Libertas

[Lestat]

Having recently read the new GK codex and listened to Garro: Oath of Moment, a thought occurred to me. Does the sword in the GK imagery represent Garros sword Libertas? There are enough "suggestions" in the Heresy fluff to indicate the Garro was responsable - along with the Sigillite - for creating the GK's.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[gil galed]

which sword are we talking? pg numbers.

 

~Gil ;)

[RamrodMC]

There are two swords being talked about here, Gil. The sword in the GK Chapter icon, so just look at every page in the Codex with artwork, really. And then there is Libertas, which is Garro's sword. It is mentioned in the audio book "Oath of Moment", which is what Lestat was listening to. Was it named in GiF or FotE as well? I can't remember.

 

Anyway, Lestat, I think you are totally onto something. I always assumed the symbol was supposed to represent the guarding (sword) of dangerous knowledge (book). However, the design of the sword seems to be constant: the blade is narrow at the cross-guard but gets wider and wider (reaching its widest at the foible) and then narrows to a point. Maybe the reason the GK sword icon looks almost universally this way is because that is what Libertas looked like...

 

Great theory!

[gil galed]

There are two swords being talked about here, Gil. The sword in the GK Chapter icon, so just look at every page in the Codex with artwork, really. And then there is Libertas, which is Garro's sword. It is mentioned in the audio book "Oath of Moment", which is what Lestat was listening to. Was it named in GiF or FotE as well? I can't remember.

 

I realize that :tu: , just he said artwork so I was wondering if he was referencing a particular picture he thought represented libertas. While I can see the Icon might be libertas I imagine it's more a symbolic reference... especially given it's been around alot longer than libertas... I think ;)

 

~Gil :)

[torgaddon666]

It could just be a coincidence. But in G-W nothing is what it seems. I'd safely bet that Libertas IS the sword in the artwork. I'll have a look myself, I'll have to pikey my mates codex.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Hopefully it won't be. I'm getting kinda sick of the most insignificant of items being jumped on as a shadowy secret tie to 40k. Let's leave some things as metaphorical and not always a hidden revelation. The reason the sword on the Grey Knights looks like it does is because it's their Chapter symbol, so is uniform, and because having a "normal" sword at that size and level of detail begins to look like an upside-down crucifix, and it's hard enough to keep the religious right from ranting about rpgs and fantasy games without having what look like satanic symbols (even though it isn't...) plastered all over an army heavily related with daemons.

 

In summary, Garro's done enough with the formation of the Grey Knights without having their Chapter icon based on his personal weapon. He doesn't have to have personally decided each and every minute piece of information regarding their founding, given that there were 7 other founders.

[Lestat]

Anyway, Lestat, I think you are totally onto something. I always assumed the symbol was supposed to represent the guarding (sword) of dangerous knowledge (book). However, the design of the sword seems to be constant: the blade is narrow at the cross-guard but gets wider and wider (reaching its widest at the foible) and then narrows to a point. Maybe the reason the GK sword icon looks almost universally this way is because that is what Libertas looked like...

 

Great theory!

 

It seems to work as each Chapter takes it's symbolism from it's founder - be that a Primarch or the 2nd founding Chapter Master. As the GK's also use the stylised =I= of the Sigillite too, that seems to indicate that there are two significant founders of the GK's.

 

Hopefully it won't be. I'm getting kinda sick of the most insignificant of items being jumped on as a shadowy secret tie to 40k. Let's leave some things as metaphorical and not always a hidden revelation. The reason the sword on the Grey Knights looks like it does is because it's their Chapter symbol, so is uniform, and because having a "normal" sword at that size and level of detail begins to look like an upside-down crucifix, and it's hard enough to keep the religious right from ranting about rpgs and fantasy games without having what look like satanic symbols (even though it isn't...) plastered all over an army heavily related with daemons.

 

In summary, Garro's done enough with the formation of the Grey Knights without having their Chapter icon based on his personal weapon. He doesn't have to have personally decided each and every minute piece of information regarding their founding, given that there were 7 other founders.

 

The theory that I'm working on is that each Chapter draws on something from thier past history which then becomes the chapter badge. No-one mentioned anything about any religious mumbo-jumbo being involved - it was just a personal observation that ties in with other GW fluff.

[Lord_Caerolion]

The stylised "I" is the symbol of the Inquisition though, with the three cross-bars representing the three Ordos. I don't see how "I" can be the Sigilites personal symbol, really, as it doesn't symbollically represent anything to do with him, that I can see.

As to how Chapter symbols are formed, nothing's really said, but it seems to also be more than just the history of the Chapter master. The original Legions, yeah, but the Grey Knights most likely took it as Ramrod says, with the sword being both a symbol of defense (secret defenders of the Imperium) and offense (burn the daemon!), while the book represents the dark knowledge of sorcery that every Grey Knight must know.

[RamrodMC]

Yeah, Caerolion, I don't know why it's described as such, but if you listen to Oath of Moment, Malcador's symbol is described exactly like the =][=. Strange, but true.

 

So indeed, the entire Inquisition, not just the GKs, are using the personal symbol of the Emperor's right hand man. Fitting that they would use his symbol, not so much that his symbol was an I. Maybe it just stands for Imperator or Imperium. Whatever, the point is that all the disparate threads in the lore are slowly starting to get connected, even in places where they don't need to be. I can certainly see how GW might turn Libertas into the GK icon, if only to make it even more obvious that Garro will likely end up being their first Supreme Grandmaster Lord.

 

I think the Libertas/GK icon connection would be kind of cool, though. Makes more sense than the sigil of the Sigilite.

[Lord_Caerolion]

That's the thing though, we shouldn't have everything connected. I'm guessing the writers often think it's smart, but sometimes stuff in 40k happened without it being the result of events described in a 30k novel. What next, part of the codex written by Guilliman details every Chapter symbol it's permissable to have, as shown in the new book by McNeil, the Heraldry of War? The Cursed Founding was actually based on research notes left by Malcador, who left a few parts out?

 

I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea that the sword shown looks like Libertas, but more the whole ideas of "what new tenous links to 40k can we squeeze into the next novel? I know! Malcador also founded the Deathwatch, at the same time as the Grey Knights!"

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

The stylised "I" is the symbol of the Inquisition though, with the three cross-bars representing the three Ordos. I don't see how "I" can be the Sigilites personal symbol, really, as it doesn't symbollically represent anything to do with him, that I can see.

As to how Chapter symbols are formed, nothing's really said, but it seems to also be more than just the history of the Chapter master. The original Legions, yeah, but the Grey Knights most likely took it as Ramrod says, with the sword being both a symbol of defense (secret defenders of the Imperium) and offense (burn the daemon!), while the book represents the dark knowledge of sorcery that every Grey Knight must know.

 

I know, BIG surprise, bit i Disagree.

 

1) There are more then 3 Ordos in the =][=. At the time of its founding though there was only Malleus.

 

2) The =][= symbol IS Malcador's personal icon. It says so in Oath Of Moment, Legion of One, and hinted at in the Last Remembrancer. What it means is up for debate

 

3) it makes since that the sword may be Libertas. When Garro marks his brothers into his group he takes their Oath on Libertas. It might be that ALL GK's take the same Oath on the same Sword.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Ahh, my nemesis returns! :devil: I feel the need to have a persian cat on my lap as I write this response!

 

As I'd said above though, I don't necessarily disagree with Libertas being the source of their symbol, merely the fact that every single thing in 40k apparently has to have been created or be linked in some way to a main character in 30k, and the needless retconning of things with perfectly working explanations as they are now.

 

About the "I" though, I know that it's now Malcadors symbol now, but it had previously been explained to represent the Inquisition, and its three Ordos Majoris. It was never said to have been their symbol ever since founding, and I would have thought that the Ordo Xenos would have been one of the founding Ordos, or at least created very, very soon after.

The only point to ret-conning the Inquisitorial "I" to being Malcadors personal symbol is to go "tee hee, aren't we smart! It was actually this all along!" It adds nothing to the background, except to make changes for the sake of it.

[A D-B]

That's the thing though, we shouldn't have everything connected. I'm guessing the writers often think it's smart, but sometimes stuff in 40k happened without it being the result of events described in a 30k novel. What next, part of the codex written by Guilliman details every Chapter symbol it's permissable to have, as shown in the new book by McNeil, the Heraldry of War? The Cursed Founding was actually based on research notes left by Malcador, who left a few parts out?

 

I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea that the sword shown looks like Libertas, but more the whole ideas of "what new tenous links to 40k can we squeeze into the next novel? I know! Malcador also founded the Deathwatch, at the same time as the Grey Knights!"

 

I couldn't agree more.

[Lestat]

About the "I" though, I know that it's now Malcadors symbol now, but it had previously been explained to represent the Inquisition, and its three Ordos Majoris. It was never said to have been their symbol ever since founding, and I would have thought that the Ordo Xenos would have been one of the founding Ordos, or at least created very, very soon after.

The only point to ret-conning the Inquisitorial "I" to being Malcadors personal symbol is to go "tee hee, aren't we smart! It was actually this all along!" It adds nothing to the background, except to make changes for the sake of it.

 

I would disagree with you there as I believe it does add something to the background of 40k. It provides a tangible link between the Inquisition and it's founder(s). Thats partially the point I was making with Libertas and the GK's - along with other Chapters - as it provides a visual link to the fluff. GW are very clever at using links like this - just look at certain Primarchs names for example. Sanguinius comes from the Latin for blood and the first part of Ferrus Manus' name is heavily based in the Latin for iron.

There are too many little coincidences and examples in 40k lore to go into here. I think that as the whole of 40k has evolved, then so too has the background and fluff. I mean, we all take part in a fictional game which uses plastic soldiers and is set in a universe nearly 40,000 years in the future and to me the whole point of that game is to tell a story.

The GK's use Malcadors stylised =][= and the sword/book combo just as the Custodes use the Emperors Lightning bolt device and aquila. The Blood Angels use the winged blood drop and the chalice, the Dark angels make use of a winged sword and a broken sword. The point I'm trying to make is not that we should be be looking for some extremely tenuous links in all the fluff, but maybe that there are some links there that just need to be thought about a little more so we can make the connections ourselves. GW has given us the building blocks of an entire universe to play with and it's up to us to help tell the story of what goes on in that universe.

 

I'll going to leave you with a parting thought. Some of you may recognise it from a certain well-known sci-fi film franchise, but it sums all this very well:

 

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...........

 

Lestat

[Aegnor]

GW are clever for calling the Primarch of the Iron Hands "Ferrus Manus"??? :)

[Unintentional Batman]

Or the angry Primarch Angry Ron? I mean Angron.

 

Yes. Clever. Subtle like being hit in the face with a bag of doorknobs, but in a tongue-in-cheek way, very clever. Low-brow (altough in a curious twist in the fabric of reality Dark Angels suddenly got a high-art alcoholic homosexual as their Primarch's name), funny. Clever. :wacko:

[Generating Random Name...]

GW are clever for calling the Primarch of the Iron Hands "Ferrus Manus"??? :wacko:

That's not too bad, we don't know what they were called before the Manus himself was found. I think it was the tribes people of Medua that started calling him ferrus Manus after he killed the wyrm thing and got it's melting skin on his hands. The Iron Hands try to be like their Primarch (Hand of Iron)... Not so bad with the story.

[Lord Ragnarok]

That's the thing though, we shouldn't have everything connected. I'm guessing the writers often think it's smart, but sometimes stuff in 40k happened without it being the result of events described in a 30k novel. What next, part of the codex written by Guilliman details every Chapter symbol it's permissable to have, as shown in the new book by McNeil, the Heraldry of War? The Cursed Founding was actually based on research notes left by Malcador, who left a few parts out?

 

I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea that the sword shown looks like Libertas, but more the whole ideas of "what new tenous links to 40k can we squeeze into the next novel? I know! Malcador also founded the Deathwatch, at the same time as the Grey Knights!"

 

But you are biasing the current focused discussion (connection between Libertas and GK symbol) to your issue of GW going to far linking stuff acrosst he board.

 

Let's focus on the GK symbol/libertas connection and have a different thread about over-using 30k/40k connecting elements.

[Lord_Caerolion]

The whole problem with the Inquisition/Malcador link though is that Malcador didn't just found the Inquisition, he was also the lord of the Administratum, which he created long before the Inquisition, and was actually a member of, so it would have made much more sense for the Administratum to take his personal symbol as their own, rather than the 4 people he found and said "ok, you're now secret police, go do stuff".

 

The thing is that this isn't "making existing connections visible". Malcador didn't exist before Collected Visions, and the symbol of the Inquisition had a perfectly functioning reason as to why it looks like it does. The Malcador connection makes little sense (why didn't the organisation he was actually the leader, member and creator of use it, the Administratum), needlessly retcons existing, working explanations and in general is included simply for the sake of having yet another "revelation" in a Heresy book.

Some new material is cool, and adds depth to the background (Lorgar writing the precursor to the current Emperor-worship, Horus Lupercal, Lorgar Aurelian, the Remembrancer Order), but some is stupid, because it either makes no sense, devalues the themes of the Heresy, (tee hee, daemon-possessed pariahs! Fulgrim falling purely because of a magical sword! The "God Delusion" speech by the Emperor!). This falls mostly into the second category. It adds a link, that part is true, but it adds a link at the expense of destroying another, which makes less sense than the previous, and which didn't need changing.

[Lestat]

Just because Malcador wears the robes of an Administratum Adept, he is never credited with being a member of said Administratum.

 

That aside, lets do what Lord Ragnarok suggested and keep to the original point and observation I made rather than arguing that we should not be making unecessary links in the fluff.

I have put forward my arguments that Libertas is the sword represented on the GK's iconography and given examples of where founders of a Legion/Chapter or organisation have used thier founders symbol as thier own but no-one has yet put forward a counter-argument with any evidence to prove my theory wrong.

Lets keep to the point here people and hear some valid points being made.

[Valkyrion]

Just because Malcador wears the robes of an Administratum Adept, he is never credited with being a member of said Administratum.

 

That aside, lets do what Lord Ragnarok suggested and keep to the original point and observation I made rather than arguing that we should not be making unecessary links in the fluff.

I have put forward my arguments that Libertas is the sword represented on the GK's iconography and given examples of where founders of a Legion/Chapter or organisation have used thier founders symbol as thier own but no-one has yet put forward a counter-argument with any evidence to prove my theory wrong.

Lets keep to the point here people and hear some valid points being made.

 

The evidence proving your theory wrong is that is hasn't been confirmed, so is wrong until it is true. Like everything in 40k.

You can theorise your brain out about the 2nd Primarch being invisible if you want and no one can prove you wrong, but you aren't right by default.

 

You can argue the theory of the Word Bearers assumption that the Ultramarines gained a boost in numbers, because that has been presented as being potentially true from a biased perspective, but you can't argue that the GK sword is Libertas because it has never been mentioned that it might be except by you just then.

 

I mean, the GK symbol could have been a new take on the Word Bearers symbol, as they were the only legion to have a book as their symbol.

[Lestat]

Just because Malcador wears the robes of an Administratum Adept, he is never credited with being a member of said Administratum.

 

That aside, lets do what Lord Ragnarok suggested and keep to the original point and observation I made rather than arguing that we should not be making unecessary links in the fluff.

I have put forward my arguments that Libertas is the sword represented on the GK's iconography and given examples of where founders of a Legion/Chapter or organisation have used thier founders symbol as thier own but no-one has yet put forward a counter-argument with any evidence to prove my theory wrong.

Lets keep to the point here people and hear some valid points being made.

 

The evidence proving your theory wrong is that is hasn't been confirmed, so is wrong until it is true. Like everything in 40k.

You can theorise your brain out about the 2nd Primarch being invisible if you want and no one can prove you wrong, but you aren't right by default.

 

You can argue the theory of the Word Bearers assumption that the Ultramarines gained a boost in numbers, because that has been presented as being potentially true from a biased perspective, but you can't argue that the GK sword is Libertas because it has never been mentioned that it might be except by you just then.

 

I mean, the GK symbol could have been a new take on the Word Bearers symbol, as they were the only legion to have a book as their symbol.

 

I never said that I was right by default, I am merely asking for a meaningful discussion - with supporting evidence - from both sides. It it no good naysaying and shouting down another persons theory without any counter-evidence.

"The evidence proving your theory wrong is that is hasn't been confirmed, so is wrong until it is true." Is that not like saying guilty until proven innocent? I mean, it is only a theory which, given the evidence, is entirely plausible. As an example, how many people believe in aliens or that an omnipotent being created everything?

[Valkyrion]

I never said that I was right by default, I am merely asking for a meaningful discussion - with supporting evidence - from both sides. It it no good naysaying and shouting down another persons theory without any counter-evidence.

"The evidence proving your theory wrong is that is hasn't been confirmed, so is wrong until it is true." Is that not like saying guilty until proven innocent? I mean, it is only a theory which, given the evidence, is entirely plausible. As an example, how many people believe in aliens or that an omnipotent being created everything?

 

The burden of proof is on you because you made the claim and until someone with sufficient authority confirms it it cannot be true or proven.

It is you who are saying the guilty until innocent part - the evidence proving you stole that car is wrong, until it's proven it's right.

 

Tell me why I'm wrong about the Word Bearers. One of the eight might be a loyalist Word Bearer so keen on the Emperor is God thing, just like Garro is, that he persuades Malcador to preserve the memory of the original Word in the GK's symbology.

 

I'm wrong. I have to prove I'm right.

 

Faith is different, it doesn't require proof. You either believe or you don't.

Modern day aliens - until it's proven they exist then people who believe in their existence are wrong. As unlikely as it is that we are alone, we have to assume we are until we aren't. If you know what I mean.

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

Tell me why I'm wrong about the Word Bearers. One of the eight might be a loyalist Word Bearer so keen on the Emperor is God thing, just like Garro is, that he persuades Malcador to preserve the memory of the original Word in the GK's symbology.

 

I for a time had hoped that a WB would be one of the 8. I could think of nothing more regretful for Grey Knight fan boys then to have a Son or Lorgar as one of their founders. We have had more then their fair share of WB influence on the HH thus far. They are almost Every ware. Yet we have ZERO evidence of a WB loyalist survivor. To go with that we have many sources that would hint that there are no Loyal WB alive by the time of the Start of the HH. The WB's had no less then 2 legion wide purges overseen by Erebus. the 1st they killed all those not Loyal to Lorgar on Colchis. The 2nd they killed all non natives of Colchis. Erebus was WAY to smart to leave any loose ends un resolved in his Legion. At the end of the War on Isstvan III, when Horus was forced to Bomb the loyalists, because the war was taking to long Erebus showed his thoughts on leaving enemys alive.

 

Collected Visions page 228. The final fate of Isstavan III. Horus talks to his commanders and has had enough of what is going on on the planet, He tells his commanders to withdraw and for all to prepare to use fleet artillery to bombard the city to oblivion.

 

"Erebus the dark apostle, emissary from Lorgar of the Word Bearers spoke. ' My lord Horus, this is a commendable plan and one which i fully endorse. However, it is not guaranteed that an artillery barrage , even one of such magnitude, will completely deal with these foes. Some will inevitably survive. If you pardon my presumption at mentioning it Sire.'

 

'Thank you Erebus. I do not seek you endorsement but it is welcome. Of cores some will survive, but we will by then have quit this cesspool of a planet. They will be no further threat to us if they have no one to fight. They have no shuttle craft to leave the planet with. Istavaan III will be their tomb or prison, i care not which it is. We have bigger, more important tasks ahead of us. When all else is done, we can return here at leisure and dispose of any remaining issues.'

 

I think this shows that Erebus would not have let any in his legion live who was not on board with Lorgar's plan. They had many years to make sure they crossed all the t's.

 

The only hint i have seen of a Loyalist Word Bearer is the story Scion of the Storm, in Tales of Heresy. Sor Talgron was as close to a loyalist as i think we will ever see from the XVII Legion. Too bad for him that Lorgar convinces him to read the Book of Lorgar. I am convinced that he lives on to be the Dreadnought "Warmonger" in the WB trilogy.

 

If you can provide even One example i am missing go ahead. Fire away.

[Valkyrion]

I don't have any examples, only that we haven't finished with the Word Bearers yet.

The Ultramarine was completely out of the blue (no pun intended) because no one had heard of him, the two Luna Wolves, a World Eater and Garro.

 

There is plenty of time for a Word Bearer to start doubting, although I concede that it is unlikely. But the idea of the Word Bearers being the first exponents of the Emperor is God thing and the ultimate realisation of that by the rest of mankind may play a part in the Grey Knights book symbology may end up being true, although again it is unlikely.

 

Based on nothing at all, I think two of the other three will be a Thousand Son and Alpha Legion.

The Thousand Son will have experience of dealing with the warp, the Alpha Legion's loyalty is still questionable and they have the sneakiness/operatives thing going down.

 

But I've gone a bit off topic, so apologies.