The Ring of Sauron
 

The question I wish to pose on this thread is a simple one: Was it worth it for Sauron to create the One Ring?

I am not saying it was not, but let me briefly (and I do mean briefly) provide both sides of the argument.

On the one hand, the Ring did make him militarily stronger (though whether or not it made him physically stronger is debatable, I suppose). Through the Ring, he was able to dominate the Nazgul and use them as his captains for waging war upon Middle Earth. The creation of the One Ring also played a part in the weakening of the line of Durin.

On the other hand, the Ring made Sauron vulnerable, as it gave him an Achilles' heel, so to speak, as evidenced by the fact that Sauron was completely vanquished and powerless for hundreds of years simply because Isildur cut off his finger.

Had he not created the Ring, would he still have been as powerful whilst waging his war against the Last Alliance? It seems to me that, had Isildur not cut off the Ring, Sauron would surely have won the battle, in which case had Sauron never made the Ring he would not have been defeated. It could be, however, that Sauron would not have been as powerful against the Last Alliance if he had not created the Ring at all.

Your thoughts?

It was, in a way worth it. He weakened many races because of it. He was one of the most powerful people in middle earth but after the destruction of Numenore he became even more powerfull. But unfortunatly Gil-galad became even more powerful. So, that being said, if gil-galad had been destroyed, it would have been worth it making the ring.

Yeah, if it weren't for Gil-Galad...

Thusly, it was worth it to make the Ring since Gil-galad was indeed destroyed. I don't think that the thought ever entered Sauron's mind that his enemies would seek to use the Ring to destroy him, since it corrupted all who came near it. That was his main weakness, as we find out from Gandalf, and the only reason that seemingly harebrained scheme of sending Frodo and Sam into Mordor by themselves and distracting Sauron with Aragorn.

Tar-Alcarin, I don't quite follow the idea in your post.

Finwe, it is true that Gil-Galad was destroyed, but would there have been no chance of Gil-Galad falling if Sauron had not made the Ring?

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 10:27 PM December 07, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

But I thought the point of the one ruling ring was that Sauron was almost inviscible when he had it, so if he again regained the ring there would have been no stoping him,
But in the end the ring did destroy him since he bound his life force to it and once it was destroyed so was he..
So in conclusion if he hadnt lost the ring it would have been more than worth it making it, but since he lost it and it lead to his destruction it must not have been worth it in the end.

I think the main reason that Sauron created the Ring of Power was to get the best of those nassty Elveses. He believed that through the One Ring, he could perceive all that the bearers of the Three were doing, and control them.

This backfired on him, however, as the Elven ringbearers did not really use their rings as Sauron would have used them. The Nazgûl were fully enslaved, but the One Ring did not have the desired effect on Elves or Dwarves.

In the end, though, perhaps Sauron did get the last laugh. By destroying the One Ring, all that was created using the Three (most notably the protection against the fading of time that Galadriel placed around Lothlórien) began to fade. Galadriel in particular had to sacrifice a lot to defeat Sauron.

BUT in the end this worked out well for her, as the Ban of the Valar was lifted and she could return to Valinor. Wow... complicated!

If you remember Sauron didn't know about the 3 elven rings until after he had completed the One ring. It was through the 3 rings that the elves heard the ring spell! His intentions was to rule the elves through the other 18 rings (9 & 7). So his plan failed that way. He wasn't invincible when he wore the ring, he would have lost the battle of the LA with or without the ring because he was killed by Gil-Gilad & Elendil, he was already 'dead' on the floor when Isildur cut the ring off! So without the ring he would almost certaintly lost! The one ring could only rule the 3 rings in the 3rd age, after the Elfs had been using them. So his plan failed first because the elfs took off their rings but he would had sucseeded in the 3rd age if he regained it.

Sorry I cant count 9+7=16 not 18. Cheers.

He put all his eggs into one basket, so to speak, and it turned out to be the gamble which ended him. A bit like my notoriously ill-advised decision to put hotels on the blue streets in Monopoly which cost me the game.

To sum up (with yet another metaphor - sorry! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] ) he reached out too far and got his arms chopped off. So I think it was certainly not worth his while to create the Ring.

I disagree. With the Ring, his power is enhanced. And if he loses it, it will always eventually return to him by corrupting its bearer. No one can willingly destroy it.

Seems like a pretty foolproof plan to me. Of course, if someone waves it around at the Crack of Doom they might fall in with it. But what are the chances of that ever happening? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I agree that your position is strong, however I still disagree with it. It seems that there was always the slight chance that its creation would eventually destroy Sauron (not completely destroy him but you know what I mean). Whereas before, without the Ring, he could be slain and come back, and slain again and come back again.

The Ringwraiths though, they were pretty special weren't they? Wouldn't mind having them on my side! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Here is a new question: Why would Sauron create and bind himself to something that had the potential to be utterly destroyed if he himself did not?

Did he know that he could be destroyed with the destruction of the Ring and still think it was worth the risk?

He knew that he could be destroyed with the One Ring, but the possibility that his enemies would resist the corrupting influence of the Ring and actually seek to destroy it was beyond his comprehension. He made the fatal mistake of assuming that his enemies thought like he did, and had the same temptations. He thought that the Ring would turn everyone into power-crazed fiends (*coughcoughBoromircoughcough*), and that they would battle amongst themselves for it, leaving themselves vulnerable to attack.

In other words, the thought didn't even enter his mind that his enemies would exploit that.

My understanding is that, when the Ring was destroyed, Sauron's spirit was cast into the void. Such a fate could equally have befallen him had he not created the Ring. After all, it happened to his Master. From his perspective, the creation of the Ring actually lessened the chances of this occuring, for he was less likely to be overcome.

I am not so sure that it was. He may not have expected two Hobbits to bring it into his backyard with the intention of destroying it, but he knew that no one could destroy it voluntarily. But for the hand of providence, the Ring would have been Sauron's shortly after Frodo claimed it as his own.

I think I begin to see your point Saucepan. Sauron would fear what happened to Melkor. Why should he think that the Valar would not intervene and cast Sauron into the void? So it is possible that he created the Rings of power, not just for the domination of Middle-earth, but also to fend off attacks from Valinor.

Probably getting a bit big for his boots methinks.

Ah, yes, I see your point Saucy. Perhaps I should rephrase my argument. I don't think Sauron believed that any of his enemies could destroy the Ring by himself, the Ring would corrupt him first. In the case of Frodo, there was the hand of providence cutting in (or the teeth of providence, depending on how you look at it). Which brings us to a rather interesting question: If Gollum had not been there, would Sam have pushed Frodo in? Or tried to forcibly take the Ring?

Would Sam have tried to push Frodo into the Crack of Doom? No. The ring would have probably played on Sam's love of Frodo to stop him and of course it would only take a slight hesitation, and Frodo would be pushing back with the power of the ring on his finger!

Or try to take the ring from Frodo? This is more likely, though still unlikely. He would not have done so to destroy it, the ring was just too strong by then, there in the very heart of Orodruin. It would not have let him. He might do so if he felt it posed a danger to Frodo (Sauron on the way, ready to punish the one who dared to claim the ring and put it on in the very heart of his realm.) He still would not have been able to destroy it.

As for the original question of this thread--Was it worth it for Sauron to make the One Ring? Yes. it was a way to diversify his power. Having one nearly indestructible Dark Lord to shoot at is hard enough. He made it twice as hard by tying his power to the Ring. It wasn't enough to destroy him anymore. You also had to destroy the Ring (which was impossible to do on purpose.)

We don't know that. After his body was destroyed at Numenor's downfall he had lost a portion of his control over his reincarnation abilities.

From Akallabeth-
And that's with his ring helping him. It's very possible that he had become fully incarnate and would have died permanently (so to speak) right then and there if not for his ring anchoring him.

The ring allowed Sauron to become more invested in the physical world without fear of death. If he becomes incarnate, no big deal because he has his ring to anchor him if his body is killed. On the other hand if he were to become fully incarnate without an anchor then killing his body would kill him.

The ring was an excellent idea. It turned permanent deaths into temporary vacations and turned military defeats into mere delays before victory.
Yep.
Zero, unless Eru is involved. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

How do you know that it was through the 3 elven rings that Celebrimbor and Co. knew about Sauron's plans? Im interested...

And I agree... It was through the One Ring that Sauron was able to come back, even though his body was destroyed. It was through the One Ring that he acquired great servants and more armies (the Nazgul, etc). It was through the One Ring that Sauron's enemies diminished... Possibly, even the death of Elendil and the failing of Gil-Galad was in his plans... So that he could cover all lands in a Second Darkness once he could take form and recover the Ring...

As the previous poster said, it was a way of making his power bigger... With a handicap, of course...

I bet Sauron knew of hte possibility that some lunatic wanted to destroy the Ring, but he knew that the One Ring coudl not be destroyed but in Orodruin... the core of Saurons, and the One Ring's, power... A place where all other wills and powers were subdued... I remember reading somewhere in this forum that no one would have been able to throw the ring into the Fire (not even the elves) because it was way too powerful...

But, again, Sauron did not count on the intervention of Eru... So, in the end, Eru did intervene through Gollum (and a slippery floor) and saved the world of men (much like the last intervention of the Valar vs Morgoth)...

He became disincarnate as a direct result of the Ring. If it were not for the Ring, his body probably would never have even been destroyed.

I agree with much of your post, Iarhen, in that I do believe that the Ring made Sauron militarily mightier. However, couldn't he have put less of himself into the Ring? The bearers of the Elven Rings were not bound to their rings, and would not be destroyed if the Three were destroyed, and yet their Rings had powers and virtues. Could Sauron not have made such a Ring, that had 'magical' powers but that was not actually a part of his being?

What do you mean? There's no such thing as an indestructable body. How would not having a ring have kept his body intact at Numenor's destruction? Trust me, when a body is crushed beneath the sea along with an entire island the body definitely gets destroyed, ring or not (and having the ring allowed him to return).

Or are you trying to say that if he never would've made the ring that he would've made sure and not become incarnate?

But is it really possible for someone so focused on domination and mastery of the world to avoid becoming incarnate? His master (Morgoth) couldn't avoid it. He became tied to his physical form (but Morgoth also had an anchor so he could survive the destruction of his body).

No, Sauron spent too much time interacting with and attempting to subject the physical world to not eventually become incarnate.

It seems to me that creating an anchor was the only way he could continue to come back time after time.

My mistake, I thought Iarhen was referring to Sauron's body being destroyed at the Last Alliance, not the ruin of Numenor.

I believe what the phatom was saying was that Sauron could not be defeated in spirit, but only in body. At the fall of Numenor Sauron lost his body the first time, so that he could never again appear fair to man. He lost another form after the seige of Bara-dur, at which time the ring was lost. The curcumstances are quite similar, with the ring being the largest difference.

Sauron poured so much of himself into the ring, that he had to have it to take physical form. Any body he took could still be destroyed, but he needed the ring to make another one.

But back to the true question. I believe that Sauron had to make the ring to rule the world. Otherwise he never would have corrupted the kingdoms of man. But he poured too much of his power into it, and it created the weakness that became the hope of the battle.

Besides, if Sauron would not have created the Ring, he would have been exposed by the Three soon enough. The Three vs. No-Ring-Sauron would probably have been his downfall (at least for that age). I think he needed the 'boost' to stay ahead at that time.

I disagree. As Annatar Lord of Gifts, Sauron was able to trick many Elves into working with him. Why not continue under this guise in order to corrupt Men and trick them into servitude, instead of (unsuccessfully) trying to gain dominion over all the peoples of Middle Earth with a Ring?

I highly doubt that even with the 3 rings, the elven lords that weilded them would have been victorious. Ive learned in this forum (after having my a** repeatedly beaten by the Wise) that the 3 rings were not for fighting, but for keeping all things from decaying (including the decay of evil).

And Sauron had to put so much of himself into the One Ring because Celebrimbor did such an amazing job with the other 16, Sauron needed a lot to dominate the other 16. My guess is that after he put the Ring on for the first time and noticed the power of the 3 rings, he had to put more of himself into his Ring. If he had placed enough power in the One Ring from the beggining, the 3 bearers would not have noticed the Ringspell and the history would have been quite different.

I think that he put more of himself into the Ring in order to dominate Narya, Nenya and Vilya and their bearers... and more again in order to avoid another "incident" (such as the noticing of his objective with the One Ring through the other 3) if the bearers of the 3 grew mightier and more powerful by thier continued use of their rings.

Those are my 2 cents... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

It is my opinion that Sauron needed the ring to return in the Third Age after being defeated by the Last Alliance. Without putting so much of himself into the Ring Sauron would not be able to revive himself at all. His spirit endured in the Ring. Very few maiar are capable of reincarnation, and Sauron lost his power after Numenor. (Take Saruman for instance). The creation of the one Ring evresulted in the death of Gil-Galad and his ability to return 3000 years later. Sauron wouldn't have even had a chance in the war of the Last Alliance, he lost even with the Ring.

I'm sorry I strayed so much from the issue, but my conclusion is Sauron's powers were only increased due to the creation of the Ring both militarily and physically. Sauron would have died in the Second Age without his anchor, so to say that Sauron made himself weaker is a misstatement. The Ring allowed him another chance at domination at a time when most of his enemies had faded away.

I agree, the powers of Sauron would have been enhanched while wielding the ring. But all Maiar(except for the Valaraukar) were capable of reincarnation. If a maia and even a vala try to dominate the will of men and elves he loses this ability. They grow closer with the physical Earth(something like that [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img])

Im sorry, i am not familiar with this term valaruakar. Anyway, why do you think they lose the ability to reincarnate? Does it say that somewhere? Also, how do they get stuck in one body?
So many questions, so little posts...

Valaraukar is another term for Balrog.

OK, here's another question.

the phantom said:

If Sauron's physical body was destroyed with the fall of Numenor, how did he manage to retain the Ring? Shouldn't it have sunk to the bottom of the ocean?

He bound it to his spirit, in a similar way to how Gandalf (apparently) bound Narya and Glamdring to his spirit, even after his death on Zirak-zigil. At least, that's my opinion.

Don't ask me how they did it; they're Maiar, after all.

The only logical explanation, Saucepan Man, is that Sauron left the Ring at Barad-dur during his stay at Numenor. That is what the following statement, taken from the Akallabeth, would seem to suggest:

It is possible that Sauron didn't know the ring could destroy him. I'm talking about the guy who wasn't strong enough to sense the Ring in the Shire. Sauron also didn't know that Hobbits existed. Basically, Sauron probably thought the Ring was something he could use to concentrate his power; he didn't know he put a lot of himself in the Ring. His only fear seems to be that someone will claim the Ring for themselves and use it against him.

And why do you think he did not know that he had put a lot of his energy into the ring? If he did not know it originally, he would have known it when he lost to the Last Alliance. He would realize that his ring was part of him.

Also- are you insulting Sauron? He was powerful enough to cover the land in darkness, and he almost suceeded again. You cannot say he was not powerful (although you just did)

I agree with that

ps. Tuor, change your profile to accept private messeges.

Eol Telemnar

Good call, Lord of Angmar. My question was provoked by speculation that I saw recently that Sauron had the Ring with him in Numenor. The quote you gave seems to lay that speculation to rest.

But why would he not take it with him to Numenor? Possibly because he went in servitude and was concerned that it would be taken from him. But it seems to have been an enormous gamble, given how much weaker he was without it.

True and true. I suppose Sauron was more willing to take the risk of being less powerful was than to take the risk of having his Ring taken and, perhaps, used by Ar-Pharazon (that is a scary thought).

I agree with Angmar's interpretation of the statement in Akallabeth- "There he took up again his great Ring...". He left his ring at home.
Perhaps he had a bad feeling about taking it with him (I'm sure he had a bit of forsight like other Ainu).
He could still draw upon its power, not to mention that his errand in Numenor was one that called for cunning rather than sheer power.