The Nine Walkers

[mark12_30]

Gandalf discussed this, didn't he? I mean, Frodo's cousins' usefulness in the end. Wasn't he talking to Aragorn (if I remember correctly) when he said that Pippin's foolishness in looking into the palantir provided Sauron with the idea that Pippin was the Ringbearer, captured, and in Saruman's custody; and that therefore whoever "made" Pippin look into the Palantir, now had the Ring? And if it wasn't Saruman, then it must have been Aragorn?

Isn't that why Sauron took Aragorn so seriously when Aragron himself looked into the Palantir?

Pippin was as 'useful' as a Ringbearer Decoy as Elrond would have been in diplomacy. Elrond could not have talked Sauron into believing that Arqagon had the Ring, and so, taking Aragorn seriously for the rest of the war.

[Morthoron]

Hmmm...if Gandalf's staff was so potent, why then did he use the sword Glamdring the vast majority of the time, particularly after the enemy was well aware of his presence (which would be the only reason he would hide its power)?

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hmmm...if Gandalf's staff was so potent, why then did he use the sword Glamdring the vast majority of the time, particularly after the enemy was well aware of his presence (which would be the only reason he would hide its power)?

You need to read other threads which discuss this topic to death, i.e. Gandalf vs The Witch King.

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Even if Pippin's foolishly dropped stone did not actually awaken the Balrog, it alerted their enemies in Moria to their presence, and ultimately did not allow them to sneak through, unnoticed -- leaving behind a live and dangerous Balrog.

I never believed that Pippin's stone was the reason for this. There is a possibility that Gollum had kept enemies alert in Moria after skulking around in habited areas. Also, what is there to say that a Moria scout had not spotted the Company? Balin's attempt to retake Moria had awoken the armies of Moria, and going through unseen and unchallenged after that would be almost impossible.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

You need to read other threads which discuss this topic to death, i.e. Gandalf vs The Witch King.

I don't need to read another thread, thanks.

The wizard's staff was symbolic of their order (as when Gandalf shattered Saruman's staff -- a token of Gandalf attaining white status), and used as a means of channeling their inherent power. There is no direct quotes to show that the staff had any innate power in and of itself (as a matter of fact, Gandalf would have most likely lost his original staff in his fall in Moria); hence, Gandalf is seen most often swinging around Glamdring. This is in line with Ibrin's opinion:

As for the wizards' staffs having some power, I don't believe we're ever really given any solid proof that they serve as anything but a channel for the wizards' own power. Breaking or obtaining the staff of another wizard would, I think, at most deprive them of a useful tool, at the least be a merely symbolic gesture. If it had innate power, I suspect we would've heard Gandalf warning Pippin not to EVER touch his staff.

[Gordis]

I like your post, Ibrîn! Good work.

You proved that Aragorn was not intending to go to Mordor initially, neither was Boromir.
Gimli indeed seemed set to stick to Frodo and the Ring - but that doesn't mean that Gandalf and Elrond were of the like mind. Dwarves were not reknown for stealth, but they had a bad reputation for their greed when it comes to jewelry. I don't think Gimli would have been trusted to accompany the hobbits to Mordor without other Big People to keep him in line.

Gandalf indeed seemed to foresee his own end and thus made no plans beyond going to Lorien.

And I wholly agree with Morthoron and Ibrin about wizards staffs.

[Alfirin]

I would actually disagree on the issue of wizards staffs being merely conduits of the wizards power; and nothing more. I think that a wizards staff probably does have a power beyond the wizard holding it, either inherent in itself or residual for the wizard's use of it; that if you throw enough magic at an object (or in this case run enough through it) eventually some of it begins to "stick" and stay in the object (a bit like Terry Prachetts minor character of Unlucky Charlie, the poor scarecrow whose been cursed so often as part of the witch trials that he now has developed what borders on a life of his own (see the ettique secion of Nanny Ogg's Cookbook for futher information). If a wizards staff had no power in and of itself, then Gandalf's destuction of Saruman's would have been meaningless; saruman could have simply grabbed another stick of wood (Orthanc proably had a good pile of sticks to be used as firewood) or at least cut a new one (or had Grima cut him a new one) once he was let out (he proably wouldn't want to do so in Fangorn itslef (given how Ents react when you damage trees) but I'm sure there were other trees along the route he could have cut a new staff from. Moreover if the staffs had no power out of the wizards hands then way would aquiring all of them (i.e. "the rods of the five wizards) be a desirable goal?) I'm not saying that anyone who took a wizard's staff would be able to use magic, but the staff is probably, in a certain sense a part of the wizard and a wizard whose staff was destroyed or lost would find it diffcult, if not impossible to replace.
Speaking of replacing staffs I do agree that the staff gandalf carried into Moria was proably lost or destroyed in his battle with the Balrog. Indeed the penultimate line of Bilbo's tribute poem does say "his staff was broken on the stone" (though this may of course be only hobbit poetic imagery) when Gandalf was given his new life and his new flesh he presuably was given a new staff, more powerful than his old, as he now was.

Originally Posted by Alfirin

I would actually disagree on the issue of wizards staffs being merely conduits of the wizards power; and nothing more. I think that a wizards staff probably does have a power beyond the wizard holding it, either inherent in itself or residual for the wizard's use of it; that if you throw enough magic at an object (or in this case run enough through it) eventually some of it begins to "stick" and stay in the object (a bit like Terry Prachetts minor character of Unlucky Charlie, the poor scarecrow whose been cursed so often as part of the witch trials that he now has developed what borders on a life of his own (see the ettique secion of Nanny Ogg's Cookbook for futher information). If a wizards staff had no power in and of itself, then Gandalf's destuction of Saruman's would have been meaningless; saruman could have simply grabbed another stick of wood (Orthanc proably had a good pile of sticks to be used as firewood) or at least cut a new one (or had Grima cut him a new one) once he was let out (he proably wouldn't want to do so in Fangorn itslef (given how Ents react when you damage trees) but I'm sure there were other trees along the route he could have cut a new staff from. Moreover if the staffs had no power out of the wizards hands then way would aquiring all of them (i.e. "the rods of the five wizards) be a desirable goal?) I'm not saying that anyone who took a wizard's staff would be able to use magic, but the staff is probably, in a certain sense a part of the wizard and a wizard whose staff was destroyed or lost would find it diffcult, if not impossible to replace.
Speaking of replacing staffs I do agree that the staff gandalf carried into Moria was proably lost or destroyed in his battle with the Balrog. Indeed the penultimate line of Bilbo's tribute poem does say "his staff was broken on the stone" (though this may of course be only hobbit poetic imagery) when Gandalf was given his new life and his new flesh he presuably was given a new staff, more powerful than his old, as he now was.

I would dread to think that Gandalf would be a useless old man without his staff though.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

I would actually disagree on the issue of wizards staffs being merely conduits of the wizards power; and nothing more. I think that a wizards staff probably does have a power beyond the wizard holding it, either inherent in itself or residual for the wizard's use of it; that if you throw enough magic at an object (or in this case run enough through it) eventually some of it begins to "stick" and stay in the object....

saruman could have simply grabbed another stick of wood (Orthanc proably had a good pile of sticks to be used as firewood) or at least cut a new one (or had Grima cut him a new one) once he was let out (he proably wouldn't want to do so in Fangorn itslef (given how Ents react when you damage trees) but I'm sure there were other trees along the route he could have cut a new staff from. Moreover if the staffs had no power out of the wizards hands then way would aquiring all of them (i.e. "the rods of the five wizards) be a desirable goal?) I'm not saying that anyone who took a wizard's staff would be able to use magic, but the staff is probably, in a certain sense a part of the wizard and a wizard whose staff was destroyed or lost would find it diffcult, if not impossible to replace.

Speaking of replacing staffs I do agree that the staff gandalf carried into Moria was proably lost or destroyed in his battle with the Balrog. Indeed the penultimate line of Bilbo's tribute poem does say "his staff was broken on the stone" (though this may of course be only hobbit poetic imagery) when Gandalf was given his new life and his new flesh he presuably was given a new staff, more powerful than his old, as he now was.

The complete sentence Saruman says is important to put his meaning in context:

"Yes, when you also have the Keys of Barad-dûr itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards, and have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now."

The key, the crowns and the rods are symbols of power, not a power in and of themselves. They represent dominion in one form or another. To have the key to Barad-dur means you have defeated Sauron and command his tower, to have the crowns of seven kings means you control each kingdom, and to have the five rods indicates you are the head of the order of Istari (as Saruman was). Saruman was saying Gandalf had gotten too big for his britches (if wizards actually had britches). When Gandalf shattered Saruman's staff, he was in essence stripping him of his station, as one would taking the crown off of a king.

As far as innate power residing in the staffs, that can only be conjecture, as no where is it stated the staffs held residual power (that I can recall anyway). Consider, if you will, that Gandalf defeated the Balrog after he broke his staff on the bridge in Moria (the broken staff is mentioned in the text). So, the most momentous battle Gandalf encountered was with a sword, not a staff.

Could the staff concentrate a wizard's power more readily, and thus be useful in directing a wizard's inherent Maiaric essence? That's a different discussion altogether. We know that Gandalf cast light in the darkness of Moria using the staff, but then again he threw burning pinecones down on the wargs and the staff was not used (he wasn't batting pinecones at the wargs). Perhaps, like a divining rod, it focused power and acted as an extension of the wizard. We unfortuantely do not know where Gandalf's 'white' staff was carved, but since his white robes came from Galadriel in Lorien, then it's logical it came from her (made of mallorn?).

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

The only strong indication we have that the staff is a very useful implement for the Istari is Gandalf's insistence on keeping it when he goes to the Golden Hall in Edoras -- and yet, he doesn't really use it, not even as a conduit for light as he did before his death; indeed, the light seems to come more from him than his staff:

He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night. The fire faded to sullen embers. Only Gandalf could be seen, standing white and tall before the blackened hearth.

And as the story progresses, we see less and less of the staff. Contrary to what was shown in the movies, in the rescue of Faramir, the light that drives off the Nazgul comes from Gandalf's hand, not his staff. When he confronts Denethor in the Tombs, "his coming was like the incoming of a white light into a dark place," and he merely lifts up his hand to send Denethor's sword flying; he doesn't even appear to have his staff with him. When confronting the Mouth of Sauron, "He cast aside his cloak and a white light shone forth like a sword in that black place." Less and less do we hear of him using his staff as even a conduit for power. If the staff is indeed an implement for directing a wizard's power, then it could well be that Gandalf the Grey's staff shattered when he broke the bridge because of the amount of power he had to direct to achieve his aim -- rather like power lines that get burned and slagged when too much energy surges through them. Gandalf the White may be employing power that would burn mere wood to cinders.

On the way home, when the company encounters Saruman in the wild, he is described as leaning on a staff, but this would appear to be no more than a stick, because he is never seen using it as anything more than a prop. If there is indeed a unique usefulness to the wizards' staffs as a conduit for their power as Maiar, it may be because they bear the blessing of the Valar, who sent them as their messengers. Without such a blessing, Saruman couldn't simply make another for himself, just as he could not imitate the forging of a ring of power without giving up a part of his own native strength, already limited by his incarnation in a real body. It may also explain why Gandalf never uses his second staff in the same way as he used his first. Speculation, of course, but not unreasonable, I think.

And this seems to be wandering away from the original topic...

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Gandalf discussed this, didn't he? I mean, Frodo's cousins' usefulness in the end. Wasn't he talking to Aragorn (if I remember correctly) when he said that Pippin's foolishness in looking into the palantir provided Sauron with the idea that Pippin was the Ringbearer, captured, and in Saruman's custody; and that therefore whoever "made" Pippin look into the Palantir, now had the Ring? And if it wasn't Saruman, then it must have been Aragorn?

There is no question that even Pippin proved useful in the end - yes, looking into the Palantir, rousing the Ents and saving Faramir and Merry.

But were Gandalf and Elrond back around the time of the Council able to foresee such details - exactly what would happen? I don't think so. I believe Gandalf only had a vague feeling that Pippin and Merry would be useful on the Quest, as he supposed the same all along about Gollum.

However, apart from that, Elrond and Gandalf had to have some plan for the Quest. I think the splitting of the company was planned from the start: Boromir was going to Minas Tirith and Aragorn planned to go with him. What about the hobbits? I think all of them were supposed to go to Mordor, led by Gollum whose involvement was foreseen by Gandalf. Gollum was the only one who knew the way to Mordor after all.
All the big people go to Minas Tirith, all the stealthy and Ring-resistant hobbits to Mordor, that was the idea. Four hobbits could defend the Ring far better against Gollum's attempts to take it. This way there would have been three hobbits, not one, to take over the Quest if Frodo failed.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Actually, I believe Aragorn says somewhere
that he planned to go with Frodo to Mordor
(and with at least Gimli and Sam?).

And wasn't the vague earlier plan to have Merry and Pippin
go to Minas Tirith with Boromir, not sure about Legolas.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

To put in my two cents: I think it was not without reason that Elrond said:

"This is my last word... The Ring-bearer is setting out on the Quest of Mount Doom. On him alone is any charge laid: neither to cast away the Ring, nor to deliver it to any servant of the Enemy nor indeed to let any handle it, save members of the Company and the Council, and only then in gravest need. The others go with him as free companions, to help him on his way. You may tarry, or come back, or turn aside into other paths, as chance allows. The further you go, the less easy it will be to withdraw; yet no oath or bond is laid on you to go further than you will. For you do not yet know the strength of your hearts, and you cannot foresee what each may meet upon the road."

Which, as we all know, turned out to be prophetic. I suspect that Elrond foresaw if not precise events of the future, at least the probability that some members of the Company were fated to perform other deeds that would contribute greatly to their cause, even though they could not have imagined doing them at the outset. Gimli certainly had a notion in his head that he would stick by Frodo to the end, since his reply to Elrond was:

"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens," said Gimli.

"Maybe," said Elrond, "but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall."

"Yet sworn heart may strengthen quaking heart," said Gimli.

"Or break it," said Elrond. "Look not too far ahead!"

Boromir always intended to return to Minas Tirith, as was his duty (and no doubt he had notions of taking the Ring with him, either by persuading Frodo that this was the better way, or by seizing it); not even Gandalf appears to have made plans for the entire quest, other than that somehow, they would find a way to get the Ring into the Fire:

"We have not decided our course," said Aragorn [to Celeborn]. "Beyond Lothlorien I do not know what Gandalf intended to do. Indeed I do not think that even he had any clear purpose."

I have long suspected that this is because Gandalf knew that the closer they came to Mordor itself, the greater a danger his presence became to the Ringbearer. I think he would have gone with Frodo had there been no other choice, but he recognized that it would be a terrible risk. Before leaving Lothlorien, the Company was actually leaning in favor of going with Boromir to Minas Tirith,"to escape for at least a while from the terror of the enemy"; Aragorn had not originally intended to go to Mordor:

His own plan, while Gandalf remained with them, had been to go with Boromir, and with his sword help to deliver Gondor. For he believed that the message of the dreams was a summons, and that the hour had come at last when the heir of Elendil should come forth and strive with Sauron for the mastery. But in Moria the burden of Gandalf had been laid on him; and he knew that he could not now forsake the Ring, if Frodo refused in the end to go with Boromir.

I also have long felt that the reason Gandalf had not made clear plans beyond Lothlorien was because he knew that his own great purpose in the quest lay in getting the company to that point, a point which he himself might not reach. I have often thought it strange that there was no apparent record of the nature of the evil that first drove the Dwarves from Khazad-dum, but it is clear that not even the Dwarves were aware that a Balrog was "Durin's Bane," nor were Galadriel and Celeborn. But if, as Celeborn said when the Company first arrived in Lothlorien, the Dwarves had "stirred up this evil in Moria" -- implying that it was not Pippin's stone that had first roused the Balrog, but probably the Dwarves of Balin's attempted colony -- it was almost inevitable that someone would have to deal with it. If a dragon in Erebor would have been a dangerous ally for Sauron to use in his war, how much worse would a Balrog have been? As the war progressed, there was no guarantee that it would remain confined to Moria; indeed, since the orcs there were apparently aware of its presence, it's possible that Sauron already knew of it, and was waiting to use it when he opened his war and attacked Lothlorien. Once its presence was known and it was awake enough to pursue the Company, someone had to take it out. That was imperative. I believe Gandalf had a presentiment of this, in some vague fashion, since he says, "A Balrog. Now I understand." The immediate interpretation is that he understands what power had been on the other side of the door when he was forced to speak a word of Command, but I suspect the understanding runs deeper:

"But Gandalf chose to come himself, and he was the first to be lost," answered Gimli. "His foresight failed him."

"The counsel of Gandalf was not founded on foreknowledge of safety, for himself or others," said Aragorn. "There are some things that it is better to begin than to refuse, even though the end may be dark."

Between this and Aragorn's warning to Gandalf not to enter Moria, I think that the two had discussed the possibility that Gandalf knew he might meet his end there, if not how or why. But even facing that possibility, Gandalf evidently thought some greater good would achieved by it, and he was right. Even if Pippin's foolishly dropped stone did not actually awaken the Balrog, it alerted their enemies in Moria to their presence, and ultimately did not allow them to sneak through, unnoticed -- leaving behind a live and dangerous Balrog. It pushed Gandalf to this dark destiny, which ultimately proved to be a great benefit to their cause.

As for the wizards' staffs having some power, I don't believe we're ever really given any solid proof that they serve as anything but a channel for the wizards' own power. Breaking or obtaining the staff of another wizard would, I think, at most deprive them of a useful tool, at the least be a merely symbolic gesture. If it had innate power, I suspect we would've heard Gandalf warning Pippin not to EVER touch his staff.

Guess that was more like a dime's worth.