![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 886
![]() |
Quote:
As Merry says later on, the WK chose to ignore (or at least OVERLOOK) the little hobbit lying on the floor, thinking him of no import whatsoever. If it was, say, Eomer standing there with the Blade, then he would not have been able to defeat the Witch King as he would have been an advesary the WK would have swatted aside. Therefore it is EXACTLY BECAUSE Merry was an insignificant, weak hobbit, that he was able to assist in helping Frodo and Sam complete their Quest. Not JUST the Blade. It needed a 'weak' being to help defeat the Strong. PS - I agree exactly what Alatar said above - My point was to show that the Underdog CAN win in a fight. Whether it was David vs Goliath which you have countered, or Hereford beating Newcastle in the FA Cup (I'd love to see you explain that one away to God) - it is NOT a matter of the Mightiest always winning every battle. If that was the case then I could think of a war or two that both our countries are in we should have been home from quite a while ago! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
As I mentioned in another thread, I think Erik Tracy has explained Tolkein's work in a balanced way, & in a good context. It may well be speculation to some extent, but very promising nonetheless. Balrogs afterall were the servants of Morgoth, not Sauron; they did not have a great part of their original strength taken away from them like Sauron did either. In the LOTR Sauron did not even try to acquire the Balrog for aid. In terms of commanding will, why would a Balrog submit to Sauron given the circumstances of power each has? A strong case could be made that the Balrog could even rival Sauron in combat, irrespective of whether it lost.
Last edited by Mansun; 03-12-2007 at 03:23 PM. |
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
|
|