Why Star Trek is BETTER than Star Wars?! 

Thanks to everyone for making this our most disliked episode ever! We couldn't have done it without you!

Here is a old Sci-Fi forum fan joke I heard years ago: Scientists asks science fiction fans if they would like live in their favourite fictional universe: The Star Wars fan says "yes I would". The Star Trek fan says " yes I would". The Halo fan says "yes I would" The Warhammer 4000 fan says "no because there are easier ways to commit suicide".

Well this isn't going to cause any arguments.

Star Wars: We use hyperdrives. Star Trek: We use warp drives. 40k: We go through hell.

Begun, the Fandom War has.

I feel a great disturbance in the force. As if many fanboys suddenly cried out in rage.

Welcome to the 8 o'clock news. Today's top story is: 'Fanboys cold war over Star Trek and Star Wars has turned hot again and as a result stores are reporting a shortage of popcorn and salt.'

Ehhhh, from a worldbuilding perspective I agree multi-polarity is interesting. But looking at Star Wars from an out of universe context, it (at least the original movies) has always been about good vs evil, as trite as it sounds. It was a fairy tale in space where the plucky rebellious underdogs fight back with grit and tenacity against the massive evil empire. Making the Rebellion into patsies for another equal state would take away from that a bit. More importantly, it was escapism from our world, to one of magic and wonder in a galaxy far far away. I do *not* think making a Cold War or Vietnam War analogy (6:05) in it during the 70s-80s would've appealed that much at all to audiences. Basically, yes multipolarity makes stories interesting, but it shouldn't need to apply for all settings, especially with the context some were made in.

I was there. I was there when the Great War began on The Templin Institute

The oldest fandom war rages on to this day. Expect response video bombardment.

You fool! You have reignited the Trekkie- Starwarsians War once more! Doom upon the fandoms! Salt for the salt god!

Stoking fandom wars is tired and lame. I love both for different reasons.

Star Trek and Star Wars: *Bickering* Warhammer 40K: *Sighs*

The story arc of the Cardassian Union from TNG to the end of DS9 is a pretty good example.

Can I jut say the Galacticraft mod for Minecraft is by far better than either of these

Target the Templin Institute. You may fire when ready.

Kinda warms my heart that after all these years this particular small and petty rivalry is still going with such force and passion :-)

The whole ideology of Star Wars is the light vs the dark, if that universe wasn't unipolar or bipolar it wouldn't work... Also based on that I would argue that SW is actually always bipolar even if the Empire is far superior to the Rebel Alliance! The majority of SW's history has been two equally powerful in the force factions in an everlasting war.

Now while I respect your opinion and think the comments talking about fandom vs fandom are ultimately foolish and miss the entire point of the video. I do think it's important to introduce a conflicting perspective to your own, one in this case that I hold. Though before I start I want to reiterate that I am not disregarding your opinion, nor do I wish to have people use my comment to make vitriolic statements towards you or your videos. I would very much encourage any friendly discourse you might wish to have based on what I'm about to say and I'd rather frame this as a discussion than any sort of debate. The problem I have with what you've presented here is that it ultimately creates a general case of what is "better" or "worse" in a given universe without examining the individual context and conflict of the universe itself to make that determination. To take your Star Wars example, the core tenants of the SW universe, in the context of the original trilogy, would have been violated if they were merely tools for an alternate power that was "just as bad as the empire." The entire point of the OT was to create a desperate situation for a group of characters who were on the back foot, who triumphed through adversity and ultimately restored the original republic through their quite frankly lacking means. This plot structure works quite well and ultimately created a more engaging narrative than if you had to present those themes with the addition of another power, which based upon how you framed them would conflict with the themes and principles of the characters in the story. On the same token I agree that Star Trek's multi-polar nation system works fantastically in its universe, however, Star Trek isn't good because it's multi-polar, it's good because the writers of ST took that concept and weaved an actually engaging narrative (most of the time). This allowed the multi-polar setup of ST to work to its fullest potential during its major story arcs, the various factions and alliance systems worked in something like the Dominion War because the story was suited to that style of narrative, as were the characters. I just don't believe the assertion that Star Wars, Halo, or whatever other Universe would become better as a result of moving away from its current power structure is a correct one, at least in the way you presented it. Quite frankly I don't care that you prefer Star Trek's universe to Star War's, I think that's an entirely reasonable position that I might even agree with and you shouldn't be attacked for holding it. I just think the statement you've presented is overtly general without the nuance of further examination, and as a result doesn't hold value in regards to actually examining different universes.

Oh, I can already see the friendly, peaceful comment sections! In all seriousness, saying one is better than the other is only true to people who share your opinion on it. Objectively, neither are better than the other. Art is something that cannot be objectively measured for quality, as each individual piece has its merits and values to someone, somewhere, at some time. Both Star Wars and Star Trek are art, after all, and I love art.

You were the chosen one! It was said you would destroy the Trek, not join them! You were to bring balance to the Fandom, not leave it in darkness!

One word for that click bait title: Brave. I mean, I personally agree, but still, brave AF.

*Laughs in 40k*

The problem with this video is that you're looking at this in terms of relationships between nations instead of examining the sort of story the franchises tell, or the themes therein. Conflict and political maneuvering on a larger scale does not automatically a more compelling story make. Star Wars was always about a clash of ideology, and a commentary on the allure of power and its corrupting influence. About the way in which republics are ultimately corrupted as their institutions get older and more vested interests sink their claws into government, and ultimately tend towards fascism, with a fantastic example being the United States today. The story of Star wars does not span the four-year Galactic civil war depicted in the original trilogy, but through the expanded universe spans tens of thousands of years. And while there is generally some dominant superpower, there are many, many cultures and empires that rise and fall from power within it, and, as the title suggests, peace is generally short-lived.

It's like saying why is GoT better than LOTR. They are both separate entities and serve different purposes within the same umbrella genre, neither one is really better.

Star trek as an example of Multipolarity is a good one, but it's definitely risen as a plot device in the movies and TNG era series. With the Federation-Klingon-Romulan being the holy trinity of this dynamic. As shown by your video, Babylon 5 is also an excellent example of multipolarity which pretty motivates the entire storyline by using the agency of its' characters, the best example would be comparing EA, Narn Regime and Centauri Republic between the 1st season to the 4th. Even the Minbari saw change in it's interstellar politics. Another example I would like to bring forth, is from the Expanse, with with it starting as a Bipolar system with Earth and Mars, with the belt being fought as proxy war. Later evolving to a Multi polarity with the OPA being a power to reckon with. Also add to that multinational bodies like corporations with their own agenda, and you got a powder-keg waiting to explode. There are additional evolution as shown in further books, but we'll keep it at that. And last but not least, WH40 should be considered a multipolarity, but it got so many levels due to it's wargaming mechanics, that it is, as it's lore, quite insane and convoluted.

video not even out, already 50% split like dislike. not even wait for context or arguments. take cover, thats gonna be a shitshow. serious, why rate the video when you have no idea what is gonna be in it. it could be klickbait aswell or do a 180 or be sarcasm, or wahtever.

I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the Death Star (Mk III) your right to say it.

but the flood IS a third player that want to whipe out both major forces at once and now the Halo universe is divided between UNSC, several covenants remains, and AI

That's why I love Babylon 5 so much. I'm now on the latter half of season 3 and it has only gotten deeper with each episode. Ever evolving show, terrific stuff.

I would question whether the UNSC post-Covenant War counts as a hyperpower. Yes, the war technically was an Earth victory and the Covenant splintered, but nearly every other human world save Earth was "glassed" by the Covenant and rendered uninhabitable. Post-war, the alliance between the USNC and the Swords of Sanghelios seems less like a hyperpower and vassal state in a unipolar system as much as two badly depleted powers in relative parity trying to keep everything in the galaxy from going to hell. (Which is also a great source of conflict.)

you should have mentioned the legends stuff but B5 stomps almost everything when it comes to politics

There are a few problems I have with seeing halo as a bipolar state. First, the covenant the clear superpower, and humanity would barely be considered a great power, it only being so as there are no other comparisons in the universe. While the Human-covenant war was a human victory, the UNSC was left weakened by it as a whole. By the end of the war, most of the fleet was wiped out and most planets either glassed (like reach) or heavily damaged (earth). So while they’ve managed to rebuild somewhat, the UNSC is far from what a super power would be in that world. Hell, the UNSC doesn’t even control all of the lost territory, with humanity split between the UNSC and insurrectionists. And despite the covenant schism and various fractions vying to power, they still very much pose a threat to the UNSC and humanity. And while I like the idea of there being other factions either involved, or at least neutral, the main problem is that the covenant is humanities first contact, and any other factions that may have existed, would be discovered by the covenant first and would therefore be incorporated into it or wipeout by the time they discover humanity. So thank you for coming to my ted talk.

I saw the title to this on Templin and my thought is, “oh man, shots fired.”

The first season Babylon 5 was the most interesting to me when it comes to the political front. Not only was it a multipolar world, but there were some actors (Vorlons and other ancients) that could wipe the floor of any of them if they so choose. From Small powers to nearly indomitable powers, all in the same time.

Speaking just in regards to Star Trek and Star Wars, both tell plenty of good stories - even good political ones. However, they seem to follow different philosophies in their approaches. Being a huge Star Wars fan myself, I am more intimately familiar with Star Wars lore. However, I am close friends with families of Trekkies (and I have maintained some level of fandom since ST: TNG, going on and off between series) so I have plenty of exposure to Star Trek Lore. Star Trek lore, overall, does tend to focus more on the macro level. The multiple types of conflicts, rivalries, and alliances between multiple governments and factions - each with their own (usually fairly detailed) lore - do tend to show an even grander picture of the galaxy. This can be a negative, however, as it can leave so many characters as appearing to be nothing more than expendable cogs in a machine (afterall, the red shirt meme came first, well before the stormtrooper). Plenty of good and interesting stories can still be told, though the individual relatability (i.e. how one person is/isn't just a cog) aspect can be reduced or broken if not handled properly. While the Original Series did plenty of personal stories for Kirk, from Next Generation onwards, Star Trek has focused more on the "big picture" (to varying degrees with each series) while trying to show ways of finding your own place/answer within it (at least, that's my main take from Next Gen, which was when I started getting into Star Trek). Star Wars lore has tended to focus more on the micro level, more on the individual. It was made fairly evident with the original trilogy of movies, how they focused on a select group of individuals and shined more light onto their stories than anyone or anything else's. Granted, Star Wars was always sold as a "space epic," a play on the "hero's epic" that it heavily draws from (which is always about the main character - a.k.a. the hero), and virtually every Star Wars story written has focused on the individual, either the same characters from the movies or someone else entirely. In a way, Star Wars is saying that no matter what is going on around, this is still someone's life/story, where even someone who, at best, would be considered a footnote in the "grand galactic picture" can still have a good and interesting life/story and have it told (say whatever you want about its quality, but without that underlying philosophy, we wouldn't have gotten Rogue One). Star Wars tends to get more personal with its stories, and sometimes those stories end up having some degree of influence on the galaxy. Now, whether Star Trek or Star Wars is overall better depends on what you're looking for. If you want more grand and larger-scale stories (of which politics usually fits well with), then Star Trek can be better. If you want more individualistic stories that focus more on select people (for whatever reason they were selected), then Star Wars takes it. As for other sci-fi franchises, that still depends on what you're looking for. This was just between these two franchises.

You know, I found a new appreciation for the Halo Trilogy and Reach once I found out what the story was telling. Before I understood what english I thought it was "Fuck yeah Space marines"...you know, like the current games. But no. It was about humanity fighting an unwinable war. It did not matter how many grunts Master Cheif killed. That one spartan team anihalated an entire fleet prepearing to invade Earth. The UNSC was still losing...And that is what I've grown to love about the early Halo games. The fact that humanity is without a doubt, totaly and royaly fucked yet they keep on fighting. That is the theme and thing I find intresting about the Halo seris, not the implications of a bipolarrity (Once again to hell with the newer Halo games)

I would just like to raise one point and that's just because there is a single super power doesn't mean there are as many good stories their, a good writer shouldn't need multiple powers to create a interesting world, it can be done with one. At the end of the day it's more to do with the story being told and if it's better for the story to have multiple powers or just one or two. If the story's a more character driven narrative then it may not be necessary and will do more harm than good. But that's just my opinion, overall a good video

Star Trek was the beginning for me, it introduced me to nerdom. Not to mention the Constitution Class refit is the best looking starship in sci-fi.

Here's my take: Star Trek is a future that is feasible, one that humanity can hopefully attain if we are determined enough. Star Wars is but a fantasy. A superficial battle between light and dark, with the gray areas taken away because comprehending the depth of the real world is too difficult for George Lucas. *grabs popcorn*

.... There are so many issues with this argument that I can't even get into them, but fundamentally I argue think that your argument that there's a causal relationship between complexity and interesting worlds, is flawed. Setting aside (and hell i'm a star trek fan) your gross oversimplification of the Star Wars universe's politics and power polarity the premise the argument is based on is flawed. It is true that a more complicated multi-polar world could have more interesting story opportunities, but frankly saying that a world's potential to interest audiences is based on the world details themselves is... not right. Ultimately, and granted this is my opinion, the storyteller's ability to make a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar world interesting is far more influential than whether it is a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar world. Case 1: Lord of the Rings. Bipolar world between forces of good and evil. (okay arguably with multi-polar cultures) Still Infinitely intriguing due to Tolkein's detailed worldbuilding so much so that people have been copying off of it for years? Very much so. Case 2: Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Animated Universe, Bipolar sometimes unipolar but intriguing because of the characters that inhabit it. Case 3: Real Life. Just because people in the past lived in say the 90s post-cold war US where there's a hyper polar superpower controlling things doesn't mean their lives weren't less or more interesting. None of these cases are hard and shut and you can argue that one's still less interesting than the other, but I think the point is... trying to say a world is more interesting because their are more centres of power is... absurd given stories are interesting not because of their worlds but because of how people portray them!

I honestly think the reason that the New Republic and Galactic Republic were so prone to infighting, was that there were no rivals for them, Think about it in, Legends when the Old Sith Empire (if you played SWTOR) you know what I'm talking about the Senate was more unified and less prone to infighting because of the threat of a rival power. Once it was defeated then it descended more into infighting

yOU OPENED THE FLOODGAAAAAATES

Ehhh, umm, hmmm....no. The problem I've always had with ANY Star Trek Vs. Star Wars debate is that you're not comparing like with like. Star Wars at its core, movie wise anyway, has always been about light vs dark, good vs evil and the plucky band of rogue going up against the greater evil empire and coming out on top. Star Trek at its' core is about exploration, answers through science and yes, politics. Space politics. Star Trek needs a multipolar system to increase the pool of stories it can tell. Star Wars doesn't need that. It needs one powerful faction and one less powerful one, with jedi and sith sprinkled in for good measure. Neither system makes a franchise more interesting then the other. They're both interesting, just in different ways. Interesting vid, though. Definitely gave me something to think about in the never-ending debate.

For another great multipolar system, look at the game Sins of a Solar Empire. Each of the three major factions is split internally between two opposing ideologies, leading to uneasy alliances and a drive to seek out third parties to side with them, peaceably or otherwise. Granted, if the developers ever continue the lore it may turn out that the three-pole initial setting is really just smaller local politics bickering while a true hyper power approaches in the background. As the setting stands now, that is just background material to drive the urgency of the local conflicts.

Have we forgotten Mass Effect?!?!

I lived in Ireland from 1967 to 1969. When I came back to the US, Star Trek was the second tv show I saw (Mission Impossible was the first). I'm been a Trekkie ever since.

Politics is BS when your self-proclaimed "ships of exploration" can match other factions' war ships in combat.

The comment section 1% people actully arguing 49% "the war has begun" 50% a third party saying " well ____ is actully better then them both

Is this where I step in to say Stargate is better than both of the others? xD

Templin here is only focusing on the Star Wars Canon, it's way more interesting in Legends, specially post-Endor.

Sees title. This comment section should be interesting.

I enjoy both. But I watch Star Trek more.

Impressive job avoiding both the terms hegemony and concert of powers as descriptors within the first 4 minutes.

A unipolar world can be very interesting as well, provided you explore internal conflict within the state. A unipolar world can also still have many smaller countries where the hegemon would be stretched thin if it tried to control everything. Foreign policy can become tied with internal policy, if certain interest groups have ties or interests in certain countries. Let's not forget that even in the presence of a single great power, there will also be regional powers competing against each other. Doing so in the shadow of a "world police" country carries it's own risks and opportunities.

About what you were saying about the Galactic Civil War and what you wish Halo could be: That sounds a lot like The Clone Wars. We have a more-or-less bipolar system of galactic powers competing in a 3-year conflict. Both try to get nonaligned systems to join. While the Republic mostly defeats the Separatists, both sides wear each other out and the whole thing turned out to be orchestrated by the Sith. In conclusion, Star Wars and Star Trek are both awesome franchises that are hard to really compare. They are set up very differently and while Star Wars has a more unique interesting universe, Star Trek is much more complex and has much more to it.

I get where you were going with this, but it comes across as a false comparison, because the cores of the franchises - tv for Trek, movies for Wars - inherently lend themselves to different conflicts.

There's so many facets and branches to both franchises that I don't think comparison is really effective. It's like which is better, the largest fungus or the largest coral colony. Both are gigantic sprawling entities with zillions of parts.

So many veterans here, I still remember when I was still young and the fan war was still going strong, so many pains and anger 😢

6:17 you're going to want to watch Legend of the Galactic Heroes, a bi-polar universe with both sides having vast military resources with hundreds of thousands of ships and both sides being manipulated from the shadows.

No one expects the Templin Inquisition!

Im a fan of all the series and agree that multi-polarity is one of Star Trek's strengths. But then you said "Wouldn't it be more interesting if the Rebellion were funded by another power, perhaps just as brutal as the Empire?" Well. No. Just because Star Trek benefits from it's political complexity doesn't mean that it works in Star Wars. That would undermine it's strengths and make it a much weaker story.

by your interpretation i can see why the three kingdoms period in chinese history is so popular - especially during the early days it's multipolar like no tomorrow, tons of characters with different motives each trying to be the ultimate unipolar state

i love both of the universes for different reasons myself and i feel that you may have forgotten that there have been other major powers to rival the republic in the starwars universe throughout its history externally as well as plenty going on within the republic as well, let us not forget that while the many factions are under the smae banner there is plenty of political intrigue and back stabbing going on within the republic as well, and im very supprised that the WH40k or Battletech universes never got a mention when talking about Multipolar systems

There's already a superior empire in Star Trek, the Terran Empire. Long live the Empire!

I would agree with this argument if that is what you are looking for. I prefer Star Wars because its story is based on a different context, the light overcoming darkness. I belive that the way star wars story is told and its political system work to show that. Sometimes a simple or basic idea can be better for the story than a complicated one.

"What if one is financed by another power to destabilize another?" Legends of Galactic Heroes: The tiny Dominion of Phezzan covertly influenced the war between the Galactic Empire and the Free Planets Alliance to maintain its economic position between the two superpowers. And yes, that story eventually ended in a unipolar.

Can someone explain the Star Trek map? Theres a patch of Federation territory on the otherside of Klingon space. How do they maintain that or even get to it without violating any space?

And Babylon Five is better than both *Does the Leonidas pose*

What about warhammer it has more than two factions constantly fighting with tides changing on every front

BTW do you plan on doing an Imperator Rome campaign, like with the GTU, or with another game

Its apples and oranges, honestly. I love both series. Star Trek has what you basically said, but there is a different drama and ever expanding universe in SW as well. Both go in their own directions and is always fun to watch. :)

When in doubt, err on the side of Legends. It is just more interesting

Heavily debatable.. kinda why all of us do. BUT it also kinda very largely depends. In GROUND/PLANETARY warfare.. basically ALL Trek factions are horribly underarmed, under equipped and practically naked in comparison. While near all the SW ground forces and factions are riddiculous some of them armed and armored to the teeth. While ships and navies... it gets really hard to tell. It's kinda easy with Borg VS Force users though when you think about it.. Hows a Borg shield gonna adapt to a sith that decides to reach out with they hand and mind.. make a fist and then crush that drone like a tin can? An even Borg ships have to avoid HUGE space anomalies which Jedi and Sith BOTH can conjure outta thin air if they strong enough and really want to.. ALSO we dont know what SW verse in weapons will do to Trek tech. If it's similar or same the more heavily armed SW troops are gonna steam roll them. Like the Dominion did to Starfleet in their 1st war. Great shields, magic laser rifles, and Photon Torpedoes are all Trek's got to fight with most them. But they don't really got an answer for an angry Extremly strong Sith with their lightsaber. An Trek isn't used to war least Starfleet isn't most the time. SW barely knows Peace. Which is hard for them. The Sith/Jedi relationship is EXTREMELY complex... let's see Janeway, Picard, Kirk and Sisko... most of which I love try and get Yoda and Sideous to peace talks... sorry but it'll never happen. The Borg will become allies to the Federation first

I love basically Star Wars vs Star Trek fight is about how better the settings or story is and they argue each other in internet while Warhammer 40k fan vs other scifi fan is basically full-scale great crusade

I, I think I have to agree with you, being a halo fan and now and then watching old episodes of Star trek I can see and understand your opinion. Now with the Halo universe, yes it is starting to get less interesting however I do have to say that 343 industires is introducing new factions, like the banished which is its own faction and is/was fighting the UNSC and the covenant at the same time without losing allot of its resources and man power compared to the UNSC and the Covenant, while they are a new faction in the universe them self I find the Banished allot more interesting then the Covenant. Saying that I dont have anything else to say then that I understand your opinion and agree with what you are saying. So here take my thumbs up and I'll wait till the next video.

See people arguing in the comments over which is better Me: *Laughs in 40K*

Why Warhammer is better than Star Wars

Apples to Oranges :P Gimme a crossover where Thrawn is up against the DS-9 crew!

True, one of the reasons I love Babylon 5 and Star Trek. Also yes the Enterprise is far more powerful than a Star Destroyer, there is really no way I can see one defeating it in combat.

I LOVE your channel. But I most certainly don’t want hard sci fi or real world analogues when I escape into my beloved SPACE OPERA!

Use the force, Spock

You make a valid point. But what would your opinion be concerning Babylon 5 and Star Wars. Which would be better since both appear to be multipolarity?

Let me pull an ancient, baroque, master crafted popcorn bucket adorned with a golden double headed Aquila to enjoy a snack while SW and ST fans fight each other The Emperor Protects!

Hey now, you're an all-star, get your game on, go play

Stargate is definitely multipolar

As a former geopolitics student, i like this kind of analysis. Multipolarity is the reason i also like Mass Effect and Babylon 5. The absence of international relations is also a reason i think Star Gate is not a great universe.

Star trek fans and Star wars fans are here tearing each other apart while im just here in my trench sipping recaf and praying to the emperor

The wide world building shows that the Star Wars universe has almost all of what is prioritized here in the Star Trek universe, provided that one looks at a wide span of time in these universes. Simply put, there is so much more than the bi-polar conflicts in the episodic films. The SW world building has conflicts playing off & influencing others, entangling countless dealings to make a galaxy just as fascinating and dynamic as Star Trek. The difference is the ST dynamic nature is in the fans face. The same dynamic nature is present in SW but the fan hast ti dive much further into the SW universe to find it...

*Sees the title* ITS TREASON, THEN

I think you underestimate the intrigue and machinations that can occur in a "unipolar" world. As seen in Dune or the Iron Throne of Westeros, internal alliances, dynastic politics, and political ambition can make good conflict that can range from subtle manipulation of rivals to all out civil war within the state. Also, just to deflate the Trek fandom's ego a bit, the more complex great power politics post TOS was despite Roddenberry (who wanted a hyperpower Federation that just stewed in its on sense of smugness). Latter writers and producers added rival nations to generate some form of conflict to create interesting stories, and they could only ever really create generic bad guy (insert species) empire, who never posed a serious threat to the Federation.

Hey Marc, we've heard you're opinion, now what about Larissa's.

As somebody who prefers Star Trek to Star Wars, I think you're completely wrong on this point. Star Wars was conceived as trying to tell a very particular story. As much as I like Star Trek, that setting wouldn't be as conducive to telling a "quest" story like we see in Star Wars, where a Hero arises to topple an unjust Empire. The story of Half Life 2, as another example, is best told in a unipolaric setting, where all the odds are stacked against Gordon Freeman, the Hero, and where the Resistance is the scrappy underdog. Giving the factions parity with one another would just dilute the themes that are prominent in that kind of story. While we're at it, I also think you're wrong about the Halo franchise, too. Halo, at its peak, was never about politics and trade negotiations, but about a massive war that threatens to see the extinction of humanity. Giving the UNSC and Covenant "rough" levels of parity, so that the UNSC is capable of putting up a fight, heightens the tension of the conflict and allows the story to focus on THAT conflict, rather than either side trying to rally support from neutral nations. The conflict between the Jedi and the Sith is similar, and allows the two forces to act as foils for one another. Overall, the political structure of a setting has to be selected to best compliment the kind of story being told. You couldn't tell a "quest," hero-centric story in the Star Trek universe, just like having a pseudo political drama in the Star Wars universe wouldn't make much sense. Saying that one style is objectively "better" across the board doesn't do credit to the sorts of stories that these franchises are trying to tell.

I would add another type: Monopolar system that collapses into a multipolar one. Like a late roman empire with multiple small enemies and factions inside of it.

Some well thought out points. I always choose both when asked Trek or Wars. Each one compliments the other excellently. Fantasy and sci-fi, social commentary and timeless themes of good and evil, both the best at what they do

If the political complexity is of the matter, than Star Trek really pales in comparison to Babylon 5 that was featured. B5 nations don't only fight external wars, but have significant political shifts within themselves, along with revolutions, changes of government etc. While United Federation is realistically way too stable for what it is. Babylon 5 League is especially on-point with the idea of how political alliances work. ST is also arguably not that much better than SW, because Republic itself is more akin to confederation, its hold over many planets, even in the Core, is more symbolic than anything. Most planets are selfgoverned and there are many inter-republic alliances. You also forgot the Hutt space, that is arguably a constant second polar in the SW universe. Along with occasional Sith empires, the Chiss empire etc. We also don't know much about Outer Rim politics, just because films were always focused around the core worlds. Hence, the comparison is unfair.

ST: see a girl's idea of love develop from 14 to 40. SW: a typical sword n sorcery fantasy story set in WW2 in space.

I believe that Star Wars is focused more on internal problems than on diplomatic problems like in Star Trek. In Star Wars we have civil war, separatism, criminal underworld, this is all very interesting.

I love them both equally, I have no strong feeling one way or the other. I am currently re-reading Darth Plagueis and I am rewatching DS9

You could argue that Star Wars has multiple sides. Instead of looking at the military, you should look at the Jedi vs the Sith. Also, just because it has more complex and interesting political interactions does not mean it’s better. Someone who does not like that kind of plot (political intrigue) would very likely say Star Wars is better.