Quote:
Originally Posted by denethorthefirst
If Sauron hadn't created the one ring he would not be able to come back in the third age (He was fully incarnated at the time of the war of the last alliance).
|
I don't know that I agree with that. We know that Umaiar have been known to suffer multiple slayings of their material form (not really a hröa, per se, since it isn't part of their innate nature as ëalar to have a physical form, unlike the Mirroanwi, who are meant to be fëa and hröa united), and return later. I admit that the Ring ensured against his 'permanent' destruction by traditional means, while also functioning as his Achilles Heel (similar to a Lich's phylactery or the Horcruxes of the Harry Potter mythos, both of which I assume drew from this source material), but I don't think there's any conclusive evidence that his slaying at the end of the Second Age would have proven the end of his spirit's endurance. It's possible you're right, but what makes you so sure?
Furthermore, without the forging of the Ring and the resultant events of the history of the Second Age, who is to say that the War of the Last Alliance would have occurred as it did in the original timeline? That's like saying that Barack Obama would still have been elected President if the United States had conquered Canada in the War of 1812. I mean, sure, it could still have happened, but it seems likely that subsequent events would have led to a very different modern day, in which Barack Obama might have never been elected, or never run for President, or never gotten into politics, or never even existed to begin with.
Then again, it's also possible a similar alliance would have taken place and Sauron very well could have been defeated in personal combat, as he was. Just remember, that was a desperate move on his part. Sauron didn't like to take the field if he could help it, and Barad-dûr (which was built in part with the power of the One Ring, so does it even exist?) had been under siege for so long he had to change the playing field if he was going to come out on top. He ended up killing the enemy commanders, but at the cost of the destruction of his material frame. But who is to say things would have led to the same eventuality had the Ring not been forged?
Quote:
Originally Posted by denethorthefirst
If he would have been able to become the dark lord without the one ring is another matter. Some say that the one ring had the very narrow purpose of only dominating the other rings. If you take that view the one ring was essentially a failure and not necessary for Sauron to become the powerful ruler he was in the original timeline.
On the other hand, some speculate that the one ring made it possible for Sauron to somehow control the "Morgoth Element" ... if you take that view the one ring was actually not only successful but the foundation and cornerstone of Saurons rise to power.
|
Tolkien states, as far as I know, that the Morgoth Element is necessary for most feats of true magic, and so I imagine that he already had some proficiency in manipulating it. Furthermore, his native abilities as a Maia permitted him some level of "magic," really just the exercise of his native power, that surpassed anything the Elves could do. That being said, I agree 100% that the One Ring increased his ability to manipulate the Morgoth Element, thus increase his abilities. The extent of his capabilities in the late Second and Third Ages were due, in part, to his being able to access and control much of the Morgoth Element left behind by his master, without giving up any of his own substance to do so. This, in a way, made him more dangerous than Morgoth, since he had access to much of Morgoth's affinity for the manipulation of Arda, without having to diminish himself. Though I imagine that his total potency was still less than Morgoth's was, probably far less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denethorthefirst
If Borormir had claimed the kingship I'm certain that this decision (and the ensuing civil war) would have destroyed gondor. There are a lot of houses more noble (and with connections to the house of Anarion) than the House of Hurin. The decision to let the stewards rule was a compromise between the great houses of gondor to prevent another civil war and it worked so well precisely because the stewards were a relatively lesser house that couldn't hope to claim kingship and was dependent on the other great houses - a house of cards that falls if a steward decides to rock the boat.
|
I don't disagree. As I explore the possibilities, there really doesn't seem to be an alternative to that view. Although I don't know that I view "a lot" of the Houses of Gondor as more noble, there were certainly nobler and loftier houses, especially the Princes of Dol Amroth. Still, at least at one point in the mythos, Tolkien believed that the House of Hurin were, in fact, descended from Elendil and Anárion, though not counted among his heirs. This is stated in The Peoples of Middle-earth. I'd be willing to entertain the idea that this was discarded in favor of later developments, but I think it equally likely that there was some degree of descent through a daughter of the royal line, which didn't convey inheritance rights in the royal house of Gondor, as far as we can tell.
But, yes, it would definitely lead to civil war, which would result in the further diminishing of Gondor, at the very least, perhaps in its fractioning into multiple kingdoms, as in Arnor, and eventually to its destruction by enemies from the east or south. Dor-en-Ernil may have survived, becoming a last bastion of the Dunedain in the south, a remnant of the former Kingdom of Gondor, ruled by the Princes.