Sauron's trips to Sammath Naur

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by CAB

You are probably right. Now that I think about it, this is more evidence that the Nazgul had some will of their own. Minas Morgul’s troops having their own banners, etc. and especially autonomy, sounds like an attempt to keep the Witch King happy to me. If he was no more than Sauron’s puppet, then why not dress and treat the Morgul Orcs like the rest of those in Mordor?

Sure. I also think he was promised Gondor to rule, much like the Mouth was promised Isengard. Sauron had to keep his underlings happy, aspecially someone as powerful as the Witch-King.

I think people tend to give to much credit to the UT quote "had no will of their own". I think it applies only to the very specific situation, their being UNABLE TO CLAIM THE RING for themselves. That is all.
From the same chapter in UT it is evident that it was the WK who directed the Search for the Ring in the Vales, decided where to go, and when to return. And the following passage in LOTR leaves no doubts that it was the WK, not Sauron who devised and directed the assault on Minas Tirith:

. It was no brigand or orc-chieftain that ordered the assault upon the Lord of Mordor’s greatest foe. A power and mind of malice guided it. .... He was still in command, wielding great powers. King, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgûl, he had many weapons.

[Landroval]

I think people tend to give to much credit to the UT quote "had no will of their own". I think it applies only to the very specific situation, their being UNABLE TO CLAIM THE RING for themselves. That is all.

I disagree; here is what Tolkien said in letter #246:
"In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force."

[Gordis]

Again, Landroval, this quote applies to a specific situation, when (and IF) Galadriel or Elrond CLAIMED THE ONE RING.

Then and only then they will have "absolutely subservient generals".

I have no doubt, that when Sauron had the One, and the Nazgul wore their Rings ( back in the Second Age) they were subservient.

But in the Third Age Sauron had no Ring.

It seems the interaction between the wielder of the Nine Rings (Sauron) and the wraiths that formerly had these rings, but had them no more, was different. What it was like exactly we are not told, save that the wraiths would bring the One to Sauron if they find it and that he had primary control over their wills.

Anyway, the quote you gave in your last post doesn't apply to their situation in the Third Age.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Landroval

I disagree; here is what Tolkien said in letter #246:
"In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force."

I guess it depends on what you mean by “absolutely subservient”. This can probably be taken too literally. I would think that the Nazgul would never openly disobey Sauron. This doesn’t mean that they had no free will though. This question came up not too long ago. Here is what I posted.

Originally Posted by CAB

I wanted to give my opinion concerning one other matter which was part of the earlier discussions; the extent of Sauron’s control of the Nazgul. I think a good comparison is the description of Saruman’s voice. When the voice of Saruman (or comparatively Sauron’s will) was directed at someone, that person found it very difficult to resist (in the case of Sauron/Nazgul probably all but impossible), but when the voice/will was turned elsewhere the person/Nazgul recovered some free will. In my opinion, Sauron couldn’t constantly be controlling the Nazgul this way. It is probable that exerting full control over even one Nazgul took a great deal of concentration. Sauron had other things to think about. I think most of the time Sauron controlled the Nazgul just as he controlled his other servants, primarily through fear.

There is a lot of evidence that the Nazgul could think for themselves. My personal favorite is the fact that Sauron threatened the Nazgul during the hunt for the Ring. There is absolutely no reason to threaten someone who is completely obedient to your will. As Olmer correctly pointed out, this is basically the same as threatening your car if it doesn’t run right.

[Gordis]

I agree with you, CAB.

Sauron did have difficulty attending to many things at once.
He couldn't even watch his borders effectively:

Gollum: `Hobbits must see, must try to understand. He does not expect attack that way. His Eye is all round, but it attends more to some places than to others. He can't see everything all at once, not yet.

He really couldn't control his nazgul 24x7, without the One Ring. Even to control orcs, he needed to concentrate on them. Once his attention wavered, they felt steerless:

From all his policies and webs of fear and treachery, from all his stratagems and wars his mind shook free; and throughout his realm a tremor ran, his slaves quailed, and his armies halted, and his captains suddenly steerless, bereft of will, wavered and despaired. For they were forgotten.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Gordis

He really couldn't control his nazgul 24x7, without the One Ring. Even to control orcs, he needed to concentrate on them. Once his attention wavered, they felt steerless:

I don’t know if I am contradicting you or not Gordis, but I don’t think Sauron could control the Nazgul 24/7 even with the One Ring. It would seem that even Aule couldn’t do this with the first Dwarves, and he was a great Vala who (at this time at least) probably had a lot less on his mind than Sauron did.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by CAB

I don’t know if I am contradicting you or not Gordis, but I don’t think Sauron could control the Nazgul 24/7 even with the One Ring. It would seem that even Aule couldn’t do this with the first Dwarves, and he was a great Vala who (at this time at least) probably had a lot less on his mind than Sauron did.

I am not sure myself how it has been when Sauron had the One and the Nazgul wore their Rings.
Perhaps he knew their thoughts at all times, at least when they were thinking something bad. On the other hand, running the thoughts of 9 different people through your head at all times might drive even a Maia mad.

The only evidence is that when Sauron put on the One and intoned the Ring-Spell, all those wearing the other rings heard him immediately, though he didn't mean to broadcast.

Also Galadriel says that if Sauron regained the One, all the thoughts of the Wielders of the Three will be laid bare to him, or something like that.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Also Galadriel says that if Sauron regained the One, all the thoughts of the Wielders of the Three will be laid bare to him, or something like that.

I took that to mean that they would be forced to tell all their thoughts when he questioned them directly (via the Ring, of course), but I could certainly be mistaken.

Originally Posted by Gordis

Perhaps he knew their thoughts at all times, at least when they were thinking something bad. On the other hand, running the thoughts of 9 different people through your head at all times might drive even a Maia mad.

If nine is bad, how about nineteen, and nineteen immortals at that. I suppose that would have been the original intention. Seems like a bit much to me, even for Sauron.

[Alcuin]

It sounds as if Sauron could do several things with the minds and wills of those who wore the Rings of Power while he was in possession of the One Ring. He knew whatever they knew – not automatically, perhaps, or as if their knowledge were his knowledge, but maybe in the sense of being able to query them: they could hide nothing, they would immediately reveal whatever they hoped to keep hidden. They would be in communication with him and his powerful, evil will through their rings.

This brings up the second matter, Sauron’s control of the will of those who wore the Rings of Power. He easily dominated the nine Men to whom he gave Rings of Power: they succumbed quickly if they were basically evil and later if they were basically good; but in the way the Eldar and the Maiar experienced time, it was quick. In the end, all nine Men were evil because they were polluted with the mind and will of Sauron, which overwhelmed their own individual wills.

The Nine Ringwraiths were not automatons in any way, in my view. But over time, I think each was less and less in possession of his wants and desires, and more and more driven by the wants and desires of Sauron. It does not seem that their personalities were entirely submerged into Sauron’s, but dominated by Sauron’s. They maintained idiosyncrasies and their own personal abilities, magnified and distorted as they might have been by the Rings. But they were not able to do things against Sauron’s goals, they were unable to resist him any longer, and they would follow his instructions to the best of their abilities as they understood what goal he had in mind. For instance, if Sauron told him to take a military objective, a Nazgûl would develop his own plan of attack, gather resources to accomplish it, and change his plans as the situation dictated. But everything would be aimed at accomplishing the goal Sauron had set forth for him.

The Dwarves who bore the Seven Rings were more resistant to these effects. Whether Sauron could read their thoughts and the secrets of their hearts I cannot say; but Tolkien says that he could not dominate their wills in the way that he did Mortals. The Rings inflamed their greed and jealousy, however, and this no doubt worked to his advantage by weakening the Dwarvish kingdoms and their social fabric. (After all, who wants to live under the rule of a greedy, jealous, megalomaniac and autocratic king who will start a war, perhaps with other Dwarves, for no good reason, for instance? Or who takes from his people a greater and greater share of the wealth of the kingdom? Insofar as those things happened, they would be destructive to the Dwarvish city-states and to the societies that built them.)

A final note. In “The Hunt for the Ring,” several readers have noticed (in other forums) that the Ringwraiths did not realize that Sauron wanted them to search the west side of the Misty Mountains. I must point out that Sauron was not in possession of the One Ring, and it is likely that the Nine were not wearing their Rings, either, if Sauron “held them” in his own physical possession. They were clearly not in mental communication with him in those conditions, or likely with one another, except by normal means: speaking, writing, and so forth.

[CAB]

I agree with most of what you are saying Alcuin, but not all. I believe that the Nazgul retained more of their personal desires than what you seem to be saying. You might consider looking at Olmer’s thread on this subject. It is a little “uncanon-ish” (alright, a lot uncanon-ish), but there are some very good points made. In defense of the Ringwraith

If the Nazgul kept any of their former personalities, then they probably kept their desire for free choice / self-rule. This is probably a pretty basic want for almost any person, but even more so for those who are (or were) great leaders.

Again, there is the fact that Sauron threatened the Nazgul during the hunt for the Ring. Why threaten those who are following your will to the best of their abilities? Maybe Sauron wasn’t the most reasonable being, but this seems like a pointless gesture for someone with his intelligence to make.

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by CAB

Why threaten those who are following your will to the best of their abilities?

I don’t understand it, but I do know the psychology definitely exists. You can read any local newspaper or check the transcripts at any local courthouse to find examples of abusive spouses and parents. In many cases – not all, or even most, perhaps, but many – the person who received the raw end of the deal was actually trying to do what the abuser wanted, or even trying to please him/her. I don’t understand the thinking behind it, but it does happen.

Modern Western society generally condemns and punishes such people; and even centuries ago, it was considered less than desirable behavior. Sounds like it might be appropriate for Sauron.

[Landroval]

Again, Landroval, this quote applies to a specific situation, when (and IF) Galadriel or Elrond CLAIMED THE ONE RING.

Then and only then they will have "absolutely subservient generals".

You are misreading the quote; Tolkien parallels what they would do with what Sauron is actually doing.

I have no doubt, that when Sauron had the One, and the Nazgul wore their Rings ( back in the Second Age) they were subservient.

All the refferences I gave concerning the faithfulness of the nazgul reffer only to the third age.

Anyway, the quote you gave in your last post doesn't apply to their situation in the Third Age.

And that is because...?

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Anyway, the quote you gave in your last post doesn't apply to their situation in the Third Age.

Originally Posted by Landroval

And that is because...?

Here is the quote in question:

letter #246:
"In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force."

This is the situation when E or G had the Ring.Sauron had no ring in the Third Age. So it there are any parallels, it would be with Sauron in the Second Age.

Edit: by the way, Landroval, how do you interpret "absolutely subservient" and more importantly "had no will of their own"?

[Landroval]

"In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron"
Though I am not a native speaker, I would say this clearly reffers to "nowadays" Sauron.

by the way, Landroval, how do you interpret "absolutely subservient" and more importantly "had no will of their own"?

I don't make too much of a fuss about it; the only part where I disagree with you is that Sauron stopped at any one time trusting them, or that, as you said, they were "fooling him all along".

[Gordis]

I see. You will believe such things ONLY if you find a letter where Tolkien said so himself, it seems.

But relying on the Letters so much, makes you disregard the facts that we can obtain from the published LOTR text, which Tolkien himself, in later writings tried to change as little as possible, only finding various "interpretations" of the things already there.

The facts in the Hunt for the Ring in LOTR and UT couldn't be explained if we take some statements (like utterly subservient) at face value. It doesn't mean that Tolkien himself necessarily thought of the same explanation or of another possible explanation before us. Though, who knows... more letters may be found one day.

[CAB]

Letter #246
I do not think [the nazguls] could have attacked [Frodo] 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.

Letter #246:
"In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force."

This is a contradiction in the Letters, indeed within the same letter. Either Sauron had primary control (which implies that someone or something else also had some control) or he had total control (absolutely subservient). Which one is right? I think it is dangerous to put too much weight on a single statement when there is so much other (often contradictory) evidence.

[Gordis]

Good point, CAB.

Also, note that in this situation at Sammath Naur, both Frodo with the One and Sauron with the Nine are intent on the nazgul, trying to gain control. So the third possible factor: their own free will is not even considered.

[Landroval]

This is a contradiction in the Letters, indeed within the same letter.

Contradiction between two ideas means that one idea denies the other; you are misapplying the label.

Either Sauron had primary control (which implies that someone or something else also had some control) or he had total control (absolutely subservient).

I disagree with that logic."which implies that someone or something else also had some control" - there is no such logical necessary implication; Sauron may just as well be the wielder of the rest of the control. Control and subserviency are not correlated as you imply, the truth value of one doesn't imply the truth value of the other. One can have primary control over another person, but that other person may or may not be subservient. Reversely, one can be subservient to another person, but that other person may or may not exert some control.
What the "primary control" means, at minimum, is that whenever Sauron wanted, he could dictate to the nazguls; the "absolute subserviency" means that the nazgul would not do anything they know is counter to Sauron's will, regardless whether Sauron attempts to control them or not at that particular moment.
This is nitpicking; as I stated, what I wanted to counter was Gordis' idea that the nazguls were fooling around and that Sauron stopped trusting them. There is no such direct statement (quite the contrary) and the evidences invoked are circumstancial at best, do not imply them, and have much better explanations.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Landroval

what I wanted to counter was Gordis' idea that the nazguls were fooling around and that Sauron stopped trusting them. There is no such direct statement (quite the contrary) and the evidences invoked are circumstancial at best, do not imply them, and have much better explanations.

Yes the evidence is circumstantial. But I would like to see "much better" explanations to the facts given.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Landroval

I disagree with that logic."which implies that someone or something else also had some control" - there is no such logical necessary implication; Sauron may just as well be the wielder of the rest of the control.

Primary control means that there must be (at least) secondary control. That is what primary means. If Sauron also had the remaining control, then why separate it into primary, secondary, etc.?

Originally Posted by Landroval

Control and subserviency are not correlated as you imply, the truth value of one doesn't imply the truth value of the other.

I agree that control and subserviency aren’t exactly the same thing. However, if someone is subservient to you, then you control that person. If someone is absolutely subservient to you then you would essentially have absolute control of that person. Yet the quote says the Nazgul were absolutely subservient to Sauron, but he had only primary control of them.

Originally Posted by Landroval

One can have primary control over another person, but that other person may or may not be subservient.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Reversely, one can be subservient to another person, but that other person may or may not exert some control.

True, that person may not exert the control, but that person would certainly possess it.

Originally Posted by Landroval

What the "primary control" means, at minimum, is that whenever Sauron wanted, he could dictate to the nazguls; the "absolute subserviency" means that the nazgul would not do anything they know is counter to Sauron's will, regardless whether Sauron attempts to control them or not at that particular moment.

Yes, I would say that Sauron definitely had and used “primary control”, but I don’t see “absolute subserviency”, just subserviency.