Talk:Jedi Civil War/Archive1

Exile's Extract
Wherever that extract is taken from (it isn't in KOTOR II, at least), it is inaccurate. "The twelve great Masters"? When the soon-to-be Exile appeared before the Council, only five Masters were present - Vrook Lamar, Kavar, Zez-Kai Ell, Lonna Vash and Atris. - Sikon 17:01, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * At the time the other seven Jedi Masters were most probably away fighting Revan when the Exile turned himself in. Chances are all twelve of the Masters would have banished him so the views Five Master's represent the views of the entire council. - Jasca Ducato 19:54, 23 Aug 2005 (GMT)


 * Where is that extract from anyway? I'd sure like to know. - Niirfa-sa 18:07, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't find an official source for it, and I'm tempted to remove it. --Fade 15:39, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Title?
Why is there no reference to the 'Jedi Civil War' being the term coined by Republic citizens who didn't understand the war? e.g. " the 'Jedi Civil War' is a misnomer" Jedi Xian 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I, for one, wish this article was named the "Second Sith War" since that is what it is called in the NEC (KOTOR calls it the "Sith War" which is too easily confused with the "Great Sith War"). The only source that calls it the "Jedi Civil War" is KOTOR:TSL and I don't really understand the developers' reasoning for changing the name. Unfortunately, since the sequel was released after the NEC, it takes precedence...--Sentry 22:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I actually argued briefly with Chris Avellone about this at the Obsidian boards. I'll forever disagree with the reasoning behind the name change - and not just because the Sith aren't Jedi. For it to have been a "Jedi Civil War", it would have had to have been restricted to the Jedi alone - the war, as presented in KotOR 1, is NOT a Jedi vs Sith conflict, but a clear Sith Empire vs Republic conflict. Remember Manaan? So, I've rationalised it in my head as referring to a *galactic* civil war that was *instigated* by fallen Jedi. Thus being the "Jedi" Civil War. Nothing else makes sense to me.(Ulicus 23:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

But it is explained, in-game, that 'Jedi Civil War' isn't the true name of the war, but what mistakenly dubbed it. Shouldn't we just re-title it 'Second Sith War' and make a mention of how it was known to the common person as Jedi Civil War? Jedi Xian 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone in the sequel, including kreia, refers to the war as the "Jedi Civil War" and according to the developers, the name change was authorized by LucasArts. So, sadly, its official. :( --Sentry 01:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that most of the characters call it that, but couldn't it be argued that that's just because it is the more widely known (in-universe) title for the war? I think it would be infinitely more appropriate if 'Jedi Civil War' was stuck under 'aka' or 'more commonly known as'. I mean, at the very least a mention in the article about the hideously misleading name for the war is called for! Jedi Xian 01:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, by all means, feel free to add a note to the 'Behind the scenes' section. I fully agree that the naming controversy should be mentioned...--Sentry 06:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it really not called the "Jedi Civil War" in KOTOR I? I could've sworn I remembered the name being used. Kuralyov 21:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. 'Sith War' is the only title the war is given in the game... 'Jedi Civil War' didn't suddenly appear until the sequel.--Sentry 00:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sentry is correct, and this irritated me. So I edited any dialog I could (when NPCs were speaking alien tongues for example - or on the load screens) so that there would be some references, and so the jump from KotOR I to KotOR II wouldn't feel so ... abrupt. (195.92.168.168 01:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC))
 * I believe (although I'm not sure if there is canon evidence for this) that the Jedi Civil War is the name given after the war, when opinion of the Jedi was rapidly deterioating. Even in KOTOR people begin to make fewer and fewer distinctions between Jedi and Sith. That's why, according to Mical, the name for what was simply called the "Sith War" during its actual happening was called the "Jedi Civil War" afterward. It's not actually so unusual for a war's name to change, even after it has already ended. World War I's a good example. It was initially called the Great War, later changed to the World War, and finally to World War I. World War II is also known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia so my guess is World War I there is still known as the Great War. --Niirfa-sa 03:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How did the sith attack Dantooine?
I've wondered, Did Malak Bomb it or did he attack it with dark jedi?

Master Nikolce 11:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * First he pummelled it to the ground with an orbital bombardment as is evident in the game. Then in-game we find out that he later sent ground troops down to the planet to raid the Academy there. Jasca Ducato 12:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Malachor V
"Sith energies of the planet to manipulate the Jedi fighting in orbit. One by one, he overpowered them and drew them to the dark side." I must question if this statement is true or not. Since Atton said that Revan wasn't even present at the Battle at Malachor and said he had been delayed by a Mandlorian scouting patrol. How could he have possibly used the Sith energies if he wasn't even there? Or is my memory wrong? Part X: Proving Grounds Time frame: 3,961 - 3,956 B.B.Y. Period name: Knights of the Old Republic
 * Revan was present at Malachor V. This is where he killed the old Mandalore, according to Canderous. - Sikon [ Talk ] 07:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, Canderous first mentioned Malachor V during one of his final conversations in KOTOR (FYI - Part of that convo is quoted in the Battle of Malachor V article). In that conversation, Canderous states that Revan killed Mandalore and won the war during the battle. The sentence, quoted in the post above, which we are discussing was originally written by me and it is little more than a paraphrase of what is said in the Chronicles of the Old Republic... Yet, I can see where you are coming from. KOTOR 2 greatly obscures what happened during the battle of Malachor V. The sequel seems to imply that Revan had little to do with it. Obsidian decided to place much of the responsibility for what happened there on the Exile and, thereby, introduced some slight plot discrepancies that have never been adequately clarified or explained...--Sentry 04:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Guess I better post this so no noobs change stuff without knowing better... Its an excerpt from Chronicles of the Old Republic - Copyright LucasArts

It is a period of tumult and astuteness for the galaxy's most powerful entities, as the Mandalorian conflict culminates. The Jedi, fighting alongside the Republic and their finest tactical minds, such as Admiral SAUL KARATH aboard his flagship Leviathan, begin to force the fierce Mandalorians back into a retreat. The rout of the Mandalorians reaches a crescendo above the skies of Malachor V. Unbeknownst to the Jedi Order, DARTH REVAN has discovered numerous Sith artifacts and holocrons, all stored in great tomb-like cities buried beneath Malachor V's surface. As Revan plundered these tombs and relics, he fell deeper into the Dark Side. He learned of the location and the true nature of Korriban, he learned of the location of other Sith artifacts, and he learned how those strong in the light side of the Force could be seduced and made to see the strength inherent in the Sith teachings.

Revan knew he had discovered more than a staging area for the Mandalorian War - he had discovered an ancient, planet-sized Sith storehouse of knowledge. He had discovered a world that held one purpose - to teach and train others in the ways of the Sith. He had discovered a weapon that he could use against the Mandalorians, and a weapon by which he could convert more Jedi to his cause. This process of "turning" Jedi into SITH ASSASSINS continued even as the Jedi Council hailed Revan as a hero, as he lead the Republic forces to victory over the Mandalorians in the skies above Malachor V, and forces them to surrender. Revan is able to draw upon the dark side energies of the planet below and use it during the battle, destroying the Mandalore and ending the Mandalorian threat. Simultaneously, more and more Jedi, unable to ignore the power emanating from the planet below, become corrupted by its influence.

--Sentry 05:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhm. This part of the chronicles is contradicting the games. Revan didn't become a Sith (and didn't accept the title Darth) until after the Mandalorian Wars. By the way, I don't remember Atton saying anything about Revan not present at Malachor, or any discrepancies in the description of the battle whatsoever. - Sikon [ Talk ] 08:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In what ways does it contradict the games? Revan fell to the dark side and became a Sith before the battle of malachor V. That statement is made in this official document and nothing in the games contradicts it that I am aware of...--Sentry 06:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the discrepancies during the battle, there are a LOT of them. Compare canderous' conversations about the battle in KOTOR 1 and 2. In the first game, he gives complete credit for the victory to Revan in very strong language. In the sequel, he explicitly states that it was the Exile who commanded the fleet that defeated the mandalorians. In addition, Atton DOES make a vague statement to the effect that Revan was delayed and was not present during the battle. He says this during his last and longest converstaion with the Exile...--Sentry 06:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Exact quote, please? (As for Canderous, I don't see the discrepancy. Canderous may have discovered the truth about Exile and the MSG between the games.) - Sikon [ Talk ] 06:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Scratch that! I just checked, I guess its not in that conversation with Atton... I could have sworn that it was. Anyway, I know for certain that it is mentioned in the game at least once that Revan was delayed by Mandalorian scouts or something outside the system. Perhaps Bao says it during his converstion about the MSG or it could be in a loading screen... I don't have time to search the whole game for that obscure quote at the moment, but I strongly remember it from the game and it is mentioned all over the internet...--Sentry 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

On the general topic of "when Revan fell", while I'm definitely not a fan of the Chronicles, I'm pretty tired of people saying over and over that Revan fell "after the mandalorian wars". There are plenty of hints throughout *both* games, indicates that Revan fell at an unspecified time *during* the wars. Not least becuase it was *straight after* the battle of Malachor that the Sith teachings "swept through the ranks". Had Revan only *just* fallen, do you really think it would have been so swift? The chronicles do contradict some stuff from the games- suggesting that Revan fell during the mandalorian wars however, is *not* an example of these contradictions. Contradictions in the Chronicles include Revan "constructing a stronghold" - this didn't happen, he *found* the Trayus Academy on planet, and utilised it. He built nothing. The sentences suggesting that he "built a new training facility" should be removed from the article. True to the chronicles, incorrect as far as the game is concerned.(Ulicus 23:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)) I've found the quote by Atton that Sentry metioned earlier:
 * And to back up Sentry, I also remember comments made by a character suggesting that Revan was delayed before he could get to Malachor. I might have heard it while sifting through the dialog files though, so it's possible it was cut from the game.(Ulicus 23:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Ya, that might be it. I was an active member of the Obsidian forums for a while and I might have picked up that bit of information from a discussion about cut content, but I'm not sure... I'll have to replay the game again to find out, I guess. On another note, how is the the bit of information about Revan reconstructing the Trayus academy a contradiction?--Sentry 08:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Chronicles say that he "ordered a stronghold to be constructed", but in the game it is made plain that he found the Trayus Academy intact. He may well have given it its name, or whatever, but he didn't build it. That's all I mean. Other stuff the chronicles get wrong is more obvious - like referring to Revan as a Jedi Master. (Ulicus 14:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Atton: ''“Yet this time, there were no reinforcements for either side. Revan had been delayed out-system by Mandalorian scout ships. By the time he arrived, it was too late.”''

That’s it. Though he did arrive to finish them off himself. (195.92.168.173 16:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

New title image
We could really use a high quality title image for this article since it is going to be featured in a month. I removed the last one because it had next to nothing to do with the article and it was just plain ugly. Does anyone have any decent screenshots, promotional images, or concept art that would work at the top of the page?--Sentry 04:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are some possibilities:
 * 1) http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9353/leviathanchase3vh.th.jpg
 * 2) http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/858/sithforces2xe.th.jpg
 * 3) *http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7059/sith2cc.th.jpg
 * 4) **I carefully edited the image to make it less panaramic in order to make Malak appear much larger in the frame.
 * Marvelous! - Sikon [ Talk ] 09:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I love the second one, we should ut that one in. Jasca Ducato 08:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, number two. - Lord Hydronium 08:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer the second one as well, but then again, the first image seems more representative of the conflict...--Sentry 09:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why can't we insert both? - Sikon [ Talk ] 11:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not indeed? ;) Anyway, we seem to be in agreement. I'll just upload them both since they are bound to be useful somewhere...--Sentry 02:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Combo

 * Hmmm... I don't know about the new layout introduced by Jasca Ducato. Its kinda neat, but it causes a lot of distortion. I rather liked how the article looked before...--Sentry 08:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree- I really like the new image combo. Especially after Clone Wars' precedent, it really adds to the article by being able to see all those main images right at the top.  I would say two things need to be done still, though:  First, the caption on the second picture is a little shaky.  Maybe something a little less nonspecific- the Jedi weren't all "subterfuge and kidnapping", the capture of Revan was an exception.  Secondly, the Trayus Academy picture needs to be made smaller and moved down a bit.  --Thetoastman 12:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, i know the Jedi don't usually use subterfuge and kidnapping, thats why i put "in desperation". Secondly, the only bad thing is the fact that the "Origins" title is followed by a massive gap which i cant remove with manually moving the title down god-knows how many spaces. Jasca Ducato 17:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the captions a bit and removed the redundant image (its already in the behind the scenes section). The poem is cheesy, but at least everything fits properly now...--Sentry 20:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know i created the image combo but, personally, i don't like the poetry aspect that much. I prefer it to "match" the Clone Wars article more, with no poetry. Jasca Ducato 08:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about something simple and general, like this? --Thetoastman 15:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I would prefer these poetic introductions blasted. For all wars. - Sikon [ Talk ] 16:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm with Sikon on this one. As I said from the beginning, the idea is nice, but I don't think such things have a place in any sort of encyclopedia. The whole concept is just too fanboyish (no offense Jasca Ducato). I don't see what purpose the images and captions serve. They don't add much to the article, yet they cause a lot of issues: taking up space, distorting the visual balance and general structure of the page, and breeding fanon...--Sentry 04:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * None taken Sentry. I can understand your views, i just thought it would look quite nice as it would match the Clone Wars and Galactic Civil War articles. Jasca Ducato 07:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * i like the image combo idea, it brings a sense of standard to the articles, plus it does look good apperance wise. Jedi Dude
 * I like the image combo, but I think maybe it should have the form of a gallery rather than images spread over the article. KEJ 08:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll make a CT discussion. - Sikon [ Talk ] 09:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Clone Wars and Galactic Civil War both use this format, and they are, without a shadow of a doubt, the two most important and documented wars in this database, using the format for the Jedi Civil Wars follows a precendented standard of article style that is necessary if it is to be considered on the level with those wars, especially since the Jedi Civil War is arguably next in line for importance and documentation after those two. Unless the standard is changed, it should be procedure to try to bring articles up to this standard.  That said... I definitely think we need something original (The CW and GCW poems sound cringingly similar) and better than the semi-coherent, non-formal hippy stuff we have up now.  --Thetoastman 02:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made the pictures look a lot cleaner, added one, and changed the poetic into, even though it's probably futile since it looks like it's going to be removed soon anyway... ah, well. --Thetoastman 03:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In accordance with the rather strong consensus achieved in the Forum:War intros discussion, I reformated the article and added the combo images into the body of the text.--Sentry 07:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my edit looked a lot better before Kwenn reverted my changes to the war template. Anyway, does everyone like the new layout?--Sentry 22:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * TBH i preferred it the old way. With the battles etc. at the bottom Jasca Ducato 10:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sith victory?
It seems pretty clear to me that the canonical light side ending of KOTOR I, despite the poor condition of the Republic and the Jedi Order in KOTOR II, shows that the Sith lost the war. Could someone explain to me where the idea that it was a Sith victory which the Republic publically claims to have won comes from? Because it makes no sense to me. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Jedi Exile: The first Republic droid intelligence intended for Citadel Station was lost... or *was* it? G0-T0: It was lost, yes. It was given an impossible order. It was told to calculate a means by which the Republic could be saved. It could not fulfill its primary programming - not by abiding by the laws of the Senate. And so, like the Republic... the droid broke. Jedi Exile: And what did this "droid" do? G0-T0: It made a simple decision - preserve the Republic, or preserve the laws of the Republic. And I still believe it to be the correct decision. You do not know the indignity of being compelled to save something you do not believe can - or should - be saved. It is *beneath* me.
 * I agree, although I haven't yet played KOTOR 2. We should probably get this fixed by next week, when this goes on the main page. -LtNOWIS 18:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, KOTOR shows that the Sith lost the battle for the Star Forge, not the war. By the time of the battle over Rakata Prime the Republic was to crippled to exploit their victory and it was eventually defeated. I have played KOTOR II with Revan set to darkside and lightside and both times G0-T0 says that the Republic lost the war. Jasca Ducato 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be forgetting that the war ended with the battle of Rakata Prime. What happened afterwards is irrelevant...--Sentry 22:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Granted, I haven't talked to G0-T0 much when I've played (either darkside or lightside, I find him to be an annoying character), but he seems to have a minority opinion. One might also say that the Republic may not have won, exactly, so much as lose less badly than the Sith did. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, before anyone says that the Republic losing the war would mean the end of it. Many countires have lost wars but survived. As for G0-T0, he is in quite a good position (being a high-ranking Exchange head) and so his information can be considered quite reliable. And i doubt he'd have been lying because he need the Exile to remain in power. Jasca Ducato 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lying maybe is the wrong word -- more "not applying a neutral point of view", maybe. It still seems to me that the Sith lost their leader and the source of their military, and immediately collapsed into a civil war.  Meanwhile, the Republic lost almost the entire Jedi order, but still maintained a shaky existence.  Overall, they seem to have been in better shape than the Sith were. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Silly Dan. The Republic won the war. Between the two primary combatants (Revan's Sith and the Republic), it was the Sith Empire that was beaten and dismanteld by the end of the war. The so-called, 'True Sith' may have planned the entire thing from the shadows in order to weaken the Republic, but they are not really relevant, both because they had no connection to Revan's empire and because they took no active role in the conflict. Besides, the Republic never actually fell as far as we know. Furthermore, Kreia hinted that Revan's whole point in starting the war was to strengthen the galaxy against the threat of the 'true sith' – a plan that failed miserably. So what sort of logic would lead you to believe that Revan and Malak's Sith Empire won? Jasca Ducato, I think you are outnumbered on this one...--Sentry 22:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone recall what G0-TO specifically said? My shaky memory tells me that the conversation went more like "You think the Republic won?  Well, they didn't," than "Yeah, the Sith defeated us."  (Of course, this is when Revan is set to good.) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't remember exactly what G0-T0 since i uninstalled the game not to long ago but my logic in this entire situation is what G0T0 said. The battle of Rakata Prime was a Phyrric victory for the Republic. They won the battle, but at a massive cost. By the time of the battle to Sith were already invading the colonies and the fleet attacking the Star Forge was the Republic's main fleet. They only won the battle with massive casualties, the Sith still had a massive number of warships through-out the galaxy, it would have been impossible for the Republic to win the war. Jasca Ducato 08:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Heres a quote, from IMDB'

G0-T0 clearly states that the Republic was lost (ie it lost the war). Jasca Ducato 08:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I imagine that the Sith Empire lost control of its planets and dissolved shortly after Malak died and their leadership destroyed each other. It's clear that some officers and soliders remained loyal to the Sith cause, but it's hardly what it was during its height beneath Revan and Malak. Sion seems to purely command sith assassins, and I think Nihilus managed to get control of what remained of the sith fleet.
 * Dude, that's just G0-T0's opinion. We can't take that to mean that the Republic actually lost the war. KEJ 08:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember, G0-T0 wa originally designed to try and keep the Republic intact, so why would he have an opinion about it? His programming means he has to help rebuild the Reoublic to the best of his ability. If he says the Republic was lost why shouldn't we believe him? Jasca Ducato 09:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that he is the leader of a criminal organization, he should logically have advanced beyond his original programming, having gained the capacity for having opinions. We've also seen this happen with 3PO and R2. Also, since the Republic officially won the war, victory should be given as the result of the conflict. KEJ 09:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats why i keep putting the "(publicaly posted as a Republic victory)" at the end. Because, oficially, the Republic won the war, but in actuality it was the Sith who won. Which should be made clear. Jasca Ducato 09:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that the Republic broke or was lost doesn't necessarily mean that it lost the war. It may also simply mean that the Republic crumbled or fell aparts as a result of the war, even though it won. That's one construal of the conversation between G0-T0 and the Exile, which is just as good as your construal of it. KEJ 09:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Republic definitely won the JCW, which it fought with Malak's Sith Empire, a pyrrhic victory though it may be. When you arrive on Korriban in K2, Kreia comments about how the Sith on Korriban eventually destroyed each other after K1, and when the Republic arrived, they found what Exile later did - a barren planet. Without both the Star Forge and Korriban, presumably the Sith Empire is no more. There were other Sith, but it's another story. - Sikon [ Talk ] 09:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sikon is dead on the money with his "pyrrhic victory" comments.(Ulicus 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC))


 * Sorry but the Republic didn't "definately" win the JCW. Many nations have lost a war but then gone on to out live the victor. One case where this almost happened is Napoleon Boneparte. He lost the war against Wellington and was exiled, but the year following he went on to almost annihalite (sp?) the allied armies. I agree, the Sith Empire fell into Civil War as a result of the death of Malak but it doesn't mean that just because they entered a Civil War they automatically lost their war against the Republic. Just face it, the Republic hasn't won every single war its ever fought. Jasca Ducato 12:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They didn't automatically lose the war, but the Sith Empire that Revan and Malak founded eventually ceased to exist as a nation due to the First Sith Civil War. That is if we assume that the JCW continued past Rakata Prime, which I doubt. How can a nonexistent nation win a war? Besides, let's get it straight, what are the sources for the Sith losing the war, besides G0-T0's comment? We have a mostly intact Republic with a battlefleet, running a restoration effort on Telos, while the Star Forge is destroyed, Rakata Prime (the capital, according to Wookieepedia) is under Republic control, the Sith on Korriban have exterminated each other, the planet itself is rendered lifeless. Either the Republic won or the JCW is still ongoing in K2. - Sikon [ Talk ] 14:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be going by on the assumption that the Battle for Rakata Prime ended the war. As i've said before, the Sith likely had thousands (if not millions) of vessels still throughout the Sith Empire, the Republic fleet attacking the Star Forge was the only Republic "fleet" left. So the Republic couldn't have won the war, it would have been impossible. Jasca Ducato 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should it be the only fleet? Little time passed between Carth's report to Dodonna and the actual assault on the Star Forge. Dodonna couldn't have assembled all Republic vessels in the galaxy. And we don't know numerous is the Sith navy at the time the Forge goes kaboom. To technically win the war, the Sith would have to either capture (and hold) Coruscant or force the Republic to capitulate. Without Revan, Malak and the Star Forge. Since neither event is referenced anywhere - and it would be common knowledge - and since the Sith Empire did eventually collapse - you cannot argue with that - I believe it counts as a Republic victory. In any case, the outcome of the war should read as "unknown" at best, not as a definite "Sith victory". - Sikon [ Talk ] 15:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that the First Sith Civil War might have been part of the Jedi Civil War. --Mr. Perfection 15:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well put unknown then, i wouldn't mind that (until i can quote somebody again). AS for it tbeing the entire Republic fleet, every ship in the galaxy, i didn't say that. I said it was the last Republic fleet (i.e. being the last official fleet), the Republic would likely have more ships out and about in the galaxy. So why wouldn't the Sith. But i'll agree, i'll put unknown down for now. Jasca Ducato 15:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To say the Soviets were disenhearted by these two defeats withing the span of five years is a disgusting exageration. Thousands of the Red Army's best troops were felled in battle, and international condemnation was plentiful. To compound the pain, Stalin snapped and killed most of the Commanders. This softened him up for Hitler, and when Stalin agressed (yes, the Finns were the ones to declare war, but that MIGHT have something to do with Russian bombers pummeling Finnish cities and Russian tanks attempting to invade Finland) the second time, he STILL could not take Finland. THAT IS A PYHHRIC VICTORY! Secondly, I think many of you are misreading GOTO's quote on the yacht "It is unkown to most, but the Sith really won the Jedi Civil War." or something to that effect. If read literally, it means "The Sith triumped over the Republic by wiping out its army and subjugating it." BUT you must keep in mind that GOTO is a runaway enviromental droid that was in charge of ALL the Ithorian's operations on Telos, monetary, commercial, restoration, eccological, medicinal, etc. He is primarily thinking in terms of the ecconomical and stability damage. What he means is that the Republic destroyed the vast majority of the Sith forces (YES I know a case can be made that the Sith did not have the bulk of their fleet near the Star Forge, which I believe, BUT keep in mind that the various sources telling us of planets that were previously occupied by th Sith now liberated, and that the Republic is in defensive mode, not "kill all the straglers" mode, so It should be safe to assume that the Sith have mostly been wiped out), but the damage militarily, socially, ecconomically, and stability-wise is so great that the Republic will be unable to survive anyway, and even though they are in a greatly weakened form, the Sith will still be strong enough to wipe out the Republic and assert control over the Galaxy if they attack it currently. Had the Republic actually lost, THERE WOULD BE NO REPUBLIC!!!!!! The comparison to real world countries is only justified if we were dealing with say a war between House Davion and House Steiner (of the Battletech universe) were both sides are modern nation-states who value cease-fires, white peace, small consessions, and the other diplomatic trappings. The Sith value none of these things. When a Sith Army is at war with someone, there are only two ends for it: They will conquer COMPLETELY or they will DIE COMPLETELY (or as completly as possible.) Also, it is of my opinion that a war/battle cannot be pyrric if the victor who took pyrric-like losses was fighting for its very survival. For instance, the 100 Years' War saw France take far more losses than the British or Burgundians, but France was facing a dillema of either fighting to the last or being annexed by the English. Thus, France did not win a Pyrric Victory, France won a Decisive BUT COSTLY VICTORY. I hope this illuminates some of you. ELV
 * And no, the Sith Civil War is seperate.
 * Jasca Ducato, a pyrrhic victory is still a victory. Why don't we just say "Republic Wins (a Pyrrhic victory)"?--Sentry 20:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Can we find a less Earth-tied idiom than Pyrrhic victory that means the same thing?) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter if it's Earth-tied? "Victory" is an earth-tied word. We use English to "dub" over Basic, so we can assume that if we use the phrase "pyrrihic victory" that the word 'pyrrihic' is already standing in for whatever the relevant word would be in Basic. Right? (Ulicus 01:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Sorry for having an Earth-tied example, but i haven't been to Qo'nos or Bakura recently, so i don't know if they've had an situations like this. OH, i wont revert it but you cannot have a Phyrric Vicotry, for a war. You can for a battle, but not the war. What you've put down asically says that the Sith won. Jasca Ducato 07:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the last time: Basic is English. - Sikon [ Talk ] 07:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to dictionary.com and Wikipedia, the phrase 'Pyrrhic Victory' is no longer exclusively used to refer to battles. It has become general term referring to any "victory that is offset by staggering losses."--Sentry 07:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to Earth stuff leaking into the Star Wars universe: it's just that the term is named after a particular incident in Earth history, so if anyone could come up with an alternative phrasing, it would read better. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The only problem is is that that is the "official" word, and as such no other word exists. Jasca Ducato 17:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok then, this has gone far enough! Yes, Pyrrihic victory can be applied to both battles and wars. That said, the context you gave is WRONG! By your definition, the Eastern Front of WWII could be considered a "Pyrric Soviet Victory." In reality, the only part of it I could consider a Pyrric victory would be against the Finns. The Soviets took a disgusting amount of losses, but they conquered a great deal of the Balkens, Central and Eastern Europe, and cemented themselves as a world power for the 20th centrury. That WOULD NOT be a Phyrric victory. The Finnish front, both in the Winter and Continuation Wars, was a Phyrric victory for the Russians (at least to common idea, I would call it a Finnish Victory) The Finns killed 10 Russians for one Finn, they stopped the Russian war machine TWICE, and the Russian objectve to conquer the Finns failed. The Russians got, as one person said "Just enough land to bury their dead."