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.

not counting Big E.... I feel like he is....He has the second most victories out of all the primarchs in the Great Crusade (2nd only to Horus, but remember that Horus was found first, so had a head start on him)

and it mentioned before that he was seen as a strategic/tactical master.

The only ones that come close to him are probably Horus and Macharius

Military genii do not lose half their forces to mutiny.

I'm pretty sure it was a great deal less than half. It was the Caliban garrison and trainees and not even all of them.

 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
Military genii do not lose half their forces to mutiny.

Well, I think most people would say Napoleon was a military genius, and he invaded Russia in winter and then lost his army. There's more to it than that I think.
However, I agree that the Lion wasn't the greatest due to his inability to read the people around him. My vote is for Macharius instead, the man conquered 1000 worlds in 7 seven years with a force that was predominately guard, and he was a mortal without the ultra-brain the Primarch's seemed to have had for command.

One could argue Lorgar was pretty genius too.

He transformed the World Bearers from on of the least effective legions to one of the most powerful in the space of a few decades once he set his mind to it and he instigated a civil war which could not have possibly ended any better for him and his masters.

Macharius tamed 1000 World Series in the segmentum pacificus.

Guilliman and he Ultramarines had more compliances than either Horus or the Lion, and Sun Tzu said that the supreme art of war is to subdue your enemies without fighting.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Macharius tamed 1000 World Series in the segmentum pacificus.

Guilliman and he Ultramarines had more compliances than either Horus or the Lion, and Sun Tzu said that the supreme art of war is to subdue your enemies without fighting.

It really depends on the source. As far as I'm aware the Luna Wolves, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Ultramarines have all been credited with having the most conquests at some point or another. Even the Word Bearers are near the top in some sources (The First Heretic).

Just an example:

"During this time, no record of the Dark Angels' victories was kept, but it is known that Jonson won wide acclaim for his masterful tactics and the tenacity of his Legion. It infuriated Jonson's fraternal rival, Leman Russ, to admit that another Primarch could claim more triumphs than he. Yet there was one who achieved even greater military success than Jonson- Horus and his Luna Wolves Legion."
DA codex 6th ed, pg 8

No mention of Guilliman. The sources only mention things that are relevant to the particular narrative so obviously they can be very biased.

I never said that Guilliman had the most victories on the battlefield, or triumphed over the most foes. The sources often credit Guilliman with the most compliances which doesn't contradict any of the above.

Let Horus or the Lion compare who won the most battles. The Ultramarines brought in the most compliances, and thus the most worlds.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I never said that Guilliman had the most victories on the battlefield, or triumphed over the most foes. The sources often credit Guilliman with the most compliances which doesn't contradict any of the above.

Let Horus or the Lion compare who won the most battles. The Ultramarines brought in the most compliances, and thus the most worlds.

Yes, but that was my point, those are narratives about the Ultramarines or the vanilla SM codex depending on the edition or the amount of Ward involvement. Victories, battles won, and compliances are all variously used and accredited to different legions depending on the sources.

I don't have enough of the books with me to dig up all the stuff but the sources do not universally credit the Ultramarines with the most compliances. For example, I don't think the Index Astartes does, though I'd have to check again, and the new Forge World series doesn't mention anything either, though I only skimmed through the 5th book and might have missed something.

As an additional example, in The First Heretic the Word Bearers are credited with more compliances than any other legion in the last few decades of the Crusade:

"He’d been posted to one of the most aggressive, renowned, largest Legions, responsible for more compliances in the last half a century than any other – and a fleet, minor or not, that was honoured to contain some of the Emperor’s own golden Custodes warriors."

But that's only from one source, which is specifically about the Word Bearers. Many will find the above statement somewhat unbelievable if they haven't read the book yet. Then again, it's not that unbelievable. The Word Bearers were the second largest legion by that time and, more importantly, compliance =/= prosperous and stable worlds. The Word Bearers are depicted as pretty much exterminating most civilizations they come across to speed up their conquests and to vent their wrath. And legions like the Night Lords were also very effective in achieving compliance, but they were hardly using the same methods as the Ultramarines, or leaving behind prosperous worlds.

So yes, I'd agree that the Ultramarines left their conquests more stable and more prosperous than any of the above mentioned legions but that doesn't mean they achieved the most compliances (though I don't doubt sources about the Ultramarines will state that they did). At the same time, I think the sources vary too much to come up with a clear answer. Personally, I'd go with the Luna Wolves/Sons of Horus as the safest bet.

Codex Ultramarines, 2nd Ed. :

"He [Guilliman] succeeded in liberating more worlds during the Great Crusade than any other Primarch, and the worlds he brought within the Imperium were to benefit from his organizational skills and passion for efficient government. [. . .] Once a world was safe he could move on, leaving behind enough advisers to ensure that indistry would be created, trading routes set up with the Imperium, and government directed towards the prosperity of the people. In this way the Ultramarines could conquer worlds faster than any other Space Marine Legion."

 Insectum7 wrote:
Codex Ultramarines, 2nd Ed. :

"He [Guilliman] succeeded in liberating more worlds during the Great Crusade than any other Primarch, and the worlds he brought within the Imperium were to benefit from his organizational skills and passion for efficient government. [. . .] Once a world was safe he could move on, leaving behind enough advisers to ensure that indistry would be created, trading routes set up with the Imperium, and government directed towards the prosperity of the people. In this way the Ultramarines could conquer worlds faster than any other Space Marine Legion."

That couldn't be more unreliable, considering the fact that it is very ancient fluff and in the Ultramarine codex. It is directly contradicted by most newer sources which state that Horus was the most succesful. Besides, I am pretty sure the SW, DA and BA codices all have claimed the same thing about their own legion. Every legion or chapter is always the best in its own fluff.
Is there anything said in the Heresy novels (or even better, the FW sourcebooks) about who conquered the most worlds? That would be more reliable.

Anyways, the Lion was definitely a military genius, but not the greatest in the history of the Imperium. Horus and Macharius were definitely greater. Guilliman, Dorn, Russ, Alpharius and Perturabo are easily on the same level as the Lion and outmatch him in certain aspects. Most other Primarchs are close as well. They were all military geniuses (except maybe the likes of Angron, Curze or Ferrus Manus).

Colonel Schaefer, for taking small ragtag groups on impossible missions, getting the job done and returning to friendly territory to do it all over again.

 EngulfedObject wrote:

As an additional example, in The First Heretic the Word Bearers are credited with more compliances than any other legion in the last few decades of the Crusade:

"He’d been posted to one of the most aggressive, renowned, largest Legions, responsible for more compliances in the last half a century than any other – and a fleet, minor or not, that was honoured to contain some of the Emperor’s own golden Custodes warriors."

Depending how you read it, you can draw a conclusion where Word Bearers outperformed other legions during last decades but lost to Luna Wolves, Dark Angels and such as a whole.

As for Lion, I don't think he ranks first even among the primarchs for tactical prowess. Maybe coming second or third after Horus and maybe (just maybe) Alpharius, Guilliman after for being too goodyshoes. As for nonprimarch choice Macharius is a serious candidate. Ibram Gaunt could have some recognization but him being lowrankish hinders clear judgment.

Sly Marbo, he trolled the 40k universe with his victories so hard they deleted him from the lore to give other people past and present a chance.

But, if information from one of the earlier sources of army book is unreliable to base this decision on, and your dubious of what Matt Ward has written down. Than what are we using for a standard to go off of?

seems to me everything said here can be true without anything being false. the word bearers went on a tear late in the crusade. Horus had the most conquests, The Dark Angels outscored the Wolves but where outpaced by the Luna Wolves (the 6th ed DA 'dex does NOT specify the Dark Angels where second only that horus had greater military success. likewise none of this would contridict the Ultramarines actually bringing more inhabited worlds into the IoM.

this also doesn't factor in "personal conquests vs legion conquests" it's quite possiable for the statements "Horus conquered the most worlds" and "the ultramarines conquered the most worlds" to, not actually contridict each other. as this would mean the Ultramarines on a whole conquered more, but Horus personally lead the most conquests.

Wasn't Lion one of three Primarchs who wasn't a ruler by the time the Big E came to visit?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Wasn't Lion one of three Primarchs who wasn't a ruler by the time the Big E came to visit?

he was the effective ruler of his world. while technicly I think he ruled along side Luther, that was a polite fiction.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Wasn't Lion one of three Primarchs who wasn't a ruler by the time the Big E came to visit?

Angron, Morotorian, and depending on how you count it Alpharius and Omegon


Horus didnt conquer his hiveworld did he?

He had 35 years less than any of the other primarchs.

Morrslieb wrote:
Depending how you read it, you can draw a conclusion where Word Bearers outperformed other legions during last decades but lost to Luna Wolves, Dark Angels and such as a whole.

Indeed, it was meant as an example of an obscure claim most will never have heard of, even if the source is reputable. It does put the Word Bearers on the radar though.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Wasn't Lion one of three Primarchs who wasn't a ruler by the time the Big E came to visit?

he was the effective ruler of his world. while technicly I think he ruled along side Luther, that was a polite fiction.

Yea, he was effectively in control, having just led the campaign to eradicate the Great Beasts across the entire planet. The only knightly order that didn't join his campaign (the Knights of Lupus) was wiped out.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That couldn't be more unreliable, considering the fact that it is very ancient fluff and in the Ultramarine codex. It is directly contradicted by most newer sources which state that Horus was the most succesful. Besides, I am pretty sure the SW, DA and BA codices all have claimed the same thing about their own legion. Every legion or chapter is always the best in its own fluff.
Is there anything said in the Heresy novels (or even better, the FW sourcebooks) about who conquered the most worlds? That would be more reliable.

Exactly, the claims are all over the place, though Horus is consistently on top. I don't think the FW sourcebooks have stated anything definitely yet, aside from the fact that the Ultramarines eclipsed the Dark Angels in size soon after the Third Rangdan Xenocide.

Blasphemy none of these creations could be a better tacticians than the emperor himself.

Best tactical genius? Commander Kubrik Chenkov. Argument over.

In all seriousness I am also one to believe that the Emperor was the best because he's the motherfrakking Emperor.

The OP did specify we weren't counting Big E.

However, if we judge the Lion for not knowing what his sons were up to, it would be hypocrisy not to judge the emperor....

Mudrat wrote:
The OP did specify we weren't counting Big E.

However, if we judge the Lion for not knowing what his sons were up to, it would be hypocrisy not to judge the emperor....

There's also a blurb in some story/book (can't remember, sorry...) where the Lion communicates with a Watcher and is warned of the imminent betrayal... at least he mutters about loosing Caliban and his legion, but ultimatively decided that is the price he has to pay for loyalty to the Emperor and not returning home to fix that particular problem while it could be fixed.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That couldn't be more unreliable, considering the fact that it is very ancient fluff and in the Ultramarine codex. It is directly contradicted by most newer sources which state that Horus was the most succesful. Besides, I am pretty sure the SW, DA and BA codices all have claimed the same thing about their own legion. Every legion or chapter is always the best in its own fluff.

I'm all for Horus being "most successful", but I wan't to know how that's expressed. Let's see all the quotes and compare 'em. It could be that the measure of success in either context is different.

The UM quote I gave is from both the 2nd and 5th ed books, so not as ancient as you might think.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Macharius tamed 1000 World Series in the segmentum pacificus.

Guilliman and he Ultramarines had more compliances than either Horus or the Lion, and Sun Tzu said that the supreme art of war is to subdue your enemies without fighting.

By that logic you probably should start ranking up the World Eaters and Night Lords too them. They often subdued their enemies without fighting. Through sheer terror of what would happen if there was fighting.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Macharius tamed 1000 World Series in the segmentum pacificus.

Guilliman and he Ultramarines had more compliances than either Horus or the Lion, and Sun Tzu said that the supreme art of war is to subdue your enemies without fighting.

By that logic you probably should start ranking up the World Eaters and Night Lords too them. They often subdued their enemies without fighting. Through sheer terror of what would happen if there was fighting.

The night lords definitely brought the highest percentage of worlds under the imperial banner without fighting. They only fought like 5% of the time.

Nah, that was Macharius. Lion'el Johnson relied upon the supremacy of his space marine minions, more than he did strategy. Macharius did better with less.

 Melissia wrote:
Nah, that was Macharius. Lion'el Johnson relied upon the supremacy of his space marine minions, more than he did strategy. Macharius did better with less.

Agreed on Macharius too. Horus, the greatet of the Primarch, was described in the First Heretic as an average leader who won a lot of battles he had virtualy no chances to lose. He hold his victories to superior numbers, superior logistic, superior technology and of course the dominating strength of the Space Marines. No leader would be qualified as a great tactician for defeating a hundred army of children with more numerous special forces operatives and air support. Guilliman, Corax and Lion were the only ones, to my knowledge, who were described as great tacticians and generals. Dorn and Perturabo are also worthy of such accolade.

epronovost wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Nah, that was Macharius. Lion'el Johnson relied upon the supremacy of his space marine minions, more than he did strategy. Macharius did better with less.

Agreed on Macharius too. Horus, the greatet of the Primarch, was described in the First Heretic as an average leader who won a lot of battles he had virtualy no chances to lose. He hold his victories to superior numbers, superior logistic, superior technology and of course the dominating strength of the Space Marines. No leader would be qualified as a great tactician for defeating a hundred army of children with more numerous special forces operatives and air support. Guilliman, Corax and Lion were the only ones, to my knowledge, who were described as great tacticians and generals. Dorn and Perturabo are also worthy of such accolade.

There is winning and then there is winning with style. A great tactician could still prove his worth when favored by overwhelming odds. Even when favored by overwelming odds, you can suffer less losses. You can have less collateral damage. You can win faster. You dont need impossible odds to prove you are a tactical genius.

The greatest military genius in history would never get themselves into a situation where the odds were stacked against him. Horus and Gulliman were great generals. They built their armies capability. They built the worlds they conquered to supply their army. When they came across a foe, they had a great army to deploy against them. Tactically they did not suffer great losses, and thus preserved their strength for another day.

 Exergy wrote:

epronovost wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Nah, that was Macharius. Lion'el Johnson relied upon the supremacy of his space marine minions, more than he did strategy. Macharius did better with less.

Agreed on Macharius too. Horus, the greatet of the Primarch, was described in the First Heretic as an average leader who won a lot of battles he had virtualy no chances to lose. He hold his victories to superior numbers, superior logistic, superior technology and of course the dominating strength of the Space Marines. No leader would be qualified as a great tactician for defeating a hundred army of children with more numerous special forces operatives and air support. Guilliman, Corax and Lion were the only ones, to my knowledge, who were described as great tacticians and generals. Dorn and Perturabo are also worthy of such accolade.

There is winning and then there is winning with style. A great tactician could still prove his worth when favored by overwhelming odds. Even when favored by overwelming odds, you can suffer less losses. You can have less collateral damage. You can win faster. You dont need impossible odds to prove you are a tactical genius.

The greatest military genius in history would never get themselves into a situation where the odds were stacked against him. Horus and Gulliman were great generals. They built their armies capability. They built the worlds they conquered to supply their army. When they came across a foe, they had a great army to deploy against them. Tactically they did not suffer great losses, and thus preserved their strength for another day.

I agree, and I would mention this passage on Molech where Horus proves why he is Warmaster : every unit on the battlefield (friends and foes alike) moves exactly as he predicted and intended them to, and he is therefore totally controlling the battle.