Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alfrin
A mace would also also fit well with the whole image he was trying to cultivate. Sauron's former boss/leader/master, Melkor used Grond (the original one) which was, if I recall a mace. Since a lot of Sauron's "warrior" look (big guy, armor, burned/burning flesh) seems to be designed to make him look as much like Melkor in form as possible (and hence be seens as Melkor's heir/inheritor) choosing the same weapon would be a logical choice. Maces also have a long history of being symbolic of power and right to rule (think of the Grand Mace that's part of the British royal jewels)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andsigil
Agreed. I would add that a mace has a two very good qualities above, say, a sword: it's relatively simple to become proficient in its use, and it requires very little maintenance compared to a sword. I can well see its appeal to someone like Sauron: make, enchant, swing, bash.
(I would also submit that the humble spear, in its various forms around the world and through history, saw more service and killed more enemies than the sword did.)
|
But what are you two agreeing to, exactly? Are you simply praising the film’s imagery here– or is this meant to be an answer to the original question? If the former, fine; if the latter– well, I’m afraid that's all pretty much irrelevant unless there’s an actual reference to Sauron using a mace. There may be one somewhere in
The History of Middle Earth, but if there is I don’t recall it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord
Since people are accustomed to Sauron having a mace, is it wrong to classify that his weapon (in the movies) is part of the lore?
|
Well, I suppose you could say it’s part of the “movie-lore”. Beyond that– well, what do you mean, exactly,
DL? If something's not in the books you can’t very well say it is, can you? Or are you thinking in terms of some kind of fan-created consensus Middle-earth, where things from any source can be made “canon” if enough people, I don’t know, vote for them? Or what?