Endor: Anatomy of a Tribal Insurgency

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
7,595
1,910
118
Between There and There.
Country
The Wide, Brown One.
albino boo said:
RhombusHatesYou said:
albino boo said:
the revolting Americans
Quoted out of context for amusement value. Tee hee.
I would, at this juncture, like to point out that I am British and that any double meaning is entirely intentional.
Just doing my part to help those who found your wit too subtle.
 

Robert Rath

New member
Oct 8, 2010
522
0
0
albino boo said:
The two examples given the article are misleading. Both the Viet Cong and the revolting Americans were being supplied by a rival superpower. In the case of the revolting Americans the French even provide combat troops and in the later stages of the war the Americas became one theater in a global war between Britain, France and Holland. A better analogy would be something like the Sicilian Vespers, the revolutions of 1848 or even the recent arab spring. All three represented a sudden boiling over anger into revolt against the powers that be. I think the fact that Lucas described them as VC has more to do with him being a baby boomer than any serious historical examination.

As an aside T E Lawrence's is the father of modern arab armies but his cousin Ord Wingate trained the Haganah, the forerunner of the IDF.
I don't consider the Viet Cong or American Revolution examples excellent either, but that's what Lucas was thinking of, along with the Huns vs. the Romans. Do they work totally? No, not really - there's a reason he isn't teaching history at Princeton. But those were the ones he chose, so I ran with them.

Though outside military intervention can be a stage in insurgency as it was in the American Revolution, as well as the Vietnam War. Though people don't often discuss it this way, Vietnam was a proxy war between the U.S. and the Soviets (including China) inasmuch as the French assistance to the U.S. and U.S. assistance to the Afghans during the Soviet invasion. In all these instances, outside forces exploit local grievances in order to strike a wider strategic blow. In other words, if we were comparing it against the American Revolution the Rebels would be the French, while the Ewoks were the colonists.

Also note that the article is, essentially, tongue-in-cheek.

Robert Rath said:
Perhaps not surprisingly, British popular history is more interested in remembering the 150 soldiers that fought at Rourke's Drift and won, rather than the 1,300 who were wiped out the previous day.
You mean like American popular history is more interested in remembering the revolutionary war and forgets about the war of 1812. Who wants to remember that whole burning down of Washington, the virtual defection of New England and New York and the surrender of the federal army.
Yes, exactly. Cultures in general like to celebrate their victories more than they like to mourn their failures, which is why all the American movies about 1812 are about the Battle of New Orleans.

Of course the War of 1812 also isn't helped by the fact that it wasn't that important to anyone involved - the British least of all. At best, it was a distraction for them. After all, they were too busy fighting Napoleon to worry about a bunch of farmers across the Atlantic! Americans tend to ignore it because in reality there wasn't much danger of the U.S. going back to Britain, who couldn't afford an extended conflict. I'd actually say the really overlooked war, though, is the Korean War. It never gets talked about at all, which is a shame considering it shaped issues that are still plaguing U.S. foreign policy today.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
Rastelin said:
Who ever came up with primitive fluffy Ewoks defeating Imperial troopers with the latest in weaponry
should have his ass cooked and served to him on a plate. I had the same reaction to them
as I had with Jar Jar Binks. I wanted to make dents in the wall with my head.
It was originally supposed to be a plant of Wookiees, but then Chewbacca became a really popular character and Lucas thought a planet of Wookiees would be a bad idea. Still don't quite understand why....

Anyway, thus we got the teddy bears.
 

Chad Brumfield

Zombie Apocalypse Specialist
Mar 29, 2009
75
0
0
This is brilliant. Also, I had never heard of the horse soldiers in Afghanistan. I'll have to get that book.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
It was originally supposed to be a plant of Wookiees, but then Chewbacca became a really popular character and Lucas thought a planet of Wookiees would be a bad idea. Still don't quite understand why....

Anyway, thus we got the teddy bears.
From what I understand about Lucas, it was most likely a marketability-/merchandising-based decision.

If they were Wookies, all the people who already bought Chewbacca toys would have no incentive to buy another Wookie doll. Whereas if you introduce a brand new race, and this time make them all cuddly instead, they'd go out and buy those.

I doubt that was all of the reasoning behind it, but by all accounts, Lucas was more interested in merchandise and milking the IP for cash by the time ROTJ came out than what makes a better movie.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
Agayek said:
Susan Arendt said:
It was originally supposed to be a plant of Wookiees, but then Chewbacca became a really popular character and Lucas thought a planet of Wookiees would be a bad idea. Still don't quite understand why....

Anyway, thus we got the teddy bears.
From what I understand about Lucas, it was most likely a marketability-/merchandising-based decision.

If they were Wookies, all the people who already bought Chewbacca toys would have no incentive to buy another Wookie doll. Whereas if you introduce a brand new race, and this time make them all cuddly instead, they'd go out and buy those.

I doubt that was all of the reasoning behind it, but by all accounts, Lucas was more interested in merchandise and milking the IP for cash by the time ROTJ came out than what makes a better movie.
I'm sure that was a pretty big part of it, but I think it also had to do with the fact that Chewbacca had already proven himself a capable warrior, so therefore Wookies wouldn't make good underdogs.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
All this talk of Ewoks being psychotic little monsters brings back warm fuzzy memories of Empire at War, when I played the Empire and TIE-Bombed the Ewoks and their Tree houses on Endor to cinders. That'll show those fuzzballs who's the boss!
 

Robert Rath

New member
Oct 8, 2010
522
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
Agayek said:
Susan Arendt said:
It was originally supposed to be a plant of Wookiees, but then Chewbacca became a really popular character and Lucas thought a planet of Wookiees would be a bad idea. Still don't quite understand why....

Anyway, thus we got the teddy bears.
From what I understand about Lucas, it was most likely a marketability-/merchandising-based decision.

If they were Wookies, all the people who already bought Chewbacca toys would have no incentive to buy another Wookie doll. Whereas if you introduce a brand new race, and this time make them all cuddly instead, they'd go out and buy those.

I doubt that was all of the reasoning behind it, but by all accounts, Lucas was more interested in merchandise and milking the IP for cash by the time ROTJ came out than what makes a better movie.
I'm sure that was a pretty big part of it, but I think it also had to do with the fact that Chewbacca had already proven himself a capable warrior, so therefore Wookies wouldn't make good underdogs.
In the DVD commentary Lucas claimed that the main reason they didn't use Wookies was because he wanted a "primitive" tribal society, and since Chewbacca was shown to be able to use technology, pilot starships, etc. they figured that the rest of the Wookies were just as technologically able.

(Shrug.) At least that's what Lucas claimed. Your mileage may vary on that answer. It's Lucas, he doesn't always make sense.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
I never thought of the Ewoks as an 'insurgency'...that really doesn't make much sense. If there's ONE thing the Empire's down with; it's crushing everything that opposes it. I have to think that if old Palpi really thought the Ewoks were a threat, but couldn't spare the resources for a planet-wide hunting expedition, he would have at least ordered a 'scorched earth' cordon of 10 kilometers in every direction of the shield generator to eliminate any chances of a sneak attack (and, thus, free up the AT-AT to do what it does best).

To me, it seemed the Empire considered ewoks to be as cute and harmless as we would. Grumpy creatures that might toss a crude spear or a stone at you from time to time, but ultimately not a consideration in larger strategies. I don't think the underlying premise of the article is necessarily too far off, but some of the pre-game details don't add up.
 

Nicholas Bagwell

New member
Sep 28, 2011
3
0
0
Nope, just ain't buying it. Stone age societies had enough trouble with bronze and iron age soldiers. Steel and gunpowder won almost every time. Cortes briefly got in a pickle but it still ended with Azteks dead, not Spaniards. There was nowhere near the numerical advantage that would make the Zulu example applicable. And hunter/gatherer tribes very rarely go after prey larger than them.
 

Ilikemilkshake

New member
Jun 7, 2010
1,982
0
0
Like some others have said, I'm not really buying the insurgency angle. (regardless of what Lucas apparently intended)
Still, Great article, very interesting to read. I've liked every Critical Intel but so far the complete nerd-fest lore delving stuff like this and the Hoth Tactics article have been my favourites.

RhombusHatesYou said:
Wow, That's amazing... I think I'm gonna use that as my headcannon and pretend that's what actually happened.
 

StashAugustine

New member
Jan 21, 2012
179
0
0
Nicholas Bagwell said:
Nope, just ain't buying it. Stone age societies had enough trouble with bronze and iron age soldiers. Steel and gunpowder won almost every time. Cortes briefly got in a pickle but it still ended with Azteks dead, not Spaniards. There was nowhere near the numerical advantage that would make the Zulu example applicable. And hunter/gatherer tribes very rarely go after prey larger than them.
If the war had gone on, the Ewoks would inevitably lose. But they didn't have to win, they just had to distract one Imperial garrison long enough to sabotage the shield generator.
 

Nicholas Bagwell

New member
Sep 28, 2011
3
0
0
StashAugustine said:
Nicholas Bagwell said:
Nope, just ain't buying it. Stone age societies had enough trouble with bronze and iron age soldiers. Steel and gunpowder won almost every time. Cortes briefly got in a pickle but it still ended with Azteks dead, not Spaniards. There was nowhere near the numerical advantage that would make the Zulu example applicable. And hunter/gatherer tribes very rarely go after prey larger than them.
If the war had gone on, the Ewoks would inevitably lose. But they didn't have to win, they just had to distract one Imperial garrison long enough to sabotage the shield generator.
Perhaps. This does bring up another question: just what was that Stormtrooper armor supposedly made of and why would they continue to wear something so useless?
 

Dr.Awkward

New member
Mar 27, 2013
692
0
0
...Now that I think about it, am I the only one who would like to see insurgent tactics be better supported in an RTS? Because I think we can consider Zerg rushing a tired tactic that was only fun for its sheer simplicity and the devastation it could bring, and the genre could use a fresh approach on how to make the games more open to creative strategy.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Darth_Payn said:
All this talk of Ewoks being psychotic little monsters brings back warm fuzzy memories of Empire at War, when I played the Empire and TIE-Bombed the Ewoks and their Tree houses on Endor to cinders. That'll show those fuzzballs who's the boss!
Ah Empire at War, one of the best Star Wars games out..... that's it I'm reinstalling!

OT: I've got to say that's a great way of looking at it, even if there might be some holes in the theory to some. Personally I never let it get to me too much, it wasn't the first movie I had seen where guerrilla warfare had one out with inferior weapons.

Captcha: "Be serious now" - errrr.... no.
 
Apr 17, 2009
1,751
0
0
I've never found the Ewoks particularly irritating. Something people seem to overlook is that they're supposed to be a metaphor. I mean think about it, they're a group fighting against an enemy with a massive advantage in terms of firepower, with only slapped-together equipment that they nevertheless use with zeal and ingenuity to make it effective. Sound familiar yet?
They're the Rebellion.
In New Hope, what tactics do the Rebellion use to destroy the moon-sized, planet-destroying space station? Try and face it in an all-out pitched battle? Nope, small group of elite pilots flying battered craft. Empire tactics rely very much on knowing where your target is so you can step in and stomp it like a bug, using guerilla tactics like the Rebellion and Ewoks do is probably the best counter
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
God i love this series. This and the analysis of the imperial doctrine on display at the battle of Hoth were wonderful.

I'd love some in depth warhammer 40k analysis, by the way. DO THIS FOR ME