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

Number of force users, political success, overall military power, overall force powers and stuff like that should matter in this.

Which Sith state overall gained the most success in these concepts and perhaps in other ones?

Wouldn't Marka Ragnos' time be the default answer, since it was actually labeled "The Golden Age of the Sith"?

I am aware of that but I wouldn't just end it there with these limiting quotes. I find it quite hard to believe that since they were extremely passive and had no galactic dominance or a well organized imperial structure. Their Dark Lord isn't even in top 5 strongest sith and there are only a few other sith that we know of from that era.

I'd Say Ajunta Pall's era maybe? if not than Galactic era sith achieved the greatest feat in the mythos.

Interesting one. I was expecting this to go as Vitiate's empire vs Sidious' empire so if you have any theories on Pall's era, I'd love to hear it.

Exar Kun's Sith Empire boxing

Originally posted by Kalen Sykes
Exar Kun's Sith Empire boxing



Kun's a pretty impressive sith but his organization didn't matter much.

As far as success goes, probably when the Grand Plan came to fruition. As far as numbers go, probably SWTOR era.

Originally posted by Sinious
Interesting one. I was expecting this would go as Vitiate's empire vs Sidious' empire so if you have any theories on Pall's era, I'd love to hear it.

Well there isn't much knowledge on them, but they - and by they I mean Ajunta Pall, did rule unchallenged for years I believe. not to mention they were the very first Dark Jedi and they basically started the entire sith movement. also because of this many Humans and Sith(the race) mated and created powerful hybrids Like Ragnos himself. Not enough to warrant them having the title of Golden Era, but in my opinion the sole fact that they established themselves as Masters of the sith makes them a powerful era

Xendor preceded Pall.

Originally posted by Fated Xtasy
Well there isn't much knowledge on them, but they - and by they I mean Ajunta Pall, did rule unchallenged for years I believe. not to mention they were the very first Dark Jedi and they basically started the entire sith movement. also because of this many Humans and Sith(the race) mated and created powerful hybrids Like Ragnos himself. Not enough to warrant them having the title of Golden Era, but in my opinion the sole fact that they established themselves as Masters of the sith makes them a powerful era

Yes true. I'd see this era in top 5 at most though since there are so many other great sith eras and we lack info on the most ancient ones.

Ragnos' era. This is confirmed in some books as well.

Originally posted by Sinious
Number of force users, political success, overall military power, overall force powers and stuff like that should matter in this.

Which Sith state overall gained the most success in these concepts and perhaps in other ones?

The Sith state that matches most of these criteria is undoubtedly the Sith empire under Darth Krayt, if only for the fact that it comes the closest to matching the unparalleled success of the Galactic Empire and the Sith were legion.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
The Sith state that matches most of these criteria is undoubtedly the Sith empire under Darth Krayt, if only for the fact that it comes the closest to matching the unparalleled success of the Galactic Empire and the Sith were legion.

Good logic.

Sidious' sith is superior to all in most criterias but the lack force users pull it down. Krayt's sith state is definitely top 3 perhaps no. 1 like you said.

I am very impressed with Vitiate's sith because of the caliber of the characters and there were thousands of them. Also in the story, Sidious' awesome imperial structure is based on SWTOR sith. They caused quite the devastation too even if they didn't reach galactic domination.

Originally posted by Sinious
Good logic.

Infallible logic, my son, and as if I'm capable of anything else. uhuh

Originally posted by Sinious
Sidious' sith is superior to all in most criterias but the lack force users pull it down.



Originally posted by Sinious
Krayt's sith state is definitely top 3 perhaps no. 1 like you said.

I'd say it's pretty hard to argue otherwise.

Originally posted by Sinious
I am very impressed with Vitiate's sith because of the caliber of the characters and there were thousands of them. Also in the story, Sidious' awesome imperial structure is based on SWTOR sith. They caused quite the devastation too even if they didn't reach galactic domination.

Viti's empire is prolly number three.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Infallible logic, my father , and as if I'm capable of anything else. uhuh

Not when it comes to TOR characters.



I understand your logic but I think its more debatable than you think




Definitely in top 3 but I am not sure where it stands in top 3.

Originally posted by Fated Xtasy
I'd Say Ajunta Pall's era maybe? if not than Galactic era sith achieved the greatest feat in the mythos.

Ajunta Pall's era had some tremendously powerful sith, but they also were largely in a defensive war.



The Galactic Empire may be good, but it only had two sith, so that limits things ^^


Hm, Vitiate's seems a natural choice, what with so very many sith around and having a strong role in the galaxy including a time of peace.





To go through each:

Number of force users, Vitiate's, probably followed by the New Sith Wars and then One Sith.

Political success, maximum area of success, Sidious followed by Krayt. Length of success, the New Sith Wars kept a major sith empire in play in the galaxy (i.e. holding a large portion, not just having a small corner) for the longest time.

Overall military power, Probably Krayt Empire due to advances in tech / force-based weaponry coming into play. The only other contender is the Galactic Empire. No-one else comes close to those two.

Overall force powers, Vitiate's or Hundred Year Darkness I'd think. The HYD dark siders after all were the culmination of a time of experimentation in the force and they came up with some crazy stuff.

Yes what gives Vitiate's empire the edge is also how powerful the sith were. Many amongst them could very well be the dark lords of other eras.





Agreed.

Originally posted by Q99
Overall force powers, Vitiate's or Hundred Year Darkness I'd think. The HYD dark siders after all were the culmination of a time of experimentation in the force and they came up with some crazy stuff.


I'd go with Vitiate's empire for the reasons stated above and the sith sorcery was insane in that era. Dread Masters by themselves are enough to prove this.

Originally posted by Sinious

I'd go with Vitiate's empire for the reasons stated above and the sith sorcery was insane in that era. Dread Masters by themselves are enough to prove this.

Yea, but on the flip side, Muur's sorcery is a gigantic threat, it's the era that invented leviathans, etc..


Though granted, that's a smaller number of uber sorcerers. Pretty much just the big 5 I'd think.

Yep, on the other hand we have countless Dark council members with great sorcery, dread masters, other sith that attempted endless minor rituals and of course the Emperor himself who is most likely the greatest sith sorcerer ever lived.

Reconstituted ancient Sith Empire represents the epitome of progress made in the context of what I label as Sith ideals.

Progress in understanding of the Dark Side of the Force? Check
Progress in Sith alchemy? Check
Progress in Sith sorcery? Check
Greatest number of quality Sith to exist in an era? Check
Progress in training systems? Check
Progress in various networks and political systems? Check
Progress in military capability? Check
Progress in preparedness level of civilization? Check

Progress had been made in virtually everything.

Dark Council represented command and control system of 12 different systems and responsibilities within the Empire, such was the complexity of the Empire. Each Dark Council member had legions under his command that would run an entire system of the Empire.

Dark Council was also the center point of greatest politics taking place within the Empire.

Reconstituted ancient Sith Empire is also the first Sith galactic superpower created.

This is what I was referring to earlier.

They would be the full package if they had dominated the galaxy for at least a while. The sack of coruscant is as far as they went and after that they have managed to secure the half of the galaxy which is still good but it should've been better.

They spent all their points and didn't have enough left for 'not fall into infighting' and 'winning'

Originally posted by Sinious


This is what I was referring to earlier.

They would be the full package if they had dominated the galaxy for at least a while. The sack of coruscant is as far as they went and after that they have managed to secure the half of the galaxy which is still good but it should've been better.
Reconstituted Ancient Sith Empire (RASE) undoubtedly had the capability to rule the galaxy if it had the chance.

However, RASE invaded a well-prepared Republic which had greatest resources at its disposal in the galaxy. RASE's performance in the war was entirely an outcome of the quality of its military capability.

Unfortunately it is in the nature of Sith to compete for supremacy and forge rivalry for personal gains and this led to the downfall of RASE. When several super-strong Sith Lords co-exist at a time, it can be a disaster waiting to happen.

Not sure about that. Other than a few powerhouses, Krayt's sith consisted of lackeys. They joined with the Moffs to take over the galaxy but never really took the galaxy because they spent all 7 years fighting a Vietnam guerrilla style war against Fel and his empire.

Ragnos' Empire probably had more powerhouses and faced no opposition.

Vitiate's Empire had the most powerhouses but faced a reconstructed Republic.

Based on these criteria, though, it's pretty hard to make the case for Viti's empire, let alone Ragnos's. Krayt's had the most success and military power next to the Galactic Empire, not to mention legions of trained Sith. I'd give the nod to Palpatine but the extremely limited number of Sith makes it hard for me to confer the title to him based on Sinious's terms.

Originally posted by Q99
They spent all their points and didn't have enough left for 'not fall into infighting' and 'winning'

Their Emperor's absence is a big reason for their failures.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Reconstituted Ancient Sith Empire (RASE) undoubtedly had the capability to rule the galaxy if it had the chance.

However, RASE invaded a well-prepared Republic which had greatest resources at its disposal in the galaxy. RASE's performance in the war was entirely an outcome of the quality of its military capability.

Unfortunately it is in the nature of Sith to compete for supremacy and forge rivalry for personal gains and this led to the downfall of RASE. When several super-strong Sith Lords co-exist at a time, it can be a disaster waiting to happen.

Oh they had the capability for sure but they couldn't get there. I think the absence of their leader is the biggest cause of this. He didn't just avoid going to wars to lead, he basically isolated himself completely. I can't imagine what would happen if Vitiate led his armies into battle like Revan or Naga Sadow did. The results would be much better for the sith.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Based on these criteria, though, it's pretty hard to make the case for Viti's empire, let alone Ragnos's. Krayt's had the most success and military power next to the Galactic Empire, not to mention legions of trained Sith. I'd give the nod to Palpatine but the extremely limited number of Sith makes it hard for me to confer the title to him based on Sinious's terms.

You can add other criteria that make sense and are related. My point in making this thread is trying to understand in which era did the people of sith experience its prime. Those areas of success are jus there to give an idea on how to compare them. So its not that I choose to lower Sidious' achievements; its because he did it by himself and anything coming out of Banith sith cannot be the golden age for the sith due to its quantity of sith.

About Krayt, it is true that they had advanced tech but thats due to their era being after than all. Their leader and top sith aren't even in the top 10 sith imo. They didn't have a sophisticated imperial system like Vitiate or Sidious did. They had legions of sith but were there thousands of them? Also the quality of a sith in Vitiate's era is probably higher than Krayt's.

If the number of Sith matter (for whatever reason), then Krayt's empire is undoubtedly number one.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Xendor preceded Pall.

Rajivari did as well.

Originally posted by Sinious
You can add other criteria that make sense and are related. My point in making this thread is trying to understand in which era did the people of sith experience its prime. Those areas of success are jus there to give an idea on how to compare them. So its not that I choose to lower Sidious' achievements; its because he did it by himself and anything coming out of Banith sith cannot be the golden age for the sith due to its quantity of sith.

No, I understand. I, too, look to Palpatine's success as more of Palpatine's supremacy than general Sith supremacy.

Originally posted by Sinious
About Krayt, it is true that they had advanced tech but thats due to their era being after than all. Their leader and top sith aren't even in the top 10 sith imo. They didn't have a sophisticated imperial system like Vitiate or Sidious did. They had legions of sith but were there thousands of them? Also the quality of a sith in Vitiate's era is probably higher than Krayt's.

I disagree. The reborn Krayt is undoubtedly one of the most powerful Sith Lords ever and Wyyrlok's performance against him suggests that he's not too far behind. Beyond that, Krayt's Sith were as pervasively integrated into the mechanics of the secular government as was Viti's Sith. At the end of the day, comparing Krayt to Viti isn't favorable for the latter: Krayt ruled far more, was militarily supreme, and had legions of Sith at his beck and call as did Vitiate.

Originally posted by ares834
If the number of Sith matter (for whatever reason), then Krayt's empire is undoubtedly number one.

It doesn't matter after a certain point. It matters when there are thousands of sith on one hand and just 2 on the other.

Krayt's sith were comparatively weaker than Vitiate's sith.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
No, I understand. I, too, look to Palpatine's success as more of Palpatine's supremacy than general Sith supremacy.


Exactly.



What makes me think other wise most is the dark council. Like Legend said, having 12 different major ministries and having a dark lord in charge of each one is pretty impressive.

When Revan discovers Dromund Kaas, he realizes how advanced and powerful the sith empire is. Compared to the sith in the known galaxy, they were far more superior in every aspect.


Well for now it is either Krayt's Empire or Vitiate's Empire then.

Originally posted by Sinious
Oh they had the capability for sure but they couldn't get there. I think the absence of their leader is the biggest cause of this. He didn't just avoid going to wars to lead, he basically isolated himself completely. I can't imagine what would happen if Vitiate led his armies into battle like Revan or Naga Sadow did. The results would be much better for the sith.
Well, I don't count that against them.

Yes, absence of Emperor Vitiate resulted in division among the ranks of RASE unfortunately due to other super-strong Sith Lords intending to become Emperors. Emperor Vitiate's isolation was not an issue, his absence during the Cold War became an issue.

Except Vitiate built his own from scratch. Krayt pretty much latched on to the Imperial Remnant. One is more impressive than the other.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Well, I don't count that against them.

Yes, absence of Emperor Vitiate resulted in division among the ranks of RASE unfortunately due to other super-strong Sith Lords intending to become Emperors.

Yes, this fact is actually in favor of Vitiate's empire.



True. Perhaps being too obsessed with galaxy consuming got the best of him and caused him to make bad decisions.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Except Vitiate built his own from scratch. Krayt pretty much latched on to the Imperial Remnant. One is more impressive than the other.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Except Vitiate built his own from scratch. Krayt pretty much latched on to the Imperial Remnant. One is more impressive than the other.
Agreed

Emperor Vitiate seems to have created highest quality Sith Empire, first known Sith led galactic superpower as well. Sith progressed in all aspects under his leadership.

Darth Sidious took over the Republic and converted it to the Empire. Darth Krayt also have similar achievement.

Originally posted by Sinious
True. Perhaps being too obsessed with galaxy consuming got the best of him and caused him to make bad decisions.

Originally posted by Sinious
Well not really. Bane enforced his ideals into sith and it went on like that for a millennia. I'm not saying what he did was a mistake but it inevitably derogated the sith in a way. Think of as the golden era of the sith nation/culture.

I think the ultimate victory of sith is achieved in Palpatine's era but the sith achieved this with a grand sacrifice so I don't think that should be called the sith golden era.

Like I said, the numbers of the Sith are pretty much irrelevant to their ideals. So, yeah, not really seeing this as a problem. Especially when one consider that the RoT is the greatest of the Sith Orders (at least according to their prophecies).

Originally posted by ares834
Like I said, the numbers of the Sith are pretty much irrelevant to their ideals. So, yeah, not really seeing this as a problem. Especially when one consider that the RoT is the greatest of the Sith Orders (at least according to their prophecies).

It isn't a problem for the grand plan but like I said the "golden era" term means something else here. What good is a victory for the sith if there are no other sith around to witness it? Palpatine's solo triumph isn't equal to sith's golden era.

Suffice to say, I completely disagree.

Palpatine did little to advance Sith ideals during his rule. He wanted everybody to be subservient to him. He did not establish training centers to create new Sith, he tutored only one apprentice. He did not pave way for progress of Sith ideals, he only strengthened himself.

And?

Originally posted by Sinious
It isn't a problem for the grand plan but like I said the "golden era" term means something else here. What good is a victory for the sith if there are no other sith around to witness it? Palpatine's solo triumph isn't equal to sith's golden era.

I'm pretty torn on this.

Palpatine didn't really advance the rule of two, or make more Sith. But he did finally achieve every sith's dream of the Rule of One, he had the power to reign eternal, if not for his apprentice.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Palpatine did little to advance Sith ideals during his rule. He wanted everybody to be subservient to him. He did not establish training centers to create new Sith, he tutored only one apprentice. He did not pave way for progress of Sith ideals, he only strengthened himself.

What are you talking about? Did little to advance sith ideals? He advanced the ideals of Bane's sith. Why would he advance the ideals of other sith organizations, or did you conveniently leave this out?


He did advance the rule of two. But if we're going to be really anal about this issue, then Tenebrous, Plagueis, and Sidious all "publicly" advanced the rule of two while privately dreaming of immortality.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Krayt's sith were comparatively weaker than Vitiate's sith.

Maybe. Either way, though, Krayt's Sith were supreme. For the purposes of this thread, I'd rank Krayt first and Viti second.

I think advancing the sith order to the next level would be bringing back the ancient sith culture into the galactic empire which means having thousands of sith around with Palpatine as their Emperor. He only wanted personal glory and an apprentice to do his bidding.

Like I said before, Sidious' galactic domination means a sith dominating the galaxy but it isn't what sith golden era means.

Originally posted by Sinious
I think advancing the sith order to the next level would be bringing back the ancient sith culture into the galactic empire which means having thousands of sith around with Palpatine as their Emperor. He only wanted personal glory and an apprentice to do his bidding.

Like I said before, Sidious' galactic domination means a sith dominating the galaxy but it isn't what sith golden era means.
Yes but a Sith dominating aaa Galaxy almost always ends up being far more long loved than an empire doing it.
We've seen how badly Sith Infighting topples an empire in TOR.

Originally posted by Selenial
Yes but a Sith dominating aaa Galaxy almost always ends up being far more long loved than an empire doing it.
We've seen how badly Sith Infighting topples an empire in TOR.

So this justifies Bane's actions then. How does this make OT era the sith golden age?

Darth Revan's Sith Empire is among the greatest in Sith history, but has surprisingly yet to have been nominated.
---- ----- -----
In terms of numbers of Force sensitives and soldiers, Revan's Sith Empire clocks in the thousands. In a comparison of overall military might and politics, it is directly compared and stated to be on par with the Galactic Empire itself.

"The reinvented Sith Empire of Darth Revan and Darth Malak is a massive galaxy-threatening organization on par with the Galactic Empire of the original Star Wars trilogy. This version of the Sith has it all, from huge battleships and starfighters to countless shocktroopers of both the "normal" and Force-using variety. They even have a Death Star-like superweapon, in the form of the Star Force. Dozens if not hundreds of Sith apprentices learn the ways of the dark side of the Force, and a few even rise to the rank of Sith Master, training students of their own. With legions of armored troops spreading throughout the galaxy, all led my masters of the Force, the Sith Empire seems unstoppable."
--Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Campaign Guide
---- ---- ----
For military accomplishments, Darth Revan's Sith Empire also is among the greatest. Within less then just one year the Empire managed to gain control over a third of the entire known galaxy. In total, they brought the numbers of alive Jedi down to merely hundred Jedi. It is confirmed that if Darth Revan would have not of been captured, they would have successfully taken over the galaxy.

"Darth Revan was one of the most ambitious Sith in history, leading a massive fleet of expatriates in war against the Old Republic-while trying to locate the mythical Star Forge, a source of potentially unlimited power. He certainly would have succeeded were it not for the betrayal of his apprentice, Darth Malak, and the intrepid interference of a Jedi called Bastila Shan."
--Star Was Insider 88: Virtual Sith
---- ---- ----
Other candidates I nominate are Marka Ragnos' Sith Empire, the Sith Emperor's Sith Empire, the Galactic Empire, and Darth Krayt's Sith Empire.

So your candidates are... Every single major Sith Empire in Galactic History?

Anyway, wasn't Vitiate's Empire supposed to be a far more massive threat than Revan's?

Originally posted by Emperor NewGuy
The Galactic Empire would crush Revan's Empire. That quote is stupid, just sayin'.

The quote is only stupid if misinterpreted. You're right; the Galactic Empire would crush Revan's empire pretty seriously. But Revan's empire is indeed massive and galaxy-threatening, like the later Galactic Empire.

Originally posted by Emperor NewGuy
The Galactic Empire would crush Revan's Empire. That quote is stupid, just sayin'.

Inclined to agree. Revan's Empire was more formidable than most give it credit for, though.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
The quote is only stupid if misinterpreted. You're right; the Galactic Empire would crush Revan's empire pretty seriously. But Revan's empire is indeed massive and galaxy-threatening, like the later Galactic Empire.

@NewGuy01 It was suppose to be. Doesn't mean it actually was, unless someone has a quote saying otherwise.
Darth Revan's Sith Empire nearly surpassed Vitiate's in incredible less time in terms of territory of the known galaxy at the time.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
@NewGuy01 It was suppose to be. Doesn't mean it actually was, unless someone has a quote saying otherwise.
Darth Revan's Sith Empire nearly surpassed Vitiate's in incredible less time in terms of territory of the known galaxy at the time.

Your Revan wank is premature. At its peak, Revan controlled approximately a third of the known galaxy. Viti about half. There's no disputing which was larger. If you want to give Revan the nod because he achieved that level of success in a fraction of the time that Viti had at his disposal, that's your prerogative and I may agree, but Viti's empire was indeed bigger and badder.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Your Revan wank is premature. At its peak, Revan controlled approximately a third of the known galaxy. Viti about half. There's no disputing which was larger. If you want to give Revan the nod because he achieved that level of success in a fraction of the time that Viti had at his disposal, that's your prerogative and I may agree, but Viti's empire was indeed bigger and badder.
I already said this, pay attention. I never said Revan's was larger. Within time though, it would have been. There is no debate for that either. Your second half of the quote regarding the nod is correct though.

Originally posted by Emperor NewGuy
I don't take issue with the idea that Revan's Empire was massive and galaxy-threatining; only that it's on par with Palpatine's. I don't see how I misinterpret the quote.

It's the only reasonable interpretation of that quote unless you subscribe to Ant's ridiculous interpretation that Revan's empire is of comparable power.

Vitiate's Empire utterly surpassed Revan's in terms of being an actual Sith Empire though. Revan's was entirely made up of Dark Jedi turned from the Jedi. I doubt there were many true masters of the darkside in it. Vitiate's Empire was the True Sith Empire with the greatest level of and largest numbers of Sith and the highest level of overall darkside mastery in the mythos. In battle prowess and darkside teachings they'd evolved completely beyond what had been seen in the past, refining their skills in their 1000 year exile from what was already the "Golden Age of the Sith".

Originally posted by The_Tempest
It's the only reasonable interpretation of that quote unless you subscribe to Ant's ridiculous interpretation that Revan's empire is of comparable power.
I could have sworn I saw another quote the other day from a different source also comparing Revan's Empire to Sidious', though I'm not exactly sure. Once I return home I'll go and look before I make any further claims of its existence, because I'm not sure.

Feel free. We know that the Galactic Empire is the largest and most powerful military regime in galactic history up until that point in time. Revan's empire cannot possibly contend with it in a fight.

Originally posted by Emperor NewGuy
The quote does claim that Revan's Empire was ''on par'' with Palpatine's, i.e ''of comparable power''. Attempting to reasonably interpret it differently would be to reach a lot, in my opinion. But that's why I called it stupid.

Which is why I think we can afford to be a little creative and interpret it to mean that it was on par with the Galactic Empire in its ability to threaten the galaxy, which is indeed its narrative purpose in the KotOR story. It doesn't necessarily mean it can fight the Galactic Empire on equal terms.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
We know that the Galactic Empire is the largest and most powerful military regime in galactic history up until that point in time.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UIkdmZ6XNvM/S-jBdFlxsHI/AAAAAAAAAGM/5C_-q868c88/s1600/ewoks+killing+stormtroopers.jpg

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Which is why I think we can afford to be a little creative and interpret it to mean that it was on par with the Galactic Empire in its political power.

I'm just saying what everyone is thinking.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
But Revan's empire is indeed massive and galaxy-threatening, like the later Galactic Empire.
This seems to be the case.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
If you want to give Revan the nod because he achieved that level of success in a fraction of the time that Viti had at his disposal, that's your prerogative and I may agree, but Viti's empire was indeed bigger and badder.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Vitiate's Empire utterly surpassed Revan's in terms of being an actual Sith Empire though. Revan's was entirely made up of Dark Jedi turned from the Jedi. I doubt there were many true masters of the darkside in it. Vitiate's Empire was the True Sith Empire with the greatest level of and largest numbers of Sith and the highest level of overall darkside mastery in the mythos. In battle prowess and darkside teachings they'd evolved completely beyond what had been seen in the past, refining their skills in their 1000 year exile from what was already the "Golden Age of the Sith".



I honestly cannot agree more.

Revan's empire's base is indirectly linked to the republic. It wasn't a real sith empire and it didn't last long. Revan and his movement was indeed a great threat to the galaxy and the republic but that doesnt put his empire on par with Vitiate's empire or Galactic Empire.

Also, Swtore asserts that the Republic military in times before TOR was shitty, so Revan overwhelming them isn't that special.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Also, Swtore asserts that the Republic military in times before TOR was shitty, so Revan overwhelming them isn't that special.

They were already damaged by the mandos and Revan took a lot from what was left.

By the way, lovin the colorful pictures

Yeah. And they were over reliant on the Jedi to fight. Revan crippling the Order crippled the Republic.

Thanks. I was feeling nostalgic for this old set.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Yeah. And they were over reliant on the Jedi to fight. Revan crippling the Order crippled the Republic.

Thanks. I was feeling nostalgic for this old set.

Good point.

Its good that you have the male thing in gender. I honestly can't blame Ant that much for thinking you were a girl and having cyber feelings for you. I do blame him though, for continuing this after he found out you were a dude.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Also, Swtore asserts that the Republic military in times before TOR was shitty, so Revan overwhelming them isn't that special.

Well, like previous posters said, Revan took most of the Fleet, and Annihilated the other Half that were all Loyal to Meetra by way of the MSG.

Him basically winning the war was hardly impressive. In fact, the mere fact that they were still very nervous about attacking the core is proof that their empire wasn't as strong as people seem to believe.

Originally posted by Sinious

By the way, lovin the colorful pictures
>Homestuck

Darth Bane established the rule of two, it was a pragmatic and logical end to the incessant in fighting and maneuvering of sith lords from all previous eras that saw it succumb time and again to its own infighting. the Strength and order in the republic and the strength of the Jedi order was always aided by sith insular chaos and paranoia. Bane did begin this but it was Sideous who through cunning and guile not only through political maneuvering and military slight of hand caused chaos in the Jedi order, and usurped the republic as its chancellor, it was sideous that came the closest to defeating the Jedi order permanently, but it was always the Jedi who would prevail.

Bane believed and I agree that the sith of old were sorcerers developing amulets and artifacts to amp their ability, while he instead worked on his own inner power relying on his ability to manipulate the force, I agree vitiate through sorcery became powerful was powerful before but not enough so to look within and not outside of his own ability. He was ultimately a coward. I have more respect for dark helmet than vitiate who was neither intriguing or insightful. Sorry vitiate was powerful due to outside sorcery that pulled the power of fellow sith Lords for him to ascend to the level he did by a permanent augmentation. Want to say Exar kun , or even Tulak Horde or Marko Ragnos again they all depended on sith sorcery way too much rather than dark side discipline. I like Bane I like Sideous, as per Revan story was written it would not be he who would destroy vitiate but the Hero of Tython. Vitiates a punk.

Neither the Light or Dark will be defeated permanently.

Originally posted by Salthasha
Darth Bane established the rule of two, it was a pragmatic and logical end to the incessant in fighting and maneuvering of sith lords from all previous eras that saw it succumb time and again to its own infighting. the Strength and order in the republic and the strength of the Jedi order was always aided by sith insular chaos and paranoia. Bane did begin this but it was Sideous who through cunning and guile not only through political maneuvering and military slight of hand caused chaos in the Jedi order, and usurped the republic as its chancellor, it was sideous that came the closest to defeating the Jedi order permanently, but it was always the Jedi who would prevail.

Originally posted by Salthasha
Bane believed and I agree that the sith of old were sorcerers developing amulets and artifacts to amp their ability, while he instead worked on his own inner power relying on his ability to manipulate the force, I agree vitiate through sorcery became powerful was powerful before but not enough so to look within and not outside of his own ability. He was ultimately a coward. I have more respect for dark helmet than vitiate who was neither intriguing or insightful. Sorry vitiate was powerful due to outside sorcery that pulled the power of fellow sith Lords for him to ascend to the level he did by a permanent augmentation. Want to say Exar kun , or even Tulak Horde or Marko Ragnos again they all depended on sith sorcery way too much rather than dark side discipline. I like Bane I like Sideous, as per Revan story was written it would not be he who would destroy vitiate but the Hero of Tython. Vitiates a punk.

So ancient Sith's methods don't suit your morality. I'm still trying to understand how this is related to the topic.

Bane seldom relied on his own outward ability to use the force, most of his higher feats take places on nexuses, with boosts, or amped in some fashion. He is not a good example to use when it comes to a powerful Sith.

Sith'ari, one of the most powerful beings in the universe, all-powerful Sith, and having access to near infinite power are all among his accolades.

And his lightning is among the greatest in the Mythos, and he has one of the best speed feats out there.

By the first definition, probably Markas Ragnos' empire. Ajunta's exiles supposedly succumbed to infighting IIRC and they were still laying the groundwork for the Sith, so I wouldn't consider their era the zenith.

By the second definition, probably Vitiate's empire (don't know much about Krayt's empire, other than it being huge). Revan just had a war. His empire never really had time to prosper. Vitiate ruled for like a thousand years or something like that. He was at war for only part of that and even then, the Sith seemed to be flourishing. The RoT Sith were in hiding and there were only two of them, so it's kind of hard to say they were flourishing,

By the third definition, probably the Rule of Two Sith. The followers of the Rule of Two were some of the most powerful Sith in the mythos.

Yeah, on average, the Banite Sith were easily the most powerful.

Originally posted by red8
By the first definition, probably Markas Ragnos' empire. Ajunta's exiles supposedly succumbed to infighting IIRC and they were still laying the groundwork for the Sith, so I wouldn't consider their era the zenith.

By the second definition, probably Vitiate's empire (don't know much about Krayt's empire, other than it being huge). Revan just had a war. His empire never really had time to prosper. Vitiate ruled for like a thousand years or something like that. He was at war for only part of that and even then, the Sith seemed to be flourishing. The RoT Sith were in hiding and there were only two of them, so it's kind of hard to say they were flourishing,

By the third definition, probably the Rule of Two Sith. The followers of the Rule of Two were some of the most powerful Sith in the mythos.

This is an excellent way to approach it.

About Banith sith being the most powerful in the mythos, I'll have to disagree though Im not sure what you mean. Personally, from the rule of two, I consider only Bane, Plagueis and Sidious in top 10 sith.

Originally posted by Sinious
This is an excellent way to approach it.

About Banith sith being the most powerful in the mythos, I'll have to disagree though Im not sure what you mean. Personally, from the rule of two, I consider only Bane, Plagueis and Sidious in top 10 sith.

Unfortunately there is very little information on the Banite as a whole. But we can infer that they were insanely powerful based on:

1) Bane's philosophy worked. The Rule of Two lasted for one-thousand years because it worked. Each cyle of the apprentice surpassing the master would cause the Sith to become stronger. Bane was already a monster. Zannah, IMO, had already surpassed Bane in DoE at least force-wise and probably completely surpassed him down the road. Cognus probably surpassed her eventually. Gravid caused a setback, but the Banite Sith bounced back.

2) The final results. Plagueis and Sidious were the culmination of Bane's philosophy and they were absolute powerhouses.

Originally posted by red8
Unfortunately there is very little information on the Banite as a whole. But we can infer that they were insanely powerful based on:

1) Bane's philosophy worked. The Rule of Two lasted for one-thousand years because it worked. Each cyle of the apprentice surpassing the master would cause the Sith to become stronger. Bane was already a monster. Zannah, IMO, had already surpassed Bane in DoE at least force-wise and probably completely surpassed him down the road. Cognus probably surpassed her eventually. Gravid caused a setback, but the Banite Sith bounced back.

2) The final results. Plagueis and Sidious were the culmination of Bane's philosophy and they were absolute powerhouses.

Well the unknown characters aren't supposed to be used for individual based arguments. Also it didn't go as you've described it. Every new sith came into the RoT wasn't stronger than prior. With that logic Sidious would be stronger than the Son lol. Its most likely that most of the apprentices killed their masters by cunning. What you have said is true though about the last 3 sith masters of the order. Tenebrous was stronger than an average sith of RoT and Plagueis was stronger than him. Of course Sidious toped that as the peak sith of the order and brought the promised destruction upon the galaxy.

The fact remains, every member of that order was trained with the ambition of becoming the Dark Lord. They also all had access to an incredible wealth of Sith knowledge and skills. Even if they didn't necessarily get stronger through each generation, due to many of them killing their master through cheating, they were all immensely powerful through their vast knowledge, great ambition, and training to one day be the Dark Lord of the Sith.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
The fact remains, every member of that order was trained with the ambition of becoming the Dark Lord. They also all had access to an incredible wealth of Sith knowledge and skills. Even if they didn't necessarily get stronger through each generation, due to many of them killing their master through cheating, they were all immensely powerful through their vast knowledge, great ambition, and training to one day be the Dark Lord of the Sith.

Who ever argued about this?

Originally posted by Sinious
Well the unknown characters aren't supposed to be used for individual based arguments.

This isn't the Versus subforum, so making educated inferences is, to the best of my knowledge, acceptable.



Aside from the setback of Darth Gravid, do you have any evidence of this statement? I'm sure there may have been ups and downs, but the overall trendline would be moving up.



I am not sure what sort of confusion could have led you to that conclusion. The Son was not a Sith and he was not part of the Rule of Two. Why would Sidious be stronger than the Son by my logic?



No matter how they killed their masters, he overall trendline of the Sith becoming more powerful suggests that the apprentices eventually surpassed their masters. Plagueis eventually surpassed Tenebrous even though he killed him through cunning. Sidious eventually surpassed Plagueis even though he killed him through cunning.

It's because Sinious foolishly places Darth Bane in the top tier, and because of that if every generation became stronger one would have to be far more powerful than even that.

Which, you know, Sidious kinda was.

I rate Darth Bane highly. I place him above people like Maul, Dooku, Vader, and Malgus.
But I don't believe the Rule of Two would have lasted one-thousand years if it didn't work.

There is a catch though. Over those thousand years, there were roughly 30 Sith Lords. Each one had to be trained from scratch to surpass their masters. So the gap between apprentice and master (for most of them) would not have been too large. Then there was the setback with Darth Gravid.

So even if you place Bane in the top tier, it still wouldn't mean that Sidious was somehow more powerful than the Son. I do believe Sidious would beat Bane rather comfortably though.

Malgus, Dooku, and Maul are all superior to Bane by order of feats. Other than ROT and getting covered in bugs Bane is only useful for engendering the rule of two. He is mediocre as a duelist

Originally posted by Sinious
Well the unknown characters aren't supposed to be used for individual based arguments. Also it didn't go as you've described it. Every new sith came into the RoT wasn't stronger than prior. With that logic Sidious would be stronger than the Son lol. Its most likely that most of the apprentices killed their masters by cunning. What you have said is true though about the last 3 sith masters of the order. Tenebrous was stronger than an average sith of RoT and Plagueis was stronger than him. Of course Sidious toped that as the peak sith of the order and brought the promised destruction upon the galaxy.



Seeing how you rely on a bunch of implications to elevate Vitiate, I don't see why you couldn't do the same with Sidious without coming to a very exaggerated conclusion, especially if he is one of your favorite characters.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Seeing how you rely on a bunch of implications to elevate Vitiate, I don't see why you couldn't do the same with Sidious without coming to a very exaggerated conclusion, especially if he is one of your favorite characters.

He is actually my favorite but let me get this straight, you want me to assume Sidious is more powerful than the son?

I elevate Vitiate based on what I see and I don't exaggerate characters that I like and underrate the ones I don't. Thats something you do actually.

Originally posted by Sinious
He is actually my favorite but let me get this straight, you want me to assume Sidious is more powerful than the son?
Somehow that wouldn't surprise me if he did.


Burn!!!!

Originally posted by Sinious
He is actually my favorite but let me get this straight, you want me to assume Sidious is more powerful than the son?

I elevate Vitiate based on what I see and I don't exaggerate characters that I like and underrate the ones I don't. Thats something you do actually.


Yeah, the point flew directly above your head (or more likely right through it). Sidious doesn't have to be on the son's level to be far above Bane, which is why I said it would be a very exaggerated conclusion to suggest it.

Sidious isn't your favorite character. Anyone who reads your posts would know you're a Vitiate wanker. You suggested that Vitiate is above Sidious because he ruled over the dread masters, whereas you believed Sidious wouldn't be capable of doing the same. Vitiate ruling over a large number of powerful force users isn't a display of actual force power, it's an implication of power, which is what you cling to the most. If Sidious was truly your favorite character, you'd cling to implications as well. With the Banite sith, the master sought out an apprentice with the potential to become more powerful and to eventually replace him. Now this doesn't mean that every single apprentice had to surpass their master in combat, but logically somewhere down the line, there should be a pretty big gap in force power between Bane and the last members of the sith. With Sidious being the last of the order, and one of history's greatest combatants, he should be well above Bane. The fact that you don't take that as an implication, would suggest that Sidious isn't your favorite character.

Also, what characters have I exaggerated? I can't help it that Sidious has a ton of off nexus feats to draw from--feats that would indicate he would hand Vitiate his ass pretty solidly. Vitiate is powerful, and is absolutely one of the most powerful sith in history, but his implications and accolades are not enough to put him on Sidious' level in raw combat, considering Sidious has accolades that are even better. Palpatine is a combatant to the fullest and an extremely powerful force user; Vitiate is just an extremely powerful force user.

Vitiate is an extremely powerful force user with a nexus and prep and beneficial factors. Nothing supports that claim when he's stripped of those things and forced to rely on just himself

Made an edit to the first paragraph. I worded it like I did believe Sidious to be on the son's level. lol

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Also, what characters have I exaggerated?.
Dooku. Ventress. Palpatine. Kenobi. Yoda. Skywaker. Virtually every Prequel trilogy character...

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Sidious isn't your favorite character. Anyone who reads your posts would know you're a Vitiate wanker. You suggested that Vitiate is above Sidious because he ruled over the dread masters, whereas you believed Sidious wouldn't be capable of doing the same. Vitiate ruling over a large number of powerful force users isn't a display of actual force power, it's an implication of power, which is what you cling to the most. If Sidious was truly your favorite character, you'd cling to implications as well. With the Banite sith, the master sought out an apprentice with the potential to become more powerful and to eventually replace him. Now this doesn't mean that every single apprentice had to surpass their master in combat, but logically somewhere down the line, there should be a pretty big gap in force power between Bane and the last members of the sith. With Sidious being the last of the order, and one of history's greatest combatants, he should be well above Bane. The fact that you don't take that as an implication, would suggest that Sidious isn't your favorite character.

I don't know why I bother with you about this since I don't care what you think but I'll clarify this once and for all.

I first met the character Sidious when I wasn't even 10. All my friends hated the ugly bad guy and was happy when Vader finally did the "right' thing where I was freaking pissed when he died. Ive hated everything about PT yet I've watched ROTS for countless times only because of that character. Palpatine wasn't just my favorite character in SW, he was my fave amongst all fictional movies/books I've read. The main reason I also enjoy the character Vitiate so much is the similarity between them. I also like Vitiate's more inhuman style of talking and the way he removed himself from every material concern.

The reason I debate about Vitiate more is because there is no need to defend Palpatine here. Every 1on1 sith versus thread will automatically end up with him being declared the victor. Vitiate on the other hand is being extremely underrated here. If Sidious was underrated also, I would give the same attention to him as well. Another reason is, I don't like post ROTJ and the comic book material of that era so I have limited info about its details. Ive gathered the info about Sidious' parts but thats it and even then its kind of limiting my debating about DE Sidious.

Are you blind or stupid? Even in my "Vitiate might be the most powerful sith thread", I said that DE Sidious would take him in a 1on1 battle. I rank Sidious higher than Vitiate and I have stated this a few times. I also rank Sidious higher than Bane. Bane is at the edge of my top 5 sith list where Sidious is no.1.



You exaggerate PT era characters when they are to face TOR era characters. You probably agree with Carthage about Dooku > Vitiate





If you present arguments like this more often, people including me will respect your opinions more.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Dooku. Ventress. Palpatine. Kenobi. Yoda. Skywaker. Virtually every Prequel trilogy character...


How so? Because I list their feats?

You stated Ventress could be an equal/superior to Revan.

Originally posted by Sinious
I first met the character Sidious when I wasn't even 10. All my friends hated the ugly bad guy and was happy when Vader finally did the "right' thing where I was freaking pissed when he died. Ive hated everything about PT yet I've watched ROTS for countless times only because of that character. Palpatine wasn't just my favorite character in SW, he was my fave amongst all fictional movies/books I've read.




Originally posted by Sinious
The reason I debate about Vitiate more is because there is no need to defend Palpatine here. Every 1on1 sith versus thread will automatically end up with him being declared the victor. Vitiate on the other hand is being extremely underrated here. If Sidious was underrated also, I would give the same attention to him as well. Another reason is, I don't like post ROTJ and the comic book material of that era so I have limited info about its details. Ive gathered the info about Sidious' parts but thats it and even then its kind of limiting my debating about DE Sidious.


Well, I can't help that. But yes Sidious would stomp Vitiate. He's a skilled combatant, not just extremely powerful. If it came down to facing an opponent of equal power, Sidious has his fighting skills to fall on, whereas Vitiate would have his ass to fall on.



Originally posted by Sinious
Are you blind or stupid? Even in my "Vitiate might be the most powerful sith thread", I said that DE Sidious would take him in a 1on1 battle. I rank Sidious higher than Vitiate and I have stated this a few times. I also rank Sidious higher than Bane. Bane is at the edge of my top 5 sith list where Sidious is no.1.


You: "Vitiate ruled the dark council; Sidious would be annihilated by them in the first century"

You don't remember stating something along those lines?

You're the blind and the stupid one for not even remembering the purpose of your own thread. Vitiate isn't the most powerful sith in history. There's no mights or maybes.



Originally posted by Sinious
You exaggerate PT era characters when they are to face TOR era characters. You probably agree with Carthage about Dooku > Vitiate


Considering that I believe Dooku and Revan to be about equals, with Dooku being a bit above, I don't believe Vitiate would stomp Dooku. He struggled to kill Revan on a dark side nexus. On Neutral ground, Revan would be a far greater threat to Vitiate. Moreso than Dooku would be to Sidious.

However, no, I don't believe Dooku to be above Vitiate.



Originally posted by Sinious
If you present arguments like this more often, people including me will respect your opinions more.


I couldn't care less who respects my opinion. If you can't counter my arguments, then you just can't. lol


Originally posted by DarthAnt66
You stated Ventress could be an equal/superior to Revan.


No, I said she had comparable TK feats.

That whole thing with Ventress was because Neph was lowballing Dooku, so I started doing the same to the characters he argues for. But I actually believe Revan to be on par with Dooku. I'm generally pretty reasonable, and I don't dismiss accolades or try to diminish feats, unless the lowballing from the other side gets out of hand. Even with Vitiate, I place him pretty high up there, even though I don't find his actual showings to be overwhelmingly impressive, not for all the hype he receives anyway.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
No, I said she had comparable TK feats.
And that is why a large bulk of members don't take you seriously.

Oh good LOL. So you don't agree with Carthage's extreme statements, such as "Dooku ragdolls Vitiate and wtfpwns him."

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
And that is why a large bulk of members don't take you seriously.


I don't care about the opinions of TOR wankers, so I don't care if they take me seriously. Either you can counter my claims or be mad.

@Emperor, no, what made you believe that I thought Dooku would ragdoll Vitiate?

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
@Emperor, no, what made I believe that Dooku would ragdoll Vitiate?
I never said I thought you believed that. It's just good to see that you don't agree with Carthage's more absurd statements after complimenting him a few times as a debater.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I never said I thought you believed that. It's just good to see that you don't agree with Carthage's more absurd statements after complimenting him a few times as a debater.


I've stated that Carthage was unreasonable, but I can't force him to take a bunch of implications seriously. After all, he goes strictly by feats.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I never said I thought you believed that. It's just good to see that you don't agree with Carthage's more absurd statements after complimenting him a few times as a debater.

Need I pull up the list from SWF where you put Bane above Kun, Malgus, Caedus, and Tenebrous? Just because he's your favorite character and for no other reason? The reason I put Dooku above Vitiate is because he has superior feats without any prep or additional factors. You have never bothered to refute that claim, and instead complain about others and call them "biased" simply because they go by what actually occurred by order of feats. Sinious, yourself, and Neph routinely go by theoretical tangents as opposed to feats, and what if statements as if they mean something.

There is no reason to believe Vitiate could defeat Dooku on neutral ground. Again you are more then welcome to try to prove me wrong

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
And that is why a large bulk of members don't take you seriously.

You mean the hivemind collective between you Neph, Fated, Sinious, and Emperor? LOL

I have become a better debater since *shudders* SWF.

You don't go by actual logic or think for yourself Carthage, you just parrot back whatever you here from the admins on SWF, exaggerate it to Dooku ragdolling Vitiate, Bane Revan and Vitiate being weak, and stuff like that. Then you choose to word it in the way that'll piss people off the most. Your wording is provocative and your topics equally so. You are a troll Carthage.

And once again, isn't "theoretical stuff" entirely what these versus match-ups are? Isn't that a huge part of debating? Unless it's explicitly stated in Canon, isn't Dooku>Vitiate a theoretical tangent? Without theoretical tangents, you can't come to a conclusion in a debate such as this, and if you could purely on explicitly stated stuff, then the debate is not worth having.

You can insult me, Ant, Fated, Neph, and Sinious all you want, but even the others who hold the PT era in the high esteem you do have claimed you to be unreasonable, namely Sidious66 and Newguy1. Insult us all you want, but you will never be as good of a debater as us or the majority of the others here.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66



Well, like it or not it is the truth. I love both Sidious and Vitiate and enjoy their stories without picking one side and hating the other. It isn't as terrible as you think.




Ive counted many arguments like this as I was trying to point out certain parts of Vitiate's life that are more impressive to Palpatine's life.
The thread's purpose was to show that there is a possibility but not combat wise. I meant to say that his powers of the force might be superior but even now I won't claim that before I see more evidence from Vitiate especially combat wise. I made that thread to provide different perspectives on this matter. You should be more comfortable while listening to people that don't think like you do.
Vitaite's story is unknown to us and there is definitely mights and maybes until we find out more but again, for now I place Sidious above him.




I dont agree with your logic. Or should I say your lack of logic cause everything you said above is biased and stupid.




Actually, it has been countered many times by several people, you like your friend Carthage chose to ignore it.



This is not a thread where I will argue about my opinions on Vitiate or Sidious. If you have anything to say related to the topic, do so. If not, stop posting your none sense here.

Originally posted by carthage
You mean the hivemind collective between you Neph, Fated, Sinious, and Emperor? LOL
Better than the troll fraternity that is comprised of you, Intrepid, and PTforthewin. Sadly enough, PT is actually the most tolerable of you three.

Originally posted by carthage
Sinious, yourself, and Neph routinely go by theoretical tangents as opposed to feats, and what if statements as if they mean something.

There is no reason to believe Vitiate could defeat Dooku on neutral ground. Again you are more then welcome to try to prove me wrong

I have stopped trying to make you understand these things some time ago. In these versus debates, common sense is an important factor. It is something you ignore.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
You are a troll Carthage.

And once again, isn't "theoretical stuff" entirely what these versus match-ups are? Isn't that a huge part of debating? Unless it's explicitly stated in Canon, isn't Dooku>Vitiate a theoretical tangent? Without theoretical tangents, you can't come to a conclusion in a debate such as this, and if you could purely on explicitly stated stuff, then the debate is not worth having.

You can insult me, Ant, Fated, Neph, and Sinious all you want, but even the others who hold the PT era in the high esteem you do have claimed you to be unreasonable, namely Sidious66 and Newguy1. Insult us all you want, but you will never be as good of a debater as us or the majority of the others here.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I have become a better debater since *shudders* SWF.

You don't go by actual logic or think for yourself Carthage, you just parrot back whatever you here from the admins on SWF, exaggerate it to Dooku ragdolling Vitiate, Bane Revan and Vitiate being weak, and stuff like that. Then you choose to word it in the way that'll piss people off the most. Your wording is provocative and your topics equally so. You are a troll Carthage.

And once again, isn't "theoretical stuff" entirely what these versus match-ups are? Isn't that a huge part of debating? Unless it's explicitly stated in Canon, isn't Dooku>Vitiate a theoretical tangent? Without theoretical tangents, you can't come to a conclusion in a debate such as this, and if you could purely on explicitly stated stuff, then the debate is not worth having.

You can insult me, Ant, Fated, Neph, and Sinious all you want, but even the others who hold the PT era in the high esteem you do have claimed you to be unreasonable, namely Sidious66 and Newguy1. Insult us all you want, but you will never be as good of a debater as us or the majority of the others here.


Carthage may be unreasonable but he isn't stupid. I don't think you actually believe he is stupid either.

BTW, what makes you believe that Vitiate would beat Dooku? Just curious.

So basically you're going to keep repeating the same nonsense due to your lack of evidence and put your fingers in your ears because you can't rebut anything I bring up.

Classic Sinious posting lol, i,e resorting to appeals to ignorance and calling people trolls.



Blah, blah, blah. I'm not the one that relies on non-cannon calculations and what if statements. For all of those paragraphs you posted all you had to do was say you were incapable of relying on feats to prove the validity of your posts or even reasonable arguments based on a characters limited amount of showings.



Basing theoretical tangents without the feats to back them up is nonsense which is the type of posting you and Neph are renowned for. At least Ant can back up his posts with the feats he meticulously digs up, all you do is pre suppose and rely on stupid assertions like you did when you try to pass off that hilarious rain feat for Bane. I have nothing against educated opinions for characters, so long as they have feats that ground them in some type of coherence.



I could give two shits what Sidious or Newguy think of my posting style, while I respect their opinions and they're infinitely superior debaters to the likes of you TOR/EU fans, I wont lose sleep over what they think of me.




Considering your track record here and on SWF, you're hardly in the position to rank other posters in terms of debating.

You fail to understand anything Carthage. These "theoretical tangents" you speak of are backed up by the text. Bane's rainstorm feat was impossible for him when he had already casually deflected blasterfire from six opponents, yet you tried to claim Malgus and Vader's feats of deflecting blasterfire from three shooters to somehow be far superior to this. That tangent is easily and heavily backed up and supported by the text, while you have made several statements about Bane Revan and Vitiate that directly contradict the text.

You accuse me of completely ignoring your points?!! I answer all of your points with logic, and you pretty much respond with "nope" and repeat the same bullshit you started with. And how is saying "blah blah blah" not sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring my points?

You completely and utterly fail to grasp my point about the necessity of theoretical tangents and calculations and call bullshit on that. Any thing anyone says in a debate that is not explicitly stated is theoretical. Hell by that token, "Yoda>Jar Jar" is bullshit because it is not explicitly stated anywhere. Debates require theoreticals to determine an outcome that is not explicitly stated, and the fact that you cannot grasp a concept so simple astounds me.

What the **** do you mean my track record?!! I cannot think of a single person on here that is willing to claim that you are not unreasonable. As far as track records go, I have debated just fine with others without a problem, while just about everyone knows you are unreasonable, and you have had several threads closed and even been temporarily been banned by a mod from outside this forum who only came here because of the overwhelming number of people complaining about you.

You have no credibility or good reputation here, so don't even act like you can challenge me on that. You deliberately word things and create topics to provoke people, and you have admitted to trolling and doing things to piss people off numerous times. I've said this before, I'm saying it now, I will continue to say it, and I will defend it with every last bone in my body. You Carthage are a troll.

@ Carthage

What you're doing here is really tricky, kid. You base your arguments on feats, true but when we are to compare 2 characters from different eras where one has comic books, movies and a lot of quotes about him and the other one is less popular, the lack of info does not make that character less powerful. Darth Jadus is a perfect example for this. He never defeated another powerful force user in swtor but his being second to emperor quote and force feats help us understand his capabilities and rank him higher than some of the powerful PT characters.

The entire purpose of this forum is to do this and by ignoring that, you think you sound like a very scientific and clever person with strict debating rules yet you really don't.

So like I said before little one, you have admitted being a troll and I don't waste time with trolls. Now stop polluting my thread.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
You fail to understand anything Carthage. These "theoretical tangents" you speak of are backed up by the text. Bane's rainstorm feat was impossible for him when he had already casually deflected blasterfire from six opponents, yet you tried to claim Malgus and Vader's feats of deflecting blasterfire from three shooters to somehow be far superior to this. That tangent is easily and heavily backed up and supported by the text, while you have made several statements about Bane Revan and Vitiate that directly contradict the text.

You accuse me of completely ignoring your points?!! I answer all of your points with logic, and you pretty much respond with "nope" and repeat the same bullshit you started with. And how is saying "blah blah blah" not sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring my points?

You completely and utterly fail to grasp my point about the necessity of theoretical tangents and calculations and call bullshit on that. Any thing anyone says in a debate that is not explicitly stated is theoretical. Hell by that token, "Yoda>Jar Jar" is bullshit because it is not explicitly stated anywhere. Debates require theoreticals to determine an outcome that is not explicitly stated, and the fact that you cannot grasp a concept so simple astounds me.

What the **** do you mean my track record?!! I cannot think of a single person on here that is willing to claim that you are not unreasonable. As far as track records go, I have debated just fine with others without a problem, while just about everyone knows you are unreasonable, and you have had several threads closed and even been temporarily been banned by a mod from outside this forum who only came here because of the overwhelming number of people complaining about you.

You have no credibility or good reputation here, so don't even act like you can challenge me on that. You deliberately word things and create topics to provoke people, and you have admitted to trolling and doing things to piss people off numerous times. I've said this before, I'm saying it now, I will continue to say it, and I will defend it with every last bone in my body. You Carthage are a troll.


Emperor,

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
what makes you believe that Vitiate would beat Dooku? Just curious.

Bane's own blaster feat was more impressive as he had to rely on precog and saber movements for those faster moving projectiles from six shooters. That's Bane's own saber feat beating a feat that is less impressive due to rain being slower. Again try some semblance of logic with your posts. And no its not so what if Bane thought it was impossible, its not that great of a feat compared to the one you listed. Malgus, Vader, Maul, Kun, Krayt and all the other characters that you constantly say Bane is stronger than have superior feats across the board to your hallowed character. Sorry that's just how it is

You must really suck at reading posts, I never said that I was against theoretical posts. If they're theoretical posts supported by text then they're completely valid like Bane's rain feat is, the only thing that isn't supported is your pathetic attempt at trying to prove its superior with non-cannon calculations and the fact you routinely deny that blaster bolts are faster, and that laboring to deflect them is more impressive than blocking water drops.



What does this have to do with the fact I use feats solely for my arguments? Its not my fault you're butthurt and I made a few spite threads that got me justly banned. So what? You won't let the past be the past, and are simply mad that I'm still around. I really don't care what other posters think of me, try to understand. Also getting banned and being disliked by posters says zero about the content of my posts during debates. Nice try though



Your concession is accepted for the 5th time now

I never explicitly stated that in this thread. Just that Dooku instantly wtfpwning Vitiate with the force is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Sinious
@ Carthage

What you're doing here is really tricky, kid. You base your arguments on feats, true but when we are to compare 2 characters from different eras where one has comic books, movies and a lot of quotes about him and the other one is less popular, the lack of info does not make that character less powerful. Darth Jadus is a perfect example for this. He never defeated another powerful force user in swtor but his being second to emperor quote and force feats help us understand his capabilities and rank him higher than some of the powerful PT characters.

The entire purpose of this forum is to do this and by ignoring that, you think you sound like a very scientific and clever person with strict debating rules yet you really don't.

So like I said before little one, you have admitted being a troll and I don't waste time with trolls. Now stop polluting my thread.


You're polluting your own thread.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I never explicitly stated that in this thread. Just that Dooku instantly wtfpwning Vitiate with the force is ridiculous.


Do you think that Vitiate instantly "wtfpwning" Dooku is ridiculous?

Nonsense, again relying on the appeal to ignorance like you always do. Showings are all that matter during comparisons between characters, I've never disputed Vitiate was a powerful force user, he just isn't as strong compared to others due to his lack of showings and the specific factors that come into play for his best feats. If there is a lack of feats and you are claiming that Vitiate is stronger (which you have done in the past for Jadus and Vitiate), then the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim.


Being 2nd in command to a council that is notorious for political pandering, and for a council that is notorious for a lack of showings for most of its members is not indicative of a testament to power. Jadus has nothing that puts him above a high tier Dark lord of the Sith. Nothing at all




Certainly not as clever as someone who foolishly defends featless characters, with appeal to ignorance fallacies and namecalling as opposed to well-reasoned arguments and feats.



Your inability to beat my arguments doesn't make me a troll. Stop the asinine name calling and actually post something worth respond too for once or block me.

@Carthage the text supports that Bane's rainstorm feat is far above deflecting blasterfire from six shooters. You claim that deflecting three blasterbolts is somehow a superior feat.

Calculations heavily implied and supported by the text. I never denied that blasterbolts move faster, but blocking around a thousand raindrops a second for ten minutes is very easily superior to deflecting only three blasterbolts.

Except you have nothing in the way of a good track record. None of the other members believe you to not be unreasonable, I've pointed out several flaws and fallacies in your arguments, including you completely ignoring and contradicting canon statements (ironically enough in the favor of your own "theoretical calculations", and I have provided evidence, including your own admittance, to you trolling. You have nothing at all suggesting a good reputation or anything that might amount to any form of credibility.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Do you think that Vitiate instantly "wtfpwning" Dooku is ridiculous?
Yes

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I never explicitly stated that in this thread. Just that Dooku instantly wtfpwning Vitiate with the force is ridiculous.

Off nexus you haven't proven Vitiate can even stand with Dooku by order of his feats and showings. How is it a ridiculous assertion that Dooku can defeat Vitiate when his showings off a nexus are superior in every single way?

The text only states that Bane thought it would be impossible to do it, not that it is a superior feat to deflecting multiple blaster bolts while relying on precog, redirecting them faster than multiple shooters can react to, etc. Again who cares what an in universe Bane thinks, he also dodged bolts and did evasive maneuvers against the torrent he didn't just stand there and deflect them statically.



Not when its faster than the shooters can react , coming from multiple angles, and it relies on faculties such as speed, precog, etc all areas Bane sucks in. Again Krayt, Maul, Vader, and others have speed feats that put them above Bane in other areas. Bane was slower admittedly and if blocking water is the best you can devise to compare him to others, even in spite of him defeating his own feat by deflecting bolts this just highlights your lack of debating ability.

As for the rest of your post its the same irrelevant nonsense you always babble on about

Im not gonna argue about this again.

@ Carthage, Sidious66

For the last time, stick with the topic or stop posting here. I'll pm the mods to delete your posts if you keep trolling here.

Your ability to not respond to arguments is not trolling. But fair enough I will respect your wishes.

@Carthage Bane considered the rainstorm feat impossible to accomplish after having casually deflected blasterfire from half a dozen shooters. This a very clear sign that the rainstorm feat was superior to the half a dozen shooters feat by a considerable margin. And either of these speed feats is superior to the ones you have provided of Vader and Malgus deflecting only three blasterbolts. Your assumption that the rainstorm feat is inferior to blocking three blasterbolts can be classified as your own "theoretical tangent" or "non-canon calculations" by your logic, but the difference is that the text fails utterly to support your point of view while it pretty much confirms mine.

Your accusations of others using "theoretical tangents", even when they are supported by the text, despite you using "theoretical tangents" that are not supported by, and some times directly contradict the text, highlights your lack of debating ability.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes

I will respect the OP's wishes and return to the topic of the thread.

The way I view it, there are three main factors to consider:
1. Quality
2. Quantity
3. Success
I will be providing three candidates chronologically, explaining my reasons for each, and then select the one that I believe to be the best example of the Golden Age of the Sith.

First off is Vitiate's Sith Empire. This order possessed both great quality and quantity of Sith, effectively possessing vast numbers of Sith, with a fair amount of powerhouses in there, effectively upholding the first two criteria. Unfortunately they kinda drop the ball on the third one relative to my other two candidates, which was success, seeing as Vitiate's empire never controlled the Galaxy.

Next up is the Banite Sith. Bane's Order possessed some of the most powerful Sith in Galactic History, "thirty in a millennium rather than the tens of thousands fit to be Jedi." The Banite Sith achieved such great power through the training and ambition of one day becoming the Dark Lord. This great power and secrecy culminated in the Grand Plan's fruition, and the Sith successfully taking over the Galaxy. At the expense of the criteria of quality and success however, the Banite Sith lacked the second criteria, which was quantity, with only two true Sith at a time, and only thirty Sith in a millennia.

My third and final candidate is Darth Krayt's One Sith Order. This order of Sith possessed great quantity with legions of Sith, and great success with their successful takeover of the Galaxy. Unfortunately they drop the ball on the first criteria, which is quality. The One Sith philosophy of fanatical devotion to Krayt to the point of suicide on his whim led to a general lack of ambition in his order, which is a crucial part in growth of a Sith's power. Only two or three of them ever aspired to be anything greater than Krayt's servants, and this shows when you see hordes of One Sith treated as fodder.

So the conclusion I have come to from my three top candidates is that there is no ideal representation of all three criteria, and the best we can settle for is one that upholds two of them the best. I will now go about determining that.

As per quality, this one falls between the Banite Sith and Vitiate's Empire. Bane's order I feel really outclassed every other order in this respect, with every Sith in the order training with the ambition to one day become the Dark Lord of the Sith. The Banite Sith trained with greater raw power, as a result of immense elitism in the selection of apprentices, greater ambition than any other order, with the prospect of one day becoming the Dark Lord, and immense knowledge with all the Sith knowledge of the order pooled together and added to for a thousand years. Quality: Banite Sith

As per quantity, this one falls between Vitiate's Empire, and the One Sith. Krayt's order had legions of Sith, however Vitiate's Empire had flourished and grown for much longer before revealing themselves to the Galaxy, and had a **** ton of them as per SWTOR. Quantity: Vitiate's Empire.

As per success, this one falls between the Banite Sith and the One Sith. Both took over the Galaxy, but I'd have to credit the Banite Sith for holding Galactic control for over three times as long as Krayt's One Sith. I'd also credit the Jedi purge of the Banite Sith being more successful, taking out 99% of a much larger order than the around 50% of the Jedi Order of Krayt's time. Success: Banite Sith.

Overall, based on relative superiority in factors compared to each other, I have determined that the fruition of the Banite Sith's Grand Plan is the golden age of the Sith, at least from my point of view. This would be followed closely behind by Vitiate's Empire and then Krayt's order.

I'll note that you see just as many Vitiate Empire Sith treated as fodder.

Even among those who only aspire for power within the order, there are numbers of strong ones. They're still trained and battle hardened, and many have ambition to grow within the ranks... very much as is the case in the Vitiate Empire, where only a few dream of going beyond the Empire, even among Dark Councilors and the like.

Any big order will have it's stronger people, and it's less powerful ones, just as the Jedi do. SW, the main light side force users we follow are among the top warriors of the era, so of course they're going to win against most sith, even in groups, but if you followed a story about Orgus Din's exploits you'd see a lot of Vitiate era sith as fodder as well.

Originally posted by carthage
Showings are all that matter during comparisons between characters,

Lol.

Btw, last issue of Legacy 2- A One Sith trained sith (though a highly ambitious one- and not a high tier one) and a junior Imperial Knight force push over a several hundred foot across dish.

There's no lack of power

Q99, you mind posting links to the last 2 legacy comics? Or 3?

As I said Q99, Wyyrlok, that guy you mentioned(who was it btw?), Nihl, and possibly Maladi are the exceptions to the rule.

Oh yeah!!! How's Nihl doing as Dark Lord?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I have become a better debater since *shudders* SWF.

Really? Because you seem, like, exactly how we left you.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
And that is why a large bulk of members don't take you seriously.

Members like whom, exactly? Also, it's a reasonable assertion. Revan's TK feats hardly outstrip Ventress's in direct comparison. He's almost certainly the more powerful, though.

Revan's TK does outstrip Ventress'. Ventress can't even stand against Dooku without being ragdolled after a short duel. Revan took Vitiate's TK and kept on fighting after merely being pushed back.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Revan's TK does outstrip Ventress'.


Not feat-wise, though as NewGuy said, Revan is the more powerful force user, so his TK is likely superior.

Tanking Vitiate's TK >>> Ventress getting ragdolled by Dooku.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Tanking Vitiate's TK >>> Ventress getting ragdolled by Dooku.


Didn't Vitiate force push him right before trying to TP him?

Yeah? The fact is that Vitiate can't ragdoll Revan like he could someone like Ventress.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Yeah? The fact is that Vitiate can't ragdoll Revan like he could someone like Ventress.


Perhaps he wasn't trying to ragdoll Revan, and was just trying to distance Revan in order to use his TP.

If he was capable of it he would have done it after his TP had failed though, surely.

Besides, ragdolling with TK is clearly much easier than the stated effort his TP takes.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
The fact remains, every member of that order was trained with the ambition of becoming the Dark Lord. They also all had access to an incredible wealth of Sith knowledge and skills. Even if they didn't necessarily get stronger through each generation, due to many of them killing their master through cheating, they were all immensely powerful through their vast knowledge, great ambition, and training to one day be the Dark Lord of the Sith.
Your assumption about entire Rule of Two lineage having access to incredible wealth of Sith knowledge and skills is incorrect. Darth Gravid caused a major setback to the lineage in this respect and generations later Darth Plagueis was left with no alternative but to experiment with Midi-chlorians to achieve results that would have been possible with ancient dark arts.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Q99, you mind posting links to the last 2 legacy comics? Or 3?

https://digital.darkhorse.com/browse/volume/611/


Originally posted by Emperordmb
As I said Q99, Wyyrlok, that guy you mentioned(who was it btw?), Nihl, and possibly Maladi are the exceptions to the rule.



Exceptions in terms of attitude, there's a good number who are strong without, yet, having developed ambition outside the normal route of power.

Remember that even Maul didn't get ambitious until after he'd gotten sliced in half. Or some fairly major members of the dark council under Vitiate, like Thanaton.

Plenty of One Sith are well-trained in the force, it's just only a few have gotten strong enough to strain against the restrictions of their roles. After all, even a major military leader like Azard, who's pretty strong, still can aim for becoming Fist, so his ambition doesn't feel restricted in the same way Nihl's and Wyyrlok's does.





Well, he doesn't really come up specifically ^^;; I mean, there's sith infiltrators everywhere, and some of them are involved in some impressive stuff, so by extension you can figure he's behind it, but don't expect to see much of the Legacy 1 cast outside the Triumvirate.

Legacy 2 is a narrower story to an extent. We follow Aina Solo and Jao Assim, galactic events are only lightly touched on, unlike Legacy 1 where it showed all the major players.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Your assumption about entire Rule of Two lineage having access to incredible wealth of Sith knowledge and skills is incorrect. Darth Gravid caused a major setback to the lineage in this respect and generations later Darth Plagueis was left with no alternative but to experiment with Midi-chlorians to achieve results that would have been possible with ancient dark arts.
Gravid destroyed about half of the knowledge of his time. And having half the knowledge left is still a pretty ****ing immense amount of knowledge, because even at the order's first Dark Lord, Bane, they already had the knowledge of four legendary Sith Lords and a library full of Sith knowledge. With half of the pre-Gravid knowledge, plus the growth in knowledge in the centuries after Gravid's death, you get a pretty immense amount of knowledge. Plagueis had a huge ass ****ing library of Sith knowledge.

@Q99 who was the Sith who pushed that thing with the IK?