Speculation on the Jedi Masters

[Dark Moth]

The thing is, the War of 1812 WASN'T fought in just 1812, and the 100 years' war didn't last 100 years. That's an example of how names can be inaccurate because of peoples' conceptions. And you're forgetting, it's a game, so naturally you're not going to see every battle. There were a lot of battles taking place between mere soldiers, it just so happened that the only one you saw was the Endar Spire.

 

The Jedi Civil War was fought in large ship-to-ship battles, but that right there means there weren't just Jedi involved. The Jedi weren't the ones who piloted all those capital ships. Also, you'll see on Manaan how even ordinary Republic and Sith soldiers fight (argue) in the streets. And on Taris, it was Sith soldiers, not Dark Jedi, who were patrolling the streets.

[GhostofAnakin]

The thing is, the War of 1812 WASN'T fought in just 1812, and the 100 years' war didn't last 100 years.  That's an example of how names can be inaccurate because of peoples' conceptions.  And you're forgetting, it's a game, so naturally you're not going to see every battle.  There were a lot of battles taking place between mere soldiers, it just so happened that the only one you saw was the Endar Spire. 

 

The Jedi Civil War  was fought in large ship-to-ship battles, but that right there means there weren't just Jedi involved.  The Jedi weren't the ones who piloted all those capital ships.  Also, you'll see on Manaan how even ordinary Republic and Sith soldiers fight (argue) in the streets.  And on Taris, it was Sith soldiers, not Dark Jedi, who were patrolling the streets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So what would you have called the war then? What name would have been more accurate for it, keeping in mind who the main combatants were (no cop outs with "Galactic War"), and who the "general population" resented for the war.

[Dark Moth]

The thing is, the War of 1812 WASN'T fought in just 1812, and the 100 years' war didn't last 100 years.  That's an example of how names can be inaccurate because of peoples' conceptions.  And you're forgetting, it's a game, so naturally you're not going to see every battle.  There were a lot of battles taking place between mere soldiers, it just so happened that the only one you saw was the Endar Spire. 

 

The Jedi Civil War  was fought in large ship-to-ship battles, but that right there means there weren't just Jedi involved.  The Jedi weren't the ones who piloted all those capital ships.  Also, you'll see on Manaan how even ordinary Republic and Sith soldiers fight (argue) in the streets.  And on Taris, it was Sith soldiers, not Dark Jedi, who were patrolling the streets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So what would you have called the war then? What name would have been more accurate for it, keeping in mind who the main combatants were (no cop outs with "Galactic War"), and who the "general population" resented for the war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Does it matter who the population resented? That doesn't make it any more accurate. Once again, look at the examples I gave of conflict names that are innacurate (Bunker Hill, 1812) And what I would call it is irrelevant, because even if I were to give examples, that would still not prevent the name from being inaccurate.

[Jediphile]

The thing is, the War of 1812 WASN'T fought in just 1812, and the 100 years' war didn't last 100 years.  That's an example of how names can be inaccurate because of peoples' conceptions.  And you're forgetting, it's a game, so naturally you're not going to see every battle.  There were a lot of battles taking place between mere soldiers, it just so happened that the only one you saw was the Endar Spire. 

 

The Jedi Civil War  was fought in large ship-to-ship battles, but that right there means there weren't just Jedi involved.  The Jedi weren't the ones who piloted all those capital ships.  Also, you'll see on Manaan how even ordinary Republic and Sith soldiers fight (argue) in the streets.  And on Taris, it was Sith soldiers, not Dark Jedi, who were patrolling the streets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But aren't you now making the same mistake that you described in your first paragraph above? While we might not have seen pure jedi vs. jedi fights in KotOR1, that doesn't mean that they didn't take place. In fact, the Endar Spire was under direct command by the jedi, IIRC, and we did see one jedi and sith fighting each other, and another killing Trask Ulgo...

 

I'd agree with you the whole Manaan thing is very odd - there should have been several jedi there, as I've stated elsewhere on this forum.

[Dark Moth]

The thing is, the War of 1812 WASN'T fought in just 1812, and the 100 years' war didn't last 100 years.  That's an example of how names can be inaccurate because of peoples' conceptions.  And you're forgetting, it's a game, so naturally you're not going to see every battle.  There were a lot of battles taking place between mere soldiers, it just so happened that the only one you saw was the Endar Spire. 

 

The Jedi Civil War  was fought in large ship-to-ship battles, but that right there means there weren't just Jedi involved.  The Jedi weren't the ones who piloted all those capital ships.  Also, you'll see on Manaan how even ordinary Republic and Sith soldiers fight (argue) in the streets.  And on Taris, it was Sith soldiers, not Dark Jedi, who were patrolling the streets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But aren't you now making the same mistake that you described in your first paragraph above? While we might not have seen pure jedi vs. jedi fights in KotOR1, that doesn't mean that they didn't take place. In fact, the Endar Spire was under direct command by the jedi, IIRC, and we did see one jedi and sith fighting each other, and another killing Trask Ulgo...

 

I'd agree with you the whole Manaan thing is very odd - there should have been several jedi there, as I've stated elsewhere on this forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The thing on Manaan should show you that this wasn't just the Jedi's war. But in my post, I was countering Calax's statement that you saw no battles between soldiers except on the Endar Spire. As you said, just because we didn't see more than that doesn't mean they didn't happen. And I'm sure there were purely Jedi vs Sith (Dark Jedi) battles, but as I said, it's not as if it was just Jedi fighting for the Republic. The 'ordinary' guys fought, too. The main point I'm making is that it wasn't Jedi all Jedi fighting other Jedi, and there were more people fighting for the Republic than just Jedi.

[GhostofAnakin]

Does it matter who the population resented?  That doesn't make it any more accurate.  Once again, look at the examples I gave of conflict names that are innacurate (Bunker Hill, 1812)  And what I would call it is irrelevant, because even if I were to give examples, that would still not prevent the name from being inaccurate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So basically you're shooting down the name they chose, but have nothing to suggest yourself? Isn't that the ultimate weak argument? Point fault at something presented, but have no rebuttle yourself.

 

You're harping on "Jedi Civil War" being inaccurate, so I'm saying suggest something that would be, even if it's just your own opinion, an "accurate" name for the war.

[Dark Moth]

Does it matter who the population resented?  That doesn't make it any more accurate.  Once again, look at the examples I gave of conflict names that are innacurate (Bunker Hill, 1812)  And what I would call it is irrelevant, because even if I were to give examples, that would still not prevent the name from being inaccurate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So basically you're shooting down the name they chose, but have nothing to suggest yourself? Isn't that the ultimate weak argument? Point fault at something presented, but have no rebuttle yourself.

 

You're harping on "Jedi Civil War" being inaccurate, so I'm saying suggest something that would be, even if it's just your own opinion, an "accurate" name for the war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very well...

 

1. The Sith [or Dark Jedi] Invasion - (you could also tack on a date)

2. The Post-Mandalorian Conflict

3. The Revan-Malak Invasion

4. The Sith Uprising (maybe add a date)

 

While I'm pretty sure these might seem a tad bland, I think they're a more accurate than "The Jedi Civil War". If you're still unsatisfied, I could come up with more. And if anyone else out there thinks they have a better name, shoot.

Edited August 14, 2005 by Mothman

[GhostofAnakin]

1.  The Sith [or Dark Jedi] Invasion - (you could also tack on a date)

 

The general population who believed that Jedi and Sith are one in the same would argue that you could just as easily call it the Jedi Invasion.

 

2.  The Post-Mandalorian Conflict

 

Much too generic. It tells nothing of who was involved in the conflict.

 

3.  The Revan-Malak Invasion

 

Too centred on two individuals. World War II wasn't called "The Hitler Takeover".

 

4.  The Sith Uprising (maybe add a date)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See response to #1.

 

In other words, all four of your examples aren't any more "accurate" than the current name. Which isn't to say I think the names you came up are wrong or stupid, but that if we use your criteria for dismissing the legitimacy of "The Jedi Civil War" because of its inaccuracy, then so too can you dismiss the names you came up.

 

My point? If you get that anal about "inaccuracy", then there's pretty much NOTHING you can name it that won't end up being picked apart.

[Dark Moth]

1.  The Sith [or Dark Jedi] Invasion - (you could also tack on a date)

 

The general population who believed that Jedi and Sith are one in the same would argue that you could just as easily call it the Jedi Invasion.

 

2.  The Post-Mandalorian Conflict

 

Much too generic. It tells nothing of who was involved in the conflict.

 

3.  The Revan-Malak Invasion

 

Too centred on two individuals. World War II wasn't called "The Hitler Takeover".

 

4.  The Sith Uprising (maybe add a date)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See response to #1.

 

In other words, all four of your examples aren't any more "accurate" than the current name. Which isn't to say I think the names you came up are wrong or stupid, but that if we use your criteria for dismissing the legitimacy of "The Jedi Civil War" because of its inaccuracy, then so too can you dismiss the names you came up.

 

My point? If you get that anal about "inaccuracy", then there's pretty much NOTHING you can name it that won't end up being picked apart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. Okay, but then again, didn't I say before that the Sith are NOT Jedi? Yes, that is more accurate.

 

2. Okay, it's generic, but hey. That's probably the weakest on the list.

 

3. Yes, but Revan and Malak were the two who were at the head of everything, weren't they? They were the ones who started the entire thing.

 

4. Same as #1

 

My entire point about it being a Jedi Civil war centers around one big thing: Jedi and Sith are two different beliefs. They are NOT the same. That is why to call it a Jedi Civil War is innaccurate, more so than anything I listed above. Besides, if the population would think that the Jedi and Sith are no different, than wouldn't calling it the Sith Civil War be perfectly acceptable also? There you go.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If Kotor 3 is made, and the True Sith turn out to be anything like as terrible as Kreia suggested, then the earlier wars will probably be seen by history as a precursor to the greater conflict, the Great Sith War, or something like that. You can never know these things until some time has elapsed.

 

As to why people in the time of the Exile are choosing to call it that, it probably owes a lot to how it's been presented to them in the Republic media, suggesting that the Republic Senate has lost confidence in the Jedi Order, and understandably so.

[GhostofAnakin]

My entire point about it being a Jedi Civil war centers around one big thing: Jedi and Sith are two different beliefs.  They are NOT the same.  That is why to call it a Jedi Civil War is innaccurate, more so than anything I listed above.  Besides, if the population would think that the Jedi and Sith are no different, than wouldn't calling it the Sith Civil War be perfectly acceptable also?  There you go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To you, to me and to those who understand the differences in them, they are. But to countless planets who see ANY Force user as a Jedi, it's not the same thing. For the general population it was Jedi vs. Jedi.

 

As for why not call it the Sith Civil war, that's simple. The general population thought of all Force users as JEDI, not Sith. To them there was no Sith. Everyone wielding a lightsaber and using these mystical powers were Jedi.

 

It was named by what the general population thought of it as. Saying it was inaccurate is like saying the US' current "War on Terror" is an inaccurate name because, from the Terrorists' point of view it's not the case. You're always going to find different opinions and various points of view that make something inaccurate, but for the majority of people the Jedi Civil War is accurate enough to be feasible, just like The War on Terror is accurate enough for those who aren't on the side of Al Queada.

[Dark Moth]

My entire point about it being a Jedi Civil war centers around one big thing: Jedi and Sith are two different beliefs.  They are NOT the same.  That is why to call it a Jedi Civil War is innaccurate, more so than anything I listed above.  Besides, if the population would think that the Jedi and Sith are no different, than wouldn't calling it the Sith Civil War be perfectly acceptable also?  There you go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To you, to me and to those who understand the differences in them, they are. But to countless planets who see ANY Force user as a Jedi, it's not the same thing. For the general population it was Jedi vs. Jedi.

 

As for why not call it the Sith Civil war, that's simple. The general population thought of all Force users as JEDI, not Sith. To them there was no Sith. Everyone wielding a lightsaber and using these mystical powers were Jedi.

 

It was named by what the general population thought of it as. Saying it was inaccurate is like saying the US' current "War on Terror" is an inaccurate name because, from the Terrorists' point of view it's not the case. You're always going to find different opinions and various points of view that make something inaccurate, but for the majority of people the Jedi Civil War is accurate enough to be feasible, just like The War on Terror is accurate enough for those who aren't on the side of Al Queada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but then again, we're dealing with a label for a set of beliefs, instead of a generic term like "terrorist". I don't think it's much different than perhaps, looking at them like two different religions. For instance, I'm a Christian now, but if I converted to a Muslim, would that still make me a Christian? No. And if you had a huge religious war between Christians and Muslims, you wouldn't call it a Christian Civil War, would you?

[Jediphile]

The thing on Manaan should show you that this wasn't just the Jedi's war.  But in my post, I was countering Calax's statement that you saw no battles between soldiers except on the Endar Spire.  As you said, just because we didn't see more than that doesn't mean they didn't happen.  And I'm sure there were purely Jedi vs Sith (Dark Jedi) battles, but as I said, it's not as if it was just Jedi fighting for the Republic.  The 'ordinary' guys fought, too.  The main point I'm making is that it wasn't Jedi all Jedi fighting other Jedi, and there were more people fighting for the Republic than just Jedi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fair enough, but wars are certainly not always named for all the people involved. The Kalmar War between Sweden and Denmark may have started there, but it was not an internal fight to the city of Kalmar - it was a war between two nations that just began there. I find that to be a reasonable comparison, because just like the internal conflict in the jedi order spawned the Jedi Civil War, the Kalmar War also simply began in the city of Kalmar. In both cases the war just escalated from that point, but then wars do have a tendency to do that...

[darthbass123]

The Civilians of planets such as Coruscant and Dantooine propably started the name Jedi Civil War because it did start amongst Jedi. Ulic, and Exar Kun were Jedi that turned to the dark side and became Sith Lords. However I haven't heard much of a dark jedi saying, "Stop calling me jedi! I'm a sith!" or something like that. So it is only fair for people to know them as Jedi.

[Calax]

I feel it must be pointed out that Ulic and Exar were putting together armies that had at no time been considered the best and the brightest of the republic army. Revans army was just that, the Best and the brightest of the republic. He took elite units and converted them while Ulic built his army from scratch in the Empress Teta system and was able to defeat Mandalore in personal combat getting the mandalorians to fight for him. Exar just converted a bunch of jedi who went after their masters. From the public's perspective I would think that the Sith war looked more like an invasion from afar while Revan's war was a bunch of good guy's turning on them. so technically Civil war would apply.

 

I was pointing out in my previous statement that TO ME the Jedi Civil War felt more or less like a brush war rather than a full blown military conflict. You didn't see much of armies clashing and battles running rampant over systems at the time. You didn't even see any real fighting between troopers. Only on ships. No planetwide invasions, no Combat of anysort on the ground. Sure you heard about bombarments but that was only twice.

[Ulicus]

(I am using bold for quotes, so as to avoid the mess of my previous posts

[GhostofAnakin]

About your "Second Sith Wars" title, that can be picked apart as well since just by reading the name of it you'd think it was a war of Sith versus Sith. You can't tell by that name that the Jedi or the Republic was even involved.

 

Again, I'm not saying it's a bad name, I'm just saying it's as accurate or inaccurate as the one they chose.

 

ps. the reason I didn't respond to yours was because I lost track of what you were saying with your messed up quotes, and thus focussed on Mothman and his constant tearing down of the current title without really providing viable alternatives (until I forced the issue).

[Ulicus]

About your "Second Sith Wars" title, that can be picked apart as well since just by reading the name of it you'd think it was a war of Sith versus Sith.  You can't tell by that name that the Jedi or the Republic was even involved.

 

Again, I'm not saying it's a bad name, I'm just saying it's as accurate or inaccurate as the one they chose.

 

ps.  the reason I didn't respond to yours was because I lost track of what you were saying with your messed up quotes, and thus focussed on Mothman and his constant tearing down of the current title without really providing viable alternatives (until I forced the issue).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

God damn the quoting system *sniff* - can anyone explain to me why they weren't working?

 

The Second Sith War is a more accurate name, because every battle involved a faction referring to themselves as a Sith, whether they be soldiers, officiers or dark Jedi. You wouldn't "just think it was just wars amongst the Sith" if you weren't trying to argue against me, as by its very nature, it's open to greater interpretation. A "civil war" is one of the most precise conflicts you can have - that's the problem with taking the "Jedi Civil War" at face value.

 

You're using your Clone Wars logic again.

 

Note: The Second Sith War isn't something I came up with [though given its simplicity I could have done ... I hope] it's also another name by which the Jedi Civil War is recognised by the Official Star Wars continuity... along with "War of the Star Forge."

 

It's lumped in with the Sith War as:

 

"The Old Sith Wars"

 

Which is essentially short for "The Old Sith Wars against the Republic" - Since the Republic know that the Sith were attacking them, they don't need to add "Against the Republic".

 

EDIT:

 

Incidentally - Mothman's suggestion of the "War of Revan and Malak" (or whatever it was) - was perfectly acceptable, as every aspect of the conflict was directly caused by these two beings. The Jedi vs "Jedi"/Sith, the Republic vs Sith - everything. It's far more inclusive of the whole conflict than "Jedi Civil War" could hope to be.

 

For a real world comparison, try the Napoleonic Wars. Did Napoleon wage the wars single-handedly? No. Were they started, continued and perpetuated by that individual? Yes.

[Jediphile]

I am using bold for quotes, so as to avoid the mess of my previous posts

[Jediphile]

It was a SKIRMISH!  Exar Kun converted twenty Jedi, there were only like three proper battles. Yeah there was one planet (and one moon) that got a surface devastated

[Ulicus]

I think you're forgetting that Exar and Ulic did a bit more than that. They did blow up *suns* after all - Revan and Malak never did anything that devastating!

 

In context, Revan and Malak were more devasting without having to use suns.

 

The way you say it makes it sound like Kun and Ulic were doing it all the time, but it happened once - and it wasn't even Exar and Ulic, it was Aleema using overclocked Force powers thanks to the fat Kaibur/Sith crystals in front of her . And lets remember - though it sounds like it puts the war in a league of its own, it doesn't - what else did that act of blowing up suns devastate besides the fleet Aleema and Crado were fighting and Ossus' surface? Nothing. That, in addition to what I've already mentioned - does *not* consitute the IMMENSE WAR that the Sith War was meant to be - especially when we're talking about something as big as a galaxy!

 

How can a war that lasts for a good 3 years be considered a "brush conflict" in comparision to a "war" that lasts for a week but has some big explosions? Revan and Malak anniliated more planets and caused more deaths than the Sith War presented in DHC, and they didn't have a Sith ship that exploded stars - though if they did, I'm sure they wouldn't be so stupid as to see the technology destroyed "just so it would take the traitors down with it".

 

The Sith War *was* a devasting, huge conflict - but that's because it has been retconned since the TotJ days to be so - the "Great Sith War" that we were presented in KotOR is generally considered to be the "canon" now, not the bantha-poodoo presented in the Sith War comics. Good thing too.

 

As for the rest of your post - I can't really find any fault just needed to clear up why I've never been able to take the Sith War seriously... nor Exar Kun (most overrated Sith Lord ever - even more so than Revan). If the comics were presenting the first of many conflicts, that would be cool - but they're not... its start to finish.

[Jediphile]

I think you're forgetting that Exar and Ulic did a bit more than that. They did blow up *suns* after all - Revan and Malak never did anything that devastating!

 

In context, Revan and Malak were more devasting without having to use suns.

 

The way you say it makes it sound like Kun and Ulic were doing it all the time, but it happened once - and it wasn't even Exar and Ulic, it was Aleema using overclocked Force powers thanks to the fat Kaibur/Sith crystals in front of her . And lets remember - though it sounds like it puts the war in a league of its own, it doesn't - what else did that act of blowing up suns devastate besides the fleet Aleema and Crado were fighting and Ossus' surface? Nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But then that was a pretty devastating thing. Ossus isn't just some planet, it was the central world where jedi lore was stored, and many of the secrets of the jedi were lost as a result of this action, either due to the directly destructive results to Ossus or because they were captured by the Sith. Note that even in K2, Atris still mentions how much of a loss the devastation of Ossus was to the order, and K2 happens 45 years later...

 

That, in addition to what I've already mentioned - does *not* consitute the IMMENSE WAR that the Sith War was meant to be - especially when we're talking about something as big as a galaxy!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you didn't like that story or the writing, then fine. I'm just saying that Exar and Ulic definitely left their mark on the Star Wars universe.

 

 

How can a war that lasts for a good 3 years be considered a "brush conflict" in comparision to a "war" that lasts for a week but has some big explosions? Revan and Malak anniliated more planets and caused more deaths than the Sith War presented in DHC, and they didn't have a Sith ship that exploded stars - though if they did, I'm sure they wouldn't be so stupid as to see the technology destroyed "just so it would take the traitors down with it".

 

The Sith War *was* a devasting, huge conflict - but that's because it has been retconned since the TotJ days to be so - the "Great Sith War" that we were presented in KotOR is generally considered to be the "canon" now, not the bantha-poodoo presented in the Sith War comics.  Good thing too.

 

As for the rest of your post - I can't really find any fault  just needed to clear up why I've never been able to take the Sith War seriously... nor Exar Kun (most overrated Sith Lord ever - even more so than Revan).  If the comics were presenting the first of many conflicts, that would be cool - but they're not... its start to finish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A lot of people don't like the way the Sith War or most of the Tales of the Jedi stories were written. I thought they were okay myself, though I'd scarcely call the writing good (adding "ancient Sith magics" is a bit of a crutch plotwise to say the least...). And as you say, there is a lot of background that's not detailed in those stories. That I can better forgive, however, since you have to choose your focus in your story. As has been noted in this very topic, K1 also didn't show us a lot of large confrontations in the Jedi Civil War that was said to be devastating to the Republic.

 

The problem is that the story must always center around the characters, and you can only put them in so many battles without letting them come to harm before credibility is hurt. In the Sith War comic, it is much more of a significant point that Ulic kills his brother than it is if some unknown world with millions of unknown people is lost, because we don't know them and so don't care (much, anyway) about them, whereas we've been following Cay for 16 issues of TotJ at the point where he dies. Nobody cares if some unknown extra dies in a movie - we care if it's one of the main characters. The most extreme case of this is in Star Trek, which got infamous for its use of "red shirts"... This was so pronounced at one point that a full character is dedicated to the "problem" in the Trek spoof Galaxy Quest (which I recommend - it's hilarious )

 

So while we may not see many people die in either war, we're still presumed that this is meant to have happened. Same thing with the Mandalorian Wars.

 

Another thing to remember from the Sith War is all the jedi that converted to the Sith ranks and killed their masters, which no doubt decreased the ranks of jedi, and left the number of jedi reduced, only to be drained further 40 years later, when Revan and Malak caused yet another split within the order. I do think that the jedi of the KotOR era are still hurting from the devastation Exar and Ulic caused to their ranks...

[Laozi]

Its like if Carrot Top fought Paulie Shore. Someone wouldn't be "wrong" for calling it the Comedian Wars, but you wouldn't be really "right" either

[Ulicus]

But then that was a pretty devastating thing. Ossus isn't just some planet, it was the central world where jedi lore was stored, and many of the secrets of the jedi were lost as a result of this action, either due to the directly destructive results to Ossus or because they were captured by the Sith. Note that even in K2, Atris still mentions how much of a loss the devastation of Ossus was to the order, and K2 happens 45 years later...

 

Agreed, but it was a devasting act in itself. I don't dispute that what we saw in TotJ was was a big, concentrated sith attack - but to call it The Sith War, seems overblown.

 

If you didn't like that story or the writing, then fine. I'm just saying that Exar and Ulic definitely left their mark on the Star Wars universe.

 

Agree again - but it's only "The Sith War" because the continuity has taken the main events from the comics and expanded it to become a proper war.

 

A lot of people don't like the way the Sith War or most of the Tales of the Jedi stories were written. I thought they were okay myself, though I'd scarcely call the writing good (adding "ancient Sith magics" is a bit of a crutch plotwise to say the least...). And as you say, there is a lot of background that's not detailed in those stories. That I can better forgive, however, since you have to choose your focus in your story. As has been noted in this very topic, K1 also didn't show us a lot of large confrontations in the Jedi Civil War that was said to be devastating to the Republic.

 

You speak truly, except that the background isn't there at all in the comics.

 

Everything got rushed for some reason - in the original conception, after turning to the dark side, Ulic and Exar disappear for several years whilst they build huge armies, convert other Jedi to their side - then they return and ignite the entire galaxy in war. This is what KotOR seens to present to us as happening, and it's the interpretation of the Sith War that I much prefer. The Yavin IV station Rodian's explanation of the Sith War is much more like I envisaged - and it directly goes against what was established in the comics. (For example, the Republic bomb the surface of Yavin IV)

 

In the comics, after turning to the dark side - they bide their time for only six months, then Ulic leads his two armies against a shipyard (Exar Kun does not "lead an army" at all), Coruscant and briefly Ossus (Mandalore later attacks Onderon and dies). Exar Kun only converts twenty Jedi - there is no point during the Sith War series where you could say "much time passes whilst the war engulfs the galaxy"

 

 

The problem is that the story must always center around the characters, and you can only put them in so many battles without letting them come to harm before credibility is hurt. In the Sith War comic, it is much more ofa significant point that Ulic kills his brother than it is if some unknown world with millions of unknown people is lost, because we don't know them and so don't care (much, anyway) about them, whereas we've been following Cay for 16 issues of TotJ at the point where he dies.

 

Yeah, but to give the conflict the correct sense of scale - it should have been referenced. It would have taken *one* caption in *one* panel:

 

"Many months/years pass as the Republic and the Jedi are engulfed in warfare, hundreds of Jedi die and many more convert to the teachings of Exar Kun"

 

Then we could have jumped straight back into focusing on the characters. That's my problem with it - there is *no* time for a greater conflict to take place because it runs at such a breakneck speed. Nothing else happens in the so called "war" other than what we see, it's like a couple of 24 episodes.

 

Nobody cares if some unknown extra dies in a movie - we care if it's one of the main characters. The most extreme case of this is in Star Trek, which got infamous for its use of "red shirts"... This was so pronounced at one point that a full character is dedicated to the "problem" in the Trek spoof Galaxy Quest (which I recommend - it's hilarious )

 

Love Galaxy Quest... Only saw it recently though - loved Rickman in that film:

 

"I see you managed to get your shirt off"

 

Classic.

 

So while we may not see many people die in either war, we're still presumed that this is meant to have happened. Same thing with the Mandalorian Wars.

 

But we can't presume that if we take the comics as canon. KotOR drops us in three years after the Jedi Civil War's started, we're *told* of the devastation being wreaked throughout the galaxy and we're basically in the role of "secret agents" and kept away from the big battles.

 

The comics show us *every* battle of the Sith War, which amounts to the grand total of three.

 

Another thing to remember from the Sith War is all the jedi that converted to the Sith ranks and killed their masters, which no doubt decreased the ranks of jedi, and left the number of jedi reduced, only to be drained further 40 years later, when Revan and Malak caused yet another split within the order.

 

In the comics Kun only converted twenty Jedi... there were no more Ulic even mocks him for it. So that's only twenty masters - in a galaxy of thousands of Jedi. Though no doubt they were very prominant masters - and Exar Kun does finish off both Odan Urr and Vodo, who were up there as the two best of the time really.

 

I do think that the jedi of the KotOR era are still hurting from the devastation Exar and Ulic caused to their ranks...

 

The Jedi of KotOR era are still hurting from the devastation of the Sith War - but they're hurting from the Sith War as described in KotOR, the giant conflict, the galactic war - not the one of TotJ, which is what I'm arguing against.

 

Tis all.

 

As for "Ancient Sith Magics"... hehe, they actually got Vrook to spout that in KotOR I - it made me chuckle. I quite like the term actually, it seems to distinguish the Sith from the Jedi...

[Calax]

But then that was a pretty devastating thing. Ossus isn't just some planet, it was the central world where jedi lore was stored, and many of the secrets of the jedi were lost as a result of this action, either due to the directly destructive results to Ossus or because they were captured by the Sith. Note that even in K2, Atris still mentions how much of a loss the devastation of Ossus was to the order, and K2 happens 45 years later...

 

Agreed, but it was a devasting act in itself. I don't dispute that what we saw in TotJ was was a big, concentrated sith attack - but to call it The Sith War, seems overblown.

 

If you didn't like that story or the writing, then fine. I'm just saying that Exar and Ulic definitely left their mark on the Star Wars universe.

 

Agree again - but it's only "The Sith War" because the continuity has taken the main events from the comics and expanded it to become a proper war.

Well we can't tell if the war was fought on more fronts than the main one. Mainly because the comic only focus' on the main one. I'm going to have to point out that the comic has a very small vision. So instead of looking at it from an overall perspective they only look at it from the most prominent peoples positions. It'd be like looking at the American Civil War from only Grants perspective and where he is at any one time.

 

A lot of people don't like the way the Sith War or most of the Tales of the Jedi stories were written. I thought they were okay myself, though I'd scarcely call the writing good (adding "ancient Sith magics" is a bit of a crutch plotwise to say the least...). And as you say, there is a lot of background that's not detailed in those stories. That I can better forgive, however, since you have to choose your focus in your story. As has been noted in this very topic, K1 also didn't show us a lot of large confrontations in the Jedi Civil War that was said to be devastating to the Republic.

 

You speak truly, except that the background isn't there at all in the comics. 

 

Everything got rushed for some reason - in the original conception, after turning to the dark side, Ulic and Exar disappear for several years whilst they build huge armies, convert other Jedi to their side - then they return and ignite the entire galaxy in war.  This is what KotOR seens to present to us as happening, and it's the interpretation of the Sith War that I much prefer.  The Yavin IV station Rodian's explanation of the Sith War is much more like I envisaged - and it directly goes against what was established in the comics. (For example, the Republic bomb the surface of Yavin IV)

 

In the comics, after turning to the dark side - they bide their time for only six months, then Ulic leads his two armies against a shipyard (Exar Kun does not "lead an army" at all), Coruscant and briefly Ossus (Mandalore later attacks Onderon and dies).  Exar Kun only converts twenty Jedi - there is no point during the Sith War series where you could say "much time passes whilst the war engulfs the galaxy"

Well we can't be sure about time because while it doesn't say that it does show scenes that seem to have a lot of time between them, for example when Ulic is captured the issue ends. The next issue seems to start at least a month afterwords considering that Aleema is whining about how many of her Commanders were rebelling against her because Ulic was gone. Also Mandalore ends up flying from Empress Teta to Yavin. I highly doubt that trip could have taken only a few seconds given what the EU has said about hyperspace. Then Exar goes from Yavin to Corecant and you seem to assume that that trip only takes a few seconds too. Just because somthing doesn't give you a time stamp doesn't mean that time doesn't pass. I just leaves the amount of time up to the reader.

The problem is that the story must always center around the characters, and you can only put them in so many battles without letting them come to harm before credibility is hurt. In the Sith War comic, it is much more ofa significant point that Ulic kills his brother than it is if some unknown world with millions of unknown people is lost, because we don't know them and so don't care (much, anyway) about them, whereas we've been following Cay for 16 issues of TotJ at the point where he dies.

 

Yeah, but to give the conflict the correct sense of scale - it should have been referenced. It would have taken *one* caption in *one* panel:

 

"Many months/years pass as the Republic and the Jedi are engulfed in warfare, hundreds of Jedi die and many more convert to the teachings of Exar Kun"

Then we could have jumped straight back into focusing on the characters.  That's my problem with it - there is *no* time for a greater conflict to take place because it runs at such a breakneck speed.  Nothing else happens in the so called "war" other than what we see, it's like a couple of 24 episodes.

again just because somthing doesn't specifically tell you that time has passed doesn't mean it hasn't. Best guess (and I'm using my imagination here people so bear with me) is that the Comics, instead of giving a linear retelling of the entire war from start to finish, are focusing only on the most significant of events in the plot line. They would have left out things like the training of the young renegades and releasing them again simply because it's boring and has very little to do with the overall plot line. Also we don't have any clue as to what the Dark Empire books have to say about the sith war as we never actually picked them up (I've looked through the "collection" of Dark Empire 1 issues and haven't found a word about Ulic even though his "first Appearance" according to various sources is there) so we don't know the information related to us there.

Nobody cares if some unknown extra dies in a movie - we care if it's one of the main characters. The most extreme case of this is in Star Trek, which got infamous for its use of "red shirts"... This was so pronounced at one point that a full character is dedicated to the "problem" in the Trek spoof Galaxy Quest (which I recommend - it's hilarious    )

 

Love Galaxy Quest...    Only saw it recently though - loved Rickman in that film:

 

"I see you managed to get your shirt off"

 

Classic.

 

So while we may not see many people die in either war, we're still presumed that this is meant to have happened. Same thing with the Mandalorian Wars.

 

But we can't presume that if we take the comics as canon. KotOR drops us in three years after the Jedi Civil War's started, we're *told* of the devastation being wreaked throughout the galaxy and we're basically in the role of "secret agents" and kept away from the big battles. 

 

The comics show us *every* battle of the Sith War, which amounts to the grand total of three.

Another thing to remember from the Sith War is all the jedi that converted to the Sith ranks and killed their masters, which no doubt decreased the ranks of jedi, and left the number of jedi reduced, only to be drained further 40 years later, when Revan and Malak caused yet another split within the order.

 

In the comics Kun only converted twenty Jedi... there were no more Ulic even mocks him for it.  So that's only twenty masters - in a galaxy of thousands of Jedi.  Though no doubt they were very prominant masters - and Exar Kun does finish off both Odan Urr and Vodo, who were up there as the two best of the time really.

 

I do think that the jedi of the KotOR era are still hurting from the devastation Exar and Ulic caused to their ranks...

 

The Jedi of KotOR era are still hurting from the devastation of the Sith War - but they're hurting from the Sith War as described in KotOR, the giant conflict, the galactic war - not the one of TotJ, which is what I'm arguing against.

 

Tis all.

 

As for "Ancient Sith Magics"... hehe, they actually got Vrook to spout that in KotOR I - it made me chuckle.  I quite like the term actually, it seems to distinguish the Sith from the Jedi...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I said my entire responce in my two "interludes"