Rouge77 posted:The estimates for the populations of ecumenopolises in EU are always far too low or else there are really huge uninhabited areas on them.
Boba Matt posted:I have to reject one of your premises from that first post, Charles: you say that Fel's Empire is not the real Empire, that Krayt's is. The problem I have with this is that it discounts the good that was done in between.
Charlemagne19 posted:However, it's a bit like suggesting James the Second is the ruler of the REAL England in France. Roan Fel is a King in Exile.
BobaMatt posted:Charlemagne19 posted:However, it's a bit like suggesting James the Second is the ruler of the REAL England in France. Roan Fel is a King in Exile. Depends. If we're having a discussion about whether or not, in universe, the Empire is able to be good, then Krayt is irrelevant. The answer is yes. Fel's good Empire only became bad again because Fel was usurped by a Sith - there's no argument there about the essential nature of the Empire. However, if we're discussing whether, OOU, storytellers will turn the Empire good, then Krayt is paramount to the argument, because they made a good Empire just so that they could turn it bad again.
BobaMatt posted:However, if we're discussing whether, OOU, storytellers will turn the Empire good, then Krayt is paramount to the argument, because they made a good Empire just so that they could turn it bad again.
Charlemagne19 posted:Also, your first point is also hampered because Roan Fel was good. Not necessarilly the Empire. Because Roan Fel was a nice ruler (arguably) and got overthrown because the Imperials wanted to be militaristic ******s again.
BobaMatt posted: The Empire was good, it's just that authoritarian government attracts the power hungry - and that's so obvious it's almost not worth discussing. I mean, it's obvious why the Sith acted through the Empire and not the GA.
GrandAdmiralJello posted: Why? If anything, the Roman Empire stayed good even though it had a multitude of bad rulers. It tended to eliminate them in quick succession, leaving only the benevolent ones to actually have long reigns. So where's the logic behind that claim, C19?
BobaMatt posted:Charlemagne19 posted:Also, your first point is also hampered because Roan Fel was good. Not necessarilly the Empire. Because Roan Fel was a nice ruler (arguably) and got overthrown because the Imperials wanted to be militaristic ******s again. Very true. However, according to Nyna the only reason as much of the hierarchy stayed in place as it did was because she got Veed to stay. The Moffs don't like the Sith, and it seems most never did. Strangely, it seems they knew it was Veed's fault, too... The Empire was good, it's just that authoritarian government attracts the power hungry - and that's so obvious it's almost not worth discussing. I mean, it's obvious why the Sith acted through the Empire and not the GA.
BobaMatt posted:Well, it was far from evil, for the most part, no?
BobaMatt posted:I've always been taught that, as a rule, Roman slavery wasn't nearly as cruel...