Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Okay, during most times in history, both Star Wars and otherwise, there have been great leaders and strategists. Should the capture of one of these important figures occur, it usually ends in that side surrendering. Why? I mean, is the life of one person worth all that army, empire, or rebellion has fought for? Why can't they simply let that person die and find another suitable leader?

Because you have to understand that the vast majority of the masses are uneducated and stupid.

With the loss of the leader, the central figure that rallies the forces, the natural inclination of individuals is to break into smaller factions -- this is simply natural human sociology.

When the leader is captured or killed, unless a second figure can command the same esteem and resume the same premise of the first leader (which in and of itself is not a guarantee), the masses beneath him will naturally splinter and form factions. When this happens, it's difficult to reunite them, as they all have competing interests and don't necessarily think of the big picture.

Amen. The point is human beings have a strong group mentallity leaning towards following a leader with charisma. One man's vision can change the world if he can light the fire of desire in the hearts of his people.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Because you have to understand that the vast majority of the masses are uneducated and stupid.

With the loss of the leader, the central figure that rallies the forces, the natural inclination of individuals is to break into smaller factions -- this is simply natural human sociology.

When the leader is captured or killed, unless a second figure can command the same esteem and resume the same premise of the first leader (which in and of itself is not a guarantee), the masses beneath him will naturally splinter and form factions. When this happens, it's difficult to reunite them, as they all have competing interests and don't necessarily think of the big picture.

The dudes have hyperspace an lasers and advanced trade, and you say they're un-educated and stupid?

Originally posted by Tru_Slice
The dudes have hyperspace an lasers and advanced trade, and you say they're un-educated and stupid?

How does having technology affect political understanding?

No, it doesn't. KMC is a good point to that.

Amen brother. Anyways, in reality, it wouldn't happen, at least, not with a modern military. Take out General Franks for example, and what happens? The RoE gets ignored and Iraq get levelled.

Modern day army's...

But imagine another kind of war one where a hero stands up and unites the army's of lets say Europe against Russia and China. Now Europe is going good, and more and more people join this charismatic General and political leader. Who now just kinda rules Europe. Once that leader is taken out, it leaves a power vacuum. The people that followed him not always willingly would not necessiarly follow the second in command. The european people would not necessarily like the second in command and would not send more troops there. In short if a powerful leader creates an army and that powerful leader falls then often the army falls as well.

This is seen more in struggles for a country then in anything else. You have to motivate people to fight.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Because you have to understand that the vast majority of the masses are uneducated and stupid.

With the loss of the leader, the central figure that rallies the forces, the natural inclination of individuals is to break into smaller factions -- this is simply natural human sociology.

When the leader is captured or killed, unless a second figure can command the same esteem and resume the same premise of the first leader (which in and of itself is not a guarantee), the masses beneath him will naturally splinter and form factions. When this happens, it's difficult to reunite them, as they all have competing interests and don't necessarily think of the big picture.

That's exactly what happened to the empire during the Jedi Academy trilogies, isn't it?

It's like with Palpatine. If Vader had survived and killed or turned Luke, and Vader himself didn't come back to the light, he would take control of the Empire, it would stand. Vader is galactically famous and I don't need to say why.

But he didn't. And after over two decades of being ruled by the two remaining Force-users, Sith at that, noone would look upon anyone who isn't a powerful Force as their leader.

That's why they splintered, noone to lead them, so it's time look out for #1.

Same goes with any Empire or country. If you're leaders die with noone to replace them, it's in our being to form our own tribes and gov'ts.

And it doesn't matter if we're from Earth or the technologically advanced galaxy of SW, we're all just human, it's our way. That's why, since the Empire was mostly human, they factioned.

You guys made great arguments, I don't really have any input that would serve further reasoning; the Europe analogy was the most applicable in my opinion. Props to Se7in for the question.

Originally posted by Tangible God
That's why, since the Empire was mostly human, they factioned.

That was palps fault...being too racist. If they had the likes of Grand Admiral Thrawn or Admiral Daala (Sorry, I know they're eu, but this is eu section), then the Empire would've destroyed the rebels the first time.

That's true, but, hey, shit happens eh?

Bah, the empire would have crumpled anyway. They had little public support (cheering grounds when the death star exploded as evidence), several foes, not limited to a popular resistance movement (usually a death sentance), a hugeass alien invasion force and technological regression along with racism.

Yes, but in THAT galaxy, you had to fight to survive, and you had to think about #1.

Plus, not EVERYBODY hated them. Turns out that little celebration on Coruscant was put down by the Imp police. 1000's were killed as stormtroopers sprayed fire into the crowd. That was just the one party on a planet of quadrillions.

Naboo was all for peace and freedom and liberty, what with the connections of Padme and Palpatine, they would celebrate.

Bespin had been forcably conquered and garrsioned by the Empire very recently. Of course they'd love to see it fail.

And Tatooine? What the f*ck do they care? That was just a dumb scene IMO.

They needed strong leaders like thrawn to take over. Too bad what happened to him though.