StarDestroyer.Net BBS

When viewed from the point of view of Palpatine and Skywalker; it's easy to see that Palpatine courted his own destruction by subverting the most powerful Jedi to become his apprentice. This apprentice eventually, and in fact pretty much from the get go wanted to subvert his master, to take over from Palpy.

Now, from the view of galactic politics (real politik) did Palpatine do the same thing with using a galactic rebellion as his vehicle of power? Do the two, macro and micro, mirror each other? Is it an actual plot point meant to be in the story?

I've always taken the track that Palpy did seal his own fate when he raised a rebellion to gain his power. He dared to take the first step, and to his detrement, showed the way for those to follow. Could there have been a Rebel Alliance if there was never a CIS?

Knife wrote:I've always taken the track that Palpy did seal his own fate when he raised a rebellion to gain his power. He dared to take the first step, and to his detrement, showed the way for those to follow. Could there have been a Rebel Alliance if there was never a CIS?

Well one could reason that without the CIS Palpatine wouldn't have become Emperor, and thus no need for a later rebellion.

Assuming that Palps had an alternate plans for wiping out the Jedi and gaining his supreme authority over the senate if the CIS didn't do the job he wanted or had never existed, the same Senators and systems that did rebel would still chaff under his rule and probably would still rebel.

He arguably took some considerable risks, one of them that failed to pay off for him eventually (turning Luke). Palpatine could have easily have died on the Invisible Hand when it was crashing into Coruscant, for example, if Anakin hadn't pulled off a virtually impossible landing.

I don't see why Vader was even necessary at all, Palpatine had other, more loyal dark jedi like Jerec who could have fulfilled the same purpose. with a larger number of DJ like Jerec the jedi purges could still have taken place to the same extent.

Lazarus wrote:I don't see why Vader was even necessary at all, Palpatine had other, more loyal dark jedi like Jerec who could have fulfilled the same purpose. with a larger number of DJ like Jerec the jedi purges could still have taken place to the same extent.

Because to the Force Anakin was essential. Palpatine could go for a lesser being as an apprentice, but the Force made Anakin essentialy to either the Sith or the Jedi at the time. So essential that literally Mace saw him and Palpatine as the essential point to what will determine the fate of the galaxy.

The problem with what Palpatine afterwards is his own personal narcissism. He wanted everything to need him and without him fall.

Lazarus wrote:I don't see why Vader was even necessary at all, Palpatine had other, more loyal dark jedi like Jerec who could have fulfilled the same purpose. with a larger number of DJ like Jerec the jedi purges could still have taken place to the same extent.

Well, duh, George doesn't read the EU and didn't know Palpatine had Jerec at his disposal.

The Galactic Emperor had the succession to worry about. Until he discovered how to live on forever, he had to ensure that his apprentice would be able to continue on where he left on. With that in account, it's pretty clear why Lord Vader was chosen to be his apprentice.

As for the CIS, I don't think that it's really the prototype for the Rebellion at all. If anything, the CIS was a model that the Rebellion chose not to follow. The Galactic Empire was designed to be able to take down large-scale insurrectionist movements. The Rebellion would have never dared challenge the Empire the way the CIS challenged the Old Republic.

Lazarus wrote:I don't see why Vader was even necessary at all, Palpatine had other, more loyal dark jedi like Jerec who could have fulfilled the same purpose. with a larger number of DJ like Jerec the jedi purges could still have taken place to the same extent.

Jerec was far from loyal. The man was convinced to betray the Jedi Order and all his beliefs by intellectul arguments from High Inquisitor Tremayne, and plotted against the Galactic Emperor on more than one occasion; virtually no one in the dark side hierarchy (the Galactic Emperor included) trusted him. On the one hand, this boded well for his potential as a Sith Lord -- "Treachery is the way of the Sith," after all -- on the other hand, this made Jerec a dangerous replacement for Vader if it came to that. He was at best an emergency replacement, an ersatz Sith Lord to be used only as a last resort. The swiftness with which Darth Sidious adopted the idea of replacing Vader with his son is a testament to how much he did not want to use his ace in the hole.

GrandAdmiralJello wrote: As for the CIS, I don't think that it's really the prototype for the Rebellion at all. If anything, the CIS was a model that the Rebellion chose not to follow. The Galactic Empire was designed to be able to take down large-scale insurrectionist movements. The Rebellion would have never dared challenge the Empire the way the CIS challenged the Old Republic.

Oh, I wasn't refering to actual structure of the organizations, rather the concept. In over a 1000 years there wasn't a large scale galacitc war (according to dialouge). Sure, brushfire wars and regional wars, but nothing galactic in scale. The CIS dared break that taboo (with Sidious behind the CIS) and showed the disenfrancized and down trodden that you could stand up to a corrupt goverment.

Viewed from out side the scope of the various Jedi sects waring with each other, the concept of the CIS was sound when one looks at the status of the Republic. Twenty years later, when another corrupt goverment is oppressing the people, another group rises (granted, born of the old generation) to oppose it.

Palpy, though not common knowledge, rose a rebellion to have a 'badguy' to seize power. But in doing so, the CIS showed that you can stand up to a corrupt goverment. IMO.

Knife wrote:

GrandAdmiralJello wrote: As for the CIS, I don't think that it's really the prototype for the Rebellion at all. If anything, the CIS was a model that the Rebellion chose not to follow. The Galactic Empire was designed to be able to take down large-scale insurrectionist movements. The Rebellion would have never dared challenge the Empire the way the CIS challenged the Old Republic.

Oh, I wasn't refering to actual structure of the organizations, rather the concept. In over a 1000 years there wasn't a large scale galacitc war (according to dialouge). Sure, brushfire wars and regional wars, but nothing galactic in scale. The CIS dared break that taboo (with Sidious behind the CIS) and showed the disenfrancized and down trodden that you could stand up to a corrupt goverment.

Viewed from out side the scope of the various Jedi sects waring with each other, the concept of the CIS was sound when one looks at the status of the Republic. Twenty years later, when another corrupt goverment is oppressing the people, another group rises (granted, born of the old generation) to oppose it.

Palpy, though not common knowledge, rose a rebellion to have a 'badguy' to seize power. But in doing so, the CIS showed that you can stand up to a corrupt goverment. IMO.

True, but the opposite could easily be as true, in that the CIS's rebellion actually cemented the dangers of a rebellion in solid for the former Republic's citizens. Publius has already pointed out in his work that the Rebels had next to no support (Alderaan being among the very few exceptions), and no open support.

Guardsman Bass wrote: True, but the opposite could easily be as true, in that the CIS's rebellion actually cemented the dangers of a rebellion in solid for the former Republic's citizens. Publius has already pointed out in his work that the Rebels had next to no support (Alderaan being among the very few exceptions), and no open support.

This is true, but you can also point out that in the Alliance, they actual were able to recruit people and not have to rely on droids. While the CIS relied on corporations to fund and buy an army, the RA was more of a grassroots organization so it's no wonder why they were short on funds, support, and equipment. But they had honest to Force sentient beings as the back bone and soul of their rebellion while the CIS had all the material and little in the way of actual beings.

the Rebels had next to no support (Alderaan being among the very few exceptions), and no open support.

Although this is true, from the debate between Admiral Motti and General Tagge it seems the Rebellion was gaining some legitimacy and support even in the Imperial Senate, to the point of Tagge being worried about their influence.

Then there's the case of non-corporate Separatist groups continuing their fights, even if their status changed.

Oh, the CIS had plenty of genuine support. Do not mistake their usage of a cheap asset for a lack of solid support. There were earnest believers in the Seperatist way of thinking, and the continued to plague the Galactic Empire for years after the war was ended.

The CIS may have been the first group to openly threaten the Galactic Republic in a millennium, but they needn't have done so to provide an example. They did nothing revolutionary or new. In fact, since their ultimate defeat ushered in a stronger government, it's arguable that the opposite may be true.

Recall that in the ROTS novelization, Bail Organa is clear to profess that he is not a Seperatist. While the CIS might have provided an example of rebellion, it wasn't the sort that the Alliance used as an example.

The Alliance to Restore the Republic was only one of many groups to try to fight off the Empire. The only difference between the Alliance and other groups was in the scope and ultimate goal: rather than merely resist Imperial encroachments, they sought to end the Empire everywhere it existed and overthrow the government.