Talk:Imperial Remnant

Pellaeon's Title
According to the novels Specter of the Past and Vision of the Future, Pellaeon's formal title was "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet"; throughout those very same novels, however, he is also referred to as "Supreme Commander of Imperial forces" with forces in lower-case. This leads one to speculate that the Imperial Remnant's military may no longer be as bureaucratic as that of the Palpatine-era Empire. Instead it seems that the Imperial Starfleet has become, one could say, the chair of the Imperial armed forces with the Fleet's Supreme Commander as Supreme Commander of all Imperial forces. I know this is more-or-less what has been stated in the article, but I believe a distinction should be made between calling Pellaeon "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet" and "Supreme Commander of Imperial Forces"/"Supreme Commander of the Imperial Forces", and that his title is the former-most but his position is both.--SOCL 23:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Founding Document
Why is it stated that the founding document of the Imperial Remnant is the Pellaeon-Gavrisom Treaty? Indeed, this document does present the founding of the Imperial Remnant's relation to the New Republic but in no way is what set out the groundwork for the Imperial Remnant as both a government and political entity in the galaxy for it existed long before, some even saying that it existed from the time of Daala's unificaiton of the Deep Core warlords in 12 ABY. I very storngly urge that this misleading statement in the government box on the right of the article be taken out.--SOCL 17:59, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although it was a key document in the Remnant's history, I doubt it was the founding document. I say remove it and add it somewhere in the article to show it began the relationship between the Remnant and the Republic. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 18:04, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and took out the Pellaeon-Gavrisom Treaty from the 'Founding Document' slot and replaced with 'Unknown'. Perhaps it would be correct to place the Galactic Empire's founding document as the Imperial Remnant's?  After all, the Imperial Remnant is not a political entity separate from Palpatine's New Order, but is, instead, simply a successor government.  It would be about the same as how the ancient Roman state transitioned from a democratic republic to a monarchy: there was no change in founding documents, it simply happened.  This may not seem as distinct as the Galactic Empire and Imperial Remnant, but it actually is: historians refer to the period before ca. 1st Century CE as the Republic, and after as the Empire, yet the Roman Republic was already an empire by the end of the 3rd Century BCE and was still, in some ways, a democratic republic in the early years of the 1st Century CE.  Again, the founding document did not change despite the obvious change in politics and government.  In any event, those under the Imperial Remnant still referred to there government as "the Empire" (though some did begin to call it "the Imperial Remnant").  I suggest the Imperial Remnant's founding document be the same as the New Order/Galactic Empire.--SOCL 03:39, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Founding Date
I agree that it is difficult to target the founding of the Imperial Remnant, but believe it can be pinpointed to within one or two years. First off, the founding has to be the founding the Imperial Remnant as an official government entity, not simply as what remained of the Galactic Empire, whether at civil war or otherwise. I say this because this page is labeled with capitalization of 'Remnant' versus 'remnant', which implies something offical and not simply the 'remnant(s) of the Empire'. Further, this page is about the government called the Imperial Remnant, not (all of) the remains of the Empire. Therefore, I believe that the dates of 4 ABY (Battle of Endor; death of Palpatine) is insufficient because the Galactic Empire continued to exist as an organized&mdash;though chaotic&mdash;government entity. The date 11 ABY (death of "reborn" Palpatine; death of last Galactic Emperor) also doesn't serve as appropriate since before their deaths the Empire still quite obvious existed, yet after it there was no central Imperial authority of any sort&mdash;11 ABY doesn't show the establishment of the governmental entity of the Imperial Remnant, but rather sets the stage for its creation and shows the end of the organized Galactic Empire due to chronic and chaotic warlordism without anyone in the cheif position. I'll return to 12 ABY in a moment. The last date, 19 ABY (signing of the Pellaeon-Gavrisom Treaty) is very plainly and obviously not the founding of the Imperial Remant&mdash;if there was no central Imperial authority speaking on the behalf of the Empire by 19 ABY, then who signed the treaty with the New Republic? Simply put, we are sure that the Imperial Remnant had been established by 19 ABY. This leaves us with one last major date: 12 ABY.

12 ABY seems to be at least the closest date we can find to pinpoint as a date of establishment and founding for the government of the Imperial Remnant. Why? Quite simply, this is the year when Admiral Daala (forcefully) united the warlord factions of the Deep Core under the command of a central authority (i.e. herself). Though she doesn't seem to have established any form of government but rather consolidated all the forces of the remains of the Empire, she very clearly made way for Pellaeon's unification and expansion of the reunited Empire. If we knew when exactly the Imperial Council of Moffs was established as the legislative body of the Imperial Remnant, then that would tell us the date of the governmental founding of the Imperial Remnant. Without that, though, we can point to 12 ABY because without it, Pellaeon wouldn't have had the resources and capabilities to strike out of the Core towards the Mid and Outer Rim where he and/or the Moffs would eventually form a central Imperial government&mdash;the Imperial Remnant. It seems likely, though, that the date of founding would have been either late 12 ABY or 13 ABY given the fact that we know that by at least the end of 13 ABY, the Imperial Remnant was formed and in possession of the eight sectors that would eventually come to be the Imperial Remnant space of 19 ABY.

Therefore, given what has been written above, I believe that the founding date of the Imperial Remnant should be changed to ca. 12 ABY, ca. 13 ABY, or 12-13 ABY. Thoughts?--SOCL 04:06, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand this. I seem to be the only one who is trying to make a valid arguement in favor of a point, and the only response I get is someone deleting what I wrote, which I can justify, yet that user has yet to present so much as a case...--SOCL 07:07, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there are many people here that do pointless things like that, SOCL. You just have to go click on the History tab, copy what had been deleted, and add it back in. That's what I did. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:55, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why the founding date is listed as 19 ABY. By the time of Specter of the Past we know that the Imperial Remnant was long since functioning as a governmental entity in the way we have come to understand it.  So clearly 19 ABY is NOT the founding date since A) the governmental ways of the Galactic Empire are no longer functioning and B) Pellaeon is ALREADY head-of-state answering to the Moff Council.  I'm not saying 19 ABY isn't an important date, it's simply and clearly not a founding date since (again) the Imperial Remnant was functioning that way BY 19 ABY, which means the founding date should be before then.--SOCL 00:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but why "ca. 12-13 ABY"? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, never mind. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, because it was when Daala reunified the warlords and Pellaeon established the modern territories of the Remnant. Oh, wait, never mind...  Um, cool!  Finally, someone seems to think my argument makes sense and isn't just crazy nonsense!--SOCL 05:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Muunilinst
The correct nickname for the planet Muunilinst is "Moneylend".--TIEDefenderPilot 08:09, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops. I thought it said "Moneyland" on the Official Site. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:47, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Quotes
This is a more general question, but this article has shown the first appearance of it: Is there something incorrect about putting a date after a quote? It simply established a reference point of time (for instance, I had dates on all the quote in this article, but they were removed). Is there some formatting rule of which I am not aware?--SOCL 22:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The majority of the quotes throughout Wookieepedia don't have dates in them like you had had them, so I removed them. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, that's fine&mdash;I can sympathize and agree with making articles uniform (damned military training!). I was merely curious.--SOCL 23:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I should have put something in the summary box (dammit, I keep forgetting to). Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Confederacy?
While this is a excellent article, I am not sure about the Empire being a confederacy. A confederacy implies that any sector ro world could voluntarily leave. Despite the fact that the Remnant is more progressive than the old Empire, I feel that it still would not allow such a thing to happen. What is the evidence for calling the IR a confederacy? AdmiralNick22 14:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Imperial Remnant should be called a confederacy. It didn't break away from anything. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said on Talk:New Republic, that is not not not what the word Confederacy means. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, I forgot about that. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I read that Silly Dan, but look at your own definition- "league or alliance of individual states". The Remnant is not a league or alliance of individual states. Each sector is not independent of the other. The Remnant is a region of space composed of eight sectors overseen by a moff. I am not saying that the Remnant is evil, but a confederation implies much more freedom than what the Empire actually is. AdmiralNick22 16:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just quoting my definition to point out that Jack Nebulax's objection was irrelevant. You might still be quite correct in saying that the Remnant was a much more tightly-knit union than anything that could be called a confederacy or confederation.  (Still, it seems to some extent to be a reunification of idependent territories held by competing warlords, so maybe it started like a confederation?) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would argue it's more of a shotgun marriage than a confederacy, held together only by the Imperial Navy. However, I would argue confederacy in that the Moffs would only feel comfortable with that, since any thing else might have infringed on their personal power. -- SFH 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I still say that it shouldn't be called a confederacy. But what would we call it, then? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A confederacy is a system with a weak central government and strong local governments, which seems to be the case with the moffs having de-facto complete control over their sectors. Kuralyov 20:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So, it is a confederacy then. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it is an oligarchy more than anything. A small group of powerful individuals (eight moffs and a Supreme Commander) in charge of all government and military affairs. Granted their are elements of confederation in the Remnant, but not enough to warrant calling it one. AdmiralNick22 22:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I move that we change it to oligarchy. That is the best definition, short of calling it "military junta", which is a military dictatorship. (Which, despite all the good, progressive changes it made under Pellaeon, it essentially was one. Heck, it even became more of one in the NJO. During the Hand of Thrawn duology, Pellaeon was subordinate to the Moffs. By the NJO, they are merely an advisory council to him. Keeping it a confederation is innaccurate. AdmiralNick22 18:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "By the NJO, they are merely an advisory council to him." Which, while a good thing when Pellaeon was in charge, is a very dangerous thing for the future. Which leaves us to wonder, who is in charge of the Empire now anyway? Did Pellaeon choose his own successor, or did the Moffs make the choice? Red XIV 03:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The evidence for the IR being a confederacy is in Vision of the Future, when Gilad is talking to Leia about the treaty. He says that he wants recognized boundaries, trade, the ability for NR planets to leave and join the IR, and in return, IR planets can leave and join the NR if they wish.  And I highly doubt the NR would sign a treaty that didn't include this. Thanos6 04:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, somewhere between the Dark Nest Crisis and 140 ABY, it became a new Empire, so something big must have happened that changed it from a confederacy to an empire. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Difference between calling themselves "the Empire" and being AN empire. Thanos6 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, still an empire, no matter what they were called. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Executive Branch
Why is the Moff Council listed as being the executive branch? Indeed, it's quite clear that Pellaeon/the Supreme Commander is the executive in the Remnant.--SOCL 15:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't be a 100% certain, but the Supreme Commander seems to act as a sort of Prime Minister/Premier, with the Council as the Parliament. Of course, during the Yuuzhan Vong conflict, Pellaeon's insistance in centralizing further power makes out to be more like the Presidential system seen in the USA.  In any event, we see that Pellaeon seems to hint that at least at some point in time he answered to the Council (seen in Hand of Thrawn duology).  This implies that the Council is a completely legislative body and not an composite-executive.--SOCL 22:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, who listed it as the executive branch? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)