Saruman for or against Sauron?

[Kuruharan]

Now that the other Saruman thread has died down a bit...

The passage in question doesn't concern who would master the ring _in general_, but who could master the ring in Sauron's presence. Maybe only Gandalf can master the ring in such a situation, but that doesn't exclude the fact that others can master the ring properly, should Sauron not be in the vicinity.

Please explain how a physical confrontation with Sauron could possibly be avoided by this putative ringlord. How could said ringlord be sure they had mastered the Ring when they fought Sauron? I picture the Ring having a thought process similar to this...

Ring: Hmmm...another dullard who thinks they can master me. What to do? I know! I'll pretend like they've mastered me and get their ego all blown out of proportion. My new "master" will fall all over itself (har, har "it"self, clever reference to part of the discussion in other thread ) to take me back to my Master.

*time passes, battle is waged, Sauron makes beeline for new "ringlord"*

Ring: DADDY!!!!!!!

*BAM* new ringlord is jello

Ring and Sauron: Boo-YAA!!!

[Raynor]

Please explain how a physical confrontation with Sauron could possibly be avoided by this putative ringlord.

I believe that this could be achieved by the way Elrond/Galadriel would have tried: large armies with absolutely subservient generals. I don't think that killing Sauron by 'mere' warriors is out of the question, seeing that it had already happened once at the end of the second age, in direct combat.

How could said ringlord be sure they had mastered the Ring when they fought Sauron?

I believe that said ringlord would have avoided direct confrontation; as it has been quoted already in the thread, and argued by you, such a direct encounter would greatly favor Sauron.

[Kuruharan]

I believe that this could be achieved by the way Elrond/Galadriel would have tried: large armies with absolutely subservient generals.

Nope. The West was militarily incapable. Try to fight Sauron this way and you are still playing to his strength. They couldn't have won like this, they would have had no time.

I don't think that killing Sauron by 'mere' warriors is out of the question, seeing that it had already happened once at the end of the second age, in direct combat.

Sauron was not killed by "mere" warriors. He was...well, actually something surprisingly ambiguous happened considering the magnitude of the event, by two of the greater beings that had ever walked on Middle-earth and they died in the process. This actually only reinforces my point that these armies aren't going to be able to keep Sauron from making a beeline for the Ring.

I believe that said ringlord would have avoided direct confrontation

And as I said, I don't think they could avoid it as long as they stayed in Middle-earth.

[Raynor]

I don't think that sheer might is what ultimately defines Tolkien's world, quite the contrary case can be made:

Originally Posted by Letter #131

The chief of the stories of the Silmarillion, and the one most fully treated is the Story of Beren and Luthien the Elfmaiden. Here we meet, among other things, the first example of the motive (to become dominant in Hobbits) that the great policies of world history, 'the wheels of the world', are often turned not by the Lords and Governors, even gods, but by the seemingly unknown and weak – owing to the secret life in creation, and the pan unknowable to all wisdom but One, that resides in the intrusions of the Children of God into the Drama. It is Beren the outlawed monal who succeeds (with the help of Luthien, a mere maiden even if an elf of royalty) where all the armies and warriors have failed: he penetrates the stronghold of the Enemy and wrests one of the Silmarilli from the Iron Crown.

In what sense can the statement "the west was military incapable" be true? Certainly not in the absolute one. We can speculate that for a good while of the third age, Sauron's enemies (without the one ring) were a match to him. Up to when? Perhaps the earliest is 2060, when the Wise suspect that his power increases in Dol-Gudur; or 2460, when the watchful peace ends; or 2885, when the haradrim attack Gondor at the bidding of Sauron, or even 2951, when at last Sauron declares himself.

I think that we can only declare the west as military incapable against Sauron, when we find that the following are not synchronized in their favor:

- the period it requires them to build an empire, with the help of the One Ring, necessary to contend Sauron

- when they actually get the One Ring

- when is Sauron powerful enough to attack them first

It can even be argued that the gathering of strength can be hastened by claiming soldiers who obey Sauron's power; Tolkien noted that the nazgul wouldn't be wholly invulnerable to the power of an enemy ringlord, even in the case of Frodo; I would guess that the hosts of Mordor would too be vulnerable to its influence, seeing that they already are driven forth by Sauron's power. The conclusion I would draw is that not all the elements are known, so our estimates are rather inexact; in most, if not all, cases, some timelines favor the the victory of the west, some the victory of Sauron, but the very story of LotR shows us that no outcome is set in stone.

How powerful is Sauron in direct confrontation? Very powerful, most likely, but he is not the same Sauron of the second age. He had expended energy in making himself a new body and in "long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors" - this being also the factors of the diminishing of Melkor's power, who, even he, at the end of the first age, feared of being hurt. I believe that at the end of the third age, Sauron can be defeated in a direct battle.

[Boromir88]

I don't think that killing Sauron by 'mere' warriors is out of the question, seeing that it had already happened once at the end of the second age, in direct combat.~Raynor

I agree that Sauron could be killed in combat, as this clearly happened when he even had possession of the One Ring. However, I believe Sauron learned his lesson and coming out to fight wasn't something he was going to do this time around:

Denethor laughed bitterly. 'Nay, not yet, Master Peregrin! He will not come save only to triumph over me when all is one. He uses others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise, Master Halfling. Or why should I sit here in my tower and think, and watch, and wait, spending even my sons? For I can still wield a brand.'~Siege of Gondor

[Kuruharan]

In what sense can the statement "the west was military incapable" be true?

In the obvious one. They could not defeat Sauron by force of arms.

We can speculate that for a good while of the third age, Sauron's enemies (without the one ring) were a match to him.

No, we can’t speculate that because for much of the Third Age they were not contesting him, they just sat back for the most part.

the period it requires them to build an empire, with the help of the One Ring, necessary to contend Sauron

Exactly, they didn’t have that.

It can even be argued that the gathering of strength can be hastened by claiming soldiers who obey Sauron's power

This has always been a bit of an unclear issue. The Men that followed Sauron (and there were probably plenty enough of these to do the job) were probably not in thrall to the power of the Ring to any large extent. I think they could be counted on to follow Sauron regardless, if for no other reason than the new ringlord, whoever it would be, would be representing something they had hated and fought against for generations.

The orcs, I have to admit, I’m not sure about. On the whole I’m inclined to think they would also continue to follow Sauron for similar reasons to the Men. Whether they could actually attempt to actively harm the new ringlord I think is largely irrelevant. All the orcs would be there for is to help kill the enemy soldiers. Sauron would deal with the new ringlord.

Tolkien noted that the nazgul wouldn't be wholly invulnerable to the power of an enemy ringlord, even in the case of Frodo; I would guess that the hosts of Mordor would too be vulnerable to its influence

But Sauron would remain their master. That is not called into question in the case of the Nazgul, they remain Sauron’s slaves. They would not be needed to deal with the new ringlord. They would be much more effective doing nasty things to the new ringlord’s army.

But regardless of this, this little debate is a waste of time. It was relentlessly stated in the books over and over from the time of the Council of Elrond that the West could not hope to defeat Sauron militarily. The West also utterly lacked the capacity to launch effective offensive actions against Sauron, that in itself is very telling. I find that your argument has no foundation.

I believe that at the end of the third age, Sauron can be defeated in a direct battle.

By Gandalf, nobody else. Saruman couldn’t master the Ring to face Sauron (as the rotting horse corpse lying over there that I’ve had to beat mercilessly for the past few months attests to). Galadriel and Elrond were not of the same order of creation as Sauron and for a number of other reasons just don’t stack up. Aragorn is explicitly denied the ability to best Sauron in such a situation.

I don't know what else there is to say about this.

[Raynor]

They could not defeat Sauron by force of arms.

You are ignoring my line of reasoning in that paragraph; I was referring to the moment in time Sauron became mightier in arm forces. There was a buildup in his forces, he didn’t enjoy his military superiority for the better part of the third age.

No, we can’t speculate that because for much of the Third Age they were not contesting him, they just sat back for the most part.

I was discussing “for how long were they capable” not “what they actually did”. Although what you stated is correct, it doesn’t address my statement.

Exactly, they didn’t have that.

In order to conclude that, we would need to know, as I stated previously:
- when would Sauron be fully prepared to attack them
- what period of time they needed to build their armies with the help of the one ring, in order to defeat Sauron
- what is the time they got the ring

As far as I know, at least the second factor is down to speculation, but I would welcome your suggestions for these. We know that Sauron wasn’t ready to fully attack the ringlord-less west at the time of the Pellenor Fields, in 15th of march, 3019. When would he be fully prepared to attack a ringlord? I don’t know. As to the third factor, that is simply down to an agreement; the sooner they got it, the quicker they would proceed to building forces, with more motivation, and, possibly, with more efficiency. Also, the sooner they would build their forces, the weaker Sauron would be. As I said, some timelines (placing the appearance the ringlord sooner in the third age) would favor the west, some would favor Sauron (placing said event later) in the third age); if the ringlord would appear only around the time of the council of Elrond or the likes, in 3018, he/she would have a serious handicap.

By Gandalf, nobody else.

But Sauron facing opponents individually is not what I had in mind. You are conveniently taking into consideration only a one-on-one battle. While this seems to be defining some Hollywood style combats, I have a hard time imagining a scene in which several tens/hundreds/thousands of warriors would line up to fight Sauron individually. Even in that case, sheer number of individual fights, or just accidents, would allow us to consider that Sauron can be defeated. As far as I know, no embodied person in Middle-Earth enjoys invulnerability.

But regardless of this, this little debate is a waste of time.

Err, why do you post then?

[Kuruharan]

You are ignoring my line of reasoning in that paragraph

Mainly because I didn’t see your point or how it related to what we were talking about (still don’t really).

And exactly how militarily incapable do you think Sauron was during the Third Age? He successfully (and repeatedly) instigated mass invasions against his enemies from Angmar, in 1851 with the Wainriders, and in 2000 the Nazgul seized Minas Ithil. This all happened before the Ring was fished out of the bottom of the river and before he established himself in Mordor. Arnor was gone and Gondor was already weakening. The West’s military incapacity was something of long standing.

15th of march, 3019

I’ll go with this. From this date, the West couldn’t win militarily at this point because they did not have the resources to defeat Sauron in the showdown that would quickly follow. He had all the manpower and material superiority that he needed. Once he knew who the new ringlord was he would pounce. What could be simpler? The West did not have years for a new ringlord to build up. Weeks, or at most months, would be what they would be looking at and that would not do them any good because time was more a friend of Sauron than of them.

You are conveniently taking into consideration only a one-on-one battle.

And you are conveniently forgetting that Sauron’s armies would have been larger and there for the express purposes of dealing with the new ringlord’s army. Sauron would have done everything he could to force such a man-to-man confrontation because the odds would have been impossibly stacked in his favor.

why do you post then?

For the purpose of publicly disagreeing with ideas I think are ill-founded.