One page[]
Wouldn't there be a single page for both the Republic Army and Navy, like the Imperial Military? Jedi Wolf 3:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yet the Imperial Army and Navy get their own pages as well. -- SFH 20:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but I mean have both separate yet stem from the same page. Jedi Wolf 7:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Depth[]
I was cruising the weapon and item descriptions of KOTOR and noticed that mention was made of the Republic using battle-droids, chemical weapons, flame-throwers, and stealth generators among other things. Should this information be used to expand this article? Karohalva 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I have edited the page and added a lot. You can cross check my statements by checking in the weapons and items descriptions of KOTOR. (It's around here somewhere...) Karohalva 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Timeline[]
According to the text of this article, the Republic Army collapsed in 2000 BBY, which was the beginning of the New Sith Wars. It was replaced by the Army of Light, which was formed around 1004 BBY to fight for Jedi Lord Hoth against Kaan's Brotherhood of Darkness. So, what did the Republic use for the 996 years between? I mean, I know they were losing the New Sith Wars, but they had to have some kind of Army, right? At the bottom, the chronology section indicates that the army lasted until 1004 BBY. Is this a problem with the sources or with the page? Thanks FeliciaK 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"not much was known of the Republic Army." That sounds like a very OOU comment for an IU article. Not much may be known to FANS, but for all we know IU people may know more about it than about its "naval counterpart"75.93.59.214 08:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's also a simply inaccurate statement. We know a whole lot about the Republic Armies thanks to the new campaign guide. The update tag is well deserved. -LtNOWIS 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Fanon![]
I'm sorry but this article is full of fanon. I own the Knights of the Old Republic Campaign Guide listed as a source and it even though it contains some of the generalizations and assumptions repeated here they are taken out of context. The descriptions given of soldier behavior are suggestions to add color to individual characters in roleplaying encounters. We are not actually supposed to believe, for example, that all brigadiers sabotage their careers or are unable to negotiate. The article likewise contains severe errors of grammar and sentence structure. The whole thing needs to be scrapped and rewritten. --69.54.33.197 23:31, February 18, 2010 (UTC)JimRyanHamm
- You do know there is nothing stopping you from contributing and fixing mistakes in the article, right? Also, I am not sure how it can be fanon when its actually said so in the campaign guide. Fanon is the rewriting or invention of new canon to fit their view of the story. Whats written there so far is taken from the CG and not invented. Also, on the brigadier front, its not said that "all brigadiers" sabotage their careers just that most do.Darth Batrus 19:53, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
Brigadeer[]
I am changing the word "many" to "some" because it makes more sense without being specific. Some could be many or it could be little74.37.180.6 21:24, November 29, 2010 (UTC)