StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This may seem like a stupid question to ask given what we see on screen, but what do you think were the major tactical and strategic errors that the Empire committed that allowed it to be toppled? I know Luke used the Force and defeated Vader and the Emperor was killed, etc., but that can't have been the single thing to cause such a mighty institution to crumble. Was that the only major strategic mistake; to have Vader and the Emperor in the same place? I know it was supposed to be a trap to lure Luke so he could be turned to the dark side, but is it a matter of sheer plot necessity to give the Rebels so many lucky breaks? Given the sheer might of the Empire, why did they not just crush the rebels outright? Why did the Emperor think it was necessary to take such a risk? Was it simple arrogance? Sorry this post is so long.

The Emperor's arrogance was the Empire's undoing, on several levels. The Battle of Endor was a folly in several ways; though bringing out and trapping a majority of the Rebel fleet with a rouse is a sound strategy, using both the nacent, partially defenseless DSII and he himself as bait were completely unessassary risks. Palpatine also could have sent a more overwhelming fleet to garrison Endor, a hundred destroyers rather than just a few dozen, and he misused the ships he did command, ordering them to refrain from firing upon the Alliance capital ships just so the DSII could pick them apart.

Having Darth Vader with him at the battle was another severe error in judgement, but it is symptomatic of an even greater failing. By the time of ROTJ, Palpatine had constructed his empire entirely around the concept that he and he alone would be its sole ruler, perhaps, if one considers sources like Dark Empire, for all time. He made no effort to put in place a codifed system of succession in the case of his death, and he groomed Lord Vader more as a thug than a potential ruler (a point which was eventually moot, anyways).

As Luke Skywalker points out, Palpatine's only weakness truly was his own arrogance, and that trait would eventually allow the Empire to lose at Endor when their victory was almost assured from the start, and pushed the empire into civil war upon his death.

Yes, it was simple arrogance. The Emperor had been orchestrating events throughout the galaxy for probably forty years, and was incredibly overconfident in his powers. He was a man who had single-handedly destroyed a galaxy-wide republic that had lasted for 25,000 years, and replaced it with a government shaped in his own image. The Rebellion's lucky win at Endor, a battle by all rights they should have lost, was the one thing that premitted the Empire to crumble.

For starters, the insurgency was very short lived. We're talking about decades at tops. Considering we're talking about an entire galaxy, it's easy to hide from prying eyes. Just like the U.S is unable to root out the insurgency in Iraq, so is was the empire unable to track down the rebels. The Death Star was supposed to be the ultimate terror weapon to stop all resistance. Would it have worked, we'll never know. As the rebels never really hoped to be able to beat the empire in an open conflict, they struck when they could, but the war was mostly fought on the intelligence front. This was it seems something the rebels were more apt at than the empire. It was impossible for the empire to watch all the systems in their control perfectly. As an analogy just look at the drug smuggling today. Now apply to a galactic scale. You'll see that no amount of direct applied force would prevail the empire, but the threat of force on a scale few can imagine could have.

Palply also played the legimate ruler card until the abolishment of the senate.
This somewhat curtailed the amount of force he could apply against worlds that were against him. This was also to end when the first DS was built.

After the destruction of DS1 it was more about getting Luke than catching the rebels. From Palpy's point of view, the rebels were a minor nuisance, upgraded to nuisance after blowing up DS1.

The prevailing theory here is that Palpatine infact did suffer from mental problems at the time of ROTJ. His persona is a lot different from the one seen in PM. And Palply was really on top of his game in the prequel trilogy.

Oh, and welcome aboard. It's never stupid to ask, it's stupid to talk out of ignorance.

-Gunhead

It's also a fairly widely recognized fact that an autocratic government like Palpatine's Empire needs an external enemy to justify its military and intelligence spending, so utterly exterminating the Rebellion wasn't even in his interests. He just wanted to keep them too weak to be a real threat.

Surlethe wrote:The Rebellion's lucky win at Endor, a battle by all rights they should have lost, was the one thing that premitted the Empire to crumble.

There are also some interesting quotes that might suggest an earlier cause (though highly subjective, since they're statements from an IU character in a highly aggitated state):

Leia Organa after Alderaan goes boom wrote:Tarkin, if there was a shred of humanity in you or these twisted creatures of yours, it's dead now. You're at war with life itself. You're enemies of the universe... your Empire's doomed.

That's from the ANH novelization. It might be argued that the imposing threat of such a super weapon, coupled with a possibility of infiltration in the maze-like interior of the station (something shown in SW:Empire issue 13), would eventually lead to some kind of sabotage, weakening the station and opening it up for attack. It's a big galaxy, if one fleet gets fragged, who's to say another wouldn't be built at another time and place?

I don't see why an autocratic government could not sustain itself without an external enemy. The problem is that there will always be agitators, and they had no good strategy for dealing with them.

Even if the Emperor had succeeded in totally wiping out the organized Rebellion forces, the ideas that sustained the Rebellion would have lived on, and a replacement would have sprung up eventually.

In the end, the biggest problem with the Empire was the lack of a clear line of succession. Even after ROTJ, the Empire was still firmly in control of the galaxy, but its warlords began to fight amongst themselves. It's the same thing that happened to Alexander's empire upon his death. In short, the Empire was metastable; its political stability was ensured only by Palpatine himself. Without him, it was bound to fall apart.

Darth Wong wrote: Without him, it was bound to fall apart.

I believe that was the Emperor's intent though, so that no one else would rule the Empire that he built.

Gunhead wrote:The Death Star was supposed to be the ultimate terror weapon to stop all resistance. Would it have worked, we'll never know. As the rebels never really hoped to be able to beat the empire in an open conflict, they struck when they could, but the war was mostly fought on the intelligence front. This was it seems something the rebels were more apt at than the empire. It was impossible for the empire to watch all the systems in their control perfectly. As an analogy just look at the drug smuggling today. Now apply to a galactic scale. You'll see that no amount of direct applied force would prevail the empire, but the threat of force on a scale few can imagine could have.

[Going a bit Off-Topic]:
The goal of the Rebellion was the ending of the Empire (with whatever means possible, more or less).
So it would be very naive to think that the rebellion would never resort to open warfare, if the situation develops that way.
I know that the situation developing that way would be practically impossible, but simply the possibility of such a situation would make preventive steps advisable.
Especially in the light of two things:
1) The devastating civil war that we see in the prequels. A civil war that lasted as long as it did due to impenetrable (or nearly so) planetary defenses (Outer Rim sieges). Sieges that had to be ended through the expenditure of countless numbers of soldiers, clones, ships.
2) Increasingly open rebellion/aggressive action against the Empire (Alderaan's secret rearming, the Mon Calamari situation).
The costs of the first were most probably so extremely high, that there would be extreme paranoia in the minds of people (decision making as well as the public) concerning anything even remotely creating the possibility of a new civil war. The rebel's actions might have been seen as the first small steps to a new open civil war again. (Maybe supported a bit by Imperial propaganda).
Thus the (official/public?) reason for a Death Star project would be two-fold:
First, the doctrine of fear as stated by Tarkin, to keep planetary systems from openly rebelling. Or in 'nicer' words: use the proper channels to try to get your way, don't even think of rebelling.
Second, in the case that a planet (or several planets) still rebels, it can be quickly destroyed (after being given a chance to surrender), without having to mobilize countless numbers of soldiers, ships etc, to slowly and painstakingly destroy the rebellious system(s) thus keeping the economic cost and the cost in lives (of loyal systems that is) relatively low. That way the relative costs of a Death Star would actually be lower than it seems at first, as there is now no need to mobilize (and potentially lose) billions/trillions of people and millions of ships.
At the very least I could see the official/public reasoning for the Death Star to be similar to this.

Imagine the effects a Death Star would have had in the civil war between Episodes 2 and 3:
No outer rim sieges, no factory worlds churning out quintillions of droids, etc.
The civil war would have been (mostly) over in a few months, if it would have even started at all.

I am quite sure that the Death Star would have garnered significant public support in a situation like that.

Darth Fanboy wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Without him, it was bound to fall apart.

I believe that was the Emperor's intent though, so that no one else would rule the Empire that he built.

More correctly perhaps it provided a disincentive to oppose him given no possible rival could credibly have access to command of the state.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Darth Fanboy wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Without him, it was bound to fall apart.

I believe that was the Emperor's intent though, so that no one else would rule the Empire that he built.

More correctly perhaps it provided a disincentive to oppose him given no possible rival could credibly have access to command of the state.

Not very likely, considering how many of his underlings tried or dreamt of replacing him (Vader, Tarkin, Trachta, Zaarin). In every case the DESB makes it clear, that Palpatine designed the Empire to fall without him. The Empire might have survived despite this, if the Imperial leadership had managed to get its act together post-Endor, but the cloned emperor on Byss prevented this by pulling a few strings.

This may seem like a stupid question to ask given what we see on screen, but what do you think were the major tactical and strategic errors that the Empire committed that allowed it to be toppled?

Honestly, I think one of the biggest errors was Palpatine using a civil war himself to get into power. He opened the perverbial floodgate as it were.

While the Rebels may not want to go the same route as the CIS, they had to have had drawn inspiration from them and perhaps learned some lessons from them. In short, the CIS showed that you could stand up to and oppose a galactic goverment.

Palpatine, or even the Force, put the pieces together from the begining to destroy himself. The idea of a successful and/or competitive opposition that can work and a minion that will betray.

Knife wrote:

This may seem like a stupid question to ask given what we see on screen, but what do you think were the major tactical and strategic errors that the Empire committed that allowed it to be toppled?

Honestly, I think one of the biggest errors was Palpatine using a civil war himself to get into power. He opened the perverbial floodgate as it were.

That method worked for figures in history like Sulla, Augustus Caesar, and Lenin, so that in itself was not the error. Failing to construct a viable government to solidify his regime in power was the error.

Palpatine, after a point, made the Empire a vehicle for his personal desires and ambitions and spared no thought for the future. It literally became all about him. He had no heirs, no party, no line of succession —never bothered with any of those niggling little details. He thought he could run a galaxy the same way you become a Sith lord, and he may have believed he would live forever.

What really tripped him up, however, was as Darth Wong once said: he lost sight of his goals and became wrapped up in the Skywalker family drama. Going out to Endor himself was not a fatal mistake. Ordering his fleet to simply stand off and block all escape routes while the unfinished but operational DSII picked off the Rebel ships was not a fatal mistake. Making the whole battle about trapping Luke to turn him to the Dark Side, however, was the error which destroyed everything he had built up over four decades. He indulged himself instead of following his priorities, and he lost.

It's also a fairly widely recognized fact that an autocratic government like Palpatine's Empire needs an external enemy to justify its military and intelligence spending, so utterly exterminating the Rebellion wasn't even in his interests. He just wanted to keep them too weak to be a real threat.

I don't think that makes sense. For one thing, to whom does Palpatine have to justify his policies? The Senate he's spent his entire rule emasculating one bit of authority at a time? The public, whom he sees as literal cattle to sustain his existence? Also, why would he go to all the effort of inventing a rebellion, then make it weak, when he could very publically crush the myriad of small local rebel groups that surely exist all over his empire. Of course, that isn't much of a justification for massive military buildups, assuming he cares, so he'd have to create a large, galaxy-wide movement that can be presented as a legitimate threat to him. While he did create the CIS and instigate the Clone Wars to destabilize the Republic so he could seize power, why would he, once he had sole power, create a rebellion to destabilize his own rule and give hope to his opponents? To me it sounds too twee and self-consciously clever, and if Palpatine actually did it, then he's an idiot and deservs to lose his empire.

I believe that was the Emperor's intent though, so that no one else would rule the Empire that he built.

This is often said, but I'm not so sure it's the case. I think he had a successor in mind. It just wasn't any of his military commanders. I think he intended that, if anything ever happened to him, his apprentice would take his place. He's a Sith, so he believes in the Rule of Two, where eventually, the apprentice supplants his master, or dies and gets replaced. I think he didn't bother with a formal announcement of his succession because to him, who's going to be in charge after him would be obvious because it'll be whichever of his apprentices finally kills him. Also, again, he's the Emperor, and probably feels no need to explain his every decision to the people.

CDiehl wrote:

I believe that was the Emperor's intent though, so that no one else would rule the Empire that he built.

This is often said, but I'm not so sure it's the case. I think he had a successor in mind. It just wasn't any of his military commanders. I think he intended that, if anything ever happened to him, his apprentice would take his place. He's a Sith, so he believes in the Rule of Two, where eventually, the apprentice supplants his master, or dies and gets replaced. I think he didn't bother with a formal announcement of his succession because to him, who's going to be in charge after him would be obvious because it'll be whichever of his apprentices finally kills him. Also, again, he's the Emperor, and probably feels no need to explain his every decision to the people.

Actually no. For all his bluster about replacing Vader with Luke, Palpatine never intended on passing the throne to anyone. He never intended on dying. It was his plan to simply inhabit a new clone body every time he died, when he told the Senate the Empire would stand for 10000 years, he fully expected to be heading it for that long.

FTeik wrote:
Not very likely, considering how many of his underlings tried or dreamt of replacing him (Vader, Tarkin, Trachta, Zaarin). In every case the DESB makes it clear, that Palpatine designed the Empire to fall without him. The Empire might have survived despite this, if the Imperial leadership had managed to get its act together post-Endor, but the cloned emperor on Byss prevented this by pulling a few strings.

Just because it was intended as a disincentive doesn't mean that it would deter 100% of all possible usurpers. And two of the men you point out had clout or power of such stupendeous domination - Vader being Dark Lord of the Sith and Palpatine's right hand, and Tarkin having control of the Death Star - that they certainly could've ended on top of any leadership struggle should Palpatine die. Zaarin and Trachta seem to have been delusional on some level, because its doubtful they could've formed somesort of interregnum government should they have succeeded in killing Palpatine.

Let one not forget that the battle of Endor wouldn't even have happened had the emperor not let the Bothan spies get the death star plans.

All undone due to his arrogance.

RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:Let one not forget that the battle of Endor wouldn't even have happened had the emperor not let the Bothan spies get the death star plans.

All undone due to his arrogance.

Um, he deliberately let the Bothans get the plans. That was part of the trap, but not the fatal flaw in his overall plan.

Could it be, that the "flawed" design of the Empire on Palpatine's part is less a sign of arrogance or megalomania, but some kind of safety-measure? To create create conditions, where whoever succeeds Palpatine and/or Vader as Lord of the Sith has an easier job to get things under control instead of a republic with Jedi? It took thousand years for the Sith of Bane's order to usurp the power over the galaxy, Krayt's order needed less than twohundred.

Um, he deliberately let the Bothans get the plans. That was part of the trap, but not the fatal flaw in his overall plan.

Actually, the fatal flaw is that he gave them the real plans, allowing them even a chance to take down the Death Star while he was aboard. He could have easily slipped them a fake set of plans, or sent them to a fake location and ambushed them, or let them come to the real Death Star but not been there. His arrogance in giving them a real plan, sitting on the thing while his enemies tried to blow it up, and then failing to direct his fleet to victory all contributed to his defeat. He screwed up and paid the price personally.

Actually no. For all his bluster about replacing Vader with Luke, Palpatine never intended on passing the throne to anyone. He never intended on dying. It was his plan to simply inhabit a new clone body every time he died, when he told the Senate the Empire would stand for 10000 years, he fully expected to be heading it for that long.

He must be a complete idiot, then. I don't care how powerful Palpatine is or what he intended. He'd have to be a moron to build his entire Empire, all that he worked for for all those years, on the simply ridiculous premise that he won't die. What if he's wrong? The Republic takes back over, because its supporters are actually united and his aren't (as we've seen), and the Sith are back to square one. All he accomplished is shot to hell because he couldn't design a system of government to save his ass.

Get this: he's a power-mad dictator who's been manipulating the entire galaxy for decades. Did you miss that?

CDiehl wrote:

Um, he deliberately let the Bothans get the plans. That was part of the trap, but not the fatal flaw in his overall plan.

Actually, the fatal flaw is that he gave them the real plans, allowing them even a chance to take down the Death Star while he was aboard. He could have easily slipped them a fake set of plans, or sent them to a fake location and ambushed them, or let them come to the real Death Star but not been there. His arrogance in giving them a real plan, sitting on the thing while his enemies tried to blow it up, and then failing to direct his fleet to victory all contributed to his defeat. He screwed up and paid the price personally.

No, it was a gamble, but not a fatal flaw. The problem was that the Emperor put Col. Klink in charge of the shield bunker on the surface. Take away his incompetence in not simply staying buttoned-up, the Rebels on the surface never get in to drop the shield in time to save Akbar's fleet from total destruction and the Rebellion dies.

He must be a complete idiot, then. I don't care how powerful Palpatine is or what he intended. He'd have to be a moron to build his entire Empire, all that he worked for for all those years, on the simply ridiculous premise that he won't die. What if he's wrong? The Republic takes back over, because its supporters are actually united and his aren't (as we've seen), and the Sith are back to square one. All he accomplished is shot to hell because he couldn't design a system of government to save his ass.

That's EXACTLY what he wanted to happen if he died. And it's not on the premise that he won't die, but that he'll reincarnate himself every time he does. In the event of an assassination he didn't want ANYONE to be able to keep control of and effectively govern HIS Empire. But in the event of his death he planned on always coming back in a clone body. This happened after Endor, only his return was drastically delayed. The process that involved the transfer of his essence into the clone bodies on Byss was highly taxing on the spirit, and with his unexpected death at the hands of Vader, Palpy was extremely weak and spent much of the next 5 years recuperating and gethering forces around Byss. Meinwhile he allowed the Empire to crumble without him, even fascilitating its collapse while he nursed himself to strength.

It was a sort of "If I can't have it, then no one can" attitude.

FTeik wrote:Could it be, that the "flawed" design of the Empire on Palpatine's part is less a sign of arrogance or megalomania, but some kind of safety-measure? To create create conditions, where whoever succeeds Palpatine and/or Vader as Lord of the Sith has an easier job to get things under control instead of a republic with Jedi? It took thousand years for the Sith of Bane's order to usurp the power over the galaxy, Krayt's order needed less than twohundred.

Sure if you take it one step up into Fate, or the Living Force. Everything that happens laid the ground for Palpatine to fall. He was necessary to sweep away the corrupt republic, and he needed, in return, to be swept away.

Of cours the EU shits on all that but...

Ted C wrote:It's also a fairly widely recognized fact that an autocratic government like Palpatine's Empire needs an external enemy to justify its military and intelligence spending, so utterly exterminating the Rebellion wasn't even in his interests. He just wanted to keep them too weak to be a real threat.

you seriously belive that?
an autocratic government like Palps didnt need to keep the Rebellion around. An autocratic government can just as easily made up a new enemy. especially in a galaxy. He could have easily said. "woooaaahhh, the Rebellion is gone but do you know who was secretly backing them? The Corporate sector, yeah they are so close to creating another Sepratist movment"

The Rebellion won by its shear efficency in gurellia combat. a strike and flee was their winning strategy