Roles and Powers of an Imperial Grand Admiral

[Darth Hoth]

Funny, this comes up. I am responsible for twice trying to delete the claim because it is completely fabricated.

Who brings that claim up? For my life I can't remember a single source outside of the Wookieepedia that would have Executor as a proper post before Sedriss. It is even more dubious when one considers that Luke Skywalker was referred to as Lord and Supreme Commander in Dark Empire (although I don't have access to that comic I can't verify it right now).

That is indeed what the comic says. To answer the question, from what I remember of my days at Wookiee, there are some anons, who may or may not be connected, that keep attempting to add it in in spite of the general consensus. For what reason they do it, one can only guess. When last I checked, the nonsense had been purged, though; I am saddened that it is back again.

[Thanas]

How exactly did Side Trip's "manipulation" happen? It is usually referred only as Thrawn gaining Vader's favor in the form of Noghri death commandos after completing a task for the Dark Lord. And if anything, Thrawn should know how dangerous it is to try to manipulate Vader known for his aggressive approach to failures and insults. Prince Xizor and Baron Tagge paid a terrible price for it and surely Thrawn would be aware that Vader's murderous streak cannot ne reliably controlled (something that even the Mary Sue-ish Mara Jade learned in Allegiance).

I do not have side trip at hand, but from what I remember it was Thrawn feeding Vader ideas he knew Vader would take.

[Publius]

Out of curiousity, who or what is the head of the Navy? Should it not be the highest ranking uniformed officers?

Navy Command has never actually been seen in any canonical source (although it has occasionally been mentioned). The only time an officer has been unambiguously identified as an overall commander is Admiral Kermen in "The Kaal Connection," who was identified in 39 rS as "in charge of the remnants of the Imperial fleet currently defending the Core Worlds from the New Republic advance."

Rank and authority are not the same thing. Rank is merely a matter of precedence, and is not necessarily a function of the individual officer himself. Superior rank does not connote superior authority: General of the Army Douglas MacArthur was considerably senior to General Omar Bradley in terms of both rank and seniority, yet nevertheless Bradley was Chief of Staff of the United States Army (professional head of service) and thus superior to MacArthur as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (a mere supreme commander).

And on what basis are you concluding that "professional heads of service" must be desk-holders? How can the uniformed commanders "of all Imperial Forces" not "serve at the top of the chain of command"?

A modern professional navy demands an enormous support system to function. A dedicated shore establishment is required to satisfy the vast demands of the operating forces; a ship at space must be fuelled, victualled, supplied, equipped, and manned. Fuel and ship's stores must be procured, meaning that bids must be reviewed, contracts must be awarded, facilities must be had, and supplies must be both stored and delivered. Ordnance, too, must be kept in store, and weapons systems must be designed, procured, installed, inspected, and kept in repair. Spare parts and routine maintenance must be had, as well as refits and overhauls. Personnel must be recruited, trained, detailed, promoted, and transferred. All this must be multiplied by more than a million times, to account for each ship in the fleet. As well, the various shore establishments imply their own logistical overhead. In essence, the operating forces are merely the tip of the iceberg, while the unglamorous work of keeping the fleet battleready lurks beneath the waves. Even with the use of 'droids and computers to ease the administrative burden, it is not realistic to suppose that the head of service will be gallivanting about commanding campaigns from a warship's bridge. It would be professionally negligent and grossly irresponsible for a man responsible for a navy of millions of ships spread out across 120,000 light years to devote his time and attention to such petty details.

Virtually every instance of the highest ranking military officer in SW has them leading from the front, not bunkered away behind some desk. Ackbar, Grievous, Pellaeon, Niathal, etc.

General Dwight Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, in which capacity he was the head of the entire military force deployed in the European Theater of Operations; he was not a head of service (General George Marshall was Chief of Staff and thus Eisenhower's superior). As it happens, one of Eisenhower's subordinates, General Bernard Montgomery, came to outrank him in September 1944 when he received a field marshal's baton (Eisenhower did not receive his fifth star until December 1944). Operational command, personal rank, and seniority do not imply headship of service. Being supreme commander and the highest-ranking officer does not make one a head of service.

[TC Pilot]

Navy Command has never actually been seen in any canonical source (although it has occasionally been mentioned). The only time an officer has been unambiguously identified as an overall commander is Admiral Kermen in "The Kaal Connection," who was identified in 39 rS as "in charge of the remnants of the Imperial fleet currently defending the Core Worlds from the New Republic advance."

And what exactly is ambiguous about "...my inner circle of 12 Grand Admirals who will command all Imperial Forces"?

Must we really go so far as to argue over the differences in "command" and "in charge of"?

Rank and authority are not the same thing. Rank is merely a matter of precedence, and is not necessarily a function of the individual officer himself. Superior rank does not connote superior authority

I am well aware, and I apologize for so recklessly using "rank" and "authority" interchangeably in the manner in which I have done so in this thread.

To be quite frank, I have very little interest in debating you on this subject, particularly as I have no reason to, given that any Imperial equivalent to a chief of staff is entirely speculative, and virtually irrelevant given the powers the Imperial state invests the Grand Admiralty and Supreme Commander (highet rank and highest titular position repsectively) with, beyond the bureacratic role it must neccesarily hold in maintaining the unfathomably vast navy.

[Publius]

And what exactly is ambiguous about "...my inner circle of 12 Grand Admirals who will command all Imperial Forces"?

In the first place, this is hardly a carefully-worded regulation, and it is in fact quite unclear. Who has command? All twelve grand admirals, simultaneously? What, then, happens if one grand admiral disagrees with another? Is this a collegial office, like the tribunate of the plebeians? If they share command, how many are required as a quorum to do business? Can any one of them exercise full command independently of the rest?

These are not mere quibbles. It is for this very reason that regulation requires clarity. This is why the change of command ceremony involves the prospective commanding officer explicitly reading aloud his orders to take command, and unambiguously relieves the commanding officer in front of the entire ship's company -- to make quite clear that only one man has command, and who that man is.

At any rate, the Galactic Emperor's statement about the grand admirals clearly does not refer to making them collectively the heads of the armed forces (Grand Admiral Thrawn continued to defer to Darth Vader in "Side Trip"), and no grand admiral is ever seen to behave in such a fashion until Thrawn's term as shōgun, which was hardly normative. The fact of the matter is that the grand admirals were Palpatine's pets, whom he granted tremendous freedom of action. In describing them as having command of all forces, he was merely granting them the limitless ability to command whatever they needed to command to do whatever he wanted them to do. Their authority would amount to "take what you need and go."

By comparison, Cn. Pompeius had imperium maius during his extraordinary command against pirates in the Mediterranean. His authority superceded that of all other commanders within his area of responsibility. This hardly made him the head of the Roman army.

Note that command is not the be-all and end-all-here of naval organization. In the United States Navy, all captains have command -- yet the Chief of Naval Operations, the professional head of the service, does not. He does not have operational control over any of the operating forces, yet retains administrative control. This is why, of course, one must emphasize the difference between headship of service (Marshall) and supreme command (Eisenhower, MacArthur). It goes without saying that the commanders are far more likely to be remembered than the administrators.

Must we really go so far as to argue over the differences in "command" and "in charge of"?

In point of fact, the two are distinct concepts in terms of military science. Charge is delegated responsibility, whereas command is responsibility held in its own right. An officer in charge (OIC) is a deputy of a commanding officer (CO), usually of an autonomous detachment or detail of the command. Charge can be delegated as far down as to the chief petty officer in charge (CPOIC) and the petty officer in charge (POIC); NCOICs are a standard feature of modern military organization.

One hestiates, however, to take either statement as a literal and technical description of their roles. One doubts, for example, that Admiral Kermen is the OIC of the Imperial Navy.

Ultimately the issue is that the authors give little thought to the quotidian details of back-of-stairs management. There is neither glamor nor glory in the work of the storekeeper, ship's serviceman, yeoman, and personnelman. The gunner's mate is not as romantic as the fighter pilot, nor the machinist's mate as the special operator. The cockswain and boatswain's mates lack swash and buckler, and as a result get little attention. The vast majority of the shore establishment is only vaguely understood.

[TC Pilot]

In the first place, this is hardly a carefully-worded regulation, and it is in fact quite unclear. Who has command? All twelve grand admirals, simultaneously? What, then, happens if one grand admiral disagrees with another? Is this a collegial office, like the tribunate of the plebeians? If they share command, how many are required as a quorum to do business? Can any one of them exercise full command independently of the rest?

I do not even presume to know the manner in which the Imperial state is designed and functions day-to-day, nor either should you. Nearly precisely identical questions could be posed regarding the Emperor's privy councilors, the Imperial Senate and the Moffs, Oversectors and Sectors, COMPNOR/ISB and Imperial Intelligence.

Except in this case we have the word directly from the Emperor, a rarity in the largely Rebel propaganda and historical documents we normally have access to. Has the Emperor simply granted those thirteen men extraordinary power to command and lead any fleet assets they need or desire in carrying out the Emperor's orders? Or is it a part of the Imperial Navy's codified organization? Does it even matter, given the course of historical events? Regardless of these pressing details, they do not bury the reality that the Emperor granted what powers he did grant as revealed in TIE Fighter.

Why, then, shall we assume that the Grand Admiralty "exist outside the rank structure"? Or that they do not "actually serve at the top of the chain of command"? Can one point to a more highly ranked uniformed naval officer? Can one point to the fabled GHQ chief of staff? Or even the administrative apparatus that sustains the fleet? This entire discussion seems based purely on speculation and appeals to the configuration of foreign governments' military organization. That is the crux of my objection to Mr. Illuminatus Primus's claims.

I do not believe we are actually engaged in an argument, sir. If we are, then I must humbly request you illuminate me. If not, then I see very little reason to continue our conversation on this matter.

At any rate, the Galactic Emperor's statement about the grand admirals clearly does not refer to making them collectively the heads of the armed forces (Grand Admiral Thrawn continued to defer to Darth Vader in "Side Trip")

I do not see the relevance. Lord Darth Vader "outranked" Grand Admiral Thrawn by virtue of his titular role as Supreme Commander of all Imperial Forces and his position as the Emperor's emissary, both of which grant him such wide-ranging power that he can summarily execute fleet admirals (in TIE Fighter, again, Palpatine announces in a speech that "our capable forces led by Darth Vader are striking back at the rebel insurgents."). Frustratingly, TIE Fighter would have us believe Thrawn was a mere Vice Admiral at the time of the Battle of Hoth (yet wearing the uniform of a Grand Admiral).

By comparison, Cn. Pompeius had imperium maius during his extraordinary command against pirates in the Mediterranean. His authority superceded that of all other commanders within his area of responsibility. This hardly made him the head of the Roman army.

That is hardly an ideal example, if only because of the completely incomparable organization of the Imperial Navy and the Roman "army." The only individuals conceivably comparable to a Roman head of the "army" (if there even existed an actual "army" in the manner in which you are referring to it) were the Roman consuls and proconsuls, whose legal imperium to lead men in battle relied solely on that which was invested by the Senate.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I do not even presume to know the manner in which the Imperial state is designed and functions day-to-day, nor either should you. Nearly precisely identical questions could be posed regarding the Emperor's privy councilors, the Imperial Senate and the Moffs, Oversectors and Sectors, COMPNOR/ISB and Imperial Intelligence.

Those issues are hardly as suspect as supposed "collective command" in a military - which may be judged by comparison to historical examples. They use our ranks and customs. Not to mention when we observe that supreme command in fact lies elsewhere - you yourself acknowledge this with reference to the supreme commander, and direct evidence of their deference Publius gave in the example of Vader.

Except in this case we have the word directly from the Emperor, a rarity in the largely Rebel propaganda and historical documents we normally have access to. Has the Emperor simply granted those thirteen men extraordinary power to command and lead any fleet assets they need or desire in carrying out the Emperor's orders? Or is it a part of the Imperial Navy's codified organization? Does it even matter, given the course of historical events? Regardless of these pressing details, they do not bury the reality that the Emperor granted what powers he did grant as revealed in TIE Fighter.

As Publius described, there can be commanders with imperium maius who do not actually command the entirety of the armed forces. How else do you explain the factual issue that GADM Thrawn submits to the presumptive supreme commander in Lord Vader? Vader despite his closeness to the Emperor does mind the official chain of command as we see on the Death Star with Grand Moff Governor Tarkin.

Why, then, shall we assume that the Grand Admiralty "exist outside the rank structure"? Or that they do not "actually serve at the top of the chain of command"? Can one point to a more highly ranked uniformed naval officer? Can one point to the fabled GHQ chief of staff? Or even the administrative apparatus that sustains the fleet? This entire discussion seems based purely on speculation and appeals to the configuration of foreign governments' military organization. That is the crux of my objection to Mr. Illuminatus Primus's claims.

To assert the Imperial military must have no shore establishment or administrative head (you're still garbling concepts, the administrative head need not exercise supreme command OR hold the ultimate rank - both of which are themselves distinct from each other and the administrative head) is utterly fantastic and without credibility. The grand admirals appear to occupy ultimate rank. They appear to have unlimited power to exercise their orders from Palpatine. They appear to not serve as the head of service or in administrative control collectively or individually. And they appear to still be subordinate to the supreme commander who is outside the rank structure (vis-a-vis Thrawn's submission to Vader).

I do not believe we are actually engaged in an argument, sir. If we are, then I must humbly request you illuminate me. If not, then I see very little reason to continue our conversation on this matter.

You certainly felt required to reply twice to his arguments.

I do not see the relevance. Lord Darth Vader "outranked" Grand Admiral Thrawn by virtue of his titular role as Supreme Commander of all Imperial Forces and his position as the Emperor's emissary, both of which grant him such wide-ranging power that he can summarily execute fleet admirals (in TIE Fighter, again, Palpatine announces in a speech that "our capable forces led by Darth Vader are striking back at the rebel insurgents."). Frustratingly, TIE Fighter would have us believe Thrawn was a mere Vice Admiral at the time of the Battle of Hoth (yet wearing the uniform of a Grand Admiral).

Then Vader, as supreme commander, holds true and ultimate command of all Imperial Forces, not the grand admirals, collectively or individually. Thank you. What do you supposed "supreme commander" means. I never disputed the grand admirals had ultimate rank and unlimited command authority to exercise their missions and instructions - however, that does not mean they literally command all Imperial Forces, and they must not, because Vader does.

I'll permit the rest for Publius to reply in detail.

[TC Pilot]

Those issues are hardly as suspect as supposed "collective command" in a military - which may be judged by comparison to historical examples. They use our ranks and customs.

I see you have gone temporarily insane. I'll excuse that.

Not to mention when we observe that supreme command in fact lies elsewhere - you yourself acknowledge this with reference to the supreme commander, and direct evidence of their deference Publius gave in the example of Vader.

Oh please. Lord Vader is a civilian bearing the title of Supreme Commander. Please carry your reasoning the one blindingly obvious step further to wherein it is actually Palpatine weilding "supreme command" at the top of the chain of command. Shall we also muse on the place "Warlord of the Empire" holds, as well?

To assert the Imperial military must have no shore establishment or administrative head is utterly fantastic and without credibility.

Which may very well be the reason I never made such an assertion. Please do not attempt to strawman me again.

(you're still garbling concepts, the administrative head need not exercise supreme command OR hold the ultimate rank - both of which are themselves distinct from each other and the administrative head)

Fascinating. It's almost as if you have finally picked up on my demand for you to substantiate your claim that there even exists an Imperial chief of staff comparable to any modern military (rather than simply ignoring my posts as you did).

I am rapidly running out of patience for the manner in which you have completely mangled my argument into an unrecognizable strawman and carry on this farcical nitpicking.

You certainly felt required to reply twice to his arguments.

You seem to be confused. Perhaps you are making yet another unfounded inference in presuming that being polite enough to at the very least comment on Publius' substantive postings constitutes a debate?

Then Vader, as supreme commander, holds true and ultimate command of all Imperial Forces, not the grand admirals, collectively or individually. Thank you. What do you supposed "supreme commander" means. I never disputed the grand admirals had ultimate rank and unlimited command authority to exercise their missions and instructions - however, that does not mean they literally command all Imperial Forces, and they must not, because Vader does.

Please, Primus. Is not the Emperor superior to Lord Vader? Does the Emperor not ultimately hold command and control over the entirety of the Empire's military? Why, then, do you arbitrarily stop one step away from the true, final military authority? Clearly Lord Vader is subserviant in all military affairs to His Imperial Majesty.

[GrandAdmiralJello]

I do not even presume to know the manner in which the Imperial state is designed and functions day-to-day, nor either should you.

We do, however, know how it does not function and how it is not designed.

The Thrawn trilogy explicitly informs us that the Emperor "never fully integrated the Grand Admirals within the chain of command"--it is scarcely possible for the material to be any clearer than that.

Your single basis of argumentation rests on a very vague line from the Emperor; can we ask what exactly it means to "command" all the Imperial Forces?

You seem to be under the impression that this places all of the armed forces under their purview, yet there is not a shred of evidence that bears this out. In fact, the opposite is true: we're explicitly told that the grand admirals existed to bring the armed forces "more closely under his personal control."

All of the evidence shows them as roving trouble shooters who are given unlimited latitude to perform the Emperor's bidding regardless of where they are sent. They are, in fact, portrayed as miniature Darth Vaders. We see them overseeing weapons research, holding extraordinary commands, hunting pirates, and playing at Court. Where else have we seen such things?

They are an extension of the Emperor's authority and are empowered to act in his name. They do not, however, occupy positions in the nominal chain of command.

Why, then, shall we assume that the Grand Admiralty "exist outside the rank structure"? Or that they do not "actually serve at the top of the chain of command"?

Because we are explicitly told such.

Can one point to a more highly ranked uniformed naval officer? Can one point to the fabled GHQ chief of staff? Or even the administrative apparatus that sustains the fleet?

As Publius indicated, this is not necessary.

This entire discussion seems based purely on speculation and appeals to the configuration of foreign governments' military organization. That is the crux of my objection to Mr. Illuminatus Primus's claims.

No. Your objection is based entirely on an argument from ignorance. You cannot simply sneak away from sound counterarguments because your interlocutors "cannot know that." It is not unreasonable to assume that the Imperial armed forces are organized similarly to most other military establishments ever created.

But all this is an aside, since we know for a fact that the grand admirals do not head any branches of the armed forces.

That is hardly an ideal example, if only because of the completely incomparable organization of the Imperial Navy and the Roman "army." The only individuals conceivably comparable to a Roman head of the "army" (if there even existed an actual "army" in the manner in which you are referring to it) were the Roman consuls and proconsuls, whose legal imperium to lead men in battle relied solely on that which was invested by the Senate.

That was quite Publius's point. Despite his extraordinary command, Pompey was still subordinate to the consuls of the year even though, in practical terms, he could not be gainsaid anywhere within his Mediterranean command.

And just to be clear: Pompey was very much a proconsul during his commission, because imperium maius was a form of proconsular imperium. However, they are not ever the head of the Roman army as such because they--by the very nature of their title--were acting on behalf of the consuls. Remember, when we say proconsul, we mean pro consule.

The example still holds for the Roman "army" as well--recall who elects the consuls: the comitia centuriata, which ritualistically represented the whole of the Roman People, and those who were members of the assembly constituted the "Roman army." The role of the consul, whether civil or military, is actually colored by martial shades in every aspect, especially outside the pomerium.

The comparison holds.

Please, Primus. Is not the Emperor superior to Lord Vader? Does the Emperor not ultimately hold command and control over the entirety of the Empire's military? Why, then, do you arbitrarily stop one step away from the true, final military authority? Clearly Lord Vader is subserviant in all military affairs to His Imperial Majesty.

You are missing Primus's point entirely.

Your claim was that "will command all Imperial Forces..." suggested that the grand admirals, as a whole, exercised some form of total command over the armed forces. In fact, your precise words were that they "were commanders of the entire Imperial Navy."

But if this is the case, why is Lord Vader superior to them? If we differentiated rank from station, we would most certainly know the answer. But if we choose rather to follow your own lines of reasoning, we must then conclude that somehow this command is incomplete.

It doesn't matter that the Emperor can also exercise more authority: your line of reasoning falls apart because your interpretation of the quote is incorrect.

That line cannot mean what you think it does because your reading cannot be sustained when it is compared to what else we know about the organization of the Navy and military.

[TC Pilot]

The Thrawn trilogy explicitly informs us that the Emperor "never fully integrated the Grand Admirals within the chain of command"--it is scarcely possible for the material to be any clearer than that.

Splendid! Evidence for a change. It would have been wonderful had someone, say Primus, bothered to indicate that, rather than based on wild speculation, don't you agree?

In fact, the opposite is true: we're explicitly told that the grand admirals existed to bring the armed forces "more closely under his personal control."

TTT again?

Because we are explicitly told such.

Ah, I see. You will have to pardon me as I retroactively amend my statement: "Why, then, shall we assume that the Grand Admiralty 'exist outside the rank structure' with the evidence you have provided?"

There is a distinct difference between "canonical source A tells us explicitely that they exist outside the rank structure" and "they exist outside the rank structure because they do not satisfy the arbitrary parameters I established to judge them as being such."