Jump to content

Rule of two is weak an so is Bane.


BurnedRemains

Recommended Posts

The rule of two destroyed sidious, and his apprentice was redeemed, and died. The sith would have been better off co-existing in another part of the galaxy.

 

The rule of two was a failure. In the scheme of things, their little win was short lived, and it cost them all the sith in one fatal stroke.

 

It did exactly what it was meant to do: destroy the Jedi and take over the galaxy. How was that a failure?

 

The Rule of Two produced the greatest Sith Lord ever and laid the path to take over the galaxy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It did exactly what it was meant to do: destroy the Jedi and take over the galaxy. How was that a failure?

 

The Rule of Two produced the greatest Sith Lord ever and laid the path to take over the galaxy.

 

It failed because by that choice of having only 2 sith, losing both at once ends the cycle.

 

On the bright side for the sith, they made it into the Republic's highschool history books to bore teenagers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It failed because by that choice of having only 2 sith, losing both at once ends the cycle.

 

On the bright side for the sith, they made it into the Republic's highschool history books to bore teenagers.

 

Did it not accomplish what it set out to do? Sure it was ended when both Sith died, but it was meant for the Sith to operate in secrecy. A large group like the Sith Empire would seek war eventually. The Great Hyperspace War, Great Galactic War, Sith-Imperial War. These are examples of a large group of Sith seeking conflict. The Rule of Two allowed the Sith to operate in secrecy and destroy the Republic from within.

 

Now one could say Sidious could have trained more apprentices. But he did. But if he trained them to their fullest, they could band together to destroy him. Obviously such an attack would be doomed to failure, but Sidious' Empire would have fallen victim to old ways of the Sith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not true sith? they served under Naga Sadow in one of the galaxies greatest wars. if anything they are more sith than sidious or bane

 

The original members yes, until that ***** killed off all the purebloods and their children.(Sorry am a big fan of the Pureblood species, she is one of those characters I despise.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing the two seems kind of...ridiculous to me personally. We're looking at two different philosophies with very different approaches towards the whole 'galactic domination' objective. Rather then building an empire and a war machine to conquer the Republic, the Rule of Two focuses on infiltrating the Republic and overthrowing it from within, making comparing it to the older methods of Sith rulership pretty difficult.

 

On the other hand, you could compare the two philosophies effects on the Sith as a group themselves, in which case the Rule of Two is more effective, but more fragile. As has been previously stated, two Sith means one dying or being redeemed is a major setback to the Sith agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did exactly what it was meant to do: destroy the Jedi and take over the galaxy. How was that a failure?

 

The Rule of Two produced the greatest Sith Lord ever and laid the path to take over the galaxy.

 

They Didnt hold it for long what is the point of taking over the galaxy and getting rid of the jedi, if you arent going be able to govern the galaxy?!. The whole porpuse to have revenge on the jedi, was because they difer from them, if they arent able to exercise that diference in the galaxy, its pointless.

 

Yes they achieved something, that as far anyone know no sith empire did, to conquer the republic, and "destroy" the jedi, but on the contrary to the previous sith empires didnt last very long, or were even capable of rule it effeciently, what they achieved was nothing in comparison to the empire of marka ragnos, or tulak hord, or even Vitiate empire at least on that area.

Edited by Spartanik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other area where it was proved that the Sith as a whole with more than one Sith running around leads to failure is the Legacy era. Darth Krayt, thinking that the Rule of Two no longer needed to be implemented created a new Sith Order. The One Sith. The idea was a good idea, but as always, what happens. In-fighting. The Sith pretty much destroyed themselves.

 

Darth Krayt was betrayed by his top confidant. The one who helped keep him in power whenever his body was failing him and was also his mouth piece. When it came time, he betrayed his Master, splintered the One Sith into two dueling organizations and allowed the Galactic Alliance to win with the help of the Imperial Knights and Cade Skywalker and the Jedi who again, were not defeated to the extent that they were when Sidious was in power.

 

So Rule of Two -1

Sith Empire - 0

Jedi - 10011012513

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except it did not destroy the Republic, and neither did it destroy all jedi.

 

It made the Republic smaller, and they were called rebels. In the end, the Republic still beat the sith.

 

Did they cause a lot of damage? Yes. Did they still fall to the Republic like every sith before them? Yes.

 

If they couldn't hold the galaxy for any longer than they did, then they failed. It wasn't even long enough to be a hiccup in the Republic galaxy's history. If they had held it for even several hundred years it would have been something, but they didn't.

 

Concentrating power in a small few is doomed to fail, because it's just that much easier to clean out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other area where it was proved that the Sith as a whole with more than one Sith running around leads to failure is the Legacy era. Darth Krayt, thinking that the Rule of Two no longer needed to be implemented created a new Sith Order. The One Sith. The idea was a good idea, but as always, what happens. In-fighting. The Sith pretty much destroyed themselves.

 

Darth Krayt was betrayed by his top confidant. The one who helped keep him in power whenever his body was failing him and was also his mouth piece. When it came time, he betrayed his Master, splintered the One Sith into two dueling organizations and allowed the Galactic Alliance to win with the help of the Imperial Knights and Cade Skywalker and the Jedi who again, were not defeated to the extent that they were when Sidious was in power.

 

So Rule of Two -1

Sith Empire - 0

Jedi - 10011012513

 

Nah that isnt even completely true, you make it seem like there isnt infighting on the republic or jedi at all... Like there wasnt jedi fallen to the dark side and building their own empires before... oh wait how did everything started again?! :D

Besides all of the dark empires already mentioned... the rakata, marka ragnos empire, vitiate empire already we going in 3 not 0... just saying.

Edited by Spartanik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They Didnt hold it for long what is the point of taking over the galaxy and getting rid of the jedi, if you arent going be able to govern the galaxy?!. The whole porpuse to have revenge on the jedi, was because they difer from them, if they arent able to exercise that diference in the galaxy, its pointless.

 

Naga Sadow: Control of a small sector of space. Failed to take over the galaxy.

Freedon Nadd: Control of one planet. Failed to kill Arca Jeth.

Exar Kun: Almost took control of the galaxy. Almost

Revan and Malak: Failed to take over the galaxy

Sith Emperor: Controlled a good portion of the galaxy, but failed. Don't know how, but it seems pretty obvious that he failed.

Darth Ruin: Killed by his disciples.

Brotherhood of Darkness: Failed to take over the galaxy

Darth Sidious: Took over the galaxy and destroyed the Jedi Order.

 

Who was the most successful here?

 

Now the One Sith and the Empire took over the galaxy years later, but suffered from the same infighting that previous incarnations suffered from. Darth Sidious' Empire did not suffer from infighting. When Darth Sidious returned, he was going to take back control if not for the most powerful Jedi ever standing in his way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naga Sadow: Control of a small sector of space. Failed to take over the galaxy.

Freedon Nadd: Control of one planet. Failed to kill Arca Jeth.

Exar Kun: Almost took control of the galaxy. Almost

Revan and Malak: Failed to take over the galaxy

Sith Emperor: Controlled a good portion of the galaxy, but failed. Don't know how, but it seems pretty obvious that he failed.

Darth Ruin: Killed by his disciples.

Brotherhood of Darkness: Failed to take over the galaxy

Darth Sidious: Took over the galaxy and destroyed the Jedi Order.

 

Who was the most successful here?

 

Now the One Sith and the Empire took over the galaxy years later, but suffered from the same infighting that previous incarnations suffered from. Darth Sidious' Empire did not suffer from infighting. When Darth Sidious returned, he was going to take back control if not for the most powerful Jedi ever standing in his way.

 

No infighting? so what are the rebels?! galatic systems that begun to leave the GE because of their opression.... You are ignoring my argument... not countering it all those empires werent able to take over the galaxy, but they last longer (some) then the GE did undenyable. That is my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naga Sadow: Control of a small sector of space. Failed to take over the galaxy.

Freedon Nadd: Control of one planet. Failed to kill Arca Jeth.

Exar Kun: Almost took control of the galaxy. Almost

Revan and Malak: Failed to take over the galaxy

Sith Emperor: Controlled a good portion of the galaxy, but failed. Don't know how, but it seems pretty obvious that he failed.

Darth Ruin: Killed by his disciples.

Brotherhood of Darkness: Failed to take over the galaxy

Darth Sidious: Took over the galaxy and destroyed the Jedi Order.

 

Who was the most successful here?

 

Now the One Sith and the Empire took over the galaxy years later, but suffered from the same infighting that previous incarnations suffered from. Darth Sidious' Empire did not suffer from infighting. When Darth Sidious returned, he was going to take back control if not for the most powerful Jedi ever standing in his way.

 

That's like a football team losing to the same team for 50 years straight, win one, and then start another epic losing streak.

 

They can never win for long with their self destructive attitudes, are apparently unable to compromise, and the rule of two makes it that much easier to remove the head from the beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No infighting? so what are the rebels?! galatic systems that begun to leave the GE because of their opression.... You are ignoring my argument... not countering it all those empires werent able to take over the galaxy, but they last longer (some) then the GE did undenyable. That is my point.

 

I'm talking about Sith infighting, which is what the Rule of Two got rid of. Sure some of the other Sith Empires lasted longer than the Galactic Empire, but none of them were able to accomplish what Sidious did. That is what makes the Rule of Two great. Darth Sidious was able to do what no other Sith could do. To say that the Rule of Two is 'weak' or 'dumb' is wrong.

 

As to your other point. You think other Sith Empires would have no rebellions? Galactic History begs to differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's like a football team losing to the same team for 50 years straight, win one, and then start another epic losing streak.

 

They can never win for long with their self destructive attitudes, are apparently unable to compromise, and the rule of two makes it that much easier to remove the head from the beast.

 

That is the argument of someone that doesn't understand what the Rule of Two was meant to do.

 

No one knew the Sith were walking right under their noses. For all the Jedi knew, the Sith were all dead. There was no head to cut off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the argument of someone that doesn't understand what the Rule of Two was meant to do.

 

No one knew the Sith were walking right under their noses. For all the Jedi knew, the Sith were all dead. There was no head to cut off.

 

What? It worked once, and it gave them a win, but it won't work again.

 

The head was removed with the death of Sidious, and the redemption of Vader. Even had Vader not been redeemed, both he and Palpatine would have been blown up with the DS2. Either way, the sith lost yet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? It worked once, and it gave them a win, but it won't work again.

 

The head was removed with the death of Sidious, and the redemption of Vader. Even had Vader not been redeemed, both he and Palpatine would have been blown up with the DS2. Either way, the sith lost yet again.

 

You're absolutely right. The Sith did lose. But my point is that they were able to do so much more than anyother incarnation of the Sith Empire. And that was because of the Rule of Two. Not to mention Sidious and Plagueis' scheming skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Cadeus come back and restart the sith? (That's what I believe, I tried to read his wookiepedia page once, and it was just too long for me)

 

Edit: my point, the sith never lost in the end. "An individual may die, but our order is eternal"-Darth Zannah

Edited by Segastorm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Cadeus come back and restart the sith? (That's what I believe, I tried to read his wookiepedia page once, and it was just too long for me)

Edit: my point, the sith never lost in the end. "An individual may die, but our order is eternal"-Darth Zannah

 

Caedus was Sith, yes. But he never really restarted the Sith. He didn't seem to last that long either. Not with Luke Skywalker around :p

 

Edit: The Sith will always be around, but after Sidious' death the Sith have just never been that strong. Sidious was the pinnacle of the Sith so it can only go downhill.

Edited by Aurbere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caedus was Sith, yes. But he never really restarted the Sith. He didn't seem to last that long either. Not with Luke Skywalker around :p

 

Edit: The Sith will always be around, but after Sidious' death the Sith have just never been that strong. Sidious was the pinnacle of the Sith so it can only go downhill.

 

That would explain why kryat was seen as a laughing-stock by Bane, Nihilus, and that other one (forgot his name).......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about Sith infighting, which is what the Rule of Two got rid of. Sure some of the other Sith Empires lasted longer than the Galactic Empire, but none of them were able to accomplish what Sidious did. That is what makes the Rule of Two great. Darth Sidious was able to do what no other Sith could do. To say that the Rule of Two is 'weak' or 'dumb' is wrong.

 

As to your other point. You think other Sith Empires would have no rebellions? Galactic History begs to differ.

 

sure but they lasted and prospered for milenia, the GE not even 20 years lasted.

You could say that sidious were able to get revenge that the sith long wanted, but thats about it. Imo he achieved that. In practical terms the sith empires of old were much more.

They achivied other kind of things, mainly projecting way of lifes when the dark side was supreme, they created a world/ society where sith lords were part of the ruling elite, and made it work, things were only bad when they chose to confront the republic if you think about it.

There were infights, yet they conquered worlds and prosper alot. What that says? while the sith empire can take a rebelion and get on top, the GE cant because there are only 2 sith.

Edited by Spartanik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would explain why kryat was seen as a laughing-stock by Bane, Nihilus, and that other one (forgot his name).......

 

The problem with Krayt's Empire (while successful) was that it was plagued with infighting. Krayt was 'killed' by his closest ally after his victory. That's one of the problems the Rule erased. With only two Sith, you only had to worry about your apprentice killing you. The RoT ensured that each new Sith was more powerful than the last by making the apprentice challenge the master for the title. With other incarnations, a group of weaker Sith could gather together to destroy the more powerful master. Bane, with the knowledge of Revan, created a system that prevented such a thing from hapenning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure but they lasted and prospered for milenia, the GE not even 20 years lasted.

You could say that sidsious were able to get revenge that the sith long wanted, but thats about it. Imo he achieved that. In practical terms the sith empires of old were much more.

They achivied other kind of things, mainly projecting way of lifes when the dark side was supreme, they created a world/ society where sith lords were part of the ruling elite, and make it work, things were only bad when they chose to confront the republic.

There were infightings, yet they conquered worlds and prosper alot. What that says? while the sith empire can take a rebelion and get on top, the GE cant because there are only 2 sith.

 

Yes, other Empires lasted (much) longer than Sidious', but they were never able to conquer the Republic. Sidious did. That's the point of the Rule of Two. We can't say the Rule of Two is weak because other Empires couldn't topple the Republic and the Jedi. Only the Bane dynasty could.

 

Throughout Galactic History we see Sith Empires rise to challenge the Republic but fail miserably. The Bane dynasty and Krayt's Empire are the only ones to ever truly conquer the galaxy.

 

The Sith Empire held control of a good portion of the galaxy for a long time. The Galactic Empire held the entire galaxy for a short period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, other Empires lasted (much) longer than Sidious', but they were never able to conquer the Republic. Sidious did. That's the point of the Rule of Two. We can't say the Rule of Two is weak because other Empires couldn't topple the Republic and the Jedi. Only the Bane dynasty could.

 

Throughout Galactic History we see Sith Empires rise to challenge the Republic but fail miserably. The Bane dynasty and Krayt's Empire are the only ones to ever truly conquer the galaxy.

 

The Sith Empire held control of a good portion of the galaxy for a long time. The Galactic Empire held the entire galaxy for a short period of time.

 

Its a feat, but not a worthwhile one imo they hardly conquered the entire galaxy anyway to be more fair, and they didnt control all of the ex republic territories, but thats ok.

I dont see the bane dynasty as weak, at all, but its weaker in this, point, it was designed for survival and anonimaty, and to acomplish a specific task but thats it, other then that it failed where all the sith had failed before in a way, at least the older empires were more stable, were designed to have ruling mechanism in mind that enable the sith order to be in power, even with the infighting. the GE didnt have this, i think the Bane dynasty didnt forthought ruling an empire.

They were weaker in this yes, the only thing they did was to adapt to a situation if you think about it, because they werent strong enough to take on the Republic/ jedi head on, by conventional means.

While sith empires of old were capable of this and more see sacking of coruscant, plenty of times if i recall.

Edited by Spartanik
Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.