PT Sio Bibble says 'there hasn't been a full scale war since the formation of the Republic'

As far as I can deduct, this is completely wrong. First of all, the Republic was formed about 25,000 BBY? If that is correct there have been several wars since then, I wonder which one you think he is referring to around that time, and also, could he just mean that there hasn't been a full scale war since the Republic was reformed after the New Sith Wars? If so then he is correct as far as I know, but the formation of the Republic was definitely not the last full scale war. Am I just being pedantic, or is it reasonable for me to make these points? I am also wondering about which war he could be referring to, The Great Schism perhaps? Discuss your thoughts. I am curious.\

QGR Edit: Moved over here from SWC.

 

You may want to pose that question to the Prequel forum. This is a social forum.

http://boards.theforce.net/prequel_trilogy/b10669/p1

 

No, it's not. It's the EU who should adapt to the movies, and not the other way around.

 

Maybe Bibble just got it wrong? He's an old man who thinks power outages=invasion from outside forces (Imagine what he thinks every time a lightbulb in his house goes out).

 

Just another classic example of the stellar amount of cohesion from one side of the franchise, to the other. Left, meet right. Right, meet left... now can u both type on the same keyboard, please?

Which is worse: being off by 25,000 years, or off by a thousand generations?

 

Sio Bibble hadn't read any EU.

 

Naboo was no EU zone I always took to mean there were skirmishes and disputes but they were also isolated to a certain sector or system but there was never a war that involved the entire Republic.

 

Disregarding the EU, and taking into account both Obi-Wan's "for a thousand generations..." and the combination of both Palpatine's and Sio Bibble's lines, it is easy to deduce an explanation.

Simply put, the 'Old Republic' was founded c.25,000 BBY, however this does not necessarily constitute a single continuous nation from then until 19 BBY. Much like the French Republics' it is apparent that the 1000 BBY - 19 BBY state - what we will call, for the sake of this discussion, the Second Republic - was indeed founded at c.1000 BBY. This state is separated from the 'First Republic' by a constitutional change, making the two states technically separate, yet part of the same 'nation'. We can thus assume that Obi-Wan was referring to the 'Old Republic' as a collective term for both the First and Second Republics, while Palpatine and Sio Bibble were referring to the Second 'modern' Republic which had existed since 1000 years prior.

So what they were all saying is true. The Jedi were the "guardians of peace and justice" during the collective Old Republic(s). Likewise there had not been a "full-scale war" (meaning 'World War' scenario) since the formation of the 'Second Republic' (what is simply called 'the Republic').


In my canon there exists the following:

Ancien Republic (c.25,000 BBY - 1000 BBY)
First Republic (1000 BBY - 19 BBY)
Second Republic (4 ABY - )

However that's just my personal opinion on the matter (although the principle is the same).

 

^ Great explanation, I think that view works.

 

Right, many mistakenly think Sio's referring to the first Republic in 25,000 BBY, but as Sinrebirth says above Sio's actually referring to the Republic created after the Ruusan Reformation of 1,000 BBY.

 

He was referring to the full scale war that happened a 1000 years before the formation of the Republic. You know the one between Richard Simmons and Lady Gaga?

 

This sums up my view on it as well. However, based on your previous paragraph, shouldn't it be:

First Republic (c.25,000 BBY - 1000 BBY) - "Old Republic"
Second Republic (1000 BBY - 19 BBY) - "The Republic" of the PT
Third Republic (4 ABY - ) - "The New Republic" inferred to be formed after ROTJ

As well as the French Republics, it reminds me of the German "Reichs":

First Reich - Holy Roman Empire (962-1806)
Second Reich - German Empire/"Weimar" Republic (1871-1933)
Third Reich - Nazi Germany (1933-1945)

That ties into the Star Wars PT's allusions to the fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Hitler. However, Palpatine comes across as a lot more reasonable in his pre-Empire days than Hitler ever did, so the allegory is slightly blurry...

 

Sio was referring to the reformation, or rebirth of the Republic after the New Sith Wars called the Ruusan Reformation. The Republic did see some minor conflicts though like the Stark Hyperspace War, but nothing major.

 

Certainly, however as I said my list was adjusted for my own opinions on the names of the states. Taking into account the fact Bail Organa clearly says "we can not let one thousand years of democracy disappear" I have have developed the theory that the pre-1000 BBY Republic was only Republic by name rather than as an actual functioning Republican system; maybe as a UN-type system. This - as well as the fact I like the notion of the 1000 - 19 Republic being the First Republic in title - is why I name the c.25000-1000 Republic the 'Ancien' Republic, like the 'Ancien Regime' of France. Heck, maybe the "Old Republic" was a monarchy and was a 'monarchical republic'. Its simply the title I choose to give it. However using your model:

First Republic (c.25,000 BBY - 1000 BBY) - "Old Republic"
Second Republic (1000 BBY - 19 BBY) - "The Republic" of the PT; part of the "Old Republic" collective after 19 BBY
Third Republic (4 ABY - ) - "The new Republic" inferred to be formed after ROTJ

That's the basic answer to the question. I do however dislike the term 'New Republic' as the official title of the 4 ABY nation. I think it better it just be called the 'Galactic Republic' which had already gone through two different incarnations.

Certainly. Analogies can also be drawn with Italy and, of course, the Roman states. Basically it is an analogy for the fall of Republics and the rise of Empires. Palpatine's rise is really the amalgamation of Hitler, Napoleon and Caesar, with Hitler's obviously aligning the most.

 

Some problems with your theory,

Both Obi-Wan and Tarkin use the phrase "THE Old Republic" when talking about the past. Notice the singular form, not old republics or something. Tarkin even says with the dissolving of the senate the last remnats of the OLD Republic has been swept away. So it seems like the Old Republic had existed in part until then. So if there had been a second republic that was not called the Old republic but instead the second republic or just the republic why was not that phrase used? So from what they say it sounds like the OLD republic had been in continued existence for over 25 000 years.

Second, about the lack of war. In TPM the TF army is refered to as "battle hardened" implying they have seen lots of action. And in AotC we hear about Kamino and how they have been making clone armies for some time. Why make armies if there is no war?

Regards
Nordom

 

This is just a collective term. Remember we are talking about a constitutional change, something only politicians are going to distinguish between when formally speaking (like the meetings we hear the 1000 year Republic talked about). It is reasoable to think that after the rise of the Empire both technically distinguishable Republics were referred to collectively as the 'OLD REPUBLIC'. In the same way when you talk about the French Republic you don't really distinguish between the two unbroken Republics since the end of World War II. It's a collective term.

Furthermore Obi-Wan was talking informally in conversation and also likely didn't want to confuse Luke. While Tarkin's comments are irrelevant. He could have been talking about the 1000 - 19 Republic or the collective 25000 - 19 Republics (he would have also used the collective - why would a staunch Imperial bother distinguishing between the Republics?).

Full scale war, meaning 'World War' senario. There would have been wars between individual sovereignties and also civil wars. The TF military was there to guard and protect Federation interest - it's reasonable to think they were 'battle hardened'.

 

This was already discussed to death before. The Old Republic is just a term freely used to express the Republic of the 25,000 or so years. It doesn't mean that the Republic before the Sith rule is different than the Republic formed afterwards. There probably wasn't any major changes in government that would justify that they should call it the first and second Republics and so they didn't bother naming them that. And it's possible the Sith only ruled for a short time.

There is a way to fix this comment Sio Bibble made, if it bothers people. Just re-edit his line so he says reformation and that'll solve everything.

 

I am unsure what you mean by 'Sith rule' however the fact remains that it is clear that the Republic of 25,000 - 19 was, indeed, two states on a technical basis. Even if the Sith ruled for a short period of time and the Republic was reformed, technically, there are two different incarnations of the same state. All it requires is a new altered constitution. If a state is officially dissolved or reformed then more often then not it is technically a new state (always in the case of the former).

Much like the French Republics, people typically refer to them as just the 'French Republic' despite the fact there have technically been five French Republics.

No it wouldn't. A reformation would mean a technical 'new' Republic. Furthermore both Palpatine and Bail Organa also refer to a 1,000 year Republic.


It's the Galactic Republic; technically however it has had three incarnations according to the films. Casually speaking however its just the Republic - Sio Bibble, Palpatine and Bail were in relatively formal situations when they talked about a 1,000 year Republic.

 

I'm assuming by what we're told in the films, the Sith ruled the galaxy a thousand years ago, but it wasn't revealed how long they ruled for. The Republic was probably dissolved during this time causing a gap in its history, and after the Sith fell from power, the Republic was reformed to continue its legacy as if it never was disbanded. Laws were probably different that would make them unalike, but like you said, it doesn't really mean you can't associate the first with the second Republic since there aren't many major differences in how they governed the galaxy.

That's true. I didn't think about the comments that other's made.

That's how I saw it. They were probably just considering the re-installed Republic after the Sith Rule a thousand years before since there wasn't a war this major in all that time, at least a war that actually threatened to destroy the Republic.

 

Certainly. But, again, we are talking in technicalities here. And technically there would be a First and Second Republic. But, yes, they would typically be refereed to as 'the Republic' much like you refer to a nation as France or Germany. We know from The Clone Wars that they refer to an 'Old Republic'... likely the pre-1000 Republic. It is likely Palpatine was differentiating from the two - which could have been common practice before the rise of the Empire were they were just talked about as a collective.

Definitely. They were talking about the 'new' Republic. The one which was established after the defeat of the Sith one thousand years prior.

 

I think had the plan been to have 2 or possibly more republics he would have said, the last remnants of the old republics have been swept away

 

Not sure if this is ingest given the 'face'... however I'll answer it none-the-less. There are two possible answers:

a) Tarkin was referring to the 'Old Republic' as a collective. Apart from the reasons previously stated the Nazis used to refer to the Republic which had preceded them simply as 'the system'. I doubt the Imperials would have valued the Republic enough to make any distinction. Not to mention the fact that, as we know from the EU, the Imperials still called the restored Republic 'the Rebellion'. Using a collective means they could have dropped the 's' - just like I previous said, you wouldn't refer to France since the end of World War 2 as the 'French Republics'; you would use a collective. Or...

b) He may have just been referring to the 1000 BBY - 19 BBY state. It was certainly the last remnants of that Republic.

 

So, we're complaining about politicians having a poor grasp of history, right? Bachmann thought the Soviet Union still existed until a few days ago.

 

Quite the opposite actually. The politicians (namely Bail, Palpatine and Sio) actually have a very comprehensive knowledge of their state, given they were referring to the Republic using technicalities.