Who would you rather serve under?

[Rogue 9]

I dunno, I guess I'd rather go for honor than survival. Thrawn seems to be kind of an idiot...you only have to study their art?! Then you can defeat them?! I'm sorry, but what "art" does the New Republic churn out for Thrawn to study? Has he defeated them? Would you rather say to your buddies when you're kickin back cold ones that you'd served under Thrawn of the empire remanent, or Lord Darth Vader...on the Death Star? Serving under Vader sounds a heck of a lot cooler to me, and if I survived it'd be like icing on the cake. An analogy today would be like who would you rather serve under, Eisenhower or Bush Jr.? Sure, Bush Jr., like Thrawn, is a bit more subtle and conniving, but Eisenhower has about a million time more badass going for him, like Vader.

Erm... Being able to analyze and defeat an entire enemy battlegroup merely by studying the art of the species in question is rather a sign of genius rather than idiocy, if you ask me.

[Crown]

I'll take the fast track to promotion with Vader thankyou very much ... come on you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?!

[consequences]

"Well, yes, actually I do."

[FTeik]

I doubt anybody would wait ten years for Vader to return.

Stalin still has his fans. As does Hitler.

The longevity of the loving praise heaped on your memory but your personal cache of sycophants does not really prove much.

Well, at least Thrawn has a personal cache of sycophants, while Vader ...


To get the topic back to the leading-qualities of Thrawn and Vader:

Am i the only one, who thinks, that the EU did a huge injustice by turning Darth Vader from a harsh, but more or less fair commander into that bully we almost always see?

[Stofsk]

Am i the only one, who thinks, that the EU did a huge injustice by turning Darth Vader from a harsh, but more or less fair commander into that bully we almost always see?

No, you're not alone at all. From the limited EU I have read it just strikes me as absurd - I know Vader was the villain in SW, but he wasn't the only one - people have a tendency to forget Tarkin and Palpatine, presumably because they weren't as visible as Vader was. [edit] They were to some extent a lot worse than Vader - while Vader will kill someone by choking them to death or by shooting them down with his TIE fighter, Tarkin would kill billions of people with the order to fire, and Palpatine - well, we know what that old bugger got up to, don't we?

There's also something in HttE that bugged me - a throwaway line that essentially compared Vader with Thrawn and their use of stormtroopers, with the former being accused of "reckless" waste, while Thrawn was conservative with his forces. I'd personally like to know what that's based on, seeings we never see Vader throw stormtroopers carelessly to the wind in the movies. which was what was implied by the line (I can't give you a specific page number, I think it's from TLC and I think it was Karrde or someone who said it - possibly after the ambush which had stormtroopers being killed by all the smugglers? Karrde seemed to think that it wasn't Thrawn by virtue of the fact whoever sent them had no regard to their welfare, and he may have uttered the throwaway line I'm on about).

On the other hand, HttE also had a good Vader reference with what Leia got up to with the Noghri - I liked having Leia go around calling herself the "Daughter of Vader." I don't know what else the EU did to bastardise Vader...

[Corran Horn]

I'd have to go with Thrawn.

The Greatest Taction ever in the SW Galaxy.

Thrawn caused mor etrouble than Vader ever could have to a socitey.

Even though Vader destroyed all the Jedi he fought a Nation at a Point where it could not hold itself. But thrawn took on a Power that was far greater than his. Only losing in Death to his Body Guards the Nogeri.

Vader meirly Muscle where as thrawn was true Power.

[The Kernel]

There's also something in HttE that bugged me - a throwaway line that essentially compared Vader with Thrawn and their use of stormtroopers, with the former being accused of "reckless" waste, while Thrawn was conservative with his forces. I'd personally like to know what that's based on, seeings we never see Vader throw stormtroopers carelessly to the wind in the movies. which was what was implied by the line (I can't give you a specific page number, I think it's from TLC and I think it was Karrde or someone who said it - possibly after the ambush which had stormtroopers being killed by all the smugglers? Karrde seemed to think that it wasn't Thrawn by virtue of the fact whoever sent them had no regard to their welfare, and he may have uttered the throwaway line I'm on about).

It was indeed from The Last Command and it involved Thrawn speaking to Ferrier (although there was a similar comment made at the Smuggler Meeting). Thrawn said "I am not the Lord Darth Vader Ferrier. I do not spend my men recklessly, nor do I take their deaths lightly" (I'm working from memory, but I'm fairly sure that is right).

In any case, I think this assumption about Vader comes mainly from three things:

1) He used Stormies as decoys to herd Leia, Luke and Han into the bugged Falcon in ANH.

2) He did a similar thing in ESB, although seemingly for no reason since he could have just as easily captured them in the city.

3) Admiral Piete was obviously concerned about the possible loss of life from the asteroid belt in ESB. Vader dismisses this and orders his fleet into the belt.

[Stofsk]

(I'm working from memory, but I'm fairly sure that is right).

It sounds right.

In any case, I think this assumption about Vader comes mainly from three things:

1) He used Stormies as decoys to herd Leia, Luke and Han into the bugged Falcon in ANH.

Hmm... yes, but then those Stormies weren't that badly trounced. And they weren't recklessly used - Vader's plan worked, and was better than using those Stormies to either kill or capture the heroes. Nothing would have been gained by killing Solo and Luke or even recapturing Leia.

2) He did a similar thing in ESB, although seemingly for no reason since he could have just as easily captured them in the city.

I'm not sure which part of Bespin you're referring to. The part before Leia and Han et al were captured? Or the part when they were busy escaping and Vader was in the middle of his duel? Either way I can't see Vader stopping his fight with Luke to direct his stormtroopers.

3) Admiral Piete was obviously concerned about the possible loss of life from the asteroid belt in ESB. Vader dismisses this and orders his fleet into the belt.

Perhaps Piett was underestimating the danger in the asteroid field, and his threat assessment was too conservative? Piett had just been promoted, and Vader was more experienced than him, so perhaps the latter simply had more confidence in the squadron's resiliance?

You're probably right in those 3 movie events are the likely origin of Vader's popular image, but I don't think it's enough to back it up, given that Thrawn (and by extension, Zahn) was making a very precise accusation.

[Galvatron]

It wasn't just Vader they buggered up. The EU also liked to portray many Imperial officers as arrogant and/or incompetent, mustache-twirling fat caricatures, whereas the Imperials we saw in the films were (for the most part) lean, professional, well-spoken and intelligent military men.

[Lord of the Farce]

Erm... Being able to analyze and defeat an entire enemy battlegroup merely by studying the art of the species in question is rather a sign of genius rather than idiocy, if you ask me.

Just take for example of present day Earth, since when are the artists in tune with everybody on the planet (or even just the world's military leaders)? Hell, just have a look in a typical art book, the art might be a decent sample for a small group of artists or for just a single artist, but that's it. How the hell can entire species become predictable based on a handful of artists' work?

Isn't this the same type of species caricaturing that we've come to expect from B&B's Star Trek?

[Illuminatus Primus]

It wasn't just Vader they buggered up. The EU also liked to portray many Imperial officers as arrogant and/or incompetent, mustache-twirling fat caricatures, whereas the Imperials we saw in the films were (for the most part) lean, professional, well-spoken and intelligent military men.

Compare ROTJ's officers, Admiral Motti, General Veers, Tarkin, Jerjerrod, Baron Tagge, etc. with the average Dark Horse comic's Imperial officer.

In the most recent issue of Empire, the Army officers are running around on the ground commanding Stormtroopers (in other words the EU still hasn't realized that WEG established Army soldiers) and in dress uniform, rather than the BDU worn by Veers in Hoth.

:sigh:

[Lord Jax]

i dont want my ass to get chopped in half

[Lord Jax]

or choked

[Rogue 9]

Erm... Being able to analyze and defeat an entire enemy battlegroup merely by studying the art of the species in question is rather a sign of genius rather than idiocy, if you ask me.

Just take for example of present day Earth, since when are the artists in tune with everybody on the planet (or even just the world's military leaders)? Hell, just have a look in a typical art book, the art might be a decent sample for a small group of artists or for just a single artist, but that's it. How the hell can entire species become predictable based on a handful of artists' work?

Isn't this the same type of species caricaturing that we've come to expect from B&B's Star Trek?

Not species, culture. I'm sure Thrawn couldn't predict a Mon Calamari raised among Corellians based on Calamari art forms. And art does reflect current culture to some extent, unless you get an artist who's rebelling against current norms, and even then you can usually glean from the parody that protest art usually employs.

[Ghost Rider]

Necromancy