Sauron's trips to Sammath Naur

[Landroval]

Yers the evidence is circumstantial.

We have no single refference where the nazgul act against Sauron's will; we have at least two refference concerning the obedience relation between them. I guess we have different understandings of the word.

But I would like to see "much better" explanations to the facts given.

Please read post no 6.

Yet the quote says the Nazgul were absolutely subservient to Sauron, but he had only primary control of them.

Wrong, this is the weak point in your argument. It never says "only", it is strictly your adition, and taken in the context of the letter and not only, this addition is unwarranted.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Landroval

Wrong, this is the weak point in your argument. It never says "only", it is strictly your adition, and taken in the context of the letter and not only, this addition is unwarranted.

Of course "only" is my addition. If Tolkien had added it, then he would have been calling attention to the (admittedly, minor) logical mistake he made in this letter, a mistake I don’t think he was aware of. If this is the weak point in my argument, then I guess I don't have any argument at all, because my point is based on this inconsistency. If Tolkien could make this kind of (again, minor) mistake within the confines of one letter (of course he could, he was human), then how can we expect there to be perfect consistency within all his many writings? We can't, that is abundantly clear. If there is inconsistency within his writings, then how can we cling to one statement and claim that it is the absolute truth?

I'll say this; I personally doubt that Sauron much distrusted the Nazgul. I think that when he had either the One Ring or the Nine Rings, they were pretty much in his grasp (but not completely, 100% of the time). There is evidence to the contrary however. My problem with this evidence (the evidence regarding their “refusal” to capture the Ring, at least) is that it doesn’t seem to show any clear intent by the Nazgul. What was their plan? Not taking the Ring would help to keep it from Sauron, but it really doesn’t do much for the Nazgul, except maybe prolong some kind of hope. I also wonder if they would have expected the Wise to try to destroy the Ring. Maybe, maybe not. I don’t have a strong opinion concerning the Nazguls’ attempts/non-attempts to capture the Ring. Their actions seem strange whether looked at from a “somewhat free” or “entirely subservient” point of view.

[Landroval]

If this is the weak point in my argument, then I guess I don't have any argument at all, because my point is based on this inconsistency.

If I understand you correctly, you are basically saying this is a non-issue; if Tolkien had stated "only", we could be talking about something - but now, we can’t start with a hypothesis that is not true and then draw any supportable conclusions from it.

But even if he did state things as you did, we still can't infer that the "subserviency" premise is false, because we don't know the extent of "primary" (if it means 99.9999% control, that would make it a non-issue again).

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Landroval

But even if he did state things as you did, we still can't infer that the "subserviency" premise is false, because we don't know the extent of "primary" (if it means 99.9999% control, that would make it a non-issue again).

Oh, but we DO know (from the same letter # 246) that the extent of the primary control was far below 99.999%!

The secondary control that Frodo, wielding the Ring, would have over the nazgul was strong enough to stop them from attacking him by force! They would have "shown servility" etc. Do you REALLY believe it is 0.001% control???

Really, Landroval, I can't agree with your point.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Landroval

If I understand you correctly, you are basically saying this is a non-issue; if Tolkien had stated "only", we could be talking about something - but now, we can’t start with a hypothesis that is not true and then draw any supportable conclusions from it.

No, that wasn't what I was saying. But that's ok. I will just let it go.

[Landroval]

The secondary control that Frodo, wielding the Ring, would have over the nazgul was strong enough to stop them from attacking him by force!

Let's look again at the passage:

Would they have been immune from its power if he claimed it as an instrument of command and domination?
Not wholly. I do not think they could have attacked him with violence, nor laid hold upon him or taken him captive; they would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor commands of his that did not interfere with their errand - laid upon them by Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had primary control of their wills. That errand was to remove Frodo from the Crack. Once he lost the power or opportunity to destroy the Ring, the end could not be in doubt - saving help from outside, which was hardly even remotely possible.

As it is obvious, the reason for not attacking him _inside_ the crack of doom was that they were listening to Sauron.
I have a nasty feeling we will be nitpicking about this for a looong time.

EDIT: well, I didn't want to restart this thing all over again, so I just edited my post:

Originally Posted by The hunt for the ring, Unfinnished Tals

At length he resolved that no others would serve him in this case but his mightiest servants, the Ringwraiths, who had no will but his own, being each utterly subservient to the ring that had enslaved him, which Sauron held.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Landroval

I have a nasty feeling we will be nitpicking about this for a looong time.

Landroval, there might have indeed be a long round of nitpicking over this letter, if I were up to it. I could have bolded other parts of the quote:

I do not think they could have attacked him with violence, nor laid hold upon him or taken him captive

-this one, for instance, or I could have quoted the passage about "their religious cult" - you see I came to know it by heart.

ONLY, I find it unbearably dull.

So let us agree that we disagree on all points and leave it at that.

[Scrooge]

I do believe there is a reason Sauron could have expected that a Ring-bearer might have been creeping across Cirith Ungol into Mordor that had nothing to do with destroying the Ring: assassination. He assumed that no one would desire to destroy it. He assumed one of the great would acquire it and seek to subjugate the world. He had, in Mordor, a pre-fabbed army trained and equipped for the destruction of Minas Tirith. Gandalf (for example) could plan to sneak into Mordor (even without the Ring, I feel he would have been willing to face Shelob), sneak into Barad-Dur, *splortch* Sauron, and wrest control of the troops? I believe he would have failed, but it seems reasonable to think Sauron could have planned for that as a contingency. Throughout the tale we are told he believes one of the great will acquire the ring and seek to use it, and that does not necessarily mean using it in a pitched battle.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Could someone have mastered The One Ring and used it to overthrow Sauron or not? Seems to me, if not, then he had nothing to fear. Yet, he was clearly afraid that someone would do exactly that. Why? I've never heard an explanation that satisfies me on this point.

[Gordis]

DPR, it is all in the letter 246.
One "of equal stature", = Gandalf could have mastered the Ring.
Tolkien is uncertain about Elrond and Galadriel.
Men - no.
(I am quoting from memory)

[Alcuin]

From the end of Letter 246:

…only Gandalf [with the Ring] might be expected to master [Sauron] – being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order [i.e., a Maia], an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. … One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf … was placed in [in confrontation alone and unaided with Sauron]. It would be a delicate balance. On one side was the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession… If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him forever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. …

Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. …

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

So why did he care when he thought Aragorn had it? Or did he think Gandalf had it and Aragorn was simply his puppet to be placed on Gondor's throne? I've read the letter, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense in light of Sauron's published behavior. It doesn't feel right to me. If The Ring in the hands of anyone would have been easily returned to Sauron when they met face to face, why would Sauron care who had it or what he was doing with it?

Say Aragorn had it and learned to wield it. He becomes a great despot and takes over the world. Then he meets Sauron:

Sauron: Give me the ring, boy.
Aragorn: Ok. Here.
Sauron: Bwahahahaha! My work here is done.



What am I missing here?

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

So why did he care when he thought Aragorn had it? Or did he think Gandalf had it and Aragorn was simply his puppet to be placed on Gondor's throne? I've read the letter, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense in light of Sauron's published behavior. It doesn't feel right to me. If The Ring in the hands of anyone would have been easily returned to Sauron when they met face to face, why would Sauron care who had it or what he was doing with it?

Say Aragorn had it and learned to wield it. He becomes a great despot and takes over the world. Then he meets Sauron:

Sauron: Give me the ring, boy.
Aragorn: Ok. Here.
Sauron: Bwahahahaha! My work here is done.



What am I missing here?

I guess it stands only in one-to one confrontation. But if Aragorn brings a huge army... After all Sauron had been once vanquished by Elendil and Gil-Galad

[CAB]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

So why did he care when he thought Aragorn had it? Or did he think Gandalf had it and Aragorn was simply his puppet to be placed on Gondor's throne? I've read the letter, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense in light of Sauron's published behavior. It doesn't feel right to me. If The Ring in the hands of anyone would have been easily returned to Sauron when they met face to face, why would Sauron care who had it or what he was doing with it?

Say Aragorn had it and learned to wield it. He becomes a great despot and takes over the world. Then he meets Sauron:

Sauron: Give me the ring, boy.
Aragorn: Ok. Here.
Sauron: Bwahahahaha! My work here is done.



What am I missing here?

Just because Tolkien knew that Sauron couldn't lose doesn't mean that Sauron himself knew.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Originally Posted by CAB

Just because Tolkien knew that Sauron couldn't lose doesn't mean that Sauron himself knew.

That is an excellent point.