Legion Characteristics

[Kais Klip]

If you still want opinions on Legions, I'd like to take a moment to discuss my personal favorites...the XVII.

 

"No compromise. Even in the face of Armageddon."

 

The truth. That was always what we valued. The truth of the Emperor, of his nature. Call it what you will, a power supreme to all others, that overturns the galaxy itself by its own will...what else can it be named, save divine?

 

And we were lied to. Cast down! The very object of our devotion told of us we were wrong. How easy, oh, how easy to accept it as a truth, the truth, to walk the path of the angels, the ravens, the wolves...but no. Truth that cannot stand the test is no truth at all. So we searched, and so we found what we sought.

 

The truth. Vile. Unrepentant. And yet, the truth.

 

Better that. Better a loathsome truth than a honied lie. Better knowledge than ignorance.

 

And now we come, to teach you our truth. In ignorance you fear it. That is no sin. We were the same, once. But willful blindness? To deny what is in favor of what you wish was so, to seek to wrap a whole species in the lie?

 

THAT is heresy. THAT is wickedness. For THAT...no mercy. No hope. Only war..and the wrath of revealed gods.

 

I still encourage peeps to come forward with any opinions regarding any legion; this whole discussion, especially that excellent piece that I think I will always remember when the XVII comes to mind. It broadened my views on each legion even more, and thought I knew at least all of the fundamentals about each legion after a committed decade in the hobby.

 

The problem with so many HH books over such a span of time is that by the time we'll be nearly done I'll forget where we started in the first place! Double the fun, I guess. 

[Conn Eremon]

Your last post quoting A D-B suggests you think Legions are in the 10,000 range. That's been retconned for a while. Hundred grand is the standard now. Earlier HH books were just slow on the uptake.

[Wade Garrett]

And I freely admit that's my personal, probably idealized opinion of the Word Bearers. And Chaos knows they have plenty of the "What can I personally get from the gods and to Hell with the rest of you." types in their ranks.

 

(Marduk, Erebus, Kor Phereon, etc.)

[Kais Klip]

Your last post quoting A D-B suggests you think Legions are in the 10,000 range. That's been retconned for a while. Hundred grand is the standard now. Earlier HH books were just slow on the uptake.

Made an edit in regards to this, apologies for the constant editing.

And I freely admit that's my personal, probably idealized opinion of the Word Bearers. And Chaos knows they have plenty of the "What can I personally get from the gods and to Hell with the rest of you." types in their ranks.

(Marduk, Erebus, Kor Phereon, etc.)

Right and that's exactly my point; types such as these would have been suppressed in any successfully coherent legions, and many that weren't were involved in said legion's fall to break away from the Emperor, as per your example. I want to point out that I believe my point stands all the way up to the heresy; that is when the literal opposite of what I insists happens, the Legions get critically differing opinions on vital topics, leading to loyalist-Sons of Horus or traitor-Ultramarines (even if not covered, however I urge evidence to the contrary). If I understood correctly, A D-B was suggesting that I set up a force of dissenters from whatever legion's established ways, where I refuse to do so (while I will not look down at any who do) because it is my opinion that such a thing is exactly the root cause of dissent (which lodge establishments like the Mournival only accentuated) and the eventual Heresy. Such things were stamped out from Legions, and when they didn't they accentuated and created a perfect environment for the Heresy to breed; those individuals were coined Traitors if i have compiled my argument correctly. I do have a sinking feeling I am talking more towards a certain legion and am rambling utter nonsense in regards to the more free-er ones.

Oh Throne, I think Ultramarines suit me the most, what with following-the-Legion-rules and all.

Haha lets keep it going lads.

[A D-B]

Okay, now to answer the main topic now my sideways note is done. 

 

 

I was willing to stand behind World Eaters and say I admire their brotherhood and for that I am prepared to put up with their suicidally reckless tendencies, or I'm willing to play wolves for their loyalty and accept that perhaps only Vikings can reach heights of loyalty that I am apparently looking for.

 

That, I think, would be a mistake. Not playing Wolves (the Wolves are rad; I've been wanting to write a Wolf book for years), but thinking that they have the gold medal on loyalty. They don't. 

 

Prepare for (too many) words.

 

Betrayer was obviously a love letter to the concept of the World Eaters - and to a lesser extent, the Space Wolves - wanting to explore their conflicting ideals of brotherhood, and how it translates to life in a Legion. This post will be more of a hymn to the Space Wolves, for the purposes of using them as conflicting examples of fraternity. And this may be long, for which I apologise in advance. Also, note, this is just how I see the Legions listed here. Dan, Bill King, Graham, Jim, Alan Bligh, etc.; everyone sees the personalities of the Legions in a different way, trust me. That's not because of a lack of communication. That's just how 40K is supposed to work. The framework is there for personal interpretation. It's why there's no "canon".

 

The realities of brotherhood (and sisterhood), friendship, and loyalty are massively complicated to anyone, not just soldiers, because they're such fundamental parts of anyone's life and how their mind works. I love reading about it in fiction or biographies, and I love talking about it with my friends. Loyalty and friendship is something that's always fascinated me, on a bunch of levels. And in few fictional places will you see the concept of brotherhood so ripe for exploration than in a Space Marine Legion (or Chapter, for that matter). It's one of the most interesting things in the setting for me, just about tied with the difficulties of Marines interacting with (and being so removed from) human social norms. In everything I write, one or both of these aspects will take centre stage as main themes. 

 

But let's stick with loyalty and brotherhood, to spare any more self-indulgent jazz. Loyalty is something with profound and fascinating depth.

 

Loyalty to blood. Loyalty to mentors you admire. Loyalty to brothers you love. Loyalty to brothers you hate. Loyalty to those you've sworn an oath to. Loyalty to those who can offer you something. Loyalty to those who've used you or wronged you in the past. Loyalty based on established trust. Loyalty despite doubt, based on the hope of trust to come. Loyalty in the face of those who ask too much. What's too much to one man might be a perfectly acceptable demand to another. Loyalty that reaches breaking point. How sour loyalty can become when it falls into matters of cowardice or vengeance. 

 

I can't get enough of this stuff, because it's very, very real. It's a universal condition that applies even to the shards of humanity remaining in mind-scrubbed and hypno-trained 40K Marine Chapters. Hell, it applies to them more than anyone in the real world. The same for the Chaos Marines.

 

But back to Betrayer. The Night of the Wolf shows the biggest difference between the evolving (degenerating...?) World Eaters, who are losing their grasp on the concept of brotherhood, and the War Hounds/Space Wolves, who still understand it implicitly. The World Eaters are individually ferocious, and come on in a seething, screaming horde. That has its advantages. It's akin to the often-fictionally-hyped Norse "baresark" ideal, where a handful of individual warriors - beserkers - would be ingesting certain substances, biting their shields, and throwing their armour away as they brought themselves into a thoughtless rage. They wouldn't defend themselves; they'd only attack. Their minds were focused not on themselves, not on their brothers, but purely on the enemy. There's an awesome reference in a David Gemmell novel where a baresark has his arm cut off in a battle, and without a second's thought, he aims the spurting stump at his enemy's face, blinding the other man with the spray of blood. That could've been presented as childish and "badass", but instead I reckon it completely sums up the berserker mindset. There's nothing, nothing at all, in a warrior's mind except the destruction of his enemy. He doesn't think about holding formation with his brothers, even if it's tactically sound to do so, or maintaining the benefits of an organised shield-wall. He doesn't think about blocking incoming blows. He can't think of those things. All he can focus on is destroying the warrior before him, and moving on to the next.

 

That's what happens to the World Eaters when the Nails bite. It's why they take such horrendous casualties on Armatura despite massively outnumbering the Ultramarines (they keep charging into ambushes and urban defence traps), and it's why the Space Wolves beat them so soundly on the Night of the Wolf. They have the strength of individual ferocity, but we can look historically at the Romans versus Just About Anyone to see how well an army of individual fighters will fare against organised military tactics. There's a reason the phalanx and maniple systems conquered most of the known world (actually, there're many reasons, but one of them was this): anyone fighting them in broken formation was one man against two or three men, and those two or three soldiers were also defending each other at the same time as they fought for themselves. 

 

So you can say that the World Eaters' way is "worse" but I wouldn't agree - it's just a different way of fighting. It's not as tactically wise, absolutely not. But I don't need a faction to be The Best in order to like them. I just need them to be interesting, or have a spark of something that inspires me. And that berserker focus is an interesting, if alien, mindset to me. It's also awesome because there's just as much emotional resonance and depth to explore as more obvious forms of brotherhood - like how bonded and melancholy many of the World Eaters are outside of battle. Look at the loyalty of the gladiator pits, when they punish Delvarus for disloyalty, or Khârn punishes Erebus for being such an insufferabe, treacherous dog. When they have control over themselves, their loyalty is still there, and still fierce. Just different. It's more melancholy, and somehow more tenacious, because they realise what they're losing, and all they have are these rituals to fall back on. Again, not better or worse. Just a different flavour. The World Eaters were also so loyal to their primarch that they mutilated their minds in the hope it would allow them to come to terms with him, and fight with the same heedless strength. Angron was a man that knew nothing of compromise, nothing of cowardice. You could argue that for all that he lost virtues like courage and honour, he also lost the equivalent flaws.

 

Where the Night of the Wolf is concerned, there's also the fact that Lhorke is there. He doesn't fight like the World Eaters, for obvious reasons. He highlights what the Legion was, compared to what it's becoming. Leman Russ and his warriors are able to isolate Angron in the middle of the World Eaters, with ease, and threaten Angron's life. The rest of the World Eaters don't even notice, and don't care. They're lost to the Nails, slaughtering and blind to the real climax of the battle. But Lhorke, the War Hound, tries to fight his way to his primarch. Obvious, but worth bearing in mind.

 

As I see it, the Space Wolves' brotherhood (and this would be awesome to get to explore in more depth, when I finally get hold of a loyalist faction) isn't about training or discipline. It's instinctive. That doesn't mean it's just instinctive, but there's a lot of pack instinct in everything they do. It's no more or less fierce in terms of loyalty than any other, but it definitely has the weight of trust, habit, and tradition. 

 

Say you're an officer (a Jarl, a Warleader, etc.) and you go down in the middle of the battlefield. Your brothers will come for you, and stop at nothing to bring you back home safely. They might mock you for falling in the first place. You might suffer a dozen challenges for leadership of the squad, because some of them no longer see you as strong. You might suffer them anyway as part of daily life, because that's what wolves in the wild will do as part of social placing. But they'll come for you. If you're a World Eater, your brothers won't even see you fall, though there'll be emotional fallout after the battle. If you're a Space Wolf, your brothers will fight their way to your side, howling and roaring, smashing aside the blades that seek your blood, and getting you the hell out of there.

 

And why? Because you're pack. The pack is everything. Some Wolves will go for personal glory, of course, even at the cost of loyalty and leadership. It's the way of any warrior culture, and any Legion. But the Wolves also have the pack. Why did they come for you when it almost cost them the mission? Because you are pack. These are the brothers you trained with, grew up with, share blood with, share every day and night of your life with. A Packmate isn't necessarily a stronger bond than, say, brotherhood between Blood Angels, but it definitely has an easily identified flavour, both because of its Norse roots, and its anthropomorphic roots among real-world wolves. It's easy to target, define, and enjoy as a concept.

 

But while it may not be stronger or weaker than any other bond of brotherhood, and while it's definitely easier to point to because of its distinct flavour, it's also more instinctive than conscious, the way many other Legions bonds will be. When you cut high with your blade against an enemy, your packmate will cut low on the same foe, because he intimately knows how you fight - he knows you better than you know yourself, without even really acknowledging it. When you miss a blow and stumble, he catches the enemy's blade with his own. He doesn't howl because you're howling. He sees you draw breath, and he's already drawing breath on instinct, too. He adds his voice to yours, or you add yours to his, because you live in perfect trust of one another, and it feels incredible, life-affirming and powerful, to live with such loyalty. You and your pack against the world, a bond that matters above all others.

 

This isn't necessarily any different, in terms of action and reaction, than the Ultramarines and Blood Angels, for example. It's different in context, though. It's different in why it happens, and that's what matters, both to the story, and in real life interactions with people. An Ultramarine will have been trained to surpassing excellence, so his actions and reactions are second-nature (becoming instinct), coupled with his expansive knowledge of battle tactics. If you go down in a fight, his mind will race a thousand times faster than a human's, analysing how best to extract you, even as he's starting to fight his way forward to you. Training, familiarity, nobility, honour... all of these combine in one Roman/Spartan melting pit of coolness to mean he comes for you the same way your packmates come for you, but with a cold ferocity rather than hot-blooded instinct. it's a broad generalisation, but hopefully it shows the point. I mean, I can write one of these love letters to any Legion just in terms of brotherhood, but it'd take a million years, I'd like to save a lot of it for the novels themselves, and most importantly I think it'd be boring to read. It'd be nice to put all of this Loyalist stuff in a Traitor novel, but very, very few novels go into the ins and outs of the antagonists like that. It's enough that the Wolves shamed the World Eaters in the Night of the Wolf, with the reasons why still being pretty clear (especially when Lorgar points it out to a stupefied Angron). Still, I'll get a Loyalist novel soon. The Master of Mankind sure isn't going to be about the Red Team.

 

So... the Wolves. Whether that fraternal loyalty really extends to the entire Legion being the most loyal, well... No. I've written stuff to the contrary, where Khârn's opening quote even says the Wolves are the legion that will do anything the Emperor says, no matter what. But then, that's Khârn. It's not me. It's not Games Workshop's IP Department publishing a bible of This Is How It Is. It's just a character in a novel with an opinion. Several chapters later, you have Lorgar saying it's Sanguinius and the Blood Angels that are the ones that would never turn or could never, ever betray the Emperor. That's the point of these novels: it's not black and white, it's shades of grey. Real people have different perspectives, and they think different things. Same with decent characters.

 

I don't think the Wolves are the most loyal, no. Not in the way some people assume; not at the Legion level. I don't see them as any more or less loyal than several other Loyalist Legions. They're certainly very distinct (or at least, easily recognisable) in how they're loyal, though. And the way they're loyal, especially to each other, is freaking awesome. They're one of the most accessible Legions in terms of being interesting and having great depth, and they're certainly one of the Legions I love the most: the Wolves and the Blood Angels are first among equals in terms of my faves, ever since I was a kid. They have the advantage of strong, famous historical themes (all the Norse jazz) and the easy anthropomorphic attitudes most people somewhat romantically attribute to wolves, in addition to being Space Marines with all that entails. 

 

Again, this is just my perspective. This is just what the World Eaters and Space Wolves are to me.

[Kais Klip]

Thank you, this is exactly what I've been trying to squeeze out from between the lines in Betrayer. The thing I'm coming away with from your post is that almost, if not all, of the legions possess the level of loyalty/brotherhood that I'm looking for, else they would not exist as a Legion. Even then I recognize inter-legion bonds forming such as you describe, notably between Khârn and Argel Tal.

 

I'm also, from your remark about the expression of such loyalty, coming away with the fact that the reason the Wolves are so renown for the loyalty is because their expression is the most obvious, unlike the cooler counterpart possessed by the Ultramarines and the like, as you say.

 

As such I realize that, like I remarked, the quality of loyalty must therefore be discarded if I'm looking to separate the legions on a characteristic level. This presents a problem notably towards War Hounds; from Betrayer and Betrayal, all I could dig up concerning any defining characteristics is said brotherhood between legionaries. If we remove that, what is left for the War Hounds then? Lhorke was bitter at how the nails destroyed his preferred type of legion. I agree with him. What does Lhorke miss in a Legion ridden with the Nails? What did the Nails take away?

 

It appears to me, not seeing any more information, that Lhorke doesn't miss anything the Nails took away, because they didn't take away anything, but rather regrets what they turned his Legion into, what they gave the Legion; the most defining aspect of a warrior according to Angron, that being the death of the enemy being the absolute and unsurpassed priority. 

 

However what's bitter to me about that viewpoint is that it implies that the War Hounds were simply a generically excellent space marine Legion; generic controlled aggression with generic brotherhood (a question for another day is how they displayed that brotherhood to be unique enough). To me the World Eaters are now defined by aggression taken to another level entirely, a level that is only possible to achieve through the Nails. What that must insinuate then is that the arrival of Angron and later the Nails elevated a generic Legion into what they are now defined by us. I realise the War Hounds are a pre-primarch legion and thus in some eyes might deserve nothing more than a passing mention, but I'm going to try my best to find how the War Hounds were unique from their other Legion counterparts. 

 

I fear ferociousness might be another trait commonly shared among the legions, and yet only the note of aggression is made toward War Hound/World Eater recruits in Betrayal, and Lhorke only muses about the Legion's lost sense of brotherhood; what did the World Eaters keep from the War Hounds, and is all they lost controlled, martialled aggression? There must be more, unless a fair number of the Legions are mere different shades of one another. 

 

Sounds like I am going to have an absolute treasure trove in the upcoming novels from the team, I'm simply trying to squeeze out as much as I can from Betrayer since I doubt pre-Nails World Eaters/War Hounds will be featured so prominently in the near future, not that they didn't get ample time, but I wouldn't complain about more screen time for legionaries that would've agreed with Lhorke.   

[Conn Eremon]

The Nails took away their lucidity, their ability to focus and reason. But more importantly, it forced a Legion that prized its brotherhood most of all and forced them to fight alone.

 

And A D-B, I wasn't trying to suggest that the Wolves are actually the most loyal, just that their portrayals suggests that they believe themselves to be. Just saying, in case you got that idea. On a ridiculously fanboy-ish tangent, it tickled me pink reading a favorite 40k author (you) bringing up another favorite non-40k author (Dave Gemmel), whose passing saddens me still.

[Jareddm]

Partly as a challenge to myself (I hold very little favoritism towards any particular legion) and partly to add a bit of variety to the discussion, I'd like to stand in defense of a legion that I feel tends to either be talked about constantly or is completely ignored.  I speak of the Alpha Legion.

 

To begin I want to preface by saying that I only consider them prior to the events of Legion.  There is much that can be said regarding those events, but I feel they were less impactful of the legion itself and far more on Alpharius and Omegon, who I am not discussing.

 

The concept of intra-legion factions fascinates me and in my experience, the Alpha Legion has been portrayed in a number of different lights throughout their history.  The Alpha Legion operate in cells, their chain of command strictly on a need to know basis.  An Alpha Legionnaire may only know those working directly underneath him, and the officer he reports to, and nothing more.  We've always tended to see the Alpha Legion from the top-down, but from the view of a single cell the legion appears very differently.  

 

There would need to be a tremendous innate trust to the legion.  An operative trusts that his contact has his back, despite not knowing that his contact may be the same contact for a dozen other operatives.  If I had to describe the Alpha Legion in one sentence it would have to be, "They are never alone."  Every legionnaire has a role and the trust that somehow, someway, the legion is behind them.  This could make such internal factions small but extremely specialized based on their missions.  Thus, my favorite idea of a faction within the Alpha Legion is the public face.  The more traditional appearing Alpha Legion that wears the chapter heraldry proud, that fights with bolter and land speeder and predator.  Yet from an outsider perspective, they appear to apply to little force and yet their enemies crumble before them.  That is because they trust that the legion is behind them.  They know there are dozens of operations going on behind the scenes, each operation no more aware of each other than the public face is of them.  They are the hammer that splits the log after a thousand termites have burrowed into it, filled it with cracks, and made it weak and brittle.   It is this force that I feel best embodies the trust and loyalty that the Alpha Legion has for itself.

 

I view the Alpha Legion's tactical style in terms of what they define as "victory".  The Emperor's Children would consider victory in terms of their own execution of a maneuver.  A World Eater's victory is a well-fought battle against a worthy opponent.  Even the Ultramarines may view victory through a lens of honor, prowess, and future stability of the battleground.  But I feel the Alpha Legion's definition of victory is always about the betterment of the legion above all else.  The Alpha Legion don't use infiltration just because they like to.  They use it because they know it endangers the fewest number of marines and consumes the fewest resources.  The Alpha Legion strategy is neither the fastest, deadliest, or most honorable way, but it will keep the most marines alive.  Some see this as a coward's approach, and even Guilliman berated the legion for using a time-consuming, roundabout approach to avoid, what he considered, "acceptable losses."  There are no acceptable losses to the Alpha Legion.

 

The Alpha Legion see the worth inherent in everything at their disposal.  They will not use an astartes when a human will work just as well.  They will not ignore a scrap of information if it can be put to use, nor will they allow any piece of knowledge to be used against them.  That is why they remain as mysterious as they do.  There is no benefit to the legion by revealing their names, their commanders, their homeworld, their plans.  All it does is offer targets for others, targets the Alpha Legion would not think twice about exploiting were the tables turned.

 

While I doubt my words will convince anyone of the merits of the Alpha Legion (too many "I am Alpharius!" memes...) I hope they will at least inspire others to look at them in a different light.

[Balthamal]

 

And why? Because you're pack. The pack is everything. Some Wolves will go for personal glory, of course, even at the cost of loyalty and leadership. It's the way of any warrior culture, and any Legion. But the Wolves also have the pack. Why did they come for you when it almost cost them the mission? Because you are pack. These are the brothers you trained with, grew up with, share blood with, share every day and night of your life with. A Packmate isn't necessarily a stronger bond than, say, brotherhood between Blood Angels, but it definitely has an easily identified flavour, both because of its Norse roots, and its anthropomorphic roots among real-world wolves. It's easy to target, define, and enjoy as a concept.

 

That highlights one of the points I was trying (not very well as it turns out) to make. Whilst I consider their loyalty to the Emperor one of their defining traits, on a personal level it becomes something more profound. It's perfectly typified by a passage in Prospero Burns where a character is seriously insulted to the point he gets angry and almost lashes out at one of his brothers before stopping and mumbling "I recognize my failure and will be sure to correct it" which to me is unbelievable awesome.

 

The other thing that springs to mind regarding this point is that Astartes are a breed apart from normal humanity, forever setting them away from a lot of things a regular person would take for granted so it makes sense that on reaching that stage they would look to bond/band with others like them, and this follows on then into the differences between Legions, since the 18 all have different genetic properties. Plus (as anyone who has served in the army, played a team sport etc will attest) shared experiences bind individuals together more effectively than anything else. To use another ADB example look at First Claw, there are certain times when they can barely stand each other yet when push comes to shove they fight (and eventually die) together. Talos could have escaped his fate at the very end but his words are telling "She killed my brothers. I'm going after her". 

 

 

Thank you, this is exactly what I've been trying to squeeze out from between the lines in Betrayer. The thing I'm coming away with from your post is that almost, if not all, of the legions possess the level of loyalty/brotherhood that I'm looking for, else they would not exist as a Legion. Even then I recognize inter-legion bonds forming such as you describe, notably between Khârn and Argel Tal.

 

As such I realize that, like I remarked, the quality of loyalty must therefore be discarded if I'm looking to separate the legions on a characteristic level. This presents a problem notably towards War Hounds; from Betrayer and Betrayal, all I could dig up concerning any defining characteristics is said brotherhood between legionaries. If we remove that, what is left for the War Hounds then? Lhorke was bitter at how the nails destroyed his preferred type of legion. I agree with him. What does Lhorke miss in a Legion ridden with the Nails? What did the Nails take away?

 

It might be worth re-reading the parts of Betrayer that focus on the Librarians because although they are not losing the sense of brotherhood in the same way as the rest of the Legion, it is brotherhood that is denied to them because they do not bear the nails (and also psychic activity is shown to aggitate the nails functions). This could well be the source of much of Lhorke's bitterness - he sees brothers denied brotherhood by the majority of the Legion, and yet they still manage to find it amongst their own kind and will still fight and die for the rest of them despite being disdained. I mean, how utterly awesome is that?

[Peter the Hermit]

I'm actually in awe when looking at Dorn and IF....

In "the Crimson fist", captain dude literary humiliates Perturabo, and even has a chance of winning...!!!

Then the damn retreat order came, and it really showed what IF are all about...Stoic and loyal, even at the cost of defeat...

If SW or BA were there, IMHO they would press attack so hard that Perturabo wouldn have any ships to join Horus....

[amaze07]

No Raven Guard Mentions??!! I always thought them as the SAS of Space Marines and Alpha Legion the KGB!

[Peter the Hermit]

Or vice versa....

[Flint13]

The Raven guard always seemed more like Cheyenne Redosynin or Apache nightwalkers to me. Their native american imagery plays pretty heavily into their whole mythos, which is awesome.

Alpha legion as KGB is absolutely the best idea ever. You don't know where Alpharius may be. He could be anyone, at any time and where... you have no idea. But he will have a tiny shoeblade and a russian accent.

[amaze07]

Yeah I can kinda see,where the Native American Influence comes from!but In the way they operate it does remind me of the old S.A.S. Desert Patrols that go out on there own behind enemy lines causing havoc!!!

[blackoption]

Iron Hands - imho, the best of all all Legions - 'We must become monsters so that all humanity does not.' These guys make the ultimate sacrifice, their humanity, to herd and protect the rest of the Imperium.

You are saying they turned themselves into monsters by turning away from flesh? Then would I be wrong to say that because Ferrus despised (might be too strong a word) the legion's obsession with the weakness of flesh, then logically Ferrus also despised their yearn to turn themselves into monsters? I'm not daring to say that he did not want them to make a sacrifice such as that, but perhaps someone might?

My last point is arn't the World Eaters, amongst any other things they might be, the "Monsters of and for Humanity", as put forward by the quote on their history in Betrayal (why does it suprise the wise man that humanity might need monsters of its own if it is too survive).

>Yes - Peturabo dreamed of Olympia becoming as perfect as Olympus, of building at Nikea a great theatre; of a cultural masterpiece; he got fortresses and his Nikean dream became the place of his brother's shame - a courthouse. He should never have been a general, it twisted him and made him a pawn of Chaos - if he'd have been the Imperium's great architect (rebuilding key worlds in his brothers' wake, fortifying the Imperial Palace, etc) he would have been the most loyal and incorruptible of the Emperor's sons.

For more information look at the 'Dorn or Peturabo?' thread in this sub-forum. Some of the posts really explore Peturabo and his attitudes.

Ah, so we can essentially view Perturabo as much as "resentful" of his war duty as Lorgar?

@ Cormac Airt:

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the difference between Ultramarines and Emperor's Children. However, I'd like to add my own two cents when it comes to the Ultramarines, of all the 18 Legions, the Ultramarines stand out as the most professional. While Dorn and the Lion are Knights, Russ is the Nordic Viking Ideal, World Eaters are Gladitor Warriors, the Ultramarines have always been Professional Soldiers. Well, at least that is my interpratation of the Ultramarines.

I could probably go on talking about the difference between soldiers when compared to the other various forms of warriors, but that might be a little Off topic.

To me, each legion always seemed to have an underlying ideal or trait that they have immersed in. For example:

Dark Angels: Vigilance

Emperor's Children: Glory

Blood Angels: Nobility

Night Lords: Vengeance

Iron Hands: Defiance (of weakness, not authority)

World Eaters: Wrath

Ultramarines: Professionalism

Sons Of Horus: Power

Death Guard: Endurance

...ect

This is most effective and insightful list to my aims out of any lists i have seen so far, not that I am looking for lists though. I am always a big fan of the primal desire that is fury/wrath . Another reason I looked at world eaters/war hounds is that I learned of the difference and immediately preferred warriors to soldiers. In a war I think I want my lads to be more worried about taking lives than preserving lives, sort of like safety from spies through killing everyone in the room. Not sure that is still warm to me as it once was though.

Neverending edit: Whats your train of thought when you arrived at Dark Angels and Vigilance? I might see where you are coming from with Night Lords, but I'm not completely sure about Vengeance, they are more concerned with the answer being the former to a question of wherever it is better to be feared or loved are they not (as Curze was proved wrong when his planet went back to it's good ol' ways after his departure)?

Feel like I must nitpick though, for is Endurance not Defiance? One of the many problems is that some of each Legions' apparent characterless seem to bleed into others so they must be cancelled out, making me even more frustrated and wanting to go deeper.

I am glad I was able to be somewhat helpful then. I actually stayed up later than usual to pensil some ideas about the warrior vs soldier dynamic amongst the astartes legion. But first to answer your questions

Dark Angels and Vigilance... I always thought this was fairly obvious, but it seems I am in the minority when it comes to this characterzation. To me the First Legion has always been about being watchful for the Emperor's enemies. Being the first, they saw themselves as the first line of defense for the Emperor. I think it was magnified after the Lion joined the Crusade. The Lion was part of a knighthood order who always was vigiliant for attacks from monsters from the woods of Caliban. He carried this trait with him to his legion. He was watchful over his brothers and even his own men (if Astellan is to be believed). If you may recall, it was the Lion who first saw Horus's treachery and acted against it amongst the loyalist primarchs. My own belief is that the reason the Dark Angels are obsessive over their "Fallen" is because they did not see Luther's betrayal coming and it scarred their pride as well as their psyche

To me, the Night Lords are the emboddiment of Imperial Vengeance. However, literature often describes vengeance as going far past the original offense. The Night Lords, like vengeance, do not know where to draw that line to stop

The difference between Endurance and Defiance in my mind lies in self esteem of an organization/individual. To defy something is to act because you hate/despise an item. Meanwhile Endurance is the belief that one is good enough to survive and thrive through any difficulty. They are very similiar, but have different roots. One (defiance) is reaction to an external issue, where endurance is more introverted in nature.

Now, back to the main topic:

Warrior is a wide encompassing identy set. So I have to ask you what are you looking for as a warrior culture? I identify with professional soldiers (in large part because I am one) which is why I strongly support and associate with the Ultramarines. If all you are looking for is Comradeship, then any of the legions will do for they are all Battle Brothers. So... Which do you see yourself as? A Soldier? Knight? Bodyguard? Spy? Raider? Which combinations of values are you looking for.

This might seem like it comes out of the blue, but you strike me more as a Son of Dorn. It seems that you want more then just a rule set to follow, that honor and accomplishment along with directness and with some self reflection/insight are values you may hold to. To me, these characteristic line more up with Dorn. The Imperial Fists are perhaps the most stoic of all the Legions. Direct in their mindset, they will hold and endure beyond what is expected. Yet they often hold surprising insight (both Dorn and Sigmund had astute observations about their brothers and the wider Imperium).

That being said. This is just a guess based off of what I have read in this tread. If you wish, I'd be willing to give you my personal views on the core trait for each of the legions.

[Kais Klip]

Partly as a challenge to myself (I hold very little favoritism towards any particular legion) and partly to add a bit of variety to the discussion, I'd like to stand in defense of a legion that I feel tends to either be talked about constantly or is completely ignored. I speak of the Alpha Legion.

 

To begin I want to preface by saying that I only consider them prior to the events of Legion. There is much that can be said regarding those events, but I feel they were less impactful of the legion itself and far more on Alpharius and Omegon, who I am not discussing.

 

The concept of intra-legion factions fascinates me and in my experience, the Alpha Legion has been portrayed in a number of different lights throughout their history. The Alpha Legion operate in cells, their chain of command strictly on a need to know basis. An Alpha Legionnaire may only know those working directly underneath him, and the officer he reports to, and nothing more. We've always tended to see the Alpha Legion from the top-down, but from the view of a single cell the legion appears very differently.

 

There would need to be a tremendous innate trust to the legion. An operative trusts that his contact has his back, despite not knowing that his contact may be the same contact for a dozen other operatives. If I had to describe the Alpha Legion in one sentence it would have to be, "They are never alone." Every legionnaire has a role and the trust that somehow, someway, the legion is behind them. This could make such internal factions small but extremely specialized based on their missions. Thus, my favorite idea of a faction within the Alpha Legion is the public face. The more traditional appearing Alpha Legion that wears the chapter heraldry proud, that fights with bolter and land speeder and predator. Yet from an outsider perspective, they appear to apply to little force and yet their enemies crumble before them. That is because they trust that the legion is behind them. They know there are dozens of operations going on behind the scenes, each operation no more aware of each other than the public face is of them. They are the hammer that splits the log after a thousand termites have burrowed into it, filled it with cracks, and made it weak and brittle. It is this force that I feel best embodies the trust and loyalty that the Alpha Legion has for itself.

 

I view the Alpha Legion's tactical style in terms of what they define as "victory". The Emperor's Children would consider victory in terms of their own execution of a maneuver. A World Eater's victory is a well-fought battle against a worthy opponent. Even the Ultramarines may view victory through a lens of honor, prowess, and future stability of the battleground. But I feel the Alpha Legion's definition of victory is always about the betterment of the legion above all else. The Alpha Legion don't use infiltration just because they like to. They use it because they know it endangers the fewest number of marines and consumes the fewest resources. The Alpha Legion strategy is neither the fastest, deadliest, or most honorable way, but it will keep the most marines alive. Some see this as a coward's approach, and even Guilliman berated the legion for using a time-consuming, roundabout approach to avoid, what he considered, "acceptable losses." There are no acceptable losses to the Alpha Legion.

 

The Alpha Legion see the worth inherent in everything at their disposal. They will not use an astartes when a human will work just as well. They will not ignore a scrap of information if it can be put to use, nor will they allow any piece of knowledge to be used against them. That is why they remain as mysterious as they do. There is no benefit to the legion by revealing their names, their commanders, their homeworld, their plans. All it does is offer targets for others, targets the Alpha Legion would not think twice about exploiting were the tables turned.

 

While I doubt my words will convince anyone of the merits of the Alpha Legion (too many "I am Alpharius!" memes...) I hope they will at least inspire others to look at them in a different light.

Cheers for another unique and insightful responce. I must admit that while I may consider myself well-versed on the Alpha Legion (despite whatever the narrative says about those who say so) ever since my interest was piqued by their rise in prevalence post-Legion. As such I never looked at sources earlier than Legion, believing the novel and efforts after it to be the start of a re-write/tidy up of the Alpha Legion more towards the narrative's desired direction. I ask you to keep this in mind and point out any earlier pieces of work I overlooked that any think will, or should, still be relevant to the AL.

 

The Alpha Legion always struck me as the most practical one. The epitome of practicality, perhaps derived from cold hard logic even more so than the Lion's habits, unimpeded by baggage of spirit and heart such as honour or pride (the Legion if not the Primarchs) etc

 

I've never viewed their reluctance to part lives with legionaires in such a strong light as you have. Perhaps as a by-product of their preference for resource-preservation, as I'm sure the other Legions such as the Fists and World Eaters lose more legionaires out of principle than enemy action.

 

Saying that, my reluctance towards them stems from the fact that I do not imagine they would be very effective outside of an enviroment suited towards infiltration; against xenos, for example, I struggle to think of how their tactics would differ from that of the Raven Guard (true, do they even have to?). I think this question would be blown apart only if we were privy to what exactly the legion did against the Orks alongside the Blood Angel in Fear to Tread.

 

It's a nagging suspicion derived from the stereotype of those who preffer secrecy and lies more as a last resort (the physically weak, etc) that's really tainted my view of the Alpha Legion as a hammer on the field of battle. If i may go further, and i call myself out for expecting a Hydra to swim outside of its enviroment, without covert support this aforementioned suspicion of the marines being more concerned with covert art rather than martial, I would expect the force to falter versus more directly-oriented forces.

 

Again, I ask any to contradict me and would be greatly pleased if I am proven wrong.

 

I guess I am forgetting that no matter what they may preffer they are still, to put it bluntly, f*cking Astartes, I only worry that aforementioned stereotype is as prevalent in others' minds as it is in mine, lacking many examples to the contrary (outside of the small operation that we have seen vs the white scars, but again all the more physical victories seem to stem from the advantage of attacking from behind, in both Deliverance Lost and Serpent Beneath.)

 

Stereotypes likes these I have of all the Legions, with the most prevalent one being never able to imagine a World Eater as a happy bunny cooped up as a driver of a non-transport combat tank (something that isn't a means towards their preferred method of warfare like Ferrus remarked) or being happy utilising something as tactful as a needle rifle/sniper rifle. I guess that's why stereotypes of all things are so looked down upon.

 

Just a bunch of nagging insistent voices insisting on ranking each legion on the primal "toughness" level, as incorrect as it may be due to exceptions. While such things may be discarded by today's militaries (and an argument could be made against that), the mention of the Emperor's foresight to adapt the legionaries to the evolution of war coming "full circle" by accentuating shoulder/core strength etc is what brings such a trivial point in today's standards to such a forefront of thought for me.

 

I guess I just require overwhelming evidence to purge such a habit of stereotype, namely being Alpha Legionaries being the least toughest of the lot (a point I doubt myself since so many can stand in for the Primarchs, but again I'm crying out for some comforting evidence).

[Excessus]

Following text contains a bit of a spoiler of The Serpent Beneath, marked in black.

 

The Alpha Legion has always been about teamwork, and attacking from all sides and overwhelming their foes. That is their main favored way of combat and they excel at it. Infiltration and deception is just one means towards that end, and not all of the legion goes all mega-sneaky 'Omegon-style'. So far we have seen the deceptions lead by a few captains(in Legion and Serpent Beneath) and Omegon himself in Deliverance Lost, and those were just one part of their full battleplan. They still need line-infantry and line-officers for major engagements, because some fights need the strength and resilience of astartes and cannot be proxied by other forces.

 

The Alpha Legion's favorite way of battle requires that they are the masters of communication and logistics to get everything in place for a strike from all angles, infiltrators, scouts, flanking movers, teleporters...and so on. Alpha Legionnaires are pragmatists, they are all about the results in the long run, and does limit their honour and "hearts" to their fellow legionnaires and operatives instead of the imperium as a whole. They don't fully agree with the Emperor's plan of an utopia and encourages discussion and argumentation within their ranks. Their planning sessions resembles those of the SAS and other specialized organisations, where specialists in different areas can state their ideas and experiences towards the operation's goal to make it as effective as possible. Alpha Legionnaires value the input of mortals, and finds ways to use them without looking down at them.

[Kais Klip]

Iron Hands - imho, the best of all all Legions - 'We must become monsters so that all humanity does not.' These guys make the ultimate sacrifice, their humanity, to herd and protect the rest of the Imperium.

You are saying they turned themselves into monsters by turning away from flesh? Then would I be wrong to say that because Ferrus despised (might be too strong a word) the legion's obsession with the weakness of flesh, then logically Ferrus also despised their yearn to turn themselves into monsters? I'm not daring to say that he did not want them to make a sacrifice such as that, but perhaps someone might?

My last point is arn't the World Eaters, amongst any other things they might be, the "Monsters of and for Humanity", as put forward by the quote on their history in Betrayal (why does it suprise the wise man that humanity might need monsters of its own if it is too survive).

>

>>Yes - Peturabo dreamed of Olympia becoming as perfect as Olympus, of building at Nikea a great theatre; of a cultural masterpiece; he got fortresses and his Nikean dream became the place of his brother's shame - a courthouse. He should never have been a general, it twisted him and made him a pawn of Chaos - if he'd have been the Imperium's great architect (rebuilding key worlds in his brothers' wake, fortifying the Imperial Palace, etc) he would have been the most loyal and incorruptible of the Emperor's sons.

For more information look at the 'Dorn or Peturabo?' thread in this sub-forum. Some of the posts really explore Peturabo and his attitudes.lockquote>

Ah, so we can essentially view Perturabo as much as "resentful" of his war duty as Lorgar?

>@ Cormac Airt:

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the difference between Ultramarines and Emperor's Children. However, I'd like to add my own two cents when it comes to the Ultramarines, of all the 18 Legions, the Ultramarines stand out as the most professional. While Dorn and the Lion are Knights, Russ is the Nordic Viking Ideal, World Eaters are Gladitor Warriors, the Ultramarines have always been Professional Soldiers. Well, at least that is my interpratation of the Ultramarines.

I could probably go on talking about the difference between soldiers when compared to the other various forms of warriors, but that might be a little Off topic.

To me, each legion always seemed to have an underlying ideal or trait that they have immersed in. For example:

Dark Angels: Vigilance

Emperor's Children: Glory

Blood Angels: Nobility

Night Lords: Vengeance

Iron Hands: Defiance (of weakness, not authority)

World Eaters: Wrath

Ultramarines: Professionalism

Sons Of Horus: Power

Death Guard: Endurance

...ect

This is most effective and insightful list to my aims out of any lists i have seen so far, not that I am looking for lists though. I am always a big fan of the primal desire that is fury/wrath . Another reason I looked at world eaters/war hounds is that I learned of the difference and immediately preferred warriors to soldiers. In a war I think I want my lads to be more worried about taking lives than preserving lives, sort of like safety from spies through killing everyone in the room. Not sure that is still warm to me as it once was though.

Neverending edit: Whats your train of thought when you arrived at Dark Angels and Vigilance? I might see where you are coming from with Night Lords, but I'm not completely sure about Vengeance, they are more concerned with the answer being the former to a question of wherever it is better to be feared or loved are they not (as Curze was proved wrong when his planet went back to it's good ol' ways after his departure)?

Feel like I must nitpick though, for is Endurance not Defiance? One of the many problems is that some of each Legions' apparent characterless seem to bleed into others so they must be cancelled out, making me even more frustrated and wanting to go deeper.

I am glad I was able to be somewhat helpful then. I actually stayed up later than usual to pensil some ideas about the warrior vs soldier dynamic amongst the astartes legion. But first to answer your questions

Dark Angels and Vigilance... I always thought this was fairly obvious, but it seems I am in the minority when it comes to this characterzation. To me the First Legion has always been about being watchful for the Emperor's enemies. Being the first, they saw themselves as the first line of defense for the Emperor. I think it was magnified after the Lion joined the Crusade. The Lion was part of a knighthood order who always was vigiliant for attacks from monsters from the woods of Caliban. He carried this trait with him to his legion. He was watchful over his brothers and even his own men (if Astellan is to be believed). If you may recall, it was the Lion who first saw Horus's treachery and acted against it amongst the loyalist primarchs. My own belief is that the reason the Dark Angels are obsessive over their "Fallen" is because they did not see Luther's betrayal coming and it scarred their pride as well as their psyche

To me, the Night Lords are the emboddiment of Imperial Vengeance. However, literature often describes vengeance as going far past the original offense. The Night Lords, like vengeance, do not know where to draw that line to stop

The difference between Endurance and Defiance in my mind lies in self esteem of an organization/individual. To defy something is to act because you hate/despise an item. Meanwhile Endurance is the belief that one is good enough to survive and thrive through any difficulty. They are very similiar, but have different roots. One (defiance) is reaction to an external issue, where endurance is more introverted in nature.

Now, back to the main topic:

Warrior is a wide encompassing identy set. So I have to ask you what are you looking for as a warrior culture? I identify with professional soldiers (in large part because I am one) which is why I strongly support and associate with the Ultramarines. If all you are looking for is Comradeship, then any of the legions will do for they are all Battle Brothers. So... Which do you see yourself as? A Soldier? Knight? Bodyguard? Spy? Raider? Which combinations of values are you looking for.

This might seem like it comes out of the blue, but you strike me more as a Son of Dorn. It seems that you want more then just a rule set to follow, that honor and accomplishment along with directness and with some self reflection/insight are values you may hold to. To me, these characteristic line more up with Dorn. The Imperial Fists are perhaps the most stoic of all the Legions. Direct in their mindset, they will hold and endure beyond what is expected. Yet they often hold surprising insight (both Dorn and Sigmund had astute observations about their brothers and the wider Imperium).

That being said. This is just a guess based off of what I have read in this tread. If you wish, I'd be willing to give you my personal views on the core trait for each of the legions.

In that case sincere thanks for your commitment!

I think what seems to be the case is the issue you bring up regarding soldierly and warriorhood, and the traits that encompass them. From what I understand and appreciate most, the difference between a soldier and a warrior is that where the former is always fighting for something; the soldier always holds war as a means to an end, whereas a warrior fights simply because there is a war, and he is simply utilized as a tool for war; a general may be a soldier, using the warriors at his command much like modern day soldiers use their rifles. Without a war a warrior is not finding himself utilized to his primary intent, like a rifle being used as a hammer to build a home. I believe certain legions address this point; I view the Ultramarines as more soldiers than warriors out of Guilliman's intent for them to have a future; he has molded the stock of his rifle to have a hammerhead, so that it may serve another function and not yearn for war, like we would expect the world eaters to always do, and like the evidence we see in form of the fallen Legions living simply for the sake of an eternity of war.

As a side point, I believe the Emperor addressed this issue by ensuring that the Thunder Warriors naturally died after Unification; in this case once the rifle has used its purpose it has no place in the peace which is achieved and is discarded. A part of me wonders wherever such a destructive plan was ever in effect with the Legions, while another recognises that perhaps Guilliman is right and the Astartes are capable of being humanity's elites in more than war, in being much smaller epitomes of the Emperor's benefits and thus being able to cover and benefit the entire Imperium. I do recognize the lack of reproductive means as a safe guard to always ensure the Astartes do not consider themselves as a different species to humanity and thus, like artificial intelligence, seek to supplant them.

Now bear in mind I have never served on the field, nor have I ever even done anything like enlist in the military, so in the following I am speaking entirely out of my a*se and would pleasantly accept a contradiction, as is the purpose of this thread so far.

I believe I would much rather have a warrior fight for me than a soldier. Put bluntly this is because I would expect a warrior's morale to be of better stock than that of a solider. This is because despite the coherency of purpose militaries of the world might try to insill, I believe that each soldier has a slightly different reason for fighting in the war, and this is not even mentioning conscripted service, and that difference would serve as the pivotal crack in a time of turbulation. My fear is that there might come a point where the soldier's reason for fighting ends being his drive to keep fighting; if a man is fighting as a last resort to protect his home or out of revenge, I would expect him to last on par or even exceed the endurance of a warrior. However if a soldier is fighting say simply for pay or to even provide for his family by fighting in a war that does not concern them, logic points that there must come a point where, as the risk piles up, it is illogical to continue to put his life on the line; he cannot use his pay if he dies, he cannot provide for his family (as an example, barring modern procedures) if he dies. I hope I have conveyed this perhaps touchy point correctly; if the narrative concerns itself with endurance in warfare, then I see the warrior, more frequently than that of the soldier, as enduring the most.

Hows this: for a warrior, every war concerns him ( to a sensible degree), whereas a soldier will encounter many wars which he will not see as concerning him, right or wrong, but still be "forced" or driven to fight in. Thats where the Commissars come in; they elevate the level of risk needed before a soldier reconsiders his cause of enlistment and thus his drive to keep fighting.

If I can go on just a little bit further on the point, in-narratively speaking, warriorhood is something I believe the Imperium tries to instill in the Imperial Army/Guard. However, short of last stands and the like, I always believe that a guardsman always fights for something and that given infinite time there will come a point where the need to fight is overbalanced the need of that need (eg: money is needed for life, but life is needed to use money), whereas Astartes are as close to the Imperium as it ever has ever gotten to that vision, at least in the eyes of those who do not see them as anything more than tools of war, something I doubt the narrative is even sure of yet.

To end the point; would a general, concerned with nothing but the outcome of the war, not wish for warriors where a politician would wish for soldiers?

I have to say though Blackoption, the idea of Imperial Fists does come entirely out of the blue. The reason why I kept discarding them from my thoughts is contrary to your point of them possessing levels of insight as you claim. I always viewed them (incorrectly?) as stubborn and set in their ways, unwanting to deviate from the line set down by their superiors even in so far as to be unable to recognize what the rules mean, rather than just following them to the letter, hence the accusations of draconianism and self-punishment that is prevalent whenever I see them mentioned.

Regarding their insight, I am under the belief that it is only mentioned because it is a surprise it exists at all, rather than at any significant level as you imply. As someone who views himself extremely open minded and capable of flip flopping beliefs to fall in line with the mind and a little bit of the heart at the given time, while doing my best to stay consistent once the flip flop happens, that stubbornness factor is the only thing keeping me from fielding them however, and I am having some nice thoughts if you happen to be right. It's a wonder how I stayed on the tau for a decade considering the indecision I'm facing concerning the legions, those damn pheromones. This yearn for practicality is perhaps whats keeping the Ultramarines/Alpha Legion on the mind, however I can't help but view the professionalism of the former, a characteristic that most peeps on this thread seem to agree to pin on the Ultras, as a child of "honour" or a cousin of a "sense of duty", which I am still having mixed thoughts about in regards to practicality. It's not that I have a thing against honour, it's just I am not supporter of it for the sake of itself, if we ignore any beneficial by-products a thing like honour has for a legion.

On a self-indulgent muse, perhaps that is to be a coward; for what is a coward in this sense if not the one that rigidly sticks to pragmatism, where others might get a fire in their hearts for something that seems illogical to a character that we coin a "coward"? Lots of words being picked apart today.

In terms of values I strongly stay away from the Angles because I am not a fan of Knighthood, as I see Knights to be knights simply because it was honourable or rather what we see as modern-day-cool to be a Knight in the realm at that era. Bodyguard is perhaps the value that I admire the most, just need to decide wherever it is more effective for a soldier to be a bodyguard or a warrior to be one, if you are still with me.

I guess the main issue is recognizing each legion's negative attributes, since they all have effective positive attributes, and settling for the one that hits against home the least.

Just to answer, I do completely agree with your definition of defiance versus endurance, now if only you throw Stoicism in there.

On that note, not out of a need for "we're da bestast" for any parties but as a muse, would you expect the Stoicism of the Fists to last them longer in some cases than even the determination of the Iron Warriors or the Endurance of the Death Guard? Provided I have the respective right.

Edit: No replies to it yet but I'd rather withdraw the above question, seems to me the result completely depends on the context; the Fists held out where it mattered on Terra to a certain degree. Rather the more important question I believe is Imperial Fist stoicism regarded on the same lines as the Death Guard regard their endurance, or is it a by-product of other Fist characteristics?

[A D-B]

Regarding the difference between warriors and soldiers, that's something else that's kinda dear to my heart. I think it's purely a perspective thing, without any firm boundaries. Which isn't to say it's not fun or interesting to explore. It totally is.

 

As some references, there's often a culture among US servicemen exalting the term "warrior" as something better than a mere soldier - like a soldier with a heart, or more integrity. It's probably not a surprise when I say I end up speaking to a lot of US soldiers who read 40K fiction, and that's something I've seen a lot of.

 

Conversely, you have this scene in Knights of the Old Republic, between the Republic pilot Carth Onasi, and the Mandalorian mercenary Canderous Ordo: 

.

 

There you've got a plainly noble perspective, where soldiers essentially protect and serve the innocent. Very noble, and I like that idea, though I can immediately counter it with a quote (this is what I mean about there being no clear answer, really), as follows.

 

In Battlestar Galactica, there's a beautiful line about the difference between police officers and soldiers, in terms of martial law and the military taking over the government: "There's a reason you separate the military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." -- Admiral William Adama.

 

In the David Gemmell novel Sword in the Storm, the Keltoi (Celts) are a warrior culture, in opposition to the nation of Stone (Rome) with its regiments of Panthers (phalanxes). In that, the main character Connavar is speaking to merchant from Stone, Banouin, and the latter is trying to explain to the former what a soldier actually is. The Kelt struggles to understand it, because - as he rightly asks - who wants to fight and oppress other people and cultures? By what right do they have to do that? And more importantly, how do these men work their farms if they're away in the spring and summer seasons? Warriors fight for honour, their tribe, or to raid other tribes, and then there's a general cessation of hostilities in the harvest months. The idea of waging war in other lands all year long is anathema to their way of life, and something only a greedy fool would do.

 

There's also elements of it in the Slaine graphic novels, where the Celts are mystified by the notion of fighting all year round to conquer more land than you can effectively farm yourself, and trying to own more treasure than a man can carry himself, or store in his hut. It's seen as decadent and barbaric, which is ironic, seeing as it's 'traditional' barbarians thinking that about the more warmongering cultures.

 

In the semi-mythical Kingdom of Rome, before both the Republic and the Empire, Romulus's first legions were, much like most of the ancient world, levies of men who were highly trained, but weren't full-time soldiers marching into other lands at the behest of a king. They were citizens that gathered their wargear and marched on other cities (or defended their own) for several months of the year, but had to devote just as much time to farming and working the land. That's a direct opposition to the later Republic and Empire, when soldiers were paid to remain under arms and/or in the field on a much more permanent basis, as the Kingdom died out and the Republic/Empire focused on continental conquest.

 

I have a scene about this planned for a future Heresy novel, where A Certain Character muses on the notion that humanity's turning point wasn't fire, or the wheel, or gunpowder. It was when the first king looked out across his kingdom, and thought "I deserve more." On that day, he made every warrior into his kingdom into a soldier, and warfare was never the same. 

[ChaosLord Leon Enaek]

That sounds like an awesome scene :) some of my favourite moments in the Heresy have been the brief moments of calm - "the deep breath before the plunge" - in which characters have a chance to explore deeper themes than 'my Bolter goes bang and my Chainsword goes vroom'.

[Balthamal]

ADB - The only character that springs to mind for that scene would be Sanguinius. Don't ask me why. Gut feeling.

[Vesper]

Ahh, KOTOR. Had such an awesome time on those two games.

[blackoption]

@Kais Klip

 

A couple of thoughts: All soldiers are warriors, but not all warriors are soldiers.  ADB's video clip has actually been debated numerous times (at least in the American military)

Warrior is an extremely broad term. Anyone who uses violence as a means to an end is a warrior. But the warrior culture you are looking for is much more then a bond of violence. The bond is often about shared hardship, training, and discipline. That is the reason on why I asked you on how you see yourself. A mercenary fights for pay, a soldier fights for a cause/state, a Knight fights for king/country/honor, a Crusader/jihadist fights for his god/calling, a tribal brave fights for his tribe's well being.  All are similar in degrees, but all are different shades of grey (some alot more so then others). Raiders, Vikings, and Mongols were also different types of warriors. Even terrorists (whom I have a seething hatred for) fall under the category of warrior.

 

While I am more then happy to talk on that particularly topic, it might get too far off topic and it also might be too emotionally charged for this setting.

 

As for the Sons of Dorn association, I'd ask you to remember there is a significant difference between the Imperial Fists Legion and the Imperial Fists chapter.  This is the case with all the 1st founding legions. For example, If the Ultramarine Legion is the professional soldier, the Ultramarine chapter is a group of professional soldiers that occassionally forgets the difference between Doctrine and Dogma (another discussion I've had as of late professionally).

 

As I remember, the pain glove did not come around till POST seige of Emperor's Palace. It is more of a Imperial Fists Chapter thing than a Legion tradition.  I do not see the Templar's having that tradition, nor do the Crimson Fists.  But one legion tradition would be the Feast of Blades.  While probably started after the second founding, it is something that ties the Dorn chapters together.  Ten warriors per chapter engaging in a compitetion of swordsmanship. While not all chapters participate at every feast, it is something that all the IF Legion successors can claim.

 

Prior to the heresy, the Imperial Fists were the Emperor's Praetorian Legion, but that was not their only role. To me, the Imperial Fists are the emboddiment of dedication. The Imperial Fists have never come close to half measures in their response. They look for the most direct solution for the problem then move on to the next issue.  They devote their life to martial persuits and often ignore "distracting" concerns or complications (For example, Dorn's quote on how he wants "recruits, not vassals".  Single minded yes, but it is always in pursuit of a larger matter or concern (the defense of the Imperium) and they tend to be rather insightful when it comes to issues that can/have threatened the Imperium (Crimison Fists on Orks are one example).

They are an uncomplicated warrior brotherhood (esp when compared to the Emperor's Children, Space Wolves, and Thousand Sons) but have enough flavor that people can still taste.

[Flint13]

The text walls of this thread will become legend. It's been a blast reading them so far.

[Schultzhoffen]

Interesting thread. Are all soldiers warriors or is it an intrinsic thing? I can understand that a warrior can also be a soldier if he is a volunteer or professional. What if he is a conscript? I'd suggest that probably not all conscripts are warriors. After all, training can only take one so far. Where does this leave the Astartes? Don't they all originate from military and warrior cultures where war is a constant and cultural thing? War/conflict defines their societies, education (if any) and world views. This is then melded with all that a space marine is. They are indoctrinated in the Imperial ideal/truth to a greater degree than any modern soldier/warrior is indoctrinated to a cause.Their entire lives become dedicated to war/Empire building. I'd humbly suggest that their thought processes are vastly different to anyone who is alive or who has ever lived on earth until the present.

 

I've hazarded a guess before that one of the reasons their training starts as youth is to stunt their emotional maturity in order to better imprint them with the Imperial Creed. All they seem to have is this notion of Brotherhood or Loyalty to the Imperium because they have nothing else. Family is denied them. They have no chance to have any type of meaningful relationship with any living thing that is a requirement to develop as a person. They have no real frame of reference for how mortals think. This makes them both stronger and weaker.

 

All of the Legions seem to share this.

 

Another interesting question: are the Astartes actually brave? Bravery is overcoming fear. They seem to have very little capacity for that emotion. The World Eaters post Nails in particular. Bravery is being terrified or afraid and knowing full well you stand a good chance of death and/or failing and then going ahead and doing it anyway (whether this is fighting in a battle, saving someone from drowning , acting on a stage or speaking out when your values are unpopular makes little difference, I think - they're all forms of courage).

 

I almost think that the Astartes are, at their core, children with superhuman powers. Even their Primarchs seem to display these qualities. I don't think it's any coincidence that they seem to have "daddy issues", never really having experienced an actual family (or did some of them - I'm not sure. At least not a growing up and playing nicely with other kids childhood).

 

As to the different qualities of each Legion? They are all similar at their core yet different in their outlook, moulded by culture, Primarchs or differing indoctrination or "values". That's why they're all so interesting.