How to take a Ring from an unwilling Ring-wielder? - crazy ideas

[Butterbeer]

*Exasperated* I don’t know. How many angels can dance of the head of a pin?

My apologies, ’Mooters, but this thread seems to have veered from the sublime to the silly.

???

anyway, i must away to bed, so have fun! and its been an interesting debate,

goodnight all!

best, BB

[jammi567]

that's what i mentioned ages ago (posts wise at least!)

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

But bear this in mind it is CANON that the perecieved rights of Arargorn are as seen from the red book of Westmarch ... and no revision can alter that fact - thus we have a dilemma - and my poijt ios JRRT is dead but he lives on in our debate.

Thus, how can it be pointless?

Else, why debate at all on anything??

Originally Posted by Gordis

Well, here I disagree.
The WK may be disqualified by being a wraith, or falling under the shadow,OK there, but by BLOOD alone, he is closer to the throne than Elendil.

NOT the house of Andúnië was the senior house of Númenor, but the house of Elros - the main line.

Had Ar-Pharazon's brother survived the Downfall, by blood, he would be the rightful King, not Elendil- because he was closer to the main line.

Ar-Pharazon's hypothethic surviving brother has more right than Ar-Gimilzor's brother, the latter has more right than Tar- Atanamir's brother, and this one has more right than Tar-Ciryatan's brother.
So,
Tar - Ciryatan's brother (the WK-according to your theory) is closer to the main line, and has more right to the scepter than a descendant of Silmarien.

That is how it works in royal lines.

Gordis, I am giving you the epissi “She who whacks sense into Alcuin’s head.” You are right. Butterbeer’s suggestion is not specious. And Butterbeer, I apologize. (But I won’t be politically correct.)

All the same, I think my answer in Post 140 is correct: the House of Elros has been destroyed by Eru Himself, and the last remaining member of that house, the Lord of the Nazgûl, is disinherited from any claim by Eru Himself: the House of Elros failed in its duties, in its oaths to the Valar: Elros must have been given some charge by the Valar, who made him King of Númenor, and that charge had to include such things as protecting the people of Númenor, defending it from evil, and following the rules that the Valar and Eru laid down. His descendants violated these strictures so definitively and so egregiously that they cannot be deemed to be acting within the terms of their sovereignty in any way, manner, or form.

As a member of the House of Elros and one of the first of that house to rebel, the Witch-king would likewise lose all claim to be High-King. In addition, there is the fact that he is a committed servant of Sauron, who more than anyone else in all Arda helped bring about the Downfall of Númenor. The Witch-king absolutely cannot and must not be recognized as High-King: he is not independent, but a puppet of another, and he is committed to the cause that led to the destruction of Númenor and all its inhabitants. His master Sauron is the chief servant of Morgoth, the Enemy, and the Witch-king in turn is the chief servant of Sauron. Just as Morgoth was unfit to be ruler of Arda, regardless of whatever gifts he might have possessed in his beginnings; just as Fëanor and his descendants lost all claim to the High-Kingship of the Noldor by the murderous and wicked deeds; the Witch-king is unfit to be High-King of the Númenóreans and has lost all claim to that position.

But that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t claim it all the same, and in his own mind believe that he should be king.

By the way, the greatest of the Valar was unfit to rule because of his wickedness. The greatest of the Noldor was unfit to rule because of his wickedness. And if the Witch-king might be supposed to be the greatest of the Númenóreans at the end of the Third Age (a controversial notion: I think Gandalf and Elrond and all the West would object), he, too, was unfit to rule because of his wickedness.

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Taking intent from the drafts, and in particular extra or background information, such as plot devices, is probably a better use of them than relying upon them for the final plotlines: those are in the published novel. Characters and events emerged and submerged in the drafts, some of which were jiggered for years before they settled into final form. Some of the flaws in the finished product reflect discarded plotlines, such as when Harry the Gatekeeper slips out of the Prancing Pony after Frodo’s accident with the Ring: Harry had never entered the inn in the final telling; but he still departed. The incident can be explained away, but it is still a small error.

It seems to me verry odd that the refferences to the might of the blades are left out - by Tolkien in LotR and by Chris in the UT. Also in At Rivendell, Gandalf states that "Things work out oddly. But for that 'short cut' you would not have met old Bombadil, nor had the one kind of sword the Riders fear." It seems to me that the particular importance of the blades against the nazgul diminished; they remain nevertheless weapons against evil creatures, with tangible effects on the orcs of Mordor and Isengard.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

I am afraid the ‘“R” word’ reference is lost to me

Sorry for the word-play; I was reffering to the fact that no refference to the mastery of the ring by Frodo is made.

I believe that in Letter 246, written in 1963, Tolkien says that not even Aragorn could wrest the Ruling Ring from Sauron. The Nazgûl were under no illusions as to who their real master was. Even of the Wise, only Gandalf might have been able to wrench it away from Sauron: Galadriel or Elrond would have kept his distance and attempted to conquer Sauron from afar had either wielded the One Ring.

I was reffering to this bit:

Originally Posted by Letter #246

Frodo had become a considerable person, but of a special kind: in spiritual enlargement rather than in increase of physical or mental power; his will was much stronger than it had been, but so far it had been exercised in resisting not using the Ring and with the object of destroying it. He needed time, much time, before he could control the Ring or (which in such a case is the same) before it could control him; before his will and arrogance could grow to a stature in which he could dominate other major hostile wills.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

What none of them other than the Nazgûl and Bombadil seem to have recognized was that they were designed to do grievous harm to the Ringwraiths

The way Tom describes the weapons is more akin to Aragorn's than to Reader's Companion:

Originally Posted by Fog on the barrow-downs, FotR

Old knives are long enough as swords for hobbit-people, he said. Sharp blades are good to have, if Shire-folk go walking, east, south, or far away into dark and danger. Then he told them that these blades were forged many long years ago by Men of Westernesse: they were foes of the Dark Lord, but they were overcome by the evil king of Carn Dûm in the Land of Angmar.

Tom too knew of the mission of the hobbits; why wouldn't he tell them about the particular power?

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Recognition that the barrow-blades were the “work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor,” as Aragorn put it, does not seem to have been secret. Aragorn knew it, the orcs of Isengard knew it, the Nazgûl certainly knew it, and the Mouth of Sauron knew it.

If the nazgul knew about the particular power of the barrow blades, why wouldn't he inform the upper management (of which the mouth of sauron was surely a member) about this? If the nazguls are the most faithful and powerful servants, it makes sense that they would feed (at least) Sauron with all relevant information - the existing barrow blades being a critical weakness, located far away. And if Sauron knew about their location, why would he leave things like that, seeing that he was preparing for a war in which the nazgul would take an active part?

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Gandalf told Frodo when he awoke in Rivendell that his capture in the Barrow was “perhaps the most dangerous moment of all.”

I may be wrong, but the way I read it, that quote from Many Meetings rather reffers to wheathertop; there was far less danger in being captured by a wight than turning into one and losing the ring. The chance of retrieving Frodo from the downs is still significantly higher, considering the keeping in touch between Goldberry and the 'good guys' - than of saving Frodo from a morgul wound or taking back the ring from the riders.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Had they been devised by the smiths of Arthedain, or had they been used in both daughter kingdoms of Arnor, then Elrond would likely have known all about them; but the wars with Angmar under the Witch-king’s leadership broke out in the 14th century of the Third Age (that would be during the 1300s, not the 1400s), and Cardolan fell early in the 15th century.

As I said previously, that prince could be Arveleg, who is of the line of the Arthedain. Even if not, those from Arthedain and Cardolan and the elves fought together at that time against Angmar. Those dire times are really not a time to keep such knowledge from your closest allies.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

it is quite possible that the Witch-king was unaware of the disposition of the knives custom-designed to destroy him and his eight necromantic fellows despite the fact that the wight had them in the tomb

The reader's companion states otherwise: he knew both about their power and exclusive location. But as I said previously, I challenge the canonicity of that quote .

Originally Posted by CAB

That was my feeling at first, but I don’t think so now. We seem to have forgotten (and this applies to the Nazgul “semi-invincibility” also) about the “shock” that one gets when stabbing a Nazgul (or, at least the Witch King, and probably the others). Frodo doesn’t experience this, so the spell wasn’t the same (though, I suppose it could be merely similar, as you mentioned). I think that probably Frodo didn’t pick up a mystical sword, but rather a normal one. Being very old and non-mystical, the sword probably broke due to brittleness.

It is also to be noted that Tom still had to do incantations against the wight for it to depart, even after Frodo attacked it.

I would also like to stress what I said previously: the way Tom warns the hobbits about the wights - don't go near the east side unless you are "strong folk with hearts that never falter", doesn't exclude the fact that even hobbits could defeat them, or that others could - at least elves.

Originally Posted by Gordis

I think the best proof of their free will is the fact that Sauron threatened them after their unsuccessful trip up and down Anduin.

Seeing the malice of Sauron, I don't think he would have problems with threatening servants more than was required. He was, perhaps, just as faithful to Melkor as them to him, but he still feared his wrath.

Originally Posted by Gordis

And for me, that means only one thing: the blade was deadly ONLY for the WITCH-KING (who was already killed), not for the other 8 nazgul - the same impression that I got from the new Tolkien quote I posted. And [CAB]was of the same opinion:

If that was so, it would be really stupid to have the two other nazguls, impervious to the sword, stop, while the chief one, vulnerable, attack Frodo. Don't you think?

Originally Posted by Gordis

G&G were not much interested in plundering the revered graves of the ancestors of the Edain, were they?

That is not something you leave to chance. Even if they didn't know, they may find out.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

I wrote an essay on this, “Origins of the Nazgûl and the Downfall of Númenor”.

A good one; though I disagree that Sauron spoke the bit about the nine men. As far as I know, he spoke only two of the 8 lines of that elvish rhyme; neither did he suspect he will give the rings to men, seeing that he didn't count on the elves finding him out.

Originally Posted by Goris

Why would Glorfindel have a prophetic vision about the fate of a complete stranger?

I know of no limitations of prophecies in that regard.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Landroval

If that was so, it would be really stupid to have the two other nazguls, impervious to the sword, stop, while the chief one, vulnerable, attack Frodo. Don't you think?

Dang. You beat me to it Landroval. That is pretty strong evidence that the blades would have effected all the Nazgul the same way. Or, more accurately, that the Nazgul assumed that the blades would effect them all the same way.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by CAB

Dang. You beat me to it Landroval. That is pretty strong evidence that the blades would have effected all the Nazgul the same way. Or, more accurately, that the Nazgul assumed that the blades would effect them all the same way.

The blade burned red in the presence of the WK. Would it have burned red in the presence of another nazgul? We don't know.
But at Weathertop all of the nazgul saw the burning blade and thought, correctly or incorrectly, thast they all were in danger.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Gordis, I am giving you the epissi “She who whacks sense into Alcuin’s head.” You are right.

*Bows*

Originally Posted by Alcuin

By the way, the greatest of the Valar was unfit to rule because of his wickedness. The greatest of the Noldor was unfit to rule because of his wickedness. And if the Witch-king might be supposed to be the greatest of the Númenóreans at the end of the Third Age (a controversial notion: I think Gandalf and Elrond and all the West would object), he, too, was unfit to rule because of his wickedness.

Here I can agree, from the POV of the Faithful, it is certainly so. the WK is disqualified not by his blood (his bloodline is higher then Elendil's) but by religious considerations, in Tolkien's own POV certainly. I like the parallels with Morgoth and Feanor & sons.

I can think of another parallel: Castamir & Sons. It is quite likely, that by the end of the III age, there were some descendants of Castamir left in Umbar. They were the last descendants of Anarion by an unbroken patrilineal descent, so by blood they had precedence over Aragorn for the crown of Gondor. But no one even considered them, I doubt not, because of the reasons you gave for Morgoth, Feanor and the WK.

When Earnur disappeared, the Stewards didn't go fetch the new King from Umbar. By the way, their existance may have been one of their reasons not to elect the new King at all: as there would be Castamir's descendants's claim, Arvedui's son's claim, and claims from several houses in Gondor itself, whose bloodlines were not so pure, but who have been the descendants of Anarion all the same. There could only be a civil war again, had the Stewards not invented the ingenious formula: we rule "until the King returns"

Just a funny thought:
Likely, Castamir's descendants led this fleet coming to Minas Tirith from Umbar, that Aragorn hijacked. I am almost sure that in return for Umbar's alliance, Sauron promised the descendants of Castamir the crown of Gondor. But, it seems, he promised the same thing to the Witch-King. There was a bad surprise in store for Castamir's sons, but they were bound to learn of Sauron's treachery only too late...

Originally Posted by Landroval

If the nazgul knew about the particular power of the barrow blades, why wouldn't he inform the upper management (of which the mouth of sauron was surely a member) about this? If the nazguls are the most faithful and powerful servants, it makes sense that they would feed (at least) Sauron with all relevant information - the existing barrow blades being a critical weakness, located far away. And if Sauron knew about their location, why would he leave things like that, seeing that he was preparing for a war in which the nazgul would take an active part?

I am not sure of what time period you speak, Landroval. In TA 1636, the Witch King took care of the blades himself - not a single one appeared above the ground till TA 3019, so they were guarded pretty well, and were not giving him nightmares anymore.

- Did the WK tell Sauron about the dangerous blade in hobbit's hands after he returned to Mordor sometime in the autumn of 3018, after the disaster at the Ford?

- I can bet he DID: he had to use ALL the excuses he could think of to explain his failure. He must have presented all this as a vast conspiracy, uniting Dunedain Rangers, High Elves, three Istari (didn't Saruman lie to them about the Shire? Didn't Rhadagast warn Gandalf of the nazgul appearance)), Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, special breed of super-resistant halflings, undoubtedly bred for the purpose over the years (much like Sauron bred uruks), Wielders of Elven Rings and perhaps Valar/Eru themselves.
I am sure the Witch-King's tale was really impressive and gave Sauron nightmares afterwards. It doesn't even seem he has punished his nazgul - at least it was not something prolonged or elaborate or irreversible. Moreover, Sauron needed them very much in the coming war. He gave them winged steeds and sent out again.

So Sauron did know that a dangerous blade was loose in his enemies hands. But what could Sauron do about the Barrows at this point? Nothing. Neither did he care that much for his servants safety as he did for his own - for the Ring. Here I agree with CAB:

Originally Posted by CAB

Also, as I said before, I doubt that Sauron would be concerned about his enemies obtaining a sword that wasn’t particularly dangerous to him, especially when these enemies were moments from certain annihilation (in his mind).

Did Sauron tell the Mouth about the Barrow-blades? I don't think so: it is clearly said that he kept all mortals out of the matters connected with the Ring - not to let them covet it overmuch. Mouth probably never knew on what mission and where the nazgul had been. And he was surely NOT their superior, for the nazgul to report to him.

Originally Posted by Landroval

"Originally Posted by Gordis: And for me, that means only one thing: the blade was deadly ONLY for the WITCH-KING (who was already killed), not for the other 8 nazgul - the same impression that I got from the new Tolkien quote I posted."
If that was so, it would be really stupid to have the two other nazguls, impervious to the sword, stop, while the chief one, vulnerable, attack Frodo. Don't you think?

Note that this scene took a matter of seconds. The other nazgul saw that the blade burned red - so they stopped in doubt. The WK didn't pause, because he was brave, he was the leader and hated to show weakness in front of his underlings, as the new quote from the Readers Companion clearly shows.

Moreover, the impression I got from the Readers Companion quote that the swords were only harmful to the WK may be wrong. I have to read all this book to be sure, not peek at a single quote. As I said, the Cardolani most likely knew he was a nazgul, and even found his real name. So likely it was anti-all nazgul as well. That confirms my idea that the Mouth had no idea what sword was he letting his enemies take.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Seeing the malice of Sauron, I don't think he would have problems with threatening servants more than was required. He was, perhaps, just as faithful to Melkor as them to him, but he still feared his wrath.

Servants, yes, but I thought that you argued that the nazgul were zombie-like automates? If so, threatening them was a stupid thing. And how can an automate be dismayed? If he is, it is no automate.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Servants, yes, but I thought that you argued that the nazgul were zombie-like automates? If so, threatening them was a stupid thing. And how can an automate be dismayed? If he is, it is no automate.

With the new quote from the Reader’s Companion, the argument that the Nazgul were “robots” is essentially disproved. (I can’t remember whether Landroval was arguing for that or not. From his last post, it appears not.) There is another quote that applies here also.

… the Witch-King, the great captain, was actually dismayed. He had been shaken by the fire of Gandalf, and began to perceive that the mission on which Sauron had sent him was one of great peril to himself both by the way and on his return to his Master (if unsuccessful); and he had been doing ill, so far achieving nothing save rousing the power of the Wise and directing them to the Ring. But above all the timid and terrified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction. Narrowly it had missed him. How he had come by it – save in the Barrows of Cardolan. Then he was in some way mightier than the Barrow-wight; and he called on Elbereth, a name of terror to the Nazgûl. He was then in league with the High Elves of the Havens.

Escaping from a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor-knife to Frodo (as was proved in the end), he withdrew and hid for a while, out of doubt and fear both of Aragorn and especially of Frodo. But fear of Sauron…. was the stronger.

Oct 7. He arose and cried out to his companions, and drew the other four back to him. He then patrols the road to the Bridge of Mitheithel, knowing that it was practically impossible to cross the Greyflood between Tharbad and the Bridge. The Nazgûl search in vain for the Bearer while Aragorn leads Frodo in the pathless lands south of the Road. -Hammond and Scull, Readers Companion notes to p. 208

Then Aule took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept. But Iluvatar had compassion upon Aule and his desire, because of his humility; and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and were afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Iluvatar said to Aule: ‘Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will.’ -The Silmarillion

In the quote from the Silmarillion, fear is a strong indicator of a “life of their own.”



The first quote also applies to the question of the Nazguls' free will (which I believe is not entirely the same as the “robot” question). The quote doesn’t answer the question, but I think it gives us some clues. Notice that the prime motivator for the Witch King here is not “Sauron’s will” but fear. He seems to be more concerned with his own well being than retrieving Sauron’s Ring. This seems to indicate some free will (unless Sauron was more concerned about the Witch King’s health than obtaining the Ring; highly doubtful).

Also, consider that fear was probably the prime motivator for all of Sauron’s servants. So, seeing that the Witch King acts out of fear of Sauron, (and therefore, probably the other Nazgul did as well), he probably usually* served Sauron faithfully for the same reason his other servants did; because he was afraid of him. I don’t doubt that Sauron was capable of exerting a more full control of the Nazgul (I would guess; not all of them at once) when needed, but he clearly wasn’t doing it on Weathertop.


*So I am not misunderstood; I don’t mean here that the Witch King was ever disloyal to Sauron (though that can be argued). What I mean is that some of the time, Sauron could have used the rings to obtain complete control of (and therefore, complete loyalty from) the Witch King. (And, yes I do feel a bit silly using the asterisk mark.)

[jammi567]

on the topic of free will, i've posted something on this thread here.

[Gordis]

I agree with you, CAB, and it was an excellent quote about Aule and the Dwarves.

Originally Posted by CAB

I can’t remember whether Landroval was arguing for that or not. From his last post, it appears not.)

I thought so, sorry if I misunderstood you, Landroval.

Originally Posted by CAB

He (the Witch-King) seems to be more concerned with his own well being than retrieving Sauron’s Ring. ... he probably usually* served Sauron faithfully for the same reason his other servants did; because he was afraid of him.

Undoubtedly so.
And note, that unlike other Sauron's slaves, the nazgul were controlled via the 9 rings Sauron held. He had their lives in his hands - they couldn't run away, or repent as other slaves possibly could.

Originally Posted by CAB

What I mean is that some of the time, Sauron could have used the rings to obtain complete control of (and therefore, complete loyalty from) the Witch King.

For this I believe Sauron had to put the corresponding nazgul ring on his finger and concentrate. Also, I doubt it could be done at a great distance, like between Barad-Dur and old Arnor.

Sauron couldn't control the nazgul all the time, as he couldn't use the Palantir all the time, or control his orcs all the time, or watch Denethor or Saruman 24x7. Poor Sau had too much on his hands.

The fact that the nazgul suddenly sprang to action on that night at Weathertop, shows, I think, that Sauron was watching them at this moment and they were feeling the Eye.

[jammi567]

Originally Posted by Gordis

The fact that the nazgul suddenly sprang to action on that night at Weathertop, shows, I think, that Sauron was watching them at this moment and they were feeling the Eye.

Is this why the nazgul went to rivendale, despite the fact that there were many powerful enimies of both the witch-king and sauron eg. glorfindel, elrond etc. because the witch-king was being controled by sauron, via his ring, and so the other nazgul followed him, possibly out of fear of sauron, but much more likely out of the loyalty to the witch-king. i mean, they probally thought it was dangerous behavour (natually) but thought nothing of it, because, as i put in a post on the thread i linked to above, they probally forgotten what it was liked to be prossed, because the last time that happened was near the end of the second age. what do you guys think.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by jammi567

Is this why the nazgul went to rivendale, despite the fact that there were many powerful enimies of both the witch-king and sauron eg. glorfindel, elrond etc. because the witch-king was being controled by sauron, via his ring, and so the other nazgul followed him, possibly out of fear of sauron, but much more likely out of the loyalty to the witch-king. i mean, they probally thought it was dangerous behavour (natually) but thought nothing of it, because, as i put in a post on the thread i linked to above, they probally forgotten what it was liked to be prossed, because the last time that happened was near the end of the second age. what do you guys think.

Ahem... What is "prossed" Jammi?

[jammi567]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Ahem... What is "prossed" Jammi?

being in saurons total control.

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by jammi567

Is this why the nazgul went to rivendale, despite the fact that there were many powerful enimies of both the witch-king and sauron eg. glorfindel, elrond etc. because the witch-king was being controled by sauron, via his ring, and so the other nazgul followed him, possibly out of fear of sauron, but much more likely out of the loyalty to the witch-king. i mean, they probally thought it was dangerous behavour (natually) but thought nothing of it, because, as i put in a post on the thread i linked to above, they probally forgotten what it was liked to be prossed, because the last time that happened was near the end of the second age. what do you guys think.

Wait, I’m confused. When did the Nazgûl go to Rivendell? Were they on tourist visas or student visas, or did they just pop in unannounced?

Are you talking about their pursuing the Ring-bearer to the crossing at the Bruinen? That might just be part of the assignment: Get the Ring-bearer and bring him to me. The Nazgûl would be cowardly not to try to accomplish this, even had they any say in whether they were willing or no, but I don’t believe they were cowardly. They found the situation increasingly dangerous, absolutely, and they were clearly less than pleased about that realization; but I don’t think they were cowards.

[jammi567]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

The Nazgûl would be cowardly not to try to accomplish this, even had they any say in whether they were willing or no, but I don’t believe they were cowardly. They found the situation increasingly dangerous, absolutely, and they were clearly less than pleased about that realization; but I don’t think they were cowards.

i didn't mention anything in that piece about them being cowardly. i said that they were following the witch-king out of loyalty, and following him into the face of direct danger (glorfindel etc) is a very brave thing to do.

[Landroval]

But what could Sauron do about the Barrows at this point?

I am speaking about the period between ~1409 and the time of the quest - during which time the forces of evil were in a far inferior position to afford such recklessnes.

In TA 1636, the Witch King took care of the blades himself - not a single one appeared above the ground till TA 3019, so they were guarded pretty well, and were not giving him nightmares anymore.

Himself? I don't remember him patroling the downs. If even one hobbit, after being ensnared by the wight can still hurt it, this doesn't qualify as a pretty good guard. A strong heart seems enough of a good defense against the wight, according to Tom; I am sure that a couple of good warriors can take care of the mound - be they Men, dunedain or elves. Seeing that the downs are closer to Rivendell and Lothlorien than to Mordor, it's more than unsafe to leave the most dagnerous kind of weapons to the mercy of chance - or of your enemies. As far as LotR goes, we have only two hints about a particular power of the blades against the nazgul: two nazguls stop when seeing them and the narrator states that Merry's blade caused the most bitter wound. All the rest of the characters treat the blades as good weapons against 'Mordor' and just that.

Did Sauron tell the Mouth about the Barrow-blades? I don't think so: it is clearly said that he kept all mortals out of the matters connected with the Ring - not to let them covet it overmuch.

Yes, you are right, the Sources of the legend of Isildur's death, UT, states only Sauron and the nazguls knew of the one ring and it is likely that Sauron perpetuated this policy - but the matter of the downs blades predates Sauron' hunt for the ring. The blades present no temptation on behalf of the holder to turn against Sauron, in quest of supremacy, so there would be no danger in getting underlings to take care of them.

Servants, yes, but I thought that you argued that the nazgul were zombie-like automates?

Sauron's will is mentioned as the one driving the orcs forward, but I doubt he concerned himself with what individual orcs were doing. The way I interpret Sauron's (passive) dominion over the nazgul is complete conditioning (brainwashing or hypnosis if you like). Under these circumstances, the nazguls' actions would fall completely under their 'programming', maintaining whatever other vestiges of their personality they once had, as long as it doesn't contradict their software.

What I mean is that some of the time, Sauron could have used the rings to obtain complete control of (and therefore, complete loyalty from) the Witch King.

That Sauron had complete loyalty from the nazguls is beyond doubt, seeing how they would present him with the ring, no matter what. Control (or direct control) is a different matter.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Landroval

That Sauron had complete loyalty from the nazguls is beyond doubt, seeing how they would present him with the ring, no matter what. Control (or direct control) is a different matter.

I agree that direct control and complete loyalty are two different things. However, I think it is unlikely that Sauron ever had complete loyalty from the Nazgul when he wasn’t exerting direct control.

Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems to me that when we speak of complete loyalty, we are getting into the area of absolutes. Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Witch King was truly disloyal on Weathertop, but I do think he acted less than completely loyal. Since we are dealing in absolutes, just this one case of less than complete loyalty proves that the Witch King wasn’t completely loyal.

Also, that the Nazgul would surrender the Ring to Sauron doesn’t indicate any kind of loyalty to me. It indicates a lack of stupidity. I would think that loyalty (especially “complete”) is better proven by smaller things (since they were incapable of overthrowing him), the kind of things that Sauron would never notice . On the other hand, failure by one of the Nazgul to yield the Ring could hardly go unnoticed, and would surely draw the worst possible punishment that Sauron could deliver.

[jammi567]

bumping up.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by CAB

I agree that direct control and complete loyalty are two different things. However, I think it is unlikely that Sauron ever had complete loyalty from the Nazgul when he wasn’t exerting direct control.

Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems to me that when we speak of complete loyalty, we are getting into the area of absolutes. Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Witch King was truly disloyal on Weathertop, but I do think he acted less than completely loyal. Since we are dealing in absolutes, just this one case of less than complete loyalty proves that the Witch King wasn’t completely loyal.

Also, that the Nazgul would surrender the Ring to Sauron doesn’t indicate any kind of loyalty to me. It indicates a lack of stupidity. I would think that loyalty (especially “complete”) is better proven by smaller things (since they were incapable of overthrowing him), the kind of things that Sauron would never notice . On the other hand, failure by one of the Nazgul to yield the Ring could hardly go unnoticed, and would surely draw the worst possible punishment that Sauron could deliver.

*tumbs up*

Exactly, CAB!

True loyalty is a thing of heart, it can't be obtained by fear. When somebody is loyal, just because he has no choice in the matter , it is poor loyalty.

The Nazgul are loyal at the end of the Third Age, because Sauron has their Nine Rings. They were loyal in the Second Age because Sauron had the One and they wore the 9.

But when Sauron had no hook for them, do you think they were loyal still? And why would they be? Out of love?

[jammi567]

that's what i've said in my posts 151 and 155.