[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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?

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Show me.

Originally Posted by Encyclopedia of Arda

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

Originally Posted by Raynor

(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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Haha! Nice.

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

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.