Over a thousand years before the events of the Star Wars saga, the Jedi and Sith fought in a war that resulted in the Sith Order’s seeming destruction - only this didn’t happen, according to George Lucas. By the time of the prequel trilogy, the Sith had adopted the Rule of Two, allowing only two Dark Lords to exist at a time, curbing their treacherous nature and allowing them to destroy both the Republic and the Jedi. The war that nearly destroyed the Sith is depicted in both the canon and Legends continuities, but George Lucas claims that neither version happened.

https://screenrant.com/star-wars-jedi-sith-war-canon-george-lucas/

But, of course, George being George, there's also this:

While the Star Wars franchise wouldn’t exist without George Lucas, he, unfortunately, tends to disregard continuity.

And the article continues with:

What really happened is, the Sith ruled the universe for a while, 2,000 years ago. Each Sith has an apprentice, but the problem was, each Sith Lord got to be powerful. And the Sith Lords would try to kill each other because they all wanted to be the most powerful. So in the end they killed each other off, and there wasn’t anything left.”

What I'm wondering is who actually claims that there was a war that decimated the Sith.

AFAIK it was canon all along that in 2500 years from SWTOR's point of view, and 1000 years before the movies, one Sith and his apprentice will destroy everything that remains of the old Sith and establish the rule of two.

From the movie era POV, that Sith has most likely been called Darth Bane and apparently he got inspired by records from some even more ancient philosopher caled Darth Revan, but that's all so long ago, it's just a blur and names and actual events are irrelevant.

What's important is that there is an ancient order of evil force users that had issues with infighing and now only operates in pairs of two, no more no less, a master and an apprentice (and a secret spare apprentice, and of course the apprentice's secret apprentice)

And the article continues with:

 

 

What I'm wondering is who actually claims that there was a war that decimated the Sith.

 

AFAIK it was canon all along that in 2500 years from SWTOR's point of view, and 1000 years before the movies, one Sith and his apprentice will destroy everything that remains of the old Sith and establish the rule of two.

 

From the movie era POV, that Sith has most likely been called Darth Bane and apparently he got inspired by records from some even more ancient philosopher caled Darth Revan, but that's all so long ago, it's just a blur and names and actual events are irrelevant.

 

What's important is that there is an ancient order of evil force users that had issues with infighing and now only operates in pairs of two, no more no less, a master and an apprentice (and a secret spare apprentice, and of course the apprentice's secret apprentice)

And let's not forget the force-sensitive 'agents' who vie among themselves thinking they're actually apprentices, nor an apprentice's brother who they train after their supposed death...

Let's face it, the 'Rule of Two' is more an administrative 'Suggestion of Two' than any hard-bound rule.

I think part of it all is that 'The Sith Wars' has been so loosely defined over the years that it's expanded from the actual wars between the Jedi and Republic against the Sith Empire to include any kind of Jedi/Sith conflict. The Ruusan Reformation, circa 1000BBY, keeps getting considered the end of the 'Sith Wars' and thus the destruction of the Sith because it resulted in a re-organisation of the Jedi Order away from more militant pursuits and instead to a focus on diplomacy and negotiation, including the Jedi renouncing involvement in any Galactic Republic army, etc. This is supposed to be why the whole 'the clones are a secret Jedi army' thing was such a big deal that was meant to hurt the Order in the public eye, because it made them look like they were doing something they had sworn not to do...

but I digress, sorry...

It is best just to disregard Lucas' moronic mumblings at this point. When it comes to getting into applying even basic political and military logic, I have found, over the years, that George just falls flat on his face. Yes, he's a great visionary and creative force, but sometimes he seems to be not too bright. This "Sith Empire" that existed in GL's "vision" fell apart because of some sort of "Sith Civil War" which destroyed the Sith save for two of them.

There are obvious questions here:

1. How and when did the Sith manage to conquer "the universe?" What happened to the Jedi? What happened to the Republic? Such an operation would have taken decades for the Sith to pull off--just in terms of execution, yet he just so flippantly declares things in a handful of sentences.

2. How long did the Sith rule for? How was their will enforced upon trillions of beings?

3. He also gives the impression that it was just teams of 2 Sith--Master and apprentice--operating as entirely autonomous units, but an operation of the scope of galactic (or universal) conquest requires a strong, cenbtralized bureaucracy and lots of coordination and planning.

4. Why didn't the Sith destroy every Force-sensitive individual who refused to swear loyalty to the Sith; thereby irradicating the Jedi once and for all?

5. I always thought that line of Palpy to Annie that "once more the Sith with rule the galaxy" was some ahistorical hogwash for Vader's benefit.

6. Ideologically speaking, what could the Sith offer to non-Force sensitive beings to get them to support a Sith Empire?

And the article continues with:

 

 

What I'm wondering is who actually claims that there was a war that decimated the Sith.

 

AFAIK it was canon all along that in 2500 years from SWTOR's point of view, and 1000 years before the movies, one Sith and his apprentice will destroy everything that remains of the old Sith and establish the rule of two.

 

From the movie era POV, that Sith has most likely been called Darth Bane and apparently he got inspired by records from some even more ancient philosopher caled Darth Revan, but that's all so long ago, it's just a blur and names and actual events are irrelevant.

 

What's important is that there is an ancient order of evil force users that had issues with infighing and now only operates in pairs of two, no more no less, a master and an apprentice (and a secret spare apprentice, and of course the apprentice's secret apprentice)

Yeah, it's like why not just come out with it. "Hey i got secret apprentices....." "oh you do too?"

Lmao why get butthurt about it if i'm a Sith? I would say "but we have minions now"

<<6. Ideologically speaking, what could the Sith offer to non-Force sensitive beings to get them to support a Sith Empire?>>

In the story it's not what the Sith offered, but what the Republic did. The Republic tried to Genocide every single Sith. As did HK-47 (you encounter this in the Revan flashpoint on the Empire side.) So... force sensitive or not you supported the Empire for self-preservation. And the hope that you can eke out a comfortable position away from the front lines of the conflict.

Well, the fact that, unlike "jedi", "sith" means different things doesn't help.

Sith was a race of force sensitive humanoids.

Sith was the name of a galactic faction ruled by force users with a rich and complex history that ruled a big portion of the galaxy once. It's the opposite of the jedi order.

Sith is what every single force user that joins the dark side is called.

The whole "rule of two" thing always sounded fishy to me for two reasons:

1: It's a very "unsith" thing to do, and numerous times we have been shown that just one apprentice isn't enough. By their needy nature, sith pretty much demand to have multiple minions to their beck and call, apprentices they can lord over.

2: Since any force user that joins the dark side becomes a sith, is literally impossible for just 2 sith to exist at a time. Pretty much anyone can become a sith.

This "the sith wars didn't happen" doesn't make any sense. It sounds more believable that just like the jedi, an order of dark side users formed on it's own, said order accumulated power and influence over time, and then started to conquer other systems, because the sith NEED to conquer and NEED to dominate others.

Well, the fact that, unlike "jedi", "sith" means different things doesn't help.

The whole "rule of two" thing always sounded fishy to me for two reasons:

1: It's a very "unsith" thing to do, and numerous times we have been shown that just one apprentice isn't enough. By their needy nature, sith pretty much demand to have multiple minions to their beck and call, apprentices they can lord over.

2: Since any force user that joins the dark side becomes a sith, is literally impossible for just 2 sith to exist at a time. Pretty much anyone can become a sith.

 

This "the sith wars didn't happen" doesn't make any sense. It sounds more believable that just like the jedi, an order of dark side users formed on it's own, said order accumulated power and influence over time, and then started to conquer other systems, because the sith NEED to conquer and NEED to dominate others.

I have to agree with you, point of fact they don't just have "two " sith lords even if in the time of Vader and the emperor they say its the "rule of two" they have a heck of a lot of force users just called assassins without the word "sith " attached to it, look at rebels . They just fancied it up a bit. Even in clone wars. They just put all the other sith under a different name, it almost seems like its now a title of the strongest of the sith instead of the name of the order.

The "rule of two" only started with Darth Bane.

Before that there were many Sith.

Even afterwards, except they were not known to the others (for instance, the "lost sith" novel).

My canon is what they call Legends.

And I'd rather see Mara Jade than Rae.

Well, the fact that, unlike "jedi", "sith" means different things doesn't help.

Sith was a race of force sensitive humanoids.

Sith was the name of a galactic faction ruled by force users with a rich and complex history that ruled a big portion of the galaxy once. It's the opposite of the jedi order.

Sith is what every single force user that joins the dark side is called.

 

The whole "rule of two" thing always sounded fishy to me for two reasons:

1: It's a very "unsith" thing to do, and numerous times we have been shown that just one apprentice isn't enough. By their needy nature, sith pretty much demand to have multiple minions to their beck and call, apprentices they can lord over.

2: Since any force user that joins the dark side becomes a sith, is literally impossible for just 2 sith to exist at a time. Pretty much anyone can become a sith.

 

This "the sith wars didn't happen" doesn't make any sense. It sounds more believable that just like the Jedi, an order of dark side users formed on its own, said order accumulated power and influence over time, and then started to conquer other systems, because the sith NEED to conquer and NEED to dominate others.

Point 2 is wrong though, Darkside does not equal sith, Sith is a specific set religion. A fallen Jedi can be just that a fallen Jedi without being a Sith. The nighters are a whole other culture of dark side users who aren't sith. a Sith can renounce being a sith like Asajj or eventually maul.

<<6. Ideologically speaking, what could the Sith offer to non-Force sensitive beings to get them to support a Sith Empire?>>

 

In the story it's not what the Sith offered, but what the Republic did. The Republic tried to Genocide every single Sith. As did HK-47 (you encounter this in the Revan flashpoint on the Empire side.) So... force sensitive or not you supported the Empire for self-preservation. And the hope that you can eke out a comfortable position away from the front lines of the conflict.

The questions I wrote were all being directed at Lucas. What did his Sith have to offer? The dude just isn't a very deep thinker in my estimation.

I think the greatest problem for the Republic is their being tied to the hip of the Jedi. The Jedi want the Sith destroyed. The Jedi have twisted the Republic so it embraces Jedi morality, making a lasting peace impossible because the Jedi are moral absolutists.