Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This topic has obviously been discussed a lot.

I'm here to offer my logical thoughts and to provide an adequate solution.

The Ancient Sith were said to be godlike, immensely powerful and so forth, due to a lack of feats and sources, we can only gauge and estimate at their power. This generally means our thoughts are subjective, our views varying and causes a never ending argument.

Characters such as Luke, DE Sidious, Yoda and etc have been given definitive feats, adequate information and so forth, essentially they have MUCH more sources/feats to name. This inherently means you can use them to prove that they are powerful in their respective times.

However when comparing a relative "unknown" and a character with a lot of sources, how do you work out a victor? Realistically you can't.

Whilst you can prove that Luke and DE Sidious can do this and do that, you cannot prove that the Ancient Sith can't, neither can anyone prove they can, the end result is that its purely opinion and subjective.

Exar Kun/Revan/Bane/Nihilus and etc. are relative to the Ancient Sith due to the fact a majority of their knowledge comes from the remnant knowledge of the Ancients, thus its is also rather hard to gauge at their power, given that they have a few more sources on them and other feats to name, it is still relatively hard to compare them to a character with books/comics/movies on them such as Sidious.

Again opinions are subjective, therefore unless something knew comes out that allows us to gauge at the Ancient Sith's power they will be relative unknowns. All that we know is that their remnant knowledge was enough to make Exar Kun immensely powerful, amplify Bane's power which essentially means their remnant knowledge was enough to make someone a Dark Lord of the Sith.

As such arguments concerning the Ancient Sith are best left alone.

It's that very lack of knowledge people like. Keeps them mysterious in a sense, compared to everyone else who has been extrapolated on with great precision.

That is certainly true, which is why i believe them to be the most powerful of the most powerful...

We have examples of their techniques, but only in remants and they were devestating in their own right.

I personally prefer to believe that Ragnos was the most powerful of any Sith, not Palpatine. But, canon overrules my preference, one reason why a new book or comic expanding on Ragnos and Sadow etc. would be appreciated. Though it would only serve to overpower characters even more.

Yes, I also prefer Ragnos to be the most powerful. But I've come to terms with the fact that Sidious did so much, created his own techniques, had dark energies ravage his body. He's the perfect sith. Ragnos is #2.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Yes, I also prefer Ragnos to be the most powerful. But I've come to terms with the fact that Sidious did so much, created his own techniques, had dark energies ravage his body. He's the perfect sith. Ragnos is #2.

Saying he is number two isn't logical. Just scroll up.


Anyway, we have set-in-stone canon facts about Sidious and Yoda, but that's about it. The rest is all up to debate.

I thought Darth Nihilus was the most powerful Sith due to his crazy drain ability.

Originally posted by ThoraxeRMG
I thought Darth Nihilus was the most powerful Sith due to his crazy drain ability.

No then that would make the Exile the best because he defeated Nihilus.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
No then that would make the Exile the best because he defeated Nihilus.

I quote "BEST SITH".
And The Jedi Exile is female.

Originally posted by ThoraxeRMG
I quote "BEST SITH".
And The Jedi Exile is female.

And yet people keep calling Revan a Sith even though KoToR's ending has him as a Jedi.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
And yet people keep calling Revan a Sith even though KoToR's ending has him as a Jedi.

Self-"Redemption" and rejection of Sith identity and Dark side much.

So what does that have to do with people calling Revan a Sith even though KoToR's ending has him as a Jedi? And besides Traya has that one hit kill thingie.

Yea, i always wondered that myself, why people call him a Sith Lord, when he is a Jedi at the end.
And maybe Ragnos is number 2, but we have no evidence to back this up and therefore, i wouldn't put him on any list, of, who is the strongest, best dualist.....

In KOTOR 1 or 2, the most powerful Sith is named. I cannot remember who it was that was named. I do not think it was Ragnos. Although, for the longest time, I thought it was Ragnos until I played KOTOR. Still I cannot remember which KOTOR it was that the most powerfrul Sith is pointed out. Also, it is possible that another Sith is the most powerful and we do not know it yet because it was never stated directly in the EU.

Originally posted by Tangible God
I personally prefer to believe that Ragnos was the most powerful of any Sith, not Palpatine. But, canon overrules my preference, one reason why a new book or comic expanding on Ragnos and Sadow etc. would be appreciated. Though it would only serve to overpower characters even more.

Ironic. I find it hard to believe that the greatest Sith Lord wouldn't be anything else but the most powerful, and the disparity of accomplishments between Ragnos and Palpatine is massive. One conquered the galaxy, toppled the Jedi, destroyed the Republic, and established the most powerful military regime in galactic history, and the other one... well... wished that he could do all that. But that's just me.

I don't understand Ancient Sith fanboys. Nothing to be a fanboy of.

Originally posted by Gideon

I don't understand Ancient Sith fanboys. Nothing to be a fanboy of.

Maybe they like how that Ancient Siht talk or fight.

Right. I should be more specific: Ragnos. It's kind've like being a Revan fanboy. No substance.

What's wrong with being a Revan fan?

Originally posted by Gideon
Ironic. I find it hard to believe that the greatest Sith Lord wouldn't be anything else but the most powerful, and the disparity of accomplishments between Ragnos and Palpatine is massive. One conquered the galaxy, toppled the Jedi, destroyed the Republic, and established the most powerful military regime in galactic history, and the other one... well... wished that he could do all that. But that's just me.

I don't understand Ancient Sith fanboys. Nothing to be a fanboy of. I have a preference for the mysterious. The things we know so little about, they're lost to history yet when it was around it was titanic. I hate thinking that the big bad Sith in their origins of the Ancient Empire are weaker than the ones we know everything about. Simply that sense of intrigue is what I appreciate.

Originally posted by Tangible God
I have a preference for the mysterious. The things we know so little about, they're lost to history yet when it was around it was titanic. I hate thinking that the big bad Sith in their origins of the Ancient Empire are weaker than the ones we know everything about. Simply that sense of intrigue is what I appreciate.

I completely agree.

Originally posted by Tangible God
I have a preference for the mysterious. The things we know so little about, they're lost to history yet when it was around it was titanic. I hate thinking that the big bad Sith in their origins of the Ancient Empire are weaker than the ones we know everything about. Simply that sense of intrigue is what I appreciate.

...Yes, but the 'big bad Sith' didn't do shit. That's my whole point. It makes more sense that the one who succeeded where they failed - Sidious - would be more powerful than they are.

Edit: Just so we're clear, I'm not using that as a reason to debate, but I am saying that it would make more sense for storyline purposes for the main villain of the entire saga, the guy who succeeded where the uber-Sith failed, would be stronger.

Ultimately, did Palpatine triumph or fail though?

Originally posted by Gideon
...Yes, but the 'big bad Sith' didn't do shit. That's my whole point. It makes more sense that the one who succeeded where they failed - Sidious - would be more powerful than they are.

Edit: Just so we're clear, I'm not using that as a reason to debate, but I am saying that it would make more sense for storyline purposes for the main villain of the entire saga, the guy who succeeded where the uber-Sith failed, would be stronger.

While this is true, I think we're talking about who's #2 and so on.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Ultimately, did Palpatine triumph or fail though?

Oh, I never claimed he was Captain Success. But based on merit and achievement, he is quantum lightyears ahead of any other Sith Lord. He did succeed in toppling the Republic, destroying the Jedi Order, and he established the most powerful military regime in galactic history. The fact that he managed to rule it for 20 years when dark side-based organizations have a known habit of self-destructing early on is amazing.

Hell, DE (which, I reiterate is ****ing stupid), he comes back 7 years later and then reclaims more than three-fourths of the galaxy under his unified rule, where the New Republic become "the Rebel Alliance" again.

Edit: But, yes, Sidious eventually lost. That does not expunge his accomplishments, however.

I thought in DE he only reclaimed the core worlds, and nothing else.

Originally posted by Gideon
Oh, I never claimed he was Captain Success. But based on merit and achievement, he is quantum lightyears ahead of any other Sith Lord. He did succeed in toppling the Republic, destroying the Jedi Order, and he established the most powerful military regime in galactic history. The fact that he managed to rule it for 20 years when dark side-based organizations have a known habit of self-destructing early on is amazing.

Hell, DE (which, I reiterate is ****ing stupid), he comes back 7 years later and then reclaims more than three-fourths of the galaxy under his unified rule, where the New Republic become "the Rebel Alliance" again.

Edit: But, yes, Sidious eventually lost. That does not expunge his accomplishments, however.

Very true. He certainly accomplished much more than the majority of Sith Lords . But I'm still not sure whether there actually is a satisfactory answer to my question. I'm still in two minds as to whether he did accomplish his goal and it just seems there are some flaws in his plan.

He did establish an effective government after the corruption of the Republic (lets face it, Dictatorships can be effective, however unjust), and a military force to match and kept the galaxy at relative piece for years. However, he only really destabilised the Jedi Order, and despite his best efforts, a number of survivors slipped through his net.

You would think that given his nature and intelligence, his well thought out scheming and plotting, that such a big factor in his victory would not have been prone to any such failure. But no, a number of Jedi slip through the net, including two of the most powerful Masters of the Council. Is this a character flaw? Is he so arrogant that he wouldn't consider Ben and Yoda, or more so, their teachings dangerous in the long run?

Even if those facts were overlooked in his arrogant nature (a trait all Sith have seemingly invoked afterwards) then why, considering his knowledge of Anakin's relationship with Padme and how he used it against Anakin in his fall, would he not search for the Skywalker offspring? (Bear in mind, I'm not up to date on these poorly written EU novels and subsequently, he may have done)

If there was anything that would destabilise his power, it would be a Skywalker, and since Anakin was all dark and brooding these days, maybe he just presumed it would still mean a Sith rule. But surely, given his knowledgehe would consider the possible Skywalker line a threat and would make sure of any heirs?

I am still in two minds about this. He did control the galaxy, he did finish the Jedi Order as an institution and he kept his apprentice in check, and he could also laud it up around Coruscant with a rocket launcher, reaping the rewards of insurance; but did he plant the seeds of his own demise through a character flaw or through a lack of foresight? Or is it just dramatic neccesity that he overlooked these things?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I thought in DE he only reclaimed the core worlds, and nothing else.

No, I don't think so. The Empire still controlled the vast majority of the Core Worlds and Deep Core prior to Palpatine's resurrection.

I'd recommend reading Domus Publica, DS. Google it. It is a vast collection of essays written by a guy named Publius, all concerning the Empire. He always cites sources for every claim he makes. It's where I got this information.

Actually, he accomplished much more than any Sith Lord. His only remote competition is Darth Revan, Darth Bane, and arguably Darth Krayt. But, I understand your question: since he ultimately lost it all, did he really accomplish his goal?



Palpatine didn't actually care about the remaining Jedi prior to Order 66. Rise of Darth Vader makes it clear that they pose no real threat to him. And they didn't; not militaristically, at any rate. They were all scattered with precious few means to contact each other. Only to satisfy Vader and to test his power did he allow Vader to continue to hunt the Jedi.



One could interpret it as arrogance, but he was right in the long run: militaristically, no Jedi posed a threat to him. Hell, not even Luke was a threat insomuch as he wasn't dangerous to Palpatine by himself. It was his connection to Vader that made him a threat. The Jedi were scattered, vastly outgunned, and - remember - Palpatine assumed the twins died with Padme.



Rise of Darth Vader makes it clear that Palpatine thought that they were dead.



Palpatine did not want heirs. He intentionally designed the Empire's infrastructure so that it would not last without him, thus displaying the depth of his selfishness. That is why no Imperial usurper or warlord could come close to bringing the Empire back to its former glory. Hell, not even Thrawn could do it.

Vader's relationship with Palpatine was complex. He wanted to overthrow him, but he also admitted to Luke in RotJ that he "must obey his master", thus indicating he obviously had a frightening mental stranglehold on Vader to the point that he had to make sure Luke was ready to kill the Emperor before he could attempt it.



I consider it more or less "fate", but Palpatine helped the process along. Pre-RotJ sources revealed that Palpatine was aware of Vader's treacherous thoughts. The thing was: like most people who have thoughts of murdering another human, Palpatine thought Vader didn't have the balls to do it, deep as he was in the dark side and Palpatine's manipulations. The trap at Endor worked brilliantly. Even with the unforseen Ewok assistance on the Sanctuary Moon, Palpatine could have owned the Rebel Fleet at Endor had he not ordered the Imperial Fleet to simply keep them from escaping. Or, at the very least, he could have escaped.

But the reason he couldn't do this is because the Force was starting to balance itself once again, as explained by Palpatine being unable to sense Luke's presence.

Where does Palpatine explain that the force was starting to balance itself again? And if it was done so by Luke, the prophecy would be incorrect about Anakin being the chosen One, which he is. Or maybe I'm confused.

I never said that Palpatine explained it. He was unable to sense Luke's presence, whereas Vader did. It all came together since Palpatine failed to forsee certain circumstances during the Battle of Endor that led to the Empire's defeat: a.) The alliance of the Ewoks, b.) Vader's conflict, c.) Luke's presence at Endor.

Originally posted by Gideon
Palpatine didn't actually care about the remaining Jedi prior to Order 66. Rise of Darth Vader makes it clear that they pose no real threat to him. And they didn't; not militaristically, at any rate. They were all scattered with precious few means to contact each other. Only to satisfy Vader and to test his power did he allow Vader to continue to hunt the Jedi.

Of course they would not propose any clear threat to him militaristically, but then again, when you've established the most powerful military in the galaxy, not much can. It seems almost too arrogant and cliche (being a one dimensional character an' all ) for him to simply regard the Jedi as a military threat; Ben and Yoda together hold a wealth of Jedi "wisdom" and knowledge which could be spread throughout the Galaxy. Of course, unknown to me, there may be an EU book which explains what Palpatine presumed of their fates, but as I haven't read it, I can only speculate.



It seems we must interpret is as arrogance, although it seems to do injustic to any kind of depth the character of Sidious may or may not have. As I mused earlier, it seems almost too arrogant of Palpatine to measure the power of the Jedi in militaristic might, but then again, he is your archetypal villain, with all the characters flaw's they possess.



I may pick this up then, at least it clears something up for me.



Yes, this is certainly the the crossing point between what constitutes as drama and what constitutes as logic in a ficitional world, fate is certainly a big part of it all, and no amount of logic can bring reason to what makes an enjoyable story; the "versus forums" are testiment to that.

Originally posted by Gideon
Ironic. I find it hard to believe that the greatest Sith Lord wouldn't be anything else but the most powerful, and the disparity of accomplishments between Ragnos and Palpatine is massive. One conquered the galaxy, toppled the Jedi, destroyed the Republic, and established the most powerful military regime in galactic history, and the other one... well... wished that he could do all that. But that's just me.

I don't understand Ancient Sith fanboys. Nothing to be a fanboy of. This post inspired something. Gideon, you're an evil man for this, you know that?

Ragnos: *parties*

Sadow: WTF!? Ragnos, we're Sith, we have to take over the Republic, now stop boozing with tho-...

Kreesh: STOP INSULTING MY GOD!!! *cries*

Revan: ...Why am I here again?

Sidious: Because, stupid, you're supposed to be the key figure for my dominating the galaxy.

Bane: *stares at Revan dreamily, drooling*...

Revan: ...

Malak: ....

Ragnos: ...*slaps Bane*

Bane: Huh? Oh, sorry. *wipes the drool off, then resumes staring*

Revan: ...Screw it. *kills Bane without effort*

Everyone but Malak and Bane: YAY!!!! *celebrates Revan's turning*

Malak: Revan! How're we going to explain this to the Council!?

Revan: Oh, do shut up. *slashes Malak's jaw off*

Malak: *gurgle*

Revan: Finally.

Everyone else: Awesome...

Vader: NO!!!!!!!!

Sidious: And that's how the story went.

Maul: ...Yes, master. Now, are we going to the bar down the road or are we doing it here?

Do you not even find the mystique of the Ancient Sith even vaguely appealing? I'm not attacking in any way, but I simply don't see the appeal of fictional characters that have just done alot of things. To me, it's all about character.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Do you not even find the mystique of the Ancient Sith even vaguely appealing? I'm not attacking in any way, but I simply don't see the appeal of fictional characters that have just done alot of things. To me, it's all about character.

It's okay. A legitimate question, so here's my answer:

Being a fanboy of a cabal of characters who don't feature often is stupid. I can understand being a Naga Sadow fanboy or something, but Ragnos? Bullshit. There's no reason for it. Which makes me laugh at people like Deception, who were notorious for Ragnos fanboyism in the past: he is not a defined character.

The Ancient Sith's mystique does make them appealing. To me, that's their purpose. They are the original Dark Lords, the guys who developed most of the dark side techniques. I understand that. I get that, in terms of numbers, this was the Sith at their finest.

However. The way I see it is: if the Ancient Sith > modern Sith by such a massive disparity, why did they not own the galaxy and the Jedi? Instead, they ruled the equivilent to a splinter on a 60,000 square foot hard-wood floor.

To me, if a later Sith actually accomplished what they failed to do, he or she is superior to them. It's common sense.

Bane and Revan and Kun accomplished more than the ancient sith escape, does that make them more powerful than them?

Originally posted by Gideon
Being a fanboy of a cabal of characters who don't feature often is stupid. I can understand being a Naga Sadow fanboy or something, but Ragnos? Bullshit. There's no reason for it. Which makes me laugh at people like Deception, who were notorious for Ragnos fanboyism in the past: he is not a defined character.

To me they are hardly different, they are both archetypel villains vying for galactic domination with particuarly cliche traits. Hell, if Sadow resorted to stroking a white cat at Sith Lord Union Seminar's, I'd still give him credit for his mystique.



I've never really understood this fanboy concept, no that's the wrong way of putting it; I've never understood the reasons people like these characters.

Irrelevant thought: in my opinion, Han Solo could beat the crap out of Sidious in a cantina brawl. Of course, that wouldn't happen, but that's not the pont, Han Solo is a great character and archetype, Sidious is a stereotype and in my book, as interesting as a set of cutlery.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Bane and Revan and Kun accomplished more than the ancient sith escape, does that make them more powerful than them?

Against the likes of Naga Sadow and Kresh, yes it does.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Bane and Revan and Kun accomplished more than the ancient sith escape, does that make them more powerful than them?

Are they superior to them? Vastly so. And it is debateable, much as I despise Revan.

The Ancient Sith and Palpatine are different. One uses subtle manipulation and a vastly superior intellect to achieve his ends, whilst simultaneously being powerful enough to throw the Force into complete imbalance. The others are completely inept warmongers who don't do shit in comparison, fighting over a tiny scrap of the galaxy.



Basically, a fanboy defies both logic and reason in defense of his character, trying to fellate them as constantly as possible.



Lol, you do realize one is an uber-Sith Lord and the other one is just really good with a blaster? If you take away Palpatine's lightsaber and Force abilities, you'd have a point.



That's the difference between you and I. In most cases, I think villains need to be the essence of pure evil. You "seem" to prefer villains like Vader, conflicted, emotional guys who occasionally act ruthless. To me, that's a sucky villain. I'm not afraid of people when I can just bring up their dead ex-wives and estranged sons and throw them into a hissy fit.

I will agree that Han kicks ass, though.

Against poorly trained stormtroopers, that isn't hard. - JK.

Han Solo > Every single Sith that existed.

That's OT logic for you.

"Ancient weapons and hokey religions ain't no match for a good blaster at your side kid".

It's said in the film, it's canon, so it overrides any EU material.

I hate that shit too

That's why Vader blocked 1 blast from Han with his bare (cybernetic) hands

But he couldn't break Han's spirit could he

Break? I think "freeze" would be the right word

Choose what word you must, Vader couldn't freeze Han's spirit.

Maybe if he had more time and there many different kinds of torture, what if Vader tortured Lea in front of Han, he wouldn't be so tuff then.

No, but he'd likely backhand Vader for touching his girl.

He would be strapped in, he couldn't move, just watch, how could he backhand Vader.

How would Vader be able to strap the great Han Solo into a torture chair? He'd need fifteen battalions of Stormies to even get close!

Thats funny, how did he do it in the movie then, and there was only a handful of soldiers there.

Originally posted by Count Makashi
Thats funny, how did he do it in the movie then, and there was only a handful of soldiers there.

Only a handful of soldiers there that you saw

Remember, it would take a significant Imperial force to force Lando to make such an unfair deal (as morally ambiguous as he was). Plus Boba Fett was their too; Han's ub3rsithzord killer powers dont work on non-force users, plus he had Leia to think about, he couldn't go off on some dramatc Errol Flynn-esque charge.

I didn't see allot of soldiers on Bespin, those soldiers Vader was talking, were on his Star Destroyer, he was just threatening Lando.

Exactly, only a handful of soldiers there" that you saw".

Why crowd the Cloud City detention area with thousands of troops when they've already strapped Han up safe and tight eh?

Originally posted by Count Makashi
I didn't see allot of soldiers on Bespin, those soldiers Vader was talking, were on his Star Destroyer, he was just threatening Lando.

True

Originally posted by exanda kane
Exactly, only a handful of soldiers there" that you saw".

Why crowd the Cloud City detention area with thousands of troops when they've already strapped Han up safe and tight eh?

You are just making excuses up, scoundrels luck, cant last forever.

Think about how many Jedi/Sith/Dark-Siders that have died during the duration of Han's lifetime. How many of them have participated in events widely significant to the galaxy at large, while on the other hand being extremely dangerous? A good few of them. How many have died during those conflicts? Loads of them.

Has Han been killed yet?

Scoundrels luck will previal.

Yea, your right, them that scoundrels luck, it makes Han invincible.

Of course I'm right. I'm British.

Whats being British, got to do with it.

Simple deduction, I'm absolutedly right and I'm British. Simple math.