Yoda vs Ulic

Actually a few things over this debate overall

Bloodlines getting weaker:

It is something that can be considered when looking at the Rakatan Empire, it fell because the force grew weaker in the Rakatan, until eventually the Rakatan in the Kotor era had no force connetion to speak off left.

The destruction of Coruscant is possible too, afterall Sidious said it had happened before. So it could have happened between Kotor II and TPM. Of course there is no evidence of this. However one could assume it happened in this time. Why?

Well a few things, Bastila said the Republic had existed for 21.000 years or so when she was around. The hutts ruled before that and the Rakatan before that. The republic could have been reformed but nothing about it being conquered. And the most powerful since that time did in fact not conquer it.

Then you have the fact that history does seem to go down the drain in time. Now of course Coruscant could have some records of it being captured but it would be more likely if it fell since Kotor II and the records survived from that time on. Its more likely, not necessarily true but more likely IMO.

nicely said and well thought out, but let me add something mace windu said that he would not let a republic that has stood for 1,000 years to be destroyed but bastilla said that it was 21,000 years so maybe it had just been overthrown or reformed, yet that may be what you were saying

I think it's either said or implied it underwent many reformations and possible civil wars.

i thought they had a civil war because in star wars obiwan they mandalorians try to take over corusaunt

Originally posted by DarthMaul9123
nicely said and well thought out, but let me add something mace windu said that he would not let a republic that has stood for 1,000 years to be destroyed but bastilla said that it was 21,000 years so maybe it had just been overthrown or reformed, yet that may be what you were saying

Actually, it was Palpatine who said that.

The reason he said it was a thousand years old was because 1000 B.B.Y. was the end of the thousand year war. The Republic was horribly ravaged in this time, so it seems more than possibly this is what he was refering to.

Seems this debate has deviated so far from the actual subject nothing can even be concluded anymore.

So what if blood lines get weaker? So what if there are thousands instead of hundreds over Yavin IV? This has little to no influence as to how powerful the individual are. A measure of peers is hardly a measure of how talented the one is.

The debate is no longer over the fight, but about Nai attempting to assert the PT Jedi are somehow as strong or stronger than the Ancient Jedi and Sith.

Did you just now realize that or you're just now stating that?(not meant to be offensive)

He was awol, Glentract. Work.

I just now stated it. The argument has gotten so abstract, not even GL could tie all the open ends.

lol!

lmao

Originally posted by DarthMaul9123
nicely said and well thought out, but let me add something mace windu said that he would not let a republic that has stood for 1,000 years to be destroyed but bastilla said that it was 21,000 years so maybe it had just been overthrown or reformed, yet that may be what you were saying

It is the republic has been reformed many times. But Sidious talks about how the Sith will rule again, so except for it reforming it has fallen once. Fallen completely. It would be logical if this happened between Kotor II and the PT movies.. But of course it can't be proven.