It's just a holistic system.
There isn't any finely detailed report of how the acquired the power, just that they did. Even then, it's still up to interpretation. Sidious doesn't have to be more powerful than Bane - and when it comes to a fight, I daresay Bane could win. For example, Gravid could have royally thawted any difference between Bane and Sidious - it's certainly possible.
One problem is the setback that Darth Gravid caused by destroying much of the gathered Sith Archives. Secondly there is no accurate way to mesure the difference in power between a master and his/her apprentice. I also ask questions by the fact that every Sith is combatively more powerful since there are quotes that somewhat contradict this. For example Darth Plagueis admitted that even in his time (the very end of the Banite Sith) Bane's powers were considered legendary which seems controversial if these Sith surpassed him.
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
One problem is the setback that Darth Gravid caused by destroying much of the gathered Sith Archives. Secondly there is no accurate way to mesure the difference in power between a master and his/her apprentice. I also ask questions by the fact that every Sith is combatively more powerful since there are quotes that somewhat contradict this. For example Darth Plagueis admitted that even in his time (the very end of the Banite Sith) Bane's powers were considered legendary which seems controversial if these Sith surpassed him.
To add to this, if raw power is correlated with midi-cholrians(spelling) how could their have been a perfect stepping-stone, in which one apprentice succeeds the other? It's highly illogical to assume there's any difference in the rudimentary categories, such as TK, speed and barriers.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Alexander's military tactics could be considered legendary; that doesn't mean he could beat modern America.It's been written that every generation grew stronger; that includes Gravid, who mind you lost to his apprentice in one vs one combat.
Yeah, except that doesn't make much sense, because there are a ton of Banite Sith and we don't even know the circumstances of each of their deaths. Plus all the arguments presented above that you're choosing to ignore.
Palpatine is a good example of why the Rule of Two doesn't necessarily mean the apprentice is/will be stronger than the master.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
You don't understand; three sources have explicitly stated that each Banite sith was stronger than their master. It's not speculative.
Either way, these sources are contradicted thanks to Palpatine. Neither Maul, Dooku nor Vader ever surpassed Sidious. And they're all Banite.
Links here.
As far as tactical ability is concerned, modern technological advancements render most, if not all of Alexander's tactical repertoire, obsolete. This is not to say that he is a crappy tactician by today's standards, but that there are additional factors by today's standards that he would not be able to overcome with his tactical aptitude alone.
We see a fine example of this concept in the Mutara Nebula battle of Star Trek II Wrath of Khan in which Khan, despite being openly acknowledged as the superior tactician, is bested by Kirk due to being unfamiliar with three dimensional naval combat. As Spock put it, Khan's pattern indicated "two dimensional thinking."
The same can't quite be said as far as ancient force wielding sith and modern force wielding sith are concerned. In their case, a great deal of knowledge had actually been lost, not gained, over time, as we see in the case of Darth Gravid. This is not to say that each generation didn't grow stronger over time, but that it's a bit difficult to quantify precisely how.
Originally posted by Ziggystardust
To add to this, if raw power is correlated with midi-cholrians(spelling) how could their have been a perfect stepping-stone, in which one apprentice succeeds the other? It's highly illogical to assume there's any difference in the rudimentary categories, such as TK, speed and barriers.
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
One problem is the setback that Darth Gravid caused by destroying much of the gathered Sith Archives. Secondly there is no accurate way to mesure the difference in power between a master and his/her apprentice. I also ask questions by the fact that every Sith is combatively more powerful since there are quotes that somewhat contradict this. For example Darth Plagueis admitted that even in his time (the very end of the Banite Sith) Bane's powers were considered legendary which seems controversial if these Sith surpassed him.
What about this? Wouldn't this sort of contradict that every apprentice surpassed their masters?