SNEAKYSIX Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) So in Star Wars the Empire dominates, using allies such as Bounty Hunters and various species controlled with fear. Its aim is rule absolute and needs to crush a rebellion. The Empire has become so powerful that there is no opposing democratic system or space UN to combat it. Planets are tipped to the edge but are fed enough resource to keep them happy enough not to revolt. At the same time the rebellion numbers keep swelling, picking up new recruits from various worlds. My point or question is, even if Luke failed and the rebellion was crushed, would it only be a matter of time that oppressed planets revolted? Empire becomes over-stretched, rebellion forming inside the Empire ranks. Thus creating a vaccume of power and the possiblity of implosion? Edited March 15, 2012 by Ellvaan Inappropriate Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilesTeg_cy Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 1- In the long run everthing reaches to a ballance. Sometimes the effort of providing that balance is interrupted but this is only a delay. Reaching to a balance starts the process of destroying that balance. This goes on to eternity. As long as the cycle continues it is in its naturel course. 2- Human nature is always the same, no matter if it is a fiction or a naturel thing. Fiction takes its roots from the reality. If there won't be any similarities that story will not be interesting. Successfull writing relies on the imitation of life we know. "The best art imitates life in a compelling way. If it imitates a dream, it must be a dream of life. Otherwise, there is no place where we can connect. Our plugs don't fit." - Frank Herbert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ch_Zero Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 the republic falls too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNEAKYSIX Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Hey MilesTeg, I have seen that name online before we have Im sure gamed together in past? Operation Flashpoint? Guild Wars? Diablo 2? Ive always been Sneakysix online. Anyway thanks for your input... Human nature to destroy, to question. Some of our best achievements have came from War which is odd. Yet we would also be so more advanced if we didnt have war after war. Tricky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrong_turn Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 So in Star Wars the Empire dominates, using allies such as Bounty Hunters and various species controlled with fear. Its aim is rule absolute and needs to crush a rebellion. The Empire has become so powerful that there is no opposing democratic system or space UN to combat it. Planets are tipped to the edge but are fed enough resource to keep them happy enough not to revolt. At the same time the rebellion numbers keep swelling, picking up new recruits from various worlds. My point or question is, even if Luke failed and the rebellion was crushed, would it only be a matter of time that oppressed planets revolted? Empire becomes over-stretched, rebellion forming inside the Empire ranks. Thus creating a vaccume of power and the possiblity of implosion? Its certainly possible that without Luke the Rebellion could have reached a critical mass where it posed a serious threat to the Empire but that is not taking into account the various convenient plot devices in place to prevent that. I'd agree that if we assumed that real world logic applied, its likely that at some point in the Empire's history it would have succumbed to some sort of external or internal pressure. Either it would have broken up because of internal conflict among its ruling elite or some Rebellion (maybe not THE Rebellion) would have over taken the Empire's forces. But unfortunately, the Emperor is functionally immortal with his ability to transfer his essence into new bodies. Which is all the more significant when you take into account his battle meditation and the massive size of the Imperial military. So he could basically control all of his forces forever which vastly outnumber any fledgling rebellion. Using the logic of SW, I'd have to say if Luke was never involved in the Rebellion it would be really unlikely for the Empire to be defeated or for any uprising to gain enough mass to be a real threat before Palpatine quashed it. I think the more likely threat to the Empire in the absence of Luke would probably not be external, i.e. rebelling planets/populations. Rather, I think its more likely that the Imperial military commanders begin infighting and it fractures that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) Its certainly possible that without Luke the Rebellion could have reached a critical mass where it posed a serious threat to the Empire but that is not taking into account the various convenient plot devices in place to prevent that. I'd agree that if we assumed that real world logic applied, its likely that at some point in the Empire's history it would have succumbed to some sort of external or internal pressure. Either it would have broken up because of internal conflict among its ruling elite or some Rebellion (maybe not THE Rebellion) would have over taken the Empire's forces. But unfortunately, the Emperor is functionally immortal with his ability to transfer his essence into new bodies. Which is all the more significant when you take into account his battle meditation and the massive size of the Imperial military. So he could basically control all of his forces forever which vastly outnumber any fledgling rebellion. Using the logic of SW, I'd have to say if Luke was never involved in the Rebellion it would be really unlikely for the Empire to be defeated or for any uprising to gain enough mass to be a real threat before Palpatine quashed it. I think the more likely threat to the Empire in the absence of Luke would probably not be external, i.e. rebelling planets/populations. Rather, I think its more likely that the Imperial military commanders begin infighting and it fractures that way. Edit: Wait nvrm had to do a double take. Edited March 14, 2012 by Wolfninjajedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crayonn Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Now think where the rebellion would be if that imperial officer decided to shoot that one escape pod...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelousWang Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Sith are masters of Destruction, but they are only good at Destruction. They cannot function is true "Peace" like the Republic can. So they and their Empires inventively Destroy themselves. Sidious created the Rebellion that destroyed him, he made Vader hate him to the point he would kill him and he allowed Luke into a position that he could affect Vader the way he could. He could have avoided all of it just by being sensible/logical, but he relied too much on his precognition powers, once he foresaw the Rebellion being his undoing he was set on Destructive path to avoid it that lead to that very end (ironically the same way Anakin tried to avoid Padme's death and cause it). As for Vitiate he already has plan in place to destroy his own Empire, along with everyone else in the galaxy (still unsure how he is going to survive his own galaxy death plan, even he needs one body to exist in the physical world). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayla_Shadowsong Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 The Sith rise and fall through the star wars Lore on a regular basis. Almost without exception at the peak of their power the apprentice or ambitious Sith Lord destroys the Dark Lord of the Sith at a key moment of the conflict causing everything to unravel in a convenient plot device to reset everything back to the default Republic setting so that it can be reconquered in the next story arc a few centuries later. Luke is just one point in a very long repeating cycle. It is actually a point significantly after the Sith Empire we are currently fighting for was destroyed by an ambitious young Sith named Bane. In most of the Lore without the betrayal of a Sith like Bane or Vader, the Republic forces are on the verge of final defeat just before the Empire collapses. It's a convenient way to reset the lore while maintaining a familiar frame so that every era feels similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undeadsithdread Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 The Sith rise and fall through the star wars Lore on a regular basis. Almost without exception at the peak of their power the apprentice or ambitious Sith Lord destroys the Dark Lord of the Sith at a key moment of the conflict causing everything to unravel in a convenient plot device to reset everything back to the default Republic setting so that it can be reconquered in the next story arc a few centuries later. Luke is just one point in a very long repeating cycle. It is actually a point significantly after the Sith Empire we are currently fighting for was destroyed by an ambitious young Sith named Bane. In most of the Lore without the betrayal of a Sith like Bane or Vader, the Republic forces are on the verge of final defeat just before the Empire collapses. It's a convenient way to reset the lore while maintaining a familiar frame so that every era feels similar. bane destroyed the leftover of darth ruin sith empire not this sith empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelousWang Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 bane destroyed the leftover of darth ruin sith empire not this sith empire. Ancient Sith (before Dark Jedi) > First Sith > Ragnos > Sadow/Kressh > Vitiate - True Sith Empire (Nadd/Kun/Revan/Malak/Triumvirate whilst Vitiate was off elsewhere) > Darth Ruin - New Sith Empire > Brotherhood of Darkness > Darth Bane - Rule of Two > Krayyt - Rule of One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobinator Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Its ok...the rebellion gets rolfstomp'ed by the Vong... Which is ironic...the Rebellion took down the Empire...but the Empire was the only thing getting the Vong at bay so. Yeah... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilesTeg_cy Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) Hey MilesTeg, I have seen that name online before we have Im sure gamed together in past? Operation Flashpoint? Guild Wars? Diablo 2? Ive always been Sneakysix online. Anyway thanks for your input... Human nature to destroy, to question. Some of our best achievements have came from War which is odd. Yet we would also be so more advanced if we didnt have war after war. Tricky. Hey SNEAKYSIX, Sorry for the late response. I guess that was another MilesTeg cos. before that the only online game I've played was wow. A lot of MilesTegs around Advancing is only valuable if it increases our happiness and quality of life. The achievents that come from the war needs are not subject to happiness I guess. War is not about increasing the quality of life but to preserve what we already have in our hands and be prepared for what is to come. War culture is a race. Who ever wins that race controls the world. Ofcourse winning that race is not enough alone. Because tha concept of war is not battling only. It consists of alot of other things. I'm not a peace child but I'm peace minded. If it is possible to preserve the peace only by being just to others I tend to do that. But if it is not possible, war is the final answer to that question and I don't hessitate to join a battle in the name of what I call "the right things to protect". Eve tough those "right things" change for ever individual, there are universal values. Those values must be protected by any means necessary. As long as there is an imbalance between the wealth, happiness and quality of life of the people there will be war. We are living in an aquarium and there is nowhere else to go. Add that truth that all the scarse resources we have, there is only one outcome. At the end war can be defined as a struggle between those who are obsessed to rule the others and the ones that don't want to be ruled. War. War never changes. Edited March 15, 2012 by MilesTeg_cy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts