Talk:Gilad Pellaeon/Legends

Rank of Commander
This article states that Pellaeon could not have had the rank of captain until after the Battle of Endor. According to Heir to the Empire, though, Pellaeon merely took command after the Chimaera's original commanding officer had been killed--this does not mean that Pellaeon did not hold the rank of captain (it is known that aboard many naval vessels, there can be more than one person of the rank of captain, one as commanding officer, the other as executive, even if they are of the same rank). Further, the word "captain" and the commanding officer of a vessel are and can be used interchangeably, even if the commanding officer is a man of higher rank such as a commodore or even an admiral (but as long as he is not commanding more than one vessel), so it's quite possible that Pellaeon had already been a captain at the Endor and merely took over when the commanding officer was killed. Therefore, it's quite possible--additionally, given Pellaeon's age by the time of Heir to the Empire--that he might have, in fact, been the same Pellaeon commanding an Acclamator during the Clone Wars.--SOCL 01:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * all quite possible, even plausible, but I am uncertain if the source material leaves open the gap between rank and billet.--Eion 01:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not believe any of the source material available puts Pellaeon at any rank lower than captain at any point in between. Again, given his age and years of service (additionally a few mentions he makes of being a captain for so long), it seems possible that in the chaos of the Clone Wars he was promoted quickly to captain and then, later, after the rise of the Empire, he was held at captain until his age caught-up with his rank.  Then, given the events at Endor and the virtual collapse of a functioning Imperial government, it would seem likely he would remain a captain until someone got around to promoting him (i.e. in the novel Darksaber he is ranked at Vice Admiral, three ranks above Captain).  Further, the former captain/commanding officer of the Chimaera (the man who was killed at Endor) may not have been a regular Captain but a Line Captain, and Pellaeon was merely the executive officer.  It is open to debate, but it seems more than likely that it is the same person.--SOCL 01:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm just not familiar enough with the source material to confirm your theory, but I've always suspected a confusion between the rank and the billet in the EU; it is a common problem in Sci-fi writing to assume the "One Captain" rule refers to rank as well as title. I see no problem in changing it.--Eion 01:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd say this passage from The New Essential Guide to Characters, pg. 130, explicitly states he held the rank of Captain before taking the position of captain on the Chimaera: "By the time of the Battle of Endor, he had become the Chimaera's second in command. The fierce fighting above the forest moon decimated the Imperial fleet and killed the Destroyer's captain.  Realizing the battle was lost, Captain Pellaeon assumed command and ordered all surviving warships to retreat to Annaj." JSarek 05:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, you could read that to say that the moment the Chimaera's CO died, Pallaeon became the new CO, or you could read it as he was already a Captain by rank and merely became CO by virtue of the death of his CO, given the common brain-bug regarding the "one captain" rule, I'd say this is inconclusive at best, but promisingly vague. Thanks for the quotation--Eion 00:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt that an XO of an Imperial destroyer would be a Captain in rank. It is likely that the New Essential Guide to Characters is refering to him as "Captain Pellaeon" beacuse that is how he is best known by standard EU-fans: as a Captain in the Thrawn Trilogy. --SparqMan 01:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why doubt it? There's precedent for it in earthly navies, it helps explain how he would have enough seniority to order the retreat (granted, that takes more than just a captain rank, but it doesn't hurt), it allows the NEGTC quote to be taken at face value (it clearly states that Captain Pellaeon assumed command, not that he became captain by assuming command), and it helps make Pellaeon's history make more sense (because he's been serving WAY too long to be only a Commander by the time of Endor).  I see no reason not to think he held the rank of Captain long before he obtained the position of captain.  JSarek 08:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Chimera was the ranking ship at the time, IIRC, and that's why he was able to call the retreat (as CO of the ship). Another view to consider: the Empire was highly corrupt, with many high level postings assigned on bribes, connections and nepotism. Pellaeon may have lacked those connections to advance. --SparqMan 16:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Chimaera was acting command ship in the absence of Executor, which partly explains Pellaeon's authority. Still, a Captain giving the order would make it slightly less out-of-place (though not totally so, since there were still admirals on the scene).  At any rate, that's not my primary point, which is A) We have real world precedent for XOs to hold the rank of Captain, B) We have reason to believe Pellaeon probably held Captain rank, including direct textual evidence that states he did (and requiring us to ignore its face value to interpret it otherwise), and C) We have no reason to *doubt* that he held Captain rank.  Given all of this, I think it's fair to call him a Captain unless later contraindicated for some reason.  JSarek 19:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For those of you not familiar with the idea of Captains as XOs, or warships with more than one Captain onboard (one as CO, the other as XO), look at the United States Navy. You'll find that all Aircraft Carriers (CV or CVN) and Amphibious Assault Ships (LHA, LHD, or LHD(R)) in the fleets have Captains as both commanding officers and executive officers (if not a Captain, then what's called a Commander/P or an officer of the rank of Commander who is already listed for promotion to Captain).  Here's a good website to reference: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ffiletop.html#ships.  Just thought I'd put in some real-world prespective....--SOCL 00:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible that Chimaera was commanded by an Admiral. That would explain why it was the senior vessel after the Executor was destroyed. Or it could simply be that the man on the Acclamator was Pellaeon's father. --User:SFH
 * I agree with SFH. Pellaeon, while not briliant, is a highly capable officer. To be held at the same rank for ~25yrs during the naval expansion of the Empire, especially after the culling of the Clone Wars and various purges is highly unlikely--User:Erl

The article now states that Pellaeon took command of the Chimaera while holding the rank of commander. There has been a whole discussion concerning this, but I do not see anywhere confirm/concluded that Pellaeon was in fact a commander at the time of Endor... I believe that putting that particular line in the article makes a definite statement without any confirmed facts.
 * Yes, that's exactly what it does - it makes a definite statement without any confirmed facts, which is exactly what we don't want to do (in fact, what little evidence we have - the quote I mentioned above, points to, though perhaps does not confirm, a rank of captain). If we don't know the answer, we don't put it in the article.  jSarek
 * Sorry, you're stating a state of affairs, not a correction you made. My apologies for misreading your statement.  Yes, this is not desirable and should be changed.  jSarek 02:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where does the claim in the [Freja_Covell|Covell] article that Pellaeon promoted him to general rank come from? Because that would imply that Pellaeon was at least a Commodore by rank, or possibly "Commander" (the analog in some WEG stuff, and the real-life Dutch/Russo-Baltic rank system)... --McEwok 01:46, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Age
We know he was 15 when he lied about his age to get into the Raithal Academy, and then went on to the Judicial Forces (similar to the FBI or Homeland Security, I imagine). Heir to the Empire states that he'd served the starfleet for 50 years, and IIRC the Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook  states that he was 65 at the Battle of Endor. So assuming that he refers to "the starfleet" as both the Republic and Imperial fleets, the years would line up and make him born in 61 BBY. Before I make any changes, does Zahn's inconsistencies with Lucas' Clone Wars timeline mess any of this up? --SparqMan 18:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, what you just did was rationalize the inconsistencies.--SOCL 19:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How are they inconsistent? Lies into academy at 15, serves for 50 years, was 65 at Endor. Those don't conflict. I'm just using them to get his proper birth year. --SparqMan 20:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I got the age from Leland Chee's Holocron.. QuentinGeorge 21:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How are they inconsistent? I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I never said they were.  I stated that your rationalized the, if any inconsistencies, nothing else.--SOCL 05:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I stated the information available on his age and then subtracted. I'm not sure how that was a rationalization of inconsistencies. Feel free to add in something constructive here. --SparqMan 11:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Succession box question
Shouldn't his predecessor as de facto head of state be Moff Disra rather than Xandel Carivus? Disra seemed to be in charge, at least politically, during most of the Hand of Thrawn Duology. &mdash; Silly Dan 17:23, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * All of these succession boxes should be done away with, because there are no clear answers. --SparqMan 22:39, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Disra was the dominant personality amongst the moffs, but was technically equal to them. Kuralyov 16:59, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

If Xandel Carivus's page states the following: Carivus was the last person to attempt to claim the title of "Galactic Emperor"; as such, his death could be considered the dividing line between the Galactic Empire and Imperial Remnant, then why does the succession box identify Gilad Pellaeon as the Head of State of Galactic Empire ? Wouldn't it be much more appropiate for the succession box other than the one for "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet" to read "Head of State of the Imperial Remnant" and say that he was preceded by "None, eventually Xandel Carivus as Galactic Emperor?
 * No; see the talk page for Xandel Carivus as to why I think so.Kuralyov 21:56, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's allow the succession box discussion to continue in the talk page for Xandel Carivus.


 * Sources cited in the talk age for Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet have made it more or less clear that Pellaeon was not the first person to hold the title, so until a timeline of all holders of that title can be properly set down, the succession box should read that he was preceded by "Unknown" instead of "None". --Ace_ETP 23:22, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Further, it should be made clear that just because the Empire allied itself and became a member-state of the Galactic Alliance, and that Pellaeon was made its military supreme commander does not mean that Pellaeon is no longer Supreme Comander of the Imperial Fleet. He can quite easily still hold both posts within both governments.--SOCL 00:11, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that The Unseen Queen states that he retired after the end of the YV war. Kuralyov 00:13, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. My apologies.--SOCL 00:15, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. Kuralyov 00:15, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
Are there really the only two pictures we have of him? Could someone who has the comic scan in his appearance from The Best Blades? Kuralyov 02:51, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I added an image from the Heir to the Empire comic book series, but it doesn't quite fit where it has been placed. Sadly, the only image of Pellaeon between the time of Thrawn and when he became a Grand Admiral is the image called "Admiral Pellaeon" in the old The Essential Chronology; if we could manage to get a scan of that and but it with the subsection of 'Rise of the Imperial Remnant', things would be better off.--SOCL 03:01, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Someone with better aesthetic sense than me can decide where to put it. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  04:13, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a new pic in the New Essential Chronology. Thanos6 20:12, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * This pic is from the CCG: --SparqMan 03:51, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't even tell that was Pellaeon. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:34, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but given that it's an realistic "holo" of him, and not an illustration, we should probably work it in. --SparqMan 19:08, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:30, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Quote
why is his quote being deleted? Razzy1319 01:36, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really say anything about Pellaeon's character. -- SFH 03:45, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * and Ganner's "none shall pass" does? quotes shouldnt be only about characteristics or information but something that would attract a viewer/user to read on. which defines the quote that was formerly there.
 * Quotes should be about the person. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:13, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Quote edit war
Here we go again? Why not just discuss the matter on the Talk page? - Sikon [ Talk ] 15:50, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Starkeiller, you don't put the pronoun and the word that is replacing it. You only put the word replacing the pronoun. Look what you've started. An edit war. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:51, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we have a precedent - see Carth Onasi, where the pronoun was kept. - Sikon [ Talk ] 15:53, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Quote
"I'll bet he [Pellaeon] sleeps in his uniform."

- Cal Omas

or

"I'll bet [Pellaeon] sleeps in his uniform."

- Cal Omas ?

I say the first. The second one is confusing and ugly. --Master Starkeiller 15:52, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * The second one. That's the way it's supposed to be. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:53, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * How about the following:

"I'll bet he sleeps in his uniform."

- Cal Omas about Gilad Pellaeon

- Sikon [ Talk ] 15:54, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I was just posting that. But we don't need the "about Gilad Pellaeon" part. We know it's him, since it's his article. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:55, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * There we go. No more need for a discussion on it. Edit war over. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:57, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice. --Master Starkeiller 15:57, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize, Starkeiller. I usually see it where the pronoun is removed, which is why I kept removing it. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:58, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem, I wonder how we didn't think what Sikon thought earlier. --Master Starkeiller 16:01, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I know... Strange. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:02, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Hate to bring up a dead issue, but should we alter it to "Grand Admiral," since that's how the quote actually reads? Thanos6 17:48, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Does it really? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:50, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read it just last night. It's near the end of the third Force Heretic book. Thanos6 02:36, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I guess it should be like that. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:19, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Grand Admiral already in 12/13 ABY?!
In the RPG adventure Nightsaber, the heroes arive at Agamar in 12 ABY to find an Imperial fleet "preparing for an assault on the world of Orinda, under the command of Grand Admiral Pellaeon. The fleet is currently fuelling and taking on supplies while it awaits the arrival of the Grand Admiral."

I don't recall anything saying he wasn't a Grand Admiral in the Hand of Thrawn books.

And another quick quibble: "Following Thrawn's death, Pellaeon retreated to the Core where he joined the massing fleet at Byss"? Umm, The Last Command Sourcebook says that Pellaeon took the fleet to the edge of the Unknown Regions.... --McEwok 14:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Whistling won't save you, McEwok. ;-) As for the other quibble, the Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook, p. 65 (and presumably also The Last Command Sourcebook, as well, though I don't actually own that one) indicates that New Republic Intelligence lost track of Pellaeon after he went to the edge of the Unknown Regions; The New Essential Chronology, p. 155, states that Pellaeon, still unaware of the return of Palpatine, fought alongside the Deep Core Warlords in their thrust from the Deep Core.  Sounds like he made his way to the Deep Core after NRI lost track of him. jSarek 10:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Two problems: (1.) everyone in the Empire (supposedly) fought together during that thrust; (2.) the Warlords weren't based in the Deep Core. Teradoc controlled a chunk of Zsinj's territory, while Children of the Jedi links Harrsk with Spuma and Atrivis Sector...




 * Pellaeon (supposedly, though the only evidence is from in-universe NR sources) joins the Imperial offensive in 10 ABY, but so does almost everyone; the only mention of him in the Deep Core comes in Darksaber, bracketed by Hambly books in which the Rim is liberally scattered with Moffs, warlords, and other Imperial sorts... --10:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, very interesting. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Endor Retreat Rhetoric?"
I fail to see how stating that Pellaeon's retreat order was questionable and that he left behind a Grand Admiral to eventual capture and execution is "rhetoric." It's not "Gilad-bashing" it's stating what happened. We don't need to be all nicey-nicey to 'ole GP just because he's the guy who made peace with the Republic. He made mistakes, and ommitting them is, IMO, watering down his In Universe History.--jerry 16:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Looking at this in-verse, the NEC was written by New Republic historians, while the "Who's Who" article has no in-verse author, which would make it more authoritative, as the In-verse historians may be subject to bias towards their faction. Given that the New Repub was in favor of Pellaeon, it is understandable that they would want to depict him as a model commander, who flew behind the Grand Admiral until his capture, but out-of-verse texts (the WW:IGA article) contradicts that assessment.--jerry 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the New Essential Chronology clearly states that Pellaeon called the retreat AFTER the capture of Osvald Teshik. There's some questionableness left regarding what was going on with Harrsk, but including the word "questionable" seems a bit NPOV to me, especially when the remaining facts still can speak for themselves. jSarek 21:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Harrsk is explained by the NEC saying his unit was under a separate command strcuture than the normal fleet. Also note that "jerry"'s profile says I prefer to logically figure things out rather than blindly follow whatever the EU says. It can be wrong people, and has been many times before. I don't think we should take the argument of someone who basically says he feels that his views supercede canon. Kuralyov 21:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jsarek: The NEC finds itself in conflict with "Who's Who: The Imperial Grand Admirals" which states that Teshik fought for three hours after the fleet retreated.
 * Kuralyov: Pehaps I should make my profile more clear then. That statement is meant to say that I hold the films high above the EU which, while canon, can be overruled by those sources. It also means that I use the method of "Suspension of Disbelief" when reading or discussing this saga, which is to say when a mistake or contradiction is found, a means to fix it is found, or a retcon is made. Before any publcation was made, I believed that the length of Executor was 17.6 kilometers despite what the literature wrote because that's how it was depicted in the films. Certain things can be derived logically from the films, and those conclusions, if true and honest, can override lower canon without an official publication. My profile is not meant to suggest that I will simply disregard all forms of canon in favor of my own opinions without any basis, but that I will try to make connections between all the works, to decide, in discussions like these, which sources are more authoritative, and which are not. Which sources are wrong, and why would they be wrong in an in-universe context (i.e: the NEC "authors" having pro-New Republic bias). I'm not here to troll and make baseless changes. I only make changes that I have thought through. --jerry 22:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, in-universe things can be wrong because the real author made it wrong. Think logical there. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a way to resolve all this? Let's see what all the sources say, and work out where the potential contradictions are (and bear in mind that Teshik was still aboard the DS when the Ex goes down - and incommunicado for some length of time, while he removed himself from wherever he was to back aboard his Star Destroyer). If they do fundamentally contradict, then, the answer is simple; we note the contradiction, and supply the reader with information to allow them to make up their own mind...
 * So, what are the quotes? --McEwok 19:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Some quotes (I apologize for no page numbers I don't have the NEC with me, picked up these quotes online) From the NEC "after the destruction of the second Death Star, the Imperial fleet had continued to fight for four hours under the command of Grand Admiral Teshik – but were systematically beaten back by their numerically inferior foe," and  "when Rebel forces disabled Teshik's ship, Captain Gilad Pellaeon of the Star Destroyer Chimaera ordered the fleet to retreat and regroup at Annaj, where the first signs of stress began to show"  Now, the Who's Who article tells a very different story; "when the Imperial retreat was called, Teshik stayed behind," and "as a testament to Teshik's brilliance, the battle raged for another three hours before his Star Destroyer Eleemosynary succumbed to overwhelming ion cannon fire." The Who's Who artcle is the source out of the two which was not written "in-universe" by partisan historians.--jerry 20:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC) How is it NPOV? "Questionable" implies that there are questions regarding the legitimacy of the order, which there are.
 * Nebulax: Yes that's true too, if outside the realm of SoD (which is what my rant above is all about) ;-)
 * "Nebulax: Yes that's true too,...". It always is. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * including the word "questionable" seems a bit NPOV to me
 * Again, I'm not trying to put down Pellaeon, just say what his record reflects: a competant and reliable administrator (Chimaera was considered the best run Star Destroyer in the Empire) but overly conservative unaggressive and quick to flee when the going gets tough in combat. His (presumed) first CO position (on a frigate in the Clone Wars) Pellaeon flees at the sight of CIS forces abandoning ground troops to the enemy. He then seems to have been demoted to a XO position for most of his career where he excelled, he has all the qualities of a good XO. But then, as soon as he is vaulted into a commanding role again at Endor he orders a retreat, which (however unintentionally) led to a Grand Admirals capture, and an Admiral's defection, and giving the Rebel Alliance complete victory in the Battle of Endor. He kept command of Chimaera until Thrawn chose it as his flagship (probably because it was regarded as "one of the best run Star Destroyers" due to Pellaeon's administrative prowess) and became the the Grand Admiral's Flag Captain where he performed well effectively relegated to his role of XO despite being the official CO of Chimaera and was never fully in charge of anything. Thrawn kept Pellaeon on a very tight leash. However, upon Thrawn's death Pellaeon immediately orders a retreat, habing the Bilbringi shipyards over to the Republic intact. He made no attempt to evacuate Imperial personnel from the yards, or to damage or otherwise destroy the shipyards to deny the Republic victory, he simply fled. His record up to this point displys administrative prowess, not combat ability.--jerry 20:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You do have a point, I guess. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Pellaeon maintained a fleet in being, loyal to the ideal of the Empire. I'd say he did well there. And, as to Endor, could the order to retreat be different than Pellaeon's final withdrawal - who high-tails from the battle? Who, for that matter, could order Teshik to do anything? Not Pellaeon, nor the commanding officer of Chimaera... --McEwok 02:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. No one could have ordered a retreat without Teshik's permission/corroboration once he assumed command. --jerry 21:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)--
 * In the end, whether you consider Pellaeon's actions correct or not, he circumvented the chain of command by bypassing Grand Admiral Teshik, Admiral Harrsk, and every other CO present at the battle.
 * No matter what position Chimaera's former CO held (probably some sort of Admiral), Pellaeon does not get that authority when he takes over the ship; he's just an acting CO, outranked by every other CO in the fleet. The fact that his order was largely obeyed does not justify his calling it. It is clear that while some commanders (including Captain Dorja who reluctantly obeyed despite not being obligated to) knew that it was in fact Pellaeon issuing the order (and not the his CO), others like Admiral Harrsk, did not know that Pellaeon ordered the retreat, and were outraged when they discovered it at Annaj. Perhaps a communications breakdown or the damage to Harrsk's ship allowed the retreat to get through but not who the order was coming from, thus leading Harrsk to believe that Chimaera's CO, not Pellaeon was issuing the order. A communications disruption could also account for Teshik not issuing a counterorder or such an order not being recieved. In any case, the retreat was questionable and illegal, regardless of your opinion of Pellaeon himself.--jerry 21:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)