opinion is irrelevant. Whether that opinion has any merit is the issue.

 Manchu wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:
Am I not allowed to have an opinion Manchu?

Whether you're allowed to hold an opinion is irrelevant. Whether that opinion has any merit is the issue.

Ok, I'll just remember that what you say is right then.

 Pilau Rice wrote:
Ok, I'll just remember that what you say is right then.

Or you could just put in the effort of counterargument rather than saying "hurr, I get it but I think it's dumb." If that's too much, then yeah just assume I'm right.

 Manchu wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:
Ok, I'll just remember that what you say is right then.

Or you could just put in the effort of counterargument rather than saying "hurr, I get it but I think it's dumb." If that's too much, then yeah just assume I'm right.

Hey, i've put in quotes from the IAs and done my part, what more do you want me to do? Keep fighting with you about why I think I am right and you are wrong till the end of time, you might enjoy that but I won't.

I was going to but there's no point in arguing on the Internet, so I'm not doing it, I took note of Obi wan on Internet arguments

The problem is, you're not using the quotations critically. For example, you cite the bit about Curze no longer crusading in the name of the Emperor and denouncing him as a hypocrite. Given that no one treated him as a traitor, however, we have to interpret this as being Cruze's private view at that time. How can you say then that Dorn and the others were stupid to not act on information they could not have known because it was Curze's internal feeling or, at most, only known among the VIII Legion? Similarly, you say the wider Imperium knew that the Night Lords were rebelling because of the Emperor's recon ships. But even with this knowledge the Emperor only eventually recalled Curze -- and, key point here, the Emperor recalled him; the Emperor did NOT denounce him as a dangerous traitor with whom loyal Legions should never associate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pilau Rice wrote:
I took note of Obi wan on Internet arguments

If so, then you know there are alternatives to fighting. Like, for example, critical discussion of sources and reasoned points. No one doubts that the Loyalists saw Curze as dangerous. The key contention here is whether the Loyalists could have viewed him as dangerous in the same vein as the open Traitors. Nothing they could have known about Curze would have caused them to lump him in with Horus, Mortarion, Angron, and Fulgrim. Meanwhile, as far as they knew, the Emperor may have wanted to have words with Curze but even so he was still fighting for the Emperor. Think of it this way, there is nothing about how Curze fought that would strike the Loyalists as problematic on Istvaan V. Curze was a relentless terror-monger and committed numerous atrocities. Which of the Loyalists believed the Traitors deserved better?