Who broke the treaty?

[adormitul]

So the treaty of Cruscant was broken after 10 years but who broke it the Sith empire or the republic? I know that the wrath got the order to break the treaty from Barass but so did Meteor by orders to attack a imperial base to destroy a superweapon. So who broke the treaty first?

[ZanyaCross]

Gonna give this one to the Empire. They attacked the Esseles to capture a diplomat, and then attacked the Brentel Star to stop a defector who fled of their own free will.

 

Now, we can argue that the Empire were well within their rights to try and stop the defector and Satele crippled three warships trying to stop them from arresting a traitor, but between Grandmaster Satele Shan and Rycus "The Butcher of Coruscant" Kilran, I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt to the Republic as to who actually fired the first shots.

[Nainitsuj]

I think the Republic formally broke off the treaty and declared war on the Empire.

 

 

In the IA story the Supreme Chancellor declares war over the massacre at Isen IV and incursions into the Mid Rim by the empire.

 

[SteveTheCynic]

I think the Republic formally broke off the treaty and declared war on the Empire.

 

 

In the IA story the Supreme Chancellor declares war over the massacre at Isen IV and incursions into the Mid Rim by the empire.

That would hinge a bit on terminology.

 

Here's my preferred terminology for this discussion:

 

* To violate a treaty is to do something you are bound by the treaty not to do, or to not do something it binds you to do.

* To repudiate (sometimes break off) a treaty is to declare that it is now null and void and the things it previously bound the signatories to do (or not do) are now not bound by the terms of the treaty.

 

So Kilran's actions and commands in The Esseles and Black Talon violated the treaty, and in the spoiler box, the word we are looking for is repudiate or (as used) break off for what the SC did, and violate for what the Imperials had previously done.

 

Further note: If I violate a treaty, it is not necessarily repudiated. Most treaties include, either directly or indirectly, a system of reparations that can be paid by way of "apology" for any violations. If I repudiate or break off a treaty, all question of violations are largely irrelevant.

[Jedimasterdrall]

Honestly the two sides were always at each others necks with skirmishes and secret involvement with each other's enemies. It was only a matter of time, in my opinion both sides contributed to breaking it.

[ZanyaCross]

Honestly the two sides were always at each others necks with skirmishes and secret involvement with each other's enemies. It was only a matter of time, in my opinion both sides contributed to breaking it.

 

That could very well describe the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union. It's not impossible to believe that a peaceful, if strained, coexistence would be possible had a third party not deliberately aggravated matters (see the IA story), and the Emperor wasn't an eldrich abomination. Notice how once they were out of the picture (and both sides presented with a sufficient incentive) they were able to put aside their differences and work together in SoR.

 

This is taken even further in KotFE when we see...

 

 

...Jedi and Sith, who have diametrically opposing philosophies, training together on Odessa.

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by ZanyaCross

[Joachimthbear]

I'm pretty sure various breaches of the treaty, by both sides, were happening long before the start of the prologue. The Empire illegally had troops on Coruscant and Ord Mantell, and I think the Republic was colluding with the Balmorran resistance. Unless I'm remembering the order of events wrong, in Act 2

 

both sides invade the other's territory (Taris and Balmorra) as recognised under the treaty, yet this isn't indicated as a complete breakdown of the treaty, just Shady Cold War Stuff.

 

 

I don't think either side took the treaty seriously given that the Empire sacked Coruscant and murdered the Republic's supreme chancellor during the negotiations. Both Empire and Republic knew that a return to war was inevitable and they were only buying themselves room to breathe. They both overlooked various breaches of the treaty because they simply weren't ready to resume open war.

 

I think the Republic formally broke off the treaty and declared war on the Empire.

 

 

In the IA story the Supreme Chancellor declares war over the massacre at Isen IV and incursions into the Mid Rim by the empire.

However, in the Smuggler storyline

 

the Voidwolf says that the Empire has declared war.

 

So who knows?

[Archanubis]

To be honest, I see evidence that both sides were angling to rip the treaty to shreds. Chapter Two of the Warrior's story line deals with Baras's attempts to maneuver the Dark Council into declaring war on the Republic

which succeed

, and Chapter Two of the Trooper's story

ends with the destruction of the Gauntlet and General Rakton sending a message to the Republic, saying Havoc's Squad's actions was practically a declaration of war - though you get the feeling the Gauntlet was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation.

The two aren't neccesarily exclusive of one another, and no doubt part of a larger scheme (i wouldn't be surprised if Baras, Rakton, and others didn't conspire to have the treaty broken (and that's not to say there weren't forces in the Republic conspiring to do so, too).

[efffel]

To know if the treaty is broken and who breaks it, we need to read the actual text. Any aggressive action may be interpreted as a loophole in the text.

 

As far as I can tell, the treaty remains abstract in the context of the game and becomes somehow irrelevant in the context of an alliance.

[SithKoriandr]

The Empire broke it left and right, with the Republic doing some of their own shady things, but then allies spying on allies is a thing, so spying on the enemy is going to happen, even with a treaty.

 

Though, if I recall, the Star Cabal was there trying to take down the treaty as well.

 

Either way, neither side thought the treaty was going to last, it was just generally played out different on both sides. Evil laughter on the Empire side and Only a matter of time realist/Surprise on the Rep side.

 

As the Knight tells the Doctor in Chapter 1, the treaty was because both sides needed to heal.

[Archanubis]

Either way, neither side thought the treaty was going to last, it was just generally played out different on both sides. Evil laughter on the Empire side and Only a matter of time realist/Surprise on the Rep side.

 

As the Knight tells the Doctor in Chapter 1, the treaty was because both sides needed to heal.

 

"...This is not peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years." - Ferdinand Foch, regarding the The Treaty of Versailles

 

"When Predacons talk peace, it just means that they need time to reload their weapons." - Optimus Primal, "Before the Storm," Beast Wars: Transformers

Edited December 11, 2015 by Archanubis

[lukewarcriminal]

wasn't it Republic on Balmorra?

[Setta]

wasn't it Republic on Balmorra?

 

Was just going to post this.

 

 

Technically it should be the Republic, since they were funding Rebellion there for years. Which starts before any of the class stories and anything that you do. I don't know how long the Empire has been funding the separatists on Ord Mantell, but I got the impression that compared to Belmora it was a much more recent matter

 

 

Still having said all of that, I would not be surprised in the least if I over looked something and the Empire broke the treaty. That's not only expected, it's pretty much all but guaranteed.

[JLazarillo]

* To violate a treaty is to do something you are bound by the treaty not to do, or to not do something it binds you to do.

* To repudiate (sometimes break off) a treaty is to declare that it is now null and void and the things it previously bound the signatories to do (or not do) are now not bound by the terms of the treaty.

 

If you're looking at it in this sense, the group to repudiate (which I think seems to be the main focus of this topic) was the Empire. The official declaration of war was made by the Imperial, General Rakton, in the Trooper story (and then confirmed to be approved by the Dark Council).

 

Both sides were in gross violation of it well before that, though.

[SithKoriandr]

wasn't it Republic on Balmorra?

 

It wasn't the Republic on Balmorra. It was private individuals who where members of the Republic helping them.

 

The Republic was doing all it could not to be the one to break the treaty, but knowing full well it was going to be broken.

 

Balmorra wasn't breaking it, because neither was the Darth in Knight's chapter 1. It basically became a lot of "We don't hold these individuals as part of out empire, they've gone rogue"

[Highborne]

So the treaty of Cruscant was broken after 10 years but who broke it the Sith empire or the republic? I know that the wrath got the order to break the treaty from Barass but so did Meteor by orders to attack a imperial base to destroy a superweapon. So who broke the treaty first?

 

The Empire broke the treaty - the Sith Warrior storyline, Chapter 2, is all about that. There were skirmishes and proxy wars beforehand (i.e., the Republic trying to recruit Imperial defectors, the Empire sending ships to kidnap Republic agents), but general warfare wasn't happening until Darth @##$$!@#$!! Baras mucked it all up for everyone.

[Archanubis]

The Empire broke the treaty - the Sith Warrior storyline, Chapter 2, is all about that. There were skirmishes and proxy wars beforehand (i.e., the Republic trying to recruit Imperial defectors, the Empire sending ships to kidnap Republic agents), but general warfare wasn't happening until Darth @##$$!@#$!! Baras mucked it all up for everyone.

 

Baras's planning was the most overt, yes, but there's every indication that the Gauntlet super weapon in the Trooper story line (the reason for Project Meteor) was Rakton's plan to lure the Republic into breaking the treaty (depending on how Chapter 2 for the Warrior and Trooper fall into the overall timeline of the game). I don't think it comes up during the conversation, but I'm sure Garza and the other planners were *very* aware that attacking the Gauntlet would open hostilities between the Republic and Empire, but it was a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" kind of thing, so they went through with it anyway, at least so as to deny the Empire a devastating weapon in their arsenal.

 

And as I mentioned before, it's entirely possible that Rakton and Baras were working in concert with one another.

[MortemXFive]

It wasn't the Republic on Balmorra. It was private individuals who where members of the Republic helping them.

 

The Republic was doing all it could not to be the one to break the treaty, but knowing full well it was going to be broken.

 

Gonna have to disagree on that. Entire armies and a naval fleet all in Republic colors isn't a few individuals, as seen in the Empire planetary mission series for Balmorra. All of this is clearly seen alongside the Balmorran Resistance fighters. If you chose the light side option after the final battle and take their commanding officer, Grand Marshal Jaketta , as prisoner, in exchange for assurances of fair treatment for Balmorrans and Republic POW's he admits full Republic involvement with the Balmorran Resistance over the Holonet and open protests outside the Senate Tower on Coruscant from angry Republic citizens upset at the news are said to be the result.

 

"We knowingly and willfully violated the treaty" - Grand Marshal Jaketta

 

Keep in mind as already pointed out the Balmorran Resistance had been going on for years with outside support, but who or what wasn't pinpointed by the Empire until just before the time of the Imperial mission line as dialogue with multiple mission npc's seems to indicate, pretty early in the storyline for Imperial classes. Overall as already stated both sides did a lot of crap to provoke the other, but interfering with the occupation of an independent world is a pretty major transgression to note in what was supposed to be a time of peace.

Edited December 14, 2015 by MortemXFive

[efffel]

They'll have to create 2 new class of legalists to resolve the question

 

Major battle move: boring the opponent to death by citing alinea 5.2.01b

[Archanubis]

Keep in mind, both the Empire and Republic had operations going before all out war begins. Balmorra is about the most egregious example regarding the Republic's operations, but even the Imperials have operations going - including agents and squads on Corsuscant (Garza's completely flabbergasted when you mention it during the Trooper's story arc).

 

Until the end of Chapter 2, I think most of the Imperial and Republic operations were a case of "what can we get away with without actually breaking the Treaty" (no one expected it to last), with Balmorra being the "Afghanistan" of the game (the US supplying the Afghani rebels with weapons against the USSR).

[MortemXFive]

Keep in mind, both the Empire and Republic had operations going before all out war begins. Balmorra is about the most egregious example regarding the Republic's operations, but even the Imperials have operations going - including agents and squads on Corsuscant (Garza's completely flabbergasted when you mention it during the Trooper's story arc).

 

Until the end of Chapter 2, I think most of the Imperial and Republic operations were a case of "what can we get away with without actually breaking the Treaty" (no one expected it to last), with Balmorra being the "Afghanistan" of the game (the US supplying the Afghani rebels with weapons against the USSR).

 

True, keeping uniformed armed forces directly in the capital of your foe and rival during supposed peace time is a pretty strong, to put it lightly, act of aggression. And props to you for making that historical connection, pretty accurate. Though I doubt entire units of uniformed US forces directly aided the Afgani tribes against the Soviets as the Republic did the Balmorran Resistance. I think the question is really who violated the treaty more?

Edited February 3, 2016 by MortemXFive

[Archanubis]

True, keeping uniformed armed forces directly in the capital of your foe and rival during supposed peace time is a pretty strong, to put it lightly, act of aggression. And props to you for making that historical connection, pretty accurate. Though I doubt entire units of uniformed US forces directly aided the Afgani tribes against the Soviets as the Republic did the Balmorran Resistance. I think the question is really who violated the treaty more? Lol.

 

Probably more of a question of "who finally committed an act neither side could ignore?" Given what I've seen so far, I'd say its more the events of the Warrior and Trooper's story arcs in Chapter 2 that cause the Treaty to be annulled. (There doesn't seem to bu much involvement in the politics between the two powers in the Inquisitor, Smuggler and Bounty Hunter's stories, at least until Chapter 3, and while the Consular is involved in protecting potential Republic allies, s/he doesn't seem all that active in actually *starting* the war, unlike either the Warrior or Trooper. Haven't played either the Knight or Agent to understand their roles.)

[Canareth]

Probably more of a question of "who finally committed an act neither side could ignore?" Given what I've seen so far, I'd say its more the events of the Warrior and Trooper's story arcs in Chapter 2 that cause the Treaty to be annulled. (There doesn't seem to bu much involvement in the politics between the two powers in the Inquisitor, Smuggler and Bounty Hunter's stories, at least until Chapter 3, and while the Consular is involved in protecting potential Republic allies, s/he doesn't seem all that active in actually *starting* the war, unlike either the Warrior or Trooper. Haven't played either the Knight or Agent to understand their roles.)

 

The Knight story is largely disconnected. "Disavowed" or not, a couple of events in Knight Act I really should start the war again on their own.