Slaying of the Witch king

[rudeboy]

Why was the Witch King killed so easily? I thought as he survived the flood of Elrond he wouldn't be killed by 2 mortals. I know there was some prophecy but come on, he could have been killed in a battle with Gandalf or something!

[burrahobbit]

He got stabbed in the face with a sword.

[rudeboy]

I know how he was killed, but I thought he was built up to be invinsible.

[burrahobbit]

I don't think you are quite getting what I am trying to say here. He was stabbed in the face with a sword. That will pretty much take out most man-sized things. Also, Merry broke the magic spell binding his unseen sinews etc.

[Lord of Angmar]

Also, Merry broke the magic spell binding his unseen sinews

I think this is the most important aspect of the Witch King's death, since he did not have a physical 'face' that could be wounded by any normal blade. Had Merry not broken the 'spell' that protected the Witch King, the facial wound would have been meaningless.

The blade Merry wielded was one of Westernesse, presumably used by a man of Arnor in the Northern Realm's wars against Angmar. Since the Witch King was once Lord of Angmar (my namesake smilies/evil.gif ), the blade of Westernesse was a perfect weapon for Merry against the Lord of the Nazgul.

There have been a number of topics on this matter, rudeboy, but I felt a brief and simple summary would do rather than redirecting you to an old and finished thread. This duplicate thread will probably be closed.

[The Saucepan Man]

Also, Merry broke the magic spell binding his unseen sinews etc.

The point being that his blade, which came from the Wight's Barrow, had been forged in the Kingdom of Arnor for use in battle with the Witch King's armies.

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.

[Eladar]

Could the W-K's body have survived all those years without the spell?

If not, then why didn't Merry's stab kill him in itself?

[Lord of Angmar]

Merry's stab broke the spell, but a stab in the knee would not be deadly. It was the stab in the head that finally did in the Witch King, after he had been weakened by the spell-breaking blow.

[Marroc Underhill]

Yes, beaten by two mortals. How sad, may my Lord rest in peace.

[ October 01, 2003: Message edited by: Marroc Underhill ]

[Eladar]

Merry's stab broke the spell, but a stab in the knee would not be deadly. It would be if the spell was the only thing keeping his decayed flesh in one piece.

[Finwe]

There was also a prophecy concerning the Witch-King's death, that he wouldn't die by the hand of any man. Since Eowyn was a woman, and Merry was a Hobbit, they were the loophole, and since Merry's weapon was hallowed by the enemies of Angmar, all those factors resulted in the death of the Witch-king.

[Iarhen]

Was Merry's sword enchanted?

I know that mainly the sword was the one that broke the spell that tied the Witch King's self together, but why was it broken when it was only a blade of Westernese?

Also, I was under the distinct impression that Gandalf the White, when he was in Minas Tirith after he defeated the Witch King among the gate, he wanted to go out on the field to chase the W.K. in order to avoid any type of damage done by him...


Since Gandalf was no man either, but an ainur. BEing so powerful himself, he could have given him his much deserved end...

And thats probably the reason the W.K. feared to get close to Lothlorien... knowing that a terribly powerful witch lived there, more powerful than him, according to the U.T., and being an elf and a woman, she could have given him the *** kicking he deserved...

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I know that mainly the sword was the one that broke the spell that tied the Witch King's self together, but why was it broken when it was only a blade of Westernese?I hardly think that we can dismiss Merry's sword as 'only' a blade of Westernesse. Clearly there was significant power in this weapon, more so than in most others present on the field. Indeed, we can probably assume that weapons made by the Men of Westernesse embodied knowledge and skills that had been learned from the Elves, and were probably less powerful versions of those used by the Noldor. I do not find it at all difficult to imagine that such a weapon would defeat the Witch King, especially since Tolkien says of the Nazgûl: "Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless" (Letter #210, June 1958). Also it is clear that Merry's sword must have been able to break the spell that bound the Witch-King's sinews together, since this actually happens during their encounter on the Pelennor Fields.

Gandalf was indeed present in Minas Tirith during the battle, but I fail to see the significance of his ability or otherwise to defeat the Lord of the Nazgûl. The simple fact of the matter is that he does not do so: Merry and Éowyn share that achievement. It is also entirely possible that the Witch-King is unaware of Gandalf's true race, believing him to be merely a Man. Certainly this would explain the contemptuous tone of his words to Gandalf at the end of The Siege of Gondor.

As with Gandalf, whether or not Galadriel could defeat the Lord of the Nazgûl is irrelevant, since she does not in fact do so. He may well have been concerned about the power of Lothlórien, but I doubt that it is simple fear of Galadriel that prevents his passing near to that place. There are many Elves in the Golden Wood, and to become caught up in a battle with any of them would at the very least have presented a needless delay in his mission. It is also quite possible that he feared the Elves, particularly en masse, but what relevance this has to his death is again unclear to me.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Finwe, you speak of the 'loophole'. I hardly think that, because Eowyn and Merry were not Men, the Witch King would be thinking "Drat! Caught out by a technicality!"

Glorfindel only uttered his prophecy because he had foreseen it. As things went, our chirpy little Elf was proved correct. However, its not due to it being Merry and Eowyn there that the Witch King died. It could have Aragorn, Eomer, Arwen or even Tom Bombadil as long as they had the Blade of Westernesse.

[Finwe]

Actually, the Witch-king does have a rather "Drat! A loop-hole!" reaction. After Eowyn says, "No mortal man am I! I am Eowyn Eomund's daughter!...." the Witch-king visibly falters, because he has remembered the words of Glorfindel's prophecy. He was counting on the fact that the majority of his enemies would be Men (not women and Hobbits), and thus, his pride ultimately led him to overlook that loophole.

[Olorin]

First of all, I don't think Tolkien would have put a prophecy in his works if it wasn't going to turn out to be true. It would have been completely pointless. I like to think that he had a reason for almost everything he wrote and a prophecy is too big for there not be one.

Also, judging by the Witch-king's reaction, I deduce that this is what he must have been thinking:
Look at this puny little man trying to stand up to me. (knowing that he could not be killed by a man) (Eowyn says: but no mortal man am I...) Surprise and confusion rush through his mind. Huh, the prophecy didn't say anything about a woman...

By the way, I never thought that the WC didn't know Gandalf's true race. I just thought he was being contemptious because he was so evil, but now that you mention it, him not knowing makes more sense.

[Halbarad]

I don't have my books with me, but did Gandalf look into the Palantir? Saruman did, so Sauron knew about the Istari, and it follows that the Witch King would too, it being a rather significant piece of information. His contempt of Gandalf may have been arrogance of his power AND state, after all, he was called the Witch King and was a great sorcerer when he was a man. If he could hold Gandlaf in contempt this way, then he wouldn't have blinked at Eowyn had she not stood up to him.

[Eladar]

He got stabbed in the face with a sword. The sword shattered. It is quite likely that the W-K's face won that battle.

It was just really good timing. Eowyn's stroke happened to hit right before the body was about to fall apart from the breaking of the spell.

The sword shattered and did not smoke. smilies/wink.gif

[Finwe]

It also goes to show that Men have horrible timing, and that it takes an Elf, a woman, and a Hobbit to do the real job! (The Elf: to give the prophecy; the woman: to administer the final stroke; the Hobbit: to surreptitiously stab the enemy).

[Eladar]

the woman: to administer the final stroke As you can see from my replies in this thread, Eowyn's stroke may have been meaningless. smilies/wink.gif

[ October 02, 2003: Message edited by: Eladar ]

[rudeboy]

Do you think he would have been killed like that if Sauron had the ruling ring on his hand at the time?

[burrahobbit]

Yes. Eladar, no. Just no.

[Eladar]

I know, my theory just creates waves.

I live in Oklahoma too, just south of OKC.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

You can speak about the prophecy of Glorfindel all you want. It doesn't take away from the fact that anyone would have killed the Witch King with the Blade of Westernesse. The fact that it was a Hobbit and a Woman who got the job done just made for a nice story.

Yes, the Witch King stood silent for a moment when he discovered Dernhelm's true identity, but this matters not. Had, say, Aragorn stabbed him with a Blade of Westernesse on Weathertop, we would have got the same result.

[The Saucepan Man]

Had, say, Aragorn stabbed him with a Blade of Westernesse on Weathertop, we would have got the same result.

Yes, but then the prophecy would have been different. smilies/wink.gif

[Lord of Angmar]

The fact that it was a Hobbit and a Woman who got the job done just made for a nice story. (Eomer)

This event fulfilled Glorfindel's prophecy. Elf-lords have the gift of foresight, and had the Witch King been killed by a man in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields instead of a hobbit and a woman, Glorfindel would have made a different prophecy years before.

[the phantom]

Had, say, Aragorn stabbed him with a Blade of Westernesse on Weathertop, we would have got the same result.
Yes, but then the prophecy would have been different.
I agree with both of these statements.

The prophesy didn't mean a man couldn't kill the Witch King, it simply meant that a man wouldn't kill the Witch King.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Interesting topic. If I translate W-K's words to Eówyn (I still don't have the English copy) he says: "No living man can stop me." (Just before Dernhelm reveals herself.)
I'd really appreciate if someone would quote that sentence from the book before I go further with my thoughts!

[ October 06, 2003: Message edited by: dancing spawn of ungoliant ]

[burrahobbit]

Eladar, the reason that it is "just no" is that if it had actually been a worthless stroke, Tolkien would have made sure to say so. There are at least a few failed attempts at smiting throughout the legendarium, and Tolkien always makes some note that it didn't really accomplish that much. All that he says as far as Eowyn and the Witch King is that her sword went through where his head ought to have been, and then it shattered. The important thing here is "and then." Smote, then shattered.

Merry stabbed him, seconds passed and he was still existing, he rose again to smash Eowyn, she put a sword in his face, he died and the sword shattered.

What city?

[tom bombariffic]

I've just joined this conversation, and in my opinion, Eomer of the Rohirrim has it spot on.

1. Glorfindel's prophecy was of no importance. It was purely to make it more interesting. But for the purposes of the story, he could have said absolutely nothing, and the Witch King would still have died when he did.

2. The face that it was a hobbit and a Woman that administered the final blows (im not opening up the can of worms on who did the damage) makes absolutely no difference. The prophecy was irrelevant. It could just as easily have been merry and eowyn as it could have been any mortal man, as it could have been a leperous orc with one eye. The fact that "ah! but then glorfindel wouldnt have prophecised it!" has no point. Maybe he wouldnt have prophecised it, but the Witch King would still have died, with a nasty hole in his face. Its easier if you think of it that the blade killed the Witch king, not a particular person. The wielder was irrelevant.

-phew-

Bombariffic

[Eladar]

Eladar, the reason that it is "just no" is that if it had actually been a worthless stroke, Tolkien would have made sure to say so. Why do you make that assumption? It seems to me that Tolkien likes to throw twists and turns into his stories. It makes it a more believable history/mythology.

Merry stabbed him, seconds passed and he was still existing, he rose again to smash Eowyn, she put a sword in his face, he died and the sword shattered.I don't believe this is exactly what the book says:

But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his strole went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.

'Eowyn! Eowyn!' cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sward broke sparkling into many shards....

Then he looked for his sword that he had let fall; for even as he struck his blow his arm was numbed, and now he could only use his left hand. And behold! there lay his weapon, but the blade was smoking like a dry branch that has been trust in a fire; and as he watched it, it writhed and withered and was consumed

A couple of things I'd like to note:

1)The arm that Merry uses to stab the W-K goes numb. Eowyn's arm that shield arm was damaged, but her sword arm was fine.

2)Merry's sword stays in one piece, but later disolves. Eowyn's sword bursts into many pieces, but is not said to disolve.

If the WK is kept together by a spell, then a normal sword could not do damage to him. As I said earlier, without the spell he is a walking bag of dust. This guy is thousands of years old. Once the spell is completely gone, there is nothing left of him. (including his ring smilies/wink.gif)


What city?

Blanchard

[burrahobbit]

We need to settle this over donuts.

[Iarhen]

The prophecy was no the one thing that killed the Witch King. It was not some sort of spell that bound the W.K. to die at the hands of something not men (elf, orc, troll, wolf, horse, etc).

Glorfindel, as an elf lord, had the gift of foresight. He saw the picture were Eowyn and Merry kill him...

If Aragorn had killed him instead, or any other guy, Glorfindel would have foretold it as if "the King recrowned will give him his bitter death" or something...

Eitherway... I grief for my fallen Lord...

[The Saucepan Man]

The fact that "ah! but then glorfindel wouldnt have prophecised it!" has no point.

How can Glorfindel's prophecy not be relevant? He had foreseen that the Witch King would die under particular circumstances, and so the Witch King was always going to die in those circumstances.

I can do no better than refer you back to this refreshingly simple statement by the phantom:

The prophesy didn't mean a man couldn't kill the Witch King, it simply meant that a man wouldn't kill the Witch King.

[erisber]

I have to disagree with the suggestions that any other man could have killed the WK ... there is a reason that Tolkien set the story up that way. Yes, it did make for a more exciting plot, but I believe there was something more to the event than some are acknowledging. It is true that Glorfindel's prophecy did not actually make anything happen, but the fact that he did prophesize it is significant. The WK himself said that no man can kill him, and I would take his word for it (he had been right for a few millennia). This risks getting into the interweaving of every character's story in ME and suggests a sort of predeterminism, but a man was not meant to or able to kill him ... only a woman/hobbit. I would suggest that no man could have done it.

[Aiwendil]

I have never understood this great debate over the Witch-king's death.

It seems to me that both sides are exactly right and, in fact, in agreement.

Yes, in the hypothetical case that someone else killed the Witch-king, Glorfindel would have made a different prophecy.

Yes, in the actual case, given Glorfindel's actual prophecy, it had to turn out that the Witch-king was not killed by a man.

These statements are in no way contradictory.

[The Saucepan Man]

These statements are in no way contradictory.

I totally agree, Aiwendil. smilies/smile.gif

One key aspect of Glorfindel's prophecy, as has been mentioned on this thread previously, is that the Witch King was aware of it. He knew that it had been foretold that he would not die at the hands of a man, and so had no fear of being vanquished when facing a man in combat (like Macbeth, but that's another thread smilies/wink.gif ). Of course, when he becomes aware that he is in fact facing a woman, he realises that he is vulnerable - the prophecy does not cover this situation. And, quite possibly, that realisation in itself, by denting his confidence and perhaps inducing a slight moment of hesitation, made the job of killing him easier for Eowyn and Merry.

On the question of who was responsible for delivering the "killer blow" to him, it seems to me that this must have been Eowyn. The whole impression conveyed by this scene is that Eowyn kills the Witch King, having been given the opportunity to do so by Merry. I do not get the sense that Merry's stroke alone would have destroyed him.

I can see the logic in the argument that, since Merry's blade broke the spell binding his rotten flesh to his will, he would have fallen apart in any event as a result of the wound inflicted by Merry, and Eowyn's stroke only hastened his demise. But, it is quite possible that the effect of Merry's blade in breaking the spell was only temporary, and that it would have re-asserted itself over his undead body in sufficient time to ensure his continued existence, had Eowyn not delivered the critical blow just at that moment.

And does the prophecy have any relevance here? It is Eowyn who reveals her true nature when the Witch King refers arrogantly to the prophecy, and it is the realisation of her womanhood that causes him to falter. So, the "fulfillment" prophecy is linked in the text solely to Eowyn being a woman. There is, as far as I can recall, no reference in this regard to Merry's Hobbit nature.

Indeed, it might be argued that the very nature of the prophecy precluded Merry from being responsible for the Witch King's destruction. Merry was a Hobbit and Hobbits are, as I understand it, a sub-division of the race of Man. So, strictly speaking, Merry was a man and therefore fell within the category of beings that Glorfindel had foretold would not be responsible for the Witch King's demise.

That last point is probably stretching it a bit, but nevertheless it seems to me that the prophecy was "fulfilled" because Eowyn, a woman, delivered the final blow, rather than because a woman and a Hobbit destroyed him together.

Eowyn, therefore, was responsible for destroying him. Merry provided her with the opportunity to do so.

[tom bombariffic]

How can Glorfindel's prophecy not be relevant? He had foreseen that the Witch King would die under particular circumstances, and so the Witch King was always going to die in those circumstances.

Yes, he had forseen that it would happen. Hence his prophecy. But him making the prophecy was not THE REASON for a man not being able to kill him. The fact that he would end up dying at the hands of someone other than a man is not BECAUSE Glorfindel made the prophecy. On the contrary, Glorfindel made the prophecy because he had forseen what would happen - but the fact that Glorfindel noticed makes not difference - Had he made the prophecy or not, the outcome would have been the same.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Indeed, the phantom summed it up very well.

The prophecy was made because of the event. The event did not happen because of the prophecy.

[Eladar]

Perhaps coffee, but I'm big enough I don't need fat pills. smilies/wink.gif

Just went back and read House of Healing again and Eowyn's sword are is injured, like Merry's. This is evidence that she did do something to the W-K.

I hate proving myself wrong. But it is better than being proven wrong by someone else.

[ October 07, 2003: Message edited by: Eladar ]

[burrahobbit]

See I told you. You can bring my donuts to Norman.

[Secret Fire]

Merry was a Hobbit and Hobbits are, as I understand it, a sub-division of the race of Man. So, strictly speaking, Merry was a man and therefore fell within the category of beings that Glorfindel had foretold would not be responsible for the Witch King's demise.

Actually, I believe that hobbits were a race apart, seeing as treebeard added them to the list and the fact that they were much more hardy and resilient to the ring's power than men are. I believe that men and hobbits are completely different races.
In regards to the prophecy, Glorfindel prophesied that the witch king would not die at the hands of a man, not that hecould not die in such a way, this is very similar to how Huan would not perish except at the "hands" of the greatest hound that would ever walk the earth, it was simply stating what would happen, not that it could not happen another way, simply that it would not.
Here's another thread idea: were hobbits men? probably not a good thing to start here, as this type of thread is all opinion and leads to much argument. smilies/evil.gif

[tom bombariffic]

Well if they weren't originally men, I don't know what they were, because the Silmarillion only speaks of the entry of Elves, men and dwarves into the world, and of course other mysterious races like the ents. Bu nowhere does it speak of another mortal race - I think they must have evolved from men, or how else did they get there?


Oh and by the way, in response to your little riddle quote thing, I suppose you are silence!

[ October 08, 2003: Message edited by: tom bombariffic ]

[Secret Fire]

yes, silence I am.
Well, remember that the histories of ME were written by [I]elves[/] who had probably never heqard of a hobbit, as almost nobody had, save the rohirrim who had heard of hobytlan. smilies/smile.gif

[The Saucepan Man]

I believe that men and hobbits are completely different races.

From the Prologue to LotR, Concerning Hobbits:

It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours; far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves ... But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered.

This speaks to me of common ancestry, and the argument put forward by tom bombariffic (based upon there being no reference to any Hobbit Awakening in the Silmarillion) is often used to support the view that Hobbits were descended from the first Men that awoke in Middle-earth.

Yes, there are other threads on this. I would give the links, but my Search function is unfortunately not working at the moment (something to do with AOL, I think). smilies/frown.gif

Anyway, I said that it might be stretching it a bit to regard Merry as a man and therefore unable to "break" the prophecy. The point is that it is Eowyn revealing herself as a woman, not Merry's presence (which the Witch King is almost entirely oblivious to), that concerns the Witch King.

In regards to the prophecy, Glorfindel prophesied that the witch king would not die at the hands of a man, not that he could not die in such a way

Quite right. Just as the phantom said. smilies/wink.gif

The prophecy is nevertheless relevant because, since Glorfindel had foreseen that the Witch King would not be destroyed at the hands of a man, he was never going to be destroyed at the hands of a man. Armed with that knowledge, the Witch King was fearless in battle with men, but that same knowledge caused him "sudden doubt" when Eowyn revealed herself to him as a woman. And Merry's amazement at this turn of events allowed him to conquer his paralysing fear and to start to crawl to one side. He is able to do so because the Dark Captain "in doubt and malice intent upon the woman before him, heeded him no more than a worm in the mud".

So the Witch King's doubt, triggered by the "breaking" of the prophecy, contributes to Merry being able to position himself so as to be in a position to stab the Lord of the Nazgul with the Barrow blade, which in turn allows Eowyn to finish him off.

Hmm, typing that out brings it home to me just how ingenious Tolkien was, bringing all these threads together in that one key dramatic moment. smilies/cool.gif

[Secret Fire]

CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP Very well stated, I agree

[Eladar]

I often end up in Norman. Perhaps our paths will cross.

Go OU!!!

[rudeboy]

Do you think the Witch King would have been killed that way if Sauron regained the one? In FotR Gandalf says they are mighty opponents but only shadows of the power & terror they would be if the ring were on their masters hand!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think if Sauron had the One Ring then it may have increased the terror that the Witch King was able to put forth. Everything seems smoother with a bit of confidence behind you! Still, had Eowyn and Merry been brave enough to carry things out the way that they did, the end result would probably have been the same.

[Secret Fire]

Also, it was most likely possible for Eowyn to slay the Witch King because she feared "neither pain nor death" and the Witch King's power is mostly through amplifying the fear in the hearts of men/animals/elves who had not been in the Blessed Realm. The absence of such fear probably aided her greatly. Merry, on the other hand, was mostly aided by his smallnedd and apparent insignificance. smilies/smile.gif

[Lost One]

Like all good prophecies, Glorfindel's was more complicated than it looked at first sight, and had more than one possible interpretation. Most people, and presumably the Witch-king, thought it meant 'man' in the general sense i.e. any mortal being, member of 'mankind'. At the Pelennor the prospect was suddenly raised of a more limited meaning - not by the hand of any literal Man (adult male human). Eowyn and Merry were both part of 'mankind', but the Witch-king suddenly realised the loophole, hence his worried pause. In theory, other non adult males could have contributed to his end as well - a male child, for example.

[elfling]

I do beleive the prophesy ia relevent. Glorfindal made the prophesy but where did he get his revelation from. A man of any kind(elf, hobbit ect.) I beleive would not be able to kill the W-K. It had to be a woman. This was the prophesy or rules not made by Glorfindal but only revealed by him. Merry helped by injuring the W-K with the magical? sword but I beleive without Eowyn he would have survived.

[Secret Fire]

A man of any kind(elf, hobbit ect.) I beleive would not be able to kill the W-K. It had to be a woman. Careful there, elfing. You're bringing in too many arguments all at once there: Who really killed the witch king, are hobbits men, would an elf be considered a man, etc.
Anyway, Glorfindel prophesied that the witch king would not be killed by a man, not that he could not be killed by a man, but simply that it was not going to happen that way.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

I'm sorry this is a bit off topic (and maybe just speculation) but I don't have my books here right now and I would like to hear some arguments from you.

Didn't Frodo get a sword from the barrow-downs just like e.g. Merry did? In that case and considering your posts above; didn't Frodo have the chance to "break the spell" of that Nazgul he stabbed (at Amon-Sûl)? Yes, he made just a cut to the cloak of the Nazgul but if he had stabbed a bit harder? (Okey, now this became speculation...sorry. Answers still appreciated)

[ October 16, 2003: Message edited by: dancing spawn of ungoliant ]

[Essex]

'Look!' he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak that had lain there hidden by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a slash. '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.'

Yep, it only got his cloak, and yes, maybe if it HAD pierced his skin it could have had the same effect as Merry's sword.

But IT DID NOT HAPPEN. So glorfindel's propehsy still stands. It was like second site. It did not happen BECAUSE of the propehsy, if it did, the prophesy would have been different.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

While that might be how every reader to read the Return of the King and how even Eowyn herself interpreted Glorfindel's words, I can't help but believe it is utterly and completely incorrect. It's obvious that the Witch-King did not recognize what the words meant either. "Not by the hand of man will he fall", said Glorfindel. Tolkien referred to Men in general as the race of Men, and Eowyn was included in that race. While she was a woman, and that does seem to be how she was able to fulfill this prophecy, I don't think it's correct. And even with Merry being a Hobbit, and closely related to the race of Men, it is still possible. "Not by the HAND OF MAN will he fall," but maybe by the HANDS OF MEN. Glorfindel's words may have meant that it had to be a group effort that brought down the Morgul Lord, because in solo combat, he was undefeatable. Obviously as an ambiguous prophecy, this is just one of many contributing factors, concerning definition of the word 'man' in his prophecy.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Essex, maybe I'm misreading your words, if so then I apologise, but you say that the event (Frodo's 'potential' slaying of the Witch King) did not happen BECAUSE of the prophecy. This is incorrect. Nothing was caused because of the prophecy. It was the events which caused the prophecy.

As a philosophy student I'm perhaps a bit ashamed to be asking this, but does this imply backward causation? I know I should be able to work it out myself but I'm very sleepy right now!

[Lost One]

I still think people are being way too literal, analysing what the prophesy meant and whether Eowyn and Merry 'counted' as Men. Tolkien was a sophisticated literary historian, and knew all about mythic and literary prophesies: they are supposed to mislead people. Oedipus fled his 'parents' in horror, straight to his real parents; 'Birnham Wood', didn't really come to Dunsinane, but did so in effect to scupper Macbeth's confidence (a story Tolkien refers to in his letters); Henry IV knew he would die in Jerusalem ('What room is this?' 'The Jerusalem chamber, my lord'), and so on. Glorfindel was given an insight (from the Valar?) which it is likely he himself didn't understand. Only when Merry and Eowyn lay on a pile of empty clothes did people know what it had all meant. Like all good solid prophesies, it led the subject to his ruin.