Why is this in "Government" and "Imperial organizations"? --SparqMan 15:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't see an "Imperial positions" category and resorted to putting it under 'government' since the Supreme Commander chairs the Imperial Council of Moffs. Honestly, though, I had hoped someone would come along and correct this since I wasn't exactly sure where to categorize it.--SOCL 15:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- My mistake, I thought that 'Government' was a category that consisted of government-related positions, forms of government, and the like; I hadn't realized it was soley individual governments of individual states.--SOCL 15:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Was Thrawn Supreme Commander
Just a quick question: there seems to be canonical evidence for both Vader and Luke as Supreme Commander, but I can't find any official references to Thrawn's appointment. I thought I remembered something saying the Moffs appointed him before Bilbringi, but nothing that I can see. --McEwok 22:13, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Well, in the Thrawn Trilogy and comic book adaption, it seems that he is in command of the entire fleet. I'm pretty sure he held the position. So, I re-added Thrawn's name. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:17, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- He was not in command of the entire fleet, and we know that from several sources that have named segments of the Imperial Remnant which chose not to align under Thrawn. Plus, whole segments of the fleet had already been recalled to Byss. He operated with a relatively small fleet, which is why he required the Katana fleet in the first place. --SparqMan 20:23, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, then, I'll fix that if it hasn't been already. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:26, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed, along with other minor things. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:31, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, then, I'll fix that if it hasn't been already. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:26, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- There seems to be a problem here. Okay, it is simply unknown if Thrawn was Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet and, for that matter, given the Empire's state at that point in time, whether anyone was officially in that position. Further, simply because some factions did not aline with Thrawn does not mean he was not in the position of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet. Remember that just because you do not have the ENTIRE fleet under your command doesn't mean you can't hold the position; the position may not be as powerful as once perceived, but it could certainly exist. Lastly, if Thrawn's name is stricken from the list, then shouldn't those people whose title was Executor also be taken from the list? Being Executor does not necessarily mean your Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet. Lastly, it should be noted that this article is about the position of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet, not who or what is speculated to have once had those powers or maybe, possibly been in that position. Changes, especially deleting information, should not simply be made on a whim with insufficient evidence.--SOCL 03:52, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Thrawn had to have held some sort of military leadership position, even if it wasn't the entire military. For that matter, I recommend we place him back on the list. -- SFH 05:08, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Re-added Thrawn, fixed other minor things. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:43, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- On the Galactic Emperor page, Thrawn is included as having been the de facto Emperor (i.e. the person holding the powers of that post or the person holding the most powers of that post), so wouldn't it be sound to say Thrawn was at least de facto Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet?--SOCL 00:52, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- My argument is that as Supreme Commander, Thrawn was essentially de facto Galactic Emperor. -- SFH 02:15, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I understand that, but it is unknown as to whether Thrawn held the actual post of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet or if he was given/assumed those powers, and, thus, as the most powerful leader of the Empire at that time also assumed the powers of Emperor (i.e. de facto Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet, thus de facto Galactic Emperor).--SOCL 13:55, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Canon Evidence for Luke as Supreme Commander
The anonymous 200.125.40.5 (apparently an IP in Uraguay) seems to have a bugbear about the title of "Supreme Commander", since he edited both this and the Vader article. I don't know what the source is for Vader (or, for that matter, what the source for the claims on the "Executor" title is), and I'll put off re-editing until someone answers that; but the title is canonical for Luke: Inform Supreme Commander Skywalker - Commander Klev, Dark Empire, #3, fifth comic page. Repeated in the graphic novel (53rd comic page), and in the Radio Drama. --McEwok 19:45, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, Luke and Vader were both Supreme Commanders. How can you tell? Well, let's take what Palpatine said to Luke in RotJ: "...take your father's place at my side." Now, as we all know, Palpatine wanted Luke as his apprentice due to Vader's limitations. But, as we find out in Star Wars: Dark Empire, Luke is given his father's position as Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet (or, Forces). That's enough evidence right there to prove Vader and Luke were Supreme Commanders. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:48, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, that is indeed an IP from Uruguay. It was me who made the anynomous edits; I forgot to log in. I had always thought the title "Supreme Commander Of The Imperial Fleet" had not appeared in Star Wars literature until Pellaeon was newly introduced as such. I apologise for any inconvenience I might have caused. --Ace ETP 20:11, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Quite all right!! Some people have been editing pages I've contributed to with naked IPs (sometimes the edits are quite right, sometimes IMHO with less justification), so I hope you can forgive me the paranoia - spelling your country's name wrong is far worse, so let me apologize for that!! And strictly speaking, there's no canon evidence for the "of the Imperial Fleet" part until Pellaeon - assuming, that is, that Pellaeon is actually ever accorded the title himself; do you have a canon reference? Thanks! --McEwok 21:39, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, Luke and Vader did have the "of the Imperial Fleet(or Forces)" added onto "Supreme Commander". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:46, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Good, so everything's clear now. It seems Nebulax has found a reference, which is great, because I wouldn't have been able to: not having read the Hand Of Thrawn books, all I was adding in my edits were mostly assumptions I had drawn from reading other articles in this encyclopedia, so I still should be the one apologizing the most, McEwok. And I don't really mind your mispelling of my country's name, but if you were going to do that, couldn't you have done it in that specific much more obvious, much more funny way?...Quote Homer Simpson (while holding a globe and looking at South America): "U-R-Gay. Haha". --Ace ETP 23:12, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I still do not believe that Luke Skywalker being called by the title "Supreme Commander" means he is "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet." The evidence that he might have held that position is still about as good as the evidence we have that Thrawn might have been "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet", only coming in differing ways: Thrawn in the way that he commanded the entire Imperial fleet and Luke Skywalker in the way that he was called "Supreme Commander". Neither Thrawn nor Skywalker were ever called, though, were implicitly called "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet". I know this may sound knit-picking, but it's also research. I believe that, like Thrawn, Luke Skywalker should also have the words "possibly" added to his dates of apparent post.--SOCL 23:56, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Position, Origin, and Powers
Actually, Luke and Vader did have the "of the Imperial Fleet(or Forces)" added onto "Supreme Commander". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:46, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that both Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader held the positon of "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet/Navy"? I know of "Supreme Commander", but not "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet/Navy"... For that matter, being called "Supreme Commander" does not quite mean that the position of "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet/Navy" is being referred to but instead may simply be a generic term for, very likely, a title for another positon. It is quite likely that there are a series of beings with the title of the "Supreme Commander", for instance, the Imperial Army very likely has a counterpart positon that may be 'Supreme Commander of the Imperial Army', or there may have been a positon above both of these simply called 'Supreme Commander' or 'Supreme Commander of Imperial Forces'. Further, the position of "Executor" is apparently one of the commander-in-chief of the Imperial military in the Galactic Empire and may not necessarily be the same as "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet/Navy" but may, instead, be a superior position. Therefore, we cannot say that simply because someone holds the position of Executor they are automatically the Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet/Navy, but may in fact be the said being's "boss".--SOCL 19:33, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I take it you don't have Star Wars: Dark Empire. "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Forces" is a term given to those that was almost equal to that of "Executor". "...of the Imperial Forces" also means "...of the Imperial Navy" or "...of the Imperial Army". Now, why there was the position of Executor in addition to Supreme Commander of the Imperial Forces is pretty much unknown since they were almost identical positions. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:07, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I have read Dark Empire and know what you're talking about, but I do not recall Dark Empire ever stating that Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet is the same as Supreme Commander of the Imperial Navy, is the same as Supreme Commander of Imperial Forces, is the same as Supreme Commander of the Imperial Navy; I only recall seeing the term 'Supreme Commander' used. Further, I do not recall the position of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet ever being stated as originally having the powers of commander-in-chief of the Galactic Empire's military forces, though I do know that the position of Executor was used in this way. It is quite possible that Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet came to inheret the powers of commander-in-chief and, thus, Executor (as in the example of Pellaeon in the post-treaty Imperial Remnant), but is there a source that states that Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet is the same as commander-in-chief prior to that? You are simply stating something, but from where does this come? Again, being called "Supreme Commander" does mean one has the same position of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet as it is quite possible that there are many "Supreme Commander" positions.--SOCL 03:46, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I do not understand why the statement about Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker being once "Supreme Commander" is continously being taken out of the beginning. Unless there is evidence to cite that Vader and Skywalker both held the exact position of "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet" it is quite literally unknown if they had that exact same position. Again, being called "Supreme Commander" does not necessarily mean one holds the title of "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet." It is a disputed topic if no evidence can be presented to prove that both Vader and Skywalker held the EXACT POST of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet.--SOCL 00:06, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Executor
The position of Executor is one of commander-in-chief of the Imperial military. There is no evidence that points to this position being the EXACT same post as that of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet and may have, actually, been a position superior to that of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet. The fact that the position of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet would later come to acquire the powers of commander-in-cheif and, thus, Executor (i.e. Daala and Pellaeon) does not mean that EVERY person who was Executor was also Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet and vice versa. We only know that Executor existed as the position of commander-in-chief of the Imperial military, then fell into disuse. We also know that eventually Daala would assume these powers, most likely under the title of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet since that is the title we see Pellaeon using later, most likely the position he came to have after Daala relinquished command in 12 ABY. Unless there is evidence that says that Executor and Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet are the exact same posts, we cannot be sure they were equal/the same and, thus, cannot simply conclude what many in this article are attempting. We can, on the other hand, note this lack of evidence and point to what we know and what we don't, but speculation is not only bad research and bad form but presents a lack of interest in true fact-finding on the part of the individual author.--SOCL 00:16, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but let's think about it: Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet was a position that commanded the entire fleet. And now, we take Executor, which might just be an entirely different position. But, let's say Executor is also "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Forces", since that is the basic definition of "Executor". Now, if we compare them, we see many similarities, but the main difference is this: "Fleet" and "Forces". In a way, these words are similar, but yet, they are each different. In many ways, the novels and comics have never exactly given a definite boundary between "Forces" and "Fleet". That is where we can only assume. Now, leaving Supreme Commander alone only makes it harder on us, because it is hard to tell whether it is "Forces" (as Executor) or "Fleet". This is where the solid evidence would most likely end. It is here that we must decide for ourselves whether Executor and Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet are the same/different. Thoughts? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:27, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- What you are suggesting is that we speculate and make our own conclusions. Look, I'm totally down with everyone having their own individual outlooks concerning a certain topic, but when you're writing an encyclopedia article, you only write down what you know and don't know, not what you believe. Further, there IS a definite boundary between forces and fleet. Imperial Forces are the whole of the Empire's military forces (this includes, but is not restricted to the fleet/starfleet), Imperial Fleet is the whole of Naval warships within the Navy (the fleet is the same thing as the starfleet and does not include the whole of Naval forces, much less Imperial military forces). And I don't quite understand what you mean by "leaving Supreme Commander alone only makes it harder on us". It doesn't matter if a topic is hard or not, what is fact is fact, you can't simply speculate. I believe that it is rather easy to see that Executor, the commander-in-chief of all Imperial forces (i.e. Army, Navy, Fighter Forces, etc.), is a position of superior power than that of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet because, as the latter position implies, it is a post within the military bureaucracy that is in command of the Imperial Starfleet. This leads us to believe that there may be other intermediary positions, such as a possible Supreme Commmander of the Imperial Navy, Supreme Commander of the Imperial Army, or maybe just a position of "Supreme Commander" which commands all military assests and answers to the post of Executor. Now, I am not suggesting that anyone believe that there are this many positions within the military command structure, but this can be theorized when one considers the fact that Executor is commander-in-cheif and Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet is merely the commanding officer of the Imperial starfleet.
When Skywalker was called "Supreme Commander" in the Dark Empire comics, it's quite possible that he was Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet, or perhaps a position called Supreme Commander never seen before or after, but without evidence to confirm or deny, we can't conclude anything other than the fact that Luke Skywalker held a position called 'Supreme Commander' that may or may not have been the same as 'Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet'. As for the post of Executor, we know for a fact that it is a post different from that of 'Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet', although when Daala took over, she also bestowed the powers of commander-in-chief/Executor upon Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet, something Pellaeon would continue to do in the future. Now, don't get me wrong, it's quite possible that Executor and Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet were the same position at some point other than in the time of the Imperial Remnant in 12 ABY and afterward, but we don't have any evidence pointing to that. What we do have, though, are some comments by Pellaeon about him being 'Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet' and also being "Supreme Commander of Imperial forces." What I find most interesting about this is that throughout Specter of the Past and Vision of the Future, Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet is captialized, but 'Supreme Commander of Imperial forces' does not have "forces" capitalized. This implies that when Pellaeon refers to 'Sup.Cmdr. of Imperial forces' he is possibly referring to his powers versus an actual position. This is where we know that the post of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet became the effective commander-in-chief under Daala and Pellaeon, a change from the by-then-unused post of Executor, which had been commander-in-chief/supreme commander of Imperial forces.--SOCL 17:59, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly. What I said before did not mean for everyone to choose for themselves, but for us to work together to find a solution for all of this. You summed it up very well, there, SOCL. For all we know, there might be a Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet (Navy), Army, and Forces, perhaps even one for the Stormtrooper Corps. Also, Executor, as I said before, has many similarities to "...of the Imperial Fleet", but in comparison to all the others, where is Executor? We all know it is a high rank, but is it possible that Executor is also "...of the Imperial Forces"? This would probably seem most likely, especially if "...of the Imperial Forces" is the command position of the Remnant, as was Executor (second only to Emperor) in the Galactic Empire. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:04, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry; yes, no I understand. Basically, it seems that Executor was the position of commander-in-chief created by Palpatine originally intended to be held by Darth Vader alone (since Palpatine probably didn't believe he would be overthrown). It is more than likely, then, that in the official capacity, Executor was a civilian (normally a Dark Jedi or politician of some standing) appointed to be commander-in-chief of the Galactic Empire's military forces and, thus, had the powers of 'supreme commander of imperial forces'. The post of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet, on the other hand, seems to be more a position held by a high-ranking military officer within the starfleet as the commanding officer of the Galactic Empire's starfleet, most likely answering to the Executor. Actually, there are some other points concerning Executor I would like to discuss, but I'll do that in the Executor discussion page at another time. Basically, it seems that Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet was originally a position of an Imperial officer commanding the Imperial starfleet. The position seems to have later become the effective commander-in-chief of Imperial forces after the collapse of Palpatine's clones' attempts to revive the Galactic Empire, most especially by Admiral Daala in 12 ABY. Daala most likely assumed the title because she was effectively the highest ranking person within the starfleet, which makes sense since Daala was a die-hard of the traditional Imperial starfleet's ways and regulations. When Daala resigned and relinquished command to then-Vice Admiral Pellaeon, he seems to have held on to the title without relinquishing the powers of 'supreme commander of imperial forces'/Executor/commander-in-chief that Daala had assumed when she executed the most powerful warlords and reunited the Galactic Empire into what would become the Imperial Remnant. By the time of Specter of the Past and Vision of the Future, we see that Pellaeon is the rank of Fleet Admiral with the title of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet and the powers of supreme commander of imperial forces/commander-in-chief. After the Pellaeon-Gavrisom Treaty, he was promoted to Grand Admiral and is very apparently not only a military officer, but also a governmental official/magistrate as head-of-state of the Imperial Remnant. Despite all this, it seems more-than-likely that the original post of Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet under the Palpatine regime was not meant to be as powerful as it came to be under the regime of Daala (12 ABY) and afterward. Thoughts?--SOCL 20:36, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- You pretty much hit the nail on the head. That is definitely the best description of this position. But, because there is a "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet (Navy)", would there be a "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Army"? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:04, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- The sad part is, we can't be certain. All we know is that there is a position called Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet, but there could also be posts called: Supreme Commander of the Imperial Army, Supreme Commander of the Imperial Navy, Supreme Commander of the Imperial Stormtrooper Corps, Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fighter Force, etc. Of course, that's all speculation since we can't be certain about it. Given the nature of the Empire and its government to be VERY bureaucratic (as mentioned in nuermous sources, including The Imperial Sourcebook), though, one can assume that their most likely existed a very elaborate and complicated tier system with numerous levels, many of which may serve no function other than that of military bureaucrat and administration (as is common in many real-world militaries and governments).--SOCL 23:17, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Well, you're right again, it's just that "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Navy" would actually be "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:24, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Not quite. By definition, a fleet is the whole of the warships and its personnel within a Navy; a Navy is all the resources, materials, and fleets. Though indeed the Navy consists mostly of the fleet, they're aren't quite the same. It's the same deal in the real-world: in the USA you have a person called the 'Chief of Naval Operations' who commands the U.S. Navy, while you have someone else in command of fleet operations, as well as admirals in command of individual fleets.--SOCL 00:03, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the reason that "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet" refers to the entire Navy is because there aren't dozens of Supreme Commanders of the Imperial Fleet at once. Plus, the word "Supreme" is used. By your way of saying it, Commander of a Imperial Fleet would refer to a single fleet. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:00, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to not have an understanding of navies and fleets. There could very easily be a post for someone in command of ALL fleets (i.e. Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet) with subordinate fleet commanders who are not supreme. Besides which, the use of the word 'supreme' means nothing; I can quite easily be supreme commander of my bedroom, why? Because I command my bedroom with supreme authority. The example may seem a bit crude, but the use of supreme doesn't mean anything, it is merely the title used. The title could just as easily have been 'Commander of the Imperial Fleet' and meant the exact same thing, as well as had the exact same duties--there needn't be many 'Supreme Commanders of the Imperial Fleet' at once for there to be many fleets within the Imperial Fleet. In the real-world, most militaries have a position for the commanding officer of a nation's navy and a subordinate position for the commanding officer of a nation's fleet(s). The fact that there are many fleets means nothing at all because, taken as a whole, ALL the ships in the Imperial Navy are the Imperial Fleet with minor fleets (such as sector fleets) being named differently, yet still a part of the overall Imperial Fleet. A good real-world example is the U.S. Navy where you have the Chief of Naval Operations as commanding officer of the U.S. Navy (which includes the U.S. Navy's fleet(s)) and then you have Chief of Fleet Operations, who is an admiral subordinate/answers to the Chief of Naval Operations and is tasked with the operations of the U.S. Fleet, i.e. the many fleets of the U.S. Navy. 'Imperial Fleet' refers to the Empire's fleet as a whole, thus a single massive/larger fleet maade up of many smaller fleets (such as sector fleets). Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet doesn't even imply the entire Imperial Navy.--SOCL 12:41, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the reason that "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet" refers to the entire Navy is because there aren't dozens of Supreme Commanders of the Imperial Fleet at once. Plus, the word "Supreme" is used. By your way of saying it, Commander of a Imperial Fleet would refer to a single fleet. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:00, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Not quite. By definition, a fleet is the whole of the warships and its personnel within a Navy; a Navy is all the resources, materials, and fleets. Though indeed the Navy consists mostly of the fleet, they're aren't quite the same. It's the same deal in the real-world: in the USA you have a person called the 'Chief of Naval Operations' who commands the U.S. Navy, while you have someone else in command of fleet operations, as well as admirals in command of individual fleets.--SOCL 00:03, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Then I suppose you're going to say there's a "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Battalion". If you are so right, then how come the position is "Supreme Commander of THE Imperial Fleet"? It doesn't say a Imperial Fleet, it says the Imperial Fleet. Therefore, the title DOES refer to the Navy has a whole. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:04, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Whoa, no need to get angry about the situation. No, I'm not going to say that tehre is a Supreme Commander of the Imperial Battalion, and no, just because it is THE imperial fleet doesn't mean it's the entire Navy. Again, there is a difference between the fleet and the Navy. Again, the fleet is all the warships and vessels belonging to the Navy. The Navy is the fleet along with all the support units, ground units, boarding units, (air)craft units, fighter units, etc. Further, THE Imperial Fleet is made up of many smaller fleets, specifically sector fleets commanded by people who have titles like 'Commander of the Braxtant Sector Fleet' or something along those lines; heck, they may even be called 'Supreme Commander of the Braxtant Sector Fleet' or whatever sector fleet it happens to be. In the real-world, especially in the USA's Armed Forces, you'll find that there are NUMEROUS personnel with the title of 'Commander-in-Chief', yet there all aren't the USA's President who is the nation's commander-in-chief. For instance, there is a general in Europe whose title is "Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Forces in Europe"; in Korea there is a general whose title is "Commander-in-Chiif of U.S. Army Forces in the Pacfic". Interestingly, in the Pacific Command, you'll also find numerous lesser commanders-in-chief answering to the "Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Forces in the Pacific", i.e. an Admiral called "Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet", an Admiral called "Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Naval Forces in the Pacific" (to whom the former answers to), a general called "Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific, a general called "Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Air Forces in the Pacific"; the list goes on and on. The idea of there being a 'Supreme Commander of the Imperial Navy' and 'Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet' is not so far-flung is actually quite probable. In any event, we have no evidence to tell us whether there does or does not exist such a post/title, and without any such evidence we can neither say that the two posts were the same because we can't even say 'Supreme Commander of the Imperial Navy' exists. All I'm trying to point out is that there is a big difference between the Navy and the Fleet; the Fleet, though a large part of the Navy is, nonetheless, a part of the Navy not THE Navy.--SOCL 22:59, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I still find it very stupid for there to be a "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet" if you are right. That position would be pointless. And, as I say again, it says "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet". Now, why would there be a Supreme Commander over other Supreme Commanders? And once more, I ask you, why was there only one Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet at one time? Therefore, SOCL, I don't believe you are correct. Just because the U.S.A. has a similar navy setup to your explaination does not mean it is exactly the same in-universe. So saying that, I still backup my theory that "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet" is the same as "Supreme Commander of the Imperial Navy". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:40, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I can see what you're saying, but taking into account how very bureaucratic the Galactic Empire was, such a tiered system doesn't seem so improbable. I realize that it says Supreme, but this doesn't necessarily mean that they are the highest of the high, it simply means that the post is the highest post of the Imperial Fleet. By giving the USA examples, I was trying to illustrate that having a high-ranking title such as 'supreme' or 'commander-in-chief' or whatever doesn't mean they are the highest of the high. I was also trying to point out that by definition, fleet and navy are not the same thing. It's true that the words "navy" and "fleet" can be used interchangably when their uses are not specific, but when referring to branches of Armed Forces, the term Navy is a branch counterpart to the Army and the term Fleet is the command-level of all the warships within the Navy. To add to this, one can be part of the Navy without being part of the fleet (for instance, support personnel such as doctors or shipyard engineers not assigned to warships), but persons assigned to the fleet are part of the Navy. Now, I do acknowledge and agree that by the time of the Imperial Remnant (basically 12 ABY and onward), the Navy and Fleet/Starfleet have become all but the same and by the time of Specter of the Past, the Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet is the highest post of all military positions. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that perhaps during the height of the Galactic Empire there were other positions with a clear difference being made between the Fleet and the rest of the Navy, but by the time of 12 ABY or even by the time of Thrawn's command, the Imperial Fleet seems to command all of the Navy and, for that matter, all of the military.--SOCL 17:03, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Therefore, at that time, the title refers to both the Fleet and the Navy. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 17:40, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- In the context of the Imperial Remnant, yes, the point of Navy and Fleet become moot concerning the command structure (attributed to the fall of organized government following the Battle of Endor). Still, I would not go so far as put that into the article since we don't have evidence to the pro or counter, only educated conclusions.--SOCL 17:50, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Something of interest in this regard: On page 2 of Timothy Zahn's The Last Command, we get a comment from Thrawn that alludes the possible distinction between Navy and Fleet. Thrawn is addressing Captain Brandei concerning the captain's want for revenge for the destruction of the Peremptory, and after a talking-to about strategy and revenge, Thrawn says, "Not as an act of private vengence... Certainly not by any Fleet captain under my command...." This may simply be Thrawn making a distinction between the rank of captain in the Imperial Army and the rank of captain in the Imperial Navy, but if we were to approach it from that context, why would he say it like that? It's quite clear that Brandei is not a captain in the Army. Though this may not be implicit evidence to a separation of Navy and Fleet (with Fleet subordinate to the overall Navy), it makes one think and, in some ways, implies it... Thoughts?--SOCL 23:52, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- The movies state it as being the Imperial Starfleet, not the Imperial Navy. Kuralyov 00:01, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- And?... It makes absolutely no difference. Look, I can say that I am a part of the United States Fleet, does that mean there isn't a Navy? Does that mean that I am not a part of the United States Navy? No; it simply means I am a part of the Fleet, but does not mean that I am not a part of the Navy. Fleets are parts of navies, that's a known fact and all I'm trying to do is apply logic to the Imperial Navy/Fleet/Starfleet. Look, it makes no difference what sources call what, no source has come right out and said "There is no Imperial Navy, there is only an Imperial Fleet/Starfleet, end of story". Further, no source has ever said "There is an Imperial Navy". The point I'm trying to suggest is that we know that the Imperial Starfleet exists. We also know that normally fleets are a part of a navy, so it seems possible that the Imperial Starfleet is part of the Imperial Navy. Again, I am not suggesting I am correct, but I am also not suggesting that simply saying "It's Starfleet, end of story" is correct either since we have nothing in favor or to the contrary.--SOCL 00:39, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Pellaeon's resignation
Gilad Pellaeon did resign after the Yuuzhan Vong War, as Cal Omas asked him to COME OUT of retirement and serve as Supreme Commander of the Galactic Alliance Defense Force after Sien Sovv was killed. It says so in the Unseen Queen. -- SFH 21:56, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- My apologies. But who, then, is the current Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet for the Imperial Remnant? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:58, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Unknown. My money is that if Pellaeon had a say, leadership would have gone to Ephin Saretti, Moff of Bastion. -- SFH 02:59, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Hopefully this will be explained in future novels. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:45, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)