So you've killed the Emperor. Now what?

[Formless]

Note: this thread was inspired by recent VS arguments (I will leave it up to you to guess which ones), but I am putting this into a pure Star Wars context due to the general argument being more or less the same across all VS contexts I can think of.

Lets say the Yuuzhan Vong or similar extragalactic power were to arrive during the height of the Empire's power and declare war. During this war, they manage to assassinate Emperor Palpatine somehow. Now, it appears that there are some people around here who think that simply killing the Emperor is a surefire way to instantly win any war with Palpatine's Empire. But why? To my ears, this argument feels far too simplified to hold water. Lets start with what appears to be the main logic: It Worked For The Rebel Alliance.

The problem with this is that the Rebellion is a quite different enemy to the Empire from the Vong or whatever faction from your favorite sci-fi franchise you might want to pit in a VS context. The Rebellion always had a clear political goal that fit into the historical, cultural, and political context of the SW Galaxy: overthrow the current government and install a state modeled after the Old Republic. They were also aided by such events as the destruction of Alderaan, which they could point to as an unambiguous atrocity perpetrated by the ruling regime. By the time the Emperor died, they had already been hard at work for a decade or more making allies, putting out propaganda, and reassuring the population that they were trustworthy. Personal suspicion, but this may be why they modeled the New Republic after the Old Republic: it was what everyone knew and was comfortable with. And even then, as evidenced in such books as the Rogue Squadron series, the death of the Emperor did not end the conventional war even if it was a critical moment that turned the tide in the Rebellion's favor. And even after they succeeded in their political goal, the New Republic still had to fight several other wars against remnant forces led by Thrawn, Palpatine's own clones, and other warlords.

The problem, then, is that an extragalactic power such as the Vong or whomever you might pit against the Empire have generally very different goals, and exist outside any political context the Empire's population is familiar with. Hell, the Vong are interested in conquest and total war: such an enemy who presents a clear and present threat for as long as they exist should tend to unify people against them, weakening whatever impact the Emperor's death would have. If a faction is fighting for the rather conventional purpose of simply rendering the Empire non-threatening, killing the Emperor accomplishes nothing because of his clones and loyal officers like Thrawn who continued to fight for the Empire, and may even be counterproductive due to the creation of warlords like Zsinj who fight for their political own gain.

Another issue is the lack of a clear line of succession, which people seem to think would inevitably lead to fracturing of the Empire into warlordism and an incoherent nonthreatening mess (though again, how a warlord out for personal gain could be less threatening then Palpatine's Empire is beyond me). Obviously, the Emperor's clones can take over, being that they are literally Palpatine himself (only perhaps crazier). But remember also that the original Emperor died under very specific circumstances: Vader's betrayal and self sacrifice. If you manage to kill Palpatine but don't kill Vader, what stops him from taking command and putting the demise of your faction at the top of the priorities list in revenge for killing the best friend he's had for most of his life? And there is the Moffs, the Grand Admirals, and other military officials who could easily take over in case the assassination happens in the context of a war with the Empire. This is, after all, what happened during the end of the Galactic Civil War and the early days of the New Republic. They kept fighting, and lost because the Rebel Alliance had already made huge gains during their prolonged campaign.

Lastly, there is one more issue I see and that is that this argument often makes the assassination very high profile-- usually involving a conventional battle or even a superweapon of mass destruction. Remember that the more collateral damage caused in the assassination, the harder it is to deny who did it. Considering that Alderaan provoked outrage, its hard to see how this kind of high profile assassination would fail to do the same.

So, in the spirit of discussion, what does the forum think would actually happen in such a situation? Would the Empire crumble? Could it be made to accomplish anything for the enemies of Palpatine's Empire despite not having the specific circumstances of the Rebel Alliance working in their favor? Am I full of shit? ( ) Discuss.

[NecronLord]

Your argument has moved out of the original context in order to shift the goalposts. Obviously killing the Emperor doesn't mean you instantly conquer the SWG. It does mean you topple the Galactic Empire though. The Galactic Empire is unable to persist without its leader. Any time he is (permanantly) killed, it will fall apart, and you have made the Galactic Empire cease to be.

To analyze the Emperor's role in the fall of the Empire we must consider it to have two falls; the First and Final Deaths of Palpatine.

The first, after Endor (4ABY) was caused by strategic ineptitude on behalf of the Emperor's Advisers (Dark Empire suggests this is deliberate on Palpatine's part, allowing him to sequester many of the better forces to aid his return) who were largely not prepared to mount offensive operations against the growing New Republic.

Immediately upon the death of Palpatine the Empire lost all strategic initiative and bunkered down, allowing local leaders to begin moving into warlordism and infighting "None of these admirals and Moffs immediately broke with the Ruling Council, though Kaine and Harrsk would do so soon enough. But even while ostensibly loyal, they rarely if ever communicated with Pestage and the advisers. In deed if not in name they had become the first of the Warlords who would splinter the Empire." (Essential Atlas, P 193)

The Empire immediately lost the ability to mount effective action against the Rebel Alliance after the Emperor's death. There was no delay; no Emperor, no effective action. The Empire remained on the back foot on a strategic-galactic scale until Warlords Zsinj and Thrawn mounted large campaigns.

The (initially) far inferior New Republic managed to control 3/4 of the Galaxy after a two year campaign against these moffs and warlords (by 6ABY),

Mon Mothma was "content to let them keep their economically stunted quarter of the galaxy and see if the pitiless math of economics and the lure of democracy could achieve more victory more quickly and peaceably than war." (ibid. p. 199)

After mounting a two year campaign, Mon Mothma essentially tacitly ordered a truce; in this campaign, the Imperials had been divided and routed easily. More to the point, they had been in-fighting to the point that no cohesive empire could be said to exist.

Thrawn's success was in part due to his genius, and part of this included his marginalizing of warlords by uniting them against a common enemy, displaying that the Galaxy could be retaken. His fall was followed by the Reborn Emperor's very successful campaigns and operations, sometimes through puppets, that retook Coruscant and drove the Alliance into hiding once more.

However, after the Emperor's fall, and the destruction of his 'Shadow Hand' computer (which can realistically be called Palpatine, too, as it was equipped with a mind-scan of his personality), another fall followed, some remnant forces even adopting unique names as new states (the largest being the Pentastar Alignment; notably its official name).

We see in all this, that in the canon, every time the Emperor is killed, the Galactic Empire loses its large scale unity, and "After the Dark Empire's collapse in 11 ABY, Imperial territory dried up like a puddle in the noonday sunlight" (ibid. p 205)

To suggest that any other death of the Emperor would not produce similar results requires substantial justification, given that we not only see it once, we see it repeated.

There are of course, other candidates, such as Vader, Thrawn, or indeed, many warlords, that could rise to become Emperor in 'vs' scenarios, but certainly the elimination of the Emperor can only be expected to lead to the loss of initiative demonstrated after Endor, and the resulting warlordism, a crippling blow.

We should avoid explicitly mentioning the Vong too heavily, they are specifically undesirable and may well provoke a broad 'coalition of not wanting to be tortured' which may result in a combined fight against them (though the Galactic Empire would still likely cease as a cohesive political unit).

[Simon_Jester]

If a faction is fighting for the rather conventional purpose of simply rendering the Empire non-threatening, killing the Emperor accomplishes nothing because of his clones and loyal officers like Thrawn who continued to fight for the Empire, and may even be counterproductive due to the creation of warlords like Zsinj who fight for their political own gain.

Debatable. Palpatine's brains and political skills, and the fact that he's basically the only person privy to all the Empire's secrets and resources, make killing him a good way to weaken the Empire. Anyone who replaces him will be less able to run things.

Vader has the political skills of a wolverine, and is so universally feared that rivals in the Imperial hierarchy would be plotting to have him assassinated for their own safety's sake within days, if not hours, of his claiming the throne. Thrawn is an alien and one who has limited access to some of the secret resources of the Imperial state, and basically no support among the various dark side force users surrounding Palpatine. In the Privy Council and other political and administrative bodies around Palpatine, most of the staff simply lack the combination of knowledge, skill, and force of personality Palpatine has: they could reign, but would be hard-pressed to rule over someone who didn't want to listen to them.

At best, assassinating Palpatine would replace a strong emperor with a weaker one, which would create major short-term dislocation and long-term weakening of the Imperial order.

Another issue is the lack of a clear line of succession, which people seem to think would inevitably lead to fracturing of the Empire into warlordism and an incoherent nonthreatening mess (though again, how a warlord out for personal gain could be less threatening then Palpatine's Empire is beyond me).

Scale. A man with one fleet is less dangerous than a man with ten fleets. Ten men with one fleet each are also less dangerous than one man with ten fleets, because they will fight among themselves or at least have to divert resources to be sure they won't be betrayed by one of their peers.

A "warlord out for personal gain" would only be more dangerous than Palpatine if they were considerably more skilled than Palpatine. The only remotely plausible candidate for that is Thrawn, and he has his limits- he's got great military skill, but not very much political talent and little in the way of Force user support.

And there is the Moffs, the Grand Admirals, and other military officials who could easily take over in case the assassination happens in the context of a war with the Empire. This is, after all, what happened during the end of the Galactic Civil War and the early days of the New Republic. They kept fighting, and lost because the Rebel Alliance had already made huge gains during their prolonged campaign.

See previous- without a clear line of succession that hands the throne off to an heir apparent who can do the job properly, the fact that plenty of people who can replace Palpatine is irrelevant- if anything it makes things worse, because many of those men and women will be thinking "why not me?" The Empire kept fighting after Endor, but its resources were dispersed and diverted, fleets fought among themselves or languished for want of supplies, and central strategic direction was lost.

It wasn't as strong an empire as it would be with a clearly defined ruler who had the personal ability and support base to run everything as effectively as Palpatine did.

So, in the spirit of discussion, what does the forum think would actually happen in such a situation? Would the Empire crumble? Could it be made to accomplish anything for the enemies of Palpatine's Empire despite not having the specific circumstances of the Rebel Alliance working in their favor? Am I full of shit? ( ) Discuss.

Basically, the Empire might or might not crumble depending on circumstances- who else is alive and in a position to claim the throne? How clear and present is the danger that encourages all Imperials to unite under the rule of the new emperor? What skill set is most important to combating this threat, and does the replacement have that skill- if all you need is the ability to marshal fleets, Thrawn might be a good candidate, but if you're dealing with infiltration by super-powered psychics you need Force users to fight back and Vader is your man.

[The Romulan Republic]

Debatable. Palpatine's brains and political skills, and the fact that he's basically the only person privy to all the Empire's secrets and resources, make killing him a good way to weaken the Empire. Anyone who replaces him will be less able to run things.

Don't forget the precognition. That alone gives him a huge edge over many possible successors.

Thrawn is an alien and one who has limited access to some of the secret resources of the Imperial state, and basically no support among the various dark side force users surrounding Palpatine. In the Privy Council and other political and administrative bodies around Palpatine, most of the staff simply lack the combination of knowledge, skill, and force of personality Palpatine has: they could reign, but would be hard-pressed to rule over someone who didn't want to listen to them.

I do think you're underrating Thrawn here. The fact remains that of all possible successors he's the one who probably came closest to success.

A "warlord out for personal gain" would only be more dangerous than Palpatine if they were considerably more skilled than Palpatine. The only remotely plausible candidate for that is Thrawn, and he has his limits- he's got great military skill, but not very much political talent and little in the way of Force user support.

Again, I think you're underrating Thrawn. He has political skill- he managed to get the Imperial machine behind him, and observe his handling of the surrender of Ukio, or avoiding antagonizing the smugglers. He was hardly without political skill, even if he was not on Palpatine's level.

Basically, the Empire might or might not crumble depending on circumstances- who else is alive and in a position to claim the throne? How clear and present is the danger that encourages all Imperials to unite under the rule of the new emperor? What skill set is most important to combating this threat, and does the replacement have that skill- if all you need is the ability to marshal fleets, Thrawn might be a good candidate, but if you're dealing with infiltration by super-powered psychics you need Force users to fight back and Vader is your man.

Still underrating Thrawn. Thrawn can recruit Force users, or clone them, or devise countermeasures against supernatural creatures. Again, see The Thrawn Trilogy.

[Formless]

Your argument has moved out of the original context in order to shift the goalposts. Obviously killing the Emperor doesn't mean you instantly conquer the SWG. It does mean you topple the Galactic Empire though. The Galactic Empire is unable to persist without its leader. Any time he is (permanantly) killed, it will fall apart, and the Galactic Empire will cease to be.

I don't see why this would qualify as shifting the goalposts, unless you actually define the Empire by the existence of Palpatine. Why the hell would you do that? The Star Wars Canon doesn't do that, the Empire still existed after the death of Palpatine. And in a VS context it doesn't make much fucking sense either, since in that context the goal is winning a war with the entire nation. If you think killing the Emperor is a de facto victory over the GE, well, that sounds to me like a very hollow definition of "victory".

Besides, the original context doesn't matter. I've had a problem with this general form of argument for a while, that was just the most purile form I'd seen it in yet.

To suggest that any other death of the Emperor would not produce similar results requires substantial justification, given that we not only see it once, we see it repeated.

Problem: All you have is a pattern. You haven't actually shown what specifically it was about Palpatine that was holding them together, so you have no way of explaining the pattern. So I do not see why the inference "Palpatine's death always preceded a sharp decline of Imperial power, hence it always will precede a sharp decline of Imperial powers" or the leap in logic "Plapatine's death caused the decline of the Empire" should be considered valid.

We should avoid explicitly mentioning the Vong too heavily, they are specifically undesirable and may well provoke a broad 'coalition of not wanting to be tortured' which may result in a combined fight against them (though the Galactic Empire would still likely cease as a cohesive political unit).

That is exactly why I mentioned the Vong-- they may seem extreme, but they serve to illustrate that there are some kinds of wars where the potential for political fracturing cannot be relied upon. They are also, conveniently for a change, a canon element of the Star Wars universe.

[Ryag Han]

keep in mind that because there are so many potential successors (Thrawn, Vader, Moff's) it will be difficult for someone to gain enough support (if any). Vader would obviously want the throne (as he clearly said in episode 5 that he want's to rule). then there is Tarkin, who was actually superior to Vader. those two, one as a freaking scary Sith and the other as pretty much who should legally get the throne as Grand Moff (and Palpy's friend). id say killing the Emperor before Tarkin dies would result in full out bloody civil war.
the Vong might know that, and do it, waiting them to weaken each other.

but what about the Rebellion? with Palpy dead, they might get the foothold they needed as many worlds would presumably use the war as an excuse to withdraw from the Empire.

and Thrawn? loyal to Palpy, he would most likely try to get the Empire straight.

killing Palpatine would throw the galaxy into chaos.

[NecronLord]

I don't see why this would qualify as shifting the goalposts, unless you actually define the Empire by the existence of Palpatine. Why the hell would you do that? The Star Wars Canon doesn't do that, the Empire still existed after the death of Palpatine.

No it didn't. After he dies in Empire's End it's generally known as either 'The Remnant' or a number of lesser polities like the Pentastar Alignment and such. They neither have the same makeup, the same military power, and in some cases, don't even call themselves the Empire any more.

Problem: All you have is a pattern. You haven't actually shown what specifically it was about Palpatine that was holding them together, so you have no way of explaining the pattern. So I do not see why the inference "Palpatine's death always preceded a sharp decline of Imperial power, hence it always will precede a sharp decline of Imperial powers" or the leap in logic "Plapatine's death caused the decline of the Empire" should be considered valid.

I could go on at length, for a start, Palpatine actually went out of his way to make sure that the Empire couldn't exist without him (DESB & various other sources).

[Formless]

Debatable. Palpatine's brains and political skills, and the fact that he's basically the only person privy to all the Empire's secrets and resources, make killing him a good way to weaken the Empire. Anyone who replaces him will be less able to run things.

Weakening the Empire is all well and good, and I certainly don't deny that killing Palpatine is going to be on the agenda of anyone serious about destroying the empire in the long run. But those are the key words, aren't they? You have to follow through, like the Rebel Alliance did, and you need to slot his death into a larger strategy.

Scale. A man with one fleet is less dangerous than a man with ten fleets. Ten men with one fleet each are also less dangerous than one man with ten fleets, because they will fight among themselves or at least have to divert resources to be sure they won't be betrayed by one of their peers.

But he's also going to behave more erratically and with more hostility. Its likely that such warlords will, in the short term at least, cause an uptic in political instability anywhere their influence can be found compared to the relatively controlled violence of Palpatine's rule. This wouldn't (as is acknowledged whenever someone says that Palpatine's death would "throw the Galaxy into chaos") be a graceful or controlled way to end the Empire, and you take a lot of risks to your own faction.

[Formless]

I don't see why this would qualify as shifting the goalposts, unless you actually define the Empire by the existence of Palpatine. Why the hell would you do that? The Star Wars Canon doesn't do that, the Empire still existed after the death of Palpatine.

No it didn't. After he dies in Empire's End it's generally known as either 'The Remnant' or a number of lesser polities like the Pentastar Alignment and such.

I meant the first time he dies and before his clones come active. For a time he is "dead" and all the stuff you talk about happens, but it is still considered the Empire.

I could go on at length, for a start, Palpatine actually went out of his way to make sure that the Empire couldn't exist without him (DESB & various other sources).

I would like to hear more about that.

[The Romulan Republic]

keep in mind that because there are so many potential successors (Thrawn, Vader, Moff's) it will be difficult for someone to gain enough support (if any). Vader would obviously want the throne (as he clearly said in episode 5 that he want's to rule). then there is Tarkin, who was actually superior to Vader. those two, one as a freaking scary Sith and the other as pretty much who should legally get the throne as Grand Moff (and Palpy's friend). id say killing the Emperor before Tarkin dies would result in full out bloody civil war.
the Vong might know that, and do it, waiting them to weaken each other.

but what about the Rebellion? with Palpy dead, they might get the foothold they needed as many worlds would presumably use the war as an excuse to withdraw from the Empire.

and Thrawn? loyal to Palpy, he would most likely try to get the Empire straight.

killing Palpatine would throw the galaxy into chaos.

Now this is a very interesting scenario: Thrawn vs. Vader vs. Tarkin. Thrawn is the obvious successor post-Endor, but that's because two of the strongest contenders were dead already. Here you would have three very strong challengers with three very different personalities and support bases.

Tarkin: has the largest resource base (wasn't he basically governor of the Outer Rim?) and possibly the Death Star. Strongest in conventional political, military, and economic power.

Vader: his power base is the Force and his knowledge of the Dark Side.

Thrawn: lacks the power base of either, but is probably the most competent and intelligent. Also, as noted above, loyal to Palpatine.

A three way civil war between them would make a great AU story-line.

That said, do you have any source for Tarkin being the legally legitimate successor?

[TC Pilot]

The (initially) far inferior New Republic managed to control 3/4 of the Galaxy after a two year campaign against these moffs and warlords (by 6ABY)

You've got the dates wrong there. By 6 ABY, the New Republic hadn't yet taken Coruscant, much less dispatched Zsinj. Zsinj wasn't killed until 8 ABY and his fiefdom was partitioned between the Remnant and New Republic. That essentially marks the end of major offensive operations prior to Thrawn's emergence.

Dark Empire muddles things a bit, what with Palpatine sabotaging any effort for a successor to rise into the vaccuum and deliberately messing with Imperial military assets, though it does also mention how things weren't supposed to function without him at the head.

Even then, the Empire really only disintegrated on the fringes prior to the loss of Coruscant. Pestage and the Ruling Council still retained most of the Core Worlds and Colonies before that point.

No it didn't. After he dies in Empire's End it's generally known as either 'The Remnant' or a number of lesser polities like the Pentastar Alignment and such. They neither have the same makeup, the same military power, and in some cases, don't even call themselves the Empire any more.

I believe that catastrophic collapse following Palpatine's final demise has more to do with the destruction of Byss, which saw the virtual decapitation of the remaining Imperial command structure and a sizable amount of the Empire's remaining military assets. Though I'm unsure about the specifics at the moment, as I'm trying to fit this in under the edit window.

[Ryag Han]

That said, do you have any source for Tarkin being the legally legitimate successor?[/quote]
no, not really. legally is the key world here. Palpy never actually had any real successor. Tarkin is a Grand Moff, while Thrawn a Grand Admiral. im not sure which one has a higher position.

[NecronLord]

I would like to hear more about that.

"More than that, the legions of the Empire found themselves crippled by the loss of the Emperor himself. Without the benefit of his supreme confidence and ruthless foresight, the vast Imperial war machine was paralyzed by indecision. No single individual possessed the power and the will to step forward and unite the military.
[...]
It became more apparent with every passing year that Palpatine had never intended his New Order to survive him. Warriors who had once terrorized a galaxy now found themselves embattled and divided."

DESB p. 3

"It became increasingly apparent that succession to the throne was something the Emperor, so circumspect in everything else, had never seriously prepared for. When the Emperor was killed during the Battle of Endor, the speed with which the Empire’s structure disintegrated amazed even some Alliance strategists."

ibid. p 31

"To a degree unseen since the days of Xim the Despot, Palpatine had created a state that simply couldn’t function without him. It was no accident that the Empire was collapsing around his grave. No one could doubt his fondest wish had been that, if he should fall, then the universe would burn on his funeral pyre.

[...]

Palpatine knew precisely why the Empire couldn’t last without his dread power: he had designed it that way. No one ever suspected how much he relied on the Dark Side of the Force. He shaped those of his government by using the Force against them. He used it to control his fleets and to drive his soldiers on to victory. He used it to destroy his enemies from a distance and learn of conspiracies against him. Without it, there was no way the Empire could endure, as he had designed it.

ibid. p.34


There are more, but I think that gets the point across; no Palpatine, no Empire.

[NecronLord]

I believe that catastrophic collapse following Palpatine's final demise has more to do with the destruction of Byss, which saw the virtual decapitation of the remaining Imperial command structure and a sizable amount of the Empire's remaining military assets. Though I'm unsure about the specifics at the moment, as I'm trying to fit this in under the edit window.

It certainly can't have helped, I'd agree. But given that those guys were infighting before Sedriss QL restored order I don't think the leaders on Byss were in any way immune to the tenancy to fight one another rather than the Rebels.

[Tiriol]

For the OP: do the Vong arrive during which episode timeset (meaning how do you define the height of the Empire's power)? It affects who is in charge of Imperial military.

During Episode IV there wasn't any clear overall commander save for Palpatine as Commander-in-Chief. Vader also was a highly priviledged emissary of the Emperor, one who had authority even over Tarkin had he suspected the Grand Moff of treachery. However, Tarkin is a major military power at that point in time with his Death Star.

During Episode V Vader is the Supreme Commander of Imperial Forces outranking even Grand Admirals. Thrawn hasn't been officially made a Grand Admiral yet also (he was made Grand Admiral after the Battle of Hoth during his hunt for the traitor Zaarin). Not only is Vader Emperor's enforcer, he also enjoys almost unlimited command over Imperial military assets.

However, there are other pretenders for the throne: Grand Vizier Sate Pestage, the Head of Imperial Ruling Council (I've forgotten his name, was it Ars Dango?) etc. Vader is heir apparent, although there is no clear line of succession. And it would be foolish to say that Vader is totally inept at politics, he just prefers straight fight. He can be extremely devious when he wants and the dark side of the Force gives him many advantages the other pretenders can't even dream about.

[NecronLord]

For the OP: do the Vong arrive during which episode timeset (meaning how do you define the height of the Empire's power)? It affects who is in charge of Imperial military.

It's a random thing.

Formless was complaining that someone in another thread saying that killing the Emperor would be a win in a vs was using childish logic. My response was that it's been a long-established part of the EU that no Palpatine = no empire.

It doesn't really apply to any particular circumstance.

[Havok]

Yeah, I'm not really sure where the disconnect comes from when it comes from Palpatine running the Empire to Vader doing it.

Palpatine in charge: Do what I command or Vader will show up at your door step.

Vader in charge: Do what I command or I will show up at your door step.

Why exactly does the Empire fall apart with Vader in charge?

Also, as far as Palpatine not teaching Vader anything or planning on him succeeding him at some point, that is EU bullshit, which is directly contradicted by the lines and actions in the movies.

[Kingmaker]

Vader, unlike Palpatine, does not come across as terribly charismatic. And he does not command the "loyalty" of the senior leadership of the empire. They all might be scared shitless of him, but they don't depend on him for their status, unlike with Palpatine. It seems more likely that they would just arrange to have him bumped off.

Moreover, if Vader is constantly showing up at your doorstep to enforce compliance, he's probably not running the empire.

Also, as far as Palpatine not teaching Vader anything or planning on him succeeding him at some point, that is EU bullshit, which is directly contradicted by the lines and actions in the movies.

Where is this? Palpatine used his apprentices as stooges and henchmen, and seemed quite willing to dispose of them if it served his purpose.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I'm not really sure where the disconnect comes from when it comes from Palpatine running the Empire to Vader doing it.

Palpatine in charge: Do what I command or Vader will show up at your door step.

Vader in charge: Do what I command or I will show up at your door step.

Why exactly does the Empire fall apart with Vader in charge?

Also, as far as Palpatine not teaching Vader anything or planning on him succeeding him at some point, that is EU bullshit, which is directly contradicted by the lines and actions in the movies.

Kingmaker is right, both regarding Vader's inability to administrate if he's personally running around and enforcing, and Palpatine setting up Vader as a successor in the films. Vader thought he could take over the Empire with Luke's help, but their is no indication he was any sort of official heir. Nor do we ever see Palpatine teaching him anything much in the films. The main thing that would suggest he was an heir is the Sith tradition of Apprentice succeeding Master, and there is reason to believe Palpatine ditched that tradition.

[NecronLord]

Also, as far as Palpatine not teaching Vader anything or planning on him succeeding him at some point,

Just for the record you may be thinking too heavily of Ep 3 here. By Endor, in fact, he has decided that he would rather replace Vader with Luke; clearly he has no particular plan to have Vader take over.

And it in no way contradicts the DESB; the use of the dark side is required to run the Empire - if Vader were planned to succeed Palpatine, it would be by overthrowing him, which would require Vader's mastery of the force to exceed the Emperor's, which it never did (as the Emperor was alive).

[Havok]

Vader, unlike Palpatine, does not come across as terribly charismatic. And he does not command the "loyalty" of the senior leadership of the empire. They all might be scared shitless of him, but they don't depend on him for their status, unlike with Palpatine. It seems more likely that they would just arrange to have him bumped off.

Really? How exactly does Palpatine come across as charismatic? When he is ordering the destruction of Alderaan? Or the dissolvement of the Senate?

And where does that come from exactly? Why would they all of a sudden not depend of Vader for their status if he declared himself Emperor after Palpatine was dead? Would the Stormtroopers all of a sudden not be loyal to him? Would the officers not follow his commands? Would the Royal Guard not walk at his side? He is THE EMPEROR. Is there some form of democracy that instantly jumps in place because Palpatine dies?

Prove that there would be instantaneous and open revolt against Vader by "senior leadership" of the Empire. Go ahead and even use the attempted assassination by those now dead officers from the old comic.

Moreover, if Vader is constantly showing up at your doorstep to enforce compliance, he's probably not running the empire.

The point, is that what exactly changes? People have NO IDEA that Palpatine is a Sith Lord. No one knows who he is. His will is enforced by Vader. They DO know that. Why do they stop being terrified of Vader and stop doing the will of his master when Vader becomes the master himself. If anything, they would be more terrified of Vader as Emperor.

Also, as far as Palpatine not teaching Vader anything or planning on him succeeding him at some point, that is EU bullshit, which is directly contradicted by the lines and actions in the movies.

Where is this? Palpatine used his apprentices as stooges and henchmen, and seemed quite willing to dispose of them if it served his purpose.[/quote]
Not so. Maul was highly valued. Dooku was ALWAYS a pawn, he just didn't know it, as Anakin from his discovery, was always Palpatine's main target as his new apprentice. Even still, Dooku was a very valuable and appreciated apprentice to Palpatine. Also, Palpatine knew that Anakin would eventually kill Dooku, or Maul, or whoever his apprentice was because he was capable of doing so and it is required by the Sith code. It is not "being quite willing to dispose of them because it suited his purpose" more of it is the way of the Sith. The strongest survive and rule.

Say Maul had lived and he killed Anakin in a duel. Palpatine isn't going to just disregard Maul because he isn't Anakin. Maul will have just shown that he was the stronger of the two and he deserved the mantle of Dark Lord of the Sith. Same goes with Vader vs Luke. If Vader had killed Luke, Palpatine wasn't going to whack Vader. He would have just shown that he deserved to be a Sith Lord over Luke.

Palpatine also knew that with Anakin, he was forging the weapon of his own death. "Darth Vader will become more powerful than either of us!"
What was the first lesson that Palpatine taught Anakin of the Sith? The most powerful Sith Lord ever, was killed by his apprentice who had surpassed him.
Palpatine is also shown showing genuine concern for Anakin as he saves him on Mustafar.

The idea that Palpatine just casts his apprentices aside is a brain bug, just the same as Vader killing Imperial Officers every where he goes, that the EU picked up and ran with like Forrest Fucking Gump.

[Havok]

Yeah, I'm not really sure where the disconnect comes from when it comes from Palpatine running the Empire to Vader doing it.

Palpatine in charge: Do what I command or Vader will show up at your door step.

Vader in charge: Do what I command or I will show up at your door step.

Why exactly does the Empire fall apart with Vader in charge?

Also, as far as Palpatine not teaching Vader anything or planning on him succeeding him at some point, that is EU bullshit, which is directly contradicted by the lines and actions in the movies.

Kingmaker is right, both regarding Vader's inability to administrate if he's personally running around and enforcing, and Palpatine setting up Vader as a successor in the films. Vader thought he could take over the Empire with Luke's help, but their is no indication he was any sort of official heir. Nor do we ever see Palpatine teaching him anything much in the films. The main thing that would suggest he was an heir is the Sith tradition of Apprentice succeeding Master, and there is reason to believe Palpatine ditched that tradition.

As I said, I was making a point, not making a literal statement of how Vader would run the Empire. Obviously, Palpatine didn't just say "Do what I say or Vader!!" but you guys didn't latch onto that.

[NecronLord]

To elaborate on the above; if Palpatine preserved notions of Vader taking over, they would more likely be via takeover under his own initiative, rather than setting up the system to obey Vader.

If most of the EU is to be believed, large parts of the Imperial establishment despise Vader in a way they don't despise the Emperor, and would presumably work constantly against him, not simply accept his leadership.

[Havok]

Also, as far as Palpatine not teaching Vader anything or planning on him succeeding him at some point,

Just for the record you may be thinking too heavily of Ep 3 here. By Endor, in fact, he has decided that he would rather replace Vader with Luke; clearly he has no particular plan to have Vader take over.

Had he decided that? From what we saw, on screen, and taking Ep 3 into account, which we must, he was merely opening up the competition for the position of successor again. If Luke was to be the man then he would, if not Vader would be. It's not like he spent all that much time trying to turn Luke. He spent over a decade on Anakin and like a half hour on Luke

And it in no way contradicts the DESB; the use of the dark side is required to run the Empire - if Vader were planned to succeed Palpatine, it would be by overthrowing him, which would require Vader's mastery of the force to exceed the Emperor's, which it never did (as the Emperor was alive).[/quote]
Guess you missed the part about "EU bullshit".

I love when you guys cite EU sources when I am making points that specifically say the EU is wrong in their depictions of how things should be.

And since when does anyone give a fuck about the movies not contradicting a EU source. The EU source is contradicting the movies in this case. All the extrapolation, especially from Dark Empire is taken from an incomplete saga and one that has been shown to be wrong about how the Sith operate.

The whole cloning process shows that. Why, at the time of AOTC, with cloning perfected, and Palpatine able to transfer his consciousness at any time around ROTJ, would he even bother with an apprentice of Vader's power at all? Why would he ever even let him get close to him? What the hell does he need Luke for if he is going to live forever. Vader is fine, if all he is is an enforcer.
It is absolute nonsense that was fine in the 90's before the prequels came out, but now makes no sense.

As it is up to the EU to fall in line with the movies, not the other way around, the EU is clearly shown to be bullshit on the matter.

[Havok]

To elaborate on the above; if Palpatine preserved notions of Vader taking over, they would more likely be via takeover under his own initiative, rather than setting up the system to obey Vader.

If most of the EU is to be believed, large parts of the Imperial establishment despise Vader in a way they don't despise the Emperor, and would presumably work constantly against him, not simply accept his leadership.

The EU is not to be believed. Kinda my point.

Again... the movies show this to be false. Vader is respected by every officer we see except one in the movies. Anakin himself values the clones and this is shown again in ANH as he listens and considers advice from officers. The idea that every officer hates Vader is an EU creation, perpetuated by the EU. It is contradicted by the movies, except for one highly unique scene where an officer not only shows open disdain for Vader, but mocks not only him, but in essence the Emperor and the Force. It is not like he chopped the guy's head off either.

Does he punish failure? Yes, but this is an Empire run by the Sith who get their power from anger, fear and aggression.

And as we all agree on, Vader is an extension of the Emperor in the Empire's eyes. So why doesn't whatever Vader does garner revolt against the Emperor, but automatically garners revolt against Vader in the Emperor's place?