Darth Bane vs. Darth Maul

Started by ChocolateMuesli3 pages
ChocolateMuesli Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Well if Maul can come across superior on TK feats, and by powerscaling, then combined that's a good case for Maul.

Maul's close combat skills (Saber + martial arts) are pretty much unparalleled. So no way Bane wins in that category.


As Maul never reached his full potential, you can't really scale him from the Banite line. For this thread, Maul probably only has the TK advantage in round 4 (certainly not in round 1 and 3). But Bane is still more powerful than Maul overall, as his diversity, knowledge and mastery all are better than Maul's. TK itself won't be the deciding factor in this fight for sure, as most likely, neither will be able to affect the other with TK a great deal.

BlueTiger1144 Senior Member

Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
Comparing two TK feats between them is probably not the best way to determine who is more powerful.

Well, there is the way rockydonovang suggested. Considering that Maul's potential was way higher than Bane's and he had trained for way longer time, it makes solid sense for him to be at least significantly better than Bane.
I mean, there is no other way. You compare feats, and/or you compare them holistically. Both ways, Maul comes on top.
It doesn't matter if he had reached his full potential or not. If he had, he might have been as powerful as Ramage/Tenebrous or the likes. Among the late Banite line definitely, though not quite Sidious level. The fact is, he trained for longer than Bane and should have surpassed him even then.

ChocolateMuesli Senior Member

Originally posted by BlueTiger1144
Well, there is the way rockydonovang suggested. Considering that Maul's potential was way higher than Bane's and he had trained for way longer time, it makes solid sense for him to be at least significantly better than Bane.
I mean, there is no other way. You compare feats, and/or you compare them holistically. Both ways, Maul comes on top.
It doesn't matter if he had reached his full potential or not. If he had, he might have been as powerful as Ramage/Tenebrous or the likes. Among the late Banite line definitely, though not quite Sidious level. The fact is, he trained for longer than Bane and should have surpassed him even then.

If Maul was truly a Banite Sith, he would surpass Sidious when reaching his potential.

BlueTiger1144 Senior Member

Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
If Maul was truly a Banite Sith, he would surpass Sidious when reaching his potential.

Not really. Sidious was a completely different case when choosing his apprentices, and chose Maul for different reasons. It just so happened that Maul was immensely strong. I think George Lucas said that Maul couldn't have surpassed Sidious. We also know that the only one who could have, is Anakin( later Luke, of course).
And enraged Kenobi gave a solid fight to Maul( he was losing though), despite Maul being more immersed in the dark side than him. Despite Kenobi being vastly inferior to Maul in terms of training, having vastly lesser resources of knowledge, having a vastly inferior Master. Under such conditions Maul's potential is closer to Kenobi's than it is to Sidious's. And we know Kenobi's potential isn't close to that of Sidious.
Then there is Talzin. Who despite having tremendous power on her homeworld(it is written in Starwars.com), only roughly stalemates Sidious. Her potential should be around the same as Maul's.
The reason Maul's potential is very likely that of the late Banite lineage members', is because Sidious wouldn't choose him at all for an apprentice if he had an infinitely lesser potential than himself( circa, Bane's potential, or the potential of early Banite members).

Darth Thor Senior Member
Originally posted by BlueTiger1144

And enraged Kenobi gave a solid fight to Maul( he was losing though), despite Maul being more immersed in the dark side than him. Despite Kenobi being vastly inferior to Maul in terms of training, having vastly lesser resources of knowledge, having a vastly inferior Master. Under such conditions Maul's potential is closer to Kenobi's than it is to Sidious's. And we know Kenobi's potential isn't close to that of Sidious.

It seemed Maul's potential was on par with Kenobi's even after he got sliced in 2. So it must have been higher originally. Maybe originally he had somewhere around Windu level force potential. Plus his potential physical abilities being a Zabrak, and potential for magic later on being Talzin's son, all together made Maul a great choice as a potential successor.

But yes even then his Force potential wouldn't be Vastly inferior to Palps, otherwise why choose him, why betray Talzin for him, and why consider him "a loss."

thesithmaster Dark Lord of the Sith

Originally posted by Darth Thor
It seemed Maul's potential was on par with Kenobi's even after he got sliced in 2. So it must have been higher originally. Maybe originally he had somewhere around Windu level force potential. Plus his potential physical abilities being a Zabrak, and potential for magic later on being Talzin's son, all together made Maul a great choice as a potential successor.

But yes even then his Force potential wouldn't be Vastly inferior to Palps, otherwise why choose him, why betray Talzin for him, and why consider him "a loss."

Nuh uh. Maul's potential as of TPM was ROTS Sidious or even ROTS Sidious+. It was stated Sidious raised Maul to be his successor.

BlueTiger1144 Senior Member

Originally posted by Darth Thor
It seemed Maul's potential was on par with Kenobi's even after he got sliced in 2. So it must have been higher originally. Maybe originally he had somewhere around Windu level force potential. Plus his potential physical abilities being a Zabrak, and potential for magic later on being Talzin's son, all together made Maul a great choice as a potential successor.

But yes even then his Force potential wouldn't be Vastly inferior to Palps, otherwise why choose him, why betray Talzin for him, and why consider him "a loss."


Didn't DarthAnt66 say that force potential is determined by the "concentration" of midichlorians in the cells, not the "amount"? Vader got burnt, so the concentration was affected. But as far as I know, there was no hype around Anakin's cut arm.
They have completely destroyed the legends continuity with the new canon. Even Leland Chee said that Maul did not lose power after his limbs were cut, so I don't think they were thinking about any of that at all.
Plus, Maul was magically enhanced by Talzin.
I think all of their potentials are comparable, with Windu>=Maul>=Obi Wan's potential. And all of their potential's being above Dooku's. And below Sidious's.
I didn't like the way they butchered Maul in Rebels at all. That is a huge detriment to the legends continuity, and honestly, now I don't care that much about the mix of Legends and Canon. Even in the TCW show, Obi Wan and Maul were evenly matched in everything. But then, they had to spoil all of that by making Maul's loss to him so humiliating. I would have argued for that, but Maul's growth after SoD doesn't seem to match Kenobi's at all, so the only explanation for that, as I have said, is that they have disregarded the Legends continuity completely.
Which is why I argue from TPM's perspective. While Obi Wan is enraged, Maul is still more immersed in the dark side, but Obi Wan comes into this fight itself with a huge disadvantage( in training, knowledge, everything), and gives a solid fight to Maul. That is why I have their potential somewhat equal.
I completely agree on the last paragraph, and good catch on why he would betray Talzin for Maul. I forgot that one completely.
But yeah, he doesn't have Sidious level potential. That is made obvious. The only beings with Sidious+ level potential are Anakin and Luke.

Zenwolf Senior Member
Originally posted by BlueTiger1144
and honestly, now I don't care that much about the mix of Legends and Canon.

It's pretty bunk to use them together anyway.

Darth Thor Senior Member
Originally posted by BlueTiger1144
Didn't DarthAnt66 say that force potential is determined by the "concentration" of midichlorians in the cells, not the "amount"? Vader got burnt, so the concentration was affected. But as far as I know, there was no hype around Anakin's cut arm.
They have completely destroyed the legends continuity with the new canon. Even Leland Chee said that Maul did not lose power after his limbs were cut, so I don't think they were thinking about any of that at all.
Plus, Maul was magically enhanced by Talzin.

And yet how much difference is there between all the Peak versions of Maul (TPM, SOD and Rebels)? Not much, and I'm pretty sure Ant agrees. Though that could be to do with Maul having to progress without Palpatine's tutelage.

But it was a similar situation with OT Vader compared to say Late TCW Anakin. In fact OT Vader was probably < Peak ROTS Anakin.

So it seems to be a slow progression after that kind of physical and mental trauma, which in effect deters potential.

Darth Thor Senior Member
Originally posted by BlueTiger1144

I didn't like the way they butchered Maul in Rebels at all. That is a huge detriment to the legends continuity, and honestly, now I don't care that much about the mix of Legends and Canon. Even in the TCW show, Obi Wan and Maul were evenly matched in everything. But then, they had to spoil all of that by making Maul's loss to him so humiliating. I would have argued for that, but Maul's growth after SoD doesn't seem to match Kenobi's at all, so the only explanation for that, as I have said, is that they have disregarded the Legends continuity completely.

Preach it bro.

But I believe their point is that Kenobi fulfilled his potential whereas Maul was limited by being "broken" and stuck in the past.

I don't recall anyone on Rebels hinting Kenobi actually had higher Force "potential" or that he was a more skilled swordsman than Maul.

It was all about their mindsets and personal growth.

Not that any of that justifies butchering Maul. I really wish Sidious killed him now in The Lawless or at the end of SOD.