Galadriel VS The witch- king

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I understand your analogy, but it's not apt. You're saying that someone can get killed by something they do not fear. That is true. The reason people do not fear cars, however, is because a car is not your enemy and would not kill you of its own volition. (A more appropriate parallel to a car is a sword: it does not inspire fear of itself, but when wielded as a weapon by an enemy, it can effect that enemy's harmful will.) The Nazgul would take every available opportunity to kill Eldar if they had the power to do so; therefore, if the Nazgul had any power over the Eldar, the Eldar would be foolish not to fear them.

One does not need to be the master to be the victor. The Eldar could still die from a foe who had no apparent advantage. Just look at how the Balrog killed Glorfindel.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Glorfindel is not counted among the greatest of the Eldar, yet he slew a Balrog himself and openly confronted all Nine Ulairi. Not only that, but many years earlier, this same Glorfindel had been the one to put the Witch-King to flight after his kingdom had been utterly destroyed.

When Glorfindel met the Witch-King, Glorfindel had returned from the grave, and had apparently gained some extra power to boot. Besides, killing the king would be much harder if the Witch-King had to fight Glorfindel as well, and if he fought them both it could delay his escape, thus hindering any regroup at Minas Morgul. The Witch-King also wasn't as strong as he was at the Siege of Minas Tirith.

Originally Posted by obloquy

I'm not claiming that the Eldar were invincible. My claim is that in any confrontation involving Eldar and Nazgul, without the additional factor of overwhelming armies, the Eldar would not be threatened. In fact, the Nazgul would not be likely to stick around.

In the Glorfindel/Witch-King case, the overwhelming armies were on Glorfindel's side. An approaching army, a king of men, and additional troops shows that the Witch-King was outnumbered, not bested by Glorfindel.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Power limited? How so? It's true that the Nazgul were focused on Frodo and their mission, and you're right that they do have killing power, and Glorfindel was not invincible. Gandalf tells us that even Glorfindel and Aragorn, on foot could not withstand all nine Nazgul.

Seeing as how Gandalf the grey could hold off the nine till escape presented itself, and then later doubted he could defeat the sole Witch-King as Gandalf the White shows that the nazgul had gained more power since they last met.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Apart from all of this, we know that the Eldar are inherently greater beings than even the Numenoreans. The Nazgul are merely Men.

Men who had gained a great deal of power from a dark lord.

Originally Posted by obloquy

I'll grant that; it furthers my point: Glorfindel was not wary when confronting the Witch-King in the account from Appendix A, so we can assume he had nothing to fear.

He wasn't wary? Keeping your guard up, focusing on the enemy, etc. are signs of waryness in battle. The traditional stuff in every battle. If he wasn't wary, he'd not be using his head.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Sure, if he started a fight that way. The whole point is that the Nazgul could not get the sword there in the first place. The Balrog wasn't able to, and we know for certain that they're mightier than any Nazgul.

What I meant was if he was stabbed in the stomach, he wouldn't just keep on trucking perfectly fine. I was saying that the Eldar are not invincible.

Originally Posted by obloquy

The fear the Nazgul projected was supernatural, and Eowyn was not immune to it.

If the fear was supernatural, and Eowyn was certainly not weak-willed at the moment, then that would mean that the supernatural fear was not fear, but a spell. Since a spell is magic and not fear, and the nazgul were said to gain power from fear, then the fear was not a spell, and the Witch-King did not use a spell.

Originally Posted by obloquy

You're expressing your prejudice right there. As I pointed out before, Galadriel's greatness was never qualified the way you have qualified it. She was greatest of the Noldor, and among the three greatest of the Eldar. There's no reason, apart from some preconceived notion of her position or abilities, to assume that she was not a mighty warrior in the manner of all other "great" Noldor.

I am not being prejudiced, I am simply stating that the majority of things Galadriel did were as a leader and governor, like Denethor. It was said she was in great shape in her Valinor days, but the majority of her great acts were done through leadership and wisdom. She proved herself more as an effective leader. It's right there in the books. I'm stating the facts, not insulting a gender.

Originally Posted by obloquy

The rest of your comments, particularly about gender roles in England, are bogus and not even worth responding to.

Do you see any women in the armies of Gondor, Rohan, etc.? With the exception of Eowyn, all of the women in Tolkien's works were either royalty kept away from the front lines or healers. It's right there in the books.

Originally Posted by obloquy

He was confident enough to be dishing out orders. The Witch-King obeyed.

The Witch-King did not obey. He set his sword alight and was about to combat Gandalf when Rohan arrived.

Originally Posted by obloquy

I'll be looking forward to your textual support for this.

You did notice the paragraph straight from the book where Gandalf, when asked if the Witch-King could match/defeat him, answered "It might be so," grimly and softly, right?

Originally Posted by obloquy

Except that when Gandalf told him to bug off, he bugged off.

No, when Gandalf told him to bug off, he laughed and was about to fight Gandalf when Rohan arrived.

Originally Posted by obloquy

No it didn't.

Yes it did. The grim "It might be so," line from Gandalf, the Witch-King showing no fear of Gandalf, and a battle seconds from the first blows with no clear idea of who would win. Once again, Gandalf wasn't out there because he knew he would win, Gandalf was out there because he was the best bet, and even though Gandalf could lose, it was Gondor's best shot.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Gandalf was the backbone of the Alliance. If he had fallen, it would have been a crippling blow. If the Witch-King had any chance of defeating Gandalf on the spot, he would have taken it. Gandalf slew the Balrog while observing limitations on his power. The Balrog was immensely more powerful than the Witch-King. Gandalf came back from that battle enhanced. Do you follow? Here's another line of reasoning: Sauron and Gandalf were approximately equal (look elsewhere on the forum for my discussion of this topic), Sauron was far superior to his Lieutenant, therefore Gandalf was obviously mightier than the Witch-King.

Do you really think a battle of equals would be over in one second? If the Witch-King could have beaten Gandalf on the spot and vice-versa, they would have both attacked each other as soon as they could. Gandalf slew the Balrog, yes, but when "super-charged" as Gandalf the White, he had doubts about defeating the Witch-King. Also, it was mentioned in a letter (I believe it was a letter) that Gandalf had to "break the rules" on his power to combat the Balrog. Now, say if the Witch-King won the battle of equals at the gate, in the time passed his army would be lacking in large number and missing morale. By quickly moving to eliminate Rohan's leader, lowering enemy morale and raising the morale of his troops, he would be able to combat Gandalf later with Minas Tirith falling in the meanwhile, and there would be less enemy soldiers to deal with. Finally, Gandalf was not equal to Sauron. Before Gandalf went on the mission, he was afraid of Sauron's cunning and might. If he was flat-out afraid, then it's rather obvious that Gandalf feared Sauron because Sauron out-classed him. Also, if Sauron had gotten his ring back, and stopped being a crippled shadow, Gandalf would likely not defeat him in combat. The best bet Gandalf had of defeating Sauron was combating him with the ring in Gandalf's possession. Gandalf was powerful, yes, but he was not equal in might to Sauron, and he did not have an obvious might over the Witch-King.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Show me.

Originally Posted by Encyclopedia of Arda

Sauron was one of the mightiest (perhaps the mightiest) of the Maiar.

Originally Posted by Raynor

(Paraphrased) All of the sent Maiar were peers to Sauron.

If the Valar were sending the five best-suited maia, and one of them (Gandalf) could kill a Balrog, yet all five feared the crippled Sauron, then Sauron was packing a good deal of power.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Haha! Nice.

FYI, I was out at dinner, China Star to be exact.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Once again, Nice. Abbreviation? Like "cat" is an abbreviation of "cats."

In a world of a fictional elvish language, spirits we don't know much about, and half of the online Tolkien community using both forms interchangably for all references to the servants of the Valar, such a wording should not be worthy of disdain.

Now, to let this thread rest and prevent a flame war, do not attempt to reply to this. In the end, the victor of a battle between Galadriel and the Witch-King falls down to a war of opinions.

[Boromir88]

Men who had gained a great deal of power from a dark lord.~Reader

This is what is said about the Nazgul after receiving the Rings:

Men proved easier to ensnare. Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing~Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

But, the point obloquy is making, doesn't matter if they became "mightier," they were still Men, just 'greater' men. They still did not hold a lot of power over the fearless, and as has been shown Gandalf and the Eldar had sent them away several times, becuase they did not fear them.

You did notice the paragraph straight from the book where Gandalf, when asked if the Witch-King could match/defeat him, answered "It might be so," grimly and softly, right?

I'm assuming you are referring to this:

' Then, Mithrandir, you had a foe to match you,' said Denethor. 'For myself, I have long known who is the chief captain of the hosts of the Dark Tower. Is this all that you have returned to say? Or can it be that you have withdrawn because you are overmatched?'
Pippin trembled, fearing that Gandalf would be stung to sudden wrath but his fear was needless. "It might be so," Gandalf answered softly. "But our trial of strength is not yet come. And if words spoken of old be true not by the hand of a man shall he fall, and hidden from the Wise is the doom that awaits him. However that may be, the Captain of Despair does not press forward, yet. He rules rather according to the wisdom that you have just spoken, from the rear, driving his slaves in madness no before.
'Nay, I came rather to guard the hurt men that can yet be healed; for the Rammas is breached far and wide, and soon the host of Morgul will enter in at many points. And I came chiefly to say this. Soon there will be battle on the fields. A sortie must be made ready. Let it be of mounted men. In them lies our brief hope, for in one thing only is the enemy still poorly provided: he has few horsemen.~Minas Tirith

I explained this in my first post. We see Denethor's contempt for Gandalf..."Oh did you meet your match then?" I left out the middle paragraph because I felt like it held no importance.
1) 'grim' is not in there
2) softly counteracts what Pippin expected. Tolkien made every word count in his story and it's important to look at everything surrounding to get full meaning. The 'softly' is not Gandalf being 'grim' admitting he may be over-matched. It counteracts what Pippin had expected. Pippin expected Gandalf to blow up and get offended at Denethor's jab, but Gandalf keeps his cool and 'answers softly.'

He dismisses Denethor's statement, "you might be right, for the Wise don't know his end." But, notice the next paragraph Gandalf just flat out tells him no. "Nay," answering Denethor's question meaning..."No I have not met my match," he came back to look after the 'hurt men' and to tell Denethor to be prepared.

The Witch-King did not obey. He set his sword alight and was about to combat Gandalf when Rohan arrived.

The Witch-King left did he not? Therefor he did obey. Gandalf tells WK to go away. WK tries to play his fear card, laughing at him and doing some fancy tricks...but:

Gandalf did not move...~The Siege of Gondor

Gandalf did not falter, did not show any nerves, and the Witch-King goes away. IF the Witch-King felt like he could have defeated Gandalf he would have done so. As obloquy says Gandalf is the backbone of the alliance, 'he took command of Gondor's defenses,' as Denethor was just sitting back whining. If the WK thought he could be Gandalf, he would have done so. He tried to play his fear cards, it didn't work, and he left to Rohan's arrival.

Rohan's timely arrival may have been what fulfilled the prophecy. Note, first a prophecy does not have to come true, but Rohan's arrival makes the prophecy come true. Because had the WK gone toe-to-toe with Gandalf, the prophecy would not have been fulfilled, I'm sure about that.

If the fear was supernatural, and Eowyn was certainly not weak-willed at the moment, then that would mean that the supernatural fear was not fear, but a spell. Since a spell is magic and not fear, and the nazgul were said to gain power from fear, then the fear was not a spell, and the Witch-King did not use a spell.

This I'm just flat out confused...Eowyn did not fear death, but she certainly did fear the Witch-King, and would have been annhilated by him had Merry not stepped in:

Eowyn it was, and Dernhelm also. For into Merry's mind flashed the memory of the face that he saw at the riding from Dunharrow: the face of one that goes seeking death, having no hope...~Pelennor Fields

It's interesting, because we have Eowyn here, but Merry also sees a bit of Dernhelm's personality and is reminded of the 'face' when riding out to Gondor. Eowyn is not fearing death, but that doesn't mean she isn't fearing the Witch-King:

Out of the wreeck rose the Black Rider, tall and threatening, towering above her. With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears like venom he let fall his mace...~ibid

You should check out this post, where I talk about Tolkien's use of Boromir's height installing fear in Frodo. Same occurance is happening here, Tolkien is using the height of the Witch-King, over Eowyn 'tall and threatening' to install fear.

Sauron was one of the mightiest (perhaps the mightiest) of the Maiar.~Encyclopedia of Arda

While the EOA is one of the better sites, it still has it's flaws as it takes in what fans write and forms it's own the same. It remains that I have quotes from Tolkien's actual works to show that Sauron was called "greatest of Morgoth's servants." But, is never called "greatest of the Maiar." I think obloquy and I have shown at least 4 Maiar who were greater...Eonwe for sure, the other 3 mentioned it's not as definitive, but can be inferred, by their deeds.

[davem]

While both Gandalf & Angmar have a physical form, Angmar's seems not to be of the same nature. Of course, he has 'sinews' that Merry's blade can sever, but he is physically invisible. If only Merry's Barrow Blade can cut the spell that held his sinews together, then it seems that what holds Angmar's body together is a magical force. 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).

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. Certainly he tells the Three Hunters: ' Indeed my friends, none of you has any weapon that could hurt me.' But its entirely possible that we should read that as him specifically referring to the weapons of Aragorn, Gimli & Legolas ( 'none of you has any weapon that could hurt me). For him to be so specific implies (possibly) that there are weapons that could harm him, but those three don't happen to be in posession of them.

Now, if it is possible for a blade such as that possessed by Merry to be the only type that could harm Angmar, it is also surely possible that Angmar possessed a blade of a type that could harm Gandalf's body. Sauron was aware that Gandalf was his chief enemy (or one of them) hence it is likely that if a particular type of weapon could destroy him Sauron would arm his Leiutenant with such a weapon. 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!" And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.' So, Angmar raises what is clearly a magical weapon (it bursts into flame) & clearly tells Gandalf that he is about to die.

Interestingly, he doesn't use this weapon again in the battle - he chooses his mace, a purely physical weapon. It seems that the Blade has a specific purpose, namely to kill Gandalf. Gandalf doesn't have a weapon that could dispatch Angmar. 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.

Unless Obloquy knows better, of course....

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

Unless Obloquy knows better, of course....

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

[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.

[obloquy]

Good post, Boromir.

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

Now, to let this thread rest and prevent a flame war, do not attempt to reply to this. In the end, the victor of a battle between Galadriel and the Witch-King falls down to a war of opinions.

Don't attempt to respond? I guess that's one way to try to win a dispute. In any case, below are the only portions of your post I care to respond to; the rest is wholly and unequivocally incorrect, and obvious enough to anyone who reads it.

You said:

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

Based on what text, exactly?

and:

if Sauron had gotten his ring back, and stopped being a crippled shadow,

Sauron was a 'crippled shadow'? You sure he wasn't a HUGE DISEMBODIED EYEBALL HOVERING AROUND WITH FLAMES ALL AROUND HIM? As for Gandalf vs. Sauron, I once again recommend that you look elsewhere on the forum for my arguments on the topic.