The "best" siege warfare specialists: IF vs IW

[Kol Saresk]

High Marshall, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying the Fists are motivated by their ideology, correct?

 

And Heathens, since the Iron Warriors have no "heart", their methodology is their ideology?

 

So if I understand that correctly, would it be reasonable to infer that when the unstoppable force runs into the unmoveable object, mutual annihilation results?

[GhostMalone]

End result the iron cage

[Kol Saresk]

Not what I was going for

[Marshal Rohr]

Uh, Terra was mutual annihilation. For everyone involved. Nobody walked away with banners high. The traitors turned tail and ran away (like always), and the Blood Angels, Imperial Fists, and White Scars were just as busted up. Horus and the Emperor were dead. Neither side had a leader, but the loyalists had the 'Rohirrim' charge in too late after everyone was gone, and everybody else was trying to figure out what was going on like the guy from saving private ryan who was just walking around the beach holding his severed arm. 

[Conn Eremon]

Kol is right, if I understand him correctly. The Iron Cage is rife with circumstances for both sides that prevent it from being a true meeting of the two Legions. It's important to note that one Legion wanted to break the other, not just beat them, and the other wanted to broken in the process, not just win. It was not a simple battle. It had more complications than the Siege itself has, which was only complicated by the presence of so many other armies. If it had been a re-enactment of the Siege, just between them two, we could get a more definitive answer. But life's not that easy. Life in 40k all the more so. The Iron Cage gave no winners, no losers. Just a bloodbath, neither side leaving with head bowed.

[Wade Garrett]

Don't sell the IV Legion way of war short. It may not have been as "glorious" as the sweeping advance of the Blood Angels or the howling charge of Russ's Wolves, but they made war into a craft...no, a science!

 

The sound of a hundred batteries firing in unison is more beautiful than any Chemosian ballad or Maccragian war chant.

 

As for the Iron Cage, one side had to be carried away by another Legion and couldn't even recover their dead. The other held the field and saw their leader be rewarded with daemonhood.

 

Funny how Dorn's goals went from "I will bring Perturabo to Terra in an iron cage" to "Everyone is dying! Just what I wanted all along!"

[Marshal Rohr]

FFG makes it seem like the Imperial Fists never intended on returning from the Iron Cage.

[Conn Eremon]

I think Dorn was being bombastic for bombastic's sake when he said that. The true purpose of the Iron Cage was to be broken. But you don't say that. You say you are going to win. You say you are going for a purpose. You don't say you are attempting suicide by glory. You don't say that you are giving up. That you have lost everything, even the will. Not Dorn. Never someone like Dorn.

[Hyaenidae]

High Marshall, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying the Fists are motivated by their ideology, correct?

 

And Heathens, since the Iron Warriors have no "heart", their methodology is their ideology?

 

So if I understand that correctly, would it be reasonable to infer that when the unstoppable force runs into the unmoveable object, mutual annihilation results?

 

For the Fists, it's more like an Article of Faith. Their honour, pride and determination define their very spirit. Such "heart", as Marshall puts it, makes them dangerous, drives them beyond limitations, past the point of death. A foe that howls a challenge and charges you, sword high, on a modern battlefield, and respects your defeat, is a deadly foe indeed. No challenge too great, no enemy too powerful, no goal too far away. Not even Perturabo is safe from such bravery, apparently. Better yet, he knows it. A two handed-grip on a broadsword, a face coated in blood, and eyes afire with belief.

 

For the Iron Warriors, it is more than a method, and without an ideological standpoint. It is a practical application of knowledge, mathematics, statistics and ratios to thoroughly overwhelm an opponent by leaving them nothing in the end but fire and ash. It is a foe that cares not who dies to the left or right, as long as the equation is answered; a detachment, without emotive desires or beliefs. They are an enemy that, upon a challenge from a foe with his sword high, will put bolt after bolt into the 'problem', until it is solved. Violent, precise, clinical, implacable. Cold, emotionless eyes, settled behind a bolters' sights.

 

And yes, in my opinion, there is no possible way to answer the OP's question, as both are right and wrong. If both Legions, at full strength, met alone on a battlefield, every man on that field would be a corpse in the shallow graves of a shell-pocked ruin in the end, surmounted by fire, black smoke and floating ash. Astartes of blackened steel and golden suns would hang from brush-thick razorwire, and battlements broken like teeth. Face down in mud. Sitting against walls, blood streaking the crater riddled surface. Cordite and cooked meat in the air. A fortress aflame, struck against the skyline like a mountain struck by a god. Atop this all would be Dorn and Perturabo, aside each other. A sword imbedded in Perturabo's heart, and Dorn's chest and stomach completely obliterated to the spine by archaic lightning-rounds.

 

No winners, no losers. Only death.

[Conn Eremon]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/i_like_you.gif

[High MarshalGR]

High Marshall, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying the Fists are motivated by their ideology, correct?

 

And Heathens, since the Iron Warriors have no "heart", their methodology is their ideology?

 

So if I understand that correctly, would it be reasonable to infer that when the unstoppable force runs into the unmoveable object, mutual annihilation results?

 

What 1000heathens said covers me pretty much, but I'll try to focus some points. Two forces with entirely different "Modus Operandi", from one hand we have IF whose willpower, honor, sence of duty, determination, unbreakable battle planning and a fiery heart ready to overcome all odds drive them to war. In the other corner, we have IW, methodical, cold, fighting only pre-calculated battles, honourless and faithless, machines in a sense, who supremely form battle plans through mathematically calculated factors.

 

I'm not merely talking about ideology, I'm referring to the purpose of the war for each Legion itself. IW fight for no ideal, they fight without their heart fixed on their cause (be it the Imperium or Chaos), this is why I say they lack the heart which defines humans from machines but they calculate war as machines do. IF fight with everything they can offer and a superhuman conduct deriving from the love, the heart of what they are doing, exceeding the mortal status from their own viewpoint. 

 

But I know what would help make my thought simple: From the trilogy Terminator, IF are like the human resistance while IW are like the forces of Skynet. From Greek history, IF are like the forces of Sparta led by Leonidas while IF are like the Persean forces in the battle of Thermopyles (if we had a battle with a 1 to 10 ratio of IF/IW). It was also a suicide war... But what made it so special that it survived and even inspired the creation of a movie? That's what I'm talking about.

 

It would be logical to call upon the immovable object and the unstoppable force theoritically, but it would not fully cover the differences each Legion ignites within us. How does one feel and how does the other? Iron prove easy to break back during the HH and forsake it's oath. Enough water was used (by Horus of course) and it broke. How do you open a Fist which has fingers so different from one another making it almost impossible to read (the so different ingredients the IF possessed once, before the Second Founding)? I still don't know since the IF remained true to their own choices proving their freedom, just as small armies in human history defeated undefeatable (only mathematically of course) foes. They prove themselves being made from something stronger than any metal which you win by water or fire.

 

So I agree with what 1000heathens said about them overally. I made this thread so we can disguss it, but I too think there is no possible answer as far as the art of siege goes. IW used discipline (of mind), cross-training in Mars, methodical planning and a cold intelligence. IF used discipline (of heart), willpower, stubborness, overcoming mathematics and logic but still going through the careful planning of one of the best military minds (Dorn) and devotion. As far as siege goes, I think the IW might be better for this type of war. As far as all types of warfare go and versatility is considered, I think the IF excell (when we are talking about Legions).

[Wade Garrett]

 

 

Only fighting pre calculated battles with no heart or passion at all?

 

Objection, counselor. Assumes facts not entered into evidence.

 

You can have the biggest guns and most sophisticated war machines, but it counts as nothing without warriors with the loyalty and courage to plunge through no man's land and lead the forlorn hope that crashes into the enemy lines.

 

IV Legion can sell their lives just as dearly as any of Dorn's huscarls when it comes time to die in a hopeless last stand, look at the garrison of Olympia detonating their own ammo stockpiles to take their besiegers down with them.

 

From iron cometh strength. From strength cometh faith. From faith cometh honor. From honor cometh iron. And may it be forever so.

[Greyall]

I kind of understand both the views. On the one hand, I'm sure at some point Perturabo's boys must've suffered some lethargy when they performed the same old deployments and strategies.

 

On the other hand, that means they become super vicious when it's time to get their hands dirty, due to all that frustration.

[Emperor's Furor]

In the recent Scars episode,

 

 

Dorn states the thing he would like to do most is gather up all his men and bring the fight to them, but it's funny that the thing they consider him specializing in is the one thing holding him back.

 

[jeremy1391]

Right and Wrong has and will always be written from the PoV of the winner... You say he was weak because he broke his vows and rebelled?

Is that also how you see your Founding Fathers' character? They went all poopy-faced about how the nasty brits were treating their brothers instead of sucking it up like big guys would have?

Betraying your father as compared to betraying a regime who does nothing but take is not the same thing at all. Uniting all of humanity was the emperors goal, the imperium in its original form would have been glorious after the crusade ha the Horus heresy not happened.

 

And besides what oaths did the colonials make to the Brits? I have never heard that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin or Revere ever were agents of the king and had sworn oaths of loyalty to him.

[Conn Eremon]

That might be a bad example. They were citizens, and citizenship comes with the oaths implied from the moment of citizenship, either gained later or at birth. Unless colonials didn't have citizenship. I'll admit, I love history, but not my own history. Not as knowledgeable about American history as I am elsewhere.

[jeremy1391]

Colonials were second class citizens they were looked down upon as colonials. They had no government representation but were taxed by Britain.

In America as a free man my oath lies with my country not my President otherwise the same person would stay in power forever and it would be a monarchy.

 

Horus wanted to take the throne.

George Washington wanted freedom.

Huge difference!

 

But back on topic I would agree that one on one in an even match the Iron warriors and Imperial Fists would both be broken to the point of annihilation.

[Kol Saresk]

That might be a bad example. They were citizens, and citizenship comes with the oaths implied from the moment of citizenship, either gained later or at birth. Unless colonials didn't have citizenship. I'll admit, I love history, but not my own history. Not as knowledgeable about American history as I am elsewhere.

As far as I know, they never lost their citizenship until they rejected it, although that is assuming that they had it. Even then, the colonies were still subject to British law. For all intents and purposes, the Revolutionaries were outlaws. The only reason it is labeled a "revolution" and not a "rebellion" or "civil war" is because the patriots won. So like Cormac said, very bad example.

And as PNF said, right and wrong is written by the same people who wrote the history books. The British say they were right to tax the colonies until the people who went over there to escape debt were back in debt again while the American colonials say they were right to rebel against a state that was abusing them. Who is right, we'll never know. But history does show that if you abuse someone, never give them a gun/sword. Just look at Perturabo.

[Wade Garrett]

 

Betraying your father as compared to betraying a regime who does nothing but take is not the same thing at all. Uniting all of humanity was the emperors goal, the imperium in its original form would have been glorious after the crusade ha the Horus heresy not happened.

If you find glory in a jackboot stomping on a human face for all eternity, perhaps. Don't preach to me of the Emperor's benevolence when children were starving in the shadow of his great palace.

[Emperor's Furor]

George Washington just wanted no taxes, he had plenty of freedom, he just wanted the freedom of not caring about funding the British Military who guarded the Colonials from the likes of the Spanish and French.

 

When ever the American revolution comes up, I will always think of this quote from Brad Pitt's film, Killing them Softly.

 

"My friend, Thomas Jefferson is an American saint because he wrote the words 'All men are created equal', words he clearly didn't believe since he allowed his own children to live in slavery. He's a rich white snob who's sick of paying taxes to the Brits. So, yeah, he writes some lovely words and aroused the rabble and they went and died for those words while he sat back and drank his wine and ***** his slave girl."

 

Also the whole representation thing is so stupid, they could pretty much do what ever they wanted the only time they came into conflict with the homeland was when they had to pay shipping taxes. Either way, I don't see Australia, or New Zealand or a lot of other countries complaining about the past, they now all have their independent representation that was done through diplomacy, not on the end of a french musket held by a colonial who has been coerced into fighting for something they will never benefit from.

[Conn Eremon]

Let's not turn this into a debate on the American Revolution, okay? It was used innocently as an example, let's all move on.

[Spinsanity]

I know, not the best of examples, but it does somewhat express my point. Look at Angron, for example. He never swore fealthy to the Emperor (the E teleported him off planet, then dumped him on a Warhounds ship and asked that they deal with him). In a way, I guess he actually just fought for the sake of it. He never broke any vows, just changed his alegiance.

 

Now regarding Horus; sure he betrayed Horus the Emperor, but who betrayed who first? In his (twisted) mind, the Emperor had already betrayed them, had already dismissed the Astartes and Primarchs, was already looking at the Post-Crusade Imperium, a time when humanity would no longer need Space Marines, who might end up being disbanded (and culled?) like the Thunder Warriors had previously been. So, who betrayed who?

 

This reminds me of Jaime Lanister in the GoT series, specifically a speach he gives in the TV series season 2; he mentions all the vows he's had to make (protect the king, protect the innocent, etc...) and the impossibilities this put him into (when the king turns mad and murders the innocent). In this case, Horus was in a similar boat; he could either remain loyal to the Emperor and break the vows he'd made to his sons by eventually seeing them dead, or betray his father and side with his sons. As *most* parents would tell you, it's usually a lot easier to let ones parents go then it is to abandon one's children.

 

+Edit : oups, corrected an error above...

[Hyaenidae]

Only fighting pre calculated battles with no heart or passion at all?

 

Objection, counselor. Assumes facts not entered into evidence.

 

You can have the biggest guns and most sophisticated war machines, but it counts as nothing without warriors with the loyalty and courage to plunge through no man's land and lead the forlorn hope that crashes into the enemy lines.

 

IV Legion can sell their lives just as dearly as any of Dorn's huscarls when it comes time to die in a hopeless last stand, look at the garrison of Olympia detonating their own ammo stockpiles to take their besiegers down with them.

 

From iron cometh strength. From strength cometh faith. From faith cometh honor. From honor cometh iron. And may it be forever so.

 

Counterpoint, based on real-life historical evidence and personal experience.

 

Loyalty is much simpler than a belief in a regime or ideal, for some. In a trench, shell-scrape, or foxhole, the only thing one becomes loyal to is the man to your left and right, at least until even this desire is dead from continued loss. Many men during the Great War ceased caring about a love for God and Country as the shells fell again and again and again. Many men in Vietnam distanced themselves from new members of their platoon, as they didn't want to get to know someone who would be dead the next day. Friendships were limited in both, restricted to sharing a meal, splitting ammo, or stiching minor wounds. Why? The Switch, a mental coping mechanism. That moment when the crack of a 7.62 whizzing past your head turns your thoughts to an act/react system of movements. The moment a mortar hits, and your first thoughts are gearing up, checking water and ammo, and getting to your position. Emotions and hearts go cold, so as to neuter the feeling of impending death and pain. You analyze, you calculate, you focus on the task at hand. A brother who drops dead next to you must be forgotten for the time being, or you would become frozen, incapable to react. Grief and sorrow come later, until one day, you have no emotion to give any longer.

 

For the Iron Warriors, this is a moment in time that they have carried upon their shoulders for centuries. Over and over and over again. IF you've lived long enough, you might have surivived your squad three times over. Everyone you once cared for or given a damn about is gone, and without faith to fall back on, only the Clarity of the Imperial Truth, reality and adrenaline become the only things that can carry you through, that you can depend on. Not ideals; not friendship; not brotherhood. Ratios and math become the only thing you can trust. Demanding such empty men into a breach needs no enflamed soul, only a cold mind that understands that this action may allow them to rest, may end this conflict. You need no passion to conduct such an action, only an understanding that it must be done.

 

Bravery is not neccessarily an emotional reaction. It is simply putting one foot in front of the other, until the conclusion of the equation.

 

Sacrifice is not neccessarily proof of heart. It is the ultimate answer to a complex problem with far too many varibles.

 

Loyalty is not neccessarily adoration of a ideal, concept, or brother. It is a percentage of willingness to complete a task or mission to an exact standard.

[jeremy1391]

 

 

 

Betraying your father as compared to betraying a regime who does nothing but take is not the same thing at all. Uniting all of humanity was the emperors goal, the imperium in its original form would have been glorious after the crusade ha the Horus heresy not happened.

If you find glory in a jackboot stomping on a human face for all eternity, perhaps. Don't preach to me of the Emperor's benevolence when children were starving in the shadow of his great palace.

So serving the minions of the warp is better? Nothing says "we are right" like turning to Daemons and falling to chaos and destroying everything you touch! Maybe subjugation by orks, or maybe perhaps the dark eldar is a better fate than living in squallor.... Yea that makes a lot of sense.

 

The imperium is the lesser of two evils here. The emperor had a grand vision, but human nature will always win and there will be haves and have nots.

[Kol Saresk]

I know, not the best of examples, but it does somewhat express my point. Look at Angron, for example. He never swore fealthy to the Emperor (the E teleported him off planet, then dumped him on a Warhounds ship and asked that they deal with him). In a way, I guess he actually just fought for the sake of it. He never broke any vows, just changed his alegiance.

 

Now regarding Horus; sure he betrayed Horus the Emperor, but who betrayed who first? In his (twisted) mind, the Emperor had already betrayed them, had already dismissed the Astartes and Primarchs, was already looking at the Post-Crusade Imperium, a time when humanity would no longer need Space Marines, who might end up being disbanded (and culled?) like the Thunder Warriors had previously been. So, who betrayed who?

 

This reminds me of Jaime Lanister in the GoT series, specifically a speach he gives in the TV series season 2; he mentions all the vows he's had to make (protect the king, protect the innocent, etc...) and the impossibilities this put him into (when the king turns mad and murders the innocent). In this case, Horus was in a similar boat; he could either remain loyal to the Emperor and break the vows he'd made to his sons by eventually seeing them dead, or betray his father and side with his sons. As *most* parents would tell you, it's usually a lot easier to let ones parents go then it is to abandon one's children.

 

+Edit : oups, corrected an error above...

That is a better example. More than a few Primarchs never swore vows of loyalty. A couple of them, like Mortarion were actually tricked into serving. If one is only loyal because they feel that it is something they have to do, a resentment will grow. And the smallest, slightest, most infinitesimal of moments that they feel like they have a chance to get away, they will take it. Regardless of the reasoning, from being forced to endure the trenches time and time again, leaving your homeland just to get out of debtors prison only to worry about going back because the taxes are so high there's no way you'll make enough to pay it off, to religious persecution to racial segregation to any number of reasons. And guess what, the Imperium had all of these things going on. Instead of just letting people who worship continue to worship so long as it does not interfere with Imperial workings, they instead burned the places of worship and crucified the priests. Instead of leaving the citizens alone on their planet after compliance, the Imperials rounded up the aboriginals for "relocation" to other planets. Instead of treating his sons like sons, the Emperor just left them to the wind and went to tiptoe through the tulips while their Astartes were dying in a war He started.

 

If you don't expect resentment to grow in that kind of situation, then I suggest you pay attention to history from every angle, not just the angles that make you feel pretty and happy.