Board Thread:Warhammer 40k General Discussion/@comment-37.152.33.225-20131111163502/@comment-8881468-20131214115436

you brought up a non fitting example actually and sorry if I deem people that commit atrocities not really as good rulers....

besides, you wanna compare a dictator to a democratic ruling system and bring that up as an argument here?

actually the emperor was mroe fit to rule because he spent quite a long time among people, i mean we are talking tens of thousands of years, that experience on the primatrchs, doubteable.

emperor used iterators and os on to educate legions and primarchs for their roles in the imperium, which however, as has been stated in the novel "prospero burns" would still have been militaristic  (one to guard the perimeter, one as eecutioner... and so on).

you know how skills are acquired right, though training and repetition, they would not have been good rulers with their experience in warfare, that would take them decaes, if not centuries (aside from actually probably not being able to understand the peopel that they ruled, because for that you would need to participate in their lives/share certain value systems and so on with them, we are talking enculturation and socialisation here.  which is sth the primarchs would not have gone through.

he may have been pleased by their actions but generally they committed atrocities or were military leaders and not civilian rulers. and that is pretty much what you get when you wanna give power to such people. from the emperor#s viewpoint and the vast imperium, which still uses some kind of basic feudal system, that miht work in times of war but not in times of peace.