# Third Age Sauron or Second Age Sauron?



## Anamatar IV (Aug 22, 2002)

*Sauron*

Which sauron did you think was more powerful? I think the 3rd age sauron because even without the ring he almost conquered the world.


----------



## Beorn (Aug 23, 2002)

I've closed this thread on the request of Grond, and by the consent of Anamatar IIII due to the fact that 'it may influence the debate between the Guild of Ost-in-Edhil and the Guild of Periaur'

I will (or someone else who remembers) reopen it on Monday.


----------



## Ithrynluin (May 12, 2003)

Thread reopened. Mike, you obviously let 'A few Mondays' slip by. 

Let's discuss.


----------



## BlackCaptain (May 12, 2003)

I have to totaly agree with you Anamatar. He came closer to winning over ME and he didn't even have the Ring in the Third Age


----------



## Ithrynluin (May 12, 2003)

But keep in mind that the forces of Elves and Men were much stronger in the Second Age. The Noldor had a High King and Gondor and Arnor were still part of one large, _united_ kingdom. There was no such alliance of Elves and Men to be seen afterwards - they became estranged for the most part.

Second Age Sauron also achieved the drowning of Anadune, which is no small feat. He eliminated one of his greatest foes - the Numenoreans. How would Sauron have fared in the 3rd Age if the vast fleets of Numenor had still been around then?

My vote goes to Second Age Sauron.


----------



## YayGollum (May 13, 2003)

Makes all kinds of sense. You can't judge how powerful somebody is just because of how strong the other people are. Besides, didn't the guy have more powers back then? In the second age, I mean.


----------



## Maerbenn (May 13, 2003)

From a footnote to letter #183:


> When he found how greatly his knowledge was admired by all other rational creatures and how easy it was to influence them, his pride became boundless. By the end of the Second Age he assumed the position of Morgoth’s representative. By the end of the Third Age (*though actually much weaker than before*) he claimed to be Morgoth returned.


----------



## Lantarion (May 13, 2003)

My answer is a little illegitamate, but here goes: I think Sauron in the Third Age, though obviously radically weaker than in any other Age, had the _possibility_ or being more powerful than before; all that kept him from setting himself up as possibly the mightiest Maia ever was his lack of a small band of gold. 
So as he is portrayed in the LotR, he was far weaker than in the 2nd Age; but with the Ring he would have been unstoppable by any force except the Powers. 

And ithryn, do you think that Sauron had the Drowning of Númenórë in mind when he urged Ar-Pharazôn to attack Aman? I have always thought that he only intended to send the fleets to their deaths by the hands of the Valar, and that Ilúvatar's intervention came as a complete surprise (backed up by the fact that he lost his physical form in the Downfall! ).


----------



## Ithrynluin (May 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *And ithryn, do you think that Sauron had the Drowning of Númenórë in mind when he urged Ar-Pharazôn to attack Aman? I have always thought that he only intended to send the fleets to their deaths by the hands of the Valar, and that Ilúvatar's intervention came as a complete surprise. *



I don't think he had that in mind. But his goal would have been accomplished with all those Númenoreans dead. If Eru hadn't caused the drowning, Sauron could have been the ruler of Numenor! 

And what about First Age Sauron? He wasn't exactly a weakling back then either.


----------



## Inderjit S (May 13, 2003)

Doesnt this quote imply that Sauron was at the zenith of his power in the S.A?



> Sauron was 'greater' effectively in the Second Age then Morgoth at the end of the first....


 M.T; HoME 10


----------



## Beleg (May 13, 2003)

> And what about First Age Sauron? He wasn't exactly a weakling back then either.



Ah, but at that time he wasn't the master. If he did any thing, most likely the credit would go to Morgoth. Beside, during the first age Beleriand was infested with hero's and warlike figures of great stature and I don't think Sauron could have withstood all of them.


----------



## FrankSinatra (May 14, 2003)

*Yes*

I agree with some sentiments here.

To judge a ruler in any age, you have to look at the kind of oppostion he was facing.

The waning Gondor, and almost 'Rural' men of Rohan were nowhere near a match for the hosts in the days of the last alliance.

With that, you can also see how much more powerful Morgoth was (is).


----------



## YayGollum (May 14, 2003)

Ack! What does some guy's opposition have to do with his power? I was thinking that power only had to do with whatever abilities the guy has all by himself, but maybe the number of minions he has helps out, too. Combining the abilities has had all by himself and his minions in the second age, I gots to stick with the second age Sauron. Crazy people.


----------



## FoolOfATook (May 14, 2003)

Amazingly enough, I'm with YayGollum! here. If we were judging his achievements, then we would have to judge his enemies, but since we're just judging how powerful he was...


----------



## Ithrynluin (May 14, 2003)

And in order to have a record of great achievements, you have to be very very powerful...


----------



## FrankSinatra (May 15, 2003)

*Yes*

Well, if you lived in a small town, and you were the mayor of a council were everyone liked you, you would be the most powerful would you not?

Tony Blair is far more powerful than many previous governments here in the UK, simply because there is not a decent opposing party.

Yet if there is a decent opposition, a ruler of any kind, seems somewhat less powerful.

Or that is how i see it anyway.


----------



## YayGollum (May 15, 2003)

Well, sure, if we were comparing Sauron's power with some else's, the forces of other people would matter. Too bad we're just comparing Sauron to himself, huh?


----------



## FrankSinatra (May 18, 2003)

*Well*

I dont think we are doing things that simply.

You have to look at who he was fighting against at the time to judge which was the stronger.

For example, would 'Henry VIII' have the political power today he had then? Of course not.


----------



## YayGollum (May 19, 2003)

Ack! That example doesn't have much to do with this topic. Political power is a lot different from physical power. Besides, that political thing works because political type things changed. Physical power type stuffs that we're talking about doesn't.


----------



## FrankSinatra (May 20, 2003)

*Ok*

I feel as if im talking to children who dont see the point here......the example matters little, the point is what i am trying to make.

Lets try another, if there are a group of men, who are all weak and thin, apart from one of them who is a Mike Tyson like man, this makes the Tyson the strongest, yes? By a far stretch.

Yet if you get a group of Tyson like men, then the Tyson who was with the weak group would not be as strong in comparison to his opposition? Though he himself does not change.

Get it?


----------



## YayGollum (May 20, 2003)

Ack! Yes, I get that. It makes all kinds of sense. You must be agreeing with me and saying that the group of big and scary types is Sauron from the second age and the other group is Sauron from the third age. If not, it doesn't make sense. We're comparing one person to himself at a different time. If you want to talk about the odds he's up against, try thinking of these two Saurons in a fight.


----------



## FrankSinatra (May 20, 2003)

*Well*

'If you want to talk about the odds he's up against, try thinking of these two Saurons in a fight. '

Its slowly going in.

But what if Ali had never fought any fighter of note? Would that have diminished his well deserved reputation?


----------



## YayGollum (May 20, 2003)

When you said this ---> "You have to look at who he was fighting against at the time to judge which was the stronger." I was thinking that you meant it. Now you're changing it to compare Sauron to himself like you should have been the whole time. Got it. I love getting insulted when people suddenly change what they're talking about.  Anyways, if you are now saying that my idea of your view on the two groups is right, then you must agree that the Sauron from the second age is the best. Yay! 

What's all of this craziness about fame have to do with anything? We're suddenly talking about the power of intimidation? Okay. Sure, it makes all kinds of sense that he'd be more famous in the third age. But still. The other creepy powers he had in the second age are cooler.


----------



## FrankSinatra (May 21, 2003)

*How tedious*

"You have to look at who he was fighting against at the time to judge which was the stronger." 

I did meant it!

I meant - which i thought was fairly clear - that one should judge which Sauron age was stronger, based upon his opponents.

But you didnt get the 'opponents' explanation either.

Why do i feel as though im wasting my time here?

Can anyone else see what i mean? Its not an exactly difficult concept.


----------



## YayGollum (May 22, 2003)

When you said all of this craziness --->

'If you want to talk about the odds he's up against, try thinking of these two Saurons in a fight. '

Its slowly going in.

I was assuming that you were agreeing with what I had to say about the two groups you were talking about being Saurun versus himself at a different time. Now it sounds like you're saying that one group was Sauron in one age versus the opponents he had then. Still doesn't look like you're comparing him to himself. sorry that I thought you were agreeing with me before. If you feel like I'm really so achingly dense, why don't you explain yourself as if I'm a little kid? I don't get where you're comparing him to himself now that you're saying you didn't agree with me. Comparing him to opponents from different ages has nothing to do with comparing him to himself.


----------



## FrankSinatra (May 23, 2003)

Are you being deliberately ignorant?

The point is not so complex. and i have not the patience to explain it again, you are not a child.

Read back and let me know when you have found enlightenment.


----------



## YayGollum (May 24, 2003)

No, I happen to be achingly proud of my genuine ignorance. sorry about that.  Anyways, got it. You don't have the patience to try proving your point. Looks like I win.  Sure, I've read all of the posts you wrote for this thread. Why not? Maybe my stubbornity is getting in the way of seeing how you're keeping on topic.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 3, 2005)

To comprare the Third age Sauron and the Second age Sauron we must comprare his deed in the Second and in the Thind age 

Sauron in the Second age:

He came to Eregion to 'help' the Elven smiths
He 'helped' the Elves to make the Rings of Power because he wanted to control the Middle earth using the Rings
He forged secretly the One Ring to enslave the holders of the other Rings of Power
He caused the Fall of Númenor
He killed Celebrimbor and overruned Eriador
He took the Rings of Dwarves and the Rings of Men
He was overthrown by the Last Alliance
Sauron in the Third age

He still lived in the Middle earth but he has no body
He made problems in Mirkwood
He caused the War of the Ring
His servants made problems all over the Middle earth
He was finally overthrown
Well, I think Sauron in the Second age was more powerful, then he had the One Ring but in the Third age the Ring was lost and he has never take it again.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 3, 2005)

As it was already mentioned in this forum, one's deeds are not a measure of one's own power. The events set in motion and their results are very much independent of one's power. 

And you are wrong to say Sauron had no body in the Third Age:
- Smeagol actually talks about him having one: (He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough)
- Tolkien himself says in a letter about LotR: 'Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic.'


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 3, 2005)

That's interesting but why not? Why not to measure one's deeds of one's own power? He has a power ---> many deeds. And we talk about Sauron - if he has enough power he will enslave the free peoples of the Middle earth. 
And about the body... maybe you're correct


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 3, 2005)

We are talking about Sauron's own power.

It wasn't Frodo's or Gollum's own power at work when they succeeded in destroying the one ring. No, it was God's grace - Gandalf believes in its action when he says: 
Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it. And that may be an encouraging thought
Also Elrond proves it when he says:
Called, I say, though I have not called you to me, strangers from distant lands. You have come and are met here, in this very nick of time, by chance as it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather that it is so ordered that we, who sit here, and none others, must now find counsel for the peril of the world."

It is unreasonable to believe that the hobbits destroyed the ring out of their own reservoir of power. Through this parallel I intend to prove that the result of one's actions are not a measure of one's power, but the result of the interaction with other's power too and, of course, with the power of the chance (or to be more correct - the grace and the will of Eru, towards which everything converges).


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 4, 2005)

My vote goes to the second-age Sauron, for obvious reasons posted before.


----------



## Telëlambe (Jun 14, 2005)

Well, i dont think that Eru gave the frodo, bilbo, sam or gollum and perticular advantages over other people regarding the ring. But i do think that they had a slight advantage in resistance (as hobbits or as these perticular hobbits) and so that is why they were 'ment to have it' and it was probably sung into the songs at the very beginning that this would happen. 

Souron was more powerfull in the second age in my opinion. being given the power to dominate all life and all.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 14, 2005)

> Well, i dont think that Eru gave the frodo, bilbo, sam or gollum and perticular advantages over other people regarding the ring. But i do think that they had a slight advantage in resistance (as hobbits or as these perticular hobbits) and so that is why they were 'ment to have it' and it was probably sung into the songs at the very beginning that this would happen.


I don't think it's a matter of resistance. My guess is that most (any?) dwarves have better resistance that any hobbit - what saved Bilbo and Sam, at least, was their goodness not their resistance. Both of these two (I am reffering only to them, because Frodo is too much of a victim of the ring) felt the awesome power of the ring, but it was their commitment to "the good side" (not a natural resistance, with which the dwarves are more endowed) that saved them.


----------



## Telëlambe (Jun 15, 2005)

Dwarves have a resistance to hardship and oppression, but aule did'nt design them with the thought of resisting corruption from within. But having never known a Dwarf to posses the one ring we will never know. I think hobbits were put there for a purpose, to save the world, and were given the correct equipment for it, because if they didn't find a way, no one would. 
But any way, we are getting off the subject. Sauron was far more powerfull in the second age than the 1st, and the alliance that broke him was big enough to rival the joining of armies that made war on Morgoth in the Battle of Un-numbered tears.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 15, 2005)

Second age,m before the numenorians showed up, he was ruling ME!


----------

