Galadriel VS The witch- king [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

The 1,000 Reader

06-23-2006, 04:21 AM

You don't have to be scared of a car to be brutally run over and killed by one. The nazgul used fear, yes, but that doesn't mean they were helpless without it. Eyown showed no fear of the Witch-King, yet with one blow the Nazgul Lord not only shattered the shield of Rohan's Shieldmaiden, he broke her arm. A nazgul can still chop off your head whether or not you're scared. Just because you're not scared of it doesn't mean you'll beat it. Nazgul could be defeated, yet that doesn't mean bravery=instant win. At the gate of Minas Tirith, Gandalf-who did not fear the Witch-King-doubted he could win.

Also, before you guys say anything about "social rank" leading to instant victory, remember Sauron against Huan. Sauron was the greatest of the Maia, and he was utterly humiliated and defeated. Ungoliant defeated Morgoth. Thingol was torn apart by the bare hands of dwarves. Tulkas beat Morgoth. With the ring and in a powerful form, the best Sauron could do was tie with a war-weary Elendil and Gil-Galad. Smaug was beaten by Bard. Sam beat Shelob. Being an Eldar may make Galadriel un-afraid, but against a king of men from the days of Numenor who became an un-dead warlord, the fair elven lady who most likely wasn't a warrior would lose in a battle. Fear is a great power of the Nazgul, yes, but they are still pretty much non-stiff zombies with swords and combat experience regardless.

Galadriel is great, yes, but I don't see how she could defeat the Morgul Lord in combat. She's great for wisdom, not for battle. While she is wiser and has a ring of power, she likely wouldn't stand a chance against the Witch-King. Sorry guys, but even if you're brave, if you aren't experienced in combat and aren't in good fighting shape, a tall, combat-ready zombie is likely going to beat you.

Boromir88

06-23-2006, 09:32 AM

Eyown showed no fear of the Witch-King, yet with one blow the Nazgul Lord not only shattered the shield of Rohan's Shieldmaiden, he broke her arm.
But you are comparing Eowyn to, as has been shown one of the mightiest Elves on Middle-earth. Eowyn though strong and brave, can be no way compared to Galadriel's power. Also, I never said that the Witch-King had no power over the fearless, the quote just says they had "no great power over the fearless," as opposed to those who did actually fear them.
Also, before you guys say anything about "social rank" leading to instant victory
Point taken, but "rank" certainly plays a significant role in the outcome. Sure elves can slay Balrogs, men can slay dragons...etc. In all those cases the people siezed a good oppurtunity to beat an opponent of greater strength. But, "social ranks" have a big effect on the outcome, because the majority of the time the greater power would win.
At the gate of Minas Tirith, Gandalf-who did not fear the Witch-King-doubted he could win.
I beg to differ...
'Then, Mithrandir, you had a foe to match you,' said Denethor. 'For myself, I have long known who is the chief captain of the hosts of the Dark Tower. Is this all that you have returned to say? Or can it be that you have withdrawn because you are overmatched?'
...
'Nay, I came rather to guard the hurt men that can yet be healed; for the Rammas is breached far and wide, and soon the host of Morgul will enter in at many points. And I came chiefly to say this. Soon there will be battle on the fields. A sortie must be made ready. Let it be of mounted men. In them lies our brief hope, for in one thing only is the enemy still poorly provided: he has few horsemen.~Minas Tirith
Denethor's words show more contempt and dislike towards Gandalf, sort of like "Oh, Gandalf you retreated...have you met your match then?" and Gandalf simply tells him no.
Then the actual encounter:
In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.
All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dínen.
'You cannot enter here,' said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. 'Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!'
...Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.~Siege of Minas Tirith
Gandalf shows no fear and is the only one to stand before the Witch-King...
Gandalf looked through the gaping Gate, and already on the fields he heard the gathering sound of battle. He clenched his hand. 'I must go ' he said. 'The Black Rider is abroad, and he will yet bring ruin on us. I have no time.'
'But Faramir!' cried Pippin. 'He is not dead, and they will burn him alive, if someone does not stop them.'
'Burn him alive?' said Gandalf. 'What is this tale? Be quick!'
'Denethor has gone to the Tombs,' said Pippin, 'and he has taken Faramir, and he says we are all to burn, and he will not wait, and they are to make a pyre and burn him on it, and Faramir as well. And he has sent men to fetch wood and oil. And I have told Beregond, but I'm afraid he won't dare to leave his post: he is on guard. And what can he do anyway?' So Pippin poured out his tale, reaching up and touching Gandalf's knee with trembling hands. 'Can't you save Faramir?'
'Maybe I can,' said Gandalf; 'but if I do, then others will die, I fear. Well, I must come, since no other help can reach him. But evil and sorrow will come of this. Even in the heart of our stronghold the Enemy has power to strike us: for his will it is that is at work.'
Gandalf is faced with a choice, to pursue the Witch-King in what seems like he's confident he can defeat him. He "must" go or others will die. He's faced with a choice, go after and kill the Witch-King, or save Faramir, he chooses the latter. Gandalf throughout the whole encounter shows no sort of second-guessing...plain and simple he could have mopped the floor with the WK.

Also seeing, so great was Galadriel's power that Lothlorien would only fall if Sauron himself came...

High Queen Galadriel

06-23-2006, 12:09 PM

AND I believe that it is stated in either the silmarillion or unfinished tales that Galadriel fought bitterly in the defense of Alqualonde.

obloquy

06-23-2006, 07:23 PM

You don't have to be scared of a car to be brutally run over and killed by one.

If cars were your enemy and you knew that they 1) could and 2) would smash you at their first opportunity you would be foolish not to fear them. Your example is not analogous at all.

The nazgul used fear, yes, but that doesn't mean they were helpless without it.

When Gandalf spoke of Glorfindel not fearing the Nine, he wasn't talking about the fear that they project as a offensive tool. He was referring to how Glorfindel "rode openly against them", and how they fled from him in his wrath. The Eldar did not fear the Nazgul because the Nazgul had no power over them; and, evidently, the roles of Scary and Scaredy-cat were reversed when an Elf-lord got involved. As I said above, Not fearing an enemy who has the power to kill you is foolish: the Eldar were not foolish.

Eyown showed no fear of the Witch-King

What Eowyn did not fear was death. She did not confront the Witch-King because she fearlessly felt she could defeat him; she merely stood her ground and defended her king in the face of certain death. Since she was only human, I promise you she felt that fear that came with the Nazgul. But she stood up to it.

She's great for wisdom, not for battle.

All of the qualifications you people require really get tiresome. Tolkien frequently spoke of the "greatest" of this or that group without restricting his definition to one or two "skills" ("bow-hunting skills, 'numchuck' skills, computer hacking skills..."). Tolkien doesn't say that when he referred to Galadriel as one of the greatest two Noldor it was because of her wisdom. That is an assumption that you made, likely because of some prejudice towards women. Somehow I doubt that you put some silly qualifications on Feanor's greatness (which is parallel to Galadriel's); surely he was not only wise but also mighty in battle.

At the gate of Minas Tirith, Gandalf-who did not fear the Witch-King-doubted he could win.

Really? Can I see some textual support for that? Because it would sure be ironic if the mightiest being in Middle-earth was scared of going toe-to-toe with the laughably overconfident Witch-King. What I see in the book is a daddy telling a neighborhood bully to get lost--and he obeys.

Sauron was the greatest of the Maia, and he was utterly humiliated and defeated.

WROOOONNNGGGGGGGGG again. Produce a quote that says that Sauron was the greatest of the Maiar (yeah, that's Maiar).

*Edit: And, while we're at it: Sauron is the greatest of the Maiar in what? Somehow the concept of general greatness is not difficult for you to grasp in Sauron's case, but Galadriel's greatness requires some (spurious) qualifications.

Tulkas beat Morgoth.

At which point in Morgoth's existence it is no longer a surprising feat.

The 1,000 Reader

06-23-2006, 11:06 PM

If cars were your enemy and you knew that they 1) could and 2) would smash you at their first opportunity you would be foolish not to fear them. Your example is not analogous at all.

A nazgul could and would kill you at their first opportunity as well. You don't have to be greatly afraid of cars to be killed by one. A car lover (no fear at all) could get run over. The nazgul did not rely on fear alone.

When Gandalf spoke of Glorfindel not fearing the Nine, he wasn't talking about the fear that they project as a offensive tool. He was referring to how Glorfindel "rode openly against them", and how they fled from him in his wrath. The Eldar did not fear the Nazgul because the Nazgul had no power over them; and, evidently, the roles of Scary and Scaredy-cat were reversed when an Elf-lord got involved. As I said above, Not fearing an enemy who has the power to kill you is foolish: the Eldar were not foolish.

Please provide the said quote of them fleeing from his wrath. The only time I recall Glorfindel meeting all nine Nazgul was when they were chasing Frodo and were "power-limited" (so to speak) at the time. Also, the nazgul could still kill the Eldar. Glorfindel was not foolish, yet with any situation that could be fatal he was wary. Glorfindel was powerful, but I believe he'd be quite hindered if a sword was stuck in his stomach.

What Eowyn did not fear was death. She did not confront the Witch-King because she fearlessly felt she could defeat him; she merely stood her ground and defended her king in the face of certain death. Since she was only human, I promise you she felt that fear that came with the Nazgul. But she stood up to it.

Eowyn did not fear death, however the book shows no specific detail of a fear of the Witch-King. To defy him as she did and even threaten him if he harmed Theoden shows a very, very remote fear at best, one which would not grant "great power." Eowyn, in her bravery, still had her shield shattered and her arm broken in one blow.

All of the qualifications you people require really get tiresome. Tolkien frequently spoke of the "greatest" of this or that group without restricting his definition to one or two "skills" ("bow-hunting skills, 'numchuck' skills, computer hacking skills..."). Tolkien doesn't say that when he referred to Galadriel as one of the greatest two Noldor it was because of her wisdom. That is an assumption that you made, likely because of some prejudice towards women. Somehow I doubt that you put some silly qualifications on Feanor's greatness (which is parallel to Galadriel's); surely he was not only wise but also mighty in battle.

I have no prejudice towards women, and do not accuse me of having one. The great actions of Galadriel were those of governing and wisdom. While she may have been in the ranks of the athletes of Valinor, the elves of Middle-Earth diminished over time, so it is likely Galadriel wasn't as high as she used to be by the Third Age. Also, seeing as how Middle-Earth had part of the sexist roles of old England, Galadriel likely wasn't encouraged by those around her to be an expert at combat and to roam the land and climb mountains and whatnot. That could add to physical diminishing as well.

Really? Can I see some textual support for that? Because it would sure be ironic if the mightiest being in Middle-earth was scared of going toe-to-toe with the laughably overconfident Witch-King. What I see in the book is a daddy telling a neighborhood bully to get lost--and he obeys.

"Then, Mithrandir, you had a foe to match you," said Denethor. "For myself, I have long known who is the chief captain of the hosts of the Dark Tower. Is this all that you have returned to say? Or can it be that you have withdrawn because you are overmatched?" Pippin trembled, fearing that Gandalf would be stung to sudden wrath, but his fear was needless. "It might be so," Gandalf answered softly.

Gandalf's attitude against having to go up against the Witch-King was not one of "Don't worry, it's fine." His attitude was more along the lines of "I don't know if he's better than me or not, but I'm the only one who stands a chance." Gandalf stood up against the Witch-King at the gate because he was brave and he was the only person in the whole city who stood any chance of beating the Morgul Lord. The Witch-King showed no fear of Gandalf, and Gandalf seemed to not have any exploitable fear of the Witch-King. In all regards, the book portrayed them as equals, one good and one evil, at that moment. The reason the Witch-King left was not that he was afraid of Gandalf, he left because Rohan arrived and he had an army to save. Gandalf wanted to chase after the Witch-King because he thought he was the only one who stood a chance at beating the Witch-King. He wasn't certain, but he had to try regardless. (Gandalf's statement of returning to "guard the hurt men that can yet be healed" was in regards to Denethor asking if Gandalf only returned to bring bad news.

WROOOONNNGGGGGGGGG again. Produce a quote that says that Sauron was the greatest of the Maiar (yeah, that's Maiar).

The quote is everywhere and I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it. From the smallest sites to the Encyclopedia of Arda, it's quoted that Sauron is the greatest everywhere. If I wasn't about to go out to dinner, I would provide the quote myself. Also, don't rag on me for saying Maia instead of Maiar. Maia is a well-accepted abbreviation for Maiar, and if I'm not mistaken the word Maia was in the writings of Tolkien himself.

At which point in Morgoth's existence it is no longer a surprising feat.

All the more proof showing that Morgoth's rank did not grant him a large advantage. In a fight, ranks can quickly become no more than fancy names.

Formendacil

06-24-2006, 12:33 AM

Also, don't rag on me for saying Maia instead of Maiar. Maia is a well-accepted abbreviation for Maiar, and if I'm not mistaken the word Maia was in the writings of Tolkien himself.

Obloquy isn't quibbling about the word Maia itself- he's quibbling about your usage of it.

Maiar is the plural.

Maia is the singular.

In the form you used it, it should have been the plural: Maiar.

'tis foolishly pedantic, I agree, to the point of rudeness, but technically correct.

obloquy

06-24-2006, 02:54 PM

A nazgul could and would kill you at their first opportunity as well. You don't have to be greatly afraid of cars to be killed by one. A car lover (no fear at all) could get run over.

I understand your analogy, but it's not apt. You're saying that someone can get killed by something they do not fear. That is true. The reason people do not fear cars, however, is because a car is not your enemy and would not kill you of its own volition. (A more appropriate parallel to a car is a sword: it does not inspire fear of itself, but when wielded as a weapon by an enemy, it can effect that enemy's harmful will.) The Nazgul would take every available opportunity to kill Eldar if they had the power to do so; therefore, if the Nazgul had any power over the Eldar, the Eldar would be foolish not to fear them.

The nazgul did not rely on fear alone.

Once again, we're not talking about that supernatural fear that the Nazgul used to wither weak-spirited enemies. We're talking about any rational fear at all that might come from confronting a more powerful enemy than oneself. Glorfindel is not counted among the greatest of the Eldar, yet he slew a Balrog himself and openly confronted all Nine Ulairi. Not only that, but many years earlier, this same Glorfindel had been the one to put the Witch-King to flight after his kingdom had been utterly destroyed.

I'm not claiming that the Eldar were invincible. My claim is that in any confrontation involving Eldar and Nazgul, without the additional factor of overwhelming armies, the Eldar would not be threatened. In fact, the Nazgul would not be likely to stick around.

Please provide the said quote of them fleeing from his wrath. The only time I recall Glorfindel meeting all nine Nazgul was when they were chasing Frodo and were "power-limited" (so to speak) at the time.

Power limited? How so? It's true that the Nazgul were focused on Frodo and their mission, and you're right that they do have killing power, and Glorfindel was not invincible. Gandalf tells us that even Glorfindel and Aragorn, on foot could not withstand all nine Nazgul. Then he says:
Caught between fire and water, and seeing an Elf-lord revealed in his wrath, they were dismayed, and their horses were stricken with madness.
Also: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas. They do not fear the Ringwraiths, for those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen and the Unseen they have great power.
and
Appendix A: (after the Witch-King's army had been defeated and the Witch-King had rode against Earnur, whose horse fled from him in fear, which cracked up the W-K) But Glorfindel rode up then on his white horse, and in the midst of his laughter the Witch-King turned to flight and passed into the shadows.

Apart from all of this, we know that the Eldar are inherently greater beings than even the Numenoreans. The Nazgul are merely Men.

Glorfindel was not foolish, yet with any situation that could be fatal he was wary.

I'll grant that; it furthers my point: Glorfindel was not wary when confronting the Witch-King in the account from Appendix A, so we can assume he had nothing to fear.

Glorfindel was powerful, but I believe he'd be quite hindered if a sword was stuck in his stomach.

Sure, if he started a fight that way. The whole point is that the Nazgul could not get the sword there in the first place. The Balrog wasn't able to, and we know for certain that they're mightier than any Nazgul.

Eowyn did not fear death, however the book shows no specific detail of a fear of the Witch-King. To defy him as she did and even threaten him if he harmed Theoden shows a very, very remote fear at best, one which would not grant "great power." Eowyn, in her bravery, still had her shield shattered and her arm broken in one blow.

The fear the Nazgul projected was supernatural, and Eowyn was not immune to it.

I have no prejudice towards women, and do not accuse me of having one. The great actions of Galadriel were those of governing and wisdom.

You're expressing your prejudice right there. As I pointed out before, Galadriel's greatness was never qualified the way you have qualified it. She was greatest of the Noldor, and among the three greatest of the Eldar. There's no reason, apart from some preconceived notion of her position or abilities, to assume that she was not a mighty warrior in the manner of all other "great" Noldor.

The rest of your comments, particularly about gender roles in England, are bogus and not even worth responding to.

Gandalf's attitude against having to go up against the Witch-King was not one of "Don't worry, it's fine."

He was confident enough to be dishing out orders. The Witch-King obeyed.

His attitude was more along the lines of "I don't know if he's better than me or not, but I'm the only one who stands a chance."

I'll be looking forward to your textual support for this.

The Witch-King showed no fear of Gandalf, and Gandalf seemed to not have any exploitable fear of the Witch-King.

Except that when Gandalf told him to bug off, he bugged off.

In all regards, the book portrayed them as equals, one good and one evil, at that moment.

No it didn't.

The reason the Witch-King left was not that he was afraid of Gandalf, he left because Rohan arrived and he had an army to save.

Gandalf was the backbone of the Alliance. If he had fallen, it would have been a crippling blow. If the Witch-King had any chance of defeating Gandalf on the spot, he would have taken it. Gandalf slew the Balrog while observing limitations on his power. The Balrog was immensely more powerful than the Witch-King. Gandalf came back from that battle enhanced. Do you follow? Here's another line of reasoning: Sauron and Gandalf were approximately equal (look elsewhere on the forum for my discussion of this topic), Sauron was far superior to his Lieutenant, therefore Gandalf was obviously mightier than the Witch-King.

The quote is everywhere and I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it. From the smallest sites to the Encyclopedia of Arda, it's quoted that Sauron is the greatest everywhere.

Show me.

If I wasn't about to go out to dinner, I would provide the quote myself.

Haha! Nice.

Also, don't rag on me for saying Maia instead of Maiar. Maia is a well-accepted abbreviation for Maiar, and if I'm not mistaken the word Maia was in the writings of Tolkien himself.

Once again, Nice. Abbreviation? Like "cat" is an abbreviation of "cats."

Boromir88

06-24-2006, 08:45 PM

The quote is everywhere and I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it. From the smallest sites to the Encyclopedia of Arda, it's quoted that Sauron is the greatest everywhere.
Actually I can provide quotes to show that Sauron was not the mightiest of the Maiar:
Chief among the Maiar of Valinor whose names are remembered in the histories of the Elder Days are Ilmare, the handmaid of Varda, and Eonwe, the banner-bearer and herald of Manwe, whose might in arms is surpassed by none in Arda. But of all the Maiar Osse and Uinen are the best known to the Children of Iluvatar~Valaquenta: Of the Maiar

Osse and Melian could also be powerful candidates:
Melkor hated the Sea, for he could not subdue it. It is said that in the making of Arda he endeavoured to draw Osse to his allegiance promising to him all the realm and power of Ulmo, if he would serve him.~ibid
Melkor was unable to control the sea, so he tries to sway Osse to his side to wreak havoc.

All that is ever said is that "Sauron was the greatest of Melkor's servants" (Valaquenta and The Index). Where we are told that Eonwe was one of the greatest among the Maiar (The Index), so Eonwe certainly seems more powerful than Sauron. Osse and Melian there's nothing so straight forward and clear. Melian was used as a shield against Morgoth, which makes me think she was one of the mightiest. And Morgoth, in order to control the sea tries to persuade Osse to join him.

obloquy

06-24-2006, 11:57 PM

Actually I can provide quotes to show that Sauron was not the mightiest of the Maiar:

Osse and Melian could also be powerful candidates:

Melkor was unable to control the sea, so he tries to sway Osse to his side to wreak havoc.

All that is ever said is that "Sauron was the greatest of Melkor's servants" (Valaquenta and The Index). Where we are told that Eonwe was one of the greatest among the Maiar (The Index), so Eonwe certainly seems more powerful than Sauron. Osse and Melian there's nothing so straight forward and clear. Melian was used as a shield against Morgoth, which makes me think she was one of the mightiest. And Morgoth, in order to control the sea tries to persuade Osse to join him.

Good points, Boromir88. Also, Arien openly defied Melkor in his primeval state and was probably one of the more powerful Maiarin spirits.

High Queen Galadriel

06-25-2006, 11:09 AM

were getting a little bit off subject here!!

Angry Hill Troll

06-25-2006, 12:59 PM

I think a hint as to what would have happened in a duel between the Witch-king and Galadriel can be found in the the following passage. If I remember correctly, two of the Nazgul, including Khamul, the WK's second in command, led the attack on Lorien from Dol Guldur.

Three times Lorien had been assailed from Dol Guldur, but besides the valor of the elven people of that land, the power that dwelt there was too great for any to overcome, unless Sauron had come there himself.

If an army led by two Nazgul couldn't overcome Galadriel's power, I don't see how the Witch-king could have either.

As for Gandalf, recall that at Amon Sul, he fought off all nine of the Nazgul together, and even then they waited till after nightfall to face him. And that was before his powers were upgraded following his duel with the Balrog. So I don't think the Witch-king would have had any better luck against Gandalf single-handedly at Minas Tirith.

Peter Jackson's misleading portrayal notwithstanding, the reason that Gandalf didn't fight the Witch-king wasn't his inability to do so. Rather, if he were to openly fight the Witch-king, his supernatural abilities would become apparent. Even though he was permitted to use them a little more openly, he didn't want to do so unless absolutely necessary.

Fortunately, events conspired (through Eru's grace?) to prevent this from happening. First, the Rohirrim showed up in the nick of time, and the Witch-king had other matter to attend to. Then Pippin convinces Gandalf that he must intervene to save Faramir, and by the time that situation is resolved, the Witch-king is no more.

The 1,000 Reader

07-01-2006, 01:42 AM

I understand your analogy, but it's not apt. You're saying that someone can get killed by something they do not fear. That is true. The reason people do not fear cars, however, is because a car is not your enemy and would not kill you of its own volition. (A more appropriate parallel to a car is a sword: it does not inspire fear of itself, but when wielded as a weapon by an enemy, it can effect that enemy's harmful will.) The Nazgul would take every available opportunity to kill Eldar if they had the power to do so; therefore, if the Nazgul had any power over the Eldar, the Eldar would be foolish not to fear them.

One does not need to be the master to be the victor. The Eldar could still die from a foe who had no apparent advantage. Just look at how the Balrog killed Glorfindel.

Glorfindel is not counted among the greatest of the Eldar, yet he slew a Balrog himself and openly confronted all Nine Ulairi. Not only that, but many years earlier, this same Glorfindel had been the one to put the Witch-King to flight after his kingdom had been utterly destroyed.

When Glorfindel met the Witch-King, Glorfindel had returned from the grave, and had apparently gained some extra power to boot. Besides, killing the king would be much harder if the Witch-King had to fight Glorfindel as well, and if he fought them both it could delay his escape, thus hindering any regroup at Minas Morgul. The Witch-King also wasn't as strong as he was at the Siege of Minas Tirith.

I'm not claiming that the Eldar were invincible. My claim is that in any confrontation involving Eldar and Nazgul, without the additional factor of overwhelming armies, the Eldar would not be threatened. In fact, the Nazgul would not be likely to stick around.

In the Glorfindel/Witch-King case, the overwhelming armies were on Glorfindel's side. An approaching army, a king of men, and additional troops shows that the Witch-King was outnumbered, not bested by Glorfindel.

Power limited? How so? It's true that the Nazgul were focused on Frodo and their mission, and you're right that they do have killing power, and Glorfindel was not invincible. Gandalf tells us that even Glorfindel and Aragorn, on foot could not withstand all nine Nazgul.

Seeing as how Gandalf the grey could hold off the nine till escape presented itself, and then later doubted he could defeat the sole Witch-King as Gandalf the White shows that the nazgul had gained more power since they last met.

Apart from all of this, we know that the Eldar are inherently greater beings than even the Numenoreans. The Nazgul are merely Men.

Men who had gained a great deal of power from a dark lord.

I'll grant that; it furthers my point: Glorfindel was not wary when confronting the Witch-King in the account from Appendix A, so we can assume he had nothing to fear.

He wasn't wary? Keeping your guard up, focusing on the enemy, etc. are signs of waryness in battle. The traditional stuff in every battle. If he wasn't wary, he'd not be using his head.

Sure, if he started a fight that way. The whole point is that the Nazgul could not get the sword there in the first place. The Balrog wasn't able to, and we know for certain that they're mightier than any Nazgul.

What I meant was if he was stabbed in the stomach, he wouldn't just keep on trucking perfectly fine. I was saying that the Eldar are not invincible.

The fear the Nazgul projected was supernatural, and Eowyn was not immune to it.

If the fear was supernatural, and Eowyn was certainly not weak-willed at the moment, then that would mean that the supernatural fear was not fear, but a spell. Since a spell is magic and not fear, and the nazgul were said to gain power from fear, then the fear was not a spell, and the Witch-King did not use a spell.

You're expressing your prejudice right there. As I pointed out before, Galadriel's greatness was never qualified the way you have qualified it. She was greatest of the Noldor, and among the three greatest of the Eldar. There's no reason, apart from some preconceived notion of her position or abilities, to assume that she was not a mighty warrior in the manner of all other "great" Noldor.

I am not being prejudiced, I am simply stating that the majority of things Galadriel did were as a leader and governor, like Denethor. It was said she was in great shape in her Valinor days, but the majority of her great acts were done through leadership and wisdom. She proved herself more as an effective leader. It's right there in the books. I'm stating the facts, not insulting a gender.

The rest of your comments, particularly about gender roles in England, are bogus and not even worth responding to.

Do you see any women in the armies of Gondor, Rohan, etc.? With the exception of Eowyn, all of the women in Tolkien's works were either royalty kept away from the front lines or healers. It's right there in the books.

He was confident enough to be dishing out orders. The Witch-King obeyed.

The Witch-King did not obey. He set his sword alight and was about to combat Gandalf when Rohan arrived.

I'll be looking forward to your textual support for this.

You did notice the paragraph straight from the book where Gandalf, when asked if the Witch-King could match/defeat him, answered "It might be so," grimly and softly, right?

Except that when Gandalf told him to bug off, he bugged off.

No, when Gandalf told him to bug off, he laughed and was about to fight Gandalf when Rohan arrived.

No it didn't.

Yes it did. The grim "It might be so," line from Gandalf, the Witch-King showing no fear of Gandalf, and a battle seconds from the first blows with no clear idea of who would win. Once again, Gandalf wasn't out there because he knew he would win, Gandalf was out there because he was the best bet, and even though Gandalf could lose, it was Gondor's best shot.

Gandalf was the backbone of the Alliance. If he had fallen, it would have been a crippling blow. If the Witch-King had any chance of defeating Gandalf on the spot, he would have taken it. Gandalf slew the Balrog while observing limitations on his power. The Balrog was immensely more powerful than the Witch-King. Gandalf came back from that battle enhanced. Do you follow? Here's another line of reasoning: Sauron and Gandalf were approximately equal (look elsewhere on the forum for my discussion of this topic), Sauron was far superior to his Lieutenant, therefore Gandalf was obviously mightier than the Witch-King.

Do you really think a battle of equals would be over in one second? If the Witch-King could have beaten Gandalf on the spot and vice-versa, they would have both attacked each other as soon as they could. Gandalf slew the Balrog, yes, but when "super-charged" as Gandalf the White, he had doubts about defeating the Witch-King. Also, it was mentioned in a letter (I believe it was a letter) that Gandalf had to "break the rules" on his power to combat the Balrog. Now, say if the Witch-King won the battle of equals at the gate, in the time passed his army would be lacking in large number and missing morale. By quickly moving to eliminate Rohan's leader, lowering enemy morale and raising the morale of his troops, he would be able to combat Gandalf later with Minas Tirith falling in the meanwhile, and there would be less enemy soldiers to deal with. Finally, Gandalf was not equal to Sauron. Before Gandalf went on the mission, he was afraid of Sauron's cunning and might. If he was flat-out afraid, then it's rather obvious that Gandalf feared Sauron because Sauron out-classed him. Also, if Sauron had gotten his ring back, and stopped being a crippled shadow, Gandalf would likely not defeat him in combat. The best bet Gandalf had of defeating Sauron was combating him with the ring in Gandalf's possession. Gandalf was powerful, yes, but he was not equal in might to Sauron, and he did not have an obvious might over the Witch-King.

Show me.

Sauron was one of the mightiest (perhaps the mightiest) of the Maiar.

(Paraphrased) All of the sent Maiar were peers to Sauron.

If the Valar were sending the five best-suited maia, and one of them (Gandalf) could kill a Balrog, yet all five feared the crippled Sauron, then Sauron was packing a good deal of power.

Haha! Nice.

FYI, I was out at dinner, China Star to be exact.

Once again, Nice. Abbreviation? Like "cat" is an abbreviation of "cats."

In a world of a fictional elvish language, spirits we don't know much about, and half of the online Tolkien community using both forms interchangably for all references to the servants of the Valar, such a wording should not be worthy of disdain.

Now, to let this thread rest and prevent a flame war, do not attempt to reply to this. In the end, the victor of a battle between Galadriel and the Witch-King falls down to a war of opinions.

Boromir88

07-01-2006, 10:11 AM

Men who had gained a great deal of power from a dark lord.~Reader
This is what is said about the Nazgul after receiving the Rings:
Men proved easier to ensnare. Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing~Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age
But, the point obloquy is making, doesn't matter if they became "mightier," they were still Men, just 'greater' men. They still did not hold a lot of power over the fearless, and as has been shown Gandalf and the Eldar had sent them away several times, becuase they did not fear them.

You did notice the paragraph straight from the book where Gandalf, when asked if the Witch-King could match/defeat him, answered "It might be so," grimly and softly, right?
I'm assuming you are referring to this:

' Then, Mithrandir, you had a foe to match you,' said Denethor. 'For myself, I have long known who is the chief captain of the hosts of the Dark Tower. Is this all that you have returned to say? Or can it be that you have withdrawn because you are overmatched?'
Pippin trembled, fearing that Gandalf would be stung to sudden wrath but his fear was needless. "It might be so," Gandalf answered softly. "But our trial of strength is not yet come. And if words spoken of old be true not by the hand of a man shall he fall, and hidden from the Wise is the doom that awaits him. However that may be, the Captain of Despair does not press forward, yet. He rules rather according to the wisdom that you have just spoken, from the rear, driving his slaves in madness no before.
'Nay, I came rather to guard the hurt men that can yet be healed; for the Rammas is breached far and wide, and soon the host of Morgul will enter in at many points. And I came chiefly to say this. Soon there will be battle on the fields. A sortie must be made ready. Let it be of mounted men. In them lies our brief hope, for in one thing only is the enemy still poorly provided: he has few horsemen.~Minas Tirith
I explained this in my first post. We see Denethor's contempt for Gandalf..."Oh did you meet your match then?" I left out the middle paragraph because I felt like it held no importance.
1) 'grim' is not in there
2) softly counteracts what Pippin expected. Tolkien made every word count in his story and it's important to look at everything surrounding to get full meaning. The 'softly' is not Gandalf being 'grim' admitting he may be over-matched. It counteracts what Pippin had expected. Pippin expected Gandalf to blow up and get offended at Denethor's jab, but Gandalf keeps his cool and 'answers softly.'

He dismisses Denethor's statement, "you might be right, for the Wise don't know his end." But, notice the next paragraph Gandalf just flat out tells him no. "Nay," answering Denethor's question meaning..."No I have not met my match," he came back to look after the 'hurt men' and to tell Denethor to be prepared.

The Witch-King did not obey. He set his sword alight and was about to combat Gandalf when Rohan arrived.
The Witch-King left did he not? Therefor he did obey. Gandalf tells WK to go away. WK tries to play his fear card, laughing at him and doing some fancy tricks...but:
Gandalf did not move...~The Siege of Gondor
Gandalf did not falter, did not show any nerves, and the Witch-King goes away. IF the Witch-King felt like he could have defeated Gandalf he would have done so. As obloquy says Gandalf is the backbone of the alliance, 'he took command of Gondor's defenses,' as Denethor was just sitting back whining. If the WK thought he could be Gandalf, he would have done so. He tried to play his fear cards, it didn't work, and he left to Rohan's arrival.

Rohan's timely arrival may have been what fulfilled the prophecy. Note, first a prophecy does not have to come true, but Rohan's arrival makes the prophecy come true. Because had the WK gone toe-to-toe with Gandalf, the prophecy would not have been fulfilled, I'm sure about that.

If the fear was supernatural, and Eowyn was certainly not weak-willed at the moment, then that would mean that the supernatural fear was not fear, but a spell. Since a spell is magic and not fear, and the nazgul were said to gain power from fear, then the fear was not a spell, and the Witch-King did not use a spell.
This I'm just flat out confused...Eowyn did not fear death, but she certainly did fear the Witch-King, and would have been annhilated by him had Merry not stepped in:
Eowyn it was, and Dernhelm also. For into Merry's mind flashed the memory of the face that he saw at the riding from Dunharrow: the face of one that goes seeking death, having no hope...~Pelennor Fields
It's interesting, because we have Eowyn here, but Merry also sees a bit of Dernhelm's personality and is reminded of the 'face' when riding out to Gondor. Eowyn is not fearing death, but that doesn't mean she isn't fearing the Witch-King:

Out of the wreeck rose the Black Rider, tall and threatening, towering above her. With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears like venom he let fall his mace...~ibid
You should check out this post (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=472985&postcount=8), where I talk about Tolkien's use of Boromir's height installing fear in Frodo. Same occurance is happening here, Tolkien is using the height of the Witch-King, over Eowyn 'tall and threatening' to install fear.

Sauron was one of the mightiest (perhaps the mightiest) of the Maiar.~Encyclopedia of Arda
While the EOA is one of the better sites, it still has it's flaws as it takes in what fans write and forms it's own the same. It remains that I have quotes from Tolkien's actual works to show that Sauron was called "greatest of Morgoth's servants." But, is never called "greatest of the Maiar." I think obloquy and I have shown at least 4 Maiar who were greater...Eonwe for sure, the other 3 mentioned it's not as definitive, but can be inferred, by their deeds.

obloquy

07-01-2006, 10:51 AM

Good post, Boromir.

Now, to let this thread rest and prevent a flame war, do not attempt to reply to this. In the end, the victor of a battle between Galadriel and the Witch-King falls down to a war of opinions.

Don't attempt to respond? I guess that's one way to try to win a dispute. In any case, below are the only portions of your post I care to respond to; the rest is wholly and unequivocally incorrect, and obvious enough to anyone who reads it.

You said: The Witch-King also wasn't as strong as he was at the Siege of Minas Tirith.

Based on what text, exactly?

and: if Sauron had gotten his ring back, and stopped being a crippled shadow,

Sauron was a 'crippled shadow'? You sure he wasn't a HUGE DISEMBODIED EYEBALL HOVERING AROUND WITH FLAMES ALL AROUND HIM? As for Gandalf vs. Sauron, I once again recommend that you look elsewhere on the forum for my arguments on the topic.

davem

07-01-2006, 11:03 AM

While both Gandalf & Angmar have a physical form, Angmar's seems not to be of the same nature. Of course, he has 'sinews' that Merry's blade can sever, but he is physically invisible. If only Merry's Barrow Blade can cut the spell that held his sinews together, then it seems that what holds Angmar's body together is a magical force. Therefore, the battle between Gandalf & Angmar would come down to whether Gandalf could perform the 'spell' or speak the 'Word of Power' that would undo Angmar's magically held together physical form. From what we are told Gandalf could not do that (only the Barrow Blade could).

Therefore the question becomes 'What was the nature of Gandalf's physical form? There is no reason to believe that Gandalf's body is impervious to harm. Certainly he tells the Three Hunters: ' Indeed my friends, none of you has any weapon that could hurt me.' But its entirely possible that we should read that as him specifically referring to the weapons of Aragorn, Gimli & Legolas ( 'none of you has any weapon that could hurt me). For him to be so specific implies (possibly) that there are weapons that could harm him, but those three don't happen to be in posession of them.

Now, if it is possible for a blade such as that possessed by Merry to be the only type that could harm Angmar, it is also surely possible that Angmar possessed a blade of a type that could harm Gandalf's body. Sauron was aware that Gandalf was his chief enemy (or one of them) hence it is likely that if a particular type of weapon could destroy him Sauron would arm his Leiutenant with such a weapon. What we do know is that Gandalf is afraid of Angmar, whereas Angmar not only has no fear of Gandalf, he actually states 'Die now and curse in vain!" And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.' So, Angmar raises what is clearly a magical weapon (it bursts into flame) & clearly tells Gandalf that he is about to die.

Interestingly, he doesn't use this weapon again in the battle - he chooses his mace, a purely physical weapon. It seems that the Blade has a specific purpose, namely to kill Gandalf. Gandalf doesn't have a weapon that could dispatch Angmar. Hence, it is not a question of the inherent power of the two individuals concerned, but rather that Gandalf can be killed by Angmar but Angmar cannot be killed by Gandalf.

Unless Obloquy knows better, of course....

obloquy

07-01-2006, 11:14 AM

Unless Obloquy knows better, of course....

I know that "Angmar" is not the Witch-King's name.

davem

07-01-2006, 11:27 AM

I know that "Angmar" is not the Witch-King's name.

What is his name then? I think you'll find that my use of 'Angmar' is perfectly correct in proper inglish as she is spoke.

This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.

I note you concede my main point though, for which I am happy.

SarumanCymraeg

07-01-2006, 12:52 PM

What is his name then? I think you'll find that my use of 'Angmar' is perfectly correct in proper inglish as she is spoke.

The Witch-King's name is unknown, it's been lost for ages (and most certainly isn't 'Angmar'). Only one of the Nazgul's name (being Khamul) is known to us.

obloquy

07-01-2006, 01:24 PM

What is his name then? I think you'll find that my use of 'Angmar' is perfectly correct in proper inglish as she is spoke.

No, I don't find that. It might be appropriate if you were making a poetic association of the Witch-King with the realm he once held. Perhaps one might refer to him as Angmar while he held Angmar as his kingdom, but even then it would not be his proper name, but rather a personification of his kingdom with him as the implied personality behind that kingdom's will, just as one refers to "Mordor's" doings when really one is speaking of Sauron's. I can go along with such a personification of a kingdom, but you're not referring to "the-kingdom-of-Angmar-with-the-Witch-King-as-its-brain", are you? And surely you'll admit that nobody would say, "The Dark Lord Mordor sits on his throne."

If Tolkien had wanted the Witch-King to have a personal name, he would have given him one like he gave Khamul; however, he never referred to the Witch-King as simply Angmar, and evidently we are to understand that any proper name he once had has long been forgotten along with his history as a Man.

I note you concede my main point though, for which I am happy.

No, I don't concede your point.

Therefore, the battle between Gandalf & Angmar would come down to whether Gandalf could perform the 'spell' or speak the 'Word of Power' that would undo Angmar's magically held together physical form. From what we are told Gandalf could not do that (only the Barrow Blade could).

The Barrow Blade was special compared to regular weapons, but was "magically" inferior to Glamdring.

Therefore the question becomes 'What was the nature of Gandalf's physical form? There is no reason to believe that Gandalf's body is impervious to harm.

No, Gandalf was not invulnerable. You and that 1,000 guy both seem to be making the same point, and this I will concede: it is true; weapons can damage any incarnate being. That means nothing, though. Gandalf's duel with Durin's Bane, and Glorfindel's duel with his Bane were epic duels because the fëa within each corporeal form was at least as mighty as that of the being it opposed. Yes, Merry was a weaker being than the Witch-King and he contributed to the W-K's defeat, BUT that was not a duel, was it? Yes, Wormtongue ruined Saruman, but that also was not a duel. Shelob was bigger and stronger than Sam, but there's no reason to believe that she was any greater in spiritual power than your typical giant spider. So, the bottom line is that in a duel situation, spiritual puissance is king. The Witch-King was a MAN, and therefore, when speaking of duels, he was unquestionably no match for Gandalf (Maia) or Galadriel (Elda) or Glorfindel (Elda).

What we do know is that Gandalf is afraid of Angmar, whereas Angmar not only has no fear of Gandalf, he actually states 'Die now and curse in vain!"

It doesn't matter what the Witch-King thought of himself. What matters are the precedents we have in previous duels, and Tolkien's hierarchy of powers. The W-K may not have known Gandalf's nature. In fact, Sauron may not even have known until he started pumping Saruman for info: that was the whole reason for sending the Istari in humble forms and limiting their options.

Gandalf doesn't have a weapon that could dispatch [The Witch-King].

See above.

Hence, it is not a question of the inherent power of the two individuals concerned, but rather that Gandalf can be killed by Angmar but Angmar cannot be killed by Gandalf.

No, it is entirely a question of inherent power and has nothing to do with magical weapons.

davem

07-01-2006, 02:19 PM

No, I don't find that. It might be appropriate if you were making a poetic association of the Witch-King with the realm he once held. Perhaps one might refer to him as Angmar while he held Angmar as his kingdom, but even then it would not be his proper name, but rather a personification of his kingdom with him as the implied personality behind that kingdom's will, just as one refers to "Mordor's" doings when really one is speaking of Sauron's. I can go along with such a personification of a kingdom, but you're not referring to "the-kingdom-of-Angmar-with-the-Witch-King-as-its-brain", are you? And surely you'll admit that nobody would say, "The Dark Lord Mordor sits on his throne."

One could say Mordor sits on his throne - if one was peaking poetically. Actually, I was using 'Angmar' as shorthand, as I find 'The Witch-King a pain to write out repeatedly & W-K looks a bit like txt spk.

The Barrow Blade was special compared to regular weapons, but was "magically" inferior to Glamdring.

But only a Barrow Blade could harm Angmar :p, so the point is not relevant. Weapons have specific powers. Tolkien is clear about that. Glamdring (or Anduril) could not have harmed Angmar & made him vulnerable to Eowyn's death-blow.

So, the bottom line is that in a duel situation, spiritual puissance is king. The Witch-King was a MAN, and therefore, when speaking of duels, he was unquestionably no match for Gandalf (Maia) or Galadriel (Elda) or Glorfindel (Elda).

Well, he wasn't a 'man'. He was both more & less than that. He was a Man once, but that is not the point. A battering ram was once an acorn, but you'd struggle to bring down a door by throwing an acorn at it. Angmar & the rest of the Nazgul are effectively incarnations of Sauron's power. If they were 'just' Men they would have been a lot less powerful, a lot easier to dispatch, & generally a lot less of a nuisance. Besides, Men tend not to have invisible heads & such..

It doesn't matter what the Witch-King thought of himself. What matters are the precedents we have in previous duels, and Tolkien's hierarchy of powers. The W-K may not have known Gandalf's nature. In fact, Sauron may not even have known until he started pumping Saruman for info: that was the whole reason for sending the Istari in humble forms and limiting their options.

Well, that would depend on whether what he thought about himself was correct or not. I don't see your point here. If there was only one means to dispatch Angmar then there was only one means & 'spiritual power' is neither here nor there. One thing we know about Middle-earth is that there are Rules. Superior force is not the issue. As Gandalf says, he 'cannot burn snow'. Just as there are 'physical' restrictions on what he can do, so there are spiritual ones. You can't talk about the Istari having 'limited options' & then imply that the only restrictions on them is their inherent power. Gandalf can be injured by certain weapons. So can Angmar - but we know that Gandalf is not in possession of such a weapon. Therefore he cannot harm Angmar - because he cannot burn snow. Conversely, the weapon Angmar is about to use on Gandalf at the Gates of Minas Tirith is clearly a magical weapon, which he makes use of at that moment & only at that moment.

And its entirely a question of magical weapons, because Tolkien clearly states it is.

Boromir88

07-01-2006, 04:29 PM

What we do know is that Gandalf is afraid of Angmar, whereas Angmar not only has no fear of Gandalf, he actually states 'Die now and curse in vain!"~davem
I'd like to make note that this still has yet to be proven. I haven't seen anything to suggest Gandalf was afraid of the Witch-King, in fact it wouldn't make sense for him to be afraid. He did perfectly fine battling them on Amon Sul he did perfectly fine driving them away from the retreating Faramir (though the WK was not present at this moment)...still he encountered the Nazgul on a few occasions, and never showed any hesitation or doubt, now as Gandalf the White, both enhanced in power and wisdom why would he suddenly fear the Witch-King?

The two quotes that have been used to look like Gandalf feared the Witch-King, is when asked by Denethor if he was overmatched, saying "It might be so." And here:
"Old Fool!" he said. "Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!" And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.
On the surface it looks like Gandalf may have doubted his abilities in fighting the Witch-king, but as I've remarked both have been taken out of context.

The first one being the opposite of what Pippin expected. Pippin expected wrath from Gandalf towards Denethor, but instead Gandalf is calm and replies 'softly.' Not 'softly' as in grim, and meek which what's been suggested. But 'softly' as in a calm tone, because Pippin was fearing Gandalf would let lightning strike down upon Denethor after his comments.

The second one is The Witch-King's attempt to install fear in Gandalf. It's important to know the Nazgul's patterns. Anytime they enter into an encounter they first, right from the start, try to install fear in their opponents, because that is when they are at their greatest, when they are feared. This is simply the Witch-King's attempt to put fear into Gandalf, he does some fancy tricks, lights up a sword, insults him, tells him to die, in order to put fear in Gandalf, but it doesn't work...'Gandalf did not move.' The fear card didn't work and the Witch-King leaves.

davem

07-01-2006, 05:18 PM

I'd like to make note that this still has yet to be proven. I haven't seen anything to suggest Gandalf was afraid of the Witch-King, in fact it wouldn't make sense for him to be afraid. He did perfectly fine battling them on Amon Sul he did perfectly fine driving them away from the retreating Faramir (though the WK was not present at this moment)...still he encountered the Nazgul on a few occasions, and never showed any hesitation or doubt, now as Gandalf the White, both enhanced in power and wisdom why would he suddenly fear the Witch-King?

Ok I expressed myself badly there. I meant 'afraid' in the sense of knowing that Angmar could kill him & bring disaster on the forces of the West. He is clearly afraid that some disaster will result from his choice to rescue Faramir. Angmar is just as clearly not afraid of Gandalf, because he knows he can kill the Wizard. Gandalf knows he can be killed by Angmar & also knows he cannot kill him. Clearly he knows that he can, on a good day, with his back to the wall & with the wind in the right direction, hold him off - & its clear that is his intention. All Angmar needs is one lucky shot when Gandalf is distracted.

This is where Obloquy is probably right - in a battle of wills Gandalf can stop Angmar, but he cannot kill him. The problem is, Gandalf cannot spend his entire life holding Angmar at bay. What we saw on Weathertop was Gandalf being able to stop the Nazgul, He was able to stop their attack on Faramir & his men. I note he never killed any of them.

obloquy

07-01-2006, 06:21 PM

Where did this idea that the Barrow Blade was the only thing capable of piercing the WK's "magic" come from?

The Saucepan Man

07-01-2006, 06:43 PM

You said:
Quote:
The Witch-King also wasn't as strong as he was at the Siege of Minas Tirith.

Based on what text, exactly?

From Letter #210 in The Letters of JRR Tolkien:

[The Black Riders'] peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. (emphasis added)Angmar was undoubtedly more powerful at the Siege of Minas Tirith than he was as the leader of the Black Riders. Sauron saw to that.

... the rest is wholly and unequivocally incorrect, and obvious enough to anyone who reads it.It's not obvious to me. Whether Angmar had the ability to defeat Gandalf the White is open to question. You (and Boro) make a good argument, but is not as clear cut as you seek to suggest. What I find persuasive is that the confrontation between Angmar and Gandalf at the Gate of Minas Tirith is intended by Tolkien to be a moment of tension. Like Pippin, we the readers are meant to fear that Angmar may actually be capable of defeating Gandalf. Were we to believe otherwise, there would be no tension here at all. Tolkien is careful to ensure that there is a good reason for Angmar's departure, and that he is not simply seen off by Gandalf. In my opinion, Tolkien intended us to believe that there was a possibility that Angmar might defeat Gandalf. And, being the obedient reader that I am, I believe that. :D

And yes, I have deliberately referred to the Witch-King as Angmar because, as I have discovered previously, it riles obloquy. :p ;)

But seriously, I have little problem with him being referred to as such. There are perfectly good precedents to support it, as davem, points out. And, since we all know who we are talking about by the reference, it hardly matters much.

obloquy

07-01-2006, 09:07 PM

Angmar was undoubtedly more powerful at the Siege of Minas Tirith than he was as the leader of the Black Riders. Sauron saw to that.

Good reference, Saucepan. I admit the W-K certainly seems more menacing on the Pelennor than at any point previous. I differ in my reading of that portion of the letter, however, in that I believe Tolkien may be referring to the effect of his narrative choices on the reader rather than any actual enhancement of the Witch-King by Sauron within the story. Still, even if your interpretation is correct, I maintain that he could not be enhanced enough to become a peer of Gandalf--not by a long shot.

What I find persuasive is that the confrontation between Angmar and Gandalf at the Gate of Minas Tirith is intended by Tolkien to be a moment of tension.

It is, yes. But I feel a much different tension than you and some others seem to since I now know the relative power levels of the parties involved, and also that this is not to be a duel. Gandalf's side at this point could still lose the battle, and the Witch-King could still be victorious. Gandalf, as mighty as even I give him credit for, could still be slain if he was not backed by an army. So this tension is not due to doubt whether Gandalf will stand against the Witch-King mano a mano, but whether Black will prevail ultimately. Once again, boiled down to simple logic: Gandalf and Sauron are peers; Sauron is far mightier than his Lieutenant, the Witch-King; therefore Gandalf is far mightier than the Witch-King. There is, of course, still the question of the limits Gandalf was subject to. Were they wholly removed when he became "the White"? Or was he sent back merely "clothed" rather than once again fully incarnate? As I've argued before, G had the power to own the crap out of the Balrog but he sacrificed himself in observance of his rules; if these rules were still in effect, the outcome of a duel between he and the Witch-King may have been similar--though not because the W-K was a more powerful being.

Like Pippin, we the readers are meant to fear that Angmar may actually be capable of defeating Gandalf. Were we to believe otherwise, there would be no tension here at all.

Once again, in case anyone skipped my above paragraph, the tension comes from doubt as to which side will win, not who's going to come out on top when G and W-K square off.

But seriously, I have little problem with him being referred to as such. There are perfectly good precedents to support it, as davem, points out. And, since we all know who we are talking about by the reference, it hardly matters much.

No, those are bad precedents.

davem

07-02-2006, 03:47 AM

Where did this idea that the Barrow Blade was the only thing capable of piercing the WK's "magic" come from?

So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. 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.

Clearly only a Barrow Blade could have done the job. More interestingly, Tolkien states 'No other blade'. One could read this as meaning it was not only any Barrow Blade that could have done it, but only the particular blade that Merry bore. Its possible that when Tom gave that particular blade to Merry he was laying out his destiny before him. Perhaps it wouldn't even be too mad to suggest that the Blade was what drew Merry to the Pelennor with the Rohirrim. Anyway. Whether it was Merry's blade alone or all the Barrow Blades, we know that they are weapons with specific powers:

"See!" cried Aragorn. "Here we find tokens!" He picked out from the pile of grim weapons two knives, leaf-bladed, damasked in gold and red; and searching further he found also the sheaths, black, set with small red gems. 'No orc-tools these!" he said. "They were borne by the hobbits. Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.

I think what it does show is that once again we are not dealing with power vs power. Certainly the man who wrought the Blades was not more powerful than Angmar, yet he was able to create weapons that could destroy him.

Lalwendë

07-02-2006, 04:18 AM

It isn't a simple question of who is the most powerful, who is the strongest, nor is it a question of hierarchies determining who will triumph. Morgoth was the greatest of the Valar and Sauron his greatest servant, so possibly the greatest of the Maiar. But the whole of both LotR and the Silmarillion show how small, insignificant peoples in terms of 'status' can beat these 'great and powerful' high status figures, whether through bravery, cunning or with the the help of the correct tools.

It was a twist of fate that brought Bilbo to the One Ring, and thus eventually to small, insignificant people causing the downfall of Sauron. Also important is pride and arrogance; Sauron had the arrogance to encapsulate much of his power into the One Ring without considering that it could be lost and that he would be unable to retrieve it. Likewise the Witch King had the arrogance to believe that he could not be undone. Perhaps he believed the prophecy about him a little too much.

One of the weapons of those on Sauron's side is propaganda if you will, i.e. their reputations as beings of great power and invincibility; they ride on their status and do not consider that the smaller people only need to reject the notion of status in order to gain the courage to face them.

In any case, the text says it was the sword itself that was the necessary 'tool' for undoing what held the Witch King together. Perhaps some of those who opposed Sauron knew that this blade was necessary, or if they really did have such power, wouldn't they have attempted to challenge the Witch King already? It seems that Aragorn might know of a tale, judging by what he says when he finds Merry's sword.

Jimmylew

07-02-2006, 06:54 AM

We also have to remember that the Nazgul were only shadows of the terror and power they would posess if Sauron regained the Ruling ring. Gandalf says something along the lines of that on the 1st page of FOTR in 'A journey in the dark'

obloquy

07-02-2006, 10:08 AM

A matter of debate; in the White Rider, he states that:"I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still".

This has nothing to do with innate power levels and everything to do with the cumulative force of Black and White (bad and good). That Sauron and Gandalf are peers is not a matter of debate: it is fact.

If he chose to obey any rules exactly at the moment of confronting the balrog, it was a dumb choice.

Well he did.

I recommend you do some more research before participating further.

obloquy

07-02-2006, 10:41 AM

Clearly only a Barrow Blade could have done the job. More interestingly, Tolkien states 'No other blade'. One could read this as meaning it was not only any Barrow Blade that could have done it, but only the particular blade that Merry bore. Its possible that when Tom gave that particular blade to Merry he was laying out his destiny before him. Perhaps it wouldn't even be too mad to suggest that the Blade was what drew Merry to the Pelennor with the Rohirrim. Anyway. Whether it was Merry's blade alone or all the Barrow Blades, we know that they are weapons with specific powers:

I think what it does show is that once again we are not dealing with power vs power. Certainly the man who wrought the Blades was not more powerful than Angmar, yet he was able to create weapons that could destroy him.

Good post.

I still disagree to a degree. The Barrow Blade was obviously the best sword for the job (thanks for the text reference) and totally ruined the W-K in one little stab, but I don't believe that means no other blade could have harmed him. I would especially hesitate to exclude the ancient blades of the Eldar--like Glamdring--when wielded by powers much mightier than the W-K.

Certainly the man who wrought the Blades was not more powerful than Angmar, yet he was able to create weapons that could destroy him.

Certainly? Why is that certain?

Morgoth was the greatest of the Valar and Sauron his greatest servant, so possibly the greatest of the Maiar.

I don't see how that might follow.

But the whole of both LotR and the Silmarillion show how small, insignificant peoples in terms of 'status' can beat these 'great and powerful' high status figures, whether through bravery, cunning or with the the help of the correct tools.

I think too many people get this idea when it was probably not the intention of the writer. I can't think of any examples of it from the Sil, and the only two I can recall from LotR are Merry/Eowyn and the W-K, and the whole destroying the One Ring thing. But really, these are just examples of chance and good strategy working out.

It was a twist of fate that brought Bilbo to the One Ring, and thus eventually to small, insignificant people causing the downfall of Sauron.

Ehhhhhhhh. If you want to look at it that way. Hobbits really had very little to do with it. Their contribution was just that they were humble enough (in mind and spirit) to bear the Ring for unusually long periods of time. Gandalf was the real star of the Third Age, and the overthrow of Sauron belongs to him.

Also important is pride and arrogance; Sauron had the arrogance to encapsulate much of his power into the One Ring without considering that it could be lost and that he would be unable to retrieve it. Likewise the Witch King had the arrogance to believe that he could not be undone. Perhaps he believed the prophecy about him a little too much.

I completely agree here and here:

One of the weapons of those on Sauron's side is propaganda if you will, i.e. their reputations as beings of great power and invincibility;

The Witch-King seems a lot tougher than he really is because he's cocky. Besides Gandalf and Aragorn, there's nobody on the Pelennor who is on his level, plus he's got this prophecy that says he will not fall to a man, so he struts around ruining stuff and talking smack. He's not all that, however, based on simple Tolkien hierarchies. He's at the level of a particularly powerful Man of Numenorean descent, and nothing more. Nothing close to the spiritual power of the Eldar, and insignificant when compared with the Maiar.

they ride on their status and do not consider that the smaller people only need to reject the notion of status in order to gain the courage to face them.

Now I have to disagree. What you're talking about is important against the Nazgul, because their primary and most effective weapon is fear. Without it, they're just messed up Men. However, courage means little when you're going toe-to-toe with something that is on an entirely different spiritual plane. Remember when Gandalf said that he was the only one of the Fellowship who could confront the Balrog? That's those 'spiritual tiers' in action. You absolutely mustn't underestimate their importance in Tolkien's mythos.

davem

07-02-2006, 11:10 AM

The Barrow Blade was obviously the best sword for the job (thanks for the text reference) and totally ruined the W-K in one little stab, but I don't believe that means no other blade could have harmed him. I would especially hesitate to exclude the ancient blades of the Eldar--like Glamdring--when wielded by powers much mightier than the W-K.

I think the question is 'How much harm would another weapon have done him?'. What the Barrow blade did was to break the spell that knotted his sinews together, making him vulnerable. I think when tolkien states 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. the implication is that other blades may have harmed him, but only that blade could have broken the spell & opened him up to a mortal blow. Of course, that's my reading. It does seem that its not merely a question of the power of the blade or the hand that wields it, but of the particular type of weapon used. This is common enough in myth - only a silver bullet can kill a werewolf, etc.

As to your question
:
Certainly the man who wrought the Blades was not more powerful than Angmar, yet he was able to create weapons that could destroy him.

Certainly? Why is that certain?

I think if there was another sorcerer, equal to, or greater than, Angmar on the opposing side Tolkien would have mentioned him. The man who makes the silver bullet is not more powerful than the werewolf, he just knows what will dispatch it.

obloquy

07-02-2006, 11:56 AM

That's funny; I presented various ocasions which show that Gandalf doesn't restrain himself in times of need;

And if you did more research, as I advised, you'd recognize that in those situations that you referenced, Gandalf was necessarily still acting within his limitations.

Oh really? Why does Tolkien state in letter #246 that even if Gandalf had mastered the ring, the one-on-one confrontation with Sauron would still be a delicate balance?

The reason for this wording is explained in the letter itself; in fact, in the same paragraph you reference. It's clear to me now that, rather than actually reading Tolkien, you are in the habit of merely searching for keywords in the index, or perhaps in those wonderful .doc files of all of Tolkien's works. Anyway, here's the explanation you requested, as well as the context you shrewdly chose not to include in your post:
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', I 381, 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. [please note, as it's pertinent to the original topic of this thread: Tolkien allowed that this was possible: Galadriel overcoming Sauron with his Ring, overthrowing him. Witch-King, eat your heart out. -obloquy] 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.

Boromir88

07-02-2006, 08:19 PM

the implication is that other blades may have harmed him, but only that blade could have broken the spell & opened him up to a mortal blow. Of course, that's my reading. It does seem that its not merely a question of the power of the blade or the hand that wields it, but of the particular type of weapon used. This is common enough in myth - only a silver bullet can kill a werewolf, etc.
That's what I thought too. For if we actually believe Aragorn:
'This was the stroke of Frodo's sword,' he said. 'The only hurt that it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth.'~Flight to the Ford
Merry's sword does end up perishing, but it was the one able to break the spell. So, from this, I also got that impression...any sword can 'pierce' and harm the Witch-King, and every sword will 'perish,' but it's this blade of the Westernesse that was able to break the spell.

What I'm puzzled about now is Aragorn only says 'but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King.' Does this mean this is only a 'spell' of the Witch-King's? For I would think if it applied to all the Nazgul, Aragorn would have said so. Or, perhaps I'm looking too far in and since Frodo stabbed at the WK, Aragorn only said him.

Mansun

07-13-2006, 12:33 AM

When all is said & done, it does appear overall that Sauron seems to be the most powerful enemy in ME. Not even Gandalf had the power to face the coming of Sauron at the end, as mentioned in the Council of Elrond (although even when enhanced I still do not believe he could ultimately match Sauron).

The WK unfortunately is just a "brave" cocky but powerful servant of Sauron, & through his added demonic force he thinks he can defeat an enhanced ''Balrog's Bane" - if that was the case, how many of you seriously think the WK would stand a good chance of defeating the Balrog? I think he could give the Balrog a strong battle, but ultimately the Balrog would be too strong. Therefore I think the same would happen if the WK battled it out with Gandalf the White - Gandalf's supernatural powers (in some respect comparable even to those of Sauron's) would prove too much for the WK, who would most likely withdraw with curses back to his master.

Of course, Gandalf may have been anxious to face the mighty WK - who wouldn't? But then again Gandalf was fearful of the Balrog also, knowing that he was going to be put to the true test of his powers. But I don't think the WK inspired quite that same level of fear - quite a bit of the anxiety Gandalf appeared to show was probably down to the potential ruin the WK as commander of his army could inflict on Gondor - Gandalf could not keep back the storm all by himeslf , hence the cocky nature of the WK (my army is greater than your's, so what makes you think then that you can defeat me in combat?). The WK is just making every ounce of the difficult odds count in his favour by trying to instill fear - not just of himself, but of Mordor's armies, & the fate that may fall on Gondor.

Boromir88

07-16-2006, 07:28 PM

I found a little more to shed some further light on the Barrow-blade and could other weapons have killed the Witch-King. Now this quote I find particularly interesting:
Boromir son of Denethor (after whom Boromir of the Nine Walkers was later named) defeated them and regained Ithilien; but Osgiliath was finally ruined, and its great stone-bridge was broken. No people dwelt there afterwards. Boromir was a great captain, and even the Witch-king feared him.~Appendix A: Annals of the Kings and Rulers, Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion
Now this I find interesting is because if the Witch-King could not be harmed or killed by other blades, why would he fear Boromir?

Now what Gandalf tells in The Ring goes South:
'I thought they were all destroyed in the flood,' said Merry.
'You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that,' said Gandalf. 'The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him. We hope that they were all unhorses and unmasked, and so made for a while less dangerous; but we must find out for certain.'
So, the Nazgul are bound to Sauron and his power, they 'stand and fall with him.' If we assume that Gandalf is right here, that is.

But, I think the Blade of the Westernesse had the effect that no other blade did. The Westernesse sword is repeatedly talked about being 'wound with spells' and 'breaking spells.':
...work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.~The Departure of Boromir
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.~Pelennor Fields
This is from an unpublished manuscript that appears in Hammond and Skull's book:
'But above all the timid and terified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction. Narrowly it had missed him. How had he come by it -save in the barrows of cardolan. Then he was in some way mightier than the B{arrow} -wight; and he called on Elbereth, a name of terror to the nazgul. He was then in league with the High Elves ofthe Havens.

Escaping a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor -knife to Frodo (as was proved at the end), he withdrew and hid for a while, out of doubt and fear both of Aragorn and especially of Frodo. But fear of Sauron , and the forces of Sauron's will was the stronger
So I think Merry's sword did something that no other sword could have done. It delivered...no other blade would have dealt a wound so bitter...'. It was specially made to bring the downfall of the Witch-King, and bring him to destruction.

What I think is that the Blade of the Westernesse was able to break the 'spell,' the spell holding his will and Sauron's will together...'breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.' So would this mean that the Witch-King, after being finished off and killed by Eowyn, would be unable to return back? The 'spell' was broken,' and the Blade of the Westernesse did what it was supposed to it brought the destruction of the Witch-King.

So, it seems to me that any sword could have killed/dispatched the Witch-King...I mean Aragorn could just chop off his head right? But, it would not have been a wound so 'bitter' that it 'broke the spell' and brought the downfall of the Witch-King, like the Westernesse Blade was specifically made to do.

It just didn't make sense to me why The Witch-King would fear Boromir if he couldn ot be harmed by ANY other blade. I can see why he feared Glorfindel, or Gandalf, who knew of Elbereth, and some of the Ringwraith's fears, but why would the WK fear Boromir unless if he actually could be harmed by other blades. It was just the specific Blade of the Westernesse that was able to destroy and harm the Witch-King the way no other sword could have.

Comments? This is just kind of something I've been trying to figure out lately. :)

Azaelia of Willowbottom

07-17-2006, 03:05 PM

Now this I find interesting is because if the Witch-King could not be harmed or killed by other blades, why would he fear Boromir?

If I may, I'll put forth a feeble theory that may well be ripped to shreds in a couple posts... Perhaps at that time, the Witch-King had not reached his full potential in terms of where power was concerned? He'd already been the Witch-King for a very long time, but perhaps he gained power as Sauron gained power over the course of the story told in the main part of LOTR. Sauron's power, especially over the ring and those directly concerned with it, increases as it is brought closer to him. It makes sense that as Sauron's Ring gains power, all of his creations would, and I include the Witch-King in that.

Or, it may have been that perhaps the Witch-King was a little more cautious back then...and when he saw a warrior with an unusual level of ability and a strong will, like Boromir, he got a little nervous.

By the time we encounter the Witch-King in ROTK, he's very confident in his abilities, cocky, even. Where did his caution go? Perhaps over the years, he'd become more and more confident because everywhere he showed his face, people cowered, died...He'd probably bested any number of warriors who attempted to kill him by the time he entered the battle for Gondor. Also, he wasn't really his own person, either. Sauron probably had considerably tightened his hold on the Witch-King by then. Obviously, the Witch-King was always under the control of Sauron, from the moment he put that Ring on his finger...but I imagine that Sauron may have given him a longer leash at times, and that the late third age wasn't one of those times.

The Witch-King probably couldn't be killed by any old weapon, but I think that the focus has been a little narrow. I think that probably a very well-made, possibly magical, possibly elf-made weapon, like Glamdring, in the hands of a powerful, highly-competent, possibly magical warrior could probably kill the Witch-King. It just might not have been as easy as the Eowyn-Merry team made it look. I expect that Gandalf could have killed the Witch-King, but it probably would have taken all the skill he had and probably a very long time to do so, and may well have cost him his life. I do think that he had a realistic view of the situation: he knew that he was probably the best choice for the job (at least logically...I bet Eowyn and Merry didn't exactly make any "Most likely to kill the Witch-King" lists), but he also had reasonable view of the outcome: he may have been able to beat his adversary, but it was also likely that he would have been destroyed in the attempt. I'm not sure they'd have been evenly matched...but I think that Gandalf has an advantage over the Witch-King in that he's not particularly afraid for himself: I doubt he fears death--his main fear probably was the loss of Middle-earth.

Alternatively, the Witch-King could have just lost physical form when bested by any other blade than the sword of Westernesse...he couldn't be killed, but his spirit couldn't run about with no way to manifest itself, either...and it may have been a painful state to be in. Gandalf and Elrond caused this once, using the river. In the long run, it didn't make much difference, but it might have been an inconvenience to the Wraiths...and to their master. Sauron probably wasn't too happy to see them return without Frodo, but also without bodies or transportation. And where did Sauron's blame for that incident fall? Probably, at least initially, with the captain of the Wraiths: our friend the Witch-King. So that could have been a source of fear for the Witch-King: the fear of displeasing Sauron. Can't imagine he's a particularly pleasant fellow on a good day, so I'd hate to see him angry... :p

Another question my pondering of the Gandalf vs. Witch-King debate brought to mind was this: Would Merry and Eowyn have won in a fair fight? Sure, Merry had the blade of Westernesse, but he lacks the skill that only years of practice can bring. His size is probably a disadvantage as well (almost anyone's would be, since the Witch-King is very strong)... and in a fair fight, the Witch-King probably would be the victor. The only reason Eowyn and Merry had a chance was that Eowyn was distracting the Witch-King enough that Merry had the chance to strike a blow from behind. Not, of course, to diminish Eowyn's role in the whole thing: She's strong, brave, tough, and a skilled fighter...but in any other circumstance, she would have lost. As it was, both were severely injured in payment for their win.

I feel like I'm making no sense, so I'll go back to lurking...

davem

07-17-2006, 04:12 PM

I'm not sure any sufficiently 'magical' blade, even in the hand of a powerful being like Aragorn or Gandalf , could have killed Angmar. He is not simply a superhumanly powerful being, but a living symbol of Evil. The destruction of Evil (in Middle-earth at least) is not a matter of mere power (cf The Ring). A living symbol needs a symbolic death.

What we have is a symbolic event. It has to do with what Angmar symbolises to those who confront him - specifically, in this case, what he symbolises to Merry & Eowyn. To Eowyn in particular he symbolises her despair, her severe depression, the death she seeks. To Merry he symbolises all he fears, a manifestation of the 'unsupportable weight of Middle-earth' he felt back in Rohan. Their combined defiance, their refusal to be swallowed by the void he represents, is what inspires them to act. Both fight in defence of one they love - Theoden (in Merry's case also his love of Eowyn). They stand in the face of Death, 'the inevitability of Death' as Tolkien put it.

Thus, to reduce it to questions of 'power' is to miss the point. It is not simply the Blade of Westernesse that makes Angmar vulnerable to Eowyn's death-blow. It is that blade in the hand of Merry, with the desperation (& desperate hope) behind the blow he strikes. Had the blade remained in the Barrow it would have been useless - it became Angmar's bane in the hand of Merry on the Field of Pelennor. Eowyn's blade would have been nothing but a sliver of metal if she had not ridden as Dernhelm in search of Death ('Do you not know Death when you see it?').

It is the defiance of Death, inevitable Death, in the heart of an Hobbit & a Woman, that kills Angmar. But it is also the defiance of Death in the heart of the Man who made the Barrow Blade, & wound it about with spells for the bane of Mordor. It cannot be reduced to Gandalf was powerful enough to do it, or Aragorn was powerful enough.

Boromir88

07-17-2006, 04:22 PM

You bring up a good point that by ROTK the Witch-King is cocky and arrogant...'no man may hinder me,' as he says, hinder meaning in effect the WK was saying he was unstoppable. What's interesting is that I think perhaps Boromir I was a big reason to boost the WK's arrogance. To finish off the quote (and I should have done this before, but it was late and I wasn't thinking):
Boromir son of Denethor (after whom Boromir of the Nine Walkers was later named) defeated them and regained Ithilien; but Osgiliath was finally ruined, and its great stone bridge was broken. No people dwelt there afterwards. Boromir was a great captain, and even the Witch-King feared him. He was noble and fair of face, a man strong in body and in will, but he received a Morgul-wound in that war which shortened his days, and he became shrunken with pain and died twelve years after his father.~Appendix A: The Stewards
So, the Witch-King had feared Boromir I, but seeing as he stabbed him with a morgul-blade and he later died, that could be a boost to his confidence, even push him to arrogance...'See here this great captain that I feared...well now he's dead...so I'm unstoppable...muahahaha.' Or something like that. :rolleyes:

The Witch-King probably couldn't be killed by any old weapon, but I think that the focus has been a little narrow.
Well that fact that Tolkien cosistantly talks about the 'spells' wound in the Barrow-blade and it's design to bring down their greatest enemy at that time, the Witch-King makes me thing that it's that particular blade that is of importance. I think common sense could tell us that the Witch-King could be killed if he got his head chopped off...right? And it doesn't take a magical weapon to do that.

But let's take a look at some more things:

'The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him.'
If we believe Gandalf, he is saying the Nazgul cannot be destroyed in 'that way' meaning drowning. There's no mention of being 'killed,' because I think there is a difference between killing/dying, then destruction in Tolkien. So, Gandalf doesn't say the Nazgul couldn't be killed, but they couldn't be destroyed. Sauron's power is also bound to them, and they go down, or rise up with him.

But what's interesting about the Barrow-blade is the term used here:
...made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction.
The Barrow-blade was wrought with spells and made for the destruction, the 'bane' of the Witch-King. And also here:

...breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.
Now besides meaning a tendon, 'sinews' is also like a mainstay of muscular power, or strength....like the 'sinews of virtue' The Barrow-blade was able to break the spell, and the 'sinews' that were to his will. The WK had lost all power and strength because the spell was broken...his sinews of his will were broken.

I definitely think that the Barrow blade was an important tool and it did what it was designed to do...destroy the Witch-King. His sinews were broken, he lost all power and strength of the 'spell' that were intertwined to his will. Therefor, I'm thinking (but I could just be totally wrong) the Barrow-blade destroyed the Witch-King, to the point where he would be unable to return back. If we accept what Gandalf says, the WK and the Ringwraiths should fall with Sauron if Sauron does indeed fall. I think we see this in ROTK when the Ring is finally destroyed, the remaining Nazgul are also destroyed. So, conceivably after being killed the Witch-King would have been able to return. However, the Barrow-blade just doesn't kill the WK it destroys him, or destroys his spirit to the point where he cannot return. (Because as far as I know the 'spirit' in Tolkien's works could not be totally and completely annhilated).

I think any blade could have dispatched and killed the Witch-King, but it was the barrow-blade that struck a blow, taking away all his power, and in effect 'destroying' him. By all means I could just be totally off base, and am interested in hearing some responses. :D

Another question my pondering of the Gandalf vs. Witch-King debate brought to mind was this: Would Merry and Eowyn have won in a fair fight?
I doubt it. One on one vs. the Witch-King, straight forward fight, I doubt it. I think both Merry and Eowyn were important pieces to the destruction of the Witch-King and without one of them, neither would have succeeded in killing him. I do think Merry played the more important part, after all Eowyn just had a straight shot right to the face after Merry stabbed him and dealt him such a 'bitter' blow, but after Merry's jab he could have finished off the Witch-King, someone had to.