Eskrador reviewed

[Octavulg]

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.

 

No, any doubt you voice is not justified. While the veracity of the account has been questioned, things are often questioned in 40K. Marneus Calgar has been tried for heresy, remember?

 

What the possibility of it all being a lie means is that if you find an inconsistency and support it, instead of chalking it up to GW incompetence it actually calls the incident itself into question. That is, if you prove something impossible it actually might not have happened, as opposed to having happened anyway (for a counterexample, see depleted deuterium). You still have to actually demonstrate that the thing you bring up is an inconsistency - because we do not know why the account was called into question. It could be completely accurate, and the Ultramarines don't like this portrayal of them. It could be completely plausible, but clearly recorded on a recording device that didn't come into existence until M39. The Ultramarines could all be wearing red. We don't know why it's suspect, only that it is - which means you still have to provide some decent justification for your claims. And you have not done that - yes, you think the Ultramarines should have performed better. But your perception of their failure and of their 'true capabilities' are both your perceptions.

 

You're trying to argue that your opinions and feelings about what somewhat vague passages mean have concrete meaning that demonstrates conclusively that this account is inconsistent with other 40K resources. And, well, they don't.

 

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.

 

I could point out that Guilliman was all set to win the battle on those conditions, except his forward plan had a single flaw.

 

More to the point - firstly, I have already repeated at length how the terrain would naturally favor the Alpha Legion, even with Guilliman's mountain fighting experience.

 

Second, the successes of the Alpha Legion in this IA are not tied to the mountains - though the mountains help a lot by slowing down the Ultramarines. They're tied to the usual array of dirty tricks and sneakery - avalanches, ambushes, jamming, spying - all of these would work just as well in a city. Or in a jungle (OK, not avalanches so much). Or in catacombs. Or even in an arctic wasteland, depending on the terrain a little. The mountains are not as important as how the Alpha Legion use them.

 

A conventionally equipped and armored force, even one experienced in mountain fighting and the like, will still have difficulty facing an opposing force using guerilla tactics in mountainous terrain - the terrain simply favors one set of methods over another.

 

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.

 

It's hard to be on top of surprise attacks. Once you're on top of them, they're not surprise attacks any more.

 

Tell me, because I must know: do you genuinely believe that the fact that Alpha Legion casualties are not mentioned is intended to imply that they did not take any? And that the fact that it does not specifically state that they fought them off means that the Ultramarines stood there and got shot at?

 

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.

 

Except the Collected Visions antedates IA: AL. So the size of the Ultramarines is not defined when this article is conceived and written. You should remember that this stuff really pins down most of the heresy and the legions. Before this, there really wasn't very much detail on the subject - or, at least, not 3rd edition compatible detail. :D And even in the entire IA series, I believe legion size is only mentioned once, in relation to Istvaan.

 

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.

 

Except Thunderhawks aren't the only landing craft available to Space Marines. Not by a long shot. Off the top of my head, there are Storm Birds, Drop Pods, Landing Craft, and likely shuttles as well. Oh, and teleporters. Furthermore, if the Ultramarines favor Thunderhawk Transporters over gunships (which their larger size and larger deployment sizes would suggest - Thunderhawks are quite tiny), then they would both have fewer Thunderhawks proportionally and those Thunderhawks would be less capable in the air.

 

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.

 

...I'm sorry. I do not see what you're objecting to. Of course the Ultramarines wouldn't rest until they hunted the Alpha Legion down. They've got a Siege of Terra to get to. The Alpha Legion are vile traitors, without honor. Once committed to engaging the AL, Guilliman is not going to hold back and wait for a better opportunity - he has other things he needs to be doing.

 

What, it would be more appropriate for Guilliman to land somewhere else and sit there for years until Alpharius got bored and came out to fight? You really feel that's the temperament and character of the Primarch of the Ultramarines?

 

While Guilliman would not simply drop on top of the Alpha Legion positions (which you will note he does not), he equally would not have the time or the inclination to hang about when there are other things which also demand his time and resources. (Especially, I might add, when he knows that his troops and methods are superior).

 

"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.

 

Or it sounds like the Alpha Legion takes fewer casualties and thus needs to commit fewer men because they won't need as many to do the same job. The use of the word 'costly' is what suggests this - the meaning you suggest would have been much more natural with "they required far fewer troops".

 

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.

 

An obvious explanation would be that the Alpha Legion didn't expect that first attack - while they did expect the later ones, and thus could prepare for them somewhat better. Another (most probable, IMO) would be that, having been cut off and stuck out of position once, Guilliman was not particularly eager to do the same thing again, and thus had to make his followup attacks more conventionally.

 

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).

 

Wait. So you doubt the validity of the Sergeant's account, because it isn't sufficiently pro-Ultramarine, but you don't think Ultramarine representatives would lie?

 

Also, Legatus, as I have repeatedly told you - they performed very well given the circumstances. I'd like you to show me an example of a force doing better in similar circumstances. Because I think I've shown you plenty of forces which should have done better doing much worse. The Ultramarines fought well (if not particularly effectually after a while), survived, and left when they should have, thus performing better under those circumstances than any historical military force I can think of.

[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.

 

 

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

 

Well I did put question marks after, because I did think it would be out of character of you to talk like that.

 

You're trying to argue that your opinions and feelings about what somewhat vague passages mean have concrete meaning that demonstrates conclusively that this account is inconsistent with other 40K resources. And, well, they don't

 

Same could be the same about yourself, in reverse. Look at the quote below from your previous reply:

 

Except Thunderhawks aren't the only landing craft available to Space Marines. Not by a long shot. Off the top of my head, there are Storm Birds, Drop Pods, Landing Craft, and likely shuttles as well. Oh, and teleporters. Furthermore, if the Ultramarines favor Thunderhawk Transporters over gunships (which their larger size and larger deployment sizes would suggest - Thunderhawks are quite tiny), then they would both have fewer Thunderhawks proportionally and those Thunderhawks would be less capable in the air.

 

You are making a massive assumption about the numbers of Thunderhawks in use, based on the belief that the account is telling the truth. You are fabricating reasons why this is the case, admitadly logically, but with no more concrete proof than what Legatus has said.

 

Wait. So you doubt the validity of the Sergeant's account, because it isn't sufficiently pro-Ultramarine, but you don't think Ultramarine representatives would lie?

 

To be fair, rather than the Ultramarines lying as such (out of character for them) they would most probably not have the most truthful account of the matter. But you are making assumptions. You don't know what the Ultramarines dispute, only that they dispute the account of the battle's validity.

 

I agree with some of the things you have said Octavulg, like this:

 

Tell me, because I must know: do you genuinely believe that the fact that Alpha Legion casualties are not mentioned is intended to imply that they did not take any? And that the fact that it does not specifically state that they fought them off means that the Ultramarines stood there and got shot at?

 

...I'm sorry. I do not see what you're objecting to. Of course the Ultramarines wouldn't rest until they hunted the Alpha Legion down. They've got a Siege of Terra to get to. The Alpha Legion are vile traitors, without honor. Once committed to engaging the AL, Guilliman is not going to hold back and wait for a better opportunity - he has other things he needs to be doing.

 

But then that is only because it linked to my opinion also. Yes it is likely the Ultramarines had knowledge of the Alpha Legion's whereabouts at the time and took the opportunity to engage them. Yes there are likely casualities on both sides. Fighting a Primarch kind of makes that a given! But we don't have the evidence to tell us the actual nature of the incident so no matter how logical we are at the end of the day making assumptions. We don't know how many of each Legion were involved, was it a declared battle or an opportunistic ambush, or who lost what or whatever.

 

Like I said many times before, the whole account cannot be taken for granted as we just don't know whether it is truthful. Check a quote below which I think sums up the whole thing:

 

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!

 

We know the battle probably happened as it is implied there are other sources confirming the engagement, but the only account of the battle is the journal. This is what I was referring to above.

 

You can't argue it's validity Octavulg simply because it is circumstantial evidence. If you took your case to the law courts they wouldn't rule in your favour based on that account alone, because of the risk of a mis-carriage of justice.

[Brother Pariah]

The standard used in courts of law, that you must prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply in this case, Captain Idaho. This isn't a court of law, but something more akin to historical research. The responsible historian would mention the Eskrador incident, but make it clear that the source is suspect. Most 40K background material is suspect for one reason or another. The only account that I can recall as having been explicitly stated to have been written by a neutral, omniscient narrator is the account of the Emperor's backstory in Realm of Chaos - The Lost and the Damned. Everyone ultimately has to decide for himself if a piece of background passes the "sniff test" for whether it fits in with their conception of the background. There's no objective reality of What Really Happened in the 41st Millennium that was can refer back to. We can't dig up additional information in the archives, because those archive's don't exist. All we have is our stacks of old White Dwarfs and out-of-date codices.

[Roland Durendal]

I think Octavulg makes some excellent points, and I agree with his summary of the account: it could be all true, then again it could all be lies perpetrated by AL. But if we accept it at face value as truth, there is nothing wrong with how the UM fought. They were outclassed fighting a battle they were unprepared for. There is no shame in being a militarily superior force and being bested by another force who utilizes better tactics and strategy. To bring some real worldness into this argument:

 

I have a degree in history and I also study military history and am currently in Iraq. Hands down, I don't care how awesome/well trained/equipped your army is, if you're a conventional force fighting a guerrilla force in terrain that is favorable to the guerrilla force (and this can be ANYWHERE, from cities to jungles to mountainous regions), the conventional force will always suffer higher casualties and be tactically disadvantaged.

 

There are more successful insurgencies/guerrilla campaigns in history than there are counter-insurgencies. To list some modern ones:

 

Teutoberger Wald 9AD - Loss Romans

Boer War in the 1890's - Draw

French Indochina in 1950's - Loss France

French Algeria 1960's - Loss France

US in Vietnam in 1960's - Loss US

Chinese Revolution (Mao vs. Chiang) - Loss Chiang

USSR in Afghanistan in 1980's - Loss USSR

US in Iraq / Afghanistan (ongoing) - Undecided at this time

 

I won't begin to list the reasons why guerrilla forces / insurgencies excel against conventional ones, but suffice it to say, when a conventional army faces an unconventional army, unconventional usually has the upper hand.

 

A final good quote, from I believe Mao or Che:

 

"Defend nowhere, strike everywhere."

[Legatus]

No, any doubt you voice is not justified. While the veracity of the account has been questioned, things are often questioned in 40K.

Occasionally, background will not neutrally be presented, but will be presented as "some think that..." or "it is believed...". Rarely will you get an even more specific "some think this may not actually be true". By that preface alone any claims of "I don't think it really happened" are based on the background. What I am doing here is going one step further and saying "I don't hink it happened because of..."

 

 

You're trying to argue that your opinions and feelings about what somewhat vague passages mean have concrete meaning that demonstrates conclusively that this account is inconsistent with other 40K resources. And, well, they don't.

I am not arguing that any of the elements I listed are impossible. Merely implausible based on other background I have tried to refer to.

 

So the account is already prefaced to perhaps be incorrect. Then I find several issues in the account that seem questionable when compared to other background. What that does is make it seem more likely that the account is indeed incorrect, rather than turning out to be correct after all.

 

 

Second, the successes of the Alpha Legion in this IA are not tied to the mountains - though the mountains help a lot by slowing down the Ultramarines. They're tied to the usual array of dirty tricks and sneakery - avalanches, ambushes, jamming, spying - all of these would work just as well in a city. Or in a jungle (OK, not avalanches so much). Or in catacombs. Or even in an arctic wasteland, depending on the terrain a little. The mountains are not as important as how the Alpha Legion use them.

Even if the account itself does not mention any difficulties with the terrain, it remains that Alpharius had chosen that battle ground for exactly that reason and viewed that as the deciding factor, and he was seemingly vindicated by how the battle turned out.

 

 

Tell me, because I must know: do you genuinely believe that the fact that Alpha Legion casualties are not mentioned is intended to imply that they did not take any? And that the fact that it does not specifically state that they fought them off means that the Ultramarines stood there and got shot at?

No, what I am saying is that the events are portraying the Ultramarines in a negative light, which suggests that it was not actually written by one.

 

You could describe the same events in a different way:

 

1) The Alpha Legion ambushes the Ultramarines several times over the next days, each ambush resulting in vicious fighting.

 

2) The Alpha Legion ambushes the Ultramarines several times over the next days but are fought back every time.

 

3) The Alpha Legion ambushed the Ultramarines several times over the next days, inflicting heavy casualties to them.

 

The first one is very neutral, merley stating what happened. The second one presents the Ultramarines more favourable, focusing on how they eventually beat back the ambushing force. The third one presents the Ultramarines more negatively, focusing on how much they were harmed by those attacks without mentioning any successes or that they prevailed after all.

 

 

Except the Collected Visions antedates IA: AL. So the size of the Ultramarines is not defined when this article is conceived and written. You should remember that this stuff really pins down most of the heresy and the legions. Before this, there really wasn't very much detail on the subject - or, at least, not 3rd edition compatible detail. tongue.gif And even in the entire IA series, I believe legion size is only mentioned once, in relation to Istvaan.

The Index Astartes of the Iron Warriors gave them as 12,000 strong during the Great Crusade. The Second Founding background had already been known since 2nd Edition, so estimations for 25,000 Ultramarines and per 10,000 average Legion already existed. Older 2nd Edition background also occasionally refered to "ten thousand strong" Legions prior to the Second Founding (see for exampkle the 2nd Edition Codex Space Wolves, page 9).

 

 

...I'm sorry. I do not see what you're objecting to. Of course the Ultramarines wouldn't rest until they hunted the Alpha Legion down. They've got a Siege of Terra to get to.

And then the Ultramarines leave...

 

Since Guilliman was en route to Terra, perhaps he may have decided that trying to dislodge a guerilla force from a harsh mountainous area would be too time consuming at that moment? At a different point he pleads with Dorn not to just singlehandedly attack a traitor force dug in on a planet, and he decides that to hunt down one Traitor Primarch would not be worth a risky commitment of loyalist forces. In this instance on Eskrador he seems to decide differently, that's all.

 

 

An obvious explanation would be that the Alpha Legion didn't expect that first attack - while they did expect the later ones

That's not an explanation. That is the observation I have been making and having issues with.

 

 

Wait. So you doubt the validity of the Sergeant's account, because it isn't sufficiently pro-Ultramarine, but you don't think Ultramarine representatives would lie?

Pretty much, yes. I find it odd that an Ultramarine sergeant would write his account in an entirely pessimistic and defeatist attitude, focusing entirely on how much they were mauled by the attacks of the Alpha Legion, instead of phrasing it so that the Ultramarines had to do some heavy fighting but were able to push back ambush after ambush (you know, like how the Iron Cage is described in the Imperial Fists Index Astartes). The account is presented as questionable in the first place. And the way it is written makes me think that it indeed is not accurate. What reasons do I have that a representative of teh Ultramarines would lie to the Inquisition, other than to keep up the Chapter's reputation in front of the Inquisition?

[Captain Idaho]

As a historian myself I understand what you mean Brother Pariah, but I was explaining why we shouldn't take the account as face value in a way people could understand, in case people who aren't so clued up on reading something subjectively actually read my post.

 

If Octavulg is looking at it subjectively, the question that rears it's head is why is he still going on about it? Everyone knows that we can't take the account as truth, merely as an opinion of how it went. And what historian worth his salt would look at this whole account and not suspect it? What historian would read it and take it at face value?

 

It's like a historian looking back on an account of the Battle of Balaclava that happens to be the only account of the records at the time, taken from a Russian Journal of an unknown soldier found in a field 500 miles away from the battle that explains the Light Brigade charge was successful and suffered no casualities, and then when the historian asks to review it the person who presented the account refuses to show you, and then taking it as fact without question!

 

See how silly it is?

[Octavulg]

Idaho:

 

You are making a massive assumption about the numbers of Thunderhawks in use, based on the belief that the account is telling the truth. You are fabricating reasons why this is the case, admitadly logically, but with no more concrete proof than what Legatus has said.

 

Legatus is arguing that the inconsistencies are implausible. I'm pointing out plausible explanations for them. If there are plausible explanations for things, they're not implausible - which means they're not inconsistencies.

 

We know the battle probably happened as it is implied there are other sources confirming the engagement, but the only account of the battle is the journal. This is what I was referring to above.

 

True - I'm just trying to get across that nothing in the journal itself is sufficiently inconsistent as to be obviously false. The fact that it is questioned is suggestive, but not necessarily conclusive.

 

If Octavulg is looking at it subjectively, the question that rears it's head is why is he still going on about it? Everyone knows that we can't take the account as truth, merely as an opinion of how it went. And what historian worth his salt would look at this whole account and not suspect it? What historian would read it and take it at face value?

 

You sure you don't mean objectively?

 

Anyway, I don't suspect it (overly) because this is the 40K universe, where everything is apparently a lie anyway. Wildly mistrusted fragments turn out to be the actual truth all the time here.

 

And, actually, it's the outside context that makes the account suspect, not its actual content. The actual account works fine. Which is my point - the "inconsistencies" Legatus is going on about are nothing of the kind. While the account may be suspect, the examples he point to aren't particularly good ones.

 

* * *

Durendal:

 

I have a degree in history and I also study military history and am currently in Iraq. Hands down, I don't care how awesome/well trained/equipped your army is, if you're a conventional force fighting a guerrilla force in terrain that is favorable to the guerrilla force (and this can be ANYWHERE, from cities to jungles to mountainous regions), the conventional force will always suffer higher casualties and be tactically disadvantaged.

 

There are more successful insurgencies/guerrilla campaigns in history than there are counter-insurgencies. To list some modern ones:

 

Teutoberger Wald 9AD - Loss Romans

Boer War in the 1890's - Draw

French Indochina in 1950's - Loss France

French Algeria 1960's - Loss France

US in Vietnam in 1960's - Loss US

Chinese Revolution (Mao vs. Chiang) - Loss Chiang

USSR in Afghanistan in 1980's - Loss USSR

US in Iraq / Afghanistan (ongoing) - Undecided at this time

 

I won't begin to list the reasons why guerrilla forces / insurgencies excel against conventional ones, but suffice it to say, when a conventional army faces an unconventional army, unconventional usually has the upper hand.

 

A final good quote, from I believe Mao or Che:

 

"Defend nowhere, strike everywhere."

 

Thank you.

 

But are Space Wolves allowed to have coherent, well thought out opinions backed by examples and evidence? :rolleyes: You didn't mention ale once! I'm telling Russ.

 

* * *

 

Legatus:

Even if the account itself does not mention any difficulties with the terrain, it remains that Alpharius had chosen that battle ground for exactly that reason and viewed that as the deciding factor, and he was seemingly vindicated by how the battle turned out.

 

No, he knew what the deciding factors would be based on the terrain he had chosen. I can tell you what the decisive factors of a battle will be in space, or on an open plain, or in a forest, too.

 

No, what I am saying is that the events are portraying the Ultramarines in a negative light, which suggests that it was not actually written by one.

 

You could describe the same events in a different way:

 

1) The Alpha Legion ambushes the Ultramarines several times over the next days, each ambush resulting in vicious fighting.

 

2) The Alpha Legion ambushes the Ultramarines several times over the next days but are fought back every time.

 

3) The Alpha Legion ambushed the Ultramarines several times over the next days, inflicting heavy casualties to them.

 

The first one is very neutral, merley stating what happened. The second one presents the Ultramarines more favourable, focusing on how they eventually beat back the ambushing force. The third one presents the Ultramarines more negatively, focusing on how much they were harmed by those attacks without mentioning any successes or that they prevailed after all.

 

Consider the mindset of the Ultramarine at the time. They're surrounded, moving slowly through difficult terrain, under semi-constant attack from enemies they can't see coming and the constant threat of those attacks. They can't regularly communicate with their fellows. They just won a glorious victory which has apparently accomplished absolutely nothing. I suspect morale's a little low. Which would be perfectly consistent with accounts I have read from other soldiers in similar positions (both fictional and non).

 

Furthermore, it focuses on what happens to the Ultramarines more than the other two in that it focuses on what the attacks meant to the Ultramarines - they took heavy casualties. Which, frankly, is what I would expect an Ultramarine to be most concerned with in that situation. Their ability to fight the Alpha Legion off is assured - their ability to survive doing it, perhaps not so much.

 

Also, hit-and-run attacks don't need to be fought off by their very nature. Hence the "run" part.

 

The Index Astartes of the Iron Warriors gave them as 12,000 strong during the Great Crusade. The Second Founding background had already been known since 2nd Edition, so estimations for 25,000 Ultramarines and per 10,000 average Legion already existed. Older 2nd Edition background also occasionally refered to "ten thousand strong" Legions prior to the Second Founding (see for exampkle the 2nd Edition Codex Space Wolves, page 9).

 

Except the Second Founding takes place after a massive Ultramarine recruitment drive.

 

And then the Ultramarines leave...

 

When it has become clear that they can't practically hunt the Alpha Legion down.

 

Since Guilliman was en route to Terra, perhaps he may have decided that trying to dislodge a guerilla force from a harsh mountainous area would be too time consuming at that moment? At a different point he pleads with Dorn not to just singlehandedly attack a traitor force dug in on a planet, and he decides that to hunt down one Traitor Primarch would not be worth a risky commitment of loyalist forces. In this instance on Eskrador he seems to decide differently, that's all.

 

Maybe he might have. Maybe he might not have. Guilliman can be hot-headed too, remember?

 

And remember - he had his "kill Alpharius" plan. Which would have, with any other Legion, been a very, very good one. Had that worked, they would have been en route within a few days, tops.

 

That's not an explanation. That is the observation I have been making and having issues with.

 

Actually, it is an explanation. The Alpha Legion did not expect the first attack. They did expect the others. The Alpha Legion have massive intelligence resources at their disposal, and the other attacks were presumably not using the same methods as the first. Different results are unsurprising.

 

Pretty much, yes. I find it odd that an Ultramarine sergeant would write his account in an entirely pessimistic and defeatist attitude, focusing entirely on how much they were mauled by the attacks of the Alpha Legion, instead of phrasing it so that the Ultramarines had to do some heavy fighting but were able to push back ambush after ambush (you know, like how the Iron Cage is described in the Imperial Fists Index Astartes). The account is presented as questionable in the first place. And the way it is written makes me think that it indeed is not accurate. What reasons do I have that a representative of teh Ultramarines would lie to the Inquisition, other than to keep up the Chapter's reputation in front of the Inquisition?

 

The Ultramarines would lie for any number of reasons already suggested by others: to protect the Imperium, protect themselves, protect the people of Ultramar, protect their reputation, or because this is 40K and everyone lies.

[Captain Idaho]

Octavulg, less is more. I agree with some of what you are saying but you go on too much and create escalate disagreements into borderline arguements by picking apart everything someone says. The key to successful debating is actually picking apart only what you need to win it.

 

I actually agree that much of the discussion. Much in itself isn't out of the realms of possibility of being true, but since you have disputed every little thing so substantially it appears to most people that you consider the account to be true without any sceptism.

 

A simple summary in bullet form would tell everyone why you believe that the account is feasible, and everyone could make their minds up of yours and Legatus opinions (and those who agree with them).

 

You sure you don't mean objectively?

 

:D I did.

 

But are Space Wolves allowed to have coherent, well thought out opinions backed by examples and evidence? You didn't mention ale once! I'm telling Russ.

 

No! I don't like it! What's next, Dark Angels players that don't bemoan the Codex they got short changed on!

[Legatus]

I actually agree that much of the discussion. Much in itself isn't out of the realms of possibility of being true, but since you have disputed every little thing so substantially it appears to most people that you consider the account to be true without any sceptism.

This.

 

Uniquely for a piece of background, the account for the battle for Eskrador is not presented as what "historians believe has happened" in the past, but instead as an account that is specifically questioned by various authorities.

 

My position: I have pointed out some issues that seem to be particularly questionable, and have refered to other background that would have one expect different than events were described in that account.

 

Octavulgs position: It could still have happened like that, and all of those instances could be explained somehow.

 

Yes, I guess they can be. I still stand by my original conclusion.

 

I find it very implausible that the Battle for Eskrador happened, at least not as described in that account, for the reasons given above. Either that or the author is to blame for not making the least bit of effort to have the Index Astartes be consistent with the rest of the background.

[Octavulg]

Idaho:

 

I actually agree that much of the discussion. Much in itself isn't out of the realms of possibility of being true, but since you have disputed every little thing so substantially it appears to most people that you consider the account to be true without any sceptism.

 

No. I consider the account to be logically consistent. There is a difference. I've never said it was true. I've said that Legatus' inconsistencies aren't inconsistent.

 

Do I think the account is true? I'm honestly not sure. I'd want to know more about why the authorities in question are questioning it. But I do think that if it's an Alpha Legion fake, it's not going to be a blatantly obvious one. Whatever its flaws may be, I doubt it's anything in the actual content. If it is fake, I would assume that it is being questioned because other records disagree with it - not because it is logically inconsistent, but because what it says happened did not happen, and people can prove that.

 

So, regardless of whether it's true or not, I do think it's plausible. The Alpha Legion aren't that sloppy, and if it were clearly a fake I would imagine it would not have been used as a source.

 

* * *

 

Legatus:

 

Uniquely for a piece of background, the account for the battle for Eskrador is not presented as what "historians believe has happened" in the past, but instead as an account that is specifically questioned by various authorities.

 

Pieces of background are attributed to questionable sources all the time in 40K background - the writings of heretics, damaged accounts, the stories of dying men... Indeed, it is from these sources that the most truthful (from our perspective) accounts often come. IA Alpha Legion itself calls every source for everything in 40K (at least, everything about the heresy) into question in its opening paragraph.

 

Remember: Marneus Calgar has been accused of heresy. Calgar. It might be worth considering the Imperium's capabilities as objective recorders of history.

 

My position: I have pointed out some issues that seem to be particularly questionable, and have refered to other background that would have one expect different than events were described in that account.

 

Octavulgs position: It could still have happened like that, and all of those instances could be explained somehow.

 

Well. That was objective.

 

Let me try:

 

Legatus: Some issues seem to be questionable, based on my interpretation of them and of other pieces of background.

 

Octavulg: Both those pieces of background cited and the issues cited can be interpreted in fashions which are not questionable, as well.

 

Huh. That was simple. Makes me wonder why it took this long.

[Captain Idaho]

No. I consider the account to be logically consistent. There is a difference. I've never said it was true. I've said that Legatus' inconsistencies aren't inconsistent.

 

Do I think the account is true? I'm honestly not sure. I'd want to know more about why the authorities in question are questioning it. But I do think that if it's an Alpha Legion fake, it's not going to be a blatantly obvious one. Whatever its flaws may be, I doubt it's anything in the actual content. If it is fake, I would assume that it is being questioned because other records disagree with it - not because it is logically inconsistent, but because what it says happened did not happen, and people can prove that.

 

So, regardless of whether it's true or not, I do think it's plausible. The Alpha Legion aren't that sloppy, and if it were clearly a fake I would imagine it would not have been used as a source.

 

For the record, I agree with you that I do think the Alpha Legion are good enougth to work a subtle fake, or manipulate a real account with subtle changes to complete their "propaganda".

 

Of course it could be revealed in a BL novel at a later date that an Ultramarines Sergeant actually does lose his journal and it turns out to be 100% genuine! We should cross that bridge when we come to it though!

 

Let me try:

 

Legatus: Some issues seem to be questionable, based on my interpretation of them and of other pieces of background.

 

Octavulg: Both those pieces of background cited and the issues cited can be interpreted in fashions which are not questionable, as well.

 

Huh. That was simple. Makes me wonder why it took this long.

 

Easy huh. :tu:

[Walter Payton]

Remember: Marneus Calgar has been accused of heresy. Calgar. It might be worth considering the Imperium's capabilities as objective recorders of history.

 

This.

 

My position: I have pointed out some issues that seem to be particularly questionable, and have refered to other background that would have one expect different than events were described in that account.

 

Octavulgs position: It could still have happened like that, and all of those instances could be explained somehow.

 

Well. That was objective.

 

Let me try:

 

Legatus: Some issues seem to be questionable, based on my interpretation of them and of other pieces of background.

 

Octavulg: Both those pieces of background cited and the issues cited can be interpreted in fashions which are not questionable, as well.

 

Huh. That was simple. Makes me wonder why it took this long.

 

This is becoming dangerously close to a circular argument.

 

It can be summarised thus: Octavulg is debating whose interpretation of events is superior with Legatus.

 

And seeing as it is an interpretation of events, neither can be confirmed, so neither can conclusively prove what they are saying, and so we are back, with all the inevitability of the square ninety-eight snake, to square one.

 

I agree with Octavulg. If there are logical explanations for the problems, we can't dismiss the account out of hand. In my (admittedly subjective) view, he makes the better case.

 

As for this lying tangent:

 

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.

 

On the other hand I am not sure why I should doubt the word of representatives of the Ultramarines.

 

I am not saying that they are lying in this case. My position can be summarised thus:

 

1. There are exceptional circumstance in which the Ultramarines may lie. In my view.

 

2. Even if you do not subscribe to that view, you must still question their version of events to know that it is true. The fact they have s moral high ground (of sorts) is of no consequence. Their account must still be questioned, in order to prove its veracity. Imagine if every historian just went, 'well, the West had the moral high ground in the Cold War, so obviously they could never have bombed Kampuchea.' :wallbash:

 

3. Seeing as we do not have the exact grievances of the Ultramarine representatives, we can't question their account.

 

4. Q.E.D, we can't know if their version of events is any more plausible than Inquisitor Kravin's.

 

5. Ergo, we can't use their questions as a debating point because we do not know if their arguments have any more merit than those of Inquisitor Kravin.

[Captain Idaho]

I am not saying that they are lying in this case. My position can be summarised thus:

 

1. There are exceptional circumstance in which the Ultramarines may lie. In my view.

 

2. Even if you do not subscribe to that view, you must still question their version of events to know that it is true. The fact they have s moral high ground (of sorts) is of no consequence. Their account must still be questioned, in order to prove its veracity. Imagine if every historian just went, 'well, the West had the moral high ground in the Cold War, so obviously they could never have bombed Kampuchea.' :wallbash:

 

3. Seeing as we do not have the exact grievances of the Ultramarine representatives, we can't question their account.

 

4. Q.E.D, we can't know if their version of events is any more plausible than Inquisitor Kravin's.

 

5. Ergo, we can't use their questions as a debating point because we do not know if their arguments have any more merit than those of Inquisitor Kravin.

 

You are missing a very important facet to the concerns of the Ultramarines though. Kravin refused to submit his source, merely quoting from it. So that lends credence to the Ultramarines and Inquisition resisitance to the account of the battle as explained by Kravin. What further supports it is he never sumbitted it and then was accused to be an agent of the Alpha Legion, doing a runner instead of answering the accusations.

 

We cannot assume the Ultramarines are lying as we do not know what they are saying about the battle. All they do is question the account's veracity. And since they questioned it and were refused the evidence that would conclusively prove the account was true, we should be highly sceptical of the details of the battle revealed by Kravin. This adds weight to the credance that the Ultramarines have reason to dispute it, and implies they are actually telling the truth over Kravin. After all, if he has nothing to hide, why not submit the evidence?

 

Therefore on this basis the ultramarines quesitions of the account are a perfectly valid debating point.

[Walter Payton]

You are missing a very important facet to the concerns of the Ultramarines though. Kravin refused to submit his source, merely quoting from it. So that lends credence to the Ultramarines and Inquisition resisitance to the account of the battle as explained by Kravin. What further supports it is he never sumbitted it and then was accused to be an agent of the Alpha Legion, doing a runner instead of answering the accusations.

 

I am afraid that I don't agree with you there. Re: Failure to submit evidence, Index Astartes: Alpha Legion reads thus:

 

"For example, unlike the homeworlds of most of the First Founding legions of the Adeptus Astartes, the Alpha Legion's homeworld is unknown or nonexistent. The reason for this omission is unclear, but Inquisitor Kravin has recently unearthed an ancient journal that he claims provides an account of the first contact and recovery of the Legion's primarch. Kravin has estimated the veracity of this journal at 62.6%, but has so far refused to produce it for independent examination."

 

The source material that Kravin failed to submit seems from this extract to pertain directly to those records concerning the discovery and recovery of Alpharius, not that material pertaining to the Battle of Eskrador. The journal in question seems to be a stand-alone piece of evidence, not one that was published in Lessons of Strife. Of course, he may have failed to submit his material about Eskrador, but I imagine that it would be mentioned in the IA. But again, there is the uncertainty I am referencing. He may have failed to submit, but we cannot know that.

 

Also, Kravin fled after being accused of heresy by an Inquisitor Girreux. He may simply have wished to avoid prosecution and a possible kangaroo court. Shadow-politics and intrigue are hardly scarce in the corridors of the Inquisition.

 

All they do is question the account's veracity. And since they questioned it and were refused the evidence that would conclusively prove the account was true, we should be highly sceptical of the details of the battle revealed by Kravin. This adds weight to the credance that the Ultramarines have reason to dispute it, and implies they are actually telling the truth over Kravin. After all, if he has nothing to hide, why not submit the evidence?

 

Neither can we know that the Ultramarines version of events is true. We can have our suspicions, but until we have direct version of events and/or the wording of the Ultramarines' questions.

 

Inquisitor Kravin says A. A is disputed, and may be untrue.

 

Ultramarine Bill says B. B is accepted without criticism, so no-one can tell if it is true or not because no-one has ever posed such a question.

 

We must also turn the lamp of scrutiny upon ourselves in order to pierce the fog of the unknown.

 

We cannot assume the Ultramarines are lying as we do not know what they are saying about the battle.

 

I am not assuming anything. I merely pointing out that the Ultramarines could also be wrong/lying. But at no point said that they definitely were.

[Captain Idaho]

"For example, unlike the homeworlds of most of the First Founding legions of the Adeptus Astartes, the Alpha Legion's homeworld is unknown or nonexistent. The reason for this omission is unclear, but Inquisitor Kravin has recently unearthed an ancient journal that he claims provides an account of the first contact and recovery of the Legion's primarch. Kravin has estimated the veracity of this journal at 62.6%, but has so far refused to produce it for independent examination."

 

The source material that Kravin failed to submit seems from this extract to pertain directly to those records concerning the discovery and recovery of Alpharius, not that material pertaining to the Battle of Eskrador. The journal in question seems to be a stand-alone piece of evidence, not one that was published in Lessons of Strife. Of course, he may have failed to submit his material about Eskrador, but I imagine that it would be mentioned in the IA. But again, there is the uncertainty I am referencing. He may have failed to submit, but we cannot know that.

 

Actually keep reading. I'm pretty sure that it goes on to say he never submitted that account.

 

I am not assuming anything. I merely pointing out that the Ultramarines could also be wrong/lying. But at no point said that they definitely were.

 

Well we know that is the possibility, but then you said this;

 

5. Ergo, we can't use their questions as a debating point because we do not know if their arguments have any more merit than those of Inquisitor Kravin.

 

You are stating that the questions the Ultramarines have over the account's veracity cannot be "used" because we do not know their arguements have any more weight than Kravins's. That is incorrect, as I have shown, the burden of proof is on Kravin and he fails to deliver.

 

To use a simple analogy, it's like me talking about your grandad having a fight with a fella in town years ago, before either of us were born. I claim to have a journal that is of your grandad confessing he got a right beating, then when you ask to see it refusing. The bruden of proof is on me in this case.

[Walter Payton]

"For example, unlike the homeworlds of most of the First Founding legions of the Adeptus Astartes, the Alpha Legion's homeworld is unknown or nonexistent. The reason for this omission is unclear, but Inquisitor Kravin has recently unearthed an ancient journal that he claims provides an account of the first contact and recovery of the Legion's primarch. Kravin has estimated the veracity of this journal at 62.6%, but has so far refused to produce it for independent examination."

 

The source material that Kravin failed to submit seems from this extract to pertain directly to those records concerning the discovery and recovery of Alpharius, not that material pertaining to the Battle of Eskrador. The journal in question seems to be a stand-alone piece of evidence, not one that was published in Lessons of Strife. Of course, he may have failed to submit his material about Eskrador, but I imagine that it would be mentioned in the IA. But again, there is the uncertainty I am referencing. He may have failed to submit, but we cannot know that.

 

Actually keep reading. I'm pretty sure that it goes on to say he never submitted that account.

 

I did. And I re-did when you said this. I still can't find it. All it says is:

 

"The following account appears to be a 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 representatives of the Ultramarines themselves have since questioned its validity. The original was purportedly found in a system Earth-ward of Eskrador.

 

Here follows the account of the battle, as told by Ultramarine Bill.

 

"The account goes on to describe how, 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 it was suggested, or it had carefully planned ambushes ready for the loyalists. Finally, the Ultramarines evacuated the surface and used their ships to bombard the Alpha Legion from orbit. Guilliman is recorded as having said that he had no interest in fighting such a dishonourable foe."

 

I still can't find it. If it is there, can you point it out for me (I have them only as images of the scanned pages, though IA: Alpha Legion does seem to be complete, no cut off sentences or anything)?

 

I am not assuming anything. I merely pointing out that the Ultramarines could also be wrong/lying. But at no point said that they definitely were.

 

Well we know that is the possibility, but then you said this;

 

5. Ergo, we can't use their questions as a debating point because we do not know if their arguments have any more merit than those of Inquisitor Kravin.

 

You are stating that the questions the Ultramarines have over the account's veracity cannot be "used" because we do not know their arguements have any more weight than Kravins's. That is incorrect, as I have shown, the burden of proof is on Kravin and he fails to deliver.

 

To use a simple analogy, it's like me talking about your grandad having a fight with a fella in town years ago, before either of us were born. I claim to have a journal that is of your grandad confessing he got a right beating, then when you ask to see it refusing. The burden of proof is on you in this case.

 

 

Quite correct. However, if I am right about the IA, then this analogy is debunked. Even if I am not, the burden of proof is on both of us. You (the analogy you) have made a poor case. But the onus is also on me to make a better one. Therefore, the burden of proof is on both of us. You to back up your case, me to make a case superior to yours.

 

Then let's say we call a judge to moderate things. You tell the judge about the journal, again refusing to show it (if indeed Kravin did). I tell the judge that I disagree, and then leave it at that. So we end up with a judge (i.e us, now) who has a suspect case on one hand, and a statement of disagreement on the other. Nothing more. So all we have is your bad case and my opposition. So how do we know that my version of events if better?

 

All we have is the fact that the Ultramarines disagree. No detail on what we disagree about, no detail on what their version of events is. We need that detail to know that they are right and Kravin is wrong.

 

What you are effectively stating is that Kravin makes a poor case. But because he does, you are taking a substantial leap of logic in assuming the Ultramarines are making a better one. They could both be wrong.

[Captain Idaho]

"For example, unlike the homeworlds of most of the First Founding legions of the Adeptus Astartes, the Alpha Legion's homeworld is unknown or nonexistent. The reason for this omission is unclear, but Inquisitor Kravin has recently unearthed an ancient journal that he claims provides an account of the first contact and recovery of the Legion's primarch. Kravin has estimated the veracity of this journal at 62.6%, but has so far refused to produce it for independent examination."

 

The source material that Kravin failed to submit seems from this extract to pertain directly to those records concerning the discovery and recovery of Alpharius, not that material pertaining to the Battle of Eskrador. The journal in question seems to be a stand-alone piece of evidence, not one that was published in Lessons of Strife. Of course, he may have failed to submit his material about Eskrador, but I imagine that it would be mentioned in the IA. But again, there is the uncertainty I am referencing. He may have failed to submit, but we cannot know that.

 

Actually keep reading. I'm pretty sure that it goes on to say he never submitted that account.

 

I did. And I re-did when you said this. I still can't find it. All it says is:

 

"The following account appears to be a 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 representatives of the Ultramarines themselves have since questioned its validity. The original was purportedly found in a system Earth-ward of Eskrador.

 

Here follows the account of the battle, as told by Ultramarine Bill.

 

"The account goes on to describe how, 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 it was suggested, or it had carefully planned ambushes ready for the loyalists. Finally, the Ultramarines evacuated the surface and used their ships to bombard the Alpha Legion from orbit. Guilliman is recorded as having said that he had no interest in fighting such a dishonourable foe."

 

I still can't find it. If it is there, can you point it out for me (I have them only as images of the scanned pages, though IA: Alpha Legion does seem to be complete, no cut off sentences or anything)?

 

Cheers. I needed you to re-read it for me because I haven't the information available (left home you see). I don't think you missed anything out and that is how I remember it.

 

See, I was afraid of this. The information available is less than we thought! You are indeed right that we don't have an account as to why the Ultramarines disputed it, what they disputed and what Kravin presented. But it is implicit in the whole article that the account of the battle, along side much of the information Kravin has, is dubious.

 

Even if I am not, the burden of proof is on both of us.

 

Agreed. But I wasn't saying that the Ultramarines were correct in their side of the discussion, or even likely correct. Hell I even think they are likely as wrong as the account is, simply because not even the Ultramarines have complete records going back to that time (The Chapter's Due cloaks the battle of Fulgrim and Guilliman in mysticalism and doesn't even refer to Fulgrim by name!)

 

What you are effectively stating is that Kravin makes a poor case. But because he does, you are taking a substantial leap of logic in assuming the Ultramarines are making a better one. They could both be wrong.

 

I really don't think that. I just feel that the onus is on Kravin to prove his case first. The Ultramarines aren't saying they won the battle or anything like that, they are saying they doubt the veracity of the Journal. That is a perfectly valid response to any "accusation", surely?

 

I'm not trying to argue that the Ultramarines are infallibly honest, rather that we shouldn't discount their opinion/comments on the basis that they have a vested interest, or that we don't know for sure any more they are as correct as Kravin. Both sides have plenty of scope to be wrong or right (both?) and we should consider that in any view we take.

 

It does seem that people want to believe the account rather than looking at it objectively (ha, not subjectively this time). The evidence leans one way but is potentially false one way or another. So how can we trust that evidence?

 

On a separate note, how cool would a series of books on this subject be?! Like the X Files in 40K! Another Inquisitor is there to investigate Kravin and digs deep, finding webs of lies and kernals of truth, wrapped in half truths and lies! Murder and intrigue. Suspicsion and betrayal. That would be a different novel for once for BL to publish!

[The Emperor's Champion]

Ahhhh!!!! WALL-O-TEXT mode has taken over! ;)

[Legatus]

The two most basic reasons for why representatives of the Ultramarines would doubt a document are probably these two:

 

1. Every piece of data that is found and allegedly originates from someone in the Chapter would have to be verified for authenticity. If such a verification has not been possible so far then it will probably be quetioned by default.

 

2. The Ultramarines Chapter itself may have records that might contradict what is stated in that account. I believe that an encounter with a traitor Primarch would be amongs the records most valued and would not likely be lost. (Perhaps they have no record that Guilliman ever personally fought against Alpharius and this is the first they hear about it? Guilliman defeating a traitor Primarch has certainly never been mentioned in any GW Ultramarines sources.)

 

Edit:

One thing is for certain (as certain as you can get with 40K lore), even though it has been questioned in this thread by people who think the account is accurate: That Guilliman killed Alpharius in that duel is not presented in any way as questionable. Not only is he refered to as "Alpharius" and "the Primarch" with complete certainty, he also swats aside Ultramarines like they were nothing before being confronted by Guilliman. And after the Ultramarines have defeated the small Alpha Legion detachment, they obtain and take the time to burn the body. If that account is accurate then Alpharius is dead. Depending on whether one accepts the Black Library addition the Alpha Legion either lost their Primarch that day, or at least they lost the Alpharius half.

[Walter Payton]

Cheers. I needed you to re-read it for me because I haven't the information available (left home you see). I don't think you missed anything out and that is how I remember it.

 

See, I was afraid of this. The information available is less than we thought! You are indeed right that we don't have an account as to why the Ultramarines disputed it, what they disputed and what Kravin presented. But it is implicit in the whole article that the account of the battle, along side much of the information Kravin has, is dubious.

 

I am not disputing that the whole thing is dubious, this is the Alpha Legion. But dubiety does not automatically mean it is wrong.

 

Agreed. But I wasn't saying that the Ultramarines were correct in their side of the discussion, or even likely correct. Hell I even think they are likely as wrong as the account is, simply because not even the Ultramarines have complete records going back to that time (The Chapter's Due cloaks the battle of Fulgrim and Guilliman in mysticalism and doesn't even refer to Fulgrim by name!)

 

What you are effectively stating is that Kravin makes a poor case. But because he does, you are taking a substantial leap of logic in assuming the Ultramarines are making a better one. They could both be wrong.

 

I really don't think that. I just feel that the onus is on Kravin to prove his case first. The Ultramarines aren't saying they won the battle or anything like that, they are saying they doubt the veracity of the Journal. That is a perfectly valid response to any "accusation", surely?

 

Not really. In and of itself, it just boils down to 'nah, that's wrong'. We need the rest.

 

I'm not trying to argue that the Ultramarines are infallibly honest, rather that we shouldn't discount their opinion/comments on the basis that they have a vested interest, or that we don't know for sure any more they are as correct as Kravin. Both sides have plenty of scope to be wrong or right (both?) and we should consider that in any view we take.

 

I wasn't suggesting we did. I was suggesting that we discounted their opinions/comments on the basis that we haven't a clue what they are, beyond speculation. Without a case to argue or examine, we can hardly debate the merits of that case against another, surely?

 

It does seem that people want to believe the account rather than looking at it objectively (ha, not subjectively this time). The evidence leans one way but is potentially false one way or another. So how can we trust that evidence?

 

Viewed objectively we have an account that may or may not be authentic, that may or may not be true, that may or may not be riddled with inconsistencies. We can examine the evidence. I personally believe that the account is only partially true.

 

On a separate note, how cool would a series of books on this subject be?! Like the X Files in 40K! Another Inquisitor is there to investigate Kravin and digs deep, finding webs of lies and kernals of truth, wrapped in half truths and lies! Murder and intrigue. Suspicsion and betrayal. That would be a different novel for once for BL to publish!

 

Quoted for truth.

[Legatus]

I personally believe that the account is only partially true.

What elements do you think may be false, and why?

[Walter Payton]

I personally believe that the account is only partially true.

What elements do you think may be false, and why?

 

I really can't say. By partially true, I meant that there are probably lies and half-truths in there, but we have no way of knowing what they are.

[Kizzdougs]

I'm not sure if has been mentioned but Guilliman was most likely fighting against two Primarchs.

 

Plus i don't think Guilliman would really know what to expect from the AL apart from the unexpected. No one really new much about the AL, not even the Warmaster, who Alpharius was supposed to be mates with.

 

The Ultramarines were the greatest allround legion but the AL were in their element on Eskrador. Guilliman would have had tactics for dealing with ambushing forces but any plan would have been nearly imposible to maintain in Eskrador's particular environment.

 

I always felt the story was flimsy but i think thats more due to bad writing rather than implausible fluff.

[Captain Idaho]

The Ultramarines were the greatest allround legion but the AL were in their element on Eskrador. Guilliman would have had tactics for dealing with ambushing forces but any plan would have been nearly imposible to maintain in Eskrador's particular environment.

 

I always felt the story was flimsy but i think thats more due to bad writing rather than implausible fluff.

 

Indeed. A single battle does not elavate a single Chapter/Legion over another. Especially an ambush. It is likely that the whole engagement was stacked against the Ultramarines from the outset, like the Imperial Fists at the Iron Cage.

 

Infact we know the Alpha Legion pulled similar stunts on White Scars and Space Wolves, but we do not think they are inferior in any way.

[The Emperor's Champion]

any plan would have been nearly imposible to maintain in Eskrador's particular environment.

Except that the environment described is basically the exact same as where the Ultramarines live and where a lot of them grew up. If anything, the Alpha Legion should have had a hard time executing their own battle plans against an enemy who is completely at home in that environment.