StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I have only read a few novels of the NJO and haven't read anything on what happened after the battle of Endor except that I know the Empire broke apart and imperial warlords started to wage war on each other etc. But how did the Rebels take over Coruscant? It must have been defended by planetary shields, weapon platforms, whole fleets etc. So how did the rebels managed to gain the resources to mount such an attack on Coruscant and declare the birth of the New Republic?

According to the films, its stood for "1000 years"(AOTC) and there was a "full scale war" at the "foundation of the Republic."

You can bring in the EU on this, but I'm less knowledgable about the whole (BS) "reforming" of the Old/Republic and the Sith War.

But, we do know that the Sith were thought to be "extinct for a millennium" at the time of TPM.

So, to put those together:

Full Scale War/Sith thought to have become extinct/Formation of the Republic (in what order? who can say.. perhaps the Jedi had a war with the Sith, and the Republic was formed after the battle?)

1,000 (or so) years later: TPM, AOTC, etc happen

Okay, here is my best recall of the birth of the New Republic, as it is chronicled in the EU.

We know that the New Republic was essentially in full charge of the Core Worlds by five years after the Battle of Endor. Grand Admiral Thrawn targeted Coruscant as the capital of the NR.

The X-Wing books (including 'Rogue Squadron' and 'Wraith Squadron') seem to put the conquest/liberation of Coruscant to about 2 - 3 years after Endor. As far as I can tell, the New Republic was formed into what was essentially a power vacuum after the Rebels forced the last 'successor' to Palpatine (Director of Imperial Intelligence Ysaine Issard) off of Coruscant and into hiding out on the Rim.

There were a few set-backs in the New Republic's history. I think that there were two occasions where the government was forced to evacuate Coruscant. Both Admiral Thrawn and Admiral Daala caused enough disruption to cause a major crisis in the political structure of the Republic.

The Empire was still in existance, although only as a very weak and disorderly rump of former Imperial outlying regions, about 18 years after the Battle of Endor. At that point, they sued for peace and the Galactic Civil War finally came to an end.

After the Emporer's death, Ysaine Issard (sp?) became the un-official leader of the Empire, or at least most of it, including the planet Imperial Center, (i think they called it?) aka Coruscant. the rebel alliance kept gathering their forces etc, and eventually got enough power to take over coruscant (they thought). Issard was ready for this, and developed the Krytos Virus, which she released into the planets water supply just before forfeiting the world to the Rebels. she probably could have actually held the planet, but she thought this would do more harm. she also left various Imperial forces (basically terrorists) to hurt the rebels further. if i remember right, the Rebels basically formed the NR once they took control over Coruscant. the virus did hurt public relations tho because it killed almost all alien life forms in came in contact with, with no treatment other than large amounts of bacta, which must come from Thyferra, which was at the time under control of Issard, which became very problematic.

thats a very unorganized mass of how the NR formed in a nutshell.

After Endor, Mon Mothma issued a declaration over the Holonet announcing the birth of a New Republic. Worlds that were once neutral flocked to the banner of the Alliance afterwards and it was easier for those worlds to do so if they were fighting for a true government rather than a group of revolutionaries.

The Rebels only took Coruscant soon afterward for two reasons, the New Republics provisional council pretty much demanded it so they could get a political victory out of it, and Ysanne Isard gave them the world (covertly) after releasing her Krytos Virus on the planet. This was part of a plan to tax the Alliance's resources and leave them severely depleted.

Once Rogue Squadron took Coruscant for the Rebellion the Provosional Council had a secure base of oppertions for their goverment and became the ligitimate goverment in the galaxy's eyes.

In reality Coruscant is an incredible waste and a burden for a goverment. The only thing going for it was that it was the capital of the Galaxy for as long as anyone could remember.

that plus a few trillion constituents for any political body, a huge commercial market for any economy, a few trillion people each paying $1 for a candy bar would be niiiice.

Dark Primus wrote:I have only read a few novels of the NJO and haven't read anything on what happened after the battle of Endor except that I know the Empire broke apart and imperial warlords started to wage war on each other etc. But how did the Rebels take over Coruscant? It must have been defended by planetary shields, weapon platforms, whole fleets etc. So how did the rebels managed to gain the resources to mount such an attack on Coruscant and declare the birth of the New Republic?

Read these three books from the X-wing series:

Rogue Squadron
Wedge's Gamble
The Krytos Trap

All three are dedicated to the taking and holding of Coruscant by the Alliance.

Kurgan wrote:According to the films, its stood for "1000 years"(AOTC) and there was a "full scale war" at the "foundation of the Republic."

You can bring in the EU on this, but I'm less knowledgable about the whole (BS) "reforming" of the Old/Republic and the Sith War.

Not really fair. "According to the films" (ie. the original one, ANH, who would've thought, eh?)....

"For over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic." - Obi-Wan Kenobi, A New Hope

Given the basic human generation--25 years, the absolute minimum age of the Republic comes to 25,000+ years.

Now GL wrote that script and made it into a film and did not change it in 1997 when he made his revised Special Edition. The calc stands. (Unless you wish to be a dipshit and claim one generation = 1 year)

"I will not allow this Republic which has stood for a thousand years to be split in two." - Supreme Chancellor Palpatine, Attack of the Clones

Notice he says "this." I believe a parallel can be drawn with the France that this is the last of several governments/constitutions in the overall history of the Republic. The EU used a GL originated plotline--the war where the Jedi were thought to have finally annhiliated the Sith one millenia prior (TPM novelisation), and suggested that it was then that the Republic was reformed, accounting for the twin ages suggested by George Lucas, and no one else.

Kurgan wrote:But, we do know that the Sith were thought to be "extinct for a millennium" at the time of TPM.

So, to put those together:

Full Scale War/Sith thought to have become extinct/Formation of the Republic (in what order? who can say.. perhaps the Jedi had a war with the Sith, and the Republic was formed after the battle?)

1,000 (or so) years later: TPM, AOTC, etc happen

The TPM novelisation is quite clear: 2,000 years before ANH, a rogue Jedi joined with several other dozen renegades and began a new Sith Order (not to be confused with the Sith insurrectionists of -4,000 years ANH or the Sith Empire -5,000 years ANH, both comic storylines of which were personally worked on by George Lucas).

1,000 years after the initial formation, the Sith were finally confronted at Ruusan and destroyed the Sith (except for Lord Darth Bane who concieved the Sith Order to which Palpatine belongs to in secret).

It is hypothesized that the war that reached its climax at Ruusan devestated the Jedi and Republic alike, beginning reformations, including a new Republic government ("this" Republic) with heavily de-centralized control and no central military, and the Jedi establishing their celebacy and one-apprentice rules.

I didn't consider the novel when discussing... since the TPM novelisation conflicts with the established timeline of the Sith, set out by the Tales of the Jedi comics, despite their (supposedly) being "Worked on by George Lucas" as was claimed above.

The whole "generations" thing leaves us with a problem. Here is what I propose (and these are not necessarily my own ideas here, just what I've gathered from numerous debates on it):

1) George Lucas had a brain bug, or forgot what he had his character of Obi-Wan say in ANH, the film. He's made mistakes before, such as Han Solo's "parsecs" thing, etc. But what does it mean in story terms? We could just ignore it, admitting he made a mistake and just say its whatever... maybe the most recent thing is closer to his "pure vision."

2) Say something like... well the OLD REPUBLIC is somehow different from THE REPUBLIC.. and so the Jedi Knights were around for 25,000 years with this OLD REPUBLIC and then there was a war and the OLD REPUBLIC ceased to be and was replaced by THE REPUBLIC and then the Jedi Knights went to work in there for 1,000 years.

That's pretty much the stance that the prequel era EU books/comics are taking I gather. However this is not without its problems...

Why would Obi-Wan remember fondly the "Old Republic" of which he wasn't alive (nor were any of the other characters we see in the prequels.. not even Yoda), but totally ignore the 1000 years of the Republic? Why was the reforming of the Republic never mentioned?

It seems the whole Old/Republic thing was simply invented to make the old EU stuff make more sense, since the old EU took Obi-Wan's line literally.. ie: the Republic is 25,000+ years old and so is the Jedi Order (at the very least). They didn't count on the AOTC film screwing it up.

3) A solution proposed by somebody on another star wars discussion board I frequent:

A generation is usually rendered as a period of time between you and your parents. So your father and mother are one generation, you're another, etc. And so it comes to about 20-25 years, depending on when you have kids of your own.

However, a generation could ALSO refer to a generation of STUDENTS. Such as in a four year university (or academy) you have people entering as freshman (the 1st year) every year but at the same time you have people as seniors (the last year) graduating. So every year people come in (freshman) and people leave (seniors). So each year is a generation in that respect... a "completed cycle" of students.

So in that sense, once the academy (of the Jedi Order) machine is going, its constantly churning out Jedi Knights and so ever year you have a generation. And during 1,000 of those generations, the Republic happened to exist. Obi-Wan rendered galactic history in terms of generations of Jedi students.

This would be in character, because he comes from a jedi-centered universe and he's been indoctrinated in their ways since birth. He calls the republic the OLD REPUBLIC because its gone. Governments, even one so long lived as the Republic, are impermanent, compared to the Jedi Order (though, as we find, the Jedi Order almost dies out... since Yoda was the last... though Luke re-started it with his becoming a Knight, in a way and we see this in the EU).

It is the Old Republic because it is the past. Just as we might call it the "old empire" after the New Republic has finally ended the war and become well established.

This theory is not without its own problems of course....

The "Academy" method of training Jedi is an EU invention. In TPM and AOTC we see the Padawan-Master relationship. 1 master trains a student.

Then again, we do have Yoda doing preliminary "youngling" training, so perhaps that's the academy? Or perhaps the term is more loosely applied?

4) The last theory, and it seems to be the biggest cop-out.. is that Obi-Wan merely mis-spoke. Or the "crazy old man" from a "certain point of view" got it wrong and had forgotten in the 30 or so years since he was a Jedi Knight.

I personally go with #3.. until I hear a better explanation, although I admit that #1 is highly likely for the "real explanation." ; p

Just to attempt to clarify.. yes.. the history of the Sith hasn't been defined that well in the canon films. And the TPM and AOTC novelisations ARE higher canon than the EU books. But people above seem to want to use the EU, and the EU itself is too contradictory on these points I think to sort out. That's my opinion anyway. These authors had know way of knowing what George was going to be thinking in the years 1999-2002 when he was making the prequels.

Just to add another log to the fire... doesn't Moff Tarkin in ANH refer to the "Old Republic" (not "the Republic") when he mentions that the Emperor has disolved the Imperial Senate?

Why refer back to a government that hadn't been in power for 1,000 years, rather than the one that they were just "evolving out of" (the Republic... which became the Empire we see now)?

IIRC, this would be another strike against the "Old Republic reforms into the Republic 1,000 years ago" theory.

Maybe because the Old Republic was the first government with a galactic senate and for the first time since then the galaxy had been without a senate of sorts? I dunno

Maybe... that would definately feed into the theory that the "Old Republic" was some sort of uber-golden age, to be remembered from a thousand years ago (more worthy than the last thousand years).

Kurgan wrote:Just to attempt to clarify.. yes.. the history of the Sith hasn't been defined that well in the canon films. And the TPM and AOTC novelisations ARE higher canon than the EU books. But people above seem to want to use the EU, and the EU itself is too contradictory on these points I think to sort out. That's my opinion anyway. These authors had know way of knowing what George was going to be thinking in the years 1999-2002 when he was making the prequels.

The history of the sith was worked out with GL himself.

And is this some sort of notion that the OR isn't 25.000 years? Thats absurd given all the official evidence against one hyperbolic statement that is no more explicit than Harry kim rambling about blowing up small moons.

The history of the sith was worked out with GL himself.

Do you mean the history of the Sith as alluded to in the canon films, the history of the Sith mentioned in the Terry Brooks novelisation of TPM, or the history of the Sith according to the EU (Mysteries of the Sith video game, Tales of the Jedi comics including "the Sith War" "Golden Age of the Sith" "Dark Lords of the Sith" etc)?

George does have a habit of changing his mind, but regardless of his "help" given to those other guys, the highest canon is still the films, as I'm sure we all agree.

The Republic's elected leader, during a private meeting with close advisors says the Republic is 1,000 years old and nobody challenges him.

20+ years after the Republic no longer exists as a political entity (give or take, depending upon when you consider the Empire to have replaced it, but let's say at least a decade), some nostalgic old desert hermit, who used to be a Jedi Knight (but not a civic leader) makes an offhand comment to a naive young farmboy (who probably couldn't check the facts) to entice him to learn about the Force.


It's probably a case of Lucas revising his own canon, but I think I'd take the above statement to carry more weight, if I had to compare them.

The Jedi seem to be older than the government of the galaxy, at least we can agree on that much?

Either or both men could have misspoke, it's true, but which is more likely?

And besides, what a gross error to make either way. It would be like the President saying that the United States has been around for ten years!

Kurgan wrote:[The Republic's elected leader, during a private meeting with close advisors says the Republic is 1,000 years old and nobody challenges him.

Nobody corrected harry kim on his blow up a moon comment either, hyperbole is used all the time, it's not explicit and therefore not a contradiction with the large majority of consistent evidence showing the age of the SW galaxy, which must be true because to think that the SW galaxy got to where it is in 1000 years is patently absurd.

As for the other things, there's no contradictions that I see with the movies, they'd have to be subjectively created from vauge implications.
There's no need for that.

Look at the unofficial timeline, it has all the stuff worked together.

George does have a habit of changing his mind, but regardless of his "help" given to those other guys, the highest canon is still the films, as I'm sure we all agree.

Yeah so? As far as I am concerned nothing has been said explicitly enough to make me doubt the history of SW so far known.

The Jedi seem to be older than the government of the galaxy, at least we can agree on that much?

I don't care about the goverment per se, beyond that 25k years ago, the republic was formed, as to what exactly happened in that time I'm not really interested in.

The galactic civlization is likely 100.000 years or so, 25k years ago hyperdrive was invented and the republic also statred to take form, thats been the accepted story and will remain so, some vauge stuff about the mysterious history of the Sith(which is likely to have suffered a number of errors and such from the detriment of time) and a hyperbolic comment does not trouble me.

Kurgan wrote:Either or both men could have misspoke, it's true, but which is more likely?

Which is supported by the overwhelming majority of evidence, personal and subjective notions of what one feel would be more accurate is worth jack-shit, especially since it's a fan-made notion trying to override quasi-canon material, it'll never happen.

So I assume you're saying the Republic is 25,000+ years old and Supreme Chancellor Palpatine just made a mistake then, right?


(Note that in this discussion we're debating canon dialouge vs. canon dialouge, a tough call).

Nobody corrected harry kim on his blow up a moon comment either, hyperbole is used all the time, it's not explicit and therefore not a contradiction with the large majority of consistent evidence showing the age of the SW galaxy, which must be true because to think that the SW galaxy got to where it is in 1000 years is patently absurd.

What canon evidence shows the galaxy to be 25,000+ years old, other than Obi-Wan's quote in ANH? Now I know... you're about to point out the fact (which is obvious) that the EU prior to the release of AOTC in theaters took for granted the fact that Obi-Wan's quote was literally true (ie: 25,000+ years for the Republic+Jedi Knights)...

As we all know, the EU is contradicted in many places by the canon, and the EU authors have tried to fix this by writing new books, after the fact, to correct facts (such as correcting supposedly the Old Republic vs. Republic thing, and Boba Fett's backstory, the Sith history perhaps, etc). In the films, what suggests that Obi-Wan's quote is correct, and Palpatine's is not?

Look at the unofficial timeline, it has all the stuff worked together.

Can you give me a good source for that? I thought there was an "official" timeline, but I hadn't looked at it since before TPM came out. I know that the prequel films changed a lot of preconcieved notions in the EU though, meaning the timeline would need to be "revised."

Yeah so? As far as I am concerned nothing has been said explicitly enough to make me doubt the history of SW so far known.

I am contending that the only canon evidence we have of the age of the Republic is a dialouge quote from a main character in ANH, and the only canon evidence to the contrary is another main character's dialouge quote in AOTC which came out later, but happens chronologically before ANH (during the time of the Republic in question).

All else is conjecture. I suppose you could show me evidence from other close canon, like the novelisations of the films, screenplays or radio dramas, but forget the EU, because like I said, they assumed they knew what Obi-Wan meant until AOTC came out.

I don't care about the goverment per se, beyond that 25k years ago, the republic was formed, as to what exactly happened in that time I'm not really interested in.

What kind of Star Wars fan are you?? Just kidding. ; )

Obviously not everything is of interest to everyone. I could care less about Boba Fett's private grooming habits for example, or the type of women Darth Maul is interested in, but some fans are.

I would put forth though that the Tales of the Jedi authors ARE selling books because people want to hear about those stories (dealing with what happened before the time of the movies).

The galactic civlization is likely 100.000 years or so, 25k years ago hyperdrive was invented and the republic also statred to take form, thats been the accepted story and will remain so, some vauge stuff about the mysterious history of the Sith(which is likely to have suffered a number of errors and such from the detriment of time) and a hyperbolic comment does not trouble me.

It need not trouble you. I'm just looking to get the most accurate information we can on these issues from the canon. As we both know, the EU stuff is rendered obsolete in some places by Lucas's own creations (the movies), despite whether or not he helped out any authors with writing their stories in the past. Therefore, I feel free to challenge the notions that the EU stories dealing with it prior to AOTC's release are correct.

That reminds me.. why do we have to assume that before the Republic, there was no galactic civilization? Prior to it, there could have been other confederations, federations, unions, empires, kingdoms, or smaller governments... heck, the EU posites this exact thing... there was the Sith Empire for example, and warlords like Xim the Despot, etc. Why would we have no civilization, then all of a sudden, a Galactic Republic, the first government, and then it lasts for 25,000 years, then it disapears...?

I'm sure that the experiment would go through several phases and transitions before they came across something that "worked" so well. 25,000+ years is a fairly long time for a humanoid civilization like that, generally speaking.

I'm sure they had hyperdrive (or some FTL travel) and spacetravel long, long, long before any of that. Did the Jedi Knights just spring up overnight when the Republic was formed? Did they exist millennia before it? More points to ponder... and I'm sure if there aren't books about it already, there will be (again, Tales of the Jedi comes to mind).

What do we do when a piece of canon contradicts another piece of canon? How do we reconcile them? Again, it sounds like you're ready to just assume the first instance was correct, and the second one simply a case of a character stating nonesense (why would he scale down the number rather than expand it?).

For example, why wouldn't Palpy have said something like "This Republic which has stood for a million years!" or "For a hundred thousand years!" instead of a smaller number? People usually exaggerate UP not down...

Maybe its pointless to argue this point, but then again, most of the stuff we argue on these forums is equally so. ; )

Kurgan wrote:So I assume you're saying the Republic is 25,000+ years old and Supreme Chancellor Palpatine just made a mistake then, right?

If you wish to call a hyperbolic statement a misstake, either that or the republic has had several reforms or was beaten down once and ressurected.

(Note that in this discussion we're debating canon dialouge vs. canon dialouge, a tough call).

If this is some artificial debate where the results are fake because of failure to incorporate all the evidence, then why bother?

What canon evidence shows the galaxy to be 25,000+ years old, other than Obi-Wan's quote in ANH? Now I know... you're about to point out the fact (which is obvious) that the EU prior to the release of AOTC in theaters took for granted the fact that Obi-Wan's quote was literally true (ie: 25,000+ years for the Republic+Jedi Knights)...

It does not have to be canon evidence, so stop claiming that I would need something from the movies to justify what's been truth for 20 years and still is, because of some off the cuff remark.
The galaxy is likely nearly 100.000 years old, Coruscant is 90.000 years old.

As we all know, the EU is contradicted in many places by the canon

We don't know that, it's a few places, and it's irrelevant, you're just trying to discredit the EU, sorry, style over substance one might say.

In the films, what suggests that Obi-Wan's quote is correct, and Palpatine's is not?

Who cares if it's in the films or in some other EU or other quasi-canon source?
Why are either of them wrong, they can both be right for all we know, or palpy is just making a pie in the sky remark.

Can you give me a good source for that? I thought there was an "official" timeline, but I hadn't looked at it since before TPM came out. I know that the prequel films changed a lot of preconcieved notions in the EU though, meaning the timeline would need to be "revised."

There is probably an official timeline, but you have to buy that I think, anyway, it's somewhere at theforce.net

I am contending that the only canon evidence we have of the age of the Republic is a dialouge quote from a main character in ANH, and the only canon evidence to the contrary is another main character's dialouge quote in AOTC which came out later, but happens chronologically before ANH (during the time of the Republic in question)

I am contending that if you wish to exclude other evidence from sources other than the movies, then you've conceeded the debate or you do not care about it being factually correct.

All else is conjecture. I suppose you could show me evidence from other close canon, like the novelisations of the films, screenplays or radio dramas, but forget the EU, because like I said, they assumed they knew what Obi-Wan meant until AOTC came out

I'll forget nothing, if you don't accept the EU, then you are incorrect from the get go and your conclusions are anyway based on your own subjective and semantic evidence of what is said, you have nothing solid nor explicit, and you couldn't even override the lowest rung piece of evidence on the canon scale with fanbased theories.

It need not trouble you. I'm just looking to get the most accurate information we can on these issues from the canon.

If we exlude everything else we will come up with false and incorrect theories anyway, so why bother?

As we both know, the EU stuff is rendered obsolete in some places by Lucas's own creations (the movies),

No it's not, everyone of these contradictions you claim are fixed(retconned) by LFL anyway.
And thats all that matters, the cooold hard empirical facts.

That reminds me.. why do we have to assume that before the Republic, there was no galactic civilization? Prior to it, there could have been other confederations, federations, unions, empires, kingdoms, or smaller governments... heck, the EU posites this exact thing... there was the Sith Empire for example, and warlords like Xim the Despot, etc. Why would we have no civilization, then all of a sudden, a Galactic Republic, the first government, and then it lasts for 25,000 years, then it disapears...?

There where all those empires plus the republic, the republic didn't go galactic until recently.
Thats all in the EU stuff, and well, if Palpatine spoke of the Republic as the Galactic Republic it became and not the smaller interstellar republic that it used to be when it shared the galaxy with other empires, then it fits.

I'm sure they had hyperdrive (or some FTL travel) and spacetravel long, long, long before any of that.

Hyperdrive and first beginnings of the republic occured 25k years ago, but prior to that it seemed that they had FTL travel of another sort, slower.

What do we do when a piece of canon contradicts another piece of canon? How do we reconcile them? Again, it sounds like you're ready to just assume the first instance was correct, and the second one simply a case of a character stating nonesense (why would he scale down the number rather than expand it?)

I look at the big picture, and that includes all the evidence, and from that I surmise that Palpy was just speaking figuratively, or that they have some inside info we do not know about, like maybe the Galactic Republic is considered separate from the older and smaller republic before it, or something like that, it doesn't matter because as long as internal continuity is kept, it's by default the superior explanation, and believe me, this instance is lightyears away from being explicit enough to call a contradiction over.

This isn't a formal debate, I was just curious as to your reasoning for disagreeing, that's all. ; )

Is it your contention that EU material is "correct" (ie: canon, in the Star Wars official continuity) so long as it doesn't conflict with the core canon (the films, screenplays/scripts, novelisations and radio dramas.. in that order)?

Because if so, then there is a contradiction (unless you can come up with a convincing way to harmonize the fact) both between the EU and the AOTC quote, and the AOTC quote with the ANH quote.

Now, onto the post (and I apologize for letting it get so long!):

It does not have to be canon evidence, so stop claiming that I would need something from the movies to justify what's been truth for 20 years and still is, because of some off the cuff remark.

The EU authors assumed Obi-Wan was saying "the Republic is 25,000 years old" and so they ran with it. Then Lucas comes out with another movie that says the Republic is only 1,000 years old. What do we do about it? That's the central question.

The galaxy is likely nearly 100.000 years old, Coruscant is 90.000 years old.

That's cool (though I assume you mean some kind of galactic wide government, because even our galaxy is at least several billion years old...

We don't know that, it's a few places, and it's irrelevant, you're just trying to discredit the EU, sorry, style over substance one might say.

Which is it? Is the EU not contradicted... or only contradicted in only a few places?

I'm saying that EU material written prior to the release of the prequel films is ripe to be challenged in light of new evidence. But that isn't the central issue. The "age of the republic" issue goes back to Obi-Wan's quote in ANH. The EU material just takes that as a given. So were they wrong? Was Obi-Wan wrong? Or was Palpatine wrong? Or how do we harmonize the two statements?

The EU doesn't help us... and I haven't read any of the post-prequel release (ie: produced post 1999) EU materials, to know if the rumored "Old Republic was reformed into Republic 1,000 years ago" quick fix by the authors is in fact true. Quotes would be nice, or sources where we could start looking.

As a fan, I'm curious.

Who cares if it's in the films or in some other EU or other quasi-canon source?
Why are either of them wrong, they can both be right for all we know, or palpy is just making a pie in the sky remark.

Why bother having a notion of "canon" at all if none of it matters (I know, it's a fictional universe we're talking about but still)? In your mind, it doesn't matter. That's fine. But then will somebody who is willing to discuss it come forward with something to chew on? No offense.

Maybe... as you say, Palpatine is using an archaic "biblical" notion of "a thousand years" to refer to an indefinate, really long period of time. Still, it sounds like an awfully odd thing for a Chancellor of said government to say.

There is probably an official timeline, but you have to buy that I think, anyway, it's somewhere at theforce.net

Okay, and you wouldn't be the first person to get annoyed at me for requesting a link. It's just that theforce.net (like starwars.com) is a huge, huge site, that's constantly being updated and having stuff shuffled around. It's easier if people can help out and put up the relevant URL's for the articles. ; )

For somebody who doesn't visit there everyday, and hasn't read every single bit of text on it, it can be a daunting task to find what you're looking for half the time.

I am contending that if you wish to exclude other evidence from sources other than the movies, then you've conceeded the debate or you do not care about it being factually correct.

If I were to take your point seriously, then I'd have to say that anytime the prequels contradict the EU, the EU is in fact correct, since on most points, they are consistent with each other (ie: they have all agreed on their notions of what has happened, and so the disagreeing accounts in the prequels would be outnumbered). Do you see what I'm saying?

I'm not trying to throw out the EU and say it doesn't mean anything, and therefore giving up. Far from it, I just don't think its realistic to take that position, when anybody can see the movies are the highest canon of Star Wars.

I'll forget nothing, if you don't accept the EU, then you are incorrect from the get go and your conclusions are anyway based on your own subjective and semantic evidence of what is said, you have nothing solid nor explicit, and you couldn't even override the lowest rung piece of evidence on the canon scale with fanbased theories.

The movies of George Lucas's creation are higher canon than the EU, so if a conflict arises between them over continuity, the movies win, period.

Or do you disagree with that?

Building on this.. if the movies are silent on an issue, then the EU is fine by me (though some would disagree), being "quasi-canon." But in this case the movies are not exactly silent, hence the discussion.

If we exlude everything else we will come up with false and incorrect theories anyway, so why bother?

So tell me where I can read about the "corrected" theory from the EU's point of view? That might go a long way to convincing me that you're right.

You're saying the canon films can't present us with a realistic picture of the history of the Republic's age/birth/whatever, and you're impling that the EU does. So where is it?

No it's not, everyone of these contradictions you claim are fixed(retconned) by LFL anyway.
And thats all that matters, the cooold hard empirical facts.

Translation: New books are written to try to explain away the discrepencies. RPG's are revised to include new facts.

The EU changes to be more in line to what we've learned in the films, or at least acknowledge that the films are important, rather than simply ignoring them.

See, there would be no problem if the special editions and prequels had never been made. The EU authors didn't always have the same ideas that George came up with for those events and characters. Or if he did, he changed his mind in the final versions of those movies.

There where all those empires plus the republic, the republic didn't go galactic until recently.

Ah, interesting. So it was just like one starsystem or a couple of them at first? I wouldn't expect them to all come together over night either.

Thats all in the EU stuff, and well, if Palpatine spoke of the Republic as the Galactic Republic it became and not the smaller interstellar republic that it used to be when it shared the galaxy with other empires, then it fits.

That's interesting, maybe there was some tiny republic known as "the Republic" before it went galactic. I had always assumed the "old republic reformed after the sith war into the republic" theory still had a galactic republic in both cases.

Where can I read about this? There's too many EU books now to read them all. Some NJO book maybe?

Hyperdrive and first beginnings of the republic occured 25k years ago, but prior to that it seemed that they had FTL travel of another sort, slower.

Wouldn't surprise me. It would seem pretty odd if the entire history of galactic civilization "always" had Jedi Knights, the Republic, and hyperdrive, etc. I know its supposed to be old, maybe even stagnated, but it sounds silly somehow... ; )

I look at the big picture, and that includes all the evidence, and from that I surmise that Palpy was just speaking figuratively, or that they have some inside info we do not know about, like maybe the Galactic Republic is considered separate from the older and smaller republic before it, or something like that, it doesn't matter because as long as internal continuity is kept, it's by default the superior explanation, and believe me, this instance is lightyears away from being explicit enough to call a contradiction over.

Yeah, but whatever internal consistency we had before is now trashed with Palpatine's quote. And if indeed there are EU sources saying the Republic we see and hear talked about in the SW movies is not the original or only republic, then it FORCES us to reinterpret everything in light of that.

Sort of like if George makes it clear that all stormtroopers are clones (if indeed he has not already done so... depending on how much weight you give his non-canon comments)... that shakes up a huge chunk of the EU and even visual evidence from the original trilogy (different voices, different heights, imperial academy quotes, etc). Because in the EU, stormtroopers are assumed to be recruites from the human galactic populance, not embryos grown in a lab, from the dna of some bounty hunter. Even the method of cloning changes... sparti cylinders vs. the kaminoean method and different growth acceleration stuff.

It will be interesting to see what other changes EU authors make in the EU continuity as a result of the prequel films (especially AOTC and Episode III).

Is it your contention that EU material is "correct" (ie: canon, in the Star Wars official continuity) so long as it doesn't conflict with the core canon (the films, screenplays/scripts, novelisations and radio dramas.. in that order)?

Yes.

Because if so, then there is a contradiction (unless you can come up with a convincing way to harmonize the fact) both between the EU and the AOTC quote, and the AOTC quote with the ANH quote

Wrong, there isn't a contradiction, thats the whole point, the contradiction is created, by you.

Now, onto the post (and I apologize for letting it get so long!):

The EU authors assumed Obi-Wan was saying "the Republic is 25,000 years old" and so they ran with it. Then Lucas comes out with another movie that says the Republic is only 1,000 years old. What do we do about it? That's the central question.

Now does he? I don't see it that way, I don't see anything explicit enough to warrant a contradiction, there can be billions of reasons as to why palpy happened to use that phrase.
As for the EU authors, it'd have to have gone through LFL and Lucas at some point, if not many points, he's not ignorant of it, and it's irrelevant what they thought and did, only whats in the books is relevant.

That's cool (though I assume you mean some kind of galactic wide government, because even our galaxy is at least several billion years old...

No, just galactic civilization, not neccesarily under central controll.

Which is it? Is the EU not contradicted... or only contradicted in only a few places?

8km Executor, only one I can think of now.

I'm saying that EU material written prior to the release of the prequel films is ripe to be challenged in light of new evidence. But that isn't the central issue. The "age of the republic" issue goes back to Obi-Wan's quote in ANH. The EU material just takes that as a given. So were they wrong? Was Obi-Wan wrong? Or was Palpatine wrong? Or how do we harmonize the two statements?

Since they've been accepted by LFL and lucas for 20 odd years now, no.

The EU doesn't help us... and I haven't read any of the post-prequel release (ie: produced post 1999) EU materials, to know if the rumored "Old Republic was reformed into Republic 1,000 years ago" quick fix by the authors is in fact true. Quotes would be nice, or sources where we could start looking.

As a fan, I'm curious

I reccomend starwars.com jedi council for questions of this nature.

Why bother having a notion of "canon" at all if none of it matters (I know, it's a fictional universe we're talking about but still)? In your mind, it doesn't matter. That's fine. But then will somebody who is willing to discuss it come forward with something to chew on? No offense.

Ofcourse it matters, this incident though is hardly explicit enough to become contradictory, a million and one possible explanations and reasons can probably be found for this.

Maybe... as you say, Palpatine is using an archaic "biblical" notion of "a thousand years" to refer to an indefinate, really long period of time. Still, it sounds like an awfully odd thing for a Chancellor of said government to say.

It's one possibility, one of many, personally I never gave it much thought, doubt Lucas did.
I'm not saying that particular one is the one that is most likely or correct, just that it's one of them.

Okay, and you wouldn't be the first person to get annoyed at me for requesting a link. It's just that theforce.net (like starwars.com) is a huge, huge site, that's constantly being updated and having stuff shuffled around. It's easier if people can help out and put up the relevant URL's for the articles.

http://www.theforce.net/timeline

If I were to take your point seriously, then I'd have to say that anytime the prequels contradict the EU, the EU is in fact correct, since on most points, they are consistent with each other (ie: they have all agreed on their notions of what has happened, and so the disagreeing accounts in the prequels would be outnumbered). Do you see what I'm saying?

Yes, thats what you are saying, but it's not what I am saying, I am saying that many of these contradictions are implied, not explicit and as such both movie and EU can be fitted together with some rationalization, or retconning.

The movies of George Lucas's creation are higher canon than the EU, so if a conflict arises between them over continuity, the movies win, period.

Or do you disagree with that?

No, I disagree that there an explicit enough conflict now for that to be the case.

Building on this.. if the movies are silent on an issue, then the EU is fine by me (though some would disagree), being "quasi-canon." But in this case the movies are not exactly silent, hence the discussion

The movies aren't exactly explicit in this particular case either, it does require subjective interpreptation to a degree that it's only an implied contradiction, not an explicit one, hence I say that they can be fitted together and the need for contradictions are moot.

Noone overrules anyone so to speak in this case.

So tell me where I can read about the "corrected" theory from the EU's point of view? That might go a long way to convincing me that you're right.

Starwars.com lists many such things, the Boba Fett story is one thats retconned(and these are official, sw.com is owned by LFL).
http://starwars.com/databank/character/bobafett/eu.html

You're saying the canon films can't present us with a realistic picture of the history of the Republic's age/birth/whatever, and you're impling that the EU does. So where is it?

Unless the movies go through the history, or explicitly says something that'll contradict the EU like "the republic is 1000 years old, before that there was no republic, of any kind"
Now thats explicit.

Translation: New books are written to try to explain away the discrepencies. RPG's are revised to include new facts.

The EU changes to be more in line to what we've learned in the films, or at least acknowledge that the films are important, rather than simply ignoring them.

Or the official site gives an explanation.

See, there would be no problem if the special editions and prequels had never been made. The EU authors didn't always have the same ideas that George came up with for those events and characters. Or if he did, he changed his mind in the final versions of those movies

I still doubt that George thinks the Republic was a thousand years old, only.

Ah, interesting. So it was just like one starsystem or a couple of them at first? I wouldn't expect them to all come together over night either.

Thats whats implied, it was implied to have begun 25k years ago, noone knows how long it took for it to become truly galactic, if the movies are an indication, one idea is that the Republic stopped being the old republic 1000 years ago and in addition to becoming what one could call galactic it might have had some political reforms or other stuff that was enough for it be thought of as separate by some.

Where can I read about this? There's too many EU books now to read them all. Some NJO book maybe?

I don't know if it ever happened, I guess the books and comics about the sith wars and ancient republic is what to look for.

Yeah, but whatever internal consistency we had before is now trashed with Palpatine's quote

I don't think so, the details are sketchy of that era and as such anything could have happened in there without internal consistency being broken.

And if indeed there are EU sources saying the Republic we see and hear talked about in the SW movies is not the original or only republic, then it FORCES us to reinterpret everything in light of that.

I don't think there is, it mentions neither, there are gaps thousands of years in there, that is perfect since it allows for internal consistency to be maintained, anyway, look at this from the official site:
http://starwars.com/databank/organizati ... ic/eu.html

Twenty millennia after its founding, the Republic saw one of its most destructive conflicts in the Great Hyperspace War
Great, now we can use this as a point of reference, this is 5000 years pre-anh

I'll now summarize the important events:
-4000 pre-ANH: Sith acolytes sparked what would become known as the Great Sith War.
-1000 pre-ANH: The Jedi Army of Light and the Sith Brotherhood of Darkness clashed on the planet Ruusan. That conflict saw the extermination of the Sith order. Many in the galaxy saw this battle as the last of the great wars, and the start of a new era of peace and stability in the Republic.

There you have the explanationfor palpatines 1000 years comment.
I think that firmly and solidly settles this debate.

Sort of like if George makes it clear that all stormtroopers are clones (if indeed he has not already done so... depending on how much weight you give his non-canon comments)... that shakes up a huge chunk of the EU and even visual evidence from the original trilogy (different voices, different heights, imperial academy quotes, etc). Because in the EU, stormtroopers are assumed to be recruites from the human galactic populance, not embryos grown in a lab, from the dna of some bounty hunter. Even the method of cloning changes... sparti cylinders vs. the kaminoean method and different growth acceleration stuff.

Already addressed in great lenght in other threads.