Musketeer935
AoEIII Fan
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 67
Wouldnt it be odd to have the old republic and the galatic republic fighting each other? the same thing with the Impereal remnant and Empire.
Civilizations discussion
- Thread starter civ editor11
- Start date
Wouldnt it be odd to have the old republic and the galatic republic fighting each other? the same thing with the Impereal remnant and Empire.
...or Germany and Holy Roman Empire. Not that odd. Especially the first example. I could easily imagine some bad fan fiction story where GR drops in OR's lap and they start fighting because of some silly misunderstanding. Same with the empires having a fight over who's the real Empire, or Moff not being happy about the Emperor coming back. Not inconceivable.
Musketeer935
AoEIII Fan
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 67
True... its kinda like the greek city states... but also, really the old republic and galatic republic are really the SAME thing, just later era. Such as: Roman Empire and Roman Republic. Its like that. theyre really the same.
civ editor11
Ruler
Thae Imperial Remant was a different civilization then the empire it had much different leaders and it was composed differently.
The old republic is the exact same as the new republic the only difference is one civic and era really
The old republic is the exact same as the new republic the only difference is one civic and era really
No. It. Was. NOT.
It was called the Imperial Remnant because it was the REMNANTS of the GALACTIC EMPIRE. They're the same Empire with the SAME REMAINING FORCES.
Medieval Britain and Modern Britain both are composed differently and have vastly different leaders, yet they're BOTH BRITAIN. Feudal Japan is vastly different from Modern Japan, but they're BOTH JAPAN. STOP arguing against logic and accept that you've lost.
Musketeer935
AoEIII Fan
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 67
Jawa'sRevenge
Warlord
No! the empire is palpation's empire, a sith empire, not an empire of moffs, not of grand admirals, it had nothing to do with the armed forces, the sith were the empire not the stormtroopers!
You've obviously never read The Prince. The Emperor's Empire was, yes, CREATED by him, but because he took the arms from his subjects and put them in the hands of his army, took away from those subjects he mistrusted when he should have secured himself amongst them, made them his allies, given them arms and status to quell their dissatisfaction and turn enemies to friends.
He did fairly well, which is why he lasted so long, but in the end he didn't follow Machiavelli's advice and as such lost power in his Empire via DS2 power core. The nation remains, albeit in a much more limited sense, but he does not.
Furthermore, you are ignorant in your assumption that an empire can be comprised of one man, for it WAS an empire of Moffs, it WAS an empire of Grand Admirals, the armed forces had a LOT to do with it. While he secured himself amongst the Moffs and Grand Admirals, he did not secure himself amongst the Senators and the People, which is why he lost power in the Empire he helped to forge. It's like Julius Caesar. He essentially forged the Roman Empire but ultimately lost power within it via Death by betrayal.
Don't fool yourself, you can't beat me in an argument regarding this subject. I remembered to build additional pylons.
He did fairly well, which is why he lasted so long, but in the end he didn't follow Machiavelli's advice and as such lost power in his Empire via DS2 power core. The nation remains, albeit in a much more limited sense, but he does not.
Furthermore, you are ignorant in your assumption that an empire can be comprised of one man, for it WAS an empire of Moffs, it WAS an empire of Grand Admirals, the armed forces had a LOT to do with it. While he secured himself amongst the Moffs and Grand Admirals, he did not secure himself amongst the Senators and the People, which is why he lost power in the Empire he helped to forge. It's like Julius Caesar. He essentially forged the Roman Empire but ultimately lost power within it via Death by betrayal.
Don't fool yourself, you can't beat me in an argument regarding this subject. I remembered to build additional pylons.
Musketeer935
AoEIII Fan
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 67
civeditor,
its gonna be hard to make a LH for Sidrona Diath without a pic.
The one random event I talked about should be on the HoloNet, thats their TV sort of thing.
its gonna be hard to make a LH for Sidrona Diath without a pic.
The one random event I talked about should be on the HoloNet, thats their TV sort of thing.
civ editor11
Ruler
I took sidrona diath off the list
And Palpatine was the one person who ruled. He put a few completely trusted people to control certain sectors, but he still had his hands watching them to be certain they wouldn't betray him
And Palpatine was the one person who ruled. He put a few completely trusted people to control certain sectors, but he still had his hands watching them to be certain they wouldn't betray him
Jawa'sRevenge
Warlord
Two words "battle meditation"
civ editor11
Ruler
His battle meditation helped but what it really was is his hands and vader wwho helped him rule by fear. noone in the military would dare betray him because it meant an instant and horrible death. It is near impossible to rule with only one person that is why he had many hands an apprentice and some private enforcers to kill or torture anyone not obeying him to the dot.
Same thing de jure, yes. One must remember that lot has happened over the millenia separating the two and the Republic got really battered and reshaped a few times. The feel of the two is different. Beyond mere civics, IMO.
Anyways, the better argument against making OR a separate civ is that there isn't a good leader available (especially if you want a picture too). Stories of those eras don't focus on the heads of state much. Maybe BioWare creates one for their MMO, but I doubt it.
civ editor11
Ruler
There is no leaderheads for back then so yes we shouldn't do old republic and Galactic republic.
T_KCommanderbly
Prince
I see holonet like there internet (you can see the resemblence)
You're NOT LISTENING. He LOST POWER. The fact or non-fact that he was the one person who ruled is IRRELEVANT. He lost power, but the Empire continued, albeit in a downward spiral! And you're still all WRONG, so shut up and stop arguing your illogical arguments!
Here's a real life example of a similar event, with the same general "He comes to power, he has power, he loses power, nation continues" story. Ludovico Sforza became the absolute ruler of Milan during the Italian Renaissance. He ruled for a while and was a patron of the arts including Leonardo da Vinci. However, he got his ass kicked and was driven out.
MILAN CONTINUED FOR A LONG, LONG, LONG TIME AFTER THAT. It was controlled by the French, the Spanish, native Italians, Lombards, it was ALWAYS the Duchy of Milan! Sforza wasn't the Absolute ruler anymore, but it always remained Milan despite foreign influences.
None of your arguments work, NONE of them, and for the sake of getting you to be quiet about them, I'll correct you.
Battle meditation is a force power that helps win battles, not keeping people cowed in a galaxy with hundreds of billions, maybe even trillions of people.
If you read my post, you'd know that I'm correct. He gave his arms to the Soldiers, took them from the populace. Where there was already trust, he solidified it with the threat of punishment. However, amongst the greater masses, the PUBLIC, the PEOPLE, NOT THE SOLDIERS, there was still discontent, and his greatest failing was in not solidifying his image amongst them. Instead of using just using cruelty as a means to send a message, he used it as an end as well.
When the people rebelled and he ended up dead, the moffs still had power over vast sectors, and the Grand Admirals had their fleets, so though they squabbled like the nobility of an empire without an emperor, every now and then they'd be unified by one leader. It was the same Empire, just without the Emperor, and though it was stricken by war and strife, it was still The Empire. The same fleets, the same (remaining) planets.
Your argument is that when the Emperor died it stop being The Galactic Empire. But the only way that would work is if The Emperor was the only one in that Empire.
You are wrong, I am correct. Stop arguing as you are only making me irritated at your persistence.
/
civ editor11
Ruler
The empire reorganized changed almost everyone of its policies, and its leaders were much different. This has to be some good reasons to be a completely different civ.
