Thrawn Vs. Khan

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2004-06-03 08:15pm

Who, if given equal forces and enough time to train sufficently in their tactical use, is the more bad-as bad guy?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-03 09:21pm

This is a joke right? A highly trained military commander vs. a 20th century dictator?

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2004-06-03 10:12pm

The Kernel wrote:This is a joke right? A highly trained military commander vs. a 20th century dictator?

Dictator who also happened to rule a good portion of the world and was a super-genius along with being a not half bad commander. So yeah, no joke.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-03 10:22pm

Straha wrote: Dictator who also happened to rule a good portion of the world and was a super-genius along with being a not half bad commander. So yeah, no joke.

Not a half-bad commander? Against the greatest military genius in a galaxy of millions of worlds? I ask again: is this a joke?

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2004-06-03 10:24pm

The Kernel wrote:
Straha wrote: Dictator who also happened to rule a good portion of the world and was a super-genius along with being a not half bad commander. So yeah, no joke.
Not a half-bad commander? Against the greatest military genius in a galaxy of millions of worlds? I ask again: is this a joke?

Correct me if I'm wrong but is there not controversy over how good a commander Thrawn really was?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-03 10:26pm

Straha wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but is there not controversy over how good a commander Thrawn really was?

There is no controversy that he was the greatest military commander in the Star Wars galaxy.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-03 11:17pm

You mean Kahn the super genius who didn't figure out unti it was too late that in space, it's possible for the other guy to attack you from above? Or that if you have shields and the other guy doesn't, it's to the other guy's advantage to follow him into a nebula that disrupts shields? That super genius?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-06-03 11:22pm

Let's compare styles for a moment.

Thrawn while some do overrate him was able to utilize a smaller force to effectively threaten a larger one. He bluffed and finagled and manipulated his way into a variety of situations that he won and lost only when a variable eluded him by an outside source he trusted.

Khan on the other hand used his memory but was goaded into situations by simply his arrogance. Kirk out manuvered him into both bluffing how strong he was as well goading him into a battle where he decisively lost every advantage. In fact he never even once thought of a three dimensional battleground in space.

Between the two...Thrawn is far better.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2004-06-04 09:47am

To be fair, by the Wrath of Khan, Khan was quite clearly not in full control of himself any more. He may have been far better in his prime. However, in this case, it doesn't matter. Thrawn takes it.

Though bad ass is a very subjective term. Bad-ass bad guy doesn't actually mean 'winner' after all. Look at Palpatine and Sauron as examples. IMO Kahn occupies a similar level of coolness to Thrawn, but YMMV.

And this 'Castrate Stratha' nonsense is getting out of hand. You just wait 'til they make me a supermod. I'm gonna send these foul polls to the abyss!

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-06-04 11:13am

The Kernel wrote:
Straha wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but is there not controversy over how good a commander Thrawn really was?
There is no controversy that he was the greatest military commander in the Star Wars galaxy.

Calling Thrawn the Greatest Military Commander in SW is giving him too much credit. He was certainly a Very Good commander, but a select few oversights prevent him from achieving the title of 'Mulhammed Ali of the Imperial Admiralcy'.

Of course, Thrawn kicks the shit out of Kahn anyway. Kahn is too passionate, and falls into traps too easily.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-04 11:18am

Stofsk wrote: Calling Thrawn the Greatest Military Commander in SW is giving him too much credit. He was certainly a Very Good commander, but a select few oversights prevent him from achieving the title of 'Mulhammed Ali of the Imperial Admiralcy'.

Fine, name a better one then. You can't argue with results and Thrawn was the only one who actually was able to wage and extended campaign against the NR and decisively defeat them in combat repeatedly. His oversight with regards to the Noghri was unfortunate, but that was more of an inherited blunder then anything else.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-06-04 11:37am

The Kernel wrote:
Stofsk wrote:Calling Thrawn the Greatest Military Commander in SW is giving him too much credit. He was certainly a Very Good commander, but a select few oversights prevent him from achieving the title of 'Mulhammed Ali of the Imperial Admiralcy'.
Fine, name a better one then. You can't argue with results and Thrawn was the only one who actually was able to wage and extended campaign against the NR and decisively defeat them in combat repeatedly. His oversight with regards to the Noghri was unfortunate, but that was more of an inherited blunder then anything else.

Thrawn's primary goal at Sluis Van was a complete failure, and he was outsmarted by a couple of smugglers and an X-wing squadron. He secured the Katana fleet; however, his supply for their crews was left unprotected, and an infiltration team was all that was required to destroy the Spaati cylinders. Finally his ambush at Bilbringi was well intuited, but unfortunately his boasting about potential victory is left 'up in the air' so to speak, when upon his death Pellaeon decided to withdraw. If his ambush had supremacy, then the NR should have been the one to withdraw. Ackbar IIRC never even considers it. The Noghri blunder wasn't so much 'inherited' as it was 'perpetuated'. Finally, a group of smugglers also embarass his forces yet again in TLC, with the attack on the Bilbringi shipyards.

He does make impressive inroads, I never denied that. I just don't think he's lighter than a butterfly, and stings like a bee.

Like I said, he's a Very Good commander, and certainly one of the best, but he wasn't The Greatest. He may have been the Greatest Imperial Grand Admiral, but that's a distinction you didn't make.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-06-04 11:52am

Thrawn is not perfect, but I can't think of anyone better myself.

(Well, Palleon might get my vote for best imperial leader (haven't read the NJO books though, so I wouldn't know if he later turns into a complete idiot), simply for knowing when it's time to talk peace. This is completely irelevant though.)

Post by **NecronLord** » 2004-06-04 01:08pm

There is, as far as I know, nothing to suggest that he's the best of the Grand Admirals. Any Grand Admiral was considered a very nasty prospect by the NR. The others seemed to either decide they didn't want to fight and retire, or were killed by that time.

I don't recall anything suggesting that he was the top dog of Grand Admirals, just the most loyal.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-04 03:18pm

Stofsk wrote: Thrawn's primary goal at Sluis Van was a complete failure, and he was outsmarted by a couple of smugglers and an X-wing squadron.

Which was due mainly to an oversight and the shear luck of the NR that the man with the Moleminer codes was there.

He secured the Katana fleet; however, his supply for their crews was left unprotected, and an infiltration team was all that was required to destroy the Spaati cylinders.

Thrawn didn't want to move any serious hardware to Wayland as it would have endangered the secrecy of its location. Once again, it was shear luck that the NR found it AND came at a time when C'Boath tried his little rebellion.

Finally his ambush at Bilbringi was well intuited, but unfortunately his boasting about potential victory is left 'up in the air' so to speak, when upon his death Pellaeon decided to withdraw. If his ambush had supremacy, then the NR should have been the one to withdraw. Ackbar IIRC never even considers it.

First, even after the smuggler fleet attack they were still in a position to win, Pellaeon simply wasn't a commander capable of directing such a huge battle. Pellaeon said himself that Thrawn could have still pulled a victory out of it, but he wasn't Thrawn.

As for Ackbar retreating, no shit he didn't consider it. That might have had something to do with the Interdictor Cruisers.

The Noghri blunder wasn't so much 'inherited' as it was 'perpetuated'.

What do you think he should have done? Admit the truth to the Noghri? Fix the problem and apologize? Either way would have led to a massive upheaval.

Finally, a group of smugglers also embarass his forces yet again in TLC, with the attack on the Bilbringi shipyards.

Once again an amazing coincidence that just happens to turn the tide in the NR's favor.

He does make impressive inroads, I never denied that. I just don't think he's lighter than a butterfly, and stings like a bee. Like I said, he's a Very Good commander, and certainly one of the best, but he wasn't The Greatest. He may have been the Greatest Imperial Grand Admiral, but that's a distinction you didn't make.

Name a better one. Are you forgetting that he was dealing with superior forces during his campaign against the NR? Are you also forgetting that during his campaign in TLC he captured dozens of sectors and went up against the best the NR had to offer (including Bel Iblis) and still kicked their ass?

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-06-04 03:38pm

STRAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA! wrote:Straha, you blood sucker, you're not going to be able to father any children, do you hear me? DO YOU?

I've done far worse than reply to you. I've quoted you. And I wish to go on ...quoting you.

Seriously, this is the funniest variation of "castrate straha" I've seen. Normally I'm against the idea, but when you say it with Kirk's voice, somehow the idea becomes so... authoritative.

Ans Thrawn would win, but Khan would never forget his face.

Darksider · Post by **Darksider** » 2004-06-04 05:41pm

Another poll?

:::::Looks up at sky:::::

[Kirk]STRAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA[/kirk]

Kahn's arrogance would be his downfall.

Thrawn takes this one.

Vice Admiral · Post by **Vice Admiral** » 2004-06-04 06:58pm

I forgot, is there another title higher than Grand Admiral?

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2004-06-04 07:09pm

Vice Admiral wrote:I forgot, is there another title higher than Grand Admiral?

The Emperor

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-06-05 03:53am

Stofsk wrote: Thrawn's primary goal at Sluis Van was a complete failure, and he was outsmarted by a couple of smugglers and an X-wing squadron.

OMG! He failed at Sluis Van because a couple of smugglers BLEW UP DOZENS OF ENEMY SHIPS BEFORE HE COULD CAPTURE THEM!
I don't call that a failure. I call that a half-victory. The enemy lost a LOT, Thrawn lost nothing more than a few TIE fighters. He was a bit disappointed that he didn't get to CAPTURE all those ships, but he succeeded in getting rid of them.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-06-05 03:55am

As for best of the grand admirals, it was stated in the Thrawn books, however the Emperor kept him hidden because he didn't want to let people know he had promoted a non-human to such high rank.

Remember Mara Jade? "He has no weaknesses, no favorite strategies" etc etc?

Remember that he once told the Emperor he wouldn't carry out an attack because it would not succeed? The Emperor locked him away, carried out the attack anyway, and it got wiped out. This happened twice, and finally the Emperor learned to listen to Thrawn.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-06-05 05:51am

Praxis wrote:
Stofsk wrote:Thrawn's primary goal at Sluis Van was a complete failure, and he was outsmarted by a couple of smugglers and an X-wing squadron.
OMG! He failed at Sluis Van because a couple of smugglers BLEW UP DOZENS OF ENEMY SHIPS BEFORE HE COULD CAPTURE THEM!
I don't call that a failure. I call that a half-victory. The enemy lost a LOT, Thrawn lost nothing more than a few TIE fighters. He was a bit disappointed that he didn't get to CAPTURE all those ships, but he succeeded in getting rid of them.

NO, Han Solo deliberately crippled the ships which a) the NR couldn't prevent from being captured and b) were Thrawn's primary strategic goal. Had he taken those ships, he would have had an increase to his arsenal. Preventing him from taking that away was a defeat suffered by Thrawn.

Thrawn's primary goal was capture - he failed to secure this. Ergo, he suffered a defeat at Sluis Van. Note those ships weren't 'blown' up, they were severely disabled but NOT DESTROYED. Thrawn needed ships for his war machine, Han Solo denied him this goal.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-06-05 06:15am

The Kernel wrote:Name a better one.

Look, I can't name a better one - but that's not the point. Thrawn is a worthy opponent and I like him as a villain, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna forget about some of the mistakes he made; being the 'greatest' implies infallability, and I know that isn't true in Thrawn's case. He made mistakes. He was overconfident, he didn't secure his flank on Mt Tantiss when he should have (it was the key to victory), he overrated the Noghri's loyalty too much which was highly risky and eventually spelt his doom.

Now, you attribute some of his failures to bad luck, however when you consider the complicated planning that went into some of his operations that went FUBARed, luck can only push it so far; and I am *not* saying it can be attributed to incompetence, but rather overextension and arrogance.

Take the Sluis Van operation: you attribute that failure to bad luck, while I look at it and see a resourceful smuggler noticing something that no-one else would notice, and putting 2 and 2 together. Calling it bad luck doesn't exonerate Thrawn from it; a failure is a failure. He failed to achieve his strategic goals, and was forced to withdraw. I'm *not* saying he's a 'bad leader' because of it, I'm just saying he's not as great as some make him out to be ie "Thrawn rulz all!!!11". And FUCKING A-RIGHT. That's how it SHOULD be. Thrawn having faults makes him a realistic character.

Are you forgetting that he was dealing with superior forces during his campaign against the NR? Are you also forgetting that during his campaign in TLC he captured dozens of sectors and went up against the best the NR had to offer (including Bel Iblis) and still kicked their ass?

No, of course I'm not. Did I say anywhere that Thrawn was incompetent? No, I didn't. Actually, I said the reverse: he made impressive accomplishments for someone who had little to work with.

I also don't recall Thrawn kicking the arses out of the best the NR had to offer. Bel Iblis and Ackbar provided some stirring resistance, and at no point was there ever a decisive engagement; almost always it was a back-and-forth chess match between Thrawn and the rest of the NR, with sometimes Thrawn losing a few pieces due to good movements from the NR. Bilbringi may have been the turning point, but we'll never know. At the time Thrawn was confident of victory, while all the NR forces were surprised at the ambush; but then, he was also confident that the Noghri wouldn't betray him, and that Mt Tantiss would never be discovered - so take whatever you will with a grain of salt. There's too little data to go on with that particular event.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-05 07:03am

Stofsk wrote: Look, I can't name a better one - but that's not the point. Thrawn is a worthy opponent and I like him as a villain, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna forget about some of the mistakes he made; being the 'greatest' implies infallability, and I know that isn't true in Thrawn's case. He made mistakes. He was overconfident, he didn't secure his flank on Mt Tantiss when he should have (it was the key to victory), he overrated the Noghri's loyalty too much which was highly risky and eventually spelt his doom.

No, the greatest in the SW universe implies that there isn't a better one and I haven't seen a better one have you? I didn't say he was infalible, no one is truly without some error.

Now, you attribute some of his failures to bad luck, however when you consider the complicated planning that went into some of his operations that went FUBARed, luck can only push it so far; and I am *not* saying it can be attributed to incompetence, but rather overextension and arrogance.

Luck can push it quite far when you are dealing with the character shields of Han, Lando, Leia and Luke. No fucking fictional character has better ones then these four.

Take the Sluis Van operation: you attribute that failure to bad luck, while I look at it and see a resourceful smuggler noticing something that no-one else would notice, and putting 2 and 2 together. Calling it bad luck doesn't exonerate Thrawn from it; a failure is a failure. He failed to achieve his strategic goals, and was forced to withdraw. I'm *not* saying he's a 'bad leader' because of it, I'm just saying he's not as great as some make him out to be ie "Thrawn rulz all!!!11". And FUCKING A-RIGHT. That's how it SHOULD be. Thrawn having faults makes him a realistic character.

Sure, and not having faults made the NR quartet a very boring contrivence. Anyways, what the heck are the chances that Solo and Lando would have shown up at Sluis Van during the attack anyways? Out of all the millions of worlds, they just happened to stop there during an Imperial attack that must have lasted a few hours at most.

I also don't recall Thrawn kicking the arses out of the best the NR had to offer. Bel Iblis and Ackbar provided some stirring resistance, and at no point was there ever a decisive engagement; almost always it was a back-and-forth chess match between Thrawn and the rest of the NR, with sometimes Thrawn losing a few pieces due to good movements from the NR.

He beat Bel Iblis at Qat Crystak and Thrawn achieved his goals during the Battle for Couruscant. Those were the only two direct matchups between the two that I am aware of.

Bilbringi may have been the turning point, but we'll never know. At the time Thrawn was confident of victory, while all the NR forces were surprised at the ambush; but then, he was also confident that the Noghri wouldn't betray him, and that Mt Tantiss would never be discovered - so take whatever you will with a grain of salt. There's too little data to go on with that particular event.

He wasn't confident Mount Tantiss wouldn't be discovered, he was confident that the mountain was well protected enough that it could hold off any small scale assault (true) and that the Empire would know about any large scale assault. The only reason it fell was because of the astounding luck of C'Boath going nuts and staging and insurrection at the exact same time that the NR strike team was there.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2004-06-05 09:44am

Praxis wrote:As for best of the grand admirals, it was stated in the Thrawn books, however the Emperor kept him hidden because he didn't want to let people know he had promoted a non-human to such high rank.

It's stated that he must have been very good to be promoted to G. Admiral despite being non-human beacuase of the Emperor's dislike of non-humans. This is over-rulled by the canon. Palpy doesn't dislike non-humans and has numerous non-human minions, including a Sith Apprentice. No evidence there then.

Remember Mara Jade? "He has no weaknesses, no favorite strategies" etc etc?

That doesn't neccesserily make him the Empire's best strategist

Remember that he once told the Emperor he wouldn't carry out an attack because it would not succeed? The Emperor locked him away, carried out the attack anyway, and it got wiped out. This happened twice, and finally the Emperor learned to listen to Thrawn.

No evidence that this makes him the best of the Grand Admirals, merely a guy who stood up to Palpatine.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Thrawn Vs. Khan

Hmm?

Thrawn Vs. Khan