What is the Chance of the Valar Fighting for the Free People During the Third age?

[Rhun charioteer]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I honestly don't think the book really says anything about the armour, weapons and training of the Easterlings beyond the fact that some of them (unfamiliar to the Men of Gondor) wielded axes, that some of them travelled in wagons and that some of their chieftains rode in chariots.

I'm not sure what I would consider to be the best of Sauron's forces. The Corsairs of Umbar seem to be feared, and the Orcs of Sauron's "trained armies" give the impression of being formidable, the ones who were "so completely under his will that they would sacrifice themselves without hesitation at his command", as well as the ones who "were by training as tough as Dwarves in enduring hardship" but we don't hear much more. In fact those quotes from Morgoth's Ring about Orc military training might be one of the only examples I can think of in which Tolkien discusses training in Sauron's forces.


My thoughts exactly. I think Sauron would have found his ultimate goal, "divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world", much more challenging than he expected.

I seem to recall some easterlings made a stand at the River Anduin and fought till the last man while the orcs fled. This always spoke volumes to me about their combat quality.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The last time the Valar intervened in Middle-earth they obliterated a quarter of the continent, and its shattered survivors all had to be taken to mid-ocean refugee camps.

This would be akin to the nightmare WWIII scenario, of NATO having to resort to nuclear weapons to stop the Soviets.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Rhun charioteer

I seem to recall some easterlings made a stand at the River Anduin and fought till the last man while the orcs fled. This always spoke volumes to me about their combat quality.

If you're referring to the Pelennor, notice that dawn broke and the Darkness was blown away, and the battle was fought in daylight. Note in particular that after the initial charge of Theoden, all the named enemies appear to be Men, not orcs or trolls- seemingly, all the Night Creatures were neutralized like Dracula when the sun came out.

[Rhun charioteer]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

If you're referring to the Pelennor, notice that dawn broke and the Darkness was blown away, and the battle was fought in daylight. Note in particular that after the initial charge of Theoden, all the named enemies appear to be Men, not orcs or trolls- seemingly, all the Night Creatures were neutralized like Dracula when the sun came out.

True, but all the same I always took the easterlings as Sauron's best troops. At least that was my interpretation and is now still.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Rhun charioteer

True, but all the same I always took the easterlings as Sauron's best troops. At least that was my interpretation and is now still.

Certainly it was always Easterlings, whether Wainriders or Balchoth or whomever, who posed the repeated threats to Gondor. Harad seems to have been much less of a challenge, aside from the Castamids at Umbar. Yes, the Corsairs were a hassle, but I would liken them to their namesake Barbary Pirates as compared to the Ottoman Sultanate (and before the Turks the Magyars, and before them the Avars, and before them the Huns, and before them the Vandals, and before them the Goths, and before them the Sarmatians, and......)

[denethorthefirst]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Sauron reclaims the Ring. But... what's happened outside the Black Gate? Tolkien seems to imply that the Armies of the West were on the verge of victory when the Ring was destroyed, and there's been time between for them to achieve it. That means, far from all being dead, Aragorn and Gandalf are now pressing through the Black Gate - and Aragorn is carrying the sword of Elendil.
I think, far from a quick defeat for the West, we're looking at a second Siege of Mordor. The Ring doesn't make Sauron all-powerful, or else he wouldn't have been defeated so often in the Second Age.
[...]
Well, he's not Morgoth. He doesn't want to burn Gondor - he wants to rule it.
[...] Gondor, under Steward Faramir, is probably forced into some version of Sauron's offer made at the Black Gate; I think Faramir would probably accept it for the good of the people, now that all hope of military resistance is over.
[...]
He's finally gotten rid of the elves. What's his next play?
Valinor. Ultimately, after all his own grievances, Sauron still wants to get back at the Valar for their humiliation of his master. That's why he turned the Numenoreans, Saruman, the Noldor by way of Ring-making. It is his ultimate obsession.

hS

It was clearly implied that the Battle at the Morannon was a suicide mission that had no chance to succeed without the destruction of the One Ring. Saurons forces outnumbered the forces of Gondor and Rohan at least 10 to 1 (actual quote: "ten times and more than ten times", so Saurons forces ranged from at least 60 000 to maybe over 100 000). But that was only a fraction of Mordors strength and even if Aragorns army had managed to miraculously defeat the army at the Morannon, they still would not have been able to break the Morannon (not to mention all the other fortifications at Udun). They lacked the siege equipment, the necessary manpower, food, water, supplies, logistical support, etc. If Gollum had not fallen into the fire, Sauron would have absolutely crushed Aragorns army, that much is clear. I do not know how you came to the conclusion that Gondor was somehow "winning" when the One Ring was destroyed. The opposite was the case, they were losing, completely surrounded and totally overwhelmed, defeat was only a matter of time.

It also is not quite clear how "benevolent" Saurons rule would actually be. Tolkien wrote that Sauron (although his initial motivation was a desire for order) was eventually infected by Morgtoths nihilism. I wonder how much, if any, of Saurons initial motivation had survived by the time of the War of the Ring. By that time Sauron had been defeated multiple times, his body killed, the rebuilding took several hundred years, his initial plans had completely failed, his home had been utterly destroyed and razed to the ground. I imagine that, by the time of the War of the Ring, burning rage and ego were the only things left that drove him. He wanted to win just because, to destroy his enemies, and not to achieve some goal or some order.

I also do not believe that Faramir would have accepted some kind of deal from Mordor. That would completely contradict Gondors whole raison d'etre and the ethos of the Dunedain. Faramir was a faithful Numenorean. In my opinion he would rather die than strike some kind of deal with Sauron. In the event of Frodos failure Gondor would have gone down fighting. Sauron would need to conquer every last fishing village, every last mountain hideout, every last fort, because I do not believe that Gondor would ever surrender. In my opinion you would need to change the complete culture and history of the place for that to happen. You do not fight a war for over 3000 years only to surrender. And when did Gondor ever surrender? Or Arnor for that matter?

I do not think that Sauron was able to somehow tolerate the existence of a numenorean realm, no matter how subservient. I do not think that Sauron was thinking rationally in regards to his old enemies. We should not take the offer from the Mouth of Sauron at face value, it was not honest or offered in good faith, it was a ploy to sow confusion and to divide the West (i.e. psychological warfare) - if that offer sounds too good to be true, thats because it was.

As for Saurons ultimate "goal" - i do not think that he had any by that time. He just wanted to rule Middle-earth. Thats it. Why did he want to rule? Because! The West opposed him, and that was reason enough to destroy them. That was his sole remaining purpose. When I think about Sauron during the War of the Ring, I am always reminded of O´Briens speech about power from Orwells 1984:

""The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men." [O'Brien] paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: "How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?"
Winston thought. "By making him suffer," he said.
"Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.
[...]
Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grown not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy — everything.
[...]
We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science.
There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.""

And Sauron certainly did not want avenge Morgoth, or try to bring him back from the Void (to submit again under the rule of his former master?). Sauron was an egotist, he wanted to rule for himself and be worshipped as a God-King in his own right. Tolkien clearly wrote that Sauron regarded Melkor as a failure. Sauron was not some romantic idealist and he did not harbor any remaining feelings of loyalty or affection towards his former master. Sauron did not even participate in the War of Wrath - that war lasted over 40 years, not once did Sauron feel the obligation to aid his master in his existential struggle for survival. So much for Saurons "loyalty". A returning Melkor would be a threat to Saurons rule, something to avoid at all costs.

I guess that Sauron also knew that he had no hope at all to match the power of the Valar. He could not even reach them, so whats the point? A futile attack to honour his former master? Not very likely. In my opinion, if Sauron had won, he would be content with Arda and carefully avoid any provocation or conflict with Valinor. Sauron was an egotist, but he was not insane. He saw what the Valar did to Beleriand and how they dealt with Numenor.

[Ivriniel]

Had Sauron won the ring back and somehow increased his might, or drew on Saruman's as a subject of Sauron (we know that Saruman was cited as eventually equipped to "make his own Ring") perhaps Sauron could have smitten and broken the Doors of Night, and as such, Melkor returns.

That would or could trigger the Dagor Dagorlad in a variation of it, and so the Valar enter the conflict that way.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by denethorthefirst

And when did Gondor ever surrender? Or Arnor for that matter?

I think you've made a lot of good points in your post, and your interpretation of Sauron's motivations is, on reflection, a lot better grounded than mine. I just wanted to highlight this question, and ask: did anyone on the side of Good ever surrender, in the history of Middle-earth?

Because I don't think they did. Retreat, yes - from the Sons of Feanor after their father died, to Faramir from Ithilien. Suffer defeats, absolutely - the whole First Age is a litany of defeats. But surrender? Willingly accept the authority of one from the Dark? No.

Except... of course they did. The Numenoreans became slave-taking conquerors who worshipped Morgoth. The Hillmen of Rhudaur, whose people had lived in Dunedain realms for a thousand years, invited the Witch-King in. Except^2... they didn't so much surrender as convert. Neither Numenor nor Rhudaur were conquered before their defections; they were seduced, not beaten.

So no: from nations down to individuals, no-one on the side of Good ever surrenders in defeat (possible exception: the House of Hador, but I think they were basically enslaved). It's not something Tolkien would have written.

(And of course, he did write a full-blown Long Defeat scenario, with Good being progressively overwhelmed by a far stronger foe. That's basically a description of the Silmarillion, from the Sudden Flame onwards.)

hS

[Zigûr]

Good stuff this (stuff I must admit I overlooked):

Originally Posted by denethorthefirst

Sauron certainly did not want avenge Morgoth, or try to bring him back from the Void (to submit again under the rule of his former master?). Sauron was an egotist, he wanted to rule for himself and be worshipped as a God-King in his own right. Tolkien clearly wrote that Sauron regarded Melkor as a failure. Sauron was not some romantic idealist and he did not harbor any remaining feelings of loyalty or affection towards his former master.

The thought occurs that for Sauron "bringing back" Melkor would have had just as little appeal as Ëonwë's instruction to go before Manwë for judgement: he would go back to being a slave.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The last time the Valar intervened in Middle-earth they destroyed a subcontinent. The prospect of doing it again must have seemed as unpalatable as, during the Cold War, the idea of fighting a Soviet invasion on western European territory with tactical nuclear weapons.