It also depends on whether the Witch King would fear the fire of the Balrog. It certainly grew afraid when Aragorn branded fire.

No, The Witch-King was already bearing down on him with the morgul blade, before Frodo made an attempt to strike:
Gandalf's 'musings' about Sauron wanting Frodo for torment are actually correct. If the Witch-King's mission was to kill Frodo to get the Ring, why not use the sword he was wielding to just do the job? Instead he uses the Morgul knife and goes after Frodo (before Frodo makes his attempted 'strike')...Therefor were not Gandalf's words actually correct? That Sauron wanted the Ringbearer to be brought back to suffer and not be killed. I would call that a restriction placed on the Witch-King, similar to the restrictions placed upon Gandalf.

Yet, as obloquy and I have both shown the Witch-King using magic long before Pelennor Fields. In his attack against Gandalf on Weathertop and the part that obloquy quotes. So, to say that assisting Grond in breaking down a gate shows the Witch-King has an added 'demonic force' is what I think is uncalled for. ;)

It's not applied to the army, it's applied to the Witch-King's presence, which is more open and prominent. The expression does not have to mean actual demon powers; in fact, I doubt Tolkien would ever have used the phrase to mean that. It conveys a sense of the Witch-King's presence on the battle field, which was at this time especially demonical.

So you're saying that the Witch-King's enhancement was the new ability to use his sorcery for practical purposes rather than merely show? Because striking a person dumb and shattering his sword is every bit as demonstrative of magical powers as assisting in breaking a gate.

"The larger context" is narrative decisions, which you have, up until now, felt it prudent to completely ignore. The larger context is not how the War of the Ring played out, and what kinds of measures Sauron went to; all of that is covered in Tolkien's "historical" texts, where he makes no mention of Sauron literally enhancing the Witch-King's abilities. My analysis of the sentence structure is correct, and the interjection (regarding Sauron) is presented as a reason for the stated effect.

Whatever means the Witch-King employed in his open war against Men and Elves prior to the LotR is what I had in mind. Tolkien isn't specific about them. Do you think it was solely this power of fear that made him capable of these conquests as king of his own realm? None of the other Nazgul have this kind of history, and it's because the Witch-King is "more powerful in all ways" than the others by nature, not because of this putative late-game enhancement.

Well, he didn't get his rep as a sorcerer because of his skill in pulling rabbits out of his hat. Unless 'sorcerer' means someone who can do card tricks or escape from a straightjacket we must assume it stands for something significant, & as I stated breaking a gate with the aid of a battering ram is not actually all that significant. Sorry, but if breaking the gate in that way was only possible after being given 'added demonic force' then the WK must have been little better than a conjuror without it.

I didn't say his mission was to kill Frodo to get the Ring - but to get the ring, obviously through any means necessary. And the actual phrasing is not he bore down on him with the morgul blade but he bore down on him. He was obviously not going to come empty handed and Frodo was rather likely to use the ring, thus the WK appearing armed as such would be more frightening and thus there is an additional reason to be so. WK's job was to get the ring, and if that required killing its bearer or turning him into a wraith, all the better. As far as I know, nowhere does Tolkien state that bringing him to Sauron was a priority, neither in UT nor in the letters, where he discusses Sauron's motivations. In fact, what we know of his motivations is that he desperately wanted the ring as soon as possible, before his enemies could get to it. All this delay of 14 days between stabbing Frodo and Frodo crossing the river show that the WK preferred to bid his time instead of ceaselessly attacking this small group, as his supposed great power at the time permitted.
What I said above: having such power previously would have allowed the WK to pursue his mission more aggressively. He didn't.
I see nothing that proves exclusively your point of view. Narrative choices in the passage and letter relates in fact to in-story elements, something which I definitely not avoided.
I see. So it's basically speculation. I have no problem with that, but you should not have presented your opinion as a fact.
He didn't break the door of a hobbit shack. The context in which this occurs makes this one the (if not the) most powerful displays of magic power in the book.

Oh its spectacular, & its symbolic, but is it actually all that big a deal in terms of power needed? When we're talking about magic it becomes more complex - it may take no more magic to shatter a city gate than to break a sword. And I keep coming back to the battering ram - could he have shattered the gate without Grond? One can't dismiss the Ram because of the time taken in its forging & the effort expended in dragging it all the way from Mordor. Why bother if the WK can just shatter the gate unaided? And even if he could we have no evidence that he couldn't do something like that without 'added demonic force'. All we know is that he's never shown doing something exactly like that before - but we're never shown Gandalf doing anything like killing a Balrog before, & we don't look for 'added spiritual power' to explain that. And let's not forget that Frodo's sword was a Barrow Blade - a 'magical' object bound about with spells - while the gate was just a gate. It may well have take more power to break the sword than the gate.

What else did he do in the battle to display this extra power? Nothing that I can see.

As mentioned earlier, the fact that Gandalf the Grey was able to break the flaming sword of the Balrog was very significant in terms of power, particularly as the sword was blessed with spell fire & other demonic spells. If a weaker Gandalf was able to destroy the Balrog like this, then a contest between it & the enhanced Witch King may not be as one-sided as some may think. Nevertheless, in order I would put Gandalf the White first, the Balrog second, the enhanced Witch King third, since the Balrog did succeed in ending Gandalf's life.

Breaking a gate, however great, is not as great a demonstration of power as breaking the magical weapon of a Maia. The character of the Balrog & its awesome presence is also probably the greatest achievement in the LOTR - no other chapter comes anywhere near it for suspense & horror than when the Balrog appears - it is a hellish creature which only existed in nightmares of even great folk like Gimli, Legolas & Aragorn.

Was the Balrog coming in for the Ring, & if so what may it have done with it?

Guys, we have to get our terms straight, because we're sctually discussing no fewer than twenty different confrontations:

1. Gandalf the Grey vs. pre-Pelennor Witch-king
2. Gandalf the White vs. pre-Pelennor Witch-king
3. Gandalf the Grey vs. Pelennor Witch-king
4. Gandalf the White vs. Pelennor Witch-king
5. Gandalf the Grey vs. winged European Balrog
6. Gandalf the White vs. winged European Balrog
7. Gandalf the Grey vs. wingless European Balrog
8. Gandalf the White vs. wingless European Balrog
9. Gandalf the Grey vs. winged African Balrog
10. Gandalf the White vs. winged African Balrog
11. Gandalf the Grey vs. wingless African Balrog
12. Gandalf the White vs. wingless African Balrog
13. pre-Pelennor Witch-king vs. winged European Balrog
14. Pelennor Witch-king vs. winged European Balrog
15. pre-Pelennor Witch-king vs. wingless European Balrog
16. Pelennor Witch-king vs. wingless European Balrog
17. pre-Pelennor Witch-king vs. winged African Balrog
18. Pelennor Witch-king vs. winged African Balrog
19. pre-Pelennor Witch-king vs. wingless African Balrog
20. Pelennor Witch-king vs. wingless African Balrog


And that's without even getting into how much the coconut weighs!

To think some idiots actually spend lots of time typing this crap & expecting everyone to give them a pat on the back for well done . . . get a life, & an education.

I really doubt it takes a hundred-feet long ram the level of Grond to shatter a blade.
I already expounded my arguments on that, with quotes from Tolkien about tyrants' disregard for human costs, the rather scarcity of magic and that using this power may not be worth it for the WK in such conditions.
I don't think the situation is comparable. We don't have a previous situation in which Gandalf had reasons to use his full power. Moreover, all over the LotR is the implication that all the good characters are aided in their quest, even in the most dire situations, against unimaginable odds. [And I also add that even the appendices mention that the istari were forbidden to "match Sauron's power with power, or to seek to dominate Elves or Men by force and fear", thus a second-time reader knows he can expect more from Gandalf the Grey than he shows. But I needn't go that far.]
I am not aware that such a blade is in any way more resistant that a normal blade.
A sword in flames is rather impressive, but only because you asked :cool:. Never before seen, if I remember correctly.
That may be so, I have a foggy memory of something similar stated by Tolkien. The ring definitely influences evil creatures (such as the orcs that attacked Isildur - or even the watcher in the water who went straight for Frodo).I am not aware that the balrog's sword had those; it was pretty much a contest between blades, sort of speaking. I don't see any reason why Gandalf put forth magic in that particular episode.

Your arguments are foolish and desperate, Raynor, and I am done dignifying them with detailed responses.

Thanks for your kind words.

The sword the Balrog used was flamed by his own power - a power fueled by spells & sorcery like which Gandalf had not experienced before in his wildest dreams, not even when faced by the Nine Nazgul. Do not try & pretend that a flaming sword is not one with flame due to some supernatural power.



But just look at what Wikipedia has to say of Balrogs:-

A Balrog is a demon from J. R. R. Tolkien's Arda legendarium. A Balrog (Sindarin for "Demon of Might"; the Quenya form is Valarauko) is a tall, menacing being in the shape of a man, having control of both fire and shadow. One was noted to wield both a flaming sword and fiery whip of many thongs.

The Balrog induces great terror in friends and foes alike and can shroud itself in darkness and shadow. It can only be defeated by some person or thing of equal power, and amongst its own evil allies is rivalled only in its capacity for ferocity and destruction by the dragons, but the Balrogs are more powerful than dragons.[1]

According to The Silmarillion the Balrogs were originally Maiar, of the same order as Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf.

Can the enhanced Witch King match such a foe? It appears not, since he would need to be at least in equal power to Sauron, Saruman, Gandalf & the Balrog of Morgoth to be so. This ends the debate once & for all - Gandalf, Balrogs, Saurman, Sauron are all essentially closely matched, that we know. The Witch King, however powerful a sorcerer, cannot fall into this supernatural category & must therefore be deemed a weaker opponent. The Witch King cannot kill a Maiar without being of equal power at least.

Again, there is no clue regarding just how much, if at all, the balrog's blade was enhanced.

Enhanced enough to be able to have a good chance of taking care of Gandalf. Or why bother provoking him when he can quite easily go back to sleep unharmed?

We have no evidence that the balrog relied on the blade to take care of Gandalf.
The ring for example, as you mentioned. Also, the fellowship would have been quite happy to just get away safely, regardless how many times they were provoked. They have little if any incentive in starting a fight.

The Balrog must show his power though some means, & it seems his chief weapon was his blade. A flaming sword, in biblical terms, symbolises supernatural power. Look it up on wikipedia.

Also, we have no evidence that the Balrog was after the Ring. He could have just been angry at being awaken, plus he would have been aware (eventually) that Gandalf also was a Maiar & therefore one of the few foes who could potentially defeat him.

Whatever opinion one has, the Balrog can be seen as a truly great opponent with all the hallmarks of a demonic god-like creature of ancient legend which even heroes of modern times dare not name. The Balrog effectively made the LOTR what it is today.

Their chief weapon is fear.
Though it may symbolise that, I don't see why it is the case here. Why do you keep insisting on this, if you have no evidence?
We are not discussing the bible and its symbols or wikipedia.
Indeed, we have no evidence at all of whatsoever, regarding the blade or his motivations. Therefore, no valid argument can be made.

You mean beyond the three advanced degrees I already possess?

Pull out the cork, sonny. This thread has degenerated into RPG silliness and deserved a good lampooning, Mr. Most-intellectual-threads.:o

Not the most reliable site on which to base your argument :)

This brings us back to the old predicament of Glorfindel and the Balrog, of Ecthelion and Gothmog and of Fingolfin and Melkor.

Was Ecthelion on par with Gothmog, the servant of Morgoth and son of Morgoth? No, he was just a powerful Elf with particularly good fighting capabilities - doubtless he had this "power" but i would argue against it being equal to the Maija's.

Tolkien has surprised us enough with apparently "weaker" foes rising to the challenge so to speak. So to say that the Witch King is inadequate because he must be 'atleast in equal power' and he 'must therefore be deemed a weaker opponant', is in my view a little narrow minded (not personally i'm sure). Glorfindel, Ecthelion and Fingolfin each used a form of weapon to inflict damage on their foe. To say that the Balrogs were not as before, not of Maija or whatever is diverted by Fingolfins battle with Melkor, where he succeeds in frightening him and issuing him with a nice scar.

The Witch King, whom i am sure would fail to a Balrog (personally) cannot be counted out. We do not know how it would have gone, we can only bear educated guesses. After analyzing Tolkiens history of upsets it would be folly to just disregard someone because of their status in the world.

That sir was a fantastic comeback!

Nonetheless, lets keep it civil chaps, let us not forget it is a work of fiction we debate here, not the economical state of Great Britain.

Sorry to respond so late to this, Boromir. I disagree. I think that Sauron's ability to craft something that is infused with a large portion of his power might not demonstrate that he has the ability to dole out his power in portions to whomever he pleases. Remember that The One Ring's capacity as a reservoir for Sauron's power came at a price: if the Ring was destroyed, Sauron was also ruined. This suggests a much tighter--and indeed a reliant--relationship between Sauron and his Ring than he would have allowed between himself and a more or less expendable servant, unless that servant was invincible to the same degree that the Ring was. Also, Sauron created The One Ring at a time when he was still evidently discarnate, which makes the situation wholly different. A more plausible scenario, I believe, would be an allocation of more ring-power (was this an active well which Sauron could draw upon, reallocate, and augment?) to the Witch-King's ring, provided Sauron was willing to let the Witch-King wear it.

(You are correct about Sauron being more conservative than Morgoth, who squandered his power. If Sauron was capable of doing this and it involves the same "process" as the Ring's infusion, we must assume that when the Witch-King was slain, Sauron himself was damaged to a certain degree. There's nothing that I am aware of that precludes this possibility, but it is certainly an example of that Morgothian power squandering. Morgoth is the only one I am aware of who is said to put his own power into another being.)

He may have been, yes. He was not the same type of being, but the gap in potency between the lesser Maiar (the Balrogs are described as such) and the greater Eldar was very narrow--the tiers may even overlap.

I see this claim a lot, but I'm unaware of the references. Maybe you could share which scenarios you're talking about.

Within your rigid hierarchy, how then do you explain both Glorfindel and Ecthelion killing a Balrog? Certain even a high Elf is considered below a Maia.

And does this mean that Radagast could defeat the Witch King? After all, he is a Maia.

In any case, the Witch King does not follow strictly the Middle Earth hierarchy (even if it were true, which it evidently is not), since he holds one of the Nine Rings and thus gets some of his power directly from Sauron. So one cannot simply describe his power as that of a man, or even as a sorcerer of old...

The hierarchy is pretty rigid, and generally holds, but as I said above, the more powerful Eldar may overlap with the lesser Maiar. Glorfindel in particular, though not the greatest of the Eldar, is said to be on par with the Maiar. Certainly this holds true also for Cirdan, Luthien, Galadriel, Ecthelion, Gil-galad, Elrond, Feanor, Fingolfin, Thingol, and others.

The greatest of the Atani perhaps overlap the least of the Eldar similarly, but the Witch-King is not one of the greatest of the Atani. He does not actually hold a ring of power, Sauron keeps them. He may have been a powerful Man before his corruption, and was perhaps more powerful afterward, but we know that he still fears Glorfindel, Aragorn, and even Boromir I (see appendix).

Well, at least this is a more reasonable set of statements. I was reacting to the blanket statements of Mansun above.

I believe both Raynor and I have now said that the Balrog would probably triumph in a match up with the Witch King.

So the issue is mainly whether the power of the Witch King was augmented, or in fact, what the nature of that power is. I personally believe that this power is fluid and perhaps hard to define (harder than, say, the power of the Balrog) because so much of the power emanates from Sauron. This explains in part to me the very different behavior of the Nazgul (and Witch King) when faced with various foes.

Well, since there's no evidence to support that Sauron chose the Witch-King for special gifts, such as a prime ring (or even that there was a prime ring), it stands to reason that the power received from the nine rings is primarily that irrational fear that all the Ulairi share. It also stands to reason that those things the Witch-King excels the others in ("more powerful in all ways") are things he brought to the table himself. He was a sorcerer and, evidently, a warlord before his corruption. It is therefore not necessary to assume that he received any abilities as a sorcerer--aside from further training, perhaps--from Sauron or from his ring since he is already identified as a practicer of those arts.

Well, you lost me there. I can see that the Witch King is clearly building on whatever he was previously--presumably the Rings themselves do not convey the extra power that the Witch King has versus the other Nazgul. But it seems quite a stretch to then conclude that he gained little further from his connection with Sauron. Where is your evidence that this is the case? I myself do not find it logical at all...

Why didn't the other Nazgul receive it as well? All the Nazgul received this weapon of supernatural fear, so if the Witch-King acquired his other powers from Sauron, why didn't the others? It makes more sense, lacking any textual indication that Sauron singled out the Witch-King for an extra helping of bad, that the ways in which the Witch-King is superior to the other eight are his own personal skillset, and that the ways in which he is like the other eight (wraith, "weaponized" fear, aversion to water) are what was received from Sauron and the nine rings.

What counts is how you apply the education, not to mention where the degrees actually came from & what grades you acheived :p.

We have reasons to believe they are, to a good degree:
Sauron discarnate in 1600 S.A.? Why?
An interesting thought. Then again, Gandalf mentions that Sauron keeps the nine rings, so this wouldn't be a problem (as you mentioned in a later post, I noticed).Where are they described as such?
True, but his case is highly particular, since he is a reincarnated elf who was allowed to return to M.E.
Why?
Hm, I hold my doubts towards this idea. The nine rigns were forged by the elves. Other than subservience to Sauron, I know of no other trait that would allow the ring to infuse the bearer with such power. Therefore, this power must come from Sauron also.
This isn't the only explanation possible. I believe that the need to have a hierarchy would require simple leadership skills on his behalf. Further from that, Sauron can give him whatever he thought was necessary for his role.

Raynor, you insist to disagree with everything unless it is laid it writing by Tolkein plain & clear. If he were to do that, the LOTR would be the most boring book of all time. The link between biblical history & the LOTR is clearly made by Tolkein in many of his writings. Wikipedia has also been regarded by many as being more accurate than any encyclopedia.

I would suggest you try to look at some literacy anaylsis books to see how symbolic objects are meant to be interpreted in literature.

Such as.....?

The Witch-king's motivations are pretty explicitly laid out in the complex of papers associated with The Hunt for the Ring.

I suggest you look to another thread I started sometime ago in the Books forum called The Lord of the Bible?. This thread has many excellent examples.

If the Witch King was already enhanced, & Sauron did reclaim the Ring, would this make the Witch King more mightier than Gandalf the White & the Balrog? A major problem lies when we look back at the Witch King in the second age when he was at his most powerful level (as was Sauron) with the Ruling Ring in his Master's hand. Even in this form he failed to make any serious impact, e.g. in the Last Alliance battle.

It is plausible to say then that this added demonic force nonsense was a mistake by Tolkein, as it implies to the reader that the Witch King has had a bit of a continuous fluctuation in his power, depending on whether Sauron had the Ring, & indeed without the Ring. Just when exactly do you think he peaked in his power? It would surely have been when Sauron had the Ring?

Gandalf the White vs The Witch King (with Ring)

Gandalf the White vs The Witch King (without Ring)

Gandalf the White vs The Witch King (enhanced)

Who will answer this problem? It appears Tolkein had made a mistake here. The Witch King can only be in his greatest form when Sauron himself is at his greatest. Yet, in the volume III Sauron is at his weakest form, yet he can enhance the Witch King close to Gandalf the White's power?? This cannot be. Also, when the Witch King is killed, it would also imply that Sauron has just squandered the added demonic force he gave away lightly, to the point he may have less power himself as a result. Perhaps in this state even Gandalf the White could defeat him?

From what point of view was he at the most powerful level and according to whom?

Interesting that you criticize Raynor for not adhering to Tolkien (let's forget about the fact that you discount his inferences, while promoting your own with little to support them other than speculation), with the following statements just below

where you seem to discount what Tolkien actually said quite clearly in his letters.

This would presumably be true if there was a one to one relationship between the present power of Sauron and the Witch King. But it would seem that the power of the WK, beyond what he developed earlier as a mortal man, depends greatly on how much is given to him by Sauron. In the Second Age, Sauron himself appeared to take on Elendil and Gilgalad, so apparently the WK was not his only proxy able to go into battle. In contrast, I would say the WK was at his greatest power in the 3rd age, where he served as King of Angmar, destroying the North Kingdom altogether, and then later as commander of the armies attacking Minas Tirith. Of course, we should not discount completely his defeat of Earnur in the 3rd Age.

I would say that if Sauron did recover the One Ring, then he might have increased the power of the Witch King commensurately, but whether he would have felt the need to do so is another question. My reading of the WK's role in the 2nd Age is that Sauron did not feel the need to do so then...

Be serious - Sauron controls & commands the power of the Nazgul, so if he is at his weakest, the the Nazgul will be also. The Witch King would only be in his greatest form if his Master had the Ring, as Gandalf hinted in the House of Elrond.

Why? Where does Tolkien make such a correlation?

The WHOLE story is the correlation. Put simply, if the baddie gets the Ring, Middle Earth falls.