Legion Characteristics

[Peter the Hermit]

Soldiers are dudes who serve their country and defend their home (or they think so he,he)...Warrior is the dude who enjoys fighting and lives for that IMHO...

For an example IG are soldiers in basis, SM can be a soldier with strong warrior attributes (SW,BA) or just simply a warrior(WE)....

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

Soldiers were people who defended their community and were paid for doing so. It has now come to mean someone who serves in an army.

Warriors are those who define themselves through the conduct of war, i.e. someone who makes war.

So they are overlapping categories, but any attributes assigned to each group will always be normative. A member of the Rout, for example, may believe fellowship - the pack - is a fundamental characteristic of a warrior, whilst a WE might supplant that with individual prowess in close combat. Horses for courses and very much in line with the theme of the thread, i.e. how does each Legion (and especially Primarch) measure the ideal marine and how does that affect the culture of that Legion.

Great topic guys with some fascinating posts

[Kais Klip]

Peter pretty much summed up my point, so I have to say on the subject of warriors and soldiers I agree with him and Durfast; I don't believe all soldiers can be warriors, but I'm going to withdraw my opinion that warriors would have better morale/determination on average, since again it is strictly situational.

 

So what of the Ultramarines, would a Roman play Ultramarines? Have we decided that they received only the positive attributes of Rome, and are these Roman attributes as prevalent as stereotype leads, or can Ultramarines culturally connect with something else even more closely? Are they not the perfect epitome of a soldier, and if so, why not?

[blackoption]

@Schultzhoffen

Conscripts are still technically warriors.  They use force/violence as a means to survive in their new environment.  But conscripts are often a transitory stage.  If the Conscript survives long enough to get out, he ceases to be a warrior. If the Conscript embraces his new lifestyle, he becomes something else (often a professional soldier but potentially something else). Squires are another transitional form of warriors, as are recruits *the key difference between recruit and conscript is that while both are untrained, there is no intention to send a recruit into battle until after the recruit has proven himself worthy and embraced being a soldier)

 

@ Durfast Spiritwolf

 

To an extent your right. Indeed each warrior subculture has its own set of rules, values, and norms.  But it is generally accepted that the term Warrior is the broadest term.  Samurai, Knight, Soldier, Viking, ect are all types of warriors. Each has its own separate motivations as why and when it is acceptable to use violence. Usually the "warrior" will take these norms from the ruler/society that gives them sanction to use violence. The origin of that sanction is a key component of a warrior culture for it will establish what that specific warrior's purpose is.

 

In regards for the Legions, all of them were created and given sanction by the Emperor. They all initially trained to conquer in his name and serve for his goals. But, that was just the Legions starting point. They all grew in both size and temperament. While many of the legions were similar and do overlap in many respects, no two legions came out identical. Each on has its own flavor and culture. In my mind, each legion started emphasizing one or two traits above all others. This balanced some legions (Ultramarines, Blood Angels, ect) and unbalanced others (World Eaters, arguably Thousand Sons). 

 

Although I know we will likely never see them fleshed out, I often wonder how the lost two legions developed. But that is just my own curiosity

[Kais Klip]

I think I've just come to realise what Blackoption is saying; that because being a soldier today is literally a way of life(rather than a Roman short term enlistment), ie a career, the term warrior as it was known earlier in history has now become applicable to modern day soldiers in the technical sense.

 

And Blackoption, what two traits to stand out the most on the Ultramarines and Blood Angels while you're at it?

[Excessus]

I'm really a little against the "soldiers protect and defend" bit, because they do quite a lot of attacking and pillaging as well. Soldiers follow commands, that is what they do...I wouldn't trust a warrior to follow commands...

 

[Edit]: so few words, such a crappy spelling! :P

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

@ blackoption- I beg to disagree. I fear you are conflating general acceptance of the term 'warrior' with a minority view, perhaps based on recent US military usage? Then again, my understanding of the word is heavily influenced by half a lifetime in the British Infantry, followed by some years of academic research into medieval warfare.

 

As per the Oxford English definitions (which are the legal definition of broad understanding in UK), a warrior is dedicated to the pursuit of warfare and is defined by war, whilst a soldier arguably just requires membership of an army. So a conscript is a soldier not a warrior per se, i.e. they are part of an army, but are not necessarily defined by warfare. It is just what they have been called upon to do until they return to their normal life. Of course, they could have been levied from a warrior society, such as the population of Catachan, and be both. 

 

I would agree that warrior is a broader term than soldier. Although the latter term is still broad enough to cover everything from a professional soldier through medieval stipendarie to non-professional soldiers, e.g. conscripts.

 

However, as you say, professional soldiering is indeed a way of life, sometimes with values and standards that are different from the society from which they have been drawn. As they say, you can take the man out of the British Army, but you can't take the Army out of the man.

 

@Kais Klip - Roman enlistment was no shorter than that of a modern professional soldier. In fact, it was on average longer. Baring death or serious injury a Legionary under Augustus Caesar signed up for 16 years regular service followed by 4 years on light duties. Prior to that service was for a minimum of six years (in the modern UK Army the minimum is 4 years). Roman Legionaries were, I would strongly argue, a prime example of soldier warriors.

 

Regards,

[Kais Klip]

Thank you for the correction, in which case I fully stand behind Durfast on all his points.

 

Edit: For the sake of the thread, I feel we should leave this discussion of soldiers and warriors for another time, unless it comes back to heavily influence the topic at hand.

 

So what of the Ultramarines, would a Roman play Ultramarines? Have we decided that they received only the positive attributes of Rome, and are these Roman attributes as prevalent as stereotype leads, or can Ultramarines culturally connect with something else even more closely? Are they not the perfect epitome of a soldier, and if so, why not?

 

And discussion is still open for the other legions, of course; is it right to view the Blood Angel virtue of nobleness to be heavily contrasted by their underlying... savagery?

 

And what of the Iron Hands; does anyone care to offer evidence or opinion to contradict the prevalently held view,(before BL fully fleshes them out as it seems to have started), that the Iron Hands have always been viewed as a little lacking in character?

[blackoption]

@Spiritwolf

Every culture has its own view on what is and is not a warrior. As I said in an earlier post, there are debates in the American military on this topic. Though I would be interested in hearing what our friends across the pond have to say on this topic

 

@Kais Klip

While I am not Roman, I strongly identify with the Ultramarines. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the fact that they are the most professional of all the Legions is something I both admire and aspire too as a Soldier. This is partly based on the fact that most western militaries have roots to the old Roman Legion days. To me, one of the hallmarks of professionalism is discipline, both self and organizational, and focus.  The Ultramarines fight to win wars as fast as possible. There is little in the way of malice. Once the mission is over, they move on to the next objective with little fuss. Contain the damage, end the enemy and move on.

 

The Blood Angels on the other hand are the Nobility aspect of war. I.E. fighting for a better future. Sometimes war takes you to dark places. To the Blood Angels, this darkness is manifest with their black rage and red thirst issues. I choose to take that as idealists battle who has to struggle with himself against the realities of war.  In many ways it would be simpler to just kill them all and let the Emperor sort it out.  However, simple does not necessarily mean it is the right thing to do, and it always seems that the sons of Sanguinius have to try and do the right and just thing.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I view the Iron Hands as the characterization of Defiance of weakness.  The obvious part is weakness of the flesh, which they defy by becoming machine.  But it runs deeper then that.  They were the first legion to lose its primarch.  Yet instead of recoil at the loss, they defied it and continued to attack (as based on the more recent HH books).  They defy not only weakness, but failure. 

[Daemon2027]

Intreasting thread.

 

Kais Klip: a Roman would play Rome, to them nothing came close to their armies, culture, politics, in any aspects, even the bits they ripped of other cultures. I don't think any of the Space Marine legions belived that they were that much superior then every other legion, although they would no doubt have have believed they were better in some aspect.

 

Saying that an Ultramarine would see themselves as being the best at efficient strategy, as in the best way to defeat an enemy in the quickest way with the smallest loss of life. Roman strategy did not always embody this. One of Romes more important aspects was never giving up. If a battle was lost, then send anyother army. If it happened again, then send another army, and so on. I see this as more of an Imperial Fist trait, never giving up, no matter the cost. The Ultramarines are more like a idealistic view of Rome (and Sparta), although they are not the only legion who are idealistic takes on a culture.

[Visitor13]

So what's the practical difference between the Imperial Fists' "never give up", the Hands' "defiance", the Death Guards' "endurance", and I guess I could add the Dark Angels' stubborness (probably more of a 40k thing but still)? No disrespect, but I only see here four different terms referring to the same thing - fighting till the last one of you drop dead.

[Kais Klip]

Blackoption made a great tackle on the difference between Defience and Endurance on page 3, shortly after ADB's post I believe, while the Iron Hand's defiance was mentioned just above, however them and Dark Angel stubbornness (a trait that hasn't been eve suggested to them yet) haven't been touched upon a great detail yet. Why do you believe stubbornness to be present amongst DA? Any connection to their Vigilance as we've laid down?

[Daemon2027]

So what's the practical difference between the Imperial Fists' "never give up", the Hands' "defiance", the Death Guards' "endurance", and I guess I could add the Dark Angels' stubborness (probably more of a 40k thing but still)? No disrespect, but I only see here four different terms referring to the same thing - fighting till the last one of you drop dead.

Not much I supposes. I didn't say the the Imperial Fist were the only Legion who fight to the last (although i never said there were others either). The point I was trying o make is that he Ultramarines are not a 'keep throwing armies at the enemy' type of legion. They would fall back, devise new tactics etc (also I'm not saying that Roman Generals never did this either but for the most part they were an unrelenting tenacious force in a world of individual warfare).

[Penguin of Death]

I've generally thought of Warriors as individuals fighting for the same thing rather than the group that is an army of soldiers.

 

The Warrior in my mind is better trained, maybe through experience, and better able to respond and counter something unexpected, whereas the soldier is following orders - but part of a group who will all resond exactly the same way which can make them greater than the sum of their parts.

 

In game I could imagine it as 10 marine veterans vs a 10 man honour guard - the vets would be more flexible, but the hg would all be concentrating on one opponent and one goal

 

thus endeth the ramble

[Visitor13]

Demon, Kais Klip: Basically I was wondering how these seemingly different legion characteristics translate into the battlefield experience. It's always bugged me how the Fists and the 40k Dark Angels are said to be insanely stubborn in their resistance (no idea about the connection between that stubborness and the Dark Angels' vigilance) and yet there's the Iron Hands and the Death Guard, who are every bit as tenacious mentally AND modify/harden their bodies to reflect this tenacity - something the former two don't do, unless you count the Pain Glove.

 

Ultimately it seems that whatever one calls those characteristics, they all boil down to a stubborn, almost irrational refusal to yield, even in the direst circumstances.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

@Spiritwolf

Every culture has its own view on what is and is not a warrior. As I said in an earlier post, there are debates in the American military on this topic. Though I would be interested in hearing what our friends across the pond have to say on this topic

I am not aware of a serious soldier v warrior debate in UK. I've seen the odd academic paper, one of which waxes lyrical about masculine and feminine traits.

However, as there are accepted definitions for both words in English, it isn't really a conceptual issue. Then again, the British military are notoriously suspicious of academics and 'over thinking' - this has not always been to our advantage ;)

If we return to the Great Crusade, we see Legions employed in all sorts of non-warrior functions. That is to say, in tasks unrelated to the conduct of war. Examples would include stewardship of their home planet/systems probably all, but the UMs are a prime example), stablisation tasks (such the WBs implantation of the Imperial Creed), academic research (such as the TSs), diplomacy etc. Then again, Roman Legionaries were famous for their construction skills as much as their cohesion in close combat and tactical felxibility.

[blackoption]

@Visitor13

In this regard I am speaking more about the internal culture of a legion then their battlefield tactics/characteristics. However, the former does have a strong tendency to drive the latter. The OP talked about what legion he should begin with and he wanted input from the forum.  Most of the discussion has been more on the warrior cultures of each legion as opposed to just their tactical preferences.

[Kais Klip]

Not that the discussion of tactical preferences and any interplays of said preferences to characteristics would be any less welcome though.   

[Marshal Rohr]

I like the Imperial Fists because of what happened to them during the Heresy and after. That kind of development is really what drives good stories, even if BL won't give them anything more than a few stories.