more than 9? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

arcticstorm · 05-12-2005, 08:25 PM

I remember reading somewhere that Sauron, not the nine Nazgul, held the 9 rings given to mortal men. with this in mind, I have a theoretical question about the Nazgul. Since they seemed to be some of the strongest servents of Sauron during the war, why didn't Sauron plan ahead by giving the nine rings out to other men that he had under his dominion back when he was the Necromancer, and in essence make some more Nazgul to help hunt for the ring? Or was it even possib;e for him to do this? And more importantly, would doing this have allowed Sauron to find the ring or retreive it earlier?

Formendacil · 05-12-2005, 08:39 PM

I've been curious about this too, but I have a theory. Here goes:

The Nazgul are enslaved to the Nine Rings, which are in turn bound to Sauron/the One Ring. Sauron could control the Nazgul either through the One Ring (and thence into the Nine) or else through the Nine Rings directly, once they had become wraiths.

Therefore, since Sauron did not have the One Ring during the Third Age, it was necessary to have the Nine Rings to control the Nazgul. Had he given them out, he would have lost control of the wraiths, who would have likely sought out and killed the new keepers of the Rings, desiring them for themselves (think Gollum here).

Now, the only thing that I know of that could CERTAINLY make this theory fail is if Sauron didn't take back the Nine until the Third Age. If he took them back in the Second, then there is no obvious problem. But if he did it in the Third, the question is when, and was he strong enough to do so? After all, I don't see the Nazgul giving them up willingly if he didn't have the One Ring to control them, since they would have been as jealous of the fates of their rings as Gollum.

radagastly · 05-12-2005, 08:55 PM

I remember this thread discussed this possibility some. My own opinion is that the nine rings (and probably the seven and the three as well) were bonded to their owners in much the same way that the One Ring was part of Sauron. Their power could not be easily transferred to another, and would diminish the link with the original possessor if attempted. Certainly, after the death of a Nazgul, like the Witch King, Sauron might have decided to replace him with another corrupt mortal, but that would take time, perhaps a hundred years or more, before he could take the ring back and keep it with himself and expect the kind of blind obedience that he got from the rest of the Nazgul. That's just my opinion though. I can't back it up with anything textual.

A_Brandybuck · 05-13-2005, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radagastly

My own opinion is that the nine rings (and probably the seven and the three as well) were bonded to their owners in much the same way that the One Ring was part of Sauron.

I don't think so. The One Ring was part of Sauron, because he forged it and while forging he put lots of his own (power) in it. That is, why the One Ring is such evil.
The lesser Rings were not forged by their bearers, the bearers were betrayed by the Rings and made the dependent of the Master-Ring, but I think that is uniidirectional, because nothing from the bearer is in the Ring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by radagastly

Certainly, after the death of a Nazgul, like the Witch King, Sauron might have decided to replace him with another corrupt mortal

Wasn't it so, that a Nazgul can't die, before the One Ring is not destroyed. By killing his physical shape, you could only diminish him to a 'spirit'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Formendacil

If he took them back in the Second, then there is no obvious problem.

hmmm... I see a problem with the physical shape of Sauron and physical holding the Rings. Am I right, thinking that the diminshed spirit Sauron could not hold the physical rings? Where were the Nine Rings? It must be happened in the Third Age, when Sauron beginned to take shape.

Boromir88 · 05-13-2005, 08:05 AM

I take Formendacil's stance, that Sauron kept the Nine Rings so he could control the Nazgul, even without the one. A rather older thread done by Kransha (here is the link ) goes into what if Frodo claimed the ring? And was able to wrest power from Sauron, becoming the new "Ring-lord." Tolkien addresses this answer in Letter #243. That eventhough Sauron was not in possession of the one, he was still able to control the Nazgul. The Nazgul were enslaved to their Nine Rings, and Sauron kept them so he could control them, even without the One.

alatar · 05-13-2005, 10:12 AM

Didn't the rings require time and use to enslave the owner? I assume that the men who took the Nine weren't idiots, and if I remember the text regarding the same it says that they fall to Sauron's dominion over time.

Assume an addictive substance. Some people partake, find nothing therein and walk away. Others get a rush of some kind, and so take additional hits. Wow! This makes me feel sooo good! After a while they need the substance just to be normal. Finally, they completely lose all willpower and so are enslaved to the substance.

It would be silly to say that alcohol, crack-cocaine, a Ring, etc enslaves the addict, as we are talking about inanimate objects with no life, will, souls, minds. It is the user that does the enslaving, yet one normally says that one is controlled by the substance.

And if the good feeling is wealth (dwarves) or control of other wills (men) or paradise/stasis/whatever (elves) or dominion (Sauron), over time one becomes addicted. Galadriel and Elrond were addicted to what their Rings provided; when the Rings finally failed, they left Middle Earth. Each Ring extracted payment for what it gave; some such payments may not be readily seen and also may be worth paying.

I assume that the Nine enjoyed the power, status, abilities and 'things' that the Rings gave them, but obviously they thought that they could skip out on paying the bill. Instead of living out their allotted time, they continued on and on and on as wraiths, under the domination of Sauron, feared by their former kind, desiring yet hating life - sounds wonderful.

Even Sauron, by dumping some of himself into the One Ring made himself an Achille's heel by which he was finally destroyed. Though his abilities were enhanced by the Ring he also was then able to lose it.

You'd think that maia would know better.

05-12-2005, 08:25 PM	#1
arcticstorm Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Johnson Bible College: Knoxville, TN Posts: 464	more than 9? I remember reading somewhere that Sauron, not the nine Nazgul, held the 9 rings given to mortal men. with this in mind, I have a theoretical question about the Nazgul. Since they seemed to be some of the strongest servents of Sauron during the war, why didn't Sauron plan ahead by giving the nine rings out to other men that he had under his dominion back when he was the Necromancer, and in essence make some more Nazgul to help hunt for the ring? Or was it even possib;e for him to do this? And more importantly, would doing this have allowed Sauron to find the ring or retreive it earlier?

05-12-2005, 08:55 PM	#3
radagastly Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Washington, D. C., USA Posts: 299	I remember this thread discussed this possibility some. My own opinion is that the nine rings (and probably the seven and the three as well) were bonded to their owners in much the same way that the One Ring was part of Sauron. Their power could not be easily transferred to another, and would diminish the link with the original possessor if attempted. Certainly, after the death of a Nazgul, like the Witch King, Sauron might have decided to replace him with another corrupt mortal, but that would take time, perhaps a hundred years or more, before he could take the ring back and keep it with himself and expect the kind of blind obedience that he got from the rest of the Nazgul. That's just my opinion though. I can't back it up with anything textual. __________________ But all the while I sit and think of times there were before, I listen for returning feet and voices at the door.

05-13-2005, 08:05 AM	#5
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	I take Formendacil's stance, that Sauron kept the Nine Rings so he could control the Nazgul, even without the one. A rather older thread done by Kransha (here is the link ) goes into what if Frodo claimed the ring? And was able to wrest power from Sauron, becoming the new "Ring-lord." Tolkien addresses this answer in Letter #243. That eventhough Sauron was not in possession of the one, he was still able to control the Nazgul. The Nazgul were enslaved to their Nine Rings, and Sauron kept them so he could control them, even without the One. __________________ Fenris Penguin

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-12-2005, 08:39 PM	#2
Formendacil Dead Serious Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Perched on Thangorodrim's towers. Posts: 3,328	I've been curious about this too, but I have a theory. Here goes: The Nazgul are enslaved to the Nine Rings, which are in turn bound to Sauron/the One Ring. Sauron could control the Nazgul either through the One Ring (and thence into the Nine) or else through the Nine Rings directly, once they had become wraiths. Therefore, since Sauron did not have the One Ring during the Third Age, it was necessary to have the Nine Rings to control the Nazgul. Had he given them out, he would have lost control of the wraiths, who would have likely sought out and killed the new keepers of the Rings, desiring them for themselves (think Gollum here). Now, the only thing that I know of that could CERTAINLY make this theory fail is if Sauron didn't take back the Nine until the Third Age. If he took them back in the Second, then there is no obvious problem. But if he did it in the Third, the question is when, and was he strong enough to do so? After all, I don't see the Nazgul giving them up willingly if he didn't have the One Ring to control them, since they would have been as jealous of the fates of their rings as Gollum. __________________ I prefer history, true or feigned.

05-13-2005, 10:12 AM	#6
alatar Doubting Dwimmerlaik Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Heaven's basement Posts: 2,466	Didn't the rings require time and use to enslave the owner? I assume that the men who took the Nine weren't idiots, and if I remember the text regarding the same it says that they fall to Sauron's dominion over time. Assume an addictive substance. Some people partake, find nothing therein and walk away. Others get a rush of some kind, and so take additional hits. Wow! This makes me feel sooo good! After a while they need the substance just to be normal. Finally, they completely lose all willpower and so are enslaved to the substance. It would be silly to say that alcohol, crack-cocaine, a Ring, etc enslaves the addict, as we are talking about inanimate objects with no life, will, souls, minds. It is the user that does the enslaving, yet one normally says that one is controlled by the substance. And if the good feeling is wealth (dwarves) or control of other wills (men) or paradise/stasis/whatever (elves) or dominion (Sauron), over time one becomes addicted. Galadriel and Elrond were addicted to what their Rings provided; when the Rings finally failed, they left Middle Earth. Each Ring extracted payment for what it gave; some such payments may not be readily seen and also may be worth paying. I assume that the Nine enjoyed the power, status, abilities and 'things' that the Rings gave them, but obviously they thought that they could skip out on paying the bill. Instead of living out their allotted time, they continued on and on and on as wraiths, under the domination of Sauron, feared by their former kind, desiring yet hating life - sounds wonderful. Even Sauron, by dumping some of himself into the One Ring made himself an Achille's heel by which he was finally destroyed. Though his abilities were enhanced by the Ring he also was then able to lose it. You'd think that maia would know better.