The "Saruman, The Lord Of The Rings?" Debate.

[YayGollum]

Team A (the Annaheru, Bethelarien, chrysophalax, and ithrynluin people) would argue: Saruman had considerable chances at becoming the new Ring-lord and had good reason to think so.

Team B (the Ichigo, Ingwe, Maedhros, Seregon, and YayGollum people): Saruman had little to no chance at becoming the new Ring-lord, and was foolish to think so.

Also, becoming a Ring-lord = Supplanting Sauron as the Dark Lord.

Have fun, then, whoever posts first.

[Ithrynluin]

Team A will argue that Saruman had ample chances at becoming the new Ring-lord and was right in thinking so. I will open the debate by illustrating shortly the main points:

First and foremost, it is well known that the One Ring projected illusions of grandeur to whomever bore it, regardless of the inherent power of the person. These visions are rightly called “illusions” not only in the case of hobbits, but also when it came to the great majority of other, vastly more powerful individuals.

However, Saruman shared two crucial characteristics with Sauron. They were both:
a) Maiar, beings of equal stature
b) of the people of Aulë the Smith

Thus, they had a lot of traits/knowledge/interests in common.

In addition, Saruman had spent countless centuries immersing himself in ring-lore and studying the devices of Sauron, so he was one step ahead of even those mighty individuals who could viably have wielded the Ring against its creator.
It is therefore not merely conceivable, but highly probable, that Saruman could have become the new Ring lord.

Furthermore, though the Ring had never come directly within his grasp, it is evident that Saruman had not only the means to take the Ring, but also put forth a lot of effort into gaining it for himself. Trapping Gandalf the Grey himself within Orthanc is but one case in point!

Continuing on, Saruman created a brand new strain of ork, mightier and more durable than those employed by Sauron or even Melkor. This deed, hideous though it may seem to us (involving the cross-breeding of man and ork), presents further proof of just how capable and powerful -- and therefore ready to supplant the Dark Lord himself -- Saruman was.

Furthermore, one may argue that the appearance of the crebain, the crow-like birds that passed over the Fellowship in Hollin and presumably spied on them, as well as the unfortunate events at Caradhras, the mountain that seemed alive with malice, are both events masterminded by Saruman. Even though the latter, at least, is not stated anywhere outright, it is very much feasible that those were both Saruman's doing, especially keeping in mind just how freakishly precise his Uruk-hai were in intercepting the Fellowship, a fact that strongly suggests Saruman was tracking the Fellowship all along and was merely waiting to pounce at the right place at the right time.

So, the gist of Team A's argument is that Saruman possessed not only the talent and skils, but also immense cunning and persistence, all of those doubtless prerequisites for achieving something as formidable as becoming the new Ring-lord.

[Maedhros]

The topic of the debate is something like this:
"Saruman had considerable chances at replacing Sauron as the Ring-lord and had good reason to think so."
I think that the answer to that premise is that no.
Lets look at a timeline:

1. The istari arrived in me circa 1100 TA.
2. The power of Dol Guldur grows. The Wise fear that it may be Sauron taking shape again. 2060 TA.
3. The White Council is formed. About this time Déagol the Stoor finds the One Ring, and is murdered by Sméagol. 2463 TA
4. The White Council meets. Gandalf urges an attack on Dol Guldur. Saruman overrules him. Saruman begins to search near the Gladden Fields. 2851 TA
5. Saruman discovers that Sauron's servants are searching the Anduin near Gladden Fields, and that Sauron therefore has learned of Isildur's end. He is alarmed, but says nothing to the Council. 2939 TA

Now to the topic in specific:
Could Saruman replace Sauron as the "Lord of the Rings"? Of course not. Why could he not do that?
Because it was impossible to defeat Sauron militarily. His armies were far mightier than those of the "good guys" combined.
For Saruman it would have been even worse, because, he would not have any allies. His natural allies (Elrond, Galadriel, Gondor, Rohan, etc) would not have joined him as his vassals in his fight against Sauron, to the contrary they would be against him, and against the power of the forces of Sauron.
Even with his "great" power of persuasion he could not make Elves and Orcs fight in the same side.
His Orkish army made Saruman weaker because it isolated him from both sides.

Sauron had another, great advantage over Saruman, that would have make it imposible for Saruman to replace Sauron as the Ring Lord:
From Myths Transformed
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
It would have been very difficult to plot against Sauron, if he knew in advance what Saruman would do.

Now, lets imagine that Saruman, had obtained the One Ring, even then he couldn't defeat Sauron in order to become the "Lord of the Rings"
From the Letters of JRRT: 246

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. In the 'Mirror of Galadriel', 1381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond. But this is another matter. It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power. But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as is seen in Elrond's words at the Council. Galadriel's rejection of the temptation was founded upon previous thought and resolve. In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force. Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end.
The author states, that only Gandalf, being of the same race as Sauron could defeat him. Even though that Saruman is a maiar like them, he is not mentioned in here.

[Ithrynluin]

Could Saruman replace Sauron as the "Lord of the Rings"? Of course not. Why could he not do that? Because it was impossible to defeat Sauron militarily. His armies were far mightier than those of the "good guys" combined.

It was not impossible to defeat Sauron if one obtained the One Ring, which Saruman had almost done (and was right to think he could obtain it), save for the unfortunate case of there being an additional pair of halflings in the Fellowship, which was pretty much the only nuisance separating Saruman from the Ring.

For Saruman it would have been even worse, because, he would not have any allies. His natural allies (Elrond, Galadriel, Gondor, Rohan, etc) would not have joined him as his vassals in his fight against Sauron, to the contrary they would be against him, and against the power of the forces of Sauron.
Even with his "great" power of persuasion he could not make Elves and Orcs fight in the same side.
His Orkish army made Saruman weaker because it isolated him from both sides.

Nope. Do you think that if Galadriel, for example, had claimed the One Ring, the others would have just joined along? Wanting and finally claiming the One was evil in itself and meant becoming evil. By taking the Ring, any of the 'good guys' would have alienated all of their former allies, and the only way they could convince them to join was through brute force. Therefore, singling Saruman out makes no sense. Anyhow, I imagine losing your allies would not be such a grievous blow once you had the One Ring on your finger.

Sauron had another, great advantage over Saruman, that would have make it imposible for Saruman to replace Sauron as the Ring Lord:
From Myths Transformed
Quote:
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
It would have been very difficult to plot against Sauron, if he knew in advance what Saruman would do.

That road goes both ways, like I already pointed out in my first post. Over the years, Saruman had made a good effort at 'knowing thy enemy' by studying long and hard the devices of Sauron. Also, Saruman outwitted Sauron when it was his Uruk-hai, not Sauron's orks, who took home the "prize", i.e. the two hobbits who were supposed to be carrying the ultimate weapon. Obviously, Sauron did not know about that. Thus, Saruman betrayed both sides (very subtly) and was pursuing his own agenda, unbeknownst to Sauron.

Now, lets imagine that Saruman, had obtained the One Ring, even then he couldn't defeat Sauron in order to become the "Lord of the Rings"
From the Letters of JRRT: 246
The author states, that only Gandalf, being of the same race as Sauron could defeat him. Even though that Saruman is a maiar like them, he is not mentioned in here.

1) That Saruman is not mentioned does not equate to "He could not do it".

2) In any case, you put the quote of context. That quote is about defeating Sauron in one on one combat (while the other person was wearing the One Ring), hypothetically. Whether Saruman is mentioned in such a context or not is wholly irrelevant here, because a wise leader who had got hold of the Ring would have proceeded to do exactly what Elrond and Galadriel would have done in that case. From the same letter:

In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force.

Now, look at what kind of an army Saruman was capable of mustering even without the Ring, imagine what he would have done if he had got his hands on it, which, as I have showed above, he was on a good path to achieving just that, and was very much right to think he could.

And couple his immense commanding presence (not just his voice which in itself was a power to be reckoned with) with the power of the One Ring, and you have yourself a new Ring-lord more than capable of ousting Sauron.

[Maedhros]

It was not impossible to defeat Sauron if one obtained the One Ring, which Saruman had almost done (and was right to think he could obtain it), save for the unfortunate case of there being an additional pair of halflings in the Fellowship, which was pretty much the only nuisance separating Saruman from the Ring.
It is a matter of numbers really. Sauron's forces are way to much for the other guys West+Saruman+etc to be defeated in battle. The only way to defeat Sauron was to destroy the Ring.
If Saruman had gained the One Ring, that would not have made him invincible. At the End of the Second Age, Sauron with his Ring was defeated by Elendil and Gil-Galad.

Nope. Do you think that if Galadriel, for example, had claimed the One Ring, the others would have just joined along? Wanting and finally claiming the One was evil in itself and meant becoming evil. By taking the Ring, any of the 'good guys' would have alienated all of their former allies, and the only way they could convince them to join was through brute force. Therefore, singling Saruman out makes no sense. Anyhow, I imagine losing your allies would not be such a grievous blow once you had the One Ring on your finger.
In warafare, if you have less forces, means having less hope for success.

That road goes both ways, like I already pointed out in my first post. Over the years, Saruman had made a good effort at 'knowing thy enemy' by studying long and hard the devices of Sauron. Also, Saruman outwitted Sauron when it was his Uruk-hai, not Sauron's orks, who took home the "prize", i.e. the two hobbits who were supposed to be carrying the ultimate weapon. Obviously, Sauron did not know about that. Thus, Saruman betrayed both sides (very subtly) and was pursuing his own agenda, unbeknownst to Sauron.
If Saruman had gained the One Ring, he would have just made Sauron's work.

From the Lord of the Rings
‘This is worse than Mordor!’ said Sam. ‘Much worse in a way. It comes home to you, as they say; because it is home, and you remember it before it was all ruined.’
‘Yes, this is Mordor,’ said Frodo. ‘Just one of its works. Saruman was doing its work all the time, even when he thought he was working for himself. And the same with those that Saruman tricked, like Lotho.’

If Saruman had gained the One Ring, it would have been Sauron's.
1. Saruman could not defeat Sauron one on one even if he had the Ring.
2. Saruman's forces are not a match for Sauron's.

1) That Saruman is not mentioned does not equate to "He could not do it".

2) In any case, you put the quote of context. That quote is about defeating Sauron in one on one combat (while the other person was wearing the One Ring), hypothetically. Whether Saruman is mentioned in such a context or not is wholly irrelevant here, because a wise leader who had got hold of the Ring would have proceeded to do exactly what Elrond and Galadriel would have done in that case.

Now, look at what kind of an army Saruman was capable of mustering even without the Ring, imagine what he would have done if he had got his hands on it, which, as I have showed above, he was on a good path to achieving just that, and was very much right to think he could.

And couple his immense commanding presence (not just his voice which in itself was a power to be reckoned with) with the power of the One Ring, and you have yourself a new Ring-lord more than capable of ousting Sauron.
In your 1 point, is interesting. You have one Maia, Saruman, that in the book had tried to obtain the Ring, and was not even mentioned that he could defeat Sauron by the author of the book. Hmmmmm

2. Saruman/Elrond/Galadriel, if they had tried to built up an army, do you seriously think that Sauron would just sit there without doing nothing? He would just beat their armies and regain the Ring. It is impossible to defeat his armies, the only way to defeat Sauron was to destroy the Ring.

What happened to the other posters?

[Annaheru]

It is a matter of numbers really. Sauron's forces are way to much for the other guys West+Saruman+etc to be defeated in battle. The only way to defeat Sauron was to destroy the Ring.

In warafare, if you have less forces, means having less hope for success.


I would dispute both these statements. Military tactictians have never recognized this idea as valid. How did Hannibal defeat the largest Roman army ever assembled if the deciding factor of combat was numbers? The Chinese military genius Sun Tzu, in his Art of War, layed down principles by which any army could achieve victory. A smaller force can win any battle or campaign if that forces has two critical factors: superior skills and timing.

Saruman's Uruk-hai were superior to the orcs of Mordor, thus the deciding factor would be timing. Tolkien has already given us an example of how a mistimed throw will go astray: Sauron's assault of Minas Tirith was rushed because of Aragorn's intervention. Gandalf says "from afar I sense his haste and fear." That hasty assault was repulsed by a numerically inferior force.

But if just seeing Isildur's heir could have such effects, what rash acts would Sauron's fear cause if he knew that the Ring was on the hand of a powerful rival? Much of his available force might be wasted in asault on Gondor requiring new levies to be called out of the East. During this time Saruman's power would grow, allowing him to develop a force capable of defeated Mordor in open combat. While this course may not be easy, it is certainly possible with the probabilities increasing to certain the farther back in time you place Saruman's possession of the Ring.






If Saruman had gained the One Ring, he would have just made Sauron's work.

No. He would be doing Morgoth's work. It only became Sauron's work after Morgoth departed the scene: by extension, if Saruman should defeat Sauron and assume the title and power of Dark Lord, it would be called Saruman's work.

[YayGollum]

I was at work. Whoops.

Okay, so, "the evil Saruman had little to no chance at becoming the new Ring-lord, and was foolish to think so," is what I am supposed to be proving. I shall take that a step further! The evil Saruman definitely had zero chance at becoming the new Lord Of The Rings and was crazy foolish to think that he could have! :rolleyes:

What is a Lord Of The Rings? A dude who controls Rings Of Power, yes? How to do that? Grab that One Ring thing and somehow mess with the settings (which only appear after you've soaked it in acid for a while, or something like that) so that your brain is creepily linked to the brains of beings who are wearing other Rings Of Power, then somehow bypass their free will to force them to do whatever you feel like forcing them to do. No way could Saruman do that. How would he get the One Ring? Yep, we read that The Lord Of The Rings story. He tried. Was unable to grab it. It was destroyed by poor Smeagol, the hero.

Or am I supposed to be making all kinds of crazy speculations as to what would have happened if the guy had been able to obtain the thing? Or speculate about whether he could make a brand new (probably multi-colored and sporting some flashy rocks on it) as well as Saruman-oriented Ruling type Ring that was just as good as Sauron's?

For the first speculation, nope, it wouldn't work. The evil torturer Gandalf showed up and messed with his power source. He would be nowhere nearly as cool as Sauron. The One Ring thing only enhances powers that you already have, yes? Well, and allows only Sauron to grow an unlimited number of new bodies. The power that the One Ring thing would have to enhance probably wouldn't be too bad, but we can be certain that it wouldn't be good enough.

For the second, also a nope. Mostly because he was obviously unable to make a replacement. He had been experimenting. And how long had he been studying up on the subject? Garn, yo. Find a new hobby. One that you can actually employ talents towards. If he was capable of making his own, why would he have so pathetically closed up shop and left to torture nasssty hobbitses? :D

[Bethelarien]

It is a matter of numbers really. Sauron's forces are way to much for the other guys West+Saruman+etc to be defeated in battle. The only way to defeat Sauron was to destroy the Ring.
If Saruman had gained the One Ring, that would not have made him invincible. At the End of the Second Age, Sauron with his Ring was defeated by Elendil and Gil-Galad.


In warafare, if you have less forces, means having less hope for success.

If Saruman had gained the One Ring, it would have been Sauron's.
1. Saruman could not defeat Sauron one on one even if he had the Ring.
2. Saruman's forces are not a match for Sauron's.

To echo Annaheru's sentiment in a slightly more crass way: What the ****?

Once again, fewer numbers doesn't mean diddly squat. Look at all of the groups in our own history that have been victorious with a smaller group, or at least been incredibly effective. The American colonists had far fewer men and were even more poorly trained than the British, and we still one that one. What about the 300 Spartans that stood up to tens of thousands of Persians? Sure, eventually they all were killed, but how many thousands of Persians did they take with them?

And on the flip side, America sent more troops to Vietnam than Vietnam had, and we still lost that one.

Moral of the story: Greater numbers does not necessarily equal victory.

What is a Lord Of The Rings? A dude who controls Rings Of Power, yes? How to do that? Grab that One Ring thing and somehow mess with the settings (which only appear after you've soaked it in acid for a while, or something like that) so that your brain is creepily linked to the brains of beings who are wearing other Rings Of Power, then somehow bypass their free will to force them to do whatever you feel like forcing them to do. No way could Saruman do that. How would he get the One Ring? Yep, we read that The Lord Of The Rings story. He tried. Was unable to grab it. It was destroyed by poor Smeagol, the hero.

Or am I supposed to be making all kinds of crazy speculations as to what would have happened if the guy had been able to obtain the thing?

Actually, Yay, that's exactly what we're supposed to be doing. The question is not "Did Saruman become the Ring-lord," it is "Saruman had considerable chances to become Ring-lord and had good reason to think so." So yes, we're speculating and hypothesizing.

We know that in the end, Saruman's plans were foiled. We know that in the end, the Ring was destroyed. Yes, he made a few key mistakes. However, that doesn't lessen his hypothetical chance at being Ring-lord.

If you have any doubts about that, you may reference Ithrynluin's above posts. :)

[YayGollum]

Greetings, Bethelarien person, all bragging about winning a debate by yourself. :rolleyes: sorry about the first parts of my post. They were merely stepping through a bunch of stuff that everyone already knew, except the part about me being at work. But as to my doubts about how your side's argument could make any sense, I haven't seen anything by the ithrynluin person to frighten me. Or by you.

Let me see here. What else? Saruman's personality. Is he truly the sort to be a Lord Of The Rings? Sure, the One Ring thing messes with your brain, but that's mainly to help out with getting back to Sauron. We're figuring that the evil Saruman would have enough willpower to be able to concentrate on his own plans while staving off creepily magical delusions and suggestions. I write, no way is he the sort to be a Lord Of The Rings. Fueled by jealousy, this dude. Only made it through Aule University because he was so good at making friends with the teachers. Remembered having a few classes with that quiet kid in the back named Sauron, was repulsed by the kid's fascination with something called Morgoth's Ring, but eventually cursed himself for not hanging out in the kid's role-playing group more often when he saw how useful the knowledge could have been. Ages too late and already stuck in Middle Earth, he attempted to get in touch with a few old classmates, but they were all still in Valinor, wasting time as invisible observers all over the place, or festering in Mordor. If he ever got the thing, he'd spend at least another Age studying it, would brag about how he saved Middle Earth from Sauron and only had to break that one silly little rule of not directly influencing things (which the evil torturer Gandalf also broke, and everyone loved him). He wouldn't take over anybody's brains, except the way that he normally attempted to (Pure evil!). He'd be the hero, and poor Smeagol would be stalking him all over the place. His pride would be satisfied.

[Ithrynluin]

If Saruman had gained the One Ring, it would have been Sauron's.
1. Saruman could not defeat Sauron one on one even if he had the Ring.
2. Saruman's forces are not a match for Sauron's.

No it wouldn't. The Ring could exist without Sauron, but not the other way around.
Re: 1. This is completely irrelevant. Why would anyone who had taken control of the One Ring want to risk losing it by battling Sauron directly anyway?
2. The Ring would have made all the difference. Saruman's forces were sizable as it was, but with the commanding power of the Ring his might would have grown until he could oust Sauron.

In your 1 point, is interesting. You have one Maia, Saruman, that in the book had tried to obtain the Ring, and was not even mentioned that he could defeat Sauron by the author of the book. Hmmmmm
2. Saruman/Elrond/Galadriel, if they had tried to built up an army, do you seriously think that Sauron would just sit there without doing nothing? He would just beat their armies and regain the Ring.

As I said, point 1 is irrelevant because, firstly, it does not matter whether Saruman could defeat Sauron one on one, because no wise leader would venture to do that anyway and, secondly, JRRT does not mention Saruman one way or another so we cannot make any definite conclusions one way or the other. He may well have been considering the situation in ME with Saruman already being gone.

No way could Saruman do that. How would he get the One Ring? Yep, we read that The Lord Of The Rings story. He tried. Was unable to grab it. It was destroyed by poor Smeagol, the hero.

As Bethelarien pointed out, this is not a debate about whether Saruman got the One Ring, because there would be no debate then - he did not. And as I already pointed out, Saruman was a) powerful enough to wield the Ring and b) resourceful enough to get it. He was within the grasp of the Ring, the only small thing that prevented him from it was the small but important matter of there being an additional pair of hobbits present in the Fellowship, something that proved crucial in the end, but Saruman could not have known it. Ergo, considering who he was and what he knew, Saruman was very much right in thinking he could become the new Ring-lord.

Well, and allows only Sauron to grow an unlimited number of new bodies.

No, I don't think that's true. Each time Sauron lost his body, it took longer and longer for him to form a new one. After a time, Melkor was stuck in his one black form, and so was Sauron (after coming from Numenor, if memory serves me right), so obviously the number of shapes an Ainu can assume is limited as it drains one's innate power.

In any case, this point is irrelevant to the topic.

Or speculate about whether he could make a brand new (probably multi-colored and sporting some flashy rocks on it) as well as Saruman-oriented Ruling type Ring that was just as good as Sauron's?
...
For the second, also a nope. Mostly because he was obviously unable to make a replacement. He had been experimenting. And how long had he been studying up on the subject? Garn, yo. Find a new hobby. One that you can actually employ talents towards. If he was capable of making his own, why would he have so pathetically closed up shop and left to torture nasssty hobbitses?

Saruman actually had a ring of his own, though we have no idea what powers it had, and there's little point in going into its possible properties. In any case, it could not help Saruman in M-e domination (or at least not to big enough an extent), so he sought to obtain Sauron's ring.

This, too, is off-topic, however.

Let me see here. What else? Saruman's personality. Is he truly the sort to be a Lord Of The Rings? Sure, the One Ring thing messes with your brain, but that's mainly to help out with getting back to Sauron. We're figuring that the evil Saruman would have enough willpower to be able to concentrate on his own plans while staving off creepily magical delusions and suggestions. I write, no way is he the sort to be a Lord Of The Rings. Fueled by jealousy, this dude. Only made it through Aule University because he was so good at making friends with the teachers. Remembered having a few classes with that quiet kid in the back named Sauron, was repulsed by the kid's fascination with something called Morgoth's Ring, but eventually cursed himself for not hanging out in the kid's role-playing group more often when he saw how useful the knowledge could have been. Ages too late and already stuck in Middle Earth, he attempted to get in touch with a few old classmates, but they were all still in Valinor, wasting time as invisible observers all over the place, or festering in Mordor. If he ever got the thing, he'd spend at least another Age studying it, would brag about how he saved Middle Earth from Sauron and only had to break that one silly little rule of not directly influencing things (which the evil torturer Gandalf also broke, and everyone loved him). He wouldn't take over anybody's brains, except the way that he normally attempted to (Pure evil!). He'd be the hero, and poor Smeagol would be stalking him all over the place. His pride would be satisfied.

This makes for wonderful reading but it has no place in a debate. I suggest posting it as fan-fiction in The Glittering Caves.

[YayGollum]

Ack! Poor Smeagol. His points aren't dry enough to be considered part of a debate. :rolleyes:

How was my bit about a Ring Of Power made just for the evil Saruman unrelated to the debate? Another hypothetical situation that shows why he wouldn't have become a Lord Of The Rings. Sure, I know that he made some type of ring. I was pointing out that he couldn't have become a Lord Of The Rings by way of making his own Ruling type Ring, since he had plenty of time, had done plenty of research, and obviously hadn't come close.

As to that other point, thanks for the compliment, but I'm not so interested in writing some pathetic fan fiction about the evil Saruman. Ick. Undeserving. I was actually attempting to point out that the evil Saruman didn't have the personality to become a Lord Of The Rings. I can't be sure if you disagree with my points or not, though. :confused:

As to that bit about the One Ring having the ability to provide an unlimited amount of bodies for Sauron, Whoops! Sure, it wasn't especially related to this debate, but I merely didn't remember reading that he'd run out. Did they say that it was taking longer for his body to get back? He'd only lost his body twice, yes? Not enough data for me to be sure that he couldn't always come back.

[Maedhros]

I would dispute both these statements. Military tactictians have never recognized this idea as valid. How did Hannibal defeat the largest Roman army ever assembled if the deciding factor of combat was numbers? The Chinese military genius Sun Tzu, in his Art of War, layed down principles by which any army could achieve victory. A smaller force can win any battle or campaign if that forces has two critical factors: superior skills and timing.
Hmmm. So tell me. How did the Great Military tactician Saruman was defeated by the people of Rohan and the Ents? Hannibal or Sun Tzu he wasn't.

Saruman's Uruk-hai were superior to the orcs of Mordor, thus the deciding factor would be timing. Tolkien has already given us an example of how a mistimed throw will go astray: Sauron's assault of Minas Tirith was rushed because of Aragorn's intervention. Gandalf says "from afar I sense his haste and fear." That hasty assault was repulsed by a numerically inferior force.
From the Lord of the Rings
‘The Stones of Seeing do not lie, and not even the Lord of Barad-dûr can make them do so. He can, maybe, by his will choose what things shall be seen by weaker minds, or cause them to mistake the meaning of what they see. Nonetheless it cannot be doubted that when Denethor saw great forces arrayed against him in Mordor, and more still being gathered, he saw that which truly is.
‘Hardly has our strength sufficed to beat off the first great assault. The next will be greater. This war then is without final hope, as Denethor perceived. Victory cannot be achieved by arms, whether you sit here to endure siege after siege, or march out to be overwhelmed beyond the River. You have only a choice of evils; and prudence would counsel you to strengthen such strong places as you have, and there await the onset; for so shall the time before your end be made a little longer.’
‘Then you would have us retreat to Minas Tirith, or Dol Amroth, or to Dunharrow, and there sit like children on sand-castles when the tide is flowing?’ said Imrahil.
‘That would be no new counsel,’ said Gandalf. ‘Have you not done this and little more in all the days of Denethor? But no! I said this would be prudent. I do not counsel prudence. I said victory could not be achieved by arms. I still hope for victory, but not by arms. For into the midst of all these policies comes the Ring of Power, the foundation of Barad-dûr, and the hope of Sauron.
‘Concerning this thing, my lords, you now all know enough for the understanding of our plight, and of Sauron’s. If he regains it, your valour is vain, and his victory will be swift and complete: so complete that none can foresee the end of it while this world lasts. If it is destroyed, then he will fall; and his fall will be so low that none can foresee his arising ever again.

But if just seeing Isildur's heir could have such effects, what rash acts would Sauron's fear cause if he knew that the Ring was on the hand of a powerful rival? Much of his available force might be wasted in asault on Gondor requiring new levies to be called out of the East. During this time Saruman's power would grow, allowing him to develop a force capable of defeated Mordor in open combat. While this course may not be easy, it is certainly possible with the probabilities increasing to certain the farther back in time you place Saruman's possession of the Ring.[/quote]
Can you say victory by arms is hopeless against Sauron now.

But if just seeing Isildur's heir could have such effects, what rash acts would Sauron's fear cause if he knew that the Ring was on the hand of a powerful rival? Much of his available force might be wasted in asault on Gondor requiring new levies to be called out of the East. During this time Saruman's power would grow, allowing him to develop a force capable of defeated Mordor in open combat. While this course may not be easy, it is certainly possible with the probabilities increasing to certain the farther back in time you place Saruman's possession of the Ring.

Did you read in The Lord of the Rings that Minas Tirith was not destroyed when Sauron attacked it because of the timely intervention of the "Army of the Dead" brought by Aragorn. Saruman had no such forces.

Moral of the story: Greater numbers does not necessarily equal victory.
Moral of the story in the Lord of the Rings:
‘Hardly has our strength sufficed to beat off the first great assault. The next will be greater. This war then is without final hope, as Denethor perceived. Victory cannot be achieved by arms, whether you sit here to endure siege after siege, or march out to be overwhelmed beyond the River. You have only a choice of evils; and prudence would counsel you to strengthen such strong places as you have, and there await the onset; for so shall the time before your end be made a little longer.’...
‘That would be no new counsel,’ said Gandalf. ‘Have you not done this and little more in all the days of Denethor? But no! I said this would be prudent. I do not counsel prudence. I said victory could not be achieved by arms. I still hope for victory, but not by arms.
In short, Sauron cannot be defeated by force of arms. Simple.

No. He would be doing Morgoth's work. It only became Sauron's work after Morgoth departed the scene: by extension, if Saruman should defeat Sauron and assume the title and power of Dark Lord, it would be called Saruman's work.
What? You do know that the purpouse of Sauron and that of Morgoth are two different things. As per in Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed, Morgoth wanted in the end to destroy everything so that he could alone remain, while Sauron wanted to rule ME, he didn't care that there were other beings, just as long as he controlled them.

No it wouldn't. The Ring could exist without Sauron, but not the other way around.
Re: 1. This is completely irrelevant. Why would anyone who had taken control of the One Ring want to risk losing it by battling Sauron directly anyway?
2. The Ring would have made all the difference. Saruman's forces were sizable as it was, but with the commanding power of the Ring his might would have grown until he could oust Sauron.
Point one is conceded to me. Good.
2. Do you have any references, quotes or anything that support your argument?
Surely you know that if Saruman had gained the One Ring, he would have fought against Sauron and the power of the West. I don't see his forces growing in there.

As I said, point 1 is irrelevant because, firstly, it does not matter whether Saruman could defeat Sauron one on one, because no wise leader would venture to do that anyway and, secondly, JRRT does not mention Saruman one way or another so we cannot make any definite conclusions one way or the other. He may well have been considering the situation in ME with Saruman already being gone.
Continuation of point conceded to me.

Now I want to ask a question to my good friends in the other team.
Do you think that if there was a chance to defeat Sauron by force of arms, that Gandalf would have send Frodo to destroy the One Ring? Looking foward to your answers.

[chrysophalax]

"How did the Great Military tactician Saruman was defeated by the people of Rohan and the Ents?" Interesting question, Maedhros. My answer is, the same way in which Sauron suffered defeat after defeat by Huan, Ar-Pharazon and Isildur. In the first case, he panicked, in the second, he was forced to yield to a mrer human because he had over-stepped himself and thirdly, it seems Isildur was a better swordsman. One supreme commander cannot foresee every possible eventuality or anticipate every random act of chance.

This however is not the core of the debate (so marvellously set out by Ithrynluin above). In my opinion, had Saruman managed to get hold of the One Ring, he most certainly could have wrested power away from Sauron. He had the will to wield it, he had the knowledge to use it and he had the means to find it. The only thing that stopped him were those interfering hobbitses!

It also seems to me that the Nazgul have been left out of the equation. Had Saruman gained the Ring, he would also have had control of the Nine, tough customers, them! With his powers of persuasion boosted by the Ring, Saruman could have extolled the virtues of fighting against the evils of Sauron and at the same time called all of Sauron's minions to him, thus leaving Sauron with only a pretty vile landscape and lots of trash to look out over. That adds up to a pretty impressive fighting force to me. Not only that, but as in The Hobbit, when Gandalf had poor old Smaug murdered because he believed the Dragon would be used against them, what had given him that idea? What would have controlled Smaug? I would think the Ring. I'm fairly certain that Gandalf was not alone among the Wise in knowing what dark creatures lurked in the mountains, caverns and deep places of the earth. I surmise that with the Ring, Saruman would call any and all that would come in support of him in order to acheive his goals.

Therefore, did he have chances? Yes, but he wasn't fast enough. Did he have reason to think he could succeed? Yes, because he, unlike Sauron, had never suffered defeat prior to Helm's Deep and yet despite that he managed to survive Sauron, evem stripped of his power, a testament to the strength of his will, with which he could have seized control of the Ring.

[Annaheru]

Hmmm. So tell me. How did the Great Military tactician Saruman was defeated by the people of Rohan and the Ents? Hannibal or Sun Tzu he wasn't.

1. Saruman's army overthrew the Rohirrim at the Ford's of Isen- without Gandalf's intervention all of Rohan would have been overrun while Theoden crouched on his throne and Eomer rotted in jail.
2. the defeat of Saruman's forces was accomplished through the intervention of the ents/huorns, who were roused by the actions of Merry and Pippen

If Saruman had captured the Ring neither of these events might have occured. Thus your assessment of Saruman's military skills is lacking since it is based on a series of events that this debate is premised on violating.


Can you say victory by arms is hopeless against Sauron now.

That statement was made by Gandalf after he knew that the Ring was no longer an option since Frodo had taken beyond their reach.
Did you read the paragraphs before your quote:
"'but how is this?' asked Eomer. 'All is vain, you say, if he has the Ring. Why should he think it not vain to assail us, if we have it?'
'He is not yet sure,' Said Gandalf. . . " --- If Sauron were invincible by arms then Gandalf would have said so. He did not. Thus military victory over Sauron is possible with the Ring.
Also read carefully The Council of Elrond. When Boromir proposes using the Ring against Sauron neither Elrond nor Gandalf says they could not win: only that such a victory would create another Dark Lord, thereby defeating their purpose.


Did you read in The Lord of the Rings that Minas Tirith was not destroyed when Sauron attacked it because of the timely intervention of the "Army of the Dead" brought by Aragorn. Saruman had no such forces.

I did not say that Minas Tirith would not fall, only that the men of Gondor would slow down a hasty assault by Sauron thereby giving Saruman time.



What? You do know that the purpouse of Sauron and that of Morgoth are two different things. As per in Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed, Morgoth wanted in the end to destroy everything so that he could alone remain, while Sauron wanted to rule ME, he didn't care that there were other beings, just as long as he controlled them.

my point was not about their purposes; it was about their methods: Morgoth first developed the orcs, Morgoth first ruled as absolute tyrant, Morgoth first corrupted men to his service through fear and lies.

You stated that "if Saruman gained the one ring, he would just have made Sauron's work." I am stating that the devices of Sauron came from Morgoth, and thus Saruman's use of them would not in any way be "doing Sauron's work."



Now I want to ask a question to my good friends in the other team. Do you think that if there was a chance to defeat Sauron by force of arms, that Gandalf would have send Frodo to destroy the One Ring? Looking foward to your answers.
Yes. As I stated above, at the Council it was clearly stated that using the Ring against Sauron would only result in another Dark Lord. Gandalf wished to throw Sauron down and have nobody in his place. Thus Gandalf's decision to destroy the Ring only proves his goodness, not the feasability of armed assault on Sauron.

[Ithrynluin]

I will only address a couple of points, because my teammates have already covered everything else successfully. :D

Point one is conceded to me. Good.

Continuation of point conceded to me.

Is the topic of the debate "Could Saruman defeat Sauron in close combat?" No, it is not.

Does Letter 246 say "Saruman could defeat Sauron in a one-on-one duel" or "Saruman could not defeat Sauron in a one-on-one duel"? No, it does not.

Would it matter either way, anyhow? No, it would not.

Case closed.

2. Do you have any references, quotes or anything that support your argument?
Surely you know that if Saruman had gained the One Ring, he would have fought against Sauron and the power of the West. I don't see his forces growing in there.

As crysophalax already pointed out, many, if not all, of Sauron's creatures, would have rallied over to the new Ring-lord. Most importantly, he would have gained control of the Nazgul, Sauron's most powerful weapon.

Also, Saruman managed to gather an immense army even without the Ring. We can only imagine how the Ring would enhance his commanding stature and the power of his voice, and what kind of further military force he would raise then.

Finally, only a few of the wisest could resist the allure of his voice, but would they be able to do it when Saruman had the One on his finger? Or would they have been swayed?

[YayGollum]

Why are you merely assuming that the evil Saruman would have the willpower to resist being messed with by Sauron, if he obtained the One Ring? Why are you so sure that he could automatically control Sauron's armies, if he obtained the thing? I see no proof for either of those. As for getting the Nazgul to help him out, no way, man. Sauron had those Rings Of Power, and those dudes only existed through them. It's crazy to figure that Saruman could persaude Sauron to let him control them for a couple of days. :rolleyes: And when it comes to persuading others to joining him, why do you figure that the evil Saruman would be so good at it? Sauron was plenty more powerful than him and would have attempted the same thing, if he could. But those nasssty elveses were way too paranoid. They already knew enough to be wary of Saruman.

Also, covered everything else successfully? Craziness. What about my point that he wouldn't have even wanted to be a Lord Of The Rings? He was breaking the rule about not directly messing with Sauron, but he'd still be accomplishing his goal by obtaining the One Ring. Just like Boromir, but with a lot more support. You figure that if he got the thing, he'd cackle maniacally and attempt to conquer the world? Why? He was superly proud, thought of his fellow wizards as fools, took matters into his own hands, just like Batman (the best of the superheroes!), broke a few rules, and attempted to put a swift end to the war. Controlling, manipulative, sure, but plenty focused on a good goal. Was there something written about his intentions for after he got the One Ring?

[Annaheru]

And when it comes to persuading others to joining him, why do you figure that the evil Saruman would be so good at it? Sauron was plenty more powerful than him and would have attempted the same thing, if he could. But those nasssty elveses were way too paranoid. They already knew enough to be wary of Saruman.

How were the rings of power first made?-- Sauron tricked the elves by assuming a fair form. So Sauron had attempted it, and succeeded, for a time.
But the point is moot: the power of the Eldar was fading fast. Men were the rising power in the Third Age and Saruman showed considerable skill in tricking them.





As for Saruman's motives, they are sufficiently revealed in his words to Gandalf: "The time of the Elves is over, but our time is at hand: the world of Men, which we must rule. But we must have power, power to order all things as we will, for that good which only the Wise can see" (emphasis added).
Saruman wished to order the world according to his own will: just as Sauron did, therefore Saruman wished to become the Dark Lord.

[YayGollum]

Sure, I wasn't writing that the evil Saruman wasn't great at messing with the brains of humans. I was writing that elves were too paranoid to be messed with. Just like when Sauron attempted to mess with them, they took their Rings Of Power off. They'd do the same thing with the evil Saruman. As well as, the Nazgul can't be messed with, except by Sauron. As well as, we don't know enough about the seven Rings Of Power for Dwarves. How can you be a Lord Of the Rings without any vassals?

As for your quote, I don't see anything to indicate that he was planning on becoming a Lord Of The Rings in there, either. He just mentioned that he wished to control things for the better, the way that the Wise would wish them to be. Whoever the Wise are. Seems to be his superiors, which indicates that he'd be wishing to do the right thing.

[YayGollum]

Are you two even in this debate? *hides, just in case he turns out to have been composed of large gobs of pure evil this whole time, if the Daranavo and Ermundo people were part of some team* I don't remember. Don't give any of us any ideas by just popping in! Make up a debate topic of your own, start some thread about it. Have fun.

[Daranavo]

I wasnt aware that this thread was exclusive to only certain people. Obviously, I was incorrect, my mistake.

[Ingwë]

From "OF THE RINGS OF POWER AND THE THIRD AGE"
Now the Elves made many rings; but secretly Sauron made One Ring to rule all the others, and their power was bound up with it, to be subject wholly to it and to last only so long as it too should last. And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency; and Sauron forged it in the Mountain of Fire in the Land of Shadow. And while he wore the One Ring he could perceive all the things that were done by means of the lesser rings, and he could see and govern the very thoughts of those that wore them.From LOTR, "The Shadow of the Past"
A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else's care - and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too. And even so he would never have just forsaken it, or cast it aside. It was not Gollum, Frodo, but the Ring itself that decided things. The Ring left him.It seems that a part of Sauron himself passed into the One Ring. So technically the Ring was Sauron though The Dark Lord himself wasn't connected to his Ring. Moreover, the Ring has own will. It tried to leave Gollum and did it, it was trying to go back to his master. The Ring won't obey anyone else except Sauron. I would say that The Ring controls the mind of the owner. Later in "The Lord Of The Rings" Elrond says the even if one of the Wise takes the Ring he'll become the new Dark Lord. But having in mind Sauron put his will into The One and the Ring itself is able to decide things, to me the conclusion is very simple: even if Saruman takes The One it will be Sauron's will who will control Saruman's mind and Saruman won't be real Dark Lord. The only way to become The Lord Of The Rings is to destroy The One Ring and overthrow Sauron and to make a new Ring.

[chrysophalax]

"The only way to become The Lord Of The Rings is to destroy The One Ring and overthrow Sauron and to make a new Ring."

Did Saruman actually think he had a shot at doing this? I believe he must have, else he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of creating the Uruk army and using his minions to try and capture the Ringbearer. Granted, he was deluded. Granted, he had an over-the-top ego. However, did he have reason to think he might succeed?

My personal take on this whole thing is probably far from original, but it's my supposition that he was led to believe he would co-rule with Sauron and that his own secret plan was to then supplant Sauron after persuading Sauron to have one too many banana daiquiris, snatching the necessary Rings (including the Nine), then nipping off to Orodruin to have his way them. Having already taken a class in jewelry making and gold-smithing, he could set about Ordering The World.

Could he have succeeded? Who knows? The point is that he believed he could, whether from false bravado or Sauron's hypnotherapy sessions. Therefore, I contend that he had reason to believe he would succeed.

[Annaheru]

From "OF THE RINGS OF POWER AND THE THIRD AGE"
From LOTR, "The Shadow of the Past"
It seems that a part of Sauron himself passed into the One Ring. So technically the Ring was Sauron though The Dark Lord himself wasn't connected to his Ring. Moreover, the Ring has own will. It tried to leave Gollum and did it, it was trying to go back to his master. The Ring won't obey anyone else except Sauron. I would say that The Ring controls the mind of the owner. Later in "The Lord Of The Rings" Elrond says the even if one of the Wise takes the Ring he'll become the new Dark Lord. But having in mind Sauron put his will into The One and the Ring itself is able to decide things, to me the conclusion is very simple: even if Saruman takes The One it will be Sauron's will who will control Saruman's mind and Saruman won't be real Dark Lord. The only way to become The Lord Of The Rings is to destroy The One Ring and overthrow Sauron and to make a new Ring.


Morgoth placed much of his power into other creatures/objects. By your logic, Glaurung or Ungoliant (for example) were actually Morgoth. It would seem that Ainu could choose to give some of their essence away and I don't see any evidence that this destroyed all vestiges of individual will in those that received this power: Glaurung left Angband without permission, Ungoliant attacked Morgoth.
That said, Saruman's long term plans may well have included the forging of his own Ruling Ring. He had long studied the making of the rings of power, but I don't think he had yet discovered how to make a ring as powerful as the Three or the One. In Middle-Earth that knowledge remained only in Sauron. And the Ring. The Ring itself would have provided Saruman with the final secrets.
I think that Saruman was strong enough to wield the Ring, and could use it to overthrow Sauron; whether he was strong enough to completely control it forever is another question.

What if Saruman, using Sauron's ring, created a Ring of his own?

We have little knowledge of the Rings of Power, their construction and limitations. Saruman knew much, much more than we do because Tolkien never wrote these things down for us. Obviously what Saruman knew of the Rings convinced him that he could use the One for his own purposes.

[YayGollum]

sorry about that, Daranavo and Ermundo people. Mayhaps I should have explained a bit more? It is exclusive to the people who have expressed interest in joining one of the teams when the debate topic was first presented. Otherwise, we'd have random humans jumping in and out all of the time, and it wouldn't be any different from any other discussion type thread.

The chrysophalax person points out that the evil Saruman believed that he could become a Lord Of The Rings. Doesn't matter. The question is whether he was wise or foolish in that belief. I write that he was crazy foolish, of course. Mostly because he seemed to be nowhere close to knowing how to make a Ruling Ring of his own, and that he wouldn't have had any other Rings Of Power to rule over. How wise is it to call yourself a Lord Of The Rings when all you've got is one Ring (and, sure, plenty of minds to rule)?

Annaheru person, where you get the idea that the superly cool Ungoliant lady had any spiritual ties to Mel? She was just her own thing, superly independent, yes? And Glaurung was just a thing corrupted. Some of Mel's energy went into fixing him up into a superly cool engine of awesome, but he couldn't really be compared to a One Ring. What did those things have to do with the evil Saruman becoming a Lord Of The Rings? Just that Saruman wouldn't have become a brainless stooge of Sauron's?

Also, I see no evidence that the evil Saruman was convinced of anything. I'd believe that he could be hopeful and full of the desire for urgency, but since he hadn't made much headway in the realm of forging anything Of Power for himself yet, I figure his main goal have been keeping the One Ring safe with him in his indestructible tower. Keeping power away from the bad guy. Why do you humans assume that the evil Saruman planned on becoming a Lord Of The Rings? Because the One Ring makes people wish to become grander than they are? You people figure that he'd fall under that influence of the One Ring but none of its other influences?

[Bethelarien]

Team A has argued that Saruman had ample chances at becoming the new Ring-lord and was right in thinking so. In this post, I will summarize our arguments and present them in a final form for the judges. So much easier to read that way. :)

1) It is well known that the One Ring projected delusions of grandeur to whomever bore it, regardless of the inherent power of the person. The Ring corrupts the mind, as we see with each of the Ringbearers. Its power was enticing, even Gandalf felt it. He knew he could have taken it, and he tells Frodo as much when Frodo tries to give it to him. If Gandalf could take it, how much more could Saruman? Saruman shared two crucial characteristics with Sauron that made him an even likelier usurper. They were both:
a) Maiar, beings of equal stature
b) of the people of Aulë the Smith

They had similar ways of thinking, and the same things were important and desirable to them. It would have been a simple matter for Saruman to proclaim himself Ring-lord, and he knew it.

2) Saruman had spent countless centuries immersing himself in ring-lore and studying the devices of Sauron, so he was one step ahead of even those mighty individuals who could viably have wielded the Ring against its creator. He knew how it was made, how it worked. Being a Maia of Aulë, he understood well things of that nature. How could he not?

It is therefore not merely conceivable, but highly probable, that Saruman could have become the new Ring-lord. Again, Saruman knew this. Why should he not be confident in his vast abilities?

3) Saruman had not only the means to take the Ring, but also put forth a lot of effort into gaining it for himself. Saruman created a brand new strain of orc, mightier and more durable than those employed by Sauron or even Melkor. This deed, hideous though it may seem to us (involving the cross-breeding of man and orc), presents further proof of just how capable and powerful -- and therefore ready to supplant the Dark Lord himself -- Saruman was.

Saruman possessed not only the talent and skills, but also immense cunning and persistence, all of those doubtless prerequisites for achieving something as formidable as becoming the new Ring-lord.

Now, to address briefly some of the more relevant points our opponents attempted to make.

1) It was impossible to defeat Sauron militarily. Obviously not true, since Gil-galad, Elendil, and the Last Alliance seem to have managed it quite nicely, had it not been for Isildur keeping the Ring. But yes, the Last Alliance militarily defeated Sauron and his forces.

Also, we can see throughout history that a greater number of forces does not guarantee one victory. Saruman had a massive force. Had he gained the One Ring, he would have been even more powerful, and able to call those creatures tied to the Ruling Ring (e.g., the Nazgul). This would have swelled his forces and made him even more formidable.

A large number of forces does not equal victory. It may create a loss of hope, but even hopelessness does not ensure failure. Anyone who thinks so is foolish and completely disregards history and fact.

2) Sauron understood Saruman well enough to know what he was plotting. Perhaps, but there is no conclusive evidence of this. As my esteemed colleague, Ithrynluin, pointed out, the road goes both ways. Saruman would have understood Sauron as well, which would have given him an edge, in turn. They were rather evenly matched, regardless of what one may or may not have known about the other. This is a moot point.

3) If Saruman had gained the One Ring, it would have been Sauron's.
a) Saruman could not defeat Sauron one on one even if he had the Ring.
b) Saruman's forces are not a match for Sauron's.

Not true. Had Saruman gained the One Ring, he would have had the power to defeat Sauron, one way or the other. That he may or may not have been able to do so one-on-one is a point that has absolutely no proof. Simply not being mentioned in a letter of Tolkien’s does not mean that he was incapable of defeating Sauron.

As far as his forces not being a match for Sauron’s, again we’ve logically explained that number of forces does not guarantee a victory.

Whether or not Saruman could or would forge a ring of his own is immaterial. There is not a shred of proof that he would be unable to use the Ruling Ring forged by Sauron—quite the opposite. Why else would Sauron want so terribly to get it back? He knew that any powerful being was a threat to him while his Ring remained unclaimed.

Saruman was powerful, skilled, and ambitious—a combination that has proved effective time and time again. He clearly had ample chances to become the Ring-lord, and he had every right to think so.

[YayGollum]

Greetings. To be sickeningly formal, Team B pointed out that the evil Saruman had little to no chance at becoming a new Lord Of The Rings, and would have been crazy foolish to think so. In this post, I shall attempt to summarize all kinds of arguments, why not? Also, I offer a phone call from me, the YayGollum person, to any of the judges. So much more intelligible that way. :rolleyes: I just got me a new phone, and I could stand to treat myself for my birthday, if it's needed.

To their 1. ---> So it was likely that the evil Saruman could have been tempted by the One Ring. Okay. I'll concede the point and wonder how it helps their position.
a. ---> Wrong. Not equal stature. Sauron was more powerful.
b. ---> Sure, but with evidence to the contrary that his Valaric orientation helped him out sufficiently. That evidence ---> How long had he been studying such things, and how useful did his own ring turn out to be? A long time and utterly useless. Sauron's just too brilliant. As for the last point there, I see no evidence that they were so similar. Merely the fact that the evil Saruman wasn't playing the same game as the good guys isn't enough. He was intelligent and strong-willed enough to wish to save the day in his own way. I haven't seen much evidence of anything else.

To their 2. ---> I can answer those questions. First, zero evidence has been presented that any Aule-oriented Maiar type thing besides Sauron was knowledgeable about Rings Of Power and the like, at least until the evil Saruman took up the job. Aule isn't the Valar of constructing evil spirit vessels, he's the Valar of intelligence, earth, invention, Dwarves, stuff like that. All kinds of stuff for Saruman to have been interested in. From what I have read, actually, he seems to be a large fan of progress. Interested in humans, dabbled with genetics, loved explosions. Only studied things Of Power to look good to his boss.

A reason to not be especially confident. ---> What vast abilities? He had a few decent ideas, but wasn't militarily-minded enough to beat a much smaller force, he made himself a ring, which, apparently, wasn't very Powerful, he was creepily persuasive but wasn't vicious enough to do as much damage as he could.

Being capable (of making new strains of Orcs slash humans, I guess) and powerful does not equal readiness to supplant Sauron. At least not when you're as capable and powerful as the evil Saruman was. Not enough, as well as, evidence hasn't been presented that he wanted to supplant anybody.

To the other 1. ---> It makes sense that it would be impossible for the evil Saruman to defeat Sauron militarily. As I already pointed out, he didn't seem to be the greatest at military strategy. Lost a good chunk of his forces against a few huddled humans. How quickly could he replace them to beat the far more numerous and better protected forces of Sauron? Also, I gots to remind people that I pointed out why he couldn't have gotten some Nazgul on his side, and nobody proved me wrong. It was ---> Sauron held the nine human Rings. Even without his One Ring, they were easily controlled by him. If someone ever got control of his One Ring, they wouldn't gain control of the Nazgul, unless they could first persuade Sauron to hand over those nine Rings, too.

For the second and third points, it looks like most of them are moot. I'd answer this question, though ---> "Why else would Sauron want so terribly to get it (his One Ring thing) back?" Uh, because he'd be more powerful with it? He was plenty confident that anybody who got a hold of it would eventually break down and hand it over. He was very good at waiting and gathering forces.

Also, so what if the evil Saruman was powerful, skilled, and ambitious? You guys didn't get around to pointing out that he'd wish to employ those attributes towards becoming a Lord Of The Rings. Plenty of powerful, skilled, as well as ambitious sorts can be good guys. I pointed out that he didn't seem the sort to even wish to be a Lord Of The Rings. Or how's about I just point out that zero actual evidence has been presented for either side that he had the inclination for such a thing. Nobody decided to point out any counterpoints to my conclusions. Sure, I and the judges could probably think some up, but oh well, yes?

I pointed out that he couldn't have become a Lord Of The Rings because you can't be a lord without any vassals. Nobody found a Ring for him to be Lord over, or even decided to pick at the way I'm using the definition.