The significance of the destruction of the Ring

[Inziladun]

Good thread!

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Is it possible that the reality was that they "could not" act? Could they have been prohibited from acting against Sauron, by Eru or perhaps by the Music? When they sent the Istari to Middle Earth the Wizards were sent as Men in form and were either prohibited or unable to match Sauron's force with force. The implication is that Sauron's defeat had to be accomplished by Men with a little aid from Elves, Dwarves and Gandalf, or not at all. Could "fate" have prohibited the Valar from acting?

It is said in the UT Istari essay that it was with Eru's consent, that they sent members of their order incarnate to Middle-earth to direct the fight against Sauron, not to do Middle-earth's work for it.

If the Valar with force acting to overthrow Morgoth in the First Age was not a violation of the Arda version of the Prime Directive, why would the war against his lesser lieutenant be so?

I think the ban of force was indeed of the Valar themselves for the purposes of, as you said, protecting the land and people of Middle-earth, as well as removing the 'fight fire with fire' temptation from the Istari. That idea could have been 'from Eru', but put into the heart of Manwë when making such momentous decisions. Middle-earth already had Sauron and the remaining Balrogs to deal with as incarnate angelic spirits; too powerful for Eru's children to deal with. Why introduce the window for another Sauron, lording his divine status over weaker beings? The fact that the ban was a wise move is seen in Saruman, of course. Being chained in his real body watered him down to a manageable threat for Men (with help from the Ents, naturally). Imagine a Saruman free to revel in his powers and use his own might to face Sauron. I see the outcome as the same as Saruman gaining the Ring. If he had defeated Sauron, he would simply have replaced him.