What if Guilliman became Warmaster?

[Kol Saresk]

TFH wouldn't be the best example in my book for "Support Gulliman for Warmaster." since it does suggest him to be a, what's the politically correct term for it, brown noser? I mean, why else would they even think about suggesting that his Legion is so big because the two missing Legions were added to them.

 

The Jokuh-who-what? I'd be lying if I said that I've heard of them before. Are they one of the less-talked about xenos from Rogue Trader or the older White Dwarf?

 

And you're right, the 30K Imperium is nothing like the 40K Imperium. The 30K Imperium would have extinguished the Tau Empire and the Tyranids either would have been a smaller threat, if at all since the 30K Imperium was much more organized, despite the fact it was still under construction.

[Kol Saresk]

Question, accepting that some useful species of xenos were absorbed into the Imperium and such, why was Lorgar so against them?

[Legatus]

TFH wouldn't be the best example in my book for "Support Gulliman for Warmaster." since it does suggest him to be a, what's the politically correct term for it, brown noser? I mean, why else would they even think about suggesting that his Legion is so big because the two missing Legions were added to them.

Yes, why would Word Bearers feel that the Ultramarines might not deserve their reputation and didn't achieve their accomplishments entirely by themselves? ;)

[Kol Saresk]

No it would be more like they achieved themselves and then were elevated above the rest by being reinforced by two entire Legions. If that is what happened.

 

Out of curiosity(Yes I know I ask a lot of questions but considering the fluff is fluid and not solid) why is it generally assumed that if Gulliman became Warmaster, that the Gulliman Heresy wouldn't happen?

[Legatus]

Out of curiosity(Yes I know I ask a lot of questions but considering the fluff is fluid and not solid) why is it generally assumed that if Gulliman became Warmaster, that the Gulliman Heresy wouldn't happen?

I am personally basing it on this:

"The Chaos Gods continued to whisper to the Primarchs from the Warp, disturbing their dreams with promises of power, appealing to their pride, their martial prowess, and their courage. No single Primarch was wholly resistant to such temptations. The character of each was sorely tested, and fully half of them would eventually fail that test."

(4th Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines, p. 12)

The same can be found in the 2nd Edition Codex Chaos on page 8, so this is fluff that has been consistent for the past fifteen years. It wasn't that the Chaos Gods incidentally happened accross an opportunity to turn Mortarion, Angron, Alpharius, etc. They tried them all, and they managed to turn half of them. They tried, but did not manage to turn the rest.

 

 

There is also this passage in "Angels of Darkness", but for one I would consider the source less canonical than several generations of Codices and it is merely an opinion voiced by a very subjective source:

"Roboute Guilliman was the greatest of the primarchs, and never once wavered in his dedication and service. But he was inferior to Horus in every way. He was not as ableminded, nor as charismatic, and not as physically adept. Why was it that Horus turned to the powers of Chaos, perfect as he supposedly was, when Guilliman, his inferior, is still renowned ten thousand years later as the shining example of a primarch? It is because Guilliman had learned incorruptibility. For whatever reason, from whatever source, Guilliman had shaped his mind to make it impregnable to the lure of power and personal ambition. He said Space Marines were unsullied by self-aggrandisement, and he spoke truly for he took all Space Marines to be as worthy as himself. Horus, somewhere in his upbringing, had learned a fatal weakness, a chink in the armour of his soul that allowed him to consider himself greater than the Emperor."

[Octavulg]

That AoD passage has more contradictions than the entire rest of 40K. B)

[Captain Idaho]

A Guilliman Heresy couldn't have occurred not because he is incorruptible, since Chaos parlour tricks could corrupt even Horus and Fulgrim. The reason Guilliman couldn't have orchestrated a rebellion on the scale of the Heresy not because of his capabilities either. It's all because he didn't have a good enough relationship with his brother Primarchs to be able to motivate them to treachary.

 

Sure, Fulgrim could still have been possessed and the Alpha Legion do their own Xenos related things, plus Lorgar would have been there too. Curze I suppose could have turned and went to Guilliman out of desperation. Very circumstantial too. The others looks to be a little less likely.

 

It's possible Lorgar and his Legion could have corrupted Horus, but then why would you need to corrupt Guilliman then? We still end up with the Horus Heresy!

 

That AoD passage has more contradictions than the entire rest of 40K. :devil:

 

Not to mention it was wholly obsolete and inconsistent with much of the rest of the back ground material we have on both Horus and Guilliman!

[Rune Priest Ridcully]

I could see a civil war happening if Guilliman became warmaster instead of a heresy. After the completion of the crusade, Guilliman attempts to push his doctrines upon the other legions, using his position as warmaster to do so. If some Primarchs resisted when there had just been a heresy, think how they would take it coming out of the blue. RG's lack of personal skills would be the major undermining point here, as he would not be able to try and sell it per say without there having been a heresy before hand. You could well end up with a civil war with both sides fighting for the emperor, who as he has not commented or come out of his lab, both sides believe they are fighting for him. RG's because his position is Emperor given, and the other side as they could well see RG imprisoning the emperor, ruling in his name and so believe that they need to "free" him from them.

[Rik Lightstar]

Sorry, I'm missing something Ridcully, why would there be ANY need for the break up of the Legions if there'd been no Heresy, Guilliman implemented the break up of the Legions specifically to reduce the power wielded by any one commander, had there been no Heresy then there would be no justification to do it.

 

Surely he'd be more likely to attempt to codify the internal structure of the Legions so that a Squad/Company/Chapter would mean the same thing regardless of the Legion in question, equally with regard to the ranks so a Sergeant/Captain/Commander/Chapter Master would also be interchangeable, and I can't see how this would be such an issue.

[Legatus]

It probably wouldn't be. But it is commonly assumed that all the tactical doctrines from the Codex Astartes were forcibly imposed on the other Chapters (ignoring that half of the First Founding Chapters only losely adhere to it), and that other Chapters were somehow opposed to those doctrines.

[Kol Saresk]

They may still have been separated into individual Chapters or such(Like the Crusade-era Chapters not like now) to better expand the Astartes power base so they could react to threats faster similar to what happened now. The major differences would be the 30k Imperium's Coherency along with the eighteen Legions being all there was instead of 1,000 Chapters. Assuming no Heresy or Civil War.

[DarKnight]

Where are you guys getting the idea that Guilliman couldn't maintain meaningful interpersonal relationships between his brothers? Because of Lorgar? Hardly a shining example don't you think?

[Gree]

I assume most people think that because of Guilliman's relative unpopularity amoung the fanbase.

[Legatus]

Guilliman was rather demanding to his peers, not holding back when he thought they were doing poorly. He is said, in different sources, to have criticized Alpharius for his wasteful campaigns (as did almost everyone else, with Horus being the only one who spoke in favour of Alpharius' accomplishments in the face of the odds), to have criticized Horus for not being thorough enough in securing the compliance of worlds his Legion just liberated, to have planned to have words with Angron because of the massacres his Legion committed, and to have spoken to the Emperor about Mortarion's questionable loyalty. Horus, on the other hand, played "nice" with everyone, complimenting them and offering presents, trying to get everyone on his good side. Of course, in hindsight we can see why.

 

So, there is some basis for the argument that Guilliman would not have been as accepted as Warmaster as Horus would have been. However, going from resenting his criticism to outright rebellion is a bit of a leap, and so argue that this would have been the reason for a Heresy would be a bit much.

 

However, Guilliman is also, in different sources, said to have included the ideas and doctrines of his brothers in his work and to have had respect for a number of them. He was not just someone who belittled others. He criticized when he saw a reason to, and he appreciated when he saw a reason to. The more even minded Primarchs were probably able to acknowledge that, and could take his complaints as constructive criticism. But then not all the Primarchs were that even minded.

[Hereticus81]

TFH wouldn't be the best example in my book for "Support Gulliman for Warmaster." since it does suggest him to be a, what's the politically correct term for it, brown noser? I mean, why else would they even think about suggesting that his Legion is so big because the two missing Legions were added to them.

 

I may have the wrong end of the stick here but I'm pretty sure ADB has, repeatedly, said on these very boards that the Ultras absorbing remnants of the missing legions are purely rumour and conjecture on the behalf of some Word Bearers with no grounding in reality.

[Rune Priest Ridcully]

Whilst the breakdown of power would not have been called for, I can see RG attempting to push his ways of warfare on the primarchs and legions he saw as "inefficient", such as the Alpha legion, and from everything I've read, h's come across a genius and brilliant and true hero, yet that also, I don't know why, I for some reason get the impression that his people skills were poor, almost that he found it social situations awkward. And I myself like the Ultramarines in their pre ward form.

I don't see the attempts to spread the codex (In whichever form it would take) as being the main reason for this split, rather I see it as the straw that broke the camels back due to underlying problems and such that I think would only be avoided by a trimurtive (I think that is the spelling, if not I do apologise.).

Another thing I've thought is why do people assume Fulgrim falls? perhaps with Horus not corrupted (or at least so early) he may notice something is up with Fulgrim, or different fleet movements bring Mangus or/and the thousand sons into contact with at such a point where they notice something is wrong about the blade and fulgrim and then either exorcise/save him, or take him to the emperor who recognizes what's happening and then takes action and all the consequences, perhaps a different legion face the Lear?

[Captain Idaho]

Guilliman wasn't described as having poor people skills, rather he was so astute and clever, his brothers always thought "what is he getting out of this" rather than being rubbed the wrong way.

 

In some ways it's worse than being poor socially, because no matter how genuine and pleasant you are, people won't trust you.

[Rik Lightstar]

On a side note, from the descriptions so far, the Primarchs that RG trusted seem to be the ones that stayed loyal, with this in mind I can quite see RG isolating the "rebellious" ones away from their equally intractable peers, and at the first sight of trouble crushing them himself with his full 250,000 strong Legion and making an example of them.

[Rune Priest Ridcully]

But you wonder what his reaction would have been if say Dorn or Russ had got the Learn blade and then fallen/possessed? Would it have been a major crisis of faith for him and make him doubt himself so much that anything could happen, almost paralyse him with shock and indecision initially, and then for him to gradually rebuild it afterwards?

[Pulse]

Guilliman was rather demanding to his peers, not holding back when he thought they were doing poorly. He is said, in different sources, to have criticized Alpharius for his wasteful campaigns (as did almost everyone else, with Horus being the only one who spoke in favour of Alpharius' accomplishments in the face of the odds), to have criticized Horus for not being thorough enough in securing the compliance of worlds his Legion just liberated, to have planned to have words with Angron because of the massacres his Legion committed, and to have spoken to the Emperor about Mortarion's questionable loyalty. Horus, on the other hand, played "nice" with everyone, complimenting them and offering presents, trying to get everyone on his good side. Of course, in hindsight we can see why.

 

So, there is some basis for the argument that Guilliman would not have been as accepted as Warmaster as Horus would have been. However, going from resenting his criticism to outright rebellion is a bit of a leap, and so argue that this would have been the reason for a Heresy would be a bit much.

 

However, Guilliman is also, in different sources, said to have included the ideas and doctrines of his brothers in his work and to have had respect for a number of them. He was not just someone who belittled others. He criticized when he saw a reason to, and he appreciated when he saw a reason to. The more even minded Primarchs were probably able to acknowledge that, and could take his complaints as constructive criticism. But then not all the Primarchs were that even minded.

Now that is a description of Guilliman i actually like, that adds more character to the man.

[Legatus]

Now that is a description of Guilliman i actually like, that adds more character to the man.

Guilliman is often employed in the Index Astartes articles as the one wagging the finger when one of the other Primarchs was underperforming or acting questionably (not every time though, I don't think he is mentioned as having spoken out against the Night Lords or the Word Bearers, which is not to say that he didn't). This, coupled with having established the reformations of the Space Marines after the Heresy, is then often interpreted as Guilliman being arrogant and expecting everyone to do things his way. However, there are other accounts describing how Guilliman mastered all the scholarly disciplines he could when being raised on Macragge, and then eagerly learning about all the wonders of the Imperium once he had been found by the Emperor. It had also been mentioned in very old sources, as well as some newer ones, that Guilliman had included the teachings of some of his brothers in the Codex Astartes. He was not at all above adopting techniques or methods from his brothers when he found them valuable, and has generally more been described as curious and willing to learn. But if he considered the methods of his brothers less effective, he would also point that out.

 

In 'Know no Fear" there is a short scene where a Word Bearer, still pretending to be an ally, tells an Ultramarine a bit of new military craft he had encountered (alluding to the massive treason on Istvaan, without outright telling him), and the Ultramarine is very interested in hearing about it. However, the Ultramarine is more amused by the (very esoteric) concept. (And a bit puzzled what the Word Bearer is trying to get at.)

[Pulse]

It had also been mentioned in very old sources, as well as some newer ones, that Guilliman had included the teachings of some of his brothers in the Codex Astartes. He was not at all above adopting techniques or methods from his brothers when he found them valuable

Yeah i had read a bit about about that, Guilliman took a lot of influence from Rogal Dorn's writings on void warefare and other bits, can't remember the name of the book though.

[Olis]

I do recall Perturabo mentioned in regard to tank warfare tactics mentioned somewhere.

[Arkangilos]

@ RG being uncorruptable:

I am pretty sure that all of the loyalists primarchs are like that.

 

@ RG being able to best Horus in every way:

I am pretty sure that is not the case. RG was good at what he was good at, and Horus was one of the best Generals.

But, RG was really good, and besides Sanguinius and Horus, he is one of the top three for the War Master slot.

 

I really like Legatus's last few statements about Guilliman too.

[Kol Saresk]

I wouldn't say that the Loyalists were incorruptible though. Just harder to corrupt. The right offers weren't made. But that's how the universe with Horus as Warmaster played out. We don't know how a universe with Gulliman was Warmaster could have played out. For all we know, The Sons of Horus and the Ultramarines could have switched places. Alpha Legion could have assassinated him. Raven Guard could have gone traitor and assassinated him. He may have turned evil and died at the Siege of Terra. We just don't know. All we know is that from everyone outside the Legion looking in, he has a superior air. As in he carries himself well. To some, that is viewed as being arrogant. To others, he's just full of confidence. To those in the Legion, he is aloof when compared to other Primarchs because he doesn't have favored Sons. All Ultramarines are equal to him. He has his own little empire. Again, that could speak of arrogance or it could speak of skill in building infrastructure. Depends on who is looking and from where. He was the weapon of choice to destroy Monarchia. To the Word Bearers, he was the arrogant son who brought the father's wrath down in the name of Imperial Law. To the Ultramarines, they were victims of circumstance and they took no relish in the slaughter of civilians. To others, the view would depend. The question on that would be, would they do it again. They slaughtered the Colchisians and burned their planet to the ground. True, it was in retaliation for Calth. But there were no Word Bearers recorded at Colchis. It was simply a planet for a planet.