The Powers of the Istari

[obloquy]

I posted this in the Sauron Eyeball Thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=41746). It was rather off-topic for that thread, so here's a new one.


Observed or was forced to abide by these rules.

Observed. Gandalf could have turned his back on these rules, as Saruman did. He instead made himself wholly subject to them, and it was only because of this that his mission succeeded.

Don't you think Saruman would have used his real power if he could?

I think Saruman did use his real power. This is why he seemed so much stronger than Gandalf before Gandalf's return as the White. If the Istari actually had a certain measure of their power taken away from them by the Valar, why would Saruman be allowed more than Gandalf? What would be the purpose of an actual power handicap? What more would Saruman have had to do for you to say, Hey, I think he just broke one of the rules of the Istari! I think the limits on their power were just these: whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt.

I don't believe that their spiritual potency was restricted, but that they were limited in the ways they could openly use that potency. Saruman did 'reveal himself in a form of majesty', and he did 'seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power'. Saruman broke the rules, and thus appeared more powerful through the same means that Sauron did -- in armies and domination.

Check this out from Letters:
For in his condition it was for him a sacrifice to perish on the Bridge in defence of his companions, less perhaps than for a mortal Man or Hobbit, since he had a far greater inner power than they; but also more, since it was a humbling and abnegation of himself in conformity to 'the Rules': for all he could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success.

Pretty groovy, eh?

Gandalf, though greater in original spirit, submitted to Saruman's authority as the head of the order because that was how it was set up. He was humble, and in this lies the very key to his success. Here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=726) is more of my argument for Gandalf > Saruman. In addition to that, if we accept the quote I provided from Unfinished Tales about Gandalf and Sauron being equal in their beginnings; and we accept this quote, also from UT: And Curunír 'Lân, Saruman the White, fell from his high errand, and becoming proud and impatient and enamoured of power sought to have his own will by force, and to oust Sauron; but he was ensnared by that dark spirit, mightier than he.

...then it is only logical for us to consider Gandalf mightier than Saruman.

In the form he was in, Sauron was the strongest at that time. It's not just a matter of one being's sole power, but his influence as well...It's not just the one being that is powerful, but all under his control.

I can agree that Sauron's "team" was stronger than Gandalf's. That's exactly what Gandalf meant when he said what O'Boile quoted (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=41757).

His influence was great yes, but his sheer power was not equal to Sauron's.

You're right that Sauron, with the resources he commanded, was capable of more action -- be it mobilizing armies, destroying villages, besieging cities -- in Middle-earth than Gandalf. But the being that was Sauron and the being that was Gandalf, in their beginnings, had equally potent spirits.

They were different beings, though. The bad guys are usually "more powerful" than the good guys because they are willing to do anything to achieve their ends, and are not inhibited by morals, honesty, or compassion. Gandalf was a very meek spirit, and even expressed to Manwe a fear of Sauron. Manwe was confident in Gandalf, though, because of that humility.

Edit: Updated link at HerenIstarion's request.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Great arguments obloquy. I agree. To show restraint was to show strength on Gandalf's part.

[Anna Licumo]

First off, let me say I am wholly believing in your theory. However, there was one note in the other thread, and if you would allow me to dredge it up, I wish to question it's proof:
This tells us that Gandalf had made himself wholly subject to the rules of the Istari, and would not break them even if it meant the failure of his mission.

This means, though, that if in the end Gandalf could have dealt the killing blow even though it would break the rules, but end evil, he would have not done so. The rules where first put there to stop the Istari from turning *into* Sauron, or at least becoming akin to Saruman after he is corrupted. I do not think that Gandalf would let the whole mission fail and earth be doomed so that he could stay within the respected bounderies. In a true emergency, I do not think the Valar would mind him breaking it. Or if they did, he would probably be just doomed to stay in ME, and perhaps stripped of his power and immortality, but I think Gandalf would be willing to accept such consquences to save all of ME and Eru's work. He did not bow to evil, so that he would not become evil, but if he had to so that he could stop it, I think he would. This is, however, a judge of Gandalf's character, and I may be wrong. In fact, you could respond his character is so pure because he did not let himself turn to evil. I was just questioning the theory, at any matter, and I hope you can prove me wrong, so I can argue back. I've found it's the best way to learn. smilies/smile.gif

::Curtsies and steps back to watch the soon to come arguement::

[obloquy]

Good post, Anna Licumo, though I disagree a bit.

You say Gandalf would have viewed the completion of the mission as more important than the rules that governed the mission. In reply to this I'll direct your attention back to the quote from Letters, where Tolkien says "for all he could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success." Here Gandalf did exactly what you don't believe he would have done: he remained subject to the rules, though it meant (for all he knew) the failure of his mission and an eventual victory for Sauron.

[Morgoth Bauglir]

how do you know that the maiar all had equally potent spirits?

if they did, then why was gandalf afraid of sauron when manwe asked him to come?

To answer my own question,one reason i think gandalf might have been afraid of sauron is because the istari had to all be clothed in the form of old men, thus containing thier true power.

Whereas, sauron did not have to be clothed in anything, and wasnt contained by really anything. He was his own master, but the istari were servants of manwe.

i HOPE that made sense, if it didnt im sorry, and btw, great post obloquy(sp?).

[Legolas]

Perhaps Gandalf had faith in the restrictions placed upon him. The point is that the mission would've failed had Gandalf not followed these restrictions, and he knew that. The Valar were wise enough to place such a mission and conditions upon him to know that if he stuck to them, he would succeed. I believe Gandalf knew this, though he feared otherwise because of his humility.

No one said that *all* Maiar were equally potent in spirit, just that Olorin and Sauron were. Olorin feared Sauron because he was humble.

[obloquy]

Agreed, Legalos. Good points.

Morgoth Bauglir: I'm not saying that all Maiar were equal. My contention that Sauron and Olorin were equal is based on the quote I provided from Unfinished Tales.

[Orofacion of the Vanyar]

Sorry if this seems way off topic in some areas, but the request was made to place a response to the initial post of this thread here as well as another.

whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty,...but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt.

This seems to tell me that they were infact restricted in the use of their powers as Maia. I suppose it depends on personal interpretation.

Saruman broke the rules, and thus appeared more powerful through the same means that Sauron did -- in armies and domination.

But is her more powerful then Sauron himself. My statment regarding the overall power was bi-fold. If Saruman was infact using his full Maia power, which I assume is what you are saying, then wound't he just go up and match Sauron Maia for Maia, instead of devising armies and adamantly searching for the ring?

Think about it, wouldn't it be the best course of action to remove your closest competitor if you have the chance, if Saruman was more powerful than Sauron at this time, then why didn't he do so.

but he was ensnared by that dark spirit, mightier than he.

I'm not sure of you're reasoning after you stated this but to me, that says that Sauron was obviously more powerful than Saruman. Sauron was the representation of the darkness of Middle Earth at this time, so it would only be logical to consider him in referencing this quote.

But the being that was Sauron and the being that was Gandalf, in their beginnings, had equally potent spirits.

Of course in the beginning they were equal, but that changed. Sauron's attachment to Melkor strengthend his sheer physical power obviously. But we are talking about their power during the time of the War of the Ring. Gandalf the White was still a Maia in a human shell, so that would limit his power logically.

They were different beings, though. The bad guys are usually "more powerful" than the good guys because they are willing to do anything to achieve their ends, and are not inhibited by morals, honesty, or compassion. Gandalf was a very meek spirit, and even expressed to Manwe a fear of Sauron. Manwe was confident in Gandalf, though, because of that humility.

So what exactly are we debating? The definition of power? If so that is a matter of personal interpretation once again. I am referring to actual physical power as a whole.

[Legolas]

No one mentioned Saruman being able to defeat Sauron.

That quote about the "mightier" stated that Sauron > Saruman, and the quote from UT says that Gandalf = Sauron.

So, if...

Gandalf = Sauron
Saruman < Sauron

Then...

Gandalf > Saruman


Edit: Looking back, I'm wondering if you read the thread at all, or just felt like ranting about something.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[O'Boile]

I would still maintain that during the time of the War of the Ring, that Sauron had more strength that Gandalf. If that was not the case, then why would Gandalf be afraid to look into the Palantir? Now if you count wisdom, Gandalf may have been equal, however for sheer power (not including armies) I still think Sauron was mightier. Something similar could be said for Saruman, before Gandalf was Resureccted. Unfinished Tails certainly makes Saruman seem greater, unless you count wisdom and willpower. In that case Gandalf was greater as noticed by Cirdan.

[Bêthberry]

Why was Gandalf afraid of looking into the palantir?

Why was he afraid to take the Ring when Frodo offerred it to him? See Gandalf's answer to Frodo in the chapter "The Shadow of the Past", FOTR. Wisdom and humility and self-knowledge make Gandalf greater.

Bethberry

[Feanaro]

"Of course in the beginning they were equal, but that changed. Sauron's attachment to Melkor strengthend his sheer physical power obviously."

This is entirely false. Sauron, as well as his master, were not physically strong in any way, shape, or form. They used guile and deceit to entrap their enemies (the rings of power). Sauron, ages before, was defeated by Huan no matter what type of physical form he took. Melkor too had his foot cleaved off by Fingolfin. Both were not physically strong, but mentally cunning and treacherous.

[O'Boile]

Meklor does defeat Fingolfin who is supposed to be one of the most valiant elves. Also, his foot probably was not cut off (see another tread that discusses this), however he was injured. It is said in the Silmarilion that Fingolfin's battle was ultimately hopeless, which would not be the case if Meklor was not tough in battle. Sauron fights against 4 of the greatest warriors of the time at the end of the second age, and he defeats two of them before he falls. That sounds pretty tough. Gandalf does not look in the palantir because he knows that his spirit is no match for Sauron's (perhaps becsause of the handicaps placed on it from being an istari), and that were he to do so, he would run the risk of becoming ensnared like Saruman was.

[Anna Licumo]

I would personally concede that Melkor and Sauron were *physically* stronger, than Gandalf. The Istari were cloaked in the appearence of old men so that they would know weariness, and anger, and hunger, because this knowledge would help them understand the plight of Elves and Men better, and so better help them fight against evil. *Spiritually*, however, I think Gandalf would be an even match. He did not look into the Palantir because he was afraid of not being strong enought to withstand Sauron- even though he probably could- and ending the mission. He knew his self-impossed limits and had no dillusions of grandeur or wished to oversee the hearts of Elves and Men, and this is what made him such a good man. (Man being used lightly smilies/tongue.gif ) It also made him appear weaker, but that may have just been his point, so that he would not hold as much sway over people as being all-powerful. The reason for the limits being set in the first point.

[Feanaro]

O'Boile you seem to be blind to the facts you yourself are stating. Yes, Fingolfin did fight against Morgoth, and yes he did lose. As you yourself stated, Fingolfin was an elf, who dealt a greivous wound to a higher being--an Ainur. This wound was more hurtful to Morgoth's pride than his body. "The Orcs made no boast of that duel at the gate; niether do the Elves sing of it, for their sorrow is too deep."

For an elf to wound an Ainur, I would consider that being to be not very physically strong. The whole point of my previous post, O'Boile, was to show that Morgoth was not the type to fight one on one--and niether was Sauron.

If you want more proof of this, I've provided a link to another topic. I shall scour the ancient depths of the board for another, longer, more specific topic even now. Here. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000574)

I found another link to a previous discussion of this topic where several good points were made:
Gandalf vs. Sauron (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000052)

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Feanaro ]

[burrahobbit]

why would Gandalf be afraid to look into the Palantir?

Because Sauron would send his giant army to kill them all? Maybe? Also, Sauron was tricky. That's not to say that he was more powerful, just tricky. Saruman was also tricky, and he got killed by Grima.

[Daniel Telcontar]

I agree with Burrahobbit, the reason Gandalf did not look into the palantir was of fear of revealing himself, not because he feared to lose a contest of will.
I am unsure if Sauron is stronger than Gandalf or if it is the opposite. Sauron was Melkor's mightiest servant, and learned much sorcery from him. When he attacked Minas Tirith (in the sil, not the capital of Gondor), it says that he came against them himself, meaning he is quite powerful in combat. On the other hand, when Gandalf first enters Dol Guldur, Sauron flees before him. I think however, that he did not flee because he feared to lose a fight, but to be exposed as Sauron himself.
I think Sauron was stronger than Gandalf when it came down to sheer power, but it is probably not much.

[burrahobbit]

meaning

No it doesn't. It means that he led a force against the tower. He was like a General. It just means that he thought it was important enough to come out and personally lead the battle. It isn't hard to lead from the back.

[O'Boile]

I beleive a quote from gandalf when he is talking to Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli in Fanghorn could sum this up. I don't have the book with me, but he is talking about how Treebeard is perilous, and then mentions other people who are perilous: "... as am I, more perilous than anyone you may meet, unless you are brought before the dark lord himself...". I would say that this implies that Gandalf was not as strong (perhapse due to his Istari form, and not being allowed to match Sauron with power).

My quotes about Meklor and Sauron being tough fighters were to point out that they were indead tough fighters. Sauron kills Elendil, and Gil-Galad although he is ultimately defeated. Meklor fights a war with the rest of the Valar (before the elves came into being) and holds the upper hand for some time. Even after he is diminished, he defeats one of the stronger (perhapse strongest) elves, and this battle is said to be hopeless for the elf. The point is that they are both tough fighters, although they certainly are not particualrly brave, and will not risk themselves unless it is necessary. In fact, I'm having a tough time thinking of any bad guys who were better fighters. All of the main villans were killed by individual men or elves except for the werewolf (forget the name) killed by Huan.

[O'Boile]

obloquy, while it is certainly possibe to interprit the quote ('I am Gandalf, Gandalf the white, but black is mightier still') about black being stronger than white as based of forces, and not individually, I disagree. Gandalf is clearly talking about himself with the white portion of statement. (I am Gandalf... the key word is I) I would think that since he is comparing himself to something, then it would be something that is similar, not one person vs. an entire nation.

[Feanaro]

"Sauron kills Elendil, and Gil-Galad although he is ultimately defeated."

Did you even look at that link I posted?Sauron was at the height of his power during this battle. He had the ring in his possession when he fought with Elendil and Gil-Galad. It has been said already in this forum that when Sauron was at the height of his power, with the ring in his possession, he was more powerful than Morgoth. Now perhaps you should take a look at the "Uh wots a Maiar???/" thread to see what exactly a Maiar is.

You seem to be measuring Morgoth and Sauron with the wrong system. Of course they were strong fighters when compared to elves and men--they were both Ainur after all. But the point that you are refusing to acknowledge is that they were incredibly weak compared to members of their own race. A Maiar at the peak of his power is overthrown by two mortals. Morgoth, a Valar, is wounded by a single elf in a duel.

Perhaps this will help drive my point into your skull. Sauron's case would equate to Gandalf (as Gandalf the White) being overthrown by the two mightiest orcs in Mordor. As for Morgoth, imagine what we would think if Manwë was challenged by the strongest orc of the first Age, and was seriously wounded. Would the fight still be hopeless? Of course it would! It's a Valar fighting a member of a mortal race. As stated by Tolkien in one of the Letters, the Valar were the "gods" of Ea. For a mortal (elves included because they can be slain) to wound a god, that god must not be a very powerful divine being.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Feanaro ]

[O'Boile]

Yes Feanaro, I read your post. It is simply wrong. You seem to underestimate elves somewhat. Maybe you should read some of the Silmarilion. In it, both Ecthelion and Glorfindel kill balrogs, althhough it costs them their lives. Same for Gandalf the Grey. So while they may not be equal to him, they are close. I think it is safe to assume that Fingolfin is roughly on the same level as they (and thus Gandalf the Grey) are. The whole point is that the wizards are supposed to be roughly equal to (powerful) men and elves. That way the can relate as equals.
Sauron was more powerful than Morgoth at the end of the first age after he had spent most of his spirit. He was not more powerful the Morgoth at the height of his power. Again, in the first war Morgoth is beating the entire Valar until Tulkas enters the fight.
Saruon fights against 5 people, not 2. Gil-Galad, Elrond, Cirdan, Elendil and Isildur. Again, some reading might help improve your knowledge.
A similar comparison would be Gandalf against several of the Nazgul, or perhaps a couple of Balrogs. Equating 2 orcs to the most powerful elves and humans of the time is a little off.
The point is that there is no 'bad guy' tougher than Morgoth at the height of his power. So if they are bad fighters, then who are the good ones?
Next there is a direct quote, (see my above post) where gandalf says that the dark lord is stronger in fact the strongest (or most perilous/dangerous you may interprit that differently), and he does not have the ring at that time. In the same chapter, gandalf says how he stood on a high place and fought with the Sauron, after which he was exausted, but he had managed to distract the eye for a short time. Sounds like Sauron is stronger to me. So, unless Gandalf does not know much about even his own strength, it would appear that Sauron was the stronger of the two.

[Morgoth Bauglir]

how was sauron more powerful than morgoth?

it is stated somewhere that sauron could never be as powerful because he wasnt his own master, he served morgoth in his begining.

[O'Boile]

Morgoth Bauglir, Tolkien said somewhere that Sauron was stronger than Morgoth as he was at the end of the first age. Morgoth's individual strength declines throught out the 'first' (and previous) ages. The reason is that he spends his spirit in the corrupting of his servants. For instance, to create dragons, he would have to permanently infuse them with some of his strength. Thus, by the time he steals the Silmarils, he is not nearly as powerful as he initially was. This is why Sauron is stronger. He did not have to expend any of his spirit.

[Feanaro]

Actually I have read all of The Silmarillion, over a dozen times--which is how I'm able to continue to prove parts of your notions wrong. "In it, both Ecthelion and Glorfindel kill balrogs, althhough it costs them their lives."

Firstly, Balrogs are not your typical Maiar, so we should leave them out of this discussion entirely. I'm not going to go into this, as it has been gone into before, so I will merely post the link for your reading pleasure: Balrogs DO have wings! (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001029&p=2)

Look at obloquy's post on the second page near the bottom. "Again, in the first war Morgoth is beating the entire Valar until Tulkas enters the fight."
Of course he did! Melkor started out as the most powerful Ainur, or did you forget that? He possessed a share in the workings and gifts of all of his bretheren. He does lose some of his potency during the creation of his forces, which is why he does grow weaker over time, good job on that part. However, he started out as the mightiest, which means he has much more power to be able to lose before he eventually equalled the other Valar. Hopefully my idea has been expressed fully enough, although I have a great fear that I will have to elaborate on this further.

"Saruon fights against 5 people, not 2. Gil-Galad, Elrond, Cirdan, Elendil and Isildur."
Really? I bet you found that in The Silmarillion? "But at last the siege was so strait that Sauron himself came forth; and he wrestled with Gil-galad and Elendil, and they both were slain, and the sword of Elendil broke under him as he fell."
Hmmm. I wonder which book I got that quote from. Some reading might help to improve my knowledge indeed! "The point is that there is no 'bad guy' tougher than Morgoth at the height of his power." Of course, but no one is trying to prove you wrong (on that point at least). Melkor at the height of his power is more mighty than all the Ainur. Tolkien said that himself, and it would be folly to try and argue with the author. Notice that I never mentioned that Sauron at his height was more powerful that Melkor at his height. Given Melkor's status, I would think that it's a given.

[O'Boile]

Maybe its time for a 13th reading. For pure fighting ability, Tulkas is the strongest Valar. Meklor may have been greater overall, but not in a one on one fight. Unfortunately, Tulkas could not do much else.
Second, I don't see why we can't include Balrogs. So they are not regular Maiar? So what. This just in: Neither was Gandalf. In fact, he was in an incarnate form which, according to the thread you refered me to, so were the balrogs. Anyway, its irrelavent. The point was to show that several elves fought balrogs with the same result that Gandalf had when he did. Thus there strength in battle is probably similar. Maybe that is too abstact?
Of course he did! Melkor started out as the most powerful Ainur, or did you forget that? He possessed a share in the workings and gifts of all of his bretheren. He does lose some of his potency during the creation of his forces, which is why he does grow weaker over time, good job on that part. However, he started out as the mightiest, which means he has much more power to be able to lose before he eventually equalled the other Valar. Hopefully my idea has been expressed fully enough, although I have a great fear that I will have to elaborate on this further.
I'm afraid you will, since you were the one saying he was weak. This quote seems to have you contradicting yourself.

Sauron, as well as his master, were not physically strong in any way, shape, or form. They used guile and deceit to entrap their enemies (the rings of power). Sauron, ages before, was defeated by Huan no matter what type of physical form he took. Melkor too had his foot cleaved off by Fingolfin. Both were not physically strong, but mentally cunning and treacherous.
Do you see the difference in these statements?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Saruon fights against 5 people, not 2. Gil-Galad, Elrond, Cirdan, Elendil and Isildur."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Really? I bet you found that in The Silmarillion?
Actually, in the Fellowship of the Ring. Elrond says it.

To sum it up, if they were not strong, then who, in your opinion, was? Long story short, Gandalf was not as strong individually (physicaly or mentaly) as Sauron during the War of the Ring. Although if you factor in wisdom, then they may have been equal.

[Feanaro]

Fine... one last time. My point originally was, as still is that niether Sauron nor Melkor were particulary strong in one on one confrontations. Melkor started as the strongest, yes, so he did hold off all of the Valar at one point. He then became steadily weaker as his forces increased, to the point where a single elf could injure him. This being said, Sauron did not gain any special strength enhancements from his association with Melkor, mainly because combat was not Melkor's strongpoint to begin with. So you see, I am not contradicting myself, merely conceding a point to make you feel better. Now then, if you wish to continue this debate, although I can't see why you would--considering that you apparantly forgot what the point I was originally trying to make was, you can do so by yourself. Enough of this thread has been wasted in an argument that should never have taken place at all.

[Lord of Angmar]

This thread had so much potential. It is a shame that it was ruined by the bickering of two individuals, neither of whom really advanced the discussion at all.

The definition of power seems to be the most skewed aspect of this thread. If we are talking about individual physical power alone, then this thread is useless. Gandalf could not 'kill' Sauron or Saruman in hand-to-hand combat (at least until Saruman's fall from his mission), nor could Sauron be killed unless the Ring was destroyed, nor could Sauron 'kill' Gandalf. Sauron was only subject to death because he put much of his spirit into a physical, destructible object, a ring. Saruman was only subject to death because he disobeyed the rules of the Istari and fell from his status. Had Sauron, Gandalf, and Saruman dueled under normal circumstances, their physical 'power' would be of no consequence, since Ainur are not bound to a physical existence.

If we define power as the ability to advance one's own goals, and keep in mind the boundaries and restraints that Gandalf, Sauron and Saruman experienced in Middle Earth at the time of the War of the Ring, then Sauron was obviously the most powerful. Because he was able to assert his will forcefully over his minions, and because he was bound by no moral or ethical guidelines, his ability to advance his own goals was greater then Saruman's or Gandalf's. Gandalf and Saruman were initially bound to the guidelines of being able to use no force over those they guided and by being unable to reveal their true power. I think it is safe to assume that the guideline for the Istari being unable to reveal true power was stringently imposed despite any attempts by the Istari to break it, since Saruman never uncloaked himself, nor did he ever assert the type of power typical of even the weakest Ainu (other than his abilities of persuasion). Because of this, even had they wanted to to, the Istari probably would not have been able to advance their purposes as powerfully as did Sauron.

Sauron also was bound by the Ring. At the time of the Last Alliance, I doubt if Saruman and Gandalf would have been able to defeat him, as he would have been at full strength and at the peak of his power. As I said earlier, he was only able to be 'killed' because he placed a good portion of his being into an object which could be physically destroyed. This hindered him greatly in the War of the Ring.

The point I am trying to make is this: under normal circumstances (i.e. as uncloaked Maiar in Valinor), Gandalf, Saruman and Sauron would not have been able to 'destroy' each other, so trying to quantify their 'power' would be a fruitless engagement. Under the only circumstances in which they ever met (in Middle Earth in the Third Age, specifically circa the War of the Ring), Sauron had more power at his fingertips, and was inherently more powerful than the Istari since he was unrestrained by rules or regulations in his efforts. I could not foresee any end to his rule without greater intervention from Valinor had he still wielded the Ring at the time of the Istari. Gandalf and Saruman may have had 'potent spirits', but they could not kill Sauron without his Ring being destroyed, and, although they could not be killed either, they could not defeat his armies unless they revealed their true powers and took dominion over the free peoples of Middle Earth in battle, which they were inherently restrained from doing. As for whether Saruman or Gandalf was more powerful, I would say that when they first arrived, Saruman was more powerful, since Gandalf was subservient to him, but after Gandalf became the White and cast Saruman from the order, Gandalf became a more powerful being, since he became the chief of the Istari and since Saruman was in an obviously fallen state (after all, he was killed by a mortal). Saruman was still more powerful in advancing his goals for a while though, since he disobeyed the Valar by dominating the wills of other (something which Gandalf never did). Gandalf became truly more powerful in every sense after Saruman's armies were defeated and he was left with no allies and no means of forcing subservience on any beings of Middle Earth.

[The Saucepan Man]

Um, I don't see any argument here. Gandalf clearly was more powerful than Sauron since, through a well-developed strategy and the successful deployment of the forces at his disposal (sorry, subject to his guidance), he was able to bring about the defeat Sauron.

The proof of the power is in the beating. ;)

[Iarhen]

Also, theres the fact that Sauron was a weakened spirit by the end of the 3rd age. Since a great deal of his personal power was set on the One Ring, and another share was set on infusing the orcs, trolls and all fell beasts with a will to kill goodness, and adding to that concept the strain it must have been for Sauron to dominate Curunir (even though Curunir was weaker, he was still a maia, and that would have proved an extra share of power dedicated to keep Saruman ensnared).

So, by adding all those concepts and substracting them of the total of Gorthaur's power, maybe... MAYBE... Olorin was spiritually stronger than Sauron...

Not the maia wrapped up and with the power handicap in Gandalf... but in spirit... Since his will was not placed forth to dominate others, and if doing so, it was not to dominate, but to inspire and help the hearts of men and elves (aided greatly by Narya the Great).

[Lord of Angmar]

Gandalf clearly was more powerful than Sauron since, through a well-developed strategy and the successful deployment of the forces at his disposal

Very true, but there is also such a thing as luck, and it is not a form of power. Gandalf's strategy required a good deal of it. smilies/smile.gif

[The Saucepan Man]

... there is also such a thing as luck, and it is not a form of power. Gandalf's strategy required a good deal of it.

... or some might call it divine intervention. Gandalf's strategy involved trusting in Eru, and Eru came through for him. He who truly has God on his side is powerful indeed. ;)

[Finwe]

I don't think power or strength should be measured in how many battles one has won or how many enemies one has slain. Things like clever strategies and skillful diplomacy should also be considered, and in that arena, Gandalf took the prize. The victory of the Free Peoples in the War of the Ring was due to Gandalf's clever strategies, skillful use of diplomacy, and reliance on instinct. Another thing that made him superior to Sauron was that he never underestimated his enemy, big or small. Sauron's main weakness was that he underestimated his enemies, and thus, let Frodo and Sam slip into Mordor undetected. Gandalf was prepared for whatever blows (obvious or subtle) that Sauron was going to give him, and thus, helped the Free Peoples win the War.

[Olorin]

Although at Sauron's height we was mightier (by far) that Gandalf, Gandalf is wiser and hence I would say his wisdom overshadow's Sauron's might.

Just look at the War of the Ring.

[Lord of Angmar]

some might call it divine intervention (The Saucepan Man)

If that were the case, it would not necessarily reflect on Gandalf's power. It would simply mean that, because of his affiliations, he had access to a greater medium of others' power. That would be like saying that, if Morgoth came back and helped Sauron conquer Middle Earth, it would mean that Sauron individually was more powerful than Gandalf.

I do, however, see what you are trying to say Saucepan Man. It is power in terms of connections and affiliations (think George W. Bush smilies/wink.gif ), and it is also a very real form of power.

[Northman]

I dont think Sauruman used his full power, because he would have been much harder to defeat if he did.

[drigel]

some of this debate is apples and oranges

If you consider Saurons influence over orcs compared to Gandalfs influence over men, then Sauron is the master no question.

Gandalf slew a balrog (and died in the struggle) which, although debatable, Sauron had no influence over, or command of. I postulate this based on the idea that if S did have command of the balrog, surely he would have brought him to Mordor to support his strategy concerning Gondor and the south, no?

JRRT IMO, used the istari characters as a literary tool to show the reluctance of the Vala in direct intervention in ME, and it's influence in the physical world. The end of the ancient ways, although Sauron was one of them. Its also a Valorian tip of the hat to the upcoming dominance of Men to not sally forth in their power and take care of the problem of Sauron. If this was not the case, and all Maiar spirits being equal in strenth, Manwe would have simply plopped Curumo on an eagle, dropped him atop Barad Dur, and taken care of S, while Ulmo would have a trout transport the ring to Osgiliath, where Aule could have taken it and.... blah blah blah etc

[gorthaur_cruel]

Since this old topic (judging by the date :rolleyes: ) has been brought up again...This is what I wrote in a different topic, but I'll copy-paste it here:

I think that it is obvious that Gandalf was no match for Sauron in terms of sheer power. Tolkien himself sort of said this in letter #183(This was written as a note, so I only put in the actual note and the sentence that the note was referring to. And the passage is talking about Sauron):
...But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.*

*Of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far higher order

I interpret "far higher order" meaning that Sauron was a far greater Maia than Gandalf or Saruman. The "same kind" obviously refers to the fact that they were all Maiar.

[obloquy]

Good research, g_c. I honestly have no clue what Tolkien meant by "far higher order." The Istari and Sauron were not of different orders. The letter is dated 1956, according to Google (I don't have access to any books right now), so maybe that has something to do with the inconsistency.

Anyway, like I said, good quote.

Edit: I've thought about this, and briefly discussed it with burrahobbit, but I still can't figure it out. The idea, which burra suggested to me, of "orders" of varied importance, rank, and power among the Maiar is, apart from this little note, unattested in Tolkien's writing. I cannot recall ever reading that the "order" that any Maia belonged to was anything other than Maia: Maia is, to my knowledge, the name of the order that defines an eala's "station." Some were more powerful than others, of course, and I have addressed that issue in my posts above, and I don't believe the veracity of my argument has been harmed. I say this because the note's wording is far too strong ("of a far higher order...") to adopt its assertion without support from other sources--such as the rest of Tolkien's writings, which I have used to develop my own argument.

[Mithalwen]

In UT it gives a note written in 1972 " We must assume that they were all Maiar, that is persons of the 'angelic' order, though not necessarily of the same rank....Saruman is said to be chief..Gandalf was evidently the next. Radagast is presented as a person of much less power and wisdom..."


The letter was dated 1956? In that case, it seems to me that it is an inconstancy in use of vocabulary rather than concept. In the note of '72 he uses order to refer to the "Maia" collectively and rank to distinguish between power levels within that order. In the letter he uses kind to refer to the Maiar and order for the divisions... given the 16 year gap.... I think we can let him off... it is clearly the same idea :)



http://www.sarahsarchangels.com/archangels/9orders.html

[obloquy]

For the sake of keeping all the relevant text in the same thread, I'm resurrecting this in order to post a bit more relating to the note mentioned in gorthaur_cruel's post.

First, another couple of letters from the same time period tell us that Sauron was a Maia originally attached to Melkor, rather than Aule. This is an aspect of Sauron's origin that we all know was revised after the cited letter of 1956.

Secondly, a portion of letter 246 of 1963 is doubly pertinent to this discussion:Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master [Sauron]--being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form.

Not only are Gandalf and Sauron "of the same order" here, but Gandalf "might be expected to master Sauron."

[Raynor]

I interpret "far higher order" meaning that Sauron was a far greater Maia than Gandalf or Saruman. I believe that a "far higher order" would reffer to the difference between an embodied istar and Sauron; an istar would assume many weaknesses specific to a Man's body (cf. The Istari, UT), and the "needs to learn much anew by slow experience".
Not only are Gandalf and Sauron "of the same order" here, but Gandalf "might be expected to master Sauron."I believe it is relevant to mention the two reasons given in the letter for this:
It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors.It would be interesting to explore what "superior strength" implies. Galadriel says that a ring would give power according to the measure of its (or at least after a while, if the wielder is not powerful enough); we would also need to speculate, if possible at all, how much Sauron's corruptions diminished his power.

[denethorthefirst]

I posted the following post first in the "sex among Maiar" thread in the newcomers-section, but its also relevant to this topic and i would like to know what you think.

We know that Ainur appear in three different states: "unclothed" (their natural, invisible state), "clothed" (they could take whatever form they liked) and incarnated (incarnated Ainu are bound to their form/body and can no longer change it at will; if it is killed/destroyed they cant form a new one and are doomed to spend the rest of their existence as relatively powerless spirits) (See also this thread: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=5879 )

I think that there are two different forms of incarnation.

A "conventionally biological" (for lack of a better word) incarnation, where the Ainu actually forms a fairly conventional body (modeled after the incarnates) that has a complete organ system. This is the form of Incarnation that the Istari, Melian and also the Umaia in orcform (Boldogs) went through. These Ainur actually became human, elvish (or orcish) in form (and dependent on nourishment and sleep), but can now also reproduce with other true incarnates (i dont think that two incarnated ainu could reproduce).
I guess that this form of Incarnation is much more limiting for the innate Power of the Ainu and that Ainur that incarnated in such a way could be much more easily killed than an Ainu that incarnated himself in the other way. It also seems that they did not to do it entirely out of free will: the Istari had to because it was a requirement for their mission, Melian did it out of Love for Thingol and to conceive, and the Boldogs probably because they lacked the Power for mightier Forms or where maybe forced by Melkor in order to procreate with Orcs.

A "unique" (for lack of a better word) incarnation where the ainu creates a wholly new and original form for himself that acts more like a "biological machine" than an actual body. It could either lack an organ system, or have an organ system that is much more complex than that of the incarnates or animals. I think the bodies of the Balrogs and the incarnated Sauron where of this kind. If the bodies of the Balrogs were completely "biological" (like for example a human body) they would have burnt to death a long time ago. Ainur like that are probably also much harder to kill, because you cant just stab them in the heart (there might be no heart, or there are three hearts! everything is possible), the opponents actually had to destroy or somehow "break" the "form" of the Ainu. They are also less (if at all) dependent on nourishment and sleep. I guess that Ainur that incarnated in such a way were also physically a lot stronger and could better project their innate Power because they (rather voluntary) chose and created a form that completely suited them, but they probably couldn't conceive or impregnate other incarnates because they would not have been "compatible".

I dont think that Olorin (before his Incarnation) was as powerful as Sauron, but even if that were the case, he was (because of their different forms of incarnation) not as powerful as Sauron in Middle-earth: his human body limited and restricted his innate power (and he also needed food, rest, sleep, he had a human organ system that could be damaged etc.) whereas Sauron had created for himself a unique form that was much harder to destroy and allowed him to better project his innate power.

Tolkien wrote about the Incarnation of the Istari in Letter 156:
I wd. venture to say that he (Gandalf) was an incarnate 'angel'– strictly an γγελος: that is, with the other Istari, wizards, 'those who know', an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon. By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour. Why they should take such a form is bound up with the 'mythology' of the 'angelic' Powers of the world of this fable. At this point in the fabulous history the purpose was precisely to limit and hinder their exhibition of 'power' on the physical plane, and so that they should do what they were primarily sent for: train, advise, instruct, arouse the hearts and minds of those threatened by Sauron to a resistance with their own strengths; and not just to do the job for them. They thus appeared as 'old' sage figures. But in this 'mythology' all the 'angelic' powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the fainéance of some of the other higher powers or 'gods'. The 'wizards' were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err.

--> "At this point in the fabulous history the purpose (of the incarnation of the Istari) was precisely to limit and hinder their exhibition of "power"."
Tolkien is quite clear that the human bodies restricted ("limited") the innate Power of the Istari. Of course they still had some magical potential, but they weren't as powerful as they were when clothed, or if they had built for themselves forms that completely suited them.

Here are the already mentioned quotes from Tolkiens Letters:
In his (Saurons) actual presence none but very few of equal stature could have hoped to withhold it (the One Ring) from him. Of 'mortals' no one, not even Aragorn. In the contest with the Palantír Aragorn was the rightful owner. Also the contest took place at a distance, and in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. ... Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him – being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form.

...But he (Sauron) went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.*

*Of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far higher order

Sauron and Gandalf are of "the same order" because they are (or were in Saurons case) both Maiar (and Ainur). That doesnt mean that they are equally powerful.
The second quote that Sauron was of a "far higher order" proves that not all Maiar (or Ainur for that matter) were equally powerful and that Sauron especially was one of the more powerful Maiar. Tolkien uses the same word in both quotes/letters, but it has different meanings: In the first quote he could mean either "Order of the Maiar" or "Order of the Ainur" (in the second quote Tolkien uses the phrase "of the same kind" to express this), whereas in the second quote "Order" means "Level of Power".
For example: Aiwendil and Manwe are beings of the same Order (both are Ainur) but Manwe is a being of a far higher order (he is much more powerful).
"Vala" and "Maia" are merely Job-descriptions for the Ainur. For all we know there could be some Maiar that were more powerful than some Valar, but because of their character and interests they ended up as "helpers" under a Vala that was more powerful. It is quite possible for example that Sauron was more powerful than some of the lesser Valar like Nessa or Vana, but because of his character and his love for construction he became a "helper" (Maia) of Aule, who was also more powerful than him.
Tolkien wrote that Gandalf might be expected to master him, if he actually could is debatable. Tolkien did not write that Gandalf could, or even might, master him, but that he might be "expected" to master him; Tolkien leaves the question open, but I think that, because of the vague nature of the statement, he was merely stating a hypothetical possibility (resting on the fact that both are Ainur) and that Gandalf could not actually do it.

[Belegorn]

For all we know there could be some Maiar that were more powerful than some Valar, but because of their character and interests they ended up as "helpers" under a Vala that was more powerful. It is quite possible for example that Sauron was more powerful than some of the lesser Valar like Nessa or Vana, but because of his character and his love for construction he became a "helper" (Maia) of Aule, who was also more powerful than him.

I doubt this. The closest I've seen to any Maia even being equal to a Vala is that they are less than equal to them. The Silmarillion states "the Valar drew unto them many companions, some less, some well nigh as great as themselves" [Ainulindalë, p. 12] Of the 13 Valar "Nine were of chief power and reverence... surpassing beyond compare all others, whether of the Valar and the Maiar, or of any other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Eä." [Valaquenta, p.23] These were Melkor, Manwë, Varda, Ulmo, Yavanna, Aulë, Mandos, Nienna, and Oromë. The Maiar are known as the companions of the Valar, but of "a less degree". Some Maiar may come close to matching the Valar, but in this case only those six Valar who were not included among the chiefs which would include Tulkas, Lórien, Estë, Vairë, Vána and Nessa.

I'd say that since none come close to the chief who are "surpassing beyond compare all others" then the reference to some of the Maiar being "well nigh as great as themselves" has to be in reference to the lesser Valar. Therefore there would be Maiar who come close in comparison to the Valar, but only the lesser Valar [Tulkas, Lórien, Estë, Vairë, Vána and Nessa], but so far as I can tell none are mightier than any Vala.

[denethorthefirst]

Of course, you are right: the eight most powerful Valar (the Aratar) are above all others. Thats why i mentioned the lesser (less powerful) of the Valar: Nessa and Vana. But it seems that i have overlooked the Silmarillion-quote you mentioned. Thanks for the correction!

[denethorthefirst]

Another thing that i find curious: Tolkien wrote that the Istari aged, albeit very slowly. When Saruman appeared in Lindon he had black hair but by the time of the War of the Ring it had gone completely white. If you take this development to its logical conclusion, doesn't that mean that the Istari would, eventually, "die" if they stayed long enough in Middle-Earth? What if, for example, Sauron had been a lot (a lot, lot, lot) more patient? If he had spent a few more thousand years in the East, if he decided to let time work for him, and the War of the Ring had started in the Year 6000 of the Third Age instead of 3018 T.A. Would the Istari have died of old Age by then? If Sarumans hair went from black to white (so his appearance went from being more or less middle-aged to rather old) in a timespan of circa 2000 years (not a lot of time actually for an immortal being thats been around since the start of time), then what would 3000 more years do? I mean: the Istari are, for all intents and purposes, human, i.e. fully incarnated and completely tied to their bodies!

Because of that, i never fully understood why those five Maiar undertook the mission at all. Why would an immortal, naturally discarnate being do such a thing? Become imprisoned in a relatively frail body with an expiration date and, essentially, go on a suicide mission that, if it fails, would spell certain "death"? For all eternity? The incarnation process at least seems irreversible? Or did the Valar promise the Istari that, after their victory over Sauron and their return to Valinor, they would reverse the incarnation and return them to their naturally discarnate state, able to change their "clothing" at will? I guess the Valar may have been able to achieve that and its the only explanation that makes the whole thing at least somewhat believable. At least the Istari now have some motivation and at least are not punished for their sacrifice.

But, given all that, what exactly is Sarumans End-Game in Middle-Earth? What is he thinking, hoping? He knows that he is imprisoned in a human body and unable to change it or leave it. This body also restricts his natural Power and carries with it a lot of limitations, for example the need for food and sleep ... must be rather frustrating for an immortal being like "Curumo". Why then would he do what he did? Trying to build an empire, alienating the Valar, essentially putting all his eggs in Middle-Earth? He should know that, given his incarnation, that that course has no future and that it would be only a matter of time before his body gives out? What will he do then, without the help of the Valar? Maybe he thought that, with the One Ring, he would be in a position to strengthen his body and have the power to prolong its life or maybe reincarnate himself in a completely new body? Thats the only explanation i have, otherwise Sarumans actions make absolutely NO SENSE in my opinion, just from a purely self-preservation perspective, disregarding the whole moral dilemma.

[Inziladun]

Another thing that i find curious: Tolkien wrote that the Istari aged, albeit very slowly. When Saruman appeared in Lindon he had black hair but by the time of the War of the Ring it had gone completely white. If you take this development to its logical conclusion, doesn't that mean that the Istari would, eventually, "die" if they stayed long enough in Middle-Earth?

I don't have the books with me, but there was an observation that the Istari, though clothed in physical bodies, did not die because those bodies were "supported by the angelic spirit" of the bodies' inhabitants. The physical aging process was slowed, but not arrested.
So, I guess that does mean that the body would eventually completely wear out, but the Valar guessed that before that could occur, either Sauron wold be victorious and the Istari destroyed, the Istari would die by other means, or Sauron would be defeated.
I don't think Sauron himself necessarily knew the exact nature of the Istari, and it possibly took quite a long time for him to reach the assumption that they came from the West, maybe not until Gandalf's infiltration of Dol Guldur. Also, he might have also wondered about your next question about why a Maia in an earthly paradise would have come to Middle-earth, causing him more confusion as to their origin.

Because of that, i never fully understood why those five Maiar undertook the mission at all. Why would an immortal, naturally discarnate being do such a thing? Become imprisoned in a relatively frail body with an expiration date and, essentially, go on a suicide mission that, if it fails, would spell certain "death"? For all eternity? The incarnation process at least seems irreversible? Or did the Valar promise the Istari that, after their victory over Sauron and their return to Valinor, they would reverse the incarnation and return them to their naturally discarnate state, able to change their "clothing" at will?

I am sure that after returning to Valinor, Gandalf was restored to his natural, unfettered state of incarnation. That was a given, for all the Istari upon their return.

As to why they went, the chapter The Istari in Unfinished Tales sketches a meeting of the Valar, in which they were deciding who would be sent. From that, I get the impression they were "voluntold" for the assignment, especially Gandalf.

But if they did go of free will, it was either a sense of duty, or a genuine concern for Middle-earth, or both.


But, given all that, what exactly is Sarumans End-Game in Middle-Earth? ....Maybe he thought that, with the One Ring, he would be in a position to strengthen his body and have the power to prolong its life or maybe reincarnate himself in a completely new body? Thats the only explanation i have, otherwise Sarumans actions make absolutely NO SENSE in my opinion, just from a purely self-preservation perspective, disregarding the whole moral dilemma.

Saruman had become so blinded by an infatuation with power and overlordship that he wasn't thinking clearly. It seems that very early he began studying Sauron and his works, and, instead of using knowledge gained to formulate strategies aimed solely at his defeat, developed a sense of envy for Sauron's power and control. Finding the Ring became an obsession, and the only thing he really cared about.

[Huinesoron]

Because of that, i never fully understood why those five Maiar undertook the mission at all. Why would an immortal, naturally discarnate being do such a thing? Become imprisoned in a relatively frail body with an expiration date and, essentially, go on a suicide mission that, if it fails, would spell certain "death"?

Why did Frodo volunteer to take the One Ring to Mordor, when that meant almost certain death? Why did Finrod Felagund give up rule of the greatest known city of the Noldor to help out a mortal who, let's be honest, probably didn't have more than a few decades left in him under any circumstances? Why did Aragorn take an army to the Black Gates, expecting to die there, rather than yielding to Sauron's terms and becoming a client state of Mordor? Why, in fact, did some Ainur leave the Timeless Halls and descend into a world marred by the discord of Melkor, rather than staying with the One and the rest of their kindred?

In all cases, the answer is the same: because some things are more important than your own life, however long or short that might be.

hS

[denethorthefirst]

Yes, i am aware of that. I also read the Unfinished Tales. Of course the incarnation is meant to be a sacrifice. Still, the whole suicide mission aspect only makes sense if the Valar promised to rehouse/remake those Maiar after their victory over Sauron. But, considering that the mission seems to be somewhat "voluntary", it appears to me that those five Maiar really have gotten the short end of the stick. The Valar really appear rather harsh here if you think about it and considering that the mission is voluntary, they could be a bit more lenient. It is completely understandable that someone like Saruman, working actively against the Children, would be denied a return to Valinor. But what about Radagast? If his hröa had been killed by some Orc during the War in Mirkwood or "died" because of old age a few thousand years later, then thats it? His Spirit doomed to remain houseless in Middle-Earth for all eternity? Harsh ... Same with Gandalf, if Eru hadn't intervened after his battle against the Balrog that would probably have been it? Maybe their Spirits would have been able to go naked/houseless to Valinor on their own/by themselves, but thats not the impression i got after reading.

Edit: Thinking a bit more about that, the stance of the Valar really seems hypocritical, because after all they, collectively, made the SAME mistake that Radagast made in the early history of Arda. They left Middle-Earth after Melkor destroyed the Lamps and they made Aman their home, maybe at first as a retreat and a fortress from which to renew the battle against Melkor at a later time (and because they did not have enough power to overthrow Melkor at that time). But still, essentially it appears that they procrastinated in their little paradise for over 13 000 (!) years, fell in love with the land of Valinor, the flora and fauna, and more or less forgot about their mission (to care for the Children) while Melkor ruled and ruined Middle-Earth as he wished. Even after the Awakening of the Elves it took the Valar several decades (over 40 years!) to eventually take action! And after the Awakening of Men they did even less ... probably couldn't be bothered because they were still sulking because of the Flight of the Noldor. This dereliction of duty is actually quite unbelievable and its a wonder humans turned out as well as they did in Tolkiens world, considering that Melkor had a free hand for several centuries to proceed with them as he pleased, completely unhindered by the Valar. Would it not be more than hypocritical of the Valar to punish Radagast and deny him re-entry after they essentially made exactly the same mistake, only repeatedly and on a much, much grander scale?

[Huinesoron]

Would it not be more than hypocritical of the Valar to punish Radagast and deny him re-entry after they essentially made exactly the same mistake, only repeatedly and on a much, much grander scale?

Yes, it would.

So? :D

One of the wonderful things about Tolkien being Christian is that he never saw the Valar as gods in the setting, but as fallible beings. The Valar make a whole string of terrible mistakes; the first is probably letting their guard down for Tulkas' wedding and letting Melkor back in, though 'sticking giant globes of fire up on poles for light' is a pretty dangerous move too. Running away from the world was a terrible misdeed, and it was only chance/the will of the One that made them aware of the coming of the Children at all.

The decision to move the Eldar to Aman was also a mistake, and I believe Tolkien notes as much (he definitely sides with Ulmo on most things, and Ulmo was against it). My guess is that the war against Melkor broke a lot of Middle-earth (I seem to remember that the Misty Mountains were raised by Melkor at that time), and it just seemed nicer to bring the Eldar to their pretty home rather than trying to a) put some form of light in the wider world and b) fix the mess. But it was a mistake, and it led to everything that went wrong after.

Later on, Manwe is oblivious to any form of evil, and basically assumes his brother will be good now Just Because. He punishes Feanor, and Feanor alone, for the changes happening in Noldorin society. The Valar collectively snub Feanor to the point where he won't even consider handing over the Silmarils after the Trees die. And they completely fumble his little insurrection. How did the Noldor manage to slaughter Alqualonde, right under the eye of the Valar?

The answer, clear as starlight, is that Manwe's response to any crisis is to pull his head in. Melkor's ruined our plans for Arda? Let's make an island right in the middle, as far from him as possible, and live there. Melkor destroyed the lamps? Let's go to a completely different landmass. The Children are living in a war zone? Let's bring them here, to our safe space. Melkor might still be bad? Nope, nope, it's all that elf's fault. The Trees are dead and the Noldor are revolting? Raise the mountains higher, close the gates, and let them do whatever they want!

The Valar (Ulmo significantly aside) ignore the pleas of everyone in Beleriand, including the Edain and the Sindar (who have no culpability for the Noldor's crimes). They do absolutely nothing to stop Sauron throughout the entire Second Age. They refuse to protect their people when the Numenoreans invade, passing the buck up to Iluvatar. They don't let any returning Eldar back into Aman proper, stuffing them onto Eressea to keep them from contaminating Paradise. And their sole response to Sauron's resurgence in the Third Age is to send five Maiar to poke around.

---

So now that we're back on-topic, what was the purpose of the Istari? Was it to protect the Children of Iluvatar? Or was it, entirely in line with the previous actions of the Valar, solely to keep Sauron from causing another Numenor Incident? (Numenor, I'll remind you, was a gift from the Valar to Men - the only one they ever gave them - and look how that turned out...! Suddenly it makes a lot more sense why their emissaries in the Third Age came in disguise.) If the latter, then Radagast's drifting-away wasn't just 'you got distracted from your humanitarian mission' - it was 'soldier, you have abandoned the defence of the Motherland'.

Speculative, I know - wildly so - but it has ties to the fate of the returning (ie, dying) Noldor in the First Age. We're specifically told that they weren't allowed to leave the Halls of Mandos for a long time, which is not the normal way of things. Whether that's a punishment, a treatment regime, or a quarantine is unsaid.

Unfortunately the metaphysics of Middle-earth isn't clear enough to answer the question of whether a Maia could be constrained in Mandos against their will. If not, then the only way to keep Radagast (or the Blues) from wandering straight back into Aman... would be to insist he stay in Middle-earth, or send him to the Timeless Halls (which may not even be possible).

It's messed up. It's seriously messed up. But Manwe always has been.

hS

[Rhun charioteer]

Well regarding the numenorians-I think that was more the valar weren't allowed to harm or outright kill the Eruhini or punish them. The Valar could have destroyed them without appealing to Eru but that wasn't how the valar operated.

Ar-Pharazon and his people had for all intents and purposes tried to storm the pearly gates or to use a pagan analogy Mt. Olympus.

Something had to be done about it-the valar could likely have crushed the numenorians without any real effort but that would have gone against the restrictions placed on them, the elves could have fought them off-the elves were promised peace in Aman, really the only option at that point was to hand it over to Eru.

[Huinesoron]

There are dozens of ways the Valar could have dealt with the Numenoreans without harming anyone. The Bay of Eldamar was previously protected by a raging storm and, in some versions of the legendarium, a string of isles which put anyone trying to pass them into an endless sleep. We're also talking about the people who raised a massive mountain range in order to keep Melkor from sending anything nasty their way (and then raised it higher at a later date!).

The answer to this is that putting any of that in place would have made it impossible for the Eldar to leave Middle-earth, but... what, removing Valinor entirely from the spheres of the world wouldn't? Sure, maybe it would require a bit more attention to detail than Manwe was used to (I assume he would be the one controlling the storm), but they're the Valar, they could absolutely do that.

But that would have left the Numenoreans as a continuing annoyance. The Valar clearly didn't want that - but they also didn't want to take any measures themselves. And it's not like the Numenoreans were harmless: they reached Eressea, Alqualonde, and Tirion under arms, and could easily have sacked any of those. The only city the Valar actually protected by their actions was Valmar - you know, the one they themselves lived in.

hS

[Inziladun]

But that would have left the Numenoreans as a continuing annoyance. The Valar clearly didn't want that - but they also didn't want to take any measures themselves. And it's not like the Numenoreans were harmless: they reached Eressea, Alqualonde, and Tirion under arms, and could easily have sacked any of those. The only city the Valar actually protected by their actions was Valmar - you know, the one they themselves lived in.

It wasn't that the Valar were reluctant to deal with Numenor themselves; they lacked the authority to take such drastic action as the situation merited.
As the Governors of Arda, they deferred to the One to correct his Children directly.