Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Books Discussion » Discuss the Books » nazgul loyalties [keep]
Author Topic:
frostnome
Council Member
Posts: 3
Send Message
Avatar
Post nazgul loyalties [keep]
on: November 25, 2005 10:55
if someone other than sauron had claimed the ring for himself, would this have made the nazgul obedient to that person, or would they have still obeyed Sauron? this question just started bothering me.

[Edited on 30/12/2007 by cirdaneth]
Tathar
Council Member
Posts: 52
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: nazgul loyalties [keep]
on: November 26, 2005 02:41
It depends I think. Certainly the nazgul did not obey Frodo on Weathertop. But the ring when it was on Mount Doom would have grown to zenith of its' power, Tolkien suggested the Nazgul would then not have been able to try to take the ring by force. Rather, Tolkien said, the Nazgul would hail Frodo as Lord as a feint to try to delay Frodo until Sauron came who would take it by force.
If Gandalf had wielded the ring (which Tolkien said would have been worse for Middle Earth than if Sauron himself had the ring) I suspect the Nazgul would have obeyed Gandalf. Tolkien did not believe anyone else, in one of his letters, had the power to wield the ring. And I know that includes Galadriel and I suspect it included Saruman.

...(Frodo said,) 'But I have so little of any of these things! You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?'
'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too
great, for my strength."

[Edited on 26/11/2005 by Tathar]
PotbellyHairyfoot
Grandpa Moderator
Posts: 2929
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: nazgul loyalties [keep]
on: November 27, 2005 09:18
Remember this , the Nazgul had already sworn fealty to Sauron , or at the least were already his obedient servants, when they were rewarded with the rings. Though it was through the power of the rings that they became what they were, their loyalty was not to the One Ring, but to Sauron. Their obedience to him did not seem to waver, even through the years when the ring was lost. No matter who had the Ring in his possession, Sauron was still their Lord. It may have been possible for someone to supplant him, but it is likely that that could only occur if Sauron was vanquished and replaced.
Eldandil
Council Member
Posts: 4
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: nazgul loyalties [keep]
on: November 27, 2005 09:47
No matter who had the Ring in his possession, Sauron was still their Lord.


For me it seems that if someone would get to know how to use the Ring's real powers, the nazgul would obey him, because it's "the One Ring to bring them all", so the slaves of the Nine are obedient to the power of the One. There is a scene in "The Unfinished Tales" when the Nazgul arrive to Isengard after Gandalf's escape and ask for the Ring. Saruman says that he doesn't have it because if he did they would bow to him as their new master. He must be quite certain about that aspect of Ring's potency if he uses it as a prove. But still we don't know what kind of powers it had and how could someone wield it. Tolkien was very mysterious about that matter probably because he didn't want people to become fascinated by the evil in his books.
Merovia
Council Member
Posts: 2
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: nazgul loyalties [keep]
on: November 29, 2005 03:28
For me it seems that if someone would get to know how to use the Ring's real powers, the nazgul would obey him, because it's "the One Ring to bring them all"


I agree with you on that one... Which also goes well in thread with the thought that Gandalf as wielder of the ring would have been able to control the Nazguls...

Frodo and Bilbo and even Golum were "only" bearer of the rings and therefore did not tempt to use the rings power..
Tar_Meneldur
Council Member
Posts: 7
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: nazgul loyalties [keep]
on: November 29, 2005 05:30
What do you people mean when you say "wield" the ring?

Do you mean use it's power to dominate Middle Earth or for other thing?
I think even a Frodo could have done so, was he not a powerful sight when he beared the ring? did he not intimidate Gollum into obedience? if he did so, it was through the power of the ring, even if he never meant to use it.

Or do you mean to control the Nazgul?
That I think only peoples like Aragorn, Denethor, Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, Gandalf and such could have done. Gandalf warns Frodo never to try to control or call the Nazgul, because he would not have the strenght, he says that only powerful people could do such thing without risking capture. Also Saruman in the Unfinished tales tells the Nazgul that if he had the ring he would the master of them all.

Or could you mean that having the ring, the person would be able to confront Sauron and not let him take the ring by force?
If so I don't know who would be able to do so, of the ones I mentioned above I believe Tolkien mentioned no human could do it. But I don't know about the others, Gandalf, Saruman and Galadriel seem quite sure they could become the lord of the ring, but I can doubt Galadriel and Elrond could, they were not Maiar as Sauron.
Morna_Child_of_Eru
Council Member
Posts: 136
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: nazgul loyalties [keep]
on: November 29, 2005 11:14
Actually Tolkien answered this in one of his letters (#246). He says Sauron sent the Wraiths as soon as he sensed that Frodo had claimed the Ring.

They (the Ringwraiths) were naturally fully instructed, and in no way decieved as to the real lordship of the Ring...Would they have been immune from it's power if he (Frodo) claimed it as an instrament of command and dominion? Not wholly. I do not think they could have attacked him...nor laid hold upon him or taken him captive; they would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor commands of his that did interfeare with thier errand (which was) laid upon them by Sauron, who still through thier nine rings -which he held- had primary control of thier wills. That errand was to remove Frodo from the Crack...they would have greated Frodo as "Lord." With fair speaches they would have induced him to leave the Sammath Naur -for instance to 'look upon his new kingdom'...Once outside the chamber, some of them would have destroyed the entrance...if he (Frodo) refused to go with them to Barad-Dur, they would simply have waited until Sauron himself came. In any case a confrontation of Frodo with Sauron would soon have taken place, if the Ring was still intact. Frodo would have been utterly overthrown, crushed to dust, or preserved in torment as a gibbering slave...Sauron would not have feared the Ring...in his actual presence none but very few of equal starue could have hoped to withold it from him, of mortals no one, not even Aragorn...only Gandalf might be expected to master him, being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order...If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring...but the Ring and all it's works would have endured. Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained righteous, but self-righteous. While Sauron multiplied evil, he left good clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good destestable and seem evil."


That last line reminds me of things happen under the rule of oppressive religious groups. There is much good in faith, but used the wrong way, the power of spiritual leadership can cause people to destest everything associated with God, even what could help them. Or, from other fantasy liturature, it's like what happens to some of the dwarfs at the end of The Last Battle in the Chronicles of Narnia series. They are so disillusioned by a false Aslan that they cannot accept the presence or gifts of the real one.




[Edited on 30/11/2005 by Morna_Child_of_Eru]
Tathar
Council Member
Posts: 52
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: nazgul loyalties [keep]
on: November 30, 2005 06:54
Thank you for your quote. I no longer have the book to dig out the exact quote. I am glad you did.
Your afterthougth is interesting to me. Because in the world we live in, we see a multiplicity of differences. Ethnic, tribal, ideological, economical, gender and gender oriented, religious, and yes even personal "differences" that divides us and blinds us.
I believe if Sauron was present on this earth nothing would please Sauron more to see us quarrel and war. And I am sure Sauron would be gleeful at man's marring and destruction of nature. Tolkien himself did not believe Sauron would take a form in this world but that did not stop him from adding the world is full of "Sarumans". How true that is!
But I never forget the thought in the books that "little hands" can accomplish great things. So there is always hope.
Maybe someday man will awaken to a feeling of oneness among us. But heck that is just "a fool's hope" I guess.

[Edited on 1/12/2005 by Tathar]
The_seventh_Ringbearer
Council Member
Posts: 179
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: nazgul loyalties [keep]
on: January 06, 2006 08:25
I realize that the quote two posts above has already answered the question, but I just have to put my two cents in.

Personally, I think that Frodo never truly claimed the Ring. If he had declared the Ring as his near Minas Morgul or the Shire, or anywhere else in Middle-earth, I would agree that the Nazgul would have difficulty with their loyalties. But Frodo claimed it in the place where the Ring reached its pinnacle of power. Its will completely overshadowed Frodo's. I don't think he really claimed it, his mind was just overtaken by the Ring, he had no say in the matter. He was at that point, a husk, a possessed shell. The Ringwraiths would have had no problems with taking him to Suaron.

If you disagree with my view, or you find that it contradicts what Tolkien wrote, please just PM me and I'll take it off. Telling me on here won't work because for some reason, I'm not getting my e-mail notifications. :disco:
thrain
Council Member
Posts: 44
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: nazgul loyalties [keep]
on: December 30, 2007 11:48
ED: Moved here from "Can Nazguls Die?" thread now deleted.

can nazguls die? the witchking was the most powerful of the nine and he died . so i guessed the other nazgul could also die.
but on the weathertop aragorn set some of the on fire (how they survived i dont know i would die if i was on fire ) . and also if they could die how did you have to destroy them.
and what happens to them after they died...?

would please someone help me with it cause it really confuses me.

PotbellyHairyfoot replied:
The nazgul originally started out as men. they were given elvish rings of power by Sauron and gradually became nothing but foul, fleshless, spirits completely tied to the fate of their master.
On Weathertop, and also when the waters of the Ford washed over them, they were not killed, but they lost their apparel and became nothing but shades until they put on new garments.
In the case of the death of the Witch-king, the power of the blade from the Barrow-Downs broke the spell of his Ring and made him flesh again so that Eowyn could finish him.
For more information you could go to our encyclpedia entries on nazgul, and theWitch-King of Angmar, by clicking on the words in bold type.

[Edited on 30/12/2007 by cirdaneth]
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: July 21, 2013 12:10
*bump
Elthir
Council Member
Posts: 433
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: July 22, 2013 08:45
In the case of the death of the Witch-king, the power of the blade from the Barrow-Downs broke the spell of his Ring and made him flesh again so that Eowyn could finish him.


This much often comes up in 'who killed the Witch-king threads' but I have to add that I don't agree with this interpretation of the blade and spell.

The spell that was broken knit the Witch-king's will to his sinews -- thus I think the spell connected his will to his invisible body -- if the spell is broken, the arguable result, in my opinion, is that the will is no longer connected, or knit, to the body.

And to me the result of this is the W-king losing the ability to will his body to act -- at this crucial moment -- thus after Merry's strike he cannot avoid or deflect a blow from a struggling Eowyn.

And he does not. His body is slain [and is reduced to nothing even if invisible anyway], his spirit departs... and whether or not he could return to 'live again' is a question answered by the destruction of the One in any case.

Now I realize this is interpretation, but all I'm pointing out is that no where in the description of the fall of the Witch-king does it necessarily say that the Witch-king was made flesh again after Merry's strike, nor that his invisible 'sinews' could not be struck by a regular blade before Merry struck.

'No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will'.


[Edited on 07/22/2013 by Elthir]
Lord_Sauron
Council Member
Posts: 7389
Send Message
Post
on: July 26, 2013 03:32
I wonder if the Nazgul had the same loyalty towards Sauron, As Sauron had towards Morgoth.
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email