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.

I don't think he was. He was a good legion commander but most of his victories were under the Emperor. But the moment the Emperor left things fell apart. Infighting with the Primarchs, a war that didn't need to be fought on Murder, trusting Erebus(seriously i'm a Word Bearers fan and i'm amazed anyone would like or trust this guy), dying. After the Heresy began things fell apart even more. Istvann III was a disaster that he someone justified saying that it blooded his legion and showed that he never lost, yea at the cost of half the strength of 4 legions(I mean I can see Angron having to purge his Legion but shouldn't Horus have the most loyal warriors?). Istvaan IV was a great success but more because of other Primarchs like Alpharius and Lorgar. His plan to kill Sangiunus was a failure mainly because he didn't want a rival to the throne knowing that Sangiunus was a better choice for Warmaster from the beginning. The Shadow Crusade and the rainstorm, almost gave him victory but he had no interest in them. Again Lorgar. Alpharius also did a pretty good job keeping reinforcements from reaching Terra. Two cammanders Horus never really believed in(probably the best two. That's the worst part is he shows contempt for those who fight for him. In "THE WARMASTER" he talks about the failures of Lorgar and Alpharius but doesn't seem to be able to admit yea I f@cked up majorly.

Horus's primary failing is his ego a how he dismisses the opinions of others. He gets himself killed because he wouldn't listen to his chosen advisors, even later during the heresy he threatens to kill Little Horus for telling him the truth that he takes needless risks. He dismissed the damage the remembrancers could do considering civilians to be irrelevant, again his ego makes him blind to the threats around him. His ego is what ultimately gets him killed when he foolishly thinks he can outfight the Emperor.

I don't think the abysmal writers over at Black Library did Horus any favours with his storyline. He seemed OK for about 20% of book one, then got shanked by some nobody and woke up all evil.

To be fair, most of the Primarchs come across as complete idiots in that awful series. Magnus essentially spends an entire novel crying, Dorn comes across as a massive neckbeard, Russ is "a barbarian who makes you think hes a barbarian so convincingly because hes a barbarian but really hes a smart barbarian". Just awful.

Robute, Sanguinius, and Alpharius/Omegon seem to have escaped the worst of it... So far.

Horus was an exception tactician, diplomat, and warrior. He was the logical choice for Warmaster even past just being the Emperors favourite (Sanguinius was the only other real choice really. Horus being the favourite probably is what gave him the edge there).He's just not been written very well. All characters have flaws, as you've mentioned his pride was his biggest flaw.

Well, since there's no 'one true canon' in 40k (every novel has a distinct point of view) you can pick the version you like best and go with it.

The lack of a single point of view makes perfect sense in a game milieu where you can choose to follow any of scores of factions. You have to be able to identify with every faction on some level if GW wants you to buy that faction's merchandise.

My two cents.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Horus was an exception tactician, diplomat, and warrior. He was the logical choice for Warmaster even past just being the Emperors favourite (Sanguinius was the only other real choice really. Horus being the favourite probably is what gave him the edge there).He's just not been written very well. All characters have flaws, as you've mentioned his pride was his biggest flaw.

yeah he was awesome. getting found first and spending so much 1on1 with Big E probably helped, but he was the greatest of the great.

The whole universe was nearly conquered and under imperial rule, and he fought his way back through and nearly killed the Emperor, so he must have been good. The major flaw I can never forgive with the heresy series is that if the emperor had told Horus why he was leaving, the heresy never would have happened. He couldn't tell his 'favoured son' a secret that hundreds of sisters of silence, custodians and scientists knew about, just in case chaos/the eldar found out? Can't buy into that.

"Dorn comes across as a massive neckbeard"

Woh what?

 Desubot wrote:
"Dorn comes across as a massive neckbeard"

Woh what?

He really does, and an all around Muppet. Book 1, 'Loken would be great in the mournival', book 3 'I've never heard of Loken, what's he like?' (different authors, I know), in bloodgame, to a crowded ballroom 'Don't arrest him, he's a top secret spy!'. They haven't done him many favours.

Guilliman would have been a better warmaster.

Whoever warmaster was, same thing would have happened, chaos would have found Guilliman's weakness and put on the pressure.

 JamesY wrote:
Whoever warmaster was, same thing would have happened, chaos would have found Guilliman's weakness and put on the pressure.

Guilliman's only canonical weakness is that he's not terribly good at innovating. He's a great upgrader but not a great inventor.

The emperor bargained with the chaos gods for the knowledge and power to make the primarchs, therefore they have a potential route into all of them.

 JamesY wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
"Dorn comes across as a massive neckbeard"

Woh what?

He really does, and an all around Muppet. Book 1, 'Loken would be great in the mournival', book 3 'I've never heard of Loken, what's he like?' (different authors, I know), in bloodgame, to a crowded ballroom 'Don't arrest him, he's a top secret spy!'. They haven't done him many favours.

Also the bit on Terra with Sigismund

D: "Tell me your troubles my son, I can help you with your troubles"
S: "Dad, I stayed on Terra so I could stand beside you in the coming storm"
D: "Get the feth out traitor idiot"

 Kain wrote:
Guilliman would have been a better warmaster.

No he wouldn't. He might've been a better administrator and maybe even a better tactician, but he didn't get on with many of his brothers, so they wouldn't have listened to him or be lead by him. Same reason why the Lion wouldn't have ,are a good Warmaster too. They technically might've been better but they didn't have the likability or charisma.

Horus is one of the few primarchs I dislike. A slimy manipulator. Disgusting.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Guilliman would have been a better warmaster.

No he wouldn't. He might've been a better administrator and maybe even a better tactician, but he didn't get on with many of his brothers, so they wouldn't have listened to him or be lead by him. Same reason why the Lion wouldn't have ,are a good Warmaster too. They technically might've been better but they didn't have the likability or charisma.

They'd bow to their spiritual liege in good time.

Alternatively, Horus always thought that Sanguinus would have been a better Warmaster than he was.

I've just been lent the audiobooks and I'm most of the way through False Gods. I tried reading the books and didn't enjoy it, but thought I could use something to lsiten to and I'd give it another try.

It's really clarifying some of what I disliked.

Horus is meant to be one of the most charismatic, intelligent and powerful men to ever exist, and he is supposed to turn from his creator and lead a rebellion.

I expect something like the story of Ozymandias in Watchmen, a man who seems so pure that the purity has become someone montrous at the other end. Or perhaps a true example of Hubris, one of his most worthy qualities leading him inexorably down a path that ends with rebellion.

Instead I'm treated to a monstrous, idiotic brute of a man whom I'm fairly sure I could out think in a battle. He is easily and obviously manipulated at every turn, and then finally they don't bother actually turning him to chaos but instead basically possess him. Possession isn't a change in the original character, but putting a new character in an old form. Total cop out.

Also, the non-religious angle is still weird to me. There's chaplains and all sorts of things running around, but they also disdain religion? I don't remember that being a part of things back in the day, but I guess it could be done okay.

I'm going to keep listening, as I've heard some parts are really good. But the portrayal of Horus is nothing short of a disaster. Given that its the Horus Heresy, that's a problem.

I don't think it is possession so much as manipulation, if you get as far as fulgrim you'll see the difference more obviously. He was never described as a polished idol, that's more like Sanguinus and one reason why some primarchs disagreed with his elevation. That said, I completely agree with you that the change from loyal to rebel happened far to easily and quickly, especially considering how bloated the series has become. I suppose it's because the original plan was about 12 novels for the whole heresy, so it got raced.

Too easy a manipulation. If Horus is so easy to control, why was anyone impressed by him in the first place?

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Too easy a manipulation. If Horus is so easy to control, why was anyone impressed by him in the first place?

Yeah that's an issue with how badly his fall was written.

And Chaplains during 30k weren't a religious thing, outside the Word Bearers. They were introduced by Malcador after the council of Nikea to oversee the abolishment of the Librarius in the legions and ensure that it stayed that way. They were based on the chaplains from the Word Bearers ironically (I wonder if anyone in 40k is aware of that).

Sanguinus was obviously a better choice but was held back due to how obvious his mutation / warp taint was. Sure he was angelic but he had two freaking huge wings coming out of him, which I'm sure always made the emperor suspect him. I think the emperor wanted a more pure seeming figure head than the heavily mutated (although extravagantly handsome) sanguinus so he went with Horus. It's ironic because it shows that purity of body is nothing compared to purity of soul.

I don't think Sanguinius was 'obviously' a better choice over Horus. Horus really was exceptional, at pretty much everything. He was a great tactician, and while im sure Sanguinius was no slouch at that, he's not exactly known for it, as an example. Horus just hasn't been written that well in the books.

Isn't he though? Sanguinus and Dorn held back a two prong demonic incursion on Earth while fighting off the entire traitor warhost besides the k sons and alphas. Plus the entire dark mechanicus and traitor titan legions. That's considerably more impressive than anything Horus ever accomplished.

Not to mention the blood angels rarely took heavy losses despite the massive attrition most of the other assault legions routinely faced. Add to that that Sang is a skilled psyker, and artificer, and that he severely outclassed Horus in H2H, and I think you can see why Horus was insecure about him.

I'm not disputing that Sanguinius was a damn good Primarch or a possibility for Warmaster, I disagree that he was 'obviously a better choice' than Horus.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Isn't he though? Sanguinus and Dorn held back a two prong demonic incursion on Earth while fighting off the entire traitor warhost besides the k sons and alphas. Plus the entire dark mechanicus and traitor titan legions. That's considerably more impressive than anything Horus ever accomplished.

They were sitting in the greatest fortress in the galaxy - that Dorn fortified. And they had plenty of support, including the White Scars. Sanguinius had some great individual feats, but nothing in terms of strategies or tactics, as far as I know. Being besieged doesn't leave much room for inspired stratagems. We have no way of quantifying how fantastic a feat it was, or how much of it can be attributed to Sanguinius.

Not to mention the blood angels rarely took heavy losses despite the massive attrition most of the other assault legions routinely faced. Add to that that Sang is a skilled psyker, and artificer, and that he severely outclassed Horus in H2H, and I think you can see why Horus was insecure about him.

Have they ever fought? I don't see what you base 'Sanguinius severely outclassing Horus' on. Lorgar seemed to think either Horus or Angron could take him.

Sanguinus held the eternity gate, alone, for an entire day against the entire force of chaos. He slew the most favored bloodthirsters of Khorne. He had the tactical acumen to realize boarding Horus ship was a major blunder. Horus only had victories when he was the emperors lieutenant. On his own he got killed almost instantly, then blundered through a couple of ambushes of loyal astartes, then got killed again. I'm not seeing a ton of points in favor of horus. For fighting, I think if you can pile drive KahBandha or whatever his name is into the mantle and send his busted as back into the warp there isn't much, if anything in the universe that can defeat you. Certainly not Horus, who barely went a week alone before getting shived

I am not disputing that Sanguinius is powerful in hand-to-hand, but we are talking about the job of waging war on a galactic scale. Strategic brilliance is paramount. Personal fighting prowess is meaningless.

As for having the "tactical acumen to realize boarding Horus ship was a major blunder" I would really like to see the justification on that without assuming the imminent arrival of the Dark Angels and Space Wolves. I don't remember him arguing against the Emperor in the original story at least.

 Silverthorne wrote:
. Horus only had victories when he was the emperors lieutenant.

Are you forgetting Istvaan V where his 'lack' of tactical acumen saw 4 loyalist legions almost wiped out with minimal friendly casualties by comparison? The Emperor wasn't helping him out there was he?

 JamesY wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:
. Horus only had victories when he was the emperors lieutenant.

Are you forgetting Istvaan V where his 'lack' of tactical acumen saw 4 loyalist legions almost wiped out with minimal friendly casualties by comparison? The Emperor wasn't helping him out there was he?

LOL no. Firstly it was 3 loyalists legions not 4. And Horus had complete strategic and tactical suprise due to the betrayal of the remining traitor legions. He had the high ground of space. He had greater than 2 : 1 numerical superiority. And he still couldn't destroy even one loyal legion. Pathetic.

And Sanguinus gave the emperor the "I've got a really, really, really bad feeling about this" talk before boarding the barge. Given there was an audience, anything more would have been insubordination, which at that point would have cost the imperials everything.

I wouldn't call that pathetic. It was pretty clever to come up with the plan, and those legions were down and out for the count for awhile. It did pretty much exactly what Horus wanted, barring 100% annihilation of those legions. It cleared also cleared out loyalist forces in his own legions as well.