Another thing. My interpretation was that Satine was the pacifist, based on her experience of the civil war. She capitalized on the war weariness of the people to attempt wide spread cultural change, which was only somewhat successful.

Another thing. My interpretation was that Satine was the pacifist, based on her experience of the civil war. She capitalized on the war weariness of the people to attempt wide spread cultural change, which was only somewhat successful.

Right. Obviously not everyone on the planet was 100% on board with the whole pacifism thing.

It's pretty clear that the war was between Death Watch, and the Pacifists, not the Supercommandos and the Pacifists.

Sure - but the Mandalorian Civil War, with supercommandos, took place in Satine's time, not thousands of years before - and it was the survivors of that civil war that called themselves the Death Watch.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalorian_Civil_War

That said, it's Legends sources rather than Newcanon sources that specifically call her father a "chieftain" or a "warlord".

But the civil war was between DW and the New Mandos, not the 3rd faction (The Protectors/Supercommandos we see in Rebels).

I'm liking the direction the GCW Mandalorians are taking. I think I actually prefer the Filoni Mandalore to the old canon one.

Well to throw my 2 cents in, I absolutely hated what TCW did with Mandalore and the Mandalorians. First off the planet, someone else said it, the dense jungle planet was much more interesting then a barren planet that people still live on because of sentimentality. And the pacifists make no sense. There was clearly a civil war, how did they win if they are pacifists? There was definitely story potential with them, but to completely undercut the supercommandos and act like they only ever existed thousands of years ago is silly. Now Rebels, on the other hand, appears to slowly be bringing supercommandos back, so this could get interesting.But yea, the old culture was better. Ancient warrior clans, living in a dense jungle in the Outer Rim, was a far more interesting story (even if Traviss wasn't that great a writer), then a bunch of pacifists living in cities on a planet that is completely uninhabitable.

Are you kidding? I loved reading the old Legends stories too, but generic super warrior culture living on generic jungle planet is far and away less interesting then once violent culture living in domed habitats on a war torn planet that exiled the losing faction in the previous war to the moon. The Mandalore arcs were some of the most interesting in TCW because they dealt seriously with cultural and political tensions, and the ramifications the clone wars had for neutral planets.

The old Mandalorians were way over-done, but they had a much more interesting culture then what TCW gave us. The philosophy and way of life of the original Mandos was way better then, "Our planet got destroyed, so now we're pacifist and neutral, and we'll banish anyone who disagrees with us."

It took me a while to accept the new canon Mandalore, but once I did it was for the better I think. The legends stuff is still somewhat in tact. There are mandalorians out there who follow the old ways.

At the time of TCW there were essentially three groups

The New Mandalorians

Death Watch

And everyone else who didn't like either of the previous two.

Though I think in Season 5 of TCW they pretty much wiped away all of the pacifists.

Pre Vizla: "Hey let's be warriors again!"

Everyone: "Yeah alright sounds good."

Right, but they basically destroyed 3rd group (the most interesting one) so they could create the New Mandos, and now they seem to be rebuilding the 3rd group, and destroying the pacifists because they suddenly realize conflict between the DW and Protectors is far more interesting then what they gave us originally.

And the pacifists make no sense. There was clearly a civil war, how did they win if they are pacifists?

The war turned them into pacifists. Prior to that they weren't: the armour isn't a Death Watch design given Rau's Protectors have it and it's not 1000 years old either.

There was definitely story potential with them, but to completely undercut the supercommandos and act like they only ever existed thousands of years ago is silly.

It's also not true. The pacifist government only came to power during Obi-Wan Kenobi's padawan years: the Mandalorian Civil War is within living memory. They weren't pacifist before the war although they were culturally divided on the best path forward for their people. The existence of Rau and the Protectors proves that there are Mandalorian warrior groups not connected to and opposed to the Death Watch.

The Supercommandos in the new canon however are Death Watch: they're the majority faction that accepts Maul as leader after he kills Vizsla and claims his sword and title. Their membership includes Rook Kast and Gar Saxon (the two that rescue Maul from Stygeon Prime in Son of Dathomir). The Siege of Mandalore ends with the world under Imperial control and Maul defeated: Gar Saxon goes on to be a senior figure in the Imperial Supercommandos (he's the one in the red highlighted armor) who presumably swear allegiance to the Empire for defeating Maul just as they swore allegiance to Maul for defeating Vizsla.

They also have a tendency to remodel their armour after their leader: the Supercommandos repaint their armour red and some add Zabrak horns to the helms under Maul and under the Empire they have much more Stormtrooper-esque armour.

Right, but they basically destroyed 3rd group (the most interesting one) so they could create the New Mandos, and now they seem to be rebuilding the 3rd group, and destroying the pacifists because they suddenly realize conflict between the DW and Protectors is far more interesting then what they gave us originally.

The New Mandalorians were destroyed in TCW when Maul and Vizsla conquered their defenseless world. The split now is still the split that appeared in Death Watch during TCW: loyalty to the strongest versus loyalty to the strongest Mandalorian. The Supercommandos are loyal to the Empire because it's powerful: the Nite Owls or whatever they've become (by the sounds of the trailer they're the "Loyalists" now) reject the Empire because it's an outsider.

The third group of the old canon (the previous holders of the name supercommando) are still no more. Rau's group were originally the honor guard of the Manda'lor, hence their name. They fought for the Republic during the Clone Wars and went to Concord Dawn afterwards because the Empire occupied their homeworld: Rau dislikes and distrusts the Empire for reasons so far unknown, working with it to keep it out of his space.

The choice of Concord Dawn isn't surprising: it has strong Mandalorian connections (much like Mandalore the Mandalorians made a mess of it) but it also shows no sign of abandoning its violent nature: the likes of Rako Hardeen and Jango Fett hail from there.

We know they're not of Nite Owl origin because the Nite Owls were Death Watch until near the end of the Clone Wars: Rau's protectors fought for the Republic. I'd wager they were on the other side of the Mandalorian Civil War and left when Mandalore demilitarised and turned pacifist at the conclusion of it. They've had those Fang Fighters since the Clone Wars at least: they probably date back to the Civil War.

And the pacifists make no sense. There was clearly a civil war, how did they win if they are pacifists?

The war turned them into pacifists. Prior to that they weren't: the armour isn't a Death Watch design given Rau's Protectors have it and it's not 1000 years old either.

There was definitely story potential with them, but to completely undercut the supercommandos and act like they only ever existed thousands of years ago is silly.

It's also not true. The pacifist government only came to power during Obi-Wan Kenobi's padawan years: the Mandalorian Civil War is within living memory. They weren't pacifist before the war although they were culturally divided on the best path forward for their people. The existence of Rau and the Protectors proves that there are Mandalorian warrior groups not connected to and opposed to the Death Watch.

The Supercommandos in the new canon however are Death Watch: they're the majority faction that accepts Maul as leader after he kills Vizsla and claims his sword and title. Their membership includes Rook Kast and Gar Saxon (the two that rescue Maul from Stygeon Prime in Son of Dathomir). The Siege of Mandalore ends with the world under Imperial control and Maul defeated: Gar Saxon goes on to be a senior figure in the Imperial Supercommandos (he's the one in the red highlighted armor) who presumably swear allegiance to the Empire for defeating Maul just as they swore allegiance to Maul for defeating Vizsla.

They also have a tendency to remodel their armour after their leader: the Supercommandos repaint their armour red and some add Zabrak horns to the helms under Maul and under the Empire they have much more Stormtrooper-esque armour.

Right, but they basically destroyed 3rd group (the most interesting one) so they could create the New Mandos, and now they seem to be rebuilding the 3rd group, and destroying the pacifists because they suddenly realize conflict between the DW and Protectors is far more interesting then what they gave us originally.

The New Mandalorians were destroyed in TCW when Maul and Vizsla conquered their defenseless world. The split now is still the split that appeared in Death Watch during TCW: loyalty to the strongest versus loyalty to the strongest Mandalorian. The Supercommandos are loyal to the Empire because it's powerful: the Nite Owls or whatever they've become (by the sounds of the trailer they're the "Loyalists" now) reject the Empire because it's an outsider.

The third group of the old canon (the previous holders of the name supercommando) are still no more. Rau's group were originally the honor guard of the Manda'lor, hence their name. They fought for the Republic during the Clone Wars and went to Concord Dawn afterwards because the Empire occupied their homeworld: Rau dislikes and distrusts the Empire for reasons so far unknown, working with it to keep it out of his space.

We know they're not of Nite Owl origin because the Nite Owls were Death Watch until near the end of the Clone Wars: Rau's protectors fought for the Republic. I'd wager they were on the other side of the Mandalorian Civil War and left when Mandalore demilitarised and turned pacifist at the conclusion of it. They've had those Fang Fighters since the Clone Wars at least: they probably date back to the Civil War.

1.) Fair enough, it still seems a little far-fetched for an entire society to become pacifists because of a civil war.

2.) Exactly my point, I should have made it clear I meant legends supercommandos, not Maul's Death Watch. My point still stands that with the exception of the Protectors, there haven't been any 3rd party "true" Mandalorians thus far.

3.) The Protectors are the closest thing to Old Canon Mandalorians so far, as they are clearly not from Death Watch, but they still have the "old ways" so to speak.

The Protectors, also known as the Journeyman Protectors, were an ancient group of Mandalorians who served the ruler of Mandalore. When the Galactic Empire claimed control of their homeworld, the Protectors established a base on the third moon of Concord Dawn in the Concord Dawn system.

Oh, one other thing.

I strongly recommend treating TCW as new canon only. While officially Legends does include it it's a continuity nightmare. It fits perfectly into the new canon and doesn't fit into the old one at all.

The new canon has pacifist Mandalore losing a war with its past, the old canon has Traviss's rainbow armoured dreamland.

1.) Fair enough, it still seems a little far-fetched for an entire society to become pacifists because of a civil war.

Alderaan does it as a result of the Clone Wars.

Also, the entire society doesn't turn pacifist. Most of it is wiped out. The majority turn pacifist as a result of their near extinction, those who don't have to leave. Those on the losing side who refuse get dumped on Concordia to fend for themselves.

To be honest, TCW is the main reason a separation was needed.

My point still stands that with the exception of the Protectors, there haven't been any 3rd party "true" Mandalorians thus far.

I'm not sure the Protectors are. They've strong ties to Concord Dawn, they're fairly traditional and they distrust the Empire but they're still organised and fairly uniform: they follow the "old ways" but that means the old ways as defined by the new canon. They're like the Death Watch without the jingoism rather than the old canon's "everyone is a Boba Fett" approach.

YwingAce, I respect our differences in opinion on this. Just out of curiosity, what exactly about the old mandalorian culture did you find particularly interesting?

This book came out before the Legends/Canon thing happened.

So it's not canon.

Even still, if you're looking for a way to reocncile old Legends Mandalorians with things that started in The Clone Wars, this book does its best to retcon the two into one thing which I found very impressive.

My point still stands that with the exception of the Protectors, there haven't been any 3rd party "true" Mandalorians thus far.

I'm not sure the Protectors are. They've strong ties to Concord Dawn, they're fairly traditional and they distrust the Empire but they're still organised and fairly uniform: they follow the "old ways" but that means the old ways as defined by the new canon. They're like the Death Watch without the jingoism rather than the old canon's "everyone is a Boba Fett" approach.

To be fair though, unless we're talking about crusaders, the "traditional" Mandalorians were without jingoism. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "everyone's a Boba Fett". Even Traviss insisted that Fett wasn't really a Mandalorian.

YwingAce, I respect our differences in opinion on this. Just out of curiosity, what exactly about the old mandalorian culture did you find particularly interesting?

The history and evolution of the culture, the idea that they fight, not because they're crazy vikings or a biker gang (basically the Death Watch), but because that's what they're good at, so that's how they make their living. Their philosophy of being simple, but still being up to date on tech, the idea that, although they could be a force to be reckoned with on the galactic scale if they wanted too, they're content with their simple lives. They don't need power to be happy. Traviss' early writing was okay, but then she just went off the deep end with how awesome and overpowered they were. That was unnecessary, but the basic idea she created, was pretty good.

1.) Fair enough, it still seems a little far-fetched for an entire society to become pacifists because of a civil war.

A good amount of people became pacifist just because of the option of a small global nuclear war. That "civil war" was a lot bigger. When they write civil war they mean it like WW3 with nukes and worse all over the place and not like the silly american civil war. After all the planet is basically dead after that civil war. Most mandos too. For all we know Mandalore could have been that jungle world before the war. But it sure was not after.

To be fair though, unless we're talking about crusaders, the "traditional" Mandalorians were without jingoism. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "everyone's a Boba Fett". Even Traviss insisted that Fett wasn't really a Mandalorian.

New canon Mandalorians don't have the individualism thing the new canon ones have: they're an organized military outfit rather than a ragtag band of individuals doing their own thing. There's very little by way of uniform in the old canon.

In the new canon the armour of Mandalorians of the same group share the same colour scheme for example: Mandalorian armour is usually blue and silver. This is true of Death Watch, Jango Fett (who is a "maybe" Mandalorian in the new canon), the Nite Owls and the Protectors. The Supercommandos repaint to red and black to reflect their loyalty to Maul and then to white and red under the Empire.

The exceptions are Boba Fett, who's not a Mandalorian and wears it because his father did, and Sabine Wren. Both are lone wolves with respect to the Mandalorians: Sabine repaints everything and Boba Fett customises the bits of Mandalorian armour he collects.

For all we know Mandalore could have been that jungle world before the war. But it sure was not after.

I was under the impression Mandalore's wasteland status was the Republic's doing centuries ago: that's how they ceased to be a galactic threat.

1.) Fair enough, it still seems a little far-fetched for an entire society to become pacifists because of a civil war.

A good amount of people became pacifist just because of the option of a small global nuclear war. That "civil war" was a lot bigger. When they write civil war they mean it like WW3 with nukes and worse all over the place and not like the silly american civil war. After all the planet is basically dead after that civil war. Most mandos too. For all we know Mandalore could have been that jungle world before the war. But it sure was not after.

Silly Civil War? Not only is that incredibly rude but you do realize that was actually a pretty bloody war, right?

1.) Fair enough, it still seems a little far-fetched for an entire society to become pacifists because of a civil war.

A good amount of people became pacifist just because of the option of a small global nuclear war. That "civil war" was a lot bigger. When they write civil war they mean it like WW3 with nukes and worse all over the place and not like the silly american civil war. After all the planet is basically dead after that civil war. Most mandos too. For all we know Mandalore could have been that jungle world before the war. But it sure was not after.

Silly Civil War? Not only is that incredibly rude but you do realize that was actually a pretty bloody war, right?

Oh, stop choosing to be offended. His point is that it's the difference between the 620k in the US civil war and 6 billion people in his scenario and is using a reductive term to demonstrate the difference.

Wow the US civil war was smaller than I thought. It's always played up in the media as some apocalyptic thing. 620k is only about 2% of the population at the time... The Napoleonic death count has been realistically estimated as more than 6million, and Britain alone lost 620k, more than 6% of its population (if I'm doing my maths right). And thanks to the war being 'abroad' Britain had lower casualties than many countries which had their cities besieged, and fought over multiple times while the fields were stripped bare and populations starved. Large areas of Spain and Russia were completely devastated.

But yes, no earthly war has had the sort of impact a bloody violent civil war withing a culture capable of orbital bombardments, were military proficiency was as highly prized a skill for the normal people as it was for the mandolorians. It isn't hard to believe that anyone surviving that would be sick of even the idea of war, or have been driven insane by the scale of the devastation.

Civil war is any war between factions within a government or nation, to distinguish between any other war between different nations. That's all. USA didn't have the vast armies of the European nations during the Napoleonic wars, so yeah fewer people died. No country on earth encompasses the entire population of earth so any country's civil war will not destroy so much as the Mando war seems to have done, especially since the Mados had access to weapons far beyond what we have ever had.

Wow the US civil war was smaller than I thought. It's always played up in the media as some apocalyptic thing. 620k is only about 2% of the population at the time... The Napoleonic death count has been realistically estimated as more than 6million, and Britain alone lost 620k, more than 6% of its population (if I'm doing my maths right). And thanks to the war being 'abroad' Britain had lower casualties than many countries which had their cities besieged, and fought over multiple times while the fields were stripped bare and populations starved. Large areas of Spain and Russia were completely devastated.

But yes, no earthly war has had the sort of impact a bloody violent civil war withing a culture capable of orbital bombardments, were military proficiency was as highly prized a skill for the normal people as it was for the mandolorians. It isn't hard to believe that anyone surviving that would be sick of even the idea of war, or have been driven insane by the scale of the devastation.

More then 620k. That's just confirmed dead. The Union was running (included wounded) roughly 1.5 million taking in dead, wounded, POWs killed, and MIA. The South was also running close to a million. And of course the ACW would run smaller then the Napoleonic Wars. The Napoleonic Wars ran for 20 years across multiple continents. In all honesty, the Napoleonic Wars could almost be considered a World War. I've never heard of anyone describing the ACW as apocalyptic, but when you compare it to other countries civil wars (look at the UK or Spain as an example) it was far bloodier and more to the scale of a full war then most.

To be fair though, unless we're talking about crusaders, the "traditional" Mandalorians were without jingoism. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "everyone's a Boba Fett". Even Traviss insisted that Fett wasn't really a Mandalorian.

New canon Mandalorians don't have the individualism thing the new canon ones have: they're an organized military outfit rather than a ragtag band of individuals doing their own thing. There's very little by way of uniform in the old canon.

In the new canon the armour of Mandalorians of the same group share the same colour scheme for example: Mandalorian armour is usually blue and silver. This is true of Death Watch, Jango Fett (who is a "maybe" Mandalorian in the new canon), the Nite Owls and the Protectors. The Supercommandos repaint to red and black to reflect their loyalty to Maul and then to white and red under the Empire.

The exceptions are Boba Fett, who's not a Mandalorian and wears it because his father did, and Sabine Wren. Both are lone wolves with respect to the Mandalorians: Sabine repaints everything and Boba Fett customises the bits of Mandalorian armour he collects.

For all we know Mandalore could have been that jungle world before the war. But it sure was not after.

I was under the impression Mandalore's wasteland status was the Republic's doing centuries ago: that's how they ceased to be a galactic threat.

Ah I understand. I can kind of understand why Mandalorians are much more militarized in the new canon because they've basically been under constant assault from the Republic, Jedi, and other Mandalorians. That would create a much tighter military society when everyone's out to get you. I have no doubt that back when it was an option, they were probably more individual in their gear. Now it's basically mass-produced in a fight to stay alive. I was also under the impression that the planet was BD0ed by the Republic centuries ago. I think if it was the civil war, Satine would have been denounced as a hypocrite for fighting a war that destroyed the planet, and then insisting she was a pacifist.

1.) Fair enough, it still seems a little far-fetched for an entire society to become pacifists because of a civil war.

A good amount of people became pacifist just because of the option of a small global nuclear war. That "civil war" was a lot bigger. When they write civil war they mean it like WW3 with nukes and worse all over the place and not like the silly american civil war. After all the planet is basically dead after that civil war. Most mandos too. For all we know Mandalore could have been that jungle world before the war. But it sure was not after.

Silly Civil War? Not only is that incredibly rude but you do realize that was actually a pretty bloody war, right?

I don't think he was trying to be rude; "silly" and "civil" alliterate well you see. Silly civil, silly civil. I don't think he meant anything by it.

The reason that The American Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, for all you Rebs what don't know when you been beat ), sticks as particularly tragic in the minds of many Americans is because it was all Americans that died.

The Civilians: Americans.

The Union: Americans.

The Confederates: Americans.

Now for the less silly bit.

They've tried to vilify one side or the other over the years, and I think this is wrong because it masks the motivations of the sides involved. People don't have to empathize with "the bad guys" because they're "bad guys"; circular reasoning yes, but it works incredibly well. The Civil War was a war about slavery yes; but it was much more a war about the economics of slavery than the morality. People will find a way to make moral anything that makes them feel good or provides them with money, so I tend to leave morality and all its relativism out of my perspective.

The facts are this; the entire economy of the southern states was dependent on the institution of slavery, contrasting with the northern states which were industrial centers. Without slavery, the southern states would become what Detroit became without cars; destitute, and subject to the whims of their richer northern neighbors. This happened anyway during and after the war, but it was the fear that fueled the war. Most of the members of the Confederate army weren't slave owners, many of the Union soldiers joined for pay or because they didn't want to be seen as cowards.

I can't describe all of my feelings on an era of history in a chatbox, but in a nutshell: Though I see the Union as mostly "good guys", I don't see the Confederates as "bad guys" and I never will. I think they were wrong, but I don't think they were evil. In my book bad guys are motivated by personal hatred, and I just don't see the hate.

Despite my personal thoughts on the matter, the Civil War hurt the US more deeply than many of its other wars because it divided us. Half the country was humiliated, the other half was worn out and confused, and the segment of the population that the whole shebang had been about now had to figure out how to integrate into the post-war world.

I can't say whether the writers of Star Wars had things of this type in mind when they wrote for the Mandolorians, but I think they got the main point. The main point is, that you don't "win" a civil war. You get it over and done with, you change what the losing side didn't want changed, and then you spend years trying to get everyone back together to be a country again. You don't win any land, you don't gain spoils; it's like a worm eating itself.

Wow the US civil war was smaller than I thought. It's always played up in the media as some apocalyptic thing. 620k is only about 2% of the population at the time... The Napoleonic death count has been realistically estimated as more than 6million, and Britain alone lost 620k, more than 6% of its population (if I'm doing my maths right). And thanks to the war being 'abroad' Britain had lower casualties than many countries which had their cities besieged, and fought over multiple times while the fields were stripped bare and populations starved. Large areas of Spain and Russia were completely devastated.

But yes, no earthly war has had the sort of impact a bloody violent civil war withing a culture capable of orbital bombardments, were military proficiency was as highly prized a skill for the normal people as it was for the mandolorians. It isn't hard to believe that anyone surviving that would be sick of even the idea of war, or have been driven insane by the scale of the devastation.

More then 620k. That's just confirmed dead. The Union was running (included wounded) roughly 1.5 million taking in dead, wounded, POWs killed, and MIA. The South was also running close to a million. And of course the ACW would run smaller then the Napoleonic Wars. The Napoleonic Wars ran for 20 years across multiple continents. In all honesty, the Napoleonic Wars could almost be considered a World War. I've never heard of anyone describing the ACW as apocalyptic, but when you compare it to other countries civil wars (look at the UK or Spain as an example) it was far bloodier and more to the scale of a full war then most.

To be fair though, unless we're talking about crusaders, the "traditional" Mandalorians were without jingoism. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "everyone's a Boba Fett". Even Traviss insisted that Fett wasn't really a Mandalorian.

New canon Mandalorians don't have the individualism thing the new canon ones have: they're an organized military outfit rather than a ragtag band of individuals doing their own thing. There's very little by way of uniform in the old canon.

In the new canon the armour of Mandalorians of the same group share the same colour scheme for example: Mandalorian armour is usually blue and silver. This is true of Death Watch, Jango Fett (who is a "maybe" Mandalorian in the new canon), the Nite Owls and the Protectors. The Supercommandos repaint to red and black to reflect their loyalty to Maul and then to white and red under the Empire.

The exceptions are Boba Fett, who's not a Mandalorian and wears it because his father did, and Sabine Wren. Both are lone wolves with respect to the Mandalorians: Sabine repaints everything and Boba Fett customises the bits of Mandalorian armour he collects.

For all we know Mandalore could have been that jungle world before the war. But it sure was not after.

I was under the impression Mandalore's wasteland status was the Republic's doing centuries ago: that's how they ceased to be a galactic threat.

Ah I understand. I can kind of understand why Mandalorians are much more militarized in the new canon because they've basically been under constant assault from the Republic, Jedi, and other Mandalorians. That would create a much tighter military society when everyone's out to get you. I have no doubt that back when it was an option, they were probably more individual in their gear. Now it's basically mass-produced in a fight to stay alive. I was also under the impression that the planet was BD0ed by the Republic centuries ago. I think if it was the civil war, Satine would have been denounced as a hypocrite for fighting a war that destroyed the planet, and then insisting she was a pacifist .

I'd say taking part in a war that destroyed your planet is a beliveable reason to reconsider your opinion on violence.

Interestingly enough, if you look at actual statistics, only a very small part of Southern land owners were slave owners, and there were a large amount of black slave owners as well. Not that it makes it right, but it disproves people who claim that all of us southerners were all huge bigots

In fact, I seem to recall that Robert E. Lee was actually anti slavery and only fought for the South because he didn't want to go against his family.

I'd say taking part in a war that destroyed your planet is a beliveable reason to reconsider your opinion on violence.

Ah I understand. I can kind of understand why Mandalorians are much more militarized in the new canon because they've basically been under constant assault from the Republic, Jedi, and other Mandalorians. That would create a much tighter military society when everyone's out to get you. I have no doubt that back when it was an option, they were probably more individual in their gear. Now it's basically mass-produced in a fight to stay alive. I was also under the impression that the planet was BD0ed by the Republic centuries ago. I think if it was the civil war, Satine would have been denounced as a hypocrite for fighting a war that destroyed the planet, and then insisting she was a pacifist.

Filoni specifically makes a point that Mandalorian armour isn't heavily customised in his commentary: it's a battle uniform rather than a medium for personal expression, like Clone Trooper or Stormtrooper armour. Sabine aside they don't tend to customise more than the Clones do.

As for Satine, the Mandalorian Civil War is what creates the pacifist faction: over 50% of the population die. The wholesale rejection of warfare by a populace that was increasily less committed to it isn't unrealistic. They remain a regimented society in the sense of organisation and discipline if the appearance of their civilians is any indication though.

They're still Mandalorians though: they don't take much convincing during the Clone Wars.

"Hey guys, we just won the civil war by deploying nukes and wiping our enemies off the face of the planet, by the way I'm now pacifist." That's very absurd. That said, I'm pretty sure the planet was destroyed well before the Civil War.

"We've won the war against the insurgents but at what cost? Most of our people are dead, our planet is in ruins. Here and now we commit: NEVER AGAIN. "

Interestingly enough, if you look at actual statistics, only a very small part of Southern land owners were slave owners, and there were a large amount of black slave owners as well. Not that it makes it right, but it disproves people who claim that all of us southerners were all huge bigots

In fact, I seem to recall that Robert E. Lee was actually anti slavery and only fought for the South because he didn't want to go against his family.

Lee is actually my favorite General in all of history.

I remember reading that he'd have preferred to have fought for the north, but that he couldn't abandon Virginia because it was his home. People had different loyalties back then; loyalty to their state, loyalty to their families - it's very different from what we have today. I think people today are less trusting, and less forgiving.

Ah I understand. I can kind of understand why Mandalorians are much more militarized in the new canon because they've basically been under constant assault from the Republic, Jedi, and other Mandalorians. That would create a much tighter military society when everyone's out to get you. I have no doubt that back when it was an option, they were probably more individual in their gear. Now it's basically mass-produced in a fight to stay alive. I was also under the impression that the planet was BD0ed by the Republic centuries ago. I think if it was the civil war, Satine would have been denounced as a hypocrite for fighting a war that destroyed the planet, and then insisting she was a pacifist.

Filoni specifically makes a point that Mandalorian armour isn't heavily customised in his commentary: it's a battle uniform rather than a medium for personal expression, like Clone Trooper or Stormtrooper armour. Sabine aside they don't tend to customise more than the Clones do.

As for Satine, the Mandalorian Civil War is what creates the pacifist faction: over 50% of the population die. The wholesale rejection of warfare by a populace that was increasily less committed to it isn't unrealistic. They remain a regimented society in the sense of organisation and discipline if the appearance of their civilians is any indication though.

They're still Mandalorians though: they don't take much convincing during the Clone Wars.

"Hey guys, we just won the civil war by deploying nukes and wiping our enemies off the face of the planet, by the way I'm now pacifist." That's very absurd. That said, I'm pretty sure the planet was destroyed well before the Civil War.

"We've won the war against the insurgents but at what cost? Most of our people are dead, our planet is in ruins. Here and now we commit: NEVER AGAIN. "

Almost, I'd add a little edit in keeping with my maxim that you can't win a civil war. People like winning wars; they like to gather their loot, free the civilians, and go home. You can't go home in a civil war.

"The civil war is over but at what cost? Most of our people are dead, our planet is in ruins. Here and now we commit: NEVER AGAIN."

Ah I understand. I can kind of understand why Mandalorians are much more militarized in the new canon because they've basically been under constant assault from the Republic, Jedi, and other Mandalorians. That would create a much tighter military society when everyone's out to get you. I have no doubt that back when it was an option, they were probably more individual in their gear. Now it's basically mass-produced in a fight to stay alive. I was also under the impression that the planet was BD0ed by the Republic centuries ago. I think if it was the civil war, Satine would have been denounced as a hypocrite for fighting a war that destroyed the planet, and then insisting she was a pacifist.

Filoni specifically makes a point that Mandalorian armour isn't heavily customised in his commentary: it's a battle uniform rather than a medium for personal expression, like Clone Trooper or Stormtrooper armour. Sabine aside they don't tend to customise more than the Clones do.

As for Satine, the Mandalorian Civil War is what creates the pacifist faction: over 50% of the population die. The wholesale rejection of warfare by a populace that was increasily less committed to it isn't unrealistic. They remain a regimented society in the sense of organisation and discipline if the appearance of their civilians is any indication though.

They're still Mandalorians though: they don't take much convincing during the Clone Wars.

"Hey guys, we just won the civil war by deploying nukes and wiping our enemies off the face of the planet, by the way I'm now pacifist." That's very absurd. That said, I'm pretty sure the planet was destroyed well before the Civil War.

"We've won the war against the insurgents but at what cost? Most of our people are dead, our planet is in ruins. Here and now we commit: NEVER AGAIN. "

The clones customized quite a bit though, I'd say the stormtrooper comparison is more apt.

As for the pacifists, maybe it's just me, but I can't believe an entire society would be stupid enough to kill off their enemies, then become pacifist, and then expect that because they've rejected war, they can be neutral, and pander to both sides. I mean I could understand being defensive, and trying to remain neutral and not fight a war again, but to become pacifist after you've seen first hand the kind of weapons that anyone has access too, I think that would simply make them become vigilant, and have a strong defensive military.