I: Lion El'Johnson:
The most obvious parallel for the Lion among his brothers, for my part, is Russ. Perhaps in the stories themselves they're not as close a pair as perhaps he is with his brothers in Imperium Secundus, but I believe that Russ and the Lion represent diametrically opposed forces. The conceit of Russ' genius, as outlined in the unparalleled Prospero Burns, is his imagery. He presents himself as a savage, so hot and furious that one must stay away from him, The Emperor's executioner. But this is not true, it is never true. Russ is rough around the edges but he is kind, and more importantly he is no savage, he is a shrewd tactician. A warrior god shrouded in the pelt of a wolf. The Lion, on the other hand, presents himself as a noble, the knight-king of Caliban, but his actions during the Imperium Secundus betray that this too is a facade. He is a brutal warrior who cares not for innocent lives, he is a warmonger dressed in the stolen clothes of a noble. It is no surprise then, that in the semi-legendary brawl between the two of them, that it was Russ who relented and laughed at the foolishness of their conflict, and The Lion who snuck in a cheap shot and knocked him out. Where Russ is an honourable noble clothed in the façade of a beast, The Lion is a beast clothed in a picture of honourable nobility.
The Lion can also be drawn next to Alpharius Omegon, the lords of secrecy. The Dark Angels are no strangers to secrecy, whilst they may try to hide it, their legion is built on the prospect of hidden technology, cloak and dagger and the shameful secret of the fallen. The lord of the first and the lords of the twentieth are a kindred spirit in this regard. Alpharius, the loyalist traitor, who engaged in the Heresy to help wipe humans from the galaxy to avoid the taint of chaos reaching his father, and The Lion, the loyalist who housed traitors in his legion and refuses to ever give enough information about them to have them expunged by the Imperium. The first and the twentieth, in their adoration of secrecy, and in the taint of chaos running through their legions, have more in common than one may thin.
This meditation would be remiss without mentioning the vitriolic hatred between Konrad Curze and The Lion. In my eyes, they are the two primarchs who hate eachother the most. Of course there exists other animosity, indeed the Heresy created a chasmous rift between all of the primarchs, but I think no hatred runs as deep and as violent as the hate El'Johnson and the Night Haunter have for eachother. In my mind, this is because The Lion once again sees a kindred spirit, and loathes the fact. Curze too has a noble aspect about him that doesn't feel earnt, he is the noble prince of murderers. And really, is that so different from The Lion? Perhaps he resents that the only real difference in their approaches is that while The Lion pretends not to be a murderous coward, Curze has the courage to embrace that side of himself.
II: [REDACTED]
III: Fulgrim:
The Phoenix and the Gorgon is a tale as old as time. Fulgrim's love for his brother in Ferrus Manus cannot be understated, underpinning the whole of Graham McNeill's Fulgrim, the final swordstroke that Fulgrim made to slay Ferrus was both the turning point that lost Fulgrim to chaos forever, and also one can argue the turning point of the atrocity at Isstvan V. A epicurean lover of art and music and all things beautiful in Fulgrim, and a rough, utilitarian builder in Ferrus, their complete opposite nature had only ever served to bolster their love and companionship. Indeed it was Fulgrim who gave Ferrus his name - the Gorgon. Fulgrim's beautiful insecurity and Ferrus' ugly self-assurance are the perfect foils and brothers to one another. Thus, if as the opening of the Ruinstorm implies, treachery holds such a real power over the things of the warp, then it is little wonder that the atrocity at Isstvan V struck such a horrific blow into the Imperium. The betrayal of Ferrus is one of the most bitter and painful betrayals in the entirety of the Heresy.
I have also heard it said that Fulgrim and the Khan may both bear some comparison. Given their shared stance at Nikaea and obsessive approach to growth and betterment, I think that may hold weight, but I would need to read the White Scars novels before I make a real comment.
IV: Perturabo:
Whilst the rivalry between Perturabo and Dorn is as old as time, I think it is a red herring. Dorn and Perturabo have a similar approach to warfare, yes, both being siegemasters in their own right, but frankly I do not believe that Dorn was even aware of Perturabo's complex about him until after the heresy and the codex astartes had been implemented. I believe it is moreover Ferrus Manus who one can compare Perturabo in an interesting way to. Ferrus Manus, the man of iron, who nontheless enforced a great deal of soul into his legion, versus Perturabo with his all too human and terribly insecure emotions demanding his legion is "Iron Within, Iron Without". An iron man trying to enforce a soul and heart in his legion versus a weak man trying to purge heart from his legion.
V: Jaghatai Khan: Under construction until I read Scars and Path of Heaven. My assumption would be Fulgrim though given I saw that screenshot of the khan being homophobic to him.
VI: Leman Russ:
Whilst I have already spoken at length about the Lion and Russ being opposite ends up a spectrum of self-disguise, an unexplored angle often I think is the fact that Russ shares so much with Magnus, the Crimson King. They are positioned in aesthetics as being complete opposites, with Magnus being some sort of massive librarian/scholar figure who loves magic and forbidden arts etc, whereas Russ is a shamanic barbarian who was the primary force behind the banning of sorcery within the astartes in the first place - potentially Magnus' greatest rival, but so many parallels exist between them. This is drawn very overtly in the duology of A Thousand Sons and Prospero Burns. So different on the surface, but the Wolf-Priests of Russ and the sorcerer cults of Magnus bear striking similarities, to the extent that Othere Wyrdmake met with Ahriman in the warp on numerous occasions, with Ahriman's enumerations and Othere's casting of the wyrd being identified by Ahriman as identical things. Furthermore, the fleshchange that the wolves of Russ bemoan their brother legion for, blaming their dabbling in the warp, can be seen reflected in the curse of the wulfen just the same. Indulge me, if you will, and allow me to refer to them as "two legions, both alike in dignity" - legions that serve different function, and hold such horrendous grudges with eachother, but who are fundamentally suffering from the same problems and approaching the same disciplines.
Another interesting angle I've thought about pushing is the roles of Angron, Konrad Curze, and Angron, within the tapestry of the Imperium. These are the primarchs of legions which were often decried to various levels for their horrible violence. Once again in A Thousand Sons, the titular sons were appalled by the violence with which the Vylka Fenryka delivered their wolfen vengeance upon whatever world they were bringing to compliance at the time, and the same criticisms were of course leveled at Angron's World Eaters and Curze's Night Lords. Each of these legions were brought by the emperor into a life of violence, but both the World Eaters and Night Lords and their respective primarchs fell to chaos, whereas Russ' wolves were loyal until the end. Angron hated the emperor for removing him from his home, from the start, and Curze hated his father for bringing his legion into the world as violent and murderous but then disavowed them for their violence. Russ, however, knew how to carve his required place in the world. He knew that he and his violent ways were just another tool used by The Emperor, and he knew when to rein in his and his sons' tempers (a rarity among this dysfunctional family!). He knew how to build his persona in a measured and intelligent way, whereas Angron and Curze were dissatisfied using their rage and hatred in a way that would suit The Emperor's designs.
VII: Rogal Dorn:
For Dorn I am unfortunately at a loss. Perturabo is his only comparison I can think of - weak and emotional Perturabo versus noble and stalwart Dorn. As the Emperor's Crusader, he could perhaps be compared with Russ or even Lorgar, but these comparisons still feel weak for me. Dorn is the most mature of all his brothers, the one who was most satisfied with his role, and the one who was most trusted by The Emperor and Malcador. Perhaps this unique position as a simple and self-contained warrior renders him difficult to compare with any of his more volatile brothers.
VIII: Konrad Curze:
In the passage on Lion El'Johnson, I discussed that their longterm rivalry a la the Thramas Crusade demonstrates the difference between the two of them being that they are cut of the same moral fibre, but Curze is the one of them who is willing to accept that his lot in life is one as a murderer, rather than clothe himself in the false robes of a justified noble. I stand by this interpretation, but think there is an important part missing from it. To assess that side, I compare the Night Haunter to Sanguinius. Both Curze and Sanguinius were blessed with the gift of, or bearers of the curse of foresight. Both were born to harsh worlds where they had to learn to kill to survive. Both were found by The Emperor and granted charge of legions of foul murderers and rampagers. However, the way they decided to cope with these conditions were vastly different. Curze saw the darkness the Imperium would be plunged into, and instead of being inspired to try and change things, he became warped, depressed, he saw a futility to all his actions. Rather than inspiring his group of murderers into nobility, he did nothing to stymie the paths that people may take. The key difference, in my head, is that Curze wanted to lead by fear, whereas Sanguinius wanted to lead by inspiration. Curze never quite understood that he never changed people, he just made them afraid to act out how they wanted to. Sanguinius, on the other hand, inspired people into change. Commenting upon this, in Curze's novel Konrad Curze: The Night Haunter recalled a time that he had spoken to Sanguinius. Sanguinius had told him that all that separated the two of them was an accident of their birth - Curze born into a world that required him to be "evil", a haunter in the night, and Sanguinius a world that required him to be a righteous saviour. Curze doubts himself, wondering would that be the case? Would Sanguinius' home of Baal Secundus have enjoyed in Curze a deep demon of the sands? Would Curze's home of Nostramo have enjoyed an angelic saviour? He meditates upon it and decides that no one bar himself could've borne the terrors of his childhood. Curze is confronted with the opportunity to accept that he has power over his own aspect. But he refuses to, instead believing himself to be a necessity of his birth.
As inclined in the passage on Russ, I consider Curze, Russ and Angron to fall into categories of "cursed legions". Indeed, this is a category that could be stretched also to include the Blood Angels in their savagery, and the Thousand Sons with their fleshchange. But the fact remains, Curze's Night Lords were created as murderers and sadists, and then castigated for their very nature. One could as easily say that Russ was a smart, shrewd tactician who knew where he stood and was content in it, as to say that Curze was a Luciferian rebel who refused this dichotomy he was placed in by The Emperor. Perhaps it could indeed be said that Curze was created in a certain way and then punished for acting in line with his creation. Curze, then, could be drawn as having the strength to not simply be a lapdog as Russ, but a justified traitor to a regime negative to its children. Perhaps Curze's story is itself a meditation on the trappings of a nature/nurture debate?
I have decided not to write about it just yet due to a lack of real knowledge on the situation, but I believe there may also be a parallel between Corvus Corax and Conrad Curze. It seems slightly too easy, similar to Dorn and Perturabo, but perhaps there's more to it. I will read Deliverance Lost and decide a little more
IX: Sanguinius:
Konrad Curze and Sanguinius' placement as the respective eighth and ninth primarchs show their convenience in this piece of writing! Continuing the ideas I built upon there, I believe that when compared to Curze and the other primarchs who can be described as having "cursed legions", Sanguinius represents a figure of virtue. Sanguinius knew of his and his legion's curse, and he knew of the peril humanity faced, but he approached it with a benevolent mind. Perhaps a kindred spirit with Russ even, knowing that The Emperor made him and his legion a certain way, but accepting his father's charge, rather than kicking off about it like Angron and Curze. He took his legion of brutal warriors and transformed them into the wondrous angels they are today.
So benevolent was Sanguinius, that perhaps the most interesting next contrast would be to the arch-traitor, Horus. In-universe marines love to pontificate along who could've been The Emperor's warmaster, bringing up their own primarch typically, often bringing up Rogal Dorn or Roboute Guilliman, perhaps even The Lion. But the two names that are always listed are Sanguinius and Horus Lupercal. Those two truly are the only consistent primarchs to have the wherewithal and respect of their brothers and brothers' legions to have been warmaster. In this sense, Sanguinius and Horus bear a great deal of similarity, and don't they know it! Indeed, the only primarch besides for Horus to appear in the Horus Heresy introduction, Horus Rising, was Sanguinius, and immediately the amount of brotherly love the two of them shared was so obvious, and the characterisation of Sanguinius as a deeply soulful, kindhearted leader of men is immediately apparent. Sanguinius is introduced to us as a figure in grief, apalled at the loss of his sons, denying even markings of grief upon his face as unnecessary - "I have real tears.". Here we see the differences in leadership between Horus and Sanguinius. Whilst Horus by no means lead with an iron fist, he was a kind ruler, he was still a harsh one. He treated his men like footballers treat their buddies in locker rooms, he pokes fun, and at times even used his closest men to deliver verbal barbs to people who displease him. Sanguinius on the other hand has never been anything more than a radiant image of benevolent fatherhood. His legion, the Blood Angels, fell to their knees and wept whenever they saw him, he is a figure of faith like no other primarch. For The Emperor and Sanguinius, they cry! Perhaps, were The Emperor to name Sanguinius his warmaster, then the heresy could be waylaid? Perhaps placing a figure of kindness and benevolence at such an elevated position, a figure people loved rather than wanted to appease, Lorgar's claws could find themselves finding it harder to grip the hearts of Mortarion, Curze, Perturabo and etc
Whilst Sanguinius was undoubtedly a figure of benevolence and kindness, he was by no means free of his dark side, and I think it no accident that when Sanguinius was perhaps at his darkest, on Signus Prime, that the daemon that tormented him and his legion named itself the red angel - the chosen epithet of Angron. In his dark side, Sanguinius certainly does compare to Angron. The daemon of Khorne at Signus wanted to turn Sanguinius, take his vampirism and vengeful side into a true lust for blood that would have him serve as the favoured servant of the blood god, and thus the actual chosen primarch of the blood god shows Sanguinius' darkest reflections. Where Angron's designation of himself as an angel is out of a sense of irony, Sanguinius bears the aspect of a very literal angel. Where Angron's "thirst" for blood is a manifestation of his love of violence and battle, Sanguinius bears a very real thirst for it. And yet, Sanguinius is the one who avoided any and all treachery. In this way, Sanguinius is the ultimate figure of virtue - being closely comparable to three traitor primarchs, but in each way he was tested alongside them, never coming close to falling from the grace of The Emperor.
X: Ferrus Manus:
Pairs with Fulgrim as per his entry. Otherwise I need to read the Vulkan centric novels to ascertain their connections which I'm sure exist, both as forgemasters.
XI: [REDACTED]
XII: Angron:
I have long since said that the red angel was the traitor primarch who can be considered most justified. The Emperor never really offered him a chance to do anything besides despise him. He whisked him away from his family and left him broken by the machine that constantly raged in his brain. Indeed, where Curze had a mental torture device in his head, his precognition and foresight, Angron had an incredibly literal torture device in his head. The Butchers Nails raged in his brain whenever he wasn't in the process of killing people, so is it any wonder that he was doomed to desire a world painted in blood? Perhaps he can be compared to Sanguinius not just for the reasons I outlined in my section on Sanguinius, but for his tragedy? For Angron is a tragic tale - an honourable warrior brought low by the torture of his upbringing, and the death of Sanguinius at the hand of his brother is indeed a tragic tale. Perhaps Angron could even have reached the nobility of a duelist like Fulgrim or Vulkan? For even brought as low as he was, Angron's honour never left him. At his first time meeting his equerry Khârn, all he could speak of were concepts he had of honour and the right way to be a warrior, he was brought to tears by the fact he could be a general once more. If Russ was the violent war dog who accepted his place, Curze was the damaged and spurned child, then perhaps Angron is the cast out son who never had much of an agency in his being cast out in the first place.
Most tragic, however, falls to his comparison to Sanguinius. For whilst Sanguinius was surely the most virtuous and Angron the most hateful and rage filled of their brothers, it was not meant to be this way. Sanguinius was bloodthirsty, his violence when unleashed was indeed unparalleled. His record of "compliance" in worlds not faithful to the Imperium is shocking because of its violence, the amount of genocide unleashed by the angel was ridiculous. Angron, on the other hand, could have been virtuous - he was meant to understand his warriors, be a virtuous leader, but was cursed by the nails that ate away at his mind until he saw only murder and blood. Where Sanguinius was a blood craving vampire, donned in angel wings and a heartbreaking compassion, Angron was a mighty warrior paragon robbed of all joy and love that didn't stem from violence.
XIII: Roboute Guilliman:
In the reddit post that actually inspired this writing, a fascinating comparison was drawn between Guilliman and Horus. Horus, the op said, represents the characteristics people want in a leader - a populist figure of charisma who plays himself to a crowd. Guilliman, by contrast, represents all the things people need in a leader. A kind and understated man with a ludicrous amount of forethought and computational-style thinking in his head, the kind of individual who is never seen as interesting or amazing, but were he to disappear, so much would collapse. I even never found myself too much enamoured by Guilliman and his super-smurfs Ultramarines, until I read Dan Abnett's fantastic, bordering on space opera Know No Fear, and realised quite how quietly amazing Guilliman is. In never caring to seek out the power Horus was given, but being arguably most deserving of achieving it, Guilliman is set out from Horus' detractors and from Horus himself.
Whilst I maintain that The Lion and the Night Haunter have the most aggressive of all hatreds for eachother across all of the primarchs, I think there's a strong case to be made of Lorgar having the second strongest, and indeed that following Calth it is returned very much by Roboute. The connection between them is one of opposites. Lorgar is, of all the primarchs, the most childish. He is a wounded child whose actions surmount only to lashing out against his father. Roboute is in the respect Lorgar despises him, the picture of his father, in that he's a patrician inventor of rules and structures. However, on closer examination, it could also be argued that this is a conflict that exists more because of what actions occured within the story, rather than because of any literary analysis based ideas surrounding their character. It seems largely that Roboute and Lorgar are paralleled simply in that they are so far from being anything alike.
One final interesting parallel to Roboute would be Alpharius Omegon. On paper, the two of them even seem rather similar - they're likely the heads of two of the most "human" legions, being very concerned with their human operatives and concerned with the runnings and building of a society. Quite frankly, if I was asked before reading Know No Fear which of the two of them penned the idea "information is victory", I would not be able to give an answer I was certain of. However, whilst they arguably share their pragmatic and information based approach to war and governance, there are key differences to them, which are the explanations behind why Guilliman's Ultramarines stayed loyalist whilst the Alpha Legion defected from The Emperor. Guilliman may be a pragmatist to the death of him, but he is at his heart a warrior who has the conviction and principles to fight for what he believes in until the end - in part of his book that was detailed throughout Know No Fear, he even said that if victory was to be impossible, then the right course is often to remain fighting until the death, so as to exact as much losses upon the enemy as possible. Whilst Guilliman may be a pragmatist, at his heart he is a warrior who simply brings war to a science. Alpharius is an infiltrator and a schemer in ways Guilliman never would be.
XIV: Mortarion:
Despite having read and loved Flight of the Eisenstein, I'm stumped here. Perhaps "The Buried Dagger" will give me some more information when I get to it.
XV: Magnus the Red:
I have spoken already the ways in which the legions of Leman Russ and Magnus the Red parallel eachother - whilst Russ' wolves shroud themselves in cloaks of shamanism and natural harmony, and Magnus' Thousand Sons devote themselves to scholarship and art, both are fundamentally mysticist legions who suffer from a horrible, metamorphosising curse. However, what I have not discussed already is the emotional bond and impact the two shared, or at times didnt share. For whilst Leman Russ prepared the burning of Prospero, he sat above the planet and begged Magnus to surrender, to offer supplication, to do anything that would allow him to stay the fury of his wolves, because whilst Magnus could never see this, Russ truly did love his brother. There is a certain irony here, given Magnus' approach as a seeker of knowledge, devoted to uncovering all the mysteries and secrets of the world, because when it came to the emotional intelligence and wisdom portrayed by the two of them at the burning of Prospero, Russ demonstrated himself far Magnus' equal in this respect. Magnus did not once stop to consider if perhaps his brother would like to avoid showing his wrath, he did nothing in the face of armageddon. Russ the barbarian demonstrated his wisdom and strength of character - he begged Magnus to show him any sign that he could stay his wrath, but proceeded as ordered when it was demonstrated that he would not.
Fortunately, not all of Magnus' fraternal relationships were so horribly dysfunctional. Whilst Roboute may have effectively been Lorgar's hated older brother, Magnus had from the "start" (referring to the in-universe "40 years before the Heresy" of "The First Heretic) been an older brother and mentor to Lorgar. And indeed, they make for an interesting pair, for by the time of the Heresy in earnest, the two of them represent mastery over their own unique spheres. Magnus remained a sorcerer, the crime for which he was cast out of the Imperium for, where Lorgar investigated the realm of worship - the way that faith to the dark gods offered him power over reality. The chapter title of the first chapter of Aaron Dembsky-bowden's "Betrayer" identified this - "The Arch-priest and the Sorcerer". Whilst in Magnus' own book, "A Thousand Sons", themes were explored around mentorship, with his first captain Ahriman being a student to Magnus, and Arhriman taking a trainee of his own in a psychically gifted remembrancer granted to the Thousand Sons. In a similar way, Magnus can be seen as something of a mentor to Lorgar. He stood with him at the start and warned him of the dangers of the warp, being his favoured of all his brothers always. The twin stories drawn between Magnus' and Lorgar's stories is one of studenthood and surpassing one's masters - Lorgar becoming the Arch-priest of the warp that Magnus warded him against in the same way that Ahriman became the exile after the Heresy. Magnus was Lorgar's most beloved brother, and his brothers downfall was ultimately predicated by Lorgar's ignorance of the wisdom Magnus offered him.
XVI: Horus Lupercal:
Horus, the Arch-traitor. To compare any other primarch to his foulness would be an insult, but as a son of The Emperor, Horus carried his father's blood and it was reflected in his brothers.
As I outlined in the section written on Sanguinius, Horus and Sanguinius make a pair in their analysis. They make up the only two people prepared for the role as The Emperor's warmaster, Sanguinius for his easy virtue and love of his brothers, Horus for his power as a commander and respect earnt among his contemparies. In this sense it can be analysed where the flaw in Horus lay that he betrayed his brother. Horus was a taker, he wanted for power and for adoration, for greatness, born from a level of selfish insecurity. Horus never believed himself worthy of the title of warmaster, always believing that Sanguinius was the true heir to that title, and his jealousy and insecurity grew and grew until we reached Signus Prime, the site of the ultimate betrayal of Sanguinius by his most beloved brother. Sanguinius, on the other hand, doesn't hold Horus' selfish nature. He can be viewed as insecure as well, in his darker moments, but as Lorgar identified in "Betrayer", his insecurity is an insular thing, it drives him to seek a closeness to the shadow of The Emperor because he fears himself cursed, lesser and undeserving of the praise left to him. Where Horus reacted to his place in his father's tapestry with rejection, lashing out, Sanguinius draws into himself and delivers his services to his father as much as he can. The two brothers had such love for eachother, fighting together with joy and abandon, and so when it came time for Horus to betray Sanguinius with the organisations at Signus Prime, if Erebus is once again right that treachery has a power of his own, then Horus' betrayal of Sanguinius must have been one of the most powerful and heartbreaking acts of the whole Heresy.
Horus' position as the Arch-traitor could not have been complete without the Arch-priest and his legion, Lorgar and the Word Bearers, and it is interesting that the mastery of the warp either possessed is so contrasted with the security and charismatic power they possessed. Lorgar was a weak primarch, the weakest physically, the least warrior amongst a race of engineered warriors, where Horus was powerful, mighty, beloved by all - a figure of aspiration or even envy for Lorgar. However, in the matters of the warp, Horus would show himself as possessing truly only fledgling knowledge of matters of the warp, where Lorgar was a great champion or priest of the Empyrean. Horus remained distrustful of this "black magic" even during his own heresy, whereas Lorgar had completely embraced them some years prior to its beginning. Horus never truly rejected his father's teaching in this respect, still loosely holding onto the ideas The Emperor peddled regarding the evils of faith and of black magic, and his contarst to Lorgar's priesthood demonstrates this - whilst named the arch-traitor, echoes of Horus' upbringing shone through in him ever still.
As indicated in the thirteenth entry, Horus is a charismatic leader to be contrasted with Roboute Guilliman. Horus plays to crowds, he tells the people what they want to hear, and using it he bends them to his will. Guilliman on the other hand prides himself in his effective leadership, sacrificing the adoration of his peers for efficiency, a warm pragmatism that lead his legion and those who followed him to success and glory, a tenacity that survived the greatest of Horus' attacks against him. By contrast, Horus' charismatic approach earnt him adoration, but it also earnt him hubris, a hubris that eventually lead him to strike down his beloved father. Where Guilliman may not burn quite so bright as his brother, his pragmatic and humble flame never was snuffed out like Horus'.
XVII: Lorgar Aurelian:
Lorgar was not like his brothers - he was not a warrior. On the fields of Isstvan V, he was saved from what would be certain death by his brother Curze, who spat on him in disdain. Other legions looked down upon Lorgar for his weakness, and Lorgar cursed his father for making him a scholar amongst a family of warriors. However, Lorgar was the primarch potentially most instrumental within the heresy. It was Horus' heresy, yes, but Lorgar was the primarch who accepted the primordial truth of chaos first, nearly half a decade before Horus, and even during the heresy, Lorgar may have been physically, charismatically and emotionally Horus' junior, but he commanded a mastery and an understanding over the things of the warp that Horus could never hope to reach.
Magnus, perhaps, is the brother who came closest to Lorgar's mastery. Taken in a different light with Magnus as a sorcerer and Lorgar as a priest, still they were the two primarchs most brilliantly gifted in occultist knowledge. However, I think their respective entries into heretical appraches bear an interesting contrast. Magnus was ultimately tricked into joining Horus' cause, Leman Russ' ships bore down hellfire onto his world at the demands of Warmaster Horus as a ploy to force Magnus into making use in earnest of his outlawed sorcery. Magnus was a being of knowledge, wisdom and intellect, but he was tricked and beguiled into treachery. By contrast, Lorgar was groomed into his role as the first heretic by his adoptive father in Kor Phaeron, but he was the one who truly became the corruptor, who turned the loyal primarchs against their father. There exists a compelling parallel between the childish priest pushed into his role as heretic grasping his heresy by the horns and becoming the ultimate corruptor among the sons of The Emperor, and Magnus as the learned and wise man with wherewithal to understand his treachery ultimately never wanting to betray his father, only doing so out of necessity when faced with destruction.
As I indicated the comparison between Aurelian and Roboute Guilliman is one primarily of animosity. They hated eachother because of their roles in eachothers wars, they were both used as puppets by their leaders (Horus or The Emperor) to bring the other low, when Guilliman destroyed Lorgar's holy city on Monarchia, or where Lorgar burnt Guilliman's jewel of Ultramar in Calth. However, they do share an interesting parallel. Whilst Guilliman certainly was a mighty warrior in a way Lorgar never was, the two of them have a shared nature in their complexity. They were both builders, they had complex anger and joy and love. Where someone like Corvus Corax would be a figure of vengeance and completely clear, unadulterated rage on the battlefield, Guilliman and Lorgar's hatred is calculated, built up across time and exacting. Neither were content in the platonic clarity and simplicity of their brothers, they required a more in depth approach to their reasonings.
XVIII: Vulkan:
Also pending until I read his novels. I am thinking of perhaps a comparison to Angron though, as I said. Two honourable warriors, one of hatred and one of kindness.
XIX: Corvus Corax:
I need to read Deliverance Lost and such before I can really comment. Probably related to Curze, in at least aesthetics if nothing else, and also Russ given their present living conditions(lol).
XX: Alpharius Omegon:
As the 20th primarchs, Alpharius Omegon were fittingly a being shrouded in secrecy. Whilst comparisons to The Lion exist, due to their approach to a love of secrecy and deceit, I believe that a more fitting comparison is to Roboute Guilliman. As discussed in his original passage, the approaches of the Alpha Legion and the Ultramarines are not dissimilar - "information is victory" being a coda that could reasonably be embodied by both of them. However, once again as discussed, their priorities and ultimate difference is absolute - Guilliman clings to his pragmatism out of its effectiveness, and it belies his true nature as a virtuous warrior. When faced with absolute certain death and destruction that could be waylaid by joining the heresy, he spat in Kor Phaeron's eyes and nearly tore the man in two. Whereas when Alpharius Omegon were faced with a choice to join the Heresy or fight what they'd consider a doomed cause, it was not a moment that they spent considering - they joined the Heresy simply because they believed that it was the most sensible course of action in that situation. Their absolute nature is a piece of their soul and cannot be overrun by any other part of their character.