The Dark Angels in the Horus Heresy

[Phoebus]

What follows is a rant that's been building for the better part of a decade. About the only reason I'm getting it off my chest now is because the Horus Heresy series is currently sitting at 011-012.M31. There are undoubtedly more stories to be told before the Siege of Terra takes place, but certain things look unlikely to change between now and then.

 

I've followed the Heresy from Horus Rising all the way to Book 43 because I'm engrossed by this setting. At its best, this series takes the sparse, half-formed tales that informed the Dark Millennium's mythologized perspective of its ancient past and breathes life and scale into them. Like many readers, I have favorites. Huron-Fal's last words of defiance stand as one of the most powerful moments of the series, in my eyes; Ravasch Cario, Palatine Blade, most perfect warrior of the most perfect Legion, is, to me, the series' most faithfully-conceived villain. Where the factions themselves are concerned, I've ever been fond of the Dark Angels.

 

My rant is about that legion of Space Marines. More accurately, it's about how they have been depicted in the Horus Heresy storyline. Even more accurately, it's about how I feel their depiction in said series has been, as a whole, disappointing at best.

 

Fair warning: SPOILERS follow in spades. If you haven't read, well, any novel or novella featuring the Dark Angels, I'd advise you to move on.

 

Still here? Alright.

 

At first, it was just little things that bothered me about how the Dark Angels were shown in the Horus Heresy series. Minor irritations. For instance, during my first reading of Mitch Scanlon's Descent of Angels, a whopping nine years and change ago, I found myself thinking - just a few pages in - "What is this Lord Cypher business?"

 

I know, this sounds like a ridiculous complaint. Stay with me for a second.

 

Cypher is the most infamous of the Fallen Dark Angels, and so he was obviously going to have some ties to the Legion and/or the Order and/or Luther's foul traitors. I wasn't bothered by the fact that he was to be shown in a Heresy novel. That, in itself, was inevitable. My concern was regarding how the office of "Lord Cypher" itself made sense within the context of the Order.

 

We all know why the Dark Angels Chapter is founded on an Inner Circle replete with layers of trust and secrets. Why would the Order have that culture, though? Scanlon has Amadis and Ramiel talk about the Order's circle-based symbolism and how it applied to their combat disciplines, but he goes no further than that. He provides us with no basis for the secrecy itself. There's not even any allusion as to why the Order has a masked man with a secret identity guard - literally or metaphorically - their traditions. Frankly, it felt like an instance of the cart leading the horse.

 

Making the matter worse is the fact that the Order was given very little character beyond the office of the Lord Cypher and a theatrical induction ceremony. They are not distinct in any meaningful way, and little insight is given regarding their history. We don't even know why the Order is called that. With the benefit of hindsight, it feels ironic that the piece of knowledge that would have best justified a culture of trust-based initiation and circles of knowledge - the daemonic taint of Caliban and its link to the Great Beasts - became the defining aspect of a different group of knights, instead. These short-lived antagonists seem to have existed for only two reasons:

 

1. To die early enough so as to ensure mysteries that drive the narrative are never revealed.

2. To demonstrate the Lion's more ruthless, less heroic side.

 

I don't think it's unfair to say that those two concepts basically drive (if not outright inform) the Dark Angels narrative in the Horus Heresy. Maintaining a sense of mystery trumps telling a good story, and the Lion being true to a couple of descriptors - ruthless, secretive - is more important than him expressing those traits while also being true to the context of their person and the situation they are in.

 

To be clear, I'm not opposed to the Lion being either ruthless or secretive. Little was said about him in the original lore, other than that he was a brilliant strategist and great conqueror, taciturn and temperamental, and so it's unfair to expect a white knight. Besides, the Imperium of Man in the 31st Millennium is not the place and time to find heroes. It's just that the Lion's flaws and negative traits consistently play themselves out in a contrived manner. It's not being distrustful and secretive that undermines the Lion; rather, it's his penchant for making the wrong decision in seemingly every important situation. More importantly, he does so in a way that makes you question whether this guy really is brilliant.

 

We are told that the primarchs' flaws are as turned up as their strengths. That's great as far as broad generalizations go, but it doesn't make sense in practice. Consider, for example, the closing action of Descent of Angels: confronted by the realization that Luther almost let him be assassinated, the Lion sends his adopted father/brother-figure back to Caliban to assume regency of that planet and responsibility for the Legion's recruiting and logistical operations. The Lion clearly does not trust Luther, but apparently has no misgivings about him holding such a critical position. He makes no public declaration about his second-in-command being exiled, but, as Belath expresses in Angels of Caliban, it was understood by many Dark Angels that this was "a punishment masquerading as honour." With the exception of a surprise appearance to rebuke him for leaving Caliban to aid Horus, the Lion doesn't even bother to communicate with Luther for more than seventy years.

 

This isn't a matter of "flaws being turned up to 11." It's dubious decision-making serving as a contrived means by which to move the plot along.

 

Nor is the Lion the only victim of questionable writing in this instance. Luther's "moment of doubt" itself seems a questionable invention. The idea that someone could turn on their adopted son or brother is hardly without precedent, but there's usually some context that informs this betrayal. It's precisely that context that's missing in this case. Luther goes from jealous to contemplating letting his best friend be murdered. The deterioration of this relationship, the most critical story about this legion in this era, is entirely absent from Descent. Maybe Luther became ruthless, murderous, and/or insane in the years between the campaign in the Northwilds and the events of Sarosh. That kind of character development is never hinted at, much less shown, though. We got Nemiel and Zahariel instead.

 

I don't know why Mitch Scanlon re-wrote Luther from being left behind to being exiled back home. I don't begrudge him doing so, but he and Mike Lee succeeded only in offering a more convoluted, less sensical conflict between the Lion and Luther.

 

That was the start of the Dark Angels narrative, then: an origin story that didn't say much about said origins. An awkwardly-timed tale, it neither built on the Heresy storyline that preceded it (as the first five entries did), nor did it offer any insight regarding that rebellion (as Legion did). The standard it set was one wherein more consideration was given to plot devices and themes than the plot itself. It raised questions, but not for the right reasons... and no answers were forthcoming.

 

Next up: Fallen Angels

[Kelborn]

Great review.

 

I agree with you in terms of the DAs plot line and the occured changes.

Though I must admit that I enjoyed the book as a standalone and as long as I'm ignoring their greater plot. ^^

It could have been better, if he had left the banishment of Luther or even the whole last third of the book for the future. Instead, he should've focused more on backstory, fleshing out Caliban and the Lion. :/

Maybe we'll get an insight in the Lions Primarch book.

[Orwell84]

That was the start of the Dark Angels narrative, then: an origin story that didn't say much about said origins. An awkwardly-timed tale, it neither built on the Heresy storyline that preceded it (as the first five entries did), nor did it offer any insight regarding that rebellion (as Legion did). The standard it set was one wherein more consideration was given to plot devices and themes than the plot itself. It raised questions, but not for the right reasons... and no answers were forthcoming.

Next up: Fallen Angels

It's been nine years and change for me too since I read Descent of Angels, and for mostly the same reasons you alluded to above. The Dark Angels have never been my favourite legion, but ABD or Gav Thorpe make them interesting enough for me to not actively dislike them. But the DA's first two novels just didn't hold my interest and I've never re-read them since they were released.

Maybe I'm judging too harshly, and if I were to re-read them today, ten years older and hopefully somewhat wiser , I'd have a different opinion. But if you'd asked me in 2011 after Fallen Angels came out, my reaction would have been "these two books and Battle for the Abyss took up space that should've gone to Signus Prime, Prospero and Calth!". To echo what Phoebus wrote, this trio was judged by a crucial three point test that I subconsciously judge Heresy novels / anthologies by:

1. Does it build upon those 40k hints and little factoids that used to be our sum total of HH knowledge?

and/or

2. Does it offer new and excellent lore to the setting?

plus

3. Is this an interesting story?

Hate to say it, but Descent of Angels, Fallen Angels and Battle for the Abyss failed on all counts.

[R_F_D]

Whilst I haven't read AoC yet (building up to go read through a Calth - Imperium Secundus arc), I think it is telling that the 3 main HH novels all have had different authors.

 

Phoebus - agree wholeheartedly with what you say.  The only comment I'd make is that the DAs we were introduced to were 10,000 years on from the HH so a lot can change and evolve over time but I accept that there is somewhat of a failing to set up and explore the origins of what are accepted character traits (which are ultimately exacerbated by the fall of Caliban).

[Ganders]

I stopped taking the Dark Angels seriously when the lion killed one of the main protagonists (that a previous author had spent a whole book building up) and one of his inner circle for disagreeing with him.

 

He basically chopped off Nemiel's head, then it was never mentioned afterwards. A primarch killed one of his own sons at a time when it was unheard of.

[Roomsky]

I feel as though the Lion is one of those characters that should have been kept at arms length, he has not benefited from a more intense spotlight. Descent of Angels is muddled by his hilariously bad decision to send the guy he no longer trusts back home to train recruits (and the equally hilarious attempt to kill the emperor with some suicide bombers). In Fallen Angels he was just boring.

 

My opinions on Angels of Caliban have soured a bit since I first read it (though its probably still my favorite Gav book). It has unfortunate ties to the mess that was The Lion, and while he's certainly more interesting, he seems rather at odds with the stoic, intelligent leader he was once thought as.

 

By contrast, I really have no problem with ADB's portrayal of the Lion, even though we don't see all that much of him. He's cold and ruthless, but is willing to take risks to inflate his own ego. The same can be said of Wraight's, who is again kept at some distance from the reader. If this were some arbitrary ranking, I'd give third place to Abnett, simply for the grandeur he gives the character, and the Lion's desire to keep Curze a secret more a result of it being 1st Legion business rather than the obvious disdain he seem to have for literally everyone else in other works.

 

Nice analysis Phoebus, looking forward to the rest.

[Phoebus]

Though I must admit that I enjoyed the book as a standalone and as long as I'm ignoring their greater plot. ^^

It could have been better, if he had left the banishment of Luther or even the whole last third of the book for the future. Instead, he should've focused more on backstory, fleshing out Caliban and the Lion. :/

Maybe we'll get an insight in the Lions Primarch book.

I disliked Descent of Angels as a standalone book precisely because of the reasons you offered, but also because I didn't think it was that very interesting. The protagonist isn't particularly engaging, and both Caliban and the Order are largely non-descript and non-distinct. The events shown are a mixed bag in terms of excitement, and the pacing of the plot itself is very odd - with the Saroshi campaign feeling like a tacked-on afterthought.

 

Honestly, I'd love to know how Descent was pitched and what the intent for it was both from Scanlon's perspectrive and from that of the Horus Heresy team.

 

R_F_D,

 

To be clear, I'm not opposed to the lore changing (read: "clarified," if you will). Rather, it's the execution that has disappointed me.

 

Roomsky,

 

Opinions will obviously vary, but I think there's a large enough sample of work out there showing that primarchs won't necessarily wilt under the author's focus. Dembski-Bowden's Lorgar and Angron, Abnett's Guilliman, Thorpe's Corax, Wraight's Jaghatai, and French's Dorn are strong examples of the storyline benefiting (I think, at least) by focusing on these demigods.

[Kelborn]

I'd say we agree to disagree and that's fine. :)

It was one of my first HH novels back then when I just started diving into the overall setting of Warhammer.

 

Can't even say why I did enjoyed it. too long ago.

Maybe because it was the first DA stuff I've read thus far. Nevertheless, I'm eager to read the next chapter of your review. :)

[The_son_of_Dorn]

I'm gonna read more of your reviews before I add my two cents. But it's like you just plucked this from my mind and formulated it perfectly.

[rendingon1+]

I enjoyed Descent but only the part before Zahariel and Nemiel are made astartes. Entire 'knightly order' part imho was quite cool mainly because I love warhammer fantasy lol (reminded me a bit about the Reiksguard novel). After the First legion sails from Caliban book is disappointing and embarassing a bit. I'm also confused by timeline. According to primarch finding order Lion was 11th found while Jaghatai was 15th. Yet in the book Angels are barely starting (as I understood). There's also a question why entire legion fleet had to oversee compliance of ONE world (and why, didn't they just wiped out world that clearly resists compliance?). Also this entire plot with bomb was kind of forced. And yes, as Phoebus pointed out, why put men who you don't trust, men who basically contemplated killing you, as a master of recruits? (Ironically in a scene when Zahariel is tested by lord Cypher and is asked "who wields the true power in the order?" the correct answer was "masters of recruits" haha).

Oh and about the order: they were distinct because they were the first who accepted commoners and not only nobles (that's why their power grew), had better training (master Ramiel said, tht is why knights of the Order almost always win duels and wars etc). And had coolest castle/fortress on Caliban. I think.

Phoebus can't wait for your review of the Lion.

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

I was 100% with you before you listed Thorpe's Corax as benefiting the story line

[Phoebus]

Oh and about the order: they were distinct because they were the first who accepted commoners and not only nobles (that's why their power grew), had better training (master Ramiel said, tht is why knights of the Order almost always win duels and wars etc). And had coolest castle/fortress on Caliban. I think.

I should be more clear. Those things certainly make the Order more distinct, but not insofar as telling a story goes. It's like me writing a novel about the Spartans, mentioning the fact that they have two kings, are the best soldiers of ancient Greece, and that every male has to become a warrior... but then not really giving you any idea as to their grueling training, their ethos, their culture, and so on.

 

I was 100% with you before you listed Thorpe's Corax as benefiting the story line :P

EDIT: I completely misread your post!

 

I thought it was unfortunate that Thorpe waited until Weregeld to have the Raven Guard cross paths with with the traitors to that extent. I guess the same goes with other authors tasked with writing "Shattered Legions" stories; more Meduson and less "random encounter" stuff is what I'm saying, I guess. That having been said, I thought the way Corax was depicted throughout his anthology did his character justice.

[The_son_of_Dorn]

Deliverance lost annoyed me. Why portray a tactical genius as one who cant adopt to other tactics than covert ops? Your soldiers are 8ft tall killing machines, experiment a little!

[Augustus]

"It's just that the Lion's flaws and negative traits consistently play themselves out in a contrived manner. It's not being distrustful and secretive that undermines the Lion; rather, it's his penchant for making the wrong decision in seemingly every important situation. More importantly, he does so in a way that makes you question whether this guy really is brilliant."

 

This, Phoebus, this! 10000℅ this.

[Mazryonh]

Do you feel that the inconsistencies with the DA's characterization is mainly because of the multitude of writers assigned to them over the course of the HH novels? 

[b1soul]

I feel as though the Lion is one of those characters that should have been kept at arms length, he has not benefited from a more intense spotlight.

The Lion would've benefited from a writer who had the chops to handle him well under an intense spotlight

[Phoebus]

Do you feel that the inconsistencies with the DA's characterization is mainly because of the multitude of writers assigned to them over the course of the HH novels?

 

The inconsistencies? Sure. I'm more worried about the lackluster manner in which they're usually depicted, though.

[bluntblade]

AD-B and Wraight deploy their Primarchs more sparingly than a lot of people think, I'd say. In PoH, Jaghatai doesn't show properly until Part II.

[Phoebus]

AD-B and Wraight deploy their Primarchs more sparingly than a lot of people think, I'd say. In PoH, Jaghatai doesn't show properly until Part II.

It does vary by example, sure, but I don't think anyone would argue that Lorgar is a sparsely shown character in The First Heretic. More to the point, though, I don't think anyone would argue that either of the authors in question (and others besides) used their respective primarchs to the detriment of the story they were telling. You don't have to agree with Lorgar or even like him, for instance, but he is nonetheless an integral part of the stories he is featured in. Said stories benefit from his presence.

[bluntblade]

True. Both Primarchs are compelling characters. I hear AD-B wrote a cool Lion

[Phoebus]

bluntblade,

 

Long answer follows:

 

I'm not going to accuse past Horus Heresy team writers of not considering how they were going to present their respective primarchs and whether or not their approach made sense, but I think it's fair to say that A D-B has done a consistently better job in that regard. He doesn't try to convince you that, e.g., Lorgar and the Night Haunter (much less Angron) are right, per se, but he far more often than not succeeds in making them true within their context.

 

Now, do I wish that Angron had addressed the inconsistency between the viewpoints he expresses in "Lord of the Red Sands" and his actual policies (or that a relatively intellectually honest lieutenant such as Khârn would have confronted him on this) in one of his lucid moments, for example? Sure. Similarly, I think that forcing Lorgar - already loads more believable in The First Heretic than in his sparse Index Astartes article - to admit that siding with the truth of his universe, as it were, meant unleashing horrific pain on his species would have made him an even more powerful character.

 

Where the Lion is concerned, what I would say A D-B did particularly well was to stick with those of the character's traits that made sense given the setting of the story told. The older lore tells us that the Lion was "born" in a Death World's wilderness but was shaped into a man by knights; he was temperamental, taciturn, but a brilliant strategist besides. A D-B gives us a primarch who is frustrated by two years of chasing an opponent who doesn't want to commit to pitched battle, and thus denies him a chance to utilize his strategic brilliance. This conflict, informed by said traits, leads the Lion to jump at the opportunity to meet the Night Haunter in parlay, as this will give him an opportunity to strike down his opponent. This is not honorable, and the Lion expresses regret when he sneak-attacks his foe... but it is something a man who was once a predator would do, particularly if he suspected his opponent to be craven. Beyond that, is there a need for the author to make the Lion taciturn? The only things the Lion needs to be secretive about involve Caliban, Luther, the Watchers, and perhaps his knowledge of suppressed things like Tuchulcha. None of these factor here, though, and, happily, A D-B doesn't fall in the trap of making the Lion arbitrarily secretive as has so often been the case.

[HaSY]

You will be surprised that Nick Kyme did a good Lion on his Deathfire novel

[Phoebus]

... Let's agree to disagree. I'm running behind on part 2 of this rant, but I will eventually get there, as well.

[HeritorA]

You will be surprised that Nick Kyme did a good Lion on his Deathfire novel

Ahem - nope.

 

True. Both Primarchs are compelling characters. I hear AD-B wrote a cool Lion

Indeed he did - 'Savage Weapons' Lion depiction is the best character ever

[Master Ciaphas]

To be fair, the Lion as portrayed in "Deathfire" is still far superior to how Gav Thorpe has written him. Further, while the Lion in Savage Weapons is indeed superb, having read "Leman Russ - The Great Wulf" - I think that Wraight´s Lion is a very strong contender for "best Lion presenation. Ever.".

 

OT I know, but Deathfire, btw, turned horrible in the last 70 pages or so. Before that, I enjoyed the book, but that last part...horrid!