Long story short, it feels like it's going to be a different case for lots of places

Yeah, that's probably fair. It just seems odd to me when the books, movies, shows, etc make the Jedi out to be these heroic figures admired, though usually secretly, by seemingly every non-Imperial everywhere in the galaxy. How often do you see characters denouncing the Jedi for there part in the rise of Empire? Even on worlds that held Jedi sympathies before the Clone Wars, it seems that they would be held, at least as an organization if not as individuals, in fairly low regard after the attempted coup.

I would contest your assertion that the Clone Wars caused billions of casualties.

Okay, fair enough. To the best of my knowledge there haven't been any canonical mentions of casualty reports from the war, so the best we can really do is speculate.

The initial order of clones (to my knowledge, we have no concrete numbers for follow-on batches, or clones from other sources, i.e. Spaarti) from Kamino was 3 million.

From a reddit discussion found here. "If a "unit" were to be referring to one of the battalions of 576 troopers (seen on Coruscant), then 200,000 of these would render 115,200,000 clones and the 1,000,000 others spoken of as 576,000,000. This grand total of 691,200,000 would be far more suitable for the core of a galactic army." While it's certainly not from an official source, the reasoning seems sound. Please also refer to the "Command structure of regular forces" section of the Grand Army of the Republic entry on Wookieepedia here, though the source used to arrive at that number is now non-cannon, so I'm not sure how much stock should be put in it.

So that should give us a decent idea of the number of Republic clone troopers, to say nothing of the number of non-clone elements incorporated into the army. It also doesn't address the number of support personnel needed to maintain the GAR. We can guess at this number by using a modern tooth to tail ratio of 1:2.5 (see Quora discussion here), but there's no way to know if that's representative of armies in the Star Wars galaxy. So either way we're left guessing, but let's make some conservative guesses with what we do know.

Let's really low-ball it say that for every 10 clone troopers there is one living non-clone soldier. So with around 700,000,000 clones forming the core the army (please see above) that means there are 70,000,000 non-clone soldiers for around 770,000,000 soldier. Let's also assume that the support infrastructure used to supply the GAR is extraordinarily efficient (it is a sci-fi setting after all), so 10 soldiers can be supported by one living person. That's 77,000,000 support personnel. So the total size of the GAR weighs in at around 847,000,000 personnel.

The clone army, while smaller, was better equipped, better led, and generally more effective on the field of battle (and in naval engagements).

That does seem to be the case based on what we see in the movies, books, etc so let's roll with it. How many battle droids do you suppose the CIS had to field in order to make the war last the three years it did? Maybe 2 for every 1 Republic soldier? Maybe 10? I dunno, let's make another conservative estimate and say it's a 2:1 ratio. That would mean there with around 1,694,000,000 battle droids fielded by the CIS during the Clone Wars.

Add to that the fact that almost no engagements were fought on Core Worlds or heavily-populated worlds and I have trouble understanding where you're coming up with "billions" of casualties. Many hundreds of thousands of clones, a few thousand Republic citizens of various species, several million-plus battle droids, and thousands of Geonosians, Trandoshans, Neimodeans, etc., yes, sure. Billions, no.

So for the sake of discussion I'll grant that most of the Clone Wars were fought away from civilian populations and the casualties inflicted on the CIS forces would be overwhelming non-living anyway and don't count. We could probably argue for a number of exceptions, but let's keep things simple and in favor of your position.

The casualty rate in armed conflicts has fluctuated considerably over the course of recorded history and there are a number of factors at play in a sci-fi setting that we can't really account for. However, let's at least make an attempt at finding a number using modern conflicts as a model (see Quora article here). If we take the casualty rate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq at about 2% and assume that half of those casualties are non-fatal, that leaves us with only a 1% casualty rate. Mind you, we're comparing a conflict that lasted about 21 days to one that lasted 3 years, but modern conflicts after 1945 have been fairly brief and we don't have space ships or laser swords so please bear with me.

At 847,000,000 personnel strong, with a 1% fatality rate, the GAR would have had about 8,470,000 dead soldiers. That's just the GAR. If we could take into account the CIS personnel and civilians killed in battles and the people on each side who died as a result of destroyed infrastructure and/or disrupted supply lines, I image we'd have a significantly higher number. Even without counting them we've got several million dead as a direct result of the Clone Wars.

So all that being said, do you suppose that the minimum 8.47 million corpses laying at the Jedi's feet would shift public opinion against them in the years following the conflict they appear to have started?

The Jedi and the Force are a rallying point for the rebellion, who already know the Empire is bad.

If you accept the premise that the actions of the Jedi directly lead to the reformation of a previously democratic (though arguably pretty ineffectual) government into a totalitarian regime, does using them as a rallying point really make a whole lot of sense? Remember, no one living in the Star Wars galaxy has seen a Star Wars movie. No one knows anything about the Sith, Palpatine's ties to them, their various machinations, etc. They just know what they experience in their lives and what they see on the (later Empire controlled) news. So if you're founding an organization in response to a shift in the government, why would you use the people who were responsible for that shift as your mascots? It strikes me as a bit odd.

If you accept the premise that the actions of the Jedi directly lead to the reformation of a previously democratic (though arguably pretty ineffectual) government into a totalitarian regime, does using them as a rallying point really make a whole lot of sense? Remember, no one living in the Star Wars galaxy has seen a Star Wars movie. No one knows anything about the Sith, Palpatine's ties to them, their various machinations, etc. They just know what they experience in their lives and what they see on the (later Empire controlled) news. So if you're founding an organization in response to a shift in the government, why would you use the people who were responsible for that shift as your mascots? It strikes me as a bit odd.

Nor, was it probably ever really mentioned that they were 'slaves'. Most people probably thought that they were individuals from across the republic who had been in training.

Sorry, it's a little point, but they're unquestionably slaves. The Clone Wars are called the Clone Wars because they were fought by clones. Everyone knows their clones, so everyone knows that they're people grown in a lab, force-fed a military education, and pressed into service for a government they have no say in. When did you ever see in canon a clone soldier retiring before the reformation of the Republic into the Empire? There was one episode in the Clone Wars show "The Deserter" that depicted a clone that had left the army and he did it illegally. If you can point out any other examples I'd be grateful. Otherwise, to my knowledge, every other clone served until death. Even the injured ones were repurposed into non-combat roles.

Well that's exactly what happens in wartime: you can't leave legally the army while you are still fit to fight, how many healthy people were discharged from service during both world wars? I guess very few if any at all (excluding criminals sentenced to jail) The only way to be discharged was on medical reasons i guess, and even then if the soldiers could serve in non combat roles they would probably be reroled. In the Star wars galaxy with so much better capabilites for healing injuries, an health discharge would be even more difficult.

Btw where is it said the public knows the details of the clones breeding and training? And even if they do would they even care or find it odd? It's a different kind of training, but still training. I guess that if flash military training could be done easily on recruits, everybody would be doing it routinely.

If you accept the premise that the actions of the Jedi directly lead to the reformation of a previously democratic (though arguably pretty ineffectual) government into a totalitarian regime, does using them as a rallying point really make a whole lot of sense? Remember, no one living in the Star Wars galaxy has seen a Star Wars movie. No one knows anything about the Sith, Palpatine's ties to them, their various machinations, etc. They just know what they experience in their lives and what they see on the (later Empire controlled) news. So if you're founding an organization in response to a shift in the government, why would you use the people who were responsible for that shift as your mascots? It strikes me as a bit odd.

I think the extra assumption that's needed to make sense of it all is the assumption that soon after forming the Empire, Palpatine stops trying to propagandize the people and no longer hides the fact that he is evil. Fear will keep the local systems in line. From what I can tell, it's even consistent with canon that Palpatine's status as a Sith Lord becomes public knowledge after the Empire is formed. Certainly Vader is known to be a Dark Lord of the Sith, and it doesn't take a genius to infer that his master is also Sith.

So the people who originally thought "Palpatine is a good guy, the Jedi tried to topple him and he's only abolishing the Republic for the public good" realize, after Palpatine consolidates his power, that he is an evil Dark Lord and has been one all along. This would probably make them re-think their views of the Jedi as anti-democratic plotters.

I don't think Palpatine ever publicly outed himself as a Sith, though it's entirely possible that I missed it. If you could cite a source that would be helpful. If not, what reason would he have to out himself? Here's a discussion on Quora about who knew what and here's an article on many of the same points from Wookieepedia, though much of what's mentioned is probably no longer canon. I would like to draw particular attention to Grand Moff's comment to Vader in A New Hope, "The Jedi are extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion." Wouldn't he say you and the emperor if it was public knowledge that they were Sith?

Nor, was it probably ever really mentioned that they were 'slaves'. Most people probably thought that they were individuals from across the republic who had been in training.

Sorry, it's a little point, but they're unquestionably slaves. The Clone Wars are called the Clone Wars because they were fought by clones. Everyone knows their clones, so everyone knows that they're people grown in a lab, force-fed a military education, and pressed into service for a government they have no say in. When did you ever see in canon a clone soldier retiring before the reformation of the Republic into the Empire? There was one episode in the Clone Wars show "The Deserter" that depicted a clone that had left the army and he did it illegally. If you can point out any other examples I'd be grateful. Otherwise, to my knowledge, every other clone served until death. Even the injured ones were repurposed into non-combat roles.

Well that's exactly what happens in wartime: you can't leave legally the army while you are still fit to fight, how many healthy people were discharged from service during both world wars? I guess very few if any at all (excluding criminals sentenced to jail) The only way to be discharged was on medical reasons i guess, and even then if the soldiers could serve in non combat roles they would probably be reroled. In the Star wars galaxy with so much better capabilites for healing injuries, an health discharge would be even more difficult.

Btw where is it said the public knows the details of the clones breeding and training? And even if they do would they even care or find it odd? It's a different kind of training, but still training. I guess that if flash military training could be done easily on recruits, everybody would be doing it routinely.

It's a bit unclear to me from your post. Are you making an argument against the clone troopers being slaves or just pointing out that it would be unusual for a soldier to be permitted to leave the military once they had inducted?

I agree, it's most likely the Emperor has kept it secret that he is a Sith Lord, and only the inner circle knows of that. It's also very possible that even with his inner circle he does not talk about the Force as much as Vader does. So even if Tarkin knew about the Emperor being Force Sensitive, (which i think is likely) he might be referiing specifically to Vader's penchant for flounting his Force abilities and the power of the Force.

I was trying to make an argument against them being slaves, and in particular referring to your point about none of them leaving service legally during the war. I don't think they would be allowed to leave service even if they were conscripted soldiers from all of the republic worlds.

I was trying to make an argument against them being slaves, and in particular referring to your point about none of them leaving service legally during the war. I don't think they would be allowed to leave service even if they were conscripted soldiers from all of the republic worlds.

Ah, I see, thank you for clarifying.

I don't think that my point about the clones being unable to resign from the GAR on its own is enough to support the perspective that the clone troopers were slaves. However, I didn't use it that way. Prior to making a statement to that effect I observed that the clones were grown in a lab, force-fed a military education, and pressed into service for a government they have no say in. This, taken with the fact that they were unable to resign from the GAR builds, at least in my opinion, a pretty strong case for them being slaves.

Incidentally, one might wonder why, if this were the case, the Jedi wouldn't object to creating a clone army given it's fairly unethical nature. I suppose a decent case could be made for an organization comprised of children taken from their families at a young age and raised by militant cultists to be militant cultists wouldn't think that manufacturing people to be soldiers would be at all unethical. That being said, what mental gymnastics do you suppose the more libertarian (by which I mean generally valuing individual autonomy and freedom of choice, before someone with an eye for American politics tries to jump down my throat) cultures in the Republic had to do in order to go along with the legitimization of the GAR?

I don't think Palpatine ever publicly outed himself as a Sith, though it's entirely possible that I missed it. If you could cite a source that would be helpful. If not, what reason would he have to out himself? Here's a discussion on Quora about who knew what and here's an article on many of the same points from Wookieepedia, though much of what's mentioned is probably no longer canon. I would like to draw particular attention to Grand Moff's comment to Vader in A New Hope, "The Jedi are extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion." Wouldn't he say you and the emperor if it was public knowledge that they were Sith?

What Tarkin said is true, from a certain point of view. Vader is the last person alive (that Tarkin knew) who was ever a Jedi. So he is all that's left of the Jedi religion. The Jedi religion is not identical to the Sith religion.

I'm not saying it's part of the canon that Palpatine did out himself as a Sith. I'm saying it's completely consistent with canon to assume that he outed himself, and so it's consistent with canon to suppose that this was part of people's reason for feeling nostalgic about the Jedi. At least the public must have known that Palpatine was "mixed up with" the Sith, since his closest associate was public about being a Sith Lord.

To be clear, it's also not essential to my point that we assume Palpatine went public as a Sith. What is essential to my point is the assumption that Palpatine went public as an evil despot, rather than trying to keep pretending to be a good and just leader. And again, this may not be directly said in any canon source, but it's completely consistent with canon and seems to be sort of implied by the canon.

Your initial opinion in the OP was that it doesn't make sense in light of the canon storyline for people to be nostalgic about the Jedi. My view is that it does make sense, if you add some further assumptions about the history--assumptions that aren't in the canon, but that don't conflict with the canon in any way and fit comfortably in with the canon story.

To be clear, it's also not essential to my point that we assume Palpatine went public as a Sith. What is essential to my point is the assumption that Palpatine went public as an evil despot, rather than trying to keep pretending to be a good and just leader. And again, this may not be directly said in any canon source, but it's completely consistent with canon and seems to be sort of implied by the canon.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by Palpatine going public as an evil despot. He was elected to his position and voted all of the powers he had by the Senate. Yes, he did some extralegal things to get those powers, certainly, but that's not the point. Even as Emperor, Palpatine was the legally instated head of the galactic government, an autocrat certainly, but one who ruled with the public mandate. Remember how democracy dies? "With thunderous applause." So his policies, or at the very least, the way he depicted them to the rest of the government were still popular enough to keep him in power. (At least until the Death Star was completed. I'd absolutely accept an argument for Palpatine losing the public mandate after he dissolved the Senate which he only did once he had the Death Star.) In other words, there was no practical way to oust him from power legally. Otherwise the Rebellion wouldn't have been necessary at all.

Your initial opinion in the OP was that it doesn't make sense in light of the canon storyline for people to be nostalgic about the Jedi. My view is that it does make sense, if you add some further assumptions about the history--assumptions that aren't in the canon, but that don't conflict with the canon in any way and fit comfortably in with the canon story.

In light of my response to the paragraph that preceded the one I just quoted, I wonder if you maintain this opinion, or was it entirely based on the idea that Palpatine, as soon as he assumed absolute control of the Republic and reformed it into the Empire, started twirling a well-waxed moustache and wringing his hands menacingly while cackling in delight to the tune of snapping kitten necks?

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by Palpatine going public as an evil despot. He was elected to his position and voted all of the powers he had by the Senate. Yes, he did some extralegal things to get those powers, certainly, but that's not the point. Even as Emperor, Palpatine was the legally instated head of the galactic government, an autocrat certainly, but one who ruled with the public mandate. Remember how democracy dies? "With thunderous applause." So his policies, or at the very least, the way he depicted them to the rest of the government were still popular enough to keep him in power. (At least until the Death Star was completed. I'd absolutely accept an argument for Palpatine losing the public mandate after he dissolved the Senate which he only did once he had the Death Star.)

We haven't seen very much, in canon sources, of what happened between the public applause at Palpatine's formation of the Empire in 19 ABY and the completion of the Death Star in 0 ABY. You seem to be assuming that no further changes occurred during those 19 years that might have made Palpatine less popular or undermined the public's perception of him as a great leader.

But in fact, everything we've seen in canon sources is entirely consistent with something like the following hypothetical (but reasonable IMO) series of events:

--Palpatine forms the Empire

--Palpatine takes a number of further steps to undermine the power of the Senate, to the point where the Senate no longer has the power to remove him from office or even to oppose his decrees in any effective way. The Senate now only exists as a "bureaucracy" to help the Emperor "maintain control" of the many star systems under his rule. (Part of this step is the creation of the Imperial moffs who will eventually replace the Senate--presumably power was transferred from the Senate to the regional governors until the Senate became little more than a figurehead.)

--Having accomplished this, Palpatine sees no reason anymore to hide the fact that he is an evil tyrant. Indeed, because he is an evil dark-sider, part of his goal in life is to spread fear throughout the Galaxy. So he imposes oppressive laws, legalizes slavery galaxy-wide, openly threatens the people and the well-meaning senators, publicly encourages racism against aliens, unleashes the Stormtrooper Corps to rough up innocent people all over the galaxy, and generally makes it plain as day that he is evil and has been all along.

--After this happens, unrest grows and many people begin to feel nostalgic for the Jedi, who were probably just trying to save the galaxy from the forces of evil when they attempted their coup against Palpatine.

I understand that none of this is explicitly shown on screen in any piece of canon, but I'm surprised you don't find it plausible. It's always seemed pretty obvious to me that this must have been the rough shape of how history proceeded between ROTS and ANH.

In light of my response to the paragraph that preceded the one I just quoted, I wonder if you maintain this opinion, or was it entirely based on the idea that Palpatine, as soon as he assumed absolute control of the Republic and reformed it into the Empire, started twirling a well-waxed moustache and wringing his hands menacingly while cackling in delight to the tune of snapping kitten necks?

You joke about this, but "mustache-twirling" villains is basically what the Sith are. They are pure evil. Their goal in life is to embrace anger and hatred and spread fear. That's their religion. Palpatine would see to it that his Empire is not a pleasant place to live. Not just as a way of consolidating power, but to spread fear and pain for its own sake.

I understand that none of this is explicitly shown on screen in any piece of canon, but I'm surprised you don't find it plausible. It's always seemed pretty obvious to me that this must have been the rough shape of how history proceeded between ROTS and ANH.

Well, the thing I don't find terribly plausible is that Palpatine decides to abandon a lifetime spent cultivating public trust, sympathy, and recreate his public persona as an evil tyrant. How does that advantage him in any way? How does that help him gain and maintain power?

You joke about this, but "mustache-twirling" villains is basically what the Sith are. They are pure evil. Their goal in life is to embrace anger and hatred and spread fear. That's their religion. Palpatine would see to it that his Empire is not a pleasant place to live. Not just as a way of consolidating power, but to spread fear and pain for its own sake.

Sure, the Sith, whose beliefs are not explained terribly well in canon, appear to be or at least end up as fairly unpleasant people who do fairly unpleasant things. But, that being said, if one of them decides at some point to go on a murder-torture spree, spreading pain and suffering just for the sake of it, then they shouldn't expect people, even the ones ostensibly loyal to them, to trust them afterwards. It seems that Palpatine, for all his strange and inconsistent behavior, is supposed to be portrayed as an intelligent, patient, schemer. It seems unlikely to me that he would decide to turn most of the galaxy against himself by actively promoting the idea that he's an evil tyrant. Ming the Merciless he is not.

So, in brief, the thing I find a bit unbelievable is that Palpatine, having effectively achieved the goals of the Sith by becoming ruler of the galaxy, would abandon all pretense of reason and civility, thereby sabotaging his own ability to rule. Does that make sense?

Good, I think this brings us to the heart of our disagreement. We have two rather different conceptions of the Sith. You believe that the Sith are primarily after power, and therefore Palpatine's goal is just to control the Galaxy. And on that picture, there's no particular reason why he wouldn't rule as a benevolent dictator for 20 years between ROTS and ANH.

On my understanding of the Sith, they are servants of the dark side of the Force. They are consumed by it and become agents of evil. The dark side begins as a tool they use for power, but by the time they assume the mantle of Sith Lord, even power is just a means to their true end: serving the dark side. The dark side thrives off fear, anger and hatred, so once a Sith has taken power, his goal will be to spread fear, anger and hatred throughout the galaxy. And we know (from canon sources) that Palpatine did at least a couple of things which fit with this overall goal: legalizing slavery and promoting anti-alien bigotry.

Perhaps we can at least agree that, on my understanding of the Sith and how their teachings would influence Palpatine's rule as Emperor, the people's nostalgia for the days of the Jedi becomes much easier to understand.

Good, I think this brings us to the heart of our disagreement. We have two rather different conceptions of the Sith. You believe that the Sith are primarily after power, and therefore Palpatine's goal is just to control the Galaxy. And on that picture, there's no particular reason why he wouldn't rule as a benevolent dictator for 20 years between ROTS and ANH.

On my understanding of the Sith, they are servants of the dark side of the Force. They are consumed by it and become agents of evil. The dark side begins as a tool they use for power, but by the time they assume the mantle of Sith Lord, even power is just a means to their true end: serving the dark side. The dark side thrives off fear, anger and hatred, so once a Sith has taken power, his goal will be to spread fear, anger and hatred throughout the galaxy. And we know (from canon sources) that Palpatine did at least a couple of things which fit with this overall goal: legalizing slavery and promoting anti-alien bigotry.

Perhaps we can at least agree that, on my understanding of the Sith and how their teachings would influence Palpatine's rule as Emperor, the people's nostalgia for the days of the Jedi becomes much easier to understand.

That's fair. I suppose if, after Order 66 and a little light housekeeping, Palpatine decided to discard what had been his public persona up until then and borrow the Night Haunter's thereby making himself an object of public hatred and fear while spreading paranoia and servile obedience to his seemingly unassailable rule, then yeah, I could absolutely see the Jedi, as the organization that last tried to topple him from power, getting trotted out by the inevitable Rebellion as a mascot. I'm not sure that's the world of movies, shows, and what-have-you, but given the context you propose it makes sense.

You're completely right daver, but it doesn't mean that Palpatine did so gleefully to be perceived as Evil Dictator. He shrouded his actions with the need for more security, and made sure that the people of the Core and inner rim felt safe...than he wouldn't be perceived as evil by the most influential part of the galaxy. And what happens in the Outer Rim stays in the Outer Rim or is seen as an unpleasant necessity to pacify those lawless regions. All the while he could foster all the fear hatred and bigotry he wanted.

You're completely right daver, but it doesn't mean that Palpatine did so gleefully to be perceived as Evil Dictator. He shrouded his actions with the need for more security, and made sure that the people of the Core and inner rim felt safe...than he wouldn't be perceived as evil by the most influential part of the galaxy. And what happens in the Outer Rim stays in the Outer Rim or is seen as an unpleasant necessity to pacify those lawless regions. All the while he could foster all the fear hatred and bigotry he wanted.

I think we basically agree. It's not that he actively wanted to be perceived as an evil dictator, but he wanted to do evil for its own sake, as much as his position of power allowed. People noticed that, especially in the Rim regions, and public perception of Palpatine shifted from "wise leader" to "evil dictator."

And this fits with what we see in the storyline: the only core worlds that really miss the Jedi and root for the Rebellion are the places with charismatic local leaders (Organa, Mothma) who remember and revere the Jedi and the old Republic. It's mostly out on the Rim that the Rebellion really finds its constituency. But I think it's also pretty clear that Palpatine's rule was oppressive everywhere in the galaxy, and no one loved him except the Imperial officials. In the Special Edition of ROTJ ( ) we see mobs of people partying on Coruscant after he dies.