Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[Essex]

Obloquy.

let me explain the argument.

My argument is for posters who say that Gandalf could definatley defeat the Witch King need to show me proof that Gandalf could do this. They cannot, including your attempt on your last post to me. They can offer only conjecture, however well pointed out. And now I'm talking about the books, never mind the film.

All my points above are to show that The Lord of the Rings, if it shows anything, is to show that the weak/ the common man etc can defeat the Strong.

It's not a a case of my dad's bigger than you're dad so he can beat you up.

And therefore, I am stating that if a certain being is stronger than another being in the books, it does not give us certainty that that being will alwys win.

Do you understand my point now? If you don't, that's a pity, but one thing you have done is shown me your quality with your last reply to me. It's a pity we have comments like this on the forums.

[Essex]

double posting here, but getting back to replying to someone (Mansun) who raises some good points and in a friendly manner.

I did not say Gandalf would definately defeat the WK, even though he could if he was not restrained of his full power.

Then my comments above were not directed at you then, sorry.

I meant rather that the WK could not defeat Gandalf.

see my point below on the Istari from Unifinished tales. Why not?

The Wizard's role in the confrontation was to hold off the WK. Gandalf would have only revealed his true power if he had really been forced to and had no choice, as with his battle against a foe of his equal, the Balrog of Morgoth.

but would he be allowed? reading the unfinished tales, I would say he was not allowed to do this. If he was going to show his True power to defeat the sources of evil, why bother with the Witch King. Like I said above, why not just confront Sauron?

Even against the Balrog, the Wizard tried to avoid a direct battle by breaking the bridge at the feet of his enemy. He tried instead to hold off the Balrog.

totally agree. again he could not use his 'latent' powers, but tried to indirectly win by breaking the bridge. And, (to start another flurry of posts!), I'm rereading LOTR for the umpteenth time, and Gandalf's just told me about the Balrog's death. How exactly DID he die? It's not made clear. 'I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high palce and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin'. Did the fall kill the balrog, or did Gandalf? Is this why Tolkien had them falling into water from the bridge, inasmuch to break their fall?

Sauron was defeated because his major source of power in the One Ring was destroyed. The WK was defeated because his spell of immunity to ordinary weapons was broken. But these circumstances cannot be applied to Gandalf - there is no way he could be defeated unless there was somebody of the required power to break him and his staff (i.e. like how Saruman was stripped of his power and removed from the Order by Gandalf the White).

to answer the point I've highlighted in bold above, here is part of the text from the Unfinished Tales, the Istari

For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain.

Yes, he had his staff, (which we have had numerous posts on on this thread earlier on!) but, to me ata least, this seems to show that Gandalf COULD be slain by a weapon.

The Istari could be slain, but most likely only if they were first broken, i.e. Saruman. Then they would just become as vulnerable as the WK was when his spell was broken. But it still remains very questionable as to whether the WK had it in him to break Gandalf the White. Even the Balrog didn't manage that. So its no wonder why this thread has attracted a lot of debate, as most of us are of the opinion that the WK would have been held off to retreat from Minas Tirith in the Siege of Gondor.

And as for why the WK would definately not beat Gandalf? The reason being, Gandalf would surely reveal enough of his true power to be able to withstand the WK and not be killed by an inferior, albeit mighty, opponent. I think Eru would have allowed him to have done so much as that.

Otherwise, Eru may as well have sent Gandalf as an old wisened man with no power what-so-ever, if he were unable to fully defend himself against Sauron's servants! Remember, Gandalf the Grey defeated the Balrog, and held off all the Nine ring wraiths at night. So an enhanced Gandalf the White is a frightening prospect to all, save Sauron.

[Gurthang]

That's IT, Mansun! I think you've solved it!

Gandalf, while still the grey, was able to hold off all nine Ringwraiths on Weathertop. This would include the Witch-King. Meaning that not only could Gandalf defeat him, but he did defeat him. And surely Gandalf the White could take on a single Wraith much more easily.

Originally Posted by Gurthang

That's IT, Mansun! I think you've solved it!

Gandalf, while still the grey, was able to hold off all nine Ringwraiths on Weathertop. This would include the Witch-King. Meaning that not only could Gandalf defeat him, but he did defeat him. And surely Gandalf the White could take on a single Wraith much more easily.

True, but then again Aragorn also managed to hold off five of the Ringwraiths AT Weathertop, including the WK. These foes were not so powerful as fear made them, if you had the might to confront them.

[Gurthang]

Maybe this has been brought up before; I haven't had time to read it all, so tell me if I'm repeating someone.

Gandalf could have defeated the WK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the prophecy not say that the Witch-King will not be killed by a living men. If that is so, then Gandalf could not have destroyed him, but he could have beaten him and driven him back. If Gandalf did that, I would count that as defeating the WK, if not for good.

But there is no way to tell that he would have defeated him. He is a Maia, but in physical form. Isildur beat Sauron while Sauron was physical. But was the Witch-King stronger than Isildur? He would have to be to defeat Gandalf, an incarnate Maia. Yet the WK was defeated by Eowyn and Merry. It's so confusing.

Basically, I'm saying he could have, not would have.

Essex, I really like what you said earlier about smaller, weaker people beating the bigger, stronger people. And I can easily see the examples thoughout Tolkien's works.

1. Bard beat Smaug.
2. Gandalf beat the Balrog. (Gandalf might not be weaker, but the Balrog is definitely bigger!)
3. Gondor/Rohan beat Mordor's army.
4. Sam beats Shelob.
5. Frodo (indirectly) beats Sauron.
6. Eowyn/Merry beat the Witch-King.

It's a very nice theme to have, and I'm glad you pointed it out.

[Essex]

I showed you proof based on what Tolkien wrote, yet you choose to ignore it.

read it, was interested by it, but it was explaining gandalf's fight with the balrog, and not the witch king. circumstantial evidence.

I actually like this point, and the point Mansun states about the balrog encounter. Gandalf decided not to fight the balrog there and then. it could be a case that he didn't want the other members of the fellowship dragged into the fight, (at least aragorn and boromir who stood by him), as they could well of got killed.

but your next point (and I did miss this first time around, and is what I've been saying for the past god knows how long since this thread started) is, and I quite you:

allowed himself to be defeated by the Balrog, which, in turn, indicates that he had the latent power to defeat the Balrog decisively.

YES HE PROBABLY DID HAVE THE LATENT POWER TO DEFEAT THE BALROG AND THE WITCH KING BUT HE WAS FORBIDDEN TO USE THIS POWER!!!!!!!

Therefore he was not certain to beat the Witch King, and could also have been defeated, as mentioned in the Istari section of Unfinished Tales I've quoted above.

[Essex]

Sorry, double posting again

I understand the saccharine, comforting ideal you impose upon Tolkien's work.

So what do you take from tolkien's work? I take a bittersweet feeling, not a saccharine, alls well feeling. Many of the characters Lost a lot. I've already let my thoughts on this be known in other threads. But to say a view that the weak defeat the strong is saccharine?

[narfforc]

My friends, I think in the end you will all have to agree to disagree, this argument is going round in circles, all sides will not give ground, and though there are good points on either side, they are not being accepted.

[The Only Real Estel]

Wasn't the book Balrog (as opposed to everything PJ) just over "man-sized?" Would this make him at most a little taller than Gandalf?

From The Fellowship of the Ring:

"What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it...

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darknesss grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm"

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

[*]Gandalf beat the Balrog. (Gandalf might not be weaker, but the Balrog is definitely bigger!)

Wasn't the book Balrog (as opposed to everything PJ) just over "man-sized?" Would this make him at most a little taller than Gandalf?

Of course it's well known that 'wings' always gives the appearance of greater stature...