Could he be overthrown?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Perhaps there was some element of the One in the Nazgûl. In UT it says that they had no other will but their masters, could that mean that Sauron has somehow made part of himself part of them?

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

Also, I'm curious, where does it say that Sauron wear the Nine? I presumed the Nazgûl did.

Most of the evidence points to the opinion that at the end of the Third Age Sauron himself held the 9 rings.
1. Gandalf tells Frodo at Bag End: "So it is now; the Nine he had gathered to himself; the Seven also, or else they are destroyed. The Three are hidden still."
2. Galadriel tells Frodo in Lothlorien: "You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine"
3.The Hunt for the Ring in UT: "At length he(Sauron) 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." and also: "They were by far the most powerful of his servants, and the most suitable for such a mission, since they were entirely enslaved to their Nine Rings, which he now himself held..."
4. The most definitive statement comes from Tolkien' Letter #246describing the situation of Frodo at the Cracks of Doom:
"Sauron sent at once the Ringwraiths. They were naturally fully instructed, and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring...But the situation was now different to that under Weathertop, where Frodo acted merely in fear and wished only to use (in vain) the Rings's subsidiary power of conferring invisibility. He had grown since then. 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 command 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..."

Moreover, there is indirect evidence: 1. when Frodo saw the Nazgul in spirit word at Weathertop he saw no rings. 2. When the Witch-King was killed no ring was left.

And really, why would the nazgul, if they still had their rings, answer to the ringless Sauron? Out of love and devotion? I think they were not able to feel anything like that. No, Sauron had them hooked by their own rings that had enslaved them long ago.

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

IIRC, sauron does indeed not only control, but physically wear the nine, but seeing as he has only nine fingers (what with Isildur's "help"), if he got the One, which Nazgul ring would he remove? The witch king i would presume, seeing as how, in UT, it is stated that he was the one of the nine most bent to his master's will.

I am not sure he physically wore the nine, I figure he put on the respective ring only if he had to interact with one of the nazgul: to send an order, to enforce his will on the nazgul, to check his thought or to "empower with demonic force." (see Letter #210,9, JRRT)
And IMHO the Witch King's ring was the one Sauron treasured most of all. It is NOT stated anywhere that the Witch-King was the one of the nine most bent to his master's will. On the contrary: "the Witch-King, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others (Letter #210,9, JRRT) IMHO that means that to control the powerful and strong-willed Witch King, Sauron needed the WK's ring all the more. If the WK were given his ring back, he would be free from Sauron.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

OK thanks for the quotes.

Chrys I don't think he could physically wear them as he himslef couldn't yet tyake phisycal form and the eye couldn't be seen unless by the power of the Rings.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

OK thanks for the quotes.
Chrys I don't think he could physically wear them as he himslef couldn't yet tyake phisycal form and the eye couldn't be seen unless by the power of the Rings.

Always happy to be able to provide quotes.

The idea that Sauron could not yet take physical form belongs to Jackson's movie (Saruman's words). According to books, Sauron was incarnate, had hideous appearence, and had 9 fingers, which Gollum saw himself.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by gordis

Most of the evidence points to the opinion that at the end of the Third Age Sauron himself held the 9 rings.
1. Gandalf tells Frodo at Bag End: "So it is now; the Nine he had gathered to himself; the Seven also, or else they are destroyed. The Three are hidden still."
2. Galadriel tells Frodo in Lothlorien: "You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine" [....]

I don't think that 'hold' as to signify 'to hold physically in his hand'.

If -as I think - much of Sauron's own power was in the One Ring, the Ringwraiths would have both a connection to the Ring and Sauron himself.

You make an interesting case, Gordis, but I'm not convinced.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

You make an interesting case, Gordis, but I'm not convinced.

I have found another quote for you, Eärniel:

In HOME vol. VIII, "The War of the Ring" in the chapter "The Siege of Gondor":
In the fair copy manuscript of the account of Faramir's rescue by Gandalf Tolkien added in pencil: "The Nazgul came once again, slaves of the Nine Rings, and to each, since now they were utterly subject to his will, their Lord had given again that ring of power that he used of old"
This was afterwards replaced by the words in RK: "The Nazgul came again, and as their Dark Lord now grew and put forth his strength, so their voices, which uttered only his will and his malice, were filled with evil and horror.

IMHO that means that from the start Tolkien "knew" that the nazgul had no rings as it was Sauron that held them. Why did he change the passage? IMHO he realized that for Sauron to give them back their rings meant no less than to surrender the devices that made the nazgul "utterly subject to his will".
Once Sauron got the One ring he would be able to give the 9 back to the owners, but not before!

Convinced now?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

But if Sauron wasn't giving the Nine to the Nazgûl beacause they could just run off with them, then they could do that after Sauron had the One.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

But if Sauron wasn't giving the Nine to the Nazgûl beacause they could just run off with them, then they could do that after Sauron had the One.

No, of course they could not! The wielder of the ONE controlled the owners of the Nine. That was the situation throughout the Second age. Without the One Sauron had to get the Nine Rings instead.

[Morgoth the Elfbit]

The only flaw I see in this entire really well developed argument is this. IF Sauron had to take the nine back after he lsot the one. How did he do it. IF the one was chopped of the 9 woul dgo yippee were free lets go back and opppress our former realms. THey wouldnt have given up the ring to Sauron.
So thats the only reason why It thinkt hey still healdf the ring. But ti doesnt explain why Suaorn could still control them. Unless he ahd just complete control over them with or without their rings.

[Jon S.]

It is overly simplistic to say the One Ring "turned mortals invisible." Yes, mortals became invisible but what actually happened is the Ring's power shifted the wearer from the physical world of mortals to the spiritual/incarnate/immortal world of the Valar and Maia. That's why the Ringbearers don't age while they have the Ring. There's tons of support for this in the Books. The FAQ of the Ring description is worth reading:

http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q0-InvWhy

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Morgoth the Elfbit

The only flaw I see in this entire really well developed argument is this. IF Sauron had to take the nine back after he lsot the one. How did he do it. IF the one was chopped of the 9 woul dgo yippee were free lets go back and opppress our former realms. THey wouldnt have given up the ring to Sauron.

Congratulations, Morgoth the Elfbit, for your logic! You have put your finger right on the problem. But, IMHO, it is not a flaw in the theory, but just a logical consequence of it. I am starting a new tread on the problem: "Were the nazgul free?"

Thank you, Jon S., for suggesting an excellent FAQ reference.

Welcome to the Moot!

[me9996]

The difinitive anser: [

No

[Lenya]

I don't know. Maybe if Galadriel and Elrond worked together they could overthrow Sauron, but I doubt if they had the cunning and strengh to do so. Deffinately when Sauron was a necromancer, but not when he had his full army behind him in the battle for the ring at the end of the Third Age. Though I do believe the ring would have make whoever wore it considerably stronger, if that person intended to take supreme command - for that's what the ring yearned for. I think it would not try to destroy its bearer if he shared the ring's interests.

[CrazySquirrel]

Originally Posted by Lenya

I don't know. Maybe if Galadriel and Elrond worked together they could overthrow Sauron, but I doubt if they had the cunning and strengh to do so. Deffinately when Sauron was a necromancer, but not when he had his full army behind him in the battle for the ring at the end of the Third Age.

I have to disagree.
1. About “working together”. “Only one hand at a time can wield the One” said Gandalf to Saruman. So IF Gandalf wields the One he will be the Master and Galadriel (with her Nenia) will be his slave as well as Elrond with his ring. Or it can be the other way round if Galadriel had the ring. No partnership but a master-slave relationship.

2. Another thing is that both Gandalf and Galadriel believed that they COULD overthrow Sauron. They didn’t want to take his place, that’s all. But they definitely had the possibility. Even Aragorn had, otherwise Sauron would not panic so much after their palantir talk.

[Lenya]

By working together I didn't mean they would share the ring. But they would be very powerfull if they were allies, with one of them using the One.