Which Legion dissapointed you the most?

[Pulse]

I don't mean "comic" in a comedic way. I mean larger than life stylised versions. The Space Wolves are not like historical vikings, they are like in sagas or fantasy tales. Idealised, emphasized in their impressive and badass traits. Likewise, accurate and historical roman legionnaires or Spartans were probably a lot less impressive than they are portrayed in popular fiction. Perhaps "comic book vikings/spartans" was not the most fortunate way to put it.

Your very right in that Romans and Spartans being less impressive in real life compared to "popular culture" and having studied them both in detail for my degree in ancient history, when you cut all the facts back they were the best purely because of fitness, training and disapline. Again though each character for example in history has a personality, some of shows through records from the time be they eye witness or even from the person themselves, they ALWAYS knew how to enjoy themselves away from war, even directly after the battle.

 

Astartes will be the same, they will enjoy time away from war even if it relates to war.

[Wrath of Terra]

Ultramarines would be Spartans or the Roman Legion in space (and over the top comic book at that), and I assume you would not dismiss such a type in terms of combat capabilities. The Ultramarines are warriors through and through. But unfortunately that is not often highlighted in their background.

 

As impressive as the Spartans and Romans were they, the Spartans in particular, were eventually defeated because they couldn't or wouldn't change how they fought or adapt quick enough to new enemies. Which is my main problem with the Ultras. I see the codex as a straight-jacket, a dead weight around their necks that burns out any desire or ability to think for themselves and develop unorthodox tactics. Why bother trying something new or thinking for yourself when every time you try your Chapter-mates scream "You can't! The codex says we have to do it this way!". The Alpha Legion have the right idea. The idea of being micro-managed by something written 10,000 years ago is crazy.

[Legatus]

You assume that there will be new ideas, ideas that have not come up to any of the Primarchs during their 200 year Great Crusade, or the thousands of years before that. New ideas in a time where not only is there no new Technology developed, but old Technology is lost. You are also dismissing that the Codex Astartes is kept up to date and has been amended with new treatises throughout the past ten thousand years. Very old sources had described the Codex Astartes not so much as a set of suggested actions, but more of a collection of discussions on warfare by the most brilliant military minds, an imense collection of experiences and reports, basically, though the background from 2nd Edition and later does seem to suggest that there are specific suggestions that can be followed.

 

We don't really know what is in the Codex. What we do know is that the Ultramarines have been one of the most successful Chapters for the past 10,000 years (and that basically every Chapter is adhering to it for the most part, safe for a hand full of exceptions), so apparently the Codex doctrine is not that much of a crutch. So any complains that the Codex is in any way restricting is flying into the face of the background a bit, really. It's a bit like saying "I think Boltguns are ineffective weapons, too heavy to be used well, and too difficult to maintain. That's why Space Marines aren't that good."

[Gree]

As impressive as the Spartans and Romans were they, the Spartans in particular, were eventually defeated because they couldn't or wouldn't change how they fought or adapt quick enough to new enemies.

 

Actually no, the Romans Legions were noted to be very adaptive. The Carthaginian Wars in paticular show this, with their copying of Hannibal and the invention of the Corvus ram, among many, many other things. In fact the Romans did not fall so much because of their military's inability to adapt but rather a variety of different socio-economic factors and the wealth being concentrated in Constantinople.

 

The Spartans themselves did not so much as fall because of lack of military change but rather due that their economy could and society could eventually no longer handle the rise of Thebes and Alexander the Great.

 

Which is my main problem with the Ultras. I see the codex as a straight-jacket, a dead weight around their necks that burns out any desire or ability to think for themselves and develop unorthodox tactics. Why bother trying something new or thinking for yourself when every time you try your Chapter-mates scream "You can't! The codex says we have to do it this way!". The Alpha Legion have the right idea. The idea of being micro-managed by something written 10,000 years ago is crazy.

 

Good thing that's not what the Codex is. :D

[A D-B]

There was a reason I left the Word Bearers out of the list of pre-heresy traitor legions who could beat the Ultras in fair numbers.... Imagine giving the Emperor's Children, World Eaters or the Luna Wolves the advantages the Word Bearers had at Calth. Few if any Ultras would have survived. The Word Bearers always struck me as a legion who did alright, in a plodding sort of way, but in absolutely no way excelled at any aspect of combat. In a way it was Horus sending his most mundane and expendable troops to fight a holding action while saving his specialist troops (W.E., I.W. etc) and just outright better soldiers (E.C., L.W. etc) for much more important battles.

 

You have some really strong opinions, but they're also sort of narrow. I don't say this to be offensive, but you're very rigid in your thinking, without much to really back it up, even in the face of countering evidence. Like with the Codex Astartes, and here, with the Word Bearers. Your prejudice against certain concepts and Legions makes actual discussion very difficult.

 

F'rex, you're actually dead wrong about the Word Bearers. There's no evidence to say any Legion would have beaten the Ultramarines at Calth, and the reason the Word Bearers didn't win is down to one thing, mentioned often in the canon: The Ultramarines had their primarch, and the Word Bearers did not. To attribute the defeat to anything else vastly understates exactly what a primarch is, what he's capable of, and how his sons fight for him.

 

There's also no real evidence to say the Word Bearers were any worse warriors than other Legions (or, realistically, that many Legions were better than any other). In matters of hyperbole, when you say the Emperor's Children were better warriors and the Word Bearers just mundane troops, it's just as easy to say that the Emperor's Children were rendered ineffectual by their flawed attempts to achieve perfection, which resulted in their fast corruption, and the Word Bearers had a great deal more passion, ambition and devotion than any other Astartes. Think of all the soldier/warrior lines in books, films and memoirs about the drive to go on, never surrender, having something worth fighting for, etc. etc. It's easy to argue the Word Bearers had that more than any other Legion. They were fanatics. They were the Viking berserkers that led their less passionate brothers on raids. They were the heroic crusaders that led less-driven footmen into battle during the Middle Ages.

 

See, when you ignore the established facts and go by hyperbole and prejudice, anything can sound reasonable.

[Rain]

Yeah but the crusaders...lost. The Word Bearers are inspired by a group that had some early successes and then was summarily routed by a Kurdish dude with large facial hair. Anyway, although I am no fan of the Word Bearers, I really think that saying that any one legion of imaginary supersoldiers is "better" than any other is juvenile and pointless. This is actually what annoys me about many Ultra players, but that's another issue. All that said, the Word Bearers were only slow in conquest because Lorgar insisted on proselytizing and getting populations to convert wholly to Emperor worship, once they fell they sped up to the speed of the other legions.

[Legatus]

To be fair, some Legions get more Great Crusade coverage and have more achievements attributed to them than others, so it is easy to draw such conclusions in some cases. It would be difficult to argue that the Thousand Sons could easily beat the Space Wolves, for example. But of course, even in the accounts about two Legions going toe to toe, it had usually been with a substantial advantage of one of the two Legions. Like when the Imperial Fists were attacking the Iron Warriors in the Iron Cage incident, they were going against a carefully constructed planet wide fortress that had been specifically constructed to trap them. But in other cases people will use the Legion's track record from the Great Crusade as the basis for their call.

[A D-B]

Yeah but the crusaders...lost. The Word Bearers are inspired by a group that had some early successes and then was summarily routed by a Kurdish dude with large facial hair.

 

Well, they're inspired by several sources, but that's kinda my point. I wasn't saying the Word Bearers were the best; I was just giving an example of why hyperbole like that was pointless. That's why sticking to the facts is better.

 

Anyway, although I am no fan of the Word Bearers, I really think that saying that any one legion of imaginary supersoldiers is "better" than any other is juvenile and pointless. [...] All that said, the Word Bearers were only slow in conquest because Lorgar insisted on proselytizing and getting populations to convert wholly to Emperor worship, once they fell they sped up to the speed of the other legions.

 

Exactree.

[Gree]

Yeah but the crusaders...lost. The Word Bearers are inspired by a group that had some early successes and then was summarily routed by a Kurdish dude with large facial hair.

 

That is greatly, greatly simplifying the Crusades as a whole. The Crusaders were not defeated because they were weak or ineffectual at all. Both sides had their own great commanders and poor generals.

 

And I would hardly call Saladin, one of history's greatest statesmen and generals ''a kurdish dude with large facial hair''.

 

But that's going off topic here.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

In fact the Romans did not fall so much because of their military's inability to adapt but rather a variety of different socio-economic factors and the wealth being concentrated in Constantinople.

 

Yeah but the crusaders...lost. The Word Bearers are inspired by a group that had some early successes and then was summarily routed by a Kurdish dude with large facial hair.

 

I have read and recommend Judith Herrin's Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire. linky: BYZANTIUM

 

It goes back to before the Romans took hold of the town, all the way up to the Ottoman Turks becoming masters of the region.

 

+++

 

Western Rome fell because people who assumed that the Empire's state was a Law of Nature, ran Rome into the ground. They ignored or were naive to all the hard work their ancestors performed, and didn't keep their noses to the grind stone.

Then instead of keeping a strong standing Roman army, they hired barbarians [the people who wanted Rome's success for themselves] to protect them from barbarians. No wonder it went down the tubes!

 

Eastern Rome fell because the Western Europeans [whose barbarian ancestors had usurped Western Rome] had grown in the comfort of the shadow of Eastern Rome's protective shadow. Eastern Europe shielded Western Europe for centuries from a militant Islamic realm. When Eastern Rome needed help, Western Europe sent none. Once the Turkish realm had weakened Eastern Rome, Europe finally stops fighting amongst itself and sends some help to the Byzantines. Europe resented Eastern Europe. They were happy for the Greeks to fall. Little did they realise the great service the Orthodox Greeks had and were performing for them.

 

The 4th Crusade resulted in the sacking of Constantinople. The Eastern Roman empire steadily declined from that point on.

 

So the might of Roman soldiers was never the problem. :sweat:

Bureaucrats bungled the West.

Europe then never repaid the Eastern Romans for their protective and helped them bleed out against the Ottoman Turks.

[Wrath of Terra]

As impressive as the Spartans and Romans were they, the Spartans in particular, were eventually defeated because they couldn't or wouldn't change how they fought or adapt quick enough to new enemies.

 

Actually no, the Romans Legions were noted to be very adaptive. The Carthaginian Wars in paticular show this, with their copying of Hannibal and the invention of the Corvus ram, among many, many other things. In fact the Romans did not fall so much because of their military's inability to adapt but rather a variety of different socio-economic factors and the wealth being concentrated in Constantinople.

 

The Spartans themselves did not so much as fall because of lack of military change but rather due that their economy could and society could eventually no longer handle the rise of Thebes and Alexander the Great.

 

Which is my main problem with the Ultras. I see the codex as a straight-jacket, a dead weight around their necks that burns out any desire or ability to think for themselves and develop unorthodox tactics. Why bother trying something new or thinking for yourself when every time you try your Chapter-mates scream "You can't! The codex says we have to do it this way!". The Alpha Legion have the right idea. The idea of being micro-managed by something written 10,000 years ago is crazy.

 

Good thing that's not what the Codex is. :D

 

 

If I recall right it was the battle of Leuctra where the Spartans showed up, used the same tactics they always had the opposing general, can't recall his name, tried some new tactics and beat the vaunted Spartans. This use of new tactics to beat superior troops caused many people to sit up and take note, including Phillip II of Macedonia who created the army his wee son Alexander the Great was to go on and use. I'm well aware that other aspects of Spartan society helped bring about their collapse but I was refering to just the military side and the downfall on the battlefield brought around by stagnated tactics.

 

I'm also well aware of what the Romans did vs the Carthagenians but that was when Rome was rising. I was talking about when Rome was falling and they couldn't cope with the differeing tactics of the various migrating peoples, particularly the cavalry-heavy armies of the Huns. There were massive societal factors too but I was talking about the actual battles themselves.

 

Maybe the Codex isn't what I think it is, and you and others have put forward a hell of a case for it, but I still think the Alpha Legion have the right approach.

[Wrath of Terra]

There was a reason I left the Word Bearers out of the list of pre-heresy traitor legions who could beat the Ultras in fair numbers.... Imagine giving the Emperor's Children, World Eaters or the Luna Wolves the advantages the Word Bearers had at Calth. Few if any Ultras would have survived. The Word Bearers always struck me as a legion who did alright, in a plodding sort of way, but in absolutely no way excelled at any aspect of combat. In a way it was Horus sending his most mundane and expendable troops to fight a holding action while saving his specialist troops (W.E., I.W. etc) and just outright better soldiers (E.C., L.W. etc) for much more important battles.

 

You have some really strong opinions, but they're also sort of narrow. I don't say this to be offensive, but you're very rigid in your thinking, without much to really back it up, even in the face of countering evidence. Like with the Codex Astartes, and here, with the Word Bearers. Your prejudice against certain concepts and Legions makes actual discussion very difficult.

 

F'rex, you're actually dead wrong about the Word Bearers. There's no evidence to say any Legion would have beaten the Ultramarines at Calth, and the reason the Word Bearers didn't win is down to one thing, mentioned often in the canon: The Ultramarines had their primarch, and the Word Bearers did not. To attribute the defeat to anything else vastly understates exactly what a primarch is, what he's capable of, and how his sons fight for him.

 

There's also no real evidence to say the Word Bearers were any worse warriors than other Legions (or, realistically, that many Legions were better than any other). In matters of hyperbole, when you say the Emperor's Children were better warriors and the Word Bearers just mundane troops, it's just as easy to say that the Emperor's Children were rendered ineffectual by their flawed attempts to achieve perfection, which resulted in their fast corruption, and the Word Bearers had a great deal more passion, ambition and devotion than any other Astartes. Think of all the soldier/warrior lines in books, films and memoirs about the drive to go on, never surrender, having something worth fighting for, etc. etc. It's easy to argue the Word Bearers had that more than any other Legion. They were fanatics. They were the Viking berserkers that led their less passionate brothers on raids. They were the heroic crusaders that led less-driven footmen into battle during the Middle Ages.

 

See, when you ignore the established facts and go by hyperbole and prejudice, anything can sound reasonable.

 

 

In fairness I think I have been somewhat swayed by the arguments put forward by posters here. I don't think I'll ever fully embrace the codex-love like many other players have but I can see why so many rush to defend it. I'll still stick to my non-codex chapters and the (imagined) freedom I have with them but I'll look at the vanilla marine armies of friends and opponents in a kinder light from now on.

 

When it comes to the Word Bearers I must say in my defence that for many a long year they were never shown too much attention background-wise compared to quite a few of the legions and as a result of not being "talked up" as much as the others the Word Bearers did come across as somewhat mundane by comparison. Having said that though, nearly all of us would have only had a bare-bones impression of the Luna Wolves as being quite good, and that's all, until the HH series came along and fleshed them out. It's fair to assume that with the First Heretic and the fleshing out of the Word Bearers as a legion, not just individuals like Erebus or the handful in Battle for the Abyss, will change a few opinions of them.

 

On another note, I've said it to you before on another discussion topic but the scene in Helsreach where the little girl talks to Grimaldus is easily one of my all time favourites and one of the few that made the hairs on the back of my nesk rise. I'll be starting Helsreach again on the weekend and am looking forward to it. Keep up the good work! Any chance of you doing the World Eaters book or would that not hold any interest for you?

[Gree]

If I recall right it was the battle of Leuctra where the Spartans showed up, used the same tactics they always had the opposing general, can't recall his name, tried some new tactics and beat the vaunted Spartans. This use of new tactics to beat superior troops caused many people to sit up and take note, including Phillip II of Macedonia who created the army his wee son Alexander the Great was to go on and use. I'm well aware that other aspects of Spartan society helped bring about their collapse but I was refering to just the military side and the downfall on the battlefield brought around by stagnated tactics.

 

Except it was not just that battle. Afterwards the Spartans changed and adapted, but their fall was not due to military tactics.

 

I'm also well aware of what the Romans did vs the Carthagenians but that was when Rome was rising. I was talking about when Rome was falling and they couldn't cope with the differeing tactics of the various migrating peoples, particularly the cavalry-heavy armies of the Huns. There were massive societal factors too but I was talking about the actual battles themselves.

 

Actually no. The Late Roman armies, contrary to popular belief, where generally quite effective and adaptive right until the end where Rome got so poor they were unable to support them. For example the Eastern Roman Empire stood because it was the richer of the two halves. The west had good generals and armies right up until the end.

 

In fact Rome's greatest enemy was not the barbarians, but themselves. If the Roman armies spent as much time fighting the barbarians as they did themselves Rome would have probably not stood.

 

But of course that is getting of topic here.

[A D-B]

In fairness I think I have been somewhat swayed by the arguments put forward by posters here. I don't think I'll ever fully embrace the codex-love like many other players have but I can see why so many rush to defend it. I'll still stick to my non-codex chapters and the (imagined) freedom I have with them but I'll look at the vanilla marine armies of friends and opponents in a kinder light from now on.

 

Took me a long time to come around to that way of thinking, I have to admit.

 

Also, Wrath - I've seen you post loads before, and the stuff you said in this thread was so different, I thought you'd had some life-changing event and a weird personality change. Then you go and post all this more recent stuff, and I think maybe I was just originally failing to read between the lines, or something. You're still you after all, and still not a mentalist. I apologise for being so attacky, but I was surprised as hell with what I thought was you being so stubborn out of nowhere. If it hadn't been a name I recognised, I'd not have whined like a little kid at you.

[Captain Idaho]

In fairness I think I have been somewhat swayed by the arguments put forward by posters here. I don't think I'll ever fully embrace the codex-love like many other players have but I can see why so many rush to defend it. I'll still stick to my non-codex chapters and the (imagined) freedom I have with them but I'll look at the vanilla marine armies of friends and opponents in a kinder light from now on.

 

In my opinion it takes a man to come out and say he was wrong/over reacting/suffering tunnel vision/whatever. I'm not saying you are any of those things, except perhap the tunnel vision thing in a few of the posts above :) .

 

Anyway, I applaud a man (or women, but that is rarer as we all know a women is never wrong!) who can admit his faults or comprimise where neccessary, so well done to you.

 

Personally, I believe that all the Legions are powerful in their elements and none will go down easy. Hell, look at the Marines at Istvaan (both III and IV) where the loyalists were outnumbered, out gunned and ambushed and fighting Legions lead by their Primarchs, yet still managed to give Horus' forces a black eye and fat lip!

[The emperors chosen]

Personally, I believe that all the Legions are powerful in their elements and none will go down easy. Hell, look at the Marines at Istvaan (both III and IV) where the loyalists were outnumbered, out gunned and ambushed and fighting Legions lead by their Primarchs, yet still managed to give Horus' forces a black eye and fat lip!

This. You have to remember that the Astartes were practically supermen. Any fight is going to be close,as shown by the Heresy. Personally I don't have a legion that disappointed me the most,as I feel they were all good in what their jobs were.

[Rain]

And I would hardly call Saladin, one of history's greatest statesmen and generals ''a kurdish dude with large facial hair''.

 

Why would you hardly call him that? Everything I called him was a fact, he was in fact certainly a dude (as surgery had not advanced that far yet), certainly a Kurd, and certainly had large facial hair. Your statement on the contrary are but opinions, and opinions of the kind that can be neither true nor false due to the hazy definition of their content. To you sir I say good day.

 

Oh and why are people bringing up the whole Carthage thing as an example of Roman prowess? Hannibal absolutely ruined Rome's legions time and again, with Cannae being probably the largest single defeat the Romans ever suffered (that I can recall anyway). The only reason Rome did not fall was that the Carthaginian nobility was jealous and fearful of Hannibal's influence and refused to reinforce/resupply him after he basically surrounded the city of Rome.

 

After about a year he could not longer hold the siege and eventually the resurgent Romans destroyed Carthage, ironically killing the very fearful nobles that had accidentally saved them. It's kind of similar to why Rommel didn't win in North Africa, he was a far superior commander to any of the Allies there, but the Allies would literally get more logistical support on a good day than Rommel got in a year, and also because the German high command did not like him.

[Wrath of Terra]

In fairness I think I have been somewhat swayed by the arguments put forward by posters here. I don't think I'll ever fully embrace the codex-love like many other players have but I can see why so many rush to defend it. I'll still stick to my non-codex chapters and the (imagined) freedom I have with them but I'll look at the vanilla marine armies of friends and opponents in a kinder light from now on.

 

Took me a long time to come around to that way of thinking, I have to admit.

 

Also, Wrath - I've seen you post loads before, and the stuff you said in this thread was so different, I thought you'd had some life-changing event and a weird personality change. Then you go and post all this more recent stuff, and I think maybe I was just originally failing to read between the lines, or something. You're still you after all, and still not a mentalist. I apologise for being so attacky, but I was surprised as hell with what I thought was you being so stubborn out of nowhere. If it hadn't been a name I recognised, I'd not have whined like a little kid at you.

 

 

To be honest part of it had to do with meeting two aquaintances from back in the day and talking 40k all day. They were both Ultra's players, nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it doesn't help that they are pretty obnoxious in their views of how great the Ultras are and how inferior most other armies/backgrounds are by comparison (far, far worse than my little mentalist phase on this topic). So I guess I was venting a little here rather than initiating the Nerd Brawl to end all Nerd Brawls. Hence why they are only aquaintences. Apologies to any and all offended by my rants.

 

Also, no need to apologise for being attacky. You weren't really and I imagine you could have been far more stinging if you had wanted, so thanks for not cyber-bullying me!

[Wrath of Terra]

In fairness I think I have been somewhat swayed by the arguments put forward by posters here. I don't think I'll ever fully embrace the codex-love like many other players have but I can see why so many rush to defend it. I'll still stick to my non-codex chapters and the (imagined) freedom I have with them but I'll look at the vanilla marine armies of friends and opponents in a kinder light from now on.

 

In my opinion it takes a man to come out and say he was wrong/over reacting/suffering tunnel vision/whatever. I'm not saying you are any of those things, except perhap the tunnel vision thing in a few of the posts above :P .

 

Anyway, I applaud a man (or women, but that is rarer as we all know a women is never wrong!) who can admit his faults or comprimise where neccessary, so well done to you.

 

Personally, I believe that all the Legions are powerful in their elements and none will go down easy. Hell, look at the Marines at Istvaan (both III and IV) where the loyalists were outnumbered, out gunned and ambushed and fighting Legions lead by their Primarchs, yet still managed to give Horus' forces a black eye and fat lip!

 

 

Thank you very much ;)

[Captain Idaho]

To be honest part of it had to do with meeting two aquaintances from back in the day and talking 40k all day. They were both Ultra's players, nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it doesn't help that they are pretty obnoxious in their views of how great the Ultras are and how inferior most other armies/backgrounds are by comparison (far, far worse than my little mentalist phase on this topic). So I guess I was venting a little here rather than initiating the Nerd Brawl to end all Nerd Brawls. Hence why they are only aquaintences. Apologies to any and all offended by my rants.

 

Douche-baggary of the highest order comes out from people in every fan base. I used to get involved in every little debate that got my hackles up and it really stressed me out, but now I take everything with a pinch of salt and look at things with a lighter heart. It's better for your blood pressure that way.

[Legatus]

It is completely understandable why such behaviour would get someone to oppose Ultramarines. And it is not like a stance that is dismissive of them is unpopular, but coming into 40K and then deciding that you do not think highly of the Ultramarines is not allways going to be the easy way. You may find a lot of people who will wholeheartedly agree with any criticism you throw their way, but then there are others that may feel obligated to tell you that your criticisms are not neccessarily supported by the background, and that the Ultramarines in the 40K universe really are the best thing since sliced bread they are sometimes made out to be. Of course, that might perhaps make you dislike them even more. Which is a shame, because that would again not be based on their actual background.

 

Perhaps it could not hurt to take a step back and have a look at what GW set out to create in the early 90s. They have made a game with a dark sci fi setting, populated with heavily armoured space knights. And though there are said to be 1000 of these Space Knight Chapters, they picked a hand full of them to make particularly iconic. There are the red ones, with an aggressive theme. Intricately adorned armour and banners, but a thirst for blood. There are the dark green ones, with a very clerical, cathedral theme, their characters garbed in robes, and they have a dark secret that motivates their every move. There are the blue/grey ones who are modeled after vikings, more light hearted than the others, allways either fighting for glory or drinking. And then there are the blue ones, with a touch of roman legion influence. These blue ones were instrumental in the origin of all the Chapters, ten thousand years ago, and had been the example all the others were then modeled after.

 

Such fame does not come without a price, though, as this privileged status in background means that they will not get special rules, but instead be the "basis" for all regular Chapters.

 

Codex Space Wolves --> rules exclusively for this one single Chapter, and no one else

 

Codex Angels of Death --> rules for Dark Angels and Blood Angels, and their most immediate successors

 

Codex Ultramarines --> rules for everyone else, basically the "generic Space Marines" rules. Every Space Marine army uses these rules by default. Ultramarines get nothing special. It was nice to be on the cover though (and to get background, of course).

 

It may also be worth to point out that the "Angels of Death" rules were basically these "generic" rules with some additional extras. (Space Wolves were just extreme, I am not even going to talk about it...)

[Gree]

And I would hardly call Saladin, one of history's greatest statesmen and generals ''a kurdish dude with large facial hair''.

 

Why would you hardly call him that? Everything I called him was a fact, he was in fact certainly a dude (as surgery had not advanced that far yet), certainly a Kurd, and certainly had large facial hair. Your statement on the contrary are but opinions, and opinions of the kind that can be neither true nor false due to the hazy definition of their content. To you sir I say good day.

 

That's actually not it. The flippant way in which you described him implied that him defeating the Crusaders was no mean feat.

 

Oh and why are people bringing up the whole Carthage thing as an example of Roman prowess? Hannibal absolutely ruined Rome's legions time and again, with Cannae being probably the largest single defeat the Romans ever suffered (that I can recall anyway). The only reason Rome did not fall was that the Carthaginian nobility was jealous and fearful of Hannibal's influence and refused to reinforce/resupply him after he basically surrounded the city of Rome.

 

No.

 

You are ignoring the Roman campaign in Spain conducted by Scipio Africanus and the actions of Fabius Maximus and his contemporatires in Italy in countering Hannibal's actions. You are ignoring the fact that eventually the Roman adapted and captialized on Hannibal's weaknesses. You are ignoring that eventually Scipio Africanus met and destroyed him on the field of battle at Zama in 202 BC.

 

And no, one of the reasons why Hannibal was not reinforced was because the Romans controlled the seas after the First Punic War. Hasdrubal attempted to renforce him once (Over the alps, because he could not go by sea) and was cut off and killed by the Romans before he could reach Hannibal.

 

Hannibal defeated the Roman several times early in the war. Then eventually the Romans shurgged off the losses, copied and adapted Hannibal's tactics, and evenetually defeated him at his own game at Zama twenty years after Hannibal marched over the Alps. To sauy that Hannibal only lost because of poor support back home is a gross simplification and ignoring the Romans's own ingenuity.

 

And that's not even getting into the fact that I was referring to ALL Punic Wars, not just the Second War. Rome's construction and adaptation of a Navy and even inventing a set of superior galley boarding tactics and beating the Carthaginians at their own game is an excellent example of Rome's adaptibility and military skill.

 

After about a year he could not longer hold the siege and eventually the resurgent Romans destroyed Carthage, ironically killing the very fearful nobles that had accidentally saved them.

 

You are incorrect. Carthrage was not destroyed until the Third Punic War fifty years later. Hannibal himself was called home to defend Carthrage at Zama (where he was defeated by the adaptive Romans). Carthrage was not destroyed at the end of the Second War (although it did lose their military) by the time of the Third War all the nobles were dead of old age.

 

It's kind of similar to why Rommel didn't win in North Africa, he was a far superior commander to any of the Allies there, but the Allies would literally get more logistical support on a good day than Rommel got in a year, and also because the German high command did not like him.

 

Again, incorrect. Hitler liked Rommel just fine, it's just that the allied submarine operations where far too good and Rommel pushed his supply lines too far in the desert. He was a wonderful tactician but a poor strategist.

 

Again, that is a massive simplification of the actual North African war.

[Rain]

It's called tongue in cheek, but ok, call it flippant if you want. Oh and yes, Hitler liked Rommel just fine (until he was implicated in a plot to kill him), but many others in the German high command did not as Rommel was generally dismissive of any orders and just did what he wanted. His division in the French campaign was called "Ghost Division" because even his own superiors did not know where he was as he would intentionally disable his own long range radios. This gave him an air of arrogance that rubbed many the wrong way.

 

That said, you are correct about the timeline of the destruction of Carthage, my mistake, the ones whose fault it was may have been dead by that time. That said, Hannibal certainly did stand an excellent chance of sacking Rome had it not been for politics.

[Gree]

It's called tongue in cheek, but ok, call it flippant if you want. Oh and yes, Hitler liked Rommel just fine (until he was implicated in a plot to kill him), but many others in the German high command did not as Rommel was generally dismissive of any orders and just did what he wanted. His division in the French campaign was called "Ghost Division" because even his own superiors did not know where he was as he would intentionally disable his own long range radios. This gave him an air of arrogance that rubbed many the wrong way.

 

That would be a factor. But at the same time Rommel pushed his supply lines too far. Supplying mechanized armies in the Desert during WWII was a nightmare to say the least. The allies faired better because they already had many bases their already and the British Navy was far better at protecting their naval supplies than the Italian Navy with Rommel.

 

That said, you are correct about the timeline of the destruction of Carthage, my mistake, the ones whose fault it was may have been dead by that time. That said, Hannibal certainly did stand an excellent chance of sacking Rome had it not been for politics.

 

Maybe, but Rome still controled the seas since the end of the First War (Hence Hasdrubal's attempt to go over the Alps instead of the seas. The Carthraginian Navy had been pretty much gutted at that point) Resupply would have been difficult to say the least.

[Legatus]

Either way, I don't think "the romans were beaten, so the Ultramarine doctrine is no good" is a very compelling argument.