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.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Sanguinus was loyal to the emperor, not necessarily his ideals.

Rowboat was loyal to the ideals(which is exactly what animus just said had you bothered to read what you were quoting).

Honestly the bigger issue was specialising the legions.

Dark angels were created as all-rounders, everyone else got specialised to one degree or another(and often to extremes). This is part of why/how the deathguard, iron warriors, and worl eaters all fell.

Taffy17 wrote:
I'd argue Roboute was loyal to humanity a lot more than the Emperor. IIRC he never considered the Emperor his father.

Sanguinius was loyal to both and the Blood Angels are well known for sticking up for the little guy.

When the Emperor appointed Horus warmaster he made the right choice. Of all of them he was most appropriate to lead the great crusade however this was also his downfall as when the crusade started to decline he realised he would lose his purpose. This was when someone like Guilliman would have been more appropriate as although he wouldn't have been as good a 'War'master as many of his brothers he would have been a better empire builder which was more needed later on.

 ImAGeek wrote:


Your first point is what people are saying; Roboute was loyal to the Imperium and Humanity, Dorn was loyal to the Emperor, and Sanguinius was probably somewhere in the middle.

I agree that Horus was the right choice for Warmaster. He had the right mix of tactician and diplomat. Guilliman and the Lion might have been better from a technical standpoint but neither of them got on with enough of their brothers for it to work. The only other proper choice really was Sanguinius.

 Silverthorne wrote:


He's loyal to the Imperium, and has never done anything to suggest otherwise. Of all the Primarchs Guilliman is probably the most loyal, maybe not to the Emperor as that would probably be Dorn, but to the idea of the Imperium itself.

 Silverthorne wrote:


More loyal than Sanguinus? That's rich.

All this talk of loyalty is pointless! Everyone knows the Lion and the Dark Angels are the most loyalest Loyalists!

The Lion was loyal enough, but too ruthless, plus Luthor got half his legion to turn. Which mean they needed much purging.

 The Green one wrote:
Were just thinking, Was the creation of the primarchs a mistake? I mean, he created 20 super humans who seems to be the only ones who would ever come close to his power level, and did knowing that chaos exist and corrupts. It just seems such a bad idea.

The Space marines were needed according to me since humanity were so assailed by xenon and normal human would have a lot harder to reunite mankind. And maybe not succeed.

And while the primarchs are genius just having a space marine commander leading a expedition fleet seems enough. No risk of anyone commanding hundred of thousand of marines turning traitor but still good enough to conquer worlds. What do you think?

I think even space marines where a mistake.

I think that had the emperor worked out the kinks out of his thunder legions he could have had the same result with the thunder legions as he did with the space marines maybe some slower but he would have succeeded with stable thunder legions and his normal human armies.

Robute being loyal to Robute isn't supported by his actions.

Guilliman had every reason to be jealous oh Horus and resentful that the Emperor raised Horus up to be Warmaster. He gave no sign of resentment. That doesn't sound like Robute for Robute to me.

Horus clearly didn't think Robute a viable candidate for the Heresy. He collected all the Primarchs with hubris, authority issues and axes to grind to throw them against the Emperor. Horus might well have seen Guilliman as a potential rival, or he might have felt Robute was too loyal. Either way, he didn't make the cut to be a rebel. Surely Chaos would have made a serious effort to subvert the Ultramarines, the largest Legion of all, had there been a real chance?

Robute was instead sent off on a wild goose chase. The Word Bearers were sent along to stop or delay them - a critical piece of Horus' master plan. In fact, the entire siege of Terra was dependent on breaking the defenses before the other Legions, specifically the Ultramarines, could arrive.

Robute was in a position to seize the Imperium after the Heresy. His Legion was the largest, most coherent Loyalist force even after Calth. Yet he didn't. Instead of becoming Regent in Perpetuity Guilliman broke up all Space Marine Legions into manageable Chapters - and none was more fragmented by the Codex Astartes than the Ultramarines. For me this speaks of Guilliman's loyalty to the Emperor, and after his installation in the Golden Throne, to the Imperium.

You could read much into comments by other Primarchs in the Horus Heresy series that throws that loyalty into question. Consider the sources. The HH is told from many perspectives with many agendas. Every Legion can be seen as reasonable, even heroic at some point. Likewise, every Legion can be seen as self-serving or disloyal.

In a galaxy where you can play any faction this approach to canon makes a ton of sense. Beaviz hasn't said anything good about the Ultras and plenty of bad. His view is not 'Truth' because there is no single truth in the Grimdark. On the other hand, if his headcanon makes Robute out to be a self-serving autocrat he can justify it within the fluff - just as I can justify Robute being loyal and selfless based on the same fluff. It's consciously designed that way.

My two cents.

I read here and there in this thread---the question isn't really about which Primarch was better than another...the question is were the Primarch's a mistake. Taking into mind that 40k is fiction--it still is such a complex concept/ world/ awesome Sci Fi ...what have you. If the Emperor was created from psycher's tapping into the Warp--and he lived for thousands of years, one would think he would see the problem of creating the killing machines that are first--the Primarchs and second--the Space Marines. They are considered post-human and rightly so for they are fiercely made. Some space marine's even resent fighting for regular human beings--even though that is what they were made for in the first place!!! It is my opinion (and it is just that) that the Emperor should have instructed his sons about the Warp and the space marines as well. The Council of Nikea should never have restricted the use of psychic legionaries or the Librarians as they are highly effective against those things of the Warp. In keeping these things from his sons and their offspring--the space marines...the door was wide open for the 'Horus Heresy.' It is even ironic to call it a heresy as the Emperor did not think of himself as divine. The Emperor also failed Fulgrim by humiliating him. He failed Magnus and sicced Russ on him. It is no wonder a rebellion evolved! It is even an ironic and self-defeating eventuality that the ideology the Emperor and the Primarch's taught--failed--as later space marines, the Imperium itself and those who upheld it...made the Emperor divine---hell---the entire Imperium is based on the worship of the Emperor. So were the Primarch's a mistake...yeah...but maybe a necessary evil when considering the things of the Warp and other Alien incursions.?

Primarchs and Space marines are not inherently mistakes, as much as any technology can inherently be a mistake. Like any other weapon of mass destruction, these forces came with a certain degree if inherent risk, but were just tools to an end. Would we ask the same question if the Great crusade would have gone off without a hitch? Would we say the Manhattan Project was a mistake if the Nazi's had stolen the plans, built a bomb and dropped it on New York? it is a matter of success and failure. and while the great crusade failed, it doesn't mean the idea of the primarchs or the space marines was bad, it just means the execution misfired.

@GKTiberius--normally I would agree with you--if we were talking about 'sterile' weapons of mass destruction, i.e. nuclear weapons, bio-germ warfare, etc... The Primarch's and the Space Marines are living and free (to a degree) thinking individuals. As such, and the fact that they have super human abilities---makes them a danger. After all half sided with Chaos and the other had sort of their own agendas. I think you would be talking apples and oranges to say they (the Primarchs) are equal to, again, 'sterile' weapons of mass destruction---though I do see your point...but just respectfully disagree.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
The Lion was loyal enough, but too ruthless, plus Luthor got half his legion to turn. Which mean they needed much purging.

Luther turned some/most of the Caliban garrison, and that's it. The Lion was/is Loyal, while some of the Fallen believe him to a Traitor.

 ChazSexington wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:
The Lion was loyal enough, but too ruthless, plus Luthor got half his legion to turn. Which mean they needed much purging.

Luther turned some/most of the Caliban garrison, and that's it. The Lion was/is Loyal, while some of the Fallen believe him to a Traitor.

I think the wording was that half the Dark Angels were left on Caliban. Thats not just some. Plus that was where they recruited from so blowing up the planet meant their future were set as a series of dwindling chapters.

 Beaviz81 wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:

 Beaviz81 wrote:
The Lion was loyal enough, but too ruthless, plus Luthor got half his legion to turn. Which mean they needed much purging.

Luther turned some/most of the Caliban garrison, and that's it. The Lion was/is Loyal, while some of the Fallen believe him to a Traitor.

I think the wording was that half the Dark Angels were left on Caliban. Thats not just some. Plus that was where they recruited from so blowing up the planet meant their future were set as a series of dwindling chapters.

Nope, Caliban was just a recruitment station by the end the of the Great Crusade, which is why the "exiled" DAs felt they had been done wrong by the Lion.