Skip to main content

star wars - Because of the Rule of Two, is/was Sidious the strongest Sith ever?


The Sith Rule of Two says: One to embody power, one to crave it. It's like a survival of the fittest.


If the apprentice must kill the master to be the master, that usually means the apprentice is stronger than the master. If this chain went on for many years, does this mean Sidious was the strongest Sith ever, just by the transitive property?



Answer



Legends


I'll start with Legends since these sources provide us with much more information.


You are correct that the Rule of Two is intended to ensure that each succeeding Sith Master is stronger than the previous:




Under [Bane's] leadership the Sith had been reborn. Now they numbered only two—one Master and one apprentice; one to embody the power of the dark side, the other to crave it. Thus would the Sith line always flow from the strongest, the one most worthy. Bane’s Rule of Two ensured that the power of both Master and apprentice would grow from generation to generation until the Sith were finally able to exterminate the Jedi and usher in a new galactic age.


Dynasty of Evil, p. 9



Sidious could thus be considered the strongest Sith by this metric if there is a direct line from Darth Bane to Darth Sidious in which each Sith Master was killed by his apprentice in personal combat. This seems to be the case, but there are complications in this line from Bane to Sidious.


For one, the early Sith (including Bane himself) knew the transfer essense power. If successfully completed, this would allow a Sith Lord to transfer his consciousness to another body and control it (the Sith Lord's original body would be destroyed). However, the knowledge on how to do this was lost when the insane Darth Gravid destroyed as many Sith holocrons and artifacts as he could before he was killed by his apprentice, Darth Gean. Technically, Darth Gean defeated Darth Gravid in personal combat and thus succeeded him properly according to the Rule of Two. However, the loss of knowledge meant that Darth Gean and her successors (including Sidious) were left without a great deal of ancient Sith knowledge. Consequently, Sidious could not necessarily be considered the strongest Sith -- an ancient Sith with the knowledge of transfer essence (such as Bane) might be strong enough to defeat Sidious and take over his body.


In addition to lacking the knowledge of transfer essence, Sidious seems to lack Darth Plagueis' ability to resurrect someone. Darth Plagueis did succeed in repeatedly resurrecting a Bith named Venamis:



On the same day they had allowed Venamis to die.


Then, by manipulating the Bith’s midi-chlorians, which should have been inert and unresponsive, Plagueis had resurrected him. The enormity of the event had stunned Sidious into silence and overwhelmed and addled 11-4D’s processors, but Plagueis had carried on without assistance, again and again allowing Venamis to die and be returned to life, until the Bith’s organs had given out and Plagueis had finally granted him everlasting death.


Darth Plagueis, p. 279




However, Sidious told the newly minted Darth Vader that he did not know how to "cheat death" and he never demonstrated this ability. Sidious managed to cheat death via clones of himself, but this was not the same as Plagueis' resurrection ability. It is much closer to the original transfer essence power, but not as powerful since Sidious only transferred his consciousness to his own clones whereas Bane's transfer essence could be used to transfer one's consciousness to a hostile body and destroy that body's original consciousness. More pertinently to your question, Sidious would not have learned it via the Rule of Two -- he would have discovered it independently (and with a great deal of cloning help).


Since there were earlier Sith who knew powers that Sidious did not, Sidious was not necessarily the strongest Sith. Even if he was, it wasn't because of the Rule of Two since Sith knowledge was lost between the time of Darth Bane and Darth Sidious.


Canon


We don't have enough information to answer this with strictly canon sources. There are just too many variables to know for sure.


For example, we don't know if there is a direct line from Darth Bane to Darth Sidious in which each Sith Master was killed by his apprentice in personal combat. Consequently, we can't be sure that Sidious is the strongest, even if the transitive property holds.


It's also unclear from canon whether Darth Plagueis actually succeeded in resurrecting anyone. Sidious claimed that Plagueis did; however, Sidious also claimed that (1) Plagueis taught him "everything he knew"1 but (2) Sidious told Vader that he did not know how to cheat death (and never demonstrated such an ability). So while we know that Sidious did not know how to cheat death, we don't know if Plagueis had the ability and was thus stronger than Sidious in that sense.


Finally, it's worth noting that different Sith Lords had varying strengths and weaknesses. For example, Sidious was probably unmatched as a politician but may have been outmatched by another Sith Lord with a higher midi-chlorian count. If Vader hadn't lost his limbs on Mustafar, for example, Vader would have theoretically been more powerful than Sidious. Vader would have been able to defeat Sidious in personal combat in such a theoretical scenario, and yet Sidious might have been able to avoid such a duel via political machinations (e.g. have Vader overwhelmed and executed by the clone army). How do we decide which Sith is therefore "stronger"? Again, there is too much variability in skills among the different Sith Lords to declare one of them as the "strongest".




1From the Episode III script, Sidious told Anakin:




He became so powerful...the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. (smiles) Plagueis never saw it coming. It's ironic he could save others from death, but not himself.



The films themselves aren't clear that Sidious was Plagueis' apprentice, but starwars.com made that clear.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize Missy right away?

So after it was established that Missy is actually both the Master, and the "woman in the shop" who gave Clara the TARDIS number... ...why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize her right away? I remember the Tenth Doctor in The Sound of Drums stating that Timelords had a way of recognizing other Timelords no matter if they had regenerated. And Clara should have recognized her as well... I'm hoping for a better explanation than "Moffat screwed up", and that I actually missed something after two watchthroughs of the episode. Answer There seems to be a lot of in-canon uncertainty as to the extent to which Time Lords can recognise one another which far pre-dates Moffat's tenure. From the Time Lords page on Wikipedia : Whether or not Time Lords can recognise each other across regenerations is not made entirely clear: In The War Games, the War Chief recognises the Second Doctor despite his regeneration and it is implied that the Doctor knows him when they fir

the lord of the rings - Why is Gimli allowed to travel to Valinor?

Gimli was allowed to go to Valinor despite not being a ring bearer. Is this explained in detail or just with the one line "for his love for Galadriel"? Answer There's not much detail about this aside from what's said in Appendix A to Return of the King: We have heard tell that Legolas took Gimli Glóin's son with him because of their great friendship, greater than any that has been between Elf and Dwarf. If this is true, then it is strange indeed: that a Dwarf should be willing to leave Middle-earth for any love, or that the Eldar should receive him, or that the Lords of the West should permit it. But it is said that Gimli went also out of desire to see again the beauty of Galadriel; and it may be that she, being mighty among the Eldar, obtained this grace for him. More cannot be said of this matter. And Appendix B: Then Legolas built a grey ship in Ithilien, and sailed down Anduin and so over Sea; and with him, it is said, went Gimli the Dwarf . And when that sh

What is the etymology of Doctor Who?

I recently decided to watch Doctor Who, and started viewing the 2005 version. I have the first two episodes from the first season, and I can't help but wonder what is the etymology of the name "Doctor Who"? And why does the protagonist call himself "the Doctor" (or is it "the doctor")? Answer In the very first episode of Doctor Who (way back in 1963), the Doctor has a granddaughter going by the name "Susan Foreman", and the junkyard where the TARDIS is has the sign "I.M. Foreman". Barbara, who becomes one of the Doctor's companions, calls him "Doctor Foreman" (probably assuming that is his name given his relationship to Susan), and Ian (another early companion) does the same in the second episode, to which the Doctor says: Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about? "Foreman" is most likely selected as a convenient surname for Susan to use because it happened to be on display near where the TARDIS landed.