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

[jammi567]

Originally Posted by Gordis

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?

there is an couple of interesting questions from the link above:

Originally Posted by FAQ of the rings

E14. How could Sauron trust the Nazgûl not to claim the Ring?

They were utterly enslaved to Sauron and had no will of their own. The clearest statement to this effect that I know of is in “The Hunt for the Ring�: they were “his mightiest servants, the Ring-wraiths, who had no will but his own, being each utterly subservient to the ring that had enslaved him, which Sauron held.� [UT: HR (338)]

In other words, they were immune to the lure of the One Ring because they were so completely dominated by their own Rings, and they were dominated by Sauron because he held those Rings. These same factors also meant they could not be ordered to work against Sauron.

Originally Posted by FAQ of the rings

C7. Were the Nazgûl wearing their Rings at the time of The Lord of the Rings?

Evidence that Sauron had them
Most importantly, Tolkien says so in a lot of places:

“... Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had primary control. ...� [L #246 (331), also on the Web]

Gandalf tells Frodo, “the Nine [Sauron] has gathered to himself; the Seven also, or else they are destroyed.� [LotR I 2 (65)]

Galadriel tells Frodo that, looking in her mirror, “You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine.� [LotR II 7 (386)]

In “The Hunt for the Ring�, we read of Sauron’s “mightiest servants, the Ring-wraiths, who had no will but his own, being each utterly subservient to the ring that had enslaved him, which Sauron held.� [UT: HR (338)]

In another version of “The Hunt for the Ring�, again we read that the Ringwraiths “were entirely enslaved to their Nine Rings, which [Sauron] now himself held�. [UT: HR (343)]

From these quotes it seems fairly clear that Tolkien conceived that Sauron had direct physical possession of the Nine Rings, not indirect possession through having the Nine on the fingers of his slaves. I really don’t see any other way to read the quotes from Letters and the two versions of “The Hunt for the Ring�. Furthermore, the two quotes from The Lord of the Rings link the Seven and Nine as “held� in the same way, and we know for certain that Sauron had physical possession of those of the Seven that were still in existence.

Beyond quotes, some physical circumstances suggest that the Nazgûl did not wear their rings. These are merely suggestive, not conclusive in themselves:

The Nazgûl’s black robes were visible. If they were wearing Great Rings, we would have expected their clothes to be invisible too.

On Weathertop, after he put on the One Ring, Frodo could see the Nazgûl’s mantles, robes, hair color, helms, “haggard hands�, and swords, as well as the Witch-king’s crown and knife. [LotR I 11 (212)] There is no mention of his seeing their Rings. Yet we know that while merely carrying the Ring in Lórien Frodo could see Galadriel’s Ring: “it cannot be hidden from the Ring-bearer, and one who has seen the Eye,� she tells him [LotR II 7 (384)]. (Those who don’t accept this line of reasoning can point out that the attack at Weathertop occurred before Frodo had seen the Eye.)

When the Witch-king was destroyed on the Pelennor Fields, no Ring was found. Since the Nine Rings had gems, it would have sparkled in the sun; though of course it could have been missed in long grass.

Evidence that the Nazgûl still wore the Nine Rings
Only one citation goes that way, as far as I know, namely Gandalf’s remark at the Council of Elrond: “The Nine the Nazgûl keep.� [LotR II 2 (267)] In a previous edition of this FAQ I tried to explain the quote away as inverted word order for “The Nine keep the Nazgûl [in Sauron’s thralldom].� But I believe a simpler and better explanation is external: Tolkien intended at one time that the Nazgûl should still be wearing their Rings, but he later changed his mind and simply missed revising that sentence.

Conrad Dunkerson supports this view with textual evidence from The History of Middle-earth: “Tolkien wrote the ‘Nine the Nazgûl keep’ line during one of the drafts of the Council of Elrond. Then much later he wrote that the Nazgûl were increased in power before the Battle of the Pelennor Fields because Sauron had returned their Rings to them. If Sauron was only returning the Rings at that point then Tolkien could not have intended that they were wearing them at the time of the Council.�

Apart from texts, some have argued that the Nazgûl must have been wearing their Rings, or else they would have aged as Bilbo did. But the cases are not parallel: Bilbo had not become a wraith, and we have no reason to think that a wraith would age or change in any way, being no longer in the physical world. Also, Gollum was centuries older than Bilbo, but he showed no signs at all of aging in the seven decades after he lost his Ring. (For that matter, Bilbo didn’t age very much after giving up the One Ring, until after it was destroyed.)

Conclusion
While not quite one-sided, the textual evidence favors very strongly indeed the conclusion that, at the end of the Third Age, Sauron had physical possession of the Nine Rings. Physical circumstances also suggest this, though other explanations are possible. But the physical evidence is well reinforced by direct textual evidence, against a single quote that says the opposite. You decide!

(What is not known is just when Sauron took the Nine Rings back from the Nazgûl, assuming that he did. We know it was some time before the Nazgûl began hunting for the One Ring, but whether it was immediately before or much earlier we cannot tell. That Sauron, even without the One, could get the Nazgûl to give up the Nine Rings, there is little doubt, since no mortal could have withheld even the One from him.)

[jammi567]

bumping.

[Landroval]

So, no one to argue my other points? Come on guys .

Since we are dealing in absolutes, just this one case of less than complete loyalty proves that the Witch King wasn’t completely loyal.

I don't see why fear (if that is what you have in mind) precludes loyalty; LotR doesn't hint at them being disloyal, the letters and UT state quite the contrary; that there are other, more obscure, texts, which made it to a new book, that hint otherwise, is no surprise, seeing how often Tolkien changed his mind before building his main ideas. Then again, I might have used the 'loyalty' thingy too lightly, as the texts reffer to subserviency.

When somebody is loyal, just because he has no choice in the matter , it is poor loyalty.

I don't remember Sauron having any problem with the nazguls, as long as they are the most subservient.

But when Sauron had no hook for them, do you think they were loyal still?

That is a moot point; Sauron with no 'hook' means no One Ring, in which case the nazguls are dead also.

Originally Posted by jammi567

bumping up.

You do realise this is an active thread, right?

[jammi567]

Originally Posted by Landroval

So, no one to argue my other points? Come on guys .

You do realise this is an active thread, right?

First part = you dod look at my post, didn't you?

Second part = i dod realize that, i just wanted other members to take notice of it.

[Gordis]

(What is not known is just when Sauron took the Nine Rings back from the Nazgûl, assuming that he did. We know it was some time before the Nazgûl began hunting for the One Ring, but whether it was immediately before or much earlier we cannot tell.

Well he did take the Rings, no doubt of it.

When? In the Third Age. Not too early, as he really took shape etc in Mirkwood around 1000 or even later.

The nazgul, as we know from one quoite in UT, fled East after the Fall of Sauron, and presumably remained there.

That Sauron, even without the One, could get the Nazgûl to give up the Nine Rings, there is little doubt, since no mortal could have withheld even the One from him.)

As I said many times, no mortal could have withheld the Ring from Sauron IN A DIRECT CONFRONTATION, man to man. It is clear from the much quoted letter #246 so very dear to us all.

Now, Sauron, fully embodied or not, sits in Mirkwood. The Witch-King with his Ring sits in Carn Dum, surrounded by an army of orcs and men. How would Sauron arrange this direct confrontation?

Come to Carn-Dum? Even with his ring he couldn't have withstood a whole army (as we saw in the Last Alliance).

Invite the WK to Dol-Guldur, to share a keg of ale and discuss old times? The nazgul is no fool (and don't make me quote LoTR here - you can find the quotes easily enough).

So the only time he could have taken the Witch-King's ring was between 1975 and 1980, when the WK travelled defeated to Mordor - (that is CAB's timing), or a thousand years later, in 2942-2951, when Sauron collected all the Rings he could, has grown in Power and returned to Mordor (my timing).

And don't tell me the nazgul surrendered their Rings willingly. Even Bilbo didn't, not really. And for the nazgul, as they were already wraiths, giving their Rings to Sauron meant much more than for the living - it was their second enslavement.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Landroval

So, no one to argue my other points? Come on guys .

You mean whether the knives were safe in the Barrow or not?
I din't know about the others, but I am tired of discussing this point over and over. The FACT that no blade appeared out of the Barrows for 1500 years is proof enough for me. If you prefer Tom's chatter to the facts, fine with me.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I don't see why fear (if that is what you have in mind) precludes loyalty; LotR doesn't hint at them being disloyal, the letters and UT state quite the contrary; that there are other, more obscure, texts, which made it to a new book, that hint otherwise, is no surprise, seeing how often Tolkien changed his mind before building his main ideas. Then again, I might have used the 'loyalty' thingy too lightly, as the texts reffer to subserviency.

I am not sure what texts made it to the new book. I doubt they are obscure, simply they were found in another place, not where Cris found his staff.

Subserviency yes, the nazgul did show that. And the REASON for all this "loyalty" and subserviency is explained unambiguously in UT: Sauron had their Rings.
It is a big mistake to extrapolate this loyalty/subserviency to the period when Sauron did NOT have their rings - i.g. to the Angmar Kingdom period.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I don't remember Sauron having any problem with the nazguls, as long as they are the most subservient.

No? And wasting two months in the summer of 3018 looking for the Ring in the Vales? Had they come to the Shire a month eralier, how do you think Mr Baggins from the Bag End would have defended his ringy?

How long does it normally take for mounted men to travel from Calenardon to Gundabad and back again? TWO months?
Sure, Sauron was angry, anyone would have been.

And being unable to catch 4 hobbits who carried the Ring that was like a radar to them?
And so on... And that are only FACTS from the LOTR and UT.

What about the period we know so little about? From TA 1 to TA 2951?
I suppose the poor Sau was sitting all alone and abandoned in Mirkwood while his wraiths were busy building their own kingdoms. The WK practically took Sauron's place of the Dark Lord. Was Sau happy?

Originally Posted by Landroval

That is a moot point; Sauron with no 'hook' means no One Ring, in which case the nazguls are dead also.

Nay, Sauiron with NO HOOK means Sauron having neither the One, nor the Nine. He was in this sorry "hookless' state for most of the Third Age.

The One Ring when it is NOT WIELDED is no hook for anybody - neither for the nazgul, nor for the Elves with the Three. Its existance only assures that the other Rings still have power and that Sauron lives.

But its existence didn't preclude the Elves from WIELDING the Three, neither did it hamper the Nazgul with the Nine.

[Butterbeer]

So, no one to argue my other points? Come on guys .

*steps forard nobly*

whatcha want a arguing Sir?

I am at your disposal Noble Landroval.

Your choice, sir...but by prefernce i avoid the pistol and the rapier ... barrow blades are hard to come by, and to my mind largely forgotten in the nether deserted lands since the kings went away ....so i suggest that which is mightier than the very swords of legend .... the pen!


yet, sir...even now is the pen but a distant fable that fades from memory .... thus sir i suggest we reconvene under agesis (sp?) of the killer stroke of the fabled fingertips....

what say you?

name your subject sir!


written by my second,

yours ever truly,

number 2.

(ever does he piss in the middle earth wind ...)

[Landroval]

The FACT that no blade appeared out of the Barrows for 1500 years is proof enough for me. If you prefer Tom's chatter to the facts, fine with me.

Gordis, let me draw you a picture:
- IIRC, the swords were found in the tomb of Arveleg of the Arthedain
- at that time, the elves, Arthedain and Cardolan were fighting together against Angmar
These two facts make the idea of swords made only in Cardolan and unknown to the others too doubtful
- there was just one wight guarding the tomb in which the nazguls knew there were the dreadful swords; we know that the elves don't fear the nazguls, so one wight is of no use against them;
The forces of evil (or at least their leadership) knew of all these. That they took this risk of leaving them with such a low defence, which proved to be inefective, means that they didn't actually care about it
- in the final version of LotR, there is absolutely no one stating any connection of the swords to whatever power against the nazgul, not even when the w-k is killed.

It is a big mistake to extrapolate this loyalty/subserviency to the period when Sauron did NOT have their rings - i.g. to the Angmar Kingdom period.

A big mistake? Did you read above that Tolkien considered Sauron giving the rings back to the nazgul, so as to increase their power? You do know that the nazgul appeared in Angmar 200 years _after_ Sauron appeared in Dol Guldur? Is there any refference to disloyalty, other than whatever inferences we can make on our own?

No? And wasting two months in the summer of 3018 looking for the Ring in the Vales?

You are missing my point - I was reffering to Sauron not caring about the quality of their loyalty towards him, as weighed against their subserviency; that the nazguls made mistakes is not similar to disobedience.

[Butterbeer]

One Wight?

How do you know?

Perhaps at the time of the Fellowship, but do we know beyond all doubt that there were no other wights or other security in days gone by?

For myself i will argue with anyone who would lay any OTHER claim that it would have gone ultimately ill for even plucky frodo against the Wight were it not for Tom Bombadill, heh bombadillo

and he is not an average nor determinable character by any stretch .... he sticks to his own small boundaries and world and cares little for the events outside it ..that we know and is clear -

but Tom, the oldest of the old is not to be underestimated in the slightest - he to whom the ring is meaningless and has no power over him -

be it not for him (jolly Tom) though - are you really sure the Hobbits would ever have left the barrow?

Nay!

For chance if you will, and i for myself, will not,

happened as it seems to take them Via the willow and hence to old Tom Bombadil and his lady...



best, BB

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by Landroval

-IIRC, the swords were found in the tomb of Arveleg of the Arthedain

From Return of the King, “Appendix A�:

Some say the mound in which the Ring-bearer was imprisoned had been the grave of the last prince of Cardolan, who fell in the war of 1409.

This passage is presented in square brackets, meant to indicate that it was a marginal note added to the Thain’s book by a scribe in Gondor. That would indicate that, early in the Fourth Age, the Dúnedain ascertained in which barrow Frodo and his companions were trapped, and from that they could determine whose it was. The general consensus, I believe, is that this was not the tomb of Arveleg, who was king in Fornost and probably buried in Arthedain (why would the kings of Arthedain be buried in Cardolan?), but it is as the scribe indicated: the tomb of the last prince of Cardolan.

Originally Posted by Landroval

- at that time, the elves, Arthedain and Cardolan were fighting together against Angmar
These two facts make the idea of swords made only in Cardolan and unknown to the others too doubtful

You have now but one fact. The first was an assertion, and it is unlikely to be correct. (It is certainly far from consensus.) You are assuming that Cardolan shared with Arthedain a manufacturing process that would have been, in effect, a high-classified military secret, in our modern-day terms. Even if that were the case, you have also the problem that all the smiths who knew this secret could easily have been killed: it seems that not only was the last prince of Cardolan killed, but his entire family with him: they are all, apparently, buried in the tomb. Cardolan was overrun in this war. That, coupled with the notion that the entire royal family was buried in the tomb, might indicate that the capital (Andrath, perhaps?) had been taken and its inhabitants slaughtered: Fornost, the capital of Arthedain, was taken in this was. (As was Amon Sûl, where Arveleg died. Amon Sûl was destroyed, if you recall.) Bombadil seemed to indicate that the woman whose brooch he took for Goldberry met an untimely and violent end. [Edit: my apologies for poor first pass on posting this paragraph.]

Originally Posted by Landroval

-there was just one wight guarding the tomb in which the nazguls knew there were the dreadful swords; we know that the elves don't fear the nazguls, so one wight is of no use against them;

Are you now arguing that the Elves knew about swords that you are also arguing they knew nothing about?

Originally Posted by Landroval

- in the final version of LotR, there is absolutely no one stating any connection of the swords to whatever power against the nazgul, not even when the w-k is killed.

No one except the narrator. From Return of the King, “The Battle of Pelennor Field�, a well-known passage:

… glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

[Butterbeer]

… glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

Though of course, it should be considered as much poetic license as fact- this is classic Tolkien, i doubt not his main intention here is the story and the drama and this passage was not meant in any other way at the time it was written or in it's intention.

Would anyone care, then, to argue that Anduril would not have had this effect and power, chief among swords of the Dunedain, wrought in the mists of time and re-forged with many runes etc etc?

Of course this is all conjecture, but i would personally be loath to read too much into that passage in any serious way that on the sole basis of that dramatic paragraph went the next step to excluding blades such as Anduril etc.

....

Glad to see you, Alcuin and myself among (hopefully!) others are obliging good ol Landroval in his desire for an argument !

Bring it on!!!


Best all, BB

[Landroval]

This passage is presented in square brackets, meant to indicate that it was a marginal note added to the Thain’s book by a scribe in Gondor. That would indicate that, early in the Fourth Age, the Dúnedain ascertained in which barrow Frodo and his companions were trapped, and from that they could determine whose it was. The general consensus, I believe, is that this was not the tomb of Arveleg, who was king in Fornost and probably buried in Arthedain (why would the kings of Arthedain be buried in Cardolan?), but it is as the scribe indicated: the tomb of the last prince of Cardolan.

This would imply that Cardolan had a prince of its own - but that seems highly unlikely, seeing that it was only Rhudaur who resisted Arthedain's claim to lordship. Tolkien made a big case of Arveleg dying in 1409, all over the prologue of HoME XII - I doubt all this is a coincidence. Moreover, Arveleg was in effect ruler of Cardolan too, and its last ruler too, seeing how it is destroyed by the w-k's attack. Burrying Arveleg in Fornost seems highly unlikely also, seeing that this city was under siege - getting him there after the repell of w-k's attack means unearthing and burying him a second time - highly unlikely again. It is more likely that he was burried in one of the most sacred places of Cardolan, Arnor and Middle-Earth.

You are assuming that Cardolan shared with Arthedain a manufacturing process that would have Even if that were the case, you have also the problem that all the smiths who knew this secret could easily have been killed

I didn't claim the sharing of technology - just the informing of its existence. There really was no competition among the allies in this concern.

high-classified military secret, in our modern-day terms.

A military ruled by Arthedain, not Cardolan.

Are you now arguing that the Elves knew about swords that you are also arguing they knew nothing about?

Alcuin, I doubt you misunderstood me. I am arguing that the nazguls took an irrational risk; they can't count on their strong enemies (too strong for one wight) not knowing about these swords.

No one except the narrator.

I am aware of that quote; that quote doesn't state anything magically anti-nazgul about the blade, nor is it made by someone knowledgeable (Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Aragorn, or even Denethor) at a time when this would have been helpful in any way.

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by Landroval

This would imply that Cardolan had a prince of its own - but that seems highly unlikely, seeing that it was only Rhudaur who resisted Arthedain's claim to lordship. Tolkien made a big case of Arveleg dying in 1409, all over the prologue of HoME XII - I doubt all this is a coincidence. Moreover, Arveleg was in effect ruler of Cardolan too, and its last ruler too, seeing how it is destroyed by the w-k's attack. Burrying Arveleg in Fornost seems highly unlikely also, seeing that this city was under siege - getting him there after the repell of w-k's attack means unearthing and burying him a second time - highly unlikely again. It is more likely that he was burried in one of the most sacred places of Cardolan, Arnor and Middle-Earth.
I didn't claim the sharing of technology - just the informing of its existence. There really was no competition among the allies in this concern.
...
A military ruled by Arthedain, not Cardolan.

Cardolan was an independent daughter-state of Arnor until III 1409. Upon the demise of that last member of its royal house, the kingdom (or princedom) reverted to the rule of the king of Arthedain. And even were Cardolan willing to share such a secret, they’d have to find the knowledgeable persons and bring that knowledge to the appropriate people in Arthedain. If the Cardolan smiths were killed when the kingdom was overrun or during any other part of what was clearly a most disastrous war for the junior kingdom, no such opportunity might have presented itself.

I think it best to assume that permanent burials of ritual and state would not be made until after the fighting had subsided, since neither kingdom (Arthedain or Cardolan) likely had the convenience of relative peace in which to do the honors due a ruler.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Alcuin, I doubt you misunderstood me. I am arguing that the nazguls took an irrational risk; they can't count on their strong enemies (too strong for one wight) not knowing about these swords.

I agree. But neither could they abandon the pursuit. Gordis and I are arguing that the Witch-king and 4 others pursued the Ring-bearer to Weathertop, where they all held back except the Witch-king when the barrow-blade was unsheathed.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I am aware of that quote; that quote doesn't state anything magically anti-nazgul about the blade, nor is it made by someone knowledgeable (Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Aragorn, or even Denethor) at a time when this would have been helpful in any way.

Even better then: may we presume that the Narrator is both well-informed and even-handed, and that if he says “no other blade� could “break the spell�, then it is in fact the only blade - or perhaps more precisely, the only kind of blade - that could “break the spell�, even if it is a non-magical blade?

Although, it would be rather unusual in literature for a “non-magical blade� to break a spell... Of course, Aragorn made some comment about the knives being “wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.� But perhaps he was merely speaking metaphorically?

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Landroval

Gordis, let me draw you a picture:
- IIRC, the swords were found in the tomb of Arveleg of the Arthedain
- at that time, the elves, Arthedain and Cardolan were fighting together against Angmar
These two facts make the idea of swords made only in Cardolan and unknown to the others too doubtful

As Alcuin correctly pointed out, the tomb with the swords belonged to the last Prince of Cardolan.

We know that the Barrow-Downs were the burial place of the Edain since the First Age. Valandil here thinks that the first Kings of Arnor (Valandil son of Isildur etc.) were also buried there. May be. But I am pretty sure that once Arnor became divided, no Kings of Arthedain or Rhudaur were buried there anymore. The three Kingdoms were almost perpetually at war. Would you bury your King far away in the enemy territory? No, I guess there were Royal tombs in Fornost, much like Rath Dinen in Minas Tirith.

Now let us take the case of Arveleg. He was slain at Amon Sul, which was overrun by Angmar. They hardly managed to save the Palantir. Most likely, they also took with them the body of their King, if they DID manage to retrieve it at all. Now the Arthedain troops were driven to Fornost, while Cardolani guys were besieged at Tyrn Gorthad. The allied Arthedain-Cardolan army was cut in two and driven into different directions. How could the body of Arveleg be buried at Tyrn Gorthad? No way.

Originally Posted by Landroval

- there was just one wight guarding the tomb in which the nazguls knew there were the dreadful swords; we know that the elves don't fear the nazguls, so one wight is of no use against them;

Do you know many Elven grave robbers? If they DIDN't know about the swords then WHY would they desecrate the tombs? To get some gold and jewels?

Secondly, there is no reference that the elves (NOT "High", or Calaquendi Elves) didn't fear the nazgul. There is evidence for the opposite:

Glorfindel says: "There are few even in Rivendell that can ride openly against the Nine; but such as there were, Elrond sent out north, west, and south.

Now in the Last Homely house FULL of Elves, there are only FEW who were not afraid of the nazgul.

Thirdly, yes, there was likely approximately one wight per barrow. The Witch-King supposedly never visited Barrow-Downs himself, before 3018, so how could he know in which tombs there were the BD TM swords and in which there weren't? There was likely a tomb of this last prince of Cardolan's father and granddad, uncles and nephews, every one of these latest tombs might be filled with the swords. And consider, as Alcuin pointed out, that the Wights had to occupy all the barrows to prevent the Cardolani hiding there or fortifying the other tombs.

Originally Posted by Landroval

The forces of evil (or at least their leadership) knew of all these. That they took this risk of leaving them with such a low defence, which proved to be inefective, means that they didn't actually care about it

I don't think Sauron cared that much about his nazgul's well-being to intervene directly. And the Wights were the best guardians that the nazgul themselves could find: they couldn't send Barlogs guard the Barrows, could they?

Originally Posted by Landroval

- in the final version of LotR, there is absolutely no one stating any connection of the swords to whatever power against the nazgul, not even when the w-k is killed.

I wonder, Landroval, were you really unaware of the quote Alcuin has just posted?

Originally Posted by Landroval

A big mistake? Did you read above that Tolkien considered Sauron giving the rings back to the nazgul, so as to increase their power?

I read it not "above", in the FAQ thread out of context, but I read it in HOME "War of the Ring", in the drafts for the Siege of Minas Tirith.. The sentence was stricken out immediately by the author. Why was such a "good" idea immediately abandoned? I am sure it was because Tolkien realized, that Sauron could not give back the Nine Rings BEFORE he obtained the One. Sauron would have LOST his PRIMARY CONTROL over the nazgul and made them vulnerable to the wannabe Ringlord, who had the One (here I again refer to #246.) You remember Sauron believed at the time, that the "Forces of Goodness And Light" were preparing to wield the One Ring against him.

Originally Posted by Landroval

You do know that the nazgul appeared in Angmar 200 years _after_ Sauron appeared in Dol Guldur?

So what? What does it prove?
I can tell for instance, that the nazgul appeared in Angmar 300 years after Gondor conquered Harad. Is there a connection between these two facts? May be yes, may be not.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Is there any refference to disloyalty, other than whatever inferences we can make on our own?

And is there any reference to LOYALTY of the King of Carn-Dum to Sauron?

You are missing my point - I was reffering to Sauron not caring about the quality of their loyalty towards him, as weighed against their subserviency; that the nazguls made mistakes is not similar to disobedience.

Then he was a fool if he didn't care, that has proved his undoing.

Open disobedience was not something the nazgul were allowed to show. Little enthusiasm, yes: lagging behind, making mistakes, straying in daylight, not showing any initiative, looking for the Shire in the Vales, when the WK probably knew all along where it was, missing the ringbearer in Hobbiton, passing the ringbearer on the road, waiting till the Buckleberry ferry was afloat before appearing on the shore - that is another matter.

They could not rebel :the Master had their Rings and their very existence in his hands. But the only thing they cared about were their own interests, not Sauron's.

[Butterbeer]

They could not rebel :the Master had their Rings and their very existence in his hands. But the only thing they cared about were their own interests, not Sauron's.

that old chesnut huh?

But is this not potentially somewhat disingenuous from you here Gor??

[jammi567]

my god, this topic (how the barrow down swords affected the nazgul, and whether they were afrid of them) is just getting boring now. can't we talk about something else?

[Butterbeer]

...er...we usually do most of the time!

wotcha Jammi!

so ..what other gigs are in town at the momment then?

[jammi567]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

wotcha Jammi!

so ..what other gigs are in town at the momment then?

oh, nothing much happening in southampton or portsmouth at the minute.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by jammi567

my god, this topic (how the barrow down swords affected the nazgul, and whether they were afrid of them) is just getting boring now. can't we talk about something else?

If you wish to talk about something else, why not make a new thread about something else?

Originally Posted by Landroval

This would imply that Cardolan had a prince of its own - but that seems highly unlikely, seeing that it was only Rhudaur who resisted Arthedain's claim to lordship....

Moreover, Arveleg was in effect ruler of Cardolan too, and its last ruler too, seeing how it is destroyed by the w-k's attack.

Exactly, only Rhudaur resisted Athedain's claim to lordship. So, Cardolan accepted Arthedain's over-Lordship sometime after 1349, when Argeleb became King.
In Cardolan there were NO direct descendants of Isildur left, but there surely were indirect (not father-to son) ones. One of them was most likely invested with ruling Cardolan, under Arveleg's over-Lordship, but the new Ruler was called "King" no more, only "Prince". (There is somewhere an excellent thread where Valandil proposed this theory). The last prince was killed in 1409. Had the chronicle spoken of Arveleg, he would have been called "King of Arnor", for that was his title.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Tolkien made a big case of Arveleg dying in 1409, all over the prologue of HoME XII - I doubt all this is a coincidence.

I have just re-read the prologue of Home XII and found no big case made of this fact.
Here s the entry for Arveleg:

18. Arveleg I. born 1309 lived 100 years + slain 1409
The Witch-king of Angmar taking advantage of war among [the
Numenoreans or Dunedain >] the Dunedain comes down out
of the North. He overruns Cardolan and Rhudaur. [Cardolan
is ravaged and destroyed and becomes desolate. The Tower of
Amon Sul is razed and the palantir is broken. Evil spirits come
and take up their abode in the mounds of the hills of Cardolan.
In Rhudaur an evil folk, workers of sorcery, subjects of Angmar,
slay the remnants of the Dunedain and build dark forts in the
hills. But the Dunedain of Fornost, in spite of the death of their
king, hold out, and repel the forces of Angmar with the help of
Cirdan of Lindon. >] Cardolan is ravaged; the Tower of Amon
Sul is razed and the palantir is removed to Fornost. In Rhudaur
an evil folk ... [as above] build dark forts in the hills, while the
remaining Dunedain of Cardolan hold out in the Barrow Downs
and the Forest; the Dunedain of Arthedain repel the forces of
Angmar from Fornost with the help of Cirdan of Lindon.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Burrying Arveleg in Fornost seems highly unlikely also, seeing that this city was under siege - getting him there after the repell of w-k's attack means unearthing and burying him a second time - highly unlikely again. It is more likely that he was burried in one of the most sacred places of Cardolan, Arnor and Middle-Earth.

Was Fornost taken in 1409? I don't think so. See the quote below.
As for the Barrows, it was not a safe place to bury anyone.

App A.: A great host came out of Angmar in 1409, and crossing the river entered Cardolan and surrounded Weathertop. The Dúnedain were defeated and Arveleg was slain. The Tower of Amon Sûl was burned and razed; but the palantÃ*r was saved and carried back in retreat to Fornost, Rhudaur was occupied by evil Men subject to Angmar, and the Dúnedain that remained there were slain or fled west. Cardolan was ravaged. Araphor son of Arveleg was not yet full-grown, but he was valiant, and with aid from CÃ*rdan he repelled the enemy from Fornost and the North Downs. A remnant of the faithful among the Dúnedain of Cardolan also held out in Tyrn Gorthad (the Barrowdowns), or took refuge in the Forest behind.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Landroval

I am arguing that the nazguls took an irrational risk; they can't count on their strong enemies (too strong for one wight) not knowing about these swords.

We really don’t know how strong the wights were. Yes, Bombadil could defeat them, but this was within his own bounds, where he seems to have been extremely strong. Remember that all of Frodo’s companions were “asleep� and completely helpless while in the barrow. They were only able to be saved by Tom because Frodo was able to gain consciousness. I wonder why that was. Did he receive aid (from the Ring, or from someone else), was he just lucky, or had the wight maybe taken too many prisoners at one time?

Anyway, what about those who probably could defeat wights? Well, it seems that people like Gandalf and Glorfindel didn’t need barrow blades to face the Nazgul. There is plenty of evidence for that. So, most likely, those who were able to face the wights wouldn’t have been interested in retrieving the blades, and those who did need the blades (being the Nazguls’ weaker enemies) were unable to face the wights. This helps explain why the swords had remained hidden for so long.