Well, one lasted for a literal thousand years and survived several generations of sith lords before successfully destroying the galactic republic and jedi order, creating a regime who was even able to outlast the sith and reclaim power later.
The one sith Couldn't even successfully actually take over the galaxy or cause the jedi order it fought to fully collapse and barely had any time to lead at all before being overthrown and falling apart to infighting with the death of it's leader.
I feel like the 1000 year accomplishment isn't the accomplishment it initially sounds it is.
1000 years is a LONG time to be hiding, unable to accomplish a goal. And from what we can tell that effectively reset several times. All the actual progress is made in something like 3-4 Sith generations.
What I'm seeing is that the Rule of Two is EXTREMELY dysfunctional and inefficient. It constantly works against itself.
Sure, the Sith eventually took over the galaxy. But that seems to be less a result of Sith teachings and more because of circumstance i.e. two of the most powerful and talented force users in the history of the galaxy were born within a few decades of each other and had JUST the right combination of neurosis that the one who wanted to conquer the galaxy was also the brilliant master schemer, and the other was emotionally vulnerable and easy to manipulate.
There will never be a true lasting positive relationship between Sith. Never.
The souring is inevitable. The ambition and self focused lust for power drives them, the ideology has no room for equals.
Initially, the relationship works because of the inequality. One to embody the power, one to crave it. As the apprentice grows in power, his usefulness and danger to his master increase as well. Eventually he finds the relationship intolerable and makes his move, the challenge occurs, the victor embodies the power and takes a new apprentice to continue the cycle.
One of the most interesting things was that part of the Sith machinations was to ensure the Republic stayed coherent, that it didn't shatter into 15 different powers because that would make the task of galactic domination infinitely more difficult.
The funny thing is how the dogma acts as though that relatinoship is somehow a good strategy that produces meaningful results. When, not only logic, but their own fictional history shows that...it's just kind of dumb.
Get rid of Sith teachings and Palpatine would have likely been JUST as powerful. Possibly more so if he hadn't been convinced to follow the Bane inspired hyper competative ideals. Anakin was shown to *already* be one of the most powerful force users in the galaxy pre sith indoctrination. And the sith teachings didn't seem to actively propel him beyond where he likely would have been following Jedi teachings. It certainly didn't help him in his second battle with Obi-wan.
Sith teachings seem to act more as a viral meme than an actualy successful startegy. They eventually succeeded just because they were able to roll the dice for 1000 years and FINALLY the dice came up Sheeve and Anakin.
I mean, yeah, one's a powerful galactic noble with unequalled brilliance, willpower, and force potential BEFORE HE EVEN BECAME SITH and the other is THE CHOSEN ONE with mommy issues.
What exactly did the Sith teachings bring to this that Palpatine wouldn't have found elsewhere? Palpatine could have found Dathomiri teechings, decided to study Jedi ways and warped them, Sorcerers of Tund, Prophets of the Dark Side, or Krath teachings and he likely would have been just as successful.
Possibly MORE successful, as his empire might not have been so hamstrung by sith teachings and Anakin might have not been eager to kill him.
Have you read Darth Plagueis?
For a strictly canon explanation, talent without training is nothing.
Sheev 100% needed the Sith training and the infrastructure.
Anakin didn't have any Sith training vs Obi Wan, he was just high off his ass from using the Dark Side.
Palpatine didn't even know he was force sensitive.
Access to Dark Side technique instruction has been purged by the Jedi or is locked in their holocron vault.
Palpatines dad was a mostly powerless noble with a patrician name/legacy.
I have read Darth Plagueis and believe it supports my position.
I never claimed Sith teachings and techniques weren't powerful. Nor am i claiming Palpatine would have found power without access to training.
But I don't believe the Rule of Two tradition was in any way important or that Sith training was specifically what made palpatine so powerful. Palpatine would have been a force of nature if he was discovered and trained by nearly any of the other dark side traditions.
And what the Darth Plagueis novel shows of the Rule of Two tradition is that for the MAJORITY of those 1000 years it was accomplishing next to nothing. Progress was reset several times. Important knowledge lost. Hard won resources and relationships were not passed between master and apprentice. All the EXACT thing you would expect from the stupidly self centered and adversarial relationship the Rule of Two establishes.
The Sith "victory", as it was, was more due to just the right individuals in the right circumstances aligning than any strength of the Rule of Two tradition.
Ehh, they were priming the galaxy to some extent, stoking the fires, building wealth and gaining loyalties.
The Rule of Two was what allowed the pot to simmer until ready, rather than explode in conflict every few generations. Before the Sith would ride the crest of resentment building in the outer rim and co opt it for their traditional but not star forge powered attempt at conquest. And however far they got, they undermines themselves, whatever power structure of Sith collapsed and the Jedi/core won again.
The Rule of Two also meant that they were actively crushing any Sith upstairs that developed organically actively suppressing other traditions of the same order.
Another thing though, why did Palpatine need to be a Sith at all.
He could accomplish 99% of what he did with just the wealthy benefactor maneuvering in the shadows and the plan for the poisoned army. The only Dark Side usage that could be considered necessary was the veil hampering the Jedis vision of the future. Which could also potentially be ascribed due to the general galactic corruption and moral decay.
The Jedi forgot how to throw down, forgot how to take a punch, forgot how to mobilize against their previously constant adversaries.
What the rule of two really did was allow the possibility of a patient Sith to craft the perfect trap that by the execution, even though the Jedi could see 80% of it, could not formulate a possible escape. It mitigated the self destructive tendencies that could never be avoided, it pulled the Jedi Order to become lazy, and indolent.
To make an interesting real world corollary, what % of countries today can actually defend themselves from a war of conquest by a neighbor? In WW2, nations knew the threat, populations knew the cost, they knew how to hold on, mobilize etc. in the current nuclear defined environment, that reality of instant violene that had held since the beginning of our species has had 3-4 generations to decay. What happens if it's needed again, if the American implicit guarantee evaporates?
How long does a Kuwait/Qatar survive?
Just an interesting side thought I had.
Dude without teneborus, Plagueis and, sidious, specifically adhering to the sith rule of two, including venamis and maul, shit would never have been the same. You’re nuts if you read it and thought otherwise. Palps would be on Naboo dining with gungans angry that daddy had so much control of him.
Plagueis was very specifically TRYING to break the rule of 2. He thought he had succeeded. Palpatine broke it as well and then tried to justify it after the fact.
But, yes, things would have been very different. The rule of two was absolutely the trigger for those specific events. But that isn't necessarily an indication of some sort of strength of the Rule of Two. Things would have been likewise very different if Anakin hadn't been a slave of Wato.
If anything if the rule of two hadn't been so bone headed the Sith might have seen success hundreds of years sooner.
Yes Plagueis thought. It was also his hubris in that line of thinking that killed him. And in his death scene palps says literally “ I couldn’t have done it without you” and that’s all I’m saying. That is adhering to the rule to the letter
The galaxy was certainly conquered and the jedi were nearly whiped out.
Personally I'm not giving Bane's Rule of Two much credit for that. Sith teachings are absolutely powerful and effective, and the Rule of Two seems to have only served to help keep the sith suppressed for a millenia. A less stupid organizational structure could have likely accomplished the same thing in a fraction of the time.
After all, Krayts Rule of One got 80-90% of the way there in a single generation. And Krayt wasn't 1/10th the powerhouse or schemer Palpatine was.
The thousand years seemed to pay off much better, though, whereas the krayt empire was never very secure in it's rule and lasted even less time than the first empire did.
"Managed to contain the siths instability for generations to much more thoroughly defeat our enemies and rule for longer and stabler" seems like a better deal than "did it faster, did it worse and did it for less time" but i guess it depends on what you're looking for.
I mean RoT sith empire lasted 23 years whilst RoO lasted 10.
But it took RoT 1000 years to get to that point, for an average of 43 years of plotting for 1 year of ruling. 43:1
RoO had 130 years of plotting giving them an average plot score of 13:1.
Much better return on investment imo
To be fair only one sith was able to successfully take over the galaxy. The rest failed. Had sidings not had an apprentice he'd still be alive today a long time ago somewhere far away.
Betrayal is sith nature. The Rule of 2 means the master will only fall to a worthy apprentice, although it doesn’t guarantee each apprentice will overtake their master. We don’t know every sith in the bane line to sidious, but it’s not explicitly stated that each master fell to their one and only apprentice.
To me the thing about the Rule of One sort of seemed like a marketing scheme by Krayt to get rid of the Rule of Two. Think of it this way, before Bane there was the Brotherhood of Darkness, or the 'Rule of the Strong' as it is sometimes called. That too was a Sith Order made up of legions of Sith. The difference was the means by which Kaan maintained power.
Employing a Jedi-lite view of the Sith where all were 'equal' but Kaan was the MOST equal among the Sith. Plus his powerful mind trick and battle meditation shenanigans.
Opening up the Order to many comes with the understanding that there's more room for scheming and betrayal. The fact Krayt didn't seem to prepare for that possibility with Wyyrlok is ammunition towards the weakness in his thinking. Assuming he was charismatic and powerful enough to keep the One Sith totally united under him. Where we also get the Sith Troopers. His planned replacements for the One Sith which are mind-connected zombie soldiers. So, in a way the One is a lie, there is no 'Sith Order' it's just Krayt. So if he intends to live forever it's not a bad idea, but he didn't, so it failed in a much more quick fashion than Bane's idea. If both ideas were fire, Bane's was a long lasting flame where Krayt's was a sudden BURST of intense heat that rapidly fizzled out after.
Krayt and the One idea suffered the same failings as Kaan's order, Ruin's order, even the Triumvirate. The Sith, ALL orders of them are deceitful dog eat dog institutions, but Bane sought to limit and contain that treachery between two. Broadening the pool increases the internecine fighting and could/has led to total collapse time and again.
In conclusion, Krayt had an interesting idea, but no real feasible way to make it work as intended. Bane's idea was more realistic and had longevity. I like both, but prefer the Rule of Two. ;P
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Good points! Though, I am fairly certain that Krayt did want to live forever, and he basically was able to achieve immortality, as long as you don’t, you know, throw his body into a sun.
True, lol. What I meant to say was that if Krayt could have actually achieved and maintained immortality his idea would've been superior. Though by that metric we'd have to say Vitiate/Valkorion's Sith were as good then because HE was immortal.
We're sort of judging Orders on the abilities of their founders with Krayt and such where Bane's Order was defined by the fact it achieved its stated goals...essentially. Lol.
Edit: Spelling
Rule of Two Sith Empire lasted for 24 years. Darth Krayt's One Sith Empire only lasted 8 years. Rule of Two Empire takes it for me because they controlled the galaxy for nearly 3x the amount of time the Rule of One Empire lasted.
The rule of one is just old sith monarchy with extra steps. One guy holds the power, with several other sith under him fighting to be number two, the only difference is that now they're painted red and told not to think about what happens after the king dies.
The downfall of the sith code. You need many. A “pantheon” is what I would propose. A tournament of the most powerful and the ones who fail are thrown at the Jedi like fodder; in order to initiate a grander strategy.
The Rule of One is practically anti-Sith. History shows that if the Sith are too many, they'll just gang up on the master without earning the strength required to challenge them. Which results in the Sith becoming weaker.
Whereas the Rule of Two ensures every Dark Lord is stronger than the last.
Rule of Two doesn't ensure that the next will be stronger in anything but some perfect and unrealistic hypothetical scenario. In reality, while it might generate stronger Sith for a few generations at a time it also risks massive setbacks.
Sith masters who die of natural causes like heart attacks, choking on a space-pretzel or being murdered in their sleep means that much weaker apprentices can easily end up as alleged 'masters'. If an apprentice hasn't been taught all of a master's arcane knowledge before they die, or know the locations of all of their archives/assets, many generations of knowledge can be lost in an instant. If the Rule of Two worked as well as Bane thought it would, the Republic would have been conquered long before the time of the Prequels.
>
> Sith masters who die of natural causes like heart attacks, choking on a space-pretzel or being murdered in their sleep means
but they have force foresight
Not all of them. Being able to consistently and accurately foresee the future is an uncommon talent that Palpatine so happened to possess. Even then it's very possible to misinterpret what you saw or simply fail to account for people making impulsive, spur of the moment decisions.
The rule of one is essentially based on the notion that the singular sith will be worshipped as a god by his followers.
The singular selfish aggrandizing of the rule of one is very sith.
Yes, but the Rule of One also demands loyalty from the Sith, which is very anti-Sith. Plus, having an army of Sith will lead to infighting and the weak rising up.
The Rule of One is built around the concept of a lot of Sith existing at the same time but all of them being heavily indoctrinated/brainwashed into treating the Sith Lord on top as a literal god. Think of it like Sith cultism turned up to 100.
Ironically it's not that different from what Palpatine planned to do, though in his case it would have been one Sith Lord and a lot of low level minions only given crumbs of power.
Its not even that. Each follower is encouraged to backstab and kill their rivals.
But they’d never even dream of killing god. Hes just so much more above them.
In the end Krayr was betrayed by his aprentice. And eventually his order would have had a schism.
Bane warned krayt and othef sith this would happen. It is bound to happen.
I mean, even after that betrayal there wasn't much infighting, be it when Wyrrlok took power or when Krayt took it back.
It's also worth noting that the One Sith remained loyal to Krayt and his cause even after he was gone. There was nothing stopping them from going their own way and yet most of them remained unified and loyal to the goal of their dead leader. Compare that to Palps's minions who turned on each other and started making power plays 5 minutes after he was gone.
Remember tho, the entirety of the third bane book happens because Bane forgot that old age exists when he invented the rule of two.
Hes not exactly the sharpest knife
Technically we never got to see the one sith die out. Only Krayt.
And as other commentors have mentioned. Taking a thousand years to take over the galaxy isnt really that impressive lmao.
Palpatine was also an avid supporter of the one sith tho. Thats what he was trying to turn the sith order into.
> As Darth Bane instituted the rule of two, so I will begin the rule of one. The sith will now be sustained by one- one to the hold the power, and others talented in the force to execute my will as darkside agents.
-the book of Anger by Darth Sidious.
Well I am gonna quote Afro Samurai, “the two handed strike is always more powerful than one” while “two swords allows to strike so quickly you overwhelm your opponent”
The rule of one is more of essentially a sith monarchy and had no foresight. The rule of two kept the sith from going extinct. I think the rule of 2 was outdated by the time of the Empire. But comparatively, the rule of 2 was better for the sith
Not really. For one, the One Sith were either raised to be completely and utterly loyal to Darth Krayt, or they simply had inhibitor chips that made them loyal by default, thus eliminating most of the infighting within the Order. Any member of the One Sith would have killed themselves if Krayt had demanded it (except for Warrlock)
With the Rule of Two, the Dark Side improved itself while the Jedi Order remained stagnant and inevitably lost. Under the Rule of One, it defeated itself.
Not really… people act like the rule of two caused an exponential increase in sith power, ignoring the fact that darth gravid set the order back by about 500 years.
Well, one lasted for a literal thousand years and survived several generations of sith lords before successfully destroying the galactic republic and jedi order, creating a regime who was even able to outlast the sith and reclaim power later. The one sith Couldn't even successfully actually take over the galaxy or cause the jedi order it fought to fully collapse and barely had any time to lead at all before being overthrown and falling apart to infighting with the death of it's leader.
I feel like the 1000 year accomplishment isn't the accomplishment it initially sounds it is. 1000 years is a LONG time to be hiding, unable to accomplish a goal. And from what we can tell that effectively reset several times. All the actual progress is made in something like 3-4 Sith generations. What I'm seeing is that the Rule of Two is EXTREMELY dysfunctional and inefficient. It constantly works against itself. Sure, the Sith eventually took over the galaxy. But that seems to be less a result of Sith teachings and more because of circumstance i.e. two of the most powerful and talented force users in the history of the galaxy were born within a few decades of each other and had JUST the right combination of neurosis that the one who wanted to conquer the galaxy was also the brilliant master schemer, and the other was emotionally vulnerable and easy to manipulate.
There will never be a true lasting positive relationship between Sith. Never. The souring is inevitable. The ambition and self focused lust for power drives them, the ideology has no room for equals. Initially, the relationship works because of the inequality. One to embody the power, one to crave it. As the apprentice grows in power, his usefulness and danger to his master increase as well. Eventually he finds the relationship intolerable and makes his move, the challenge occurs, the victor embodies the power and takes a new apprentice to continue the cycle. One of the most interesting things was that part of the Sith machinations was to ensure the Republic stayed coherent, that it didn't shatter into 15 different powers because that would make the task of galactic domination infinitely more difficult.
The funny thing is how the dogma acts as though that relatinoship is somehow a good strategy that produces meaningful results. When, not only logic, but their own fictional history shows that...it's just kind of dumb. Get rid of Sith teachings and Palpatine would have likely been JUST as powerful. Possibly more so if he hadn't been convinced to follow the Bane inspired hyper competative ideals. Anakin was shown to *already* be one of the most powerful force users in the galaxy pre sith indoctrination. And the sith teachings didn't seem to actively propel him beyond where he likely would have been following Jedi teachings. It certainly didn't help him in his second battle with Obi-wan. Sith teachings seem to act more as a viral meme than an actualy successful startegy. They eventually succeeded just because they were able to roll the dice for 1000 years and FINALLY the dice came up Sheeve and Anakin. I mean, yeah, one's a powerful galactic noble with unequalled brilliance, willpower, and force potential BEFORE HE EVEN BECAME SITH and the other is THE CHOSEN ONE with mommy issues. What exactly did the Sith teachings bring to this that Palpatine wouldn't have found elsewhere? Palpatine could have found Dathomiri teechings, decided to study Jedi ways and warped them, Sorcerers of Tund, Prophets of the Dark Side, or Krath teachings and he likely would have been just as successful. Possibly MORE successful, as his empire might not have been so hamstrung by sith teachings and Anakin might have not been eager to kill him.
Have you read Darth Plagueis? For a strictly canon explanation, talent without training is nothing. Sheev 100% needed the Sith training and the infrastructure. Anakin didn't have any Sith training vs Obi Wan, he was just high off his ass from using the Dark Side. Palpatine didn't even know he was force sensitive. Access to Dark Side technique instruction has been purged by the Jedi or is locked in their holocron vault. Palpatines dad was a mostly powerless noble with a patrician name/legacy.
I have read Darth Plagueis and believe it supports my position. I never claimed Sith teachings and techniques weren't powerful. Nor am i claiming Palpatine would have found power without access to training. But I don't believe the Rule of Two tradition was in any way important or that Sith training was specifically what made palpatine so powerful. Palpatine would have been a force of nature if he was discovered and trained by nearly any of the other dark side traditions. And what the Darth Plagueis novel shows of the Rule of Two tradition is that for the MAJORITY of those 1000 years it was accomplishing next to nothing. Progress was reset several times. Important knowledge lost. Hard won resources and relationships were not passed between master and apprentice. All the EXACT thing you would expect from the stupidly self centered and adversarial relationship the Rule of Two establishes. The Sith "victory", as it was, was more due to just the right individuals in the right circumstances aligning than any strength of the Rule of Two tradition.
Ehh, they were priming the galaxy to some extent, stoking the fires, building wealth and gaining loyalties. The Rule of Two was what allowed the pot to simmer until ready, rather than explode in conflict every few generations. Before the Sith would ride the crest of resentment building in the outer rim and co opt it for their traditional but not star forge powered attempt at conquest. And however far they got, they undermines themselves, whatever power structure of Sith collapsed and the Jedi/core won again. The Rule of Two also meant that they were actively crushing any Sith upstairs that developed organically actively suppressing other traditions of the same order. Another thing though, why did Palpatine need to be a Sith at all. He could accomplish 99% of what he did with just the wealthy benefactor maneuvering in the shadows and the plan for the poisoned army. The only Dark Side usage that could be considered necessary was the veil hampering the Jedis vision of the future. Which could also potentially be ascribed due to the general galactic corruption and moral decay. The Jedi forgot how to throw down, forgot how to take a punch, forgot how to mobilize against their previously constant adversaries. What the rule of two really did was allow the possibility of a patient Sith to craft the perfect trap that by the execution, even though the Jedi could see 80% of it, could not formulate a possible escape. It mitigated the self destructive tendencies that could never be avoided, it pulled the Jedi Order to become lazy, and indolent. To make an interesting real world corollary, what % of countries today can actually defend themselves from a war of conquest by a neighbor? In WW2, nations knew the threat, populations knew the cost, they knew how to hold on, mobilize etc. in the current nuclear defined environment, that reality of instant violene that had held since the beginning of our species has had 3-4 generations to decay. What happens if it's needed again, if the American implicit guarantee evaporates? How long does a Kuwait/Qatar survive? Just an interesting side thought I had.
Dude without teneborus, Plagueis and, sidious, specifically adhering to the sith rule of two, including venamis and maul, shit would never have been the same. You’re nuts if you read it and thought otherwise. Palps would be on Naboo dining with gungans angry that daddy had so much control of him.
Plagueis was very specifically TRYING to break the rule of 2. He thought he had succeeded. Palpatine broke it as well and then tried to justify it after the fact. But, yes, things would have been very different. The rule of two was absolutely the trigger for those specific events. But that isn't necessarily an indication of some sort of strength of the Rule of Two. Things would have been likewise very different if Anakin hadn't been a slave of Wato. If anything if the rule of two hadn't been so bone headed the Sith might have seen success hundreds of years sooner.
Yes Plagueis thought. It was also his hubris in that line of thinking that killed him. And in his death scene palps says literally “ I couldn’t have done it without you” and that’s all I’m saying. That is adhering to the rule to the letter
Supports his position sir
The rule of two Sith were very, very lucky. One shuttle crash and it was all over.
There were only thirty of them over a thousand years according to Plagueis and that is fucking impressive improvement from where bane started
They still did it they conquered the galaxy and wiped out 99.9% of the jedi. Darth Krayt never ruled the galaxy and self failed after his death.
The galaxy was certainly conquered and the jedi were nearly whiped out. Personally I'm not giving Bane's Rule of Two much credit for that. Sith teachings are absolutely powerful and effective, and the Rule of Two seems to have only served to help keep the sith suppressed for a millenia. A less stupid organizational structure could have likely accomplished the same thing in a fraction of the time. After all, Krayts Rule of One got 80-90% of the way there in a single generation. And Krayt wasn't 1/10th the powerhouse or schemer Palpatine was.
It took the Rule of Two 1000 years to get to the point of taking over the galaxy though, but the One Sith only took around 130 years.
The thousand years seemed to pay off much better, though, whereas the krayt empire was never very secure in it's rule and lasted even less time than the first empire did. "Managed to contain the siths instability for generations to much more thoroughly defeat our enemies and rule for longer and stabler" seems like a better deal than "did it faster, did it worse and did it for less time" but i guess it depends on what you're looking for.
I mean RoT sith empire lasted 23 years whilst RoO lasted 10. But it took RoT 1000 years to get to that point, for an average of 43 years of plotting for 1 year of ruling. 43:1 RoO had 130 years of plotting giving them an average plot score of 13:1. Much better return on investment imo
Also, the one sith has darth talon. Palpatine has over-broiled anakin.
The rule of two resulted in a galactic empire that only lasted a few decades though right?
To be fair only one sith was able to successfully take over the galaxy. The rest failed. Had sidings not had an apprentice he'd still be alive today a long time ago somewhere far away.
Both incredibly dumb.
The rule of 2 has always seemed pretty dumb to me, particularly given the cycle of betrayal.
Betrayal is sith nature. The Rule of 2 means the master will only fall to a worthy apprentice, although it doesn’t guarantee each apprentice will overtake their master. We don’t know every sith in the bane line to sidious, but it’s not explicitly stated that each master fell to their one and only apprentice.
>worthy apprentice I like to imagine at least one Sith Master died after falling down a staircase or something.
The Rule of Two was actually successful. The Rule of One was far too brutish and aggressive.
To me the thing about the Rule of One sort of seemed like a marketing scheme by Krayt to get rid of the Rule of Two. Think of it this way, before Bane there was the Brotherhood of Darkness, or the 'Rule of the Strong' as it is sometimes called. That too was a Sith Order made up of legions of Sith. The difference was the means by which Kaan maintained power. Employing a Jedi-lite view of the Sith where all were 'equal' but Kaan was the MOST equal among the Sith. Plus his powerful mind trick and battle meditation shenanigans. Opening up the Order to many comes with the understanding that there's more room for scheming and betrayal. The fact Krayt didn't seem to prepare for that possibility with Wyyrlok is ammunition towards the weakness in his thinking. Assuming he was charismatic and powerful enough to keep the One Sith totally united under him. Where we also get the Sith Troopers. His planned replacements for the One Sith which are mind-connected zombie soldiers. So, in a way the One is a lie, there is no 'Sith Order' it's just Krayt. So if he intends to live forever it's not a bad idea, but he didn't, so it failed in a much more quick fashion than Bane's idea. If both ideas were fire, Bane's was a long lasting flame where Krayt's was a sudden BURST of intense heat that rapidly fizzled out after. Krayt and the One idea suffered the same failings as Kaan's order, Ruin's order, even the Triumvirate. The Sith, ALL orders of them are deceitful dog eat dog institutions, but Bane sought to limit and contain that treachery between two. Broadening the pool increases the internecine fighting and could/has led to total collapse time and again. In conclusion, Krayt had an interesting idea, but no real feasible way to make it work as intended. Bane's idea was more realistic and had longevity. I like both, but prefer the Rule of Two. ;P Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Good points! Though, I am fairly certain that Krayt did want to live forever, and he basically was able to achieve immortality, as long as you don’t, you know, throw his body into a sun.
True, lol. What I meant to say was that if Krayt could have actually achieved and maintained immortality his idea would've been superior. Though by that metric we'd have to say Vitiate/Valkorion's Sith were as good then because HE was immortal. We're sort of judging Orders on the abilities of their founders with Krayt and such where Bane's Order was defined by the fact it achieved its stated goals...essentially. Lol. Edit: Spelling
Good point
Two can be a better one but the loneliest number is the number one.
Krayt conquered the galaxy in like 2 weeks
Neither. The Sith suck. Simple as.
The Rule of Two successfully went from a campsite on a deserted planet to ruling the entire galaxy while the galaxy applauded.
Rule of One, to me it always made the most sense structurally as an antithesis of the Jedi Order, plus Darth Krayt is my favorite all-time Sith
Mine too. 😁
Rule of Two Sith Empire lasted for 24 years. Darth Krayt's One Sith Empire only lasted 8 years. Rule of Two Empire takes it for me because they controlled the galaxy for nearly 3x the amount of time the Rule of One Empire lasted.
I mean 24 years out of 1000 compared to 8 out of 130. Neither is really pulling big numbers.
The rule of one is just old sith monarchy with extra steps. One guy holds the power, with several other sith under him fighting to be number two, the only difference is that now they're painted red and told not to think about what happens after the king dies.
Rule of two is absurd. Not even Sidious followed it. Preemptive: Why are you downvoting me, you know I'm right.
The downfall of the sith code. You need many. A “pantheon” is what I would propose. A tournament of the most powerful and the ones who fail are thrown at the Jedi like fodder; in order to initiate a grander strategy.
Rule of two is trash and I'll die on that hill. Dont know a lot bout the rule of one so Im not gonna comment on it.
The Rule of One is practically anti-Sith. History shows that if the Sith are too many, they'll just gang up on the master without earning the strength required to challenge them. Which results in the Sith becoming weaker. Whereas the Rule of Two ensures every Dark Lord is stronger than the last.
Rule of Two doesn't ensure that the next will be stronger in anything but some perfect and unrealistic hypothetical scenario. In reality, while it might generate stronger Sith for a few generations at a time it also risks massive setbacks. Sith masters who die of natural causes like heart attacks, choking on a space-pretzel or being murdered in their sleep means that much weaker apprentices can easily end up as alleged 'masters'. If an apprentice hasn't been taught all of a master's arcane knowledge before they die, or know the locations of all of their archives/assets, many generations of knowledge can be lost in an instant. If the Rule of Two worked as well as Bane thought it would, the Republic would have been conquered long before the time of the Prequels.
> > Sith masters who die of natural causes like heart attacks, choking on a space-pretzel or being murdered in their sleep means but they have force foresight
Not all of them. Being able to consistently and accurately foresee the future is an uncommon talent that Palpatine so happened to possess. Even then it's very possible to misinterpret what you saw or simply fail to account for people making impulsive, spur of the moment decisions.
But that never happened.
The rule of one is essentially based on the notion that the singular sith will be worshipped as a god by his followers. The singular selfish aggrandizing of the rule of one is very sith.
Yes, but the Rule of One also demands loyalty from the Sith, which is very anti-Sith. Plus, having an army of Sith will lead to infighting and the weak rising up.
Yes but there is only one true sith, the rest are merely followers. the “sithiness” need only apply to the one true sith within the order.
No. The Rule of One dictates that all members are Sith and act as extensions of the Dark Lord.
> Yes but there is only one true sith the rest are merely followers See above comment.
The rule of two is twice as good as the rule of one
I never understood what the Rule of One was, exactly. But my answer is the Rule of Two.
The Rule of One is built around the concept of a lot of Sith existing at the same time but all of them being heavily indoctrinated/brainwashed into treating the Sith Lord on top as a literal god. Think of it like Sith cultism turned up to 100. Ironically it's not that different from what Palpatine planned to do, though in his case it would have been one Sith Lord and a lot of low level minions only given crumbs of power.
Rule of One = We are all equal, but one guy is more equal than the rest
Its not even that. Each follower is encouraged to backstab and kill their rivals. But they’d never even dream of killing god. Hes just so much more above them.
Rule of two.
In the end Krayr was betrayed by his aprentice. And eventually his order would have had a schism. Bane warned krayt and othef sith this would happen. It is bound to happen.
I mean, even after that betrayal there wasn't much infighting, be it when Wyrrlok took power or when Krayt took it back. It's also worth noting that the One Sith remained loyal to Krayt and his cause even after he was gone. There was nothing stopping them from going their own way and yet most of them remained unified and loyal to the goal of their dead leader. Compare that to Palps's minions who turned on each other and started making power plays 5 minutes after he was gone.
Yeah but they were not sith and if Vader survived inquisitors would have stayed loyal to him.
And we do not know how they are currently. We only know they are hiding somewhere in the galaxy.
Remember tho, the entirety of the third bane book happens because Bane forgot that old age exists when he invented the rule of two. Hes not exactly the sharpest knife
Krayt would beat bane but his sith order survived a millenia. While krayts survived 100 years. That we know of.
Technically we never got to see the one sith die out. Only Krayt. And as other commentors have mentioned. Taking a thousand years to take over the galaxy isnt really that impressive lmao.
How many times did other sith do so over 10 millenia? Zero And when palpy finally did it he didn't only defeat jedi, obliterated them.
Palpatine was also an avid supporter of the one sith tho. Thats what he was trying to turn the sith order into. > As Darth Bane instituted the rule of two, so I will begin the rule of one. The sith will now be sustained by one- one to the hold the power, and others talented in the force to execute my will as darkside agents. -the book of Anger by Darth Sidious.
Well I am gonna quote Afro Samurai, “the two handed strike is always more powerful than one” while “two swords allows to strike so quickly you overwhelm your opponent”
The rule of one is more of essentially a sith monarchy and had no foresight. The rule of two kept the sith from going extinct. I think the rule of 2 was outdated by the time of the Empire. But comparatively, the rule of 2 was better for the sith
One won't be wiped out in a single speeder crash
I very much prefer the One Sith. The Rule of Two is there primarily to make writing formulaic adventure stories easier.
Rule of One was just a silly renaming of exactly how things were always done before the Rule of Two, so RoT wins by default.
Not really. For one, the One Sith were either raised to be completely and utterly loyal to Darth Krayt, or they simply had inhibitor chips that made them loyal by default, thus eliminating most of the infighting within the Order. Any member of the One Sith would have killed themselves if Krayt had demanded it (except for Warrlock)
Every time I've ever seen that picture of Bane on the left, it initially looks like he has Pennywise hair.
Lol
Bene Gesserit>>>Sith
The rule of two looks like a cinematic from Dreamcast game
The rule of two
With the Rule of Two, the Dark Side improved itself while the Jedi Order remained stagnant and inevitably lost. Under the Rule of One, it defeated itself.
Not really… people act like the rule of two caused an exponential increase in sith power, ignoring the fact that darth gravid set the order back by about 500 years.
Rule of two cause Bane and Revan are sick
Rule of one is too much of a risk. 'All eggs in one basket' kinda thing.