Galadriel VS The witch- king

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I know that "Angmar" is not the Witch-King's name.

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.

This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.

I note you concede my main point though, for which I am happy.

[SarumanCymraeg]

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.

The Witch-King's name is unknown, it's been lost for ages (and most certainly isn't 'Angmar'). Only one of the Nazgul's name (being Khamul) is known to us.

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

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."

One could say Mordor sits on his throne - if one was peaking poetically. Actually, I was using 'Angmar' as shorthand, as I find 'The Witch-King a pain to write out repeatedly & W-K looks a bit like txt spk.

The Barrow Blade was special compared to regular weapons, but was "magically" inferior to Glamdring.

But only a Barrow Blade could harm Angmar , so the point is not relevant. Weapons have specific powers. Tolkien is clear about that. Glamdring (or Anduril) could not have harmed Angmar & made him vulnerable to Eowyn's death-blow.

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).

Well, he wasn't a 'man'. He was both more & less than that. He was a Man once, but that is not the point. A battering ram was once an acorn, but you'd struggle to bring down a door by throwing an acorn at it. Angmar & the rest of the Nazgul are effectively incarnations of Sauron's power. If they were 'just' Men they would have been a lot less powerful, a lot easier to dispatch, & generally a lot less of a nuisance. Besides, Men tend not to have invisible heads & such..

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.

Well, that would depend on whether what he thought about himself was correct or not. I don't see your point here. If there was only one means to dispatch Angmar then there was only one means & 'spiritual power' is neither here nor there. One thing we know about Middle-earth is that there are Rules. Superior force is not the issue. As Gandalf says, he 'cannot burn snow'. Just as there are 'physical' restrictions on what he can do, so there are spiritual ones. You can't talk about the Istari having 'limited options' & then imply that the only restrictions on them is their inherent power. Gandalf can be injured by certain weapons. So can Angmar - but we know that Gandalf is not in possession of such a weapon. Therefore he cannot harm Angmar - because he cannot burn snow. Conversely, the weapon Angmar is about to use on Gandalf at the Gates of Minas Tirith is clearly a magical weapon, which he makes use of at that moment & only at that moment.

And its entirely a question of magical weapons, because Tolkien clearly states it is.

[Boromir88]

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!"~davem

I'd like to make note that this still has yet to be proven. I haven't seen anything to suggest Gandalf was afraid of the Witch-King, in fact it wouldn't make sense for him to be afraid. He did perfectly fine battling them on Amon Sul he did perfectly fine driving them away from the retreating Faramir (though the WK was not present at this moment)...still he encountered the Nazgul on a few occasions, and never showed any hesitation or doubt, now as Gandalf the White, both enhanced in power and wisdom why would he suddenly fear the Witch-King?

The two quotes that have been used to look like Gandalf feared the Witch-King, is when asked by Denethor if he was overmatched, saying "It might be so." And here:

"Old Fool!" he said. "Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!" And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.

On the surface it looks like Gandalf may have doubted his abilities in fighting the Witch-king, but as I've remarked both have been taken out of context.

The first one being the opposite of what Pippin expected. Pippin expected wrath from Gandalf towards Denethor, but instead Gandalf is calm and replies 'softly.' Not 'softly' as in grim, and meek which what's been suggested. But 'softly' as in a calm tone, because Pippin was fearing Gandalf would let lightning strike down upon Denethor after his comments.

The second one is The Witch-King's attempt to install fear in Gandalf. It's important to know the Nazgul's patterns. Anytime they enter into an encounter they first, right from the start, try to install fear in their opponents, because that is when they are at their greatest, when they are feared. This is simply the Witch-King's attempt to put fear into Gandalf, he does some fancy tricks, lights up a sword, insults him, tells him to die, in order to put fear in Gandalf, but it doesn't work...'Gandalf did not move.' The fear card didn't work and the Witch-King leaves.

[davem]

Originally Posted by B88

I'd like to make note that this still has yet to be proven. I haven't seen anything to suggest Gandalf was afraid of the Witch-King, in fact it wouldn't make sense for him to be afraid. He did perfectly fine battling them on Amon Sul he did perfectly fine driving them away from the retreating Faramir (though the WK was not present at this moment)...still he encountered the Nazgul on a few occasions, and never showed any hesitation or doubt, now as Gandalf the White, both enhanced in power and wisdom why would he suddenly fear the Witch-King?

Ok I expressed myself badly there. I meant 'afraid' in the sense of knowing that Angmar could kill him & bring disaster on the forces of the West. He is clearly afraid that some disaster will result from his choice to rescue Faramir. Angmar is just as clearly not afraid of Gandalf, because he knows he can kill the Wizard. Gandalf knows he can be killed by Angmar & also knows he cannot kill him. Clearly he knows that he can, on a good day, with his back to the wall & with the wind in the right direction, hold him off - & its clear that is his intention. All Angmar needs is one lucky shot when Gandalf is distracted.

This is where Obloquy is probably right - in a battle of wills Gandalf can stop Angmar, but he cannot kill him. The problem is, Gandalf cannot spend his entire life holding Angmar at bay. What we saw on Weathertop was Gandalf being able to stop the Nazgul, He was able to stop their attack on Faramir & his men. I note he never killed any of them.

[obloquy]

Where did this idea that the Barrow Blade was the only thing capable of piercing the WK's "magic" come from?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by obloquy

You said:
Quote:
The Witch-King also wasn't as strong as he was at the Siege of Minas Tirith.

Based on what text, exactly?

From Letter #210 in The Letters of JRR Tolkien:

[The Black Riders'] peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. (emphasis added)

Angmar was undoubtedly more powerful at the Siege of Minas Tirith than he was as the leader of the Black Riders. Sauron saw to that.

Originally Posted by obloquy

... the rest is wholly and unequivocally incorrect, and obvious enough to anyone who reads it.

It's not obvious to me. Whether Angmar had the ability to defeat Gandalf the White is open to question. You (and Boro) make a good argument, but is not as clear cut as you seek to suggest. What I find persuasive is that the confrontation between Angmar and Gandalf at the Gate of Minas Tirith is intended by Tolkien to be a moment of tension. Like Pippin, we the readers are meant to fear that Angmar may actually be capable of defeating Gandalf. Were we to believe otherwise, there would be no tension here at all. Tolkien is careful to ensure that there is a good reason for Angmar's departure, and that he is not simply seen off by Gandalf. In my opinion, Tolkien intended us to believe that there was a possibility that Angmar might defeat Gandalf. And, being the obedient reader that I am, I believe that.

And yes, I have deliberately referred to the Witch-King as Angmar because, as I have discovered previously, it riles obloquy.

But seriously, I have little problem with him being referred to as such. There are perfectly good precedents to support it, as davem, points out. And, since we all know who we are talking about by the reference, it hardly matters much.