Saurons Weapon of Choice?
 

Hello.

I have been doing some digging recently, and since I haven't read the books, I just realized that Sauron's weapon choice was not mentioned properly, if at all. (In the books).

In the movies, his weapon was portrayed as a mace that could 'send entire battalions of soldiers flying in a single hit'.

Is this true in the books? Because if he can do that, with 'one' hit, why was it so hard to send Elendil and Gil - Galad flying away? It would kill them instantly wouldn't it? Or do you think he kept missing while they dodged?

Kind of disappointed that his mace with the 'flying away powers' wasn't mentioned in the book.

Was his weapon just a normal mace like a human would use? If so, seems like he didn't kill many people during his time.

I am not sure if Sauron's weapon choice is ever definitively stated. Maybe the filmmakers just gave him a souped up version of the witch king's weaponry. Frankly if Sauron could wipe out swathes of warriors like that I doubt the siege would have lasted so long. I thing in one of the drafts there is a reference to Gil-galad wrestling Sauron (echoes of Felagund).

I would completely discount the movie's take on Sauron's melee abilities.

To touch on what Mith said, The Silmarillion states that during the siege of Barad-dûr,

Silm Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

In the Council of Elrond, when telling of those events, Elrond says only that

FOTR The Council of Elrond

That would seem to suggest that there was some sort of action involving weapons on Sauron's part, but apparently it wasn't noteworthy enough to specifically mention afterwards.

Sauron mainly relied on minions and servants to do his dirty work, and maybe on those rare occasions where he himself fought, like the battle with Gil-galad and Elendil, his weaponry just wasn't singular enough to warrant any special attention by witnesses.

Alternately, maybe he himself didn't make use of weapons, thinking he could accomplish his victories with his aura of terror, or that failing, with brute strength.

A mace would also also fit well with the whole image he was trying to cultivate. Sauron's former boss/leader/master, Melkor used Grond (the original one) which was, if I recall a mace. Since a lot of Sauron's "warrior" look (big guy, armor, burned/burning flesh) seems to be designed to make him look as much like Melkor in form as possible (and hence be seens as Melkor's heir/inheritor) choosing the same weapon would be a logical choice. Maces also have a long history of being symbolic of power and right to rule (think of the Grand Mace that's part of the British royal jewels)

Agreed. I would add that a mace has a two very good qualities above, say, a sword: it's relatively simple to become proficient in its use, and it requires very little maintenance compared to a sword. I can well see its appeal to someone like Sauron: make, enchant, swing, bash.

(I would also submit that the humble spear, in its various forms around the world and through history, saw more service and killed more enemies than the sword did.)

Quite disappointing really. One of my favourite things about Sauron was his mace, now I realise his mace isn't even in the lore.

Morgoth's mace use to smash craters with lava in the ground, wouldn't Sauron's weapon (if he had one) have similar qualities as he is known to 'tap in the earth's fires.

Since people are accustomed to Sauron having a mace, is it wrong to classify that his weapon (in the movies) is part of the lore? I just don't see how, how he would have lost any battles with it.

Also, if his mace was that powerful, wouldn't Tolkien think it is important and write it? If he didn't make a weapon, what is the point of making armour for himself?

There's enough argument about what constitutes "canon" within the scope of the books, let alone making the films a part of it! :eek:
I wouldn't grant anything in the movies as "part of the lore".

That was rather my point: that Sauron's possession and/or use of a notably powerful melee weapon should have made some mark on the histories, like Morgoth's Grond did. What reference is there in the books to Sauron's armor?

Forgive me, bur the answer I really want to give is that Sauron's chief weapon was Fear. Fear..and surprise.surprise and fear. ..and ruthless efficiency... amongst his chief weaponry were diverse elements such as fear, surprise , ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to Morgoth...and nice black armour...


I am getting my coat....

But what are you two agreeing to, exactly? Are you simply praising the film’s imagery here– or is this meant to be an answer to the original question? If the former, fine; if the latter– well, I’m afraid that's all pretty much irrelevant unless there’s an actual reference to Sauron using a mace. There may be one somewhere in The History of Middle Earth, but if there is I don’t recall it.

Well, I suppose you could say it’s part of the “movie-lore”. Beyond that– well, what do you mean, exactly, DL? If something's not in the books you can’t very well say it is, can you? Or are you thinking in terms of some kind of fan-created consensus Middle-earth, where things from any source can be made “canon” if enough people, I don’t know, vote for them? Or what?

Sauron fought in battles didn't he? It would be pretty brainless if he didn't make any sort of armour, even Uruk - Hai armour would be better than cloth. Common sense really, I doubt Sauron was a dippy. :D

Movie - lore sits quite right.

But, when you ask someone 'What was Sauron's weapon and what did it do?', most people would reply with the description of what showed in the movie, not say 'It wasn't stated'. - That's if they know much about LOTR.

Perhaps Sauron's weapon of choice was a cannon. ;)

Personally, I don't believe Sauron used a physical "weapon" per se; rather, he used sorcery, such as in his battle with Finrod, and likewise in his shapeshifting into a were-wolf to battle Huan. Then, of course, he also wore the One Ring, a most frightful sorcerous weapon, with which he destroyed Gil-Galad and Elendil (not to mention his corruption and defeat of Numenor through the use of the Ring and not in open battle).

Being a "a great craftsman of the household of Aulë", Sauron certainly could have forged a potent weapon to wield, but his great metal works were the Rings of Power, not the Insidious Sword of Uber Smiting or the Malevolent Mace of Mordor. The use of the One Ring principally, and sorcery in general, were his mode of combat.

Well, I can't speak for Andsigil, but all I was trying to say was that, assuming that Sauron carried a weapon, a mace was as logical a choice as any other, and that he might have some very good symbolic reasons for doing so. That Melkor carried a mace is canon, at least I think it is (my A-Z of tolkien says "mace" but given that Grond I is also referred to as "the hammer of the underworld" when it is compared to Grond II I suppose that could be literal and we could actually be talking about some sort of warhammer.) That "Battle Sauron's" physical description sounds an awful lot like the physical description of Melkor (on a presumably reduced scale) is also canon as far as I know. everything else is just what I think is logical deduction, no more proved than that theory I had a while back about the wolf's head on the front of Grond II being an image of Carcaroth. Your are correct that, again, as far as I know, there is no specific reference to what weapon Sauron used (if any) and any guess is speculation, but what else is the forum for? If the answer given to most questions asked here is never anything more than "Tolkien never said, so we should not guess or presume" then this would be a sparse forum indeed.

But if they know more, they are likely to say, “it wasn’t stated (in the book)”.

Alfirin, of courseyou can think of Sauron as having whatever weapon you like– and as you say a mace is “as logical a weapon as any”. However, the OP asked whether it was true “in the books”– and again, that does require specific evidence.

To put it another way: guessing is fine, presuming– to this extent– really isn’t.

And look, I’m sorry if I’m sounding nitpicky and pedantic (as usual!), it’s just that I really was not sure what you and Andsigil were trying to say up there.

It's fine, learned discourse requires a antithesis along with a thesis in order to try and reach synthesis. you just hit a raw nerve in me; the whole thing reminded me of a period on another literature related forum where a person arrived who had decided that only that which the original author had said was canon (and unlike tolkien this work had mutiple sucessor authors who were generally aknowledged as being canon as well) and that therefore all other works should neither exist nor be discussed and the original authour should not be discussed and explored either, his words should simply be accepted at face value as the literal gospel. That occurance ended nastily with the individual hurling curses (not swear words actual curses of the "may all your family get cancer and may you be flayed alive and burn in hell" type) at everyone else in the discussion, usually before they had actually said anything (he decided that anyone who had stayed out of the whole thing was against him as well). I NEVER want to go through one of those again, so I get edgy when I think another one is coming.
Anyhow getting back to the discussion, if I may go to the movie for a second (i actually wasn't focusing on it previosly, I was simply offering a little support to the original guess.) I feel fairly sure that Peter Jackson (or at least whoever did the design) may have been cribbing a bit from some of the previos Tolkien Illustators for his ideas. Specifically I am thinking of Battle Sauron's crown/helmet. To me it looked eerily like the one John Howe (that is his first name right, I don't have my book with me and this old computer I am on doesn't all me to open two windows at once to double check) gave Melkor in his painting of him meeting with Ungolient. Since I'm not sure that the canon mentions Sauron having a crown either (it says Melkor has one (where he keeps the Silmarils) and the Witch king has one, but I'm not sure about Sauron)

If Sauron engaged in personal combat, armor would be a sensible accessory.
However, from the books, there is no incidence of which I am aware of any melee on his part being described. So, as others point out, it's simple conjecture.

Well, good for them. I have to point out though, that this particular thread is under "The Books". ;)

It is wrong to class anything from the movies as part of the 'lore.'

Note also this, from the Scroll of Isildur:

...Sauron's hand, which was black and yet burned like fire, and so Gil-galad was destroyed

I personally take this view. I've never imagined Sauron coming out in armour and wielding a weapon, I actually always imagined him unarmed and unarmoured, trying to overwhelm Gil-galad and Elendil through furious raw strength and the sheer awfulness of his presence.
This occurred to me too. Sauron could apparently burn with a touch, so perhaps he would not need conventional weapons.
"But at last the siege was so strait that Sauron himself came forth"
This was an act of desperation, not a calculated military manoeuvre. Sauron never expected to have to actually fight his enemies.
Almost never. The films portray Sauron weighing into the battle on the slopes of Orodruin as some kind of doomsday for the Last Alliance, but really it was Sauron's final gambit and one which didn't really work.
Would they? Surely someone who knew "much about LOTR" would know that it's never stated, although "most people" probably don't know "much about LOTR." Unless you mean "know the films well" or "treat the books and the films as interchangeable", which they're not, and which these days is a source of endless confusion. Anyway, just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean that it's true. Just because the films have coloured people's imaginations doesn't mean that their depictions have the slightest relevance when it comes to discussing what Professor Tolkien himself actually wrote.

While some of the arguments here for why he could have had a mace are quite interesting, at the same time it's all just speculation because Professor Tolkien never wrote what weapon he used, if he even used one at all.

That's interesting. Oddly enough, Gollum, who had presumably seen Sauron personally during his captivity in Mordor, told Frodo and Sam:

TTT The Black Gate Is Closed

Why would Sauron only have had one hand that was black, unless it was intentional? And, tangentially, I wonder if that had anything to do with Saruman's choice of the White Hand as his own symbol.

I see Sauron's coming forth as mainly an act of rage, and revenge. His armies were destroyed, and his ideal of dominion in Middle-earth had been brought to naught by Elves and Men. What better act of vengeance than to kill with his own hands the kings of his enemies?

Well, Alfirin, I do think there’s an enormous difference between what I did and the kind of behaviour you describe.

In my experience “fanon” can become quite as rigid as “canon”– maybe more so, since it won’t permit much in the way of a reality check– it tends to become a matter of, “well, all my friends think so”. And when the entire point is to make a single “official” version of something left open by the original author... well, I think that’s pretty restrictive.

I think we need to break the issue down a bit–

1. Is there any reason to believe Tolkien intended Sauron to use a mace?

is not the same question as

2. Is it all right for someone to depict the character this way?

So far, I don’t believe we’ve seen anything that would support a “yes” answer to the first question, or a “no” answer to the second.

Maybe it's just left to our own imagination?

I 'personally' like the film adapt-ions of himself rather than what I have read about him from the books.

Maybe so maybe I'm being paranoid. That experiance left me as a living example of that old aphorism that "A burned cat will fear a cold stove" (or, to my preference the Japanese version "A man who has been bitten by a snake will fear a rotted rope.")

Well, unless you really believe my post up at #9 is somehow equivalent to saying "may all your family get cancer and may you be flayed alive and burn in hell”...
But the cat can hardly expect stoves to be abolished? (Actually, it might, being a cat, but you know what I mean.)

Exactly.

Why assume just one black hand? True, Gollum uses the singular article; but then Tolkien also uses "the Eye of Sauron" when we know he had two.

I'm inclined to think Tolkien's vision of Sauron (in his post-fall of Numenor form) was not unconnected to his essay/note on Sigelhearwan, a word which by late OE was used to translate "Ethiopians, Africans" but which JRRT argued on philological grounds had originally referred to the Giants of Muspellheim, black-skinned with fiery eyes.

The Eye has certainly received its share of discussion over time, but I see it as mostly symbolic.

That said, it just seems odd that Gollum would make the distinction of "the Black Hand" if both Sauron's hands were like that.
Also, as stated above, Isildur noted that it was Sauron's hand which had borne the Ring that was black, not his hands.

PJ's mace swatting a dozen (or hundreds) at one blow by Sauron was, of course, ridiculous. Sort of the way PJ exaggerates just about everything, for example making wargs superwargs in TTT movie.

The impression you get from LoTR is of essential single combat style
(like in manyHollywood Greek/Roman battle scenes).

Since Sauron was a disciple of Morgoth I'd look to Morgoth's battlle
with Fingolfin after the Dagor Bragollach.

Fingolfin challenged Morgoth to single combat.
So Morgoth was phyiscally imposing, but it was possible for a single elf (granted the greatest remaining in Beleriand) to fight him. Sauron was obviously much less physically daunting, although (being more then an eyeball) more imposing then even a single elf or Numenorean of the Third Age, so it may well have been a two or three on one battle, or as Gilgalad wounded Sauron while being killed another of the Last Alliance skewed Sauron. Then took or cut the Ring off his hand.

I doubt any Elf or Man could have taken down Sauron alone. In Letters #246, Tolkien gives this about Sauron's Third Age embodiment:

That would really have been a weaker incarnation than that faced by Elendil and Gil-galad, since Sauron had been obliged to rebuild himself after the loss of the Ring.
So, I agree that it took three of his greatest foes working together to defeat Sauron, even when he apparently had no weapons but his innate spiritual and physical power.

I think this is important. Elendil and Gil-galad were evidently very mighty individuals of their respective races both spiritually and physically. Despite being more powerful, I'm not sure Sauron would try to best them in a contest of weapons but rather a display of sheer force. I picture Sauron emerging in a furious rage literally grappling with his foes - as we've established, Gil-galad was burnt to death by the heat of Sauron's hand. Narsil was not broken by Sauron but rather snapped under Elendil as he fell. Isildur claims to have "dealt the Enemy his death-blow" however, so seemingly it was Isildur who brought the combat to its conclusion. Is there a difference between this death-blow and Isildur using the hilt-shard of Narsil to cut the Ring from Sauron's finger?

Saruman not only adopted the White Hand as his symbol, but his Orcs even referred to "the White Hand at gives us mansflesh to eat." I don't think this implies that Saruman didn't possess two hands both pale pinkish in hue.

However, the Orcs were referring to a symbol only. Gollum was speaking of Sauron's physical hand. If Gollum had said "the Red Eye", I could see the parallel.

It seems to me that William Cloud Hicklin’s point is that the Orcs and Gollum are using the term hand in a different way, the Orcs as a symbol used to represent Saruman as a whole and Gollum using the “Black Hend” to refer to Sauron’s physical black hand.

No parallel is suggested by Hiacklin, but is indeed denied by him implicitly, so naturally Inziladun doesn’t see a ṗarallel which doesn’t exist, and which no-one else apparently sees.

Note that Tolkien’s only picture of Sauron can be seen at http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l3SDT89zXC...+of+Sauron.jpg .

Only one arm and hand is shown (and only Sauron’s right eye), but there is nothing to indicate that the viewer is supposed to suppose that the other is missing rather than merely not shown. It is Sauron’s right hand that is shown, and it has the full complement of a thumb and four fingers. Presuming that the image represents Sauron as re-embodied after having his ring finger cut off by Isildur, it appears that Sauron’s Black Hand was his unshown left hand.

What I think I was trying to get across was that it would be odd indeed if Sauron was piebald and had hands of two different colors. Nor can we suppose that the Ring-hand was somehow burned black; it was Sauron who heated the Ring, not vice-versa. It would be more sensible if we assumed that Sauron (post-Numenor) was black all over, with flaming eyes and a body that emitted burning heat. If that sounds a little Balrogish-- well, why not? There is a certain logic to Sauron regressing in that direction.

And again, consider T's essay on Sigelhearwan.

I think this is the most important point here. Sauron was a master of sophisticated strategy, construction and intricate technical devices, and he had his machines and his slaves doing the fighting for him. This is very strongly emphasized in the books. Fear, too, is only one, if a prominent one, of his many tactics (especially employed through the Nazgûl).

Just to portray him wielding a plain weapon in hand-to-hand combat destroys this image, and he would certainly not have a "weapon of choice". The unarmed "wrestling" with Gil-galad and Elendil is also meant as a contrast to all of his machinery: a final, naked act of desperation.

Of course, he may "historically" have wielded a weapon in combat, but it is literary significant that this is never mentioned in the books.

Really, one might as well ask "What kind of armor did Balrogs wear?"

And since wearing armor precludes having wings, the discovery of balrog armor conclusively proves that balrogs did not have wings. ;)

Pffft! Of course Balrogs didn't use wings when wearing armor. They employed turbo jet packs while passing over Hithlum with winged speed.

I seem to recall Milton's Angels fighting in armor, and I also recall Voltaire taking a shot at Angels fighting with cannons in Candide, lol, that was funny. But yea, I think, as far as I can remember, the Angels had wings and fought in armour and are about comparable to Tolkien's Balrogs. :)

Probably mail?
In all seriousness, that's what I imagine. Large, shadowy man-shapes with flaming manes (no wings, no generic demonic bits like hoofs or horns) in black mail. I mean, can't we at least hazard a guess at such answers? There was no armour more advanced than mail in Middle-earth. Hence why I think we can also hazard a guess as to Sauron's armament, ie that he had none. But I would never claim that as definitive, nor that Balrogs wore mail or indeed lacked wings. But that's how I interpret the text.
I'm entirely on board with this.

Well, there is of course the so called "Armor of God" ;) But seriously the whole thing is modern interpretation of early quotes. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the whole justification for angelic wings is from some passages in the Apocrypha about them flying, and early church fathers deciding that, if they can fly they must have wings (which, to me at least always made the story about the Inquisition arresting El Greco on the grounds he'd painted his angel's wings wrong a little funny.) The rest is sort of modenization; adapting the image to current versions of the items being discussed. It's a bit like if you look ad Medival church art of angels with thier "firey swords" the swords more usually resemble then current longswords and broadswords than the leaf bladed kinds that would have been current in the Holy Land Area when the passages were being finalized. Milton and Votaire put armor on thier angels because at that time armor would be part of what a warrior would wear; it's part of the image, whether or not it's still useful, like a US Military officer's dress saber. Either that, or if you want to get a little silly, as time has progressed and our weaponry has gotten nastier, Angels who need to appear to people in combat conditions have needed better and better protection to stay safe (I imagine that, after the little stunt at Mons in WWI, many angels might have felt they needed gas masks).
Personally I've always imagined Balrogs with armor. At bare minimum they'd need some sort of belt, to hold thier flaming swords and whips when not being wielded (they presumaby have to put them down to use thier hands to do other things, like eat). My mind tends to go for the "cuirass and shoulder guards" look, since it tends to fit with my mental image of a balrog (sort of a cross between demonic human and leonine (they have manes, right) I tend to not imagine they have leg armor but that's becuase in my mind the bestial aspects tend to come along with an image of more animal like legs, so that Balrogs have that somewhat bowlegged stance one normally associates with other animal hind legged monsters (like some forms of werewolf) and those don't really fit with much armor.