3 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

The cultures and langues of France has changed a lot over the centuries since Clovis founding. It has also split up several times into various smaller kingdoms. Like the three Frances they had after Charlemagne. 

@Tramp Graphics Kingdom of Arlelat part of the Holy Roman Empire conquered by the northern French lords in the Albigensian Crusade, Duchy of Burgundy another part of the Holy Roman Empire north of Arlat. Both of these countries spoke Langue d'oc (closer to modern Catalan than French), not the langue d'oïl of France. Savoy to the northeast of Arles also spoke it's own dialect of Burgundian it's also now part of France, Italy and Switzerland now but was a county less than 150 years ago. Breton (Gaelic) in Brittany. Basque in the french Basque country, Gascon in Gascony, etc. French history is not so cut and dried after 1500 years.

11 minutes ago, Eoen said:

@Tramp Graphics Kingdom of Arlelat part of the Holy Roman Empire conquered by the northern French lords in the Albigensian Crusade, Duchy of Burgundy another part of the Holy Roman Empire north of Arlat. Both of these countries spoke Langue d'oc (closer to modern Catalan than French), not the langue d'oïl of France. Savoy to the northeast of Arles also spoke it's own dialect of Burgundian it's also now part of France, Italy and Switzerland now but was a county less than 150 years ago. Breton (Gaelic) in Brittany. Basque in the french Basque country, Gascon in Gascony, etc. French history is not so cut and dried after 1500 years.

You can even make a decent argument that France as we know it has only existed since 1958 with the establishment of the fifth republic. Is it the definite answer? No, but it's about as valid as claiming France has existed since Clovis.

The only wrong answer would be to claim that only one single definition of "France" is valid, regardless whether it's the most or least generous interpretation. Regarding cases as these, truth is often relative, depending on framing. Of course, such statements tend to annoy the kind of people who only deal in absolutes.

6 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

You can even make a decent argument that France as we know it has only existed since 1958 with the establishment of the fifth republic. Is it the definite answer? No, but it's about as valid as claiming France has existed since Clovis.

The only wrong answer would be to claim that only one single definition of "France" is valid, regardless whether it's the most or least generous interpretation. Regarding cases as these, truth is often relative, depending on framing. Of course, such statements tend to annoy the kind of people who only deal in absolutes.

Vietnam was a province of France, as was Québec, Louisiana, French Guiana, Corsica, Algeria, Chad. Unlike the English the French didn't do colonies as separate corporations, everywhere they claimed was just another province of France.

38 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Vietnam was a province of France, as was Québec, Louisiana, French Guiana, Corsica, Algeria, Chad. Unlike the English the French didn't do colonies as separate corporations, everywhere they claimed was just another province of France.

Which begs the interesting question, when Vietnam was France, was it still Vietnam?

1 minute ago, penpenpen said:

Which begs the interesting question, when Vietnam was France, was it still Vietnam?

From a certain point of view...

Which is exactly why we can have the Jedi Order, as seen in the prequels, only be 6000ish years old, but still have Obi-wan's statement of a thousand generations be true. There were Jedi Knights prior to the order's founding. And there are Jedi Knights after it. The Order =/= Knights.

Obi-wan seems to have become more in tune with Qui-gon's world view after the Jedi order was destroyed. Qui-gon saw the bigger picture, that the Jedi Order was too caught up in itself. Too concerned with rules and ritual to see the Living Force. So he might have changed his perspective by the time he and Luke have their discussion. So he no longer talks about the Jedi Order specifically, he just talks about the Jedi overall. He doesn't burden Luke with the trivialities.

I suppose one could interpret Luke's actions in Last Jedi as him sort of getting caught in that trap as well. He got fixated on the Jedi order and its failings and conflating that with Jedi overall. He doesn't see that being a Jedi is much more than the Jedi order was. He got obsessed with rebuilding the Jedi order, which led to his regrettable actions with Ben Solo. He was too focused on protecting the Order that he no longer was being true to what a Jedi is supposed to do.

4 hours ago, BadMotivator said:

Which is exactly why we can have the Jedi Order, as seen in the prequels, only be 6000ish years old, but still have Obi-wan's statement of a thousand generations be true. There were Jedi Knights prior to the order's founding. And there are Jedi Knights after it. The Order =/= Knights.

Obi-wan seems to have become more in tune with Qui-gon's world view after the Jedi order was destroyed. Qui-gon saw the bigger picture, that the Jedi Order was too caught up in itself. Too concerned with rules and ritual to see the Living Force. So he might have changed his perspective by the time he and Luke have their discussion. So he no longer talks about the Jedi Order specifically, he just talks about the Jedi overall. He doesn't burden Luke with the trivialities.

I suppose one could interpret Luke's actions in Last Jedi as him sort of getting caught in that trap as well. He got fixated on the Jedi order and its failings and conflating that with Jedi overall. He doesn't see that being a Jedi is much more than the Jedi order was. He got obsessed with rebuilding the Jedi order, which led to his regrettable actions with Ben Solo. He was too focused on protecting the Order that he no longer was being true to what a Jedi is supposed to do.

He also apparently did quite a bit of research (since he now knows the name "Darth Sidious"), and came to realize that, almost every time a Sith order came about, it had splintered off from the Jedi (in Legends , at least). Even when the Sith weren't arising from within the Jedi, the Jedi tended to supply a few powerful turncoats to the Sith (two-thirds of Sidious' apprentices were former Jedi, after all). And, again per Legends , the Sith only exist because of the Jedi in the first place, the very first Dark Jedi to break off went on to found the legacy of the Sith that continues all the way through the Original Trilogy (how much of this is still in place in new canon is entirely debatable). Considering all that, I find it very believable Luke could come to see the Jedi as part of the problem, and to believe that no matter what form a new Jedi Order takes, mistakes will still be made and new dark threats will arise from them. Of course, he's wrong about a great many things in this analysis, and him learning that is his entire character arc in the film.

I'm still reminded of the novelization of Revenge of the Sith , where Yoda, in the midst of his battle with Sidious, realizes that he cannot defeat this new breed of Sith. The Sith had spent a thousand years learning to fight a new war, while the Jedi had spent those same thousand years training to refight the last war. Yoda's Jedi just don't have what it takes to defeat this new breed of Sith. It's why he refuses to allow Obi-Wan to take Luke in for training as an infant, as Anakin should have been trained, because all that would result is another Old Jedi with no chance of defeating Vader or the Emperor. And because Luke didn't start his training until he was twenty, he had attachments that the old Jedi would have forbidden, and he comes to believe, despite Yoda and Obi-Wan's insistence to the contrary, that Anakin Skywalker still exists and can be saved, and does so through a son's love for his father, something else the Old Jedi training would have drummed out of him. That's not what Yoda or Obi-Wan expected to happen, but it's exactly what Yoda's epiphany in the novel was leading towards. . . Luke wasn't the only hope to defeat Vader and the Emperor because he was a super-powerful Force user who could slaughter them, he was the last hope because only he could prove that, buried in the deepest, blackest depth of Darth Vader's soul, Anakin Skywalker still loves his son.

The Jedi Order may change and reinvent itself all the time, and while the details may change the core belief, being the guardians of peace and justice, remains. But the devil, as they say, is in the details. Even a relatively minor change from "no attachments, no family" to "those are okay" can have profound effects on how Jedi go about their mandate of guarding peace and justice. Do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reason.

I'm so happy to see that this thread has stayed away from the "ehrmahgawd, dizney has ruined staer waers for mee" whining so prevalent in most other threads about changes to canon.

I've actually kind of stopped going on social media fan groups or even official groups because I'm so sick and tired of that whining.

It damned near ruined my love for Star Wars, even.

But this thread brings back a glimmer of hope to these old eyes

8 hours ago, OddballE8 said:

I'm so happy to see that this thread has stayed away from the "ehrmahgawd, dizney has ruined staer waers for mee" whining so prevalent in most other threads about changes to canon.

I've actually kind of stopped going on social media fan groups or even official groups because I'm so sick and tired of that whining.

It damned near ruined my love for Star Wars, even.

But this thread brings back a glimmer of hope to these old eyes

Amen

On 3/29/2019 at 8:03 AM, OddballE8 said:

I'm so happy to see that this thread has stayed away from the "ehrmahgawd, dizney has ruined staer waers for mee" whining so prevalent in most other threads about changes to canon.

I've actually kind of stopped going on social media fan groups or even official groups because I'm so sick and tired of that whining.

It damned near ruined my love for Star Wars, even.

But this thread brings back a glimmer of hope to these old eyes

On 3/22/2019 at 5:43 PM, penpenpen said:

You can even make a decent argument that France as we know it has only existed since 1958 with the establishment of the fifth republic. Is it the definite answer? No, but it's about as valid as claiming France has existed since Clovis.

The only wrong answer would be to claim that only one single definition of "France" is valid, regardless whether it's the most or least generous interpretation. Regarding cases as these, truth is often relative, depending on framing. Of course, such statements tend to annoy the kind of people who only deal in absolutes.

Basically a definitions argument then if so one really wanted to know for sure?

On 3/31/2019 at 7:40 AM, slope123 said:

Basically a definitions argument then if so one really wanted to know for sure?

It's always a definition argument.

I can accept the argument of Ach-To being the oldest temple, Even then, it begs the question 'so?' - without knowing what 'a temple' represented at the time (and especially how it was distinct from anything else prior to it), or what Jedi looked like at the time, the statement is kind of meaningless other than proving jedi where around then.

Prior to that, you might have had the informal master-apprentice training without a 'home school', or you might have had schools which only ever had one master, wushu-drama-fashion, and the 'temple' represented multiple masters coming together for the first time, or....who knows? Maybe it was just Yoda's great^n granddad's holiday home and some jedi decided it'd make a really great clubhouse.

It's the same with France. You wouldn't have had centuries of European wars, civil wars and succession crises if what was and wasn't a given nation was easy and clear-cut and unchanging.

On 4/1/2019 at 4:11 AM, Magnus Grendel said:

Prior to that, you might have had the informal master-apprentice training without a 'home school', or you might have had schools which only ever had one master, wushu-drama-fashion, and the 'temple' represented multiple masters coming together for the first time, or....who knows? Maybe it was just Yoda's great^n granddad's holiday home and some jedi decided it'd make a really great clubhouse.

I really like this idea, that the Jedi Order was birthed by multiple masters or schools of Jedi through coming together under a single Master in a manner similar to the the Chin Woo Athletic Association being responsible for the establishment of a single school with Masters from the various styles instead of schools representing one discipline with one Master. This eventually led to the reclassification of all Kung Fu styles becoming Wushu, and the movement away from multiple disciplines each existing in vacuum.

This would easily support Obi-Wan's statement about the history of the Jedi, with the unspoken implication that the Jedi Knights, like the Lord serving Samurai and wandering Ronin in Japanese culture, existed long before there was a rigid Order to control or direct them, and the "Prime Jedi" was, like Huo Yuanjia, a person that influenced the unification of the various Jedi into a single Order and philosophy.

On 4/1/2019 at 11:11 AM, Magnus Grendel said:

I can accept the     argument of Ach-To being the oldest temple, Even then, it begs the question 'so?' - without knowing  what 'a temple' represented at the time (and especially how it was distinct from anything else prior to it  ), or what Jedi looked like at the time, the statement is kind  of meaningless other than proving jedi where around then.   

Prior to that, you might have had the  infor  mal master-apprentice training without a 'home  school', or you might have had schools which only ever had one master, wushu-drama-fashion, and the 'temple' represented multiple masters comi  ng together for the first time, or....who knows? Maybe it was just Yoda's great^n granddad's holiday home and some jedi decided it'd make a really great clubhouse.  

"This tiny stone hut was the order's first temple. Before that we had to rely on a mere few hundred city-sized madrasas. It was a dark time."

So I want to start with saying I didn’t read this whole thread, but there’s some faulty info right at the start. The source of the Jedi being 6000 years old comes from the novel Tarkin and not The Last Jedi. And in that novel, that date is given to when a Sith shrine was built in Coruscant, on the mountain that would one day become the Jedi temple. 6000 is the earliest date in the current continuity, and so the Jedi are at the very least 6000 years old.

There are some holes however, as the Jedi logically predate the Sith, and the Sith would not build that temple until some time during or after the Hundred Year Darkness.

I was watching The Last Jedi just now and noticed something interesting. When Luke and Rey first speak at the shrine inside the tree, Rey says she knows "this place", and Luke replies "built a thousand generations ago to keep these" (meaning the Jedi fanfic archives). It's a bit vague if they're talking about just the shrine or if it's considered a part of the temple complex. Also, as mentioned earlier in the thread "a thousand generations" is damned vague.

But if we assume 1000 generations > 6000 years, it could mean that the tree shrine was built thousand generations ago to keep the Jedi lore books, meaning that there was a Jedi tradition back then, but the order and the temple came later.

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

I was watching The Last Jedi just now and noticed something interesting. When Luke and Rey first speak at the shrine inside the tree, Rey says she knows "this place", and Luke replies "built a thousand generations ago to keep these" (meaning the Jedi fanfic archives). It's a bit vague if they're talking about just the shrine or if it's considered a part of the temple complex. Also, as mentioned earlier in the thread "a thousand generations" is damned vague.

But if we assume 1000 generations > 6000 years, it could mean that the tree shrine was built thousand generations ago to keep the Jedi lore books, meaning that there was a Jedi tradition back then, but the order and the temple came later.

"A thousand Generations" isn't really all that vague. One generation is 20-22 years. That makes a thousand genrations between 20,000-22,000 years.

I watched Last Jedi this past weekend noticed Luke telling Rey that this place (The Tree? The whole temple complex?) was built 1000 generations ago. It's also the same in the Ep IX trailer. I'd say that means the Jedi Order is much older than 6000 years old.

33 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

"A thousand Generations" isn't really all that vague. One generation is 20-22 years. That makes a thousand genrations between 20,000-22,000 years.

Actually, a generation is a very vague term. You can find references for a generation being as little as 20 years and as much as 38 years depending on where you look and what time in history you are talking. The commonly accepted layman answer is 25 years A span of 18 years is somewhat vague. When multiplied by a thousand, you are talking a potential difference of 18,000 years...which is a long time.

To dig further though. What is a generation in star wars? By what species do we base this on? Different species likely have different reproductive cycles, gestation periods, time to sexual maturity, lifespans, etc. All of that would figure into it. One would assume that the generation span of Yoda's species would be signficantly different than that of humans. The concept of a generation for Talz is probably different than that of Hutts. So when you consider that fact, 1000 generations could be based on basically any species and might be 6000 years, 25000 years, or 2.5 million years.

Without a definition of what star wars considers a 'generation' we really have no idea what it refers to. Which makes it pretty vague by definition.

24 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

Without  a definition of what star wars considers a 'generation' we really have no idea what it refers to. Which makes  it pretty vague by de  fini  tion. 

Could be generations in a master-padawan sense, the time for a padawan to complete their training and take their own padawan.

For comparison, in medieval times a boy would become a squire at around age 14, and be knighted at about 21. A thousand of those are curiously close to 6000.

This also lines up fairly well with Anakin and Ahsoka who would've been close to those ages wen first paired up.

It kind of makes sense as a measure of generation as Jedi are mostly celibate, and lines up surprisingly well with the timeline.

Why would Jedi measure generations from parent to child, and not master to padawan?

Who cares? 1000 generations is a very cool thing to say, rounding it up or down just makes it sound less impressive. I'm sure that's all that was intended within that statement. XD (Barrel rolls through the thread)

28 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Could be generations in a master-padawan sense, the time for a padawan to complete their training and take their own padawan.

For comparison, in medieval times a boy would become a squire at around age 14, and be knighted at about 21. A thousand of those are curiously close to 6000.

This also lines up fairly well with Anakin and Ahsoka who would've been close to those ages wen first paired up.

It kind of makes sense as a measure of generation as Jedi are mostly celibate, and lines up surprisingly well with the timeline.

Why would Jedi measure generations from parent to child, and not master to padawan?

Simple. Given that Jedi were often taken on as infants , particularly during the 1000 or so years before the Clone Wars, a Jedi's training to Knighthood took at least 20-25 years to complete.

9 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Simple. Given that Jedi were often taken on as infants , particularly during the 1000 or so years before the Clone Wars, a Jedi's training to Knighthood took at least 20-25 years to complete.

I was referring to the apprenticeship part of the training.

"After reaching a certain age, Padawans were normally apprenticed to a Jedi Knight or Jedi Master, beginning their one-on-one training."

This age seems to be about 12-14 in most cases. Younger for Anakin it seems, but that could be due to him being inducted into the order later than usual.

10 hours ago, LordBritish said:

Who cares? 1000 generations is a very cool thing to say, rounding it up or down just makes it sound less impressive. I'm sure that's all that was intended within that statement. XD (Barrel rolls through the thread)

I agree completely. Any discrepancy between 6000 years and "a thousand generations" is completely irrelevant, but it's a fun exercise to come up with plausible explanations. Kind of like the positivist version of nitpicking and looking for "plot holes".

11 hours ago, penpenpen said:

I was referring to the apprenticeship part of the training.

"After reaching a certain age, Padawans were normally apprenticed to a Jedi Knight or Jedi Master, beginning their one-on-one training."

This age seems to be about 12-14 in most cases. Younger for Anakin it seems, but that could be due to him being inducted into the order later than usual.

I agree completely. Any discrepancy between 6000 years and "a thousand generations" is completely irrelevant, but it's a fun exercise to come up with plausible explanations. Kind of like the positivist version of nitpicking and looking for "plot holes".

Yes, the one-on-one apprenticeship only lasts for a few years, but not the full apprenticeship, not the full training . From the time a potential Jedi enters the Order to knighthood, that lasts for over 20 years, in most cases. You can't base how long a "generation" of Jedi is based upon only the one on one training. If that were the case, then a "generation" could even last only a few months (look at Luke).

6 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, the one-on-one apprenticeship only lasts for a few years, but not the full apprenticeship, not the full training . From the time a potential Jedi enters the Order to knighthood, that lasts for over 20 years, in most cases. You can't base how long a "generation" of Jedi is based upon only the one on one training. If that were the case, then a "generation" could even last only a few months (look at Luke).

We have no evidence of what exactly the Jedi traditions were exactly even a few hundred years before TPM, let alone a few hundred.

Also, consider this (from wookieepedia):

"In order to qualify for the rank of Padawan, younglings had to complete a series of tests—the Initiate Trials—in order to become apprenticed to more experienced Jedi such as Knights and Masters."

To me "Initiate Trials" implies that y ou are not a member of the order until you've passed them. Thats implied by the word "initiate".

Also, since Anakin jumped straight into the order as a Padawan, any training before that is probably useful, but not essential. Probably more akin to normal school with some Jedi stuff thrown in. As you also pointed out, Luke managed without going to Jedi preschool as well.

I'd even go so far to say that evidence supports that formal training to be a Jedi Knight starts at Padawan, not when you are brought to the order as a baby, meaning that you are speculating more wildly than I am.

In Legends, there was of course the Jedi Service Corps fotr those who failed the initiate trials. They were considered Jedi, but certainly not Jedi Knights. Is that distinction important?

Well, I do know that you like your literal definitions, so remember this quote?

"For over a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times, before the Empire."

So he might be specifically talking about Jedi Knights , and I think I've presented pretty decent evidence that it's from the Padawan stage on you train specifically to become a knight. This could last as long 10 years, (Anakin has the Padawan braid at age 9 and is not knighted until 19 or so) or, as per your estimation, a few months (Luke), meaning that the average of a thousand such generations could very well be 6 years.

Now, this is pure speculation as it's still uncharted territory, so I could be wrong on this, but if you're looking to be the one who shoots this theory down, might I suggest you do little research first?