Harking back to when Gandalf and Aragorn each faced down Nazgul on Weathertop a few days apart - and when Aragorn and Glorfindel attacked them to cover Frodo’s escape at the ford - the weapon that was most useful against them was fire. Which, as it happens…
it’s also interesting one huge difference between the Seven and the Nine. From everything I read, the Nine are the Original one & only owners/wearers. Whilst the Seven were passed down from Dwarf King to his successors. And Sauron offered the Dwarves three of the Seven back, but didn’t try to use any of the Nine to tempt any more Men into becoming a Ringwraith.
So, it would seem that the magic of the Nine was sorta of a one shot, or at best could only be used on one Man. Whether or not the Nazgul wore them or Sauron held them, doesn’t make any difference, it seems.
Probably at a time. Sauron likely would have made one to replace The Witch-King had he the opportunity.
Edit: On the subject here, the big issue Is that the Witch-King’s most powerful weapons aren’t going to mean much against Smaug, whereas Smaug’s strengths are exactly what screws over WK. Even without killing the Witch-King, he could trap him or something and there’d be squat the Witch-King can do.
None of the nine were wearing the Rings at this point. Sauron had them safely somewhere. The nine were of the spirit world only by this point having lost their actual corporal bodies long ago. Why the Rings could not be redeployed to make more Ring Wraiths is something not even hinted at in the books or the histories. But as we know a [del]wizard[/del] [del]necromancer[/del] fallen angel did it.
You have that exactly backwards.
do what you will with the question. either way, the posts have been interesting so far. how about the Eagles? were they free or inclined to get involved, how would they fare against either of them?
that is 50 DKP MINUS!
On a reasonable guess, the Rings could only bind one wearer at a time. Then you can take your pick of the following:
- If Sauron used a Ring to bind someone else, the previously trapped soul would be lost (so he loses one already bound Nazgul to make a new one)
- Sauron can’t make a new Nazgul until the previous incumbent is destroyed (so he must lose one already bound Nazgul before he can start making a new one)
Really? Ahh…well, thanks.
I agree with Chronus that dragons in general are immune the the Nazguls’ greatest weapon, the despair they engender in the hearts of their foes.
I agree.
Fear and Surprise
And a ruthless efficiency
And an almost fanatical devotion to Sauron
And nice black uniforms.
Sure they can get new bodies from Sauron every time Smaug sizzle fries them, but it would be hilarious to see them explaining to The Eye what happened to their old ones.
I am reminded of the *Aqua Teen Hunger Force *episode where the ectoplasmic ghost dissolves every time someone uses their cell phone…
“And you were fighting a dragon why, exactly? He’s on our side…”
yeah - but testing that theory in a movie theatre will get you shot - grumpy old retired cops don’t appreciate no ghost bustin.
Godzilla vs Dracula.
One word - immolation - think furnace, without wings.
Since he doesn’t have a body yet, I picture him more like a passive-aggressive twerp : “Excuuuuse me, *some *people are re-materializing in the morning and that damn racket isn’t helping, the tower has very thin walls and I CAN HEAR EVERYTHING, thanks very much assholes ;)”.
Possibly as a note written in lava on the side of Mount Doom, or left in the Nazgûl’s fridge.
Could Sauron have bound a dragon like Smaug to him using one of the Rings of Power?
One interpretation is that Gandalf believed that*, and used some dwarves to kill Smaug. Also why Glinda the Good Witch befriends some Kansan, because she wants to whack her rivals.
*Supposedly mentioned in the posthumous The Quest of Erebor, but I haven’t read it.