Talk:Jedi Civil War

See also Talk:Jedi Civil War/Archive.

Reasons for being called the "Jedi Civil War"
I’m thinking that we need a something that gives a logical explanation for the “Jedi Civil War” name. As it stands, it simply *does not work* as a name for the war if we are meant to assume that it is a “Jedi-Civil-War”.

I touched on this further up on the discussion page, but I’m going to try and explain it a little better now:

Firstly, the war is not restricted to factions within the Jedi Order, whilst the very definition of a “civil war” requires this to be the case. The war is primarily fought between the Republic and the Sith - just look at the situation on Manaan.

Secondly, Jedi Masters refer to it as the “Jedi Civil War” as well. Since they’re well aware of the differences between Sith and Jedi there has to be a reason for this beyond "Oh well, it's what everyone calls it". The Jedi aren't "everyone", and whilst I could understand them using the term with non-Jedi, when speaking with fellow Jedi - they would *not* use it if it meant a "civil war within the Jedi Order".

What we know about the conflict from K1:
 * There are two sides, the Republic and the Sith Empire
 * The Sith Empire is led by former Jedi
 * The Republic is relying increasingly on Jedi support
 * Most of the Sith Empire is conquered Republic space
 * Most of the Sith Empire's armed forces are made up of ex-Republic servicemen

Therefore, would it be too farfetched to say that Revan’s “Sith Empire” was, in fact, a Republic secessionist organisation? And that the "Jedi Civil War" is called as such – not *just* because people thought it was all about Jedi fighting other dark Jedi (though that still works as an underlying thing) but because it was an actual *galactic civil war* in which Jedi (and dark Jedi) were very prominent in both sides?

In this way, the “Jedi” in front of “Civil War”– becomes more of a prefix-type thing used to distinguish this particular, *galactic* civil War from other civil wars, rather than specifically (and only) referring to a civil war within the Jedi order itself.

Now, I don’t doubt that the TSL developers intended the latter – but given what we know about the war in K1, when the two main sides are clearly presented to us as Republic and Sith – this does not make *any* sense. Especially since the best rebuttal I’ve seen Chris Avellone come up with is: “Well, in the opening scrawl, it says a ‘Jedi’ Battle Fleet’, not a ‘Republic’ Battle Fleet”.

I may like his writing, but this doesn’t do it for me, any more than one suggesting that Luke Skywalker is the leader of the Rebel Alliance because that’s what the opening scrawl of ESB says.

So whilst the Jedi Civil War did split the Jedi Order, and whilst “Jedi fought Jedi”, it was not because it was a “Jedi-civil-war” (though that could be considered an aspect), but because many Jedi chose different sides in the larger context of a galactic civil war (though not THE Galactic Civil War ;) ) that was raging between the Republic and the Sith Empire (ex-Republic).

If what I’ve said is confusing, this *might* clear it up:

You could say, “In the *Jedi* Civil War, lots of Jedi were fighting for both the Republic and the Sith”

And then,

“In the *Bloody* Civil War, there was a lot of blood spilt by the Republic and by the Random Other Side”.

See what I mean? It’s different to saying that “The Bloody Civil War was a conflict between factions within the Bloody”

So, what I’m thinking, is maybe an opening like:

“The Jedi Civil War (also known as blah blah) was a galactic civil war fought between the Republic and the secessionist Sith Empire, in which Jedi – and their fallen brethren- had very important roles in the military campaigns of both sides.” – but better.

I realise that this is probably wholly inappropriate for the article, since it is not explicitly stated in game and is rather a rationalisation of the name using canon sources… but I felt I should post it here nevertheless. The use of “Jedi Civil War” as an official name makes no sense to me otherwise.

I’d understand had they just had “Jedi civil war” being a slang term for the Second Sith War or something, but they didn’t – they made it the phrase by which *everyone* called it.

As a side note: I’m aware that if you say that the Sith forces have seceded from the Republic, they’re no longer a part of it and therefore it’s not a ‘civil war’ in that context either, but they did not secede lawfully – at least to my knowledge - so they were technically waging war on their lawful government and committing treason. And despite the fact that the "true war" might have been against the Jedi, to the galaxy as large, it was a fallen Jedi led Sith armada fighting the Republic.

Even if this shouldn't have any mention in the article at all, do people at least feel that it makes the "Jedi Civil War" name make more sense in the context of the actual war we were presented in K1?

My fingers hurt.

Sorry for the rant. (Ulicus 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm sorry if this comes across as baiting, but did you actually read what I wrote? Where did I say I thought we should rename the article? I didn't. My main point was made when I said:
 * Erm, if your wondering why they called it the Jedi Civil War IU its because the ordinary populous couldn't differentiate (sp?) between the former Jedi and the current Jedi. Jasca Ducato 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I acknowledged that. Does it change the fact that the war itself was waged between the Republic and the Sith Empire? No. Are the sides "Jedi and Sith"? No. They're "Republic" and "Sith Empire". "Jedi Civil War", if taken to mean purely "a civil war within the Jedi Order" is not an accurate description - regardless of whether or not people can tell the difference between Jedi and Sith. If taken to mean a galaxy spanning Civil War in which "Jedi" had a key role on both sides, then it *is* accurate. (Ulicus 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC))
 * So what exactley is your point? If your suggesting we change it then no. Thats what its called IU. I understand your meaning but thats what its called. Jasca Ducato 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"So, what I’m thinking, is maybe an opening like:

“The Jedi Civil War (also known as blah blah) was a galactic civil war fought between the Republic and the secessionist Sith Empire, in which Jedi – and their fallen brethren- had very important roles in the military campaigns of both sides.” – but better."

How am I denying that it's called the Jedi Civil War? I am trying to make it make sense, because "IU" the "Jedi Civil War" was not a war waged internally within the Jedi Order. (Ulicus 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC))
 * "I'm sorry if this comes across as baiting, but did you actually read what I wrote??Ulicus"

Erm, no. Twas too long. But now you put it like that i can understand. Do you mean in the opening paragraph? Jasca Ducato 19:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, though I'd need some feedback.(Ulicus 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC))
 * I would suggest that if more naming speculation needs to be added, it should be placed in the 'Behind the scenes' section since that is the only proper place for it. Any additional information could simply be appended to the brief comments Sikon added to that section a while back.--Sentry [ Talk ] 02:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie (Ulicus 03:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Hmm... After rereading this section, I realized that my comment above was rather abrupt. Sorry bout that Ulicus, it wasn't intended that way. I was just typing in a hurry... :) -- Sentry &#91;Talk&#93; 02:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

--- but in many ways it WAS a Jedi-civil-war. 
 * Ulicus, I see your point, but in many ways it WAS a Jedi-civil-war. Remember that the leaders of the Sith were Darth Revan and Malak, and the entire reason it was called a "Sith" Empire was because they organised it. Remember how the Jedi were divided on which side to take, how Jolee had to kill his wife. And remember that Carth wasn't so upset with Revan and Malak's betrayal, as he was with the soldiers like Saul Karath who followed them LATER. The Jedi picked sides to fight each other, and the non-Jedi soldiers fell in line too. There was talk about Coruscant being targeted and destroyed, but Malak instead targeted the Jedi Enclave on Dantooine--they were perceived as his more threatening enemies. Yes, in many ways it was Sith vs. Republic... but at the same time it was equally Sith vs. Jedi. -BaronGrackle 07:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * “it was not because it was a “Jedi-civil-war” (though that could be considered an aspect)”
 * “And that the "Jedi Civil War" is called as such – not *just* because people thought it was all about Jedi fighting other dark Jedi (though that still works as an underlying thing)”
 * “So whilst the Jedi Civil War did split the Jedi Order, and whilst “Jedi fought Jedi”

Looks like I got that bit covered... ;)

Remember that the leaders of the Sith were Darth Revan and Malak, and the entire reason it was called a "Sith" Empire was because they organised it.

If you're talking about the "self proclaimed Sith Empire" angle, then...


 * “Therefore, would it be too farfetched to say that Revan’s “Sith Empire” was, in fact, a Republic secessionist organisation?”
 * “they did not secede lawfully – at least to my knowledge - so they were technically waging war on their lawful government and committing treason.”

Or are you referring to something else to do with the Sith Empire? (You might be, I dunno - I'm pretty stupid today) The fact that they’re led by “ex-Jedi”? That doesn’t change the fact that the majority of them *aren’t* dark Jedi, but ex-Republican servicemen wanting to replace the "weak Republic" with strong Sith leadership.

Remember how the Jedi were divided on which side to take[?]


 * “but because many Jedi chose different sides in the larger context of a galactic civil war”
 * “Jedi – and their fallen brethren- had very important roles in the military campaigns of both sides.”

Guess so.

[Remember] how Jolee had to kill his wife.[?]

Better than you it seems :P

The Great Sith War was not the Jedi Civil War, though you’ve further highlighted my point. The Great Sith War was as much of a “jedi-civil-war” as the Jedi Civil War (more so actually, reading the comics), yet that war was never referred to as such. So why should the Jedi Civil War mean a pure jedi-civil-war?

And remember that Carth wasn't so upset with Revan and Malak's betrayal, as he was with the soldiers like Saul Karath who followed them LATER.

So… how does saying that do anything other than underline my point that the main conflict for most “normal” people had less to do with the Jedi and more with ex-Republic servicemen going to war against their legal government?

And note that Carth talks of the Malak, Revan and their Jedi waging war against – and betraying – the Republic, not the Jedi Order.

The Jedi picked sides to fight each other, and the non-Jedi soldiers fell in line too.</I>

That's rather misleading. It makes it sound like:

"Jedi choose whether to be Sith or Jedi and start fighting each other. The Republic is a bystander that gets caught in the crossfire as the Sith war against the Jedi. Some Republicans prefer the Sith, so they become soliders for the Sith."

Which is incorrect. It's all born out of the Mandalorian Wars and frustrations with both the Jedi AND the Republic for being weak.

The Sith Empire - made up of ex-Republic servicemen *led* by dark Jedi/Sith - went to war *against the Republic*. The Jedi were involved because they were the protectors of the Republic. And yes, whilst HK-47 is probably right to say that Revan's "true target was the Jedi", the public at large do not know that. What they see are "Jedi" igniting a *galactic* civil war by attacking their lawful government. Yeah, they also see Jedi fighting other Jedi – but this is the *icing*, not the cake.

If mercenaries wrested control of the american military and declared war on the rest of the world, and the rest of world had a number of prominant mercenaries serving in their campaign against the usurped American military, it would not become known as the "Mercenary Civil War" would it?

Had it gone like this:

"Revan returns as a Sith, declares war on the Jedi but *not* the Republic, only for the Republic to get dragged into the conflict anyway"

Then the name taken to mean a "jedi-civil-war" would make more sense.

Since it didn't, if taken to mean "jedi-civil-war", the name makes no sense in regards to the conflict *as a whole*.

I thought you saw my point? :P

 There was talk about Coruscant being targeted and destroyed</I>

I hope that’s not what you thought I was talking about when I told everyone to “remember Maanan”. I’m going to assume not :) but I'll talk about Manaan anyway.

Basically, Manaan presents the entire conflict as Sith Empire vs Republic. There’s no two ways about it. The Jedi are just powerful allies of the Republic, not the “main faction at war” in the eyes of the galaxy-at-large. Which is what the name of given to the war should represent.

but Malak instead targeted the Jedi Enclave on Dantooine--they were perceived as his more threatening enemies.</I>


 * “And despite the fact that the "true war" might have been against the Jedi”

Yeah, you're right, but I already had it covered. Yet, in the case of Malak, it's even *more* about the Republic - as KotOR 2 points out several times, so his destroying of Dantooine was more to do with the Jedi being the most powerful allies of the Republic, rather than because they were "the Jedi, my arch philosophical nemesises!"

Yes, in many ways it was Sith vs. Republic… but at the same time it was equally Sith vs. Jedi.</I>


 * ”Firstly, the war is not restricted to factions within the Jedi Order, whilst the very definition of a “civil war” requires this to be the case.”

In a nutshell, that’s my biggest argument against the name as taken to *purely* mean “jedi-civil-war”. Your last sentence just validates everything I originally said.

I don't deny that KotOR 2 tried to play up the Jedi vs Jedi aspects of the war - they practically *REWROTE* BioWare's "Sith War" in order to justify their name change - but that does not make KotOR I's depiction any less canon.

Simply put, whilst I agree with you that the Jedi Civil War had jedi-civil-war aspects, there aren't enough for the entire conflict to have been named after them.

There just aren't.

But whatever, if it's cool with you it's cool with you - that's fine. But for me, it will *always* be the "Galactic Civil War in which the Jedi played important roles on both side" - since that's what (more or less) accurately describes the *entire* conflict.

And Sentry, don't worry about it, abruptness is fine :). I'm just sad to have read that you've given up on the Revan article. It needs someone sane over there...(Ulicus 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC))


 * Many, many valid points, but we also have to question WHY the game designers called it the "Jedi Civil War". There are different representations of it in KOTOR and KOTOR 2, but it is significant that the war is still ongoing in the original KOTOR and thus not officially named yet. After the war is ended, many in the Republic hate and blame the Jedi for it (others hate both the Jedi and the Republic, of course) as well as all those other wars whose history I seem to have temporarily got mixed up :-). But, regardless of the Republic's involvement, calling it the "Jedi Civil War" would perfectly highlight the blame toward all of the Jedi. The Disciple even comments on this when he explains that the "Jedi Civil War" was given its name because people saw the Jedi and Sith as the same thing; from everyone else's point of view, the Republic was devastated because two factions of Jedi decided to start fighting each other. In our real timeline, we often have inaccurate names for conflicts that stick just because that is what we decided to call them at the time... perhaps this is just another of those cases. -BaronGrackle 14:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass shadow generator.
Whatever happened to the mass shadow generator??? Why is it not mentioned in this article?

In the year 3,960 BBY, Revan forced a final confrontation with the Mandalorians above Malachor V. He deployed a massive fleet to the planet consisting mostly of those whose loyalties to himself remained in doubt. In utter secrecy, Revan had prepared a superweapon known as the "Mass Shadow Generator," designed by the Zabrak engineer Bao-Dur. Overseeing the device's use was a capable and jaded Jedi General who had commanded the recent bloody campaigns on Serroco and Dxun.

The general (who would later be known as the Jedi Exile) possessed an unusual innate ability to form powerful Force bonds with those around her – especially those who were themselves strong in the Force. Her gift allowed her to, consciously or unconsciously, influence the thoughts and actions of all those who came into contact with her, but the bond flowed in both directions. While she was able to draw strength from those to which she was bonded, she was also forced to share in their pain. During the war, such talents had made the general a uniquely qualified military leader, but in the end they proved to be her undoing.

From the Mandalore Wars page:

The shattered remnants of Malachor V.Revan lured the Mandalorians to the cursed planet of Malachor V however would not take place in the final battle of the wars. He was delayed by a Mandalorian scouting party containing Mandalor the Ultimate himself. Revan met Mandalor in single combat and killed him, taking Mandalor's helmet from his dead body and hiding it to succesfully prevent the Mandolorians from choosing a new leader and countinuing the war. Meanwhile, as the fighting grew intense, his Jedi general gave the command to Bao-Dur to activate the secret weapon. She watched as a large portion of both fleets was drawn from orbit into a vast gravity vortex powerful enough to crush the countless ships into the planet's crust and fracture the world to its very core.

After slaying Mandalore the Ultimate and winning the war with a sweeping victory at Malachor V, Revan and Malak were hailed as heroes and saviors of the Republic, yet at that time, Sith teachings were already sweeping through the ranks. Soon after that final battle, they led the remainder of their forces into the Unknown Regions under the pretense of tracking down the remaining Mandalorians. They did not come back and sent no word of their whereabouts. In time, the Republic feared them lost in some tragic disaster.
 * I originally wrote the excerpts above (though this particular section of the Mandalorian Wars article has undergone numerous recent edits by others). My Mandalorian Wars rewrite was finished a couple months after I had completed my overhaul of this article. I didn't originally include any details about the Battle of Malachor V in this article because I thought that the "Origins" section was already quite long enough and I didn't think it was necessary to add more superfluous detail. Furthermore, details of the battle remain quite sketchy and I thought it best to avoid any controversy. -- Sentry &#91;Talk&#93; 07:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Led by Bastila"
What's the source for the statement that the Capture of Darth Revan was led by Bastila? As I recall, Bastila was only a Padawan at the time. Was it really her that led the attack, or was she merely present for it? Mathfreq 23:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC) – 05:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that she was merely present for it. Luck would have it that she'd be in front of the group when facing down Revan. -- Redemption Talk [[Image:Oldrepublic.jpg|15px]] 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why can't anyone just do a little research?
 * Plus its also mentioned in-game by the Jedi Council that Bastila lead the assault to capture Revan, why can't people play the games? Jasca Ducato 08:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If I recall, it was NOT said that she lead the assault, only that she was part of it. (Not that it matters given the evidence above, just saying)Jawajoey 07:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just asking; there's no need to be mean about it. But thank you for answering my question. Mathfreq 18:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry buddy, it isn't your fault and I apologize for the tone of my remark. I just get frustrated with answering questions like these on talk pages, over and over again.– 19:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I ditto Sentry's remark. I just get annoyed by people boasting their knowledge, and they haven't even played the game. Although i understand your confusion on this matter and it is a point thats easy to overlook. My advice, if you're unsure about something play the game through again lol. Jasca Ducato 08:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bastila image


This is only a concept art image. Isn't there another image we could use? -  Yoshi  626  04:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to use a screenshot, but apparently others prefer concept art over screenshots. - Sikon 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Is there a screenshot we could use? -  Yoshi  626 [[Image:Yoshiegg.jpg|20px]] 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would anyone object if I replaced the concept art image with this? (Below on the left) -  Yoshi  626 [[Image:Yoshiegg.jpg|20px]] 02:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problem.150.176.244.146 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dark Jedi
Does anyone know the identity of the Dark Jedi behind Darth Malak (the one with his hand on his hip looks like a Skakoan)? Telos 10:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't truly know, but that, to me, looks like Darth Bandon. It could just be some random guy, though. NKSCF NK says NK's 'mazin' articles 14:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and most likely the other two are random as well. NKSCF NK says NK's 'mazin' articles [[Image:sabersmilygreend.jpg]] 14:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. Thanks! Telos 22:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's Bandon. [[Image:DarthAbeonisSig2.gif|Jasca Ducato]] Sith Council Sith Campaign 09:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The one on the left looks more like Bandon. The guy on the right looks like the Sith Governor or some other Sith Master. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 12:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, him. I thought we were talking about the other one. YEs, i agree with Ineedaname in that case then. [[Image:DarthAbeonisSig2.gif|Jasca Ducato]] Sith Council Sith Campaign 14:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Slight Mistake in Intro
Sorry I'm not logged in at the moment... anyways

Now I don't know about you guys, but if I remember correctly from the Cut scene, Revan is betrayed by Malak and knocked out or something along those lines, yet I don't recall the Jedi having a chance to strike him down as the intro section says.

"Darth Revan nearly conquered the Republic before the Jedi struck him down"

Where did they strike him? They had no chance considering that Malak did their job for them.

I was thinking of changing it to

"Darth Revan nearly conquered the Republic before his apprentice Malak betrayed him."

Or at least something like that...

-Veneficus
 * Good point. Go for it =) – 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New title

 * With regards to my recent edit. My source is the Chronicles of the Old Republic, specifically the line "The period of history known as the Old Republic Insurrection begins." [[Image:DarthAbeonisSig2.gif|Jasca Ducato]] Sith Council Sith Campaign 12:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)