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.

So, as it turns out, picking Horus to be Warmaster wasn't the brightest of ideas, what with that whole Horus Heresy thing.

If you were the Emperor, which Primarch would you pick to lead the Great Crusade in your absence?

Such a difficult decision, as horus, at the time was the perfect candidate.

my top 3?
Sanguinius
Guilliman
Dorn.

As much as I love the lion, he is a warrior, not a warmaster.

Sanguinius has the heart and charisma to do it. IMO, the best candidate, except that his tactical mind is behind BOTH dorn and guilliman. The most charismatic warmaster.

Guilliman would work well because of the way he runs his planets already, the problem being he moves slowly. He takes 2-3, then builds up administration, infrastructure, reward systems. I love how he makes it all work, reward to work, not birth status. But he was not the most charismatic. THe most practical warmaster.

Dorn... Well dorn was the best tactical mind out of all of them. (if, prone to insanity at times). His problem was he had 0 charisma compared to the others, he also was of a much more defensive mind set than offensive one.

In the end, horus was the best choice, but if I had to pick from this list........

I personally would pick Guilliman.

 EmpNortonII wrote:
So, as it turns out, picking Horus to be Warmaster wasn't the brightest of ideas, what with that whole Horus Heresy thing.

If you were the Emperor, which Primarch would you pick to lead the Great Crusade in your absence?

Horus was the obvious choice:
He was the first one the emperor found.
He and the emperor fought the great crusade alone together for some 50 years before another primarch was found.
Horus was by far the most experienced
Horus was the strongest
Horus was the smartest
Horus had the most command of his brother primachs

Horus was perfect, or as close as possible among any of the other primarchs.

To not pick Horus is to not have a warmaster and the emperor would have had to remain in command of the crusade for all time(but he had other things to do)
To not pick Horus might have led to a more serious rebellion, who knows, but when you dont pick the guy who is obvious and qualified for the job, you often have problems

 Exergy wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:
So, as it turns out, picking Horus to be Warmaster wasn't the brightest of ideas, what with that whole Horus Heresy thing.

If you were the Emperor, which Primarch would you pick to lead the Great Crusade in your absence?

Horus was the obvious choice:
He was the first one the emperor found.
He and the emperor fought the great crusade alone together for some 50 years before another primarch was found.
Horus was by far the most experienced
Horus was the strongest
Horus was the smartest
Horus had the most command of his brother primachs

Horus was perfect, or as close as possible among any of the other primarchs.

Strongest- Debatable, sanguinius was the better swordsman, and, at admission from others, one of the strongest martial warriors among the brothers,
Smartest- Also debatable, Magnus the red, even Guilliman could contend with Horus

the others are fairly true, what made Horus the obvious choice, outside his relentless attacking nature and the drive to free as many worlds he could as soon as he could was that he combined the others strengths, in so doing, he was not "better" at these things indiviually, but through mastering of all of them, was the best candidate for warmaster

-He was almost as charismatic as Sanguinuis, and almost as good a swordsmam
-He was almost as tactical and calculating as Dorn
-He was almost as smart as Magnus
-He had the almost most ferocious charges and emotion gut feelings as Russ.
the list goes on. Its because he had the "almost best" of everything he was selected. Because he was basically a mesh of all the others.

 raiden wrote:

 Exergy wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:
So, as it turns out, picking Horus to be Warmaster wasn't the brightest of ideas, what with that whole Horus Heresy thing.

If you were the Emperor, which Primarch would you pick to lead the Great Crusade in your absence?

Horus was the obvious choice:
He was the first one the emperor found.
He and the emperor fought the great crusade alone together for some 50 years before another primarch was found.
Horus was by far the most experienced
Horus was the strongest
Horus was the smartest
Horus had the most command of his brother primachs

Horus was perfect, or as close as possible among any of the other primarchs.

Strongest- Debatable, sanguinius was the better swordsman, and, at admission from others, one of the strongest martial warriors among the brothers,
Smartest- Also debatable, Magnus the red, even Guilliman could contend with Horus

the others are fairly true, what made Horus the obvious choice, outside his relentless attacking nature and the drive to free as many worlds he could as soon as he could was that he combined the others strengths, in so doing, he was not "better" at these things indiviually, but through mastering of all of them, was the best candidate for warmaster

-He was almost as charismatic as Sanguinuis, and almost as good a swordsmam
-He was almost as tactical and calculating as Dorn
-He was almost as smart as Magnus
-He had the almost most ferocious charges and emotion gut feelings as Russ.
the list goes on. Its because he had the "almost best" of everything he was selected. Because he was basically a mesh of all the others.

And this is why Horus was the best choice for Warmaster.
He knew the strengths and weaknesses of his brother primarchs better than anyone else, because he was comfortable with all of their skills.

Sanguinus would have been better. I don't see how the emperor could have known that though. I think his greatest strength is he has unassailable integrity but he is still extremely likeable and charismatic. That combination is probably rarer than the wings he was rocking.

 raiden wrote:
Such a difficult decision, as horus, at the time was the perfect candidate.

my top 3?
Sanguinius
Guilliman
Dorn.

As much as I love the lion, he is a warrior, not a warmaster.

Sanguinius has the heart and charisma to do it. IMO, the best candidate, except that his tactical mind is behind BOTH dorn and guilliman. The most charismatic warmaster.

Guilliman would work well because of the way he runs his planets already, the problem being he moves slowly. He takes 2-3, then builds up administration, infrastructure, reward systems. I love how he makes it all work, reward to work, not birth status. But he was not the most charismatic. THe most practical warmaster.

Dorn... Well dorn was the best tactical mind out of all of them. (if, prone to insanity at times). His problem was he had 0 charisma compared to the others, he also was of a much more defensive mind set than offensive one.

In the end, horus was the best choice, but if I had to pick from this list........

I personally would pick Guilliman.

This isn't true gulliman had the greatest tactical mind of all the primarchs he wrote the codex Astarte's not done if you read the Horus heresy books it says in the one about calth somewhere. Dorn was just a defensive tactical genius and also the greatest fleet commander his skill was in combat in space. It says so in Horus heresy book 3! And also my autocorrect keeps trying to correct dorn to corn and its making me laugh

Guilliman, a thousand times Guilliman. Of all of the Primarchs, he is the only one who doesn't let his flaws or his ego drive him.

He is the only one with a valid Resume on how to run an Empire because he already has the most successful sub Empire in the whole Imperium. Most importantly, none of his achievements were done to boast or for personal pride, most important to him was leaving behind a legacy to improve the lives of future generations.

Guilliman wasn't just a tactical genius, he was an administrative one. The great crusade was almost over, they didn't need a warlord, they needed a governor who could capitalise on what they had already conquered and make them better places to live. He was the only Primarch who had already been teaching his Legion to be more than warriors, to give them a place in the world when the fighting was done.

Sanguinius was almost perfect for the role to the outside eye but we the reader know that he has a deep paranoia about the purity of his Legion and fears how others see him. This is a big flaw than could have been exploited, not just by Chaos, but by his brother Primarchs, leading him to make decisions that wouldn't always be 100% objective.

Dorn is too rigid, too much a slave to doctrine. This is the same reason he so fiercely resisted arming the palace and later on, adopting the Codex. A leader of a galactic empire should encourage and welcome change and innovation, something I think he would have lacked.

Horus was far too proud and ambitious. He wanted to be the best and we all know where that lead.

The Lion was too distant, too secretive and aloof. The New Imperium needed a relatable leader with compassion and humility as well as practicle skill. Something with The lion lacked. Many don't trust him and that alone would have been enough to cause divisions in the Legions.

Magnus, same as Horus. Magnus was wise and should have been one of the best Primarchs, but he was totally blind to his own limitations. Although he had the best intentions, his fear of powers gave him somewhat of a superiority complex. He had too much of his own agenda to promote that he would maybe have neglected other important factors in leading the crusade.

Fulgrim, far too arrogant and self centred to have made a good Warmaster. He was blind to his entire legion being poisoned from the inside. I don't just mean the Slaanesh influence after Laer, but the rise of fools such as Eidolon to high command, clearly put a dampener on Fulgrim's management skills. He is impressed by sycophancy and self aggrandisers and thus would make a terrible Warmaster.

The Khan, too wild, not close to any of his brothers and no interest in leading, I doubt he was even in the running.

Alpharius. too new to the Crusade, too secretive and his methods were rather unorthodox and widely disliked by many other arms of the Imperial Military (I believe in the book Legion and Imperial commander laments that he wishes any Legion but the Alpha Legion had been sent to help) so it was unlikely he would have been chosen.

Mortarion, not a well liked Primarch, I don't know enough about him to have a good opinion but that alone seems reason not to hire him.

Leman Russ, already had his role in the Legions as "The Exectutioner" like the can, too wild and unorthodox to be representative of the Legions as a whole. He always suited the role of attack dog too well to be the leader.

Ferrus Manus, again, not a well loved Primarch, prone to volcanic rages and his actions at the dropsite massacre show that he lacked the control and focus to lead. His hotheadedness resulted in his death and the loss of his whole first company. A very poor choice for Warmaster.

Lorgar, on the face of it, tries to do what Guilliman does, but is too much of a zealot, always feels he needs to prove himself, leading him to make poor choices. Probably the least respected by his peers due to his shaming at Monarchia. But own admission he doesn't even consider himself a warrior, so Warmaster would have been an ill fitting title.

Vulkan, certainly had the compassion and empathy needed to govern the newly established Imperium, but doesn't seem pragmatic enough to make the big decisions. Certainly an Imperium ruled by Vulkan would have been a kinder place to live but that sort of makes him incompatible as the leader of an Empire that crushes everything in it's path.

Perturabo, too bitter, too choleric and a hard man to like. I think for similar reasons to Ferrus he would have been a poor choice.

Corax, not the worst choice but he is a leader suited to striking from the shadows and retreating back into them again so not the sort of man that would be great at leading the crusade.

Finally Angron and Kurze, you would have to be mentally ill to let either of these too lead. The fact that they are even allowed to rule their Legions is a baffling endictment of the Emperor's judgement. A brain damaged lunatic and a violent sociopath...I don't think I even really need to explain these two.

So ( I think that's all of them) whilst some like Sanguinius and Horus certainly had their merits, I think Guilliman was the only objective choice when you really tally up their positives and negatives (In my opinion of course).

Tom Kirby, cos he knows how to run an empire.

Sanguinius. When Horus was heavily wounded and almost killed before turning, he himself admitted that Sanguinius should have been the warmaster.

He has both the charisma and honor needed to convince virtually anyone that they are on the right side with him. He also cared deeply for all the imperials, not just his sons or the rest of the Astartes. He was notably angry when the people of the Signus cluster were found to be dead, and again when the daemons' mental attacks killed many of the non-astartes crew in his fleet, including his favorite female ship captain. He could still make decisions calmly, despite the anger, though.

He also has the wisdom to know when to delegate. While Guilliman didn't have the charisma necessary to be the figurehead for such a large force, Sanguinius would have the wisdom to put him to work where his strengths lie, in administrative designs. He was closer to pre-chaos Horus than any other primarch, and would certainly include him in large strategic planning sessions. (In fact, pre-chaos Horus already knew about the Blood Angel genetic flaw, as Sanguinius told him about it personally, and Horus swore himself to secrecy.)

By his own admission, the reason he felt Horus was a better warmaster than himself, was that Sanguinius felt that people would view him as "too far above them" to relate to.

There is no option for Horus.

 welshhoppo wrote:
There is no option for Horus.

need I explain what making Horus Warmaster got the Imperium?

Vulkan . Salamanders is one of my favorite

The problem wasn't Horus. Horus was awesome. He would have Andes up killing a few dozen people who were trying to collect taxes from people with no legs and only one lung, but he was the best choice. The problem was lorgar. The emperor should have brain-scanned lorger and then "re-educate" him with a melta gun.
So, Horus.
Wit vulkan as m
The runner up, because vulkan was fethin' awesome.

Guilliaman,
He is most long term strategic of them, used to handling a large scale planetary area and has a big legion to support his claim to the title if required.

He made ultramar a beacon of organisation, in fact its almost decent by 40k standards.

Guilliman. He pretty much would have been a better warmaster in almost every way, the greatest exception being that he'd probably get quite a bit of push-back from some of the black sheep Primarchs, such as Angron and Curze.

The thing about those silly nannies is that they would have gone off the deep-end at some point regardless. Even if Horus had never fallen, it seems likely to me that the World Eaters and Night Lords would have ended up being culled eventually. Kurze and Angron were both damaged goods.

I personally think that the Emperor made a huge mistake creating the title of Warmaster. It goes completely against common sense.

What would have been far more effective would have been to create 'ministers'. In this case Guilliman would have been in charge of organisation, Sanguinius probably would've been head of public relations. El'Johnson in charge of Great Crusade, and then Iron Hands or Fists in charge of (separately) rebuilding and fortification, I forget who did what 'better'.

My $0.02.

 sing your life wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
There is no option for Horus.

need I explain what making Horus Warmaster got the Imperium?

it survived 10,000 years


some of these other guys and it wouldnt have lasted 50


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Guilliman. He pretty much would have been a better warmaster in almost every way, the greatest exception being that he'd probably get quite a bit of push-back from some of the black sheep Primarchs, such as Angron and Curze.

What would Horus, the ambitious and trusted primarch who knew the emperor better than any of the others have done?

Maybe the best warmaster would have been a non-primarch?

Dorn, brilliant tactician and while he had the personality of a brick he wasn't afraid to lead by example and was loyal to The Emperor and Mankind first and foremost.

Alpharius Omegron has the strategic mind to successfully lead any crusade against the enemies of the Imperium.

All were flawed in their own respective way but I believe Guilliman to be the best choice aside from Horus. But who's to say that Guilliman would not fall the same way that Horus did if given the same incentive.

The Chaos Gods would have found some way to bring about the fall of the Imperium and unending war.

The Emperors amazing foresight certainly wasn't working great when he put Horus in charge of his military.

I'd go with Sanguinius. He's one of the few other than Horus himself who had the people skills to work with all of his brothers. Guilliman would be my second choice, but I don't think he had the raw charisma to lead the Great Crusade and he would definitely have struggled to work with some of the others, whereas Sanguinius would have tried to find the best in them and meet them on that common ground.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
Alpharius Omegron has the strategic mind to successfully lead any crusade against the enemies of the Imperium.

and their are two of them, so they could always have one awake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
clearly Kruze would have been the best choice because if he fell to chaos he would have been the easiest to dispatch

with the lowest charisma, if he had fallen to chaos, he wouldnt have taken that many legions with him.

 Pilau Rice wrote:
All were flawed in their own respective way but I believe Guilliman to be the best choice aside from Horus. But who's to say that Guilliman would not fall the same way that Horus did if given the same incentive.

The Chaos Gods would have found some way to bring about the fall of the Imperium and unending war.

The Emperors amazing foresight certainly wasn't working great when he put Horus in charge of his military.

I think the likely outcome of Guilliman running the show wouldn't be Gulliman falling, but in people going rogue due to not liking him. He is the next most logical choice, but whereas Horus was disliked by none or few, Guilliman does have those who don't like him for the simple fact he is pragmatic.

The heresy is inevitable because the writers want the bleak setting and the betrayal. Gulliman couldn't have stopped that, it just would have taken a different turn.

I know there is the Dornian heresy, but I find it a bit boring in that it's just everyone bad is good and everyone good is bad. Far more interesting is taking some good and making them bad, and making some bad good. If Guilliman was war master, would Horus have rebelled due to jealousy?

As an interesting extrapolation, assume the heresy is pre ordained regardless of war master. Who stays loyal under Guilliman who goes rogue?

who stays loyal? without true chaos intervention?

everyone but lorgar, Aplharius, and maybe Fulgrim and Petrubo.

 raiden wrote:
who stays loyal? without true chaos intervention?

everyone but lorgar, Aplharius, and maybe Fulgrim and Petrubo.

It doesn't have to be without Chaos intervention. Say Guilliman is war master and stays loyal and the heresy still has to happen in some fashion. Who is corrupted successfully? Which half stay and which half go?

 raiden wrote:
who stays loyal? without true chaos intervention?

everyone but lorgar, Aplharius, and maybe Fulgrim and Petrubo.

but make Lorgar warmaster and he just turns the entire crusade fleet into a theocracy of monks building temples. Not capable of rebelling.

Chaos would have always won (Horus fell thanks to being infected with Nurgle's Rot) as the gods were focused on winning, but Sanguinius would have been much harder to corrupt than Horus. Maybe even forcing Chaos to kill him and cause the Emperor to select a new Warmaster.


Also, it is impossible to Lorgar to stay loyal thanks to him having been raised on a Chaos worshiping planet, and thus he was always in the clutches of the Dark Gods.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Chaos would have always won (Horus fell thanks to being infected with Nurgle's Rot) as the gods were focused on winning, but Sanguinius would have been much harder to corrupt than Horus. Maybe even forcing Chaos to kill him and cause the Emperor to select a new Warmaster.


Also, it is impossible to Lorgar to stay loyal thanks to him having been raised on a Chaos worshiping planet, and thus he was always in the clutches of the Dark Gods.

It wasn't nurgle's rot: