I don't think Gandalf would have been as powerful as Sauron, altought he might of had the potential. The ring only obeys to Sauron, so in the end, no matter what happened if he had the ring, Sauron would have surely taken it back. Besides, Gandalf already wear one of the three most powerful elvish ring in history. I believe it's called Narya, but I'm not 100% sure. It's in the Silmarillon. 🙂
I think he would have been, remember, Gandalf is a maia, so is sauron.
Plus gandalf has the one ring on his finger, sauron doesnt, and this ring contains alot of saurons old big daddyness.
Gandalf would wipe the floor with sauron, then with saruman. Then become a kind of..emperorish person, and frodo could be darth halfling.
And a whole new saga would be born
Originally posted by Discos
no chance, diudnt you read the books or listen to the movies.....NO ONE BUT THE DARK LORD CAN WIELD THIS RING.Gandalf would have a ring which he couldnt use,
bingo, morgoths rath, if gandalf was evil why didnt he take the ring? 1. because he's not evil and 2. because as discos rightly pointed out only the dark lord can weild this ring!
read a little closer...
the power an individual has, it says, the of its abilities you could use...
like a really big sword...
it can only be used by a really big person... but a lesser man could pick it up off the ground and drop it on your foot...
gandalf and saruman would have been able to use it... but not to it's full potential ie. weilding....
to weild it would be to use it to it's full potential... and as sauron had put part of his 'soul' into it, no one but he would be able to fully control it...
but some could still use it...
anyone who went invisible was using it...
that was the weakest of its powers, so anyone could go invisible using it... but to controll the invisibility feature was another kettle of fish...
however tom bombadil was able to controll it... more so he could see through its ability...
so gandalfwould have very much been able to use it...
but it would have cost him his will in the end and he would have returned it to sauron in the end...
I know this will be long, and some parts of my post will be a little irrelevant to the whole point of this thread, but I just want to elaborate anyway.
If we are talking about individual physical power alone, Gandalf could not "kill" Sauron or Saruman (I'm putting Saruman in the argument to put better emphasis) in hand-to-hand combat (at least until Saruman's fall from his mission), nor could Sauron be killed unless the Ring was destroyed, nor could Sauron "kill" Gandalf. Sauron was only subject to death because he put much of his spirit into a physical, destructible object, The One Ring. Saruman was only subject to death because he disobeyed the rules of the Istari and fell from his status. Had Sauron, Gandalf, and Saruman dueled under normal circumstances, their physical "power" would be of no consequence, since Ainur are not bound to a physical existence.
If we define power as the ability to advance one's own goals, and keep in mind the boundaries and restraints that Gandalf, Sauron and Saruman experienced in Middle-earth at the time of the War of the Ring, then Sauron was obviously the most powerful. Because he was able to assert his will forcefully over his minions, and because he was bound by no moral or ethical guidelines, his ability to advance his own goals was greater then Saruman's or Gandalf's. Gandalf and Saruman were initially bound to the guidelines of being able to use no force over those they guided and by being unable to reveal their true power. I think it is safe to assume that the guideline for the Istari being unable to reveal true power was stringently imposed despite any attempts by the Istari to break it, since Saruman never uncloaked himself, nor did he ever assert the type of power typical of even the weakest Ainu. Because of this, even had they wanted to to, the Istari probably would not have been able to advance their purposes as powerfully as did Sauron.
The point I am trying to make is this: under normal circumstances (i.e. as uncloaked Maiar in Valinor), Gandalf, Saruman and Sauron would not have been able to "destroy" each other, so trying to quantify their "power" would be a fruitless engagement. Under the only circumstances in which they ever met (in Middle-earth in the Third Age, specifically at the War of the Ring), Sauron had more power at his fingertips, and was inherently more powerful than the Istari since he was unrestrained by rules or regulations in his efforts. I could not foresee any end to his rule without greater intervention from Valinor had he still wielded the Ring at the time of the Istari. Gandalf and Saruman may have had "potent spirits", but they could not kill Sauron, and, although they could not be killed either, they could not defeat his armies unless they revealed their true powers and took dominion over the free peoples of Middle-earth in battle, which they were inherently restrained from doing.
Going back to the original topic, Tolkien in his Letters suggested that only Gandalf might be expected to defeat Sauron if he used the One Ring. It says that Gandalf and Sauron both had an even chance of beating each other if Gandalf used the Ring. Which implies that Gandalf is no match whatsoever against Sauron without using the Ring. These three paragraphs state the point more clearly:
In any case a confrontation of Frodo and Sauron would soon have taken place, if the Ring was intact. Its result was inevitable. Frodo would have been utterly overthrown: crushed to dust, or preserved in torment as a gibbering slave. Sauron would not have feared the Ring! It was his own and under his will. Even from afar he had an effect upon it, to make it work for its return to himself. In his actual presence none but very few of equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of "mortals" no one, not even Aragorn. In the contest with the Palantir Aragorn was the rightful owner. Also the contest took place at a distance, and in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. 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. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance.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", 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.
Possible arguments:
Tolkien, in places, indicates that things would be hopeless and Sauron would be unstoppable if he came into possession of the Ring again. My response: This would have been the ultimate defeat because the only means for overthrowing Sauron at this point in Middle-earth's history was the destruction of the One Ring. All beings with the spiritual potency to resist Sauron were either gone or leaving. Even if they (Galadriel, Elrond, and Bombadil, who doesn't seem to be interested in taking care of Middle-earth's inhabitants' business) had stayed, they would not have commanded the kind of force necessary to overthrow Sauron militarily.
Which leads into possible argument #2:
Why, then, didn't Gandalf just kick Sauron's butt? We're all familiar with the oft-discussed limitations on the Istari. These weren't limitations on their spiritual power, they were restrictions on how they could address Sauron's threat. Leading an army to destroy Sauron would have resulted in the slaughter of all involved--Sauron's armies were vast, and an army sizeable enough to overcome his would have been impossible to amass. The hope of those warring against Sauron's forces at Minas Tirith was still only in Frodo's quest. They were dead men. The limitations placed upon the Istari were actually a hint from the Powers: in effect, "you've got one hope, and it's not to put up your dukes and challenge him."
Why does Sauron need the Ring so badly, then? Obviously, to prevent anyone from seizing it and claiming it. The quote states that if someone were to bend the Ring to their will, Sauron would be broken and the effect would have been as if the Ring had been destroyed. Sauron needed it, first and foremost, to prevent this possibility (since he never conceived that someone might actually destroy it). He also wanted the power over the Three to eliminate any threat from the Elf angle.
The Ring was Sauron's anchor to the physical realm and it contained a large portion of his power. For these reasons, it was Sauron's greatest strength and only weakness, and we might cornily adjust The Don's advice thus: "Keep your friends close, but your weaknesses closer."
Remember, Sauron had been defeated before while in possession of the Ring. We might consider it a beefing item for a bearer other than Sauron (who was able to wield it) since they would have access to the majority of Sauron's power; but for Sauron, the Ring only contained his own power and was not a supplementary source for enhancing himself. This means he was merely enhanced in relation to his state while not wearing the Ring, not his original innate power.
Having said all that, here's the answer to the question.
What if Gandalf would have taken the ring? Would he become the most powerful and evil being in the world, even more powerful then Sauron himself??
🙂
Re: Dark Lord...Gandalf?
Uhm, I re-read my post, and somehow I wasn't satisfied of my reply. I felt like I didn't really answer the question. 😕
I'll try to be more direct this time:
Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
What if Gandalf would have taken the ring? Would he become the most powerful and evil being in the world, even more powerful then Sauron himself??Thoughts? 😈
Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained "righteous", but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for "good", and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great). 'Thus while Sauron multiplied evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.
I think that the problem with Gandalf as Ringlord is that the Ring, regardless of who wields it, is evil. It is only capable of creating evil.
Gandalf would be using the Ring to do good things, but the Ring (having a mind of its own) would still generate evil. As a result, good and evil would get all mixed up and muddled together - grey areas, as we should say (no pun intended). In that case, there would be no pure good left in the world; all the good works Gandalf produced would be tainted by the evils of the Ring. He would have tried to do what was best for everyone, but the Ring would twist everything so that there was actually nothing really good at all going on. That's how I figure he "would have made good detestable and seem evil". He would probably justify his actions (presumably "bad" actions) by saying that they were for the good of Middle-earth. He would try to make all of Middle-earth fit his mold of "goodness," and in so doing, stifle all other ways of thinking.
The quote also said that "Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron". I assume it is a matter of slavery of body versus a slavery of mind. Under Sauron, the people would have been slaves, endured torture and witnessed evil deeds which they were powerless to prevent. But, knowing evil for what it was, nothing could have prevented them from choosing to be good themselves and hoping and planning an escape from slavery, which would have eventually happened (even distancing ourselves from the fairy-tale happy-ending; historically and biologically all things evolve / fall apart. That makes hope a very adaptive feeling). But what would have happened if Gandalf had enslaved your mind with his great wisdom and sugar-coated yet turned to evil by the Ring intentions?
I hope I actually answered it this time. 😛
OMG...I'm sorry for the triple post, but I tried to edit my last post and I was just only one minute delayed!! 😮
I was just about to say that, in so closing (I promise this will be the last post for tonight) Gandalf as Ringlord might not be evil "consciously and intentionally" but the fruit of his intentions and actions will inevitably be.
Sorry. bag
shadowy....
i hate typing full conversations, so i'm just going to say...
move to sydney so we can have lunch every day and talk about this non stop... 🙂
secondly... i keep seeing references to the letters of tolkien, but i have yet to see a published collection of them... is there a book out there with them...?