Was Palpatine a great mastermind?

[Patrick Degan]

Sorry, but the "mad genius" cliche is exactly that —a cliche.

We have Pattycake's say-so again, I guess that means any discussion of anything is closed. Once the Pontiff here decrees it from his chair.

More of your bullshit instead of a substantive argument. Why am I not surprised at this point?

This is one of the points Mr. Primus and his little playmate keep missing. Palpatine has no grand vision beyond "unlimited POWERRRRRRRRRRR" and wrecks a galaxy failing to achieve it by his convoluted schemes and obsessions.

And Napoleon and Caesar had the goodwill of mankind in mind, right?

Far more so than Palpatine, strawmanderer.

Oh and don't think I didn't notice this:

And as it happens, I own The Twelve Caesars. And as it so happens, I am familiar with Latin and Roman history. I also suppose that the fact that Octavian changed his praenomen or personal name to "Imperator" or "victorious general granted a triumph," had the Senate grant him the cognomen or family name of Augustus or "revered (or venerated) one," took Caesar as his own name, and added "son of divinity" to his name. These of course, are totally subtle and relaxed claims of personal dignity, especially in a constitutional republic. Its not pretensions of divinity or personal glorification, as you put it, or anything. Not at all, right. And it wasn't like he was deified upon his death or anything.

Big fucking deal that you own your own copy of Suetonius. Evidently, you learned nothing from it. Or, you're cherry-picking through the evidence from that work. Otherwise, you might have noticed that Augustus was careful to retain the forms and institutions of the Republic, that he claimed the names and titles as a political move, was clever at making a public show of renouncing supreme power even as he ensured that it remained in his grasp, but at the same time strengthened the Roman government, ended his wars at the first opportunity to do so to stabilise the Empire, pardoned his enemies once war was ended, and fixed the borders of the Empire.

BTW, he was deified by the Senate after his death but never pushed for it during his own lifetime and never allowed anybody to address him as "Lord" either in public or private. To quote Suetonius on this:

LIII. He always abhorred the title of Lord [191], as ill-omened
and offensive. And when, in a play, performed at the theatre, at which
he was present, these words were introduced, "O just and gracious lord,"
and the whole company, with joyful acclamations, testified their
approbation of them, as applied to him, he instantly put a stop to their
indecent flattery, by waving his hand, and frowning sternly, and next day
publicly declared his displeasure, in a proclamation. He never
afterwards would suffer himself to be addressed in that manner, even by
his own children or grand-children, either in jest or earnest and forbad
them the use of all such complimentary expressions to one another.

Furthermore, Suetonius makes clear that Octavian assumed the surname Caesar in compliance with his great-uncle's will and that the name Augustus was conferred upon him by the Senate. It is also clear from any reading of Roman history that Augustus' usage of his names and titles came out of political necessity, an understanding of how he could use the legacy of his great-uncle to garner popular support as well as that of the soldiers, and in point of fact was crucial to his personal as well as political survival.

Before you start calling anybody "liar", Mr. Primus, you should take care that you're grounded in the facts beforehand.

He died in the middle of the project. Caesar died unexpectedly as well, and just like Palpatine, it collapsed the country into civil war. Furthermore, Palpatine did reform the state and do much better than the Republic preceding it, and the New Republic succeeding it in ending civil strife and protecting the state from outside threats. Admiral Mils Giel's armada is the way the Empire responds to any penetration by unknown entities, versus the impotent response of the New Republic.

In a word, BULLSHIT. Palpatine created nothing that could survive him, and as has been pointed out, deliberately arranged it so. His dicatorship lasted only 30 or so years while the Republic which preceded it and which he wrecked had lasted a millenium. The entire time of his rule saw rebellion and civil war instead of order. In his wake, he left an ongoing civil war. That is not reform or success except by very twisted definitions of those words.

That is not the operation of genius by any stretch of the imagination, as his grand fuckup at Endor demonstrates. Obsession negates genius or even talent since everything ends up being turned inward and warps around that single-minded object until the person so afflicted loses sight of every outside consideration and falls into denial and delusion and you can't achieve anything without a solid footing in reality.

Is genius a fundamentally from-birth quality which can never wax or wane or get overshadowed by hubris or error? Ever? What is Nikola Tesla? Or Isaac Newton?

Genius, as you seem never to quite grasp, is a quality which can see an overall pattern in a glance and find the quickest path to it with the least effort. It is also the capacity to see when a particular line of thought won't lead to anything productive and to abandon it when that is realised. An obsessive, on the other hand, lacks that capacity and will continue pursuing the same object at all costs.

And as for Palpatine's actual insanity, the very desire for godhood speaks for itself on that score. Whereas, true genius is oriented towards the vision of (or achieves as the effect therof even if not consciously planned) something which will add to the sum total of the human experience and endure long after the inventor, engineer, or artist so gifted has turned to dust. "Unlimited POWERRRRRRR" fails in this regard.

Right, because so many historical - especially ancient - political and military geniuses really had progressive humanistic ends, and that was the deciding characteristic of their genius talent. My mistake. Genghis Khan, et al, none of them are geniuses in own right.

Genghis Khan qualifies far better than Palpatine. His object was to make the Mongol Empire the premier world power and he instituted a system of law which, though brutal, was also fair (i.e. everybody was subject to it, even the members of his court and his bureaucracy). He knew when to kill and when to show mercy. He knew who to elevate in society to better secure the overall good of the empire and his conquered territories. The Mongol conquest of the Baghdad caliphate in 1258 and its aftermath is particularly instructive as an example.

Attend:

In the 13th century, Temujin — better known by his title, Genghis Khan ("world leader") — headed a tribal nation smaller than the workforce of Wal-Mart, yet he conquered and ruled more people than anyone in history. After Genghis Khan's death, his grandson, Hulegu, further expanded the empire, easily conquering most of the Middle East and achieving the Mongols' aim: the establishment of a trade corridor from Korea on the Pacific to Syria on the Mediterranean, one part of their goal of controlling the world.

So that every warrior knew his place within the struggle, Genghis Khan began each campaign with meetings to communicate to his approximately 100,000 soldiers where and why they would fight. The legal justification for the Mongol invasion of Iraq derived from the reluctance of the caliph of Baghdad to control the Shiite Cult of the Assassins, whom the Mongols accused of attempting to kill their khan.

The assassins operated from a series of fortified mountain camps spread from contemporary Afghanistan to Iraq, and the Baghdad invasion did not begin until the Mongols had eradicated the threat from the assassins and destroyed their fortresses. For the final attack on the caliph, the Mongols assembled a coalition of nations, and as their main army invaded Iraq in two columns from the east and the south, their allies approached from the north and west.

Genghis Khan recognized that victory came by conquering people, not land or cities. In contrast to the Americans in 2003, who sought to take the largest cities first in a campaign of shock and awe, the Mongols in 1258 took the smallest settlements first, gradually working toward the capital. Both the Mongols and the Americans used heavy bombardment to topple Baghdad, but whereas the Americans rushed into the capital in a triumphant victory celebration, the Mongols wisely decided not to enter the defeated — but still dangerous — city. They ordered the residents to evacuate, and then they sent in Christian and Muslim allies, who seethed with a variety of resentments against the caliph, to expunge any pockets of resistance and secure the capital. The Americans ended up as occupiers; the Mongols pulled strings, watching from camps in the countryside.

The Mongols also immediately executed the caliph and his sons on charges that they spent too much money on their palaces and not enough defending their nation. They killed most members of the court and administration. The Mongols took no prisoners and allowed no torture, but they executed swiftly and efficiently, including the soldiers of the defeated army who, they believed, would be a constant source of future problems if allowed to live. The first several months of a Mongol invasion were bloody, but once the takeover ended, the bloodshed ended.

By contrast, the American military campaign was quick, with comparatively few Iraqi (or coalition) casualties, but the bloodshed has continued for years. Constrained from decisively dispatching enemies of a new Iraq, the United States has allowed Iraqi terrorists to select who lives and who dies, including women and children, in a slow-motion massacre.

And while the violence continues, the U.S. can't come close to establishing a government that rivals what the Mongols achieved. They exercised a genius for speaking to people in terms that they understood. When conquering Muslims, Genghis Khan always announced that Allah willed the Mongol victory as divine punishment; to resist the Mongols was to defy the will of God.

Just as the Mongols perfected the list of who to kill in a conquered land, they knew whom to reward and how to do it. In Baghdad, Hulegu installed a government under Ata Malik Juvaini, a devout Persian Muslim, who governed for most of the next 20 years and whose writings survive as some of the great scholarly works of the Muslim world.

The Mongols spared anyone with a craft, such as carpentry, writing, pottery, weaving or metal working. They fiercely enforced religious freedom, which created an essentially secular state. In Baghdad, they gave many of the caliph's palaces to Mongol allies for more practical uses. They lowered taxes for merchants and eliminated them for religious, medical and educational professionals. They educated women along with men. For all subjects, they instituted harsh laws enforced equally under nearly incorruptible officials.

Fundamentalist Muslims look back at Mongol secularism as a scourge. But, although U.S. rule in Iraq has produced a constant flow of refugees, particularly religious minorities, out of the country, under Mongol rule Christian, Muslim, Jewish and even Buddhist immigrants poured into the newly conquered Iraq to live under the Great Law of Genghis Khan. It was said that during this time a virgin could cross the length of the Mongol Empire with a pot of gold on her head and never be molested.

(excerpted from "Genghis Khan: Law And Order", from the 29 December, 2006 issue of The Los Angeles Times)

Temujin attempted to create an order which would outlast him, and pursued a larger goal than simply "unlimited POWERRRRRR" and his own godhood. It wasn't all about him. By contrast, Palpatine's order wasn't something people wanted to be a part of but attempted to rebel against and overthrow since it's defining trait was fear and nothing else. The iron fist and nothing else. All in the service of a madman's quest for his own godhood.

No, Primus, the examples from Earth history which compare to Palpatine are more along the lines of Bokassa I and Pol Pot.

Furthermore, genius seeks out the most effective and simplest possible solution to a given problem, not the most elaborately complicated one. The direct route to a goal, with as few steps as necessary to achieve it. Anything else is merely the work of a talented mechanic at best and a plodder at worst.

You permitted Napoleon as a genius prior, and the Russian campaign is what? A necessary measure? Genius? Shit, the Bourbons were restored twice because he failed. But he's still a genius. And if Augustus' construction of the imperial dignity was not a long and convoluted process, what is?

Did I not say that Napoleon failed because he overextended himself militarily? Furthermore, Napoleon's accomplishments were never strictly military. He codified a system of law which survived his downfall, ended feudalism in France once and for all, and sought not only to expand his empire militarily and financially, but scienfically and socially as well.

[url=ttp://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/weider/c_peace.html]Attend:[/url]

Napoleon: Man of Peace

By Ben Weider, CM, PhD

If ever a ruler owed his position to what is called the "will of the people," Napoleon did. Napoleon won it by his success with the sword, not the sword of execution, nor the sword of the guillotine, but the sword of battle against the enemies of France.

The people of France elected Napoleon as the Emperor, because he saved France from its enemies and he defended the gains of the Revolution at home.

Napoleon established both the Bank of France and the French bourse (stock exchange) as well as National and Departmental Tax Boards, to insure equitable taxation for all. Consequently, the income of the French peasants skyrocketed.

Napoleon established awards such as the "Legion of Honour" to reward those whose services to the nation merited special recognition; the recipient could be scientist, composer, legislator, clergyman, writer, as well as a soldier.

In the area of public works, over 20,000 miles of imperial and 12,000 miles of regional roads were completed, almost a thousand miles of canals were build, the Great Cornice road was constructed along the Mediterranean coast, mountain roads were constructed across the Alps by ways of Simplon Pass and Mont Cenis, and harbors were dredged and expanded at many ports, including Dunkerque and Cherbourg.

Not only was Paris beautified with the construction of boulevards, bridges and monuments, but the National Archives received a permanent home. Napoleon also saved the Louvre.

Monument buildings were constructed throughout the Empire and structures, such as the Imperial Cathedral of Speyer, made famous by Luther, were preserved while work on the spires of the great cathedral of Cologne were continued on Napoleon's orders. In fact, Napoleon's architectural handiwork can be found scattered across Europe, from Rome to Vienna.

"Think tanks" and research centers were established in France to work on projects vital for national economy. An Industrial Board was organized to provide data and information to French Industry, as exemplified by the success of the sugar beet farming and the canning industry.

For religion, Napoleon ended the schism and restored the Catholic Church to France by the Concordat in 1801. He insured freedom of religions and equality to the Protestant sects, and he declared France the homeland of the Jews, after it became obvious he could not establish their national home in Palestine.

The Code Napoleon established equality before the law, emphasized the sanctity of the family, and assured the legal gains of the Revolution. The Code of Civil Procedure insured widespread user of mediation in the courts and the laws, and the courts were secularized.

Napoleon created the Imperial University to administer French Education. Specialized engineering and technological schools were established along with the famous lycées to insure a scientific education. The establishment of a Professional School of Midwifery and first School of Obstetrics were formed during the consulate and the School of Veterinary Science was professionalized under Napoleon.

In the military, Napoleon pioneered in what we describe today as the "principles of war" which are studied by almost every military academy in the world. The armies of today are based on the organization created by Napoleon for his Grand Army and it has been used ever since.

Many historians claim that Napoleon created his own legend on St. Helena. The truth is that his legend started in Toulon in 1793.

Lord Holland, speaking in the British House of Peers, spoke about the deceased Emperor in August 1833. He stated: "The very people who detested this great man have acknowledged that for 10 centuries there has not appeared upon earth a more extraordinary character."

This is indeed a tribute to the Emperor.

Even after his defeat, Napoleon's works survived him and redefined France for the better. Even the restored Bourbons could not reverse that and Napoleon remains the premier national hero of France.

Again, Pol Pot and Bokassa I are the ones to compare to Palpatine, not Napoleon or Augustus.

Instead, Palpatine constructs his twisted set of nested schemes and gets away with it only because none of his enemies had the intellectual acumen or even the basic cynicism to question the truth of the war itself. The Jedi remained utterly clueless regarding Palpatine's true identity as the Sith Lord Sidious until Anakin came and told Mace Windu directly; a revelation which floored the vapaad master. And that is direct from Matthew Stover's novelisation of Revenge Of The Sith —passages of which I can quote verbatim if it becomes necessary to demonstrate the point.

Amazing. You find one quote to the effect that Windu was surprised - your first citation and proof of reading comprehension - and that is supposed to be your ultimate coup?

No, I found multiple passages in the ROTS novel to substantiate the point. Shall I actually have to quote them to get the point across to that feeble brain of yours?

And I repeat; until (actually after as well) Anakin outed Palpatine, there was no evidence whatsoever to prove beyond the slightest doubt that Palpatine was a Sith Lord. Your fault with his enemies is that they are not completely clairvoyant or that they are not conspiracy theorists.

Yet another of your stupid strawmen. Once more, why am I not surprised?

[TC Pilot]

The entire time of his rule saw rebellion and civil war instead of order.

By contrast, Palpatine's order wasn't something people wanted to be a part of but attempted to rebel against and overthrow since it's defining trait was fear and nothing else. The iron fist and nothing else.

You demonstrate a complete failure to grasp the nature and state of the Galactic Empire. The Galactic Empire was inaugurated, acclaimed rather, by the thundering applause of the Republic Senate, and continuously enjoyed the overwhelming loyalty and support of the galactic population at large. The Galactic Empire's citizens lived in luxury and splendor, orderly and lawful worlds, the Imperial military brought civilization and peace to a galaxy plauged by genocidal blood feuds under the Republic.

The galaxy of the Old Republic was not peaceful. Member states were armed to the teeth (Trade Federation, Kuat, etc.), and even fought wars against one another (Sepan Civil War, and the wars the Empire "so thoughtlessly interrupted" according to Spectre of the Past).

In contrast, the Galactic Empire put an end to all those wars. The Empire's greatest opponent was a pathetic band of rebels whose sum total was dwarfed by a single Imperial sector group. Out of an empire that spanned many million worlds, the number of rebel worlds never managed to reach double digits. The Rebel Alliance never defeated the Empire while it was ruled by Palpatine. The Empire was, and I can't believe I am quoting this, "victorious on all fronts."

The Galactic Empire was the most powerful, most popular, most effective administrator of the largest expanse of territory in galactic history. The one catch was that its Emperor happened to be capable of returning from the dead and thus did not bother to include a mechanism for succession, and in fact hampered any attemt to resolve the succession crisis.

No, I found multiple passages in the ROTS novel to substantiate the point.

One really must wonder why the Jedi should operate under the unfounded assumption that the current dictator of the Republic is the mastermind behind a movement threatening to destroy the Republic and intent on killing him. Particularly when Palpatine has shown no sign of being Force sensitive, let alone a fully-trained Sith Lord. And particularly when such an action is quite illegal.

I suppose by that same reasoning, the OSS should have been investigating President Roosevelt to make sure he wasn't conspiring with Hitler and Stalin to fuel World War II.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You demonstrate a complete failure to grasp the nature and state of the Galactic Empire. The Galactic Empire was inaugurated, acclaimed rather, by the thundering applause of the Republic Senate, and continuously enjoyed the overwhelming loyalty and support of the galactic population at large. The Galactic Empire's citizens lived in luxury and splendor, orderly and lawful worlds, the Imperial military brought civilization and peace to a galaxy plauged by genocidal blood feuds under the Republic.

The galaxy of the Old Republic was not peaceful. Member states were armed to the teeth (Trade Federation, Kuat, etc.), and even fought wars against one another (Sepan Civil War, and the wars the Empire "so thoughtlessly interrupted" according to Spectre of the Past).

In contrast, the Galactic Empire put an end to all those wars. The Empire's greatest opponent was a pathetic band of rebels whose sum total was dwarfed by a single Imperial sector group. Out of an empire that spanned many million worlds, the number of rebel worlds never managed to reach double digits. The Rebel Alliance never defeated the Empire while it was ruled by Palpatine. The Empire was, and I can't believe I am quoting this, "victorious on all fronts."

The Galactic Empire was the most powerful, most popular, most effective administrator of the largest expanse of territory in galactic history. The one catch was that its Emperor happened to be capable of returning from the dead and thus did not bother to include a mechanism for succession, and in fact hampered any attemt to resolve the succession crisis.

Please tell me how it managed to end all wars when it had to resort to genocide and what not just to maintain order. And Victorious on all Fronts? Great Administrator? Please. It had to rule by the sword. The Rim worlds never approached the luxury of the core worlds, and taxation killed them. Yeah, landing a star destroyer on protesters was actually worthy of a promotion, making George W Bush look wonderfully benign in comparison.

You sir, seem hell bent on continually ignoring the great many failings of the Imperial Administration.

[Illuminatus Primus]

More of your bullshit instead of a substantive argument. Why am I not surprised at this point?

Your say-so that something is a cliche does not establish that my claims are unsubstantiated in canon. A literary criticism is not the same as a rebuttal of a claim made respective to suspension of disbelief. Neither is your fashionable sarcasm, one-trick pony.

Your opinion of the concept of his character is quite meaningless.

Far more so than Palpatine, strawmanderer.

You said they had to do something for the sake of mankind; prove that their motives were altruistic, or at least define how altruistic one must be to qualify for the Degan Seal of Approval.

Of course, this entertains that your convenient and personal definition of genius in anyway relates to common usage or the dictionary definition. I suppose you're pompous enough to think your idiosyncratic definition of words is sufficient grounds to declare others' arguments wrong.

Big fucking deal that you own your own copy of Suetonius. Evidently, you learned nothing from it. Or, you're cherry-picking through the evidence from that work. Otherwise, you might have noticed that Augustus was careful to retain the forms and institutions of the Republic, that he claimed the names and titles as a political move, was clever at making a public show of renouncing supreme power even as he ensured that it remained in his grasp, but at the same time strengthened the Roman government, ended his wars at the first opportunity to do so to stabilise the Empire, pardoned his enemies once war was ended, and fixed the borders of the Empire.

None of that matters versus the claim you made, that self-aggrandizement and self-glorifying titles are automatic failure conditions for genius. Calling yourself son of a god, changing your first name to "triumphant commander", and taking the family name "revered one" certainly qualifies.

Even so, all of the above applies to Palpatine. His Empire was the first true unification of the galaxy and ended civil strife for decades. He ostensibly was a purely theoretical despot; despite his unlimited legal authority, it was commonly believed he was merely a figurehead and was supplanted by his own subordinates. In this way he maintained the supreme power whilst not apparently executing it, and directing the Empire while others bared the brunt of public accountability.

BTW, he was deified by the Senate after his death but never pushed for it during his own lifetime and never allowed anybody to address him as "Lord" either in public or private.

So what? He changed his first name to "triumphant general" and his family name to "the revered." And all of his political settlements were amelioration directed at the elite after he had ruled as a military despot for decades and proscribed the Senate - he had his political opponents slaughtered wholesale. As triumvir his power was officially and overtly supreme and limitless within his domain.

Furthermore, Suetonius makes clear that Octavian assumed the surname Caesar in compliance with his great-uncle's will and that the name Augustus was conferred upon him by the Senate.

And the Senate granted it because he had murdered everyone in it who opposed him already. Please; Palpatine had the same servile Senate, except he didn't need to have it overtly purged to get it that way.

It is also clear from any reading of Roman history that Augustus' usage of his names and titles came out of political necessity, an understanding of how he could use the legacy of his great-uncle to garner popular support as well as that of the soldiers, and in point of fact was crucial to his personal as well as political survival.

There was no precedent for using "Imperator" as a praenomen. None of Palpatine's political programs or claims can be chalked up to the same reasoning?

Before you start calling anybody "liar", Mr. Primus, you should take care that you're grounded in the facts beforehand.

And you should take a real Roman history class, instead of attending Google University.

Not to mention this has nothing to do with you lying about what I said, which you carefully excised, naturally.

In a word, BULLSHIT. Palpatine created nothing that could survive him, and as has been pointed out, deliberately arranged it so. His dicatorship lasted only 30 or so years while the Republic which preceded it and which he wrecked had lasted a millenium. The entire time of his rule saw rebellion and civil war instead of order. In his wake, he left an ongoing civil war. That is not reform or success except by very twisted definitions of those words.

Ahem. Napoleon? G As I said before, if we are using the dictionary definition of genius, merely his political acumen - selfishly directed or not -, suffices.

Genius, as you seem never to quite grasp, is a quality which can see an overall pattern in a glance and find the quickest path to it with the least effort.

According to who? You? This is a fucking joke; this is the Michael Bay school of genius, where brilliant scientific geniuses are just eccentric weirdos who have it occur to them in a quasi-revelation.

Ability is all that matters. Genghis Khan? Genius. Stalin? Genius? Caesar? Genius.

It is also the capacity to see when a particular line of thought won't lead to anything productive and to abandon it when that is realised. An obsessive, on the other hand, lacks that capacity and will continue pursuing the same object at all costs.

I realize you started smoking a cigarette here because you jizzed your pants while reading your own text, so excuse me. Was Nicola Tesla a genius? Was Howard Hughes a genius?

Genghis Khan qualifies far better than Palpatine. His object was to make the Mongol Empire the premier world power and he instituted a system of law which, though brutal, was also fair (i.e. everybody was subject to it, even the members of his court and his bureaucracy). He knew when to kill and when to show mercy. He knew who to elevate in society to better secure the overall good of the empire and his conquered territories. The Mongol conquest of the Baghdad caliphate in 1258 and its aftermath is particularly instructive as an example.

The Empire also brought peace and streamlined legal process to the galaxy. It successfully thwarted external invasion. It reformed local government. Moreover, Palpatine's Empire was not even totalitarian or autocratic for most of its tenure.

[snip pretentious crap] Temujin attempted to create an order which would outlast him, and pursued a larger goal than simply "unlimited POWERRRRRR" and his own godhood. It wasn't all about him. By contrast, Palpatine's order wasn't something people wanted to be a part of but attempted to rebel against and overthrow since it's defining trait was fear and nothing else. The iron fist and nothing else. All in the service of a madman's quest for his own godhood.

Actually, the Core Worlds were very complicit in Palpatine's rule, and by all measures he acclimated it quite well to the existing order, making use of many pre-war elites.

I'm sure many of the subjects of the Mongols really thought it was "something they wanted to be part of."

No, Primus, the examples from Earth history which compare to Palpatine are more along the lines of Bokassa I and Pol Pot.

Right. Except Palpatine didn't bankrupt the state or kill anything close to 30% of the population. And he hardly touched the ruling class, as opposed to Octavian, who eagerly proscribed the Senate en masse to secure his autocracy.

Did I not say that Napoleon failed because he overextended himself militarily? Furthermore, Napoleon's accomplishments were never strictly military. He codified a system of law which survived his downfall, ended feudalism in France once and for all, and sought not only to expand his empire militarily and financially, but scienfically and socially as well.

Right, and Palpatine's New Order outlasted him, provided one of the few secure regions during the Yuuzhan Vong invasion, and also successfully reconquered the galaxy a century after his death. The Dark Empire Sourcebook tells us that the Imperial bureaucracy survived the Empire itself, and that former Imperials outperformed even the old rebels in electoral success and governance as soon as they stopped fixing the elections 10 years after Endor.

Again, Pol Pot and Bokassa I are the ones to compare to Palpatine, not Napoleon or Augustus.

Except the New Order returned, and the rebels' neo-Republicanism failed to beat the New Order in its own elections, in its own state apparatus, in its shipbuilding, and in galactic defense.

Yet another of your stupid strawmen. Once more, why am I not surprised?

Why would they act without real evidence? Suspicion is not sufficient. Your say-so does not change that.

[TC Pilot]

Please tell me how it managed to end all wars when it had to resort to genocide and what not just to maintain order.

I never said the Empire ended every war. It did, however, stop member states from trying to destroy each other.

Furthermore, you claim to a policy of genocide is completely false.

It had to rule by the sword.

Entirely untrue. "The preferred option is to let a planet run itself much as it has for years, but maintaining a visible Imperial presence so that
the rulers know who their ultimate master is." -Imperial Sourcebook

"It keeps billions of beings fed and clothed. Day after day, year after year, on thousands of worlds people live their lives under Imperial rule without ever seeing a stormtrooper or hearing a TIE fighter scream overhead." - Captain Thrawn

"You Rebels remain so very self-righteous. Always speaking of honor, as though you invented the concept. I've spent my whole life in honorable conflict. I've conquered whole worlds to bring civilization to them--literacy and medicine and sanitation and discipline. I've fought the forces of chaos to keep galactic civilization from flying apart." - Admiral Teren Rogriss

The Rim worlds never approached the luxury of the core worlds, and taxation killed them.

Proof? The Mid Rim economy collapsed completely when the Imperial presence was removed.

According to the Imperial Sourcebook, most Imperial citizens (and by that, most sentient life) live on "safe luxury liner worlds."

Yeah, landing a star destroyer on protesters was actually worthy of a promotion

Maybe next time protestors should not gather together on a landing platform, illegally detain an Imperial official, and refuse to disperse.

The Empire's laws are draconian, but the law is also quite clear on punishment.

You sir, seem hell bent on continually ignoring the great many failings of the Imperial Administration.

Cite some, by all means. Please, demonstrate that the Empire was inferior to the Old or New Republics, or any other galactic government.

[wjs7744]

Genius, as you seem never to quite grasp, is a quality which can see an overall pattern in a glance and find the quickest path to it with the least effort. It is also the capacity to see when a particular line of thought won't lead to anything productive and to abandon it when that is realised.

Amazing. Even after being hit with two different dictionary definitions of genius, you still insist on using this one. I'm hardly an expert on language, and I don't know which word would best fit the criteria you define, but it sure as hell isn't genius. Seriously, if the only way you can even make headway in an argument is to completely ignore the real meanings of words and replace them with your own bizarre definitions, I think that speaks for itself.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I love how that definition of genius is so like the Michael Bay School of Genius, where they just "get" it and so on and so forth. I wonder how much of the lives of Nicola Tesla or Newton Degan is familiar with.

[Patrick Degan]

More of your bullshit instead of a substantive argument. Why am I not surprised at this point?

Your say-so that something is a cliche does not establish that my claims are unsubstantiated in canon. A literary criticism is not the same as a rebuttal of a claim made respective to suspension of disbelief. Neither is your fashionable sarcasm, one-trick pony.

Your opinion of the concept of his character is quite meaningless.

Far less so that your bullshit non-answers and repetitions.

Far more so than Palpatine, strawmanderer.

You said they had to do something for the sake of mankind; prove that their motives were altruistic, or at least define how altruistic one must be to qualify for the Degan Seal of Approval.

A strawman is a strawman is a strawman, no matter how many fucking copies of it get put up for you to knock down.

I'll try to make this clear for that pea-brain of yours, shall I?

I DID NOT make altruism the standard of genius in my arguments. Either you quote me on that or you fucking shut up already.

MY words, you dishonest little prick:

Augustus actually had a far grander vision for his state and one which would endure past his lifetime. He brought an end to his state's civil wars, recreated a political order which was clearly in fatal breakdown, reestablished stability, made Rome's military a more effective and efficient unit, and brought peace and prosperity to a nation rent by years of strife. Autocratic it may have been but the result was an empire which endured for half a millenia even given the lack of an orderly imperial succession mechanism. Unlike Palpatine, Augustus achieved his vision, replaced a broken system with one which was guaranteed to work, and made it durable while advancing the greatness of Rome.
. . .

Genghis Khan qualifies far better than Palpatine. His object was to make the Mongol Empire the premier world power and he instituted a system of law which, though brutal, was also fair (i.e. everybody was subject to it, even the members of his court and his bureaucracy). He knew when to kill and when to show mercy. He knew who to elevate in society to better secure the overall good of the empire and his conquered territories. The Mongol conquest of the Baghdad caliphate in 1258 and its aftermath is particularly instructive as an example.

. . .

Temujin attempted to create an order which would outlast him, and pursued a larger goal than simply "unlimited POWERRRRRR" and his own godhood. It wasn't all about him.

. . .

Napoleon's accomplishments were never strictly military. He codified a system of law which survived his downfall, ended feudalism in France once and for all, and sought not only to expand his empire militarily and financially, but scienfically and socially as well.

. . .

Even after his defeat, Napoleon's works survived him and redefined France for the better. Even the restored Bourbons could not reverse that and Napoleon remains the premier national hero of France.

Improving the nation and making it stronger is not altruism but pragmatism. It is a goal with a definite material object at the end of it and which serves the interests of the state, and if improving the lot of the people within the nation serves that purpose, it is pursued as part of that overall aim. It is, in fact, more pragmatic to do that since a contented and prosperous people will also be far less inclined to rebellion —which definitely serves the interests of the state. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others with no thought to benefit, which is what altruism actually is, doesn't enter into the consideration here.

So, again, either you quote me directly where I say, unequivocally, that altruism is my standard of judging genius —not your little bullshit spin on my words but an actual statement— or you shut the fuck up about it.

Of course, this entertains that your convenient and personal definition of genius in anyway relates to common usage or the dictionary definition. I suppose you're pompous enough to think your idiosyncratic definition of words is sufficient grounds to declare others' arguments wrong.

Here's a clue, shitwit: vomiting up dictionary definitions doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the concept. The dictionary definition is merely the beginning to understanding, not it's be-all/end-all.

Big fucking deal that you own your own copy of Suetonius. Evidently, you learned nothing from it. Or, you're cherry-picking through the evidence from that work. Otherwise, you might have noticed that Augustus was careful to retain the forms and institutions of the Republic, that he claimed the names and titles as a political move, was clever at making a public show of renouncing supreme power even as he ensured that it remained in his grasp, but at the same time strengthened the Roman government, ended his wars at the first opportunity to do so to stabilise the Empire, pardoned his enemies once war was ended, and fixed the borders of the Empire.

None of that matters versus the claim you made, that self-aggrandizement and self-glorifying titles are automatic failure conditions for genius. Calling yourself son of a god, changing your first name to "triumphant commander", and taking the family name "revered one" certainly qualifies.

How like you to not only ignore the context of Octavian's situation but also the context of Roman religious belief in the bargain. Octavian was playing a very dangerous political game and had to employ every weapon at his command to win that game, especially since the loss of it would likely cost him his life. That is not megalomania but practicality expressing itself. Furthermore, I did NOT make any such claim as you say I did in your latest strawman of my words. Your dishonesty grows by leaps and bounds in this thread. Or maybe it's just that you have a reading-comprehension problem and really cannot tell what words mean.

Even so, all of the above applies to Palpatine. His Empire was the first true unification of the galaxy

Wrong. The Republic was that first unification. Palpatine destroyed it for his own ends entirely.

and ended civil strife for decades.

Barring that little inconvenient fact of the Rebellion, of course, which actually had its nascent beginnings almost immediately upon the declaration of the Empire by Palpatine and got kick-started by the Ghorman Massacre. Resistance cels and raids against Imperial facilities took place years before the final codification of the treaty which formed the Rebel Alliance officially.

He ostensibly was a purely theoretical despot

No, he was an ACTUAL despot. Rule by terror was his policy as emperor (the Jedi purge, the Caamas BDZ) and he dispensed with the Senate and placed the galaxy under direct military rule at the first convenient moment.

despite his unlimited legal authority, it was commonly believed he was merely a figurehead and was supplanted by his own subordinates. In this way he maintained the supreme power whilst not apparently executing it, and directing the Empire while others bared the brunt of public accountability.

The existence of the COMPNOR organisation which fostered loyalty to the Palpatine-led New Order says otherwise.

BTW, he was deified by the Senate after his death but never pushed for it during his own lifetime and never allowed anybody to address him as "Lord" either in public or private.

So what? He changed his first name to "triumphant general" and his family name to "the revered."

As a matter of political practicality, shitwit, not megalomania. How many times will this have to be spelled out to you?

And all of his political settlements were amelioration directed at the elite after he had ruled as a military despot for decades and proscribed the Senate - he had his political opponents slaughtered wholesale. As triumvir his power was officially and overtly supreme and limitless within his domain.

First: Octavian did not rule alone, but in alliance with Mark Antony and Lepidus in the Second Triumvirate, which was not unprecedented in recent Roman history to that point. Second: the Senate was never dissolved even during the time of the triumvirate or the time of the wars, and it was the Senate which approved Octavian's war on Antony and Egypt —especially after Antony attempted to convene an illegal rump senate in Alexandria and to split Egypt and the eastern provinces away from Rome, which played right into Octavian's hands. Third: the Senate itself voted Octavian into supreme power when he made the show of resigning all his offices and titles and retiring to private life, and it was the Senate who conferred the name Augustus upon him, which he accepted again as a matter of political practicality —this time for its clear propaganda value. Fourth: it took only fourteen years from the formation of the Second Triumvirate to Actium for Octavian to attain his power over the Roman world. Not decades. Fifth: while Octavian did deal ruthlessly with his enemies, once the wars were over he pardoned many former members of Antony's camp, to facilitate both the return of stability as well as the cementing of his own position.

Furthermore, Suetonius makes clear that Octavian assumed the surname Caesar in compliance with his great-uncle's will and that the name Augustus was conferred upon him by the Senate.

And the Senate granted it because he had murdered everyone in it who opposed him already. Please; Palpatine had the same servile Senate, except he didn't need to have it overtly purged to get it that way.

The Roman Senate numbered quite a bit over 1000 in membership at the time of the Second Triumvirate. Even after the proscription a significant number in opposition to Octavian remained —many appointed by Antony and Lepidus to replace those who were purged, to put a check on Octavian— until 300 of them deserted the Senate for Antony in 32 BCE in his bid to create his own Eastern Empire based in Egypt. Fourteen years down the line, however, cast the issue in terms of Octavian either accepting his powers or, as the Senate then saw it, a return to civil chaos, which would certainly have followed in the wake of a power vacuum. You oversimplify horribly to try to fit your tortured comparison between Augustus and Palpatine in this.

It is also clear from any reading of Roman history that Augustus' usage of his names and titles came out of political necessity, an understanding of how he could use the legacy of his great-uncle to garner popular support as well as that of the soldiers, and in point of fact was crucial to his personal as well as political survival.

There was no precedent for using "Imperator" as a praenomen. None of Palpatine's political programs or claims can be chalked up to the same reasoning?

What does precedent have to do with the issue, shitwit? Augustus acted entirely out of political necessity, as has been explained to you. Palpatine, by contrast, faced no such necessity —nothing was forcing him to name himself Emperor— and he did not face the possibility of being killed by his enemies if he changed his mind and retired, and his programmes went far beyond those of Augustus in the institution of a personal despotism and reign of terror.

Before you start calling anybody "liar", Mr. Primus, you should take care that you're grounded in the facts beforehand.

And you should take a real Roman history class, instead of attending Google University.

Funny coming from a man who very clearly doesn't understand the subject he presumes competence in, wildly conflates events, ignores context, and can't even get his fucking timelines straight. Try taking your own advice.

Not to mention this has nothing to do with you lying about what I said, which you carefully excised, naturally.

Sayeth the Strawmanderer. How amusing.

In a word, BULLSHIT. Palpatine created nothing that could survive him, and as has been pointed out, deliberately arranged it so. His dicatorship lasted only 30 or so years while the Republic which preceded it and which he wrecked had lasted a millenium. The entire time of his rule saw rebellion and civil war instead of order. In his wake, he left an ongoing civil war. That is not reform or success except by very twisted definitions of those words.

Ahem. Napoleon? G As I said before, if we are using the dictionary definition of genius, merely his political acumen - selfishly directed or not -, suffices.

Um, Napoleon's legacy far outlasted his imperial rule and in a positive way. And once again, dictionary definitions are merely a beginning to understanding, not their be-all/end-all.

Genius, as you seem never to quite grasp, is a quality which can see an overall pattern in a glance and find the quickest path to it with the least effort.

According to who? You? This is a fucking joke; this is the Michael Bay school of genius, where brilliant scientific geniuses are just eccentric weirdos who have it occur to them in a quasi-revelation.

The only "fucking joke" here is your non-answer.

Ability is all that matters. Genghis Khan? Genius. Stalin? Genius? Caesar? Genius.

Palpatine —insane and an utter failure. No comparison.

It is also the capacity to see when a particular line of thought won't lead to anything productive and to abandon it when that is realised. An obsessive, on the other hand, lacks that capacity and will continue pursuing the same object at all costs.

I realize you started smoking a cigarette here because you jizzed your pants while reading your own text, so excuse me.

Your insane babble is excused.

Was Nicola Tesla a genius? Was Howard Hughes a genius?

Nice try. Obsessive-compulsive disorder on the part of Tesla and Hughes does not offer a comparison to Palpatine. Furthermore, both Tesla and Hughes were productive geniuses —the former managing to remain so up to his death at age 81 while the latter became crippled by his OCD. Palpatine, by contrast, was consumed with the obsession of his own godhood from day one of his effort to destroy the Republic and attempted to force everything into the service of that singular, megalomaniacal obsession —against which OCD doesn't even begin to compare in terms of mental disorder.

Here's a clue for you: flinging names from history the way monkeys fling their poop, in the hope something will stick somewhere, isn't going to save your trainwreck of an argument.

Genghis Khan qualifies far better than Palpatine. His object was to make the Mongol Empire the premier world power and he instituted a system of law which, though brutal, was also fair (i.e. everybody was subject to it, even the members of his court and his bureaucracy). He knew when to kill and when to show mercy. He knew who to elevate in society to better secure the overall good of the empire and his conquered territories. The Mongol conquest of the Baghdad caliphate in 1258 and its aftermath is particularly instructive as an example.

The Empire also brought peace and streamlined legal process to the galaxy. It successfully thwarted external invasion. It reformed local government. Moreover, Palpatine's Empire was not even totalitarian or autocratic for most of its tenure.

The Peace of the Gun. The "streamlining" of legal processes and "reform" of local government by instituting direct military rule. And if you can call Palpatine offering to trade to the Ssi-ruuvi millions of humans to entech in exchange for their technology, you could say he "thwarted" external invasion. And as for Palpatine's rule not being totalitarian, what do you call COMPNOR, the complete imperialisation of every institution, and little acts like the Camaas BDZ? The hunting down and extermination of the remaining Jedi? The Ghorman massacre? The attempted genocide of the Oswaft?

Temujin attempted to create an order which would outlast him, and pursued a larger goal than simply "unlimited POWERRRRRR" and his own godhood. It wasn't all about him. By contrast, Palpatine's order wasn't something people wanted to be a part of but attempted to rebel against and overthrow since it's defining trait was fear and nothing else. The iron fist and nothing else. All in the service of a madman's quest for his own godhood.

Actually, the Core Worlds were very complicit in Palpatine's rule, and by all measures he acclimated it quite well to the existing order, making use of many pre-war elites.

Explain the Rebel Alliance, then. The fact remains that there was a major insurrection to overthrow Palpatine's dictatorship within his own galaxy. That doesn't indicate general contentment under his rule.

I'm sure many of the subjects of the Mongols really thought it was "something they wanted to be part of."

Given that democracy was an unknown concept to these people and many of their subjects did enjoy relative prosperity and security, the Empire was the best deal they had going for them at the time. It wasn't ideal by our standards to say the least, but it worked for them.

No, Primus, the examples from Earth history which compare to Palpatine are more along the lines of Bokassa I and Pol Pot.

Right. Except Palpatine didn't bankrupt the state or kill anything close to 30% of the population. And he hardly touched the ruling class, as opposed to Octavian, who eagerly proscribed the Senate en masse to secure his autocracy.

Octavian proscribed 300 senators, not the Senate en-masse. See above. Palpatine plunged his galaxy into civil war and murdered whole worlds. The only reason his death-count didn't get any higher was the fact that he fell from power after only three decades on the throne.

Did I not say that Napoleon failed because he overextended himself militarily? Furthermore, Napoleon's accomplishments were never strictly military. He codified a system of law which survived his downfall, ended feudalism in France once and for all, and sought not only to expand his empire militarily and financially, but scienfically and socially as well.

Right, and Palpatine's New Order outlasted him, provided one of the few secure regions during the Yuuzhan Vong invasion, and also successfully reconquered the galaxy a century after his death. The Dark Empire Sourcebook tells us that the Imperial bureaucracy survived the Empire itself, and that former Imperials outperformed even the old rebels in electoral success and governance as soon as they stopped fixing the elections 10 years after Endor.

The revived Empire succeeded despite the legacy of Palpatine, not because of it. It succeeded because it rejected the totalitarianism of Palpatine's rule.

Again, Pol Pot and Bokassa I are the ones to compare to Palpatine, not Napoleon or Augustus.

Except the New Order returned, and the rebels' neo-Republicanism failed to beat the New Order in its own elections, in its own state apparatus, in its shipbuilding, and in galactic defense.

The revived Empire also succeeded by rejecting Palpatine's absolutism and was a synthesis, not a throwback.

Yet another of your stupid strawmen. Once more, why am I not surprised?

Why would they act without real evidence? Suspicion is not sufficient. Your say-so does not change that.

Excuse me, but Mace Windu was quite prepared to overthrow Palpatine without solid evidence to justify the act even before Anakin told him he was the Sith Lord. What's the matter? Miss that whole discussion between Mace, Obi-Wan, and Yoda on that topic in the movie?

[Patrick Degan]

Amazing. Even after being hit with two different dictionary definitions of genius, you still insist on using this one. I'm hardly an expert on language, and I don't know which word would best fit the criteria you define, but it sure as hell isn't genius. Seriously, if the only way you can even make headway in an argument is to completely ignore the real meanings of words and replace them with your own bizarre definitions, I think that speaks for itself.

Who's ignoring the meaning of words? As I've pointed out, dictionary definitions are only the beginning of a conceptual understanding, not its be-all/end-all.

I've had my position on this issue strawmandered and mangled repeatedly and I grow tired of it. I've been accused of making humility, modesty, perfection and altruism the standards of my definition of genius when I've said no such fucking thing. Well, where the issue comes in terms of Palpatine and his ego and obsessions, the crux of the matter is how those faults interfered with and nullified productive exercise of that alleged "genius" of his.

Beyond that, I'm still waiting for anybody to outline just what in Palpatine's actions actually indicates "exceptional natural capacity of intellect" on his part. Or what about his acts required such, since longstanding political orders have been brought down and wars started by people who were anything but geniuses throughout history as too many examples can demonstrate.

[wjs7744]

You know, I liked where you claim that Napoleon was a genius because his empire outlasted him, and when it is pointed out that the New Order lasted after Palpatine too, you handwave it away with some "ah, but it did so despite him" bullshit.

Or when you point out that Octavian was voted into power by the senate, completely ignoring that palpatine was too.

I particularly liked where you say that Octavian had to give himself those titles.

I will try to explain to you why papatine's actions qualify him for genius. You say that many people have overthrown regimes in the past, but you don't even provide one single example of when someone has achieved anything even remotely comparable, and you won't. Want me to tell you why? Because nobody in history has ever conquered even one planet, let alone a galaxy full of millions. If you think you can, by all means produce an example of someone you think has accomplished even a fraction of what Palpatine did without being considered a genius, and then we'll talk. Remember, Palpatine not only effectively destroyed the government of the Republic (not the Republic itself, of course), but he ensured that he came out on top afterwards. Are you going to dismiss that as pure luck?

[TC Pilot]

Beyond that, I'm still waiting for anybody to outline just what in Palpatine's actions actually indicates "exceptional natural capacity of intellect" on his part.

Are you kidding? Do you know anything about the Galactic Empire? Palpatine created the largest, most popular, most powerful political entity the galaxy had ever seen. Not only did it rule the largest territorial expanse in galactic history directly, it enjoyed hegemonic dominion over the entire galaxy. The Old Republic, in contrast, could not even extend its influence out into the Outer Rim, which it had bordered for millenia. Palpatine may have had the ill-intent of enslaving the entire galaxy and transcending into a godlike parasite living off the Force essence of his subjects, but intent is absolutely immaterial to the fact that Palpatine crafted the most effective, powerful, and popular government in galactic history.

Not only did Palpatine wield supreme executive power, he did so when the galaxy at large viewed him as a reclusive figurehead dominated by his advisors and privy councillors (see Journal of the Whills in the ANH novelization).

Palpatine also was something of a scholar, effectively synthesizing Sith philosophy into political theory, and was so well-recieved that it became standard text in numerous galactic universities according to the Core Rulebook and the Revised Core Rulebook. Palpatine also succesfully manipulated the course of galactic history on two seperate occassions, entirely in secret and entirely without the knowledge of the galaxy at large. The Emperor's very reappearance in Dark Empire reunified the fragmented warlord states, showing just how much loyalty the man inspired, or how brilliant he was at eliminating his enemies.

The Empire was never a military dictatorship. The Empire did not rule by terror. And the rebellion was certainly never a threat to his power.

If Palpatine is not a genius, no one, at any point in history, can rightfully claim to be a genius.

Or what about his acts required such, since longstanding political orders have been brought down

Palpatine did not bring down any political orders. He made the Republic Senate his puppet to the point where they jubilantly handed supreme power over to him. He made the Core World aristocracy (the people who ran the Old Republic) the New Order's most staunch proponents. Palpatine did not force his autocracy on the galaxy, he persuaded the galaxy to accept it with open arms and ecstatic applause.

[Boeing 757]

Hey. Sorry for bring up such a small quibble, but this part interests me the most.

Even so, all of the above applies to Palpatine. His Empire was the first true unification of the galaxy

Wrong. The Republic was that first unification.

I'd have to agree that the Republic is vast indeed, but it hardly had enough control over the entire galaxy for someone to call it unification. The unimpinged freedom of the CSA, the Ssi-Ruuvi Imperium, and Hutt space all attest to the fact that the galaxy wasn't ever truly unified under the Republic's banner.

For that matter, the Empire didn't have any physical presence in some of the more remote Outer Rim states either. However, unlike the Republic, the wrath of the Palpatine and the Imperial forces was so great that all of these "independent" factions either payed tribute to the Empire or kissed the Emperor's ass under the table behind closed government doors. So it's de facto unification, but still obviously domination in one form or another.

Except for remote locations such as the Unknown Regions and obscure halo worlds, everything else was considered either part of the Galactic Empire or its bitches, so stretching the means somewhat, it isn't in doubt to assert that Palpatine unified the galaxy.

Palpatine destroyed it for his own ends entirely.

Yeah, right. If anything, the Rebel Alliance ruined everything (for everyone) at Endor by plunging the galaxy into massive strife. As cruel as the Emperor and his servants were, the fact of the matter is that his policies brought more good about than bad, even if they might've been filled to the brim with oppression. The fact that the Imperial citizenry ignored this tyranny at all shows how far down the shithole the Republic had fallen--enough that no one cared. Those damned Rebels....

[TC Pilot]

The Empire did indeed colonize, conquer, and vassalize a great extent of the galaxy. The Deep Core was finally accessed under Palpatine's directives, the Unknown Regions and the Chiss were reigned in by Thrawn, the Outer Rim came under Imperial control (Tarkin was Grand Moff of the region), the Hapan cluster and Hutt Space were under Imperial control as well.

[Patrick Degan]

You know, I liked where you claim that Napoleon was a genius because his empire outlasted him, and when it is pointed out that the New Order lasted after Palpatine too, you handwave it away with some "ah, but it did so despite him" bullshit.

The Empire came back only after the exhaustion of the Grand Alliance in the effort to beat off the Yuuzhan Vong, and the restructured version of it clearly abandoned Palpatine's despotic policies —including human supremacism.

Or when you point out that Octavian was voted into power by the senate, completely ignoring that palpatine was too.

The two situations are not comparable. The Roman Senate faced a prospect of either the principate of Octavian, or another civil war breaking out. Such was not the dilemma faced by the Galactic Senate.

I particularly liked where you say that Octavian had to give himself those titles.

Considering that the likely consequence of surrendering his power would have been his own murder by those who would seek to ensure he'd never return, it was a matter of playing politics —which in that time was a particularly deadly game.

I will try to explain to you why papatine's actions qualify him for genius.

This should be amusing.

You say that many people have overthrown regimes in the past, but you don't even provide one single example of when someone has achieved anything even remotely comparable, and you won't. Want me to tell you why? Because nobody in history has ever conquered even one planet, let alone a galaxy full of millions.

What sort of bullshit argument is that? That Palpatine found himself in position to seize power of a fracturing galactic republic somehow makes his actions worthy of the label of genius simply by virtue of scale? How does that even come close to demonstrating "exceptional natural capacity of intellect" on Palpatine's part?

If you think you can, by all means produce an example of someone you think has accomplished even a fraction of what Palpatine did without being considered a genius, and then we'll talk. Remember, Palpatine not only effectively destroyed the government of the Republic (not the Republic itself, of course), but he ensured that he came out on top afterwards. Are you going to dismiss that as pure luck?

Hitler managed the same feat and far more economically in terms of effort and that man was hardly a genius; just a very charismatic (and murderous) bullshitter who happened to be in the right place and time to exploit a current of resentment and the weakness of a ramshackle political structure which was ripe for a fall.

[wjs7744]

The two situations are not comparable. The Roman Senate faced a prospect of either the principate of Octavian, or another civil war breaking out. Such was not the dilemma faced by the Galactic Senate.

So you are suggesting that the Republic wasn't threatened by civil war? That's hillarious. I'll give you a hint, it's called the Clone Wars.

Hitler managed the same feat and far more economically in terms of effort and that man was hardly a genius; just a very charismatic (and murderous) bullshitter who happened to be in the right place and time to exploit a current of resentment and the weakness of a ramshackle political structure which was ripe for a fall.

Yes, and as we all know, Hitler ruled the entire planet virtually unchallenged for several decades. Oh wait, he didn't, did he? Not to mention that you are ignoring that Palpatine created the conditions for his rise to power, Hitler merely did take advantage of pre-existing ones. See, this is part of the problem with your argument. You insist that Palpatine just took advantage of the situation, rather than being the architect of it. And if this were the case, you might have a point. But it isn't the case. He planned much of his rise to power, and those events he failed to anticipate, he adapted to and still came out on top.

[TC Pilot]

Anyone else find it amusing how Degan's essentially cherry-picking his opponents and is arguing barely a third of the responses to his points? It's especially funny considering "I'm still waiting for anybody to outline just what in Palpatine's actions actually indicates "exceptional natural capacity of intellect" on his part."

[Illuminatus Primus]

Far less so that your bullshit non-answers and repetitions.

If you say so, chief.

Augustus actually had a far grander vision for his state and one which would endure past his lifetime. He brought an end to his state's civil wars, recreated a political order which was clearly in fatal breakdown, reestablished stability, made Rome's military a more effective and efficient unit, and brought peace and prosperity to a nation rent by years of strife. Autocratic it may have been but the result was an empire which endured for half a millenia even given the lack of an orderly imperial succession mechanism. Unlike Palpatine, Augustus achieved his vision, replaced a broken system with one which was guaranteed to work, and made it durable while advancing the greatness of Rome.

Nevertheless, Palpatine controlled the Republic through shadow cliques and illicit pacts between business and aristocrats as early as The Phantom Menace (ref: Han Solo and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook). This requires immense political acumen and brilliant security. He reformed the bureaucracy (ref: Imperial Sourcebook); streamlined the legal system (ref: Imperial Sourcebook); unified the galaxy (the Republic had not incorporated Hutt Space or Tattooine; ref: The Phantom Menace); he ended the "countless petty conflicts" of civil strifle and blood feud (ref: Spectre of the Past); he created the first genuine professional military and officer corps the galaxy had seen in a millennium - that provided the expertise and leadership to even the counterrevolutionary successor states such as the New Republic and its renamed successor; Palpatine developed many depressed worlds; charted, explored, and developed entire regions which had been abandoned or left fallow; and his political program remain immensely popular not only during his entire life, but also even in the electoral contests of the nascent New Republic (an explicitly anti-Palpatinist regime).

Genghis Khan qualifies far better than Palpatine. His object was to make the Mongol Empire the premier world power and he instituted a system of law which, though brutal, was also fair (i.e. everybody was subject to it, even the members of his court and his bureaucracy). He knew when to kill and when to show mercy. He knew who to elevate in society to better secure the overall good of the empire and his conquered territories. The Mongol conquest of the Baghdad caliphate in 1258 and its aftermath is particularly instructive as an example.

Right. Except Palpatine's subjects lived in "luxury liner worlds", would "reel in horror" at the loss of him, and even the Rebel troops blamed it not on the New Order conceptually, or Palpatine personally, but his ministers recently. Its not like Khan didn't depopulate whole regions for not submitting to his rule.

. . .

Temujin attempted to create an order which would outlast him, and pursued a larger goal than simply "unlimited POWERRRRRR" and his own godhood. It wasn't all about him.
. . .

And who cares? You've failed to note the selfishness and egotism of many brilliant scientists such as Newton, the psychological or mental problems of luminaries such Nicola Tesla and John Nash, or the rampant egotism and self-aggrandizement of political geniuses such as Josef Stalin. Genius implies capability and success at a particular field to a superlative degree. You've failed to explain why egotism and self-aggrandizement - the motives of a genius - effect the evaluation of his genius. Even regardless of his ill intent, Palpatine's reforms outlasted him and formed the basis of even the counterrevolutionary state that succeeded him (similarly to the fact that the Bourbon Restorations failed to irradiate Bonapartism and the legacy of the Revolution). His mark transformed the state and politics indefinitely. And his program was cut short only by luck and assassination. Nothing else.

Napoleon's accomplishments were never strictly military. He codified a system of law which survived his downfall, ended feudalism in France once and for all, and sought not only to expand his empire militarily and financially, but scienfically and socially as well.

Neither was Palpatine's: he pacified and unified the galaxy; he explored, settled, and developed whole regions; he reformed the legal, bureaucratic, and armed services and his reforms outlasted him; and his political program remained successful even in a state founded in opposition to him personally and his politics generally. This is disregarding that like Bonapartism, it remained strongly attractive to the galactic populace, and would resume its rule in the Second Empire.

. . .

Even after his defeat, Napoleon's works survived him and redefined France for the better. Even the restored Bourbons could not reverse that and Napoleon remains the premier national hero of France.

Palpatine continues to be revered and respected by some decades and even a century after his death; and if not him personally, than his political programs and reforms.

Improving the nation and making it stronger is not altruism but pragmatism. It is a goal with a definite material object at the end of it and which serves the interests of the state, and if improving the lot of the people within the nation serves that purpose, it is pursued as part of that overall aim.

Whoa whoa whoa. How does one "improve the nation" and "serve the interests of the state," without "improving the lot of the people within the nation"? Are you a fascist? Because identifying the nation and the state as the same is incorrect and I would love to know what improvements on the nation are mutually exclusive from improving the lot of its people.

Furthermore, Palpatine strengthened the state and improved the lot of the Empire's people.

It is, in fact, more pragmatic to do that since a contented and prosperous people will also be far less inclined to rebellion —which definitely serves the interests of the state. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others with no thought to benefit, which is what altruism actually is, doesn't enter into the consideration here.

Okay, since the goal of a leader is now to serve some quasi-transcendental concept of the state, to which the populace is subordinated, is intrinsically fascist - I will ignore your disturbing political science remarks and concentrate on the primary issue. The Battle of Endor involved every soul in the Rebellion (ref: Return of the Jedi novelisation); this could not have exceeded some millions of people aboard the starships. Millions is, exactly as Palpatine says, "an insignificant rebellion." Its the statistical equivalent of right-wing survivalist loonies with gun stockpiles in Wyoming. And if that is an indictment of a leader, I guess President Clinton failed to be an effective head of state.

Here's a clue, shitwit: vomiting up dictionary definitions doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the concept. The dictionary definition is merely the beginning to understanding, not it's be-all/end-all.

Why should we use your definition, Degan?

Then establish scholarly precedent and a standard of common usage for your expanded definition. If we're debating the definition of words, and you want to attack me and others on those grounds, you had best have a better reason other than "I decided right now personally that genius should mean this, and you should belief it because I say so."

SHOW ME. I am not a creationist lemming or a religious freak. You don't get to assert axioms unless they are epistemologically required, and in this case, they are not. Don't tell me. Show me. Prove it.

How like you to not only ignore the context of Octavian's situation but also the context of Roman religious belief in the bargain. Octavian was playing a very dangerous political game and had to employ every weapon at his command to win that game, especially since the loss of it would likely cost him his life. That is not megalomania but practicality expressing itself.

So you're claiming that his program to establish a principate would be impossible without making his first name "Triumphant Commander," his family name, "the Revered"?

That's funny, because Antony was squashed in early 30 BC, and he was not declared Augustus until three years later in 27 BC. What exactly required this absolutely? Are you claiming that this dignity was a quintessential aspect of winning autocratic authority and the love of the people?

Simply saying that it is so, is not the same thing as showing how it is so. Get it?

Wrong. The Republic was that first unification. Palpatine destroyed it for his own ends entirely.

Did you watch The Phantom Menace? "The Republic doesn't exist out here"? Here we see exactly that the Imperial armed forces extend their security and such out to Tattooine, which has been liberated from direct gangster rule and must submit to legal authorities.

Barring that little inconvenient fact of the Rebellion, of course, which actually had its nascent beginnings almost immediately upon the declaration of the Empire by Palpatine and got kick-started by the Ghorman Massacre. Resistance cels and raids against Imperial facilities took place years before the final codification of the treaty which formed the Rebel Alliance officially.

And at their height, at Endor, they number probably fewer than a few million. Statistically insignificant. The ratio of Rebels to the population of a single Imperial conurbation in the case of Coruscant (much less the entire Empire) utterly fails to compare to the ratio between right-wing surivialists in Wyoming and the population of the U.S.

No, he was an ACTUAL despot.

This was not the political understanding by his subjects; like Octavian, he retained absolute power and imperial dignity but without exercising it openly and appearing to most as a tyrant. Biggs Darklighter in A New Hope claims the "Empire was a beautiful thing once" and that "the people in charge now..." - which obviously cannot refer to Palpatine, as he has been Emperor since the Empire's inception - are the problem. Likewise, the same source verifies that he was perceived to be manipulated by the "same bootlickers he had appointed to high office" according to the Journal of the Whills. He was perceived as a beloved old statesman, savior of the galaxy. Return of the Jedi informs us that when Palpatine died, the galaxy would reel in horror and despair at the loss. Palpatine was not perceived as a tyrant or unpopular by most citizens.

Rule by terror was his policy as emperor (the Jedi purge,

Order Sixty-Six was a legal, general order for the Grand Army of the Republic. The Jedi Order DID attempt to launch an extraconstitutional coup d'etat against the lawful head of state during wartime. The squashing of the Jedi coup was welcomed with applause in the Senate and passed without virtually any public opposition. Hardly qualifies as "rule by terror"; since no one was scared but the enemies of the state (a statistically insignificant group).

the Caamas BDZ)

This was not an official government policy or operation. And quite frankly, when Octavian murdered 300 Senators (around half the Senate) and even more equestrians and seized their property to fund a civil war (and blood feud), I don't know why you're quibbling.

and he dispensed with the Senate and placed the galaxy under direct military rule at the first convenient moment.

The Galactic Emperor was permitted to dissolve the Senate in emergencies or to call for new elections. His move was fully constitutional. At no point was the Galactic Senate legally abolished, and senators continued to stand for election and be influential in galactic politics (Senator Grayshade, ref: Marvel Star Wars).

The existence of the COMPNOR organisation which fostered loyalty to the Palpatine-led New Order says otherwise.

COMPNOR was not a fully-integrated governmental institution. While influential, it never banned opposition parties. The Imperial Security Bureau was under the firm thumb of the state. The totalitarians took a back seat to aristocratic monarchists, authoritarians, and conservatives.

As a matter of political practicality, shitwit, not megalomania. How many times will this have to be spelled out to you?

There was no necessity to using imperator as a praenomen.

First: Octavian did not rule alone, but in alliance with Mark Antony and Lepidus in the Second Triumvirate, which was not unprecedented in recent Roman history to that point. Second: the Senate was never dissolved even during the time of the triumvirate or the time of the wars, and it was the Senate which approved Octavian's war on Antony and Egypt —especially after Antony attempted to convene an illegal rump senate in Alexandria and to split Egypt and the eastern provinces away from Rome, which played right into Octavian's hands.

After Octavian had purged the Senate and filled it with his partisans. And regardless, his imperium in the West thanks to the Triumviri Rei Publicae Constituendae Consulari Potestate was absolute. The Senate was a rubber-stamp.

Third: the Senate itself voted Octavian into supreme power when he made the show of resigning all his offices and titles and retiring to private life, and it was the Senate who conferred the name Augustus upon him, which he accepted again as a matter of political practicality —this time for its clear propaganda value.

You mean after he had killed the last true opposition to his autocracy and commanded all the legions of the Republic? You mean after the proscriptions of the Senate and the packing of partisans? You mean after he controlled the breadbasket of Rome and thus the mob?

Fourth: it took only fourteen years from the formation of the Second Triumvirate to Actium for Octavian to attain his power over the Roman world. Not decades.

Palpatine already surreptitiously had shadow rule over the Republic as of The Phantom Menace; ten years later he would ensconced as a war dictator of the Republic in the Roman fashion by means of a constitutional amendment and an emergency powers resolution.

Fifth: while Octavian did deal ruthlessly with his enemies, once the wars were over he pardoned many former members of Antony's camp, to facilitate both the return of stability as well as the cementing of his own position.

The Mining Guild was rehabilitated into the Imperial system after involvement with the Separatist movement. Muunilinst, a bulwark of the Confederacy, was a loyal Imperial city and fully-integrated during Palpatine's dominate. Jedi Knights who were willing to relinquish their ideologically threatening religious precepts and serve in Imperial Intelligence or Palpatine personally, were spared their lives and given opportunity to advance themselves. A former Jedi Master, Jerec, became a very influential courtier and specialist agent of Imperial Intelligence.

The Roman Senate numbered quite a bit over 1000 in membership at the time of the Second Triumvirate. Even after the proscription a significant number in opposition to Octavian remained —many appointed by Antony and Lepidus to replace those who were purged, to put a check on Octavian— until 300 of them deserted the Senate for Antony in 32 BCE in his bid to create his own Eastern Empire based in Egypt.

And how much of the Senate did Palpatine murder? Regardless it was packed with partisans, Octavian controlled Egypt ad personam - the breadbasket of the empire -, and he commanded all the legions. They had little choice.

Fourteen years down the line, however, cast the issue in terms of Octavian either accepting his powers or, as the Senate then saw it, a return to civil chaos, which would certainly have followed in the wake of a power vacuum. You oversimplify horribly to try to fit your tortured comparison between Augustus and Palpatine in this.

The Senate willingly confirmed Palpatine's war dictatorate in a constitutional manner. It acclaimed him Emperor with "thunderous applause." Even the conspiring and opposition senators in some case remained free and participating for years or decades after the acclamation of the Empire. They evaded arrest after conspiring to commit high treason against a lawful sovereign. And Palpatine did eventually prove much more capable of holding the galaxy together against parochial or centrifugal pressures than anyone preceding or succeeding him.

What does precedent have to do with the issue, shitwit? Augustus acted entirely out of political necessity, as has been explained to you.

The use of imperator as a praenomen and the use of augustus as a cognomen is not a political necessity no matter how much you screech. There was no way Octavian would suddenly fail to have effective autocratic power without those dignities. He was building up a personality cult and imperial dignity; no less or more illegitimate than Palpatine's acclamation as Emperor - supported by an unpurged Senate and the galactic populace by huge majorities. I could just as easily claim by fiat that Palpatine's acclamation was necessary to formalize and solidify his constitutional authority.

Palpatine, by contrast, faced no such necessity —nothing was forcing him to name himself Emperor—

Octavian was not forced to become emperor. He chose to, and executing it brilliantly.

and he did not face the possibility of being killed by his enemies if he changed his mind and retired, and his programmes went far beyond those of Augustus in the institution of a personal despotism and reign of terror.

Wrong. The political elite of the Republic/Empire was spared any sort of proscription on the scale of Octavian's. And Palpatine suffered no major expansionist setbacks during his reign, as opposed to the Augustan disaster of Germania Magna at the hands of Publius Quinctilius Varus.

Funny coming from a man who very clearly doesn't understand the subject he presumes competence in, wildly conflates events, ignores context, and can't even get his fucking timelines straight. Try taking your own advice.

Right. I'm sure your sidelining into Roman googlage as opposed to citing SW canon is pure coincidence and not reflective of your ignorance of the actual facts of Palpatine's rule. Not to mention your fantasy that Octavian's superficial settlement of dignities in anyway was essential for the political constitution of his position compared to the assumption of the tribunica potestas and the imperium proconsulare maius.

Sayeth the Strawmanderer. How amusing.

Whatever you say, chief.

Um, Napoleon's legacy far outlasted his imperial rule and in a positive way. And once again, dictionary definitions are merely a beginning to understanding, not their be-all/end-all.

Why should we use your definition, Degan?

The only "fucking joke" here is your non-answer.

Why should we use your definition, Degan?

Palpatine —insane and an utter failure. No comparison.

Why should we use your definition, Degan?

Nice try. Obsessive-compulsive disorder on the part of Tesla and Hughes does not offer a comparison to Palpatine. Furthermore, both Tesla and Hughes were productive geniuses —the former managing to remain so up to his death at age 81 while the latter became crippled by his OCD.

Really?

Obsession negates genius or even talent since everything ends up being turned inward and warps around that single-minded object until the person so afflicted loses sight of every outside consideration and falls into denial and delusion and you can't achieve anything without a solid footing in reality.

Palpatine's achievements were many and unmatched and successful for forty years.

Palpatine, by contrast, was consumed with the obsession of his own godhood from day one of his effort to destroy the Republic and attempted to force everything into the service of that singular, megalomaniacal obsession —against which OCD doesn't even begin to compare in terms of mental disorder.

Right. This all explains his patience, his successful political program, even decades - a century even - later, his enduring reforms, his unification of the galaxy, etc., etc.

Here's a clue for you: flinging names from history the way monkeys fling their poop, in the hope something will stick somewhere, isn't going to save your trainwreck of an argument.

You're getting a bit light on the argument and citation. Why don't you define genius, explain why we must use that definition, supply evidence from throughout the SW canon disproving my claims and its claims, and therefore providing a straightforward case for accepting your thesis.

Because you have to run amok with this bleating bullshit and because you don't have the evidence.

The Peace of the Gun. The "streamlining" of legal processes and "reform" of local government by instituting direct military rule.

Bzzt. That's the sound of a wrong answer. According to Imperial Sourcebook, fewer than one in sixty worlds were in any way forcibly reorganized. Rather, the Empire left to individual worlds to bring their own reforms into the Imperial system. The full-member worlds were not ruled by the Moffs (they were responsible for Imperial property and territories; the "fifty million colonies and protectorates" mentioned in Imperial Sourcebook), but their own governments which in most cases (the inner regions) created luxury liner worlds which were not directly interfered with by the Empire (see above). Furthermore, the Emperor was constitutionally permitted to dissolve the Senate in emergencies or to call for new elections. The Imperial Sourcebook clarifies that Oversector Governor Wilhuff Grand Moff Tarkin was exaggerating when he spoke of the "permanent" dissolution of the Senate; it was actually dissolved for the duration of the emergency (and this was clearly reasonable; an Imperial senator had been arrested aiding and abetting counterrevolutionary and terrorist action).

And if you can call Palpatine offering to trade to the Ssi-ruuvi millions of humans to entech in exchange for their technology, you could say he "thwarted" external invasion.

Hearsay; but statistically irrelevant. Is one to prefer the evil but competent ruler who does not get you killed, or the well-meaning but incompetent ruler who does get you killed (Yuuzhan Vong invasion).

And as for Palpatine's rule not being totalitarian, what do you call COMPNOR,

Typically fascist states do not permit opposition parties; yet they existed and were never banned. These include the Rationalist (ref: Planet of Twilight) and Rights of Sentience Party. Membership in COMPNOR was not obligatory. The New Order Party was only one of many.

the complete imperialisation of every institution,

Such as a historically free market? Such as the fewer than one in sixty worlds than actually had any Imperial restructuring of local government (and in the wake of civil war! this is better than the record of the Union government after the U.S. Civil War). Incom Corporation was nationalized because it was found to be a font of treasonous activities.

and little acts like the Camaas BDZ?

Statistically insignificant and not a government policy.

The hunting down and extermination of the remaining Jedi?

They were given an opportunity to declare fealty and service to the Empire, and even given opportunity for high office.

The Ghorman massacre?

Statistically insignificant; the protesters were blocking the landing of military spacecraft.

The attempted genocide of the Oswaft?

Statistically insignificant. The fact you try to discredit Palpatine for sentient right abuses in the pursuit of power and state solidarity while apologizing for Octavian's proscriptions, Temujin's obliteration of many cities and entire cultures, and Napoleon "whiff of grapeshot" Bonaparte proves how preconceived your notions are and how inconsistent your standards are.

Explain the Rebel Alliance, then. The fact remains that there was a major insurrection to overthrow Palpatine's dictatorship within his own galaxy. That doesn't indicate general contentment under his rule.

DESB, ISB: Most of the galaxy lived on comfortable "luxury liner worlds"; most people supported Palpatine personally - even Rebels like Biggs Darklighter claimed the Empire was a good idea and blamed Palpatine's ministers for the problems; and lastly, ROTJ novelisation (a G-canon source) claims the galaxy would lurch in despair at the loss of Palpatine. A few million Rebels is statistically insignificant, baring out the canon (snubfighters vs. the Death Star, "not enough life here to fill a space cruiser," "your insignificant rebellion").

Given that democracy was an unknown concept to these people and many of their subjects did enjoy relative prosperity and security, the Empire was the best deal they had going for them at the time. It wasn't ideal by our standards to say the least, but it worked for them.

Temujin depopulated Asia by a factor of 20-30%. Sorry, you lose.

Octavian proscribed 300 senators, not the Senate en-masse. See above.

Palpatine's eager Senate was free of any proscription at the time of his dictatorate and of his acclamation as Emperor.

Palpatine plunged his galaxy into civil war and murdered whole worlds. The only reason his death-count didn't get any higher was the fact that he fell from power after only three decades on the throne.

Percentages count. And that you'd apologize or compare favorably Genghis Khan, who depopulated entire regions and cultures, to Palpatine, speaks of your unreasoning.

The revived Empire succeeded despite the legacy of Palpatine, not because of it. It succeeded because it rejected the totalitarianism of Palpatine's rule.

Uh, despite using his political programs from top to bottom and constitutional forms? And the Empire is not totalitarian, as much as you want it to be.

The revived Empire also succeeded by rejecting Palpatine's absolutism and was a synthesis, not a throwback.

The Second Empire was an autocracy with a consultative body of Moffs of the Empire serving in senior ministerial position, so you are wrong.

Excuse me, but Mace Windu was quite prepared to overthrow Palpatine without solid evidence to justify the act even before Anakin told him he was the Sith Lord. What's the matter? Miss that whole discussion between Mace, Obi-Wan, and Yoda on that topic in the movie?

The point is, you hold it against the Jedi for not planning a coup even earlier with even less evidence or reason. "They just should have known he was bad and teh evil!" You're an imbecile, Degan.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Empire came back only after the exhaustion of the Grand Alliance in the effort to beat off the Yuuzhan Vong, and the restructured version of it clearly abandoned Palpatine's despotic policies —including human supremacism.

Wrong. The renamed New Republic defeated the Yuuzhan Vong and the Second Empire defeated the renamed New Republic nearly a century later. Human supremacism was not a universal state policy of the First Empire. Palpatine's Vice Chair, Mas Amedda, as a member of Palpatine's Imperial inner circle. He was overtly monarchist and overtly non-human. The highest level in the military, that of Grand Admiral of the Galactic Empire, claimed Mitth'raw'nuroudo within their ranks. He was also a member of the most exclusive social club in the galaxy, and a public and visible member of the Court of Courts. Odd for an officially anti-human supposed state, hm? General Sk'ar was a commander of an elite joint-forces command and was overtly alien. Palpatine's Dark Side Adepts included several aliens, who served in positions of overt power. A ruling junta at the twilight of the First Empire was filled with alien members.

The two situations are not comparable. The Roman Senate faced a prospect of either the principate of Octavian, or another civil war breaking out. Such was not the dilemma faced by the Galactic Senate.

Uh, really? The political system was solely dependent on Palpatine; without him there was the dissolution and chaos of the Republic.

Considering that the likely consequence of surrendering his power would have been his own murder by those who would seek to ensure he'd never return, it was a matter of playing politics —which in that time was a particularly deadly game.

I didn't know a failure to assume imperator as a praenomen and augustus as a cognomen would result in him losing the faith of the people, his enormous wealth, his partisans in a purged Senate, command of the legions, and personal ownership of the breadbasket of Rome. Silly me. I forgot his assumption of names was more important than command of the army, supply of food for the populace, lots of lackeys, and a shitload of cash. Here I thought the office of consul and later, his tribunica potestas and imperium proconsulare maius would be important. I am so glad Degan is here to educate me.

This should be amusing.

You're a smarmy little fuck. And hear I thought the smell in Nawlins was from the flood, I know now its the putrid residue of your brain.

What sort of bullshit argument is that? That Palpatine found himself in position to seize power of a fracturing galactic republic somehow makes his actions worthy of the label of genius simply by virtue of scale? How does that even come close to demonstrating "exceptional natural capacity of intellect" on Palpatine's part?

Because taking over a bullshit tribe or chieftancy is much less impressive than a huge nation-state? Maybe that applies to the nation-state/galaxy difference too?

Hitler managed the same feat and far more economically in terms of effort and that man was hardly a genius; just a very charismatic (and murderous) bullshitter who happened to be in the right place and time to exploit a current of resentment and the weakness of a ramshackle political structure which was ripe for a fall.

Except Hitler failed to expand borders and dominate the known world; Palpatine succeeded. If the Rebels had not gotten lucky and he not died, he would not have lost.

[Patrick Degan]

It is actually necessary to split the response to Primus' endless bullshit parade in multiple parts. So here we go, part the first:

Palpatine controlled the Republic through shadow cliques and illicit pacts between business and aristocrats as early as The Phantom Menace (ref: Han Solo and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook). This requires immense political acumen and brilliant security.

"Brilliant political acumen" to appeal to the greed of industrialists and aristocrats who'd think nothing of betraying the Republic if it meant more power and wealth for themselves? Just how much effort or "special creative talent or intellectual capacity" do you really think that would have required? "Brilliant security"? The Mafia and the Russian Mob manage that feat regularly in our own world. All it takes is for everybody in the organisation to know the penalty for not keeping the mouth shut.

He reformed the bureaucracy (ref: Imperial Sourcebook); streamlined the legal system (ref: Imperial Sourcebook); unified the galaxy (the Republic had not incorporated Hutt Space or Tattooine; ref: The Phantom Menace); he ended the "countless petty conflicts" of civil strifle and blood feud (ref: Spectre of the Past); he created the first genuine professional military and officer corps the galaxy had seen in a millennium - that provided the expertise and leadership to even the counterrevolutionary successor states such as the New Republic and its renamed successor; Palpatine developed many depressed worlds; charted, explored, and developed entire regions which had been abandoned or left fallow; and his political program remain immensely popular not only during his entire life, but also even in the electoral contests of the nascent New Republic (an explicitly anti-Palpatinist regime).

Right. If you leave out the despotism, mass enslavement of non-humans, murder of whole worlds, and rule by terror, he was just the best thing to ever come along the pike. I guess that's why worlds started flocking to the banner of the New Republic within weeks of its proclamation. And I suppose the celebrations of Palpatine's downfall on Coruscant (seen in the Special Edition of Return Of The Jedi) and other worlds across the galaxy never happened either.

Genghis Khan qualifies far better than Palpatine. His object was to make the Mongol Empire the premier world power and he instituted a system of law which, though brutal, was also fair (i.e. everybody was subject to it, even the members of his court and his bureaucracy). He knew when to kill and when to show mercy. He knew who to elevate in society to better secure the overall good of the empire and his conquered territories. The Mongol conquest of the Baghdad caliphate in 1258 and its aftermath is particularly instructive as an example.

Right. Except Palpatine's subjects lived in "luxury liner worlds", would "reel in horror" at the loss of him, and even the Rebel troops blamed it not on the New Order conceptually, or Palpatine personally, but his ministers recently. Its not like Khan didn't depopulate whole regions for not submitting to his rule.

Palpatine destroyed whole worlds and used a luxury resort world as a means to steal life-force energies from countless individuals for his own perpetuation. He disappeared enemies and enforced loyalty through a secret police organisation. And given that "luxury liner worlds" were the standard of living in the Core region even before his rule, that's not much of an argument.

You've failed to note the selfishness and egotism of many brilliant scientists such as Newton, the psychological or mental problems of luminaries such Nicola Tesla and John Nash, or the rampant egotism and self-aggrandizement of political geniuses such as Josef Stalin. Genius implies capability and success at a particular field to a superlative degree. You've failed to explain why egotism and self-aggrandizement - the motives of a genius - effect the evaluation of his genius. Even regardless of his ill intent, Palpatine's reforms outlasted him and formed the basis of even the counterrevolutionary state that succeeded him (similarly to the fact that the Bourbon Restorations failed to irradiate Bonapartism and the legacy of the Revolution). His mark transformed the state and politics indefinitely. And his program was cut short only by luck and assassination. Nothing else.

If you say so, Gracie. And since when did "egotism" and "self-aggrandizement" qualify as standards for defining genius, Mr. Dictionary? Personality quirks aren't the issue and you fucking well know it —or at least that was what you were arguing up until now. And if Palpatine's "reforms" "transformed the state and politics indefinitely" as you would have it, why have the successor governments dispensed with Palpatine's despotic policies or his racial ideologies as bases for galactic government?

Neither was Palpatine's: he pacified and unified the galaxy; he explored, settled, and developed whole regions; he reformed the legal, bureaucratic, and armed services and his reforms outlasted him; and his political program remained successful even in a state founded in opposition to him personally and his politics generally. This is disregarding that like Bonapartism, it remained strongly attractive to the galactic populace, and would resume its rule in the Second Empire.

Right. Which is why they reinstituted the Senate, restored constitutional rule of law, ended Palpatinist despotism, restored the citizenship and rights of non-human sentients, and why even the Second Empire remains a quasi-imperial system only.

Palpatine continues to be revered and respected by some decades and even a century after his death; and if not him personally, than his political programs and reforms.

Then where's the despotism and rule of terror, then? Have the successor governments maintained slavery for non-humans (a Palpatine policy)? And quantify "by some" (BTW, nice No Numbers Fallacy you've got there).

Improving the nation and making it stronger is not altruism but pragmatism. It is a goal with a definite material object at the end of it and which serves the interests of the state, and if improving the lot of the people within the nation serves that purpose, it is pursued as part of that overall aim.

Whoa whoa whoa. How does one "improve the nation" and "serve the interests of the state," without "improving the lot of the people within the nation"? Are you a fascist?

Ad-Hominem Fallacy. Just sliding pell-mell into outright dishonesty now, aren't you?

Because identifying the nation and the state as the same is incorrect and I would love to know what improvements on the nation are mutually exclusive from improving the lot of its people.

Ad-Hominem Fallacy. You clearly however are dishonest or just plain stupid. It actually has been possible to improve a nation without necessarily improving the lot of the people within it. Maoist China crash-industrialised and made itself a nuclear power, which did improve the nation from the feudal backwater it had been, but essentially left it's people frozen in place in terms of social improvement and in fact carried out some of the worst purges in modern history, killing millions in the process, to ensure total loyalty and eradicate rival ideologies. It is only recently that this has started to change and even as it is millions of Chinese are still living no better than their ancestors had for generations.

Furthermore, Palpatine strengthened the state and improved the lot of the Empire's people.

Except if you were a non-human. And by what standard are you quantifying this "improvement"?

It is, in fact, more pragmatic to do that since a contented and prosperous people will also be far less inclined to rebellion —which definitely serves the interests of the state. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others with no thought to benefit, which is what altruism actually is, doesn't enter into the consideration here.

Okay, since the goal of a leader is now to serve some quasi-transcendental concept of the state, to which the populace is subordinated, is intrinsically fascist - I will ignore your disturbing political science remarks and concentrate on the primary issue.

Being accused of fascist inclinations by a man singing paens of praise for a despotic tyrant who murdered whole worlds and condemned billions of beings to slavery. Sometimes the comedy just writes itself.

The Battle of Endor involved every soul in the Rebellion (ref: Return of the Jedi novelisation); this could not have exceeded some millions of people aboard the starships. Millions is, exactly as Palpatine says, "an insignificant rebellion." Its the statistical equivalent of right-wing survivalist loonies with gun stockpiles in Wyoming. And if that is an indictment of a leader, I guess President Clinton failed to be an effective head of state.

No Numbers Fallacy once again. I would love to see the formula by which you quantify "every soul in the Rebellion" as troop numbers and starship crew present at the battle and how you can know that every last person involved was in the fleet and none left at their bases, supply docks, repair facilities, or even on their homeworlds. Clearly, the concept of literary license has sailed past that pointy head of yours for you to float something this idiotic as an "argument".

[Patrick Degan]

Part the second:

Here's a clue, shitwit: vomiting up dictionary definitions doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the concept. The dictionary definition is merely the beginning to understanding, not it's be-all/end-all.

Then establish scholarly precedent and a standard of common usage for your expanded definition. If we're debating the definition of words, and you want to attack me and others on those grounds, you had best have a better reason other than "I decided right now personally that genius should mean this, and you should belief it because I say so."

SHOW ME. I am not a creationist lemming or a religious freak. You don't get to assert axioms unless they are epistemologically required, and in this case, they are not. Don't tell me. Show me. Prove it.

I do grow so tired of having to do other peoples' homework for them.

No paper on any subject or lecture, no researcher, writer or philosopher, restricts the object of discussion to the dictionary definition and the dictionary definition alone, you pedantic little asshole. To cite Harold Bloom, author of Genius: A Mosaic Of One Hundred Creative Minds (Warner Books, 2002, ISBN: 0446691291):

Genius is no longer a term much favored by scholars, so many of whom have become cultural levelers quite immune from awe. Yet, with the public, the idea of genius maintains its prestige, even though the word itself can seem somewhat tarnished. We need genius, however envious or uncomfortable it makes many among us. It is not necessary that we aspire after genius for ourselves, and yet, in our recesses, we remember that we had, or have, a genius. Our desire for the transcendental and extraordinary seems part of our common heritage, and abandons us slowly, and never completely.

To say that the work is in the writer, or the religious idea is in the charismatic leader, is not a paradox. Shakespeare, we happen to know, was a usurer. So was Shylock, but did that help to keep The Merchant of Venice a comedy? We don't know. But to look for the work in the writer is to look for the influence and effect of the play upon Shakespeare's development from comedy to tragicomedy to tragedy. It is to see Shylock darkening Shakespeare. To examine the effects of his own parables upon the figure of Jesus is to conduct a parallel exploration.

There are two ancient (Roman) meanings of the word "genius," which are rather different in emphasis. One is to beget, cause to be born, that is to be a paterfamilias. The other is to be an attendant spirit for each person or place: to be either a good or evil genius, and so to be someone who, for better or for worse, strongly influences someone else. This second meaning has been more important than the first; our genius is thus our inclination or natural gift, our inborn intellectual or imaginative power, not our power to beget power in others.

We all learn to distinguish, firmly and definitively, between genius and talent. A "talent" classically was a weight or sum of money, and as such, however large, was necessarily limited. But "genius," even in its linguistic origins, has no limits.

We tend now to regard genius as the creative capacity, as opposed to talent. The Victorian historian Froude observed that genius "is a spring in which there is always more behind than flows from it." The largest instances of genius that we know, aesthetically, would include Shakespeare and Dante, Bach and Mozart, Michelangelo and Rembrandt, Donatello and Rodin, Alberti and Brunelleschi. A greater complexity ensues when we attempt to confront religious genius, particularly in a religion-obsessed country like the United States. To regard Jesus and Muhammad as religious geniuses (whatever else they were) makes them, in that regard only, akin not only to one another but to Zoroaster and the Buddha, and to such secular figures of ethical genius as Confucius and Socrates.

Defining genius more precisely than has yet been done is one of my objectives in this book. Another is to defend the idea of genius, currently abused by detractors and reductionists, from sociobiologists through the materialists of the genome school, and on to various historicizers. But my primary aim is both to enhance our appreciation of genius, and to show how invariably it is engendered by the stimulus of prior genius, to a much greater degree than it is by cultural and political contexts. The influence of genius upon itself, already mentioned, will be one of the book's major emphases.

My subject is universal, not so much because world-altering geniuses have existed, and will come again, but because genius, however repressed, exists in so many readers. Emerson thought that all Americans were potential poets and mystics. Genius does not teach how to read or whom to read, but rather how to think about exemplary human lives at their most creative.

It will be noted in the table of contents that I have excluded any living instances of genius, and have dealt with only three recently dead. In this book I am compelled to be brief and summary in my account of individual genius, because I believe that much is to be learned by juxtaposing many figures from varied cultures and contrasting eras. The differences between a hundred men and women, drawn from a span of twenty-five centuries, overwhelm the analogies or similarities, and to present them within a single volume may seem the enterprise of an overreacher. And yet there are common characteristics to genius, since vivid individuality of speculation, spirituality, and creativity must rely upon originality, audacity, and selfreliance.

Emerson, in his Representative Men, begins with a heartening paragraph:

It is natural to believe in great men. If the companions of our childhood should turn out to be heroes, and their condition regal, it will not surprise us. All mythology opens with demigods, and the circumstance is high and poetic; that is, their genius is paramount. In the legends of Gautama, the first men ate the earth, and found it deliciously sweet.

Gautama, the Buddha, quests for and attains freedom, as though he were one of the first men. Emerson's twice-told tale is a touch more American than Buddhist; his first men seem American Adams, and not reincarnations of previous enlightenments. Perhaps I too can only Americanize, but that may be the paramount use of past geniuses; we have to adapt them to our place and our time, if we are to be enlightened or inspired by them.

Emerson had six great or representative men: Plato, Swedenborg, Montaigne, Shakespeare, Napoleon, and Goethe. Four of these are in this book; Swedenborg is replaced by Blake, and Napoleon I have discarded with all other generals and politicians. Plato, Montaigne, Shakespeare, and Goethe remain essential, as do the others I sketch. Essential for what? To know ourselves, in relation to others, for these mighty dead are among the otherness that we can know, as Emerson tells us in Representative Men:

We need not fear excessive influence. A more generous trust is permitted. Serve the great.

And yet this is the conclusion of his book:

The world is young: the former great men call to us affectionately. We too must write Bibles, to unite again the heavens and the earthly world. The secret of genius is to suffer no fiction to exist for us; to realize all that we know.

To realize all that we know, fictions included, is too large an enterprise for us, a wounded century and a half after Emerson. The world no longer seems young, and I do not always hear the accents of affection when the voices of genius call out to me. But then I have the disadvantage, and the advantage, of coming after Emerson. The genius of influence transcends its constituent anxieties, provided we become aware of them and then surmise where we stand in relation to their continuing prevalence.

Thomas Carlyle, a Victorian Scottish genius now out of fashion, wrote an admirable study that almost nobody reads anymore, On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. It contains the best remark on Shakespeare that I know:

If called to define Shakespeare's faculty, I should say superiority of intellect, and think I had included all under that.

Adumbrating the observation, Carlyle characteristically exploded into a very useful warning against dividing any genius into its illusory components:

What indeed are faculties? We talk of faculties as if they were distinct, things separable; as if a man had intellect, imagination, fancy, etc. as he had hands, feet and arms.

"Power of Insight," Carlyle continued, was the vital force in any one of us. How do we recognize that insight or force in genius? We have the works of genius, and we have the memory of their personalities. I use that last word with high deliberation, following Walter Pater, another Victorian genius, but one who defies fashion, because he is akin to Emerson and to Nietzsche. These three subtle thinkers prophesied much of the intellectual future of our century that has just passed, and are unlikely to fade as influences during the new century. Pater's preface to his major book, The Renaissance, emphasizes that the "aesthetic critic" ("aesthetic" meaning "perceptive") identifies genius in every era:

In all ages there have been some excellent workmen, and some excellent work done. The question he asks is always:-In whom did it stir, the genius, the sentiment of the period find itself? Where was the receptacle of his refinement, its elevation, its taste? "The ages are all equal," says William Blake, "but genius is always above its age."

Blake, a visionary genius almost without peer, is a superb guide to the relative independence that genius manifests in regard to time: it "is always above its age." We cannot confront the twenty-first century without expecting that it too will give us a Stravinsky or Louis Armstrong, a Picasso or Matisse, a Proust or James Joyce. To hope for a Dante or Shakespeare, a J. S. Bach or Mozart, a Michelangelo or Leonardo, is to ask for too much, since gifts that enormous are very rare. Yet we want and need what will rise above the twenty-first century, whatever that turns out to be.

The use of my mosaic is that it ought to help prepare us for this new century, by summoning up aspects of the personality and achievements of many of the most creative who have come before us. The ancient Roman made an offering to his genius on his birthday, dedicating that day to "the god of human nature," as the poet Horace called each person's tutelary spirit. Our custom of a birthday cake is in direct descent from that offering. We light the candles and might do well to remember what it is that we are celebrating.

GENIUS :


A Personal Definition


I have avoided all living geniuses in this book, partly so as to evade the distractions of mere provocation. I can identify for myself certain writers of palpable genius now among us: the Portuguese novelist Jos Saramago, the Canadian poet Anne Carson, the English poet Geoffrey Hill, and at least a halfdozen North and Latin American novelists and poets (whom I forbear naming).

Pondering my mosaic of one hundred exemplary creative minds, I arrive at a tentative and personal definition of literary genius. The question of genius was a perpetual concern of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who is the mind of America, as Walt Whitman is its poet, and Henry James its novelist (its dramatist is yet to come). For Emerson, genius was the God within, the self of "Self-Reliance." That self, in Emerson, therefore is not constituted by history, by society, by languages. It is aboriginal. I altogether agree.

Shakespeare, the supreme genius, is different in kind from his contemporaries, even from Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson. Cervantes stands apart from Lope de Vega, and Calder?n. Something in Shakespeare and Cervantes, as in Dante, Montaigne, Milton, and Proust (to give only a few instances), is clearly both of and above the age.

Fierce originality is one crucial component of literary genius, but this originality itself is always canonical, in that it recognizes and comes to terms with precursors. Even Shakespeare makes an implicit covenant with Chaucer, his essential forerunner at inventing the human.

If genius is the God within, I need to seek it there, in the abyss of the aboriginal self, an entity unknown to nearly all our current Explainers, in the intellectually forlorn universities and in the media's dark Satanic mills. Emerson and ancient Gnosticism agree that what is best and oldest in each of us is no part of the Creation, no part of Nature or the Not-Me. Each of us presumably can locate what is best in herself or himself, but how do we find what is oldest?

Where does the self begin? The Freudian answer is that the ego makes an investment in itself, which thus centers a self. Shakespeare calls our sense of identity the "selfsame"; when did Jack Falstaff become Falstaff? When did Shakespeare become Shakespeare? The Comedy of Errors is already a work of genius, yet who could have prophesied Twelfth Night on the basis of that early farce? Our recognition of genius is always retroactive, but how does genius first recognize itself?

The ancient answer is that there is a god within us, and the god speaks. I think that a materialist definition of genius is impossible, which is why the idea of genius is so discredited in an age like our own, where materialist ideologies dominate. Genius, by necessity, invokes the transcendental and the extraordinary, because it is fully conscious of them. Consciousness is what defines genius: Shakespeare, like his Hamlet, exceeds us in consciousness, goes beyond the highest order of consciousness that we are capable of knowing without him.

Gnosticism, by definition, is a knowing rather than a believing. In Shakespeare, we have neither a knower nor a believer, but a consciousness so capacious that we cannot find its rival elsewhere: in Cervantes or Montaigne, in Freud or in Wittgenstein. Those who choose (or are chosen) by one of the world religions frequently posit a cosmic consciousness to which they assign supernatural origins. But Shakespearean consciousness, which transmutes matter into imagination, does not need to violate nature. Shakespeare's art is itself nature, and his consciousness can seem more the product of his art than its producer.

There, at the end of the mind, we are stationed by Shakespearean genius: a consciousness shaped by all the consciousnesses that he imagined. He remains, presumably forever, our largest instance of the use of literature for life, which is the work of augmenting awareness.

Though Shakespeare's is the largest consciousness studied in this book, all the rest of these exemplary creative minds have contributed to the consciousness of their readers and auditors. The question we need to put to any writer must be: does she or he augment our consciousness, and how is it done? I find this a rough but effectual test: however I have been entertained, has my awareness been intensified, my consciousness widened and clarified? If not, then I have encountered talent, not genius. What is best and oldest in myself has not been activated.

And to quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 18th century French Enlightenment philosopher:

Talent is that which is in a man's power. Genius is that in whose power a man is.

Then, we have Ralph Waldo Emerson:

To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men—that is genius.

And Charles Baudelaire:

(Genius is) childhood rediscovered at will.

From Shel Kiman's essay "The Power Of Genius":

Today, and for some time, the term is engaged in a scientific and philosophical controversy, that of individuals having a measurable IQ of 130 to 140 versus a more ancient meaning loosely defined as exhibiting creative potential and giving birth to original ideas. This is evident not just in the numbers of books released on the subject of "measuring intelligence" at the end of the 20th century, but also by the expansive definition provided by the dictionary. The stakes for accurately defining "genius" are high and multi-faceted in our knowledge-based capitalistic economy.

Genius defined as measurable and physically quantifiable benefits science by affirming it's own progress in identifying genes and understanding the brain. It both asserts a philosophy that genius is a rational product of human biology and also makes the job of regulating the state much easier, remember state involvement in economics is an important feature of capitalism. "Smart" kids go to good schools to become leaders and "dumb," or to be politically correct, "average" kids learn trades to support them. Testing determines government funding of special programs, as well as scholarships and financial aid from colleges and universities.

While on the one hand this seems to support the system of capitalism quite nicely it also undermines fair competition somewhat. History has proven a number of times that great heroes don't necessarily have high IQs. If these heroes were systemically isolated from the teachers and books of great minds (via standardized testing and gene analysis) they might go unrecognized and hinder the evolution of human progress excluded and unable to participate.

The other end of this debate focuses on a growing school of thought that 'every child has potential' and that "genius is a symbol for an individual's potential: all that a person may be that lies locked inside during the early years of development."[32] These thinkers regard the genius as creative, curious, vivacious, and sensitive, all categories impossible to measure. This theory is also philosophical and practical. At risk of oversimplifying it is a metaphysical approach designed (possibly) as a matter of practicality for the sake of capitalism it's purpose to bring more or other players into a competitive system.

One of the most famous researchers in this field is Howard Gardner. He developed the "Theory of Multiple Intelligence". It's described as "a pluralized way of understanding the intellect. Recent advances in cognitive science, developmental psychology and neuroscience suggest that each person's level of intelligence, as it has been traditionally considered, is actually made up of autonomous faculties that can work individually or in concert with other faculties."[33] Gardner lists the following as faculties of intelligence: Musical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Logical-Mathematical, Linguistic, Spatial, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal. Gardner strikes a blow against the concept of a rare genius, and some argue he's merely spreading the wealth and diluting the term's meaning.

Despite the naive assumption that the multiple-intelligences theory spreads the wealth of genius among many, giftedness is still as rare a commodity as is mental retardation. Howard Gardner should know better than to call his kinesthetic, linguistic, naturalistic, and ad nauseum abilities "intelligences." They are "talents," pure and simple...[34]

Gardener is in fact diluting the term's meaning, and for very practical and philosophical reasons. Ironically, Gardner won the MacArthur Foundation Fellowship in 1981,[35] commonly known as the "Genius Award." While it would be a far cry to suggest that Gardner's dilution of the individual genius into a population with varying multiple intelligences sought to level the playing field to cultivate more competition within capitalism, the relationship should not be dismissed. If only the "gifted" or "genius" get special attention we are limiting ourselves to nurturing 2% of our overall population. There is a very real economic need for more than just a few children to receive an above average education, especially considering that the American average is considerably low.

We have a debate then among sociologists and scientists competing for the title of authority on the nature of genius. Both seek to identify and cultivate leaders, they merely disagree on how leadership potential is determined. However, the scientists seem to limit the number of geniuses in a given society with their gene theories and IQ tests that intersect with state legislation regarding standardized testing, college entrance exams, and the funding of special programs to cultivate "gifted" children. Perhaps these limits are too narrow to support capitalism? The metaphysical definitions of genius via descriptions like curious and creative, or in Gardenr's language, Spacial, Interpersonal, etc., open up the playing field a bit more, perhaps balancing the wheels of capital.

I surveyed via email a handful of friends (artists, scientists, and professionals) on what they thought of the word Genius. Their answers seem to reflect an idea that genius is a temporary situation that appears via circumstance. While most describe it as a characteristic of an individual, as has been the case since the 1500's, many see it as an occurrence, not necessarily a steady state of intelligence. This is interesting when compared to the values of a post-modern society, where identity can shift based on context.

When I think of genius I think of innovation on any level. I think many times people use genius to describe grand scale accomplishments or to emphasize someone's high IQ. I disagree with the limitations of that usage. I think that even the smallest innovations or new ideas can be genius.

A genius is a person who defies current expectations of what CAN be done.

Passionate wisdom. Shaped by life experience, failures, successes, doldrums, dreams, harsh realities (and even college). Ability to manifest that wisdom in the world. I remember a book from years back titled "Wisdom of the Idiots" http://www.clearlight.com/~sufi/wiid1.htm. and believe that a true genius knows they are an idiot, as they know how little knowledge (of the ever expanding total) they possess.

Genius: someone who has attained a mastery of a subject, process, practice etc.; someone who's expertise at something exceeds that of the average person; something or something that makes you think in a way that you never did before

A genius is someone who has rare and consistent ideas, formulations, or work pieces. By rare I mean in the statistical sense: six sigma (*) is brilliant, seven sigma is genius. By consistent I mean that they contain truth. Sigma measures the width of a bell curve - not the complete extent but the width of the bulky portion. If you say something is 2 sigma then it is that large a difference from the average. If you say 3 sigma then the idea is 3 times sigma away from the average and so. It's a way of measuring the likelihood of something. It's not a very interesting definition. A less mathematical definition is that a genius is someone who has come up with something that is originally true and deep. By deep I mean it has a complex network of truths that aren't necessarily understood by anyone observing the truth, but are so original that nothing like it has been described before *and* it contains a general truth(s).

Someone who comprehends/can do things that few do/can... and also be the "ability" as well.

Genius to me is the power or ability to use knowledge to your advantage. It is the (sometimes) unwitting possession of special gifts of inquiry on *any* given subject that materializes into concrete ideas based from the subject as its foundation.

Genius is the state that we are in when we are at our best.

The word genius has evolved from the spirit world into a manipulative social agent. It's religious and community value shifted to economic value when it was used by Michelangelo, Vasari and Condivi to cultivate personal value through hierarchiocal forms of identity. Later Kant and Goethe used it to challenge the concept of a commodifyable individual, while paradoxically advancing the spread of capitalism, which needs commodifyable individuals. And in the last century it's been used to both limit and broaden our educational system to advance political and possibly economic agendas. And today, in a world of increasing market segmentation and inter-related sub-economies it makes sense to have a wider definition of intelligence. Understanding this, and many words, helps us understand culture. Culture uses language to both reflect on and manipulate society, and by studying words we learn about history and shape our potential.

Quoting William Stafford's article in The Cambridge Mozart Encyclopedia (Cliff Eisen, Simon P. Keefe, Cambridge University Press 2006, ISBN: 0521856590):

Arguably, 'genius' has outlived its (always dubious) usefulness as a concept. More recent work by psychologists and sociologists (represented in the Steptoe Collection cited below) has begun the task of demystifying it, searching for genetic, social and cultural explanations of the components of 'genius'. Such work has tended to explode many of the myths, showing that great artists and scientists may be slightly more likely to suffer from depressive illness but for the most part enjoy fine mental health. They tend to show ability on a broad front, not the narrow excellence of some autistics. And their achievement requires not isolation but rather a social environment that provides them with at least a minimum of training, support, and recognition.

From Genius And Eminence (editor Robert S. Albert, Routledge 1992, ISBN: 0080377645)

Definition Of Genius

One should look to persons of recognized eminence for genius, since genius is evidenced in a consensus of peers and is operationalized through the various reward procedures that every society and profession has for acknowledging members' contributions (Cole and Cole, 1973; Zuckeman, 1967a). This statement follows Galton's wish to do away with the word genius. Furthermore, we should accept the fact that there is no one criterion, person, or group that can determine who has genius and who does not.

. . .

As we have seen, genius is, at best, a judgement placed on the degree of influence of a person's work and cannot be meaningfully placed on the origins or the style of that work, regardless of its appeal. Nor are there particular political, religious, social-economic groups, nationalities, races, or sexes with more genius than others, as others have tried to demonstrate.

From Denis Dutton's review of Dean Keith Simonton's Origins Of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives On Creativity:

In asking how the brain creates, Simonton quotes Karl Popper’s notion that our thought processes show the essential elements of natural selection: “our knowledge consists at every moment of those hypotheses which have shown their (comparative) fitness by survival so far in their struggle for existence; a competitive struggle which eliminates those hypotheses which are unfit.” This idea is best summarized for Simonton in the work of psychologist Donald T. Campbell. The creative mind generates vast variations of “ideational” content and continuously applies a consistent selection mechanism to these variants. Finally, just as in natural selection the best genes are retained through inheritance, so “the mental evolution that produces creative ideas requires a memory system, plus an ability to communicate the store ideas to others” — via writing for the printed page, composing for the symphony orchestra, etc. The controversial twist that Simonton insists on placing on this account is that the variational procedure, as with natural selection, becomes essentially blind: “Neither prior experiences nor current environmental circumstances will provide sufficient clues about how to restrict the range of [creative] choices, nor does there exist any rationale for assigning useful priorities to the various alternatives.” The activity of creative genius is therefore “reduced to a basically trial-and-error procedure, whether through cognitive rumination or behavioral experimentation.” What history decides are authentic acts and products of genius will only be known after the fact — which is the Kantian way of describing genius.

Simonton provides some striking quotations to support this view, such as John Dryden on beginning to write a play “when it was only a confused mass of thoughts, tumbling over one another in the dark” or Poincaré describing the initial stages of his discovery of Fuchsian functions: “Ideas rose in crowds; I felt them collide until pairs interlocked, so to speak, making stable combinations.” This shows that the creative mind is capable of generating large numbers of variations, according to Simonton, and that these variations are not under cognitive control. He also recounts some substantial statistical work showing that with genius as with mutual funds, past performance is no guarantee of future returns: a year of rich production by an artist or composer may be followed by an artistic drought, and there’s no way to tell what’s coming next. Still, if this is something like luck, it’s the fate of creative geniuses that they tend to have an awful lot of it.

The best aspects of Simonton’s discussion in these chapters are his descriptive accounts of the characteristics of genius. As remarked, creative genius is often associated with what would be regarded as high IQ. It is not high intelligence, however, that makes for creative genius, but the structure of intelligence. Highly creative people are able spontaneously to make large numbers of remote associations between separate ideas. The mind of the creative individual, an “intuitive genius,” is a better thesaurus, more interconnected, so to speak: it can run out longer lists of analogues, metaphors, and metonyms than can an analytical genius, understood as someone who does spectacular calculations only within a circumscribed domain. The latter sort of mind might popularly (perhaps wrongly) be associated with a very sharp accountant: someone who can analyze a spreadsheet but cannot see the connections in a stanza of Yeats.

These are not, Simonton insists, completely different kinds of genius, but are ideals at ends of a continuum. Nevertheless, artistic creators are “more prone to be intuitive, whereas scientific creators will tend to reside closer to the analytical end of the spectrum.” That revolutionary scientists will be more intuitive than (Kuhnian) normal scientists, seems acceptable enough, but what about also claiming, as Simonton does, that “romantic artists” will be “more intuitive than classical artists”? Here, Simonton comes up against one of the many disanalogies between science and art that crop up in his discussion and which are not adequately dealt with. Is it right to say that the classical Mozart is a “less intuitive” composer than the romantic Schumann? I think not. Science, unlike art, does not go through classic and romantic episodes — only, on some readings of its history, revolutionary and consolidation phases. There are classical and romantic artistic geniuses, but in the manner that Simonton explains the issue, it looks like the only true creative geniuses of science are the revolutionaries.

For Simonton, creative genius doesn’t just generate unusual connections, and associations, it somehow sees what is fruitful or appropriate in a domain: it is selective. There are six interrelated but distinguishable characteristics he identifies for persons who have this ability:

(1) Creative geniuses “harbor an impressive array of intellectual, cultural, and aesthetic interests.” This breadth and variety of interests gives them the content on which to draw analogies, make comparisons. It is their material. (I’d suppose that access to this material would be a differentially significant condition for outstanding creative work in different fields: teenage geniuses would be more likely to occur in music or mathematics than in philosophy or fiction.)

(2) Such individuals are “open to novel, complex, and ambiguous stimuli in their surroundings.” Openness takes their trains of thought to unexpected corners of experience.

(3) Creative geniuses are “capable of defocused attention.” I think of stories about Glenn Gould studying a score, carrying on a phone conversation, and listening to the news all at once — sounds implausible till you think back to how amazingly he could distinguish voices in a fugue. Typically, while creators are working on one problem, or are engaged in an apparently irrelevant activity, they will be carrying around with them another problem in need of a solution. Defocused attention makes creative connections more likely.

(4) Consistent with the above is a flexibility in work habits. It’s characteristic of the highly creative person to have a range of projects going simultaneously, a “network of enterprises.” Darwin was always working on several subjects simultaneously, dipping into “thirty or forty large portfolios” which he kept on labeled shelves, adding memoranda or reviewing them. This flexibility makes it possible to change course quickly and take advantage of lucky breaks and new ideas as they serendipitously present themselves.

(5) “Highly creative people are introverted.” Simonton means by this that, however affable they may be in social settings, they are given to “long hours of solitary contemplation . . . smoking a pipe in an armchair, taking a walk in the woods, engaging absentmindedly in some routine activity.” Social contact, for creative geniuses, is “subordinate to the internal ruminations of their eternally preoccupied minds.” This for Simonton explains why group problem-solving, so-called brainstorming, usually yields such dismal results compared to individual creative work.

(6) Finally, such individuals are usually “independent, autonomous, unconventional, and perhaps even iconoclastic.” They are willing to give unusual, or even preposterous, ideas a fair hearing.

To this list must be added a few more likely conditions. The foremost is productivity. Few geniuses come up with one staggering idea and then retire from the scene. In both sciences and arts, it’s characteristic of genius that it is immensely, even obsessively, productive. Quantity may not equal quality, Simonton says, nevertheless Nobel laureates publish twice as much on average as scientists good enough to make it into American Men and Women of Science. For nineteenth-century scientists, the mere length of their total bibliographies is a good predictor of how famous they will be today. Cases such as Gregor Mandel, the pioneer geneticist who published only a tiny body of work, are exceptional. This tends to extend into the arts, where the most outstanding geniuses — Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Shakespeare and Dickens, Turner and Picasso, and the likes of Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, and Wagner — astonish in their sheer capacity to produce work. We might imagine that for each of these figures there would be hundreds who wrote, painted, or composed as much but who are unknown or discounted today: a thousand Maria Corellis for every Dickens. If I read Simonton correctly, this is unlikely: vast output is not a sufficient condition for creative genius, but it is difficult to name a creative genius who was not highly productive.

The productivity question is also an occasion for Simonton to introduce an equation apparently discovered by the historian of science, Derek de Solla Price. Imagine a group of ten workers who are doing a rote job, say, stuffing envelopes. In such a case, we’d expect that each individual worker would do 10% of the work, that five would do 50%, and so forth. But imagine the job is creative: ten publishing physicists in a physics department, or ten composers in a music department. Price’s Law states that in these creative cases, 50% of the total worthwhile (i.e., publishable) output will be produced by a minority of producers equal to the square root of the total number of people involved. In a ten-person physics department, the teaching loads and administrative chores might be equalized, but given natural variations in productiveness, about three (roughly the square root of ten) people would normally be producing half of the publications, at least publications of a quality sufficient to appear in a scientific journal (in the arts the quality criterion will presumably be the test of time). A striking implication of Price’s Law is that the larger the total number of producers in a field, the smaller the 50%-producers group becomes as a percentage of the whole. If it is a group of a hundred poets or chemists, half of the worthwhile creative work will be produced by ten (10% of the whole); if there are 10,000 in the pool then half the work will be produced by a group of mere 100 (1% of the whole). This is presumably because the larger the group the greater the likelihood of it possessing a few highly productive talents, and it explains, why, for example, the nineteenth-century music we listen to is dominated by a tiny minority of familiar composers; try as we might to resuscitate lesser lights (Cherubini, Clara Schumann, John Field), there remains an overwhelming dominance of listener preference in a relatively small handful of composers.

The other characteristic of genius most worth noting is its obvious connection with various forms and degrees of insanity. Simonton gives long lists of scientific and artistic geniuses who suffer from schizophrenic and other cognitive disorders, who were depressive or bipolar, or who exhibited severe neuroses. The names, from Tycho Brahe to Newton to Van Gogh and Rachmaninoff, are familiar and so are the stories. The differential rates of mental disturbance contain unsurprising news that scientists are generally a whole lot more stable than artists. In one historical study, he reports, 28% of notable scientists exhibited mental disturbance, whereas the rate was 60% for composers, 73% for painters, 77% for novelists, and 87% for poets, which places completely sane poets in a distinct minority. A degree of insanity, however, is not much help unless it is mild or borderline; if the psychopathology results in early suicide or complete incapacitation, history does not record the individual as a creative genius. The balance appears to be: the creative genius is mad enough to be inventive or imaginative beyond the ordinary, to think outside conventions, but not so crazy that it interferes with productivity or self-control.

The last point seems crucial. Whatever the psychopathology of genius, if it is creatively productive, it will be because, as Simonton puts it, eminent creators possess “personal fortitude and self-discipline” which allow them to “exploit the strange ideas that fill their heads” without being overtaken by them. Anyone who has worked in a philosophy or physics department of a large university will be familiar with the crackpots who periodically show up at the office door clutching enormous manuscripts. Such obsessives, often suffering from paranoia and delusions of personal grandeur in addition to their scientific or philosophical delusions, are in many aspects of a kind with authentic geniuses: they quite possibly possess high IQs and a capacity to produce a high quantity of output (hence the size of the manuscript). The difference is that such men — and they are almost invariably men — are swallowed up in obsessions that they cannot assess or control. Simonton quotes the psychologist Albert Rothenberg comparing “authentic” with schizophrenic poets: “Unlike true poets, schizophrenic poets refuse to revise their initial drafts, revealing an inability to adopt a more objective perspective on their work. They are all inspiration without verification, variation without selection.”

As you can see, the precise meaning of the word "genius" is up for grabs and is not limited in common or even professional usage by the strict limits of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary no matter how much you like to think it is. Something you might have realised long ago in this discussion if you weren't such a little pinhead. So take the attitude and cram it up your ass.

[Patrick Degan]

Part the third:

How like you to not only ignore the context of Octavian's situation but also the context of Roman religious belief in the bargain. Octavian was playing a very dangerous political game and had to employ every weapon at his command to win that game, especially since the loss of it would likely cost him his life. That is not megalomania but practicality expressing itself.

So you're claiming that his program to establish a principate would be impossible without making his first name "Triumphant Commander," his family name, "the Revered"?

That's funny, because Antony was squashed in early 30 BC, and he was not declared Augustus until three years later in 27 BC. What exactly required this absolutely? Are you claiming that this dignity was a quintessential aspect of winning autocratic authority and the love of the people?

Simply saying that it is so, is not the same thing as showing how it is so. Get it?

Once more, we turn to Suetonius:

VII. While he was yet an infant, the surname of Thurinus was given him,
in memory of the birth-place of his family, or because, soon after he was
born, his father Octavius had been successful against the fugitive
slaves, in the country near Thurium. That he was surnamed Thurinus, I
can affirm upon good foundation, for when a boy, I had a small bronze
statue of him, with that name upon it in iron letters, nearly effaced by
age, which I presented to the emperor [113], by whom it is now revered
amongst the other tutelary deities in his chamber. He is also often
called Thurinus contemptuously, by Mark Antony in his letters; to which
he makes only this reply: "I am surprised that my former name should be
made a subject of reproach." He afterwards assumed the name of Caius Caesar, and then of Augustus; the former in compliance with the will of
his great-uncle, and the latter upon a motion of Munatius Plancus in the
senate. For when some proposed to confer upon him the name of Romulus,
as being, in a manner, a second founder of the city, it was resolved that
he should rather be called Augustus, a surname not only new, but of more
dignity, because places devoted to religion, and those in which anything
(75) is consecrated by augury, are denominated august, either from the
word auctus, signifying augmentation, or ab avium gestu, gustuve, from
the flight and feeding of birds; as appears from this verse of Ennius:

When glorious Rome by august augury was built. [114]

. . .

XXVIII. He twice entertained thoughts of restoring the republic [148];
first, immediately after he had crushed Antony, remembering that he had
often charged him with being the obstacle to its restoration. The second
time was in consequence of a long illness, when he sent for the
magistrates and the senate to his own house, and delivered them a
particular account of the state of the empire. But reflecting at the
same time that it would be both hazardous to himself to return to the
condition of a private person, and might be dangerous to the public to
have the government placed again under the control of the people, he
resolved to keep it in his own hands, whether with the better event or
intention, is hard to say. His good intentions he often affirmed in
private discourse, and also published an edict, in which it was declared
in the following terms: "May it be permitted me to have the happiness of
establishing the commonwealth on a safe and sound basis, and thus enjoy
the reward of which I am ambitious, that of being celebrated for moulding
it into the form best adapted to present circumstances; so that, on my
leaving the world, I may carry with me the hope that the foundations
which I have laid for its future government, will stand firm and stable."

Next, we turn to Garrett G. Fagan, Associate Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies at Penn St. University, and his observations of Augustus' career:

By virtue of his adoption, following Roman custom, Octavius now assumed the name C. Julius Caesar Octavianus (hereafter "Octavian"). To identify himself fully with his adoptive father and to lend his subsequent actions a veneer of legitimacy, he simply called himself "Caesar," and is usually so named in ancient sources. [[7]] The name had a tremendous pull and Octavian's use of it represents his first major political reinvention: from unknown Octavius to Caesar, son of Caesar. Many of the troops at Brundisium joined his cause, and as he moved toward Rome his retinue grew in size, especially from among the ranks of veterans settled by Caesar in Italian colonies. By mid-April, he was nearing Rome. [[8]]

. . .

Against this backdrop of looming crisis between the Caesarians and the Liberators, the relationship between Antony and Octavian continued to deteriorate, despite occasional public reconciliations. Antony accused Octavian of plotting against him, while Octavian attempted, through agents, to undermine the loyalty of the army that Antony was bringing to Italy from Macedonia. Antony went to Brundisium to secure his army (things did not go well there for him), at which juncture Octavian showed his daring once more. Despite the risk of being branded a public enemy, he toured the Caesarian colonies of Campania and, relying on old loyalties, raised a private army from among Caesar's veterans, perhaps 10,000 strong. It was a vivid demonstration of the power of the name "Caesar." Antony, meanwhile, returned to Rome and intended to denounce Octavian to the senate when he heard that two of his five legions from Macedonia had defected to Octavian. Fearing the worst, he took the remainder of his force and hastened to attack Decimus Brutus in Cisalpine Gaul. [[13]]

The situation was now highly volatile. Decimus Brutus, backed by the senate, was resisting Antony under arms, and retired to the fortified town of Mutina in Cisalpine Gaul. Antony had four legions, Octavian had five. All the armed parties were mutually antagonistic. The senate, led by Cicero in his last great political action, identified Antony as the greater threat. [[14]] Cicero and Antony were now on opposing sides, following an acrimonious oratorical exchange in the senate that started in September 44 BC. At this crucial juncture, then, Cicero deployed his considerable rhetorical skill to Octavian's benefit and began to champion his cause as a foil to Antony's power. As a result, on 1 January, 43 BC Octavian's essentially illegal command of men under arms was legitimized with a grant of propraetorian power. As such, Octavian continued his preparations to attack Antony, now declared a public enemy, who had begun besieging Decimus Brutus at Mutina. Octavian, now an official representative of the republic, led his force into the region and moved against Antony. [[15]]

In two engagements in April, Antony was bested and fled over the Alps to his political allies in Transalpine Gaul. Both consuls for 43 BC, however, perished in the fighting around Mutina, and Octavian, as the senior commander on the spot, refused to cooperate any further with Decimus Brutus, a murderer of his father. The senators, it appears, hoped that Octavian would now go away. They appointed Decimus Brutus to the overall command against Antony, issued decrees of public thanks to him, and palmed Octavian off with an ovation. When a commission to distribute land to veterans was set up, Octavian was pointedly omitted. Smarting at such insulting treatment, Octavian bided his time and put in requests for a consulship (with Cicero as his colleague) and a triumph. Meanwhile, Antony was preparing to return to Cisalpine Gaul with enormous forces gained from Caesarian commanders in Transalpine Gaul. The situation remained unstable.[[16]]

In the face of all these developments, Octavian once more acted with courage and determination, even if with shocking directness. Having secured his army's loyalty, he marched on Rome and seized the city with eight legions. Three legions brought from outside Italy to counter him defected. Unsurprisingly, Octavian was elected consul to replace the deceased consuls of 43 BC. He now carried the long-delayed ratification of his adoption, paid out the remainder of Caesar's legacy, revoked the amnesty for the Liberators, and tried and convicted them en masse and in absentia on a single day. Despite his control of Rome, Octavian's position was perilous. Antony was massing huge forces in Cisalpine Gaul and, across the Adriatic, Cassius and Brutus had taken the opportunity offered by the enmity between the Caesarian leaders to gain control of most of the eastern empire, it might be noted, with no great regard for either legality or scruple. [[17]]

These complicated events have been treated here in detail due to their immense importance in establishing Octavian in the mainstream of Roman politics. Dismissed by Antony and then by the senate as a bit player, he proved repeatedly capable of deft and resolute action in defence of his interests. On account of his tender years, he lacked the nexus of influential support that most leading Roman politicians, including Antony, found essential to their success and therefore he had to rely more on direct appeals to the mob, his troops, and supporters of Caesar. His actions might not have been always scrupulous or admirable, but Late-Republican politics was a vicious and cutthroat business and few involved adhered solely to principle (the Liberators, for instance, went about the eastern empire seizing provinces and only had their acts ratified post factum by a compliant senate). Octavian had only two reliable tools available to him at this early stage in his career: his name, Caesar, and promises of bounty to the soldiers, and he deployed both with daring and decisiveness when he had to. In the autumn of 43 BC, he was to make his most ambitious move yet.

. . .

The third and final political reinvention of Augustus was about to take place. That the Republic needed a guiding hand was beyond doubt. The old system had failed utterly and, if reinstated, would do so again. Even someone as republican in sentiment as Cicero had finally admitted the need for a "governing leader" of the state (rector). Octavian was to remain in control, that much was clear. But how? Over the next three decades, his position in the state was established in a complex amalgam of legal and non-legal powers and privileges. The process was not instantaneous nor did it adhere to a single agenda relentlessly pursued; rather, it evolved piecemeal over time, occasionally reactionary, occasionally with foresight. Many details remain debated or uncertain, but the overall process is clearly discernible: it extends through two main "Constitutional Settlements" in 27 and 23 BC respectively, some refinements in 19 BC, and sporadic assignations of numerous rights and privileges down to the granting of the ultimate title, "Father of his Country" (Pater Patriae), in 2 BC.

In the wake of Actium, however, there was work to be done. After taking Egypt and settling affairs there, Octavian stayed away from Rome as he saw to the organization of the East. For the most part, Antony's arrangements were left in place, as long as old loyalties were suitably redirected. Octavian returned to Rome and Italy, amid tumultuous celebrations, in August of 29 BC. Large numbers of veterans were settled (perhaps 25 legions totalling 40,000 men or more) both in Italy and the provinces, this time without complaint, since the vast wealth of Egypt allowed for ample compensation. When he entered Rome, he celebrated three triumphs over three days (over Dalmatia, Actium, and Egypt). Legally, his difficult position of 32 BC had been bypassed and Octavian held the consulship every year from 31 BC onwards (until 23 BC). Just as important, however, was the non-legal basis for his dominance, later expressed by Augustus as "universal consent." The roots of this consent must lie in the oath of 32 BC, now extended in principle, if not in practice, to embrace the entire empire and all its armies. Octavian was, as he later put it, "in complete control of affairs" precisely because everyone wanted him to be and, just as significantly, because he was the last man standing. There is political posturing in his claim to "universal consent," to be sure, but possibly also some kernel of truth. He had ended the civil wars, and all hopes for a peaceful future now rested with him and him alone. In light of this, the senate and people voted him numerous honors in 29 BC, some of which Octavian judiciously refused, consonant with his image as respecter of tradition. [[32]]

Octavian's holding continuous consulships would be insufficient as a mode of administration in the long term, especially if, as he intended, the old order was to be seen to be restored. He needed, somehow, to find a firm place simultaneously within and above established norms. His position at the head of affairs therefore needed careful consideration, and this no doubt explains the eighteen-month gap between his return to Rome in August 29 BC and the so-called First Constitutional Settlement of 13 January, 27 BC which, with the broadest of brush strokes, began painting the portrait of the new order. Memories of Caesar's fate must have loomed large. Despite that dictator's huge popularity among the masses, his complete victory over his enemies in civil war, and the devotion of his troops, he had been laid low by a few dozen disillusioned aristrocrats. Among the uppermost considerations pressing on Octavian, therefore, must have been the need to appease the sensibilities of the elite. In addition, the divided loyalties of highly politicized armies had been a plague on the Late Republic. This situation too would require remedying. These two issues, in fact, were at the heart of the "First Settlement," staged in the senate on 13 January, 27 BC.[[33]]

On that day, Octavian entered the senate and, to the shock of those not in the know, surrendered his position and retired to private life. The senators, possibly confused, reacted with indignance and insisted that Octavian remain at the helm of the state. After a show of reluctance, Octavian graciously accepted a share in the running of the state, gaining command of Spain (except Baetica), Gaul, Syria, Cyprus, and Egypt while the senate and people kept the rest. Within his extended provincia, granted for ten years, Octavian could appoint legates to administer regions on his behalf. Modern scholars have failed to reach agreement on the exact legal status of Octavian's command over his provinces (was it by virtue of imperium consulare or proconsulare, imperium maius or aequum?), but the case for imperium proconsulare is the stronger; it also had precedents, in the form of the "extraordinary commands" of Pompey or Caesar in the Late Republic. This situation would have appealed to Octavian's desire to appear to be maintaining traditions while also doing nothing alarmingly new or innovative. Other honors and privileges were also forthcoming, at a second meeting on 16 January. Here Octavian was named Augustus, a word ringing with religious (augur) and social (auctoritas) meaning but not suggestive of overt political dominance. C. Julius Caesar Octavianus now became Imperator Caesar Augustus. Other honors carried more symbolic meaning (laurels placed on the door of his house; award of the corona civica for saving the lives of citizens; the "Shield of Virtues" erected in his honor) but they were no less significant for that: they helped establish Augustus's pre-eminent place in the state and craft the beginnings of an Augustan ideology. By means of this settlement, Augustus was simultaneously commander, leader, savior. [[34]]

Get it now, shitwit? This is politics Octavian is playing and in that time it was played for keeps. Taking Caesar's name rallies troops to his cause and depletes Antony's forces. Being identified as Caesar's legitimate heir prevents him from simply being dismissed as a common pretender who can be ignored or killed with no consequence. Taking the honours and titles solidifies his political, social, and even religious position up to and including the name Augustus and quiets the opposition. Your continual denials that this was the reality of Octavian's situation does not erase those realities no matter how much you dearly wish they could or how much you claim to have read Roman history.

Wrong. The Republic was that first unification. Palpatine destroyed it for his own ends entirely.

Did you watch The Phantom Menace? "The Republic doesn't exist out here"? Here we see exactly that the Imperial armed forces extend their security and such out to Tattooine, which has been liberated from direct gangster rule and must submit to legal authorities.

Cuuuuuute. A line of dialogue is your "evidence", and one vague enough to mean just about anything you want it to mean. The New Essential Chronology says otherwise, however. BTW, you do realise that Palpatine was partners with Prince Xizor, head of organised crime in the galaxy (who in turn was partners with Jabba the Hutt), during the time he supposedly "liberated" the Outer Rim territories "from direct gangster rule", don't you?

Barring that little inconvenient fact of the Rebellion, of course, which actually had its nascent beginnings almost immediately upon the declaration of the Empire by Palpatine and got kick-started by the Ghorman Massacre. Resistance cels and raids against Imperial facilities took place years before the final codification of the treaty which formed the Rebel Alliance officially.

And at their height, at Endor, they number probably fewer than a few million.

Evidence, please. Demonstrate the formula by which you quantify these numbers, and also by which you determined that every last person involved in the Rebellion was in the fleet at Endor.

The ratio of Rebels to the population of a single Imperial conurbation in the case of Coruscant (much less the entire Empire) utterly fails to compare to the ratio between right-wing surivialists in Wyoming and the population of the U.S.

Again, show us the evidence for this assertion which you simply pulled out of your ass.

No, he was an ACTUAL despot.

This was not the political understanding by his subjects; like Octavian, he retained absolute power and imperial dignity but without exercising it openly and appearing to most as a tyrant. Biggs Darklighter in A New Hope claims the "Empire was a beautiful thing once" and that "the people in charge now..." - which obviously cannot refer to Palpatine, as he has been Emperor since the Empire's inception - are the problem.

Bull-fucking-SHIT that's what Darklighter meant. You really have no way to demonstrate this whatsoever, do you? You just overlay your own spin on the evidence and ignore the fact that the Rebels clearly know they're fighting the Emperor in the subsequent two films.

Likewise, the same source verifies that he was perceived to be manipulated by the "same bootlickers he had appointed to high office"

What a pity the original prologue to the ANH novel is superseded by the actual movies.

He was perceived as a beloved old statesman, savior of the galaxy. Return of the Jedi informs us that when Palpatine died, the galaxy would reel in horror and despair at the loss. Palpatine was not perceived as a tyrant or unpopular by most citizens.

No, the Special Edition ROTJ shows huge celebrations ON CORUSCANT ITSELF over Palpatine's downfall —as well as on a number of other worlds. The New Essential Chronology outlines the secession of Imperial worlds to the New Republic banner within months of its proclamation. And the AU shows the Imperial Remnant reduced to a single quadrant. Quite simply, you are now MAKING SHIT UP in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Rule by terror was his policy as emperor (the Jedi purge,

Order Sixty-Six was a legal, general order for the Grand Army of the Republic. The Jedi Order DID attempt to launch an extraconstitutional coup d'etat against the lawful head of state during wartime. The squashing of the Jedi coup was welcomed with applause in the Senate and passed without virtually any public opposition. Hardly qualifies as "rule by terror"; since no one was scared but the enemies of the state (a statistically insignificant group).

You really are that far gone, aren't you? That you can actually pretend a murder order can possibly be legal in any way, shape, or form (some judges at Nuremburg would disagree with you). It doesn't matter what the Jedi may or may not have been guilty of —due process requires arrest, formal arraingment on charges, and trial. Not outright murder —authorised by a secret order and carried out by clonetroopers specifically bred to follow any orders without question. And against persons who at the moment were actually loyally serving the Republic on the battlefield. Oh, and howzabout Darth Vader's slaughter of the Younglings in pursuit of that order? By what sophistry do you justify that as "legal"?

And you have the fucking nerve to call me a fascist?!

the Caamas BDZ)

This was not an official government policy or operation. And quite frankly, when Octavian murdered 300 Senators (around half the Senate) and even more equestrians and seized their property to fund a civil war (and blood feud), I don't know why you're quibbling.

It was ordered by the Emperor himself —it's status as official or not be damned. That you can equate the proscription of 300 individuals (less than 1/3 of a thousand-plus body, BTW) to the slaughter of billions shows how far gone you truly are.

and he dispensed with the Senate and placed the galaxy under direct military rule at the first convenient moment.

The Galactic Emperor was permitted to dissolve the Senate in emergencies or to call for new elections. His move was fully constitutional. At no point was the Galactic Senate legally abolished, and senators continued to stand for election and be influential in galactic politics (Senator Grayshade, ref: Marvel Star Wars).

The Imperial Senate will no longer be a problem. I have just received word from the Emperor that the council has been dissolved permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away"

—Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope

Funny, Gov. Tarkin in the actual ANH movie says you are simply full of shit. Are you sure you've even watched any of the movies?

The existence of the COMPNOR organisation which fostered loyalty to the Palpatine-led New Order says otherwise.

COMPNOR was not a fully-integrated governmental institution. While influential, it never banned opposition parties. The Imperial Security Bureau was under the firm thumb of the state. The totalitarians took a back seat to aristocratic monarchists, authoritarians, and conservatives.

If you say so, Gracie.

As a matter of political practicality, shitwit, not megalomania. How many times will this have to be spelled out to you?

<Snipping Primus' repetitious bullshit about Octavian, which has already been covered, to move on to more salient points>

[Patrick Degan]

Part the fourth:

And how much of the Senate did Palpatine murder? Regardless it was packed with partisans, Octavian controlled Egypt ad personam - the breadbasket of the empire -, and he commanded all the legions. They had little choice.

Riiiiiigh. Palpy didn't murder anybody. His enemies simply had an unfortunate habit of "disappearing".

The Senate willingly confirmed Palpatine's war dictatorate in a constitutional manner. It acclaimed him Emperor with "thunderous applause." Even the conspiring and opposition senators in some case remained free and participating for years or decades after the acclamation of the Empire. They evaded arrest after conspiring to commit high treason against a lawful sovereign. And Palpatine did eventually prove much more capable of holding the galaxy together against parochial or centrifugal pressures than anyone preceding or succeeding him.

Barring those who disappeared over the years, or had their worlds destroyed (see Alderaan asteroid belt). And what do you imagine it proves that a number of senators managed to evade capture given how difficult the Empire, even with its security net and large starfleet, found it to quash the Rebellion?

The use of imperator as a praenomen and the use of augustus as a cognomen is not a political necessity no matter how much you screech. There was no way Octavian would suddenly fail to have effective autocratic power without those dignities. He was building up a personality cult and imperial dignity; no less or more illegitimate than Palpatine's acclamation as Emperor - supported by an unpurged Senate and the galactic populace by huge majorities.

Penn St. Prof. Garrett G. Fagan has already said you're full of shit on that one. See above.

Palpatine, by contrast, faced no such necessity —nothing was forcing him to name himself Emperor—

Octavian was not forced to become emperor. He chose to, and executing it brilliantly.

Penn St. Prof. Garrett G. Fagan has already said you're full of shit on that one. See above.

and he did not face the possibility of being killed by his enemies if he changed his mind and retired, and his programmes went far beyond those of Augustus in the institution of a personal despotism and reign of terror.

Wrong. The political elite of the Republic/Empire was spared any sort of proscription on the scale of Octavian's. And Palpatine suffered no major expansionist setbacks during his reign, as opposed to the Augustan disaster of Germania Magna at the hands of Publius Quinctilius Varus.

Funny how you can claim that Palpatine was benevolent simply because the aristocracy were spared proscription and ignore his murder of whole worlds and enslavement of billions of sentients. And you have the fucking nerve to call me a fascist.

And as for Palpatine suffering "no major expansionist setbacks", I hate to have to remind you of this, but he lost the war with the Rebel Alliance. Which was in the actual movies. Remember those? Looks like you don't.

Funny coming from a man who very clearly doesn't understand the subject he presumes competence in, wildly conflates events, ignores context, and can't even get his fucking timelines straight. Try taking your own advice.

Right. I'm sure your sidelining into Roman googlage as opposed to citing SW canon is pure coincidence and not reflective of your ignorance of the actual facts of Palpatine's rule.

You mean, the facts of Caamas and Alderaan? The facts of Human Supremacism and enslavement of the non-human races of the galaxy? The loyalty police? Disappearance of political opponents? Dissolution of the Senate and imposition of direct military rule over the population of the galaxy? Partnership with Prince Xizor and Black Star? And by the way, asswipe, we're discussing Augustus precisely because YOU attempted to compare him to Palpatine. So don't you fucking dare try to lay this on me as attempting to argue a red herring.

Not to mention your fantasy that Octavian's superficial settlement of dignities in anyway was essential for the political constitution of his position compared to the assumption of the tribunica potestas and the imperium proconsulare maius.

I suppose Prof. Fagan is "fantasising" as well. You have no argument.

Sayeth the Strawmanderer. How amusing.

Whatever you say, chief.

Um, Napoleon's legacy far outlasted his imperial rule and in a positive way. And once again, dictionary definitions are merely a beginning to understanding, not their be-all/end-all.

Why should we use your definition, Degan?

Asked and answered. I can almost hear your nasal whine as you say that.

The only "fucking joke" here is your non-answer.

Why should we use your definition, Degan?

Asked and answered.

Palpatine —insane and an utter failure. No comparison.

Why should we use your definition, Degan?

Asked and answered. Asked and answered. Asked and answered. See above —that is if you have the reading-comprehension skills, not to mention the honesty, to absorb the examples I've quoted above and for which I can find even more supports if necessary.

Nice try. Obsessive-compulsive disorder on the part of Tesla and Hughes does not offer a comparison to Palpatine. Furthermore, both Tesla and Hughes were productive geniuses —the former managing to remain so up to his death at age 81 while the latter became crippled by his OCD.

Really?

Non-answer and therefore irrelevant.

Obsession negates genius or even talent since everything ends up being turned inward and warps around that single-minded object until the person so afflicted loses sight of every outside consideration and falls into denial and delusion and you can't achieve anything without a solid footing in reality.

Palpatine's achievements were many and unmatched and successful for forty years.

If you can count slaughter of whole worlds, despotism, racism, enslavement of billions, plunging his galaxy into civil war and partnership with a crime syndicate as "achievements", you might have a twisted form of that argument.

Palpatine, by contrast, was consumed with the obsession of his own godhood from day one of his effort to destroy the Republic and attempted to force everything into the service of that singular, megalomaniacal obsession —against which OCD doesn't even begin to compare in terms of mental disorder.

Right. This all explains his patience, his successful political program, even decades - a century even - later, his enduring reforms, his unification of the galaxy, etc., etc.

Just off into your own little fantasy world here, aren't you?

Here's a clue for you: flinging names from history the way monkeys fling their poop, in the hope something will stick somewhere, isn't going to save your trainwreck of an argument.

You're getting a bit light on the argument and citation. Why don't you define genius, explain why we must use that definition, supply evidence from throughout the SW canon disproving my claims and its claims, and therefore providing a straightforward case for accepting your thesis.

Asked and answered. See above.

Because you have to run amok with this bleating bullshit and because you don't have the evidence.

Look who's talking.

The Peace of the Gun. The "streamlining" of legal processes and "reform" of local government by instituting direct military rule.

Bzzt. That's the sound of a wrong answer. According to Imperial Sourcebook, fewer than one in sixty worlds were in any way forcibly reorganized. Rather, the Empire left to individual worlds to bring their own reforms into the Imperial system. The full-member worlds were not ruled by the Moffs (they were responsible for Imperial property and territories; the "fifty million colonies and protectorates" mentioned in Imperial Sourcebook), but their own governments which in most cases (the inner regions) created luxury liner worlds which were not directly interfered with by the Empire (see above). Furthermore, the Emperor was constitutionally permitted to dissolve the Senate in emergencies or to call for new elections. The Imperial Sourcebook clarifies that Oversector Governor Wilhuff Grand Moff Tarkin was exaggerating when he spoke of the "permanent" dissolution of the Senate; it was actually dissolved for the duration of the emergency (and this was clearly reasonable; an Imperial senator had been arrested aiding and abetting counterrevolutionary and terrorist action).

BZZZZT —wrong answer. The New Essential Chronology states directly that Palpatine disbanded the Senate. Without equivocation. And you think an outdated role-playing game manual supersedes it or the actual statements in the movies?

To quote the SW canon policy brief cited by Curt Saxton:

Primary Evidence: Canon

The STAR WARS films are the only primary reference. With the exception of only a few minor points, they are indisputable. This is not a merely personal opinion; it is the explicit policy of the Continuity and Production Editors at Lucasfilm. They are interviewed in STAR WARS Insider #23:

What's 'gospel' and what isn't?
'Gospel,' or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history — with many off-shoots, variations and tangents — like any other well-developed mythology.

Therefore the films and their adaptations are canon, meaning that they take precedence in essentially all matters. Any other form of unfilmed STAR WARS fiction may be official, meaning that it is subordinate to canon and is required to be consistent with other official works. Issues relating to these secondary sources are described below. Works which do not have the blessing of Lucasfilm Ltd (which is not the same entity as LucasArts) are unofficial and cannot be given consideration.

The above continuity policy has been reaffirmed very recently in the introductory pages of the STAR WARS Encyclopedia by Stephen J. Sansweet. His terminology includes absolute canon for canon, and quasi-canon for the secondary and lower official material. He avoids the use of the official non-canon term more commonly used by fans: apocrypha. This may have something to do with the religious pejorative undertones that some readers perceive. However this site uses the more common terms for the sake of brevity. The terms are well understood by most online commentators on science fiction and fantasy literature, and no religious connotations are intended.

Secondary and Further Sources.

Where they do not conflict with the spirit or fact of the canon, other sources are considered. These sources themselves must be sorted according to an order of precedence. First are the film novelisations and the radio dramas. This material is acceptable where it adds to or simply reiterates what is known from the films. Where they conflict with the films they are in error (except in cases where the film has an obvious blooper). Otherwise the secondary source is in error, and cannot serve as a basis for judging the internal reality of the STAR WARS universe. Such contradictory materials may be of little worth other than as entertainment. According to STAR WARS Encyclopedia, movie-based secondary sources are very close to canon status.

Here's a clue: take your RPG manual and cram it up your ass. West End Games' material (the source of the "Five Mile Fallacy" for the Executor, BTW) has come in for considerable criticism due to its contradictions with several facts of Star Wars canon material and it does not hold primacy over statements from the movies, novelisations, radio scripts, or even the AU novels and certainly not the Essential guides, chronologies, dictionaries, and the ICS books. It's accuracy as a source of information is dubious.

[Patrick Degan]

And finally, part the fifth:

And if you can call Palpatine offering to trade to the Ssi-ruuvi millions of humans to entech in exchange for their technology, you could say he "thwarted" external invasion.

Hearsay; but statistically irrelevant. Is one to prefer the evil but competent ruler who does not get you killed, or the well-meaning but incompetent ruler who does get you killed (Yuuzhan Vong invasion).

"Hearsay"? This is integral to the plot of The Truce At Bakura. I also love how you try to justify on any terms an offer by the ruler to sell millions of his own citizens to slavery or worse. And just how does the incompetence of the New Republic in the Yuuzhan Vong war in a later time justify the former action, asswipe?

And as for Palpatine's rule not being totalitarian, what do you call COMPNOR,

Typically fascist states do not permit opposition parties; yet they existed and were never banned. These include the Rationalist (ref: Planet of Twilight) and Rights of Sentience Party. Membership in COMPNOR was not obligatory. The New Order Party was only one of many.

Um, Planet Of Twilight takes place during the timeframe of the New Republic, and the Rationalist Party was part of the political structure on one planet, Nam Chorios, a backwater world in the Outer Rim and a half-forgotten prison planet. The Rights of Sentience Party was a political organisation in the New Republic, not the Empire or the Old Republic for that matter. The New Order Party on Esseles was little more than a mouthpiece for the Empire with the local government and advocated the Emperor's Human Supremacy ideology. And who cares if membership in COMPNOR is not officially obligatory? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? Membership in the Nazi Party wasn't obligatory in Nazi Germany; nor in any of the many Party-sponsored organisations and leagues. That didn't negate the fact of a totalitarian regime.

the complete imperialisation of every institution,

Such as a historically free market? Such as the fewer than one in sixty worlds than actually had any Imperial restructuring of local government (and in the wake of civil war! this is better than the record of the Union government after the U.S. Civil War).

More bullshit from your little RPG book?

Incom Corporation was nationalized because it was found to be a font of treasonous activities.

How DARE they resist the rule of a despot?! Who did they think they were? Free citizens of a once-Republican order who thought of democracy and freedom as their right?

And you have the fucking nerve to call me a fascist?

and little acts like the Camaas BDZ?

Statistically insignificant and not a government policy.

IT WAS ORDERED BY THE FUCKING EMPEROR, YOU APOLOGIST PILE OF RAT-SHIT! I grow tired of you trying to handwave an atrocity away by resort to a lame dodge that it "wasn't official policy". If the Emperor ordered it, it is "official" and he's fucking guilty. Just like he's guilty for Alderaan.

The hunting down and extermination of the remaining Jedi?

They were given an opportunity to declare fealty and service to the Empire, and even given opportunity for high office.

Ahhhh. So, refusal of the offer justifies their murder, does it? In your twisted worldview, why not? After all, you had no problem with the murder of Jedi on the batttlefield and the slaughter of younglings in the Jedi temple on Coruscant.

The Ghorman massacre?

Statistically insignificant; the protesters were blocking the landing of military spacecraft.

So, that justified their murder as well? In your twisted worldview, why not? And you have the fucking nerve to call ME a fascist?

The attempted genocide of the Oswaft?

Statistically insignificant. The fact you try to discredit Palpatine for sentient right abuses in the pursuit of power and state solidarity while apologizing for Octavian's proscriptions, Temujin's obliteration of many cities and entire cultures, and Napoleon "whiff of grapeshot" Bonaparte proves how preconceived your notions are and how inconsistent your standards are.

And where do I "apologise" for Octavian's proscriptions? Or Temujin's massacres? Where do I say they were "statistically insignificant" as you keep saying to dismiss the far larger-in-scale crimes of Palpatine? My argument was that they pursued an object beyond their own personal apotheosis which is all Palpatine was after and for which he plunged his galaxy into chaos and years of civil war, for no object other than his personal apotheosis.

And in terms of Temujin: he was no worse or bloodier than the other rulers of his time. He grew up in a savage world in which wholesale massacre was considered normal even between empires. But Palpatine has no such excuse —he came from a civilised society, grew up in a constitutional republic in which the rights and lives of its citizens were respected in law and custom and he destroyed that. The world he grew up in was not one in which the slaughter of whole populations was custom and practise but he brought that sort of barbarism back as policy. It is presumed that he should have known better. So your half-assed attempt at a comparison between the two or between Palpatine and Augustus fails on those grounds as well.

Explain the Rebel Alliance, then. The fact remains that there was a major insurrection to overthrow Palpatine's dictatorship within his own galaxy. That doesn't indicate general contentment under his rule.

DESB, ISB: Most of the galaxy lived on comfortable "luxury liner worlds"; most people supported Palpatine personally

Repetitious bullshit from your little RPG book.

even Rebels like Biggs Darklighter claimed the Empire was a good idea and blamed Palpatine's ministers for the problems

Which is in contradiction with the movies. According to Lucasfilm, you lose.

and lastly, ROTJ novelisation (a G-canon source) claims the galaxy would lurch in despair at the loss of Palpatine.

Explain the scenes of celebration over Palpatine's downfall on Coruscant in the Special Edition of the movie, then.

A few million Rebels is statistically insignificant, baring out the canon (snubfighters vs. the Death Star, "not enough life here to fill a space cruiser," "your insignificant rebellion").

Source for your numbers, or withdraw the claim. Debate Rule 6.

Given that democracy was an unknown concept to these people and many of their subjects did enjoy relative prosperity and security, the Empire was the best deal they had going for them at the time. It wasn't ideal by our standards to say the least, but it worked for them.

Temujin depopulated Asia by a factor of 20-30%. Sorry, you lose.

Hmm... 37 million tops (for Temujin) against entire planetary populations in the number of billions (for Palpatine). A conqueror who reopened the Silk Road for the first time since Rome's collapse, ended banditry, achieved the first organised civilisation across Asia and codified a system of law against a man who destroyed a republic and the liberties of its citizens, murdered whole worlds, slated billions of former citizens to enslavement and plunged his civilisation into decades of chaos and civil war. No, I don't think I "lose" at all.

Octavian proscribed 300 senators, not the Senate en-masse. See above.

Palpatine's eager Senate was free of any proscription at the time of his dictatorate and of his acclamation as Emperor.

So... this means he wasn't a tyrant... how, exactly?

Palpatine plunged his galaxy into civil war and murdered whole worlds. The only reason his death-count didn't get any higher was the fact that he fell from power after only three decades on the throne.

Percentages count. And that you'd apologize or compare favorably Genghis Khan, who depopulated entire regions and cultures, to Palpatine, speaks of your unreasoning.

No, shitwit, numbers count. Genghis Khan's bodycount doesn't come anywhere close to Palpatine's and Palpatine's victims were sacrificed for nothing more than the pursuit of his personal glory. Palpatine's body count goes even higher if we tag him with the deaths from the Clone Wars, which he engineered.

The revived Empire succeeded despite the legacy of Palpatine, not because of it. It succeeded because it rejected the totalitarianism of Palpatine's rule.

Uh, despite using his political programs from top to bottom and constitutional forms? And the Empire is not totalitarian, as much as you want it to be.

Dissolution of the Senate, COMPNOR, disappearance of political enemies, destruction of whole worlds, enslavement of billions of former Republic citizens, imposed direct military rule over the galaxy and partnership with organised crime. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you.

The revived Empire also succeeded by rejecting Palpatine's absolutism and was a synthesis, not a throwback.

The Second Empire was an autocracy with a consultative body of Moffs of the Empire serving in senior ministerial position, so you are wrong.

I don't think so. The Moff Councils were co-equal with the Emperor and they, not the Emperor, controlled the military forces of their government. They choose the emperor, not the other way around.

Excuse me, but Mace Windu was quite prepared to overthrow Palpatine without solid evidence to justify the act even before Anakin told him he was the Sith Lord. What's the matter? Miss that whole discussion between Mace, Obi-Wan, and Yoda on that topic in the movie?

The point is, you hold it against the Jedi for not planning a coup even earlier with even less evidence or reason. "They just should have known he was bad and teh evil!" You're an imbecile, Degan.

Strawman, you dishonest piece of shit. I said no such fucking thing about "holding anything" against the Jedi for plotting their coup on no evidence. My argument has been and continues to be: that nobody —including the Jedi— even bothered to ask a very basic question which is not beyond the capability of anybody of measurable intelligence, which had it been asked would have tumbled Palpatine's schemes. They never bothered to question the truth of the war itself and then, from that point, uncover the truth of affairs.

The renamed New Republic defeated the Yuuzhan Vong and the Second Empire defeated the renamed New Republic nearly a century later.

The Galactic Alliance was exhausted by the Vong War and remained in that pitiful state even after a century. The galactic economy had not recovered from the depredations of that war when the Second Empire made its power-grab, so the point stands.

Human supremacism was not a universal state policy of the First Empire. Palpatine's Vice Chair, Mas Amedda, as a member of Palpatine's Imperial inner circle. He was overtly monarchist and overtly non-human. The highest level in the military, that of Grand Admiral of the Galactic Empire, claimed Mitth'raw'nuroudo within their ranks. He was also a member of the most exclusive social club in the galaxy, and a public and visible member of the Court of Courts. Odd for an officially anti-human supposed state, hm? General Sk'ar was a commander of an elite joint-forces command and was overtly alien. Palpatine's Dark Side Adepts included several aliens, who served in positions of overt power. A ruling junta at the twilight of the First Empire was filled with alien members.

Very funny. Citing the very few exceptions to Palpatine's humans-only ideology whom he allowed to sit at the table while ignoring the wholesale enslavement of nonhuman races under his rule —by his own policy. Cherry-picking the evidence. That's like the racist who says "Some of my best friends are coloureds" but still sits on the council of his local Klan. You really have no idea how stupid you look at this point, do you?

The two situations are not comparable. The Roman Senate faced a prospect of either the principate of Octavian, or another civil war breaking out. Such was not the dilemma faced by the Galactic Senate.

Uh, really? The political system was solely dependent on Palpatine; without him there was the dissolution and chaos of the Republic.

A dissolution and chaos he fostered, numbskull.

Considering that the likely consequence of surrendering his power would have been his own murder by those who would seek to ensure he'd never return, it was a matter of playing politics —which in that time was a particularly deadly game.

I didn't know a failure to assume imperator as a praenomen and augustus as a cognomen would result in him losing the faith of the people, his enormous wealth, his partisans in a purged Senate, command of the legions, and personal ownership of the breadbasket of Rome. Silly me. I forgot his assumption of names was more important than command of the army, supply of food for the populace, lots of lackeys, and a shitload of cash. Here I thought the office of consul and later, his tribunica potestas and imperium proconsulare maius would be important. I am so glad Degan is here to educate me.

That's what Prof. Fagan has already said on the matter. To review:

By virtue of his adoption, following Roman custom, Octavius now assumed the name C. Julius Caesar Octavianus (hereafter "Octavian"). To identify himself fully with his adoptive father and to lend his subsequent actions a veneer of legitimacy, he simply called himself "Caesar," and is usually so named in ancient sources. [[7]] The name had a tremendous pull and Octavian's use of it represents his first major political reinvention: from unknown Octavius to Caesar, son of Caesar. Many of the troops at Brundisium joined his cause, and as he moved toward Rome his retinue grew in size, especially from among the ranks of veterans settled by Caesar in Italian colonies. By mid-April, he was nearing Rome. [[8]]

. . .

Against this backdrop of looming crisis between the Caesarians and the Liberators, the relationship between Antony and Octavian continued to deteriorate, despite occasional public reconciliations. Antony accused Octavian of plotting against him, while Octavian attempted, through agents, to undermine the loyalty of the army that Antony was bringing to Italy from Macedonia. Antony went to Brundisium to secure his army (things did not go well there for him), at which juncture Octavian showed his daring once more. Despite the risk of being branded a public enemy, he toured the Caesarian colonies of Campania and, relying on old loyalties, raised a private army from among Caesar's veterans, perhaps 10,000 strong. It was a vivid demonstration of the power of the name "Caesar." Antony, meanwhile, returned to Rome and intended to denounce Octavian to the senate when he heard that two of his five legions from Macedonia had defected to Octavian. Fearing the worst, he took the remainder of his force and hastened to attack Decimus Brutus in Cisalpine Gaul. [[13]]

The situation was now highly volatile. Decimus Brutus, backed by the senate, was resisting Antony under arms, and retired to the fortified town of Mutina in Cisalpine Gaul. Antony had four legions, Octavian had five. All the armed parties were mutually antagonistic. The senate, led by Cicero in his last great political action, identified Antony as the greater threat. [[14]] Cicero and Antony were now on opposing sides, following an acrimonious oratorical exchange in the senate that started in September 44 BC. At this crucial juncture, then, Cicero deployed his considerable rhetorical skill to Octavian's benefit and began to champion his cause as a foil to Antony's power. As a result, on 1 January, 43 BC Octavian's essentially illegal command of men under arms was legitimized with a grant of propraetorian power. As such, Octavian continued his preparations to attack Antony, now declared a public enemy, who had begun besieging Decimus Brutus at Mutina. Octavian, now an official representative of the republic, led his force into the region and moved against Antony. [[15]]

In two engagements in April, Antony was bested and fled over the Alps to his political allies in Transalpine Gaul. Both consuls for 43 BC, however, perished in the fighting around Mutina, and Octavian, as the senior commander on the spot, refused to cooperate any further with Decimus Brutus, a murderer of his father. The senators, it appears, hoped that Octavian would now go away. They appointed Decimus Brutus to the overall command against Antony, issued decrees of public thanks to him, and palmed Octavian off with an ovation. When a commission to distribute land to veterans was set up, Octavian was pointedly omitted. Smarting at such insulting treatment, Octavian bided his time and put in requests for a consulship (with Cicero as his colleague) and a triumph. Meanwhile, Antony was preparing to return to Cisalpine Gaul with enormous forces gained from Caesarian commanders in Transalpine Gaul. The situation remained unstable.[[16]]

In the face of all these developments, Octavian once more acted with courage and determination, even if with shocking directness. Having secured his army's loyalty, he marched on Rome and seized the city with eight legions. Three legions brought from outside Italy to counter him defected. Unsurprisingly, Octavian was elected consul to replace the deceased consuls of 43 BC. He now carried the long-delayed ratification of his adoption, paid out the remainder of Caesar's legacy, revoked the amnesty for the Liberators, and tried and convicted them en masse and in absentia on a single day. Despite his control of Rome, Octavian's position was perilous. Antony was massing huge forces in Cisalpine Gaul and, across the Adriatic, Cassius and Brutus had taken the opportunity offered by the enmity between the Caesarian leaders to gain control of most of the eastern empire, it might be noted, with no great regard for either legality or scruple. [[17]]

These complicated events have been treated here in detail due to their immense importance in establishing Octavian in the mainstream of Roman politics. Dismissed by Antony and then by the senate as a bit player, he proved repeatedly capable of deft and resolute action in defence of his interests. On account of his tender years, he lacked the nexus of influential support that most leading Roman politicians, including Antony, found essential to their success and therefore he had to rely more on direct appeals to the mob, his troops, and supporters of Caesar. His actions might not have been always scrupulous or admirable, but Late-Republican politics was a vicious and cutthroat business and few involved adhered solely to principle (the Liberators, for instance, went about the eastern empire seizing provinces and only had their acts ratified post factum by a compliant senate). Octavian had only two reliable tools available to him at this early stage in his career: his name, Caesar, and promises of bounty to the soldiers, and he deployed both with daring and decisiveness when he had to. In the autumn of 43 BC, he was to make his most ambitious move yet.

. . .

The third and final political reinvention of Augustus was about to take place. That the Republic needed a guiding hand was beyond doubt. The old system had failed utterly and, if reinstated, would do so again. Even someone as republican in sentiment as Cicero had finally admitted the need for a "governing leader" of the state (rector). Octavian was to remain in control, that much was clear. But how? Over the next three decades, his position in the state was established in a complex amalgam of legal and non-legal powers and privileges. The process was not instantaneous nor did it adhere to a single agenda relentlessly pursued; rather, it evolved piecemeal over time, occasionally reactionary, occasionally with foresight. Many details remain debated or uncertain, but the overall process is clearly discernible: it extends through two main "Constitutional Settlements" in 27 and 23 BC respectively, some refinements in 19 BC, and sporadic assignations of numerous rights and privileges down to the granting of the ultimate title, "Father of his Country" (Pater Patriae), in 2 BC.

In the wake of Actium, however, there was work to be done. After taking Egypt and settling affairs there, Octavian stayed away from Rome as he saw to the organization of the East. For the most part, Antony's arrangements were left in place, as long as old loyalties were suitably redirected. Octavian returned to Rome and Italy, amid tumultuous celebrations, in August of 29 BC. Large numbers of veterans were settled (perhaps 25 legions totalling 40,000 men or more) both in Italy and the provinces, this time without complaint, since the vast wealth of Egypt allowed for ample compensation. When he entered Rome, he celebrated three triumphs over three days (over Dalmatia, Actium, and Egypt). Legally, his difficult position of 32 BC had been bypassed and Octavian held the consulship every year from 31 BC onwards (until 23 BC). Just as important, however, was the non-legal basis for his dominance, later expressed by Augustus as "universal consent." The roots of this consent must lie in the oath of 32 BC, now extended in principle, if not in practice, to embrace the entire empire and all its armies. Octavian was, as he later put it, "in complete control of affairs" precisely because everyone wanted him to be and, just as significantly, because he was the last man standing. There is political posturing in his claim to "universal consent," to be sure, but possibly also some kernel of truth. He had ended the civil wars, and all hopes for a peaceful future now rested with him and him alone. In light of this, the senate and people voted him numerous honors in 29 BC, some of which Octavian judiciously refused, consonant with his image as respecter of tradition. [[32]]

Octavian's holding continuous consulships would be insufficient as a mode of administration in the long term, especially if, as he intended, the old order was to be seen to be restored. He needed, somehow, to find a firm place simultaneously within and above established norms. His position at the head of affairs therefore needed careful consideration, and this no doubt explains the eighteen-month gap between his return to Rome in August 29 BC and the so-called First Constitutional Settlement of 13 January, 27 BC which, with the broadest of brush strokes, began painting the portrait of the new order. Memories of Caesar's fate must have loomed large. Despite that dictator's huge popularity among the masses, his complete victory over his enemies in civil war, and the devotion of his troops, he had been laid low by a few dozen disillusioned aristrocrats. Among the uppermost considerations pressing on Octavian, therefore, must have been the need to appease the sensibilities of the elite. In addition, the divided loyalties of highly politicized armies had been a plague on the Late Republic. This situation too would require remedying. These two issues, in fact, were at the heart of the "First Settlement," staged in the senate on 13 January, 27 BC.[[33]]

On that day, Octavian entered the senate and, to the shock of those not in the know, surrendered his position and retired to private life. The senators, possibly confused, reacted with indignance and insisted that Octavian remain at the helm of the state. After a show of reluctance, Octavian graciously accepted a share in the running of the state, gaining command of Spain (except Baetica), Gaul, Syria, Cyprus, and Egypt while the senate and people kept the rest. Within his extended provincia, granted for ten years, Octavian could appoint legates to administer regions on his behalf. Modern scholars have failed to reach agreement on the exact legal status of Octavian's command over his provinces (was it by virtue of imperium consulare or proconsulare, imperium maius or aequum?), but the case for imperium proconsulare is the stronger; it also had precedents, in the form of the "extraordinary commands" of Pompey or Caesar in the Late Republic. This situation would have appealed to Octavian's desire to appear to be maintaining traditions while also doing nothing alarmingly new or innovative. Other honors and privileges were also forthcoming, at a second meeting on 16 January. Here Octavian was named Augustus, a word ringing with religious (augur) and social (auctoritas) meaning but not suggestive of overt political dominance. C. Julius Caesar Octavianus now became Imperator Caesar Augustus. Other honors carried more symbolic meaning (laurels placed on the door of his house; award of the corona civica for saving the lives of citizens; the "Shield of Virtues" erected in his honor) but they were no less significant for that: they helped establish Augustus's pre-eminent place in the state and craft the beginnings of an Augustan ideology. By means of this settlement, Augustus was simultaneously commander, leader, savior. [[34]]

You're a smarmy little fuck.

Again, look who's talking

And hear I thought the smell in Nawlins was from the flood, I know now its the putrid residue of your brain.

Cheap and especially pathetic ad-hominem. You degenerate further.

Hitler managed the same feat and far more economically in terms of effort and that man was hardly a genius; just a very charismatic (and murderous) bullshitter who happened to be in the right place and time to exploit a current of resentment and the weakness of a ramshackle political structure which was ripe for a fall.

Except Hitler failed to expand borders and dominate the known world; Palpatine succeeded. If the Rebels had not gotten lucky and he not died, he would not have lost.

Hitler conquered Europe and did expand his borders but that's beside the point I was making, which you, of course, ignored by thinking you could argue something else. Palpatine didn't conquer anything that wasn't already under the dominion of the Republic, and he died exactly because of his own stupidity at Endor. Luck had nothing to do with it.

[wjs7744]

If you say so, Gracie. And since when did "egotism" and "self-aggrandizement" qualify as standards for defining genius, Mr. Dictionary? Personality quirks aren't the issue and you fucking well know it —or at least that was what you were arguing up until now. And if Palpatine's "reforms" "transformed the state and politics indefinitely" as you would have it, why have the successor governments dispensed with Palpatine's despotic policies or his racial ideologies as bases for galactic government?

Priceless. You earlier argued that Palpatine isn't a genius because he is egotistical, and then when called on it pretend that we are arguing that he is because of those traits, when really we are arguing that they are irrelevant. That's called a strawman, I think. Also, seeing as you brought egotism etc. up in the first place, it probably counts as a red herring too.

A genius is a person who defies current expectations of what CAN be done.

So everyone in the republic expected someone to overthrow them?

[...]someone who's expertise at something exceeds that of the average person;[...]

If the standards of genius are that low, most of this board qualifies, and Palpy certainly does.

And in terms of Temujin: he was no worse or bloodier than the other rulers of his time. He grew up in a savage world in which wholesale massacre was considered normal even between empires.

Don't you just love the moral relativism here? Not that morality has anything whatsoever to do with intelligence, so that makes this another red herring.

Repetitious bullshit from your little RPG book.

So, just because some things from it are wrong, you feel you can throw the entire source out?

So... this means he wasn't a tyrant... how, exactly?

Seeing as we are discussing his genius rather than whether he was a tyrant or not, I rather think we don't need to show that.

And hear I thought the smell in Nawlins was from the flood, I know now its the putrid residue of your brain.

Cheap and especially pathetic ad-hominem. You degenerate further.

Repeat after me: "Insults are not ad-hominems"

Asked and answered.

Actually you weren't asked for a source for your definition, although I was planning to do so. You were asked why we should use it. Now you have shown that your definition actually exists outside your addled brain, how about answering the fucking question?

Why should we use your definition Patrick?

Hmm, that makes number 8 now. 3, 8, and 11. Keep going, Patrick!

I think I'll keep asking this until you answer.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I could give in to Paddycake's tactic of burying the opponent in endless Scooter-text replies, but I'll summarize.

Palpatine of Naboo instituted a revolutionary and unparalleled political reform program that transformed the Thousand-Year Republic in particular and the Galactic Republican civilization unprecedentedly. No Sith Lord, junta, or other force managed to completely wrest control of the Republic and concentrate power in a single natural person previously. Not once. Furthermore, this is not comparable to most terrestrial political feat. Although Palpatine's political domination is attested in official sources even prior to the invasion of Naboo, those manipulated in many cases were unaware that they were manipulated, or what master they were serving.

Your replies consist of claims that this is unremarkable, this is simple mob politics, that this is easy. The Russian mob is a sad comparison by an obviously weak mind. The Russian mob is not the base of political power in the Russian Federation. Furthermore, the Russian mob's illicit influence is publicly acknowledged. Palpatine's influence as of The Phantom Menace was not publicly acknowledged. The ruling class of the Republic failed to appreciate the true power behind the cabal-rule by illicit influences and alliances at the twilight of the Republic. Any failure by those in the know to remain secure would have cost Palpatine his power. He was elected precisely because he was perceived as honest and easily controlled (The Essential Guide to Characters).

I described his economic and political program in detail, explaining that under his rule, the majority of the populace adored him and lived on luxury liner worlds. He reshaped galactic commerce and politics, unifying the galaxy and bringing it under uniform law (a point you quite clearly ignored, being unable to bury it beneath rhetoric and the jerrymandering of definition that you prefer to intellectually honest debate). Your reply was that he destroyed worlds, that the galaxy did not improve. This is demonstrably false. The Mussolinified worlds of the Empire were preceded with robber barony, inter-state conflict, and even the destruction of worlds (intelligence broker Talon Karrde's right-hand, a Mistryl Shadow Guard, was a mercenary in order to gather funds for her exile community - whose homeworld was immolated under the Republic. You have no reply to your heroes acts of mass murder or political violence. It is demonstrable that Palpatine's genocidal acts were statistically irrelevant.

You complain of despotism. What of the pre-war despotism of local despots? What of the post-war despotism of the Je'har and their mass murderers of Almania? What of the pre-war enslavement the Republic was powerless to interrupt? Chattel slavery was not government policy under the Republic - forced labor for political crimes, domestication of species, yes. The simple fact of the matter is that Palpatine was not derided as a despot. I suppose the fact that the New Republic lacked a powerbase for months and their credibility existed only in the absence of Palpatine's charisma and personal dignity. Return of the Jedi depicted a minority of the population of Coruscant; the Director of Imperial Intelligence put down the riot with gunfire. None of this makes the authentically canon testament of the Return of the Jedi novelisation, Dark Empire Sourcebook, Imperial Sourcebook, and the A New Hope novelisation that Palpatine was a fantastically successful, popular, and effective autocrat. And the existence of the Mussolinified worlds was not attested prior to Palpatine's rule (and is ruled out by the piracy and interstate conflict of the late Republic). And what of the immolation of Endor as a result of the political ambitions of the Alliance?

You continue to strawman my claims by claims that I ever qualified genius on the basis of "egotism" and "self-aggrandizement." Rather, you offered Palpatine's personality disorders as disproof of his genius. You offered the self-centered focus of his programs as disproof of his genius. So I countered with examples that, if those constitute definitive failure conditions for genius, would also fail to be geniuses. Enough bullshit: if Palpatine is so bad, why is Napoleon a genius? Why did the Bourbons discard much of his government? Why is France a Republic today? Furthermore, the successor state of the First Empire is ultimately the Second Empire, which uses the hundred and fifty-year old New Order program of Palpatine's as its raison d'etre.

Furthermore, Palpatine's racial ideologies were not a basis of rule, considering that there were alien members of Congress, of his Inner Circle (Sly Moore, Mas Amedda), of the College of Moffs (also included a droid, For Atsee, Grand Moff of the Empire), of the College of Grand Admirals (Thrawn), senior ministers such as the Procurator of Justice Hethrir, a senior officer/agent of the Imperial State (Grand Inquisitor Ja'ce Yiaso, High Inquisitor Jerec, etc.), of the Imperial Court (Thrawn, Xizor), of the Privy Council (Xizor). Explain to me that Xizor could second to Vader in the Court if he lacked civil rights (including the right to own property, as his palace on real estate deprived Coruscant was surpassed only by Vader's and Palpatine's?) and was not a citizen? How is it a non-citizen and non-subject with civil rights could also be a naval officer of superlative rank? What about being a Senior Administrative Aid to the Supreme Chancellor? What about being a Ruling Councilor - literally empowered to rule on Palpatine's behalf - while being disenfranchised? If the Empire's constitutionally biased against aliens, considering their high office and opportunity - what is the U.S.? And the Second Empire does not have a Senate, nor does it have any constitutional restraint on the autocracy of the sovereign.

By the way: it is not an ad hominem fallacy, by the way, unless I say because you are a fascist, your argument is wrong. I'm criticizing the sloppiness of your political science and your inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty. You, however, are factually and logically incorrect. Furthermore, your "no numbers fallacy" (hint, its not a fallacy unless it is specious argument due to logic; simply failing to supply numerical analysis is not a fallacy) is a hypocritical charge. The Empire's population was in the hundred quadrillion range (1e17 beings). A hundred million billions; a billion enslaved in the Empire is literally equivalent to 3 people enslaved in the U.S. According to this article by UC Berkeley, there are 10,000 modern-day slaves at any given time in the U.S. For the slavery rate to compete with the U.S., the Empire would have to have some approximately 3.00e12 slaves in the Empire (that's "three trillion" for you, No-Numbers Pattycakes). Furthermore, the A New Hope novelisation and Children of the Jedi are clear that the abuses of the Palpatinist regime were not explicit state policy in most cases; popularly they were attributed to recent ministerial appointments and in general they were the result of systemic abuse and a lack of accountability - not official policy. Furthermore, I do not have to be a fan of a regime to respect the factual political acumen and competency exhibited. Unfortunately republican government in Star Wars gives the entire concept a bad name, and quite frankly the authors' incompetence has apologized for Imperial fascism, implicitly setting it up as the superior system. Nevertheless, intrinsically the Empire was more successful than its predecessor or successor states.

Oh, by the way, this little bit of cretinism requires actual quotation, just so everyone can see for themselves what a dumb shit you are:

No Numbers Fallacy once again. I would love to see the formula by which you quantify "every soul in the Rebellion" as troop numbers and starship crew present at the battle and how you can know that every last person involved was in the fleet and none left at their bases, supply docks, repair facilities, or even on their homeworlds. Clearly, the concept of literary license has sailed past that pointy head of yours for you to float something this idiotic as an "argument".

In a remote and midnight vacuum beyond the edge of the galaxy, the vast Rebel fleet stretched, from its vanguard to its rear echelon, past the range of human vision. Corellian battle ships, cruisers, destroyers, carriers, bombers, Sullustian cargo freighters, Calamarian tankers, Alderaanian gunships, Kesselian blockade runners, Bestinian skyhoppers, X-wing, Y-wing, and A-wing fighters, shuttles, transport vehicles, manowars. Every Rebel in the galaxy, soldier and civilian alike, waited tensely in these ships for instructions. They were led by the largest of the Rebel Star Cruisers, the Headquarters Frigate.

Wait...what?

Every Rebel in the galaxy, soldier and civilian alike, waited tensely in these ships for instructions.

I'm still not quite sure what that passage said. Let's try one more time:

[magnification=Readable by Degan the Dipshit]Every Rebel in the galaxy, soldier and civilian alike, waited tensely in these ships for instructions.[/magnification]

Its called citing your sources, and backing your shit up, Degan. That's the formula I use.

Even if license is taken into question, for the statement to mean ANYTHING AT ALL, it necessarily constrains the size of the force in question. The Rebellion's active membership cannot exceed a couple orders of magnitude more than the complement of the ships: even a hundred billion (1e11) rebels would barely be the equivalent of three hundred rebels against the U.S. government (1e-6). Its a sad testament to how far you've sunk into trolling and Scooter tactics that a non-argument to you is simply repeating the face value literal statement of an official source.

As to your bullshit parade on the topic of genius, you failed to answer the simple question:

Why should we use your definition, Degan?

Not to mention you STILL fail to explain exactly what it is. But of course you must, because you must continue to jerrymander the definition at will to serve your preconceptions.

Furthermore, you continue to misrepresent that canon; the order issued by the Ruling Council on Palpatine's behalf is attributed in The Imperial Sourcebook; the fact of the matter is that the Senate was not abolished as an institution. Elections continued to be held and Senators were granted their privileges (Marvel Star Wars). The suspension of the Senate was intended to last indefinitely, it is true. But the fact of the matter was it was not abolished.

I am not going to reply to your voluminous nitpicking and strawmanning (or as you'd prefer, strawmandeering Pattycake spluge) of my claims. You said Palpatine's constitutional establishment of an Empire was not necessary to his rule. Of course it was; his political status was precarious and was legitimized through a state of war in the Republic, dictator though he was. Like Octavian, peace and stability required a different, formal, and long-term political settlement. To this end his was acclaimed Galactic Emperor, and Octavian because Triumphant Commander Caesar, Son of Divinity, the Revered, First Citizen and Father of the Nation. Palpatine similarly established a permanent political head for the Empire, but also permitted further ambitions of the ruling class through the Privy and Ruling Councils while he could exercise greater patronage. This is similar to Octavian vacating the consulate in favor of the "imperial" powers of the tribunica potestas and imperium proconsulare maius.

Your bitching about the Republic fails to substantiate that the Republic did not have direct governmental control over much of the Outer Rim. The Empire did; its political and social services were there. Jabba's court is noticeably absent of the chattel slavery of the Republic, no? There is at least some attempt to policing of the fringe, compared to the Republic where even the currency held no value - the worst slums of Russia may have gangsters, but you can pay protection in rubles.

Furthermore, the actual truth of the films does not disprove the fact that it was perceived that Palpatine was not actually responsible for the bad policies under his rule. Biggs said that "the Empire was a beautiful thing once, but the people in charge now..." - how exactly could that refer to Palpatine? Not to mention it substantiates his popularity documented in Return of the Jedi novelization. The films do not disprove this evidence. They focus on rebels and do not show any meaningful democratic representation of the people; a superficial riot on Coruscant taking up a few city squares tells us nothing about the statistical support in the population for Palpatine. In the absence of definitive evidence to the contrary, we should rely on the direct statements attributed to this discussion in the canon: Palpatine was very popular with the people.

I am not a fascist; however, within the wartime Galactic Republic, and the Galactic Empire, the law was suspended as a matter of course in all military operations. Order Sixty-Six was not only publically accepted, it was not unlawful in the galactic state. That speaks to the atrophy of due process and legal institutions, but doesn't MAKE IT illegal. Stalin's purges were LAWFUL by the law of the USSR in many cases. Does that mean the law meant shit or was useful? No. But law is a social construct; ethics may be transcendental, but law is not. It exists only where it is created. And if fascist states legalize pogroms, than they do.

When I say that Senators lasted for years alive, I'm not talking about hiding: Mon Mothma, Garm bel Iblis, and Bail Organa were Imperial Senators for years before the Corellian Treaty was signed. They were supporters and participants in the Imperial system for years before they went counterrevolutionary. The point is that Palpatine's Imperial Senate confirmed him as Emperor lawfully and they weren't pogromed or purged or bribed to do it.

Regarding expansionism, actually he was winning whenever in command; the Battle of Endor was his to lose until luck and the Force intervened and he got tossed down a shaft. He STILL came back five years later and crushed the same movement, which had even had time to push the Empire to the fringe and occupy the Core Worlds. Octavian set up a war effort that just got outmaneuvered and crushed. Palpatine's war plans were not incompetent, in of themselves. He just took unacceptable personal risks and they could not function without him.

Here's a clue: take your RPG manual and cram it up your ass. West End Games' material (the source of the "Five Mile Fallacy" for the Executor, BTW) has come in for considerable criticism due to its contradictions with several facts of Star Wars canon material and it does not hold primacy over statements from the movies, novelisations, radio scripts, or even the AU novels and certainly not the Essential guides, chronologies, dictionaries, and the ICS books. It's accuracy as a source of information is dubious.

No, that's simply wrong. There is no canon policy that establishes that the RPG materials are inferior to any other official source. It is either from Lucas, or its official, period. West End Games was wrong about the Executor because it disagreed with the films; the fact that Grand Moff Tarkin's comment differed from the actual declaration in legalistic technicality does not disprove that technically the Senate was not abolished (and we now Senators continued to be elected). And it certainly does not make all claims by WEG materials wrong. Accept that you'd like for them to be wrong. How Scooter of you. Its not my fault your exposure to SW analysis is obviously years-vintage. Go fuck yourself, quite frankly.