Is there a HH Book that covers the Dropsite Massacre?

[Xenith]

I know the first 3 books take us up to Istvaan 3 and the purging of the legions, the RG ones occur just after Istvaan V, with the RG surviving and escaping, and obviously Fulgrim has a bit about the massacre in it, but looking through that covers maybe 20 pages or so?

 

This is hardly a fitting representation to what went on, and mostly from the EC's point of view. Over half the traitor forces, the AL, NL, IW and WB's barely get a mention, and likewise Fulgrim assumes you already know what has or will happen - one one page the Night lords are described as glorious imperial reinforcements, a couple of pages later the next time they're mentioned, it's gunning down salamanders. 

 

Is there a book from the series I'm missing that goes into detail about the massacre, like the tensions in the persecution fleet? Or has it entirely been glossed over by BL? I find it odd that one of the seminal battles of the HH, and indeed of the entire 40k mythos has so little written about it. 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Xenith

[Valkyrion]

Which is the book where Lorgar and Corax get into it, with Corax calling Lorgar cowardly and pathetic?

That's the only scene that immediately comes to mind other than what you've already described.

 

I think there's a few short stories told from the perspective of Legionary X but there's hundreds of short stories and I can't recall (m)any of their names. 

[Felix Antipodes]

Nothing I can think of other than what you have already mentioned.  I remember being mystified at the time that Istvaan III got more coverage than Istvaan V, one of the pivotal scenes of the entire heresy.

[No Foes Remain]

It's not really fully covered in any BL book, the scene Valkyrion is refering to is from The First Heretic which covers the 2nd wave's planning and bits of the Word Bearers. The, sadly, out of print 2nd Forge World Black Book Massacre covers the full battle but from a distant perspective as opposed to the more 3rd person perspective of the BL books.

[Khern]

Some memories:

- Vulkan is alive or Vulkan lives shows the Salamanders/Death Guard/Iron Warriors battle point of view.

- First Heretic shows the Word Bearers/Raven Guard conflict.

- In some books as Shattered Legions or Corax, you can see the end of the conflict for loyalists survivors.

There is a short story seen by eyes of an dying Iron Hand Morlock, probably Santar, but it's just Fulgrim with a loyalist vision. Not very interesting.

[infyrana]

Were the black books at the time designed to fill in most if the information?

[EverythingIsGreat]

Good day,

 

Technically the black books defined the background of the HH supplement for the original version of the rules, and  included the information needed to set up and play the campaign they focussed on. Just like the novels, the background is mostly described in an in-universe voice, but there are parts that are told in the omniscient voice of official canon-writers. I believe there are more such instances (per page-count) than there are in the BL offerings, where such omniscient voice is scarce (excluding of course conventions like "so-and-so ship translated into realspace into an ambush" ). That is not to say that in the BL books authoritative statements are completely absent, but they are rare, and even rarer when it comes to items with far-reaching repercussions such as characters' motivations.

For example take the authoritative statement "Horus believed he could control Chaos". It is one thing to be written like that in a codex, campaign book or novel by the respective author. Another if characters say so or think so, with good reason to. Then it is an in-universe opinion. It is so even when Horus himself says "I will control Chaos". This may be a plain statement of intent and so authoritative, but it may also be pure bravado or a knowing lie in order to accomplish something.

[Fedor]

There isn't one. Just incomplete segments in various books, alongside a bunch of short stories/audio.

 

Massacre covers the initial scouting of the system from the first arrivals (the loyalist three) and full battle from a zoomed out, strategic point of view. However, it avoids dealing with anything around the situation each seperate fleet was in before that, or any mistrust/tension in the coordination. We're never given anything about how Dorn went about putting it all together, other than giving Ferrus overall command. BL also avoided almost all of these aspects, other than a few brief scenes in McNeill's Fulgrim novel.

 

There's really very little in the series at all as far as scenes dealing with how Horus directly went about convincing the various traitor legions.

 

I think there's definitely room for a big multi-legion focus battle book being put out retroactively. Especially one that gives us perspectives on what was going on inside the traitor fleets as they get the summons/while en route.

[Richard_Allen]

On 4/17/2023 at 1:03 PM, Xenith said:

I know the first 3 books take us up to Istvaan 3 and the purging of the legions, the RG ones occur just after Istvaan V, with the RG surviving and escaping, and obviously Fulgrim has a bit about the massacre in it, but looking through that covers maybe 20 pages or so?

 

This is hardly a fitting representation to what went on, and mostly from the EC's point of view. Over half the traitor forces, the AL, NL, IW and WB's barely get a mention, and likewise Fulgrim assumes you already know what has or will happen - one one page the Night lords are described as glorious imperial reinforcements, a couple of pages later the next time they're mentioned, it's gunning down salamanders. 

 

Is there a book from the series I'm missing that goes into detail about the massacre, like the tensions in the persecution fleet? Or has it entirely been glossed over by BL? I find it odd that one of the seminal battles of the HH, and indeed of the entire 40k mythos has so little written about it. 

 

In the meantime, why not broaden your horizons with thought-provoking reads on argumentative papers? CustomWriting provides a plethora of resources and sample essays that could offer fresh perspectives and insights into historical narratives and critical analysis. Check out their collection at

https://customwriting.com/argumentative-papers to enrich your understanding and engage in intellectual discourse beyond the realms of the Horus Heresy saga. Here's to uncovering hidden treasures in both literature and academic pursuits!

You're absolutely right; the events surrounding the Istvaan massacres are pivotal in the Horus Heresy narrative, yet they can sometimes feel underrepresented in certain books. While several novels cover aspects of the Istvaan campaign, it's understandable that fans might crave more depth and detail.

Edited February 23 by Richard_Allen

[TheArtilleryman]

I’ve always found that the event of the massacre in itself is a bit strange. Why did the three legions land in the Urgall depression and attempt a full frontal assault against a heavily fortified position? Surely this is the worst kind of tactic possible? Not only were the loyalist legions some of the smallest in their total number, they dropped into an extremely vulnerable position right in the teeth of the enemy guns. Massive casualties were inevitable even without the Iron Warriors et al dropping behind and turning on them. 

 

This particularly seems wrong for the Raven Guard. Where are the Raven Guard tactics that they excel at? Where was the sneaking? The hit and run strikes? In a previous campaign Corax argued with Horus against exactly this tactic and his legion was sorely hurt when he caved in. What we’ve seen of Corax suggests he is super intelligent and level headed. Would he really let his legion be dumped in such a killing zone just because he is angry? Anger or no, he would have had months of space travel to consider his tactics and I don’t believe he would have gone for the frontal assault a second time.

 

The traitors should have been nuked from orbit. Even if the void shields of the traitor positions gave them some protection from orbital strikes, they wouldn’t have been much use if the whole sorry planet was blown up.

Furthermore, why did they attack without any kind of advance co-ordination with the Word Bearers, Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Night Lords? They just assumed they would land and support them.

 

If you ask me the massacre at Istvaan was just as much the fault of the loyalists as it was the traitors. Attacking as they did was dumb. Just plain dumb.

Edited February 22 by TheArtilleryman

[DukeLeto69]

14 minutes ago, TheArtilleryman said:

I’ve always found that the event of the massacre in itself is a bit strange. Why did the three legions land in the Urgall depression and attempt a full frontal assault against a heavily fortified position? Surely this is the worst kind of tactic possible? Not only were the loyalist legions some of the smallest in their total number, they dropped into an extremely vulnerable position right in the teeth of the enemy guns. Massive casualties were inevitable even without the Iron Warriors et al dropping behind and turning on them. 

 

This particularly seems wrong for the Raven Guard. Where are the Raven Guard tactics that they excel at? Where was the sneaking? The hit and run strikes? In a previous campaign Corax argued with Horus against exactly this tactic and his legion of as sorely hurt when he caved in. What we’ve seen of Corax suggests he is super intelligent and level headed. Would he really let his legion be dumped in such a killing zone just because he is angry? Anger or no, he would have had months of space travel to consider his tactics and I don’t believe he would have gone for the frontal assault a second time.

 

The traitors should have been nuked from orbit. Even if the void shields of the traitor positions gave them some protection from orbital strikes, they wouldn’t have been much use if the whole sorry planet was blown up.

Furthermore, why did they attack without any kind of advance co-ordination with the Word Bearers, Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Night Lords? They just assumed they would land and support them.

 

If you ask me the massacre at Istvaan was just as much the fault of the loyalists as it was the traitors. Attacking as they did was dumb. Just plain dumb.

In universe who knows. Stupid mistake.

 

In real world because HH/W40k lore is written by gamers not military strategists.  So much of the lore makes no sense militarily!

[Lord_Ikka]

Hubris and anger- Ferrus Manus was angry and wanted to smash the traitors. Corus and Vulkan backed him up so that the Iron Hands wouldn't get destroyed, all the while assuming that the other four "loyal" legions would be able to land and support them as soon as possible. The loyalists were supposed to have overwhelming force, so if it had played out without the four turning traitor then the IH, RG, and Sallies would have focused the traitor's attention on themselves and allowed the other four to flank/support as needed. 

[EverythingIsGreat]

Yes, the weird "strategy" (which nevertheless fits a tabletop wargame perfectly) is laid on Manus' humors. Because apparently Primarchs are given to fits more often seen in pre-teens.

The other two for some reason follow him in support of the ill-conceived assault, which was against agreed strategy. Or maybe direct orders from Terra? In The Outcast Dead, Dorn seems to be saying as much, after the astropathic message is received from the Iron Hands on approach to Istvan.

[Noserenda]

Well the main explanation was that Ferrus Mannus was in command and apoplectic with rage.

Also bear in mind the Dropsite massacre was outlined before any of the Legions had any character

[Karhedron]

A few thoughts. Ferrus was the 3rd found Primarch and that made him the most "senior" of the Primarchs on the Loyalist side at Istvaan. Both Corax and Vulkan were very late found (in fact Ferrus acted as Vulkan's mentor in his early years) so I can see them deferring to Ferrus (or at least backing him up once it became clear he was going in headfirst regardless).

 

The other thing to bear in mind is that before Horus revealed he had swayed all the Legions in the second wave, Fulgrim believed that Istvaan V would see the Traitors massacred. So while we may think that a frontal assault on well prepared defensive position is a bad idea, the characters in-universe believed the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

[EverythingIsGreat]

I wouldn't disagree with any comment. Ferrus had tactical command per Dorn's order (Dorn had assumed overall Loyalist command since the Emperor was already engaged in the frontline ie the Webway front). But both Vulcan and Corax had reservations, and even his own veterans thought that the rush was unjustified.

 

Ferus' threadbare reasoning was the absence of the Traitor fleet justified immediate attack. An obvious ruse he was warned about, plus there were 4 more supposed loyalist Legions following, more than capable of standing up to the traitor armada if they suddenly materialized. To the extent that his decision to commit was driven by "rage" (according to BL), one would expect his suitability to command would be questioned.

 

Btw, Alan Bligh's canonical description of this in the Black Book is masterful. With strategically placed expressions similar  to "some say", "legend has it", "or perhaps" "lost records" etc.  A delight of obfuscation.

[Fedor]

On 2/22/2024 at 4:05 PM, EverythingIsGreat said:

I wouldn't disagree with any comment. Ferrus had tactical command per Dorn's order (Dorn had assumed overall Loyalist command since the Emperor was already engaged in the frontline ie the Webway front). But both Vulcan and Corax had reservations, and even his own veterans thought that the rush was unjustified.

 

Ferus' threadbare reasoning was the absence of the Traitor fleet justified immediate attack. An obvious ruse he was warned about, plus there were 4 more supposed loyalist Legions following, more than capable of standing up to the traitor armada if they suddenly materialized. To the extent that his decision to commit was driven by "rage" (according to BL), one would expect his suitability to command would be questioned.

 

Btw, Alan Bligh's canonical description of this in the Black Book is masterful. With strategically placed expressions similar  to "some say", "legend has it", "or perhaps" "lost records" etc.  A delight of obfuscation.

 

I just reread Massacre and i don't think it was as harsh as this, though it can be hard to interpret at times as it does not stick very well to the framing device of being a historic account imo. It's good, but also sometimes tonally inconsistent.

 

The decision to exploit the absence of the traitor fleet is not presented as an obvious ruse that Manus was warned about. It goes quite in depth on the way Horus' overall actions in the Istvaan system were perceived at the time by imperial decision-makers (and how wrong most of them were), gives various logical reasons for why this absence could be real (or if it mattered) and takes an overall sympathetic viewpoint on the eventual loyalist decision of a first-wave assault. After giving Manus' perspective and reasoning, it suggests that many agreed a rapid assault was appropriate. Some of this is presented in a way that is more befitting of omniscient narrator and campfire myth retelling than academic historic accoun imo.

 

However as counterpoint after that, we get the mention of some surviving reports suggesting he overrides Vulkan suggestion of waiting for the other four fleets to arrive, and somewhat contradictory mention of Corax having misgivings, yet also remaining silent when asked for his perspective, which was taken as agreement.

 

There's nothing about his own veterans thinking it was unjustified. Unless that was a line somewhere from someone in the BL series? I can't recall it.

 

 

[Fedor]

On 2/22/2024 at 11:48 AM, TheArtilleryman said:

I’ve always found that the event of the massacre in itself is a bit strange. Why did the three legions land in the Urgall depression and attempt a full frontal assault against a heavily fortified position? Surely this is the worst kind of tactic possible? Not only were the loyalist legions some of the smallest in their total number, they dropped into an extremely vulnerable position right in the teeth of the enemy guns. Massive casualties were inevitable even without the Iron Warriors et al dropping behind and turning on them. 

 

This particularly seems wrong for the Raven Guard. Where are the Raven Guard tactics that they excel at? Where was the sneaking? The hit and run strikes? In a previous campaign Corax argued with Horus against exactly this tactic and his legion was sorely hurt when he caved in. What we’ve seen of Corax suggests he is super intelligent and level headed. Would he really let his legion be dumped in such a killing zone just because he is angry? Anger or no, he would have had months of space travel to consider his tactics and I don’t believe he would have gone for the frontal assault a second time.

 

The traitors should have been nuked from orbit. Even if the void shields of the traitor positions gave them some protection from orbital strikes, they wouldn’t have been much use if the whole sorry planet was blown up.

Furthermore, why did they attack without any kind of advance co-ordination with the Word Bearers, Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Night Lords? They just assumed they would land and support them.

 

If you ask me the massacre at Istvaan was just as much the fault of the loyalists as it was the traitors. Attacking as they did was dumb. Just plain dumb.

 

The strangeness imo comes from BL wanting to stay faithful to the main points of ancient background that worked fine as a few sentences (it's basically a reference to the Rogue Trooper 2000AD Quartz-Zone Massacre), but was not necessarily well suited to expansion into novels/campaign books. I'm sure if they had decided to recraft the betrayal-massacre scenario from the ground up they could have come up with a more believable, intricate trap.

 

The Forgeworld Books (and sometimes the BL series) do go into more detail trying to explain/rationalise some of those points, though.

 

- no destroying entire planet is just handwaved as being the usual medieval face-to-face in glorious melee to appropriately restore honour logic that 40k operates on.

 

- It's implied in the BB that they are doing everything in co-ordination with the second-wave traitors, who are very soon to arrive in system. The BL series never addresses this one way or another, in fact we get very little of the buildup to the operation, and next to nothing from the traitor-to-be perspective outside of the Word Bearers.

 

- black books cover the drop assault in a lot more detail than the vague descriptions in the BL books. They don't land in the depression in front of all the enemy fortifications and begin a WW1 style charge across no-mans land while taking massive casualties. The orbital bombardment successfully destroys most of the traitors outer fortifications that are attempting to turn Urgall Depression into a killzone; it's only the interior heavily void-shielded parts built around the old xenos fortress that survive unscathed, and the drop-pod assault comes down precisely calculated on the very edge of those shields, already well inside the enemy perimeter (where the bulk of the traitors are sheltering in bunkers). Taking the later betrayal out of the equation, its actually a well enough suited rapid deployment for the Raven Guard; a textbook scenario for Astartes in general, coming right down on top of the enemy and bypassing defences. With the traitors attempts at a killzone entirely ruined (or so the loyalists think) the support elements land in the Urgall Depression largely unscathed and consolidate the area for the second-wave to land in. Everything apparently going like clockwork so far is a part of why Ferrus gets goaded into Fulgrim's challenge of a duel that he doesn't need to take...the traitors seem soon to be overwhelmed and he can't face retreating now, only for the second-wave to take over and quite likely end in someone else killing Fulgrim before the first-wave are back in the fight.

[EverythingIsGreat]

1 hour ago, Fedor said:

It's good, but also sometimes tonally inconsistent.

 

I would say this describes the lore from the beginning. As I mentioned, I don't think it is happenstance.

Obviously, your reading of the lore regarding Manus' decisions is as good as mine, and it is interesting when viewpoints differ. The difference may only be the different weight each one of us gives to the lore's so-called "inconsistencies". The overall impression I got was of a tactical situation that looked too good to be true, and of a commander so set in his gameplan that he was unable to entertain plans B, C etc. 

The worry re: Manus' plans expressed by some of the Tenth's veteran is from another source, likely a BL novella or short story. I will try to find it.

[EverythingIsGreat]

I have been going through the relevant chapters of Fulgrim as an obvious starting point. In the story, Manus and the Morlocks are drifting in realspace because all warp routes are inaccessible, and astrotelepathy is not working. Until all of a sudden the fog clears and Dorn's astropathic orders are received. The X's chief astropath warns Manus that the sudden clearing of the warp storms is at the very least suspicious. The warning is dismissed. Then 1st Captain Santar shows his unease with Manus's plan, especially since it directly contradicts the just-received orders from Dorn.

 

But this is not the item I had in mind. There was another place where an Iron Hands veteran (who was not with Manus and his Terminators) ruminates about a possible folly in the Primarch's plans. Will try to be more specific, looking for it.

[Celtic_cauldron]

It is disseminated among various books including Massacre. The new Iron Council estimate that Ferrus Manus' judgement was clouded by his ire.

 

Celtic_Cauldron 

[Fedor]

Oh, I remember all of the post-dropsite ruminations on the massacre, who to blame and where things went wrong, that's a key part in the fragmentation of the legion psyche that results in Meduson's betrayal.

 

It was the mention of IH veterans thinking the rush was unjustified that i couldn't remember, but in the context of the discussion around the Dropsite battle, i took that to mean there was disagreement shown about the decision to attack the surface by them, whereas everythingisgreat has clarified he was thinking more broadly, such as Santar's earlier point that it's the full fleet, not just the elites, that is ordered to rendezvous at Istvaan. Something related to the operation, but not criticism of the later battleplan that is yet to be formed. The astropath part is one of the many little exchanges/scenes that the series was seeding to show how ignorant the primarchs were of the true nature of the warp; the astropath on the other hand can instinctively sense there is something wrong with the way the warp storms are behaving, but he doesn't know to articulate it as the work of Gods and Daemons either...not that it would be believed if he did.

 

Don't get me wrong, Ferrus was in one-track mode for Istvaan and his inability to master his rage at Fulgrim's betrayal is key to his downfall...i'd not argue he made all the right decisions, though the three loyalist legions were probably doomed to take huge casualties regardless, i just didn't think Massacre really portrayed it as him (or the loyalist three in general) blundering into an obvious ruse. It tends to emphasise just how ignorant at this point the entire upper-echelons were of the true scope and nature of the rebellion. One thing that it and the novels get across is the loyalist confidence in their overwhelming numbers imparting a sense that it doesn't really matter if there's an attempt at a trap or not.

[EverythingIsGreat]

I think there are clear inferences in the lore that Horus with the assist of his Chaos friends had a rather heavy hand in the entire affair. They manipulated the positioning and the routing, so that the order of battle would be the way they wanted. Did Dorn not know that Ferrus was impulsive? Of course he did, just like Horus also knew. But things were nudged this way and that, so that Ferrus in command and leading the assault would be the glaring logical choice, really the seemingly only option Dorn would have. So Horus makes it easy for the true loyalists to be at the speartip, knowing that Ferrus will very likely rush into action. Would the Dropsite Massacre unfold in the same way if Ferrus had obeyed Dorn’s orders and waited for the other four legions to arrive? At the very least Horus’ tactical plans would not have been the same. Including the likelihood that the near-obliteration of the true loyalists would have been a costlier, and more time-consuming affair.

 

Ferrus’ biggest mistake may have been not exploiting the fact that Horus was exploiting Ferrus’ expected behavior. But he was not the only one to blame of course.

 

Still looking for the other source, as Celtic_cauldron mentioned there are several. The one I was referring to was the thinking of an Iron Hands veteran who was at Medusa? with another fleet element? He was afraid that the Primarch and his elite were rushing headlong into a very unclear battlefield.

Edited April 11 by EverythingIsGreat
afrid=afraid

[Lord_Caerolion]

It’s also worth remembering that a common tactic used by the Iron Hands was exactly what was done by Ferrus. Use an initial smaller force to bait out the enemy into deploying in full, then unleash a second wave to annihilate the opposition. 
If the second wave hadn’t turned out to be traitors, it’d be a textbook example of one of his Legions standard tactics. 

[Fedor]

20 hours ago, EverythingIsGreat said:

I think there are clear inferences in the lore that Horus with the assist of his Chaos friends had a rather heavy hand in the entire affair. They manipulated the positioning and the routing, so that the order of battle would be the way they wanted. Did Dorn not know that Ferrus was impulsive? Of course he did, just like Horus also knew. But things were nudged this way and that, so that Ferrus in command and leading the assault would be the glaring logical choice, really the seemingly only option Dorn would have. So Horus makes it easy for the true loyalists to be at the speartip, knowing that Ferrus will very likely rush into action. Would the Dropsite Massacre unfold in the same way if Ferrus had obeyed Dorn’s orders and waited for the other four legions to arrive? At the very least Horus’ tactical plans would not have been the same. Including the likelihood that the near-obliteration of the true loyalists would have been a costlier, and more time-consuming affair.

 

Ferrus’ biggest mistake may have been not exploiting the fact that Horus was exploiting Ferrus’ expected behavior. But he was not the only one to blame of course.

 

Still looking for the other source, as Celtic_cauldron mentioned there are several. The one I was referring to was the thinking of an Iron Hands veteran who was at Medusa? with another fleet element? He was afraid that the Primarch and his elite were rushing headlong into a very unclear battlefield.

 

True, though the series leaves it quite vague about the provenance of the original onset of Warpstorms, beyond it being the work of the four. Remember at this point they are affecting communication and travel all over the galaxy. Horus isn't really portrayed to be corrupted/knowledgeable enough at this point to be directing the esoteric on that scale; this is still the domain of the Word Bearers, who we do see using various tainted warp-tech/sorcery to disrupt communications on a smaller scale (Phall, First Heretic and a few others), and go on to orchestrate the RUIIIIIINSTORM for Horus.

 

Horus main involvement at this point seems to still be in the mundane misdirections...the positioning of all of the legions prior to Isstvan III, manipulating the Prospero situation, the coordination with the hidden traitors to ensure the loyalist elements largely arrive first and are attacked at the right time, etc...

 

Ferrus being in command seemed not to be addressed in detail until later in the series when the primarch discovery order was released. the black books/later novels established him as one of the earliest found, most senior (in the loose unofficial heirarchy that existed pre-warmaster) and martially respected primarchs. Dorn probably just went for the standard choice, communications were obstructed enough that he probably didn't have time to consider the Fulgrim betrayal implications. I don't think he knows that the IH have been personally attacked by the Emperor's Children when the retaliation orders are sent out to the seven fleets, does he?

 

It's interesting to speculate what could have happened had the Ferrum/Salamanders/Raven Guard just waited in system for the other four, or had Manus travelled with the bulk of the slower, undamaged ships. I'd imagine Horus would do his best to ensure that any warcouncil of all seven "loyalist" primarchs would end up with a similar drop-pod assault/establish landing zone for further mass assault taking place; would have been more complicated ensuring the loyalist trio were individually isolated/ or all in the main killbox, yet still very doable. A fleet betrayal and ambush would still take a big chunk out of the loyalists, but it wouldn't be as one-sided or total. I'd guess that only happens as a last resort if the loyalists somehow rumble the traitors before they are ready.

 

The Iron Hands fleet arrived in a staggered manner, with the main second-wave being later than the traitor four. If Ferrus had opted to remain with the damaged/slower ships until the fleet could arrive as one main force in-system, it's quite likely he arrives last. Maybe that results in the other two being ambushed earlier.

 

Regardless, i'd  wager that Horus would do everything to ensure the loyalists are manipulated into a ground conflict one way or another.

Edited April 11 by Fedor