Originally posted by Advent
Are you seriously going to argue that Bane had a chance at becoming Supreme Chancellor? Err, lol. How could the Clone Army destroy the Jedi when there were no clones? Sifo-Dyas, not Sidious, ordered the clones' creation.
Advent, with all due respect, it doesn't look like you have much of an argument. You've gone from trying to refute Sidious's superiority relative to Bane to trying to argue that Bane couldn't have been elected Supreme Chancellor due to appearance and lack of a clone army.
Upon Palpatine's manipulations...
This is at a point where the Order is waaaay more volatile than it was in 1000 ABY. Are you aware how easily Zannah infiltrated the Jedi?
Hell, just replace 'SD' with 'Johun Othone' and you've got a massive army being ordered. And remember Palpatine was a senator from a backwater little world who merely had a reputation for honesty...he also entered into politics in his thirties
Originally posted by Gideon
Advent, with all due respect, it doesn't look like you have much of an argument. You've gone from trying to refute Sidious's superiority relative to Bane to trying to argue that Bane couldn't have been elected Supreme Chancellor due to appearance and lack of a clone army.
My argument is that nothing suggests Bane > Sidious and that's true.
- Destroyed the Jedi Order? Not through personal power.
- "Embraced the dark side fully"? Which means...what? Had Sidious tried to take the Republic head on without his political manipulations and such, he would have failed.
- DSSB says so? See my post about it.
What, in your argument, haven't I addressed?
Originally posted by Advent
My argument is that nothing suggests Bane > Sidious and that's true.
There's just one problem with that: it's completely wrong. I refer you to the statement issued by the Complete Visual Dictionary: the Sith had waited for the birth of one powerful enough to return the Sith from hiding; Bane is established to have had the same advantages as Sidious: a high intellect and the benefits afforded by secrecy and anonymity, as well as an extraordinarily wealthy and influential alter ego.
Like it or not, Bane didn't achieve the revenge of the Sith, and according to the sources? Because he wasn't capable of doing it.
- Destroyed the Jedi Order? Not through personal power.
Not just through personal power, Advent. But Palpatine's plans hinged largely on his ability to blunt Jedi sensitivity on a galactic scale, which was through personal power.
- "Embraced the dark side fully"? Which means...what? Had Sidious tried to take the Republic head on without his political manipulations and such, he would have failed.
Possibly, but it goes to show that Palpatine achieved a level of concert with the dark side that Bane did not (read: could not).
- DSSB says so? See my post about it.
When I joined SD.net, I brought this to Publius's attention (Taven brought it up a while back). I will find his copied argument. As I said, he does a much better job of arguing the linguistic perspective of the statement than I can. You'll just have to have faith as well as acceptance of the fact that you still have three or four other statements to contend with.
What, in your argument, haven't I addressed?
With great respect, the vast majority of it.
Oh, and it's possible that I may be revisiting the argument regarding Anakin and Yoda and their relative levels of power. George Lucas confirms the statement from the novelization.
Originally posted by Darth Subjekt
Power is different than saber skills. Anakin, as of ROTS had the most power, just not the most mastery or experience. GL even said, "At the time of ROTS, Anakin is the most powerful Jedi, he just lacks the experience." Even in RODV it states, "Once the most powerful knight ever known to the Jedi Order, he is now a disciple of the darkside, a lord of the dreaded Sith, and the avenging right hand of the galaxy's ruthless new Emperor."So anyway you cut it, Anakin is able (though not guaranteed) to beat anyone in saber combat, as of ROTS.
As far as sending OB1 to fight Anakin...there could be multiple reasons. OB1 couldn't beat Sidious, maybe Yoda was hoping that OB1's connection to Anakin would help (which it did in a way), or maybe he thought Anakin could beat him and figured that could be the end of the Jedi. There's alot of reasons. It doesn't negate the fact that Anakin could beat Yoda.
There's just one problem with that: it's completely wrong. I refer you to the statement issued by the Complete Visual Dictionary: the Sith had waited for the birth of one powerful enough to return the Sith from hiding; Bane is established to have had the same advantages as Sidious: a high intellect and the benefits afforded by secrecy and anonymity, as well as an extraordinarily wealthy and influential alter ego.
Its never established that Bane had the same intellect and manipulative abilities as Sidious. Which is, the main weapon that Sidious used to take over the galaxy. Sids did very little of the fighting himself, only engaging opponents in combat when he was forced to. And we are dealing with completely different timeframes here, how can you say that the Republic would of fell as easily in Banes time as Sids? Not to mention that Bane would of had no access to an apprentice as powerful as Anakin.
Possibly, but it goes to show that Palpatine achieved a level of concert with the dark side that Bane did not
No it doesnt. Embraced the dark side fully could simply mean that he was entirely corrupted with the dark side. Which is obviously true. To say that Palpatine had greater concert or ability in the force than Bane is your own interpretation of a vague and indefinate quote.
Originally posted by Gideon
And explain how "keen understanding of galactic politics" will let you "embrace the dark side fully.
I can't believe you asked such an obvious question to which Advent didn't make the comeback I'm about to...
All politicians are inherently evil. Lying, deceit, a lust for power, being afraid to lose their power, manipulation of events and/or people...these are all things Politicians and Sith Lords have in common. Come now, it's obvious.
Advent wins.
Originally posted by Gideon
Oh, and it's possible that I may be revisiting the argument regarding Anakin and Yoda and their relative levels of power. George Lucas confirms the statement from the novelization.
The actual statement from GL only applies to the time of ROTS, as he explicitly stated. Im not sure what your implying by the quote, if your just comparing Anakin and Yoda then that is fine. As for the RODV quote, its validity is questionable until you can show that it doesnt operate under omniscient narrator limited. And notice that the quote specifically states most powerful knight which of couse then wouldnt apply to the Jedi masters of the order.
EDIT: Im extending an olive branch here Gideon. I included no insults and my posts were not mocking in nature. Hopefully you can behave maturely from here on out.
Originally posted by Great VengeanceIf he does, we'll all outcast him.
The actual statement from GL only applies to the time of ROTS, as he explicitly stated. Im not sure what your implying by the quote, if your just comparing Anakin and Yoda then that is fine. As for the RODV quote, its validity is questionable until you can show that it doesnt operate under omniscient narrator limited. And notice that the quote specifically states most powerful knight which of couse then wouldnt apply to the Jedi masters of the order.EDIT: Im extending an olive branch here Gideon. I included no insults and my posts were not mocking in nature. Hopefully you can behave maturely from here on out.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Its never established that Bane had the same intellect and manipulative abilities as Sidious.
You clearly haven't read either Path of Destruction or Rule of Two.
Which is, the main weapon that Sidious used to take over the galaxy.
Not the only one. Palpatine used the Force to blunt Jedi senses and sensitivity to the Force on a galactic scale and would conduct rituals from Coruscant to increase anxiety amongst their ranks -- also on a galactic scale.
Sids did very little of the fighting himself, only engaging opponents in combat when he was forced to. And we are dealing with completely different timeframes here, how can you say that the Republic would of fell as easily in Banes time as Sids? Not to mention that Bane would of had no access to an apprentice as powerful as Anakin.
You seem to be missing the point entirely, Great Vengeance. As I have explained to you before, combat ability =/= strength in the Force. There is nothing conclusive that Character X will defeat Character Y in combat; we're discussing strength in the Force and overall power. Anakin Skywalker has been confirmed to be a more skilled duelist than Obi-Wan Kenobi, Palpatine has demonstrated power well beyond that of Mace Windu, and yet both Kenobi and Windu dealt their opponents decisive, legitimate defeats. I strongly urge that you learn the difference between the ability to defeat someone in combat and being more powerful than them.
Moreover, Anakin was not necessary in the grand scheme of things. Palpatine told Vader, flat out, in Rise of Darth Vader that had Count Dooku been "stronger in the dark side", Vader would have been murdered. Moreover, he also muses that the clonetroopers could have handled the destruction of the Jedi at the Temple, but he sent Anakin there personally to cut off all ties to the Jedi, to force his hand into absolute servitude of the Sith. Anakin was a nice bonus, but hardly necessary.
No it doesnt. Embraced the dark side fully could simply mean that he was entirely corrupted with the dark side. Which is obviously true. To say that Palpatine had greater concert or ability in the force than Bane is your own interpretation of a vague and indefinate quote.
Yes, it does. Darth Bane has displayed an alarming lack of morals or anything approaching what we consider to be 'good.' Based on evidence, he lived and died a dark sider, and the mastermind of notorious crimes and perpetuation of the Sith lineage. He's incredibly evil. Yet Bane wasn't the imbalance in the Force; Palpatine was. Bane wasn't able to conquer the galaxy -- despite the fact that he possessed many of Palpatine's advantages (a high intellect, a wealthy and influential alter ego, and the fact that he was hidden from prying eyes). Yet he still didn't do it. Seems rather evident to me, and if you or Advent want to argue the contrary, it's your burden to prove.
The actual statement from GL only applies to the time of ROTS, as he explicitly stated. Im not sure what your implying by the quote, if your just comparing Anakin and Yoda then that is fine.
Much of Advent's argument stemmed from an attempt to cast doubt on Anakin's status as "the most powerful Jedi of his generation" or perhaps "any generation." The statement from George Lucas seems to corroborate that statement. Especially when one considers the fact that Matthew Stover worked closely with George Lucas on the construction of the novelization, and that Lucas has declared the prequel trilogy to be "the prime of the Jedi."
As for the RODV quote, its validity is questionable until you can show that it doesnt operate under omniscient narrator limited. And notice that the quote specifically states most powerful knight which of couse then wouldnt apply to the Jedi masters of the order.
Anakin was never granted the rank of master, even though Mace Windu did admit that Skywalker was more powerful than any Jedi (no rank specified) at that time. Evidence shows that the only reason he wasn't given the position is that no one but Kenobi really liked him or had faith in him; his power, however, is unquestionable.
EDIT: Im extending an olive branch here Gideon. I included no insults and my posts were not mocking in nature. Hopefully you can behave maturely from here on out.
It depends on if you can go an entire argument without going "NO THIS PERCEPTION IS WRONG" and expect me to adhere to it. With respect to both you and Advent, you haven't come close to bringing anything to the table to disprove the four statements I provided.
You clearly haven't read either Path of Destruction or Rule of Two.
Yes Bane no doubt had some intellect and manipulative abilities, though there is the matter of degree. Can you provide some evidence that would directly show that Banes intellectual prowess could match Sidious, who is most likely the best politician in the entire mythos?
Not the only one. Palpatine used the Force to blunt Jedi senses and sensitivity to the Force on a galactic scale and would conduct rituals from Coruscant to increase anxiety amongst their ranks -- also on a galactic scale.
Yes the dark side clouds the judgment of the Jedi, but that isnt necessarily due to Palpatines mastery of the force. Its the nature of the dark side to do this, “The dark side clouds everything. Impossible to see the future is.”
You seem to be missing the point entirely, Great Vengeance. As I have explained to you before, combat ability =/= strength in the Force. There is nothing conclusive that Character X will defeat Character Y in combat; we're discussing strength in the Force and overall power. Anakin Skywalker has been confirmed to be a more skilled duelist than Obi-Wan Kenobi, Palpatine has demonstrated power well beyond that of Mace Windu, and yet both Kenobi and Windu dealt their opponents decisive, legitimate defeats. I strongly urge that you learn the difference between the ability to defeat someone in combat and being more powerful than them.
Who would win in combat is the more relevent issue. Hence this forum is called, the versus forum. Raw power is a strong indicator though and I'll grant that it is usually enough to determine who would win in a duel. As for Palpatine though, he hasnt shown that much raw power at all during his conquest of the galaxy. Surely we can establish that the majority of the work was done by clone troopers or other factions and that Palpatine succeeded in his plan mostly by manipulation and political skill. He didnt walk in to the Senate and dominate their minds into submission....he won their support and trust with his schemes of pitting the Separatists against the Republic while he was controlling both sides.
Moreover, Anakin was not necessary in the grand scheme of things. Palpatine told Vader, flat out, in Rise of Darth Vader that had Count Dooku been "stronger in the dark side", Vader would have been murdered. Moreover, he also muses that the clonetroopers could have handled the destruction of the Jedi at the Temple, but he sent Anakin there personally to cut off all ties to the Jedi, to force his hand into absolute servitude of the Sith. Anakin was a nice bonus, but hardly necessary.
Bane wouldnt of had access to Count Dooku either, who along with Anakin were both more powerful than anyone Bane would have access to. I agree that they may have not been absolutely necessary, but they certainly helped.
Yes, it does. Darth Bane has displayed an alarming lack of morals or anything approaching what we consider to be 'good.' Based on evidence, he lived and died a dark sider, and the mastermind of notorious crimes and perpetuation of the Sith lineage. He's incredibly evil. Yet Bane wasn't the imbalance in the Force; Palpatine was. Bane wasn't able to conquer the galaxy -- despite the fact that he possessed many of Palpatine's advantages (a high intellect, a wealthy and influential alter ego, and the fact that he was hidden from prying eyes). Yet he still didn't do it. Seems rather evident to me, and if you or Advent want to argue the contrary, it's your burden to prove.
No one is arguing that Darth Bane was a good guy, but Palpatine takes evil to a whole other level.
And yes Bane never conquered the galaxy, but again that doesnt necessarily mean Palpatine was more powerful. Political skill would be far more valuable in that endeavour, and Palpatine was a great politician. That Bane had the same level of intellect as Palpatine is yet to be established. Also there are other factors, the republic may not have been as ripe to be taken over during Banes era.
And with respect...you dont seem to have a solid understanding of what the burden of proof means. We arent necessarily arguing that Bane is more powerful than Sidious, we only have contentions with the arguments you are using to prove Sidious is more powerful than Bane. When a question of the validity of your argument is raised, it is your burden to prove or else your argument invalidates itself. We dont need to *prove* that your points are wrong in the absence of proof from your side of the argument.
Much of Advent's argument stemmed from an attempt to cast doubt on Anakin's status as "the most powerful Jedi of his generation" or perhaps "any generation." The statement from George Lucas seems to corroborate that statement. Especially when one considers the fact that Matthew Stover worked closely with George Lucas on the construction of the novelization, and that Lucas has declared the prequel trilogy to be "the prime of the Jedi."
The GL statement only designates Anakin as the most powerful of the ROTS period. I would also like the source on where GL said that the prequel trilogy was the prime of the Jedi, using his exact words. Im not necessarily calling you a liar but I want to be sure you arent using your own interpretations of what he said instead of what he actually said.
Anakin was never granted the rank of master, even though Mace Windu did admit that Skywalker was more powerful than any Jedi (no rank specified) at that time. Evidence shows that the only reason he wasn't given the position is that no one but Kenobi really liked him or had faith in him; his power, however, is unquestionable.
A statement from Windu is fallible, especially when the statement concerns the entire history of the Jedi. Anakin may or may not have *deserved* master, but the quote you used as proof designates that he was the most powerful knight, not the most powerful of the masters. And since nearly all of the most powerful Jedi of the order were masters, this quote is inadequate proof.