Hello, you are not signed on.
[ Blogs.starwars.com ]

Only Sith Deal In Absolutes!
date posted: Nov 09, 2005 4:45 PM  |  updated: Aug 30, 2006 1:10 AM
Grievous Vs. Thrawn
I was recently asked by long-time Star Wars fan Charlemagne19 (cool name) the following question:

"How DOES Grevious stack up tactically against Thrawn?"

This is an interesting debate to me.

Everyone's familiar with General Grievous, the cyborg villain of Revenge of the Sith. Grievous was once a feared warlord who outfought insect-like invaders (called the Huk) of his homeworld. After suffering a terrible accident orchestrated by the Sith, Grievous was rebuilt as a cyborg and blackmailed into leading the Separatists' armies and navy. During the Clone Wars, Grievous gave the Republic a serious run for its money, killing dozens of Jedi, conquering countless worlds and striking at the capitol world itself. Capable dude.

Fewer folks know the alien Grand Admiral Thrawn, but this high-ranking Imperial officer is the most widely recognized villain produced by the world of Star Wars spin-off literature. Blue-skinned and red-eyed, the guy is essentially Dr. Moriarity in a naval uniform. A master military tactician and psychoanalyst, he has the uncanny ability to anticipate his opponents' strategies and crush them. Staking his claim to fame in the post-Return of the Jedi era, Thrawn like Grievous (re)captures countless worlds from the (New) Republic and stages an assault on Coruscant.

Who would win?

These sorts of questions are not my favorite. Probabilities, even fictional ones, I enjoy working out with some semblance of seriousness. By contrast, contemplating an impossible fictional scenario (Grievous is dead 30 years when we see Thrawn at the height of his powers) is almost totally unattractive.

But, what the heck--the Great Charles asked!

Mano a mano, the answer is clear. Grievous would chop Thrawn to bits. But literature has its own logic. I think the question of "Who's better?" can only be posed and answered satisfactorily in the context of good storytelling. Save for Thrawn-haters, who wouldn't be disappointed to see the stoic strategist who came from parts unknown and was able to outwit the Rebels' most brilliant minds cut down without being able to flex his noodle? The appeal of Grievous Vs. Thrawn lies in a test of wits, not fisticuffs. It has to be assumed that each man is smart enough to figure out a way to level the playing field.

I think Thrawn has the luxury of being largely written by a single writer, Timothy Zahn in the Thrawn Trilogy, and thus avoids the more sensationalistic characterizations of Grievous that have emerged as a result of appearing more or less simultaneously in almost every entertainment medium. While Grievous was written by numerous authors and for different audiences, each giving a unique spin on the character, the only other significant contribution to Thrawn's character comes from author Michael Allen Horne, who in the Dark Empire Sourcebook contextualizes Thrawn's efforts into the larger picture of the post-Return of the Jedi Empire. Because Grievous is spread so thin, by contrast, I think his image as "tactical genius" founders a bit. (The guy obsesses about turning some Jedi younglings into cyborgs in the General Grievous comic, after all).

That doesn't mean Grievous isn't a heavy hitter when it comes to military know-how. Still, Grievous was ultimately an unwitting pawn of the Sith agenda, so it's hard to gauge just how much of his prowess during the Clone Wars was legit and how much orchestrated by Darth Sidious/Palpatine's machinations. However, Grievous did kick Huk butt. And, as mentioned above, Horne gives a sobering account of the significance of Thrawn's accomplishments, which were not quite as monumental as readers might have believed.

Okay, okay, the answer: In a military battle of wits, Thrawn would probably win. But that's because winning is the fulcrum of the Thrawn character: the tragedy is when he at last loses. Grievous' character isn't built that way, literally or metaphorically. Grievous "lost" when he became a cyborg... and yet he still lives. That's his tragedy. Beyond that, winning or losing for Grievous is merely a matter of pride; for Thrawn, losing is a matter of essence. When Thrawn finally loses in the last book of the Thrawn Trilogy, he of course dies. ~ Abel G. Peņa

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who would win, Thrawn or Grievous? Feel free to post your comments and virtual match-ups.

Also, click here for some fan art depicting this meeting of the minds. Cooked up by Rogue_Follower from an idea by CooperTFN, "The Droid General Meets The Grand Admiral" depicts Thrawn, who studies his enemies' art to gain insight into their psychology, contemplating the Kaleesh war mask of the dead General Grievous. Very cool.

And here's CooperTFN's own take on his idea. A masterpiece. :p


BLOG INDEX

MYSPACE PROFILE

  Master_Kenobi17
Takin Over For Talon
date Posted: Nov 09, 2005 8:29 PM
Hmm...let me take a second, no, half of a second, to say that Thrawn's tactics would defeat Grievous' tactics, if that's what you want to call them, any day. Thrawn was the best tactician the Empire could offer, who was not Force-sensitive. All he needed was art. Grievous was just a killing machine who had death on his mind in each battle, not taking into consideration what needed to be done.
CooperTFN
Scotch Tape and Popsicle Sticks
date Posted: Nov 09, 2005 9:11 PM
The question is, do the Kaleesh have art?
Halagad
Only Sith Deal In Absolutes!
date Posted: Nov 09, 2005 9:19 PM
I dunno. If you were starving, would you be busy creating works of art?

(Insert starving artist punchline here).
CooperTFN
Scotch Tape and Popsicle Sticks
date Posted: Nov 09, 2005 10:01 PM
Exactly. Grievous might thus be able to trick him...
  The2ndquest
Star Wars Literature
date Posted: Nov 09, 2005 10:52 PM
Kaleesh bone masks and cloaks might qualify as art.
Sompeetalay
Sompeetalay's Source Blog
date Posted: Nov 09, 2005 11:29 PM
Well if only the smurf Thrawn had appeared in one of the movies we could have found out. But luckily he didn't :)
Halagad
Only Sith Deal In Absolutes!
date Posted: Nov 09, 2005 11:38 PM
Good point, 2ndquest, though I think they're more functional.

This raises a good question though: why doesn't Thrawn study cultural artifacts to draw his strategic conclusions? Being functional items, I'd say they have more to say about a society's psychology than art. After all, it's commonly held that good art is unique and expressive of an individual. Then again, its society that appreciates the stuff. ?:|
Halagad
Only Sith Deal In Absolutes!
date Posted: Nov 09, 2005 11:39 PM
Well if only the smurf Thrawn had appeared in one of the movies we could have found out.

Ha!
  Master_Kenobi17
Takin Over For Talon
date Posted: Nov 10, 2005 11:16 AM
This raises a good question though: why doesn't Thrawn study cultural artifacts to draw his strategic conclusions? Being functional items, I'd say they have more to say about a society's psychology than art. After all, it's commonly held that good art is unique and expressive of an individual. Then again, its society that appreciates the stuff.

He probably would have, had the art not been made available. Also, he didn't only use art. He had lots of experience in battle and also read reports thoroughly, so that even if he wasn't present in a certain situation he would be up to speed on what really happened.
  Master_Kenobi17
Takin Over For Talon
date Posted: Nov 10, 2005 11:17 AM
Besides, what was left of Grievous wouldn't have been able to thwart Thrawn because of the pure lack of logic.
Arf Maul
We'll Blow Your Planet Up!
date Posted: Nov 10, 2005 3:37 PM
Based on current literature I would say Thrawn could outwit Grievous in a battle with ease.

But I'm hoping that your upcoming Insider article about Grievous will change that view :)
Halagad
Only Sith Deal In Absolutes!
date Posted: Nov 10, 2005 5:46 PM
;)

Right. I think folks are inspired to compare the two because the bad guys are the measuring stick by which the good guys are measured. If Grievous was holding the Republic at bay for three years during the Clone Wars, the logic goes, he must've been a more than competent tactician.
ulic_g99
date Posted: Nov 12, 2005 6:19 AM
I think Thrawn would have had a field day with Grievous - Grievous had enough idiosyncrasies (having his cyborg body built in the Kaleesh warrior image, bestowing his magna-guards with Kalee head-wraps and cloaks and personally training them rather than having them programmed, his love of trophies from personal combat) that Thrawn would have been able to build up a psychological profile of him in no time.
  Master_Kenobi17
Takin Over For Talon
date Posted: Nov 12, 2005 2:21 PM
If Grievous was holding the Republic at bay for three years during the Clone Wars, the logic goes, he must've been a more than competent tactician.

But was it Grievous or Sidious/Palpatine from the inside...?
Halagad
Only Sith Deal In Absolutes!
date Posted: Nov 12, 2005 2:45 PM
Exactly the counter argument iterated in the blog. The counter to this, of course, is that there's no way to know, as yet.
  TrenV
Never Grow Tired
date Posted: Nov 12, 2005 5:34 PM
I believe another factor to be taken into consideration is the time period(s). Grievous's army was expendable. He could afford to lose countless droids in battle, thus giving him the tactic of numbers. Thrawn had to be slightly more cautious, using different tactics to defeat his opponets, not simply throwing everything at the heart of his opponets. (Which would have been a possible tactic for Grievy)

As for the idea of Palpatine controlling Grievous, I don't think that he would have been able to do that without revealing himself. Surely using his control across such a distance would surround him with the dark side of the Force. Such an amount that could not be ignored.

  Master_Kenobi17
Takin Over For Talon
date Posted: Nov 12, 2005 6:47 PM
He could afford to lose countless droids in battle, thus giving him the tactic of numbers.

Exactly.

As for the idea of Palpatine controlling Grievous, I don't think that he would have been able to do that without revealing himself.

But Palpatine was Sidious. The risk of revealing himself was non-existent because of his double-persona.
Halagad
Only Sith Deal In Absolutes!
date Posted: Nov 13, 2005 5:09 PM
Folks can now check out an updated version of the Thrawn/Grievous fan art work.

Most impressive.
  Master_Kenobi17
Takin Over For Talon
date Posted: Nov 13, 2005 9:36 PM
Hey that's pretty cool.
Halagad
Only Sith Deal In Absolutes!
date Posted: Nov 14, 2005 10:51 AM
Thrawn had to be slightly more cautious, using different tactics to defeat his opponets, not simply throwing everything at the heart of his opponets. (Which would have been a possible tactic for Grievy)

Right TrenV. So the argument is that Grievous hasn't been tried in a fashion similar to Thrawn, or similar circumstances. As an analogy, we all know Darth Maul the killing machine, but James Luceno portrays a very intelligent strategist in the ebook Darth Maul: Saboteur.

Hey that's pretty cool.

Pretty cool, huh? :)
  Bailey1988
Memoirs of a Mandalorian
date Posted: Jan 02, 2006 6:23 AM
I think Grievous would be more likely to win a ground assault than Thrawn, as he himself would lead his troops. However, when it comes to space battles, Thrawn would go to town with his cyborg ###!
  • Please log in to post comments