Saruman and betrayal

[Saurreg]

I think the question or not Sauron would go to the aid of Saruman could be answered by part if we can come to a consensus on the the characteristics of Sauron the entity.

Was he a primeval dark deity of chaotic evil in which blood and destruction was the ultimate appeal and desire? Or was he a quasi-ominipotent entity of conscious sentience and logical thought, in which he had a plan and was working to it?

If he was this blood frenzied god of destruction in which chaos, death and mayhem were valued above all else, then quite frankily I see no reason for him to aid Saruman. The provisonal result of Saruman being isolated and defeated early, leading to a tougher struggle by Mordor to overwhelm the free people of MiddleEarth would be greater bloodletting from both sides - which would appeal to Sauron more than ever since blood was what he existed for. The blood of Saruman and his Uruk Hais was libation. The blood of the free people that defeated and laid siege to Isengard was libation. The blood of his orcs and eastern allies in the greater-than-needed-intensity of subsequent meat-grinding assaults on the west would be libation. The more-than-actual bloodletting of the defenders would be libation. To sum it out, this Sauron was a creature of the moment in which the end was death and destruction and that the means were the horrendous violence of battle and needless sacrifice.

But the Sauron that we read from the chapters of Akallabeth, the Rings of Power and Lord of The Rings was far from a slave creature of the senses and unbridled chaos. He was immensely cunning, devious, patience, thoughful and above all never lost sight of his ultimate aim. He was as I would submit, a master strategist of the art of maneuver - the quintessential Machiavelli of the books.

In the art of maneuver, the strategist aims for maximum gains with minimal expenditure. He choses to face an enemy at its weakness whilst avoiding its strength on a battlefield and time of his chosing. And one of the hallmarks of great manuever is the ability to create a second front and deal the enemy with a blow that would weaken him so that his defeat was eminent when the time came for a general engagement with the maneuverist. Saruman was that second front Sauron was counting on and the greater destruction the former could exact, the better it would be because the enemy would have to expend higher amounts of resources. So it would be logical for Sauron to come to the aid of Saruman if the act of assistance is outweighed by the benefits of Saruman still in the game and able to exact a dreadful toll on the enemy. In this case the end justifies the means.

So what would have happened if Saruman's forces was not subjugated? I can forsee the destruction of Rohan and the eventual attrition that would wipe out the rogue Istari and severely cripple the rest of the West. Sauron then unleashes his full might while the free people were still weak and simply overrun them.

[Kuruharan]

I think Sauron would love to see the good side fighting with someone who was supposed to be one of them. Now, if the battle looked like it would be one sided against Saruman, then I can imagine Sauron trying to help him even the odds in some way, but it wouldn't be to save his life. It would be to spill the blood of his enemies.
-the phantom

I think the question or not Sauron would go to the aid of Saruman could be answered by part if we can come to a consensus on the the characteristics of Sauron the entity.

Was he a primeval dark deity of chaotic evil in which blood and destruction was the ultimate appeal and desire? Or was he a quasi-ominipotent entity of conscious sentience and logical thought, in which he had a plan and was working to it?

-and-

He was as I would submit, a master strategist of the art of maneuver - the quintessential Machiavelli of the books.
Saurreg

I think you both summed up Sauron's character accurately.

A review of the Tale of Years reveals that prior to 2953 removing Saruman would have been easy because Isengard was evidently unfortified. (One has to ask why, because it was originally intended to be a fortress...maybe the fortifications were allowed to decay to the point of being militarily indefensible...or something.)

After 2953 Isengard was fortified and presumably garrisoned, requiring military intervention to deal with.

Unfortunately, by that time Sauron was back in Mordor as himself and had his lackeys in Dol Guldur. I think we can say that he would have been militarily capable of intervening to save Saruman if he felt so inclined.

[Animalmother]

For twenty years, Saruman kept orcs employed below ground inside the ring of Isengard, out of public view, developing industry and breeding human-orc hybrids. In the last two years before the War of the Ring, he may have recruited Uruk-hai warriors in larger and larger numbers, keeping them in barracks inside Isengard and paying them in "man-flesh" and the goods he manufactured. Thus, the operation escaped the notice of the White Council.

Where would he get man-flesh? He spent centuries in the East of Middle Earth. He had extensive contacts with the Easterlings. He purchased human slaves from the Easterlings, importing them through the wilds south of Mirkwood to the fringes of Fangorn, thence to Isengard.

Saruman was a successful Machiavellian, feigning goodness while doing evil.

The account Gandalf gives to the Council of Elrond of his dialogue with Saruman is not plausible. Saruman's Machiavellian argument must have been that it's time to fight fire with fire. Problems: the Elves are leaving, the Dwarves are too few, Men are not tough enough to stand up against Mordor's orcs. Solution: Breed human-orc hybrids, recruit our own orcs, and if possible use the One Ring ! Thus, some trace of the once free peoples and their cultures will survive. Saruman argued as Machiavelli argued, that sometimes, to do good, you must use some evil. If you don't, your opponent who is totally without scruple will defeat you.

But Gandalf does not present Saruman's argument this way. Instead, he has Saruman urging Gandalf to ally with Sauron. This is not plausible. Saruman would have known that Gandalf would never agree to such an alliance. Saruman would have used the persuasive Machiavellian argument with some hope that Gandalf would agree. Gandalf probably feared that if he presented Saruman's argument accurately, some at the Council of Elrond, such as Boromir and possibly the Dwarves, might have been persuaded by it. Thus, Gandalf thought it better to present a distorted account of the Saruman-Gandalf dialogue, which made Saruman's argument look completely depraved and unacceptable.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Welcome Animalmother! I think your conclusions are more or less right... except...

Originally Posted by Animalmother

Where would he get man-flesh? He spent centuries in the East of Middle Earth. He had extensive contacts with the Easterlings. He purchased human slaves from the Easterlings, importing them through the wilds south of Mirkwood to the fringes of Fangorn, thence to Isengard.

Well, I don't think we have to come to these wild conclusions. There surely were some poor folks of Dunlands who had problems with Saruman, and in later days there were Rohirrim (the mounds at the fords of Isen are a good example, I think). I don't think it is necessary to think that the Uruk-hai must've been eating man-flesh all the time.

Originally Posted by Animalmother

But Gandalf does not present Saruman's argument this way. Instead, he has Saruman urging Gandalf to ally with Sauron. This is not plausible. Saruman would have known that Gandalf would never agree to such an alliance. Saruman would have used the persuasive Machiavellian argument with some hope that Gandalf would agree. Gandalf probably feared that if he presented Saruman's argument accurately, some at the Council of Elrond, such as Boromir and possibly the Dwarves, might have been persuaded by it. Thus, Gandalf thought it better to present a distorted account of the Saruman-Gandalf dialogue, which made Saruman's argument look completely depraved and unacceptable.

Are you implying that Gandalf lied?
Actually, there is one thing you have missed. Saruman's thoughts were at first probably very close to those you present. Typical machiavellism, and he probably believed it. He might even lied to himself that he is really doing this for the better future of Middle-Earth. This is what he tried to present to Gandalf. But later (and most obviously after 3000, when he looked to the Palantír), Saruman was thinking just of himself, he did not even pretend to himself that he is doing this for anyone's good. He was, literally, blinded by his lust for power. This is why he was not able to convince Gandalf - he had a momentary blackout. He forgot his role. A mistake, but as we all know, such mistakes happen. After all, Gandalf wouldn't'we agreed with Saruman, but this way Saruman revealed his real thoughts, that he is not just a machiavellian fanatic who is blinded by his theory, but that he is already a Dark Lord aspirant.

He came and laid his long hand on my arm. "And why not, Gandalf? " he whispered. "Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us. That is in truth why I brought you here. For I have many eyes in my service, and I believe that you know where this precious thing now lies. Is it not so? Or why do the Nine ask for the Shire, and what is your business there?" As he said this a lust which he could not conceal shone suddenly in his eyes.

[Animalmother]

Gandalf estimated that Saruman commanded ten-thousand Uruk-hai. About 5,000 pounds or 2, 300 kilograms of flesh per day would keep them happy. If only one-tenth of the flesh were human, that's 230 kilograms per day, or about 10 people per day, or 3,650 people per year. to feed to the Uruk-hai. Texas's geographical size and population when fighting the Comanche Indians from AD 1838 through AD 1860s was close to Rohan's. In the 1840s, we were losing about two-hundred Texans per year, killed or kidnapped by the Comanche. These losses meant all out war between Texas and Comanches. Rohan would have reacted the same way if any similar number of its people were taken. Saruman could not have man-flesh from Rohan without provoking all out war with Rohan, which he was trying to avoid in the years before the War of the Ring. Similarly, he was trying to persuade the Dunlendings that he was their friend. That would be difficult to do while feeding Dunlending people to Uruk-hai, even if the people were of low socio-economic status. Saruman needed the loyalty of the Dunlendings, to keep his army balanced -- he could not trust his Uruk-hai to be loyal for loyalty's sake. Also, if the Uruk-hai meat meals were taken from the people of Rohan or from the Dunlendings, the widely travelled Gandalf would certainly have heard of these strange dietary practices at Isengard long before he fell into Saruman's trap on July 10, III 3018. For all these reasons, Saruman's source of man-flesh must have been remote rather than local, and the East was the obvious place for an experienced Easterling expert to look for it.

I am not implying Gandalf was lying at the Council of Elrond. I am stating it flat-out. Gandalf was a master of deception, one who delighted in secrets and in trickery. In the Hobbit, he allows his Dwarvish companions to be tormented all night by trolls, pitching his voice to provoke the trolls into foolish quarrels with each other until sunrise. He probably could have intervened sooner, but he was enjoying destroying the trolls in a most economical manner. Gandalf suspected Bilbo and Frodo's ring was the One Ring for seventeen years before he finally told Frodo the truth about it, in April III 3018. He also kept the secret of the One Ring from Saruman, who was the Head of the White Council. The Gandalf we see is Gandalf as seen and recorded by the Hobbits in their history. He's not necessarily the real Gandalf, just as Plato's Socrates is not necessarily the real Socrates. It's clear that not everyone on Middle Earth trusts Gandalf. He's close only to the High Elves, the Dunedain remnant, the Dwarves, and some rich Hobbits.

Gandalf and Saruman had known one another in their human forms for two-thousand years. Saruman has plenty of time to devise his speech for Gandalf. He was a master of rhetoric. I do not believe Saruman would have made any mistakes in delivering it. But in Gandalf's account, Saruman's speech begins badly, with sarcasm and insults. Next, Saruman proposes an alliance with Sauron, the argument least likely to appeal to Gandalf. Next Saruman appeals to Gandalf to reveal the hiding place of the One Ring. This is not a plausible sequence. Finally, if Saruman thought there were no hope of persuading Gandalf, or if Saruman had gone completely over to Sauron's side, why did Saruman not torture Gandalf immediately for the truth about the Ring? Saruman had Gandalf as guest of Orthanc for sixty-eight days. My conclusion is that Saruman was not really a loyal a vassal of Sauron. Saruman was truly "Saruman of Many Colours," meaning he was a chameleon who would adapt his tactics to circumstances. Just as the Catholic church condemned Machiavelli's teaching, Gandalf condemned Saruman's. For Gandalf, there was no compromising with evil, not even to the extent of using its weapons. The Valar did not send the Istari to Middle Earth to compromise with evil, even for good ends.

Gandalf knew the seductive power of the Machiavellian argument. Gandalf himself was tempted by the Ring. Gandalf was so fearful of the power of the Machiavellian argument, he did not want it repeated, even second-hand, in the company of weaker people, such as Boromir, Gloin, and who-knows-who-else at the Council of Elrond.
.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Oh, what a disgusting topic, measuring amounts of man flesh needed...

Anyway, Uglúk says nothing about how much did they eat. He certainly sees "man flesh" as a reason to hold Saruman high in his eyes. So it was certainly something "special". This does not mean it was not served everyday, but it also does not mean it was. It might as well have been that this was a bonus... anyway, the idea of Easterlings seemed unlikely to me because it would be very, very hard to get the "transports" across the Anduin and then across Rohan. I am not saying it is not interesting, and the argument of Saruman knowing the East is quite logical, I like that explanation. But somehow, it seems too much improbable to me...

And that thing about Gandalf... you are right that most of the records come from the Red Book. However, don't forget that Bilbo was, after all, the one who knew him best, as well as all the others, Frodo, hobbits, elves. And an idea of Gandalf lying to Elrond seems laughable to me. First, Elrond would know. Second, Gandalf wouldn't lie in front of these people and in such a grave matter. Third, I doubt Gandalf would actually lie at any moment. And to the things you mention: He didn't know about the Ring: he had just some fear or suspicion, but he was not sure, which in the end turned to be a very dangerous delay. Tricking the Trolls into quarrel was a matter of saving the Dwarves. And as he himself says, he "was not available" all the night: he was scouting ahead and when he returned, he started to act rightaway.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

With all due respect to those who feel otherwise, I think that sometimes we get too caught up in the "translator's conceit" of the book, and second-guess things that should just be taken at face value.

I have no problem with assuming that the Gandalf described in the book is the true Gandalf. And based on what I've read from Tolkien, I think he'd agree. So I don't think that Gandalf is lying, or misconstruing Saruman's speech, or anything of the sort. If he tells us that's what Saruman said, why should we believe otherwise?

Yes, Gandalf is a manipulator to some extent, but lying is not one of his tools.

"I do not lie." - G the W