Talk: Dathka Graush

Article milestones Date Process Result December 8, 2010 Featured article nomination Success February 4, 2011 Featured article by Tommy9281 December 23, 2022 Featured article review Kept March 6, 2023 Featured article
Current status: Featured article

I put Dathka's reign to begin about 25 years after Ajunta Pall's because the article makes a big deal about Graush having reigned for 50 years possibly showing that the earlier Lord ruled for less time (anywhere between 1-50 years) I just split the difference and went with that. If you disagree we can change it.

• Do we have a confirmation that he was a Dark Lord of the Sith? - Sikon [Talk] 05:51, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems he was buried in the Valley of the Dark Lords and talks about his "rule" and the fact he won a civil war. QuentinGeorge 05:52, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say that and the fact that he had a holocron, an amulet and a sith sword (which seem to be reserved only for the Dark Lords), is definitely enough evidence to place him as a Dark Lord of the Sith. 216.221.96.201 06:14, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it not possible that he could have in fact been a dark lord before the dark Jedi came to Korriban? I mean we know very little about the Sith before this happened...perhaps they already had dark lords, already have the Dark Valley where they entombed their leaders...just trying to make his ruling period fir with established canon. :) -Jaymach Ral'Tir 07:53, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • "Dark Lord of the Sith" is explictly a title that only arose after the Dark Jedi conquered the native Sith. QuentinGeorge 09:03, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • Well he's not called a "Dark Lord of the Sith" completely...just a "Sith Dark Lord"...I know it's pretty much the same thing...but it's the only way I can really think to retcon it other than saying simply WotC were wrong. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 09:16, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
          • The article never gives an exact date. It just says "around seven thousand years before Yavin". I don't see any problem. QuentinGeorge 09:23, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
            • The story refers to him as a "pure-blooded" Sith Lord, so it may be possible he was of the Sith species and ruled before the Jedi arrived. Of course, that would put him before Pall in the succession box. --Fade 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Reign

Here is a version of Behind the scenes I was editing, before realising this whole thing is incredibly convoluted;

When the WotC article was published, the Sith Empire was commonly believed to have been formed around 24,400 BBY, after the First Great Schism. This has resulted in somewhat of a continuity problem concerning Graush's rule. The article indicates Graush lived before 7000 BBY, but the Sith timeline in the New Essential Chronology states the Dark Lords of the Sith began their rule around that time, and Ajunta Pall is believed to be the first Dark Lord.

Things are confused further by the article's reference to Graush as a 'pureblooded' Sith Dark Lord. This may suggest that Graush ruled the Sith and was of the same species, before the Dark Jedi arrived. This is complicated by the fact that the title Dark Lord of the Sith

I was going to go on to say it meant he was either a pure-blooded Sith or a 'pureblooded' Jedi (as they make reference to in the comics). However, looking over the Wizards article, I suddenly realised that Graush only controlled 2/3s of Korriban. Surely, then, he wasn't even a Dark Lord of the Sith, as those guys ruled the whole Empire. Could it be that 'Sith Dark Lord' was simply an indiscriminate term used to describe a Sith warlord who ruled Korriban before the Jedi arrived, and doesn't, in fact, indicate this guy ruled the entire Empire? --Fade 13:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• hey you ever consider that Ajunta Pall wasn't the first. possibly the first dark jedi to rule, but that when the sith people began treating them as gods they felt that the dark jedi should be ranked as the dark lords?

Quote

Comes from the source listed on the page. In the context it is likely to be Dathka Graush.

Location

I'm confused: it seems obvious that Graush was of the line of Sith rulers first established by Adas, who unified the Sith against the Rakata. But we know that, at the time of Adas, the Sith government was moved to Ziost and no longer resided on Korriban. So why is this guy ruling on Korriban when the Exiles arrive? 24.3.94.134 02:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Because they lost the ability to travel from planet-to-planet. There was probobly a similar ruler of Ziost--and every other once-Adas-Kingdom-planet, for that matter--reigning at the time unaware of the rulers of each other individual planet. Calithlin 04:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Do note that there is no evidence that post-Adas Sith lost the hyperdrive technology... Gorthuar 12:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Helm... and picture

At page 17 of the 29th issue of the Knights of Old Republic comic there is an item identified as the Helm of Dathka Graush. It's identical to the one worn by the Sith from our picture in the Behind the Scenes section. Is that enough conjenctural evidence to move said picture to the page's top? Also, is there *any* source for the date of his death? Gorthuar 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Looking closer, I'd say that they are similar but not identical. Charlii 10:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Anachronism?

If Dathka Graush preceded the arrival of the exiles on Korriban, wouldn't his usage of Sith Alchemy be an anachronism? The development of Sith Alchemy by the exiles was the cause of the Hundred Year Darkness, therefore it follows that it wasn't introduced to the Sith species until after the arrival of the exiles on Korriban. I would say that definitively places Dathka Graush as having lived after the Hundred Year Darkness, unless there are further references to Sith Alchemy being practiced by the Sith before the arrival of the Dark Lords? Crash Overrid3 07:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• The date of his death is given quite clearly as *before* 6,900 BBY, so this is enough to infer that the Sith species used a form of Sith Alchemy before the arrival of the Dark Jedi (in truth it is enough to infer that the author of WotC's web supplement was lazy, but we have to live with that). Sith Alchemy as known by Ragnos, Sadow, Plagueis even, is apparently an amalgam of the early Sith arts and early Dark Jedi knowledge. Gorthuar 19:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• King Adas' weapon was enchanced using Sith Alchemy. I find it likely that the Dark Jedi and Sith verions of alchemy were similar enough to be branded as the same later on in history. Actually, the fact that the Sith people identified the Dark Jedi as gods may very well be because they practiced similar techniques as the Sith peoples' ancestors, which they had lost the secrets to over time.

Death date

OK, so we have very little known material that indicates Dathka Graush's death date. However, through this small amount of material, it can still be calculated without it being speculation etc. "Controversy surrounds the discovery. Many historians dismiss the tapes as frauds, since they were found sealed inside the wall of a Sith Lord's tomb. According to a battery of tests, that tomb, belonging to a Sith Lord named Dathka Graush, had been constructed over 7,000 years earlier." —Korriban: Planet of Lost Souls - Part 1: Haunted Hideout. Introduction by Jedi academy researchers in Luke Skywalker's time.

From this we can get an idea that Graush's tomb was constructed around and slightly before 7,000 years before the Jedi conducted their research. This research could have been around 11 ABY, it could be 40 ABY. We don't know.

"Dathka Graush was a pureblooded Sith Dark Lord, a conqueror whose forces won one of Korriban's cyclical civil wars over seven millennia before the Battle of Yavin. Though assassins eventually ended the Graush dynasty after fifty years of bloodshed, the Sith Lord by then controlled two-thirds of the planet. Graush's reign was one of terror and cruelty even by Sith standards, and researchers at the Jedi Academy think they know why. Dathka Graush literally had no heart." —Korriban: Planet of Lost Souls - Game Notes: The Heart of Graush

So, from this we get that Dathka Graush began his rule of terror before 7,000 BBY. Usually when the term "over" is used before a date, it means close to the date mentioned, but before it. So it could be mean 7,004 BBY or 7,010 BBY or something like that. But it did not occur after the year 7,000 BBY. Then, we are told that his rule ends after he is assassinated fifty years later. So we can say that he began his rule before 7,000 BBY, which means we must say that his rule and life ended before 6,950 BBY. This is not speculation. It clearly says in the article that it was fifty years later. Therefore, we can calculate his death date to be around and slightly before 6,950 BBY, which "circa" would cover, but most accurately saying "before 6,950 BBY" is the best. What ever his death date is, it cannot be during the year 6,950 BBY or after that, it can only be before. 6,950 BBY is a limit for when his death must have occurred by. By no means is "c. 7,000 BBY" an accurate death date.

Actually, in The Essential Atlas, we are told that "A civil war initiated by Dathka Graush in 7,000 BBY left most Korriban cities devastated...". This implies that he in fact may have begun his rule in 7,000 BBY, not before it. It could be a minor retcon. If this is true his death is certainly in 6,950 BBY.

For those reasons "c. 6,950 BBY" was used for his death date, as without ignoring any material this is the most accurate. The next most accurate would be to say "Before 6,950 BBY", but that would be ignoring The Essential Atlas's content. —Obi–wan Jacobi ^(Talk) 00:00, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

"Dathka Graush was a pureblooded Sith Dark Lord, a conqueror whose forces won one of Korriban's cyclical civil wars over seven millennia before the Battle of Yavin."

Okay, this means Graush won the civil war and began his reign BEFORE 7,000 BBY.

"Though assassins eventually ended the Graush dynasty after fifty years of bloodshed"

This means Graush reigned for 50 years. This does NOT mean he reigned from 7,000 to 6,950 BBY.

"Whether this means the documents were hidden in the 7,000 year-old tomb by the writer has been the cause of much debate in Jedi academic circles since their discovery. It is believed to represent the last words of Captain Naz Felyood.

The first part was written in Basic, with a normal stylus on ancient parchment, which was itself dated to an age of 7,000 years. The second part may not be a message but a prayer of some sort. It is the translation of ancient Sith runes that lined the border of the parchment, written in Human blood."

The tomb of Dathka Graush, heck, even the piece of ancient parchment Naz Felyood wrote on, was dated - that means by Star Wars-technology-level dating equipment by Jedi researchers - to 7,000 BBY.

And then of course there is the batteries of test quote. So that's many, many tests by Jedi researchers - and like you say, likely after 11 ABY - indicating Graush lived before 7,000 BBY.

Also, the Atlas saying "in 7,000 BBY" of course would be meaning "around." The article already states it was before 7,000 BBY.

It also wouldn't make much sense for Dathka Graush's tomb existing before he even lived/reigned would it?

So no, there is NOTHING to suggest Graush died in 6,950 BBY, bar some very rough calculations, which assume he began his reign 7,000 BBY when evidence actually indicates he died - or at the very least, his tomb was made then, and 100% prepared for burial by the looks of things considering the date of the parchment - in 7,000 BBY.

Again, 6,950 BBY is never used as a date. "7,000 years earlier," (likely before 11 ABY or something close to that), "over seven thousand millennia before the Battle of Yavin," "in 7,000 BBY..." these are the dates used for Graush. Therefore, let's stick to the confirmed dates please, and leave 6,950 BBY, which relies on speculation, for another time, until we actually see a retcon officially stating he died in 6,950. --80.4.252.84 21:43, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

• I mean no offense, it is obvious that you did not carefully read, or fully understand what I wrote. I said his reign was from before 7,000 BBY to before 6,950 BBY based on Korriban: Planet of the Lost Souls. 6,950 BBY is a limit, he cannot be alive after that date. This is the most accurate, it is not speculation. And everything points towards it. And when the Atlas says he ignited the civil war in 7,000 BBY (the cyclical war that he won and became Sith King from), it certainly puts his reign BEGINNING around 7,000 BBY.... and we know from Korriban: Planet of the Lost Souls that he died after fifty years of rule, which once again, will point to some time around 6,950 BBY. With EVERYTHING taken into consideration, c. 6,950 BBY is the most accurate death date.

I have explained everything previously, apart from the parchment that is dated to 7,000 years before the research is conducted. The Research could have easily been conducted around 40 or 50 ABY. Basically, that parchment is not disproving evidence. Also, it should be noted that tombs for Sith Lords are made during their lives not after. Sith slaves spend their lives building tombs for their master(s). It's basically putting two and two together. For example if it was said in a source that "Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace is set in 32 BBY, and the sequel to this is set ten years after", you can say that Attack of the Clones is set in 22 BBY, which it is. It is the same thing here, only the dates and the amount of years are different.—Obi–wan Jacobi ^(Talk) 10:56, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

• • Wait, if Graush *started* the civil war around 7,000 BBY, how can you be so sure he died before 6,950 BBY? We do know he ruled for 50 years, but we do *not* know how long did the civil war last. Could be another 50 years, making his death 6,900 BBY, could be anything else, really. Also, I wouldn't put to much attention to dating of his tomb, etc. People have a tendency to like round numbers - the tomb could be dated anything from 6,800 to 7,200 years old, and still be described as '7,000 years old'.Gorthuar 11:05, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • That is true. We do not know how long this civil war lasted, so you have a point there. I guess it really depends on how much of a retcon TEA intended it to be. I mean, the civil war could have lasted within a year if it was intended to fit in more with K:PotLS. Even then, it is still a retcon slightly. It would be quite a major retcon if the civil war was meant to go on for years like you said.... I would think that it was intended to fit in with Graush gaining the position to rule around 7,000 BBY. But that's my opinion. K:PotLS says "before 7,000 BBY", not "in 7,000 BBY" like the Atlas does, but it would not be too bad of a retcon for K:PotLS because both are written from an in-universe perspective, so they only need to roughly fit in with each other. A fair bit of rounding most likely will have been used. So yeah, as long as the civil war is relatively short, I think it shouldn't be too much of a disaster in terms of continuity. Hmmm, so it really rests on how much of a retcon TEA intended to make....

Perhaps it would be best for now to just not include a death date in the info-box, but include all the relevant information in the text? —Obi–wan Jacobi ^(Talk) 11:34, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. The only dates we're given in official sources are 7,000 BBY, around 7,000 BBY or before 7,000 BBY. And Gorthaur raises a point as well. Removing the death date is silly. Let's just put in c. 7,000 BBY. These are the dates given roughly for Graush's life/reign, and 6,950 BBY is an estimate (and as Gorthaur says it could be later). I'm sure all of us can agree that the sensible option is to put in 7,000 BBY, which not only is a better rounding up figure, but is the only date given in official sources for Graush. --80.3.170.223 13:45, July 9, 2010 (UTC)