Eskrador reviewed

[Legatus]

From the Index Astartes Alpha Legion:

"The following account appears to be the personal log of a member of the Ultramarines strike force, probably a Sergeant. It is included in Inquisitor Kravin's diatribe Lessons of Strife. Though other Inquisitors and representatives of the Ultramarines themselves have questioned its validity."

You know, my case was not entirely based on a personal dislike of the described events. The Index Astartes even introduces that account saying that it may not really be accurate. What I tried was provide substantial reasons as to why we might doubt the account. There are a few issues. Issues that are more than just "Guilliman should be more awesome".

 

And ironically enough, while it is the entire account that is presented as questionable, other, more Alpha Legion favouring players, will gladly argue that the duel between Alpharius and Guilliman was probably faked, even though the account does not give any particular reason to doubt that at all (provided that the account is otherwise accurate). That claim is based purely on the fact that Alpharius was generally a sneaky and scheming fellow.

 

The Index Astartes Alpha Legion goes even further and later has Inquisitor Kravin be accused of conspiring with the Alpha Legion, calling into question the entire AL Index Astartes information. But personally I instead assume that the accusations had been orchestrated by the Alpha Legion to shut up the Inquisitor that was focusing on investigating them. Kravins efforts seemed genuine, especially in the paragraph before the accusations are explained. He tried to warn the authorities that the Alpha Legion might be recruiting somewhere within the Imperium.

[Marshal Rohr]

The details may be bull, but regardless the Ultramarines engaged the Alpha Legion on Eskrador. It happened.

[Octavulg]

The account's veracity can be summed up as follows.

 

If Kravin was loyal, it's likely true, though it might be an Alpha Legion plant.

 

If Kravin was loyal but then fell, it might or might not be true.

 

If Kravin was disloyal all along, then it's likely untrue, though it might again be an Alpha Legion plant.

 

It doesn't matter how badly or well written it is - if the author intended it to be true, then it's true until someone writes it otherwise, and vice versa. That simple.

 

Trying to argue that it's not true because of carefully planted minor inconsistencies doesn't work when those inconsistencies are 99% perception. Trying to argue that the author placed those inconsistencies intentionally doesn't work because, well, 40K authors aren't usually that bright, and trying to pick intentional inconsistency out from unintentional is basically impossible.

 

And M2C is right - the IA mentions the battle without initial reference to Kravin. So at minimum, that happened.

[Gree]

... I must admit I'm totally at a loss as to what you are trying to achieve. The battle happened, it's all over the fluff, no matter how you try to rationalize it you cannot change the fact that it is there in the Ultramarines fluff. There are a lot of mysteries involved in what happened and how and it is one of the most disastrous battles the Ultramarines ever fought but it did happen... its as simple as that.

 

That's debatable, given Kravin's greatly implied associations with the Alpha Legion.

[Captain Idaho]

And M2C is right - the IA mentions the battle without initial reference to Kravin. So at minimum, that happened.

 

I think it will be a given that Eskrador occurred, possibly expanded upon by the BL. But the events of Eskrador was only mentioned because of the research of Kravin, and the apparent account from an Ultramarines Sergeant. The whole article was written from the persepective of a Scribe of the Imperium compiling information with the archives and documents available to him. Without Kravin there would be no account to speak of.

 

So why do I think the event happened? That is easy, the Alpha Legion are incredibly sophisticated in their methods and it would only make a believable piece of propaganda if at least an egagment did occur. Otherwise, the Ultramarines can just point to the fact they weren't there and it would be accepted. However, it being a real engagement prevents deniability and makes things look alot more dubious.

 

I'm knit picking here, (mainly because you do it so often I couldn't help myself! :P ) as I come to the same conclusion that the battle did happen. I just don't think a single thing in that article can be taken for granted.

 

As an example, Alpharius was described as tall and powerful at the begining of the article, again before Kravin was mentioned. Yet we know that Alpharius is actually the smallest Primarch and could not have been taller than Horus. Unless he stood on the shoulders of Omegon! :lol:

 

I like your summary:

 

If Kravin was loyal, it's likely true, though it might be an Alpha Legion plant.

 

If Kravin was loyal but then fell, it might or might not be true.

 

If Kravin was disloyal all along, then it's likely untrue, though it might again be an Alpha Legion plant.

 

I would like clarify it though. It could be an Alpha Legion plant regardless of any factors involving Kravin (which I'm sure you know, just saying it for other people).

 

Regardless if the account is false, I contend that it is still a real battle, giving the reason I gave above. I also contend that the account of battle from Kravin is untrustworthy for the reasons I mentioned earlier and those Octavulg mentioned above - too much doubt and a lack of evidence (remember that Kravin refused to submit his evidence for review?).

[Octavulg]

As an example, Alpharius was described as tall and powerful at the begining of the article, again before Kravin was mentioned. Yet we know that Alpharius is actually the smallest Primarch and could not have been taller than Horus. Unless he stood on the shoulders of Omegon! laugh.gif

 

Er...actually, he's mentioned as being more than a foot bigger than a normal Space Marine earlier in IA: AL.

 

I also contend that the account of battle from Kravin is untrustworthy for the reasons I mentioned earlier and those Octavulg mentioned above - too much doubt and a lack of evidence (remember that Kravin refused to submit his evidence for review?).

 

Perhaps - but it's notable just how much seems to lie outside that account. For example, the actual setup of the battle is not ascribed to Kravin's works. The end result also seems to lie outside of that. It should also be noted that the evidence Kravin refused to submit was a journal, not the account of the battle. "It is included in Inquisitor Kravin's diatribe 'Lessons of Strife', though other Inquisitors and representatives of the Ultramarines themselves have questioned its validity."

 

The account may be doubtful because it is described as being doubted - however, there's nothing sizable within it that suggests it's horribly inaccurate. Indeed, the most doubtful part of the whole thing - Guilliman attacking the command post - is implied to be confirmed outside of that account...

[Captain Idaho]

The account of the battle came from the journal as far as I rememeber, though without the article to hand I'm not going to be able to support my stance very well!

 

Er...actually, he's mentioned as being more than a foot bigger than a normal Space Marine earlier in IA: AL.

 

Haven't it to hand but I seem to remember the Alpha Legion Space Marines being described as tall and strong like their Primarch, which is a little odd considering he was a squat version of the Primarchs don't you think?

 

The account may be doubtful because it is described as being doubted - however, there's nothing sizable within it that suggests it's horribly inaccurate. Indeed, the most doubtful part of the whole thing - Guilliman attacking the command post - is implied to be confirmed outside of that account...

 

Come on now Octavulg, you know have told off many a member of the Ultramarines forum about making an assumption based upon something implied that can taken as part of our own interpretation! :lol:

 

Knowing the Alpha Legion, I think we can all agree there will be something fishy going on in this engagement, as nothing they do is straight forward.

[Legatus]

As I said, I do not believe that Kravin was really a traitor. But I also do not think that the doubts about the accounts validity are based on Kravins alleged heresy. That representatives of the Ultramarines have questioned it is quite important. Usually the history of the Ultramarines is quite well documented. Note that the Ultramarines did not deny that the battle happened at all, only that the personal account that is quoted is not valid.

 

 

 

Octavulg:

 

Sorry, I was not ignoring you, I just did not have the 30-60 minutes for a detailed reply this morning.

 

Among other things, the Ultramarines in that battle attack the enemy command post and kill either a Primarch or a close facsimile thereof. That's a pretty strong showing.

And you will not read of a single Alpha Legion casualty after that.

 

 

The Ultramarines are not portrayed as helpless in this battle.

Note how the account does not describe how "we had to fight off several hit-and-run attacks". No, it is "the enemy has launched numerous hit-and-run attacks and caused numerous casualties". The entire rest of the account after the fight against Alpharius is presented in a negative way, maybe even defeatist.

 

- "we were facing a superbly organized foe who is closing in on us from all sides"

 

- "the enemy has launched several hit-and-run attacks on our strike force and caused numerous casualties."

 

- "Lord Guilliman has comenced a retreat out of the mountains to link up with the rest of our ground troops."

 

- "We are being harassed and ambushed every step of the way."

 

- "our techmarines think our communicators are being jammed."

 

- "a relieving force comprising most of our remaining ground forces is pushing into the mountains towards us. However, that too has apparently been under attack, and supply vehicles have been sabotaged."

 

- "More of the Alpha Legion appeared to our rear and initiated the biggest attack from our enemies so far. With mountains to either side, we had little option but to stand our ground and fight for our lives. Losses were heavy and might have been total, were it not for the timely arrival of the real rescuing force. The reinforcements were in little better shape than our own"

 

- "In the next week, Guilliman attempted a number of counterattacks to regain the initiative, but the Alpha Legion seemed to have prior knowledge of their every move. Either the Alpha Legion was not where the augurs suggested, or it had carefully planned ambushes waiting for the loyalists."

 

If that is not an entirely one sided battle I don't know what is. And that is allegedly written by an Ultramarine, and still it does not sound in the least bit flattering. It is basically a single string of "they kick our asses, we are so screwed, we can't get anything done, they kick our asses even harder, we survive on shere luck alone..."

 

 

But the only proof available as to whether he did things right or not is the results that were achieved (and the fact that he's a Primarch). And it is the result you disagree with. Your proof that he did it wrong is that he failed the way he did. Which is a little circular.

I do base my interpretation on the given account. See above. What did Guilliman really manage to accomplish after the initial surprise attack? He did not manage to achieve anything at all. The Ultramarines are never described as fighting of or repelling an ambush or a hit-and-run attack, only as taking heavy casualties. The Ultramarines were basically just trying to get out of the mountains that totally screwed them over (even though I have tried to make a case based on their own history that they shouldn't have that much of a problem), all while being picked of bit by bit by the Alpha Legion along the way. We do not read about any attempts of Guilliman trying diversional attacks or feints, there is no reconnaisance on the part of the Ultramarines mentioned. They just take it.

 

 

You can do everything right and lose a battle, Legatus, if the deck is badly stacked enough. And I would argue the deck was stacked quite heavily against the Ultramarines.

A reason why I am having problems with this may be because I am not seeing human soldiers from an urban environment creeping through a dense jungle and then being ambushed by locals. We have Space Marines on the one side and Space Marines on the other, and neither is on their home world, though one of the Legions prepared the battle field in advance and made alliances with the local population. But when it comes to the fighting, you still have Marines fighting Marines. And I just cannot imagine a scenario where one force of Marines, sneaky as they may be, can completely surprise another force of Space Marines, and doing that constantly and repeatedly. Space Marines are super humans, they need hardly any sleep, they have enhanced senses and reflexes. How often can one force of Marines initiate a surprise attack without it immediately just turning into a straight up battle with both sides fully engaged? How can a force of Marines moving through hostile terrain constantly be caught off guard? I just cannot see it.

 

 

Legatus? The Ultramarines are not incompetent in this IA. And if I'm saying the Ultramarines aren't incompetent, they're not.

On the other hand, accounts about Ultramarines cannot be negative enough in your view, so an article that is only "pretty negative" (instead of "entirely") may seem too favourable in your eyes. :lol: After all, the Legion was not destroyed on Eskrador, so they did better than they maybe should have?

 

 

...Alternately, any of the explanations I offered that don't involve conspiracies on the part of the author.

So, is it possible that the Alpha Legion have the same number of Thunderhawks as the Legion that is said to have 250% the size of an average Legion? There may be scenarios. Is it plausible? And still, why would they "of course" have the same number of Thunderhawks? No matter what scenario you conjure up, a 10,000ish strong Legion will never "of course" have the same number of Thunderhawks as a 25.000 strong Legion. Why would an Ultramarine see it as given that any other Legion has the same number of Thunderhawks (or anything) as they do?

 

 

Simple answer - Alpha Legion had transports, Ultramarines didn't. Thus they moved up to a defensible point and dug in (but couldn't actually escape due to the terrain being too rough). I don't recall anyone saying anything about emplacements - just heavy weapons. Perhaps they had some escape routes planned, allowing them to thus gain a little distance over the Ultramarines (but not enough to actually escape, since the Ultramarines had expected this).

 

And then, of course, there's the question of whether or not it was staged.

 

Also, that detachment would have had about 400 heavy weapons, assuming codex formations.

You have 3000 Space Marines deep striking on top of 600. How plausible is it then that the 600 can move into perfect defense positions to inflict heavy casualties on the 3000? If the 3000 had about 400 heavy weapons, the 600 would have had about 70 (and with "guerilla" forces I would rather expect less than more). Transports? What transports? Statistically, of the 400 heavy weapons 100 would have been Laser Cannons, another 100 missile launchers (assuming Laser Cannons, Missile Launchers, Auto Cannons and Heavy Bolters as the usual power armour carried heavy weapons at that time). Even if the entire Alpha Legion detachment had been mechanised it would still just have been about 60 vehicles.

 

 

The Ultramarines are the legion which attempts to dictate that their way is correct. There is no conflict with the other Legions because they don't interact on the issue. The conflict is over control as much as it is ideology.

And still the Ultramarine doctrine is given as the anathema to the Alpha Legion doctrine of adaptability and initiative, presenting it for all intents and purposes as the oppsoite of the Alpha Legion doctrine, as rigid and inflexible. And the very terms that are used to describe the Alpha Legion's doctrines, which are given as anathema to the Ultramarines', are used in the Index Astartes Imperial Fists to describe the Codex Astartes doctrine (well, it uses "flexible" instead of "adaptable", but it does use "initiative").

 

 

 

And my point is still: The account is introduced as possibly being invalid in the Index Astartes Alpha Legion. I have listed a number of issues that the account has which may support the belief that it is indeed invalid, as the Index Astartes suggests. You can probably make up scenarios where it could potentially have worked out just as the account describes, but if you have to make up scenarios to explain it that is already not a very good position.

 

Best example: "Bot Legions have, of course, a similar number of thunderhawks." That's where I would get suspicious and take it as an indication that perhaps the account is indeed not that accurate after all. Or you can of course try to come up with a number of explanations why at that moment the Alpha Legion would have had a similar number of Thunderhawks as the Ultramarines, and why a narrator would see that as a given.

[Octavulg]

As I said, I do not believe that Kravin was really a traitor. But I also do not think that the doubts about the accounts validity are based on Kravins alleged heresy. That representatives of the Ultramarines have questioned it is quite important. Usually the history of the Ultramarines is quite well documented. Note that the Ultramarines did not deny that the battle happened at all, only that the personal account that is quoted is not valid.

 

Well, considering what mere fans of the Ultramarines are arguing about this account, I can only imagine what actual Ultramarines would...

 

And you will not read of a single Alpha Legion casualty after that.

 

Which means only that the Alpha Legion would seem to have taken fewer casualties (though presumably not none). I would assume they had taken relatively normal casualties, since had they been notably high or low the sergeant would have mentioned them.

 

Note how the account does not describe how "we had to fight off several hit-and-run attacks". No, it is "the enemy has launched numerous hit-and-run attacks and caused numerous casualties". The entire rest of the account after the fight against Alpharius is presented in a negative way, maybe even defeatist.

 

...

 

If that is not an entirely one sided battle I don't know what is. And that is allegedly written by an Ultramarine, and still it does not sound in the least bit flattering. It is basically a single string of "they kick our asses, we are so screwed, we can't get anything done, they kick our asses even harder, we survive on shere luck alone..."

 

It's a string of "everything we try doesn't work", actually. Which is very different.

 

Furthermore, as I have said repeatedly - losing is not the same as helplessness. A 200 pound wrestler beating another 200 pound wrestler is different than a 200 pound wrestler beating an infant.

 

I do base my interpretation on the given account. See above. What did Guilliman really manage to accomplish after the initial surprise attack? He did not manage to achieve anything at all. The Ultramarines are never described as fighting of or repelling an ambush or a hit-and-run attack, only as taking heavy casualties. The Ultramarines were basically just trying to get out of the mountains that totally screwed them over (even though I have tried to make a case based on their own history that they shouldn't have that much of a problem), all while being picked of bit by bit by the Alpha Legion along the way. We do not read about any attempts of Guilliman trying diversional attacks or feints, there is no reconnaisance on the part of the Ultramarines mentioned. They just take it.

 

They're not described as fighting off those attacks because the fact that they survive them is evidence enough that they did. They're not described as reconoittering because it's obvious that they would. Guilliman's not described as making diversionary attacks and feints because he's a Primarch and he would obviously do those things if the situation called for it. Do you really need to be reassured that the Ultramarines know how to fight every other paragraph?

 

And you're arguing that while under attack, on foot, in hostile territory, Guilliman should have split his forces up further to make diversionary attacks? What could he possibly gain from that? He could get some of his men killed in order to get the others out faster...maybe. Guilliman is outgunned and outnumbered in hostile territory. He needs to rejoin his men or risk getting surrounded and wiped out by the Alpha Legion - and even moving as fast as he (presumably) can, that nearly happens.

 

If you're talking about after his forces reunite: what was he supposed to attack? He'd destroyed their commander, and it had achieved precisely nothing. What should he attack? He tries counterattacks, and the Alpha Legion predict them and neutralize them. This is not even necessarily his fault - it could easily be espionage. Go read an account of the retreat from Afghanistan in the nineteenth century. Or the Vietnam War. Or the Battle of the Yellow Ford. Especially that last one. Sometimes you don't have good options.

 

Furthermore, since no details are provided on the methods of his counterattacks, saying that he doesn't try feints or reconaissance or diversionary attacks is not true. He is not explicitly stated to have tried them, no. But considering IAs max out at about 4000 words, my mind boggles at the idea that you think it would be necessary.

 

A reason why I am having problems with this may be because I am not seeing human soldiers from an urban environment creeping through a dense jungle and then being ambushed by locals. We have Space Marines on the one side and Space Marines on the other, and neither is on their home world, though one of the Legions prepared the battle field in advance and made alliances with the local population. But when it comes to the fighting, you still have Marines fighting Marines. And I just cannot imagine a scenario where one force of Marines, sneaky as they may be, can completely surprise another force of Space Marines, and doing that constantly and repeatedly. Space Marines are super humans, they need hardly any sleep, they have enhanced senses and reflexes. How often can one force of Marines initiate a surprise attack without it immediately just turning into a straight up battle with both sides fully engaged? How can a force of Marines moving through hostile terrain constantly be caught off guard? I just cannot see it.

 

Then your understanding of warfare is lacking. One group of those marines is on foot, focused on getting out of the mountains, has inferior knowledge of the surrounding terrain, and is formed up for travel, not combat. Even if they know they will be attacked, they cannot know exactly when or from where the attack will come, or exactly what form it will take. And keep in mind that they have to get out of the mountains, or at least manage to rejoin the other Ultramarines - so they have to keep moving, and cannot compromise their speed in the interests of safety. Indeed, surprising them will become easier and easier, as fatigue (which marines do suffer from eventually), stress, battle damage and injury take their toll. And that will also slow them down, requiring them to be even less cautious in order to maintain the necessary pace.

 

In short, they're in a weaker tactical position which will only get worse over time. Furthermore, even if you know an attack is coming, that doesn't mean it can't seriously hurt you.

 

Again, I urge you to read about the Battle of the Yellow Ford and the British retreat from Afghanistan. It should prove enlightening.

 

On the other hand, accounts about Ultramarines cannot be negative enough in your view, so an article that is only "pretty negative" (instead of "entirely") may seem too favourable in your eyes. rolleyes.gif After all, the Legion was not destroyed on Eskrador, so they did better than they maybe should have?

 

Yes, Legatus. That's why I'm defending Guilliman's tactical abilities, praising his decision to pull out when he should have, and saying that he really seems to have made only one mistake in the entire battle.

 

Clearly, I despise the Ultramarines and all that they stand for, and really wish that the Eskrador account will be revealed to have been a cover for the fact that the Ultramarines were wiped out to a man and replaced by Alpha Legionnaires.

 

More seriously - I'm not saying the Ultramarines should have done worse. I'm saying they did as well as could be expected in the circumstances (possibly even a little better). I actually love this depiction of the Ultramarines: they fight very well using the standards of conventional armies - and like conventional armies, they end up spinning their wheels because conventional warfare suffers when only one side plays along. That's one of the classic themes of military history, and it's well presented and well demonstrated here. It's probably the most realistic depiction of warfare in 40K.

 

I point out, by the way, that you have offered no solutions for what Guilliman should have done. Indeed, you haven't been able to say what he did wrong. You're complaining about the results, about how you think things happened. And, much like what anyone thinks about how things really happened when they are not described, that's not really relevant compared to what is actually there.

 

So, is it possible that the Alpha Legion have the same number of Thunderhawks as the Legion that is said to have 250% the size of an average Legion? There may be scenarios. Is it plausible? And still, why would they "of course" have the same number of Thunderhawks? No matter what scenario you conjure up, a 10,000ish strong Legion will never "of course" have the same number of Thunderhawks as a 25.000 strong Legion. Why would an Ultramarine see it as given that any other Legion has the same number of Thunderhawks (or anything) as they do?

 

Uh...I conjured up two such scenarios several posts ago. It took me all of ten seconds. Neither required a disparity in Legion size - only in methods (or in how many Ultramarines were actually present). Neither seemed particularly implausible to me. And as I said before, the Ultramarine will take it as a given because he knows the answer.

 

You have 3000 Space Marines deep striking on top of 600. How plausible is it then that the 600 can move into perfect defense positions to inflict heavy casualties on the 3000? If the 3000 had about 400 heavy weapons, the 600 would have had about 70 (and with "guerilla" forces I would rather expect less than more). Transports? What transports? Statistically, of the 400 heavy weapons 100 would have been Laser Cannons, another 100 missile launchers (assuming Laser Cannons, Missile Launchers, Auto Cannons and Heavy Bolters as the usual power armour carried heavy weapons at that time). Even if the entire Alpha Legion detachment had been mechanised it would still just have been about 60 vehicles.

 

500 of them moved to defensible positions. Furthermore, it depends on how much time they had to anticipate the attack - a good evacuation only takes a few minutes (at least, when Space Marines are doing it it does). Drop Pods are many things, but they're hardly subtle.

 

Furthermore, the larger force is assaulting up a narrow mountain valley, which limits the utility of their numbers. They're assaulting against an emplaced enemy (albeit a hastily-emplaced one) across terrain that does not lend itself to assaults (I have already explained why this is still a good idea). Casualties are to be expected under such circumstances.

 

I would point out that the Ultramarine sergeant said only that the weapons "felled many of our number as we fought up toward them". I'd never interpreted that as anything more than a fair number of Ultramarines getting shot when charging uphill toward an enemy with decent firing positions. 3:1 or 2:1 casualties, tops.

 

And still the Ultramarine doctrine is given as the anathema to the Alpha Legion doctrine of adaptability and initiative, presenting it for all intents and purposes as the oppsoite of the Alpha Legion doctrine, as rigid and inflexible. And the very terms that are used to describe the Alpha Legion's doctrines, which are given as anathema to the Ultramarines', are used in the Index Astartes Imperial Fists to describe the Codex Astartes doctrine (well, it uses "flexible" instead of "adaptable", but it does use "initiative").

 

As others have pointed out, different IAs take different perspectives. Spectrum, comparision, blah, blah, blah, blah. What it boils down to is that the Alpha Legion thought Guilliman's methods were rigid and inflexible, while the Fists find them dynamic and exciting. I have already pointed out at length how those two need not be mutually incompatible.

 

Best example: "Bot Legions have, of course, a similar number of thunderhawks." That's where I would get suspicious and take it as an indication that perhaps the account is indeed not that accurate after all. Or you can of course try to come up with a number of explanations why at that moment the Alpha Legion would have had a similar number of Thunderhawks as the Ultramarines, and why a narrator would see that as a given.

 

You could take it as an indication that the whole Ultramarines Legion wasn't present. Or that the Ultramarines did not have 2.5 times the support vehicles just because they had 2.5 times the men. Or that the Ultramarines simply weren't 2.5 times bigger at that point. Or that Ultramarine Thunderhawks were committed elsewhere at that point. Or that, for some other reason, the Ultramarines had fewer Thunderhawks or the Alpha Legion had more. Any of those are possible. You could even assume that the author didn't realize just how much bigger the Ultramarines are supposed to be.

 

There are, appropriately enough, a legion of possibilities. And "it's a clever clue to point out that the account is invalid" is only one of them.

[Legatus]

And you will not read of a single Alpha Legion casualty after that.

Which means only that the Alpha Legion would seem to have taken fewer casualties (though presumably not none). I would assume they had taken relatively normal casualties, since had they been notably high or low the sergeant would have mentioned them.

This is about the tone of the account, and how believable it is. It is quite different to write "we had to fight off ambushes and hit-and-run attacks all the way" or "we were attacked by ambushes and hit-and-run attacks all the way and suffered heavy causlaties". You would generally expect the former from a personal account, as that is a bit more biased towards the own side's performance. You know, "we had to fight hard" or "we were mauled badly", both might describe teh same events. But maybe that particular Ultramarine sergeant was just very modst and straight forward factual.

 

 

It is basically a single string of "they kick our asses, we are so screwed, we can't get anything done, they kick our asses even harder, we survive on shere luck alone..."

It's a string of "everything we try doesn't work", actually. Which is very different.

It does specifically mention the heavy casualties they are taking from all the harassment, and that they were almost wiped out if the rescuing force had not happened to find them at that moment. And in two of those instances we are presented with uncertainty as to the reasons for their problems.

 

 

They're not described as fighting off those attacks because the fact that they survive them is evidence enough that they did. They're not described as reconoittering because it's obvious that they would. Guilliman's not described as making diversionary attacks and feints because he's a Primarch and he would obviously do those things if the situation called for it. Do you really need to be reassured that the Ultramarines know how to fight every other paragraph?

This is about how the account is presented. You can describe the same events in more positive and more negative terms. This account is very negative in how the Ultramarines are presented, which lends credence to the belief that it perhaps was not actually written by an Ultramarine. That is suggested by the introduction of the account, so it is not like I am just making up accusations out of thin air. The possibility that it is not a valid account is given in the introduction, and I am looking at details that might support that.

 

 

If you're talking about after his forces reunite: what was he supposed to attack?

After their Primarch had been killed, I think the next step would have been to anihilate the rest of the Alpha Legion. That could naturally have been expected to be more easy once the Legion's Primarch had been killed, than it was the case with the Alpha Legion. Still, the goal should have remained the same.

 

 

Furthermore, since no details are provided on the methods of his counterattacks, saying that he doesn't try feints or reconaissance or diversionary attacks is not true.

No, the account just does not say anything about them. Just how much the Ultramarines get mauled and cannot accomplish anything in return.

 

 

How can a force of Marines moving through hostile terrain constantly be caught off guard? I just cannot see it.

Then your understanding of warfare is lacking.

Or we may have very different ideas about the capabilities of Space Marines.

 

 

More seriously - I'm not saying the Ultramarines should have done worse. I'm saying they did as well as could be expected in the circumstances (possibly even a little better).

And I would just have expected them to do better. As I have tried to explain. They should have been more familiar with the terrain and with the kind of opposition they were facing, which I tried to support with their background. Guilliman had fought in such a terrain at least once (and under circumstances much closer to the Battle for Yellow Ford and the afghan mountain passes, being extremely successful), and it is likely he had experience in fighting against guerilla forces, though not Astartes, and with the kind of tactics the Alpha Legion employs.

 

 

Uh...I conjured up two such scenarios several posts ago. It took me all of ten seconds. Neither required a disparity in Legion size - only in methods (or in how many Ultramarines were actually present). Neither seemed particularly implausible to me. And as I said before, the Ultramarine will take it as a given because he knows the answer.

It is the first time we hear about it. We had never been told that the resources may be distributed in such a way or that only a small part of the Ultramarines Legion was present. So in any case that passage would make the reader go: "wait, why is that so?" And if the entire account is presented as questionable in the firtst place, then maybe this is one more element that supports doubt.

 

I do find it more likely that the author (of the IA, not the battle account) was not entirely aware of all the Ultramarine background, though, and did not plant that inconsistent bit as a hint that the account may be faked.

[Walter Payton]

The thing is, the fact that representatives of the Ultramarines have questioned it is not really relevant. They are on one side of the battle. Kravin may or may not be on the other. So if Kravin, who has a possible vested interest (and therefore, likely bias), is untrustworthy, why should the Ultramarine abassadors, who have a definite vested interest (and therefore, likely bias) be any more so?

 

And no, I do not believe that the Ultramarines are above lies.

[Legatus]

So if Kravin, who has a possible vested interest (and therefore, likely bias), is untrustworthy, why should the Ultramarine abassadors, who have a definite vested interest (and therefore, likely bias) be any more so?

Maybe because GW sometimes wants to make us believe that one side values virtues like nobility and honour, while the other side is virtually nothing but lies and malevolence. That the Ultramarines would lie, not about a battle happening at all (that is not really disputed in the Index Astartes), but about how well they overall performed in that battle, is quite an accusation.

[Walter Payton]

So if Kravin, who has a possible vested interest (and therefore, likely bias), is untrustworthy, why should the Ultramarine abassadors, who have a definite vested interest (and therefore, likely bias) be any more so?

 

Maybe because GW sometimes wants to make us believe that one side values virtues like nobility and honour, while the other side is virtually nothing but lies and malevolence. That the Ultramarines would lie, not about a battle happening at all (that is not really disputed in the Index Astartes), but about how well they overall performed in that battle, is quite an accusation.

 

Whatever the Ultramarines might be, they are still still Imperial soldiers. The Imperium is not noble, nor honourable. It is the cruellest and most bloody regime imaginable, worse than Hitler's Germany, Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. Imperial honour and nobility is modern day genocide and racism. Censorship for the good of the wider populace is something that even modern democracies practise to varying degrees. Are you suggesting that it is beyond the Ultramarines? I do not believe that the Ultramarines would not lie if it benefited the Imperium or if they had no choice. Neither am I suggesting that they may be lying just for the sake of their own egos, but for another possibly unknown reason, perhaps they feel that the account of Eskrador is an Alpha Legion plant, or they fear the consequences for the morale of the Astartes legions should Alpha Legion tactics be seen to be superior to those in the Codex, or that they fear the consequences for the citizens of Ultramar's faith in their ability to defend them should Eskrador become widely known.

 

The crux of my argument is that we do not know the full circumstances surrounding Eskrador, nor do we know that the Ultramarines accounts (whatever they may be) are any more truthful than those of Kravin (who may not even be disloyal). I am not suggesting that they are lying because they feel insecure about it, but I am making the point that they cannot be considered free from bias.

 

As I said, everyone gets dealt a bad hand by the fluff at some point or another, and seeing as no chapter is as described in as favourable terms as the Ultramarines ('greatest of all Space Marine chapters') then it seems sweet and honourable that we die for the Imperium a bit more than others. To my mind.

[Legatus]

Whatever the Ultramarines might be, they are still still Imperial soldiers. The Imperium is not noble, nor honourable. It is the cruellest and most bloody regime imaginable, worse than Hitler's Germany, Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. Imperial honour and nobility is modern day genocide and racism. Censorship for the good of the wider populace is something that even modern democracies practise to varying degrees. Are you suggesting that it is beyond the Ultramarines? I do not believe that the Ultramarines would not lie if it benefited the Imperium or if they had no choice.

The account of the battle on Eskrador is a matter that is discussed between Inquisitors, and it involves traitor marines. I doubt that it is a matter of public record or that any concerns about propaganda for the Imperial citizens enter into it. If the Ultramarines are lying to the Inquisition about it, then I cannot think of a reason other than to protect their own reputation. But that the battle happened is not questioned, and perhaps not even that the Ultramarines "lost" (as in, they did not manage to defeat the Alpha Legion and withdrew). All that is in question is the specific account about the battle that is quoted in the Index Astartes article. An account I view as being abysmal and negative in it's portrayal of the Ultramarines and their efforts, but which octavulg views as representing the Ultramarines quite favourable.

[Captain Idaho]

To be honest Octavulg, I don't really know what you are arguing about. You acknowledge that the battle account was dubious and there are a plethora of possible truths regarding the matter, ranging from the truth to outright fabrication, with the likely "real" account to be the middle somewhere.

 

So why are you arguing? Just accept that Legatus has presented a credible number of reasons why GW deliberately made the account as a piece of propaganda. You don't agree, clearly, because despite the history of the Alpha Legion being so full of lies you for some reason find it 100% accurate even without proof. That is up to you, but you can't be any more correct than anyone else.

 

In fact, you have supplied less information as to why the account of the battle is correct, especially when held up against the reasons why it is possibly false. Compare the pros and cons of the two accounts, and it becomes obvious you are letting your feelings get in the way of logic and reasoning. Sure there are people here with a vested interest too, but at least they supply a logical reason of why they come their opinions.

 

The only evidence there is of the battle is that one account. Ultimately, you cannot take the account as truth because of the source, no matter how plausible it is. It's not just Kravin's loyalty, it's the fact the information from the account came from journal an Ultramarine who was careless enough to leave lying about (without any bodies or anything, just dropped on the floor), that no-one saw except Kravin and after he presented his account of the battle he refused to submit the evidence. No court in all the land would allow the information on the battle to considered as evidence for any legal battle!

[Marshal Rohr]

Oct-y argument is less 'it happened' and more 'get off your high horse, you can lose'

[Captain Idaho]

Who is he to consider me on my high horse? Or yourself for that matter, judging by the wording of your post it is something you believe also? I thought better of you than that mate?

 

That grates on my nerves. I haven't once said that the Ultramarines even won that battle. It's likely it was a horrific ambush. But the account of the battle is flawed and discussion of that that is the purpose of this topic.

[The Emperor's Champion]

The Ultramarines and Ultramar may not be perfect, but they're pretty far removed from the Imperial standards of....well....everything that doesn't involve Chapter organization.

 

 

And really, deceit isn't something a lot of Chapters would use. There's a lot of Chapters who're more worried about honor than outright practicality. The Space Wolves, Imperial Fists, Black Templar, etc etc would consider it cowardly to lie and simply never would (unless it was to an enemy or if the truth fundamentally threatened the Chapter's very existence)

 

Certainly there are some Chapters who lie through their teeth. The Alpha Legion, Dark Angels, Relictors etc all make lies a fundamental part of their existence and really don't seem to put a whole lot of emphasis on honor.

 

Other Chapters are just outright practical. Like the Raven Guard; they're honorable, but should they feel that lying would simplify the task at hand they'd probably not have a problem with it. The Ultramarines are pretty hardcore with their honor, but they'll eventually get to the point where the truth will waste far too much time, and they might lie so they don't have to deal with that and can spend their time doing their job instead.

 

 

Where history is concerned you can bet the Ultramarines would tell the truth. If they won, they won. If the IG did most of the work in a shared battle they'll give the IG most of the credit. If they got badly beaten, they'll explain how it happened. The Ultramarines don't benefit from lying about failures or victories. They seem to value learning from their mistakes and successes far too much.

The Codex Astartes wouldn't be the nearly perfect tome of warfare that it is if the lessons recorded within it were constantly sugar-coated for pride's sake, or whatever other reason.

[Legatus]

The only evidence there is of the battle is that one account.

The assumption that the battle did happen is not based on that account alone. The battle is mentioned outside of that account, and the account is then quoted as one account of the battle that was available. It is the content of that accout, the how it all went down, that is being questioned.

 

And I have had issues with that description from the day it was released. The account is stated to be doubted by a few Inquisitors and by representatives of the Ultramarines Chapter, so I am not just making up reasons for why a genuine piece of canon should be dismissed. I am highlighting a number of issues in the account that might lend credence to the belief that the account had indeed been fabricated. There are several inconsistent elements, as I have highlighted and tried to compare to the background they are inconsistent with. Of course there may be plausible reasons for why certain elements are described other than one would expect, but remember, the account had been presented as questionable from the get go. If this is the first time we read about the Ultramarines or Guilliman behaving different than we would expect from other sources, then should we come up with the explanations for these inconsistent portrayals our own, or could we perhaps see that as reasons to indeed doubt the account?

 

 

- The Ultramarines are described as quite hamstrung by the terrain, even though Guilliman should have had experience with that kind of terrain.

 

- The Ultramarines are described as being pretty much unable to effectively defend against ambushes and hit-and-run attacks, even though they should likely have had experience in fighting guerilla enemies and probably even have known how the Alpha Legion would fight.

 

- The Alpha Legion and the Ultramarines are stated to have a similar amount of Thunderhawks, even though the Ultramarines are usually described as more than twice the size of an average Legion, while the Alpha Legion is not usually described as being larger than average.

 

- Guilliman is described as hell bent to defeat Alpharius/the traitors, which Alpharisu used to lure him into the engagement. Other background has Guilliman more considerate during the scouring, specifically in contrast to Dorn.

 

- The Alpha Legion is described as wildly more successful and dangerous without the leadership of their Primarch.

 

- The Ultramarines are repeatedly described as suffering heavy casualties, while no Alpha Legion casualties are mentioned after the initial assault on Alpharius' position. In other sources the Ultramarines had been described as quite proficient in minimizing their casualties.

 

 

There are basically three explanations for these inconsistencies:

 

1) They are not really inconsistencies. We are merely not given explanations why things are a bit different than we would expect them based on other sources.

 

2) The account indeed was fabricated, as was pointed out as a posibility by the Index Astartes article.

 

3) It is a shallow and insufficiently researched piece of fluff, where the author did not get some of the details right.

 

 

I personally would suspect that it is 3), though the article itself does explain that 2) may be the case.

[Brother Pariah]

I think that the account of the battle is perfectly plausible. Guilliman did exactly what he considered to be the best thing: cut off the head and the body will die. It's the most orthodox strategy possible for Space Marines. But what happens when you cut off a hydra's head? Two more grow in its place.

 

My point is that against any other foe, Guilliman's strategy would have worked. He would have eliminated the enemy's command and control, and making it back to the LZ would have been easy. The enemy's resistance at the point would have been confused and poorly-coordinated. But because this was the Alpha Legion things didn't work out that way; their command and control is distributed, rather than centralized, so Guilliman was now in a tactically disadvantageous position.

 

As far as minor inconsistencies with the established background go, we see that all the time. Nearly every piece of fluff contradicts some earlier piece of fluff. I'm not going to discard an entire article on the basis of a few inconsistencies.

 

That said, the article internally calls itself into question. My opinion is that most of the account is true, but some small part(s) are false. The most likely falsehood, I think, is that statement that Guilliman killed Alpharius. The Alpha Legion has a long history (see Abnett's Legion) of deliberately confusing people about Alpharius's nature and whereabouts. Faking his death fits that MO, in my opinion.

[The Emperor's Champion]

I don't doubt the battle happened and I don't doubt Guilliman killed Alpharius (or Omegon). What I doubt is the majority of the details of how it went down.

 

Guilliman and the Ultramarines would KNOW they fought on Eskrador, and Guilliman wouldn't confuse his brother with some random Space Marine who was playing the part of Primarch (though he could have confused him with another brother he didn't know existed).

 

I can agree with certain parts of the story:

-The initial attack to kill Alpharius makes perfect sense, but not much else does.

-I can believe the Ultramarines might not have had all of their Thunderhawks with them at the time. The Legion was ZOMGHUGE. I'd be surprised if it was ever completely together in one place outside of Ultramar. The account clearly says it was only 3000 Ultramarines vs 500 Alpha Legionnaires.

-I can understand heavy casualties....had it been on both sides. The Horus Heresy was the bloodiest thing of all time. Low casualty rate against the xenos and the renegade humans of the galaxy is one thing, against equals it's quite a different matter.

 

-Why would the Alpha Legion benefit from Alpharius' absence? I could understand it operating unhindered, but better??? WTeF?

-Why did the Ultramarines forget how to conduct war on the type of terrain they should be most familiar with? I can't even come up with a sarcastic explanation for that.

-Why did the Ultramarines get so thrown off by the Alpha Legion tactics when Guilliman knew perfectly well that that's how Alpharius' dudes fight? The two Primarchs were against each other BECAUSE Guilliman knew.

-Why didn't Guilliman get his Legion the Hell out of there when he realized the whole thing was clearly a trap? We know he doesn't encourage hanging around waiting for obvious traps to be sprung on him.

[Octavulg]

Legatus:

 

And I have had issues with that description from the day it was released. The account is stated to be doubted by a few Inquisitors and by representatives of the Ultramarines Chapter, so I am not just making up reasons for why a genuine piece of canon should be dismissed. I am highlighting a number of issues in the account that might lend credence to the belief that the account had indeed been fabricated. There are several inconsistent elements, as I have highlighted and tried to compare to the background they are inconsistent with. Of course there may be plausible reasons for why certain elements are described other than one would expect, but remember, the account had been presented as questionable from the get go. If this is the first time we read about the Ultramarines or Guilliman behaving different than we would expect from other sources, then should we come up with the explanations for these inconsistent portrayals our own, or could we perhaps see that as reasons to indeed doubt the account?

 

It depends on the size and nature of the inconsistencies. The problem is that GW fluff is not internally consistent. Indeed, I would argue the only source this article can be fact-checked against with 100% certainty is itself. We know the author read his own work, and it's not long enough he'd forget halfway through.

 

Furthermore, as I have pointed out over and over - the inconsistencies you mention are a matter of interpretation. Your interpretation of this text disagrees with your interpretation of other texts, and therefore it must be the text at fault. I think you can see the problem with that methodology.

 

- The Ultramarines are described as quite hamstrung by the terrain, even though Guilliman should have had experience with that kind of terrain.

 

Where? You keep saying this, then quoting things that have nothing to do with mountains.

 

They have difficulty fighting the Alpha Legion. They are in mountains. The two are correlated. Doesn't mean one causes the other.

 

Indeed, the restrictions they face generally seem to have little to do with mountains - the one time I can find is the time they're ambushed in the valley by Alpha Legionnaires disguised as Ultramarines. And I'm not sure any amount of experience in mountain fighting would make it easy to climb out the mountain sides of a mountain valley while under fire.

 

Otherwise, the difficulties they run into seem to have a lot more to do with the fact that the Alpha Legion are cheating gits.

 

- The Ultramarines are described as being pretty much unable to effectively defend against ambushes and hit-and-run attacks, even though they should likely have had experience in fighting guerilla enemies and probably even have known how the Alpha Legion would fight.

 

No, they are not. They are described as suffering heavy casualties from such attacks. You can take heavy casualties from things you defend well against, if the attack is strong enough, and knowing what the enemy will do is not enough if you do not know when, how and where he will do it. To bring up a modern example, sensitive though the subject may be, I would refer you to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the soldiers there are better trained and better equipped than their opponents.

 

Again, you are reading into the text, then claiming that your interpretation is inconsistent with other sources, so the text must be wrong.

 

- The Alpha Legion and the Ultramarines are stated to have a similar amount of Thunderhawks, even though the Ultramarines are usually described as more than twice the size of an average Legion, while the Alpha Legion is not usually described as being larger than average.

 

The Ultramarines are described as "the largest legion in existence", but I do not recall any source that named their size compared to other legions (people have calculated it out, and I generally agree with those calculations, but that's not the same thing). Furthermore, 'similar' can mean all kinds of things. And would the Ultramarines not have just finished taking 30% casualties at Calth when Eskrador took place?

 

And as I have already said, just because they have more men doesn't mean they have more equipment of any particular type (other than the personal equipment of those men). Indeed, it would be consistent with the Alpha Legion's small, decentralized command structure for them to have more Thunderhawks than usual.

 

- Guilliman is described as hell bent to defeat Alpharius/the traitors, which Alpharisu used to lure him into the engagement. Other background has Guilliman more considerate during the scouring, specifically in contrast to Dorn.

 

That is a possible explanation suggested by [/i]Imperial[/i] observers for why Eskrador took place. One of two mentioned. It is not part of the account in question.

 

"The Ultramarines had been posted on he Eastern Fringe when the Heresy began, and were racing back to the Segmentum Solar, enraged at the treachery of their brother Space Marines and the Warmaster's connivance to keep them too far away to affect the outcome. It is possible that Alpharius deliberately sought out the Ultramarines, that he wished to confront Roboute Guilliman in battle and prove the superiority of his tactics. Other theories suggest that the Ultramarines tracked down the Alpha Marines, seizing the opportunity to be revenged on one of the Traitor Legions."

 

Note two things:

 

1) That the IA mentions Horus' collusion in keeping the Ultramarines far away. The author has a higher opinion of the Ultramarines than you think.

2) That there are multiple theories for why Eskrador happened at all - and that the thing you cite as an inconsistency has nothing to do with the account of the battle.

 

- The Alpha Legion is described as wildly more successful and dangerous without the leadership of their Primarch.

 

See, that's weird, for all that there are explanations.

 

- The Ultramarines are repeatedly described as suffering heavy casualties, while no Alpha Legion casualties are mentioned after the initial assault on Alpharius' position. In other sources the Ultramarines had been described as quite proficient in minimizing their casualties.

 

Which doesn't mean they can't take casualties, or that they couldn't even take heavy casualties. Furthermore, that minimization is relative to other Legions. Alpha Legion casualties not being mentioned means that the Sergeant didn't mention them - whether because they weren't unusually high or low, because they didn't stop to count them, or because he simply didn't feel that it was important.

 

Oh, and the Alpha Legion also took less casualties than other Legions: "while these methods took longer to execute than a simple frontal assault, they were far less costly in troops". Note that they had had time to prepare on Eskrador.

 

There are basically three explanations for these inconsistencies:

 

1) They are not really inconsistencies. We are merely not given explanations why things are a bit different than we would expect them based on other sources.

 

That's certainly the case for 1, 2, 4, and 5, which are supposition, supposition, not part of the account in question, and not logically coherent, respectively.

 

There are, at most, two inconsistencies, Legatus, and even those have reasonable explanations: the Thunderhawks and the whole "Primarch death = better fighting" thing.

 

* * *

 

TEC:

 

-I can believe the Ultramarines might not have had all of their Thunderhawks with them at the time. The Legion was ZOMGHUGE. I'd be surprised if it was ever completely together in one place outside of Ultramar. The account clearly says it was only 3000 Ultramarines vs 500 Alpha Legionnaires.

 

Actually, it was 3000 vs. 600 (they outnumbered the AL five to one - they killed about 100 in the initial assault on the command post). But that's in the assault on the command center specifically. The actual numbers deployed overall on both sides are never stated. I'd assume about five times that for the Ultramarines and about 10000 for the Alpha Legion. It could be as little as ten thousand for the Ultramarines and six to eight for the Alpha Legion.

 

-I can understand heavy casualties....had it been on both sides. The Horus Heresy was the bloodiest thing of all time. Low casualty rate against the xenos and the renegade humans of the galaxy is one thing, against equals it's quite a different matter.

 

To be fair, we don't know what the Alpha Legion took for casualties. At all. Not even a little.

 

-Why would the Alpha Legion benefit from Alpharius' absence? I could understand it operating unhindered, but better??? WTeF?

 

The account never actually says the AL fought better with Alpharius gone. "Since my last entry we have ascertained that the Alpha Legion's command function was spread into numerous groups, and the loss of one apparently had minimal impact on their operational abilities, even though it included Alpharius."

 

-Why did the Ultramarines forget how to conduct war on the type of terrain they should be most familiar with? I can't even come up with a sarcastic explanation for that.

 

As I have mentioned so many times before - what was wrong with what they did? And why does everyone seem to think the Ultramarines must have done something wrong? You can do everything right and lose battles.

 

-Why did the Ultramarines get so thrown off by the Alpha Legion tactics when Guilliman knew perfectly well that that's how Alpharius' dudes fight? The two Primarchs were against each other BECAUSE Guilliman knew.

 

Again, you can know what's coming and still be surprised. Knowing what the enemy will do and knowing when, where and how they will do it (or how to defend against it) are entirely different things.

 

-Why didn't Guilliman get his Legion the Hell out of there when he realized the whole thing was clearly a trap? We know he doesn't encourage hanging around waiting for obvious traps to be sprung on him.

 

He did.

 

"The account goes on to describe how in the next week Guilliman attempted a number of counter attacks to regain the initiative, but the Alpha Legion seemed to have prior knowledge of their every move, and either were not where augurs suggested or had carefully planned ambushes waiting. Finally the Ultramarines evacuated the planet surface and used their ships to bombard the traitors from orbit."

 

Christ, if Dorn had been in command, they'd still be fighting on Eskrador. :)

[Walter Payton]

Whatever the Ultramarines might be, they are still still Imperial soldiers. The Imperium is not noble, nor honourable. It is the cruellest and most bloody regime imaginable, worse than Hitler's Germany, Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. Imperial honour and nobility is modern day genocide and racism. Censorship for the good of the wider populace is something that even modern democracies practise to varying degrees. Are you suggesting that it is beyond the Ultramarines? I do not believe that the Ultramarines would not lie if it benefited the Imperium or if they had no choice.

 

The account of the battle on Eskrador is a matter that is discussed between Inquisitors, and it involves traitor marines. I doubt that it is a matter of public record or that any concerns about propaganda for the Imperial citizens enter into it. If the Ultramarines are lying to the Inquisition about it, then I cannot think of a reason other than to protect their own reputation. But that the battle happened is not questioned, and perhaps not even that the Ultramarines "lost" (as in, they did not manage to defeat the Alpha Legion and withdrew). All that is in question is the specific account about the battle that is quoted in the Index Astartes article.

 

What I am suggesting is that it is counter-productive and indeed counter to the most basic principles of historical research to simply dismiss one account of a battle as flawed and then hold up whatever the losing side say to be gospel truth. You decry the Kravin account as being possibly biased and unreliable, and yet back up your own premise with an account that may also be suspect.

 

The Ultramarines are pretty hardcore with their honor, but they'll eventually get to the point where the truth will waste far too much time, and they might lie so they don't have to deal with that and can spend their time doing their job instead.

 

This is more what I am getting at. I do not believe that they are congenital liars, but I can envision them lying should the need arise.

 

White Lie: "A white lie would cause only relatively minor discord if it were uncovered, and typically offers some benefit to the hearer. White lies are often used to avoid offense, such as complimenting something one finds unattractive. In this case, the lie is told to avoid the harmful realistic implications of the truth. As a concept, it is largely defined by local custom and cannot be clearly separated from other lies with any authority."

[Legatus]

The account clearly says it was only 3000 Ultramarines vs 500 Alpha Legionnaires.

The 3000 were merely the advance strike force Guilliman personally led ahead of the rest to attack Alpharius' position. The 600 Alpha Legion they initially fought against were only the Legionnaires that were with Alpharius at that position.

 

---

 

octavulg:

 

Furthermore, as I have pointed out over and over - the inconsistencies you mention are a matter of interpretation. Your interpretation of this text disagrees with your interpretation of other texts, and therefore it must be the text at fault. I think you can see the problem with that methodology.

But this is not just one background text I pitch against another one and then arbitrarily decide that this one must be incorrect. The possibility that this text may be fake is explicitely given in the Alpha Legion Index Astartes, so any doubt I voice is justified. And I am trying to explain that doubt with specific issues from the text.

 

 

- The Ultramarines are described as quite hamstrung by the terrain, even though Guilliman should have had experience with that kind of terrain.

The entire premise of the battle, and why Alpharius chose the terrain, had to do with how much it would hamstring conventional unit movement.

 

"First to arrive on the planet, Alpharius was able to choose his battleground (...) The Alpha Legion deployed deep within a harsh mountain range at the pole of the planet. The mountains were riven with gullies, ravines and high passes that would seriously hamper movement, especially for ground vehicles. Alpharius was convinced that the battle would be won by the side that overcame these problems the best through forward planning, coordinated air transport, and detachments going independently of heavy support."

 

Cue the battle account, where the Alpha Legion absolutely dominates the Ultramarines, running circles around them and having a field day preparing ambushes and hit-and-run attacks without any chance for the Ultramarines to do anything about it.

 

 

- The Ultramarines are described as being pretty much unable to effectively defend against ambushes and hit-and-run attacks, even though they should likely have had experience in fighting guerilla enemies and probably even have known how the Alpha Legion would fight.

No, they are not. They are described as suffering heavy casualties from such attacks. You can take heavy casualties from things you defend well against, if the attack is strong enough, and knowing what the enemy will do is not enough if you do not know when, how and where he will do it.

There are no Alpha Legion casualties mentioned. The account does not say that they had to fight off ambushes and hit-and-run attacks. All it say is that they are suffering heavy casualties form these attacks. That does not exactly give one the impression that the Ultramarines are on top of things.

 

 

The Ultramarines are described as "the largest legion in existence", but I do not recall any source that named their size compared to other legions (people have calculated it out, and I generally agree with those calculations, but that's not the same thing). Furthermore, 'similar' can mean all kinds of things. And would the Ultramarines not have just finished taking 30% casualties at Calth when Eskrador took place?

IIRC the Collected Visions artbooks specifically give a strenght of 100,000 for an average Legion and a strength of 250,000 for the Ultramarines. In Codex sources the average Legion is usually given at around 10,000 men, while the Ultramarines are usually assumed to have been at about 25,000 men based on the number of successor Chapters they created during the Second Founding.

 

Even losing 30% the Ultramarines would still have been 50% larger than an average Legion.

 

 

And as I have already said, just because they have more men doesn't mean they have more equipment of any particular type (other than the personal equipment of those men). Indeed, it would be consistent with the Alpha Legion's small, decentralized command structure for them to have more Thunderhawks than usual.

If the Ultramarines did not have the extra fleet capacity to transport that many Marines (and not the amount of landing craft to deploy them) then their size would have been quite pointless.

 

 

That is a possible explanation suggested by [/i]Imperial[/i] observers for why Eskrador took place. One of two mentioned.

I am refering to this statement, which is made with quite the certainty:

 

"First to arrive on the planet, Alpharius was able to choose his battleground, for he knew the Ultramarines would not rest until they had hunted the traitors down."

 

But this is also not part of the account, so it would point more to failings of the author rather than a deliberately planted inconsistency.

 

 

Note two things:

 

1) That the IA mentions Horus' collusion in keeping the Ultramarines far away. The author has a higher opinion of the Ultramarines than you think.

Or maybe that was just one bit of their background he remembered. Possibly because it also incolved Horus. :D (IIRC, though I may be mistaken, Graham Davey was quite the chaos guy.)

 

 

Oh, and the Alpha Legion also took less casualties than other Legions: "while these methods took longer to execute than a simple frontal assault, they were far less costly in troops". Note that they had had time to prepare on Eskrador.

"while these methods took longer to execute than a simple frontal assault, they were far less costly in troops, which enabled Alpharius to spread his forces widely."

That sounds like the Alpha Legion methods are less costly in troops that need to be comitted to an operation. Where an average Legion would commit 500 Marines to directly assault an enemy city, the Alpha Legion infiltrates 100 Marines and starts a longer sabotage and harassment campaign.

 

 

Edit:

-Why would the Alpha Legion benefit from Alpharius' absence? I could understand it operating unhindered, but better??? WTeF?

The account never actually says the AL fought better with Alpharius gone. "Since my last entry we have ascertained that the Alpha Legion's command function was spread into numerous groups, and the loss of one apparently had minimal impact on their operational abilities, even though it included Alpharius."

When Alpharius is still in command, the Ultramarines are able to locate a larger position of the Alpha Legion, while they in turn are surprised by the Ultramarines. Later, after that initial successful (if costly) attack, the Ultramarines are never again able to locate an Alpha Legion position, while the Alpha Legion can predict and evade every move the Ultramarines undertake.

 

---

 

Brother-Captain Alecto:

 

What I am suggesting is that it is counter-productive and indeed counter to the most basic principles of historical research to simply dismiss one account of a battle as flawed and then hold up whatever the losing side say to be gospel truth. You decry the Kravin account as being possibly biased and unreliable, and yet back up your own premise with an account that may also be suspect.

The Index Astartes gives specific reason to doubt the account. On the other hand I am not sure why I should doubt the word of representatives of the Ultramarines. They do not even claimthat the battle did not happen, or that they did not lose. They are just questioning th evalidity of that specific account. As far as I can see the two most crucial pieces of information in there are that Guilliman has allegedly killed Alpharius in a duel and that the Ultramarines suffered a lot of casualties without any competent performance on their part being mentioned (other than somehow making it off Eskrador alive inspite of the odds).

[Marshal Rohr]

Who is he to consider me on my high horse? Or yourself for that matter, judging by the wording of your post it is something you believe also? I thought better of you than that mate?

 

That grates on my nerves. I haven't once said that the Ultramarines even won that battle. It's likely it was a horrific ambush. But the account of the battle is flawed and discussion of that that is the purpose of this topic.

 

 

You misunderstood me. It was in quotes, if I was telling you something I wouldnt put it in quotes.