What's the significance of the FIRST Galactic Empire?

In AOTC Palpatine states that he will not let the "Republic that has stood for 1,000 years be split in two." While Ki-Adi-Mundi has noted in TPM that "the Sith have been extinct for a millenium." So I was under the assumption that the formation of the republic coincided with the overthrowing of the Sith. Unless the archaic Sith were all for democracy, why does Sidious proclaim the Republic will become "the FIRST Galactic Empire." On the one hand I'd imagine that calling it the "Second" or "Third" Galactic Empire and associating his regime with the Sith regimes of old would be a terrible thing to do while trying to appeal to the people, but then again with the Jedi now considered traitors and the image of an Empire as being a powerful force, why not? That's pretty much what Hitler did.

Unless the Empire's of old were too small or localized to warrant the name "Galactic Empire" (more along the lines of localized absolutist monarchies) what makes Sidious' empire the FIRST?

 

i dont think the sith of old ruled the galaxy as an empire,i doubt they cared about politics.i've always had the idea that the ancient sith are like monsters,very powerful but no brains at all but thats IMHO

 

I think you've got it right there. If you're worried about why the overthrow of the Sith seemed to coincide with the birth of the Republic, it's possible that the Sith lords of old didn't have quite the sense of scope or vision that Palpatine had, contenting themselves to rule over individual planets or systems. I think the key word is that it's the first galactic empire.

 

Was there ever an Empire before??
I don't do EU, so I don't know.
But I do know that Empire is not just a way to describe any 'ol ruling body.
Which to me is what you're suggesting,
hence.... is there a source for former Empire's in the GFFA?

 

I'm pretty sure it was backwards, they did have a formal empire, and some of those early sith were pretty darn clever, scheming, very palpatine like, but on a larger scale..

..their various empires on the other hand were mostly small regions, mostly deep core worlds, supposedly so far into the inner core that time didn't even pass normally because they were so close to the inner core itself, but mostly a few planets here, a few planets there..


look up Sadow or Kressh for more info

 

Sidious said that "Once more the Sith shall rule the GALAXY"

But then again, back before the Sith were "destroyed" there were also far more. So I don't know if the Sith formed a feudal government that dissolved from within with one being the head of the order or if all the Sith ruled their own little independent states that allied and fought with each other for control with the Jedi capitalizing on this.


Heck if they were heavily factioned then the EU could have a field day with introducing other Sith Lords of different Sith Lines that themselves want control. That would get a little too repetitive though.

 

A government, by far, does not necisserily mean an Empire.

An Empire is a form of government like:
A Republic
A Democracy
A Monarchy
A Dictatorship
etc.

Every orange is a piece of fruit...
but not every piece of fruit is an orange.

 

In the context of one person ruling over various planets, cultures, and people, it could be considered an Empire. Which it certaintly would be if the Sith "ruled the galaxy" as a single entity with one master at the head of the order.

 

Like any one of the USA's Presidents, or Queen Elizabeth II?
Besides, The single rule of the Galaxy was in place when they were a Republic too.

But, I know what you're saying... I think.
That if The Sith ruled before, the Galaxy was probably ruled the same way as
Darth Sidious rulership, therefore it would BE an Empire regardless of what it was
actually called??

 

Not really, there is a very thourough backstory already around that covers the Sith Empires of old, nothing at all like the Empire

 

Right on, that's what I was wondering when initialy trying to answer the question
If there were former Empires (in title at least).

 

EDIT: I don't follow the EU so I'm not questioning the validity of whether or not there were Sith Empires in the past.

Well there was a British Empire. And while I've never heard of an "American Empire" the United States has been "imperialist."

It depends on what you define as an "Empire." In the case of modern US and GB they see themselves as federations not empires. Yes some territory has been gained by them in the past by coercion, but today most peoples under their rule are there voluntarily. While imperialism referred to Western nations subjecting foreigners to their rule.

My History is rusty, but I do believe that Napoleon ruled his empire more as an absolutist, while Sidious and the Romans ruled theirs more like an imperialist feudal society, i.e. power was given to governors who ruled in Palpatine's name, while Palpatine really seemed to stay out of State affairs unless they threatened his power.


So if in a GFFA the word "empire" was applied ONLY to the Roman style, then perhaps the Sith didn't have such a government in ancient times.

 

i wish lucas had set up and explained how the sith ruled the galaxy before the jedi came around, it wouldve been interesting to have some scenes that delved into this a little more. since im nitpicking i wish the PT had a little spirituality added into it rather than all the politics

 

This is True.

Good Point.

Another good point.

 

I haven't played them in a while, but in KOTOR don't you become a sith emperor if you play as darkside?

 

when u say Sith empire, u r talking about the generic use of the word 'empire'
ex: Soviet empire, nazi empire, American empire and even British Empire

'empire' when used with small 'e' is usually a generic use of the term (British Empire is an exception)

however when we say Empire with capital 'E', we are talking about an actual Empire

ex: Galactic Empire (ruled by an emperor), Russian Empire (ruled by an Tsar), German Empire(ruled by an kaiser), French Empire


the best example is French Empire and French empire

the first is an actual Empire with imperial crown on the head of the sovergien
while the second term is generic use of the word empire, which basically means all French colonianl terrirories

the same way we say Spanish empire, generic use of the word empire, since there are no Spanish emperors

after the fall of western roman empire 476 AD, the IMPERIAL title was meant to be used by a sole soveriegn that would be the protector of Christdendom, that was Charlemagne!
the emperor were meant to be crown by the pope; after him Otto the Great of Germany was given the Imperial Crown, for the next 1000 years the bearer of the Imperial title was always the ruler of the "Holy Roman Empire"
the idea was that "One World, One Empire, One Faith and One Emperor"
when napoleon conquered German lands, he forced the abdication of the last emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Francis I. who actually upgraded the Archduchy of Austria to an Empire, thus he kept for himself the Imperial title. Also in ~1803 napoleon crowned himself as an Emperor. so for a first time after 476 AD u had two emperors in Europe (Western Europe) (not counting Russian Tsars and Byzantine emperors). after Emperor Napoleon III was defeated by the prussians n 1873, bismark trasnfered the imperial crown to King wiliam of prussia, who became the first Kasier ... now again Euprope had two emperors. it all ended 1918 with the fall of the Four Empires.

and no my dear friends, British Empire is aswell a generic use of the term empire. technically speaking there is no such thing as British Empire since there are no British Emperors .... and before u say anything about Queen Victoria amd Edward VII imperial titles.. you should know that there were Empress of India and Emperor of India .. and NOT the British Empire .....ofcourse we are all talking about terms and formalities

so by that token, the Republic became an Empire the exact way the French Republic became one!! as a side note: when Napoleon was crowned as Emperor of the French in dec. 1804, the "French Republic" remained as "French Republic", eventhough ruled by an emperor, until 1808 when it was renamed as "French Empire"

hope this helps

 

On the hand that that an Empire is an expansionist crowned sovereign, what makes Nazi Germany undeserving of being an Empire? I don't know how Hitler's personal claims and speaches went in Germany. I don't know if he ever claimed to be "Emperor" or "Kaizer" all I know is "fuhrer." But regardless of power, he held more power than most Emperors as technological advances allowed him to control culture to a greater extent than most absolutist rulers which couldn't because it wasn't practical, and feudal rulers who just didn't care.

 

What;'s the significance of the FIRST Galactic Empire?

Without an Empire, Palps wouldnt be an Emporer, which has a nicer ring to it than Supreme Chancellor.

 

Below is a response I wrote in the Classic Trilogy forum several months ago in a thread dealing with the Rule of Two. It partly addresses your topic, although it is intended more as a somewhat unusual, but film consistent, theory or explanation of the Rule of Two.


1. Rule of Two - Nothing in the films indicates that there were ever more than two Sith at one time - ever.

As the films have established, there was a major galactic war about 1,000 years prior to the events of ATOC, after which the Republic was reonstituted. Lucas has also said that the Sith once ruled the universe for a very long time although in ROTS, Palpatine declares the first galactic empire (emphasis on the word first). In ANH, assuming Kenobi was telling the truth, he told Luke that the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic for over a thousand generations.


How does one reconcile the statements and explain how Yoda knows of the Rule of Two? Assuming that about 50 of those generations were during the 1,000 years prior to ATOC, that still leaves 950 generations. Thus, the Jedi were either guarding the republic for 950 generations prior to the long Sith rule or else they were guarding "peace and justice" in a metaphorical sense during Sith rule.

Again, note Palpatine created the "first" galactic empire. Thus, perhaps the Sith ruled not an empire but a republic, even if in name only giving an illusion of democracy, where the Jedi were forced to use their force powers in service of the two Sith. To repeat, nothing in the films indicates that there were ever more than two Sith. The Jedi then, in an insurgency, rebelled against Sith rule and defeated them. They saw themsevles as the legitimate guardians of peace and justice in a corrupt republic, despite all force sensitives (the Jedi) being enslaved by the two Sith.

In another instance of parallel, perhaps the Jedi, in defeating the Sith, thought they were extinct yet the Sith continued to thrive. Much like Sith propaganda regarding the Jedi "religion" and "extinction", perhaps the Jedi themselves spread the idea of extinction of the Sith, while only the older, wiser Jedi who read their history and prophecies knew the Rule of Two. Jedi seemed to keep much of the old lore hidden (Darth Plagueis) and seem to have selective memories that only reinforce their points of view.

All that, or perhaps some Jedi knew, in fact, that the Sith weren't extinct and decided to ignore it much like Vader ignored Kenobi's existence and the Emperor ignored Yoda's possible existence. Mace, Yoda and Kenobi all seem quite capable of fudging or hiding the truth. Again, these explanations parallel the structures of events in the films.

2. What were the Sith doing all this time? - The short answer is training, recovering, planning and killing each other.

With their propensity to kill each other, there wasn't much time or opportunity to plan; rather than seeking revenge against the Jedi, they were too busy killing each other. Also, imagine having two people try to take over the United States government in hiding. It takes time and a lot of planning. It's not easy. It could take generations. Now imagine that on a galactic scale where all sorts of factors and possibilities can affect plans. Sidious just happened to have both the patience and power to pull it off in his lifetime without being killed.

3. How did Palpatine avoid testing for midichlorians? Short answer: he's not from the Republic. His master probably inserted him in Naboo society, killed an orphan with complete records for Palpatine to replace and had Palps assumed his identity. Palpatine then put in an application to the legislative youth league and the rest is history.

 

Was there a galaxy-wide Empire before?

 

Well there were planets outside of the borders of the Republic, I'd imagine it was a similar case with the Empire. I.E. Tatooine was independent of the Republic (which is why I never understood why there is a celebration there at the end of ROTJ) perhaps the Emperor allowed Jabba to continue his rule as a vassal.

 

hitler was elected chancellor; he DID NOT seize power by force or coup d'etat
and for some reason he kept the inner working of the Weimer Republic
fuhere means leader; it is a completely a NSDAP-related title but was in use greatly
while chancellor was his consitiuional title;

in many ways hitler et al. corrupted the Weimer Republic as if it was a great tree from within but they kept the shell of the Weimer Republic

it has nothing to do with what hitler claimed... Germany was a republic and hitler was its ReichChancellor.

Hitler did consider his Germany to be the third empire (generic use of the term) after that of Charlemagne and Ott von Bismarck, and thus called the Weimer Republic unofficially as Third Reich
Germany was an Empire from 1871 to 1918 ruled by a Kaiser, afterwhich the Empire became a Republic; to quote the first line of the Weimer Republic in 1919, "The Empire is now a Republic" and "The Imperial Dignity is no longer hereditary"

 

it shouldnt be there .. i remember i was complaining about that alot before ...
but there always people on the board who will come up with reason why it should be there

for me Tatooine is like the Great Pyramids of Egypte, untouched by current affairs. it just there! it saw the rise and fall of great empires and outlived many of them ... there shouldnt be any celeberation there.. as far i am conern there should ne any celeberation of Bespin either.. b/c there is no point .. there were 1,000,000 planets under imperial rule why there should show a celeberation on a planet that cosist of floating city and celeberation on a planet that is OUTSIDE of the empire...

the real answer is just lousy visual link, showing the planets that u saw in the Saga; the only planet that it should be there is Coresucant and to some degree Naboo, where all started

 

Tatooine-in episode 4 we see troops decisivly marching through the streets of Mos Espa, and although Tatooine isnt officially under Imperial control, you can bet it under its influence. Also, many citizens are at least aware of the attrocities of the empire, perhaps they have off world connections that make them savvy to the ruthlessness of the galactic regime.

in WWII, switzerland was neutral and never under Nazi control...but you can bet many of the citizens were happy when the Third Reich finally crubmbled.


Bespin- It was once a haven from Imperial rule...a tiny remote world free from oppression, but once Lando lets the people know what is happening, notice how they all begin to flee? Its for similar reasons...they dont want to be under Imperial jurisdiction. and wanna bet the empire stays even after vader leaves? you can bet the citizens were happy when they hear palpatine had been killed.

 

It's more like a signature statement to let the galaxy know who is in charge now. With the war over, the Jedi seen as traitors, and the Separatists defeated, with an army at his disposal, it's not the same Republic. Palpatine could have kept certain things there, but he wanted to rearrange things. Much like Ancient Rome.