As I understand it there are essentially two definitions of the powers of the One Ring:
a narrow one and a broad one.
Depending on the definition of its powers the One Ring was either a failure/mistake or a success.
1. Narrow Definition of the Powers of the One Ring:
The only function of the One Ring was to dominate (the bearers of) the other Rings of Power and to somehow enhance Saurons ability to dominate other wills.
If you ascribe to that definition, the Ring was essentially a failure: Elves and Dwarves never fell for the Rings and in my opinion the other 9 were never really necessary for Sauron to establish his Rule over the eastern/southern Men. The usefullness of the Nazgul is also questionable. The only useful effect of the Ring in this scenario is that it functioned as an „anchor“ after the corporeal death of the fully incarnated Sauron at the end of the Second Age and so allowed for his Re-Incarnation after a thousand years.
I really donīt like this narrow definition for the following reasons:
- It makes Sauron look rather stupid and pathetic, he gambled everything, and lost.
- The One Ring loses a lot of its mystique, menace and magic: it becomes an almost technical tool that has a very limited purpose. This also begs the question: why would the wise be tempted by it? They already have the Three, why would they need the One? To dominate the Three, which they already possess? (I know, I know, delusions of grandeur and temptations are a safety mechanism of the One Ring, but still.)
- The One Ring effectively only dominated the Nine Rings, it is therefore pretty much useless and Sauron has not that much to gain by recapturing it! He doesn't really need it.
2. Broad Definition of the Powers of the One Ring:
( See also this Thread:
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10723 )
It is widely accepted and Tolkien himself stated that the One Ring made Sauron much more powerful, he even went so far as to state that after the forging of it in the Second Age Sauron was (In his person) more powerful than Morgoth (the person) at the end of the First Age.
But: in the World of Ea every Power (even the Valar!) diminishes over time, and once Power is lost or dispersed it is very difficult to get it back.
Why then was Sauron with the One Ring suddenly MORE powerful than before, even though his „dominate-the-Elves-through-Rings“-scheme utterly failed (by the „Increase in Power“ Tolkien cant mean „Dominion over other Rings“, because Sauron never did dominate the other Rings, except the Nine!)?
This extra Power has to come from somewhere!
The broad definition of the Powers of the One Ring therefore states that the Domination of the other Rings of Power was only a secondary Function of the One Ring; its primary Function was to access and control the „Morgoth Element“ in Arda, and through that control Matter.
During the Making of Arda, the Ainur (and especially the Valar) dispersed their inherent Power into the World. Melkor took that to the extreme: he poured so much of his Power into the World in order to control it that Tolkien spoke of Arda as „Morgoths Ring“; this dispersed Power of Melkor is also called „Morgoth Element“.
Tolkien wrote that Sauron chose Mordor because of Mount Doom and its magical quality; maybe the volcano was some sort of link or hotspot to the dispersed/embedded Power of Melkor. This would also explain why Sauron poured so much of his own Power into the Ring: it had to be especially powerful in order to channel and somewhat control the massive Morgoth Element. (By the way: Tolkien also wrote that gold is one of the elements that has a very large percentage of the Morgoth Element.)
This would also suit the character of Sauron: to use and ultimately usurp the dispersed Power of his former Master in such a way is an extremely selfish and unsentimental act (and Sauron was selfish, he was using Melkor in the Second Age, just as he was using him, for his own advancement, in the First Age). Sauron gambles that Melkor will never come back, because surely if he would come back he would perceive the using of his own dispersed Power by one of his servants as a an act of aggression and either demand the Ring, or force Sauron to destroy it!
Tolkien wrote that at the beginning of the Second Age Sauron thought that the Valar AND Melkor had failed; so he obviously no longer had any regard or sympathy for his former Master.
Maybe thats also how the One Ring allowed Sauron to dominate other wills: because the hroa is made of matter (and so also has a fair share of the morgoth element) the One Ring allowed him to better break the barriers of Unwill?
It could also very well be the case that it was the Forging of the One Ring (and the control of Melkors dispersed Power that went with it) in the Second Age that allowed Sauron to build his Empire in the first Place (recruit and dominate Orcs and other evil beings, magic, construction, infrastructure, etc.); this would also explain the rather large gap of 93 Years between the forging of the One Ring in II 1600 and the opening of the War between the Elves and Sauron in II 1693: before the forging Sauron maybe couldn't build a sufficient Empire/Military, but he also deemed it unnecessary for now because he wanted to subdue the Elves „peacefully“ through the Rings; after that failed, he suddenly needed a strong Military, and all his Empire-Building, arming up, etc. seemed to happen in those 93 years, and maybe it only could happen then because he was now able to manipulate Melkors dispersed Power. And while it is true that he also ruled in the Third Age, without the One Ring, his directly ruled „Empire“ during the time of the War of the Ring seems much smaller (consisting essentially only of Mordor and Dol Guldur); the Rest of his Dominion seems rather loosely organized, a Patchwork of indirectly ruled Vassals (Near and Far Harad, Umbar, Khand and the Eastern Tribes all seem more or less autonomous, swearing fealty and accepting Sauron as nominal God-King, paying tribute, etc. but still managing their own Affairs) – it seems that the Nature of Saurons Rule in the Third Age, without the One Ring, is much more „political“ than magical.
I like this broad definition because it makes the Ring much more ominous, primeval, mysterious and powerful; Sauron is a better Villain, more menacing and cunning: he really profits from the Creation of the Ring, and has a lot more to gain by recapturing it. Because of this The One Ring is also a much greater threat than in Scenario 1.
It is a link to the dispersed Power of the mightiest being in the Universe and allows the bearer, according to his own innate Power, to control and manipulate (the matter that is infused with) this dispersed Power. If you believe in this definition of the powers of the One Ring it was definitely not a failure. It enhanced Saurons own Power and Stature (maybe even to the Level of some of the Valar) and also anchored him to the material World.
(Another Question would be where the other Rings got their Power from? Do they harness the dispersed Power of other Valar? Are the three elven Rings the most powerful because they access the dispersed Power of the most powerful Valar: Manwe, Ulmo, and Aule? The „blasphemous“ nature of this sort of magic would rhyme with the rebellious and somewhat anti-valinorean character of the (exiled) Noldor. Was this the „Sales-Pitch“ of Annatar: to use the dispersed Power of the Valar to create a second, independent Valinor in Middle-Earth? Was this another Reason for the Rift between the Woodelves and the Noldor in the Second Age? (The Woodelves under Oropher maybe moved as far away from the Noldor as possible not only for political Reasons but also because they rejected this form of Magic as blasphemous, unnatural and antithetical to their Way of Life and their „Back to the Roots“-Worldview?) Was it maybe part of Saurons plan not only to dominate and corrupt the other Ringbearers but, through the One Ring and the other Rings of Power, to also corrupt and somehow transform the respective corresponding Valarian Elements? A lot of open questions … )
The only drawback is that Tolkien never explicitly confirmed this broad definition.
But then: he was often cryptic and didn't spell things out; that only adds to the mystique of the One Ring (We only know that the One Ring is very powerful, but why that is the case is a matter of Ring-Lore that even the Wise dont understand fully. And how much did the Wise really know about Melkor, his dispersed Power, the inner workings of the Ring, etc.? In the end they could only speculate just like we do!)
What do you think? In which definition do you believe and do you think the One Ring was a failure/mistake? And if it was a failure: how would Sauron have fared without it?
PS: Please excuse my English, its not my native language.