Contents 1 Succession Box 2 Alderaan 3 List of members 4 One month

Succession BoxEdit

This lists the Alliance as a Rebellion movement; that makes sense I guess, because the Empire still had more territory. But both the Galactic Empire and the New Republic list it on their "dominant Galactic government" boxes. This impairs navigation. So, should we just change those other pages, or what? -LtNOWIS 23:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Alderaan Edit

Ok, I have a question. How could Alderaan be a member of the Alliance seeing as it was a big swirling pile of rocks when the Alliance was formed? Mike Zimbouski 05:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Leia and the other survivors represent it. Thanos6 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

List of membersEdit

It seems to me that too much of the list of members is only speculation. Some planets are obvious, but others seem to just be planets that were aligned with the Rebel Alliance in previous Marvel issues or just prior to the Battle of Endor. I don't know if we can assume every Rebel Alliance planet is necessarily part of the Alliance of Free Planets. --JMM 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

One monthEdit

The data saying this alliance lasted only a single month doesn't jive with all the source material. For instance, the article pretty much claims that all the events in the remaining Marvel comic issues took place during that single month, but issue #107, which depicts the Battle of Saijo, makes it known that it has been about a year since the Battle of Endor. Is there a source that specifically says the AoFP definitively ended when the New Republic was formed? Because, if not, it makes sense that the AoFP conitnued for a little while simultaneously. This explains how Corellia and Ryloth could remian members of one and not yet join the other. Cooperative allegiances for political entities need not be binary. Altering the article to say that the AoFP continued in some fashion past that initial month provides a resolution to the apparent contradiction and explains Corellia's involvement in AoFP concerns that seemingly, and reasonably take place after the formation of the NR. Does anyone concur?Medleystudios72 17:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wanted to add, I don't mean to say that the Battle of Saijo should be moved to 5ABY or anything so drastic, since it could occur at the end of 4ABY and still be said to take place "about a year" after the Battle of Endor. I will be double checking my memory this evening when I cross reference the actual issue istelf.

It just seems that having the Bakura Truce AND all the events in the last leg of the Marvel series ALL occur within a single month smacks of implausibility. Medleystudios72 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Just wanted to chime in here, even though it's seven months later. Don't take this as self-promotion, but my article recently appearing on Hyperspace, The Forgotten War changes things up a little. While the Marvels up to #106 are pretty much still set within one month after Endor, issue #107 is now set 5 months after that. --JMM 18:02, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's been 2 years. I don't get to check these as often as I'd like.

I've not been able to read the article mentioned, at least not on Hyperspace. I think I saw it since somewhere though. Was it reprinted in Star Wars Insider at some point? Anyway, doing the math, it appears that this suggests that the events of Truce at Bakura and 25 issues of Marvel (excluding #s 86 & 107) fit into a single month. That is a BUSY month. Given that a month in the SW calendar is normally 35 days long(7 weeks of 5 days each), I can concede. I'm going to go back through the issues at some point and keep track of the duration. Looking forward to seeing how that works out. Thank you. Medleystudios72 18:27, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify the open discussion here, The Forgotten War places the foundation of the New Republic at one month after Endor, but the Battle of Saijo -- the end of the Nagai-Tof War -- is set 5 months after Return of the Jedi. --JMM 17:05, March 12, 2012 (UTC)