Vader's title - Imperial Executor?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-09-03 11:58am

This was an ancient thread on this board, but recent events make me ask:

Are there any sources that refer to Vader's rank of "Executor"? From what I can tell, Sedriss and Luke were called this in the Dark Empire stories, but did they inherit it from Vader? Is there any official references?

Naturally, some elements on Wookiepedia object to him having this title, so I need actual sources.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2006-09-03 12:50pm

Not that I know of. Closest that I recall is the "Supreme Commander" title.

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2006-09-03 02:02pm

Luke Skywalker held the title of Supreme Commander in Dark Empire. Sedriss and Xecr Nist held the separate and distinct title of Military Executor in Dark Empire II. The only direct references to Vader's role in the Empire -- outside of acting as the Galactic Emperor's envoy -- are in the file cards of the Kenner The Power of the Force line, which refer to him as having a status of "Commander of Imperial Fleet, Dark Lord of the Sith" (1995, 1997).

Ars Dangor mentions in a holomessage quoted in the Imperial Sourcebook that "the Emperor has placed his servant, Lord Darth Vader, in command of a special Imperial fleet," and that "this fleet ... has been charged with the mission to hunt down the rebel command base and those rebels that escaped us at Yavin," instructing "the military hierarchy and Grand Moffs of the Galactic Empire" that they are to "bow to Lord Vader's wishes as though they were the Emperor's own, extending him every possible assistance he may require in the completion of his task."

The Mandalorian Armor identifies Vader's policies with the policies of the High Command. Arhul Hextrophon writes in the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook of a "change in command the Emperor has implemented," mentioning "the assemblage of an unprecedentedly huge fleet" and saying that "in command of this fleet -- indeed, in direct control of the entire effort to crush the Rebellion -- the Emperor has placed none other than Darth Vader," addding that "no longer will the Emperor rely on incompetent generals and power-hungry Moffs."

The fact that the High Command is perceived to be Vader's brain trust and that he has plenipotentiary power over the Armed Forces suggests very strongly that he had been appointed to the office of Supreme Commander after the Battle of Yavin. Certainly this would be consistent with the repeated references in Dark Empire and the Dark Empire Sourcebook to Supreme Commander Skywalker taking Vader's place in the Empire (despite not yet having become a Sith Lord).

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-09-03 03:02pm

But, what then is the title of Executor, are Sedriss and Nist successors to Vader with this title as well?

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2006-09-04 03:36pm

The distinction between the two offices is not made clear, except that Sedriss and Xecr Nist are the only persons in the Expanded Universe known to have held the office of "Military Executor," while Skywalker is explicitly referred to as "Supreme Commander" (it seems a safe assumption that Grand Admiral Thrawn was also Supreme Commander, given that he was more or less shôgun of the Empire under the Emperor's Ruling Circle's nominal control). One particularly interesting detail is that the Galactic Emperor tells Nist "You will replace Sedriss as my military commander" and tells Tedryn-Sha "You will be second in command," but later on New Alderaan Sha specifically states "I am Tedryn-Sha, Palpatine's second in command."

It is possible, in light of Sha's claim, that all of the Dark Jedi possess some fraction of the Supreme Commander's authority, and the principal Executor -- "military dictator of all Imperial forces," according to Dark Empire II -- is simply the paramount leader. This is not unprecedented; the office of Lord High Admiral was in commission from 1709 until 1964, replaced by a committee of civilian Members of Parliament and high-ranking admirals. In theory, all the Commissioners were equal in status, but in practice the president of the commission, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had considerably more power and influence, to the point that he was a member of the Cabinet and was for many intents and purposes treated as though he alone were 'Secretary of State for the Navy.' Similarly, Lord High Treasurer has been in commission since 1714, and the First Lord of the Treasury has almost invariably been Prime Minister, despite being (in theory) only one of the members of the board (the Second Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is also usually a member of the Cabinet).

What makes this particularly attractive as an explanation for the relationship between Military Executor and Supreme Commander is the name. The Lords of the Admiralty were formally the "Commissioners for Exercising the Office of Lord High Admiral," while the very word executor means an agent, one who performs a task on behalf of another -- i.e., an executor is one who exercises certain functions as a deputy or lieutenant, not in his own right. The title "Military Executor" could be interpreted as a sort of shorthand for "Executor of the Office of Supreme Commander," with the unnecessary "Military" placed in the short title for clarification.

The latter portions of this are admittedly speculation, but they certainly serve to explain the relationship. The Galactic Emperor obviously did not intend to use the Dark Jedi to replace Darth Vader, since he'd had use of their services since before the Battle of Endor, and never made the least effort to initiate any of them into the mysteries of the Sith. According to the Dark Empire Sourcebook, a major part of the Shadow Hand Strategy was to obtain a replacement for Vader, and both Dark Empire and Dark Empire II show that he was fixated on claiming Luke Skywalker for that role. When Skywalker proved unavailable, he postponed that part of the Strategy and temporarily replaced him with the Dark Jedi, but they were clearly never intended as anything but a stopgap measure; The Dark Side Sourcebook indicates that the use of his Sithian art of 'empowerment' requires a constant expediture of a given fraction of the Galactic Emperor's finite power in the Force.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-09-04 03:48pm

Ah, I see. So as long as no clear "Supreme Commander" exists (like Vader, Thrawn or Luke), the position and responsibility is spilt within a group, with the "figure head" being a Military Executor?

Lord Sander · Post by **Lord Sander** » 2006-09-04 04:32pm

On a similar note, since Darth Vader's title of Dark Lord of the Sith would presumably neither be official in nor recognized by the Galactic Empire, would that mean he, assuming his name change is official, should actually be correctly addressed as (Supreme) Commander Vader rather than Lord Vader?

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2006-09-04 07:33pm

No. Supreme Commander is an office, not a rank, and its incumbent is addressed by his or her appropriate title. In 1945, one did not address General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower as "Commander Eisenhower" because he was Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force. Today one does not address General James L. Jones as "Commander Jones" because he is Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Darth Vader was evidently addressed as "Lord Vader" or "my lord," regardless of whatever office he may have held.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-09-05 06:33am

Thanks for clearing that up, Publius. :)