Slaying of the Witch king
 

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!

He got stabbed in the face with a sword.

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

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.

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 [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] ), 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 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.

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?

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.

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

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

It would be if the spell was the only thing keeping his decayed flesh in one piece.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

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).

As you can see from my replies in this thread, Eowyn's stroke may have been meaningless. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

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

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

Yes. Eladar, no. Just no.

I know, my theory just creates waves.

I live in Oklahoma too, just south of OKC.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 ]

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?

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

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.

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 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img])


Blanchard

We need to settle this over donuts.

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...

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:

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.

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.

I totally agree, Aiwendil. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). 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.

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.

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.

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

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 ]