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.

As you've seen in the title I am wondering which primarch was the best at planning and executing tactics and battle plans in ways that destroy the foe with maximum efficiency.

I'm thinking guilliman because that's what hes famous for, but alpharius is good at that kinda thing as well so y,know as well as fulgrims "flawless" executions etc
so just let us all know what you think and why

The lion.

And the wolf.

Both outstanding in thier own seperate ways at destroying an enemy, though i think the wolf for some strange reason!

Argron. Just go straight to the enemy. If you win, you win, if you lose, you are death so it doesn't matter.

And seeing as Argron is still alive, we can arguee that it was the best strategist.

I think it depends on what type of warfare.
Subterfuge/black ops - Alpharius
Siege - Perty
Defense - Dorn
Psyche warfare - Curze
Complete annhilation - Angron/Russ

etc etc

All primarchs had their own strengths and weaknesses, I'd say the best All around was proably Gulliman.

Alpharius had the most interesting and unorthodox tactics IMO. Otherwise Dorn, Guilliman or Horus.

Honestly Horus. There was a very good reason he was chosen Warmaster - he had a formidable military mind. The Luna Wolves were also superbly suited for what space marine should always be doing - shock and awe, aka. breakthrough tactics.

All in all, Horus was probably the best.

 Novelist47 wrote:
Honestly Horus. There was a very good reason he was chosen Warmaster - he had a formidable military mind. The Luna Wolves were also superbly suited for what space marine should always be doing - shock and awe, aka. breakthrough tactics.

All in all, Horus was probably the best.

Not sure I agree, Horus was chosen not for any of his military talents (though they where considerable) but for his people skills and having the strongest bond with the Emperor.

Rogal Dorn was regarded as the best 'soldier.' I'm not sure that makes him the best general but he's certainly in the conversation. He also managed to beat Horus at the Siege of Terra, which is a mark in his favor.

 Novelist47 wrote:
Honestly Horus. There was a very good reason he was chosen Warmaster - he had a formidable military mind. The Luna Wolves were also superbly suited for what space marine should always be doing - shock and awe, aka. breakthrough tactics.

All in all, Horus was probably the best.

We have never seen Horus demonstrate any tactical prowess that couldn't be replicated by a toddler.

 Saber wrote:
Rogal Dorn was regarded as the best 'soldier.' I'm not sure that makes him the best general but he's certainly in the conversation. He also managed to beat Horus at the Siege of Terra, which is a mark in his favor.

yes and no, a seige situation is hardly an ideal spot for tactics and stragety. there is some skill etc in it yes, in knowing when you hold a breach, when you pull back to anoither line, when you apper to fall back to trap your enemy etc, but for the most aprt a seige situation is sort of a long drawn out affair when you tst your fortifcations against your enmies siege prowess, (your enemy needs to know where to apply artillery and other siege craft to break your walls etc) and ultimatly there is a combined timer, where you have to balance your supplies in holding out, vs the encamped enemies supplies, and the possiabilty of reinforcement. the seige of terra was won because Dorn managed to hold off long eneugh for reinfrocements (in the form of the Ultramarines) to come, which forced Horus into a "hail mary pass" manuver that didn't work out so well. so the seige of terra certainly let the fists show their skill at seige defence, but I'm not sure it gave much insight, one way or another, into the general strategic/tatical accunum of the Imperial Fists.

 Saber wrote:
Rogal Dorn was regarded as the best 'soldier.' I'm not sure that makes him the best general but he's certainly in the conversation. He also managed to beat Horus at the Siege of Terra, which is a mark in his favor.

Rogal Dorn is responsible for the massacre as Istvaan V. He is a fething idiot.

The Lion is considered the greatest tactician, and Ferrus Manus was considered the greatest at warfare.

... after Horus ofcourse!

Is been said the Lion would have been the warmaster...
... but he's not very charismatic, which Horus was.

123ply wrote:
Is been said the Lion would have been the warmaster...
... but he's not very charismatic, which Horus was.

the ONLY Primarch I've heard musing the Lion should be Warmaster was the Lion. I don't thin k any of his brothers actually liked the Lion

Angron certainly not. He should be the best cc fighter of all Primarchs, but it seems that he isn't.
This is the only Primarch I own.

I'd say Alpharius because based on what I've read the Alpha Legion always accomplishes their goals.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Angron certainly not. He should be the best cc fighter of all Primarchs, but it seems that he isn't.
This is the only Primarch I own.

What makes you say he isn't? Angron has a fairly impressive record for close combat, took on two of his brother primarchs, neither managed to put him down.

 SolidOakie wrote:
I'd say Alpharius because based on what I've read the Alpha Legion always accomplishes their goals.

given how complex Alpharus' schemes are, do they really? or does he build a giant "Strategic goldberg machine" that does something completely unexpected half the time followed bhy him steepling his fingers and going "... umm just as planned yes.,.."

sides, he's had stuff go sideways on him before, Preatorian of Dorn did NOT turn out the way he intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Angron certainly not. He should be the best cc fighter of all Primarchs, but it seems that he isn't.
This is the only Primarch I own.

What makes you say he isn't? Angron has a fairly impressive record for close combat, took on two of his brother primarchs, neither managed to put him down.

I think one could make an arguement on raw SKILL. Angron's effective in combat sure. but he's just a raging bezerker, there's no skill to what he does. and if he wasn't so physically superior he proably wouldn't have survived fighting like he does as long as he has.

My vote goes to Russ.
The other legions wrote the Wolves off as braggarts, too full of their own importance and too busy jamming their laurels up their furry backsides to be a true power but the Wolves were a power.
The Wolves were specialists who could be called on to perform a variety of tasks - more than they could actually manage.
Russ preferred to be one of the "Heroic" Primarchs, freeing systems from Xenos and Tyrant rule and the Wolves could do it but the Big E made the Wolves to make a statement.
The Executioners moniker is hinted at being the job of eliminating deviant Space Marine chapters but more recently that's been retconned, the Wolves Executioner title comes from the Emperor sending the Wolves to make a bloody mess out of anyone who refused to join the Imperium, the kind of bloody mess that spread horror stories throughout the universe allowing the Emperor to offer systems the choice between negotiating their entry into the Imperium with Guilliman and the Ultrasmurfs or negotiate it with the Space Wolves.
Unlike Angron, Russ was also reasonable enough to offer a last chance at surrender before living up to the threatened horror stories.
Three jobs the Wolves accomplished successfully.
The Wolves were also called on to drag other Primarchs back to confront the Emperor, a job they failed at twice - once through changed orders and once was just a plain old failure.
We don't know if the Emperor ever called on the Wolves to disappear a legion but we know they whacked the Sons. We know Russ also prepared properly to deal with the Sons' psychic abilities.

Concessions.

Information - Russ's information network was tampered with enough times to justify a complete overhaul.
Superstition - Russ was quick to let his blind him.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Saber wrote:
Rogal Dorn was regarded as the best 'soldier.' I'm not sure that makes him the best general but he's certainly in the conversation. He also managed to beat Horus at the Siege of Terra, which is a mark in his favor.

yes and no, a seige situation is hardly an ideal spot for tactics and stragety. there is some skill etc in it yes, in knowing when you hold a breach, when you pull back to anoither line, when you apper to fall back to trap your enemy etc, but for the most aprt a seige situation is sort of a long drawn out affair when you tst your fortifcations against your enmies siege prowess, (your enemy needs to know where to apply artillery and other siege craft to break your walls etc) and ultimatly there is a combined timer, where you have to balance your supplies in holding out, vs the encamped enemies supplies, and the possiabilty of reinforcement. the seige of terra was won because Dorn managed to hold off long eneugh for reinfrocements (in the form of the Ultramarines) to come, which forced Horus into a "hail mary pass" manuver that didn't work out so well. so the seige of terra certainly let the fists show their skill at seige defence, but I'm not sure it gave much insight, one way or another, into the general strategic/tatical accunum of the Imperial Fists.

The Siege of Terra was fought over most of central Asia, or perhaps an even wider stretch of territory. It was a larger theater of war than World War II in Europe.

I would also disagree with your characterization of sieges as lacking in opportunities to display tactics or strategy; Belisarius' defense of Rome, Wellington's defense of Portugal, Grant's Vicksburg campaign, etc - they're all brilliant displays of strategy and tactics. Of course most sieges are bloody messes, but so are most battles. I don't think a siege is any less tactical than a battle on average.

Recall the main points of Dorn's success during the Siege of Terra: he did not stick the White Scars behind the walls but instead let them roam around outside to harass the traitor's supply lines, and eventually drew off the entire Death Guard to counter them; Dorn was highly aggressive when it came to conducting the defense, constantly counter-attacking and keeping the traitor's off balance; Dorn tried to repel Horus' troops from the spaceports, in order to keep their heavy equipment from reaching the ground; and, at the end of the Siege, the inner walls had been breached but the central fortresses of the Palace were still intact which would have probably required months more fighting to take.

Obviously this is a fictional event involving fictional people, but Dorn's decision-making seems to have heavily influenced the course of the Siege. Plus, he designed and built the fortress they were defending, so he would bear the majority of the blame or credit for the outcome of the Siege even if he wasn't there to conduct the defenses.

BrianDavion wrote:

123ply wrote:
Is been said the Lion would have been the warmaster...
... but he's not very charismatic, which Horus was.

the ONLY Primarch I've heard musing the Lion should be Warmaster was the Lion. I don't thin k any of his brothers actually liked the Lion

The Lion certainly was a dick. He was a strategic genius though.

Guilliman was a logistical genius. It's not exactly the same, for those of you championing him.

 djones520 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

123ply wrote:
Is been said the Lion would have been the warmaster...
... but he's not very charismatic, which Horus was.

the ONLY Primarch I've heard musing the Lion should be Warmaster was the Lion. I don't thin k any of his brothers actually liked the Lion

The Lion certainly was a dick. He was a strategic genius though.

Guilliman was a logistical genius. It's not exactly the same, for those of you championing him.

Given two identical armies on neutral terrain, I'd bet on the Lion over any of the other Primarchs. When you ask who the best strategist/tactician is, that is what it comes down to.

The best Tactician I'd say was the Lion. A very capable general, matched by very few in general warfare (of course, the aspects of which the other Primarchs specialised in - Dorn and Perturabo with sieges, Alpharius with asymmetrical warfare - would all be superior in their dedicated field).

The best Strategist, in terms of theory and logic, on the other hand, I'd put to Guilliman, with Perturabo coming second.

BrianDavion wrote:

123ply wrote:
Is been said the Lion would have been the warmaster...
... but he's not very charismatic, which Horus was.

the ONLY Primarch I've heard musing the Lion should be Warmaster was the Lion. I don't thin k any of his brothers actually liked the Lion

Actually Guilliman claims that he viewed many of his brothers as his equal, but he claims that The Lion and Horus were the only ones head and shoulders above the rest of the primarchs. Russ also states that he believes that The Lion and Guilliman were the 2 most talented tacticians of his brothers (somewhat ironic since Russ had more tactical victories than Guilliman). At the rate the Lion was going during the crusade, had Horus not thrown his little party, The Lion probably would have eventually passed him in tactical victories in the crusade not long after Horus became warmaster. Here's my top five list for primarch tactiticians.

1. Horus or The Lion, Horus had more victories than The Lion, but if you factor in that he probably had a 35-50 year head start (The Lion was the 10th primarch found) and that the Lion had the 2nd most tactical victories by the end of the crusade it comes out as a draw.
2. Russ, who although never really demonstrating superb tactical prowess is credited with the 3rd most military victories.
3. Guilliman, he was behind his brothers in terms of military achievement at 4th place, but he also had the most compliance's.
4. Khan, again not much is known about him other than he's a brilliant general.

TotallyNotAFallenAngel wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

123ply wrote:
Is been said the Lion would have been the warmaster...
... but he's not very charismatic, which Horus was.

the ONLY Primarch I've heard musing the Lion should be Warmaster was the Lion. I don't thin k any of his brothers actually liked the Lion

Actually Guilliman claims that he viewed many of his brothers as his equal, but he claims that The Lion and Horus were the only ones head and shoulders above the rest of the primarchs. Russ also states that he believes that The Lion and Guilliman were the 2 most talented tacticians of his brothers (somewhat ironic since Russ had more tactical victories than Guilliman). At the rate the Lion was going during the crusade, had Horus not thrown his little party, The Lion probably would have eventually passed him in tactical victories in the crusade not long after Horus became warmaster. Here's my top five list for primarch tactiticians.

1. Horus or The Lion, Horus had more victories than The Lion, but if you factor in that he probably had a 35-50 year head start (The Lion was the 10th primarch found) and that the Lion had the 2nd most tactical victories by the end of the crusade it comes out as a draw.
2. Russ, who although never really demonstrating superb tactical prowess is credited with the 3rd most military victories.
3. Guilliman, he was behind his brothers in terms of military achievement at 4th place, but he also had the most compliance's.
4. Khan, again not much is known about him other than he's a brilliant general.

except Warmaster means jack gak about tatical skill. was the Lion a skilled battlefield commander? yes, no one is denying that. he's an incrediably good battlefield commander. but thats not what the Warmaster is needed for. the Warmaster can't just run around focusing on his own victories, in addition he needs to manage the entire crusade. well it seemed most of the legions each managed their own logistics chains etc. what the warmaster needed most was to be able to manage the primarchs. and the list of Primarchs capable of doing this basicly came down to "Horus or Sanguinis"

of the ones you mentioned well, the Lion was just HORRIABLE at dealing with people, he was a bit of an arrogant prick whom had a pretty big chip on his shoulder. it's clear to me the man neither understood his brothers, nor was capable of it Russ? Russ wasn't capable of that eaither, (and frankly wouldn't have wanted the post) he was also a very direct warrior, and would have almost certainly conflicted with his brothers whom took a more.... scientific, approuch to war.
Gulliman? Gullimanis the best of the list easily, being a meticulas planner and logistican, but as I said most of the Legions seemed to have their own logistics train, and Gulliman would have gotten along well with some of his brothers, but he would have had conflict with others, Gulliman was widely respected for his skills, but it definatly wasn't the universal love for Horus or Sanguinis. I suspect several Primarchs (Angron, Lorgar, Alpharius all come to mind) would not have accepted his authority.

BrianDavion wrote:

 SolidOakie wrote:
I'd say Alpharius because based on what I've read the Alpha Legion always accomplishes their goals.

given how complex Alpharus' schemes are, do they really? or does he build a giant "Strategic goldberg machine" that does something completely unexpected half the time followed bhy him steepling his fingers and going "... umm just as planned yes.,.."

sides, he's had stuff go sideways on him before, Preatorian of Dorn did NOT turn out the way he intended.

I haven't read that one yet but look forward to it! It's high time he got some egg on this face

 john27 wrote:

I'm thinking guilliman because that's what hes famous for,

That's incorrect. Guilliman was famous for organization.

Johnson was famous for strategy.

the Lion, was also Tactically smart enough to hold back until he could pick a winning team during the Heresy =D

Now that's what I call being a coward.. I mean Brilliant Strategy

GodDamUser wrote:
the Lion, was also Tactically smart enough to hold back until he could pick a winning team during the Heresy =D

Now that's what I call being a coward.. I mean Brilliant Strategy

Oh you did not just go there! Fortunately I have to agree with you on that one, as I simply can't see them in any other light

As for who I see, I would have to go with Guilliman on top while Perturabo comes in second.