What if Sanginus was Warmaster?

[DarkLiege]

just like the title say: what would happen if Sanginus became the warmaster instead of Horus in the Great Crusade?

 

I read from somewhere that Horus, deep down, thought that he should never have been the warmaster but instead that role should have been given to his brother, Sanginus, for he sole purpose that he has the compassion of the emperor. Or something along these lines. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

here's a link to what might could happen written by Primarch Magnus over at Heresyonline.com: http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=95699

 

Anyway, lets start discussing the what ifs. :)

[Legatus]

What would have happened? About the same that was mentioned in the "what if Guilliman had been warmaster?" thread. Horus would still have turned, and the traitor Legions would still have sided with him. Only now he would not have had the position of Warmaster to orchestrate the Heresy from. Up until that point, Sanguinius would have been an adequate Warmaster, if not the most obvious choice, for lack of distinguishing himself as a commander.

[A D-B]

I read from somewhere that Horus, deep down, thought that he should never have been the warmaster but instead that role should have been given to his brother, Sanginus, for he sole purpose that he has the compassion of the emperor. Or something along these lines. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Just to swoop in on a pet peeve tangent...

 

Horus expresses that doubt himself in Horus Rising, largely because Sanguinius is the most popular and likeable primarch, as well as his compassion. It's not a matter of competence, but of diplomacy.

 

Horus was First Primarch, and the most capable one of all the Emperor's sons. He just expressed a moment of doubt, because his job was a difficult one. Also, despite his doubts, Horus was the very best primarch at utilising all his brothers' various talents, and the specialisations of their Legions. That's stated a few times in the lore.

[Arkangilos]

I read from somewhere that Horus, deep down, thought that he should never have been the warmaster but instead that role should have been given to his brother, Sanginus, for he sole purpose that he has the compassion of the emperor. Or something along these lines. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Just to swoop in on a pet peeve tangent...

 

Horus expresses that doubt himself in Horus Rising, largely because Sanguinius is the most popular and likeable primarch, as well as his compassion. It's not a matter of competence, but of diplomacy.

 

Horus was First Primarch, and the most capable one of all the Emperor's sons. He just expressed a moment of doubt, because his job was a difficult one. Also, despite his doubts, Horus was the very best primarch at utilising all his brothers' various talents, and the specialisations of their Legions. That's stated a few times in the lore.

 

 

While I do not disagree that Horus was the Best, I do disagree he said that because of self-doubt AND Sanguinius being the "most popular."

 

I agree with the self-doubt, but I think Horus probably legitimately meant the part about him having the vision to rule after he had achieved victory. I mean, look at what he did with Baal.

 

BUT, I am not saying he is better than any of the other primarchs, I'm just saying I don't think Horus lied based on popularity.

[A D-B]

I mean, look at what he did with Baal.

 

Compared with, say, Ultramar? Baal is hardly an achievement on that scale. Ultramar is the perfect empire within the empire. It has been since Day 1.

 

But I actually agree with you, to an extent. Sanguinius would likely have made a great peacetime ruler in that context. But Horus was largely speaking from self-doubt; that much is clear.

[Arkangilos]

I mean, look at what he did with Baal.

 

Compared with, say, Ultramar? Baal is hardly an achievement on that scale. Ultramar is the perfect empire within the empire. It has been since Day 1.

 

But I actually agree with you, to an extent. Sanguinius would likely have made a great peacetime ruler in that context. But Horus was largely speaking from self-doubt; that much is clear.

 

Well Ultramar was already in a better situation wasn't it? Where as Baal was a complete wasteland without any real culture left. They were nothing but scavengers, and he turned that around.

 

But I do agree that Horus was speaking from self doubt.

 

+edit+

And I know Ultramar was not really unified, but it was in far better shape than Baal, from what I recall.

 

And what I mean by what he did with it, I mean how he transformed a barren wasteland with little culture and full of people who had to scavenge to survive into what he had turned it into.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Baal still is a hellhole inhabited by uncultured scavengers though. That's pretty much the point of it. Sure, Sanguinius killed the mutant hordes, but he didn't turn it into any sort of utopia, or anything even resembling one. Personally, I don't think Sanguinius would have been as effective. Sure, he was more liked than Horus, but Horus had more respect, and that's what a leader needs. He knew what needed to be done, who best to do it, and could get them to do it.

[Billuriye]

I can't help but feel like these "What if x was Warmaster?" threads are a poorly disguised "This primarch vs that primarch" thread.

[Arkangilos]

Baal still is a hellhole inhabited by uncultured scavengers though. That's pretty much the point of it. Sure, Sanguinius killed the mutant hordes, but he didn't turn it into any sort of utopia, or anything even resembling one. Personally, I don't think Sanguinius would have been as effective. Sure, he was more liked than Horus, but Horus had more respect, and that's what a leader needs. He knew what needed to be done, who best to do it, and could get them to do it.

 

It is now that Sanguinius is gone, but I have always had the impression that he actually made it better. But there is only so much you can do when there is radiation every where.

 

 

 

And I think Sanguinius would have been on par with the other best choices.

[Olis]

Why do I get the urge to start a "Sanguinian Heresy" thread...? :)

[RapatoR]

Well one thing would: Sang gets corrupted and later killed by Horus.

[Emperors Immortals]

Well one thing would: Sang gets corrupted and later killed by Horus.

 

I always thought that sangs great power was his absolute faith in humanity including its flaws - its why he cant be corrupted, he alone feels humanity is perfect, like the emp. Its where the others fell and could be tempted by chaos.

 

Also,surly its not the point that Horus named a particular primarch as more suited or better, but that he said we wasnt the best at all.

[Captain Idaho]

I mean, look at what he did with Baal.

 

Compared with, say, Ultramar? Baal is hardly an achievement on that scale. Ultramar is the perfect empire within the empire. It has been since Day 1.

 

But I actually agree with you, to an extent. Sanguinius would likely have made a great peacetime ruler in that context. But Horus was largely speaking from self-doubt; that much is clear.

 

Well Ultramar was already in a better situation wasn't it? Where as Baal was a complete wasteland without any real culture left. They were nothing but scavengers, and he turned that around.

 

But I do agree that Horus was speaking from self doubt.

 

+edit+

And I know Ultramar was not really unified, but it was in far better shape than Baal, from what I recall.

 

And what I mean by what he did with it, I mean how he transformed a barren wasteland with little culture and full of people who had to scavenge to survive into what he had turned it into.

 

It's easier to unite people who have desparate, simple lives in comparison to those who have an established culture as it's a case of "what do I gain out of unification?" The warfare of the Great Crusade is testament to that.

 

That's not to say I don't doubt Sanguinius; he's the Angel! (He's my second favourite Primarch, though may tie with Dorn, so I am a little biased here!)

 

I just think he could have done more with Baal than he did. Sure he had further to go to change it, but it doesn't appear to have changed much (though I'm sure it probably did a little, just not in ways worth mentioning in the studio material).

 

Horus was the only one who could motivate his brothers, therefore he was the only one who could realistically maintain command over so many egotistical monstrousities (hyperbole intended). Mortarion, Peturabo, Curze and Angron jump out as particularly difficult to manage.

[Arkangilos]

I mean, look at what he did with Baal.

 

Compared with, say, Ultramar? Baal is hardly an achievement on that scale. Ultramar is the perfect empire within the empire. It has been since Day 1.

 

But I actually agree with you, to an extent. Sanguinius would likely have made a great peacetime ruler in that context. But Horus was largely speaking from self-doubt; that much is clear.

 

Well Ultramar was already in a better situation wasn't it? Where as Baal was a complete wasteland without any real culture left. They were nothing but scavengers, and he turned that around.

 

But I do agree that Horus was speaking from self doubt.

 

+edit+

And I know Ultramar was not really unified, but it was in far better shape than Baal, from what I recall.

 

And what I mean by what he did with it, I mean how he transformed a barren wasteland with little culture and full of people who had to scavenge to survive into what he had turned it into.

 

It's easier to unite people who have desparate, simple lives in comparison to those who have an established culture as it's a case of "what do I gain out of unification?" The warfare of the Great Crusade is testament to that.

 

That's not to say I don't doubt Sanguinius; he's the Angel! (He's my second favourite Primarch, though may tie with Dorn, so I am a little biased here!)

 

I just think he could have done more with Baal than he did. Sure he had further to go to change it, but it doesn't appear to have changed much (though I'm sure it probably did a little, just not in ways worth mentioning in the studio material).

 

Horus was the only one who could motivate his brothers, therefore he was the only one who could realistically maintain command over so many egotistical monstrousities (hyperbole intended). Mortarion, Peturabo, Curze and Angron jump out as particularly difficult to manage.

 

I don't know how much there is he could have done about Baal. I mean unifying the people and killing off the mutants, as well as bringing culture back is about as much as you could do with a Radioactive world. I do see your point though. I just wouldn't say it was because of his ability. If the planet were more capable of being fixed, I think he would have done it.

 

 

As to him being corrupted by Horus: Horus tried corrupting him before, it didn't work. I think he, along with all of the other loyalist primarchs, would remain loyalists. They have all proven "incorruptible." I really don't like saying any one of them is more loyal than the other, because if you look at it, they all stayed.

[Vesper]

Yes, but Konrad Cuze beat up Dorn, was about to choke the Lion to death and made Corax flee, he's awesome.

 

It's a "my primarch is better than yours" thread, right ?

[Lord Ragnarok]

Yes, but Konrad Cuze beat up Dorn, was about to choke the Lion to death and made Corax flee, he's awesome.

 

It's a "my primarch is better than yours" thread, right ?

 

No.

 

just like the title say: what would happen if Sanginus became the warmaster instead of Horus in the Great Crusade?

 

All posts should be leading to answering this question or it is off topic.

[Vesper]

He would have been corrupted by Chaos, like every primarch that ended as warmaster. Then he would have been killed by Horus/the emperor, much like evey other primarch would.

Horus was the warmaster because he was the best. Hands down. That is why his corruption was such a loss.

[Billuriye]

Well AD-B concluded the "what if x was the warmaster" conjecture pretty nicely. Horus was the best choice for Warmaster position since he's the first and the brightest. I don't know what else remains to discuss anyway. It just devolves into "my primarch is uncorruptible because i'm his fan".

[c-wrex]

Well, there is also the issue that whoever was deemed Warmaster needed to have a significant military force of his own. Now, the Angels of Blood were obviously a powerful, well led, and highly regarded legion, but they certainly were not the Luna Wolves.

 

Everything we have as source material describes the pre- and active-heresy legion of Horus to be the most militarily competent. Not competent in securing people's unwavering fealty, like Lorgar. Not competent in the subtle infiltration and annihilation like Alpharius/Omegon. Not competent in in strategy and execution like Roboute or the Lion. Competent in the sense of peerless combat instinct, flawless decision making, and the raw excellence of bloody combat that only could come from the Luna Wolves, who were regarded by both the Emprah and his entire military structure as the best.

 

It just wouldn't be becoming for the Imperium's preeminent war leader to be backed by a less than the best army.

[E.G.J.]

What would have happened if Sanguinius had become Warmaster? I think that depends on the following 1) Is the Heresy and ensuing civil war inevitable? 2) If it is inevitable, is whoever in the position of Warmaster going to be corrupted? 3) If somebody else is Warmaster, how does that affect the other Primarchs?

 

So if Sanguinius would have become Warmaster, would that somehow have forestalled Horus being turned? Horus would still be the "first" and the "brightest" of the primarchs and he would still have retained his character, ambition, skill, clout, and diplomatic savvy, including his influence and friendship with other primarchs. There is no reason to believe that he could not have been corrupted just because Sanguinius or somebody else had become Warmaster. He would still have had the friendship, diplomatic insight, and manipulative power to turn just about all the primarchs who turned traitor anyway. In that scenario the Heresy would likely have turned out very similar to how it did, with the exception that when Sanguinius got uber-killed by Horus he would have died with the title Warmaster.

 

A far more interesting way to look at it would be what a corrupted Sanguinius would have looked like. If we go by point 1 and 2 above, and assume that whoever is Warmaster becomes corrupted and leads the rebellion, then what would Sanguinius look like in that role? His admirable traits are his compassion, empathy and understanding for humanity, piety, and his overall "human" outlook. How would these qualities become corrupted under the influence of the warp? I.e. in what way would the traits that make Sanguinius good and noble turn against him and become the antithesis of who he is? Just as the traits that made Horus #1 turned against him and became the counterpoint to who he actually was. I think that is a much more interesting avenue to explore than to simply assume Sanguinius wouldn't turn or that the Heresy wouldn't happen. Difficult as it may be for fans of any primarch to swallow, if Horus could be turned.....then so likely could any of the others. Question then is, what would their corrupted selves have been like?

[Billuriye]

If Sanguinius was corrupted, he wouldn't suffer any losses from inner treason like Horus did since Sanguinius has the most powerful bond with his sons bordering on Hive Mind. He could also potentially surpass Horus in raw power since he's much more in touch with his psyker side. With his gift of foresight enhanced he would make the best duelist/commander too. But he lacks the sheer charisma of Horus and because of that he may have to resort displays of power to establish his will throughout his traitor brothers. Also without Horus, Mortarion is out of the deal.

[Lord_Caerolion]

They have all proven "incorruptible." I really don't like saying any one of them is more loyal than the other, because if you look at it, they all stayed.

 

The problem people have regarding these "what if" scenarios is that they don't treat them as "what if" scenarios, instead simply swapping the titles of Primarchs around, as if the Chaos Gods are going to use the exact same tactics regardless of situation. Sanguinius as Warmaster would be a very different person, under very different circumstances, than what he was when Horus was Warmaster. We don't know that the Loyalist Primarchs were "incorruptible", only that they weren't corrupted. That's two entirely different things. To put it another way, my grandfather died of old age. That doesn't mean that he was immune to gunshots. If he'd been shot, he might have died from it, but just because it didn't happen to him doesn't magically mean that he isn't affected by them whatsoever. No, it's not a perfect metaphor, but I hope it gets the point across.

 

Sanguinius may have stayed loyal under the 'true' circumstances, but that doesn't mean he'd still stay loyal under other circumstances, and other approaches to corrupt him. You cannot know that Sanguinius could never ever be corrupted, because you have no evidence to make that claim. Some state that his humanitarianism would protect him from corruption, I see that as a potential weakness, with the Chaos Gods playing on Warmaster Sanguinius' empathy, making him hate the callousness of the Imperium, that the Emperor is utterly uncaring of the lives of his subjects. Soon, he begins planning to take over the Imperium, to remake it as he did Baal, with Khorne to help him fight, Tzeentch to fan the fires of rebellion, and Slaanesh and Nurgle providing comfort to his Empire. It would be a longer fall, but he'd fall none-the-less. In the same way, it'd be a different rebellion than Horus' rebellion.

[Captain Idaho]

He would have been corrupted by Chaos, like every primarch that ended as warmaster. Then he would have been killed by Horus/the emperor, much like evey other primarch would.

Horus was the warmaster because he was the best. Hands down. That is why his corruption was such a loss.

 

Out of all the Primarchs, Sanguinius is the only one I believe who could never be corrupted in any shape or form. I think he could even resist possession (or at least destroy his body in a battle inside his mind to stop the Daemon).

 

Aside from that, even if Sanguinius was corrupted, he didn't have the influence of Horus. It was Horus who was key.

[Chengar Qordath]

Out of all the Primarchs, Sanguinius is the only one I believe who could never be corrupted in any shape or form. I think he could even resist possession (or at least destroy his body in a battle inside his mind to stop the Daemon).

 

Aside from that, even if Sanguinius was corrupted, he didn't have the influence of Horus. It was Horus who was key.

Lord_Caerolion's post above yours lays out what seems to me like a plausible way for Sanguinus to become corrupted; turn his compassion against him.

 

As to the matter of how bad a Sanguieus Heresy would be, as I recall Sanguinus was the most well-loved of all the Primarchs. I suspect that his own rebellion would be a much more bottom-up movement, as opposed to the top-down Horus Heresy. In other words, where Horus focused on turning commanders Sanguinus would win over common soldiers. Instead of a vast conspiracy, it would be more like a rebellion/revolution. Could be interesting to see how it all played out.

[Paradill]

I'd need proof that Sanguinius was the 'most loved' of all the Primarchs, after all, Horus has more victories and glories, has fought more battles and been with the imperium much longer than any of his brothers. That must mean something to the imperial public.

 

I think that whoever was war master, the heresy could only ever have been the Horus heresy. It was his understanding of what made his brothers tick, how to manipulate them to believing in his cause that was instrumental in bringing about the mass rebellion needed to support Chaos' bid for power. Lorgar was most pliable, he was the first to fall and the gateway by which chaos seeped through, but it was Horus who was targeted and he alone who could achieve their goals.

 

Sanguinius wouldn't have been warmaster, because he wasn't Horus.