Is there an explanation for the inconsistency in the Mandalorians between the Clone Wars and Rebels?

Question

Pre-Disney, the Mandalorians were a warrior people living on the planet Mandalore and several other locations. They were the instigators of the Mandalorian War.

From Wookieepedia:

Mandalorian was a demonym that referred to the people of the planet Mandalore. Mandalorians also lived on the moon of Mandalore, Concordia, Kalevala, Krownest and the planet Concord Dawn.

But in the Clone Wars, Duchess Satine made a point on more than one occasion to point out that the warrior past of Mandalore has been replaced by a more pacifist position

Prime Minister Almec in The Mandalore Plot (S2E12)

Master Kenobi, Mandalore's violent past is behind us. All of our warriors were exiled to our moon, Concordia. They died out years ago.

Duchess Satine in The Mandalore Plot (S2E12)

No Mandalorian would engage in such violence.

We are lead to believe that only a small group known as "Death Watch" wishes to return to the warrior past, which you get in a discussion between Duchess Satine, Obi-Wan, and Minister Almec in The Mandalore Plot (S2E12)

Not everyone on Mandalore believes that our commitment to peace is a sign of progress. There is a group that calls itself Death Watch. I imagine these are the renegades you're looking for. They idolize violence and the warrior ways of the past.

But jumping ahead a few years to Star Wars Rebels, the pacifist position of the Mandalorians is virtually ignored

• Mandalorians fought in the Clone Wars (Fenn Rau was specifically mentioned as fighting and also training pilots)
• Through out Season 3, the Mandalorian warrior heritage is very prevalent, and the Rebels specifically target them to join their cause since.
• Several episodes paint the Mandalorians as strong warriors, which seems odd given they were pacifists not 15 years before
  • Imperial Super Commandos (S3E07)
  • Legacy of Mandalore (S3E16)
  • Zero Hour (S3E21 & E22)

So is there an explanation for the change in the Mandalorians so they are seen as warriors again? It seems odd that a society that supported a pacifist leader, remained neutral in a galactic war, and apparently had cast off it's warrior past to become sought after as warriors 15 years later. And yet, despite being pacifists and neutral in the war, had soldiers actively participating in the war.

Is the concept of the pacifists Mandalorian something that only Satine believed? Or is this an attempt to retcon a "mistake" in the Clone Wars? Or is there another explanation.

Answer 1

Looks like Duchess Satine Kryze led a puppet government.

New canon erased lots of prior Mandalorian history, but there are two certain facts:

1. Mandalorians were a proud warrior culture that waged war against the Jedi (and presumably the Republic)
2. They lost that war.

Since that victor dictates terms, Mandalorians were probably forced to disarm and shun lots of their traditional beliefs and customs. We know that when Obi-Wan was a Padawan, he and the then teenage Duchess spent a year together during the civil war. Ultimately, the pacifist New Mandalorians won with the help of the Republic. Satine's rule lasted as long the Republic could support her - when the Clone War started her regime was overthrown and she lost her life.

It is quite unlikely that warriors like Mandalorians would willingly elect an inexperienced teenage girl to lead them. A far more likely explanation is that they simply bowed to stronger power, and let Satine rule but in the shadows quietly despised pacifism, waiting for the right moment to return to their old ways.

Answer 2

It is important to remember that while Duchess Satine Kryze led a government that was officially pacifist, not all Mandalorians agreed with the policy, and they are a society that was historically violent. From within, Death Watch was created, as was The Shadow Collective. These violent factions eventually lead open rebellion against the pacifist government.

While Darth Maul was ultimately unsuccessful in his takeover of Mandalore, the planet was eventually taken over by the Empire - the days of a pacifist Mandalorian people were now gone.

Answer 3

Conflict between Karen Traviss and Dave Filoni is the reason why this inconsistency exists. See, Karen Traviss is an author responsible for a very large chunk of Mandalorian lore particularly as it relates to Mandalorian language and culture and the world of Mandalore itself. Dave Filoni had his own ideas about it and instead of sticking to what was established, he just ran with his own ideas. It would be simple if one was retconned and the other allowed to be canon in either Disney Canon or Legends, but the core issue if i remember correctly is that both are canon to at least Legends at the same time. I may be misremembering, it has been a while since i last read up on the issue, but thats my explanation. I know there are some attempts to compromise in a way that allows both to exist at the same time but i don't really think they are that successful in doing so.

Answer 4

As much as I understood it there was no real inconsistency there though. The mandalorians were warriors in the past even fighting and sometimes winning against the Jedi and constructing the darksaber.

Then they were defeated and pressed into peace but still they were warriors until Satiles rule came and the pacificsts came into power banishing those who did not want to give up fighting.

Still though it could be seen time and again that they were warriors at hearth even Satile in one episode took up arms....but at the last moment refrained from killing due to her beliefs.

It can easily be seen that with the defeat of the mandalorian regime at the hands of the 2 darksiders and their warrior compatriots the power of the peaceful Mandalorians was shattered as were their beliefs at that and Satiles death.

Then they also saw the republic fall and a mighty Empire emerge that was not too unsimilar to their own warriorlike history. Thus they were shown that peace was weak....and only true warriors were strong time and again.

These two things together can easily be enough to make the Mandalorians throw away that which they thought (peace) and did not work and embrace that which they had and worked for them for a very long time (being warriors).

Answer 5

Mandos probably did not fully embrace the pacifist ways except in public, but did not have the strength to do anything about it util Satine's death. After which we have Maul's unsuccessful occupation (which saw a return to warrior-focused initiatives). Around this time the Protectors probably broke off to assist the Republic in training clone pilots and using Skull Squadron and what not (if they already hadn't been exiled along with Death Watch already). Bo-Katan became regent after Maul was driven off, and due to her Death Watch ties/warrior beliefs, this can also explain the resurgence in warrior culture

Answer 6

TL;DR TCW is propaganda making Mandos look weak, but Rebels shows this was never true.

Remember, TCW was largely written like propaganda from the 'front, and heavily skewed toward Republic perspective. The Jedi are fearless, selfless heroes. The Clones are all fearless soldiers (we see their humanity, of course, but it takes quite a few seasons before we see them as they were in the Traviss novels). The Mandalorians are an emasculated race, living like they deserve on a planet destroyed by their own lust for war.

Rebels is written more from the perspective of Rebels, but much less like a propaganda piece. Mandalorians are fearsome warriors (and apparently have always been?) and this whole "Pacifist" craze we heard so much about in TCW has completely evaporated in 5-10 years? I don't buy it.

I think TCW wanted to make the clones look special so they downplayed Mandos (and maybe Disney didn't want to play up the galaxy's favorite conquerors while getting kids to shell out money) but Rebels established that there were always Mandos as they were.