Talk:Swords of Sanghelios

All Sangheilli are technically Sepratists (Even Jul Mdama)
Every single Sangheili left the Covenant during the great schism. Weather they became part of Jul's Covenant Remnant or Arbiter's Swords of Sangheilios, all Sangheili ended up fighting against the Jiralhanae and San Shyuum during the great schism.

It would have been impossible for Sangheili to remain part of the Covenant Empire or Loyalists during the Great schism because if they had stayed, the Jiralhane would have massacared them. Truth ordered the Jiralhane to kill all the Sangheili, they were all ultimately forced out.


 * "These events led the entire Sangheili species to secede from the Covenant, forming the Covenant Separatists, Led by Rtas 'Vadum and Thel 'Vadam." Sangheili
 * "The resulting conflict would be called the Great Schism, and it would divide the Covenant into two, ultimately forcing the Sangheili out (of the Covenant)." https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/universe/species/jiralhanae

Because of this, shouldn't there be a seperate article for Sepratists and Swords of Sangheilios? Because technically even Jul Mdama and the Sangheili in his neo covenant faction are sepratists from the original Covenant too.


 * I believe we have an article on all "Covenant separatists": Covenant remnants. —  SPARTAN 331  16:29, 11 October 2015 (EDT)


 * I don't think we have enough information to decide that. I find it highly likely that 'Mdama thinks that the Prophets were the ones to leave the Covenant, not the Sanghieli. It was the Prophets, after all who broke the "covenant" with the Elites. Declaring the Elites to be the one's who left the covenant is an arbitrary distinction made by a fan base. We have no real source for that. Thanks, --Weeping Angel (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2015 (EDT)
 * The Sangheili were kicked out, then the Elites rebelled.Alertfiend - Team Chief 22:35, 11 October 2015 (EDT)


 * The idea of the Elites being "separatists" is a misconception we've been perpetuating for years now. The term originally came from the problem of what to call them, and I vaguely remember it was inspired by the Separatists in Star Wars, for reasons that elude me. The Arbiter, in Halo 3, makes it explicitly clear that he still considers himself "Covenant," and that it's a war for control of its territory, materiel and people rather than a war of secession.
 * The idea that the Elites left the Covenant is another misconception that's been circulating for a long time - the Elite Councillors threatened to resign, in protest at the changing of the guard. They never got the chance. Post-war, it's clear that the Swords of Sanghelios is a different entity to the Covenant, in the same way that the Russian Federation is the successor state to the Soviet Union.
 * Both "Loyalist" and "Separatist" terms are misnomers, and I'd favour phasing them out of the wiki entirely. --  Qura 'Morhek   The Autocrat     of Morheka   08:14, 12 October 2015 (EDT)


 * Really the only Seperatist things left are two files, and  Alertfiend - Team Chief 09:20, 12 October 2015 (EDT)

Are we calling the group of Elites (All Elites) that left the Covenant during the Great Schism "Swords of Sanghelios"?
The whole "Separatist" name wasn't my question, and we kinda got off topic. My question is: because all Elites left the Covenant during the Great Schism, and Halopedia is calling this splinter group the Swords of Sanghelios, does that mean all Elites are technically Swords of Sanghelios (including Elites who started neo Covenants like Jul 'Mdama and Telcam?)? I think Halopedia is right because, when Truth started the Great Schism, it was all Elites and their followers against Truth, the Brutes, and their followers. Because all the Elites left the Covenant (or were forced out) during the Schism, that would include Jul' Mdama, Telcam, etc. '''So essentially the story is: All Elites leave the Covenant under the banner of Swords of Sanghelios. The Elites team up with humanity and win the war. After the war ends some of these Elites then leave the Swords of Sanghelios. These Elites who left the initial breakaway faction (Swords of Sanghelios) then proceed form their own factions such as Jul 'Mdama's Covenant.''' Is this correct or not?

All I know with certainty is that ALL Elites left the Covenant during the Great Schism. And even if some didn't want to leave and wanted to stay with Truth (for whatever crazy reason), they would have been killed as Truth ordered the Brutes to execute any Elite in sight. So the entirety of the Sangheili species was forced out of the Covenant when the Great Schism started following the Changing of the Guard.


 * "These events led the entire Sangheili species to secede from the Covenant, forming the Swords of Sanghelios" source: Sangheili
 * "The resulting conflict would be called the Great Schism, and it would divide the Covenant into two, ultimately forcing the Sangheili out (of the Covenant)." source: https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/universe/species/jiralhanae

Just checking to see if we are correct, not looking for an argument or anything. Editorguy (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2016 (EDT)


 * All Sangheili left the Covenant during the Great Schism. In the civil war, several factions were formed. First, we had Xytan 'Jar Wattinree's alliance, but that was destroyed. Then, Thel and Rtas led all the remaining Sangheili at Installation 05 and High Charity to combat the Covenant and Flood, as well as allying with humanity. For the remainder of the war, most Sangheili seemingly aligned themselves with Thel and Rtas or didn't intervene, though a majority of the forces the two commanded came from Installation 05 and High Charity. At some point after the Covenant War (the Swords of Sanghelios did not exist in an official capacity during the Covenant War), the Arbiter formally established a government-esque faction to govern Sanghelios and allied colonies (this faction being the Swords). At this point, with the Arbiter announcing that he would continue to ally with the UEG, some Sangheili disagreed with his views and formed/joined their own factions (such as Jul 'Mdama). However, the Swords of Sanghelios does not encompass all UEG-allied Sangheili. We know from Hunt the Truth that some clans formed treaties with the UEG that are not a part of the Swords of Sanghelios. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 17:13, 27 May 2016 (EDT)


 * Ooohh, I see. In articles I often see the Swords of Sanghelios (the Elites the allied with the humans during the end of the war) called Swords of Sanghelios before they became officially established. Should this be changed? Maybe instead have the wording say "The faction that would later be known as Swords of Sanghelios" and link that to Swords of Sanghelios? Maybe saying Sangheili in general would be more accurate, when referring to the entirety of the "separatist" faction? Editorguy (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2016 (EDT)


 * It's occasionally in some articles because some editors make the minor mistake of not realizing/forgetting that the Swords of Sanghelios weren't officially established until later and I don't notice it. And I wouldn't even go as far as to say that they eventually become the Swords of Sanghelios because we know that even some Sangheili that served under the Arbiter and Rtas in the final days of the Covenant War eventually enlisted with other factions including 'Mdama's Covenant after the war ended. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 17:42, 27 May 2016 (EDT)
 * I agree. Since the SOS wasn't established during the events in h2 and h3, the faction of Elites Separatists that become allied to humanity do have a proper name. Replacing SOS with Fleet of Retribution in those instances are a lot more accurate considering that the SOS didn't exist at that time. And it still accounts for the Elites that defected from the Arbiter after the war. The Fleet of Retribution emcompasses all the Elites that allied to humans during those events, and existed during that time period (unlike the SOS). All and all, it's a more lore friendly choice than SOS when referring to the allied ELites from Halo 2 and Halo 3.Editorguy (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2016 (EDT)


 * We know that the hierarchs and a number of other prophets launched a coup that effectively severed the Writ of Union made between San'Shyuum and Sangheili. We also know that the majority of Sangheili did not just decide to fight with humanity at that point. We know from examples like Xytan 'Jar Wattinree's and Jul 'Mdama's that not everyone was willing to just throw away the monicker or idea of the Covenant. The Great Schism didn't make Xytan give up on the genocide of humanity, after all. "Separatist", in this case, would denote someone who did wish to put the Covenant completely behind them and start on an entirely new footing.

Member category
I'll make a category for members, but let's decide on the name now so we don't have to go through all these pages more than once. I was thinking "Swords of Sanghelios members". -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 23:58, 12 December 2015 (EST)
 * Sounds fine since we can't do Swords of Sanghelios. Sith Venator Mega Blastoise.gif ( Dank Memes ) 00:08, 13 December 2015 (EST)


 * Alright, I'll just go with "Swords of Sanghelios members". -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 01:14, 13 December 2015 (EST)

Swords of Sanghelios ranks
Ok, I'm trying to reorganize the ranks section of this page as many of the ranks are merely held by those that sided with 'Vadum and the Arbiter during the Great Schism, but we have no proof that the Swords of Sanghelios continues to use those ranks after the war. See here. Any thoughts? -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 12:22, 13 December 2015 (EST)
 * I agree with you to an extent, but I think the ranks we have seen in 2/3 may continue to exist duo to the factions using both new and old Covenant equipment. High Councilor exist, I think, because it was clarified in a Canon Fodder that some living Councilors joined the SoS, so I'd say it needs to stay as well, since we never got clarification if they remained Councilors or not (note that the SoS also has a council, but of Kaidons). Heavy aren't SoS, and none of them helped the SoS during Halo 2 if I remember. Also, should we remove the Kig-Yar from the page? Those in Escalation weren't SoS, just Kig-Yar being shot by Jiralhanae. This was essentially the same mistake the Lydus' faction page made, say they were the ones using Choppers and killing Sangheili. - Draft227 14:20 22 December 2015 (EST)


 * I think we should remove the Kig-Yar, though I don't think it's safe to say that High Councilors are still a part of the SoS. Some of the Covenant's Councilors joined up with them, but they may have decided to take combat roles or civilian roles. It would be best to avoid speculation. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 12:28, 22 December 2015 (EST)

Formation
I think we need to mention in the article at what point the SOS became the SOS. Because they didn't officially become the SOS until after Halo 3. Editorguy (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2016 (EDT)

"With Truth dead, High Charity destroyed, and Installation 00 essentially lost to the reborn Installation 04 firing, what remained of the Covenant was all but destroyed, with its member species divided into multiple factions. In the wake of the conflict, the Arbiter and his allies—now rallying under the name Swords of Sanghelios" Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 18:01, 8 June 2016 (EDT)


 * Yeah, we don't really have a specific date for when they were established. We just kind of presume they were established by early/mid-2553, even if it wasn't as official as it is in 2558. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 00:48, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

Canon Fodder 94
"On some units, members of the Swords of Sanghelios have incorporated a verdant iridescent sheen into the coloration; a poignant homage commissioned by the Arbiter to honor the Sangheili separatists that fought alongside human forces at the close of the Covenant War."

-.

Does this mean 343 has taken and canonized the old term we used here to mean the collective Sangheili rebellion against the Prophets? Kind of like Covenant remnants? Or is it just coincidence and not meant as a legitimate term? Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 15:17, 7 December 2016 (EST)


 * I would caution against adopting it until we see it in a context that is more than a descriptor, where we can clearly see it's an official name. And even if we get that, we've seen it only in the context of Halo 3, and clarifying that these are different to the modern Sangheili faction, which precludes merging it with Swords of Sanghelios. --  Qura 'Morhek   The Autocrat     of Morheka   17:05, 7 December 2016 (EST)

Indeed; if it were proven legitimate, I would still say it should be a separate article from Swords of Sanghelios. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 17:24, 7 December 2016 (EST)


 * I honestly think we should bring back the Covenant Separatists page, it clarified a lot and was only removed because it was mistakenly thought to be the Swords of Sanghelios. Regarding the officialness of the name, we have many pages with unofficial names like "Post-Covenant War Conflicts". The Separatists themselves though are official. Editorguy (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2016 (EST)


 * "Sangheili separatists" is not the name of a faction, though, as you're positing. It's a description, much as how one might say "human rebels". Still, it is odd that they are considered "separatists" seeing as they were forced out by the Prophets. I'm with Morhek on this. I think it can be chalked up to an instance of fandom terminology bleed-through, unless it starts cropping up more.


 * As for the matter of the Fleet of Retribution/Swords of Sanghelios, I'm of the mind that while it is definitely true that the Swords had not been officially established back then, there is an undeniable continuity between Thel and Rtas' group during the Schism and the later Swords of Sanghelios. The group during the Schism was not a proper organization like the Swords, just a collection of ex-Covenant (mainly Sangheili) who happened to agree with Thel and Rtas (who were not necessarily confined to the Fleet of Retribution). Essentially a proto-SoS without a name, government or anything that would distinguish them into their own "thing". As such, I don't think there's enough of a difference to warrant their separation into their own article, and I believe the way we have them documented in the history section of this page is quite fine. --Jugus (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2016 (EST)