Lit The Sith as rulers of the galaxy?

I haven't read a lot of the EU set in the distant past, but something I've been wondering about is, did the Sith ever rule the galaxy in Legends? What started me thinking about this was Palpatine's line of "Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy" and Mace's, "The oppression of the Sith will never return". My knowledge of this period is somewhat lacking, since I haven't played Knights of the Old Republic either, but would anyone care to fill me in on whether they did or not?

 

Legends tries to explain that line by saying that the Republic's communications were knocked out and the Jedi became feudal lords. Canon says that the Sith actually did conquer Coruscant and rule the galaxy.

 

I never saw the need to have the Sith literally "rule the galaxy" as opposed to Legends where at most they only ever ruled large sections of it. After all even the "Galactic" Empire and the "Galactic" Republic before it never consisted of every single planet in the galaxy.

 

I like the change to actually having the Sith defeat the Republic and take most of the galaxy (in legends the closet is SWTOR, either the Sith Empire there or the Eternal Empire, ruled by an ex-Sith Emperor)

it shakes up the galaxy a bit more, and creates a bit more of a dynamic power struggle between the Sith and the Jedi.

 

In canon yes the Sith apparently did rule the galaxy(albeit the details of this are so far unexplored). In Legends at various points the Sith ruled large parts of the Galaxy, had the republic on its knees and the Jedi close to total defeat.

Various Sith empires in legends controlled(at least to me) large parts(perhaps even half) of the Galaxy.

At the same time you can interpret Palpatine's line as hyperbole. At the moment in which he made that gloating statement he may have not been interested in historical accuracy. That's probably the best way to make it fit within Legends.

 

I can see that argument, but I'm just worried that when they eventually do get around to filling out the New Canon version of the Old Republic, it will just make the era too similar to the OT.

 

Why would you think that? I mean it's not like a new movie made the galaxy exactly like A New Hope.....oh

If I were doing it I would have the Sith, start as their own civilisation, in the outer rim, that slowly becomes a rival power to the Republic waring on and off, before they eventually over come the Republic, before becoming too spread out and being destroyed as a result. (Think Sith are Rome and the Republic are Carthage come German tribes). I would also have the Sith look taken from SWTOR, because lets face it in Star Wars Triangles are evil.

That or make the Sith rebels and their forces are the 'outer rim' force of the Republic.

 

Disney is going to continue to make the films for 2 different target audiences:
(1) Overgrown Children Who Think Every Movie Should Be Like The OT
(2) Children

 

Yeah

But I think KOTOR and SWTOR have enough stuff that looks 'like' the OT to get a run in Disney, also having the Sith rule the galaxy lets them recreate the the OT

 

Disney could easily pull it off. I don't know if they'll ever do it. It'll be a while for sure because they're going to obviously milk their ST for all they can get.

 

yes they did

 

I mean, I'm pretty sure the nebulous "Disney" didn't tie JJ Abrams and Lawerence Kasdan up and threaten them with torture unless they included more OT elements in TFA. (Not that I'm saying Disney can do no wrong, just that I'm tired of them being treated like the boogeyman or Illuminati of Star Wars that's responsible for every single thing in Star Wars. I don't hear people blaming Disney for everything that goes wrong in Marvel Comics or the Marvel Cinematic Universe after all).

Anyways, back on topic. I will give them this that the Sith controlling Coruscant is significantly different from Legends. And it could work. I just don't want it to turn into another "rag tag group of resistance fighters (with the help of Jedi) harass the Sith Empire ruling from Coruscant" story. There are ways they can make it work: play up the Sith infighting, make the Jedi and Republic/Republic Remnants have more of a presence, ect. This is all hypothetical, of course.

 

Actually, massive amounts of people blame Disney for sidelining the X-Men in animation and in their own comic book due to the rivalry with Fox: http://www.businessinsider.com/its-astonishing-how-far-disney-is-going-to-bury-the-x-men-2015-4 . And the tv show Wolverine and the X-Men was cancelled early for no reason at all.

And Disney doesn't have to tie up any Star Wars directors, they just fire them--I don't know how many Ms. Kennedy has fired now I lost count.

In Legends, Bail Organa didn't even know who the Sith were! And I believe Lando showed unfamiliarity with them in new canon in his comic book, but I can't remember too well. Seems odd for a group who once ruled the galaxy supposedly.

 

Well someone wanted to do a remake of ANH (maybe JJ, or both)

Yeah, you could have the Sith be the rebels (or at least like they were in the first Darth Bane book).

An idea;

The Sith Empire loses a war with the Republic and most of it falls, however rather then Surrender the Sith decide to launch a gurrilia style war against the Republic, which works and they end up defeating the Republic and conquering the Core, with the Republic forces trying to regroup in the Rim (or Naboo). kind of like the Chinese civil war.

I thought that was becuase of the same guy who pushed for the Inhumans tv show

Even the Jedi thought they were dead in TPM, so I don't have a problem with normal people not knowing about them.

 

I'd argue that in Legends the Sith did rule large enough parts of the Galaxy they could legimately say they ruled it-just not all of it. At various points such as during the great galactic war, and new Sith wars the Sith were largely the ascendant galactic power.

 

At several points in galactic history the Sith were certainly the top dogs so-to-speak.
Yet 'The First Galactic Empire' also implies they never really held undisputable control of the galaxy until episode III (I mean, are the Sith really going to create any other sort of government besides an Empire?). If they conquered the whole galaxy previously that would mean Palpatines Empire wouldn't be the first.

I believe the Old EU rectified this by saying while the Sith did control most of the galaxy, it wasn't a centralized government. Quite the contrary, the Sith were so at each others throats it was more like feudal lords trying to take over one anothers petty kingdom than true galactic conquest.

 

The First Galactic Empire business means that the Sith Empire that ruled the galaxy called itself the Sith Empire. There's probably no difference between it and the Galactic Empire, but because they called themselves the Sith Empire and not the Galactic, it means Palpatine's still is first.

Hey, they're already using this reasoning in saying the Knights of Ren aren't Sith because they don't call themselves Sith.

 

"Sith Empire" implies a regime that's openly a Sith theocracy. The Galactic Empire was a secular dictatorship secretly ruled by a Sith Lord.

 

Palpatine must have been laughing for days on end. He literally renames a Sith theocracy as a secular one and the galaxy eats it up. Even trots out "Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith" as his right hand man and the galaxy still doesn't get it...

 

I'm not sure how a Sith theocracy would actually be different from the Galactic Empire in any way besides style... the Sith aren't actually a religion, looking to convert the entire galaxy into Sith. A better analogy would be a small organization, like the Knights Templar or so-called Illuminati. The only Sith theocracy would be enforced literal god-king worship of the reigning Sith.

 

Well they follow the Sith code so there is an element of meritocracy that the Empire lacked. Also the Sith Empire in SWTOR as it's own flavour (most notably Darth Jadus)

 

Isn't that exactly what we see in TOTJ and TOR? Marka Ragnos, Exar Kun and the Massassi, Vitiate, etc.

 

I think we can also state with confidence, Palpatine isn't a reliable narrator and in that instance he was gloating in triumph and hyperbole-hardly the context for historical accuracy and nuance.

 

Is he more or less reliable then Obi-wan-'your dad killed your dad'-kenobi

 

Obi Wan told the truth "from a certain point of view" Palpatine flat out lied to Anakin about having the secret of immortality.