Abnett's Rout vs. King's Space Vikings

[tdemayo]

Hi T Demayo: Could you point me to a few of these saga's it is something I think I would enjoy

 

Here's an article a wrote a while ago for a friend's blog.  It should get you started. 

 

http://www.sagatapestry.com/2012/07/how-to-read-in-dark-ages.html

 

My favorites are Egil's Saga and Grettir's Saga.  I recommend the Penguin series of translations.  (There are free versions of many sagas, but these translations are mostly from the late 19th century and are not very readable.  A good, modern translation is much better.)

[tdemayo]

 

 

He incorporated IIRC elements from older Germanic cultures and languages or elements that felt just a little off, or just a little archaic, compared to the Viking age. So if the 40k wolves are standard Vikings, the 30k wolves contain elements that suggest their role as precursors.

 

I believe the Viking Age refers to Iron Age Scandinavia (specifically the Dark Ages)

 

The 30K Wolves seem to incorporate elements of perhaps Neolithic or Bronze Age Scandinavia? I'm not sure...but their culture didn't feel purely "Viking"

 

 

I like the idea that there are multiple perspectives on any given subject. In my mind that is what adds a note of realism to the subjects. Think about this, if an independent chronicler pulled 10 people from your sphere of influence at random to talk about you, would they all say the same thing?

 

Thing is...a lot of the 40K novels are not written as in-universe records. Even if they were, my point still stands...yes, multiple chroniclers would have different views on the same subject matter. However, if multiple chroniclers are all observing the same subject matter, there should be a core of consistency absent cases of extreme delusion. On the surface, there might be contradiction, but if the multiple perspectives are done right, intelligent readers should be able to realise how the different choniclers are forming divergent views based on the same subject matter. There shouldn't be sloppy contradiction. Of course, judging the difference between "intelligent" contradiction and "sloppy" contradiction (which smacks of lazy retcons) might be a subjective one. However, I believe I'm pretty good at telling them apart.

 

 

 

 While this is characterful, I don't like the overall picture it paints, especially given that we haven't seen this kind of fatigue in other Chapters.

 

 

Well, isn't that the idea. The 40K Wolves, being the humane, dutiful chapter they are, are carrying the weight of other chapters. That's why other chapters aren't as fatigued.

 

 

 

 

Consistency is good. Hitting key notes and themes is good. Feeling bound to what's come before is bad. You'd never have had Dan's Wolves if we were bound to what came before. My Dark Angel stuff had literally nothing to do with the previous HH Dark Angel stuff, in tone or theme or even the characters used, and for better or worse that's probably my most popular story, often cited as being true to the Dark Angels even if it wasn't bound to the stuff that had come earlier in the series. My Word Bearers were very little like Ant Reynolds' Word Bearers, but I was careful not to try and contradict him, too.

 

So there's room for any angle, here.

 

 

As you've said, we largely agree. Preserving a consistent legion spirit I think is quite good. Especially within the same series and in-universe time frame. I think of Dan's Wolves as either a well-executed retcon, an in-universe precursor to the much later 40K Wolves, or both.

 

I'm sure there is room for your angle in the HH series. Judging by your body of work, you're definitely skilled enough to pull it off. My one disagreement is that I don't really think Abnett's Wolves are normal marines who pretend to be barbarians. In a way, they are barbarians in the way real world Vikings were barbarians (or in the way the Mongols were barbarians).They're just not stereotypical, undisciplined, bloodthirsty barbarians. That's only how they try to portray themselves. The Wolves in reality are quite similar to real world "barbarian" peoples who are often sophisticated but subject to smear campaigns by outsiders. 

 

 Abnett's Wolves are much closer to real world actual Vikings in that other people stereotype them as these unsophisticated, filthy, bloodthirsty, almost bestial primitives. In fact, they're sophisticated beyond the expectations of many people. If anything, I'd say Abnett's Wolves are still Vikings-turned-Space Marines, albeit "subtle", less stereotypical Vikings

 

 

When historians talk about the "Viking Age", they usually mean from around the 790s until around 1066.  This was the period that the Norse were most active in raiding, trading and settling across the Atlantic and down the rivers of Eastern Europe.  But, yeah, Abnett's wolves are an amalgam of several elements.  So were King's really.  I mean, there are important elements of the actual Vikings that don't translate to the Space Wolves.  The Space Wolves aren't farmers, they aren't traders, they don't raid, or settle on conquered land.  Elements of Viking culture have been applied to the standard Space Marine organization, and it's this interplay that makes them so interesting.

 

As I recall, in PB, many of the tribes have names ending in -mani, which was a common element in names from the Germanic tribes bordering the Roman Empire.  (Sort of ancestors, at a remove, from the later Vikings.)  The animal masks they wear in PB seem like nothing from the Viking Age, but seem to hint at a shamanic element in the Fenrisian culture. Little details like that.

 

I think you're right about the Wolves being more sophisticated than others think.  They _are_ a high technology society, but one that has chosen, deliberately, to retain elements of Fenrisian culture.  Almost certainly, Leman Russ himself planned and shaped his Legion to obtain the mixture of traits he wanted.  And while he's a man with a strong philosophy (maybe aesthetic is the right word) he's surely not stupid or ignorant.

[GrandMagnus]

Although I havent read any of the SW books from BL (yet!), I must say that the Vlka Fenryka are on equal footing with the Ultramarines when someone asks me "what is your favorite legion/chapter". But I really HAAAAATE the whole "space vikings, getting drunk hurr durr werewolves in space" theme some people atribute to the SW.

I actually prefer comparing space wolves to the early germanic tribes, the ones who fought against the romans, rather than vikings. Or perhabs even Celts. Or a mixture of both, celts and germanic tribes. A group of hardened battle-ready warriors determined to fight on for glory, fighting in groups of warriors like a barbarian warband, maybe placing a few bets before the battle and challenging eachother because thats what makes the different from most chapters and legions. And although I love wolves I hate how they exagerate the use of wolf iconography in the chapter, there are plenty of other dangerous native creatures on Fenris thats part of the fenrisians daily lives that can become part of their iconography, I remember the SW codex mentioning bears, elk, mastodons, krakens and trolls.

That atleast is how I made up the fluff around my own space wolves back in the day (3 or 4 years ago). I tried to keep away from that cartoonish feeling and staying with what I liked, but sadly back then my painting and modelling skills werent that good so it never got far.

I hope I explained myself well enough

[DarKnight]

I like a few of the brothers who previously posted had my first 40K experiences with Bill King's Wolves, so they will have a special place in my heart, however the detail Abnett added to the VI Legion was both vital and necessary.

[A D-B]

 

 

He incorporated IIRC elements from older Germanic cultures and languages or elements that felt just a little off, or just a little archaic, compared to the Viking age. So if the 40k wolves are standard Vikings, the 30k wolves contain elements that suggest their role as precursors.

 

I believe the Viking Age refers to Iron Age Scandinavia (specifically the Dark Ages)

 

The 30K Wolves seem to incorporate elements of perhaps Neolithic or Bronze Age Scandinavia? I'm not sure...but their culture didn't feel purely "Viking"

 

 

I like the idea that there are multiple perspectives on any given subject. In my mind that is what adds a note of realism to the subjects. Think about this, if an independent chronicler pulled 10 people from your sphere of influence at random to talk about you, would they all say the same thing?

 

Thing is...a lot of the 40K novels are not written as in-universe records. Even if they were, my point still stands...yes, multiple chroniclers would have different views on the same subject matter. However, if multiple chroniclers are all observing the same subject matter, there should be a core of consistency absent cases of extreme delusion. On the surface, there might be contradiction, but if the multiple perspectives are done right, intelligent readers should be able to realise how the different choniclers are forming divergent views based on the same subject matter. There shouldn't be sloppy contradiction. Of course, judging the difference between "intelligent" contradiction and "sloppy" contradiction (which smacks of lazy retcons) might be a subjective one. However, I believe I'm pretty good at telling them apart.

 

 

 

 While this is characterful, I don't like the overall picture it paints, especially given that we haven't seen this kind of fatigue in other Chapters.

 

 

Well, isn't that the idea. The 40K Wolves, being the humane, dutiful chapter they are, are carrying the weight of other chapters. That's why other chapters aren't as fatigued.

 

 

 

 

Consistency is good. Hitting key notes and themes is good. Feeling bound to what's come before is bad. You'd never have had Dan's Wolves if we were bound to what came before. My Dark Angel stuff had literally nothing to do with the previous HH Dark Angel stuff, in tone or theme or even the characters used, and for better or worse that's probably my most popular story, often cited as being true to the Dark Angels even if it wasn't bound to the stuff that had come earlier in the series. My Word Bearers were very little like Ant Reynolds' Word Bearers, but I was careful not to try and contradict him, too.

 

So there's room for any angle, here.

 

 

As you've said, we largely agree. Preserving a consistent legion spirit I think is quite good. Especially within the same series and in-universe time frame. I think of Dan's Wolves as either a well-executed retcon, an in-universe precursor to the much later 40K Wolves, or both.

 

I'm sure there is room for your angle in the HH series.

 

 

This is the main reason I was reluctant to post. It's not so much about "my" Wolves, it's that everyone's are different. The main reason I leaned so heavily on the Forge World interpretation is that in keeping with FW's previous treatment, they're likely to be the most different of all, but it'll still be adored because of how it's handled, and because of the fact that as long as you use keywords and mention a few themes here and there it will largely look faithful to previous interpretations. By pointing out personal differences between mine and Dan's, it'd only draw attention to something that's not really a problem, and make it an issue to some people that knee-jerk in reaction to looking for differences.

 

You can't treat any interpretation as sacred, though. As a massive fan of Dan's work and someone that thought Prospero Burns was among the best-written novels ever published in the license, I still recognise that it missed entire swathes of Space Wolf lore that I - and many people - liked a great deal. There are plenty of cool touchstones in tribal/warrior cultures that Dan didn't mention that I think would rock in Space Wolf/Fenrisian culture. It was an excellent interpretation. Not a definitive one.

 

You've just got to bear in mind how it would look if I'd said any of this about Lord of the Night before any of my Night Lords novels were published. It would alarm LotN fans who considered that wildly popular novel to be the definitive Night Lord lore... and in the spirit of candour, look how that turned out. The same way when Dan announced the fact he didn't really like the Space Wolves as presented, a lot of fans of Bill King's take on the Wolves were less than thrilled on forums. Now look where we are.

 

It's all about keeping an open mind. But like I said, I'm not particularly worried. Especially given the fact that my Wolves were always going to be closer to Dan's than, say, King's, so it's easy for me to be a bit more open about this stuff.

[A D-B]

Although I havent read any of the SW books from BL (yet!), I must say that the Vlka Fenryka are on equal footing with the Ultramarines when someone asks me "what is your favorite legion/chapter". But I really HAAAAATE the whole "space vikings, getting drunk hurr durr werewolves in space" theme some people atribute to the SW.

 

I actually prefer comparing space wolves to the early germanic tribes, the ones who fought against the romans, rather than vikings. Or perhabs even Celts. Or a mixture of both, celts and germanic tribes. A group of hardened battle-ready warriors determined to fight on for glory, fighting in groups of warriors like a barbarian warband, maybe placing a few bets before the battle and challenging eachother because thats what makes the different from most chapters and legions. And although I love wolves I hate how they exagerate the use of wolf iconography in the chapter, there are plenty of other dangerous native creatures on Fenris thats part of the fenrisians daily lives that can become part of their iconography, I remember the SW codex mentioning bears, elk, mastodons, krakens and trolls. 

 

 

I like you, and these words, all of the muchly.

[Trevak Dal]

...Fenris is skyrim?  In spaaaaaaaaaaaace?

[Captain Juan Juarez]

Bears, kraken and trolls... Oh my!

[A D-B]

...Fenris is skyrim?  In spaaaaaaaaaaaace?

 

As lame as it sounds, I think there are actually mods for that. 

 

Also, INB4 someone inevitably says "ADB said Fenris was Skyrim in Space" on another forum.

[Stonerhino]

Prospero Burns was important because it cut through a mountain of Hyperbole and legends to the truth.  Well the truth for a fictional setting at least.  Then Dan does it again in The Unremembered Empire.  He showed us that despight everything said to that point that make the Wolves sound like Marines +1.  Really is just the Fenrisian culture being seen used by transhuman super soldiers.

 

For example:

The scene where one Fenrisian tribe attacks and kills another tribe because they believe the now dead tribe became "Bad".  Where as before both tribes were friends.

 

The culture of Fenris is one built on doing what it takes to survive.  Up that up to SMs levels and you have a good reason why The Emperor would pick them to attack another Legion;  That became "Bad" of course.  No exceptionalism needed, just Marines who will have no quams about doing it because it was how they were raised and still live.  *Disclaimer - And still had the military capability of doing it "Cleanly".  Whether they did or not is another debate altogether* 

 

Then Chris comes in and shows us that the Wolves are changing.  The HH has left a mark on them and not just the damage they took on Prospero.  This is still happening a 1,000 years later in Battle of the Fang.  It bridges the gap between the 30k Wolves and the 40k Wolves so nicely that it looks like it was planned that way when they added the Wolves blurp to Codex Imperialis.

 

The coolest part is that because the true strength of the SWs comes from the native Fenrisians.  We can have throwbacks like Grimnar in The Emperor's Gift and not have him be out of place.  That's not even mentioning the fact that how Dan wrote it.  Any author can now further explore that Fenrisian culture.  To explore parts that Dan's glaze over didn't cover and they feel "Would rock in Space Wolf/Fenrisian culture".

 

That said My favorite Author's "Wolves" are McNeil's.  The perfect balance of self aggrandizing badassory combined with actual acts of badassory and points where they overstep their capabilities because of said "Aggrandized badassories". 

[Conn Eremon]

Although I havent read any of the SW books from BL (yet!), I must say that the Vlka Fenryka are on equal footing with the Ultramarines when someone asks me "what is your favorite legion/chapter". But I really HAAAAATE the whole "space vikings, getting drunk hurr durr werewolves in space" theme some people atribute to the SW.

I actually prefer comparing space wolves to the early germanic tribes, the ones who fought against the romans, rather than vikings. Or perhabs even Celts. Or a mixture of both, celts and germanic tribes. A group of hardened battle-ready warriors determined to fight on for glory, fighting in groups of warriors like a barbarian warband, maybe placing a few bets before the battle and challenging eachother because thats what makes the different from most chapters and legions. And although I love wolves I hate how they exagerate the use of wolf iconography in the chapter, there are plenty of other dangerous native creatures on Fenris thats part of the fenrisians daily lives that can become part of their iconography, I remember the SW codex mentioning bears, elk, mastodons, krakens and trolls.

That atleast is how I made up the fluff around my own space wolves back in the day (3 or 4 years ago). I tried to keep away from that cartoonish feeling and staying with what I liked, but sadly back then my painting and modelling skills werent that good so it never got far.

I hope I explained myself well enough

This is very much in line with my thinking. To put it differently, it's a lot like how I view the Ultramarines and White Scars, as having very broad historical themes, with one particularly popularized theme that often overrides the others.

The Ultramarines are essentially the ancient European civilized world, but most notably the Roman Empire

The White Scars are essentially the ancient Eastern "other" to Western civilization, but most notably the Mongolian Khanates

The Space Wolves are essentially the ancient European "barbarians," but most notably the Vikings

Both can easily focus on those specific themes to the point of becoming caricatures, but some of the most entertaining works are actually those that explore the additional themes. The Ultramarines have access to the Hellenic societies (without stepping on the Iron Warriors' toes) or even Carthage and other Punic societies. The White Scars have access to other Asian themes, since they do, after all, hail from a world that has far more Space Chinese than Space Mongolians. The Space Wolves have access to the Germanic tribes seen in Prospero Burns, and the Celts, continental and island. There is a lot of opportunity to vary these Legions/Chapters while remaining true to their thematic background, and in my opinion some of the best books did just that. This doesn't mean that the prominent themes are without value, as they are where the most dominant traits of these Chapters/Legions are derived.

[Karack Blackstone]

I just wanted to drop by and say, as far as I can tell, the best way I take the various writing sources of fluff on my favorite Chapter of the 41st M is a slider bar, basically, with writers dropping in the major points along it.  On one end, there's King, and the other, it seems for now, Abnett.  Placed between these two great works for their day, the more cerebral authors are closer to Abnett, which ADB is closer to, giving his own interpretation very well, while Blood of Asaheim seems more or less closer to King's works, along with Lightners' of that day.

 

Overall, I guess following the thoughts of the above paragraph, I most greatly appreciate ADB and Wraight's style of writing, Abnett's was a bit jarring, overall.  I can read PB, just slowly, as things are very heavy on the murder-make angle of writing; the flow is also a bit hard to keep pace with in story.  Maybe this is more a function of the way one works, as I favor more of a constant flow, slightly puncuated by good writing, and not full of short chops like an axe separating things with no real linking between each area of discussion.

 

As to my post and its actual point, I find the Wolves always tend to show well, it's just that the character of the Chapter or Legion always seems to be in different stages of where things are as far as their own understanding of what is required from their perspective to fight the foe they mostly face, and with what they fight to accomplish this task.  In 30K it's mostly psychological warfare against forces that will not expect "mindless savages" to use such means, to 40K where things are less about how one fights and more just the pure, we need it dead approach.  It's actually a subject I'd love to talk or type more about, however the problem is, this is just my interpretation of what has been put down for us to read.

 

I need to finish PB, however it is jarring to read, as Battle of the Fang and The Emperor's Gift both show different perspectives on my beloved force; I'm currently working through Wolves of Fenris, and I find the differing stories sometimes less image painting in terms of words, and more thought provoking in terms of story.  Both are great, it's the writing that has sometimes kept me hooked or provided difficulty in terms of reading further.  I guess as stated it's just the old, difference can be good, too much at once is just too much.

[SW1]

I think something like the HH series is very similar to putting on a grand banquet. Many cooks adding there own special little bits. The best meals are ones which follow a theme with complimentary dishes, rather than a clash of many different dishes. As they end up leaving a nasty mixed taste in your mouth, especially if you combine the wrong elements together. IMO how all the legions have been handled has worked really well and the wolves have sat nicely in the HH series.

 

Looking at the other works including the wolves is like dining at a different meal. You need to view them in context to when they were written or the time frame they were based in.

 

Getting back on track to the original question. I find it hard to choose between either as both have been very enjoyable to read. I see the wolves having some serious changes in outlook in the 10k between the 2 main settings. So there's more than enough room for both writers to stand on more than a level footing with their writing. However I like a book I can go back to and get something new out of it each time so on that front currently Abnett is ahead by a nose. But it could sway the other way when I read the older stories again. :D

 

 

Back off track ... So looking at how this thread has gone I'm very much looking forward to tasting the offering ADB is going to serve up. He seems to get what the inner SW fanboy in me wants for the wolves. A fresh look at them while taking snippets from previous books.

 

Lol ... And maybe no more twc type surprises? I'd have been more ok with that change if the thunder wolves had been big enough to make the earth thunder when they moved so mastodon sized. Being a bit more believable in being physically possible to take a marines weight with armour on unlike the current ones. Which just don't live up to the name IMO.

 

By the way I'm not knocking the stories written about them as they are not a bad read. Just the major addition/change could have been better thought out and the model could have been a little more ... Well ... Just more size wise. Sorry for lighting that touch paper.

[Dantay VI]

Thank you T demayo, I will take a look into those saga's... my job gives me a lot of reading time :)

[GrandMagnus]

Speaking of Thunderwolves (and sorry for going a bit off topic) am I the only one who really hates that idea? I surely cant be the crazy one, right? I can fully accept the fenrisian wolves running in packs and fighting along side the SW, thats just like the germanic wardogs. And the idea of giant wolves living in the frozen wastes of Asaheim, sure thats fine too, makes for great stories. But riding them to battle? Thats is just far too cartoonish. No matter how much the fluff states it, in my mind it doesnt make sense. Its a bit overpowering on the wolf theme.

 

Also, speaking of wolf themes, the whole "WOLF lord, WOLF guard, lone WOLF, great WOLF". Too much. I used to simply give my space wolves more germanic/skandinavian titles, like calling the wolf lord for "Jarl", the WGBL for "Thane", the WG for "Huskarls/housecarls" and so forth. I dont believe Im the only one since Ive seen others do this. And I dont know if any of the books do something similar to this? The only book Ive read that included SW was Battle for the Abyss (Did not really enjoy it...) and B. Counter used the regular SW titles as well as making them a bit too comical for my taste.

[Leif Bearclaw]

You most certainly are not the only one who hates the Thunderwolves. They get even sillier if you read their dex entry, they're not even proper wolves, they're solitary creatures, far closer to bears than real world wolves. I've maintained since the codex dropped that an arrangement like DE beast packs would make more sense. A sufficiently hardcore SW goes off on a harsher version of the pack hunt they do get get the regular sizes wolves. Killing the alpha then gives the Marine his own pack of thunderwolves, which he leads into battle, riding some meaty quad bike type vehicles to keep up with his pack.

[tdemayo]

About Fenris wolves: doesn't PB strongly imply that they are degenerated humans/failed Marines?  That would explain why they can continue to bond with the Space Wolves in a way other animals cannot.

 

But I agree, there's too much Wolf-noun in the latest Dex.

[b1soul]

 

 

This is the main reason I was reluctant to post. It's not so much about "my" Wolves, it's that everyone's are different. The main reason I leaned so heavily on the Forge World interpretation is that in keeping with FW's previous treatment, they're likely to be the most different of all, but it'll still be adored because of how it's handled, and because of the fact that as long as you use keywords and mention a few themes here and there it will largely look faithful to previous interpretations. By pointing out personal differences between mine and Dan's, it'd only draw attention to something that's not really a problem, and make it an issue to some people that knee-jerk in reaction to looking for differences.

 

 

 

Yes, reasonable readers wouldn't nitpick tiny, arguable differences. Only glaring differences would raise an eyebrow. To me, there's a glaring difference between King and Abnett, but that's not really a problem as there's both adequate in-universe (time lapse) and out-of-universe (retcon) explanations for the discrepancy.

 

I have high hopes that BL authours will offer their varying interpretations without contradicting each other for good reason. I'm not obsessed with slavish consistency. Characters and legions should exhibit some inconsistency for the sake of realism. Real-life people and groups of people are often mercurial to a certain degree. I know I am.

 

Some "inconsistency" is definitely good. However, I don't like jarring inconsistency suggesting to me that the authour hasn't done his homework. Fundamental consistency is all I ask for. Honestly, I don't think I've read any SW stuff by you...oh wait, The Emperor's Gift. I didn't find "your Wolves" to be inconsistent with those of  Prospero Burns, especially as there's a 10,000 year gulf of time between them. Even ignoring the time lapse, I'd say your Wolves and Abnett's Wolves don't clash. As you've said, you cleave closer to Abnett than to King.

 

Personally, I love it when authour A writes something and authour B expands on it, filling in the blanks and fleshing stuff out. I'm all for that.   

 

 

 

That said My favorite Author's "Wolves" are McNeil's.  The perfect balance of self aggrandizing badassory combined with actual acts of badassory and points where they overstep their capabilities because of said "Aggrandized badassories". 

 

I think most people know that I don't like McNeill's style but ATS is truly the exception. He handles the Wolves very well in that book. I can't stand anything else written by him but he deserves full credit for his portrayal of the Woives. I'm not a SW fan by any means but Amlodhi Skarssen Skarssenson and the way he and his Wolves contrast with the TSons are brilliantly executed. 

 

 

The animal masks they wear in PB seem like nothing from the Viking Age, but seem to hint at a shamanic element in the Fenrisian culture. 

 

I think Viking culture did have Shamanic elements. Fenrisian supernatural beliefs remind me of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sei%C3%B0r

 

I find Germanic/Slavic/Celtic paganism to be quite fascinating. I'd love for the Wolves to be based on these elements and I believe Abnett has taken them in that direction. 

[Aegnor]

For example:

The scene where one Fenrisian tribe attacks and kills another tribe because they believe the now dead tribe became "Bad". Where as before both tribes were friends.

 

The culture of Fenris is one built on doing what it takes to survive. Up that up to SMs levels and you have a good reason why The Emperor would pick them to attack another Legion; That became "Bad" of course. No exceptionalism needed, just Marines who will have no quams about doing it because it was how they were raised and still live.

Have to sheepishly admit that until I read this, I never thought about the connection between how one tribe turns on another with such fervour and the suitability of the Wolves as "executioner". It's a nice piece of foreshadowing by Abnett and makes total sense.

 

The other point I want to make is that Prospero Burns certainly is not the genesis of the idea that the Wolves are Marines +1 or somehow "better" than other marines. First - I don't think that's what the book really says in and of itself. Second, way back in the 2nd Ed SW codex, all the different entries basically came with a +1 WS compared to their counterparts in other chapters to represent their close combat abilities, so Grey Hunters were WS5,etc across the board. This was in addition to other chapter specific special rules as well like Acute Senses. There's a long tradition of the SW being portrayed as better one-on-one than other Marines.

 

That was one thing I liked about 'Battle for the Abyss' (close to the only thing), when the Ultramarine captain Genericus Blandus fought the unarmed duel with the Wolf Lord, it would have been so easy to have the SW winning. The fact that UMs are also tough hombres who are superbly trained, disciplined and committed came through and reversed the "SW are melee kings" trope.

[b1soul]

 

way back in the 2nd Ed SW codex, all the different entries basically came with a +1 WS compared to their counterparts in other chapters to represent their close combat abilities

 

I'm guessing this stopped with third edition? 

[A D-B]

I was looking for this quote for ages. It feels appropriate.

 

A D-B, on 09 Sept 2013 - 6:49 PM, said:

 

Wade Garrett, on 09 Sept 2013 - 6:34 PM, said:
I suppose one could look at the Night of the Wolf as Russ being the only one of Angron's brothers besides Lorgar to care enough to try and save the Red Angel and his Legion.

Which would be even cooler if he's not Emperor appointed to poke his nose in everyone's business, he's just a bro like that.

Speaking up for Lorgar before Monarchia, apparently caring enough to talk philosophy with him even though it seems Lorgar considered him a feral warlord, and trying to reach out to Angron? Russ isn't the Executioner, he's that one guy that looks out for everybody else in the family, even that one brother that just got out of jail and who's standing on the front yard drunk in his underwear waving a machete.

Because the Emperor's too busy at the office to care about his kids. And the cat's in the cradle with the silver spoon, little boy blue and the man in the moon...

 

 

This is 100% personal bias, I admit that upfront, but that's the Russ I see, yeah. I try not to present him purely like that - everything is implication and suggestion, so I don't collide with other interpretations, but that's the Russ I like best. And the source is likely pretty obvious, in that I freaking love all of Howard's perceptions on barbarism versus civilisation, with the merits and flaws of both.

 

There's also that great Stephen King quote, when good ol' local boy Stu Redman says in The Stand, when he's being talked down to by the government pen-pusher: "Country don't mean dumb." I love that. Same thing here; a tribal culture doesn't mean primitive thought. It means grounded, down-to-earth thinking, at every level of intelligence, and a lack of pretension. It means honesty. Not universally, but generally. It's why Loki's such an incredible aberration that forever confounds the other gods. He's so... dishonest.

 

I read a lot of Howard, and I love the Conan stories. They're far, far from the shallow drek a lot of people take them for (see: Arnie's movies, and the new movie), and what barbarism comes down to above all else is honesty. The Russ I love most speaks his mind, does what he thinks is right, and is honest unto death. His Wolves are the same.

 

"What do I know of cultured ways; the gilt, the craft, and the lie?
I who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky.
The subtle tongue, the sophist guile; they fail when the broadswords sing,
Rush in and die, dogs. I was a man before I was a king."

 

-- King Conan, 'The Phoenix on the Sword'.

 

You see it in Slaine, as well as Howard's Conan. Barbarism isn't stupidity, it's honesty, it's vitality, it's purity. It's the dynamism of honesty against the weaknesses of artificial social structures that raise unworthy, weak men to positions of power. That's why Conan's reign in Aquilonia revitalises the nation - not because he's a badass, but because he brings a level of straightforward intelligence and integrity to a position usually so devoid of it.

[Grimtooth]

One thing that really drew me to Abnett's work in PB over the older stuff was the brief glimpse into the Fenrisian culture in the beginning of the book. I have yet to see any of the HH novels delve into the recruiting culture as much as Abnett did that helped explain behaviour of the Wolves post-asc3nsion. It was done so much better then King attempted in his novels. I think this is best shown later on in the novel with Godsmote talking about the underverse with Kasper and shown with the continued reference to maleficarum. I would love to read a whole novel just about Fenrisian culture with only the very last page having the appearance of a wolf priest taking away the main character.

[b1soul]

I read a lot of Howard, and I love the Conan stories. They're far, far from the shallow drek a lot of people take them for (see: Arnie's movies, and the new movie), and what barbarism comes down to above all else is honesty. The Russ I love most speaks his mind, does what he thinks is right, and is honest unto death. His Wolves are the same.

 

"What do I know of cultured ways; the gilt, the craft, and the lie?

I who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky.

The subtle tongue, the sophist guile; they fail when the broadswords sing,

Rush in and die, dogs. I was a man before I was a king."

 

-- The Phoenix on the Swor

 

You see it in Slaine, as well as Howard's Conan. Barbarism isn't stupidity, it's honesty, it's vitality, it's purity. It's the dynamism of honesty against the weaknesses of artificial social structures that raise unworthy, weak men to positions of power. That's why Conan's reign in Aquilonia revitalises the nation - not because he's a badass, but because he brings a level of straightforward intelligence and integrity to a position usually so devoid of it.

 

I love me some Howard. There is depth to his Conan stories, that's for sure. "Barbarian" to Howard is more of compliment than an insult. 

 

Hasn't there been a fairly recent re-examination of Viking history among scholarly circles? The common consensus seems to be that their level of sophistication completely flies in the face of the pop culture stereotype: mead-swilling raiders who go around beating and pillaging and not much else. The Vikings were in fact excellent ship-builders, craftsmen, explorers, poets etc. 

 

The same could be said of other "barbarian" peoples. Take the Mongols for example. The common misconception is that the Mongol army was a wild, bloodthirsty horde, overwhelming enemies with superior numbers. The truth is that Mongol military discipline was light years ahead of its time, comparable to 19th century European armies. Mongol forces were usually outnumbered by enemies defending their home turf. The Mongols won victory after victory with superior discipline, organisation, tactics, and technology. The Pax Mongolica facilitated trade of goods and ideas between East and West etc.    

 

I'm not sure about Vikings, but I know the Mongols viewed sedentary civilisation and all of its trappings and intrigues as a disease that would rob a warrior people of its strength. Vikings probably had the same views of Christian civilisation which preached the virtue of meekness

[A D-B]

 

I read a lot of Howard, and I love the Conan stories. They're far, far from the shallow drek a lot of people take them for (see: Arnie's movies, and the new movie), and what barbarism comes down to above all else is honesty. The Russ I love most speaks his mind, does what he thinks is right, and is honest unto death. His Wolves are the same.

 

"What do I know of cultured ways; the gilt, the craft, and the lie?

I who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky.

The subtle tongue, the sophist guile; they fail when the broadswords sing,

Rush in and die, dogs. I was a man before I was a king."

 

-- The Phoenix on the Swor

 

You see it in Slaine, as well as Howard's Conan. Barbarism isn't stupidity, it's honesty, it's vitality, it's purity. It's the dynamism of honesty against the weaknesses of artificial social structures that raise unworthy, weak men to positions of power. That's why Conan's reign in Aquilonia revitalises the nation - not because he's a badass, but because he brings a level of straightforward intelligence and integrity to a position usually so devoid of it.

 

I love me some Howard. There is depth to his Conan stories, that's for sure. "Barbarian" to Howard is more of compliment than an insult. 

 

Hasn't there been a fairly recent re-examination of Viking history among scholarly circles? The common consensus seems to be that their level of sophistication completely flies in the face of the pop culture stereotype: mead-swilling raiders who go around beating and pillaging and not much else. The Vikings were in fact excellent ship-builders, craftsmen, explorers, poets etc. 

 

The same could be said of other "barbarian" peoples. Take the Mongols for example. The common misconception is that the Mongol army was a wild, bloodthirsty horde, overwhelming enemies with superior numbers. The truth is that Mongol military discipline was light years ahead of its time, comparable to 19th century European armies. Mongol forces were usually outnumbered by their enemies defending their home turf. The Mongols won victory after victory with superior discipline, organisation, tactics, and technology. The Pax Mongolica facilitated trade of goods and ideas between East and West.    

 

I'm not sure about Vikings, but I know the Mongols viewed sedentary civilisation and its luxury and intrigues as a disease that would rob a warrior people of its strength. Vikings probably had the same views of Christendom.  

 

 

Man, we don't just agree, we're on the exact same page.

[KaosRaptor]

 

Hasn't there been a fairly recent re-examination of Viking history among scholarly circles? The common consensus seems to be that their level of sophistication completely flies in the face of the pop culture stereotype: mead-swilling raiders who go around beating and pillaging and not much else. The Vikings were in fact excellent ship-builders, craftsmen, explorers, poets etc. 

 

....

 

I'm not sure about Vikings, but I know the Mongols viewed sedentary civilisation and its luxury and intrigues as a disease that would rob a warrior people of its strength. Vikings probably had the same views of Christendom.  

 

 

If you want some (I suppose speculative) insight into the viking views on Christendom and developing civilisation, I can't recommend Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Stories series enough; the first of which is The Last Kingdom. Definitely covers everything you've mentioned here and is hugely entertaining to boot (the Danes definitely enjoyed their mead though!).

 

I'm not entirely well-versed regarding the background of the SW, but I have read Prospero Burns and also enjoyed their portrayal in Betrayer - Russ came across not as an idiot, but as an honourable and intelligent brother trying to teach his sibling a lesson. There's no reason whatsoever (in my view) that Viking should = idiots who only understand violence. It's part of their culture, sure - obtaining land/resources and settling disputes between families/individuals being the main examples - but that in no way means that's all they're talented at. 

 

The Space Wolves are the same. I think that kind of misconception is just an unfortunate result of the time period they were conceived, and being perhaps more "cartoony" in the background in order to appeal to more people (though I wasn't even around when they were created, so I could be totally wrong!).