Entertainment
 

Talk:Hundred-Year Darkness

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Do we have a source for the Mandalorian involvement? Seems to be before their first appearance. — Silly Dan 03:08, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe it is definately incorrect. The New Essential Chronology confirms that this was a battle between light and dark Jedi, with the losers heading to Unknown space and becoming the Dark Lords of the Sith. (Yes, that's a retcon - the Sith were formed here, not 25,000 BBY). QuentinGeorge 06:13, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sith'Ari Bringing Balance to the Force?

It's never said that the Sith'Ari will bring balance to the Force - yes, it does seem similar to the prophesy of the Chosen One, but do you think we could stick to facts? I've edited out the "balance to the Force bit" - the rest can remain.

[edit] Layout

Sorry, not very skilled in Page Tetris. To me the page looks very weird. If someone with a better skill for page layout could help me reorganize the look of the page I'd appreciate itCull Tremayne 02:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legitimate History or Canon Error?

There seems to be two conflicting histories of the formation of the Sith regarding from which Great Schism they actually descended from. Consider, for instance, the article here on Wookiepedia about Xendor. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Xendor. Like other sources, it implies that it was the original Dark Jedi of the First Great Schism, not of the "Second Great Schism", which ruled and species-mixed with the Sith. Moreover, from whence does this entire history of "The Second Great Schism" derive? Until very recently, I've heard of nothing about it. TheForce.net's unofficial encylopedia doesn't mention barely anything on it. Moreover, TheForce.net's Timetales uses one of the very same images used here to describe the first Great Schism and point to it as the beginning of the Sith, as can be seen here: http://www.theforce.net/timetales/tt1-1/sect1-1.asp

So...did someone in the EU make a huge canon mistake, or is this article in serious need of rehaul? The Sith could not have had -two- beginnings, after all...

- Anonymous

  • The new Sith timeline comes from the New Essential Chronology, which places the creation of Sith species ruling Empire of Sadow et al. around 7,000 BBY. Xendor's schism was defeated and didn't go any further. - Lord Hydronium 08:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What's written here is correct, TFN's is incorrect. QuentinGeorge 08:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This is, however, a very recent retcon, yes? Prior references all pointed towards Xendor. Were reasons given for the revision? As it seems both unnecessary and ridiculous. Moreover, is there any relation of Xendor's DJ to the DJ of the One-Hundred Year Darkness? We might also do good to alter the pages here on some other events to make sure it is all in conformity to the new timeline.

- Anonymous from Before.

  • Xendor's connection with the Sith was actually fanon. Strongly held fanon, but fanon nonetheless. QuentinGeorge 07:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Odd. It was never established before? I am checking right now on the Internet Wayback Machine to verify this...as I am fairly certain Starwars.com listed it as official.

Found it.

"In the early days of the Jedi, a great schism tore the order apart. Jedi who had tapped the forbidden power of the Force's dark side rebelled against their light-sided brothers. After a terrible war, the Dark Jedi were exiled from the Republic. Past the Republic's growing borders, these castaways discovered Korriban and the Sith people. "

This according to http://web.archive.org/web/20040405052051/www.starwars.com/databank/organization/thesith/?id=eu.

Considering 18,000 years after the founding of the Jedi Order cannot possibly be construed as "in the early days", it implies that it was Xendor's DJ that eventually went on to form the Sith.

- Anonymous from before.

  • It was also semi-confirmed in Naga Sadow's entry in The New Essential Guide to Characters, which said that Sadow was the first Sith Lord to reestablish contact with the Republic in 20,000 years. Sadly, The New Essential Chronology, which has made a couple of mistakes already, is the final word. -- SFH 11:33, 7 April 2006 (PDT)
    • The answer is that Dan Wallace freely admits that he stuffed up in the NEGTC. He used Timetales as a source, which was going by the fanon Xendor/25,000 BBY origin for the Sith. All the time, however, LFL internal notes had the 7,000 year origin. Consider NEC a correction. QuentinGeorge 22:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • New relevant question: All official information on Sith history - Evil Never Dies, Star Wars Insider, etc. - all hold Xendor as someone important to the Sith. If his line of Dark Jedi have absolutely no connection to Ajunta Pall's Dark Jedi from 6,900 BBY, how then is Xendor considered such a prominent figure in Sith history, even being given the title of honorary "first" Dark Lord of the Sith? This is why, I believe, that there must be a connection between the Dark Jedi of 24,500 BBY and those of 7,000-6,900 BBY. I think that Xendor's line of succession must have survived in secret somehow and become intertwined with that of Ajunta Pall and his followers.

What I would like to know is after the Hundred-Year Darkness ,to which planet were the Dark Jedi XoXaan, Karness Muur, and Ajunta Pall exiled too? Did Pall goto Ziost while XoXaan and Muur went to Korriban? MoffBalls 8:30 P.M. EST

[edit] Adas...A major continuity problem?

  • What about this guy Adas who was said to be a Sith Lord c. 29,000 BBY...before the founding of the Old Republic?! The sources at the article seem legitimate, (i.e., C-canon). Is this a continuity problem that will have to retconned at a later date? Jaywin 00:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • He's a sith warlord right? Therefore he could be akin to the Sith King of the Sith species and have no relation to the Dark Lords of the Sith. Cull Tremayne 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • New information agrees with Cull. Adas was a Sith warlord, with no connection to the later Dark Lords of the Sith. QuentinGeorge 09:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for a source

Where does this passage come from? Is it from the new Dynasties article?

  • Some of the Exiles, however, were not complacent to rule the Sith and wait to gather their strength. A few of the Dark Jedi returned to the territory of the Republic to attack the Jedi. They believed they now had the power to crush the Jedi Order and rule, but they were wrong. All their premature actions did was alert the Republic and their defenders that some of the Exiles survived out in uncharted space.

Cull Tremayne 00:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Yup, "Evil Never Dies"--Sauron18 00:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ziost or Korriban?

The New World section indicates that the Exiles landed on Korriban. (The Exiles article says the same thing). But other articles suggest it was Ziost, (like the Old Republic article). Which is it? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korriban vs. Ziost

Is it Korriban or Ziost the Exiled dark jedi landen on after the Hundred-Year-Darkness?

Korriban's a planet. Darth Oompa Loompa 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • They're both planets, but they landed on Korriban, according to Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force and . The relationship between Korriban and Ziost is uncertain, though, since the Sith species seem to have lived on both worlds, and while the dark jedi first landed on Korriban, the Sith Empire's throne world was Ziost. Jediphile 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jedi vs. Sith: separate events

JvS lists the Second Great Scism (7003 bby) and the Hundred-Year Darkness (7000 bby) as separate events. They are connected to each other, but are no synonims. I don't know whether the Second Great Scism requires a new article or just to be written here at the Beginnings section. Darth Morrt 10:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Hundred-Year_Darkness"