PDA

View Full Version : How was the Emperor a "Great Leader"?



PlagueLord
10-04-2005, 23:07
I've been thinking about the Emperor's personality lately, and I'm amazed that he held power as long as he did. He seems to have some personel issues, and the people skills of an ork. Just look at the fallen primarchs:

Magnus: Kept berrating him over using psychic powers, when the Emperor himself was psychic.
Angron: Didn't rescue his army and left them to be slaughtered.
Lorgar: Shot down his "hero worship" in a rather blunt manner.
Perturabo: Gave his legion lousy asignments/no respect.
Fulgrim: Kinda the same as Lorgar.
Night Haunter: Well, he was pretty screwed up to begin with... ;)
Mortarion: Other than humiliating him when they first met, he was actually ok.
Alphirus: Don't know enough to comment.

The Emperor made some obvius errors in dealing with his "children." How did someone who was (at best) a jerk manage to become mankind's greatest leader blah blah blah and all that stuff?

Once again, forgive the spelling, as I'm on the wrong computer.

TheSonOfAbbadon
10-04-2005, 23:29
You try conquering the universe.

Strikerkc
11-04-2005, 00:23
You try conquering the universe.

That is essentialy it. He had the power and strength to become master of earth, guide them in the creation of a crusade army, and led it with near infalable logic and tactics.

He may have been an ass, but he was good at doing what he felt like doing ;).

5upr3m3 h4xx0rz
11-04-2005, 00:36
Would you challenge the emperor for control of humanity or tell him to his face that hes an ass?


Thats what i thought.

inquisitorautry
11-04-2005, 01:34
...Magnus: Kept berrating him over using psychic powers, when the Emperor himself was psychic....

Magnus practiced sorcery, which is different from normal psychic abilities. Psychic ability, while using the warp, does not imply the consorting with demons that socery does. Sorcery involves pacts and sacrifice in order to get power. Very similar to the light and dark side of the force. Two sides of the same coin, but still very different.

Sephiroth
11-04-2005, 01:49
The mistake most people seem to make is assuming the Emperor was supposed to have been a 'nice guy'.

He was trying to unite Humanity and take over the galaxy. No one said he was going to be a hero. :D ;)

PlagueLord
11-04-2005, 02:47
I've never thought of the Emperor as a "nice guy", but you would think that if he was so brilliant he would have put a little work into keeping half his commanders loyal. He did little or nothing for them once they had been recovered, and actually seemed to be trying to tick them off.

twisted_mentat
11-04-2005, 03:06
Also, if you were to sand in the presance of the EMperor, you'd probably fall to your knees and genuflection...

and aura of power...

Inquisitor Engel
11-04-2005, 03:16
Magnus: Kept berrating him over using psychic powers, when the Emperor himself was psychic.
No, Magnus was messing with SORCERY, not psychic abilities. There's a distinct difference. Psychic powers are protected, and draw from the abilities of the individual. Sorcery allows one to do anything the warp allows.

The difference can be seen in 'Lord of the Night' where Mita at first uses psychic abilities, and is limited by what she has talent in. Once she gives over to ignoring her teaching and begins to practice Sorcery, she can do pretty much anything she likes.

Sorcery is dangerous indeed. It invites even MORE attention from warp entities and the Chaos Gods. That's what the Emperor was pissed about. He was right to warn Magnus.


Angron: Didn't rescue his army and left them to be slaughtered
Angron never asked. :p He asked to die. You make the call, let a son die, or rescue him. There was never the option to rescue the entire army. Ever.


Lorgar: Shot down his "hero worship" in a rather blunt manner.
Again, the Emperor did this for a reason. The Emperor never considered himself divine or a God. For Lorgar to treat him thus was a tad overzealous and, in the Emperor's eyes, wrong.


Perturabo: Gave his legion lousy asignments/no respect.
Actually, Horus did that.


Fulgrim: Kinda the same as Lorgar.
Not the same at all. The Emperor's Children were severely depleted to begin with and fought alongside the Luna Wolves for a long time before doing battle by themselves. Fulgrim liked Horus. Horus corrupted Fulgrim by twisting his love of humanity against him. The Emperor had nothing to do with Fulgrim's fall.


Night Haunter: Well, he was pretty screwed up to begin with... ;)
Who also fought against the Emperor. Not for Horus. (Distinct difference) 'Lord of the Night' has some interesting points on this, that the Emperor demanded the attrocities of the Night Lords and once he was done, needed to get rid of his "beast on a leash" so called him to account.

If there was any one real mistake the Emperor made, it was this. If what Zso Sahaal is saying is true after all. I hope it is. :D


Mortarion: Other than humiliating him when they first met, he was actually ok.
Mortarion was possibly raised by daemons, there was a good chance he was going to fall. ;) And the Emperor humiliated many, many Primarchs - Jonson, Russ, Vulkan and Kahn, to name a few. They all turned out fine.


Alphirus: Don't know enough to comment.
Alpharius fell because he liked Horus too much. Horus kept his discovery secret. It didn't help that Gulliman belittled him, and Horus praised him. The Emperor had little to do with it.

milmot
11-04-2005, 05:12
maybe i have read the original question wrong...

but isnt it like this: the emperor was a great leader of men and had great ambition, but he was simply just a bad father?

Captain Blood
11-04-2005, 07:28
Well, by the time the Emperor found the Primarchs, they were all fully grown and in control of their homeworlds for the most part. They were adults, and he had a galaxy to unite.

The one thing that I did find questionable was his 'saving' Angron. It likely would have endeared Angron to him a lot more if an orbital strike or three on the opposing army followed by marine reinforcements had occured instead of leaving the outmatched force to fend for themselves. Of course they never mentioned the circumstances at the time, and there may have been more pressing matters than smiting some unruly natives, but we'll probably never know.

As for Lorgar, Lorgar had problems. The 'hero worship' was it. Lorgar was given command of a legion of warriors genetically and surgically altered to be the greatest warriors humanity has to offer and what does he do with them? He plays goes along preaching and building temples. Granted, he did conquer worlds like his brothers, but he wasted an enormous amount of time converting afterward when instead, they could have had some confessors and preachers or whatever equivalent they had selling the populace on the benefits of the Imperium It worked for the other legions after all.

Mortarion didn't really seem to have much of a problem with the Emperor after he was discovered. It wasn't until they were hit with the plague in the warp that he changed his tune.

I guess what I'm saying is that the Primarchs were fully developed adults by the time they were found. It wasn't that he hadn't raised them right because they had already been raised by someone (or not raised by someone as the case may be). Their actions were their own, the Emperor may not have been perfect, but he didn't have time to be a father, he was busy uniting humanity. He didn't need sons as much as he needed generals at the time, which may have exacerbated things, but I guess he probably thought he could deal with it after they were done.

Sojourner
11-04-2005, 09:58
He did create them to be what he needed them to be - loyal and competent. If you design them not to need praise, motivation or appreciation to get the job done, you expect that. He was probably ticked off with them because they were acting up by his standards.

DantesInferno
11-04-2005, 10:31
No, Magnus was messing with SORCERY, not psychic abilities. There's a distinct difference. Psychic powers are protected, and draw from the abilities of the individual. Sorcery allows one to do anything the warp allows.

The difference can be seen in 'Lord of the Night' where Mita at first uses psychic abilities, and is limited by what she has talent in. Once she gives over to ignoring her teaching and begins to practice Sorcery, she can do pretty much anything she likes.

Sorcery is dangerous indeed. It invites even MORE attention from warp entities and the Chaos Gods. That's what the Emperor was pissed about. He was right to warn Magnus.

Still, it is a pretty fine line. The problem I have with the Emperor's conduct with Magnus is not that he rebuked him for practising sorcery, but that he commanded so little respect that Magnus just ignored his command. Surely if he was such a great leader as Imperial (or the Emperor's own) propaganda would have us believe, he could have perhaps inspired his sons' loyalty a bit more.



Angron never asked. :p He asked to die. You make the call, let a son die, or rescue him. There was never the option to rescue the entire army. Ever.


Why was there no possibility of saving Angron's army? The Emperor was in all likelihood travelling with several Legions as well as his Custodes. I see no reason why it would have been impossible to rescue Angron's army. I think it has more to do with the Emperor's complete lack of understanding regarding Angron's psychology. That and the fact that the Emperor, as a totalitarian dictator, may not have been very sympathetic to a slave uprising. In any case, later events showed it to be a monumental stuff-up. I can't see Horus making the same mistakes in the Emperor's place.


Again, the Emperor did this for a reason. The Emperor never considered himself divine or a God. For Lorgar to treat him thus was a tad overzealous and, in the Emperor's eyes, wrong.

He hardly handled the situation with tact though, did he? Was it possible to keep Lorgar's loyalty whilst discouraging him from worshipping the Emperor as a go? I would say a better leader could have managed. It's a shame that the Emperor can't see the irony that Lorgar (and Night Haunter too) was actually right all along.


Actually, Horus did that.

Allegedly. In any case, the Emperor as supreme commander had the ultimate call over how the legions were deployed. Surely a cursory glance at the way the Iron Warriors were being run, despite Perturabo's protests and resentment, would have told the Emperor that the Iron Warriors were being worked into the ground mercilessly. It seems to me the Emperor either didn't notice (There are only 20 legions! How hard would it be to get reports from all of them?) or perhaps more probably, simply didn't care that the IW were treated in a way that was loosing their loyalty.


Who also fought against the Emperor. Not for Horus. (Distinct difference) 'Lord of the Night' has some interesting points on this, that the Emperor demanded the attrocities of the Night Lords and once he was done, needed to get rid of his "beast on a leash" so called him to account.

If there was any one real mistake the Emperor made, it was this. If what Zso Sahaal is saying is true after all. I hope it is. :D

"I merely punished those who had wronged, just as your false Emperor now seeks to punish me. Death is nothing compared to vindication." I love the Lord of the Night theory by the way. Makes the Emperor seem a lot more realistic.



Mortarion was possibly raised by daemons, there was a good chance he was going to fall. ;) And the Emperor humiliated many, many Primarchs - Jonson, Russ, Vulkan and Kahn, to name a few. They all turned out fine.

Though in the other cases, it was the Emperor gaining the Primarchs' respect by beating them. In Mortarion's case, it was Mortarion's failure to defeat his monstrous father which lead him to swear unwilling loyalty to the Emperor.

Oh, and for Captain Blood, Mortarion's fall to the Destroyer plague in space came after he had already joined Horus' forces, as the legions were on their way to Earth. The Death Guard had already openly joined Horus on Istvaan III, and later V. Mortarion joined Horus because "Horus promised that under his rule the old order would fall, and a new age would dawn, a just age with right ensured by the mighty. Mortarion turned on the Imperium as he had turned on the overlords of Barbarus, and joined the rebellion which would forever sunder the Imperium." Basically he realised the Emperor was a despotic leader, and thought Horus would ensure a better, more just future for Mankind.


Alpharius fell because he liked Horus too much. Horus kept his discovery secret. It didn't help that Gulliman belittled him, and Horus praised him. The Emperor had little to do with it.

Exactly, he had little to do with it. That is the problem. Again he didn't notice or didn't care enough to maintain the loyalty of a substancial number of his commanders. Gross mismanagement of a galactic totalitarian Empire.

The real question we have to ask is whether Horus would have been a better leader had their places been reversed.......

Karhedron
11-04-2005, 10:36
Angron never asked. :p He asked to die. You make the call, let a son die, or rescue him. There was never the option to rescue the entire army. Ever.
The Emperor could easily have sent in the World Eaters and placed them under Angron's command. That way he would have earned his loyalty and added another planet to the Imperium in one swoop. I could never understand why the Emperor simply beamed him up and left. The Great Crusade was supposed to be about unification so why did he abandon Angron's homeworld rather than pacifying it?

Captain Blood
11-04-2005, 10:51
Oh, and for Captain Blood, Mortarion's fall to the Destroyer plague in space came after he had already joined Horus' forces, as the legions were on their way to Earth. The Death Guard had already openly joined Horus on Istvaan III, and later V. Mortarion joined Horus because "Horus promised that under his rule the old order would fall, and a new age would dawn, a just age with right ensured by the mighty. Mortarion turned on the Imperium as he had turned on the overlords of Barbarus, and joined the rebellion which would forever sunder the Imperium." Basically he realised the Emperor was a despotic leader, and thought Horus would ensure a better, more just future for Mankind.


Whoops, yeah, you're right, he turned before that. Aside from the possibilities that the Emperor was seeing his sons with the proverbial rose-tinted glasses, which was supported in the RoC account of the Horus fight, I'm out of suggestions for the moment.

The World Eaters thing was something I never quite understood. We all know he had the forces with him, he certainly had the ability to do it, but he left Angron's army to die. It gets even more perplexing since there are other Primarchs who have done exactly as he did, that is, the overthrowing of the rulers of their world; Jaghatai Khan did it, so did Roboute Guillemann (although that was more a liberation from a usurper).

DantesInferno
11-04-2005, 11:00
The World Eaters thing was something I never quite understood. We all know he had the forces with him, he certainly had the ability to do it, but he left Angron's army to die. It gets even more perplexing since there are other Primarchs who have done exactly as he did, that is, the overthrowing of the rulers of their world; Jaghatai Khan did it, so did Roboute Guillemann (although that was more a liberation from a usurper).

I just always thought it was because he simply didn't realise or didn't care about the effect it would have on Angron's loyalty. I think the fact it was a slave uprising didn't help either - unlike many of the other Primarchs, this was an uprising against authority, pure and simple. Jaghatai was just leading one force of warriors against another, it wasn't an uprising so much as a conquest. Roboute was actually fighting for the status quo, which may help to explain why he was one of the Emperor's favoured sons.

Seroiusly, can anyone imagine Horus losing the loyalty of the Primarchs in this way he had been Emperor from the start?

Sojourner
11-04-2005, 11:30
Weren't the Iron Warriors in Horus' group, not the Emperor's? In which case, he was several thousand light years away and in no position to notice anything. Horus was Warmaster and as such, was in charge of how his Legions deployed.

DantesInferno
11-04-2005, 11:50
Weren't the Iron Warriors in Horus' group, not the Emperor's? In which case, he was several thousand light years away and in no position to notice anything. Horus was Warmaster and as such, was in charge of how his Legions deployed.

The point is that the if the Emperor wants to run an intergalatic Empire, he should be making it his highest priority to know how it was being run. Either he didn't know about the Iron Warriors, in which case he didn't care enough to find how his forces were being used, or he did know and didn't care enough to do anything about it. So it is either neglegence or incompetance. Take your pick.

Saying that Horus was the Warmaster is a pretty flawed defence. The Emperor claimed absolute authority, he claimed to be the head of a galatic Empire and of all Mankind. It is his responsibility to know how the Legions are being run - there are only 20 of them! A few brief reports would have given him all the informatiuon he would have needed. I don't think that is an unreasonable amount of micromanagement to expect from an Emperor.

Sojourner
11-04-2005, 11:54
Horus could have lied, you know. The Emperor trusted him absolutely and would take his word on his activities to be the truth.

If you'd created something yourself to be reliable, you'd expect it to be, wouldn't you?

charlie_c67
11-04-2005, 12:03
I just always thought it was because he simply didn't realise or didn't care about the effect it would have on Angron's loyalty.

Or maybe he didn't realise what effect the implants had on his sanity.


Seroiusly, can anyone imagine Horus loosing the loyalty of the Primarchs in this way he had been Emperor from the start?

I think he might've, just not in the same way. The Emperor trusted all of his sons implicitly until something major came to light. Look at those that rebelled and how they were treated.

Night Haunter: Met the emperor and predicted his end. His terror tactics eventually drove him away

Fulgrim: Coveted perfection and the emperor, gave a amazing speech when met and was praised for his attitude, yet was easily seduced.

Mortarion: Was saved by the emperor and instead of letting it go, let it knaw(sp?) at his heart and consume him.

Horus: was the Emperors favourite! Then pride/something else took him over.

Magnus: no problems to start with. met the emperor with minds first so they already knew about each other. Then ignored a direct order from him about summink the emperor knew more about and suffered as a result.

Angron: didn't want to be rescued and kept the resentment and, in his eyes, shame of not being able to die with his men.

Perturabo: met up and was then run into the ground, by fault or design, with siege after siege and sentry duty.

Alpharius: hardly knew the emperor and was manipulated by Horus from the start.

That's 8. Who've I missed?!

Edit:Found it!

Lorgar: Worshipped the Emperor as a good from the first moment they met. Which IMHO wasn't what the emperor wanted from his own sons. Maybe the "pull ur finger out and get on with the conquering!" message coulda been a lil more grateful though,

Gregorus
11-04-2005, 12:22
The point is that the if the Emperor wants to run an intergalatic Empire, he should be making it his highest priority to know how it was being run. Either he didn't know about the Iron Warriors, in which case he didn't care enough to find how his forces were being used, or he did know and didn't care enough to do anything about it. So it is either neglegence or incompetance. Take your pick.

Saying that Horus was the Warmaster is a pretty flawed defence. The Emperor claimed absolute authority, he claimed to be the head of a galatic Empire and of all Mankind. It is his responsibility to know how the Legions are being run - there are only 20 of them! A few brief reports would have given him all the informatiuon he would have needed. I don't think that is an unreasonable amount of micromanagement to expect from an Emperor.
the galaxy is a big place, ya know. in the M40, when the astropathic links are well-established, it can be months, years or even centuries before something as simple as a disstress call will reach the right world, and we are speaking of the times of the Crusade, when the Astropathic net was still a work in progress- such brief report could be easily lost among many requests for suplies needed to run the crusade, other reports, besides the Emp had also other matters to attend to (such as enforcing loyality of tech-priests or such), not only spying on his gene-sons

DantesInferno
11-04-2005, 12:24
Horus could have lied, you know. The Emperor trusted him absolutely and would take his word on his activities to be the truth.

If you'd created something yourself to be reliable, you'd expect it to be, wouldn't you?

Would it have really been too much to actually occasionally get updates from the individual Legions themselves? Allowing your Warmaster to do absolutely everything without looking over his shoulder once in a while just seems terminally stupid for a would-be galactic Emperor.

And as for Horus, I can't see him making the same sort of blunders which lost the support of the Primarchs as the Emperor did (Angron, Mortarion and Perturabo in particular). There was absolutely nothing in the development of these Primarchs which irrevocably damned them, and with a strong leader who cared about them they would have fought to the death in his defence.

And as for your point Gregorus, if he could get relatively regular updates from Horus, he could get updates from all the Primarchs he neglected too. A few short messages would have been enough to determine that the IW were being worked into the ground. Either he didn't bother to find out or he didn't care. Neither option is very flattering. Communication wasn't that much of a problem, since they managed the logistics of a galatic Great Crusade. I'm not saying he wasn't already busy, but surely it wouldn't have been that much to ask?

EDIT@charlie_67: Of course Horus may have been involved in the way the Iron Warriors were callously worn down, but my point is the Emperor should have been aware. It is either neglence, incompetance or a callous disregard for the loyalty of his soldiers. Take your pick.

charlie_c67
11-04-2005, 12:31
Wasn't Horus (in)directly linked to Perturabo's resentment? At least in part.

Gregorus
11-04-2005, 12:38
Allowing your Warmaster to do absolutely everything without looking over his shoulder once in a while just seems terminally stupid for a would-be galactic Emperor.

Not that he could go and "look over Horus' shoulder" very frequently... Its easy to send a report, that Iron Warriors are happily conquesting new planets, when the reciever of said report is on the other edge of galaxy... And as it was said, the Emp trusted Horus, so there were no real reasons to be very inquisitive about him. Oh, and dont you think, that all the reports from the legions fighting under Horus would go throug the warmaster himself and would be sufficiently...ahem...altered?

DantesInferno
11-04-2005, 12:45
Not that he could go and "look over Horus' shoulder" very frequently... Its easy to send a report, that Iron Warriors are happily conquesting new planets, when the reciever of said report is on the other edge of galaxy... And as it was said, the Emp trusted Horus, so there were no real reasons to be very inquisitive about him. Oh, and dont you think, that all the reports from the legions fighting under Horus would go throug the warmaster himself and would be sufficiently...ahem...altered?

My point was that the Emperor's unquestioning trust in Horus was a terminally stupid characteristic in a would-be galatic ruler. Surely the Emperor could insist on updates from all his Primarchs personally once in a while. If the Emperor was so spineless or dull-witted not to question his Warmaster, or even the monumental effort of losing the loyalties of HALF his legions without knowing it, there is no way he would have been able to hold together the Imperium in the long run anyway, even without Horus' rebellion.

Gregorus
11-04-2005, 12:55
Horus was Emperors beloved son from the very beginning, thats why he trusted him, the Emperor knew him from before the ambition and envy changed Horus, before that he was a perfect son, during the whole cusade up to the heresy there was IIRC no thing, that could indicate that the Warmaster is untrustworthy, so the leader of mankind belived in him to the very end. This shows BTW that the emp, apart from being omnipotent and all, is also a human

charlie_c67
11-04-2005, 13:47
What's a bellowed son? ;)

macbeth
11-04-2005, 14:15
I think one thing people should not forget when comparing Horus and the Emperor is that, whilst all the loyalist legions fought for the Emperor, not all the renegades did so for Horus.

Actually, when you look at it, the Night Lords, the Word Bearers, the Thousand Sons fought more AGAINST the Emperor than FOR Horus. This means that Horus was no better unifier than the Emperor, as he only rules six legions, including his own, whilst the Emperor had nine for him. Had Horus won, I'm not convinced that the NL, the WB and the TS would have still followed him...

Apart from the three big failures of Angron, Mortarion and Magnus, most of the rebelions were due to Horus' skill to push the primarchs one against the other, and also to the arrogance of some of the loyalist primarchs, such as Roboute Guiliman or Rogal Dorn. These two are probably the real responsibles for the rebelion of Alpharius and Perturabo respectively...

Delicious Soy
11-04-2005, 14:36
In regard to the Emperor's failure to keep a watch on Horus:

The fact is that the Great Crusade had reached a critical point where the gains made (2 million worlds in what? A few centuries?) had to be consolidated. Which is what the Emperor set out to do. He also had to establish many new organisation to deal with the problems dogging humantiy at the time (specifically the increase in psykers ansd mutatation in general). The daily administration occupied much of his time and Horus, who the Emperor had actually managed to raise, needed only directives as to what to do. The Emperor told him to pacify Istvaan III, only to have horus destroy the world. The Emperor was also human, not the god as the ecclesiarchy portrayed him, after the move of his conciousness to high warp than possibly he was a god, but during the heresey he was still human and wanted to trust the abilities his sons had proved time and again.

The Emperor was a great leader, if he wasn't he wouldn't have gotten beyond Mars, nor would he forged an Empire ruled in his name for 10 millenia.

Forgotmytea
11-04-2005, 15:32
...Apart from the three big failures of Angron, Mortarion and Magnus, most of the rebelions were due to Horus' skill to push the primarchs one against the other...

That's the main reason I still see him as an idiot (even when playing with my salamanders :eek: ) - he went to all that trouble getting the Primachs united, and then when one of them, the one who can see the future, tells him Horus is revolting, he sends the Space Wolves to beat him up! :confused: This kinda caused Magnus to rebel, poor guy, (you can probably see where my allegiences lie by now :D), which IMHO shows the Emperor as less-than-mankind's-great-leader.

Although, to be fair, if you're an average Guardsman reading your average Imperial Guardsmans Uplifting Primer, you're gonna read about how, "The Mighty Emperor took up his sword, and smote the forces of darkness. They trembled before His might, and so His Fire shall be in you as you smite them as He did.", not "Yeah, the Emperor's a pretty nice guy, but did you know that if he had listened to Magnus the Red, you wouldn't be about to have your heart viciously torn out of your body and your soul sacraficed to Dark Gods by those Chaos Marines over there?" :p

PlagueLord
11-04-2005, 16:01
Thats what I'm trying to get at. He invested 1158 ba-jillion credits and time making the primarchs and their legions, united mankind, conquered most of the galaxy, and then lost it all because he has horrible "people skills" and less management ability than your average totalitarian dictator.

charlie_c67
11-04-2005, 16:15
But then again if you've just got a message from a son that's just proven himself to be secretly disobeying your orders by blitzing through all you psychic defences would you think calmly and rationally?
1) The son who promised to stop researching sourcery obviously hasn't.
2) Said son has just zipped through all your defences to talk to you directly
3) To do this would take an immense amount of power. Who control such amounts of it? The chaos gods.
4) Knowing what you do of the manipulative nature of the chaos gods it doesn't take a massive leap to think/assume he was under their sway.
5) Horus has been made Warmaster, that sorta is bound to attract jealousy.

Wolflord Bloodangel
12-04-2005, 10:16
6) What would the chaos gods most want me to do? A: Kill my right hand man



Seriously, everyone keeps saying 'how could he trust anyone if he wanted to rule the galaxy', when in fact it would be impossible to rule the galaxy without trusting someone, as its just too big! The Emperor's problem was that he just trusted the wrong guy. Now if they hadda appointed Russ Warmaster...

DantesInferno
12-04-2005, 10:40
Seriously, everyone keeps saying 'how could he trust anyone if he wanted to rule the galaxy', when in fact it would be impossible to rule the galaxy without trusting someone, as its just too big! The Emperor's problem was that he just trusted the wrong guy. Now if they hadda appointed Russ Warmaster...

Isn't it pretty clear that absolute, unquestioning trust is a fairly suicidal quality in anyone who wants to set up a military dictatorship with themselves at the head? It seems incredible that the Emperor could have conquered/united Earth in the first place without someone stabbing him in the back if he was as gullible as it appears later.

Of course you have to delegate power and authority, but that doesn't mean that blind faith in your deputies is a particulary useful characteristic either.

charlie_c67
12-04-2005, 11:02
Even one that has proven faith beyond the call of duty as Horus had? I'm not saying he should've been a little more tactful with some of them. Alpharius and Perturabo for example. But with someone who's acted like Horus did you're going to let your guard down a little. Plus there's the fact the chaos gods could've been shielding the emperor from all that was going on, I think that's how Magnus got away with so much. Don't forget he was only human at the time.

Delicious Soy
12-04-2005, 12:34
Horus was more than just a lieutenant, he was family. He had been reared by the empreor from an early age compared to the others so was very much his son. They had fought together for many years, and both had saved the life of the other. That he turned to Horus and gave him the task of guarding the new Imperium is hardly surprising, nor is the degree of trust that he had with him.

DantesInferno
12-04-2005, 14:10
Horus was more than just a lieutenant, he was family. He had been reared by the empreor from an early age compared to the others so was very much his son. They had fought together for many years, and both had saved the life of the other. That he turned to Horus and gave him the task of guarding the new Imperium is hardly surprising, nor is the degree of trust that he had with him.

Of course it is not surprising that the Emperor placed such trust in Horus. The point I was trying to make was that the blind faith the Emperor showed in his underlings, coupled with his at times amazingly poor "people skills" and poor micromanagement meant he was pretty much incapable of running a galatic Empire in the long run, with or without Horus' rebellion.

I think one of the first maxims for a would-be Emperor has to be: trust no-one unconditionally, especially your family.

Brother Munro
12-04-2005, 14:44
The Emperor is dubbed a great leader because he reunited humanity on Earth, reunited Earth and Mars, created the Space Marines, conquered most of the Galaxy, set up most of the Imperium's structure and organization, allows navigators to guide ships through warp space, was the most powerful human psyker ever, found masses of STC and other dark age of techonolgy stuff, enables astropaths to do their jobs, scared the Chaos gods. He may have had personal problems but he is the greatest leader in human history. Guilliman and Macharius would probably be next but the Emperor is better than both of them.

Inquisitor Engel
12-04-2005, 15:21
set up most of the Imperium's structure and organization
Actually, Gulliman did that. The Emperor was sole despot in his reign, and the Adeptus Terra did not exist at the time, some aspects of management were left to what would later become the AT, but it was Roboute who basically created the Imperium as we know it. He ruled as de facto Emperor until he had finished writing the Codexes (Yes, there are more than one :p) and the High Lords got themselves situated.

charlie_c67
12-04-2005, 15:23
Of course it is not surprising that the Emperor placed such trust in Horus. The point I was trying to make was that the blind faith the Emperor showed in his underlings, coupled with his at times amazingly poor "people skills" and poor micromanagement meant he was pretty much incapable of running a galatic Empire in the long run, with or without Horus' rebellion.


Poor people skills? He reunited the majority of mankind, he created the marines as borther munro said he created a vast empire and only 9 out of 18 sons are known to have rebelled. If he had such poor people skills then he'd have failed before he started, on the scale of the Imperium micromanagement for one mortal would've been impossible and if you can't trust your family then who can you trust?

PlagueLord
12-04-2005, 21:57
... only 9 out of 18 sons are known to have rebelled.

Thats my point. HALF of his most trusted generals/children rebelled because he was such a lousy leader. Geez, Hilter was kinda anti-social, but you didn't see half his high-command up and switch sides.


If he had such poor people skills then he'd have failed before he started...

Again, thats my point. Given his horrible people skills, how did he get where he was? He should have failed in his conquest of Earth.

malika
12-04-2005, 22:01
Hitler IIRC did not give the command of his military to one single general IIRC ;)

The fact that the Emperor gave the command of his forces to Horus was his greatest mistake.

DantesInferno
12-04-2005, 22:53
The fact that the Emperor gave the command of his forces to Horus was his greatest mistake.

I wouldn't go that far. The Emperor's biggest mistake was to not keep an eye on Horus and the Legions under his command after he made Horus Warmaster. But let's face it, the Emperor had already lost the respect and support of a substancial number of Legions (WE, DG, 1k Sons, WB, NL) completely without Horus' help. I think it was only a matter of time before the Emperor's new realm collapsed, and that Horus' rebellion merely accelerated the enevitable.

Justice And Rule
12-04-2005, 23:25
Thats my point. HALF of his most trusted generals/children rebelled because he was such a lousy leader. Geez, Hilter was kinda anti-social, but you didn't see half his high-command up and switch sides.

Uh, Hitler's generals tried to kill him on two seperate occassions. Just so you know.

And does anyone notice that he's trying to raise 20 full-grown and developed sons from across such distances that it takes weeks, maybe months to get communication. All this happened over years. This wasn't a short time, and it wasn't as though communication was easy.

charlie_c67
12-04-2005, 23:51
Thats my point. HALF of his most trusted generals/children rebelled because he was such a lousy leader. Geez, Hilter was kinda anti-social, but you didn't see half his high-command up and switch sides.

And how many of those were manipulated by someone else? Horus by chaos, Fulgrim, Perturabo, Mortarion, Alpharius and Angron (to some extent, the implants might've made things worse) by Horus, Lorgar by his lieutenant (who was controlled by chaos), Night Haunter by who knows what. The only one that had any real cause for complaint at his treatment was Magnus.


Again, thats my point. Given his horrible people skills, how did he get where he was? He should have failed in his conquest of Earth.

But he didn't, he did something many had tried and failed to do. Many of his sons were considered great leaders too, partly due to their abilities to unite men, although I'm not quite sure where you'd place Alpharius (not enough known about his past) and Night Haunter.


the Emperor had already lost the respect and support of a substancial number of Legions (WE, DG, 1k Sons, WB, NL) completely without Horus' help. I think it was only a matter of time before the Emperor's new realm collapsed, and that Horus' rebellion merely accelerated the enevitable.

Err, 1k sons I can accept to some extent, though in defence he had told them not to meddle and they ignored him, and Lorgar coulda been treated better, but the others? How had he lost their respect? Mortarion and Angron chafed at the fact they'd been saved by him, and Night Haunters legion were using tactics that was reppellant even to the fledgling Imperium at the time.

Edit:Perhaps looking one by one at how and why each primarch rebelled, how they met the emperor and his treatment of others might help shed some light on an answer. What do people think?

Hokkaido23
13-04-2005, 00:05
The chaos Primarchs has serious character flaws. Look at Magnus -- he abused powers that were known to be dangerous and was warned to stop more than once. The Edicts of Nikaea, which still stand to this day, outlawed the use of sorcery. That Magnus continued practicing is evidence of his arrogance. He thought he knew better and the ends justified the means, warning the Emperor of Horus's treason by breaching the psychic wards and doing exactly what he was told not to do. Even then, can you trust that his judgment (or his message) was not altered, however subtlely, by Tzeentch? When faced by the knowledge that Magnus had disobeyed a direct order, broken his word to never use sorcery, and was tampering with forces that would ultimately corrupt him and his legion, how could the Emperor make any decision other than to destroy the Thousand Sons? That Magnus was correct is nonsequitir, he went about informing the Emperor the wrong way and he paid the price. As has been said, it appears he was fighting in the Heresy not out of loyalty to Horus but for survival -- indeed, how much could Horus have trusted him when Magnus was warning the Emperor about his betrayal in the first place?

In the case of Angron or Perturabo, they had been set against their rivals for years. Evidence of the Blood Angels and World Eaters victories was sent to the other to drive them to greater feats of glory, all in order to out-do the other. If it was mistreatment that drove the World Eaters to rebel rather than bloodlust (no doubt seeded by Khorne) why didnt the Blood Angels fall also? The missives sent between them and the WE could have been seen as the Emperor taunting them or treating them poorly, boohoo. Instead you have a Primarch like Sanguinius, who knowingly fights Horus with no chance to win out of selfless devotion to the Emperor and 'the cause'. His legion is held back on Terra during the early stages of the heresy rather than getting to lead the assault on Istvaan as their warrior pride surely would have wanted, being arguably the finest assault troops in the galaxy, and they remain loyal...it leads me to believe the flaws were more Primarch than Emperor. The Iron Warriors and the Imperial Fists were in direct competition with each other for the same duties and glory, there had to be a winner and a loser and Horus played upon the martial pride of Perturabo when he was unhappy with his assignments -- the Imperial Fists were the Emperors golden boys, they got favored treatment, Dorn's loyalty was portrayed as him being a yes-man, all these things added up until Horus could count on the IW being more loyal to him personally as a result of some slight, real or imagined. The fact that it was militarily important to garrison newly-pacified worlds was immaterial, all that mattered to Perturabo was the IW were stuck on a backwater world while the Fists were getting their glory on the front lines.

Was the Emperor perfect? No, certainly not. He wouldnt have been human if he had been. Was his trust in Horus misplaced? Hindsight certainly shows it to be, but how much of that was the Emperor's poor judgment and how much was the result of that night on Davin? The results of the Ullanor campaign were attributed to the Emperor when it was Horus that conducted the bulk of the fighting, but shouldnt Horus have been fighting in the name of the Emperor anyway and not letting his pride get the best of him? And of course the chaos gods had been influencing events since the creation of the Primarchs. If there was a mistake made, it was letting Horus take too much command over the other legions since he was clearly far more flawed and falliable than the Emperor.

Gregorus
13-04-2005, 08:16
and the cookie goes to Hokkaido23!

DantesInferno
13-04-2005, 08:42
Of course no-one is arguing that the traitor Primarchs did not have serious character flaws, the point under debate is the extent to which the Emperor's own actions contributed to their fall, and whether they could have been kept loyal by a better leader. A brief analysis of the traitor Primarchs, and the Emperor's culpabilitiy in their falls:

Magnus - Of course Magnus must take ultimate responsibility for ignoring the Emperor's commands, and the Emperor's final response to destroy Prospero was indeed justified, but the very fact that Magnus completely ignored the Emperor's commands reflects rather poorly on the Emperor himself, unable to command the respect or obedience of Magnus. Would a more charismatic, persuasive or authoratative leader have been able to turn Magnus? Perhaps, at least.

Lorgar - Again, the ultimate responsibility must lie with Lorgar (and Kor Phaedron, I suppose), but the Emperor's treatment of him was tactless in the extreme, and such a blunt rebuke had rather unfortunate effects. Could Lorgar's loyalty been kept by a competant leader? I would say so, after all he was only guilty of too much devotion. With more tact, the Emperor could easily have kept the Word Bearers' loyalty.

Night Haunter - A difficult one, whether to consider the Emperor's portrayal in the Night Lords IA article or the Lord of the Night novel. In the IA article, Night Haunter is practically irredeemable, doomed from the start by a twisted conception of justice. Tough to blame the Emperor in this version. However, in the novel; it suggests the Emperor deliberately used the Night Lords as his terror troops, and was planning to publically disavow their actions before the Heresy hit. In this case, the Emperor is at least partially culpable.

Fulgrim - Again, tough to see what the Emperor could have done to keep Fulgrim's loyalty. Hard to blame the Emperor here.

Perturabo - Certainly the Emperor was largely at fault here. Either
a) He never knew how the Iron Warriors were being callously run into the ground, and never bothered to find out, in which case he was guilty of negecting his duties as supreme commander (he only had 20 Legions! Would it have been that hard to find out?)
b) He knew how the Iron Warriors were being treated but didn't care, thus being largely responsible for their fall through his neglect and apathy.
c) He ordered them to be treated in that way.
None of the above are particulary appealling.

Alpharius - Never really bothered to take any interest in Alpharius at all. Surely you would try to ensure someone's loyalty before putting them in charge of a twentieth of your forces? Also could have congratulated Alpharius on his masterful tactics and rebuked Gulliman for being such a ********.

Angron - Emperor must take large share of blame for Angon's fall. The key failing was the blunder of teleporting him out against his wishes, thus ensuring Angron lost all respect for the Emperor's martial prowess. A massive failure of judgement which caused Angron to view the Emperor as a weak ruler unable to command the respect of his troops. Of course Angron's implants and psychology made him unstable, but had the Emperor teleported himself and his own troops down to fight alongside Angron's army, it seems likely Angron would have fought to the death to defend the Emperor during the Heresy.

Mortarion - Again, another big failure in judgement. Making someone swear loyalty to you after their own failure seems incredibly dumb, since it basically ensured Mortarion resented it and would eventually turn on the Emperor. Note it is different to cases where the Emperor would earn the respect of Primarchs through beating them at something (Russ, Vulkan), because in Mortarion's case it was a failure to beat a 3rd party.

Horus - Not much to blame for the Emperor here, except the complete level of trust he placed in his Warmaster. A decent level of paranoia seems to be rather healthy in a would-be meglomanic galactic military dictator, and the Emperor seemed blissfully unaware of his Warmaster's actions (regarding the Iron Warriors in particular).


So, I would say overall a less than impressive performance from the would-be Emperor of Mankind.

charlie_c67
13-04-2005, 09:54
Magnus - ... but the very fact that Magnus completely ignored the Emperor's commands reflects rather poorly on the Emperor himself, unable to command the respect or obedience of Magnus. Would a more charismatic, persuasive or authoratative leader have been able to turn Magnus?
Having said that could his meddling with sourcery have already allowed Tzeentch to seduce him, however unwittingly? Thereore giving him a hunger for more knowledge and let the consequences go hang.


Lorgar - Again, the ultimate responsibility must lie with Lorgar (and Kor Phaedron, I suppose), but the Emperor's treatment of him was tactless in the extreme,
Agreed it could've been worded better, however I wonder at Lorgar's reaction a little too. Ok, so your disappointed to be wrapped on the knuckles and be told to hurry up a bit, but his reaction was a lil over the top IMHO.


Night Haunter - A difficult one,
Start of the nature vs nurture argument ;)


Fulgrim - Again, tough to see what the Emperor could have done to keep Fulgrim's loyalty. Hard to blame the Emperor here.
Nuff said


Perturabo - Certainly the Emperor was largely at fault here. Either
a) ... b) ... c)
I thought there was some question over who was controlling them at the time. If, as was suggested, it was Horus then b's out, c's probably out because he appeared to care for all his son's, though maybe a little more even handidness would've been a good idea. Leaving a) which could of course also be attributed to bad communication links at the time, hiding of reports, lies being told etc. Also I feel Perturabo's reaction at the start of the heresy a little strange, yes feel stupid/cut up for what you did on Olympia, but why react the way he did? He needed to seek redemption and what better way than to aid your father in his time of greatest need?


Alpharius - Never really bothered to take any interest in Alpharius at all. Yup, totally agree, major mistake when it came to Alpahrius.


Angron - Emperor must take large share of blame for Angon's fall. The key failing was the blunder of teleporting him out against his wishes, thus ensuring Angron lost all respect for the Emperor's martial prowess.
This is a mixed bag one, yes I can understand why he pulled Angron out, he was his son after all! But why he didn't pull out the slaves too I don't know. Maybe he thought the implants had altered their state of mind and body so much that they wouldn't be able undergo the processes to become space marines. but for whatever reason he didn't. Hindsight's a wonderful thing :D


Mortarion - Again, another big failure in judgement. Making someone swear loyalty to you after their own failure seems incredibly dumb, since it basically ensured Mortarion resented it and would eventually turn on the Emperor.
Not convinced here. Most people when they're lives are saved are gratetful to their saviour for what they've done. I wonder if someone/thing kept reminding Mortarion of this failure which grated at his nerves.


Horus - Not much to blame for the Emperor here, except the complete level of trust he placed in his Warmaster. A decent level of paranoia seems to be rather healthy in a would-be meglomanic galactic military dictator, and the Emperor seemed blissfully unaware of his Warmaster's actions (regarding the Iron Warriors in particular).
Don't know that being a megalomaniac dictator is what the emperor was after. Don't forget the whole deity thing came up after the heresy.

Wolflord Bloodangel
13-04-2005, 10:24
A few things to note.

Firstly: I think its fairly safe to assume that Magnus was working for Tzeentch the whole damn time. He was the first to fall. Its just he did not know. Tzeentch is, by nature, a sly bugger. How else would the forces of Chaos ever had a chance in hell had not the Space Wolves been fighting on the other side of the galaxy (due to their assignment of destroying Prospero).

Which leads to my second point of note: Magnus and the Thousand Sons never fought in the Horus Heresy. The Space Wolves attacked, and destroyed, their legion in one fell swoop, and the few survivors were already hiding in the Eye of Terror before Horus was ever a threat to Earth.

Thirdly: Remember, its quite possible that the embryonic Primarchs were all 'touched' by the Ruinous Powers before ever the Emeperor laid eyes upon them. Im not sure Ive ever heard a 100% believable account of the loss of the Primarchs, but it is quite possible some of these spples were rotten from that very moment.

charlie_c67
13-04-2005, 10:36
The other thing to remember is that human nature will have played a part too. Something any mortal has no control over.

Wolflord Bloodangel
13-04-2005, 10:43
Remember though: The Ruinous Powers are human nature made incarnate. They can take one normal, regular, everyday seed of doubt.... and turn it into the flames that set the universe alight.

DantesInferno
13-04-2005, 12:38
Having said that could his meddling with sourcery have already allowed Tzeentch to seduce him, however unwittingly? Thereore giving him a hunger for more knowledge and let the consequences go hang.

Yes, of course that is possible. The key question is whether Magnus was irredeemably damned from the start, and I'm not entirely convinced that is the case. I mean it is obviously the case he is seduced by the quest for power, but to what extent is the Emperor also responsible? It is kind of odd that Magnus goes through no internal debate at all, he just ignores the Emperor's command entirely - this would indicate he really had no regard for the Emperor's authority at all. I don't think it is out of the question a more able leader could have turned Magnus from that path, or at least make him deliberate on it.


Agreed it could've been worded better, however I wonder at Lorgar's reaction a little too. Ok, so your disappointed to be wrapped on the knuckles and be told to hurry up a bit, but his reaction was a lil over the top IMHO.

Of course Lorgar did overreact, but part of a leader's responsibilities is to either prevent underlings from overreacting, or to minimise the damage if they do. The Emperor unfortunately did neither.


I thought there was some question over who was controlling them at the time. If, as was suggested, it was Horus then b's out, c's probably out because he appeared to care for all his son's, though maybe a little more even handidness would've been a good idea. Leaving a) which could of course also be attributed to bad communication links at the time, hiding of reports, lies being told etc. Also I feel Perturabo's reaction at the start of the heresy a little strange, yes feel stupid/cut up for what you did on Olympia, but why react the way he did? He needed to seek redemption and what better way than to aid your father in his time of greatest need?

I don't think you can excuse the Emperor's lack of action due to bad communication. It isn't a good enough excuse - "I wasn't told the information was inaccurate" may work for Bush, Blair and Howard but I don't think the Emperor can worm his way out of it. If you claim to be the Emperor of Mankind, it is your responsibility to make sure you get the best information. Even travel out and have a meeting with each of the primarchs individually if you can't get any reliable info.

And yes, there was doubt as to whether Horus or the Emperor was responsible for the way the Iron Warriors were treated, so that's why I gave 3 alternatives. It isn't out of the question that the Emperor knew the Iron Warriors were being worked into the ground though


This is a mixed bag one, yes I can understand why he pulled Angron out, he was his son after all! But why he didn't pull out the slaves too I don't know. Maybe he thought the implants had altered their state of mind and body so much that they wouldn't be able undergo the processes to become space marines. but for whatever reason he didn't. Hindsight's a wonderful thing :D

He didn't need to teleport the slaves out, he only needed to send in his own troops. It seems likely the Emperor would have had a few Legions with him, not to mention his Custodes. I think it was more down to the Emperor's unwillingness to save a slave rebellion. He wouldn't like the idea of the underclasses fighting their rulers much. But fighting alongside Angron to save his army would have ensured Angron's undying respect, as far as I can tell.

I wouldn't overestimate the effect of the psychological implants though. The critical factor in Angron's betrayal was what he saw as a betrayal of his martial honour.


Not convinced here. Most people when they're lives are saved are gratetful to their saviour for what they've done. I wonder if someone/thing kept reminding Mortarion of this failure which grated at his nerves.

Don't forget that the Emperor cheated Mortarion of ultimate justice upon his father by killing him. Mortarion either wanted to execute justice upon his father/daemon overlord, or die trying. The Emperor turns up, steals his glory denies him ultimate justice, then forces him to swear loyaty. He also viewed the Emperor as weak and unable to ensure protection or justice for Mankind. The Emperor definately could have handled the situation better.


Don't know that being a megalomaniac dictator is what the emperor was after. Don't forget the whole deity thing came up after the heresy.

Ahem.....You call yourself "Emperor of Mankind" without trying to be a meglomaniac dictator? I know the Emperor wasn't trying to set himself up as a god, but as the supreme ruler of mankind across the galaxy - a meglomaniac dictator as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, and Wolflord Bloodangel, the Thousand Sons did indeed fight on Terra during the Heresy (in limited numbers).

Wolflord Bloodangel
13-04-2005, 12:43
Yes, of course that is possible. The key question is whether Magnus was irredeemably damned from the start, and I'm not entirely convinced that is the case. I mean it is obviously the case he is seduced by the quest for power, but to what extent is the Emperor also responsible? It is kind of odd that Magnus goes through no internal debate at all, he just ignores the Emperor's command entirely - this would indicate he really had no regard for the Emperor's authority at all. I don't think it is out of the question a more able leader could have turned Magnus from that path, or at least make him deliberate on it.


Proof enough that he was always a puppet of Tzeentch, and that he was lucky to escape punishment for as longa s he did.

DantesInferno
13-04-2005, 12:48
Proof enough that he was always a puppet of Tzeentch, and that he was lucky to escape punishment for as longa s he did.

It's hardly proof - it could equally indicate that the Emperor was a weak leader who didn't inspire respect or loyalty in many of his followers. There's nothing much to indicate a better leader wouldn't have had a chance of saving Magnus.

Wolflord Bloodangel
13-04-2005, 13:05
It is hardly proof...but its still proof. He was given a direct order to stop breaking the rules, and he ignored it comlpetely. If this was any other rule that was being broken, then sure, it could go either way. But this was the practice of darkest sorcery. No matter how good a leader you are, nothing compares to the Great Architect when it comes to chaning peoples' minds.

The only thing the Emperor could have done better was send the Wolves to fetch Magnus' head before he ever gained enough power to escape. As soon as it was discovered Magnus was practising sorcery he should have been punished, but the one failing that HAS been proven of the Emperor is that he loved his kids too much (trusting Horus). The reason the space marines rebelled was that the Emperor was too human, in that he was compasionate towards his children.... but if he were moer of a monster, or more of a machine, then the rebellion ould not have come from the marines, but from the masses of disloyal humans (and possibly backed by some of the more humanitarian chapters like the wolves etc.)...

DantesInferno
13-04-2005, 13:28
It is hardly proof...but its still proof. He was given a direct order to stop breaking the rules, and he ignored it comlpetely. If this was any other rule that was being broken, then sure, it could go either way. But this was the practice of darkest sorcery. No matter how good a leader you are, nothing compares to the Great Architect when it comes to chaning peoples' minds.

The only thing the Emperor could have done better was send the Wolves to fetch Magnus' head before he ever gained enough power to escape. As soon as it was discovered Magnus was practising sorcery he should have been punished, but the one failing that HAS been proven of the Emperor is that he loved his kids too much (trusting Horus). The reason the space marines rebelled was that the Emperor was too human, in that he was compasionate towards his children.... but if he were moer of a monster, or more of a machine, then the rebellion ould not have come from the marines, but from the masses of disloyal humans (and possibly backed by some of the more humanitarian chapters like the wolves etc.)...

OK, I'll rephrase: it isn't proof at all. There's absolutely no way to tell how much Magnus was being manipulated by Tzeench before the Fall of Prospero, or more accurately the Conclave of Nikaea.

Just as there is no way to tell whether Magnus could have been saved, had the Emperor been a more capable or inspiring leader.

And in any case, there is no evidence that the Emperor's only failing was loving his children too much. Ask Alpharius, Perturabo or Mortarion. And read Lord of the Night. Certainly doesn't make the Emperor out to be the noble hero that he often is made out to be.

Wolflord Bloodangel
13-04-2005, 13:43
Oh of course, everything is coloured by perspective. You may notice mine is from a fairly loyalist view...

As far as Im concerned Magnus was always a pawn of Tzeentch, and that the chaos gods were so damn scared of the Space Wolves that they sacrificed possibly their most promising project (a chapter of sorcerous chaos marines that think theyre loyal? brilliant!) just to ensure they wouldnt have to face the Space Wolves during the horus Heresy. Ill also tell you that it was Lion El johnson that started the feud between the Dark Angels and the Space Wolves, and that Grimnar was the only reason the Imperium is still standing now (due to his sterling job at Armaggeddon adn During teh Eye of Terror Campaign)... perspective.....riiiiiiiiiight

charlie_c67
13-04-2005, 13:55
Don't forget that the Emperor cheated Mortarion of ultimate justice upon his father by killing him. Mortarion either wanted to execute justice upon his father/daemon overlord, or die trying. The Emperor turns up, steals his glory denies him ultimate justice, then forces him to swear loyaty. He also viewed the Emperor as weak and unable to ensure protection or justice for Mankind. The Emperor definately could have handled the situation better.


He didn't steal it though, his son was defenceless, overcome by the surroundings and about to die and he stepped in and saved him. From the IA article I don't think that anyone but Mortarion and possibly the emperor knew that the overlord had raised him or the history they had. The emperor could've just stayed in the village and let his son die at the hands of whatever it was, but he couldn't let that happen. That's why I wonder if there was something or someone that kept bringing up Mortarions failure. After all, Vulkan was saved by the Emperor but didn't resent him for it. I just don't understand why two primarchs let the saving of their lives consume them (though as you say, Angron's is more understandable) yet vulkan didn't.

DantesInferno
13-04-2005, 14:20
He didn't steal it though, his son was defenceless, overcome by the surroundings and about to die and he stepped in and saved him. From the IA article I don't think that anyone but Mortarion and possibly the emperor knew that the overlord had raised him or the history they had. The emperor could've just stayed in the village and let his son die at the hands of whatever it was, but he couldn't let that happen. That's why I wonder if there was something or someone that kept bringing up Mortarions failure. After all, Vulkan was saved by the Emperor but didn't resent him for it. I just don't understand why two primarchs let the saving of their lives consume them (though as you say, Angron's is more understandable) yet vulkan didn't.

It's more productive to look at it from Mortarion's perspective, if you want to understand why he resented the Emperor's actions. He had dedicated his entire life to a crusade to free his people from the injustice and brutality of the overlords, and one final fortress remained for him to conquer, the fortress of the only father he ever knew. It is fairly clear to me he wants to enact justice upon his "father" or die trying. The Emperor robs him of that, and steals Mortarion's glory, from Mortarion's people, who he worked so hard to be accepted by. Not only that, but as a consequence of his failure forces him to swear obiedience. I think it is fairly clear that this is only going to breed resentment, though I admit it is hard to see what the Emperor could have done differently.

And as far as I see it, the key difference is that Vulkan and Russ compete directly with the Emperor, so they gain respect through him through their competition. In Mortarion's case, he just appears when Mortarion has failed in his crusade.

charlie_c67
13-04-2005, 14:38
But there's still the fact that the emperor saved Mortarion. There seems to be no sign of gratefullness for that. If you were drowning after trying to swim a large distance or something, and your dad came in and saved you wouldn't you feel more graefullness rather than resentment?

Justice And Rule
13-04-2005, 14:42
I agree. You keep talking as though Mortarion was truly robbed, as though he had the killing blow ready when the Emperor came in and took the glory. Mortarion couldn't have possibly killed him. While you make the point of robbed justice, it's something that would have never happened even if the Emperor wasn't there. The fact that Mortarion holds onto this stubborn and misled belief that he somehow could have still defeated his former 'father' is more a fault of Mortarion's pride and stubborness getting in the way than any fault of the Emperor. Humility anyone?

PlagueLord
13-04-2005, 15:25
Mortarion was going to kill the demon thing or die trying. True, on a galactic scale he was too valuable to let die, but I get the impression that the Emperor never bothered explaining that. A simple line like, "You may resent me for this, but the galaxy needs you alive." might have done it. Instead, the Emperor's actions give the impression of "I told you, you couldn't beat him." Once again, lousy leadership on his part.

charlie_c67
13-04-2005, 15:41
Nope, he gave him the choice to prove himself. After the eldars he lived with had told Mortarion that the emperor was a representitive of a great "brotherhood of humanity" that was offering to help, and he had declared he needed no help, the emperor gave him a choice. Either Mortarion would beat the last citadel alone, something he knew he couldn't do, and the emperor would leave him and barbarus alone, or he would join forces, accept the help offered and overcome this one last hurdle. Mortarion allowed his pride to overcome his humility and common sense.

PlagueLord
13-04-2005, 16:02
If Mortation really was that stubborn, why did he lead the Death Guard after the Emperor killed the demon? He would have refused to help, and maybe even fought the Emperor.

Just look at the Emperor's initial proposal. He gave Mortarion a "choice" that looks a lot like a "mandate." You will either come work for me, or complete this nightmarish task you have been working on for years soon. Where is the "Get lost, and I'll deal with the demon eventually." option? Mortation (and the Death Guard in general) are usually very reserved and cautious. Maybe he was going to go whack the demon in a couple years?

Deathmasterskon
13-04-2005, 16:05
There's a difference between being a great leader and a good man.
Alexander the Great killed his friend in a drunken rage.
JFK was a serial womaniser.
The Emperor united humanity at a cost of millions of human lives and the alienation of his own children.
QED.

PlagueLord
13-04-2005, 16:14
Right, the Emperor was a great conqueror, but he seems to have done it all in spite of his poor leadership. He is never portrayed (to my knowledge) as a "good man", but he seems to be so scathingly arrogant and abrasive that I can't see how anyone would follow him. His idea of a recruitment speech is "You are weak. Come serve me so I can rule the galaxy." What kind of ***** would follow him? I think sane people (which might be a stretch for some of the primarchs...) would try to stay away from him.

Justice And Rule
13-04-2005, 19:47
If Mortation really was that stubborn, why did he lead the Death Guard after the Emperor killed the demon? He would have refused to help, and maybe even fought the Emperor.

Simple. He's a man of honor. He made a promise, and he lost. Thusly, he did what he said he would do, towing the bitterness behind.


Just look at the Emperor's initial proposal. He gave Mortarion a "choice" that looks a lot like a "mandate." You will either come work for me, or complete this nightmarish task you have been working on for years soon. Where is the "Get lost, and I'll deal with the demon eventually." option? Mortation (and the Death Guard in general) are usually very reserved and cautious. Maybe he was going to go whack the demon in a couple years?

Mortarion was ticked the Emperor was stealing his spotlight, and asked him to leave. Mortarion was so incensed with the possibility of this guy stealing his own thunder that he couldn't even recognize what everyone else saw immediately: that they were father and son. Mortarion's pride blinded him, it didn't allow him to ask for help. He had to do it all on his own, and thusly he failed. The Emperor was showing him what would happen to Barbarus if they did not join the Imperium and just went it alone: In the end, he was too blinded by his own bitterness to see the real lesson behind it all.

In all honest, a good point is brought up with Vulkan. If Mortarion didn't have this pride, wouldn't he have not cared about who had killed the evil overlord, but only rejoiced that in the end the overlord was finally brought to justice?

TheSonOfAbbadon
13-04-2005, 20:20
There's a difference between being a great leader and a good man.
Alexander the Great killed his friend in a drunken rage.
JFK was a serial womaniser.
The Emperor united humanity at a cost of millions of human lives and the alienation of his own children.
QED.

You'd be surprised how many 'great leaders' were alcholic womanisers.

George W. Bush is, he's also kinda dyslexic. He's also meant to be a 'great commander and cheif' despite that he barely [or maybe even NEVER] did any work in the airforce.

Churchill was too.

Isn't it strange how Hitler was a vegetarian? [I'm a vegetarian, gemüse ist geschmackvoll.]

malika
13-04-2005, 20:57
Hitler being a vegetarian is a big myth, many people have claimed that, but I watched this documentary the other which interviewed one of Hitler's closets servants and she told the interviewer that Hitler was bradwurst lover or something in those lines :o


Right, the Emperor was a great conqueror, but he seems to have done it all in spite of his poor leadership. He is never portrayed (to my knowledge) as a "good man", but he seems to be so scathingly arrogant and abrasive that I can't see how anyone would follow him. His idea of a recruitment speech is "You are weak. Come serve me so I can rule the galaxy." What kind of ***** would follow him? I think sane people (which might be a stretch for some of the primarchs...) would try to stay away from him.
Please dont take this as an offence, it is meant as a compliment, but you just made me laugh really loud with this thingie you posted :D

charlie_c67
13-04-2005, 23:49
If Mortation really was that stubborn, why did he lead the Death Guard after the Emperor killed the demon? He would have refused to help, and maybe even fought the Emperor.

Because he finally realised what everyone else knew. This was his father, and without help he couldn't have beaten the overlord on his own anyway. It's even mentioned that when Nurgle started to take over that Mortarion realised what he'd become.


Just look at the Emperor's initial proposal. He gave Mortarion a "choice" that looks a lot like a "mandate." You will either come work for me, or complete this nightmarish task you have been working on for years soon. Where is the "Get lost, and I'll deal with the demon eventually." option? Mortation (and the Death Guard in general) are usually very reserved and cautious. Maybe he was going to go whack the demon in a couple years.

That's the point though. There was no time limit on the emperors proposal. Mortarion decided to go there and then, and against the advice of his own men.


But he seems to be so scathingly arrogant and abrasive that I can't see how anyone would follow him. His idea of a recruitment speech is "You are weak. Come serve me so I can rule the galaxy."

Where? Where does any of this come across? Which Primarch did he call weak? Where was the arrogance he supposedly had? All were offered a chance to join the brotherhood of humanity. Of the 18 all save one accepted it, some after trials some not, on reasonable terms. Angron was the only one to reject it.Of the others:

Vulkan, Russ, Mortarion and probably Ferrus Manus had trials that they chose.
Jonson, Magnus, Fulgrim, Khan, Sanguinus, Night Haunter, Guilliman, recognised the emperor straight off as a man of power if not as their dad to begin with.
Perturabo and Dorn, don't really know, the IA says they just pledged loyalty so it can't have been anything major.

The other four I don't have the link to the errr special pages to confirm how they reacted.

shaolin360
14-04-2005, 04:16
My biggest gripe with the Emperors fluff is the paradox of the supposed greatest psyker humanity would ever produce not foreseeing all this bloody mess.
I believe it was the original RoC account of the battle on Horus' barge where prior to feeling the shields come down allowing them to teleport aboard, the emperor ruminates on where it all went wrong, something along the lines of "he had foreseen all to this point but now was the time he had never seen past, a time where his precogiscience (sic) could go no further" probably the quote is wrong but the sentiment is right.
It admits in writing that he foresaw everything up to the decisive battle between Horus and himself. Can anyone confirm weather this fluffs been superceded and where I may find a current account of the events on Horus' barge so as to change my opinion of this "Weakling Seer"

charlie_c67
14-04-2005, 08:29
RoC? What's that? If it's Realm of Chaos as I suspect then that's RT fluff which has been superceded.

Edit: found the link. Horus there's not much said so it's safe to assume there wasn't a struggle or anything.
Lorgar recognised the emperor from visions.
Corax spent a day and a night talking to him but no struggle or trials are recorded.
Alpharius was kept back from the emperor for a bit by Horus then met him and swore loyalty.

sigur
14-04-2005, 08:38
I've been thinking about the Emperor's personality lately, and I'm amazed that he held power as long as he did. He seems to have some personel issues, and the people skills of an ork....

This is one of the most heretic threads I've ever seen.

The thing is that you can't reconstruct the Emperor's personality for some reasons:

a.) The Emperor is a god. Mortals cannot realize the "personality" of their god.


b.) The Emperor is bound to the Golden Throne since thousands of years. Only few (and I mean FEW) who have seen him walking the Earth are still alive and those who did are either insane, close to death, imprisoned, etc. and many legends and stories that differ from planet to planet about the Emperor have evolved.

On one planet, for exampe, the Emperor is a father, caring for and defending mankind, on others, he's a cruelsome warlord the people follow because they fear him. So you have no usable sources.

c.) The Emperor CAN'T have a "personality" for fluff reasons. He's mankinds greatest leader ever, the greatest (human) psyker who ever existed and a god. He isn't a guy, he's the Emperor. From where the fluff is now (and hope that it will never "develop" much further because it would ruin the game), he's a god, something we cannot imagine.



@shaolin360:

another 3 points for you:

a.) heretic. ;)
b.) Maybe the Emperor saw that Horus could only be stopped by his own "death" (the Emperor's alive as we know) and so he had to face his fate to defend humanity. A bit like the Jesus-story but more spectacular.
c.) Don't forget that there were chaotic forces of unimaginable power focused around Terra at the time of the siege which could have altered the Holy Emperor's visions a bit.
d.) Maybe the Emperor's psyker powers were more focused on personal strength, defence, improvement of body and soul and imspiration to his followers than seeing into possible futures like the Eldar do. This, combined with c. (see above) could have made it easier for the chaotic powers to alter his seeings.


All in all we can say that we know nothing about the Emperor apart from what the Imperial cult dictates. And who are we to think that there's more to know about the Emperor than that?

DantesInferno
14-04-2005, 08:55
sigur, you obviously CAN reconstruct the Emperor's personality.

a) The Emperor was a man, not a god. A man, with his own personality. Not a god. A man. Look at what he rebuked Lorgar for, the Emperor definately didn't think he was a god, nor did he want to be one. He was deified AFTER his death, ironically enough against his own wishes.

b) People in the Imperium don't have any reliable sources as to the Emperor's personality, but we, the readers of 40k background material, do. Read the IA articles, which have formed the basis for the majority of this discussion.

c) Again, the Emperor was not a god while he was alive, nor was he infallible, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient or anything else! As becomes painfully clear in the IA articles, the Emperor was not a particulary great leader at all, he made at times horrible decisions and often completely ignored the people he placed in positions of authority.

Talk about buying into Imperial religious propaganda, sigur...

sigur
14-04-2005, 09:06
What CA articles are your sources?

btw, concering this "religious propaganda" stuff: It's more fun to stay in character once in a while.

charlie_c67
14-04-2005, 09:25
As becomes painfully clear in the IA articles, the Emperor was not a particulary great leader at all, he made at times horrible decisions and often completely ignored the people he placed in positions of authority.

Apart from Angron, the rebuking of Lorgar and the lack of time spent with Alpharius, where are the horrible decisions and ignoring of advice?

DantesInferno
14-04-2005, 09:59
Apart from Angron, the rebuking of Lorgar and the lack of time spent with Alpharius, where are the horrible decisions and ignoring of advice?

Those were the horrible decisions........his treatment of Angron was a blunder, as was his blunt and tactless rebuke of Lorgar.

As for ignoring people (I didn't say ignoring advice), he placed Alpharius in charge of 1/20th of his armed forces despite knowing nothing about his beliefs or loyalties. He knew Mortarion was extremely resentful about being forced to swear loyalty to a weak dictator, he never did anything about it. He never got updates from Perturabo, and so never knew that the Primarch and his legion were being callously worn into the ground (either that or he was behind the order in the first place). Let's see, who else....Ah yes, he placed unquestioning trust in his second-in-command - seems to be a terminally stupid move for a would-be galactic dictator.

And sigur, the main sources for the Emperor's character are the IA (Index Astartes) articles.

Azhrahg
14-04-2005, 10:11
sigur, you obviously CAN reconstruct the Emperor's personality.

c) Again, the Emperor was not a god while he was alive, nor was he infallible, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient or anything else! As becomes painfully clear in the IA articles, the Emperor was not a particulary great leader at all, he made at times horrible decisions and often completely ignored the people he placed in positions of authority.



I think you should read this statement again, and see if it's implications doesn't dawn on you. Yes the Emperor was a man, and as such fallible. Yes the Emperor made mistakes, the main one being trusting his sons too much. Yes he failed to accurately predict the future on important occasions.

Now compare him to great human leaders of our time:

Alexander the Great: There can be no argument that he was indeed a great leader, yet he killed a friend in a drunk rage.

Hitler: Ruled partly by terror partly by inspiration. Killed off some of his best and most loyal generals. Made numerous faulty decisions regarding everything from overall strategies to micromaneging weapons development.

Churchill: Made serious mistakes in the beginning of the war, regarding the coorporation with the free french. Was generally an arrogant drunk.

Ceasar: Got killed by his (adopted) son, despite being a great leader.

Napoleon: Totally failing to predict the consequences of invading Russia.

The japaneese leaders during WWII: Attacking USA at the absolute worst time, instead of focusing on Russia - thus leaving USA out of the war, and keeping the Sibirian army occupied leaving Hitler free acces to Moscow and beyond.

You can continue the list a lot longer than I have, both regarding flawed leaders and the errors of the listed leaders. Though many of their decisions has only become obvious errors with the benefit of hindsight.

My point is that these leaders made these errors in a few years - decades at the most. Now compare this to the Emperor, who made his mistakes over the course of not decades but centuries. A single mistake every century is hardly enough to label him a poor leader, no matter how dire the consequences of said mistake.

Azhrahg
(who'll have a hard time convincing Perturabo of his loyalty after this)

charlie_c67
14-04-2005, 10:24
Those were the horrible decisions........his treatment of Angron was a blunder, as was his blunt and tactless rebuke of Lorgar.

As for ignoring people (I didn't say ignoring advice), he placed Alpharius in charge of 1/20th of his armed forces despite knowing nothing about his beliefs or loyalties. He knew Mortarion was extremely resentful about being forced to swear loyalty to a weak dictator, he never did anything about it. He never got updates from Perturabo, and so never knew that the Primarch and his legion were being callously worn into the ground (either that or he was behind the order in the first place). Let's see, who else....Ah yes, he placed unquestioning trust in his second-in-command - seems to be a terminally stupid move for a would-be galactic dictator.

So two wrong decisions out of how many he had to make? Anyone here reckon they could've done better?

Alpharius had Horus' blessing and was also blatantly a primach so would the background have mattered? (more on trust in Horus later)

Mortarion was given a choice, he wasn't forced to make it there and then, he chose to do what he did and because he rushed in blindly, failed. Nor was it a choice from a "weak dictator" as you put it. There's no suggestion at all that the emperor was ever weak. Yes some of his decisions could've been made better but there's no hint at this "weakness".

The Iron Warriors main problem was their perfection of the art of siege warfare. There is also indications that Horus was in control of the IW's movements and would have reported to the emperor and if Perturabo had such a problem with the way his legion was being used, why did he not bring it up with the emperor personally? From the IA there's nothing to suggest the emperor was unapproachable, espeically where his sons were involved. Finally there's Perturabo's inexplicable decision at the start of the heresy, which was made by himself and no-one else, though there's a hint of possesion through the hammer horus gave him.

Finally Horus. What indication was there that the emperor had reason not to trust Horus? What reason is there that he shouldn't trust his first and most successful son? One who's life he'd saved and who'd saved his life? There was no reason not to trust Horus as time and time again he'd proved his loyalty, devotion and admiration of the emperor. Even after Davin there was no real indication until Istvaan that there was any reason to disbelive that this was still the case.

DantesInferno
14-04-2005, 10:31
Alexander the Great: There can be no argument that he was indeed a great leader, yet he killed a friend in a drunk rage.

Hitler: Ruled partly by terror partly by inspiration. Killed off some of his best and most loyal generals. Made numerous faulty decisions regarding everything from overall strategies to micromaneging weapons development.

Churchill: Made serious mistakes in the beginning of the war, regarding the coorporation with the free french. Was generally an arrogant drunk.

Ceasar: Got killed by his (adopted) son, despite being a great leader.

Napoleon: Totally failing to predict the consequences of invading Russia.

The japaneese leaders during WWII: Attacking USA at the absolute worst time, instead of focusing on Russia - thus leaving USA out of the war, and keeping the Sibirian army occupied leaving Hitler free acces to Moscow and beyond.

You can continue the list a lot longer than I have, both regarding flawed leaders and the errors of the listed leaders. Though many of their decisions has only become obvious errors with the benefit of hindsight.

My point is that these leaders made these errors in a few years - decades at the most. Now compare this to the Emperor, who made his mistakes over the course of not decades but centuries. A single mistake every century is hardly enough to label him a poor leader, no matter how dire the consequences of said mistake.


OK, first of all, I'm not sure about what you are trying to achieve with this list. How can any leader who has HALF his armed forces rebel against him, more or less crippling his empire and killing him, ever be termed a "great leader"? The fact is, the number and frequency of the Emperor's failures of command mean he really cannot be termed a "great leader".

To address your examples, how does killing his best friend affect Alexander the Great's status as a great leader? Whether the guy was likeable or not is beside the point. Just like the Emperor Augustus' womanising had no affect on his truly great achievements, setting up one of the greatest Empires we have ever seen, bringing stability and peace and ensuring a dominant military force for the next several hundred years. As for your other examples, if they made such huge blunders, how can you term them as "great leaders"? And if you can't term them as "great leaders", then where is the relevance?


EDIT to avoid double post


So two wrong decisions out of how many he had to make? Anyone here reckon they could've done better?


How many of us are "great leaders"? I don't think it is only two mistakes though, a litany of the Emperor's errors contributed to the Heresy. I really do think a reasonably skilled leader could have made a better effort though.
If you want a list of his errors - here goes: neglect of Alpharius, absolute faith in Horus, betrayal of Angron's martial honour, unwillingness or inability to get accurate reports on the way Perturabo was being ground down, leaving Mortarion in command though he resented the Emperor, blunt rebuke of Lorgar etc.


Alpharius had Horus' blessing and was also blatantly a primach so would the background have mattered? (more on trust in Horus later)


Surely it would. Would you place a man in command soley on the word of your second-in-command if you were a galatic dictator?



Mortarion was given a choice, he wasn't forced to make it there and then, he chose to do what he did and because he rushed in blindly, failed. Nor was it a choice from a "weak dictator" as you put it. There's no suggestion at all that the emperor was ever weak. Yes some of his decisions could've been made better but there's no hint at this "weakness".


Yes, but whether the Emperor was in fact a "weak dictator" or not is beside the point. The fact is, the Emperor knew Mortarion viewed him in this way and he left him in command! That seems rather foolhardly at least.


The Iron Warriors main problem was their perfection of the art of siege warfare. There is also indications that Horus was in control of the IW's movements and would have reported to the emperor and if Perturabo had such a problem with the way his legion was being used, why did he not bring it up with the emperor personally? From the IA there's nothing to suggest the emperor was unapproachable, espeically where his sons were involved. Finally there's Perturabo's inexplicable decision at the start of the heresy, which was made by himself and no-one else, though there's a hint of possesion through the hammer horus gave him.


Again, whether or not Perturabo should have approached the Emperor is beside the point. Surely the Emperor should have found out if one of his Primarchs felt he was beeing callously used, and done something about it if he did. It is the Emperor's responsibility as galactic dictator to make sure all his commanders were loyal, and he did a terrible job.



Finally Horus. What indication was there that the emperor had reason not to trust Horus? What reason is there that he shouldn't trust his first and most successful son? One who's life he'd saved and who'd saved his life? There was no reason not to trust Horus as time and time again he'd proved his loyalty, devotion and admiration of the emperor. Even after Davin there was no real indication until Istvaan that there was any reason to disbelive that this was still the case.


Again, whether or not Horus seemed trustworthy is beside the point. It was the Emperor's responsibility to keep an eye on his Warmaster's behaviour (such as the way he may have manipulated Perturabo before Davin). Surely a golden rule for any would-be military dictator has to be - trust no-one absolutely and unquestioningly, especially your second in command!

charlie_c67
14-04-2005, 10:39
Again, there's your talking about frequency of mistakes. He made two recorded mistakes and your stripping him of the title great leader because of it? Hindsight's a wonderful thing and I'm sure he'd have decided to do things differently with Angron and Lorgar if he'd known of the results, but it takes nothing away from the fact he forged a galaxy spanning empire containing millions of worlds and billions of people. Name one human, disregarding the primarchs because they were clones of the emperor, who could accomplish such a feat.

malika
14-04-2005, 10:43
Well just look at what Marcharius did...he conquered a very large amount of worlds without using a single Space Marine or Primarch.

Azhrahg
14-04-2005, 11:06
To address your examples, how does killing his best friend affect Alexander the Great's status as a great leader? Whether the guy was likeable or not is beside the point.

Your argument is that because the Emperor failed to inspire absolute loyalty in his followers, due to mistakes he made, he his a poor leader.
Alexanders killing his friend must certainly have made an impact on the loyalty of his other friends. In hindsight we know that this didn't bring about his end, but that doesn't change the fact that it is HORRIBLE leadership!
You judge on the outcome of their decisions, which I feel is irrelevant to a judgment of leadership abilities. Alexander could not possibly have known that killing his friend wouldn't bring about his fall - in fact he almost certainly never gave it a thought (he was drunk afterall) = very poor leadership.

As for not trusting anyone it sounds easy in theory, but you repeatedly fail to take into account the mindboggling distances we are talking about. How should the emperor have found out that Horus was plotting revolt? By sending a spy? - but how could he have trusted that spy? - you send a guy to check up on the spy - but how do you know if he's to be trusted?
You make the trip yourself, and use your exceptional skills to find out. However the trip will take you a century or two. You have 20 sons to visit. So we are talking thousands of years just to perform a single check up, by the end of which it is already long overdue to start a new. And you have not been able to perform any other duties meanwhile.
The emperor did what he had to do. Trust his closest son, who had proven his loyalty beyond a doubt on numerous occasions. Alexander, Churchill, Augustus etc. had it easy, they could inspect their trusted followers in person, and didn't face the corruptive power of chaos. And I am willing to bet that each of them had close friends, who they had absolute trust in.

DantesInferno
14-04-2005, 11:45
Your argument is that because the Emperor failed to inspire absolute loyalty in his followers, due to mistakes he made, he his a poor leader.
Alexanders killing his friend must certainly have made an impact on the loyalty of his other friends. In hindsight we know that this didn't bring about his end, but that doesn't change the fact that it is HORRIBLE leadership!
You judge on the outcome of their decisions, which I feel is irrelevant to a judgment of leadership abilities. Alexander could not possibly have known that killing his friend wouldn't bring about his fall - in fact he almost certainly never gave it a thought (he was drunk afterall) = very poor leadership.


I would think that the outcome of their decisions would be a very important consideration. Whether or not Alexander was a "great leader" or not is also beside the point. What is important is that the Emperor failed to inspire loyalty or obiedience in HALF of his commanders, made numerous mistakes as leader, and also that the outcomes of his failures were extremely disastrous. This is more or less indisuptable, and if this makes him a "great leader", what do you need to do to lose that title?



As for not trusting anyone it sounds easy in theory, but you repeatedly fail to take into account the mindboggling distances we are talking about. How should the emperor have found out that Horus was plotting revolt? By sending a spy? - but how could he have trusted that spy? - you send a guy to check up on the spy - but how do you know if he's to be trusted?
You make the trip yourself, and use your exceptional skills to find out. However the trip will take you a century or two. You have 20 sons to visit. So we are talking thousands of years just to perform a single check up, by the end of which it is already long overdue to start a new. And you have not been able to perform any other duties meanwhile.

I think you are grossly overestimatiog the times involved. Or summon the Primarchs to meet you individually if that is a problem. However, communication was almost certainly not a major problem, considering how the Crusade proceeded so rapidly.



The emperor did what he had to do. Trust his closest son, who had proven his loyalty beyond a doubt on numerous occasions. Alexander, Churchill, Augustus etc. had it easy, they could inspect their trusted followers in person, and didn't face the corruptive power of chaos. And I am willing to bet that each of them had close friends, who they had absolute trust in.


And I would think that staying in power as a supreme dictator relies upon a certain amount of paranoia. Guillibility is not a very healthy attribute, especially when the rewards of power are so great. Placing unquestioning trust in anyone is a good way to get stabbed in the back, as the Emperor demonstrates excellently.

charlie_c67
14-04-2005, 11:48
Well just look at what Marcharius did...he conquered a very large amount of worlds without using a single Space Marine or Primarch.
Yup, and he's considered a great leader for it. Therefore the emperor must be too by the fact that the Imperium covers the galaxy.

DantesInferno
14-04-2005, 11:55
Yup, and he's considered a great leader for it. Therefore the emperor must be too by the fact that the Imperium covers the galaxy.

It's largely Guilliman's responsibility for holding the Imperium together after the Heresy, and rebuilding it to its current strength. At the point of the Emperor's death his empire was lying largely in ruins. Terra was in ashes, and the loyalist forces were decimated. It's hardly a ringing endorsement of the Emperor's abilities.

charlie_c67
14-04-2005, 12:02
What is important is that the Emperor failed to inspire loyalty or obiedience in HALF of his commanders, made numerous mistakes as leader, and also that the outcomes of his failures were extremely disastrous. This is more or less indisuptable, and if this makes him a "great leader", what do you need to do to lose that title?

There's that word again, numerous. Where and what are the numerous wrong decisions?
And lets look at the 9. Horus was taken over by chaos at Davin. Perturabo made an inexplicable decision to rebel, Alpharius was in Horus' pocket, Lorgar was corrupted by his lieutenant, Mortarion and Fulgrim were persuaded round by Horus, Night Haunter was condemned rightly for his conduct and Magnus meddled where he shouldn't have was punished and then turned.


And I would think that staying in power as a supreme dictator relies upon a certain amount of paranoia. Guillibility is not a very healthy attribute, especially when the rewards of power are so great. Placing unquestioning trust in anyone is a good way to get stabbed in the back, as the Emperor demonstrates excellently.
Where's the guillibility in his actions? Are you telling me your parents don't trust you or that you don't trust (if you have them) your kids to tell you the truth? Horus did nothing to arouse suspicions until Istvaan. Night Haunter however did and as a result was wrapped across the knuckles, then when he carried on was about to be chased if the heresy hadn't happened.


It's largely Guilliman's responsibility for holding the Imperium together after the Heresy, and rebuilding it to its current strength. At the point of the Emperor's death his empire was lying largely in ruins. Terra was in ashes, and the loyalist forces were decimated. It's hardly a ringing endorsement of the Emperor's abilities.
Can you name a civil war where things ended perfectly? And what has his abilities as a leader got to do with the state of the imperium after the war? I don't believe that any country, planet or place where a war has been fought will be in amazing condition. Gulliman's ability to hold the imperium together will have come from a combination of things, his upbringing and what he'd learnt since them and that includes skills and practices from the Emperor. However, who was the leader who created the imperium in the first place? The emperor would've failed at the first step if he was as weak and insipid as you suggest. He'd never have united so may men under his banner if he made so many bad decisions. Nor would so many people have fought and died for him if he had no people skills at all.

DantesInferno
14-04-2005, 12:20
There's that word again, numerous. Where and what are the numerous wrong decisions?
And lets look at the 9. Horus was taken over by chaos at Davin. Perturabo made an inexplicable decision to rebel, Alpharius was in Horus' pocket, Lorgar was corrupted by his lieutenant, Mortarion and Fulgrim were persuaded round by Horus, Night Haunter was condemned rightly for his conduct and Magnus meddled where he shouldn't have was punished and then turned.


If you don't want to read this extended analysis of the Emperor's culpability for the Primarchs' falls which I posted on the last or second last page, I'll quote what I said earlier on this page:


If you want a list of his errors - here goes: neglect of Alpharius, absolute faith in Horus, betrayal of Angron's martial honour, unwillingness or inability to get accurate reports on the way Perturabo was being ground down, leaving Mortarion in command though he resented the Emperor, blunt rebuke of Lorgar etc.

I would add to this the way he consistently placed Primarchs in positions of power knowing very little about what drove them.



Where's the guillibility in his actions? Are you telling me your parents don't trust you or that you don't trust (if you have them) your kids to tell you the truth? Horus did nothing to arouse suspicions until Istvaan. Night Haunter however did and as a result was wrapped across the knuckles, then when he carried on was about to be chased if the heresy hadn't happened.


My father isn't planning to make himself galactic dictator anytime soon. If he were to, and if he were then to place me in charge of his armed forces, I would expect him to keep an eye on me. If he didn't I wouldn't expect his reign to last long.


Can you name a civil war where things ended perfectly? And what has his abilities as a leader got to do with the state of the imperium after the war? I don't believe that any country, planet or place where a war has been fought will be in amazing condition. Gulliman's ability to hold the imperium together will have come from a combination of things, his upbringing and what he'd learnt since them and that includes skills and practices from the Emperor. However, who was the leader who created the imperium in the first place? The emperor would've failed at the first step if he was as weak and insipid as you suggest. He'd never have united so may men under his banner if he made so many bad decisions. Nor would so many people have fought and died for him if he had no people skills at all.


Well, the very fact that the fledgling Imperium had a civil war in the first place is the worst indictment upon the Emperor's abilities as leader. And you have to admit that a great deal of the loyalty that the Emperor received was due to his position as "Emperor" and not due to his inherent qualities as a leader. Not hard to imagine Dorn, Sanguinius et al following Emperor Horus if he had been the one to create and find them, is it? He conquered Terra through creating overwhelming armies of superhuman warriors, then continued his crusade through the abilities of the primarchs.

charlie_c67
14-04-2005, 12:25
I replied to all of those points in a later thread when you re-iterated them and is possible to keep an eye on someone while trusting them completly. He trusted Magnus to stick to his word and when he discovered he hadn't punished him.

DantesInferno
14-04-2005, 12:39
He trusted Magnus to stick to his word and when he discovered he hadn't punished him.

The Emperor didn't discover Magnus was conducting secret sorcery research, Magnus revealed it himself. The Emperor would never have known if Magnus hadn't shown it. The Emperor never ever showed any suspicion in any of the Primarchs' activities, except the ones which were already common knowledge.

Brunificus
14-04-2005, 12:41
If you want a list of his errors - here goes: neglect of Alpharius, absolute faith in Horus, betrayal of Angron's martial honour, unwillingness or inability to get accurate reports on the way Perturabo was being ground down, leaving Mortarion in command though he resented the Emperor, blunt rebuke of Lorgar etc.

Alpharius, whom he only found out about after Horus had spent a great deal time with him.

Horus, you keep saying that his trust in him was misplaced, but galactic dicatator or not, everyones has to trust some one.

Angron, mistake can't agrue that.

Perturabo, as has already been said, why is it unreasonable to say that he should have said something to the emperor. If you have a problem with your superior at work, you go and see his superior don't you.

Mortarion, He had won his loyalty by saving his life and freeing the planet, gratitude is not a big thing to expect especially from your son.

Lorgar, once again agree could have been handled a lot better


Yes, but whether the Emperor was in fact a "weak dictator" or not is beside the point. The fact is, the Emperor knew Mortarion viewed him in this way and he left him in command! That seems rather foolhardly at least.

I don't think that Mortarion ever thought that, was he ashamed and felt weakend in front of his brother certainly. The fact that the Emperor did something that Mortarion could never do, proves that He's not weak.

charlie_c67
14-04-2005, 12:47
The Emperor didn't discover Magnus was conducting secret sorcery research, Magnus revealed it himself. The Emperor would never have known if Magnus hadn't shown it. The Emperor never ever showed any suspicion in any of the Primarchs' activities, except the ones which were already common knowledge.
So your saying you suspect everyone you come into contact with? That you can trust no-one, despite them showing you undying fielty to you time and time again? If anything that lack of trust would've been a hell of a lot more dis-heartening that what actually happened.

Brunificus
14-04-2005, 12:49
The Emperor didn't discover Magnus was conducting secret sorcery research, Magnus revealed it himself. The Emperor would never have known if Magnus hadn't shown it. The Emperor never ever showed any suspicion in any of the Primarchs' activities, except the ones which were already common knowledge.

Wonder why he was keeping it a secret in the first place, perhaps because he knew it was wrong and what the Emperors reaction would be when he revealed it to him, so then after being rebuked by the Emperor and told the consequences of his actions, what does he do he keeps practicing sorcery and then tells about the upcoming betrayal using sorcery, when he knows exactly how the Emperor feels about it, and then guess what happens.

Sounds exactly like Tzeentch scheming to me.

DantesInferno
14-04-2005, 13:10
Alpharius, whom he only found out about after Horus had spent a great deal time with him.
So if you knew nothing about him, why would you give him command of 1/20th of your armed forces?



Horus, you keep saying that his trust in him was misplaced, but galactic dicatator or not, everyones has to trust some one.


Yes, but trusting them unquestionly seems unbelievably dumb when the command of the galaxy is at stake. Whether or not his trust was misplaced is also irrelevant (though it of course was), the issue is whether the Emperor's complete trust was evidence of capable leadership. I think you need to be paranoid to a certain degree to be an effective military dictator.



Perturabo, as has already been said, why is it unreasonable to say that he should have said something to the emperor. If you have a problem with your superior at work, you go and see his superior don't you.


Yes, as I said of course Perturabo should have said something. However, this has nothing to do with the Emperor's abilities of leadership. The point is that a boss should also be able to tell when an employee has a problem - that is his responsibility. Simply saying "But I didn't know he thought I was callously using him" isn't a good enough excuse. It is his resposiblity to know how loyal his generals are.




I don't think that Mortarion ever thought that, was he ashamed and felt weakend in front of his brother certainly. The fact that the Emperor did something that Mortarion could never do, proves that He's not weak.


Well, as I said, whether or not the Emperor was in fact weak was IRRELEVANT. Mortarion did feel resentment, and "The story of his allegiance to the Emperor won through his own failure was by then well-known, and anyone with even a passing familiarity with Mortarion knew that the pallid Primarch chafed at it. The Emperor is said to have dismissed their concerns with a wave" - Good work, Emperor.

charlie_c67
14-04-2005, 13:53
So if you knew nothing about him, why would you give him command of 1/20th of your armed forces?.
Because:
a) He's your son, created for the very purpose of leading,
b) You have the word of, at the time, the greatest of your lieutenants
c) The way he met and trapped the Sons of Horus battlecruiser with old and inferior fighters shows his abilities.


Yes, but trusting them unquestionly seems unbelievably dumb when the command of the galaxy is at stake.
Why? They were his clones? They were him split 20 ways? And they'd given him no reason to doubt their loyalty to him. If someone's sworn a pledge of fealty to you and given you no reason to doubt them you don't start to get suspicious that something's up.


Yes, as I said of course Perturabo should have said something. However, this has nothing to do with the Emperor's abilities of leadership...It is his resposiblity to know how loyal his generals are.

Maybe, but if your getting reports off them saying all's fine and there's no problems how can you tell there's something wrong? Peturabo should have said something, the fact is he didn't for wahtever reason. If you have a problem with a superior you go up the line and report it, you don't sit around twiddling your thumbs. And he knew he could say something because there were complaints against Magnus that the Emperor attempter to sort out.


Well, as I said, whether or not the Emperor was in fact weak was IRRELEVANT. Mortarion did feel resentment, and "The story of his allegiance to the Emperor won through his own failure was by then well-known, and anyone with even a passing familiarity with Mortarion knew that the pallid Primarch chafed at it. The Emperor is said to have dismissed their concerns with a wave" - Good work, Emperor.

There was no reason for Mortarion to resent his saviour, he got himself in a mess and the Emperor saved him from it. There was nothing in the Emperors action that would've created such resentment. He offered Mortarion a challenge, one which with hindsight he'd have been better waiting for a while before attempting to complete. He never set a time limit on when the task should be complete, Mortarion chose that. He didn't/couldn't let one of his sons die, so he saved Mortarions life. Can you tell me one person who when close to death is saved and then resents the fact they've been saved and their saviour?

Forgotmytea
14-04-2005, 14:08
Sod the Emperor, they should've made the Imperium communist, that would've solved all the problems. :p ;)

Khaine's Messenger
14-04-2005, 14:12
So if you knew nothing about him, why would you give him command of 1/20th of your armed forces?

Nepotism. ;)


Yes, but trusting them unquestionly seems unbelievably dumb when the command of the galaxy is at stake.

The point that it comes down to is that Horus and the Emperor had built up a "loving" and mutual trust (it really was mutual) from their earliest days on the campaign trail. Then the Emperor shifted his goals from military to civic, and Horus was shocked and confused that this wondrous military dictatorship was going to turn into something with which he was wholly unaccustomed (one of the more "human" points of Horus' betrayal is that he wanted the Space Marines to remain the Emperor's prime political enforcers for the long-haul--to the victors go the spoils, and the victors were the Space Marines and the Primarchs, not Terran bureaucrats).

And yes, placing that much power in one man's hands is always stupid, no matter how paranoid you are or trustworthy that man's hands happen to be.


the issue is whether the Emperor's complete trust was evidence of capable leadership. I think you need to be paranoid to a certain degree to be an effective military dictator.

The Emperor apparently didn't want to be a military dictator (perhaps moreso than wanting to be a god, though). The fact that he wasn't willing to go all the way as a military dictator (he entrusted a council of advisors, including his chum Malcador the Sigillite as well as the Fabricator General, to run the state affairs of the Imperium in his name; not only this, but the early Imperium was very much a weak and fledgling confederation of worlds, so the Emperor hardly held true dictatorial powers over the entire Imperium even at the height of his reign) and instead twiddled his thumbs working in his laboratories should be evidence enough that the man either had broader goals in mind or was just a complete clod at putting together a galaxy-spanning government.

charlie_c67
14-04-2005, 14:30
...and instead twiddled his thumbs working in his laboratories should be evidence enough that the man either had broader goals in mind or was just a complete clod at putting together a galaxy-spanning government.

I'd go for the former because if he was a total clod he wouldn't have got as far as he had!

Brunificus
14-04-2005, 15:33
Well, as I said, whether or not the Emperor was in fact weak was IRRELEVANT. Mortarion did feel resentment, and "The story of his allegiance to the Emperor won through his own failure was by then well-known, and anyone with even a passing familiarity with Mortarion knew that the pallid Primarch chafed at it. The Emperor is said to have dismissed their concerns with a wave" - Good work, Emperor.
you missed the end of that sentence ;loyalty to Horus was defacto loyalty to the Emperor. On that matter the Emperor could not have been more wrong.......

Which brings us back to the amount of trust he put in Horus.

charlie_c67
14-04-2005, 15:36
And whether it was warranted. At the time it was, with hindsight it wasn't. No one could've predicted Horus' betrayal.

El Ravager
14-04-2005, 16:50
Okay, lets look at it this way.

The Emperor was a man, not a god.

But Chaos, Chaos is pretty much a divine (although evil) force. Much of what went wrong happened because some of his sons, the primarchs, fell to the corruption of Chaos.

So basicly, your saying the Emperor was a bad leader because he couldn't overcome divine intervention. ;)

======
El Rav

sigur
14-04-2005, 17:57
Okay, lets look at it this way.

The Emperor was a man, not a god.
...


slightly off-topic, but why do you all think that?

Inquisitor Engel
14-04-2005, 18:03
It's many of you have never read the Realms of Chaos books. The trust the Emperor placed in Horus was well founded. When Horus fell sick on Davin, he was inducted into the Warrior Lodge there as a show of thanks for them allowing him to recover, and perhaps cure him.

What happened exactly is unsure. Horus was posessed. The Sickness may have been started by Chaos, and allowed to be cured, and then be possessed in the induction ceremony. Alternatively, the sickness could have been the posession taking place, and the induction a sealing pact.

I weep for the loss of fluff.

Hokkaido23
14-04-2005, 18:22
I dont buy that Mortarion hated the Emperor for saving him, or denying him final vengeance, or however you want to term it. If Mortarion had a problem with what happened, it was because his own rashness was the cause and he denied himself a chance. Lay the blame at Mortarion's feet, if he'd had a problem with what happened with the Emperor on Barbarus he needed to rationalise that within himself and take responsibility for his own actions.

Same with Lorgar. He was given a legion to win battles, not proselytise and build monuments. His propensity for doing so was a result of his life before the Emperor found him. The Emperor was not a god and did not want the people (for whom the Great Crusade and the Imperium was being created for) to be lorded over by the image of him as one. Lorgar's hero worship of the Emperor was misplaced, and he was told so -- bluntly perhaps, but the point needed to be gotten across and maybe if Lorgar hadn't been so concerned with his hurt feelings and realised the Emperor was right he wouldn't have turned traitor.


So if you knew nothing about him, why would you give him command of 1/20th of your armed forces?

The Primarchs were created for the purpose of being military leaders. Remember, their lives before the Emperor discovered them was not supposed to have happened and were precipitated by the intervention of the Ruinous powers. Being formed of the same flesh as the Emperor imbued them with at least some of his ability and power, and they were wholly suited to lead their respective legion. If a mistake was made, it was letting Horus get a word in edgewise with them.


Yes, but trusting them unquestionly seems unbelievably dumb when the command of the galaxy is at stake. Whether or not his trust was misplaced is also irrelevant (though it of course was), the issue is whether the Emperor's complete trust was evidence of capable leadership.

Horus, having been the first-found Primarch, had fought alongside and learned from the Emperor for hundreds of years by the time the Crusade was under way and the Emperor retired to Terra to administer the creation of the mechanism that would run the Imperium. They had each saved the others life in turn, and had formed an incredibly close bond. Hundreds of years together had shown the Emperor that Horus absorbed the knowledge necessary to run the campaign in the Emperor's absence. The Emperor was not a military warlord first and foremost -- he was the leader and savior of mankind. His job was to make the galaxy a utopia for humanity, and while that did involve conquering systems it ultimately required the foundation of an immensely large galactic empire, which was the Emperor's main purpose. No one, not even Horus, could have accomplished such a thing. The Great Crusade was only the opening stages of what would have been that utopia. The trust placed in Horus was only found to be unwarranted after his corruption on Davin -- with the help of the Ruinous powers. After that, it was simple for Horus to manipulate the other Primarchs while sending reports saying everything was wonderful. So why didn't Perturabo say something to the Emperor about how his legion was being mistreated? Maybe Horus replied that it was the will of the Emperor and to shut up and take it? Only we had this hindsight, only we know that the Emperor was making a mistake and only we have the luxury of being arrogant enough to say 'oh sure, Id never trust someone so implicitly' or call the Emperor guillible, or even go so far as to imply your own father would need to supervise you, lest you rebel in the absence of his supervision.

So lets compare the accomplishments of the Emperor and Horus: The millenia-old Emperor created the Primarchs, found them after they had been scattered throughout the galaxy, begun the Great Crusade, conquered most of the known galaxy, forged an administrative network to run an empire that is exponentially greater than any in history before or after, and united untold billions of people. Horus up to this point? He got his legion's name changed. I think in spite of whatever mistakes were made, the Emperor wins the 'great leader' competition. Then we come to Davin, where Horus was corrupted by the Chaos gods. Then he was able to lie and manipulate both his father and his brothers before finally betraying them and backstabbing 3 loyalist legions using 7 traitor legions. Finally, endowed with all the strength and power of the combined Chaos gods, he fights his way to Terra at the head of a vast army of traitor marines, renegade army formations, titan legions, and daemonic forces and....loses.

I realize the Emperor made what seem like mistakes. As I said before, only we have the ability to look back and judge his actions with the benefit of seeing the consequences. If I can pinpoint any mistake, it would be trusting Horus, who turned out to be no more than the puppet and avatar of the Chaos gods but as many people have said, mistakes do not disqualify a man from being termed a great leader. In light of all his accomplishments and that the framework of his empire stands 10,000 years later proves the Emperor was just that, a great leader.

charlie_c67
14-04-2005, 23:32
slightly off-topic, but why do you all think that?

Mortals are fallable and able to make mistakes.
Divine beings aren't.

DantesInferno
14-04-2005, 23:49
OK, I think a few of you are missing my fundamental point regarding Horus. It doesn't matter at all whether or not the Emperor's absolute trust in Hours seemed justified at the time. The very fact that a would-be dictator was prepared to trust anyone so implicitly was in itself a very bad thing, no matter how loyal they might have seemed. Giving the only possible rival to your leadership (however unlikely a coup seemed) more or less complete control over your armed forces and not attempting at all to keep an eye on how he was running your legions (cf. Iron Warriors) seems to me like a terminally stupid thing for a would-be galactic military dictator to do under any circumstances. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight we can say that this had disastrous consequences, but it would have been an extremely foolhardy decision even if Horus had remained loyal.



I dont buy that Mortarion hated the Emperor for saving him, or denying him final vengeance, or however you want to term it. If Mortarion had a problem with what happened, it was because his own rashness was the cause and he denied himself a chance. Lay the blame at Mortarion's feet, if he'd had a problem with what happened with the Emperor on Barbarus he needed to rationalise that within himself and take responsibility for his own actions.


Of course you can lay blame at Mortarion's feet for his fall! No-one is disputing that Mortarion should take responsibility for his actions! The point, however, is that the Emperor firstly provoked such resentment, and secondly and more importantly left him in a position of power even though he openly resented his allegiance to the Emperor won through his failure. Keeping people in command of 1/20th of your military forces when you know they resent you and chafe at their oaths of loyalty seems rather stupid, however you look at it.



Same with Lorgar. He was given a legion to win battles, not proselytise and build monuments. His propensity for doing so was a result of his life before the Emperor found him. The Emperor was not a god and did not want the people (for whom the Great Crusade and the Imperium was being created for) to be lorded over by the image of him as one. Lorgar's hero worship of the Emperor was misplaced, and he was told so -- bluntly perhaps, but the point needed to be gotten across and maybe if Lorgar hadn't been so concerned with his hurt feelings and realised the Emperor was right he wouldn't have turned traitor.


Again, whether or not the Primarch was justified or not is beside the point (although it does in fact turn out that Lorgar was right, the Imperium does need a god-figure to worship). The fact is, the Emperor was blunt and tactless in the extreme, and this was a major factor in Lorgar turning to Chaos. The question remains, could a competant leader have kept Lorgar loyal? I think the answer is a clear yes, Lorgar's only flaw was excessive devotion anyway.



The Primarchs were created for the purpose of being military leaders. Remember, their lives before the Emperor discovered them was not supposed to have happened and were precipitated by the intervention of the Ruinous powers. Being formed of the same flesh as the Emperor imbued them with at least some of his ability and power, and they were wholly suited to lead their respective legion. If a mistake was made, it was letting Horus get a word in edgewise with them.


Or placing the Primarchs in positions of power whilst knowing absolutely nothing about them, their motivations or their loyalties. Or leaving them there when it became clear they were no longer loyal to the Emperor himself. Or managing to loose their loyalties in the first place. Just cause they were genetically designed to be supermen doesn't mean you shouldn't make sure they were loyal.



The Emperor was not a military warlord first and foremost -- he was the leader and savior of mankind. His job was to make the galaxy a utopia for humanity, and while that did involve conquering systems it ultimately required the foundation of an immensely large galactic empire, which was the Emperor's main purpose. No one, not even Horus, could have accomplished such a thing. The Great Crusade was only the opening stages of what would have been that utopia.......
Only we had this hindsight, only we know that the Emperor was making a mistake and only we have the luxury of being arrogant enough to say 'oh sure, Id never trust someone so implicitly' or call the Emperor guillible, or even go so far as to imply your own father would need to supervise you, lest you rebel in the absence of his supervision.


I'm interested why you think the Emperor was interested in creating a galatic utopia for mankind, and why you think that the Emperor was necessarily the "saviour" of mankind. All we know is that he was trying to unite the galaxy into a empire of mankind under his rule. No more glorious or noble than Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon or Hitler trying to unite our world under their rule. No more so than what Horus was trying to achieve in the so-called Heresy.

And, as I said earlier, if my father was positioning himself as galactic Emperor of Mankind and placed me in control of his military, I would expect him to keep an eye on me. If he is so trusting, eventually someone is going to take advantage of him and betray him. Absolute trust is under any circumstances a rather negative quality in a military dictator.



I realize the Emperor made what seem like mistakes. As I said before, only we have the ability to look back and judge his actions with the benefit of seeing the consequences. If I can pinpoint any mistake, it would be trusting Horus, who turned out to be no more than the puppet and avatar of the Chaos gods but as many people have said, mistakes do not disqualify a man from being termed a great leader. In light of all his accomplishments and that the framework of his empire stands 10,000 years later proves the Emperor was just that, a great leader.


If his mistakes don't disqualify him from being a "great leader", then what does?
a) If you are judging "great leader" by the peak of a leader's achievements (ie galaxy-spanning empire), then Hitler was a "great leader" even though he lead Germany to a crushing defeat.
b) If you are judging "great leader" by the situation of his realm at the time of his death, then I can't see how the Emperor could be a great leader - his empire was in ruins, Terra was in ashes, and the loyalist forces had been decimated.
c) If you are judging "great leader" by what happened to his realm after his death, then William the Conqueror can claim responsibility for Britain winning the Second World War. I think the idea is absurd. The fact that the Imperium is still standing after 10 000 years says little about the Emperor's leadership abilities and more about Guilliman (who after all set up the Imperium) and all the subsequent High Lords of Terra. They used the Emperor to justify setting up their Imperium, but in actual fact its survival had nothing to do with him.


Oh, and for sigur, the main reason we all think the Emperor was not a god was that the Emperor himself didn't think he was. But divine beings can indeed be fallible, it's just that the Judeo-Christian one is omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent. Look at the Greek and Roman gods, they were very very fallible.

Brunificus
15-04-2005, 17:34
OK, I think a few of you are missing my fundamental point regarding Horus. It doesn't matter at all whether or not the Emperor's absolute trust in Hours seemed justified at the time. The very fact that a would-be dictator was prepared to trust anyone so implicitly was in itself a very bad thing, no matter how loyal they might have seemed. Giving the only possible rival to your leadership (however unlikely a coup seemed) more or less complete control over your armed forces and not attempting at all to keep an eye on how he was running your legions (cf. Iron Warriors) seems to me like a terminally stupid thing for a would-be galactic military dictator to do under any circumstances. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight we can say that this had disastrous consequences, but it would have been an extremely foolhardy decision even if Horus had remained loyal.
I don't think the Emperor ever intened to be this military dictator, you claim he is. No single man can do everything, and for him to mirco manage every single last thing the way you claim any military dicatator would is really quite rediculous.




Of course you can lay blame at Mortarion's feet for his fall! No-one is disputing that Mortarion should take responsibility for his actions! The point, however, is that the Emperor firstly provoked such resentment, and secondly and more importantly left him in a position of power even though he openly resented his allegiance to the Emperor won through his failure. Keeping people in command of 1/20th of your military forces when you know they resent you and chafe at their oaths of loyalty seems rather stupid, however you look at it.
Because as I said before, he created these men to lead their legoins and he
had faith in his creations. Ok so one of his creations wasn't particulary happy with him, for saving his life no less. His loyatly was commanded by his most loyal of son's, the one who had basically been with him since the begining of the crusades, let Mortarion have his wounded pride as long as he follow the Emperors Warmaster then it was going to plan.



Again, whether or not the Primarch was justified or not is beside the point (although it does in fact turn out that Lorgar was right, the Imperium does need a god-figure to worship). The fact is, the Emperor was blunt and tactless in the extreme, and this was a major factor in Lorgar turning to Chaos. The question remains, could a competant leader have kept Lorgar loyal? I think the answer is a clear yes, Lorgar's only flaw was excessive devotion anyway.

Once again can't argue this one , the Emperor was completely tactless.


Or placing the Primarchs in positions of power whilst knowing absolutely nothing about them, their motivations or their loyalties. Or leaving them there when it became clear they were no longer loyal to the Emperor himself. Or managing to loose their loyalties in the first place. Just cause they were genetically designed to be supermen doesn't mean you shouldn't make sure they were loyal.
It does if you program loyalty into them not a gigantic leap for gene manipulation, if you ask me.




I'm interested why you think the Emperor was interested in creating a galatic utopia for mankind, and why you think that the Emperor was necessarily the "saviour" of mankind. All we know is that he was trying to unite the galaxy into a empire of mankind under his rule. No more glorious or noble than Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon or Hitler trying to unite our world under their rule. No more so than what Horus was trying to achieve in the so-called Heresy.

And, as I said earlier, if my father was positioning himself as galactic Emperor of Mankind and placed me in control of his military, I would expect him to keep an eye on me. If he is so trusting, eventually someone is going to take advantage of him and betray him. Absolute trust is under any circumstances a rather negative quality in a military dictator.
Absolute trust is must for any Empire that spans an entire galaxy. No single person can do evrything that needs to be done, without implicitly trusting others to follow your orders their is no chain of command, you have to trust that what you are saying, a thousand light years away your orders are being carried out correctly.




If his mistakes don't disqualify him from being a "great leader", then what does?
If you are judging "great leader" by the peak of a leader's achievements (ie galaxy-spanning empire), then Hitler was a "great leader" even though he lead Germany to a crushing defeat.
If you are judging "great leader" by the situation of his realm at the time of his death, then I can't see how the Emperor could be a great leader - his empire was in ruins, Terra was in ashes, and the loyalist forces had been decimated.
If you are judging "great leader" by what happened to his realm after his death, then William the Conqueror can claim responsibility for Britain winning the Second World War. I think the idea is absurd. The fact that the Imperium is still standing after 10 000 years says little about the Emperor's leadership abilities and more about Guilliman (who after all set up the Imperium) and all the subsequent High Lords of Terra. They used the Emperor to justify setting up their Imperium, but in actual fact its survival had nothing to do with him.
Then every single politician and military commander is a failure, because all have made mistakes and so far every empire thathas risen has fallen.



Oh, and for sigur, the main reason we all think the Emperor was not a god was that the Emperor himself didn't think he was. But divine beings can indeed be fallible, it's just that the Judeo-Christian one is omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent. Look at the Greek and Roman gods, they were very very fallible.
Once again totally agree.

DantesInferno
16-04-2005, 01:06
I don't think the Emperor ever intened to be this military dictator, you claim he is. No single man can do everything, and for him to mirco manage every single last thing the way you claim any military dicatator would is really quite rediculous.


"I don't think the Emperor ever intened to be this military dictator, you claim he is". Doesn't something odd strike you about this sentence? Look at what we call the man in question - "The Emperor of Mankind". Now, Emperors are more or less by definition military dictators; after all the Great Crusade was just a fancy name for giving the Emperor a galactic empire by force. We don't call him the "Prime Minister of Mankind", after all. I think sometimes people get a bit caught up in Imperial religious propaganda - the Emperor was just another warlord. Of course people can say he was trying to unite humanity in a glorious empire, but that was what Hitler thought he was doing too.

As for the issue of micromanagement, I firmly believe it wouldn't have been too difficult to get updates from the Primarchs themselves (or even agents in their Legions). He only had 20 different Legions, after all.


Because as I said before, he created these men to lead their legoins and he had faith in his creations. Ok so one of his creations wasn't particulary happy with him, for saving his life no less. His loyatly was commanded by his most loyal of son's, the one who had basically been with him since the begining of the crusades, let Mortarion have his wounded pride as long as he follow the Emperors Warmaster then it was going to plan.


Look, if you were the supreme leader of mankind and you heard from multiple sources that one of your generals openly resented you and really hated being forced to swear loyalty, what would you do? Even if you had genetically manipulated him to be loyal, surely it makes sense to play it safe and remove or reduce his power until you can sort the issue out. The Emperor blundered along like a bull in a china shop, completely unaware of the subtleties of ruling a military dictatorship effectively.


It does if you program loyalty into them not a gigantic leap for gene manipulation, if you ask me.


Even if they were genetically manipulated to be loyal, if you get reports that they are not loyal, surely it makes sense to err on the side of caution? Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to make the problem go away.


Absolute trust is must for any Empire that spans an entire galaxy. No single person can do evrything that needs to be done, without implicitly trusting others to follow your orders their is no chain of command, you have to trust that what you are saying, a thousand light years away your orders are being carried out correctly.


You trust people to carry out your orders, true, but do you trust them absolutely unquestioningly? I wouldn't think so, a canny leader would try to get some other verification that the orders were being carried out. What the Emperor does is akin to the US President giving one of his generals complete control over the military, as well as the identification and launch codes for America's nuclear arsenal, saying "Do you think you can hold onto these for me whilst I set up a national heathcare system/campaign for my reelection/etc". Even if he is certain that the general is loyal to his orders, it is a pretty dumb thing to do as far as I'm concerned. The Emperor just doesn't seem able to judge the risks involved in his actions (Angron, Mortarion, Horus etc).


Then every single politician and military commander is a failure, because all have made mistakes and so far every empire that has risen has fallen.

My point (I've edited what I was saying to hopefully make it clearer) was that you have to work out how you judge whether someone was a great leader. I would say you have to take into account both the results of their rule and also the frequency of their mistakes. And for the results of their rule, I think you really have to look at the state of their empire/state when they ceased to command it (in the Emperor's case, at the time of his death). Claiming that how the Imperium succeeded after the Emperor's death illustrates how good a leader the Emperor was is fairly useless, I think.

By these categories, I can't see how you can term the Emperor a "great leader" at all.

Brunificus
16-04-2005, 04:40
"I don't think the Emperor ever intened to be this military dictator, you claim he is". Doesn't something odd strike you about this sentence? Look at what we call the man in question - "The Emperor of Mankind". Now, Emperors are more or less by definition military dictators; after all the Great Crusade was just a fancy name for giving the Emperor a galactic empire by force. We don't call him the "Prime Minister of Mankind", after all. I think sometimes people get a bit caught up in Imperial religious propaganda - the Emperor was just another warlord. Of course people can say he was trying to unite humanity in a glorious empire, but that was what Hitler thought he was doing too.

No, nothing at all odd strikes me about this sentence, and not every Emperor is a Military Dictator. The Roman Empire was run by a Emperor and for the most part it was a Republic, not a Military Dictatorship. After each planet was liberated or joined the Empire, the current establishment was generally left in power. A Military Dictator would never do this, and would put in place his own govenment.


As for the issue of micromanagement, I firmly believe it wouldn't have been too difficult to get updates from the Primarchs themselves (or even agents in their Legions). He only had 20 different Legions, after all.

20 different Legions scattered throughout time and space, cause we all know how reliable warp travel is. And i imagine he did get constant updates, but if Marneus who is on the Eastern fringe sends him a report, how long does it take to get there weeks , months after something has happened. The Emperor had to trust that his son's were following his orders. Not be reading reports from his Primarchs, then reading reports by the spies, he was so paranoid that install in each of his son's legions.




Look, if you were the supreme leader of mankind and you heard from multiple sources that one of your generals openly resented you and really hated being forced to swear loyalty, what would you do? Even if you had genetically manipulated him to be loyal, surely it makes sense to play it safe and remove or reduce his power until you can sort the issue out. The Emperor blundered along like a bull in a china shop, completely unaware of the subtleties of ruling a military dictatorship effectively.

Even if they were genetically manipulated to be loyal, if you get reports that they are not loyal, surely it makes sense to err on the side of caution? Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to make the problem go away.

No , not if he was quiet happy following the orders of my most loyal son, as it states in the IA quote before the emperor thought that loyalty to Horus was default loyalty him.







You trust people to carry out your orders, true, but do you trust them absolutely unquestioningly? I wouldn't think so, a canny leader would try to get some other verification that the orders were being carried out. What the Emperor does is akin to the US President giving one of his generals complete control over the military, as well as the identification and launch codes for America's nuclear arsenal, saying "Do you think you can hold onto these for me whilst I set up a national heathcare system/campaign for my reelection/etc". Even if he is certain that the general is loyal to his orders, it is a pretty dumb thing to do as far as I'm concerned. The Emperor just doesn't seem able to judge the risks involved in his actions (Angron, Mortarion, Horus etc).

Thats exactly what any U.S President does actually, he tells the army where to go then TRUSTS the general to do the right thing. A military commander Dubya is not. Order giver YES, Commander NO.




My point (I've edited what I was saying to hopefully make it clearer) was that you have to work out how you judge whether someone was a great leader. I would say you have to take into account both the results of their rule and also the frequency of their mistakes. And for the results of their rule, I think you really have to look at the state of their empire/state when they ceased to command it (in the Emperor's case, at the time of his death). Claiming that how the Imperium succeeded after the Emperor's death illustrates how good a leader the Emperor was is fairly useless, I think.

By these categories, I can't see how you can term the Emperor a "great leader" at all.
Ok for his empire to be ripped assunder by half his Legoins, and then the people who he gave power to make it rise like a pheonix from the ashes. Sounds like a great leader to me, even after he's dead everyone still strives to complete his dream.

P.S this is what I like most about Portent, intelligent discussion, zero flame, and very little spam. :D

DantesInferno
16-04-2005, 06:11
No, nothing at all odd strikes me about this sentence, and not every Emperor is a Military Dictator. The Roman Empire was run by a Emperor and for the most part it was a Republic, not a Military Dictatorship. After each planet was liberated or joined the Empire, the current establishment was generally left in power. A Military Dictator would never do this, and would put in place his own govenment.


I think you will find that every Emperor is pretty much a military dictator. A dictator is an absolute ruler, and a military dictator is an absolute ruler who draws his political power from the military. This seems to describe a man who calls himself the "Emperor of Mankind", who conquered Terra and much of the rest of the galaxy with Legions of genetically manipulated supermen.

Not to get drawn into history too much, but the Roman Empire was indeed basically a military dictatorship. Although the Roman state started off as a Republic, by about 20BC Octavian had established himself as the permanent head of state, renamed himself Augustus, and became an Emperor (its fairly easy to see where the inspiration for the Star Wars Republic-to-Empire shift came from). The Senate became a glorified rubber stamp for the next 400 years, with no power whatsoever. And to be Emperor, the leader had to control the loyalty of the Legions and the Praetorian Guard.

Furthermore, the Romans often left the political structure of conquered territories more or less intact. Of course, they would appoint a governor to rule the place (like the Imperium does), and execute any dissenters, but they left cooperating figures in power. Just look at the Pharisees who convinced Pilate to execute Jesus.


20 different Legions scattered throughout time and space, cause we all know how reliable warp travel is. And i imagine he did get constant updates, but if Marneus who is on the Eastern fringe sends him a report, how long does it take to get there weeks , months after something has happened. The Emperor had to trust that his son's were following his orders. Not be reading reports from his Primarchs, then reading reports by the spies, he was so paranoid that install in each of his son's legions.


Well, it seems that much of the carnage of Heresy could have been averted if the Emperor had been paranoid enough to install spies in his sons' Legions. Funnily enough, paranoia is a healthy attribute for dictators. He could have known that the Word Bearers were secretly worshipping Chaos, that Magnus was disobeying his orders, that the Iron Warriors felt he was treating them with callous distain, that Angron felt he was a weak fool, etc. Even reading reports from the Legions could have told him enough to know that Perturabo resented that his legion was being worn into the ground. The thing is, the Emperor seems to have never bothered to look beyond what he is given.



No , not if he was quiet happy following the orders of my most loyal son, as it states in the IA quote before the emperor thought that loyalty to Horus was default loyalty him.


And we know how well that worked, don't we? If you hear that one of your generals resents you and hated being forced to swear loyalty to you, surely any sensible dictator would remove him to sort the issue out. Thinking "Oh well, he's loyal to my second-in-command" is a very dumb thing to do, as the Heresy neatly proves.



Thats exactly what any U.S President does actually, he tells the army where to go then TRUSTS the general to do the right thing. A military commander Dubya is not. Order giver YES, Commander NO.


According to the Constitution of the United States the President "shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States". He is in fact the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Horrifying but true. Obviously he's not a battlefield commander, my point was that any President would never give a general the authorisation codes to the nuclear arsenal, complete control over the armed forces, and let him attack any country he wanted, and then fail to keep an eye on him. Of course the parallel is not particularly close, but what the Emperor does is perhaps the biggest blunder in the history of authoritarian rulers - he gives his second-in-command almost unrestricted control over his armed forces, and doesn't make even the slightest effort to keep an eye on his behaviour.



Ok for his empire to be ripped assunder by half his Legoins, and then the people who he gave power to make it rise like a pheonix from the ashes. Sounds like a great leader to me, even after he's dead everyone still strives to complete his dream.


The irony is that the dream everyone in the Imperium is striving to complete is almost the exact opposite of what the Emperor was. Can the Emperor still claim credit for the state of the Imperium? As I said, it would be like claiming William the Conqueror is a great leader solely because Britain won the Second World War.

Cheesejoff
08-05-2005, 16:55
My 40k fluff is really rusty...could someone remind me how the Deathguard turned to Chaos? Was it the Emperors "fault"?

Morgan Keyes
08-05-2005, 17:18
My 40k fluff is really rusty...could someone remind me how the Deathguard turned to Chaos? Was it the Emperors "fault"?

The Mortarion was convinced by Horus during the Council of Charon. Horus promised the fall of the old order and a new age of justice and right determined by the mighty. Mortarion jumped on this and Horus did not need to resort to ritual possession. The corruption occured as the Death Guard was enroute to Terra and became becalmed in the warp, followed by a plague outbreak in the fleet and a desperate appeal to Nurgle to save them.

As for the "fault", Mortarion resented the Emperor's intervention on Barbarus. He felt robbed of his final justice, and resentment for the easy way the Emperor accomplished a task that Mortarion struggled so long at, and in the end failed due to pride.

DantesInferno
09-05-2005, 02:58
As far as Mortarion is concerned, the Emperor cheated him of ultimate justice upon his "father" (ie daemon overlord) by killing him. Mortarion either wanted to execute justice upon his father/daemon overlord, or die trying. The Emperor turns up, steals his glory denies him ultimate justice, then forces him to swear loyaty. He also viewed the Emperor as weak and unable to ensure protection or justice for Mankind. The Emperor definately could have handled the situation better.

The Emperor forced Mortarion to swear loyalty to him as a result of Mortarion's failure. Even worse, the Emperor knew that Mortarion strongly resented him and chafed at his oath of loyalty, but kept him in control of 1/20th of the total armed forces anyway.

Incognito
09-05-2005, 04:05
Don't forget that much of the early basis for the Emperor's fluff was basing him as a 'Alexander the Great' type figure (Before Macharius got the same treatment, but his is far more superficial I think), and the rebelling Primarchs were like the Diadochi that fought each other after his death.

Was Alexander the Great a magnificent leader in battle and a builder of a great many cities...who conquered an unimaginably vast stretch of territory in very little time with an elite army and was deified? Yes. Did he have a great many personal flaws? Yes.

The Rogue Trader fluff didn't have Primarchs at all. Horus was just a great general.

Anyhow, Horus was the Emperor's equal in many ways. But he was also 'slick' and paranoid. If the Emperor was as 'slick' and paranoid as Horus was...As devious and manipulative, the Legions might not have rebelled, but the Imperium of Man would likely be far worse off because of it. The Emperor was basically, honest to a fault. And it was those character traits that did most to mark the Primarch that ultimately did most to shape the Imperium, Roboute. If it wasn't for him (who was genuinely an passionately idealistic, organized and ethical man in the modern 20th century sense), the Imperium would likely have fallen 9,000 years ago.

DantesInferno
09-05-2005, 04:36
Don't forget that much of the early basis for the Emperor's fluff was basing him as a 'Alexander the Great' type figure (Before Macharius got the same treatment, but his is far more superficial I think), and the rebelling Primarchs were like the Diadochi that fought each other after his death.

Was Alexander the Great a magnificent leader in battle and a builder of a great many cities...who conquered an unimaginably vast stretch of territory in very little time with an elite army and was deified? Yes. Did he have a great many personal flaws? Yes.

True, but Alexander managed to keep his Empire together up to the point of his death. Who knows how Western civilisation would have turned out if Alexander hadn't been struck down by an unknown fever, and if he had had time to set up a stable government and succession.

The Emperor's realm had already been reduced to ashes at the point of his "death", Alexander's only collapsed after his.



Anyhow, Horus was the Emperor's equal in many ways. But he was also 'slick' and paranoid. If the Emperor was as 'slick' and paranoid as Horus was...As devious and manipulative, the Legions might not have rebelled, but the Imperium of Man would likely be far worse off because of it.


I think it is rather a leap of logic here to claim that the Imperium of Man would have been worse off if the Emperor had more of the Machiavellian characteristics of Horus instead of being a gullible idealist (if that's what he indeed was, read Lord of the Night for a different perspective). The Empire which came from the Great Crusade would still be standing, and Humanity would be largely unchallenged. In any case, it really couldn't possibly be any more oppressive or bleak than the resulting Imperium of Man.



The Emperor was basically, honest to a fault. And it was those character traits that did most to mark the Primarch that ultimately did most to shape the Imperium, Roboute. If it wasn't for him (who was genuinely an passionately idealistic, organized and ethical man in the modern 20th century sense), the Imperium would likely have fallen 9,000 years ago.

But don't you find it ironic that the current Imperium (ie. the one set up by Guilliman) is the exact opposite of what the "honest to a fault" Emperor would have wanted, and much more in line with what the more "Horus-esque" Emperor would have desired. It's a recognition of the fact that the Emperor's idealism is just incompatible with the realities of running a galactic government in a hostile universe.

I mean, there's no way the Emperor would have approved the Imperium deifying his corpse and constructing an oppressive, brutal, utilitarian, and authoritarian regime. How complicit Guilliman was in the setting up of the current theocracy of the Imperium is slightly more ambiguous, however. There's reason to suggest that he realised that the Emperor's vision was completely utopic and unrealistic, and settled on the compromise of the current Imperium.

Lucifer216
31-07-2006, 16:09
One of the main points that seemed to be raised in the Horus Heresy books is that Faith of course is the strongest defence against the Daemon.

Once the existence of Chaos could no longer be fully covered up, agnosticism could no longer be an option, just as bow and arrows aren't an option if you're up against machine-guns.

hellfire
31-07-2006, 17:28
I would think that the outcome of their decisions would be a very important consideration. Whether or not Alexander was a "great leader" or not is also beside the point. What is important is that the Emperor failed to inspire loyalty or obiedience in HALF of his commanders, made numerous mistakes as leader, and also that the outcomes of his failures were extremely disastrous. This is more or less indisuptable, and if this makes him a "great leader", what do you need to do to lose that title?

Dante this is your ONLY argument that the emperor is a bad leader you point to two bad descisions as a whole series of mistakesand he lost the loyalty of half of his commanders through a process coercion, corruption and subtle control on part of Horus and the dark gods, not because he was a bad leader

hellfire
31-07-2006, 17:30
True, but Alexander managed to keep his Empire together up to the point of his death. Who knows how Western civilisation would have turned out if Alexander hadn't been struck down by an unknown fever, and if he had had time to set up a stable government and succession.

.
sorry for double posting but alexander was killed by an arrow when he intentionally put himself into a dangerous situation that he didn't have to be in

Eisen
31-07-2006, 21:07
sorry for double posting but alexander was killed by an arrow when he intentionally put himself into a dangerous situation that he didn't have to be in

Odd, I was always under the impression, as were most historians, that Alexander died after a series of rather shady incidents in the city of Babylon, well after the retreat from India, a little under a year after Hephaeston died.

DantesInferno
31-07-2006, 23:35
Dante this is your ONLY argument that the emperor is a bad leader you point to two bad descisions as a whole series of mistakes

What? I think I've illustrated a good deal more than 2 bad decisions the Emperor made during the course of this discussion. His dealings with Mortarion and Angron are two of the most blatant stuff-ups, but I've argued that his dealings with Horus, Alpharius, Magnus, Lorgar and Perturabo could all have been handled a great deal better by a reasonable leader.



and he lost the loyalty of half of his commanders through a process coercion, corruption and subtle control on part of Horus and the dark gods, not because he was a bad leader

Half of his commanders would not have fallen if the only factor was the coercion, corruption and subtle control on the part of Horus and the dark gods. The reason that so many Primarchs fell to the Dark Gods was because the Emperor had alienated them prior to the Heresy. The crux of my argument is what made the Emperor a bad leader was firstly losing the loyalty of half his generals, but more importantly either not caring that he'd lost their support and keeping them in places of power (ie Mortarion) or not caring enough to try to find out whether his generals supported him (Perturabo, Magnus, Angron, Alpharius, Lorgar etc).

Imagine that the Emperor assigns say 3 squads of Custodes with an Astropath to guard/liase with each of the Primarchs (this is possibly the easiest option available to him to keep an eye on his Legions). He would have a much, much better idea of which Primarchs' loyalties were suspect (rather than the events of the Heresy, which took him completely by surprise).

Perhaps the Heresy could not have been averted, and the flaws of many of the Primarchs made it inevitable. Even then, the Emperor could have mitigated its effects by getting a much better idea about who was actually loyal (Dropsite Massacres, anyone?)

La'mour Le Breton
01-08-2006, 06:34
I dont think anyone realizes how far streched the emperors armies were. thats why horus chose that time to strike. gullieman , probably the best tactician, was way too far away to protect earth. The emperor didn't have time or the resources to babysit his "kids" , he was in the middle of concuring the galaxy they were primarchs, why would they need to be checked on? also many of the primarchs were probably touched by chaos long before they matured.

Lord Zarkov
01-08-2006, 10:45
I think the Emporer was a good Leader but had several flaws
His main flaws were being an over-loving father; not at all understanding; and insanely ideolistic

hellfire
01-08-2006, 12:36
I don't know it doesn't seem like he loved all of his sons that much
Oh and Dante I think I've decided that you're a heretic

Lord Zarkov
01-08-2006, 18:09
It was a mix of the 'i'm doing this because it's best for you' love and the 'my beloved son, surely not, I don't believe it!' kind of love