Maul being sent to personally kill the jedi isn;t the same as leading or fighting aloongside an army in open warfare. Maul was used as an assasin who made sure no word got out about his activities, not a warrior. Maul has rarely straight out led armies into war with sod being an exception, not the rule. Malgus has better battlefield showing sbecause his whole life was spent in open warfare against entire armies while Maul predominatly was sent and sent himself on less vast and covert operations. Maul doing more on the battlefield proves absolutely nothing in terms of a saber duel where maul being able to beat and be placed in a tier above the best in history is above malgus.
Yea, because vader's potential absolutely crapped on sidious's before getting butchered, Maul's didn't. Sti.. a completley moot point because malgus never had that potential and ws never envisioned to be a successor for the reigning dark lord of his era(who sids happens to utterly stomp on).
Yea battlefield prowess doesn't really prove anything in relation to maul who wasn't known for battlefield prowess as he rarely fought openly in the battlefield. Malgus's ability to cut down tons of fodder is nice but doesn't mean anything in relation to maull who's beat the best swordsmen in history.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Maul being sent to personally kill the jedi isn;t the same as leading or fighting aloongside an army in open warfare. Maul was used as an assasin who made sure no word got out about his activities, not a warrior.
Every killing Maul achieved was on a battlefield. This is the definition of the word, don't be ridiculous. A battlefield doesn't mean only massive armies can fight there.
Maul has rarely straight out led armies into war with sod being an exception, not the rule. Malgus has better battlefield showing sbecause his whole life was spent in open warfare against entire armies while Maul predominatly was sent and sent himself on less vast and covert operations.
Irrelevant point as discussed above and ridiculously disproven by TCW.
Maul doing more on the battlefield proves absolutely nothing in terms of a saber duel where maul being able to beat and be placed in a tier above the best in history is above malgus.
Except that Malgus scales above the best in history as per Sidious accolades.
Yea, because vader's potential absolutely crapped on sidious's before getting butchered, Maul's didn't.
This is irrelevant to your own point. You stated Maul was a failure and disappointment because he didn't reach his potential, following your faulty interpretation, Vader would be an even greater failure because his potential was much greater than Maul's. Nice contradiction there, bro.
Sti.. a completley moot point because malgus never had that potential and ws never envisioned to be a successor for the reigning dark lord of his era(who sids happens to utterly stomp on).
You forgot the part where the guy that defeated Vitiate on a darkside nexus needed the help of his only peer in the Jedi order (and both are miles more powerful than any other Jedi at this point) and the help of two of the most dangerous and resourceful non force sensitive beings of the galaxy to defeat Malgus.
Yea battlefield prowess doesn't really prove anything in relation to maul who wasn't known for battlefield prowess as he rarely fought openly in the battlefield. Malgus's ability to cut down tons of fodder is nice but doesn't mean anything in relation to maull who's beat the best swordsmen in history.
Battlefield prowess includes any fight, including a fight of only two beings. This is the definition of the word. There's also concordance of the sentence, which relates to Malgus as a warrior and not as a commander, leader or general.