Saruman for or against Sauron?

[Boromir88]

I've often compared the Saruman-Sauron relationship like the Hitler-Stalin relationship.

Hitler and Stalin necessarily didn't like eachother (they both had contrasting views) but they agreed to put their differences aside and not attack eachother. For a long time they would help eachother out, but both had plans of undermining eachother once the allies were gone. Hitler knew the two-front war was one reason for Germany's defeat in WW1 so he signs this pact with Russia trying to prevent that again. In secret he just wants to deal with the West first and then turn on Stalin. It was when Hitler believed that the West had been dealt with (one fault) when he turned on Stalin and started invading Russia (another fault).

I think the Sauron and Saruman relationship can be similar to this. They both are after the same thing (The Ring) and they enter into this agreeance of "Look we both hate these people let's get rid of them," but they were secretly planning to betray eachother if and when they finished with Gondor and Rohan.

[Ar-Pharazon]

I don't think Sauron and Saruman were truly allies and more competitors using the metaphor as a chess match, where they would make moves to counter the other.

When Sauron arises in Mirkwood, Saruman goes along with the plan of the council to march on Dol Guldur and force him out. His reasoning was that it would move Sauron farther from Anduin so he couldnt freely search for the ring.

In the UT - Sauron dispatches the Ringwraiths in search of the Ring, but all they know is there is a creature named Baggins and he is in a land called the Shire. The wraiths come upon Isengard. Here the story gets muddled about what exactly happens. But the gist is that Saruman lies to the Ringwraiths about where the Ring is, he either sends them to Rohan and on the way they run into Grima who, out of fear, tells them where the shire is. The other is Saruman sends them on a scenic route north and on the way they run into one of the Ruffians whose working on the shire and he has all sorts of maps on them. Either way the wraiths discover Saruman's treachery and later Sauron learns of it.

When Pippen touches the Palantir, Sauron assumes that because a hobbit touched the stone it is the one that has the Ring and therefore Saruman has the ring. Sauron immediately dispatches a Nazgul on a fell beast who flies over the company after they leave Isengarde.

In my opinion the book's represent Saruman and Sauron as a dueller of wits. For at first Saruman hated Sauron, but after studying him he came to envy his power and respect him as a rival.

~ArP

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Ar-Pharazon

When Sauron arises in Mirkwood, Saruman goes along with the plan of the council to march on Dol Guldur and force him out. His reasoning was that it would move Sauron farther from Anduin so he couldnt freely search for the ring.

This brings to mind something I've been pondering. When Saruman went along with the White Council to work to eject Sauron from Dol Guldur, was he, at that time, using the Palantir? These events took place not long before the beginning of the War of the Ring, and so we must presume that he was using it, that he may have been using it for quite a long while (he might have sought to occupy Isengard as he knew the Palantir was there). So he must have been able to cloak his thoughts and actions from Sauron at that time which begs the question why did he supposedly fall under the influence of Sauron so quickly?

From this line of thought, it is likely that he was not totally in thrall to Sauron. Saruman seemed to seek a 'third way' in Middle earth. This may have begun with him choosing to deal with the problem of the Ring and Sauron in a different way. If we think about the range of suggestions for dealing with the Ring displayed by the great and the good at the Council of Elrond, then it is obvious that the way supported by Gandalf and Elrond is not the only opinion that was held in Middle earth.

What makes Sauron different is that he thought he had the superior knowledge to deal with the Ring in another way. He seeks to discover the nature of Eru and divinity in Arda by breaking the Light, and wishes to use the knowlegde he has gained by taking over from Sauron. Compare this with Galadriel, who is also a power-seeker; when she is offered the Ring she knows that she too could take over and provide a third way, but she instead rejects this power. So I think that this is the key similarity between Saruman and Sauron - they are different characters seeking different ends, but both have such a desire for the Ring that they are prepared to do just about anything to get it.

They are both villains in the grand scheme of Middle earth, and though on the surface they have made an alliance, it is purely a surface alliance in my opinion. Their desire has got the better of them and there is simply no possibility that one can possess the Ring while the other does not have it.

I'd love to think what might have happened between the two of them had Saruman got his hands on the Ring.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

A Third Way? Oo er! If only Tony Blair had long white hair.

Morm, I see what you're saying: that Saruman was effectively a puppet to Sauron and this I can accept. But what he did not do was set out with the intention of joining with Sauron, and this is what the film suggests. Saruman was more of a rebellious adolescent than a naughty child, if you'll follow me.

[Kuruharan]

I'd love to think what might have happened between the two of them had Saruman got his hands on the Ring.

After that particular war would have been over there would not have been enough left over of Saruman to spread on a meager slice of bread and call it Aruman Butter.

[Holbytlass]

Saruman stepped onto Middle-Earth on the side of good, head of the white council, follower of Eru's plan. Somewhere along the way, he wanted to be mightiest, strongest, most powerful being, which doesn't always equate to evil. I don't even see Saruman in the beginning wanting to be evil just most important. Unfortunately, at the time, the thing that could make this happen for him is the One Ring, which is evil.
In Saruman's wish for the ring, he unwisely uses the palantir to see what Sauron is up to, but that entraps himself to Sauron. And in this entrapment, both have some means to their own ends. Saruman might not like being under Sauron's thumb but at least he can use this position to his own advantage by gaining information from Sauron. And Saruman is biding his time until he can recover the ring for himself. Likewise, Sauron thinks he has an 'insider' to the white council and to his enemies.
Saruman got in over his head, and we know what happened to him because things didn't go according to his plan.

Is Saruman for or against Sauron? Saruman is for himself, but his choices cause him to be with Sauron and then under Sauron. Sauron is just as good a 'sweet talker' as Saruman, probably better, which puts enough thoughts into Saruman's head that if he joins Sauron, he could be in a better position to become mightiest, after his betrayal.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This brings to mind something I've been pondering. When Saruman went along with the White Council to work to eject Sauron from Dol Guldur, was he, at that time, using the Palantir? These events took place not long before the beginning of the War of the Ring, and so we must presume that he was using it, that he may have been using it for quite a long while (he might have sought to occupy Isengard as he knew the Palantir was there). So he must have been able to cloak his thoughts and actions from Sauron at that time which begs the question why did he supposedly fall under the influence of Sauron so quickly?

Actually, according to Gandalf, Saruman probably used the palantir for some time before he finally dared to gaze upon Barad-dur, and thus make contact with the Ithil-stone. "Then he was caught!" So he probably hadn't made contact with Sauron at the time the White Council "forced" the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Actually, according to Gandalf, Saruman probably used the palantir for some time before he finally dared to gaze upon Barad-dur, and thus make contact with the Ithil-stone. "Then he was caught!" So he probably hadn't made contact with Sauron at the time the White Council "forced" the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur.

Do you think that Sauron may have been aware that he (or someone, as he may not have been able to identify exacty who) was using the Palantir though? This would mean that Saruman was caught quickly as soon as he tried to communicate with Sauron. And there is another question - would Saruman know who held that Palantir?

I do wonder just whether possession of the Ring would in any way be a 'match' for Mordor's armies? If Saruman had got hold of it, then Sauron's minions would have swept from Mordor, laying waste to Gondor and Rohan on their way. Possibly Gandalf might have had to get involved, attempting to take it from Saruman before the horde descended... I'm not that bothered by a lot of 'what if' speculation but this is a truly frightening prospect, and it does throw Saruman's wrongdoing into sharp relief!

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

A Third Way? Oo er! If only Tony Blair had long white hair.

Something is clearly being withheld from us...

[Kuruharan]

I do wonder just whether possession of the Ring would in any way be a 'match' for Mordor's armies?

Only possession and mastery. I don't recall seeing anywhere an implication that Saruman could have mastered the Ring. I only remember Gandalf as being possibly able to do it.

However, as soon as Saruman tried to master the Ring the armies of Mordor would certainly have made a beeline for Isengard...

[Kath]

Only possession and mastery. I don't recall seeing anywhere an implication that Saruman could have mastered the Ring. I only remember Gandalf as being possibly able to do it.

But if Saruman was originally higher in the Order than Gandalf then surely he should have had an equal if not higher chance of being able to master the Ring?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I've often compared the Saruman-Sauron relationship like the Hitler-Stalin relationship.

I believe that it was more of a superior-subordonate relationship; or at least both feigned it was - because soon Saruman would begin to deceive Sauron's agents, but Sauron didn't have yet the strength to avenge that.

Originally Posted by Holbytlass

Saruman stepped onto Middle-Earth on the side of good, head of the white council, follower of Eru's plan. Somewhere along the way, he wanted to be mightiest, strongest, most powerful being, which doesn't always equate to evil.

I agree; in fact, that is true for both Sauron and Saruman:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

[The istari] were also, for the same reason, thus involved in the peril of the incarnate: the possibility of 'fall', of sin, if you will. The chief form this would take with them would be impatience, leading to the desire to force others to their own good ends, and so inevitably at last to mere desire to make their own wills effective by any means. To this evil Saruman succumbed. Gandalf did not.

Originally Posted by Letter #183

[Sauron] had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth.

Originally Posted by Notes on motives in the Silmarillion, i, Myths Transformed, HoME X

[Sauron] still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co-ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction.(It was the apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his designs quickly and masterfully that had first attracted Sauron to him.) Sauron had, in fact, been very like Saruman, and so still understood him quickly and could guess what he would be likely to think and do, even without the aid of palantiri or of spies; whereas Gandalf eluded and puzzled him.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Would Saruman then, after finding out that if he could not master the Ring, hand it back to Sauron if he ever got hold of it?

I doubt that:

Originally Posted by Council of Elrond, FotR

Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us. That is in truth why I brought you here.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Of 'mortals' no one, not even Aragorn...Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him-being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form.
We have to assume that Saruman fell into the category of "Of the others" even though he too was an emissary of the Powers.

I think a great deal of debate has gone over a false dilemma. The initial quote looks like this:

Originally Posted by Letter #246

In his actual presence none but very few of equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of 'mortals' no one, not even Aragorn.

The passage in question doesn't concern who would master the ring _in general_, but who could master the ring in Sauron's presence. Maybe only Gandalf can master the ring in such a situation, but that doesn't exclude the fact that others can master the ring properly, should Sauron not be in the vicinity.

Originally Posted by Smaug

Would Saruman with his own armies from his base in Isenguard have battled Sauron for power in ME?

At the council of Elrond, as Boromir88 I believe quoted, Saruman is stated to have pursued a veiled policy of overcoming Sauron:

We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts

In the introduction to LotR, Tolkien gives an alternate view on how Saruman would challenge the leadership over M-E, should Sauron be enslaved:

The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth.

[Kuruharan]

Now that the other Saruman thread has died down a bit...

The passage in question doesn't concern who would master the ring _in general_, but who could master the ring in Sauron's presence. Maybe only Gandalf can master the ring in such a situation, but that doesn't exclude the fact that others can master the ring properly, should Sauron not be in the vicinity.

Please explain how a physical confrontation with Sauron could possibly be avoided by this putative ringlord. How could said ringlord be sure they had mastered the Ring when they fought Sauron? I picture the Ring having a thought process similar to this...

Ring: Hmmm...another dullard who thinks they can master me. What to do? I know! I'll pretend like they've mastered me and get their ego all blown out of proportion. My new "master" will fall all over itself (har, har "it"self, clever reference to part of the discussion in other thread ) to take me back to my Master.

*time passes, battle is waged, Sauron makes beeline for new "ringlord"*

Ring: DADDY!!!!!!!

*BAM* new ringlord is jello

Ring and Sauron: Boo-YAA!!!

[Raynor]

Please explain how a physical confrontation with Sauron could possibly be avoided by this putative ringlord.

I believe that this could be achieved by the way Elrond/Galadriel would have tried: large armies with absolutely subservient generals. I don't think that killing Sauron by 'mere' warriors is out of the question, seeing that it had already happened once at the end of the second age, in direct combat.

How could said ringlord be sure they had mastered the Ring when they fought Sauron?

I believe that said ringlord would have avoided direct confrontation; as it has been quoted already in the thread, and argued by you, such a direct encounter would greatly favor Sauron.

[Kuruharan]

I believe that this could be achieved by the way Elrond/Galadriel would have tried: large armies with absolutely subservient generals.

Nope. The West was militarily incapable. Try to fight Sauron this way and you are still playing to his strength. They couldn't have won like this, they would have had no time.

I don't think that killing Sauron by 'mere' warriors is out of the question, seeing that it had already happened once at the end of the second age, in direct combat.

Sauron was not killed by "mere" warriors. He was...well, actually something surprisingly ambiguous happened considering the magnitude of the event, by two of the greater beings that had ever walked on Middle-earth and they died in the process. This actually only reinforces my point that these armies aren't going to be able to keep Sauron from making a beeline for the Ring.

I believe that said ringlord would have avoided direct confrontation

And as I said, I don't think they could avoid it as long as they stayed in Middle-earth.

[Raynor]

I don't think that sheer might is what ultimately defines Tolkien's world, quite the contrary case can be made:

Originally Posted by Letter #131

The chief of the stories of the Silmarillion, and the one most fully treated is the Story of Beren and Luthien the Elfmaiden. Here we meet, among other things, the first example of the motive (to become dominant in Hobbits) that the great policies of world history, 'the wheels of the world', are often turned not by the Lords and Governors, even gods, but by the seemingly unknown and weak – owing to the secret life in creation, and the pan unknowable to all wisdom but One, that resides in the intrusions of the Children of God into the Drama. It is Beren the outlawed monal who succeeds (with the help of Luthien, a mere maiden even if an elf of royalty) where all the armies and warriors have failed: he penetrates the stronghold of the Enemy and wrests one of the Silmarilli from the Iron Crown.

In what sense can the statement "the west was military incapable" be true? Certainly not in the absolute one. We can speculate that for a good while of the third age, Sauron's enemies (without the one ring) were a match to him. Up to when? Perhaps the earliest is 2060, when the Wise suspect that his power increases in Dol-Gudur; or 2460, when the watchful peace ends; or 2885, when the haradrim attack Gondor at the bidding of Sauron, or even 2951, when at last Sauron declares himself.

I think that we can only declare the west as military incapable against Sauron, when we find that the following are not synchronized in their favor:

- the period it requires them to build an empire, with the help of the One Ring, necessary to contend Sauron

- when they actually get the One Ring

- when is Sauron powerful enough to attack them first

It can even be argued that the gathering of strength can be hastened by claiming soldiers who obey Sauron's power; Tolkien noted that the nazgul wouldn't be wholly invulnerable to the power of an enemy ringlord, even in the case of Frodo; I would guess that the hosts of Mordor would too be vulnerable to its influence, seeing that they already are driven forth by Sauron's power. The conclusion I would draw is that not all the elements are known, so our estimates are rather inexact; in most, if not all, cases, some timelines favor the the victory of the west, some the victory of Sauron, but the very story of LotR shows us that no outcome is set in stone.

How powerful is Sauron in direct confrontation? Very powerful, most likely, but he is not the same Sauron of the second age. He had expended energy in making himself a new body and in "long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors" - this being also the factors of the diminishing of Melkor's power, who, even he, at the end of the first age, feared of being hurt. I believe that at the end of the third age, Sauron can be defeated in a direct battle.

[Boromir88]

I don't think that killing Sauron by 'mere' warriors is out of the question, seeing that it had already happened once at the end of the second age, in direct combat.~Raynor

I agree that Sauron could be killed in combat, as this clearly happened when he even had possession of the One Ring. However, I believe Sauron learned his lesson and coming out to fight wasn't something he was going to do this time around:

Denethor laughed bitterly. 'Nay, not yet, Master Peregrin! He will not come save only to triumph over me when all is one. He uses others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise, Master Halfling. Or why should I sit here in my tower and think, and watch, and wait, spending even my sons? For I can still wield a brand.'~Siege of Gondor

[Kuruharan]

In what sense can the statement "the west was military incapable" be true?

In the obvious one. They could not defeat Sauron by force of arms.

We can speculate that for a good while of the third age, Sauron's enemies (without the one ring) were a match to him.

No, we can’t speculate that because for much of the Third Age they were not contesting him, they just sat back for the most part.

the period it requires them to build an empire, with the help of the One Ring, necessary to contend Sauron

Exactly, they didn’t have that.

It can even be argued that the gathering of strength can be hastened by claiming soldiers who obey Sauron's power

This has always been a bit of an unclear issue. The Men that followed Sauron (and there were probably plenty enough of these to do the job) were probably not in thrall to the power of the Ring to any large extent. I think they could be counted on to follow Sauron regardless, if for no other reason than the new ringlord, whoever it would be, would be representing something they had hated and fought against for generations.

The orcs, I have to admit, I’m not sure about. On the whole I’m inclined to think they would also continue to follow Sauron for similar reasons to the Men. Whether they could actually attempt to actively harm the new ringlord I think is largely irrelevant. All the orcs would be there for is to help kill the enemy soldiers. Sauron would deal with the new ringlord.

Tolkien noted that the nazgul wouldn't be wholly invulnerable to the power of an enemy ringlord, even in the case of Frodo; I would guess that the hosts of Mordor would too be vulnerable to its influence

But Sauron would remain their master. That is not called into question in the case of the Nazgul, they remain Sauron’s slaves. They would not be needed to deal with the new ringlord. They would be much more effective doing nasty things to the new ringlord’s army.

But regardless of this, this little debate is a waste of time. It was relentlessly stated in the books over and over from the time of the Council of Elrond that the West could not hope to defeat Sauron militarily. The West also utterly lacked the capacity to launch effective offensive actions against Sauron, that in itself is very telling. I find that your argument has no foundation.

I believe that at the end of the third age, Sauron can be defeated in a direct battle.

By Gandalf, nobody else. Saruman couldn’t master the Ring to face Sauron (as the rotting horse corpse lying over there that I’ve had to beat mercilessly for the past few months attests to). Galadriel and Elrond were not of the same order of creation as Sauron and for a number of other reasons just don’t stack up. Aragorn is explicitly denied the ability to best Sauron in such a situation.

I don't know what else there is to say about this.