Are these all of the imperial warlords?

One must be extremely careful when interpreting information from The Dark Empire Sourcebook, as we've no idea what perspective it is from, what source "in-universe" generated it.

See the Connection Theory thread for dissenting interpretations of the presented evidence, Thanas.

 

Brett...
One does not need to be any more or less careful with the DES than with any other source.

Furthermore, it is most certainly corroborated by any of the other sources, such as the Essential Chronology or even what was presented in the Thrawn Trilogy itself. Or do you claim there's something that is somehow unclear by the Essential Chronology's account that:
"The resurrected Palpatine had done a better job of reuniting the Imperial factions than anyone before him, including Thrawn. Only the Emperor could rule the Empire..."

What is clearly stated is clearly interpreted and understood.

 

"Only the Emperor could rule the Empire" sounds more like a conclusion of opinion rather than fact.

 

Not until you actually look at the arbitrary and bewildering system of government comprised of overlapping and competing power and authority that was the Empire.

It is about as true a statement as exists in Star Wars - only the Emperor could rule the Empire. Because that's how the Empire was set up.

That much is at least corroborated by numerous sources, including the New Republic historian penned Imperial Sourcebook.

 

Genghis:
As a general historical tendancy, it is indeed more problematic attributing large degrees of faith to documents without a clear progenitor. Now I can't honestly state that this was immediately obvious to me, as it was indeed Leto that mentioned it to me, but if one is to examine the available information as a historian would, that's the way things would generally be done.

As for the quote from The Essential Chronology, don't get me wrong, it does state that Palpatine and his Byss faction was able to reunite virtually the entirety of the Empire, whereas there were an estimated six major warlords that Grand Admiral Thrawn was unable, unwilling, or unconcerned with bringing back into the fold. However, note that it states that *glances back and forth* El Clono ( ) reunited the Imperials...

Differences of interpretation are requisite to this sort of thing.


Variety is the spice of life and all that.

 

Did that admiral from Outcast, Hethrir and Jerec also constitute as warlords?

 

Personally, I would count Hethrir and Jerec as such, but the villian from Jedi Outcast actually seemed to be more of a rogue faction within the Empire proper than a genuine, all-out warlord.

 

Brett...
"As a general historical tendancy, it is indeed more problematic attributing large degrees of faith to documents without a clear progenitor."

Unfortunately there's a flaw with this. We know who the progenitor is for all of the sources cited, because it's printed in the front of each of the sources. For the Dark Empire Sourcebook, it is West End Games. For the Essential Chronology, it is Del Rey books. For Dark Empire, it is Dark Horse Comics.

Furthermore, we know the reasons for this as well. To give the facts of what happened for a given story. In the case of the Dark Empire Sourcebook, the purpose is to put in the hands of the reader, primarily a gamemaster (but not necessarily) who is the omnipotent god-emperor of his given scenario.

As such all reference books are created not to miscontstrue events.

Because they are all ultimately created by an impartial arbitor in the endeavor, Lucasfilm, Ltd or its subsidiaries and/or licensees.

"Now I can't honestly state that this was immediately obvious to me, as it was indeed Leto that mentioned it to me, but if one is to examine the available information as a historian would, that's the way things would generally be done."

The keyword being "in-universe," then yes, I would agree. But, that's not the case with canonized sources of Star Wars and especially when we are extra-dimensional/extra-universal gods to the fictional source material, characters, places, events, etc.

 

Perhaps I wasn't specific enough--I do that with an unnerving degree of regularity.


Unless a source has an in-universe origin, it is my opinion that it should be dealt with cautiously as a general rule. That's how I do things anyway. Your interpretation (while I admit to not fully understanding what it was you said at the end of your post) is just as valid as mine.

 

As to the last point, Genghis12, what would that make Lucas and the editors at Del Rey if we mere fanboys/girls are indeed "Q" like entities in the GFFA?

Incidentally, would the Prophets of the Darkside also be warlords?

 

Are we listing Imperial Warlords or discussing politics and what sources provide valueable, reliable information? What I saw on the first page suggested the former, but what I saw on the last to pages suggested the latter. Either way, I'd like to suggest adding Lord Shadowspawn to the list.

 

Point. Would that Harkov traitor count by the in-universe definition of warlord?

 

Harkov would be more of a Rebel than a warlord, same deal with Zaarin. Warlords had more than just a few ships, they had territory to keep them going long-term, and acquire new ones. People like Zsinj and Teradoc certainly were warlords, but I don't count Harkov/Zaarin as such.

 

I don't know. It seems that the warlords could be divided into two categories, the major warlords who had both territory and a military force and the minor warlords who merely had a military force.

 

What about the post-Darksaber warlords, who had little or no military might, but still had territorial holdings?

 

Probably in the technical term, yes. (Leonia Tavira was considered a warlord by NRI.)

 

Little or no military might does not always mean little or no military at all. I'd still say as long as they have a military of any kind they fit into the major worlords category because they also have territorial holdings. No military of any kind but with military but with territorial holdings could fit them into the minor warlord category, though I'd be more likely to view them as wannabe warlords.

 

Is Trioculus a warlord?

Or is he merely a puppet for the Moffs.

You could also label Ysanne Isard as a warlord.

 

We need more villains like Mr Zsinj. Fat, sweating under pressure, fallible, jolly---he was human and credible to readers.

 

Yeah, and dialogue between Zsinj and General Melvar was classic.

 

Personally, he came across as the classic superior than thou villian. Putting on this big theatrical attitude for friend and foe alike and amplifying it even more so when around those who weren't his most trusted friends. It just always feels like a "Here, this is who I am" kind of presentation while he's secertly saying "yeah simpleton, buy into what you see cause when I display my true superiority to you you're not going to see where it's coming from."

 

I just wish he hadn't looked so British in the NEGtC and the Essential Chronology. Zsinj speaking like an Oxford don doesn't seem right, somehow.

 

Sorry I could not reply any sooner.... Christmas stress.....



***************
Did the Emperor die? NO
Did the Emperor relinquish leadership of the Empire? NO
Was the Emperor in command of the Empire during his post-ROTJ period on Byss? YES
***************

Point 2 and 3: highly debatable. Show evidence that Emperor Palpatine controlled the Empire from Byss, and not Isard, Thrawn etc. The empire followed their orders, not Palpys.
That means he did not control the empire.
(Stealing supplies, encouraging officers to mutiny and to join him does not make you leader of the empire. By that definition, Pirates are leaders of the empire)

The only part from which I view Palpy as legitimate is from Episode I to ROTJ, and from the point where the Imperial starfleet swears allegiance to him in DE to his death in Empire's End.

Because at that point, the powers of the empire relinquished control over to him. Like they did with Thrawn. Or Pellaeon.

You say that Palpatine survived. But this was unknwon to the galaxy.

We have Captain Pellaeon declaring that the emperor is dead (ROTJ), and we have Skywalker claiming that the Emperor is dead in Empire's End.
Both times the emperor is proclaimed to be legally dead. Both times the Moffs hand over power to somebody they beleive in. Now are these people legitimate successors of Palpatine?

You might hold the opinion that an empire dies with its ruler. However, most empires survive without him. The case of Octavian and Vestasian is a prime example.

Neither Octavian nor any of his relatives
named Vestasian as their successor. Yet there is no doubt that when he was nominated by the Senate and when the legions swore loyalty to him, he was the legitimate successor.

That is about the same case which happened with Thrawn. The Emperor was proclaimed dead, and the political and military powers swore allegiance to Thrawn.
By every definition, Thrawn was the legitimate leader of the empire.


**************

On a side note, what about Liaana?
Or the four Royal Guards from YJK?
Would they be considered warlords as well?


EDIT: Ghenghis, maybe it would be better if we star a seperate thread for this... Do you want me to do it?

 

Who's Liaana?

I don't really think the four YJK Guardsmen would count, them seem more like con artists.

 

Speaking of which, would a warlord have to be a reasonably high ranking officer or maybe just junior grade or NCO who comes up with his/her own fancy plans?