Lit Long Wars and canon Star Wars

Discussion in 'Literature' started by StarWarsFan91, Sep 13, 2017.

  1. StarWarsFan91 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2008
    star 4
    While real life is filled with long lasting wars, it seems canon star wars is far more limiting.

    Clone Wars, only 3 years.

    Galactic Civil War cut back to 5 years instead of the war ending 19 years after ANH in Legends.

    First Order vs NR/Resistence could be even shorter then 5 years with no time jump between TFA and TLJ.

    With the decanization of the EU we also lost several long running Jedi vs Sith wars, though im gratefully the hundred year darkness survived in some form via reference in a comic.

    Unfortunately while a war that spans generations such as the 100yr darkness as some good potential, it being set more then 6,000 yrs before the films creates strong uncertainty we will see it soon or ever. I think its likely that Disney doesn't want to take the risk.

    We could have got a war lasting longer then 10 years in modern star wars if Disney allowed the civil war more time. It didn't have to last as long as it did in Legends, but it should have gone beyond 1 year after RoTJ. Wanting more peace time between RoTJ and TFA im sure had a hand in that decision to limit the war to 5 years.

    Also because a lot happens in the clone wars and 5yr Civil War, the powers that be still have room for more stories about those 2 significant wars, meaning that they may think a long lasting conflict isn't needed in star wars, because even 3 years can give you a lot of material.

    So do you believe that if we get another war set after the ST or 1000+ yrs pre-TPM, that for once we see a conflict that is longer then what we have witnessed previously in the new canon?

    I'm all for seeing a war that goes on longer if Darth Bane's era graces our screen in a future trilogy or tv show. Doesn't have to have roots that go back 1000yrs like Legends did. But have the last war between Jedi vs Sith armies start when Bane was a boy or before he was born. Giving us both the 1st generation of the war who are now old (and many dead), to a younger generation of people who don't remember a peace time galaxy.
    Last edited by StarWarsFan91, Sep 13, 2017
  2. Darth Caliban Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2015
    star 4
    I wonder if the Stark Hyperspace War will be some day recanonized and if that's a good idea?

    It was very regional and brief. So that there is no big problem with the statement that the Clone Wars are the first big war after a thousand years.
  3. Coherent Axe Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Dec 20, 2016
    star 1
    I think there has to be a pre-Clone Wars conflict of some kind, if only because of the curious reference to the Battle of Malastare Narrows. That dialogue feels like the writers wanted the Clone Wars to have a much longer history than it actually does, in order for Anakin and others to become veterans during it.
  4. jamminjedi23 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 19, 2015
    star 4
    Long drawn out wars don't really work too well in a movie universe. You would generally want most wars that happened to be told in the movies and movies (or set of movies) need a defined beginning and a defined end for narrative reasons.

    With the way things are headed I don't see that changing much either. It is looking like the ST will end with the First Order being defeated and Rey and Luke starting their new Order. So there is naturally going to be a fair amount of peace time again to allow that New Order to grow and prosper. Then later on after the New Order has had time to get its feet firmly planted on the ground I imagine some kind of conflict will arise (possibly from within) that will splinter the Order and we will have armies of Force Users battling eachother again.
  5. SilentGuy66 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 1, 2014
    star 4
    The malastre narrows thing really threw me when I first heard it because I automatically assumed it was a clone wars battle even though that episode was set in it's early days and therefore couldn't be included in Anakin's "military history"

    I agree with the OP in that it's sort of weird that (canon) star wars.... wars? Are all too brief, I mean a galatic wide war with two sides that will never run out of soldiers (they can literally just grow new clones and build more droids) and it all get's wrapped in in less time than it took our planet to get through world war II?!
    Sarge and SpecForce Trooper like this.
  6. jamminjedi23 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 19, 2015
    star 4
    True. However the Dark Times era is actually pretty realistic in that it was a slow steady build up to an all out war. Seldom (if ever) do wars lasting decades or more consist of constant battling. Generally speaking there are relative peace times and then periods where constant battling does occur. Technically the First Order vs the New Republic/Resistance is just round two of the Galactic Cival War anyways.
    JediBatman and Sarge like this.
  7. SpecForce Trooper Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 2016
    star 4
    Legacy, while longer than a film series, shows an eight year war preceded by a three year war. The story starts off long after the beginning and gradually fleshes out the previous years. I see no reason why the next film series couldn't do the same.
    Last edited by SpecForce Trooper, Sep 13, 2017
    spicer likes this.
  8. Daneira Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2016
    star 4
    If Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito were all in a room together and were killed, then someone pressed a button that deactivated all of their soldiers, and FDR was really just playing both sides, then yes, WWII could've ended pretty quickly.
    MrDarth0, AV-6R7, JediBatman and 3 others like this.
  9. TrandoJedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2011
    star 4
    I'd love the old wars from the Old Republic days just to reenter canon, I'd be shocked to see Disney actually do anything in that era. I've always deeply disliked the Clone Wars happening in a timespan of only three years, just like I disliked the focus being clones vs. droids instead of clones on all sides with civil wars on all sides throughout the conflict. Before the prequels I pictured the fall of the Jedi and rise of the Empire happening well after the Clone Wars not at the end of it, and the Empire actually being involved with the Clone Wars as a faction separate from the Republic.
    Sarge and Darth Caliban like this.
  10. Jedi Ben Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 19, 1999
    star 7
    In the case of the Clone Wars, it's due to the one guy running both sides!

    I'm not convinced there's anything that requires wars be long - sure WW1 and WW2 are the high profile, but equally there's things like the Six Day War in '73, the Gulf Wars '91 and '03, all far shorter affairs.

    If anything, it could be argued that the more destructive technology becomes, the greater the likelihood of shorter, more destructive and violent conflicts between mismatched adversaries.
  11. comradepitrovsky Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2017
    star 3
    Eh, Ben has it. Modern warfare has made wars briefer, not longer, and given how important the CIC is in SW, and the capability for decapitation strikes, I think that they'd tend towards shorter.
  12. Darth Caliban Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2015
    star 4
    That's true if the ways of warfare change through new inventions of before unseen weapons technology like during world war 1 and 2 for example.

    But in the Star Wars Universe the technologies stayed mostly the same during most of it's history. At least if we consider Legends for the timespans we have no canon information about.
    SpecForce Trooper and Jedi Ben like this.
  13. StarWarsFan91 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2008
    star 4
    A modern example of long war is USA and allies fighting taliban and others in Afghanistan since 2001. Because long conflicts were more common in past, if Star Wars gave us one in the ToR eras, that would make sense. Having various Sith Empires existing throughout time with resources and armies at their disposal, mixed with dark emotions, a long battle is expected. Also with the mandalorians being more focused on war and a planet surface not decimated by conflict, could lead to them constantly fighting and expanding before eventually being put down by Republic/Jedi. I want to see that conflict be at least 10 years running.
    Last edited by StarWarsFan91, Sep 13, 2017
  14. comradepitrovsky Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2017
    star 3
    The war in Afghanistan could be compared to the twenty year old Galactic Civil War...
    SpecForce Trooper likes this.
  15. The Positive Fan Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 19, 2015
    star 4
    Personally, I argue against the GCW lasting only five years. Yes, I know that's what Wookieepedia says* but they're placing the start of the war at 0 BBY, which makes no sense in light of what we now know about the time between ROTS and R1. The Rebel Alliance was founded two years prior to the Yavin, and we know there were unorganized Rebel cells openly fighting the Empire as early as 18 BBY. IMO the GCW actually lasted from seven to twenty-three years, depending I suppose on how strict you want to be with the definition of "galactic civil war."

    *Wookieepedia cites Galactic Maps as its source for claiming that the war started in 0 BBY, but darned if I can find anything like that stated in Galactic Maps and even if it does say that somewhere, I wouldn't be convinced it's right.
    Jedi Ben likes this.
  16. jamminjedi23 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 19, 2015
    star 4
    Things were definitely brewing for many years prior to 0ABY but they didn't get into open warfare until Yavin (or more specifically now Scariff).

    Mon Mothma even says in the trailer for next season that they are not yet ready for open warfare.
    SpecForce Trooper likes this.
  17. Coherent Axe Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Dec 20, 2016
    star 1
    And Vader's incredulity at "an Imperial facility openly attacked", as well as Jebel shouting about Draven blowing up an Imperial base make it sound like the Alliance hasn't formally launched any major assaults against the Empire, individual cells notwithstanding, so if that's the line canon is keeping, then Eadu/Scarif would indeed be the start of open warfare.
    Daneira likes this.
  18. Charlemagne19 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2000
    star 8
    Mind you, in Star Wars, any ground war is going to end very quickly if they secure the space around it if the slightest realism is applied.

    Which it never should be.
    Sarge likes this.
  19. Chris0013 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2014
    star 4
    Everything before the Clone Wars was probably bush wars, border disputes and the like. Small local conflicts that would naturally flare up from time to time in such a large and diverse galaxy. The Clone Wars was like WWI and WWII.
    JediBatman and Sarge like this.
  20. Sarge Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 1998
    star 6
    I joined the Air Force in 89 and I was still in technical training less than a year later when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Just a few months later I was in Desert Shield/Storm. When I finished my Air Force career and retired in 09, we were still at war with Iraq. So I find long dragged out wars that go hot and cold to be totally believable. It's not always about the military tactics and strategies; it's often the politics that keep it going on and on.
  21. The Positive Fan Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 19, 2015
    star 4
    If you're going to establish that the GCW was fought between the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire, and then not count all the actions that happened prior to Eadu/Scarif on the grounds that they were fought by individual cells and not "the Rebel Alliance," then yes, you can rationalize a 0 BBY start date for the war. But isn't that really just semantics? Atollon, the Sovereign, the Perilous...open warfare against the Empire had already been going on for years by the time of Eadu/Scarif/Yavin, whether or not enough checkboxes had been checked to officially label it a "galactic civil war."
  22. JediBatman Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 3, 2015
    star 3
    Relevant quote from John Jackson Miller on the Mandalorian Wars:

    Now I think the Clone Wars or GCW could have been extended by a year or two (just because an awful lot happens in a very short amount of time, and the Rebellion goes from holding almost no territory to holding almost ALL the territory in less than a year). But I don't think we really need a decade long war. It doesn't serve the story. In fact, it could make it seem like the Galaxy is in a constant state of crisis and that our heroes can never catch a break.
    The Positive Fan and spicer like this.
  23. StarWarsFan91 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2008
    star 4
    Clone Wars was more like the first "WW2" people remembered. That's what you get with 1000yrs of peace with only some small battles as examples of war.

    We still don't know how big ancient sith conflicts got. Though im betting at least one sith war reached close to Clone Wars scale.
    Last edited by StarWarsFan91, Sep 14, 2017
  24. Chris0013 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2014
    star 4
    But those would be a long time ago....most people would probably not know all that much about it.

    What I would love to see is a new Essential Guide to Warfare / Essential Atlas. A multi volume set (maybe 10 volumes) that gives us a well detailed history of the GFFA with more detail on key figures, planets and events leading up to TPM...but leaves out any info on main characters that has not been presented in new canon. All writers working on SW would be required to read it and stick to the info in it. After that they can do additional volumes based on what goes on in the movies, cartoons, novels, etc...
    Last edited by Chris0013, Sep 14, 2017
  25. Duguay Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 30, 2002
    star 2
    This is the kind of thing that makes me think that the Star Wars franchise and galaxy could stand to be re-conceptualized in a major way, one final time. We've already seen GL wanting to re-define our perception of the movies and the franchise. From a potential series of serialized movies to a trilogy, trilogy to saga, saga to The Tragedy of Darth Vader. It may be that the title Star Wars isn't hampered by it's title suggesting that all it's stories have to have some war going on, even if it's in the background, but I've gotten the impression that some fans do feel that SW stories always require a war. This kind of thing makes me think of the earliest print editions of Splinter of the Mind's Eye, and the Han Solo Adventures; where you will not find the words "Star Wars" on the cover. The Han Solo books certainly do not try to put in any kind of full scale conflict in the background. Compare those to the Crispin's Solo books, where there is the sense that the author feels compelled to meet some kind of war content quota. I know the argument against deemphasizing or relabeling the galaxy/franchise currently known as SW is that an easy marketing crutch of easy recognition is then lost when trying to sell new merchandise.

    As for the actual length of the wars, well, it feels like it's gone wrong. Given that an early impression of the SW universe is one that doesn't have a strictly codify sense of the passage of time, before creators started coming up with timelines marking the passage of years, I've talked to people who had the impression that the original SW trilogy happens over the course of a decade, roughly. I'm inclined to apply that to the Galactic Civil War, 7-10 years. Maybe not the span of the movies, but the overall war itself, before and after the movies, I think 7-10 years. 5 seems awfully short, for a major war like that.

    It also kind of feels like the creators disregard the sense of the Clone Wars as a thing that would hover in the minds of fans that grew up with the original movies. With Luke Skywalker as a modern day Robin Hood or Arthur of Camelot or Perseus, the backstory for this new hero's adventure seems more grand and epic in it's implications. Not Clone War, but Clone Wars, plural. Some overlapping, others seperated by a span of 5 or ten years. What if there were three major clone wars (compare to WWI and WWII), and the last two happened a few years apart; and apply that to the exchange between Luke and Obi-Wan: "My father didn't fight in the Clone Wars" and "You fought in the Clone Wars, too?" And then we get that potential broad sweep of conflict reduced to a paltry number: 3 years. Just 3 dinky years, for that epic, galaxy spanning conflict. This seems very grave disservice to the build-up in older fans' collective imaginations...IMO.

    One final thought. I think it's still workable to make use of ongoing, and maybe even very long wars going on. I know that there's often a push with the writers to have the war's trajectory impacted by each movie coming out. There's definitely a push to wrap it up after 2 or 3 movies have come and gone. I think there's something to be said for having a war in the background, that may push the characters into a situation that is it's own story for the duration of a movie, without impacting on the overall war. Imagine if the Rogue One characters assembled for other reasons, and they had an adventure or two that wasn't connected directly to the war (and maybe came into conflicts on a planet where there's no Imperial presence). And then the fifth and last movie, they do The Death Star job. Just as a hypothetical.

    As an alternative approach, The Cold War has been used in SW in the past, and that seems like a good model for a long overall war with a lot of small proxy wars being fought in local places. You can still tap into the iconography of warriors from either side in new situations, if the core adversaries have a distinctive look the way the Imperial stormtroopers are such a clearly memorable representation of Imperial soldiery.