"We do not require glory, only status articles for our Emperor."

Imperial Remnant is within the scope of WookieeProject Ambition, an attempt to build comprehensive and detailed articles relating to the Galactic Empire.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can find out more about our mission, or even join yourself!

Pellaeon's TitleEdit

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)

Supreme Commander vs. Supreme Commander of the Imperial fleetEdit

I realize this is a topic discussed in length (apparently to the displeasure of some) on another talk page. Even so, this article continually states that the head of state, commander in chief, and head of government of the Imperial Remnant were merely "Supreme Commander". This is very simply wrong. I realize that Supreme Commander may be used as an informal, shortened version for Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet, but the plain and simple fact is that Pellaeon's exact title was Supreme Commander of the Imperial fleet. Since this article treats all matters in the way that is exactly how it was actually depicted in canon, then this article should change all references of "Supreme Commander" to "Supreme Commander of the Imperial fleet". Again, this isn't a matter of the article's origin or meaning, but the simple fact that the title was exactly "Supreme Commander of the Imperial fleet".--SOCL 05:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Yet we also have Supreme Commander of the Imperial Forces. We do not know which title is correct and if it applies to every person with Supreme Commander as part of their title, so we use just Supreme Commander. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The existance of "Supreme Commander of Imperial Forces" does not mean that that was Pellaeon's title. Where is this title cited? "Supreme Commander of the Imperial fleet" is very clearly stated in Specter of the Past and Vision of the Future. Where is "Imperial Forces" stated as being Pellaeon's title? Further, and this may seem trivial to some, what is its exact spelling? I mean, is it capialized exactly as you put or...? Because in Specter and Vision, the title is "Supreme Commander of the Imperial fleet". This may not seem important to some, but is important for the correct nature of the article.--SOCL 21:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Luke Skywalker held the title "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Forces" during his time as Palpatine's apprentice. The position appears to have been the same as Pellaeon's. And the "F" in Fleet should be capitalized. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The point is, "Supreme Commander (Empire)" is used because they appear to be the same position within the Empire, and because "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet/Forces" looks horrible. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
          • So because you or a broad majority believe something looks horrible discredits CANON EVIDENCE? That's crap. Look, simply put, his EXACT title in cited canon evidence is "Supreme Commander of the Imperial fleet". I am NOT talking about the different titles within the Empire. I am talking about the fact that Pellaeon's exact title was "Supreme Commander of the Imperial fleet." Your assumptions make no difference because they do not warrant proof. Just becuase you or someone else assumes that "Supreme Commander of Imperial Forces" (Skywalker's title) is the same as Pellaeon's "Supreme Commander of the Imperial fleet" does not make it proof, does not make it evidence. I won't get into the f being capitalized, but realize that the EXACT cited title does not have it capitalized—end of story.--SOCL 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
            • No need for an outburst like that, SOCL. And Skywalker's position and Pellaeon's positions were identical (Luke Skywalker with all Imperial forces under his command, and Pellaeon with all Imperial forces under his command), which is why "Supreme Commander (Empire)" is used. It's been decided already. This discussion is pointless. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
              • There was no out burst, Nebulax. First, let's get something straight: Pellaeon and Skywalker had the same authority. Yes, they both had the same authority because they both commanded all Imperial forces; however, this does not mean they had the same title. A good real-world example is the title of the person who commands the U.S. Army. Before World War I, they were called "General-in-Chief", after they were called "Commander-in-Chief (of the Army)", and currently is called "Chief of Staff of the Army". Okay, same powers, but different titles because of inherently different historical roots. Skywalker's title was "Supreme Commander of Imperial Forces"—that's understood. Pellaeon's OFFICIAL TITLE is shown in canon evidence as being EXACLTY Supreme Commander of the Imperial fleet. The only reason I would say this is pointless is because assumptions on Wookieepedia seem create evidence. In any event, this will be my last comment on this topic since I don't see a point in trying this point any further—as Karen Traviss said, Wiki's are just a place where those who scream loudest win.--SOCL 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • SOCL, that's exactly what I've been saying, minus the "f" in "fleet" thing, which I really don't care much about anymore. They had the same authority, which basically means the same position, even though their titles were different. That's why it's at "Supreme Commander (Empire)". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • I'm in total agreement with you on it being in the same article—absolutely; however, the fact that Vision of the Future states his title as being "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet" (I'm not really all that worried about the 'f' any more, either), which sort of makes sense from the side that Daala—a fleet officer who did not want to rule herself—wanted whoever ruled to have a legitamate title. I'm not denying the fact that the powers and authority weren't the same, much less the way they were used, but the... You know what? Honestly, I've lost most of the motivation to keep arguing this. Basically, I just want to make the point that Vision states Pellaeon's exact title of post as "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet", which may or may not be the evolution of the other type(s) of Supreme Commander. No worries about it—the article already Supreme Commander (Empire) states that Pellaeon's exact title was "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet", and overall serves a more useful purpose, namely the evolution of the title itself rather than the post.--SOCL 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Granted, Vader may have been Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet; HOWEVER, we aren't certain whether he commanded all Imperial forces AND we very much know he did was not head of state of a government. So, yes, it is an evolution because the position A)had to be returned by Daala, B)was brought back with the new powers of chief executive rather than just a commander in chief, and C)would again evolve after the (re)formation of the Council of Moffs so that it was no longer had dictator-styled powers of all aspects of government (like it did under Daala). It has evolved significantly.--SOCL 03:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • While that may be true, Vader basically had control over all forces, as did Luke Skywalker, as did Daala, as did Pellaeon. The only person holding Vader and Skywalker back was Palpatine, but they still had control over all Imperial forces. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but the word "basically" negates that the powers of Supreme Commander have not evolved over time. Again, even from when Daala (re)established the post to the Pellaeon-Gavrisom Treaty, the powers of the Supreme Commander just within the Imperial Remnant clearly evolved and, in that short span of time, actually lessened, though not to the same level when Skywalker and Vader held the position since Pellaeon as head of state holds considerable more power than either Vader or Skywalker held during their stint. Again (and please note the words I have chosen), the title (or some form of it) may be the same (i.e. the words "Supreme Commander" as a title), but the powers of that title's post within Imperial heirarchy have evolved over time.--SOCL 14:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • So, the only difference with the title when Daala and Pellaeon held it as opposed to when Vader and Skywalker held it is that it basically became equal to "head of state" when it was used by Daala and Pellaeon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 16:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
          • That's the main difference, but when you look at it, when Daala held the post, she held it as more of a dictator/Empress due to necessity (probably because of a lack of a Moff Council). When Pellaeon inherited it, he probably held it with the powers of a sort of de facto Emperor (dictatorial powers) until the formation of the Remnant's Moff Council, which very clearly balances the powers of the Supreme Commander. Of course, Pellaeon seems to have once again retaken many of his powers when he defied the Council during the Yuuzhan Vong War by federating the fleet under his command and threatening to defect. All I'm saying is, would it be acceptable to write into the Supreme Commander article the ways in which the powers of the title/post have changed depending on its position within the Empire (originally under the Emperor, later in place of Emperor) and its users agenda? That's what I mean by evolution of the title. Would it be acceptable to comment on that? I don't mind doing it and, of course, anyone can edit.--SOCL 23:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made a new subsection within the Supreme Commander (Empire) article that basically outlines the way the title and its powers have changed over time through those who have held it. Basically, showing the continuity between the different titles, as was concluded in the creation of the Supreme Commander article.--SOCL 16:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You know, that's not really canon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about? Every last thing in that I can cite directly from canon. It is canon information. Perhaps you should be more specific about what you're saying, but everything written in that section is canon-cited information, showing the continuity between the titles Supreme Commander of Imperial Forces, Military Executor, and Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet. If there is no connection/continuity between the titles, then why are they in the same article?--SOCL 22:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
        • We're assuming that it evolved. No source has said it evolved. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
          • You're kidding, right? I do not agree with the fact the article treats all of the titles as one, but it does. We know the powers of the titles at different stages in time, and throughout time canon sources show that they have changed. Want an example? Pellaeon was head of state, Vader was not, both were Supreme Commanders. Daala had dictatorial powers, Pellaeon later did not. I've explained this in length and in MUCH detail in the past.--SOCL 22:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Founding Document Edit

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)

I apologize if this discussion is finished, but I clearly read that the Imperial Reunification declared by Admiral Daala founded the Remnant. After all, the New Republic Presidential election of 27 ABY founded the Galactic Alliance. Jedi Wolf 1:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Same can be said for the Presidential election of 27 ABY founding the Galactic Alliance, but it did. Founding documents aren't always documents. Jedi Wolf 3:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Nonetheless, the Imperial Remnant was a continuation of the Galactic Empire, and the Empire's founding document was the Declaration of a New Order. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Founding Date Edit

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—though chaotic—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—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—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—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 Edit

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 Edit

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—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? Edit

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. —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?) —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)
    • 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) Imperial Emblem 11:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Difference between calling themselves "the Empire" and being AN empire. Thanos6 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Executive Branch Edit

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) Imperial Emblem 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)
  • I believe that the Council of Moffs should be stricken from the line of "executive branch". I also believe that Supreme Commander should be added seeing as how the post is the chief executive of the Imperial Remnant as both head of state and head of government. Unless there are any objections, I will make the change.--SOCL 02:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh, I feel sheepishly stupid... Is it possible that by Council of Moffs the author was referring to the various cabinet style functions the Council undertakes? If so, then the Council seems to function as both Parliament and Cabinet to the Supreme Commander, making it the executive branch as well as the legislative branch. Perhaps my earlier findings were flawed...--SOCL 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Legacy era EmperorEdit

  • Can we necessarily be sure that the Imperial Remnant had an Emperor reigning towards the Legacy era? I understand that seems rather logical, but we can't truly be sure at what stage the Legacy era Empire took over the Remnant, or even if they necessarily came from the exact same governmental entity. I'm not saying it doesn't seem to fit, but we have no explicit evidence to say that the Imperial Remnant as the Imperial Remnant was ever ruled by an Emperor.--SOCL 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • From what I've read, it seems that the Remnant had an Emperor before it became the Empire again. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
      • As always, and it's not a personal thing, I ask: what is the source? What is that you've read?--SOCL 00:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
        • It's from what I read in Legacy 0. It just sounds like the Remnant had an Emperor before it became the new Galactic Empire. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Is this where the notion comes that Pellaeon became Emperor? I'm curious and will probably journey out to buy the comics, but was he made the Remnant's Emperor? Perhaps posthomously?--SOCL 17:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't think he was Emperor. My bet is that since Pellaeon became the GA Supreme Commander, Fel I was a high-ranking Imperial that took over as Emperor. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Wait, do you mean to say that Fel I took over immediately after Pellaeon?--SOCL 04:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Not immediately, but I have the feeling that, while Pellaeon was GA Supreme Commander, Fel I became a Moff, and, soon enough, became Emperor. And no, I'm not basing this on any canonical sources. But perhaps one of the LotF books with tell us more about Fel I and his rise to Emperor. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • No, no, it wasn't so much that as it was the fact that I hadn't realized that Fel I had been around so earlier that he probably would have known Pellaeon. Of course, I seriously doubt he was called Fel I then... But no worries. I was just surprised.--SOCL 03:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Connection with the empire of the hand Edit

Did the Empire of the Hand and the Imperial Renmant Have any connections as in trading and co-operative operation before or during the Yuuzhan Vong war. --QX100 15:20 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Disciples of Ragnos (14 ABY) Edit

This sections states During the crisis of the Disciples of Ragnos, the Remnant were active on locations such as an old power station on Bakura, Echo Base on Hoth, Bast Castle on Vjun, Kril'dor, Dosuun, Yalara, Byss, and Taspir III.. Shouldn't Byss be removed, since it was destroyed by the Galaxy Gun 3 years prior? - Fnlayson 22:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Edit

Should not note be made of the fact that the Imperial Remnant was also the title given by the New Republic to 'all' Imperial successor factions regardless of alignment? Karohalva 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Economy? Edit

I was wondering the source for this since IMO the economy would have flourished. Also, in the NJO they had an Executor-class, now how could they afford that if their economy was bad.--Hencho414 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This page should be splitEdit

  • Into two pages - one the generic "remnant" concept which the New Republic applied to all Imperial governments post Palpatine, and the other the specific regime established by Pelly. QuentinGeorge 03:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe that might complicate the matter a tad much. In any event, the fact is that the aforementioned regime was not established by Pellaeon, but rather came into existence out of Daala's fiasco of an offensive as detailed in Darksaber and was fully functional sometime before Specter of the Past. I suppose an argument can be made that Pellaeon established this particular regime in that he led the expansion efforts and subsequent retreats following Daala's efforts to reunite the Empire; however, the fact remains that posts such as the Moff Council seem to have existed concurrent or before Pellaeon's assumption of command. To the main point, splitting the article might over-complicate the matter as any such article would likely be short and somewhat pointless in orientation. As long as sufficient commentary is made in regard to the use of the term "remnant" in this article, then I personally believe it should remain "as is".--SOCLcomm 05:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Imperial Remnant" Edit

This article has the name/term "Imperial Remnant" first being used in Specter of the Past. Having recently reread that particular novel, as well as Vision of the Future, the term "Imperial Remnant" itself is never actually used. There is reference to the "remnants of the Empire" or some such, but no use of the proper noun. This actually a term that did not crop up until the New Jedi Order, specifically the first Dark Tide novel. I will go ahead and edit this matter in the Appearances section.--SOCLcomm 01:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Shadow Academy Edit

Perhaps brief mention should be made of the Shadow Academy in this article. It was, after all, a rogue Imperial movement which did not acknowledge the authority of the Moff Council and the Pellaeon-Gavrisom Treaty.--SOCLcomm 05:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Problem is, the Shadow Academy wasn't a part of the Imperial Remnant. It was a Imperial remnant, yes, but not a part of the government known as the Imperial Remnant. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Clearly understood, but shouldn't some mention be made of it as being an Imperial faction in opposition of the mainstream faction (i.e. Imperial Remnant)? In any event, I somehow forgot we have a Second Imperium article, so the point is mostly moot. Still, I think there should be some mention on how the Empire Reborn and Second Imperium relate to the Imperial Remnant, despite the fact they are not the same governmental entity.--SOCLcomm 03:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with the suggestion, but not the article to which it should be added. We should just have a generic "Imperial remnants" article to list and describe all the Imperial remnants. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
        • A very good idea. Then again, though, that go into quite a bit of detail concerning the fractious nature of the Empire following the events at Byss and such (i.e. the various Imperial warlords). Quite an undertaking, but it seems rather necessary as a way of plotting Imperial history from the Battle of Endor onward. I would imagine it even including mention of Zaarin, then move on to the various warlords, then Pestage and Isard, then Thrawn, cloned Palpatine, Daala, Imperial Reunification, Empire Reborn/Disciples of Ragnos, the Imperial Remnant, the Second Imperium, the Empire of the Hand...--SOCLcomm 03:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Yeah, it would be a big task, but if you were to undertake this project, I would gladly help as much as possible. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Could we get along that long? Haha! Who am I kidding? I'm the jerk of an instigator more than half the time! Hahaha! Alright, that sounds good. I'll start by making a user page and we'll work from there. I don't anticipate starting for a few days, though, so feel free to start and I'll come around to assist. Either way.--SOCLcomm 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

super-class destroyers Edit

the article says that the dominion was the only known super-class destroyer which was known but there was the megador too which has lead the assault fleet that has attacked shedu maad. sorry for any grammar errors, i've had just three years english in school til now - 23:00, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • I believe the Megador belonged to the Galactic Alliance and was not actually an Imperial-flagged vessel. It's possible it was constructed at the Imperial shipyards, but this is pure speculation. The Dominion is perhaps the vessel mentioned over Bastion in The New Jedi Order: Destiny's Way.--SOCLcomm 12:26, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Canon/Legends tabs Edit

Is there a reason as to why the canon wiki page, Imperial_remnants is not the 'canon' tab of Imperial_Remnants's wiki page (as a Legends tab)?--ChristopherLeeGallant (talk) 21:07, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

  • This page, Imperial Remnant, is a Legends article. Imperial remnants is not an article at all, but a disambiguation page, which covers both canon and Legends content. Similarly, Imperial Remnants is also not an article, but a redirect to Imperial Remnant. There is no real canon equivalent of this article, so there's no article appropriate to put under a "canon" tab. Asithol (talk) 22:57, January 12, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.