Felagund
Rohan
Dec 4 2012, 8:43pm
Views: 2603
|
An even more cautious & vulnerable Sauron
|
|
|
A great (and tricky) question! Some thoughts: - The main issue for me is whether Sauron would have been able to assume a new hröa if he was slain whilst incarnate in Middle-earth, if he hadn't forged the One Ring. The fact that he did rebuild a physical form after his 'death' during the Downfall of Númenor, and again after he was overwhelmed by Gil-galad, Elendil and Isildur isn't conclusive in this regard. On both occasions he had the Ring (even when he was incorporeal after 'dying' in Númenor). However, if we look back at Sauron in the First Age (ie. pre-Ring) there is the suggestion that 'death' would have been permanent - at least as far as his hröa was concerned. When Huan defeats Sauron in their fight on Tol-in-Gaurhoth, Lúthien states that if Sauron allowed himself to be killed, he would spend eternity "stripped of his raiment of flesh" and "everlastingly thy [Sauron's] naked self shall endure the torment of his [Morgoth's] scorn" (The Silmarillion, 'Of Beren & Lúthien'). Now whether this passage was meant to be conclusive on the durability of Maiar hröar is open to debate, but it at least flags the possibility that a Sauron who hadn't forged the One Ring was vulnerable to permanent, physical destruction.
- It's also worth checking out the 'Myths Transformed' chapter in Morgoth's Ring. There's an interesting passage on what happens when evil spirits (Sauron included) who have become 'earthbound' suffer physical death - "they would, of course, like Sauron, be 'damned': ie. reduced to impotence, infinitely recessive...". This aligns reasonably well with Lúthien's claim that Sauron would be "stripped of his raiment of flesh" forever, should Huan kill his hröa.
- Taking this theory to its logical conclusion, the irony of the One Ring was that whilst Sauron was uniquely exposed to permanent destruction (ie. if someone happened to drop the Ring into Mount Doom), it was also the one artefact that enabled him to keep rebuilding his physical form - so much of his native power was vested in the Ring that killing Sauron's hröa wasn't enough to put him out of business.
- If this theory holds, then it's possible to imagine that Sauron would have been even more cautious in the Second and Third Ages (assuming that he survived the former). I can't see him being quite so brave during the War of the Elves and Sauron, when he personally led his armies into Eriador. As it was, he only narrowly avoided being overtaken by the Númenóreans under Ciryatur, at the Battle of the Gwathló.
- Without the One Ring to concentrate his ability to dominate the will of others, Sauron's empire building may have been slower. That said, even without the One Ring, Sauron was able to gather up vestiges of Morgoth's servants (Orcs, trolls, corrupted Men), and to corrupt and dominate new peoples - most notably races of Men from the East and South. Much of this takes place before the forging of the Rings of Power (The Silmarillion, 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age'). Not that having the One Ring enabled him to command his armies to take on the Númenóreans in battle once Ar-Pharazôn turned up!
- Which brings me to my final point on the topic of Sauron: it was probably inevitable that he would create the One Ring or an artefact with similar purpose. This was the only way that he'd have a decent shot at achieving his megalomaniacal goals in Middle-earth - by binding all the rulers of the Elves, Dwarves and Men to his own will, enslaved through their own Rings of Power. Obviously that didn't work out quite as planned, but as I said, it was his best shot.
- And I agree with Otaku-sempai - the kings of Men etc who took the Nine Rings would have become wraiths, regardless of Sauron having forged the One Ring. The latter was only relevant for enslaving those undead beings, not for creating them in the first place. Mortals just weren't built for handling that kind of power.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|