Saurons Weapon of Choice?

[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.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

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.

But if they know more, they are likely to say, “it wasn’t stated (in the book)”.

Originally Posted by Alfirin

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.

Alfirin, of courseyou can think of Sauron as having whatever weapon you like– and as you say a mace is “as logical a weapon as any”. However, the OP asked whether it was true “in the books”– and again, that does require specific evidence.

To put it another way: guessing is fine, presuming– to this extent– really isn’t.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

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.

If Sauron engaged in personal combat, armor would be a sensible accessory.
However, from the books, there is no incidence of which I am aware of any melee on his part being described. So, as others point out, it's simple conjecture.

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

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.

Well, good for them. I have to point out though, that this particular thread is under "The Books".

[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.

[avar]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

I think this is the most important point here. Sauron was a master of sophisticated strategy, construction and intricate technical devices, and he had his machines and his slaves doing the fighting for him. This is very strongly emphasized in the books. Fear, too, is only one, if a prominent one, of his many tactics (especially employed through the Nazgûl).

Just to portray him wielding a plain weapon in hand-to-hand combat destroys this image, and he would certainly not have a "weapon of choice". The unarmed "wrestling" with Gil-galad and Elendil is also meant as a contrast to all of his machinery: a final, naked act of desperation.

Of course, he may "historically" have wielded a weapon in combat, but it is literary significant that this is never mentioned in the books.

[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