Could the Galactic Republic have been spared?

[Knife]

They were however, talking about removing him from office before they knew he was the sith lord. Windu was on his way to do that before Anakin told him.

Of course they might not have been involved if they thought there was no sith anywhere, but the Jedi were certainly willing to arrest a non-force using chancellor. And if we say 'well if there was no sith anywhere they might not have done anything' then we're into a sort of sophilism as then we've invalidated all their canon actions as a basis for discussion.

IIRC, they were assuming that the Sith was on Palpatine's staff or otherwise very close to the Chancellor, thus corrupting Palpatine or influencing him.

[Adam Reynolds]

IIRC, they were assuming that the Sith was on Palpatine's staff or otherwise very close to the Chancellor, thus corrupting Palpatine or influencing him.

This was based on Labyrinth of Evil and the novelization which are presumably not canon anymore. The novelization had too many EU references to still be canon. The novelization has had this problem since Clone Wars came out, those two sources cannot be reconciled.

Though in AOTC, the Jedi referred to watching the Senate. That would indicate that they had a reason to suspect Palpatine leading to ROTS. Not to mention that he does several suspicious activities during Clone Wars.

[Knife]

IIRC, they were assuming that the Sith was on Palpatine's staff or otherwise very close to the Chancellor, thus corrupting Palpatine or influencing him.

This was based on Labyrinth of Evil and the novelization which are presumably not canon anymore. The novelization had too many EU references to still be canon. The novelization has had this problem since Clone Wars came out, those two sources cannot be reconciled.

Though in AOTC, the Jedi referred to watching the Senate. That would indicate that they had a reason to suspect Palpatine leading to ROTS. Not to mention that he does several suspicious activities during Clone Wars.

er... going to check the RotS novel, but before I even go there, even if it has 'too many EU references' it would still be cannon. Now the Labyrinth of Evil, you have a point.

[Adam Reynolds]

er... going to check the RotS novel, but before I even go there, even if it has 'too many EU references' it would still be cannon. Now the Labyrinth of Evil, you have a point.

It's not just too many EU references. It is the fact that those references heavily contradicts Clone Wars. Either the novelization or Clone Wars can be canon, not both.

In no particular order here are several things that come to mind:
- In the novelization Anakin complains about the fact that no Jedi refers to him as a master. In Clone Wars he had Ashoka as his padawan(who obviously called him master at least once per episode).
- In the novelization, Obi-Wan and Mace Windu discuss the fighting style of General Grevious as if Obi-Wan has never fought him. In Clone Wars, Obi-Wan and Grevious fight repeatedly.
- In the novelization Anakin and Obi-Wan both are surprised by the presence of Magnaguards, referring to intelligence reports about them. In Clone Wars, they both have fought them repeatedly.

[Purple]

- In the novelization Anakin complains about the fact that no Jedi refers to him as a master. In Clone Wars he had Ashoka as his padawan(who obviously called him master at least once per episode).

I am pretty sure that's not the kind of "master" he was talking about. Ashoka calls him "master" in the vein of "teacher" where as he was probably talking about the fact that he was on the council but did not have the title "master". Same word, different uses.

- In the novelization, Obi-Wan and Mace Windu discuss the fighting style of General Grevious as if Obi-Wan has never fought him. In Clone Wars, Obi-Wan and Grevious fight repeatedly.

Can you give us an exact quote?

- In the novelization Anakin and Obi-Wan both are surprised by the presence of Magnaguards, referring to intelligence reports about them. In Clone Wars, they both have fought them repeatedly.

Again, can you give us an exact quote? Maybe the MG's in question were special models or something.

[Simon_Jester]

Purple is correct about the first point. The movie has Anakin complaining about how the Council has not given him the rank of Jedi Master, so it's not just the novelization.

And since the Clone Wars TV show cannot override the movies, there must be some other explanation for why Anakin would raise that complaint, despite any action of Ahsoka's.

The same explanation would therefore resolve any apparent contradiction between the novelization and the TV show.

[Adam Reynolds]

I am pretty sure that's not the kind of "master" he was talking about. Ashoka calls him "master" in the vein of "teacher" where as he was probably talking about the fact that he was on the council but did not have the title "master". Same word, different uses.

I don't currently have the book at hand, but the context was that he was complaining that C3PO was the only one to call him master as in the title, something that doesn't make much sense if he had previously had a padawan. It was based on the original EU in which he only became a knight just before ROTS.

For the point about Grevious, it was with the context that Mace Windu had faced him(from Labyrinth of Evil) and that Obi-Wan had not(as he had not in the original EU). It was just before Obi-Wan was leaving for Utapau and was concerned about facing Grievous.

For Magnaguards, Obi-Wan and Anakin had no idea what they even were, referring to them as worse than destroyer droids as a reference, that is not consistent with a different model or anything else. In the series they had both fought them on numerous occasions.

[Elheru Aran]

If you take Anakin literally, and remember how the Clone Wars series went-- Ashoka left the Order, and so Anakin is technically correct when he says 'no Jedi calls me master' in the present tense. Of course that's contingent upon the exact quote, which I can't quite remember. It's kind of a lame way of reconciling the disparity, but there you go.

[Adam Reynolds]

If you take Anakin literally, and remember how the Clone Wars series went-- Ashoka left the Order, and so Anakin is technically correct when he says 'no Jedi calls me master' in the present tense. Of course that's contingent upon the exact quote, which I can't quite remember. It's kind of a lame way of reconciling the disparity, but there you go.

This likely works here, but it doesn't for any of the other dozens of references to the EU. There is no way both the novelization and Clone Wars can both be canon.

[Elheru Aran]

If you take Anakin literally, and remember how the Clone Wars series went-- Ashoka left the Order, and so Anakin is technically correct when he says 'no Jedi calls me master' in the present tense. Of course that's contingent upon the exact quote, which I can't quite remember. It's kind of a lame way of reconciling the disparity, but there you go.

This likely works here, but it doesn't for any of the other dozens of references to the EU. There is no way both the novelization and Clone Wars can both be canon.

*shrugs* No question there. They used to be rather better about continuity in the old EU, but after the prequels it got a bit more haphazard.

[Adam Reynolds]

*shrugs* No question there. They used to be rather better about continuity in the old EU, but after the prequels it got a bit more haphazard.

It was mostly Clone Wars that did it in. With the new continuity I see no way the novelizations can be canon.

I guess it is time to go back to being a film purist. Who knows if that will be 1-6 or 1-9.

[Elheru Aran]

I think a big part of the problem with Clone Wars was that it was made *after* Episode 3-- the CGI series that is, not the Tartovosky series as far as I know-- so there's material in there that was made afresh to fill up the timespan they were dealing with. Apparently nobody thought to do up a timeline using existing EU and film canon sources...

There's still going to be people who don't think 7-9 are canon. I can't necessarily blame them.

[Galvatron]

Yes- but in this case, the Galactic Republic has a history twenty-five thousand years deep, many of its major institutions have existed for five millenia or more, and we know that it has weathered numerous civil wars, Sith attacks, random planetary uprisings, and so on.

Such as?

All we know for certain now is that a major conflict happened 1,000 years BBY between the Jedi and the Sith and that it was evidently big enough to shake up the Republic so badly that they had to essentially re-establish the whole damn thing.

Hell, Sidious spoon fed us a huge clue when he unambiguously stated "Once more, the Sith will rule the galaxy!" My guess is that a group of Sith actually managed to conquer the Republic and remain in power for a significant amount of time before in-fighting and an organized Jedi rebellion toppled them.

Prior to that, it's possible that the Old Republic enjoyed 24,000 years of uninterrupted peace. It's premature to assume otherwise until the new films and EU show or tell us what happened during all those millennia.

[Elheru Aran]

Conversely, there's no particular reason to think that it differed significantly than the Legendaries EU portrayed it-- gradual growth over millennia, occasional conflicts with the Sith (Naga Sadow, Exar Kun, Revan and so forth), culminating in defeating the Sith (almost) entirely and a thousand years or so of (relative) peace while the Sith Lords hid and schemed. 'Rule the galaxy' could well be hyperbole.

[Galvatron]

Why not take just Palpatine's canon statement at face value and leave the old EU in the trash where it belongs? Is nostalgia the reason people cling to that crap instead of embracing this fresh start?

[Elheru Aran]

Why not take just Palpatine's canon statement at face value and leave the old EU in the trash where it belongs? Is nostalgia the reason people cling to that crap instead of embracing this fresh start?

Not all of it is crap, you know. Yes, the old EU doesn't have that great of a reputation. Doesn't mean the new one is going to be any better.

All that the face value of the statement means is that the Sith were in a position of power a millennia ago, or at least Palpatine says they were. We have no way of knowing the truth one way or another, Lucas didn't put that kind of thing in the movies-- they're strictly focused on the present for the most part. Both viewpoints are equally valid (Legendaries status aside) unless dismissed by higher canon. It's easy to take it at face value, but even that allows a lot of latitude for interpretation, and it's not like Lucas thought up every little background detail.

[Galvatron]

All that the face value of the statement means is that the Sith were in a position of power a millennia ago,

No, it very specifically says that they ruled the galaxy. Where's the ambiguity in his statement?

[Adam Reynolds]

Not all of it is crap, you know. Yes, the old EU doesn't have that great of a reputation. Doesn't mean the new one is going to be any better.

Judging by Aftermath, you are likely correct. But the old-EU was still crap. I actually enjoyed the Darth Bane novel trilogy, but it was hardly an ideal story, largely because it was drawn down by the crap that it had to fit in with from the previous EU depictions of this battle that were trying to replicated LOTR in SW. The New Essential Chronology even used an image that was directly lifted from the LOTR films and inserted lightsabers. I believe there was an old thread here that pointed this out a decade ago when the book came out.

All that the face value of the statement means is that the Sith were in a position of power a millennia ago, or at least Palpatine says they were. We have no way of knowing the truth one way or another, Lucas didn't put that kind of thing in the movies-- they're strictly focused on the present for the most part. Both viewpoints are equally valid (Legendaries status aside) unless dismissed by higher canon. It's easy to take it at face value, but even that allows a lot of latitude for interpretation, and it's not like Lucas thought up every little background detail.

Mace Windu's statement does offer a degree of ambiguity, "the oppression of the Sith will never return," could just as easily refer to the fact that they were previously a threat in general. Palpatine's statements do not offer such ambiguity. In AOTC, he refers to "this Republic that has stood for a thousand years." In ROTS, he states that "Once more the Sith will Rule the galaxy." Those don't give much ambiguity. Though in any case, the Sith were not in power for long as Obi-Wan's statements from ANH clearly indicated that the Jedi believed there to be a continuity between the Jedi before and after this crisis. The Sith came to power and lost it quickly. Given the fact that the Sith we see in the films are all extremely manipulative, it is likely the Sith lost due to infighting. This was also stated in the TPM novelization, but that is again not likely canon given the new continuity.

[Galvatron]

Though in any case, the Sith were not in power for long as Obi-Wan's statements from ANH clearly indicated that the Jedi believed there to be a continuity between the Jedi before and after this crisis. The Sith came to power and lost it quickly. Given the fact that the Sith we see in the films are all extremely manipulative, it is likely the Sith lost due to infighting.

I'd say it was due to both in-fighting and an organized Jedi counter-offensive. This would neatly explain Palpatine's strategy as being devised to avoid the mistakes of the past.

In other words, the Rule of Two and the extermination of the Jedi would both be necessary to forge an enduring Sith Empire.

[Elheru Aran]

The problem here is that Palpatine is *not* reliable. The guy is a master manipulator willing to yank *everybody* around on his string. He even manipulated his own Sith master and his apprentice Dooku! While you *could* take his statements at face value, excuse me for not thinking that a wise course of action...

The only thing I'm unclear on is the context of the 'once more the Sith will rule the galaxy' quote, as it's been quite some time since I watched ROTS. Is that when he turns Anakin to the Dark Side after killing Windu, or elsewhen? The context does matter to the interpretation of the statement...

[Galvatron]

RedImperator once made a great point about just this sort of thing. Why would Palpatine lie about something that would be common historical knowledge? What's the payoff?

The problem is that most people approach fiction--written or filmed--with the idea that unless they're given an explicit reason to believe otherwise, spoken dialog is reliable; that is, the character speaking it is being honest and accurate, especially when dialog is being used to advance the plot (as opposed to establishing character traits). Writers know this, so when they intend for a character to be wrong, dishonest, or stupid, they generally indicate it.

[Adam Reynolds]

RedImperator once made a great point about just this sort of thing. Why would Palpatine lie about something that would be common historical knowledge? What's the payoff?

Especially when Mace Windu backs up this quote with his comments about the oppression of the Sith. On top of this, he wasn't saying this to manipulate anyone, he was saying it to relish in his victory. Unless he was wrong in his belief, why would he say such a thing?

In any case, despite Yoda's quotes to the contrary, Sith in the prequels don't generally lie. They deceive with the truth, only telling the parts of the truth that benefit them while concealing the parts that could hurt them. In AOTC, Dooku tells Obi-Wan the absolute truth in an attempt to convert him, neglecting the fact that Dooku is now Sidious's apprentice. In ROTS, Palpatine disarms Anakin by acknowledging that Anakin was bothered by the demand of the Jedi Council that he spy on Palpatine. Palpatine again tells the Senate the truth about the coup attempt by the Jedi, ignoring the fact that the Jedi were justified in this action as he had just finished masterminding the Clone Wars.

The problem is that most people approach fiction--written or filmed--with the idea that unless they're given an explicit reason to believe otherwise, spoken dialog is reliable; that is, the character speaking it is being honest and accurate, especially when dialog is being used to advance the plot (as opposed to establishing character traits). Writers know this, so when they intend for a character to be wrong, dishonest, or stupid, they generally indicate it.

That is a very good point, one that is less likely to be followed today than historically due to the prevalence of twist endings in modern fiction, which sadly seem to be becoming the norm. Drew Karpyshyn complained about this with the finale to his last Darth Bane novel in which: Spoiler

Bane attempted to possess his apprentice Zannah after being defeated in combat. The way it was left gave a hint of ambiguity as to whether some part of Bane survived inside her. Many readers took this to mean that Bane won.

When a historical reader first read an Agatha Christine novel such asSpoiler

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd

which infamously featured a literal unreliable narrator that was the killer, it was a complete surprise. Now it is much less so. The Usual Suspects is now somewhat likely to be guessed correctly as it is more likely that someone today first watches it knowing that it features an unreliable narrator.