We've heard plenty of people talk about him, thats enough for me...
If Kreia says, Kreia of all people that he makes Revan and Exar look like children i'm inclined to believe her... Well sort of, i believe Tulak is a lot more powerful then those two, but make them look like children? I don't know... Still if he can beat those two easily, he can sure as hell beat Sidious
Marka Ragnos, a halfbreed whose kind was normally not given any consideration among Sith, held power for a century or more, in a time when all Sith did was sit around and practice their powers on one another. Naga Sadow was his successor, among perhaps dozens or hundreds of other Sith candidates. Tulak Hord is labeled as being a legendary and undefeated lightsaber duellist in a time when lightsaber duelling was at its zenith.
I'm not seeing the problem here...
But I do think that if parts of EU bother you so much, you probably shouldn't be in an EU subforum that's predominately EU, including all those characters you can't see but are reputed badasses, and stick to something more... primary canon, I guess.
well you asked so here is my OPINION, alrite it is not fact. If you want reasons, please tell me, but I will not put them in with this post. This is a combination of lightsaber and force skills
1) Marka Ragnos
2) Naga Sadow
3) Tulak Hord
4) Ajunta Pall
5) Ludo Kressh
6) Exar Kun
7) Revan
8) Ulic-Qel Droma
9) Darth Sidious
10) Darth Vader (post-lava bath)
It was told by a bunch of new age Sith who didn't know next to anything about the ancients. Someone like Kreia would be a better source, since she was a historian and poured over the resources of many Sith places of learning.
But I caught that too, recently, in a replay. But if Naga Sadow was better than Marka Ragnos, his predecessor would not have reigned for a century beforehand.
yes, how sad that makes me to admit, but ragnos was more powerfull then Naga.
but my list would look like this
1. Ragnos
2.Sadow
3.Pall
4.Hord
5.Kun
6.Nihilus
7.Revan
8.Traya
9.Qel-Droma
10.Bain
Why do i hate modern sith lords? cuz they arent sith lords. and u know why? cuz there is no sith. there were only jedi, which were wiped out. there were Sidious, maul, dooku and vader. all of them were sith lords. but there were no ****ing sith for them to rule, no sith to compete. ancients are the TRUE sith lords. they ripped that title from dead hand of the previous sith lord. that way, the best ruled.
and u say sidious had all the knowledge of the sith? bullshit. he couldnt. sith were wiped out, no trace of them, not many knowledge. in ancient times, they were able to learn from eachotehr and from previous lords. but when sith died, i doubt jedi left their holocrons in their archives. no modern sith killed thousands of jedi. sidious beat the republic, yes. but it was corrupted and he never went on mass jedi slaughters like exar or revan or sadow did.
the reason i consider Naga to be better sith is because ragnos did not exand the empire at all. he was pure power, that is why i put him in front of Sadow. but Sadow was a better lord. he was devious, extremly powerfull, good tactician. he alsmost destroyed the republic if he were not to be destroyed together with his ship while using some kinda battle meditation(some sith version of it probably)
Yeah, Naga Sadow was a better leader in terms of capability than Marka. But as was the Sith way, had Sadow been stronger or in a position at any given point, he would have struck down Ragnos easily. Ragnos must have been very careful, very paranoid, or both. I'm debating on whether or not Nihilus was truly more powerful than Revan. I think it's more in Nihilus' nature of abilities than his actual skill and knowledge. Certainly he could destroy most Force users simply because of how he was created, but in all honesty, he was no great Sith lord.