Saurons Weapon of Choice?

[Inziladun]

I would completely discount the movie's take on Sauron's melee abilities.

To touch on what Mith said, The Silmarillion states that during the siege of Barad-dûr,

Sauron himself came forth; and he wrestled with Gil-galad and Elendil.

Silm Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

In the Council of Elrond, when telling of those events, Elrond says only that

I beheld the last combat on the slopes of Orodruin, where Gil-galad died, and Elendil fell, and Narsil broke beneath him.

FOTR The Council of Elrond

That would seem to suggest that there was some sort of action involving weapons on Sauron's part, but apparently it wasn't noteworthy enough to specifically mention afterwards.

Sauron mainly relied on minions and servants to do his dirty work, and maybe on those rare occasions where he himself fought, like the battle with Gil-galad and Elendil, his weaponry just wasn't singular enough to warrant any special attention by witnesses.

Alternately, maybe he himself didn't make use of weapons, thinking he could accomplish his victories with his aura of terror, or that failing, with brute strength.

[Alfirin]

A mace would also also fit well with the whole image he was trying to cultivate. Sauron's former boss/leader/master, Melkor used Grond (the original one) which was, if I recall a mace. Since a lot of Sauron's "warrior" look (big guy, armor, burned/burning flesh) seems to be designed to make him look as much like Melkor in form as possible (and hence be seens as Melkor's heir/inheritor) choosing the same weapon would be a logical choice. Maces also have a long history of being symbolic of power and right to rule (think of the Grand Mace that's part of the British royal jewels)

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

A mace would also also fit well with the whole image he was trying to cultivate. Sauron's former boss/leader/master, Melkor used Grond (the original one) which was, if I recall a mace. Since a lot of Sauron's "warrior" look (big guy, armor, burned/burning flesh) seems to be designed to make him look as much like Melkor in form as possible (and hence be seens as Melkor's heir/inheritor) choosing the same weapon would be a logical choice. Maces also have a long history of being symbolic of power and right to rule (think of the Grand Mace that's part of the British royal jewels)

Agreed. I would add that a mace has a two very good qualities above, say, a sword: it's relatively simple to become proficient in its use, and it requires very little maintenance compared to a sword. I can well see its appeal to someone like Sauron: make, enchant, swing, bash.

(I would also submit that the humble spear, in its various forms around the world and through history, saw more service and killed more enemies than the sword did.)

[Dark Lord]

Quite disappointing really. One of my favourite things about Sauron was his mace, now I realise his mace isn't even in the lore.

Morgoth's mace use to smash craters with lava in the ground, wouldn't Sauron's weapon (if he had one) have similar qualities as he is known to 'tap in the earth's fires.

Since people are accustomed to Sauron having a mace, is it wrong to classify that his weapon (in the movies) is part of the lore? I just don't see how, how he would have lost any battles with it.

Also, if his mace was that powerful, wouldn't Tolkien think it is important and write it? If he didn't make a weapon, what is the point of making armour for himself?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

Since people are accustomed to Sauron having a mace, is it wrong to classify that his weapon (in the movies) is part of the lore? I just don't see how, how he would have lost any battles with it.

There's enough argument about what constitutes "canon" within the scope of the books, let alone making the films a part of it!
I wouldn't grant anything in the movies as "part of the lore".

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

Also, if his mace was that powerful, wouldn't Tolkien think it is important and write it? If he didn't make a weapon, what is the point of making armour for himself?

That was rather my point: that Sauron's possession and/or use of a notably powerful melee weapon should have made some mark on the histories, like Morgoth's Grond did. What reference is there in the books to Sauron's armor?

[Mithalwen]

Forgive me, bur the answer I really want to give is that Sauron's chief weapon was Fear. Fear..and surprise.surprise and fear. ..and ruthless efficiency... amongst his chief weaponry were diverse elements such as fear, surprise , ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to Morgoth...and nice black armour...


I am getting my coat....

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Forgive me, bur the answer I really want to give is that Sauron's chief weapon was Fear. Fear..and surprise.surprise and fear. ..and ruthless efficiency... amongst his chief weaponry were diverse elements such as fear, surprise , ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to Morgoth...and nice black armour...


I am getting my coat....

Yes.

He was all about sadism, fear, domination, corruption, seduction, and he was, I think, once a servant of Aule. Sauron is attributed to transformation motifs, where 'succumbing' and 'perverting' are his tools. The tools of lore, not weaponry, that allow him to extend his Will in, through and over other beings.

More psychological, in many ways and about enslavement and subordination to 'his lordship'. Also a bit like a tantruming, overgrown child, who didn't know how to share his toys....

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Alfrin

A mace would also also fit well with the whole image he was trying to cultivate. Sauron's former boss/leader/master, Melkor used Grond (the original one) which was, if I recall a mace. Since a lot of Sauron's "warrior" look (big guy, armor, burned/burning flesh) seems to be designed to make him look as much like Melkor in form as possible (and hence be seens as Melkor's heir/inheritor) choosing the same weapon would be a logical choice. Maces also have a long history of being symbolic of power and right to rule (think of the Grand Mace that's part of the British royal jewels)

Originally Posted by Andsigil

Agreed. I would add that a mace has a two very good qualities above, say, a sword: it's relatively simple to become proficient in its use, and it requires very little maintenance compared to a sword. I can well see its appeal to someone like Sauron: make, enchant, swing, bash.

(I would also submit that the humble spear, in its various forms around the world and through history, saw more service and killed more enemies than the sword did.)

But what are you two agreeing to, exactly? Are you simply praising the film’s imagery here– or is this meant to be an answer to the original question? If the former, fine; if the latter– well, I’m afraid that's all pretty much irrelevant unless there’s an actual reference to Sauron using a mace. There may be one somewhere in The History of Middle Earth, but if there is I don’t recall it.

Originally Posted by Dark Lord
Since people are accustomed to Sauron having a mace, is it wrong to classify that his weapon (in the movies) is part of the lore?

Well, I suppose you could say it’s part of the “movie-lore”. Beyond that– well, what do you mean, exactly, DL? If something's not in the books you can’t very well say it is, can you? Or are you thinking in terms of some kind of fan-created consensus Middle-earth, where things from any source can be made “canon” if enough people, I don’t know, vote for them? Or what?

[Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

What reference is there in the books to Sauron's armor?

Sauron fought in battles didn't he? It would be pretty brainless if he didn't make any sort of armour, even Uruk - Hai armour would be better than cloth. Common sense really, I doubt Sauron was a dippy.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, I suppose you could say it’s part of the “movie-lore”. Beyond that– well, what do you mean, exactly, DL?

Movie - lore sits quite right.

But, when you ask someone 'What was Sauron's weapon and what did it do?', most people would reply with the description of what showed in the movie, not say 'It wasn't stated'. - That's if they know much about LOTR.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, I suppose you could say it’s part of the “movie-lore”. Beyond that– well, what do you mean, exactly, DL? If something's not in the books you can’t very well say it is, can you? Or are you thinking in terms of some kind of fan-created consensus Middle-earth, where things from any source can be made “canon” if enough people, I don’t know, vote for them? Or what?

Perhaps Sauron's weapon of choice was a cannon.

Personally, I don't believe Sauron used a physical "weapon" per se; rather, he used sorcery, such as in his battle with Finrod, and likewise in his shapeshifting into a were-wolf to battle Huan. Then, of course, he also wore the One Ring, a most frightful sorcerous weapon, with which he destroyed Gil-Galad and Elendil (not to mention his corruption and defeat of Numenor through the use of the Ring and not in open battle).

Being a "a great craftsman of the household of Aulë", Sauron certainly could have forged a potent weapon to wield, but his great metal works were the Rings of Power, not the Insidious Sword of Uber Smiting or the Malevolent Mace of Mordor. The use of the One Ring principally, and sorcery in general, were his mode of combat.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

But what are you two agreeing to, exactly? Are you simply praising the film’s imagery here– or is this meant to be an answer to the original question? If the former, fine; if the latter– well, I’m afraid that's all pretty much irrelevant unless there’s an actual reference to Sauron using a mace. There may be one somewhere in The History of Middle Earth, but if there is I don’t recall it.

Well, I can't speak for Andsigil, but all I was trying to say was that, assuming that Sauron carried a weapon, a mace was as logical a choice as any other, and that he might have some very good symbolic reasons for doing so. That Melkor carried a mace is canon, at least I think it is (my A-Z of tolkien says "mace" but given that Grond I is also referred to as "the hammer of the underworld" when it is compared to Grond II I suppose that could be literal and we could actually be talking about some sort of warhammer.) That "Battle Sauron's" physical description sounds an awful lot like the physical description of Melkor (on a presumably reduced scale) is also canon as far as I know. everything else is just what I think is logical deduction, no more proved than that theory I had a while back about the wolf's head on the front of Grond II being an image of Carcaroth. Your are correct that, again, as far as I know, there is no specific reference to what weapon Sauron used (if any) and any guess is speculation, but what else is the forum for? If the answer given to most questions asked here is never anything more than "Tolkien never said, so we should not guess or presume" then this would be a sparse forum indeed.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

Since people are accustomed to Sauron having a mace, is it wrong to classify that his weapon (in the movies) is part of the lore?

It is wrong to class anything from the movies as part of the 'lore.'

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Note also this, from the Scroll of Isildur:

...Sauron's hand, which was black and yet burned like fire, and so Gil-galad was destroyed

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Alternately, maybe he himself didn't make use of weapons, thinking he could accomplish his victories with his aura of terror, or that failing, with brute strength.

I personally take this view. I've never imagined Sauron coming out in armour and wielding a weapon, I actually always imagined him unarmed and unarmoured, trying to overwhelm Gil-galad and Elendil through furious raw strength and the sheer awfulness of his presence.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Note also this, from the Scroll of Isildur:

...Sauron's hand, which was black and yet burned like fire, and so Gil-galad was destroyed

This occurred to me too. Sauron could apparently burn with a touch, so perhaps he would not need conventional weapons.
"But at last the siege was so strait that Sauron himself came forth"
This was an act of desperation, not a calculated military manoeuvre. Sauron never expected to have to actually fight his enemies.

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

Sauron fought in battles didn't he?

Almost never. The films portray Sauron weighing into the battle on the slopes of Orodruin as some kind of doomsday for the Last Alliance, but really it was Sauron's final gambit and one which didn't really work.

But, when you ask someone 'What was Sauron's weapon and what did it do?', most people would reply with the description of what showed in the movie, not say 'It wasn't stated'. - That's if they know much about LOTR.

Would they? Surely someone who knew "much about LOTR" would know that it's never stated, although "most people" probably don't know "much about LOTR." Unless you mean "know the films well" or "treat the books and the films as interchangeable", which they're not, and which these days is a source of endless confusion. Anyway, just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean that it's true. Just because the films have coloured people's imaginations doesn't mean that their depictions have the slightest relevance when it comes to discussing what Professor Tolkien himself actually wrote.

While some of the arguments here for why he could have had a mace are quite interesting, at the same time it's all just speculation because Professor Tolkien never wrote what weapon he used, if he even used one at all.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Sauron could apparently burn with a touch, so perhaps he would not need conventional weapons.

That's interesting. Oddly enough, Gollum, who had presumably seen Sauron personally during his captivity in Mordor, told Frodo and Sam:

'He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough.'

TTT The Black Gate Is Closed

Why would Sauron only have had one hand that was black, unless it was intentional? And, tangentially, I wonder if that had anything to do with Saruman's choice of the White Hand as his own symbol.

Originally Posted by Zigûr;687475"

But at last the siege was so strait that Sauron himself came forth"
This was an act of desperation, not a calculated military manoeuvre. Sauron never expected to have to actually fight his enemies.

Almost never. The films portray Sauron weighing into the battle on the slopes of Orodruin as some kind of doomsday for the Last Alliance, but really it was Sauron's final gambit and one which didn't really work.

I see Sauron's coming forth as mainly an act of rage, and revenge. His armies were destroyed, and his ideal of dominion in Middle-earth had been brought to naught by Elves and Men. What better act of vengeance than to kill with his own hands the kings of his enemies?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Why would Sauron only have had one hand that was black, unless it was intentional?

Why assume just one black hand? True, Gollum uses the singular article; but then Tolkien also uses "the Eye of Sauron" when we know he had two.

I'm inclined to think Tolkien's vision of Sauron (in his post-fall of Numenor form) was not unconnected to his essay/note on Sigelhearwan, a word which by late OE was used to translate "Ethiopians, Africans" but which JRRT argued on philological grounds had originally referred to the Giants of Muspellheim, black-skinned with fiery eyes.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Why assume just one black hand? True, Gollum uses the singular article; but then Tolkien also uses "the Eye of Sauron" when we know he had two.

The Eye has certainly received its share of discussion over time, but I see it as mostly symbolic.

That said, it just seems odd that Gollum would make the distinction of "the Black Hand" if both Sauron's hands were like that.
Also, as stated above, Isildur noted that it was Sauron's hand which had borne the Ring that was black, not his hands.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

PJ's mace swatting a dozen (or hundreds) at one blow by Sauron was, of course, ridiculous. Sort of the way PJ exaggerates just about everything, for example making wargs superwargs in TTT movie.

The impression you get from LoTR is of essential single combat style
(like in manyHollywood Greek/Roman battle scenes).

Since Sauron was a disciple of Morgoth I'd look to Morgoth's battlle
with Fingolfin after the Dagor Bragollach.

Fingolfin challenged Morgoth to single combat.

...it is said that he took not the challenge willingly; for though his might was greatest of all things in this world, alone of the Valar he knew fear. But he could not now deny the challenge before his captains; for the rocks rang with the shrill music of Fingolfin's horn, and his voice came keen and clear down into the depths of Angband; and Fingolfin called Morgoth craven, and lord of slaves. Therefore Morgoth came...And he issued forth in black armour;and he stood before the King like a tower, iron-crowned, and his vast shield, sable unblazoned, cast a shadow over him
[Fingolfin]...Then Morgoth hurled aloft Grond, the Hammer of the Underground, and swung it down like a bolt of thunder.

So Morgoth was phyiscally imposing, but it was possible for a single elf (granted the greatest remaining in Beleriand) to fight him. Sauron was obviously much less physically daunting, although (being more then an eyeball) more imposing then even a single elf or Numenorean of the Third Age, so it may well have been a two or three on one battle, or as Gilgalad wounded Sauron while being killed another of the Last Alliance skewed Sauron. Then took or cut the Ring off his hand.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

So Morgoth was phyiscally imposing, but it was possible for a single elf (granted the greatest remaining in Beleriand) to fight him. Sauron was obviously much less physically daunting, although (being more then an eyeball) more imposing then even a single elf or Numenorean of the Third Age, so it may well have been a two or three on one battle, or as Gilgalad wounded Sauron while being killed another of the Last Alliance skewed Sauron. Then took or cut the Ring off his hand.

I doubt any Elf or Man could have taken down Sauron alone. In Letters #246, Tolkien gives this about Sauron's Third Age embodiment:

...in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic.

That would really have been a weaker incarnation than that faced by Elendil and Gil-galad, since Sauron had been obliged to rebuild himself after the loss of the Ring.
So, I agree that it took three of his greatest foes working together to defeat Sauron, even when he apparently had no weapons but his innate spiritual and physical power.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The Eye has certainly received its share of discussion over time, but I see it as mostly symbolic.

That said, it just seems odd that Gollum would make the distinction of "the Black Hand" if both Sauron's hands were like that.
Also, as stated above, Isildur noted that it was Sauron's hand which had borne the Ring that was black, not his hands.

Saruman not only adopted the White Hand as his symbol, but his Orcs even referred to "the White Hand at gives us mansflesh to eat." I don't think this implies that Saruman didn't possess two hands both pale pinkish in hue.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Saruman not only adopted the White Hand as his symbol, but his Orcs even referred to "the White Hand at gives us mansflesh to eat." I don't think this implies that Saruman didn't possess two hands both pale pinkish in hue.

However, the Orcs were referring to a symbol only. Gollum was speaking of Sauron's physical hand. If Gollum had said "the Red Eye", I could see the parallel.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

It's fine, learned discourse requires a antithesis along with a thesis in order to try and reach synthesis. you just hit a raw nerve in me; the whole thing reminded me of a period on another literature related forum where a person arrived who had decided that only that which the original author had said was canon (and unlike tolkien this work had mutiple sucessor authors who were generally aknowledged as being canon as well) and that therefore all other works should neither exist nor be discussed and the original authour should not be discussed and explored either, his words should simply be accepted at face value as the literal gospel. That occurance ended nastily with the individual hurling curses (not swear words actual curses of the "may all your family get cancer and may you be flayed alive and burn in hell" type) at everyone else in the discussion, usually before they had actually said anything (he decided that anyone who had stayed out of the whole thing was against him as well). I NEVER want to go through one of those again, so I get edgy when I think another one is coming.

Well, Alfirin, I do think there’s an enormous difference between what I did and the kind of behaviour you describe.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Would they? Surely someone who knew "much about LOTR" would know that it's never stated, although "most people" probably don't know "much about LOTR." Unless you mean "know the films well" or "treat the books and the films as interchangeable", which they're not, and which these days is a source of endless confusion. Anyway, just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean that it's true.

In my experience “fanon” can become quite as rigid as “canon”– maybe more so, since it won’t permit much in the way of a reality check– it tends to become a matter of, “well, all my friends think so”. And when the entire point is to make a single “official” version of something left open by the original author... well, I think that’s pretty restrictive.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Just because the films have coloured people's imaginations doesn't mean that their depictions have the slightest relevance when it comes to discussing what Professor Tolkien himself actually wrote.

While some of the arguments here for why he could have had a mace are quite interesting, at the same time it's all just speculation because Professor Tolkien never wrote what weapon he used, if he even used one at all.

I think we need to break the issue down a bit–

1. Is there any reason to believe Tolkien intended Sauron to use a mace?

is not the same question as

2. Is it all right for someone to depict the character this way?

So far, I don’t believe we’ve seen anything that would support a “yes” answer to the first question, or a “no” answer to the second.

[Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

So far, I don’t believe we’ve seen anything that would support a “yes” answer to the first question, or a “no” answer to the second.

Maybe it's just left to our own imagination?

I 'personally' like the film adapt-ions of himself rather than what I have read about him from the books.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, Alfirin, I do think there’s an enormous difference between what I did and the kind of behaviour you describe.

Maybe so maybe I'm being paranoid. That experiance left me as a living example of that old aphorism that "A burned cat will fear a cold stove" (or, to my preference the Japanese version "A man who has been bitten by a snake will fear a rotted rope.")

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

Maybe so maybe I'm being paranoid.

Well, unless you really believe my post up at #9 is somehow equivalent to saying "may all your family get cancer and may you be flayed alive and burn in hell”...

Originally Posted by Alfirin

That experiance left me as a living example of that old aphorism that "A burned cat will fear a cold stove" (or, to my preference the Japanese version "A man who has been bitten by a snake will fear a rotted rope.")

But the cat can hardly expect stoves to be abolished? (Actually, it might, being a cat, but you know what I mean.)

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

Maybe it's just left to our own imagination?

Exactly.