Oh, absolutely Sauron. You seal that question with this quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Morgoth's Ring: Myths Transformed
Sauron was greater, effectively, in the Second Age, than Morgoth at the end of the First.
|
The last lines of the
Valaquenta are also highly instructive:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Silm: Valaquenta
In all the deeds of Melkor the Morgoth upon Arda, in his vast works and in the deceits of his cunning, Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself. But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void.
|
In other words, Sauron was considered 'less evil' because while he was the one performing atrocities, it was (at least theoretically) at Morgoth's instruction. He was Just Following Orders, you see!
One thing you don't mention is that Morgoth's domain was absurdly small. I have a composite map tucked away which matches the Blue Mountains and the islands off Eriador to the Beleriand map; the distance from Thangorodrim to the mouths of Sirion is about the distance from Minas Tirith to Edoras. Even at its greatest extent, Morgoth's 'empire' was only the size of Gondor. Compare that to Sauron, who at one point ruled over literally everything in mainland Middle-earth that wasn't named Lindon, and you see how absurd it is to even compare the two.
Following the principle of 'miles are miles', we can see that Beleriand was about 400 miles square - its land area would be about the same as the British Isles, and Morgoth didn't even take the whole thing over. By contrast, Sauron effectively ruled the entirety of Eurasia and Africa, with the exception of a slice the size of Portugal.
It really is no contest.
hS