Legacy #4: Noob

I wouldn't be so sure about that. There's one thing I'd like to know, and that is when did the Sith take over the Empire? At the time they slaughtered the Jedi and Cade was a boy, or later, when Cade was grown? Because if latter, Karr could've joined the Empire when it hadn't been under Sith control and then, as the Sith took over, had only waited for a chance to do what he did in Legacy #4... but, that's a lot of speculation, I'd say we just wait, see and hope that we'll get more of him and the Mandos.

 

If Ostrander works like JJM (I hope he does), he doesn't make stuff up on the spot - the scripts for X issues forward are pre-written, it is the art that consumes most of the time.

 

Hopefully.

Karr can't have been with the Empire for more than a year or two at the most, I'd guess, given the way he chafes under being ordered around.

 

So what is the difference between the Empires of Fel and Krayt then?
The Empire under Fel does not have any room for free thinking either.
The Fel loyalists and the Imperial Knights seem to be blindly loyal
too and that scene in Bastion shows that is what Fel excepts from
them. Krayt followers just follow blindly whoever is on the throne,
Fel loyalists the person who was on the throne and the Fel dynasty.

 

At least Fel didn't hand the military over to creepy guys who're greeted by "Oh, Sith me".

 

Can't be. The Sith won.

 

The latter is outright evil, while the former is at worst morally ambiguous.

There's no evidence to support that yet.

Only from a certain point of view...

And that is as it should be.

 

That's near sig-worthy.

 

The latter is outright evil, while the former is at worst morally ambiguous... There's no evidence to support that yet... Only from a certain point of view... And that is as it should be.

We have no clear proof of either the Empires being evil or "morally ambiguous".
We can expect the Sith to be "outright evil" because Sith have had a tendency be that in the past, but we have seen very little of either Empires at this point and what we have seen may not be typical.

Overall, the authors probably agree with you. But I see the difference between the
Sith Empire and the Remnant of the Fel Empire in the same way that one could
have viewed Soviet Union and China during their border skirmishes in 1969. One
may have been worse than the other, but if alive then I would have supported neither.

In the fight between the Empires of Krayt and Roan Fel we know that the Sith will
lose. But from an in-universe point of view I claim that victory for the Sith
against Roan Fel could be a good thing. The Sith Empires are unbalanced things
who tend to be destroyed by inner turmoil. The Fel Empire has the makings of
a more solid totalitarian regime that could survive for a long time. The Imperial
Knights lack the inner division that the Sith have and could be a solid
foundation for reign of oppression that could last for millennia. (Now that I
think of it, they seem to be the kind of thing that Darth Rivan was after
with his Battlelords.)

What we have seen about Roan Fel seems to indicate that he believes that he
is the rightful ruler of the entire galaxy as much as Darth Krayt does believe
the same about himself. And neither was elected by the people of the galaxy.
Neither has the right to rule the galaxy. We even do not know what kind of
justification the Fel dynasty has to rule the Imperial Remnant, but I doubt
that the first Fel Emperor was elected in a national referendum. In the end
Darth Krayt is probably the more dangerous of the pair, but the Sith being
as self-destructive us they are, victory for Roan Fel and the establishment of
his way of rule over most of the galaxy could well be worse in the longer run.

 

Aesthetically, Fel's Empire is indeed far less evil than Krayt's Empire. That's good enough for me.

 

Maybe, but Krayt's is so much cooler.

I mean look at the differences, in one you have weird old human guys controlling sectors, in the other you have lietrally powerful aliens with tattos and the bloodthirstiness of.....something very bloodthirsty.

 

I hate "literally powerful" aliens. Having to deal with literally powerful human Force-users is quite bad enough.

Sith are outright evil. Sorry, but that's what defines them.

Yes, they "probably" only stated that the Fel Empire is not inherently evil as Palpatine's was.

For my part, I see the difference as being comparable to the Ottoman Empire vs the Spanish or Holy Roman Empires, circa 1683. The latter we may not find entirely agreeable with our rarified sense of rights and privileges, but in a trice would defend them to the death against the former.

Besides, the Sith are far more flamboyant than the Soviets or Chicoms could ever hope to be.

Rather like the Jedi-sponsored Republics and Alliances, oddly enough.

And I hope it does, but there's a difference between totalitarianism, and the kind of Empire Roan Fel seems to lead.

No, we haven't.

Aside from the fact that popular acclaim is ultimately meaningless with regards to whether a ruler can be considered good or not, we can't say for certain that Fel wasn't chosen by his people. Remember his speech at Bastion?

"I am, by right of birth and choice, your true Emperor!"

Now, granted, this may refer to nothing more than his choice to rule as Emperor, but that's less likely, and less logical, than the other conclusion. Note also, that he asks his subjects to take back "our Empire", rather than "my Empire".

According to what, pray tell? Rights in the political sense are ultimately only determined, and preserved, by the use of force, or the threat of it.

 

I agree with Quiet_Mandalorian.

The context of whether or not someone has the right to rule is determined solely by force of arms. Clearly, the Imperials would fight to the death for Emperor Fel and his forces. It's why I enjoy rooting for Zeon in Gundam.

Quiet Mandalorian: *twitch*

Because, yes, the Zeon guys are ruled by a a variety of nasty dictators but they darn well WANT to be. It's what Timothy Zhan was willing to address in that not everyone wants a Republican and egalitarian form of government.

However, what does this mean? It means that either they have to show that Emperor Fel is beloved by the people OR they have to show that there are insurgents (like the Galactic Core Forces) willing to force Fel off their worlds in a manner that is visually appealing to the audience.

Edit: ....you know, I have no idea if that post made any sense.

 

I might too if I bothered to watch it.

Actually, it was more of this:

I think we're going to be getting both, actually, though not "insurgents" but rather opposition from regular GACF (Gack-Fuh) units, at least until Cade gets his act together, which will of course serve as the catalyst for all the various factions to gang up on the Sith.

Oh, it was adequate, certainly.

 

For my part, I see the difference as being comparable to the Ottoman Empire vs the Spanish or Holy Roman Empires, circa 1683. The latter we may not find entirely agreeable with our rarified sense of rights and privileges, but in a trice would defend them to the death against the former.

I would not. The ruler of Poland-Lithuania, king Jan III Sobieski(1674-1696)
came to the rescue of Vienna in 1683 - thinking along the same lines as you -
and how did the Habsburgs reward the Polish? By taking part in the three
divisions of Poland-Lithuania in 1772, 1792 and 1795, after the last of
which Poland-Lithuania ceased to exist. That is the reward of choosing
apparently "lesser evil" over "bigger evil". In the long run, the supposed
"lesser evil" became the bigger one. And that is how I see the Empire of
Roan Fel. In the short run it is the lesser evil, but in the longer run it
could be the bigger one. The Sith will destroy themselves after Krayt is
out of the picture, the Jedi will rally once again. But victory of Roan
Fel could create a stable dictatorship which could survive for a long time.

Rather like the Jedi-sponsored Republics and Alliances, oddly enough.

The Pre-Ruusan Old Republic survived for 24 000 years, after the Ruusan
reformation the reformed Old Republic survived for almost a 1000 years, New
Republic some 23 years and Galactic Alliance apparently 102 years.

The old Sith Empire that existed 6900-4990 BBY was small and cut off from
the main galactic civilization, which caused it to survive, when it came
to contact with the Republic it was destroyed in 10 years; the Sith Empire
of Exar Kun did not last two years(3997-3996 BBY); the Sith Empire of Darth
Revan and Darth Malak lasted for 3 years(3959-3956 BBY); the new Sith Empire
of Darth Ruin survived for a 1000 years but was destroyed because of the
infighthing and backstabbing among the Sith, how succesful it really was
is hard to say because most of the era is still very vague; the Galactic
Empire of Palpatine survived a total of 30 years from the declaration of
the Empire to his last death(19 BBY-11 ABY).

So there is a world of difference between the states the Jedi have
supported and the Sith Empires.

And I hope it does, but there's a difference between totalitarianism, and the kind of Empire Roan Fel seems to lead.

And what would that be? There is no hint of evidence so far that I
know which would show that Roan Fel is not a authoritarian dictator
and that his Empire is anything but a rigid, totalitarian state. Of
course, we really have not seen him lead anything really. Nor Krayt
his own Empire. We have seen Krayt, the Dark Lord of the Sith, not
as much Krayt, the Galactic Emperor.

Aside from the fact that popular acclaim is ultimately meaningless with regards to whether a ruler can be considered good or not, we can't say for certain that Fel wasn't chosen by his people. Remember his speech at Bastion?

"I am, by right of birth and choice, your true Emperor!"

Popular acclaim is not meaningless. A historian can say that it is ultimately
meaningless, but only afterwards the ruler has been dead for some time and the
true magnitude of his achievements and/or failures can be seen objectively.
But popular acclaim or the lack of it often decides the fate of rulers. If
there would be no public pressure, sense of being fed up with him that polls
show, Tony Blair would not be leaving next year from the office of Prime Minister,
but would be sticking for his job for couple of years more.

We can not say anything about how Fel was chosen, the authors do say that
the Empire is not democratic and as Fel himself seems to have chosen his
daughter as his heir against the will of at least part of the Moffs I
personally presume that Roan Fel was chosen as heir by his father Fel II
and that the Moffs gave a consent to this, perhaps freely, perhaps not.
What Fel says could indicate that the position of the Emperor is inherited
in his dynasty but that there is no primogeniture and that

 

Thanks a lot QM, now I'll never be able to hear about the Galactic Alliance Core Forces without laughing.

 

Of course you wouldn't.

Because as we all know, being forced to abandon the faith of your fathers at sword-point, or pay the jizya and endure carefully calculated casual cruelties in what amounts to an instititutionalized cultivation of Stockholm Syndrome on a national level is so much better than being ruled by your fellow Christians for the next few hundred years.

Naturally.

Fixed.

And both went down in monumental corruption after a long period of seemingly-inexorable decay.

There's a world of difference between the Fel Empire and the Sith Empires.

Hint One: "by choice."

Hint Two: Fel has to garner the support of the Moff Council if he wants to get anything done, at least during peacetime. Hardly an example of authoritarian dictatorship.

But has nothing to do with whether a ruler rules well or not.

An example limited in its application to the contemporary Western world.

Absence of a democratic government does not in any way automatically equate to tyranny.

So far as I'm aware, the Kims, if they can be properly considered a dynasty, have followed something more or less like traditional primogeniture in terms of the succession of power, though they rule a "People's Democratic Republic" rather than an openly-proclaimed Empire. What you're describing is more like Imperial succession in the Roman Empire following Augustus.

Just your opinion.

Yes.

 

Because as we all know, being forced to abandon the faith of your fathers at sword-point, or pay the jizya and endure carefully calculated casual cruelties in what amounts to an instititutionalized cultivation of Stockholm Syndrome on a national level is so much better than being ruled by your fellow Christians for the next few hundred years.

First of all, the possible fall of Vienna to the Ottoman Empire would
not have endangered Polish-Lithuania itself but probably would have had
opened to it possibilities of carving to itself pieces from the Habsburg
realm - of course assuming that the Ottoman Empire could have gained any
permanent gains, which would have been anything but certain. Instead, it
was Polish-Lithuania that was carved into pieces by its Christian neighbours.
And as the crushing of the Polish rebellions of 1831 and 1863 by Russia
showed, "fellow Christians" could be pretty cruel toward each other.

And the siege of Vienna was just a generation after "fellow Christians"
had devastated Germany in the Thirty Years War(1618-1648) because they
did not accept the religious choices their brethren did.

Hint Two: Fel has to garner the support of the Moff Council if he wants to get anything done, at least during peacetime. Hardly an example of authoritarian dictatorship.

You have to have your very own definition of authoritarian dictatorship.
Theoretically it seems likely that the Emperor in the Reborn Empire
may need the official support of the Moff Council; in reality a weak
Emperor may have to obey the Moffs, a powerful Emperor maybe able to
dictate his own will to the Moffs. The fact that the Emperor had to
share some of the power with the Moffs does not mean that the Empire
is not an authoritarian dictatorship; all dictatorships have different
layers at their top. Hardly in any dictatorship the figurehead has
absolute freedom to act without having to have any counsel with his
subordinates. Also the meek reaction of the Moffs to the coup made
by Darth Krayt shows that the Moff Council may be nothing more than
the personal rubber stamp of the Emperor.

Absence of a democratic government does not in any way automatically equate to tyranny.

Yes it does. Government which is not elected by the individual members
it supposedly represents is a tyranny. If you can not have any influence on
the government of the society you live in, then you live under a tyranny.

An example limited in its application to the contemporary Western world.

Not really. Even autocratic rulers have to take in to account the "will of
the people". The Eastern Roman Emperor Constans II(641-668) first forced his
younger brother become a monk, then blinded and finally murdered him. This
made him a rather unpopular in Constantinople by both the high and mighty
and the masses and was perhaps one of his reasons to embark on his Sicilian expedition. And there the support costs of his troops made the local populace
soon grow to dislike his presence and a local noble forced one of his slaves
to kill the Emperor when he was in bath, hoping thus that after the death of
the Emperor the military expedition would be abandoned and things would
return to normal. So, even a despot has to take in to consideration the
opinion of the populace.

So far as I'm aware, the Kims, if they can be properly considered a dynasty, have followed the normal route of primogeniture. What you're describing is more like Imperial succession in the Roman Empire following Augustus.

Not really. The heir apparent of Kim Il-Sung was for a long time his
brother Kim Young-Ju, not his eldest surviving son Kim Il-Jong. Kim
Il-Jong has apparently not yet chosen his successor and the suggestion
by his brother-in-law Chang Song-Taek couple of years ago that
Kim Il-Jong would make his nephew his successor instead of any of his
own sons earned the brother-in-law a vacation in a labour camp.

In the Roman Empire the successor chosenby the Emperor could come outside
his family, even if later famil

 

Nonsense. If the Ottomans had captured Vienna, it would have been nothing short of disastrous for Europe.

Oh, no doubt, but in the long run things worked out much better than they would have if the Turks had been victorious, and no one would have wished for that, however hostile or oppressive their neighbours were.

And? I assume you're trying to make some kind of point here.

Funny, I would have thought that there should only be one definition for everyone.

Congratulations. You've just described every government on planet Earth.

No, it doesn't.

The original meaning of the word "tyrant" described someone who overthrew the legitimate government in the manner of a revolutionary. Nowadays, the meaning has been extended to cover cruel or oppressive rule as well as describing someone governing without legal warrant, but whether the common people have a say in how the government is run has no bearing on whether that government can be called tyrannical.

But not to the extreme extent that an elected official does.

Yes, actually.

And Kim Jong-il inherited rule of North Korea from his father, which is how primogeniture, the right of the eldest child to inherit the father's property and position, generally works.

Exactly.

I thought so.

As credible as, say, claiming the opposite, without bothering to explain why?

The fact that rule of law, in fact any rule, ultimately hinges on the capacity for violence in defense of that rule, should be self-evident. What

 

In the midst of all this, I'd like to make a few points about The Empire in Legacy.

The role of the Emperor is not absolute. Says that in 0. And it makes sense if you think of this Empire growing out of the formner Imperial Remnant. In that sense, it was not a dictatorship but an oligarchy. The Moffs, as stated in 0, are not monolithic. Not a single munded unit. Morlish Veed, in particular, harbors ambitions for the throne -- he expected the Sith to put him there when Roan Fel was deposed.

The Imperial Mission was created to spread the influence of the Empire -- for example, by offering help and support to planets ravaged in the YV War. It has very good people, such as Astraal Vao, who are dedicated members. Through such acts, the imfluence of the Empire has grown.

Roan Fel went to Bastion and had to win the support of the troopers there. Granted, he would not have gone if he didn't think that was likely but he still had to stir them to choose him. Some of the younger officers obviously would not. I'm not going to tell you Roan Fel is a NICE man. But I'd suggest there are gradations -- it's not simply is he good or bad. How good and how bad are most of the characters in LEGACY -- including Cade?

You'll be learning more about all this as we go. We're only on issue 4, after all. I would like to suggest there may be more than one side to most of these characters. And some may change or be changed as we go.

Anyway, that's MY take on it. Your mileage may vary.

-- John

 

I suppose it may, but it is your story after all, isn't it?

For myself, I don't believe that the Fel Empire is a utopia in any sense, but I've always liked the Empire in Star Wars, and if Roan Fel and his Empire turn out to be honourable as I hope, it'll just make Legacy all that much more awesome.

Anyway, let me say that I'm grateful for this largesse you've deigned to dispense upon us, descending from your lofty perch to speak with the commons and all.

 

I think his point Quiet_Mandalorian is that the entire Christian kingdoms of the region could be replaced with a dancing polar bear and it would have been better for the region. The Turks and the Ottomon Empire ability to spread their influence from their current position is debatable given that they were effectively on their last legs to begin with.

(World War 1 shows that their control over ANY region was causal at best. A Vienna ruled by the Turks would be no different than these states in which tribute was taken and no change was made to the local populous)

 

Chuck, exactly what makes you think I didn't already conclude that's what he was trying to say?

Given that they still possessed adequate resources and energy to mount further invasion attempts in the years afterward, I'd say that assumption's a bit premature.

There were no such instances, I'm afraid. Changes to the local populace were inevitable.

 

A premature statement perhaps. The Empire's rule over a very ethnically and culturally diverse populous lead to its removal not changing much because the upper class failed to integrate a single mass culture.

Sort of like how the Mongols didn't change the Chinese.

I'm not saying things wouldn't be different but I'm not sure the Muslim Europe (and thus world) you're envisioning would have come about.