StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I guess the quintessential things I am trying to present are: 1.) I don't want our depiction of the pre-Empire era to argue for separatism, anarchy, or despotism - they're doing a bad job of the republic at the end, but its not the idea of the republic itself; 2.) I don't want our depiction to undermine the overall (on the long time scale) conception of a self-contained, equilibrium society; 3.) I don't want our depiction to undermine the awesome genius of Palpatine, however, it is others' decisions which enable him, he's not a one-man show; 4.) I don't want our depiction in Ep III to rule out a restoration of the Republic and a victory for the good guys, ultimately though, everyone makes bad mistakes, especially Anakin, and it seals their fate.

I really don't have anything to add to that beyond my full endorsement.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Well I would like to say a few things about this. I do think there are some trends and fashions; they just oscillate about a galactic mean or over a long-enough time span result in equilibrium. For example, when dealing with motivations for Palpatine's rise to power, I do want to portray that it is a time of corruption and reaction. Robber barony and aristocratic privilege (though many or some of these have been egged on by the Sith, or are part of Palpatine's shadow clientele) is eroding the protections and health of the state. Palpatine is supposed to be ludicrously popular, and therefore I'm looking for ways for the Clone Wars to arise organically from the social and political situation and for all of it arrive with him truly and genuinely being regarded as a quasi-religious messiah figure. Palpatine should personify the personality cult. People pay homage to him, and him personally, really believing that the Republic, civilization, the galaxy could have been lost to anarchy and barbarism or oppression and despotism. He is the elder statesman-savior of the galaxy; and Anakin Skywalker is the knight-savior. The people should beg Palpatine to remain past his term, and to don the purple. He and his programs ought to be wildly popular.

No disagreement there.

What I am emphasizing is that there should NOT be broad trends toward collapse and dysfunction (begging the question of why now? its worked for 25,000 years*). There should be lots of people making decisions and making mistakes. And Palpatine, Palpatine is the kind of person who could be anything he wanted, and could change this how he wished. He chooses to do bad, and all kinds of people everywhere make decisions consciously and unconsciously to let him get away with what he is doing. Palpatine should be the prime driver, the great man the Sith are waiting for. He does exploit what's available, but for me the key is the contrast between him and the Jedi. He is Force-sensitive and so talented but he cloaks it in secrecy. The Jedi are uniquely gifted but acknowledge it to public scrutiny and knowledge. Palpatine is a genius but plays quiet and unassuming. The Jedi have great power and prestige and everyone knows it, but they are modest. Palpatine plays for everything wrong in every person, and he is playing for power and for keeps. The Jedi play for everything good in a person, and they are bringing all this to service in the galaxy. Palpatine is a purely selfish character - and he's chosen all his life to be self-interested and narcissistic. The Jedi (generally) are selfless and dedicated their lives to altruistic service. What should be emphasize is there was nothing inevitable about Palpatine, he chose to be how he is and he chose to lust for power and self-aggrandizement.

So basically, you are taking a reductionist approach and attributes the collapse of the Republic more or less entirely to Palpatine? It would have worked perfectly if he had not come along? Or are you stressing the cyclical nature of the Republic, that it waxes and wanes in power over the millennia, and that Palpatine happened to come upon a period of weakness that he could exploit for his own devices, without this necessarily meaning that the Republic in the longer perspective tends towards dissolution and decay? I would personally like to de-emphasise Palpatine's canon heavy hand in the fate of the galaxy; not to say that he should not be a master manipulator, but he should not call all the shots alone. We should show that he is not completely superhuman and infallible (which the OT attests to, with him failing to predict a number of things). Say, have him plan something akin to the Clone Wars, but the actual breaking out of them happening at a somewhat inopportune moment. I like Palpatine as a politician who can improvise to turn any situation favourable, not just an omnipotent puppet master.

Its also what kills him - he cannot tolerate the existence of the Skywalkers and he develops a monomania for taming and assimilating them. What the prequel era should be about is greatness decieved. The whole galaxy should be making hard decisions like Anakin Skywalker and choosing wrong. Every senator that signs into Palpatine's shadow clientele, every general takes money, every rabble-rouser decieved. The theme should reflect the little choices made by cult members to surrender their minds, the submission and concession of the public to people like Hitler, to giving away your power for a little security like many today, to give away your liberty and traditions like they did to Augustus. These general ideas should take precedence over any particular vision or crude requirement in numbers when we talk about the Rise of the Empire era. Afterall, a lot of why we're doing this is we felt that what we knew narratively before The Phantom Menace, was unsatisfied by what Lucas produced.

Agreed.

I'm starting to revise our timeline again. Probably shrink the Clone Wars and move up closer to the fall of Anakin and acclamation of Palpatine. And instead, extend an era of "dark times" for the Jedi and Republic for decades prior, of which the Clone Wars are the violent climax, the winner takes all conflagration caused by decades of running crises and rising powers and subversion.

My first reaction to this is negative. I always imagined the Clone Wars to be the major problem of the times, which completely obscured everything else. They should definitely be the focus, as a drawn-out, hopeless, gradually escalating conflict that ends up engulfing the galaxy; we should stress the avalanche of the Wars taking on a life of their own, so to speak, with new forces continuing to join as they progress, right up till the end. Other things, such as corruption, fragmentation, decay, and more mundane troubles such as plague or shortages should be a product of them, not the lead-up to them. To me, the "Dark Times" would be the Clone Wars themselves, possibly in the early phases before they escalate into full-scale galactic war and are only a vague threat and drain on the economy to the majority of the Coreworlders.

How do you imagine the Clone Wars in your new draft? A series of relatively short conflicts of great intensity?

Its not a confederation. Members who violate the laws (including guarantees of civil and sapient rights) or peace of the Galactic Union maybe acted upon. The Republic is the state manifestation of the single civilization of SW, and it has powers accorded to a state, and being largely the government of a united and self-contained civilization means that virtually all of its policy will be directed inward. The military were primarily exist to serve the social and political stability and equilibrium of society. Its much more like our conventional conception of a paramilitary or many pre-modern militaries in its strategic outlook. Its only external mandate really is to guard against random barbarians and nomads from the Unknown Regions.

All right. There is a unified military from the onset, therefore, even if it is rather inexperienced in large-scale operations? But at the same time, I presume it allows the member states to support their own defence forces.

However, I do think it is somewhat more aristocratic. I think its possible for strong monarchies to be part of the Republic, but if the senator is not very responsible to an electorate, I imagine this reduces his clout and prestige in Senate, and diminishes the strength of his vote. Also, the Republic keeps a closer eye on states like those, to be sure rights are respected and quality of life is better. So you can be a bit more aristocratic if you are a state and you want to be, but this comes at the expense of clout and strength in the galactic community and greater scrutiny (I think in something as old as the Republic and with a hands-off kind of policy commiserate with a static, self-contained state, a lot of things are conventions and cultural pressures - soft power - as opposed to constitutional articles and laws, plus it makes for interesting variety).

This I do not really understand - why would a lesser democratic base make for less prestige? The idea of liberal democracy does not appear as firmly grounded in SW as it is in present-day real life; the galaxy appears rather more inclined towards paternalism and oligarchy, from what we see of the Core Worlds (e.g., Illodia, Kuat) or the nobility/Ancient Houses. I would rather think status to be dependent on age (an older polity would be more respected) and, of course, economic strength. I was thinking of the Old Republic as a more aristocratic society, where nobles such as the Ancient Houses would command great influence and respect, with the Empire being a modernising force and something of a social equaliser (among humans, at least), loosely based on how Nazism affected Germany. I do not mean to make the Republic an oligarchy, but I would expect it to lean more towards aristocracy and "privilege democracy".

Although think of how much of our modern state's attention is taking up be genuine international relations, or to compete in the rat race of economic growth and technological innovation. None of that exists anymore. Despite is super-modernity in many cases, in others the Republic is very pre-modern and primitive. Its purpose is to read the mail and keep things humming, and prevent anything from getting too out of hand. Its really hands-off therefore, in many cases. And many of the galactic institutions which predated the Republic still exist and do the work of coordinating economies and everything else and this works just fine (though the Republic retains the right to intervene, it never really does). The Republic was created to fight off the last threats to civilization, and to remove all the between-state red tape and garbage when they were truly independent and sovereign, with much of the integration having already taken place. Part of the problem the OR suffers and the NR also has problems with is working out a constitution where the Republic may move swiftly and decisively in times of genuine crisis and be able "bind the galaxy together" but then not have these Shiny Red Buttons of power and intervention sitting around during business as usual (99% of the time). On the other hand, the Empire structurally can do it quite well, but its prone to abuse.

Well, yes. The Old Republic would be rather hands-off, as it would have fewer issues to regulate. I do expect them to be involved in the economic policies, but that would be the internal market, not policy geared towards retaining a competitive edge towards the outside (this would also be part of the explanation for why the Republic is stagnant - it has no competition that forces change).

Also, a bit of perspective. One sham democracy hiding one-man rule is not an indictment of the whole Republic, and we should say such through a character if the time comes up. Chicago is a huge city relative to the U.S.A. as a whole, and its a political-machine-run banana city. Does that mean the U.S. is not a democratic state? There are a MILLION member states to the Republic. Think of the scale between a couple and the whole thing. I'd be amazed if there wasn't a bunch of sficca republics they haven't noticed throughout the Republic yet, and if there's even a few absolute monarchies or one-party states on the shitty Rim for a couple years that no one has phoned in yet. A million is a huge figure. Think bell curves. Even if everyone within three standard deviations both ways is a good citizen (well over 95%), you're still talking about thousands of shit-ass states in the margins. Being able to keep that many in line is a job well done, proportionally speaking.

Of course; that goes without saying.

Well, fairly, most of the money, population, and everything else, should be concentrated inwardly. I think we should show both points of view, which reflect attitudes in our own society. Should society prop up traditional or rural ways of life? Do these livelihoods deserve protection and sustenance? Or should blunt economics and the majority will come at the expense of this minority? I imagine they split the difference away for everyone to live with it

I have come to think that the SW economy is some form of mercantilism, with a self-interest in protection and the maintaining of the status quo (as per the various guild-like organisations described and the generally somewhat weird economics when one considers the scale and technology). What are your thoughts on galactic economy?

Maybe we should deal with this fact, that the NR has a lot of support in the Rim, but this comes at the expense of support in the Core when they finally capture (not to mention they suffered few of the abuses of Palpatine and remain pretty New Order-ified). Alternatively, once the NR is the main galactic state, it has to make tough decisions and the Rim like many ruralities doesn't like interference in its traditions and prerogatives but probably also needs artificial support. I tried to address this somewhat with commenting on constitutional conventions and Senior Senators not having a one way relationship with their Junior partners.

Good idea. I believe we touched on this earlier.

For a better idea on my ideas of transition in an equilibrium galaxy, check out the Second Empire or NJO thread, where I described in reply to Raptor ways the galaxy could be different in 2000 years without it having really "advanced."

I did, and that is akin to what I would imagine - that changes might be quite substantial for individual planets or even Sectors, but producing the same net result on the galactic scale.

*One of my major motivations is avoid awkward questions. The galaxy has been a self-contained social and political unit with a single government continuously for 25,000 years. So don't do things that beg questions like, "why is the government falling just now?" or "why haven't they gone to other galaxies?" or "how come no one thought of this before?" Or have really good answers. My favorites are "this guy is just that good" or "this is extremely, stupefyingly rare, a freak chance." A lot of this works to thematic and narrative advantage anyway, because it takes the gravitas off lessons of history (big trend based ones anyway) and puts them on little people making bad decisions, like good literature - like Shakespeare. My "Great Man" vision is based partly on the romanticism and semi-aristocratic outlook of SW thematically, and because it provides a good reason for change amongst tens of thousands of years of equilibrium, and in light of such time and such a big place. In such light, your character can really be completely superhuman and incredible - and should be, or just really really lucky or in a freak situation - but they should retain human motivations and thoughts, and this is what is so cool about SW: they fly, they shoot lightning, they travel amongst the stars, and you can still relate to them.

I can agree with this, certainly, but even within a self-contained system, there would be historical/cultural trends that affect governments and institutions. As I see the Republic, it is not the exact same system throughout, but a somewhat mutable organism that partly adapts to the times - most crises might well be over before it has the time to, given its sluggish bureaucracy, checks and balances and general conservatism, but it should be capable of coping with change. Say, a civil war might produce economic decay, which would require an incrementally more interventionist government, &c. Most changes could probably also be handled at a lower level than the Senate itself, but there should be noticeable changes over time. Even if they add up to a zero-sum game in a couple of thousand years. No polity is entirely stable.

Darth Hoth wrote:No disagreement there.

I guess I'm asking for help. One of my problems with the @ PT is that I don't feel like it makes sense for the people to really be afraid and throw away thousands of years of history to praise Palpatine. Furthermore, how could be so wildly popular when it seems like the Confederacy had popular support? Its like Lincoln being unprecedentedly popular after the Civil War throughout the nation.

Darth Hoth wrote:So basically, you are taking a reductionist approach and attributes the collapse of the Republic more or less entirely to Palpatine? It would have worked perfectly if he had not come along? Or are you stressing the cyclical nature of the Republic, that it waxes and wanes in power over the millennia, and that Palpatine happened to come upon a period of weakness that he could exploit for his own devices, without this necessarily meaning that the Republic in the longer perspective tends towards dissolution and decay?

A little bit of both. I want there to be texture to everything. Maybe Obi-Wan is just biased as a Jedi in ANH. Maybe he's just romantic. Maybe he was right and the pre-Palpatine Republic was a noble and glorious thing. But maintaining any credibility for the last part is difficult. Its hard to start unprecedented wars and elevate unprecedentedly popular autocrats if everything is hunky dory.

One thing I'm thinking of is that Palpatine infiltrates the Republic and galactic society more than once. In existing canon, he already has all the connections and shadow clientele to dominate the galaxy well before TPM (obviously he didn't cause Valorum's no confidence vote unless he knew he could get himself elected, either by manipulating the electorate one way or another and/or Force prescience). I am thinking we should have him secretly control the galaxy, and deliberately have other leaders and proxies wreck the peace and stability of the Republic, triggering wars and constitutional, political, and economic crises and actually finally disturb the security of the Core Worlds; then he contrives his election and "binds the galaxy together" to the nigh-universal adoration of the public. Arguably something like this is already depicted in canon (machinations like provoking Gunray and severing KDY from the Trade Fed, etc., etc.). But I think it is the central genius of the Rise, and let's us avoid the Republic being totally garbage (but nonetheless creating the belief that the Republic the institution failed where Palpatine the man succeeded among the masses). Plus it fits his MO, he repeatedly infiltrates and subverts the system (even ones he's already set up, to advance progress toward his Utopia). So he infiltrates the Republic to destroy it, then infiltrates it to rise himself up to Emperor, then he infiltrates his own Empire with a new ruling class (Augie's Technocrats) to advance it further, then begins to infiltrate it with his assimilated-hierarchs in order to creep toward his theocracy, then he's killed but contingency has the insiders infiltrate and coup the ruling class to preserve his plans, and finally he re-infilitrates the fragments of the Empire in order to unexpectedly reunify them and seize the galaxy. Subversion is the best thing this guy does. As I said in the other thread, I'm going to try to portray continuity and a feel of experience and lessons learned from the first time he conquered the galaxy to the second time.

Darth Hoth wrote:I would personally like to de-emphasise Palpatine's canon heavy hand in the fate of the galaxy; not to say that he should not be a master manipulator, but he should not call all the shots alone. We should show that he is not completely superhuman and infallible (which the OT attests to, with him failing to predict a number of things). Say, have him plan something akin to the Clone Wars, but the actual breaking out of them happening at a somewhat inopportune moment. I like Palpatine as a politician who can improvise to turn any situation favourable, not just an omnipotent puppet master.

No I agree. One of the cool things about TPM was Palpatine lost the battle but won the war. His contingencies are robust enough that he can have shortfalls and have an alternative waiting (if less desirable in some fashion).

Darth Hoth wrote:Agreed.

Right, I just need a decent way to make it feel real that the Republic is suddenly in crisis and failing, so he can save it, and save it in a way it makes sense for everyone to love him.

Darth Hoth wrote:My first reaction to this is negative. I always imagined the Clone Wars to be the major problem of the times, which completely obscured everything else. They should definitely be the focus, as a drawn-out, hopeless, gradually escalating conflict that ends up engulfing the galaxy; we should stress the avalanche of the Wars taking on a life of their own, so to speak, with new forces continuing to join as they progress, right up till the end. Other things, such as corruption, fragmentation, decay, and more mundane troubles such as plague or shortages should be a product of them, not the lead-up to them. To me, the "Dark Times" would be the Clone Wars themselves, possibly in the early phases before they escalate into full-scale galactic war and are only a vague threat and drain on the economy to the majority of the Coreworlders.

So you're idea is kind of like for a war that looks like it'll just be a typical regional or local tiff, but somehow and unexpectedly to all parties (except Palpatine) breaks out WW1 style and gains a life of its own? I was thinking a couple different models. One being that the Republic is being subverted and deliberately wrecked by Palpatine's agents, and this increases the organic forces for opposition, change, and usurpation dramatically until hell breaks out. I was kind of looking at a model where the Dark Times in general would be like the Civil Wars period of the late Roman Republic (except mostly artificially induced by Palpatine). The general-loyal-only Marian legions would be substituted by clone forces (which sap strength from the central government and legitimate authority) and led to the weakening of the standing professional military (also colors here of the dying of Rome due to the 'barbarization' of the armed forces). The Clone Wars would simply be these series (or the last in particular) of civil wars, fought with clones all over.

Overall, my instinct to make the "Clone Wars" proper just the last, biggest, and climactic in the series of wars and period of crisis was a vague feeling/instinct that the way Obi-Wan and Luke talk about it feels like it was a well-defined event. I am pretty sure the series of wars we now identify as "Hundred Years' War" etc. were not called that at the time, but were historiographical inventions. People should call this the Clone Wars, pronto. Another thing is realizing just how I want the Clone Wars to be different (mostly, it brings WMD use and genocide to the Core Worlds - preferentially to civilians and the ruling class as opposed to productive capacity, Palpatine doesn't want to wreck his empire before it exists and I imagine a bunch of these worlds were ones who might oppose him -, something more or less absent from the entire rest of the era; even Imperial coalition campaign to retake the Coruscant and the Core only resulted in a few bit shellings of Core Worlds, and the Mutiny was a mess but fought mostly over already abandoned worlds). Therefore, the Clone Wars doesn't really need to be thirty years long. Still, I would like some of these incidents (one-offs, like Caamas) to happen before Palpatine's rise so its clear things are falling apart and people are desperate. Then Palpatine's wartime enemies are built up to be Atilia-esque figures because they use the above tactics more frequently and deliberately; Palpatine becomes the noble king leading his people against the warmongers and barbarians running amok.

Darth Hoth wrote:How do you imagine the Clone Wars in your new draft? A series of relatively short conflicts of great intensity?

Of a kind, sure. The problem with the long continuous model is it posits opposition unity where that is problematic - I never felt like the Confederacy of Independent Systems was very organically portrayed or realistic, and it saps credibility from Palpatine being nigh-universally beloved after the wars. Rather I was considered a series of crises set off by Palpatine's wrecking, where there'd be attempted coups and senatorial treachery and usurpation, warlords, etc. They'd be trying to dominate the government or rearrange it to their specification. I'd like to go for more of a Roman Civil Wars-esque feel that this is mostly wars amongst the ruling class (in terms of political support) that damage the Republic's constitution and legitimacy, and so the public can rightfully feel that Palpatine having reformed the constitution, ended the wars, and restored peace and unity makes him a populist.

Darth Hoth wrote:All right. There is a unified military from the onset, therefore, even if it is rather inexperienced in large-scale operations? But at the same time, I presume it allows the member states to support their own defence forces.

In an equilibrium state I imagine the standing military is mostly for peacekeeping and suppression of violations of federal law and the constitution by dominions and members of the state, and then suppression of terrorism and piracy and the like. One of the reasons I attract to the German model is federal Germany - even Bismarck's Empire - retained federated state armed forces.

Darth Hoth wrote:This I do not really understand - why would a lesser democratic base make for less prestige? The idea of liberal democracy does not appear as firmly grounded in SW as it is in present-day real life; the galaxy appears rather more inclined towards paternalism and oligarchy, from what we see of the Core Worlds (e.g., Illodia, Kuat) or the nobility/Ancient Houses. I would rather think status to be dependent on age (an older polity would be more respected) and, of course, economic strength. I was thinking of the Old Republic as a more aristocratic society, where nobles such as the Ancient Houses would command great influence and respect, with the Empire being a modernising force and something of a social equaliser (among humans, at least), loosely based on how Nazism affected Germany. I do not mean to make the Republic an oligarchy, but I would expect it to lean more towards aristocracy and "privilege democracy".

I generally agree. But it seems the Republic should hold some standards to its membership. I think in the Kuati example and others, their economy and power is so broad that the Republic must mind them even if they don't approve of their lack of accountability - on the other hand, one of the things I'm suggesting is the Republic might not like it (hence soft pressure, and the kind that Great Powers can shrug off), but they'll tolerate it if your HDI is high, the press isn't muzzled, and you don't put people in banana courts and concentration camps for opposition. Another thing is in an equilibrium society voter apathy most of the time must be very high. One concept I have for aristocracy is less one modeled on traditional models of power and economic control, but on the fact most people are happy in the welfare state and just mind their business, and only the ones who're particularly ambitious stick their heads up. The ruling class is basically uniformly of these people or their descendants (where the family has institutionalized ambition and cut-throat advancement).

Darth Hoth wrote:Well, yes. The Old Republic would be rather hands-off, as it would have fewer issues to regulate. I do expect them to be involved in the economic policies, but that would be the internal market, not policy geared towards retaining a competitive edge towards the outside (this would also be part of the explanation for why the Republic is stagnant - it has no competition that forces change).

Agreed.

Darth Hoth wrote:I have come to think that the SW economy is some form of mercantilism, with a self-interest in protection and the maintaining of the status quo (as per the various guild-like organisations described and the generally somewhat weird economics when one considers the scale and technology). What are your thoughts on galactic economy?

I'm not so sure about that. But I do think on a piecemeal basis, archaic or alternative economic systems may develop and flurish bases on fashion and culture and cyclical trends, like some measure of mercantilism. The raw materials base and money supply stays the same over long lengths of time, that doesn't require mercantilism. Of course the cases of it existing in the Empire I was going to call Mussolinist corporativism.

Darth Hoth wrote:I did, and that is akin to what I would imagine - that changes might be quite substantial for individual planets or even Sectors, but producing the same net result on the galactic scale.

Good, I'm glad we're in agreement.

Darth Hoth wrote:I can agree with this, certainly, but even within a self-contained system, there would be historical/cultural trends that affect governments and institutions. As I see the Republic, it is not the exact same system throughout, but a somewhat mutable organism that partly adapts to the times - most crises might well be over before it has the time to, given its sluggish bureaucracy, checks and balances and general conservatism, but it should be capable of coping with change. Say, a civil war might produce economic decay, which would require an incrementally more interventionist government, &c. Most changes could probably also be handled at a lower level than the Senate itself, but there should be noticeable changes over time. Even if they add up to a zero-sum game in a couple of thousand years. No polity is entirely stable.

No, I agree. It should have good days and bad days, it should have seasons. Etc. I just want to take the "this thing's fucked, let's get a rid of it" and "history is going somewhere" Hegelianism out of the equation. The rest I'm fine with.

Are you letting the Republic have a standing army and fleet?

Galvatron wrote:Are you letting the Republic have a standing army and fleet?

Why wouldn't it?

Of course.

Will they be proto-stormtroopers? Will they fly TIE fighters?

Galvatron wrote:Will they be proto-stormtroopers? Will they fly TIE fighters?

There will be proto-Stormtroopers, but I'm keeping with the model of the Stormtroopers as a separate service (the Imperial Marines) from the Navy and Army (descended from the Republican Navy and Republican Army respectively). I haven't decided on what equipment will be kept. I imagine there are TIE in service back then, but haven't given as much thought to the ground and fighter equipment as I have to the warships (basically going with phases from the traditional, to the war time mobilization, to post-war peacekeeping and political requirements; the post-ROTJ war will see a big comeback by the war time mobilization-optimized equipment and forces of the Clone Wars).

If you're concerned about the artificial advancement and distinction portrayed in the original PT, I imagine that Ep III will definitely have TIEs and such.

I'm concerned about ANY advancement being shown. IMO, only the Death Star should be new.

For that matter, I see no reason for proto-stormies. Why not just have the OT stormtroopers serve the Old Republic as loyal soldiers?

Galvatron wrote:I'm concerned about ANY advancement being shown. IMO, only the Death Star should be new.

For that matter, I see no reason for proto-stormies. Why not just have the OT stormtroopers serve the Old Republic as loyal soldiers?

The stormtroopers are supposed be endemic of the conformity and uniformity of the statist and fascist Empire; its a very recurring visual motif in Lucas' films, and I find it sufficiently compelling. I don't think the noble Obi-Wan-loved Republic was ever supposed to feature skeletal-dehumanized soldiers. Besides, the noble old Republic had fallen into some corruption and its been eons without general war. Accordingly, the Republican Navy and Army are based on ancient equipment and antiquated, increasingly ceremonial education and traditions and policies. The crisis and Clone Wars shocks it out of that, and we see old equipment and ships and stuff militarized and optimized for mobilization. We see new ships which are better suited to total war and mobilization. Then the wars ends, and the Republic/Empire demobilizes and fields a post-war force of legacy designs, peace-appropriate wartime designs, and a crop of new designs (to make up the difference with remaining legacy craft and for political reasons).

Anyway, the Stormtroopers are Palpatine's personally loyal troops. They keep the Navy and Army in check and execute special requirements. The fact is the Empire IS a revolutionary movement and a lot of what it does should be a departure from the norm. That said, I think that the Stormie armor seen in the OT should be in service.

I don't see why its logical that a static and complacent galaxy is ready for war unprecedented in tens of thousands of years. My big thing is diversity. I'd probably keep all the @ PT designs AND have OT designs along side them. Its a big fucking galaxy.

My biggest question here is anyone have an idea how to get from a decent Republic that lends some credibility to Obi-Wan's romanticism and one worth fighting for and that doesn't give republicanism a bad name to a situation bad enough for a 1-in-25,000 years war and discarding the historical government for an autocracy by a man beloved as the 1-in-25,000 years leader. It doesn't have to be perfect or in its prime (Palpatine should actually introduce necessary reforms), but it shouldn't an embarrassment.

In my version, Alderaan represents and symbolizes the "more civilized age" of the Old Republic even amidst the chaos of the Clone Wars. It's why I'd shit-can Naboo and place Alderaan front-and-center in Episode 1 as the first major battleground of this particular conflict.

It also gives more weight to the planet's destruction in ANH shortly after the "last vestiges of the Old Republic have been swept away."

Galvatron wrote:In my version, Alderaan represents and symbolizes the "more civilized age" of the Old Republic even amidst the chaos of the Clone Wars. It's why I'd shit-can Naboo and place Alderaan front-and-center in Episode 1 as the first major battleground of this particular conflict.

It also gives more weight to the planet's destruction in ANH shortly after the "last vestiges of the Old Republic have been swept away."

I do think Alderaan should feature more front and center. I think they should personify the noble Republic and Republicans who went along with Palpatine against their perceived common enemies and supported his renewal of the Republic until they saw him for what he really is.

I'm not sure how to respond to that. It confuses me when you agree.

Does this mean I can also have my centuries-old Executor?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:My biggest question here is anyone have an idea how to get from a decent Republic that lends some credibility to Obi-Wan's romanticism and one worth fighting for and that doesn't give republicanism a bad name to a situation bad enough for a 1-in-25,000 years war and discarding the historical government for an autocracy by a man beloved as the 1-in-25,000 years leader. It doesn't have to be perfect or in its prime (Palpatine should actually introduce necessary reforms), but it shouldn't an embarrassment.

My thinking is to have the Wars be the direct cause and not merely a symptom of the Republic's downfall. And the Wars are just as much a product of Sith meddling as they are of brinkmanship and corruption within the Republic. The system could have weathered either, but not both. It's the actions and choices of individuals and large, sub-federal groups that start the conflagration, and similar parties fan the flames. Meanwhile, the Sith messiah and his servants are working behind the scenes to make it all possible. To get the kind of emotional impact I think you're talking about (one of "paradise lost"), the use of WMD on the idyllic, utopian worlds of the Core is a great place to start. By making the Republic synonymous with peace, one can portray it as something desirable and worth fighting for despite its flaws.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:My biggest question here is anyone have an idea how to get from a decent Republic that lends some credibility to Obi-Wan's romanticism and one worth fighting for and that doesn't give republicanism a bad name to a situation bad enough for a 1-in-25,000 years war and discarding the historical government for an autocracy by a man beloved as the 1-in-25,000 years leader. It doesn't have to be perfect or in its prime (Palpatine should actually introduce necessary reforms), but it shouldn't an embarrassment.

I would imagine that the Republic was a good government for the rich and privileged, less so for the poor (who would be affected much worse by the Clone Wars than the relatively prosperous); it might not be a bad government per se, but it enforces the socioeconomic structures that keep the Rim poor and the Core rich by supporting the trade monopolies of guilds and megacorporations like the Trade Federation. These pressures would always have existed, but never turned dangerous till amplified by Palpatine/the Wars/someone else; it would not be a new problem, or a major one normally, but the Republic happens to be in a stage of decline and has people around willing and able to worsen the situation for their own gain. Palpatine the Populist would speak out against these "injustices" and be beloved by the poor; perhaps he would talk about "galactic unity in face of the threat of war"? At the same time, the Core Worlds might go with him because they simply have not seen anything like it before and feel the need to control it through "one of their own" - Palpatine was still nobility, and doubtless agreed to preserve their interests beneath the rhetoric.

At the same time, I imagine the Republic would be sluggish in its responses to crises such as the Wars; an explanation for its ultimate defeat there might be that it has never faced such a challenge in all its modern (post-Ruusan?) history. The Clone Wars would be the kind of "freak accident" that you talked about earlier - simply beyond what the governmental structure was built to handle. This would increase social pressures and also press for centralisation and security improvements; once again, this would be something unheard of for very long. Palpatine the War Leader would gain recognition for rising to the occasion when no one else in truth knew what to do.

This last bit is something I would like to emphasise - these people literally have not seen war or major crisis in hundreds of years when the Clone Wars - or your posited "Dark Times" - break out, in the Core Worlds at least, where most of the population is concentrated. It is something from the history books like nothing we could really relate to, with all our greatest crises (foremostly, World Wars) still in our recent past and living memory - It would be akin to the Black Plague striking over Europe again, but with our medical technology as useless against it as the medieval witch-doctors were. War is to them something that has been annihilated on the large scale, like pandemics are to us* - there might be the occasional border dispute or planetary coup in backwards corners of the Rim, but overall they think themselves to have progressed past it (like the TNG Federation, if perhaps not quite so extreme). It is hardly unlikely, then, that their response to the greatest conflict ever will be wildly disproportionate to the actual effect in coldly calculated terms - what would have been seen as acceptable in the dim past, when the Republic did fight wars and took losses as a matter of fact, would simply not be so now, and the people would likely agree to pretty much anything to guarantee that it would end and never happen again, accepting an authoritarian structure if such was necessary. At the same time, Palpatine's halo would be all the brighter still, as he did end it and save them.



*Well, the analogy is imperfect; strategists and scientists might think of pandemics today, even if John Q Public does not - it is hard to find appropriate model for this kind of "peace fatigue", as really there is nothing like it in our history. I could use my own Sweden as an example of the trend - we have not seen war in hundreds of years and do not think there could ever be one in our vicinity again, so we demobilise like there is no tomorrow and decry everyone else who fights for whatever reason as a barbarian or warmonger. I imagine the Republic would be something like that, only raised by a couple of orders of magnitude after centuries (millennia?) of going undisturbed; their military would be mostly tradition, with a constabulary function in practice to handle local discontent, broker deals over disputes and help with aid and development.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I guess I'm asking for help. One of my problems with the @ PT is that I don't feel like it makes sense for the people to really be afraid and throw away thousands of years of history to praise Palpatine. Furthermore, how could be so wildly popular when it seems like the Confederacy had popular support? Its like Lincoln being unprecedentedly popular after the Civil War throughout the nation.

That does not work in the PT, admittedly. One might perhaps change it into the war being fought more exclusively by clones (and, perhaps, 'droids), at least in its later phases, as the pawns of something evil and corrupt (big megacorporations/guilds? Dark Side horrors? Space Nazis?).

Then again, his popularity and the destruction of Separatist propaganda might only be the product of massive reeducation of the pro-independence worlds in question. One could look at how popular the Nazis were in Germany, and then how popular they are now after a decades-long concerted effort to (rightly) demonise them.

A little bit of both. I want there to be texture to everything. Maybe Obi-Wan is just biased as a Jedi in ANH. Maybe he's just romantic. Maybe he was right and the pre-Palpatine Republic was a noble and glorious thing. But maintaining any credibility for the last part is difficult. Its hard to start unprecedented wars and elevate unprecedentedly popular autocrats if everything is hunky dory.

I would go by the explanation that the Republic might be different things in different quarters. Say, it might be great for the Core, less so for the Rim. This is the most realistic model, or that Ben is simply biased.

A variant we might use could be to have him speak of the ages before the Clone Wars/"Dark Times", which he himself may not have seen or only remember dimly. That way, his statement would not reflect on what he actually saw, but how he imagined it to be, so we do not have to take a stance on it. Yes, it is a cop-out, but I agree with you; it is hard to find a balance there.

One thing I'm thinking of is that Palpatine infiltrates the Republic and galactic society more than once. In existing canon, he already has all the connections and shadow clientele to dominate the galaxy well before TPM (obviously he didn't cause Valorum's no confidence vote unless he knew he could get himself elected, either by manipulating the electorate one way or another and/or Force prescience). I am thinking we should have him secretly control the galaxy, and deliberately have other leaders and proxies wreck the peace and stability of the Republic, triggering wars and constitutional, political, and economic crises and actually finally disturb the security of the Core Worlds; then he contrives his election and "binds the galaxy together" to the nigh-universal adoration of the public. Arguably something like this is already depicted in canon (machinations like provoking Gunray and severing KDY from the Trade Fed, etc., etc.). But I think it is the central genius of the Rise, and let's us avoid the Republic being totally garbage (but nonetheless creating the belief that the Republic the institution failed where Palpatine the man succeeded among the masses). Plus it fits his MO, he repeatedly infiltrates and subverts the system (even ones he's already set up, to advance progress toward his Utopia). So he infiltrates the Republic to destroy it, then infiltrates it to rise himself up to Emperor, then he infiltrates his own Empire with a new ruling class (Augie's Technocrats) to advance it further, then begins to infiltrate it with his assimilated-hierarchs in order to creep toward his theocracy, then he's killed but contingency has the insiders infiltrate and coup the ruling class to preserve his plans, and finally he re-infilitrates the fragments of the Empire in order to unexpectedly reunify them and seize the galaxy. Subversion is the best thing this guy does. As I said in the other thread, I'm going to try to portray continuity and a feel of experience and lessons learned from the first time he conquered the galaxy to the second time.

Could work, though as I said I would not wish to make him omnipotent. All failings should not be a result of his machinations, but there should be genuine fault lines as well.

On another matter, I could do without "Augustus" Palpatine. It feels like too great an invention/modification of the already existant canon. So, I would have it "Palpy's Technocrats".

No I agree. One of the cool things about TPM was Palpatine lost the battle but won the war. His contingencies are robust enough that he can have shortfalls and have an alternative waiting (if less desirable in some fashion).

Great that we agree.

Right, I just need a decent way to make it feel real that the Republic is suddenly in crisis and failing, so he can save it, and save it in a way it makes sense for everyone to love him.

One way might be simply to play at the galaxy being complacent and not used to crisis, while at the same time given no time or chance to adapt, except as Palpatine wills it. I tried to cover that above in my earlier post.

So you're idea is kind of like for a war that looks like it'll just be a typical regional or local tiff, but somehow and unexpectedly to all parties (except Palpatine) breaks out WW1 style and gains a life of its own? I was thinking a couple different models. One being that the Republic is being subverted and deliberately wrecked by Palpatine's agents, and this increases the organic forces for opposition, change, and usurpation dramatically until hell breaks out. I was kind of looking at a model where the Dark Times in general would be like the Civil Wars period of the late Roman Republic (except mostly artificially induced by Palpatine). The general-loyal-only Marian legions would be substituted by clone forces (which sap strength from the central government and legitimate authority) and led to the weakening of the standing professional military (also colors here of the dying of Rome due to the 'barbarization' of the armed forces). The Clone Wars would simply be these series (or the last in particular) of civil wars, fought with clones all over.

Yes, more akin to WW1, with elements of the Thirty Years War. Although it should be possible to combine with yours. I would stress the non-"Clone" part of the wars, though; it should feel like a civil war, with brother fighting brother and system against system.

What timeframe are you looking at for your conflicts?

Overall, my instinct to make the "Clone Wars" proper just the last, biggest, and climactic in the series of wars and period of crisis was a vague feeling/instinct that the way Obi-Wan and Luke talk about it feels like it was a well-defined event. I am pretty sure the series of wars we now identify as "Hundred Years' War" etc. were not called that at the time, but were historiographical inventions. People should call this the Clone Wars, pronto. Another thing is realizing just how I want the Clone Wars to be different (mostly, it brings WMD use and genocide to the Core Worlds - preferentially to civilians and the ruling class as opposed to productive capacity, Palpatine doesn't want to wreck his empire before it exists and I imagine a bunch of these worlds were ones who might oppose him -, something more or less absent from the entire rest of the era; even Imperial coalition campaign to retake the Coruscant and the Core only resulted in a few bit shellings of Core Worlds, and the Mutiny was a mess but fought mostly over already abandoned worlds). Therefore, the Clone Wars doesn't really need to be thirty years long. Still, I would like some of these incidents (one-offs, like Caamas) to happen before Palpatine's rise so its clear things are falling apart and people are desperate. Then Palpatine's wartime enemies are built up to be Atilia-esque figures because they use the above tactics more frequently and deliberately; Palpatine becomes the noble king leading his people against the warmongers and barbarians running amok.

Overall agreement. I could feel that it sort of undermines the psychological impact of the Clone Wars proper if they are merely the final symptom of underlying problems, rather than the downfall of the Republic themselves, but that is just me. On the other hand, I suppose one could make the case that there would have to be some war close beforehand if the military is to be at all competent in the Wars proper. What do you others think, everyone?

Of a kind, sure. The problem with the long continuous model is it posits opposition unity where that is problematic - I never felt like the Confederacy of Independent Systems was very organically portrayed or realistic, and it saps credibility from Palpatine being nigh-universally beloved after the wars. Rather I was considered a series of crises set off by Palpatine's wrecking, where there'd be attempted coups and senatorial treachery and usurpation, warlords, etc. They'd be trying to dominate the government or rearrange it to their specification. I'd like to go for more of a Roman Civil Wars-esque feel that this is mostly wars amongst the ruling class (in terms of political support) that damage the Republic's constitution and legitimacy, and so the public can rightfully feel that Palpatine having reformed the constitution, ended the wars, and restored peace and unity makes him a populist.

It need not all be fought against the same enemy; I imagine that it could be like the Thirty Years War, where coalitions might shift over the years and ideology gradually be subsumed - among the enemy, at least, Palpatine would be working very hard against that on his front. Another model could be to have most of the wars fought without the Republic's direct intervention - it is too paralysed by the unparallelled wars to actually do anything - with them only entering after some suitably atrocious act (the shelling of a Core World, perhaps). Palpatine would lead the "War Party", with the Republic having witnessed the conflict for some time already; only after his election would they start to push back the enemy, who would be suitably dastardly (e.g., Nazi/Commie fanatics, or better yet Imperial Japan by the end of WW2). Perhaps the anti-Republic faction would be a broader alliance at first, but having only the fanatics left at the end, and these would be the enemy the rest of the galaxy, including former Separatists, united against in horror?

In an equilibrium state I imagine the standing military is mostly for peacekeeping and suppression of violations of federal law and the constitution by dominions and members of the state, and then suppression of terrorism and piracy and the like. One of the reasons I attract to the German model is federal Germany - even Bismarck's Empire - retained federated state armed forces.

About my thoughts.

I generally agree. But it seems the Republic should hold some standards to its membership. I think in the Kuati example and others, their economy and power is so broad that the Republic must mind them even if they don't approve of their lack of accountability - on the other hand, one of the things I'm suggesting is the Republic might not like it (hence soft pressure, and the kind that Great Powers can shrug off), but they'll tolerate it if your HDI is high, the press isn't muzzled, and you don't put people in banana courts and concentration camps for opposition.

How much would "Republic" opinion be uniform, as opposed to that of individual worlds or Sectors? With such a loose government, and so distant from the people, I do not imagine that the federal government would be all that good for pushing opinions; that would more likely be the province of the individual powers. Alderaan should certainly be such a lobbyist for peace and democracy - I would imagine them to be kind of like Sweden, only a major power instead of a little speck on the map that no one cares about. Otherwise, overall agreement.

Another thing is in an equilibrium society voter apathy most of the time must be very high. One concept I have for aristocracy is less one modeled on traditional models of power and economic control, but on the fact most people are happy in the welfare state and just mind their business, and only the ones who're particularly ambitious stick their heads up. The ruling class is basically uniformly of these people or their descendants (where the family has institutionalized ambition and cut-throat advancement).

Does that not imply constant and very high pressure on the upper tiers of power, though, as well as a relatively large degree of mobility between the upper middle and upper classes? It would seem to mesh badly with the very long-standing trademarks, companies and noble houses of the galaxy (lasting for millennia in many cases). Just my two cents.

I'm not so sure about that. But I do think on a piecemeal basis, archaic or alternative economic systems may develop and flurish bases on fashion and culture and cyclical trends, like some measure of mercantilism. The raw materials base and money supply stays the same over long lengths of time, that doesn't require mercantilism. Of course the cases of it existing in the Empire I was going to call Mussolinist corporativism.

I think Ender argued rather convincingly for a mercantilist interpretation of overall galactic commerce in an old PSW thread. I shall see if I can find it.

No, I agree. It should have good days and bad days, it should have seasons. Etc. I just want to take the "this thing's fucked, let's get a rid of it" and "history is going somewhere" Hegelianism out of the equation. The rest I'm fine with.

That was my idea based on the prequels and EU as they stood, which hardly allowed for another interpretation. If we reimagine the prequels to be closer to the thematic intentions of the films, I have no need for it.

Darth Hoth wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:My biggest question here is anyone have an idea how to get from a decent Republic that lends some credibility to Obi-Wan's romanticism and one worth fighting for and that doesn't give republicanism a bad name to a situation bad enough for a 1-in-25,000 years war and discarding the historical government for an autocracy by a man beloved as the 1-in-25,000 years leader. It doesn't have to be perfect or in its prime (Palpatine should actually introduce necessary reforms), but it shouldn't an embarrassment.

I would imagine that the Republic was a good government for the rich and privileged, less so for the poor (who would be affected much worse by the Clone Wars than the relatively prosperous); it might not be a bad government per se, but it enforces the socioeconomic structures that keep the Rim poor and the Core rich by supporting the trade monopolies of guilds and megacorporations like the Trade Federation. These pressures would always have existed, but never turned dangerous till amplified by Palpatine/the Wars/someone else; it would not be a new problem, or a major one normally, but the Republic happens to be in a stage of decline and has people around willing and able to worsen the situation for their own gain. Palpatine the Populist would speak out against these "injustices" and be beloved by the poor; perhaps he would talk about "galactic unity in face of the threat of war"? At the same time, the Core Worlds might go with him because they simply have not seen anything like it before and feel the need to control it through "one of their own" - Palpatine was still nobility, and doubtless agreed to preserve their interests beneath the rhetoric.

Broadly, I imagine something like this, but I do want to keep it not socialistic. I don't think Palpatine personally should be in role of stoking class warfare. He'd denounce robber barony and corruption, and building up a boogeyman in the clones and "traitors" - the Senators and elites who backed the breakup of the Republic - but a vague sense of scapegoating and enemies. He'd start off saying the Republic needs reform, maybe even renewal, when he's tackling the radical opposition to that status quo, along the way making reforms and gaining power. Then the reactionary opposition defies him and he denounces them as traitors and prosecutes the war and renewal against them, by which time his rhetoric shifts to "never again" and "building a stronger galaxy."

Darth Hoth wrote:At the same time, I imagine the Republic would be sluggish in its responses to crises such as the Wars; an explanation for its ultimate defeat there might be that it has never faced such a challenge in all its modern (post-Ruusan?) history. The Clone Wars would be the kind of "freak accident" that you talked about earlier - simply beyond what the governmental structure was built to handle. This would increase social pressures and also press for centralisation and security improvements; once again, this would be something unheard of for very long. Palpatine the War Leader would gain recognition for rising to the occasion when no one else in truth knew what to do.

Agreed. I'd also say Palpatine used his shadow faction to deliberately sabotage the Senate and his predecessors.

Also, I'm pushing Ruusan into the background in my own concepts. I don't even know if it should be the ancestry of the Bane's Sith. We don't have to bother justifying Lucas' decision to change the Republic's age from 25,000 to 1,000 years anymore, so why bother kludging it?

Darth Hoth wrote:This last bit is something I would like to emphasise - these people literally have not seen war or major crisis in hundreds of years when the Clone Wars - or your posited "Dark Times" - break out, in the Core Worlds at least, where most of the population is concentrated. It is something from the history books like nothing we could really relate to, with all our greatest crises (foremostly, World Wars) still in our recent past and living memory - It would be akin to the Black Plague striking over Europe again, but with our medical technology as useless against it as the medieval witch-doctors were. War is to them something that has been annihilated on the large scale, like pandemics are to us* - there might be the occasional border dispute or planetary coup in backwards corners of the Rim, but overall they think themselves to have progressed past it (like the TNG Federation, if perhaps not quite so extreme). It is hardly unlikely, then, that their response to the greatest conflict ever will be wildly disproportionate to the actual effect in coldly calculated terms - what would have been seen as acceptable in the dim past, when the Republic did fight wars and took losses as a matter of fact, would simply not be so now, and the people would likely agree to pretty much anything to guarantee that it would end and never happen again, accepting an authoritarian structure if such was necessary. At the same time, Palpatine's halo would be all the brighter still, as he did end it and save them.

Agreed. This is unprecedented. They have had "nobles' wars" and regional conflicts in the Rim, and the occassional Jedi inquisition or crusade, but nothing like this, since the foundation of the Republic.

Darth Hoth wrote:*Well, the analogy is imperfect; strategists and scientists might think of pandemics today, even if John Q Public does not - it is hard to find appropriate model for this kind of "peace fatigue", as really there is nothing like it in our history. I could use my own Sweden as an example of the trend - we have not seen war in hundreds of years and do not think there could ever be one in our vicinity again, so we demobilise like there is no tomorrow and decry everyone else who fights for whatever reason as a barbarian or warmonger. I imagine the Republic would be something like that, only raised by a couple of orders of magnitude after centuries (millennia?) of going undisturbed; their military would be mostly tradition, with a constabulary function in practice to handle local discontent, broker deals over disputes and help with aid and development.

It'd be like a modern day Genghis Khan. I have a vignette draft from Obi-Wan's perspective, set a few years before the end of the Clone Wars. I'll write up and you can tell me what you think.

Darth Hoth wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I guess I'm asking for help. One of my problems with the @ PT is that I don't feel like it makes sense for the people to really be afraid and throw away thousands of years of history to praise Palpatine. Furthermore, how could be so wildly popular when it seems like the Confederacy had popular support? Its like Lincoln being unprecedentedly popular after the Civil War throughout the nation.

That does not work in the PT, admittedly. One might perhaps change it into the war being fought more exclusively by clones (and, perhaps, 'droids), at least in its later phases, as the pawns of something evil and corrupt (big megacorporations/guilds? Dark Side horrors? Space Nazis?).

I was thinking of some Roman and other early models; the clones are personally loyal to Senators and robber barons and corporations like the Marian legions to the generals of the Late Republic. I want to go for a civil war more like a struggle amongst the rarefied ruling class, where the common people are screwed. The wars are brought on by the very powerful or unusually warlike, limiting their popular support. Also, you could have agitation amongst the oppressed Rim as a parallel source of disorder or treachery; and of course the burst bubble of security would result in popular support in the Core (the feeling of "barbarians the gates").

Darth Hoth wrote:Then again, his popularity and the destruction of Separatist propaganda might only be the product of massive reeducation of the pro-independence worlds in question. One could look at how popular the Nazis were in Germany, and then how popular they are now after a decades-long concerted effort to (rightly) demonise them.

Of course the Nazis were broadly appreciated for reigning in the Communists and cultural left and restoring national pride (something difficult to contrive in SW, unless you have Palpatine fighting off Rim-bound radicals aiming to shift the balance of power, and/or freeing them from embaressing reliance and submission to the outsourced hub of military power in the cloners). Also, the Nazis quickly became much less popular.

Darth Hoth wrote:I would go by the explanation that the Republic might be different things in different quarters. Say, it might be great for the Core, less so for the Rim. This is the most realistic model, or that Ben is simply biased.

As long as it isn't as worthless and ignoble as portrayed. The way it was made Obi-Wan look like more of a wishful-thinking liar or senile old broken man.

Darth Hoth wrote:A variant we might use could be to have him speak of the ages before the Clone Wars/"Dark Times", which he himself may not have seen or only remember dimly. That way, his statement would not reflect on what he actually saw, but how he imagined it to be, so we do not have to take a stance on it. Yes, it is a cop-out, but I agree with you; it is hard to find a balance there.

Right. I was going to have him remember the Republic of legend, suffering from rough times, but still noble, and then - though he was unsure exactly how it happened or had started - everything seemed to go wrong. Maybe have him throw around some of the historians' claims and speculation that there had been fissures growing - that the end result of built-up imbalances from hundreds of cyclical periods, the convergence of several cyclical downturns, freak disasters and transitions, freak combinations of particularly incompetent or corrupt leaders - just beneath the surface but he couldn't tell and he didn't know about all that. All he knew was things went wrong.

Darth Hoth wrote:Could work, though as I said I would not wish to make him omnipotent. All failings should not be a result of his machinations, but there should be genuine fault lines as well.

I agree. I think leaving ambiguity in the mind of the reader and the characters in-universe could work. I think its fair to say that Palpatine was an extremely rare and unique individual; probably no one else could have pulled it off as well and successfully as he did. I want to presage and foreshadow his behavior in the Empire era, and in the post-ROTJ era when he reconquers the galaxy. He should be building on lessons learned, and lets us draw parallels. Perhaps the way the Civil War shifted and changed can be an inspiration too (the Civil War should be important, but much less so after the exposure of the Clone Wars, and I do think the Clone Wars should still be somewhat worse, objectively).

Darth Hoth wrote:On another matter, I could do without "Augustus" Palpatine. It feels like too great an invention/modification of the already existant canon. So, I would have it "Palpy's Technocrats".

What's wrong with Augustus? I think its a fitting name, and there are other real names in canon. Besides, its based on official material, the tongue-in-cheek TPM Soundtrack track, "Augie's Great Municipal Band." Meh. I like it.

Darth Hoth wrote:Great that we agree.

He's a genius of geniuses, he's not God.

Darth Hoth wrote:One way might be simply to play at the galaxy being complacent and not used to crisis, while at the same time given no time or chance to adapt, except as Palpatine wills it. I tried to cover that above in my earlier post.

I think that's a good theme to work with too. Complacency and decadence. Ties into a great tradition of writing about the fall of great societies.

Darth Hoth wrote:Yes, more akin to WW1, with elements of the Thirty Years War. Although it should be possible to combine with yours. I would stress the non-"Clone" part of the wars, though; it should feel like a civil war, with brother fighting brother and system against system.

The clones are the catalyst, but also characterize the conflicts; clone warfare is a universal strategy. Perhaps (I'm very undecided on this as an option and how prevalent it might be should we choose to implement it) some of the clones go completely renegade, setting themselves up as a quasi-race of their own, attempting to liberate themselves from slavery and then maybe even to guarentee a slice of the spoils and a special class as the martial class. The use of clones should be horrifying and terrible to the galaxy (Thrawn's use of clone warfare was highly controversial around at least 30 years later).

Darth Hoth wrote:What timeframe are you looking at for your conflicts?

I want there to be an era of reconstruction and Palpatine not giving up his supreme power, and actually moving to consolidate and control it. Some of his retributive policies should be highly controversial to the protagonists but highly popular to the masses. Therefore I'd like to put at least a few years between Ep III in 15 or 16 rS and the end of the Clone Wars. For the time of full intensity of the last round of conflicts, I'm thinking a few years. The overall era of crisis should be at least 15-20. Though I am attracted to yours and Raptors idea of the overall collapse of galactic society being instigated by the wars themselves, with many of the players going to war figuring it'll be a brushfire (heh, a Travisite war) or "clean" war, and it just escalating out of control.

My only thing is that using the "Clone Wars" to refer to a generalized epoch of wars feels historiographical, not popular. Also, that way it doesn't feel like a discrete event you'd expect a veteran to say he fought in. For example, you wouldn't expect some old legionary officer veteran to say to a boy he was mentoring that he fought in the "Civil Wars"; he would say he fought against someone or for someone, he would say he fought in "Caesar's War" or "Caesar's War against Pompey" etc.

Darth Hoth wrote:Overall agreement. I could feel that it sort of undermines the psychological impact of the Clone Wars proper if they are merely the final symptom of underlying problems, rather than the downfall of the Republic themselves, but that is just me. On the other hand, I suppose one could make the case that there would have to be some war close beforehand if the military is to be at all competent in the Wars proper. What do you others think, everyone?

I'm tending toward yours guys' opinion. There are some long discrete wars, like the Second Sino-Japanese War. I suppose a good 10-15 years of war wouldn't be wrong. The only thing is I'm starting to go for short and sweet as opposed to drawn-out and confused (more World War I and II than Thirty Years), but still not set-piece and neatly-two-sided like Lucas' Clone War Against Droids.

Darth Hoth wrote:It need not all be fought against the same enemy; I imagine that it could be like the Thirty Years War, where coalitions might shift over the years and ideology gradually be subsumed - among the enemy, at least, Palpatine would be working very hard against that on his front. Another model could be to have most of the wars fought without the Republic's direct intervention - it is too paralysed by the unparallelled wars to actually do anything - with them only entering after some suitably atrocious act (the shelling of a Core World, perhaps). Palpatine would lead the "War Party", with the Republic having witnessed the conflict for some time already; only after his election would they start to push back the enemy, who would be suitably dastardly (e.g., Nazi/Commie fanatics, or better yet Imperial Japan by the end of WW2). Perhaps the anti-Republic faction would be a broader alliance at first, but having only the fanatics left at the end, and these would be the enemy the rest of the galaxy, including former Separatists, united against in horror?

Maybe the first part of the war starts in the Rim, and then moves into the Core? I want to keep Palpatine as semi-background before his election. I like that he was a universally-respected senator with almost no partisan background or affiliation. He was a scholar and historian and political scientist (and he'd been disseminating his doctrine through the backdoor by directly effecting the curriculum and theory throughout the galaxy), perhaps he foresaw the war and the impotence of the Republic broadly. Perhaps corrupt war profiteers or partisan factions hoped to use him one way or another. He emerges and takes control.

The original EU has him elected after the Clone Wars, which precipitate his rise to power. Of course Palpatine in the films was elected before the wars. And we seem to be striking a balance by having him elected during the war.

Darth Hoth wrote:How much would "Republic" opinion be uniform, as opposed to that of individual worlds or Sectors? With such a loose government, and so distant from the people, I do not imagine that the federal government would be all that good for pushing opinions; that would more likely be the province of the individual powers. Alderaan should certainly be such a lobbyist for peace and democracy - I would imagine them to be kind of like Sweden, only a major power instead of a little speck on the map that no one cares about. Otherwise, overall agreement.

I don't mean the government as an institution (hence soft versus hard power), rather its a kind of gentleman's agreement or gentlemen's honor - you ought to hold elections, but if you don't or they don't matter that much, you should be doing a good job at home. Of course part of this will be the fact that more democratic senators will not support or consider legitimate senators from illiberal states, where as aristocratic senators won't care. Some of this will be based on factionalism and preference, as opposed to a general political culture. Just an idea.

Darth Hoth wrote:Does that not imply constant and very high pressure on the upper tiers of power, though, as well as a relatively large degree of mobility between the upper middle and upper classes? It would seem to mesh badly with the very long-standing trademarks, companies and noble houses of the galaxy (lasting for millennia in many cases). Just my two cents.

I mean that's how the ruling classes initially formed. My point is that by now the average citizen is fully ensconced in a completely secure welfare state, and cares little for the power contests waged between the rarefied heights of galactic power. Remember even relative mobility and a lack of formal and legal constraints (what I'm getting at by dissociating this from our historical nobility) is that the middle class is so far away from the galactic ruling class that effective mobility and support and connections are very difficult to come by. The new men of the galactic ruling stratum should be extremely lucky or very very talented meritocrats, or some measure of both. Or they benefit from somesort of extreme other form of cultural selection.

Darth Hoth wrote:I think Ender argued rather convincingly for a mercantilist interpretation of overall galactic commerce in an old PSW thread. I shall see if I can find it.

His economic model was premises in large parts by the flawed concept that SW computer security is essentially nonexistent. I found it pretty uncompelling, and I'm partially in economics by education (I don't mean to wave around expertise though, I'm an undergraduate).

Darth Hoth wrote:That was my idea based on the prequels and EU as they stood, which hardly allowed for another interpretation. If we reimagine the prequels to be closer to the thematic intentions of the films, I have no need for it.

That's good. Well you guys certainly are good at influencing me. I'm almost more confused now than before. I guess my reason for separating the "Dark Times" from the "Clone Wars" is so we can have a drawn-out period (15-30 years) of general crisis and repeated wars, before the discrete Gotterdamerung that is referred to as the Clone Wars. It lets us have our cake and eat it too. I guess as long as we can make it have verisimilitude, I'm happy. That's really what I'm about, consistency and making sure what needs to get done plot and theme wise is, and that it is done with verisimilitude. I suppose we could have a longer Clone Wars in two broad "phases" with Palpatine getting elected in the middle/lull/eye of the storm.

I believe this was touched upon yesterday, but I feel the Clone Wars-era Republic Army should not have the total, single-color, single-face uniformity of the later Imperial Army and Imperial Marines. Take for example the GAR's unintended but somehow morale-improving development of corps and legion-level identities unique to their formations in the latter stages of the canon Clone Wars; different formations with different leaders, using the same basic equipment, modified in different ways and to varying degrees, with unique corps (and sometimes legion) color schemes and traditions.

Canonically this is a result of mandalorian training influence and such; I happen to believe that a Republic Army of a much longer set of essentially unending brushfire wars that constitute the Clone Wars would even MORE understandably embrace this development of unit identity and cohesion amidst corps or army-level forces generally led by the same people and made up of the same units, be they clone or nonclone.

Better yet, the utter disappearance of these 'unit identities' upon the formation of the Empire would serve to illustrate to readers (ie non project-members) the transformation of the Republic's Army to the faceless, identically-uniformed Imperial Army and Marines. Palpatine's 'whitewashing' of the army and perhaps preference for utterly loyal, indoctrinated clone soldiers over the many nonclone volunteers and conscripts of the former Republic Army would also underline this quite nicely.

Also, I would suggest that the nonclone soldiers start to be heavily supplemented and perhaps even slowly outnumbered by clone soldiers upon Palpatine being elected in the middle 'lull' of the Clone Wars, before the climactic ending of (stuff we will determine later). Palpatine, having subtly twisted this entire course of events for some time, would surely wish to replace the potentially-dissenting nonclone soldiers of the Republic's armed forces with soldiers designed, from the nucleii up, to be ultimately loyal to him alone; a fine basis for the Imperial Marines, the elite Stormtroopers of the Imperial era.

EDIT: a thought to reinforce the above; indoctrinated clones do not have the potential to cause a civil war by rejecting the idea of Palpatine's creation of a Galactic Empire. nonclone volunteers and draftees, however...are not 100% reliable and as such clones would be preferred. when one is trying to take over the galaxy, one does not want to have his entire military made up of armed, potentially dissenting free-thinking beings.

Do try to consider these points before casually rejecting them.

Well, we're keeping the Thrawn Trilogy in the post-ROTJ era, and for it to make sense, cloning must at least officially and apparently, banned. And the clones should be reviled and hated, and the citizenry eager for the public elimination of cloning. Mara's denunciation of Thrawn for being willing to launch another round of Clone Wars on the path of conquering the galaxy should be credible. People should really fear and dislike clone warfare. It should be a major war crime. Of course I also prefer the idea that while the Republic fought against clones (hence the "Clone Wars," people typically don't name wars after their own troops), that Palpatine's Republic also ended up relying on them, though officially discontinuing them during the war (the fact this as a fraud is brushed under the carpet). I think the Republic should start with a quaint and traditional but standing military on the wane. He builds up both the strongest clone force yet (but tightly nationalized and incorporated into the conventional military hierarchy, and this is greatly brushed over and whitewashed) and builds up the conventional military to historical heights. Along the way the Marines are formed, which start out as only clones but gain recruits and such along the way (the Empire maintains the illusion that they are all recruits, but they're actually mostly clones throughout the era).

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Well, we're keeping the Thrawn Trilogy in the post-ROTJ era, and for it to make sense, cloning must at least officially and apparently, banned. And the clones should be reviled and hated, and the citizenry eager for the public elimination of cloning. Mara's denunciation of Thrawn for being willing to launch another round of Clone Wars on the path of conquering the galaxy should be credible. People should really fear and dislike clone warfare. It should be a major war crime. Of course I also prefer the idea that while the Republic fought against clones (hence the "Clone Wars," people typically don't name wars after their own troops), that Palpatine's Republic also ended up relying on them, though officially discontinuing them during the war (the fact this as a fraud is brushed under the carpet). I think the Republic should start with a quaint and traditional but standing military on the wane. He builds up both the strongest clone force yet (but tightly nationalized and incorporated into the conventional military hierarchy, and this is greatly brushed over and whitewashed) and builds up the conventional military to historical heights. Along the way the Marines are formed, which start out as only clones but gain recruits and such along the way (the Empire maintains the illusion that they are all recruits, but they're actually mostly clones throughout the era).

I agree with the idea that the Republic was fighting against large clone forces, but Palpatine's Republic was forced to rely on them just to keep the Republic in the war.

I also agree with the 'quaint and traditional' starting military, and the Galactic Marines (A nice touch of naming, i believe) being an elite, extremely insular force initially made up of only clones, then gaining recruits, and presented as an all-recruit force when turned into the Imperial Marines. Especially since common opinion of clones and cloning would, after the war, be very negative. the false veneer of the Marines being recruits would be required, almost, to prevent the exposure of this hypocrisy in the eyes of the people.

I still, however, support the idea of Episode III-style legions and corps for the Republic Army and Marines. It was deliberately based on how troops in Vietnam (a long brushfire war) modified their own kit, and would not be surprising for Republic troops, clone or nonclone, in a decade(s)-long series of brushfire preludes to the Clone Wars.

I'm not adverse to such an idea. It was welcome texture and it gave the clones character and verisimilitude (when their brigadier generals weren't in body armor taking fire and shooting their combine on the front line, ugh).

To an extent, I would like to portray the Armed Forces of the Imperium that way too. I know that I.M.P.S. isn't canon and is taking the piss from beginning to end, but that along with Hull No. 721 has become my inspiration for writing Imperial characters. Get away from the uber-elite, extremely high profile units like Death Squadron and I would seriously expect a military force that's more Full Metal Jacket and less THX 1138. Distinctive nose art, colors and insignia shouldn't be unheard of in the AFI. COMPNOR's reach isn't universal and I wouldn't bat an eye at LAAT/i with shark's teeth or AT-ATs with Legion markings.

Darth Raptor wrote:To an extent, I would like to portray the Armed Forces of the Imperium that way too. I know that I.M.P.S. isn't canon and is taking the piss from beginning to end, but that along with Hull No. 721 has become my inspiration for writing Imperial characters. Get away from the uber-elite, extremely high profile units like Death Squadron and I would seriously expect a military force that's more Full Metal Jacket and less THX 1138. Distinctive nose art, colors and insignia shouldn't be unheard of in the AFI. COMPNOR's reach isn't universal and I wouldn't bat an eye at LAAT/i with shark's teeth or AT-ATs with Legion markings.

Agreed. I would love to see a LAAT-II/i or LAAT-III/i in service with the Empire for a while, continually updated, sporting rancor's teeth and mission markers under its' canopies, or an AT-AT with a wampa motif on its' 'head' section.

Or an AT-BT (i'm used to calling them VH-ATs, Very Heavy Assault Transports) bearing giant Imperial symbols on the side out of sheer hubris.

Darth Raptor wrote:To an extent, I would like to portray the Armed Forces of the Imperium that way too. I know that I.M.P.S. isn't canon and is taking the piss from beginning to end, but that along with Hull No. 721 has become my inspiration for writing Imperial characters. Get away from the uber-elite, extremely high profile units like Death Squadron and I would seriously expect a military force that's more Full Metal Jacket and less THX 1138. Distinctive nose art, colors and insignia shouldn't be unheard of in the AFI. COMPNOR's reach isn't universal and I wouldn't bat an eye at LAAT/i with shark's teeth or AT-ATs with Legion markings.

Right, Palpatinist ideological ambitions don't always translate into reality. I don't know if you've read The Test of Wills, Raptor (I have a copy), but you should, and it does a great job of this.

Also, I'm seeing if Publius still has the original and complete version of Something Wicked This Way Comes, his thorough Palpatine biography. It should probably help give substance to our wandering in this thread.