Feud between Guilliman and Alpharius

[RapatoR]

So, in the old days of IA, there was a mention of a conflict between over tactics Roboute and Alpharius. Both primarchs were brilliant tacticians, but while Guilliman was using rigid approach, Alpharius tactics were fluid. Also Guilliman frowned upon using dishonourable tactics, while Alpharius was willing to do anything to win a battle, often using dirty tricks.

 

But in the light of the new background (5th ed SM dex, novels KNF and Betrayer), we see Ultramarines as fluid force, using some dirty tricks

(e.g. collapsing buildings on WE in the battle for Armatura reminds of tiggering rock slides that was used against UM on Eskador

to gain advantage in battle, but Legion still mentions that Roboute despises Alpharius, so what is source of their conflict? If anything they should be close to each other, or am I missing something?

 

Could be secretiveness of AL source of Guillimans disrespect? But then, there are Dark Angels whose are both masterful tacticians and secretive and there was no conflict between Roboute and ElJohnson.

 

So what do you think, why are the two in conflict?

[Legatus]

There should have been no feud between Guilliman and Alpharius. That the author of the Alpha Legion Index Astartes decided that it would be the Ultramarines was a bit of a mistake, due to several points:

 

1. The 3rd Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines had stated that the Alpha Legion had had a long feud with the Imperial Fists since the time of the Great Crusade, and that the two Legions had clashed on numerous occasions even before the Heresy. This was completely dropped in the Alpha Legion Index Astartes.

 

2. The Ultramarine doctrines were described as rigid in the Index Astartes of the Alpha Legion, so as to act as an antithesis of the Alpha Legion doctrine. However, since 1st Edition the Ultramarines had allways been described as the most flexible of the loyal Chapters, since they were not specialised in (i.e,. "restricted to") any particular type of warfare, and since the basic tenet of the Codex Astartes is that there is an effective approach for every situation, i.e. the approach has to be custom tailored to the situation. The Index Astartes of the Imperial Fists had pointed out that after their adoption of the Codex doctrine, the Imperial Fists became a much more flexible force, with lower ranking officiers being able to act on initiative, and all manners of tactical approaches being employed, whereas the old Imperial Fists Legion had been described in the same article as a rather inflexible formation, with all companies being organized identically, and commanders being unimaginative.

 

3. During the Battle on Eskrador, the Ultramarines are outmaneuvered in dense mountain terrain. However, the Ultramarines' own fortress monastery is situated in the uninhabitable mountain regions of Macragge, and Guilliman's very first command back on Macragge had been a campaign in the wild mountain regions, where no commander before him had ever succeeded to defeat the mountain raiders. So if there was any Primarch who would have been capable to deal with an engagement in dense mountain terrain, it should have been Guilliman. On the other hand, which Primarch might perhaps have been less capable to deal with skirmish warfare in dense terrain? Dorn, of course, who according to many sources was much more comfortable in static engagements where he would either attack or defend a static position.

 

Add to that other things, such as Guilliman generally being portrayed as interested in the ideas of his brothers (he included the Siege Tactics of Perturabo in the Codex Astartes, for example), while Dorn is often portrayed taking offense at the slightest display of questionable behaviour (such as when he was told about Curze's dark visions), or that the description of the Battle on Eskrador points out that the Alpha Legion and the Ultramarines "naturally had the same number of Thunderhawks", even though the Ultramarines Legion was of course magnitudes larger than the other Legions.

 

It should have been Rogal Dorn who clashed with Alpharius. The Imperial Fists had been described as feuding with the Alpha Legion in earlier sources. The Imperial Fists were described as a rigid force (whereas the Ultramarines absolutely weren't). The Imperial Fist swould have been caught off guard in the dense mountain terrain (the Ultramarines should have been more capable to cope than most other Legions).

 

If the choice for the opposition seems so obvious, then why did the author of the Index Astartes article pick Guilliman and the Ultramarines instead? The answer is simple: The Imperial Fists had already been given another feud in a previous Index Astartes article. They were made the arch enemies of the Iron Warriors. And more specifically, they already had been lured to and ambushed on a planet in the Iron Cage incident. Describing another rivalry and another planetary trap in the Index Astartes of the Alpha Legion would have been too similar for them. So the author decided to use the Ultramarines and Guilliman as the opposition for the Alpha Legion instead. Even though the Codex doctrine is about the least rigid of all the Legions' doctrines. Even though the Ultramarines should have been well prepared to fight on a world like Eskrador. And even though Guilliman was usually described as genuinely interested in the tactics of his brothers.

 

If the Horus Heresy novels removed that confrontation on Eskrador, that would be a sensible retcon for a change.

 

 

All that aside, and in light of the description in "Legion", could there be a reason why Guilliman might not have approved of the Alpha Legion's tactics? Sure. But not because of "sneaky" tactics like ambushes or traps. More because of subversive tactics like planting double agents among the enemy, or not even informing their allies of their different hidden maneuvers. Such methods cast a bad light on the Imperium, and any newly discovered world that is conquered by such means would probably be forever suspicious about the Imperium and their methods. Being crushed by an absolutely superior force is one thing, but at least it is a straight forware display of force. but having spies planted among your planetary forces that then turn your own weapons against you? How could this world ever really trust the Imperium? (Edit: And it also leaves no good impression if the forces of the Imperium apparently do not even trust each other.)

 

Plus, the methods of the Alpha Legion required a lot of time to prepare. They were able to use fewer men to execute them, but executing them would take quite some time. Especially planting double agents would take long. So after a world had made contact with the Imperium, there would be no swift liberation or conquest. The world would be left wondering or left under alien or tyrannical rule for some time before the Alpha Legion would finally enact their schemes. The Index Astartes of the Alpha Legion mentions one particular battle where the Alpha Legion purposefully took their time and let the enemy forces amass, just to then prove how superior they were in taking them down. The Alpha Legion was subsequently criticised by many different quarters, and Guilliman is quoted in particular, calling the campaign a huge waste of time and ressources.

 

So, as far as Guilliman is concerned, the Alpha Legion is not very effective, and more concerned with making a show rather than liberating worlds in the name of the Imperium. And their subversive methods cast a bad light on the Imperium, possibly resulting in worlds of questionable loyalty.

 

In the older lore, where the main motivation of the Alpha Legion had been to prove their superiority over everyone else, Alpharius would have loathed Guilliman simply because he was among the most achieved of the Primarchs. But alas, Abnett completely dropped that character trait of the Alpha Legion and made up an entirely new background and motivation when he wrote 'Legion'

[Veteran Sergeant]

Agreed.

 

That old Index Astartes article for the Alpha Legion is pretty stupid in its entirety, to be honest. And Guilliman's problem with Alpharius was more that his methods were inefficient given the objectives of the Crusade, not that they were fluid and his were rigid.

 

Some authors have been incredibly confused about what "adhering to the Codex Astartes" means, and have described it like the Codex is some kind of Warfighting For Dummies instruction manual where there is just a giant list of "If A, Then B" scenarios. It's pretty ludicrous the second you give it even the slightest thought.

 

Had never really considered the Alpha Legion vs Imperial Fists angle. But it makes sense. And definitely, if there was one Legion and Primarch that would have understood the Alpha Legion, it would have been the Ultramarines and Guilliman.

[Vesper]

And definitely, if there was one Legion and Primarch that would have understood the Alpha Legion, it would have been the Ultramarines and Guilliman.

 

In fact, Horus did.

[RapatoR]

In the older lore, where the main motivation of the Alpha Legion had been to prove their superiority over everyone else, Alpharius would have loathed Guilliman simply because he was among the most achieved of the Primarchs. But alas, Abnett completely dropped that character trait of the Alpha Legion and made up an entirely new background and motivation when he wrote 'Legion'

Thanks for interesting post, the Imperial Fists definitely give sense.

 

Personally I consider subversion as one of the plethora of different tatics that AL uses (and it is not always so complicated sometimes you just need to know enemy postions or do the right action/execute right person in right time), although it is kinda their brandmark nowadays. Some people tend to exaggerate this aspect of warfare and tend to mark AL as "ninja marines" but I think it is similar gross oversimplification similar to thinking that Codex Astartes is a book with restrictive methods.

 

Also I can't agree that Dan has redone their background.

We see that their philosophy is already different from Imperial one and well IA really doesn't provides any information why AL turned. We also saw Grammaticus persuading Legionnaires by tackling their pride. Alpharius states that Guilliman disapproves him and he in turn ignores Roboute so animosity could be one-sided, but that could be lie.

In my opinion he didn't diverted much from the original IA article.

 

Hopefully someone will flesh out this conflict, but I am worried. AL is not very popular faction and there was plenty of spotlight for them already.

[Veteran Sergeant]

A lot of what has turned people against the Alpha Legion has been the way they've been portrayed more recently. I actually had an Alpha Legion army back in the day (2nd Edition) that I used for small points tournaments and games (modern equivalent of around 1000 points).

 

The problem with the Alpha Legion is that they, like the Space Wolves, have been over-troped and become a caricature. When originally they were these kinds of unconventional snake eaters, they've become, as I've coined, the Mission Impossible Marines, where they basically do everything except be Space Marines. I joke that the only reason why the Alpha Legion wasn't censured for being even more useless than the Word Bearers is because they'd infiltrated the Imperial communications structure kept sending false reports of success in battles that never actually happened. :D And it's only half a joke. Space Marines, are, by design, loud, violent weapons of mass destruction. The modern Alpha Legion having adopted and perfected more unconventional means of warfare to adapt to their place in the universe where they are but a small force waging war against a larger enemy like the Imperium makes sense. A handful of Alpha Legionnaires creepering onto a world and fomenting a rebellion is cool. It made the Chaos Alpha Legion kinda like sneaky Green Berets jerkbags.

 

Instead, what we've gotten from the Horus Heresy novels is this Legion of James Bonds, led by one (two?) lunatic who seems to be too busy planning, and not actually doing anything. All of these grand plans by Alpharius are conveniently executed, despite the fact that many of them make no real sense, or would be nearly impossible to pull off. Basically, they've taken the idea that the 40K Alpha Legion learned to fight unconventionally, and forgotten that the Legion Alpha Legion would have had to fight conventionally most of the time by its very design and purpose. Guilliman and Alpharius may have clashed over the idea that Guilliman thought Alpharius wasted too much time making his plans unnecessarily complex (and there's definitely a lot of wisdom to that), but if Alpharius was constantly wasting so much time, he'd have fallen under the same scrutiny as Lorgar.

 

Basically, the Alpha Legion's fluff makes very little sense. Their stories seem to be a constant one-upsmanship between the Black Library authors as they try to come up with an even more ridiculously over the top plan for Alpharius to hatch, while ignoring the fact that these are Space Marines. Seven and a half foot tall, biologically engineered murder machines. They need to be Space Marines first, and trope second. For all the over-wolfing and over-vikinging of the Space Wolves, they at least are Vikingy, Wolfy Space Marines. Not Wolfy Vikings that occasionally decide to be Space Marines.

 

I'd love to see more Alpha Legion fluff if they'd move away from the Mission Impossible Marines cliche that has overloaded their stories. Honestly, I think the Alpha Legion has suffered the most from the "modern" reinventions than any other Legion. Even more so than the Ultramarines, who, like you mentioned, have suffered from authors who seem to think the Codex Astartes is a Warfighting For Dummies instruction manual, and that somehow the Ultramarines have just accidentally been the most successful Legion/Chapter, instead of the Codex being the reason they have been so successful.

[Pavement Artist]

I think the feud is mainly down to how the two legions operate in battle.

 

Remember when Alpharius first entered the crusade? He was approaching battles with the most difficult, tasking stratagem in mind in order to prove it could be done. This is at the expense of ammunition and manpower and other factors.

 

We know the ultramarines are a superb fighting force who are all about finding the most efficient route to victory. It's not so much that Guilliman found the Alpha Legion's subversive tactics distasteful, as that would make no sense coming from the man who is supposed to observe and appreciate all military doctrine. I believe he just thought Alpharius' way of going about things was wasteful show boating.

[RapatoR]

Honestly I think it is a bit of both. I thin k there are things that Guilliman would never do even if it gave him tactical advantage, because of strong sense of honour and loyality (Using psykers after Nikea - although debatable, painting their armour in enemy colours and opening fire on them when they get close enugh).

 

I always saw him as tactically briliant, yet honourable man where sometimes honour clashed with use of some tactics.

[Legatus]

I do think that, even if that was not considered by the Black Library writers (but maybe it was, I dunno), that the issue of how a used tactic would reflect upon the Imperium would be an important issue for Guilliman. Using dishonourable, cruel, or untrustworthy tactics might get you the result of subduing a world, but the citizens will probably not be too happy about now being part of that dishonourable, cruel, or untrustworthy Imperium. In a grander scheme, beyond the short term goal of "taking this world", such thing should be considered.

[Jareddm]

I never saw it as anything related to honor or underhanded tactics. It was always about efficiency on the scale of the Crusade. The Alpha Legion could take a world in a year with zero casualties via infiltration, cults, and sabotage. The Ultramarines could take the world in a month with minimal/acceptable losses and be well on their way to their ninth or tenth world by the time the Alpha Legion had finished. What the Alpha Legion does is very impressive, but not when it's at the cost of keeping the Great Crusade moving. Guilliman understood that the momentum of the Crusade as a whole was most important and so would've looked down on tactics that he felt were slowing the Crusade down. It's the same as Lorgar's desire to turn each world into a fanatically loyal and devout world. Guilliman's just weighing pros and cons. In the case of Alpharius, acceptable losses are just as good as no losses, but one takes a lot less time. The benefits aren't worth the wasted time.

[Legatus]

In the Alpha Legion Index Astartes article it was all about effectiveness. But in 'Legion' Guilliman is more concerned with the ethics of the Alpha Legion's approach, if I remember correctly. At one point one Imperial Guard officier (?) remarks to another that Lord Guilliman had often spoken ill of the underhandedness of the Alpha Legion's tactics. Or something to that effect. In another Scene Alpharius mentions that Guilliman despises him, while he just ignores him. That would make little sense if Guilliman just thought that the Alpha Legion was ineffective (and indeed, in the Alpha Legion Index Astartes the feelings toward one another were rather reversed), and seems to suggest that it is more a disagreement on principal grounds.

[Kol Saresk]

Hmm, IIRC, there was a bit in the AL IA article where the Alpha Legion prosecuted a compliance and dragged it out on purpose. When Gulliman asked Alpharius why the campaign had been dragged out when he knee Alpharius could have ended it at any time, Alpharius answered with "Because he could." So it wasn't effectiveness, it was that Alpharius was looking for a challenge while Gulliman was looking the quickest way to get the job done with as little collateral damage as possible. Another example is in Legion. Most Legions would show up and immediately assault the capital stronghold and crush the major center of opposition in some manner. But what do the Alpha Legion do? Well for one, they do secret hit-and-run attacks against the enemy while forming an information network in both the Imperial Army and the enemy. Instead of ending the war, they prolong it. That is where the conflict arose. And the conflict would ultimately culminate into Alpharius seeking to find his challenge in the greatest tactician the Imperium has to offer: Roboute Gulliman. At least, that's how I've always seen it.

[RapatoR]

Well are we sure about all that slowness of conquering?

 

Because IA mentions that: "while these methods were slower to execute ... they were far less costly in troops which enabled Alpharius to spread hi forces widely". So it basically means AL methods were slower, but more of their forces could be deployed elsewhere, so I think it would even things out.

 

Also subterfuge tactics are surely effective, if they weren't they wouldn't be used in modern warfare.

 

IA also mentions of ALs "campaigns being highly sucessfull", it wouldn't choose these words if they were slow.

 

Heck even showmanship with Tesstra prime took only a week more.

 

Also lets not forget the whole point of IA was to show that AL can match other legions, even Ultramarines.

 

So I am with Legatus on this. I think it was more on ground of principles and ethics, than effectiveness.

[Pavement Artist]

But then that makes guilliman look stupidly contradictory. He is supposed to be the man who collates all martial thinking in order to gain an understanding of warfare. He can find the alpha legions methods distateful but as it is in the lore now, it seems like he was openly dismissive of their doctrine, which is ridiculously precious of him.

 

He doesn't have to like them but why on earth does he feel he has a right to openly criticise them?

[RapatoR]

Well, I always imagined him as a tactically brilliant man, yet with strong loyalty and sense of honour, that wouldn't allow him to do some tactical decisions. The UM librarians stopped using their powers after Nikea, which left them vulnerable at Calth.

 

I also doubt that codex depicts using cannon fodder, treachery or summoning deamons, even if they might present an tatical advantage and personally I think that codex doesn't depicts subterfuge and sabotage for similar reasons.

 

But then again my point of view is a bit naive (my interpretation of Guilliman would for example refuse the whole thing about Monarchia and ask Emperor to choose another legion to do it) and a lot of folks seems to disagree with me.

[Legatus]

The Alpha Legion methods may be successful in achieving their short term goal (subdual of the targeted world), but as I have tried to argue, they may be harmful to a long term goal (that world remaining a loyal part to the Imperium). Guilliman had allways been one to consider the long term picture, so to him Alpharius was just showing off. "Look at how cleverly I can defeat the forces on that world." But the worlds he conquered that way would be weary and cautious of the Imperium. It was a flimsy house of cards that Alpharius built, superficially elegant and cleverly constructed, but without any stability.

 

The Index Astartes of the Luna Wolves mentions that Guilliman had words with Horus about exactly such a problem with the methods of the Luna Wolves. The Luna Wolves were known to move on to the next world as soon as the military of one world was crushed, leaving a defenseless and battered world behind. Often new rebellions would crop up on such planets. In one of the Horus Heresy novels (forgot which one) a World Eater (was it Khârn?) remarks that Guilliman was still seeking a reckoning with Angron about his actions on Arrigata (?). In the latter case it may just have been about the inhuman actions of Angron, but it may also have had to do with the kind of image that projects of the Imperium.

[Kol Saresk]

RapatoR: Like I said, I don't think it was a matter of which was more effective. I believe it was the fact that Gulliman knew Alpharius was purposefully dragging campaigns out for no other reason then he could.

[KarkassBC]

The Alpha Legion methods may be successful in achieving their short term goal (subdual of the targeted world), but as I have tried to argue, they may be harmful to a long term goal (that world remaining a loyal part to the Imperium). Guilliman had allways been one to consider the long term picture, so to him Alpharius was just showing off. "Look at how cleverly I can defeat the forces on that world." But the worlds he conquered that way would be weary and cautious of the Imperium. It was a flimsy house of cards that Alpharius built, superficially elegant and cleverly constructed, but without any stability.

...

 

Sincerely, I disagree with your evaluation.

 

First, the AL at the end of every action didn't explain to the audience (enemy or allies) the actions done during the entire campaign. They keep them very secret.

 

Maybe you're right if the people know what really happened, but I consider the AL operatives spreading lies or sabotaging didn't left at the end a business card "AL Operative Alliance Inc." or clues like a serial killer. They simply disappear in the darkness.

 

Second, the majority of the compliances carried by the other Legions were "raze and kill everything". If we compare the compliance carried by the UM, probably are better than the ones achieved by the AL... on the contrary I don't consider very loyal the worlds liberated by WE, NL, DG and also SW.

 

Going on the question "effectiveness", I wouldn't put too much bias on it. We don't know the exact number of AL marines, probably the entire Legion is only 2 or 3 times the smallest Legion, e.g. the TS.

 

In this way, the Alpha Legion is not able to conquer a world in a tactical way, lacking the strenght of the other Legions and we cannot compare AL with UM (the largest).

[Legatus]

First, the AL at the end of every action didn't explain to the audience (enemy or allies) the actions done during the entire campaign. They keep them very secret.

But I am not talking abour snipers, sappers, or commando units. I am talking about planted sleeper agents that turn at their former allies in crucial moments, transmit their side's security codes or unveil the locations of important personell. Such actions will not allways go unnoticed. And if the Imperial Army forces responsible for pacifying the world and establishing Imperial order then start gossipping about how no one really trusts the Alpha Legion, that is not going to help.

Legions using excessive brutality would leave a similarly negative impression of the Imperium, which is why I mentioned the World Eaters in my last post. And both the World Eaters and the Night Lords were reprimanded for their actions by the Emperor, so that was definitely a problem.

[Kol Saresk]

Not entirely true. The Night Lords were in the process of being reprimanded when the Heresy broke out. They had been reprimanded by Dorn, but not yet by the Emperor, assuming that their trial went the same way as Magnus'.

[EzekyleVIII]

Id be willing to bet one if guilliman's trusted commanders is an alpha legionnaire and actively naysayed al to guilliman just because alpharius could. Al get bloomin everywhere. Like mango's

[Kol Saresk]

Id be willing to bet one if guilliman's trusted commanders is an alpha legionnaire and actively naysayed al to guilliman just because alpharius could. Al get bloomin everywhere. Like mango's

And I would say that is more than a little mary sue-ish. Just because they were able to use the catastrophe of Istvaan V to infiltrate the World Eaters and Raven Guard, does not mean they can go "Wonder Twins power activate! Infiltrate the Ultramarines!" Infiltration takes time. Working to plant someone in plain sight, takes even longer. They had that time at Istvaan V. They haven't had it since.

[Pavement Artist]

I agree with Legatus. The Ultramarines in my opinion were the finest legion in terms of forming compliant worlds. It's not enough to just topple the old regime. Any of the legions are more than capable of that, each are gifted with equal martial might. The fact remains, resistance to oppression is a trait that is hardwired into humanity. Some display it better than others but nevertheless, if you kick over the revel fires of someones entire civilisation, it's irrelevant how strong you are in victory, you have bred a sense of defiance in that culture. They will want to resist you because that is just the most natural reaction. It's why the night lord's doctrine was always going to fail. It doesn't matter how damn terrifying you are. You make a people hate you and that will last for a lifetime.

 

Then we have the Ultramarines. They're numerically superior and could easily obliterate entire cultures should they wish it. However, they conquer worlds with the aim of building a new empire in mind. Infrastructures are put into place, the quality of life is greatly increased for all concerned. I'd be surprised if the Ultramarines faced much if any discontent amongst their compliant populations. Guilliman understood that it's not enough to simply crush an enemy and take over, you have to prove to people that your goal is a worthy one and that you are truly presenting a better alternative. Why on earth would anyone rebel when your life has been demonstrably improved by the coming of the Imperium?

 

That was the strength of the Ultramarines, they understood the true scale of the undertaking, as opposed to just toppling regimes.

[Lay]

But in the light of the new background (5th ed SM dex, novels KNF and Betrayer), we see Ultramarines as fluid force, using some dirty tricks

(e.g. collapsing buildings on WE in the battle for Armatura reminds of tiggering rock slides that was used against UM on Eskador

to gain advantage in battle, but Legion still mentions that Roboute despises Alpharius, so what is source of their conflict? If anything they should be close to each other, or am I missing something?

Nothing "dirty" about using terrain to your advantage. Sure, Guilliman is clearly dismissive of the Alpharius' tactics in the old IA, but the AL aren't described as "dishonorable" by the Ultramarines until they disguise themselves as Ultras during an ambush on Eskrador. That's when they are genuinely appalled by the AL's tactics.

 

All that aside, and in light of the description in "Legion", could there be a reason why Guilliman might not have approved of the Alpha Legion's tactics? Sure. But not because of "sneaky" tactics like ambushes or traps. More because of subversive tactics like planting double agents among the enemy, or not even informing their allies of their different hidden maneuvers.

Iirc, "Legion" goes even further than that. The AL weren't just infiltrating the enemy but also their allies from the Geno Five-Two Chiliad.

[Felix Antipodes]

The way GW altered the AL AI article from them having a beef with the UM instead of the IF reminds me of what was being called the 30K/40K divide:

 

The 30K stuff (heresy books) is the 'present' happening, while the 'present' 40K is the echo of the heresy filtered through 10,000 years of misinformation and rewritten history and cannot be considered reliable the further away from the event we are. So it could have been the IF they had the beef with but it has been corrupted/changed to UM over time due to the manipulation of a unknown source - possibly even the AL!!

:devil: