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.

pm713 wrote:
Honestly? No. I looked at Lexicanum before asking for citation and a summary is that the Imperium found a culture that wasn't subservient and immediately conquered them. Nothing in that suggests the ruler was a Tyrant. I had the impression they were a nice enough self sustaining world that was invaded because they were there.

Nothing but the Imperium's say so makes them seem harsh at all.

Then you clearly did not read it.



"Dulan, meaning "Earth" in the local language, was the throneworld of the Faash civilisation which spanned a number of other star systems.[3a] It was ruled by the Tyrant Durath,[2] who refused to join the Imperium.[3a]

The Space Wolves and Dark Angels launched a joint assault on Dulan at the end of the Dulan Campaign. Lion El'Jonson executed the Tyrant in his throne room, angering Leman Russ who then struck his brother.[3b] The infamous duel between the Lion and the Wolf led to the tradition that whenever the two Legions (later Chapters) met, they would nominate champions to fight an honour duel. The tradition endures into M41.[1][2]"




Liberated. I underlined.

That’s not liberated. That’s conquered. It’s diferent.

It's Tyrant Durath, or Tyrant - as in the name the Imperium gave him. So it's only clear that the Imperium wants to label him a tyrant. If Lexicanum said tyrant - the term instead of a proper noun - that'd be different.

That said, the bar here is "worse than Empy" not "bad". Empy is described as a tyrant quite a bit.

As for the word "liberated", I'm not seeing it anywhere in that text.

The battle of 63-19 is another example. Liberated them. No. Conquered them.

That argument would mean neither Hitler nor Lenin were bad - because Hitler tried to liberate people from Lenin, and Lenin tried to liberate people from Hitler. Clearly, they were both bad - so, clearly, that argument doesn't stand.

Bharring wrote:
It's Tyrant Durath, or Tyrant - as in the name the Imperium gave him. So it's only clear that the Imperium wants to label him a tyrant. If Lexicanum said tyrant - the term instead of a proper noun - that'd be different.

That said, the bar here is "worse than Empy" not "bad". Empy is described as a tyrant quite a bit.

As for the word "liberated", I'm not seeing it anywhere in that text.

If you must know then Dulan technically attacked the Imperium first as the ruler sent taunts to the Imperium and showed Imperial troops he captured.


And the Emperor? Not really.

Stalin is the best real world comparison for the emperor.

Your claim is that Empy never insulted anyone, and never captured or worse anyone?

Onething123456 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
It's Tyrant Durath, or Tyrant - as in the name the Imperium gave him. So it's only clear that the Imperium wants to label him a tyrant. If Lexicanum said tyrant - the term instead of a proper noun - that'd be different.

That said, the bar here is "worse than Empy" not "bad". Empy is described as a tyrant quite a bit.

As for the word "liberated", I'm not seeing it anywhere in that text.

If you must know then Dulan technically attacked the Imperium first as the ruler sent taunts to the Imperium and showed Imperial troops he captured.


And the Emperor? Not really.

And Great Britain declared war on Germany in 1939. Were they the baddies of WW2. And taunting and sending pictures isn’t attacking. That’s taunting. How did he capture imperial troops if they weren’t interfering in his planet anyway. How do you know the faash, the people of dulan were unhappy?

Bharring wrote:
Your claim is that Empy never insulted anyone, and never captured or worse anyone?

Insulted? Of course he has insulted. He seemed to insult Uriah's religion in The Last Church, but apologized.



And Stalin? I'd say he was closer to Xerxes since he conquered.



It seems pretty obvious the the Dulan leader was evil. He provoked the Imperium to fight.

Onething123456 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Your claim is that Empy never insulted anyone, and never captured or worse anyone?

Insulted? Of course he has insulted. He seemed to insult Uriah's religion in The Last Church, but apologized.



And Stalin? I'd say he was closer to Xerxes since he conquered.

U mean liberated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I doubt Durath introduced himself as “tyrant” or that he was known as the tyrant durath to his people. He was probably emperor or something like that.

Andykp wrote:

Onething123456 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Your claim is that Empy never insulted anyone, and never captured or worse anyone?

Insulted? Of course he has insulted. He seemed to insult Uriah's religion in The Last Church, but apologized.



And Stalin? I'd say he was closer to Xerxes since he conquered.

U mean liberated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I doubt Durath introduced himself as “tyrant” or that he was known as the tyrant durath to his people. He was probably emperor or something like that.

I did not say he never conquered. I said he liberated most of the time. Its no more evil than what Alexander the Great and Xerxes did.

Onething123456 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Onething123456 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Your claim is that Empy never insulted anyone, and never captured or worse anyone?

Insulted? Of course he has insulted. He seemed to insult Uriah's religion in The Last Church, but apologized.



And Stalin? I'd say he was closer to Xerxes since he conquered.

U mean liberated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I doubt Durath introduced himself as “tyrant” or that he was known as the tyrant durath to his people. He was probably emperor or something like that.

I did not say he never conquered. I said he liberated most of the time. Its no more evil than what Alexander the Great and Xerxes did.

To the people being “liberated” it’s pretty evil. It’s only nice if he replaced it with something better. He didn’t. He replaced it with the imperium.

I dunno, Alexander and Xerxes weren't so full-throttle genocidal.

Bharring wrote:
I dunno, Alexander and Xerxes weren't so full-throttle genocidal.

At least other people out there get it. Maybe onething will too if he opens his eyes and sees that he is wrong, not all of us. Night.

Andykp wrote:

Onething123456 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
It's Tyrant Durath, or Tyrant - as in the name the Imperium gave him. So it's only clear that the Imperium wants to label him a tyrant. If Lexicanum said tyrant - the term instead of a proper noun - that'd be different.

That said, the bar here is "worse than Empy" not "bad". Empy is described as a tyrant quite a bit.

As for the word "liberated", I'm not seeing it anywhere in that text.

If you must know then Dulan technically attacked the Imperium first as the ruler sent taunts to the Imperium and showed Imperial troops he captured.



And the Emperor? Not really.

And Great Britain declared war on Germany in 1939. Were they the baddies of WW2. And taunting and sending pictures isn’t attacking. That’s taunting. How did he capture imperial troops if they weren’t interfering in his planet anyway. How do you know the faash, the people of dulan were unhappy?

He provoked them. And you talk as if the 30k Imperium was a horrible place to live. It was not. I already showed the quote from Horus Rising (And do remember that Horus Rising took place near the end of the Crusade) that Horus was talking to his Marines about the Emperor's vision for a perfect society. He is telling his own Marines that, so its illogical he would lie since prosperity was already in the Imperium. And did you read my quote from Age of Darkness? Why is that quote there if the Emperor was a trigger-happy Patrick Bateman monarch? Age of Darkness showed Remus mused that what Angron did is something any civilized code of war would deem abhorrent. Remus and other Marines opposed Angron, as he was too extreme for the Emperor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I dunno, Alexander and Xerxes weren't so full-throttle genocidal.

At least other people out there get it. Maybe onething will too if he opens his eyes and sees that he is wrong, not all of us. Night.

And so far you have provided no proof for anything of what you said. I even debunked Dulan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I dunno, Alexander and Xerxes weren't so full-throttle genocidal.

Neither was the Emperor, from what I have read. Roughly 20 Horus Heresy books. I keep getting nothing.



And don't forget that the Council of Terra thought about making the Laer a protectorate, and Fulgrim rejected it because they held their beliefs to be comparable to that of humanity, not because they were aliens. Shown in pg. 28 of the Fulgrim book.

I didn’t debunk dulan. U pointed out that the imperium calls him a tyrant. Nothing else. Your quotes don’t show what you think they do. The horus one shows that the emperor was a nazi. The other that he allowed savages to conduct his genocides. There were Germans who condemned what hitlers underlings did in his name, that doesn’t mean hitler was ok.

U show me where the Emperor tries and executes anyone in his command for war crimes and states a galaxy wide universal health care plan and I might believe u. He doesn’t. He advocates irradiation of entire races and civilisations. The deaths of untold billions in a bid to create an empire he imagined. If anyone doesn’t agree to be part of it they will die. If they disagree with it. They die. If they don’t fit it’s idea what is a normal person. They die.

Nowhere have you shown that there was prosperity or happiness in the wake of the great crusade. The example of caliban I have shown you proves the opposite. A general telling his troops that everyone will be happy joe isn’t proof of anything. The emperor killed his own troops when then stopped being useful. In a galaxy of billions of planets they were all happy to be rules by the emperor? Utter rubbish mate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I believe black library are bringing out a series of books that misrepresents the universe in the setting somehow because you are the second person I’ve argued with who had read these books and thought he knew it all and was way off the mark, not just according to me but everyone else on here. And he seemed sensible and reasonable compared to u.

Andykp wrote:
I didn’t debunk dulan. U pointed out that the imperium calls him a tyrant. Nothing else. Your quotes don’t show what you think they do. The horus one shows that the emperor was a nazi. The other that he allowed savages to conduct his genocides. There were Germans who condemned what hitlers underlings did in his name, that doesn’t mean hitler was ok.

U show me where the Emperor tries and executes anyone in his command for war crimes and states a galaxy wide universal health care plan and I might believe u. He doesn’t. He advocates irradiation of entire races and civilisations. The deaths of untold billions in a bid to create an empire he imagined. If anyone doesn’t agree to be part of it they will die. If they disagree with it. They die. If they don’t fit it’s idea what is a normal person. They die.

Nowhere have you shown that there was prosperity or happiness in the wake of the great crusade. The example of caliban I have shown you proves the opposite. A general telling his troops that everyone will be happy joe isn’t proof of anything. The emperor killed his own troops when then stopped being useful. In a galaxy of billions of planets they were all happy to be rules by the emperor? Utter rubbish mate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I believe black library are bringing out a series of books that misrepresents the universe in the setting somehow because you are the second person I’ve argued with who had read these books and thought he knew it all and was way off the mark, not just according to me but everyone else on here. And he seemed sensible and reasonable compared to u.

The quote from Age of Darkness shows that Remus thought Angron was too extreme. And he was too extreme for the Emperor. And I did just show you a quote from Age of Darkness that shows unequivocally the Emperor and other Legions considered Angron too extreme. And the Emperor did censor Angron.



Really? Then explain the Laer. The Council of Terra voted to make them a protectorate. You keep saying a lot of things but have not shown proof. Prove the Emperor did what you said.




You say what you say about the Emperor, and the Horus Heresy books I read show you are wrong. Show me quotes.


If they disagree with the Emperor then they were mostly conquered.


Caliban does not show that.


At this point I believe the notion of the Emperor being a genocidal Patrick Bateman monarch is just fans spewing nonsense.




"Never afraid of extreme measures, Angron had let slip his World Eaters in the most vicious way imaginable. Remus had once heard his primarch say that Angron’s Legion could succeed where all others would fail because the Red Angel was willing to go further than any other Legion, to countenance behaviour that any civilised code of war would deem abhorrent. Seeing what had been done to Prandium, Remus understood completely. This was no honourable war, this was butchery and destruction embodied. The primarch’s great work could surely never have contemplated war with so terrible a face." Pg.32 Age of Darkness




Forgot to say that Galaspar attacked first when they attacked Imperial envoys. And the Imperium did not wipe them out, they killed the defenders and conquered it.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
The battle of 63-19 is another example. Liberated them. No. Conquered them.

63-19 is the planet with a different Imperium that thought it was the real Terra and had a ruler called the Emperor.


And Horus thought the Emperor would have settled 63-19 peacefully. Below is a quote from Horus Rising.

'Mistakes. Misunderstandings.’ Horus stroked his hand across his brow. 'Sixty-Three Nineteen. Our first endeavour. My first as Warmaster. How much blood was spilt there, blood from misunderstanding? We misread the signs and paid the price. Poor, dear Sejanus. I miss him still. That whole war, even that nightmare up on the mountains you had to endure, Garviel... a mistake. I could have handled it differendy. Sixty-Three Nineteen could have been brought to compliance without bloodshed.’
'No, sir.’ said Loken emphatically. They were too set in their ways, and their ways were set against us. We could not have made them compliant without a war.’
Horus shook his head. You are kind, Garviel, but you are mistaken. There were ways. There should have been ways. I should have been able to sway that civilisation without a shot being fired. The Emperor would have done so.’

- Horus Rising

You know, Onething, all the quotes you're using to support your position are from the mouths of unreliable narrators and that there's such a thing as 'free indirect discourse'. This is a really common thing in writing and requires the reader to be very critical and discerning, otherwise they accept everything written as gospel. Writers often describe things as the characters involved see the world. So an event which seems to be incontrovertible and objective is actually the writer being a clever clogs.

Try it yourself. Write two short stories describing the same event, let's say a retreat from a Tyranid attack. In one your main character is a guardsman. The other is the same event but your main character is a Commissar. The adjectives you'll use and the interior thoughts of your characters will give a completely different impression of the same event.

This is what you're missing in your, obviously extensive, readings. It's like getting your news from certain news channels or newspapers. You have to assume there's an ideology at work, spinning the information you're getting.

Horus' regret in your above quote speaks to his feeling of inadequacy compared to the Emperor and the idea that he can never live up to his father. Typical undergrad psych schtick. You're supposed to read between the lines and realise that his pops would have done the exact same and that Horus is actually being hard on himself and revealing some psychological frailty.

The use of the word Tyrant, which you highlighted is the perfect example of all this. Who calls him Tyrant? And in what context? The word tyrant was originally, way back in ancient Greece, simply used to describe someone who ruled over a community or polity. Through the very use of this word, the author encourages you to peel back layers of implication and realise there's more than just the literal at work.

Banville wrote:
You know, Onething, all the quotes you're using to support your position are from the mouths of unreliable narrators and that there's such a thing as 'free indirect discourse'. This is a really common thing in writing and requires the reader to be very critical and discerning, otherwise they accept everything written as gospel. Writers often describe things as the characters involved see the world. So an event which seems to be incontrovertible and objective is actually the writer being a clever clogs.

Try it yourself. Write two short stories describing the same event, let's say a retreat from a Tyranid attack. In one your main character is a guardsman. The other is the same event but your main character is a Commissar. The adjectives you'll use and the interior thoughts of your characters will give a completely different impression of the same event.

This is what you're missing in your, obviously extensive, readings. It's like getting your news from certain news channels or newspapers. You have to assume there's an ideology at work, spinning the information you're getting.

Horus' regret in your above quote speaks to his feeling of inadequacy compared to the Emperor and the idea that he can never live up to his father. Typical undergrad psych schtick. You're supposed to read between the lines and realise that his pops would have done the exact same and that Horus is actually being hard on himself and revealing some psychological frailty.

The use of the word Tyrant, which you highlighted is the perfect example of all this. Who calls him Tyrant? And in what context? The word tyrant was originally, way back in ancient Greece, simply used to describe someone who ruled over a community or polity. Through the very use of this word, the author encourages you to peel back layers of implication and realise there's more than just the literal at work.

Superbly put. I wish I could’ve said this as eloquently as u. It would have saved me a lot of time. Onething please read this and take it to heart. Your enjoyment of the hobby will increase many fold if you do. There are so many layers and nuances to the background that it is really very complex and interesting.

Andykp wrote:

Banville wrote:
You know, Onething, all the quotes you're using to support your position are from the mouths of unreliable narrators and that there's such a thing as 'free indirect discourse'. This is a really common thing in writing and requires the reader to be very critical and discerning, otherwise they accept everything written as gospel. Writers often describe things as the characters involved see the world. So an event which seems to be incontrovertible and objective is actually the writer being a clever clogs.

Try it yourself. Write two short stories describing the same event, let's say a retreat from a Tyranid attack. In one your main character is a guardsman. The other is the same event but your main character is a Commissar. The adjectives you'll use and the interior thoughts of your characters will give a completely different impression of the same event.

This is what you're missing in your, obviously extensive, readings. It's like getting your news from certain news channels or newspapers. You have to assume there's an ideology at work, spinning the information you're getting.

Horus' regret in your above quote speaks to his feeling of inadequacy compared to the Emperor and the idea that he can never live up to his father. Typical undergrad psych schtick. You're supposed to read between the lines and realise that his pops would have done the exact same and that Horus is actually being hard on himself and revealing some psychological frailty.

The use of the word Tyrant, which you highlighted is the perfect example of all this. Who calls him Tyrant? And in what context? The word tyrant was originally, way back in ancient Greece, simply used to describe someone who ruled over a community or polity. Through the very use of this word, the author encourages you to peel back layers of implication and realise there's more than just the literal at work.

Superbly put. I wish I could’ve said this as eloquently as u. It would have saved me a lot of time. Onething please read this and take it to heart. Your enjoyment of the hobby will increase many fold if you do. There are so many layers and nuances to the background that it is really very complex and interesting.

Agreed. the thing you gotta remember is not to take everything everyone says in a story as the truth, anymore then you'd take everything someone IRL says as truth.

as your mother told you "don't belive everything you read"

Yeep, like in Horus Rising when they conquer 63-19 the "emperor" asks. "Why couldn't you just leave us alone?"

If you just read the letter of Master of Mankind you won't see it but there is no other book in HH that villifies the emperor as much.

The Magnus novella comes close if the stormlord implication is correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Never mistake the imperium during the great crusade as anything but an absolutist monarchy. It's simply nicer about it than it's 40K counterpart.

Banville wrote:
You know, Onething, all the quotes you're using to support your position are from the mouths of unreliable narrators and that there's such a thing as 'free indirect discourse'. This is a really common thing in writing and requires the reader to be very critical and discerning, otherwise they accept everything written as gospel. Writers often describe things as the characters involved see the world. So an event which seems to be incontrovertible and objective is actually the writer being a clever clogs.

Try it yourself. Write two short stories describing the same event, let's say a retreat from a Tyranid attack. In one your main character is a guardsman. The other is the same event but your main character is a Commissar. The adjectives you'll use and the interior thoughts of your characters will give a completely different impression of the same event.

This is what you're missing in your, obviously extensive, readings. It's like getting your news from certain news channels or newspapers. You have to assume there's an ideology at work, spinning the information you're getting.

Horus' regret in your above quote speaks to his feeling of inadequacy compared to the Emperor and the idea that he can never live up to his father. Typical undergrad psych schtick. You're supposed to read between the lines and realise that his pops would have done the exact same and that Horus is actually being hard on himself and revealing some psychological frailty.

The use of the word Tyrant, which you highlighted is the perfect example of all this. Who calls him Tyrant? And in what context? The word tyrant was originally, way back in ancient Greece, simply used to describe someone who ruled over a community or polity. Through the very use of this word, the author encourages you to peel back layers of implication and realise there's more than just the literal at work.

63-19 was Horus making rash decisions, and Horus thought the Emperor would have settled it peacefully. I showed that with the quote. And yes, the word tyrant is from ancient Greece, but the Horus Heresy books mostly use to describe someone evil. And thanks for talking with me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Earth127 wrote:
Yeep, like in Horus Rising when they conquer 63-19 the "emperor" asks. "Why couldn't you just leave us alone?"

If you just read the letter of Master of Mankind you won't see it but there is no other book in HH that villifies the emperor as much.

The Magnus novella comes close if the stormlord implication is correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Never mistake the imperium during the great crusade as anything but an absolutist monarchy. It's simply nicer about it than it's 40K counterpart.

Did you not read my quote from Horus Rising?

'Mistakes. Misunderstandings.’ Horus stroked his hand across his brow. 'Sixty-Three Nineteen. Our first endeavour. My first as Warmaster. How much blood was spilt there, blood from misunderstanding? We misread the signs and paid the price. Poor, dear Sejanus. I miss him still. That whole war, even that nightmare up on the mountains you had to endure, Garviel... a mistake. I could have handled it differendy. Sixty-Three Nineteen could have been brought to compliance without bloodshed.’
'No, sir.’ said Loken emphatically. They were too set in their ways, and their ways were set against us. We could not have made them compliant without a war.’
Horus shook his head. You are kind, Garviel, but you are mistaken. There were ways. There should have been ways. I should have been able to sway that civilisation without a shot being fired. The Emperor would have done so.’

Did you miss the part where Horus says the Emperor would have settled it peacefully?

There must be something about the background forum that makes intractable people post large walls of quotes while simultaneously misunderstanding them. Is it contagious? Will I catch it too?

Whether the Emperor would have handled one specific case differently isn't really the point. It's clear from the various interactions we know of during the Crusade that the Emperor was absolutely fine with forcibly inducting planets into the Imperium. He viewed it as for the greater good but all his supposedly noble talk about reclaiming mankind's birthright kind of pales next to the genocide of the Crusade.

That quote does not show what you think.

Horus “thinks” the emperor could’ve settled it peacefully. That in no way means he could of. It shows that horus believes him beneath his fathers level and inferior to him. Through his eyes with that belief he thinks he made a mistake his father wouldn’t have. There is no eveidemce that that is the case. In fact loken contradicts him and reassures him it was unavoidable. Again, is this true or is he just trying to be nice to his friend and superior?

That small passage in no way proves your argument. For we know the emperor would’ve done a big exterminatus on the whole planet you are reading the words and interpreting it literally and taking horuss word as the truth. U need to be able to pick up the nuances in the text and the context. Even on its own that quote shows only how two characters feel about something. Nothing of the emperor. Please stop trying use it as proof of your arguemnet. It doesn’t work. Try again or accept you are wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
There must be something about the background forum that makes intractable people post large walls of quotes while simultaneously misunderstanding them. Is it contagious? Will I catch it too?

Whether the Emperor would have handled one specific case differently isn't really the point. It's clear from the various interactions we know of during the Crusade that the Emperor was absolutely fine with forcibly inducting planets into the Imperium. He viewed it as for the greater good but all his supposedly noble talk about reclaiming mankind's birthright kind of pales next to the genocide of the Crusade.

And it always seems to stem from people who have read a lot of HH books. It may be some kind of mind control subliminal message in the text. It seems to make the, think they know something no one else does.

I agree with Loken in that conversation.

I have read a lot of HH. It's more about not recognizing the signs of fascism and absolutism without moustache twirly obey me or die signs.

This is evidence of the emperors true nature for you onething. The proximan betrayal. A group in insurgents tried to kill him, and he declared exterminatus on the “whole” planet. Nice and reasonable response.



http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Proximan_Betrayal

Yes, but just because Horus says it, doesn't mean it's true. The author puts those words into Horus' mouth in order to show how insecure and filled with self-doubt he is. I've had a couple of novels published and what Abnett is doing is typical of what any writer would do when trying to create a character with 'daddy issues'. Horus is saying his father would have done a better job because he feels he can never match his father. Its straight out of Freud 101.

Basically everything a character says us either exposition or designed to reveal personality. What the quote you're using does is expose how frail Horus' sense of self is and how incapable he feels in comparison to his dad. It doesn't actually give any real info on what the Emperor would or would not have done because you can only judge characters by their actions, not what another character says about them.

I think you need to take a step back and distance yourself from these characters. You can't take anything they say as unvarnished truth. I'm sure I could pull a quote from Lorgar extolling the virtues of Erebus and describing Kor Pheron as a stand up guy. Doesn't mean they are.

Andykp wrote:
This is evidence of the emperors true nature for you onething. The proximan betrayal. A group in insurgents tried to kill him, and he declared exterminatus on the “whole” planet. Nice and reasonable response.



http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Proximan_Betrayal

That was a rebellion where they tried to kill the Emperor (and of course fail). Not unprovoked.



And pretty much all of that comes from the Forgeworld books. Horus Heresy book one in Forgeworld also says the Crusade "freed enslaved billions" from alien overlords. The same book you were using.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Banville wrote:
Yes, but just because Horus says it, doesn't mean it's true. The author puts those words into Horus' mouth in order to show how insecure and filled with self-doubt he is. I've had a couple of novels published and what Abnett is doing is typical of what any writer would do when trying to create a character with 'daddy issues'. Horus is saying his father would have done a better job because he feels he can never match his father. Its straight out of Freud 101.

Basically everything a character says us either exposition or designed to reveal personality. What the quote you're using does is expose how frail Horus' sense of self is and how incapable he feels in comparison to his dad. It doesn't actually give any real info on what the Emperor would or would not have done because you can only judge characters by their actions, not what another character says about them.

I think you need to take a step back and distance yourself from these characters. You can't take anything they say as unvarnished truth. I'm sure I could pull a quote from Lorgar extolling the virtues of Erebus and describing Kor Pheron as a stand up guy. Doesn't mean they are.

No, but Horus believed it. And it was clearly his mistake, not the Emperor's fault.

Onething123456 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
This is evidence of the emperors true nature for you onething. The proximan betrayal. A group in insurgents tried to kill him, and he declared exterminatus on the “whole” planet. Nice and reasonable response.



http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Proximan_Betrayal

That was a rebellion where they tried to kill the Emperor (and of course fail). Not unprovoked.



And pretty much all of that comes from the Forgeworld books. Horus Heresy book one in Forgeworld also says the Crusade "freed enslaved billions" from alien overlords. The same book you were using.

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

I'm genuinely trying to help, here Onething, because I think you're missing pretty large swathes of dramatic irony in all of this. Your little flag doohickey says you're American. Maybe the whole 'American Irony Blindspot', thing has some merit!

Buy some old 2000ADs. 40k is from the same vintage and carries the same cynical attitude to authoritarianism. Here's a tip, if you read Judge Dredd and think he represents the good guys, you're missing something.