Nah, that wouldn't make sense: There were Jedi Supreme Chancellors in the past.
They're involved with the Clone Wars as much as they were involved in any other war in the past. The idea is that Yoda's paradigm involved teaching the Jedi to fight and approach conflict the way they did "during the last war" (to quote the ROTS novel).
Given Luke is a thing?
Nah, it makes tons of sense thematically. The prequels are a tragedy that show the Jedi at their height but simultaneously primed for a fall. That is only explained if the Jedi are truly at the height of their martial powers... but they're targeted by an enemy who won't fight them the way his predecessors did and who uses the very thing they've embraced so utterly (warfare) against them. It's beautifully espoused in the Revenge of the Sith novel.
War wasn't a constant during the PT times. Not on the same scale of TOR era.
__________________ RealistRacism: "Sheevites, much like the Banites, were meant to increase in power with each member. From Lightsnake to Gideon to Azronger, this was supposed to be the case. However, knowledge must've been lost in some kind of Gravid-like incident, as Az turned out to be a mid-tier debater with a sub-par track record, sh!itting all over Tempest's legacy. Sad."
IIRC the opening of Mace's novel shows him with PTSD after the Battle of Genosis.
How can the PT Jedi be at the top of their game when all they've done is fight droids for 3 years? In TPM both Qui-Gon and the Council are shaken up because of one duel with one Dark Sider.
Is that what passes for battle hardened?
Let them try a century of warfare against a legion of Dark Jedi and their alchemical horrors like the the Jedi of Ajunta Pall's time. If fighting droids pushes the PT Jedi to their limits, how would they fare in an internal schism that pits friend against friend and student against master the way Revan and Malak did?
Nah, They are no more invested in warfare than many other timelines before them; for example the TOTJ. In fact, they are less so. That's why the "diplomats form" is the standard model for lightsaber wielding jedi in the PT era and why there are less weapons masters in general.
Hold on. Are you seriously suggesting the PT era jedi are the best of all time because Sidious didn't choose to personally challenge them?
Nah, it represents his own rejection of the dark side after remembering what it did to his father. This comparison fails when you also consider that Luke saw the PT Jedi as being too weak to face a purge like Vader's, and how he wouldn't make the same mistake with his own tribe of initiates :
If we agree that thematically Sidious is the most powerful Sith, then at least the upper end of the PT Jedi must be the best, because they have multiple people who can challenge Sidious while back in the ancient eras the Jedi would have no Jedi to match Sith like Exar Kun.
Like seriously which era of Jedi is supposed to match Yoda, Anakin, Mace and Obi Wan again?
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
If you really want to trade barbs, the least you could do is come up with your own shtick.
The "you're stalking me" narrative was funny when I used it against you because it was halfway true. Trying to turn it back against me is just lazy and cheap.
Why don't you take a day or two to regroup and come up with something fresh. You're better than this.
This is a non-sequitur. I said it makes more thematic sense that the Jedi of the prequels represent the iteration of the order at its peak martially, given the broader narrative constructs at play. I didn't say that it's a notion reconciled with all EU fluff, pertaining to which lightsaber form was most prevalent among their duelists.
No, I'm saying that the Jedi of the prequels being at their peak martially would help provide additional context as to why he didn't try to challenge them by force outright or through conquest, even with the Kaminoan clones and droid armies at his beck and call.
That's part of it. It also is what enables him to defeat the Emperor: by not fighting, a sentiment echoed by multiple Star Wars authorities including Pablo Hidalgo. In doing so, he succeeded where the Jedi of old failed.
Actually, Luke saw the Jedi of the prequels as being the order at its height, according to The Jedi Path.
If only because my absence, even only for a day or two, would induce in you an acute case of separation anxiety. You shouldn't take such risks with your own health.
The "shtick" was funny because interactions with me have made you hilariously embittered about and laser-focused on all things Sheev. You've already admitted that Palpatine and me are the only reasons you even deign to log in.
Last edited by The_Tempest on Feb 16th, 2018 at 09:35 PM
And facts show that Sidious isn't the strongest Sith. Period.
__________________ RealistRacism: "Sheevites, much like the Banites, were meant to increase in power with each member. From Lightsnake to Gideon to Azronger, this was supposed to be the case. However, knowledge must've been lost in some kind of Gravid-like incident, as Az turned out to be a mid-tier debater with a sub-par track record, sh!itting all over Tempest's legacy. Sad."
The idea that Sidious was the strongest Sith or the Jedi were at their strongest was always harebrained. It was never directly stated or even implied in the movies because it was not relevant. It was not required. Not even in the PT, much less the OT.
The films were always a self-contained story, the classic Hero's Journey, it didn't matter if Sidious was the strongest or weakest Sith because he was the only Sith around. It didn't affect the story in any way. The Emperor was just the Emperor. The villain. Who cares that there was a stronger villain thousands of years ago? It doesn't make the movies better or worse.
The only reason Sidious and the PT got slapped with the "strongest" label was because of insecurity regarding the popularity of the EU works like the TOTJ series or the KOTOR games.
Same with the "Chosen One" business. Anakin could have been a regular prodigy and the story would have worked just the same. A tragedy is a tragedy because the hero is corrupted by his own flaws. Anakin could have been just an exemplary knight and it would have sufficed. It was never implied in the OT that he was some mystical "Chosen One".
It just reeks of insecurity, a cheap way to keep the PT relevant. It sure as shit didn't help the quality of the movies.
Not familiar. Did this involve the Order as a whole? Honestly, trying to show fault in the Jedi seems like the weaker part of anything involving the PT.
Except you had Jedi literally being lords and commanding entire sectors of the galaxy during, say, Ruusan. I don't think they're that involved during the Clone Wars.
Luke's incredibly involved in the Rebellion, so much so that the war effort might as well be designed around him, and from Yoda and Obi-Wan's standpoint, it is. Not sure how this is better than the PT,
True as that might be, the Jedi are always involved in wars like this, some less so, some more so, but always fighting wars. It's a point that is weakened by the EU as a whole, and it's not like Canon is shying away from it given how they perceive Malachor.
Nah, The PT order momentarily "straying from their ideals" doesn't preclude the notion that there were other points in the 25000 years of jedi history that it also happened. Nor does it mean that they're at their "peak". For example, the TOTJ Jedi concern themselves with warfare to a much greater extent and would have eliminated tribes and conglomerates that had been allowed to exist just before and during the clone wars, such as the nightsisters.
The problem is that your argument has to involve the EU if you want to place the PT era over other timelines that are detailed only in the EU. Calling it "fluff" just because it doesn't fit with the thematic narrative of Star Wars according to the Tempest, doesn't help your case.
(please log in to view the image)
When trying to analyse the martial prowess of the order as a whole, you have to consider the martial abilties of the order. That of course includes the choice of lightsaber form favoured amongst their duelists. You also have to remember that forms don't just emanate a set of striking patterns, but also represent the philosophies of the jedi wielding them. So when the "diplomat form" is the most studied style in the modern era, it contradicts the notion that they were the more concerned with warfare than any other time line of Jedi.
Nah, he doesn't choose a direct confrontation with the jedi because he needed to frame them as the galactic villains. Which would prevent them from gaining favour with the greater population and reforming, as they have done in the past. I hope you aren't suggesting that Palpatine couldn't have crushed the jedi with his armies, given that a sample selection of 200 jedi, were curb-stomped by a much smaller percentage of the CIS army on Geonosis. Now imagine what would have happened had the clone troopers who entered the fray later on, started firing on the Jedi too.
It's not just "part of it", it's the defining theme of the scene. Not fighting the emperor is a plot vehicle that enables Vader to redeem himself, by physically throwing the emperor into a reactor shaft (i.e.:fighting him)
Super Coolstorybro. The personal and non-canonical opinion of Pablo Hidlago, who was nine years old during the release of Return of the Jedi can not accurately relay the authorial intent of the scene.
The height of their marital prowess? Got a quote?
Regardless such a quote doesn't refute the idea that fighting the sith with martial training and abilties was the correct course of action to prevent a purge according to Luke, as stated by himself in dark apprentice. Which kind of shits on your original point that the Jedi failed because their fighting prowess was unequaled.
By the way, Luke may not have been the best authority on which time period of Jedi was "teh strongest" considering the vast amounts of information lost in the purge. However, he is the best authority when it comes to his own philosophy in dealing with adversaries : which is to beat them up with his lightsaber.
__________________
Last edited by JMANGO on Feb 16th, 2018 at 11:15 PM
Presumably having a member of the order legally running the galactic government would be indicative of greater involvement in galactic politics.
How so?
Political influence != military involvement. With the exception of the Chancellor, the Jedi had greater legal authority over the war effort during the Clone Wars than anybody.
Well sure, but his narrative arc culminates with the decision to throw down his weapon. Up til that point, Luke's militant attitude was commensurate with his skirting the dark side.
Oh, I'm not saying that - in Legends or canon - it's something exclusive to the prequel Jedi order. I'm saying that it makes thematic sense for the prequel Jedi to be the distillation of that, which is probably why we're told by so many authorities that the Jedi represent the order at the height of their martial powers.
Feb 16th, 2018 08:52 PM
