FANDOM


(About Empire: new section)
Line 190: Line 190:
 
''Darth Krayt's Empire'' and ''Emperor Roan Fel's Empire-in-exile''. In ''Legacy 0 1/2'', Krayt's faction is explicitly called the ''Sith Empire'' while the previous empire is called the ''Fel Empire'' and its remnant ''the "true" Empire''.
 
''Darth Krayt's Empire'' and ''Emperor Roan Fel's Empire-in-exile''. In ''Legacy 0 1/2'', Krayt's faction is explicitly called the ''Sith Empire'' while the previous empire is called the ''Fel Empire'' and its remnant ''the "true" Empire''.
 
[[User:VT-16|VT-16]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 
[[User:VT-16|VT-16]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  +
  +
== About Empire ==
  +
  +
Galactic Empire (post-Remnant) is not two empire just two fractions. [[User:Srini|Srini]] 11:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:36, March 8, 2008

What is this?

What's the source that this is separate from the Imperial Remnant? Leland Chee has said that they're the same, and I'm not aware of any new statements otherwise. Kuralyov 00:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

why this is cool. This empire has no affiliation with the sith. It in fact may be the new system of government. A how should i say "GOOD" empire. Ralok 01:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

i doubt it Ralok 00:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

what war Ralok 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

news flash there is nothing saying there is a war just a few angry sith trying to fight the last skywalker that isnt even really a jedi. Ralok 23:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

i wouldnt define a single attack as a war. a war is a series of battle conflicts due to politcal riligious or cultural views. I would define this as a terrorist act or a taunt. Much like daalas attacks on the new republic i wouldnt define evey single building attacked as a war Ralok 02:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Thankfully you are not in charge of dictating canon. Kuralyov 03:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

a single attack cannot be described as an entire war is all i am trying to say Ralok 03:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

it is a war bcuz there are at least 2 separate battles the first battle is the attack on the jedi temple at ossus and the second is the attack on the emperor in addition to that there was an attack on coruscant based on the coruscant article on here it says that coruscant was wrested from the grip of the GA that would probably mean it was take in by battle(Boommer3 01:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC))


Just because this new form of the Empire has an Emperor doesn't necessarily mean it's a completely different governmental entity from the Imperial Remnant. It's more than likely the evolution of the Remnant than a brand new entity. Then again, in that same sense, the Imperial Remnant is itself simply the evolution of the Galactic Empire. The point, though, is where is the source for this name? Was this stated as the official name of the Legacy era Empire, or is this just a fanon name? If this is not an official name, then this article should not exist independent of the Galactic Empire or Imperial Remnant articles.--SOCL 20:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • First: Yes, it's different, because it's much larger than the Imperial Remnant and it's basically a Galaxy-wide Empire again. Second: We're using a conjectural title until we have an actual name for it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • After thinking about this a bit more, there may be an issue with this. First, we're not sure if this new Galactic Empire is a descended of the Imperial Remnant. Indeed, it has many of the characteristics which point to it being descended of the original Galactic Empire by way of the Imperial Remnant, but we cannot be sure of this since there is no evidence to tell us this. Indeed, the idea that this new Galactic Empire may be descended from the Galactic Alliance isn't so far-fetched as to simply be dismissed... And now that I've typed that, I have no idea where I was going with it...--SOCL 02:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "First, we're not sure if this new Galactic Empire is a descended of the Imperial Remnant". Hello, did the Remnant have an Emperor? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Hello, did the Old Republic have a Supreme Chancellor? And yet the Galactic Empire the evolution of the Old Republic. Things change over time. Also, you are making an asseration based on limited information. We only have information about the Imperial Remnant from 12 ABY to 35 ABY, no further. We cannot be sure that the Imperial Remnant did not later reinstated the use of a Galactic Emperor. This points to the THEORY that the Legacy Era Empire may be descended from the Imperial Remnant, but is NOT irrefutable proof. You are making an assumption based on a theory, but there is NOTHING in canon to confirm it. In the end, a lack of proof only allows us make theories about this new Galactic Empire's origin. Therefore, it may be just as well be descended from the Galactic Alliance as it may be from the Imperial Remnant. For that matter, it may be descended from something wholely different that occured between 35 ABY and 130 ABY. A LOT happens in 100 years. Entire attitudes, socieities, and governments change to become nearly irrecongnizable from what they were.--SOCL 22:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • And therefore you have no proof that it was formed from the Imperial Remnant. But from what I've read, it appears tp have come from the Galactic Alliance. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Not the point. The point is what proof do you have it was formed from the Galactic Alliance? I am not saying it was or was not formed from the Imperial Remnant nor am saying it was or was not formed from the Galactic Alliance. I am asking for the source/evidence.--SOCL 02:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Legacy 0 seems to imply that the new Empire formed out of the Galactic Alliance after they took Coruscant. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
              • By they I assume you mean the Imperial Remnant? I didn't realize the implications existed. I just wanted some confirmation. My professors are always yelling and encouraging me about questioning everything...in case you're wondering about why I do.--SOCL 02:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Establishment

  • If indeed this new Empire was established from the Galactic Alliance, then shouldn't the article be changed from saying "a continuation of the Imperial Remnant" to "the evolution of the Galactic Alliance"? Also, the article claims this new Empire was established circa 130 ABY, but wouldn't it have been at least three generations earlier? Again, the comics take place in 130 ABY, but we know of at least three previous emperors...--SOCL 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I really think it came from the Imperial Remnant after it captured Coruscant and kind of combinded with the GA. And the date should be changed, yes, but we don't know what it should be changed to. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I understand that an exact founding date can't be targeted, but then a note should at least be made that the founding date was sometime after 30 ABY and before 130 ABY. Sounds vague, but it'll help quell any possible misunderstandings. Further, in regard to the fusion of the Remnant with the GA, should comments be made to that affect? What do the canon sources say about the founding?--SOCL 01:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
        • For the founding date, I changed it to something like "Sometime after 40 ABY". And the new Empire probably came from the Remnant after it conquered Coruscant; if the GA had any part in its formation, I'm not entirely sure. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

i have to say this and i might be wrong but from what the article looks like to me is that the Imperial Remnant and the Empire of the Hand allied together and be came the new Empire The empire of the hand comes from the "Fel dynasty" part and if i remember right the Fel family is part of the empire of the hand/Chiss if this has already been covered then never mind(Boommer3 23:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

  • First: Please do no restart old topics. Second: There's no source for the Imperial Remnant and the Empire of the Hand coming together to form this Empire. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

i said i think that would be another possibility bcuz as of right now there is alot of speculation so i just thought i would add my two cents, also i said that the FEL family supported the Empire of the hand and in addition the %)!st legion was part of the empire of the hand and from what has been previously said on this exact page the 501st legion is part of the NEW empire i say that is decent evidence for there to be a POSSIBILITY of there being a joining of empires(remnant and hand) (Boommer3 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

well of course it doesnt have a source bcuz there isnt a source bcuz there arent that many canon sources on the subject and there is almost no history so it is currntly speculation until a source can be made and until then ur best guess is as good as my best guess ok bcuz there is no canon to refer too(Boommer3 00:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Still anti-alien?

For those that have Legacy, does it appear as though the Empire continued its xenophobic practices? 206.106.137.105 14:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Not really. The 501st Legion, along with every other stormtrooper division, developed specialized helmets and armor for different species. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • However, if you notice, all of the Imperial Knights we are shown are human, whereas, the Skywalkers are the only human Jedi. Lonnyd 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

i say that the anti alien sentiment is not held by many people there are still a few but the majority wouldnt because the empire took alot of the galaxy by peaceful means meaning that the people would want to feel welcome so the xenophobia would be gone by the mainstream society and MOST officials but not all(Boommer3 23:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Capitol?

Is it Coruscant or Bastion? No one seems to be able to agree... Thanos6 08:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • All thanks to the confusing structure of issue 0. I think it was Bastion until the Imperial-Sith war, and then it was Coruscant. But don't quote me. Lonnyd 09:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's Bastion, I believe, because it was the most fortified world as of 130 ABY. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but issue 0 states "The Galactic Alliance displaced the Vong and, in turn, have been displaced by the Empire once more." I guess it doesnt say that it was the Imperial capital, but it IS Coruscant. Lonnyd 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • No, Coruscant isn't. They kept Bastion as the capital. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Please explain your reasoning, Nebulax. If it's because of how heavily defended the planet is, I'd point out that as of VotF, Yaga Minor was described as the most heavily defended system in the Remnant, yet it clearly wasn't the capital. Such an assumption is dangerous.--GrandAdmiralJello 08:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
            • First, explain why you think Coruscant is the capital. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I believe I read on this very Wiki that they took Coruscant as the capital, although Bastion remained the most heavily fortified planet in the Empire. I will have to see if I can find it. Stinkywookie 19:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
                • I wouldn't use other articles as sources. I suggest finding out who wrote it and asking them for the source. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • I was looking for who said it but I can't find it. I don't see why the Empire would not want to have their capitol on Coruscant just to give it legitimacy. Where did the attack on the Emperor happen? I can't find that article. Stinkywookie 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Common sense here—why wouldn't the new Empire use the most fortified planet in the Galaxy as their capital? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • Because Coruscant is Triple Zero. Any faction that controls it controls the galaxy - Kwenn 20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The preview for Legacy 1 confirms that it was headquartered at Bastion. Krayt says that he "made an alliance with the reborn Empire at Bastion," and we know that he's talking about this empire from Legacy 0. Kuralyov 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • From Legacy 1: "Following the Yuuzhan Vong defeat, the Galactic Alliance rebuilt a broken Coruscant, making it their capital once more. Now, it is the Imperial throneworld for the new Empire." - Lord Hydronium 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I know that, but are "throneworld" and "capital" always completely identical? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. The Imperial throne is what the Empire is ruled from, so the throneworld is the planet it's ruled from. - Lord Hydronium 19:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Then would the Death Star II be considered a capital because Palpatine sat upon a throne there? Or would Emperor's Revenge be a capital because Carnor Jax had his throne there? Sure, they're not planets, but that's not the point now. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
          • The existence of a throne on a world does not equal a throneworld. The Imperial throne is not an object, it's a symbol of rule. It's why people speak of an empire or kindom being ruled by someone on "the throne"; that doesn't mean there's only one physical throne anywhere, it means that there is a concept of "the throne" that is the position from which it's ruled. And a throneworld is a unique identifier; one specific world that is host to this concept of a throne. Basically, it's "the Imperial throneworld", not "an Imperial world with a throne". You would not call the Death Star II "the Imperial throneworld". - Lord Hydronium 20:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
        • To give a real-world example, the capital of the Netherlands is Amsterdam the capital, yet the government is run from The Hague. An historical example is that despite the fact Rome remained the capitol of the Roman Empire, many of the latter Western Emperors had their thrones officially placed eslewhere, such as Ravenna, which effectively became the official seats of power. So in this manner it's QUITE possible for the throneworld to be seperate from the head of government/capitol in the same manner a head of state (monarch or President) isn't necessarily the head of government (Prime Miniser). Again, it's not impossible for the throneworld to be seperate from the capitol. Coruscant may be a symbolic capital, while Bastion is the true seat of government.--SOCL 20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Another good example would be the Bonn/Berlin situation in Germany after reunification. Berlin became the capital, but most government offices were still in Bonn until years later, after government infrastructure was re-established.SWVRoma 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The lastest Insider seems to heavily imply that Bastion remains the capital of the Empire. Further, it continues to refer to this new Empire as the Imperial Remnant. In light of this, I suggest that this article be merged with the Imperial Remnant article. Indeed, they seem to function differently, but are apparently the same governmental entities, simply evolved. It's possible to say the Remnant itself is the evolution of Palpatine's Empire, but there is a stark difference between governmental collapse and martial restablishment (i.e. Tsoss Beacon and Darksaber) than simple evolution, which seems to be what has happened with this new breed of the Empire. As is stated numerous times in various sources, the creators say this is not the same Empire Palpatine established, but is not a republic, which seems to very clearly match the confederated Imperial Remnant under Pellaeon. If I have made the motion of merge the articles in the incorrect location, would someone be so kind as to direct me to the correct place?--SOCL 03:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We're not merging these articles. Merging them would mean Galactic Empire gets merged as well. The Legacy era Empire was a Galactic Empire, unlike the Imperial Remnant. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh. Actually, I was about to post in this regard. After more carefully reading the article (Insider 88, page 44), it seems to actually imply that the Legacy era Empire is indeed a distinct governmental entity evolved from the Imperial Remnant. As the article reads under the Roan Fel bit, "Well after the Yuuzhan Vong War, the influence of both the Imperial Remnant and Bastion expanded, coalescing to form a new Empire." Given this new information, I withdraw my motion to merge the articles.--SOCL 05:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

i agree with nebulax bcuz it was the same with the Galctic Alliance after the vong war, bcuz there capitol was another world like Denon, i think, and they officially moved the capitol to coruscant a little later but still governed out of denon but waited till coruscant was built up till they moved the actual governing bodies to coruscant, so i say that AS OF NOW bastion is the place were the governing bodies are working out of but it is only until coruscant if fortified enough to suit the empire, but even so coruacant is the the capitol in NAME ONLY(Boommer3 23:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

im confused i agree with u and u say i bring up old topics u have not once responded with a real answer to any of my posts one time all you say is that i bring up old topics and nothing else could u at least expand upon what part of my posts are "old topics" instead of just saying old topic shut up and go away basicly(Boommer3 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

ok i concede that, but that only means the topic is old but from what i can see it looks like it isnt finished so it isnt done ,im restarting yes but its bcuz it isnt finished that is why i post(Boommer3 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Watch issues

When I recive and email about an update on this artical it sends me to a different page that says it doesnt exist. Has anyone else had this problem? Jacen Solo Jedi Master 14 June 2006 20:40 EST.

Here is were it sends me [[1]] Jacen Solo Jedi Master 14 June 2006 20:43 EST.

Dominant government

It is made clear in both issue #0 and the opening crawl in #2 that the Empire did not become the dominant galactic government until after the Sith-Imperial War. I think we should bump up the date to be c. 130 ABY, possibly a bit sooner. But, 40 ABY is WAY to soon. AdmiralNick22 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No, the Galactic Empire could still be the dominant galactic government with the GA around. What I re-added is more acturate: We know that it became the dominant government sometime after 40 ABY but before 130 ABY. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • How can the Galactic Empire be more dominant than the GA when it was part of the GA? Stinkywookie 20:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Name

Do we have an actual name for this? Legacy 2 refers to it as the "New Empire", and really, even if it is conjecture, wouldn't New Galactic Empire be a better title? - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 22:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Symbol

  • So the new issue of Legacy has a picture of Fel and Calixte standing in front of a banner with the NGE symbol on it. It's obscured by them, so not really usable, but I was thinking someone who's good at that kind of thing might be able to draw one? Just a thought. Lonnyd 02:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Drawings = fanart = fanon = non-canon. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • They've been used on other articles. Lonnyd 19:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • They shouldn't have been. I'd rather not continue the habit. We'll wait until we get a clearer view, or perhaps use that image elsewhere in the article - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 19:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Besides, the Imperial insignia is the Imperial insignia. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
          • About that, its actually not. The outside border is broken, not a full circle. So if you guys are against a fan creation, the current image should probably come down. Lonnyd 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
            • No, because that image is from Legacy 0, to signify the New Galactic Empire. Can you upload the panel that shows this new symbol so we can take a look at it? - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"New Galactic Empire" or "new" Galactic Empire?

I've reverted the page name to Galactic Empire (Legacy era), because I can't find any canon references to the "New Galactic Empire" as opposed to "new Galactic Empire" - ie, "new" isn't part of the canonical name of the state. If anyone has a counter-reference, please cite it precisely before re-reverting. --McEwok 11:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • And I reverted it back. If you want to, you can change every "New" in "New Galactic Empire" to have a lowercase "n". But that does not mean you move the article to a less-encyclopedic name. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If "New Galactic Empire" is not canon, then I'm not sure what the fact you think it sounds more "encyclopedic" has to do with anything. --McEwok 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Seems to me "Galactic Empire (Legacy era)" is actually more encyclopedic, if by encyclopedic you mean "unlikely to mislead uninformed readers." I could come across "New Galactic Empire" and assume that's the actual name; I wouldn't with the (Legacy era) attached. Ugly? Yes, but we're better off waiting for a confirmed name. —Gonk (Gonk!) 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • McEwok is right—we have to go with canon. --ATATatarismall.png 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree with the name change to Galactic Empire (Legacy era). I only wish we did the same thing for the "new" Jedi Order. --Eyrezer 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I am inclined to agree with McEwok. However, maybe we could breify as John or Randy on either the JC forums or the DH forums? I am sure that they would confirm a simple question like that. AdmiralNick22 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
            • And/or wait until the next issue of the comic specifies what name they use to differentiate the old and new Empires. The Legacy era subtitle is OOU, though. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
              • The comics do refer to it as the "new Empire" (#1, p17) and Krayt calls it the "reborn Empire" (#1, p3). #1's blurb calls it the "re-formed Empire". #0 also states the Remnant "once more proclaimed itself the Empire". #0 commonly calls it "the Empire" throughout, though uses "new Empire" (p15; p18) - \\Captain Kwenn// Ahoy! 12:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible titles

Discussed with McEwok and others on IRC:

The "post-Remnant" option seemed to be the most supported one. - Sikon 05:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I would support post-Remnant. They seemed to recover nicely. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, I like Galactic Empire (Fel dynasty) (though I'll state for the record that it was my own suggestion). It's a more positive definition, based on something that the new Empire is (ie, ruled by the Fel dynasty—even if Darth Krayt isn't a Fel), rather than something that it's not (the Remnant). Also "Remnant" is primarily a NR/GFFA term for Imperial space.
  • That said, I'm fine with "post-Remnant", too.... --McEwok 11:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Imperial Knights

So we know for certain that the Empire called on the Jedi to surrender and that's where the Imperial Knights came from? 100% factual truth? I didn't think we had confirmation, and some of the Knights seem like they've been Knights for longer than the Empire has been attacking the GA. So that doesn't make much sense to me. Knights look to have been around more than the ten years since the Sith-Imperial War started. --Glacialis 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Uh, no, the Imperial Knights weren't formed when the Empire called on the Jedi to surrender. They existed before that. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • See, that's what I thought too. But the main article this discussion is attached to says otherwise. --Glacialis 02:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Executive branch

What Sith Council?... There's is no Council under the Rule of One, just a bunch of Lords serving the Dark Lord.--Gonzalo84 16:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's still interested in giving this a proper name...

...here's what the new Starships of the Galaxy is calling the two Imperial factions: Darth Krayt's Empire and Emperor Roan Fel's Empire-in-exile. In Legacy 0 1/2, Krayt's faction is explicitly called the Sith Empire while the previous empire is called the Fel Empire and its remnant the "true" Empire. VT-16 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

About Empire

Galactic Empire (post-Remnant) is not two empire just two fractions. Srini 11:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.