[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

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.