Stuff in episode III that needs to be reconciled in the EU

here's what we've been told so far-
The Republic is some 25,000 years old.
The Sith were wiped out at the 7th battle of Ruusan a thousand years before episode I. Darth Bane survived and started the rule of two, and the sith were hidden until the revelation of Darth Maul.

Now, contradictions-
Yoda knows the rule of two and mentions Darth Bane by name. The Jedi also apparently own several of his holicrons.
Palpatine mentions that the Republic has stood for a thousand years.
The Sith had tyranical control over the republic before this time.
and finally, Yoda seems far too confident when doing battle with the sith, he knows their tactics, their fighting styles, and even how to absorb and reflect force lightning.

Now, my consolation of these contradictions-
10 years after the battle of Ruusan, Darth Bane and Darth Zannah had managed to infiltrate the inner circle of the supreme chancellor. They then began to control the chancellor through the force, managing to raise a secret army of some kind, possibly an order of minor sith knights (not technically violating the rule of two sithlords, similar to the plan that sidious detailed to dooku). They then assassinated the chancellor and the senate. usurping power on coruscant and expelling the jedi (since they didn't have the numbers to wipe them out). After a decade of oppression on coruscant, a rebellion of other planets joined by the jedi liberated coruscant and reestablished the republic, killing bane in the process. over the next two hundred years, the sith were hunted to extinction by the Jedi with Yoda killing the last of the knights and what was assumed to be the last sithlord.
But how did the sith survive? either this sith feined death or broke the rule of two. or perhaps he switch places with a minor sith knight. Then the sith stayed in the shadows, having stolen much knowledge from the jedi temple during their rule. they knew about the prophecy of the chosen one and plotted on how to take over the galaxy, exterminate the jedi, and either convert or remove the chosen one...

so that's my theory.

Contradictions-

Not sure how the Jedi know of the Rule of Two, but I don't remember Yoda mentioning Bane by name.

For Palpatine's comment, Ushgarak has said that it is possible that the Republic, having to recover from the last Sith War after Ruusan, may have made another Reformation, and so that it was another form of the Republic, but still the Republic. This way, the Republic has stood for a 1000 years in its current for, but 25000 as the Republic.

Yoda battling the Sith...well...lightsaber-wise, it can't be that different than Jedi tactics, except more violent. Absorbing and reflecting lightning is something he may have picked up from a holocron, or his former mentor (whoever he was). At any rate, it was prior knowledge to Jedi before him, and so he learned it as a useful skill. Also, there were powers that could be similarly used to negate other Force attacks, or so I've read.

You're theory is a bit...um...unfeasible. At any rate, it would have shot down someone's comment of 'The Sith have been dead for a millenia' or something to that degree. I think it was Ki-Adi-Mundi, in TPM.

Yup, we also know from the films that the Jedi have protected the Republic for 1000 generations, which is about 25000 years, so that EU figure is correct. Rather like the Frecnh Republics, then, it must be re-founded periodically (France is on its Fifth, and that is only in centuries). On the assumption that the last Sith Wars are a damn good time to get smahsed up and have to reform (even though, as with the switch from 4th to 5th in France, it can simply be political), the 1000 years since the last one started works just fine.

The Bane problem IS a big problem. I think the EU simply got that all wrong. It is very clear that the rule of Two was never instigated in secret- and that in fact, all the Jedi actually knowe of the Sith had them in twos. GL makes out it was 'thousands' (plural) of years ago, not A thousand, that there used to be many.

I wouldn't doub that the Jedi managed to kill a master and apprentice after Ruusan, and the Force created a new pair, just to keep the dark side to counter-balancing the light.

Perhaps Revan and Malak can help explain it. Perhaps at one point, the Rule of Two referred to the Dark Lord and his Apprentice, meaning that the Dark Lord of the Sith, the ruler of them all, could only have one. From there, Yoda could assume that if the Sith had returned, they would have had to follow this rule, and have nothing to do with Bane.

It's possible. I seem to recall Lord Kaan making a Brotherhood of Darkness because he feared losing his status as DLotS should anyone challenge him.

And certainly most other sith after Nadd followed the one big guy, one big apprentice, many little guys philosophy. This could also consitute as the rule of two. Sith may be shorthand for Sith Lords, people truly privy to the secrets and tenets of the Sith.

It's also possible that Yoda acquired the knowledge at another time.

Nah, GL makes it clear that the Sith reduced themselves to two thousands of years ago.

And Koroni- like many before you, you have completely the wrong idea about Balance.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

And Koroni- like many before you, you have completely the wrong idea about Balance.

And to GL, Balance = lack of Sith. The Light Side is Balance, the Dark Side is the force of the upsetting of that Balance.

There was already the presence and temptation of the Dark Side, followers of the Dark Side unbalanced the Light Side and Dark Side's influence over one another.

What does that have to do with anything, Se7in?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And to GL, Balance = lack of Sith. The Light Side is Balance, the Dark Side is the force of the upsetting of that Balance.

Yoda mentions Bane in the episode III novel, and Palpatine clearly says "Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy". as for Ki Adi Mundi, it can be said that the sith have been extinct as a power for a thousand years, with little skirmishes not exactly counting as a revival.
As for lightsaber skills, i'm not counting maul since i've never done any staff fighting, but you can clearly see a completely different technique and stance in palpatine's fencing methods. much of his footwork seemes to be somewhat based on kendo and his swordplay seems almost like a two handed variation of Eppe, with much more emphasis on stabbing or poking rather than slashing and hacking. This makes it ideal for challenging jedi styles who's parries seem more centered on blocking slashing blowes, not pin point stabs.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nah, GL makes it clear that the Sith reduced themselves to two thousands of years ago.

Funny...the EU material that shows ancient Sith came out before the PT and the entire rule of two crap. So its not the EU's fault.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nah, GL makes it clear that the Sith reduced themselves to two thousands of years ago.

The point is that it says "Sith" which aren't the same as "Dark Side Users". As we have seen there was always only two "real" Sith at the top of all "Dark Side Organisations" from Sadows time on while the rest were just some no name followers.

Naga Sadow + Freedon Nadd
Freedon Nadd + Exar Kun
Exar Kun + Ulic Quel-Droma
Revan + Malak
Malak + Bandon

And so on...
Even in the PT you have only two real Sith (Sidious + Maul first, then Sidious + Dooku, then Sidious + Vader) while there were some other Dark Side users arround (Sora Bulq, Asajj Ventress and so on). Therefore what is told about the Battle of Ruusan and the events before must not be wrong. Therefore we can say that they were always only two real "Sith" from the downfall of the Sith Empire on to ROTJ.

For an explanation of the things in the movies:
GL somewhere mentioned that he thought of Yoda fighting against Sith before. So Yoda might have taken one of two Sith Lords down at any point of his life and therefore he knew about the rule of two and he knew that they will return again and again as long as you don't kill [/b]both[/b] of them.
This might be also a possible explanation why Yoda is able to counter Sith Lightning.

again, i'd like to point out what Dooku expected of sidious in the Episode III novel. Government by two darklords, leading a sith army of minor sith knights lead by anakin.

Then it is in error- that is disturbingly lazy storytelling.

It is nothing unqiue about being a Sith that makes the rule of two valid.

If there are ever more than two Dark Siders in ANY organisation, then that organisation will destroy itself. That was the point GL made. 'Sith' is just a name; the concept applies universally.

Therefore, neither Dooku nor Sidious would ever have made any plan which involved there being any more force users under their control (although that woman from the Clone Wars just about gets a get out clause on the grounds that she was set up to die anyway).

No minor Sith Knights, no anything. The idea is conceptually against GL's view.

That also counters your point, Borbarad.

Originally posted by Veneficus
Funny...the EU material that shows ancient Sith came out before the PT and the entire rule of two crap. So its not the EU's fault.

That's the ridk the EU takes. It tries to fiddle with potential storyline, it might get shat upon when the true version comes.

Why is it that when looking at KOTOR and the PT (which is what a 5,000 year time period between each other) that KOTOR's technology is the same as the PT's? KOTOR's blaster are the same and so are their lightsabers and droids and even their cruisers and ships appear to be equal to the PT. Shouldn't they have evolved in getting better cruiers and weapons in that 5,000 time period?

Originally posted by Jack O'Neil
Why is it that when looking at KOTOR and the PT (which is what a 5,000 year time period between each other) that KOTOR's technology is the same as the PT's? KOTOR's blaster are the same and so are their lightsabers and droids and even their cruisers and ships appear to be equal to the PT. Shouldn't they have evolved in getting better cruiers and weapons in that 5,000 time period?

Technological advancment in Star Wars isn't really comparable to our notion of advancement, which is primarily based on 20th century development.