Inconsistencies in the book

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Mansun

-- The 9 Nazgul when together at night were close to Gandalf the Grey's power in the first volume, yet if Sauron had the Ring reclaimed then their power would become much greater. If this is so, doesn't that mean Gandalf would not have a chance against the Witch-King alone, or even against the lesser Nazgul, if Sauron had the Ring again? Is the legendary Gandalf then of no match when compared in power to the likes of Isildur & Elendil, who were considered to be mighty, & capable of holding off the Nazgul easily even with their Ring enhanced power?

- What was so special about the Sword of Elendil besides it's huge inspiration to the wielder? Was it magical, & if so could it pierce the Witch-King?

These two I can take a stab at...to the first, I've never seen it that way. Since Sauron never claimed the Ring again, we can't really say how Gandalf would fare against the Witch-King if Sauron again had the Ring. I'm sure Gandalf would have had just a good of a chance at defeating the enemy as Isildur and Elendil.

To the second, I believe the sword was not only meant to signify the wielder's authority, but to act as a mental attack on Sauron. When Aragorn showed it to the Dark Lord through the Stone of Orthanc, Sauron sees the blade that took his power away. Sauron fears it, and thus he pushes and rushes his armies to Minas Tirith, seeing the blade reforged in the hands of Isildur's heir. Not even Sauron is void of worry. I can't answer if the sword would have pierced the Witch-King, but my guess would be no, as it was told that no living man could kill the Witch-King, and that Merry's blade of the Westernesse was the only blade that could have affected such damage on the Witch-King, being from the place it was.

Originally Posted by MatthewM

I can't answer if the sword would have pierced the Witch-King, but my guess would be no, as it was told that no living man could kill the Witch-King, and that Merry's blade of the Westernesse was the only blade that could have affected such damage on the Witch-King, being from the place it was.

The prophecy I think is just a bluff & a sign of overconfidence by the Witch King. Even Sauron, at the peak of his power, was nearly destroyed by the sword.

Sauron had immeasurable power with the Ring, so what does this say about Elendil & Gil-Galad who defeated him in combat? Did they have more power in terms of strength, skill, or sorcery?

[Raynor]

as it was told that no living man could kill the Witch-King

No it wasn't. Glorfindel's prophecy was:

Originally Posted by Gondor and the heirs of Anarion, Appendices, LotR

Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall.

This does not state his invulnerability; it is a prophecy. Theoretically he can be killed by anyone; practically, he will fall, but not by the hand of a man. Even Melkor, the mightiest foe ever, feared for his body; if he couldn't make himself invicincible, how could a mere ringwraith, a mortal after all? And, according to Myths Transformed, Melkor's fear was founded, since he was finnally executed before being thrust out into the void.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Raynor

No it wasn't. Glorfindel's prophecy was:
Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall

What you stated is right from the book, but it means the same thing. No living man could have killed the Witch-King. Gandalf himself it seems believed in the prophecy as he mentioned it in Minas Tirith.

[Raynor]

What you stated is right from the book, but it means the same thing.

False dilemma; a woman will kill him, but it doesn't mean a man can't kill him. Glorfindel wasn't enumerating the ways the witch-king can be killed, only the one which will actually kill him; there is no exclusive qualifier regarding possiblities.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mansun

The prophecy I think is just a bluff & a sign of overconfidence by the Witch King. Even Sauron, at the peak of his power, was nearly destroyed by the sword.

Sauron had immeasurable power with the Ring, so what does this say about Elendil & Gil-Galad who defeated him in combat? Did they have more power in terms of strength, skill, or sorcery?

Well, I've always seen the Nazgul as being in a state between physical and spiritual, so specific weaponry could play a part in ending them. They certainly weren't easier to kill.

Sauron, on the other hand, just seemed to, bluntly put, suck at all forms of combat. He first sent an army one by one to their deaths and wasted an opportunity to slay an enemy in favor of killing a defenseless woman, which got him owned (Silmarillion.) Then, in a large, powerful body and empowered by Arda's might and (possibly) Morgoth's Ring, two old men (who were likely tired from previous combat) killed him. Morgoth was beaten by Tulkas, nearly killed by Fingolfin, and was defeated by Eonwe. Dark Lords seem to suck at combat.

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

Dark Lords seem to suck at combat.

Rather I think they underestimate their opponent, being as they are not involved in battle all that often.

[Meneltarmacil]

If one of several blades used by the princes of Cardolan was capable of hurting the Witch-King, the wouldn't it stand to reason that the Sword of Elendil, which also struck down the Dark Lord himself, would be capable of doing so?

[Raynor]

The sword that broke the sinnew of the witch-king it is said that it had specific spells against the nazgul, set on them by the numenoreans:

Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.

Hammond and Scull, in their Companion to LotR comments to the "A knife in the dark" chapter, quote a passage missing from the Unfinished tales, found however at the Marquette collection:

But above all the timid and terrified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by own enemies for his destruction.
...
Escaping a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor knife to Frodo (as was proved at the end), he withdrew

So, it does seem that these blades are more efficient than others against the nazgul. There are, indeed, several passages that argue for an unusual resistance on behalf of the nazgul:

Originally Posted by The ring goes south, FotR

- I thought they were all destroyed in the flood, said Merry.

- You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that, said Gandalf. The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him.

Originally Posted by The White Rider, TTT

- The Winged Messenger! cried Legolas. I shot at him with the bow of Galadriel above Sarn Gebir, and I felled him from the sky. He filled us all with fear. What new terror is this?

- One that you cannot slay with arrows, said Gandalf. You only slew his steed. It was a good deed; but the Rider was soon horsed again.

The most strong argument is the first, that the nazgul stand or fall by their master - however, we do see the witch-king fall before he does.

Maybe, there is a spell helping the nazgul against water, seeing how they already are afraid of it. Also, Gandalf said you can't destroy them "like that", which still implies there are other ways. [I would note that in the HoME VI variant, Gandalf says they can't be destroyed "so easily"]

Concerning the protection against arrows, it may be argued that, since even Frodo had a mail that could stop a spear that could "skewer a wild boar", it makes sense that the highest ranking servants of Sauron would have something similar.

In letter #210, commenting on Zimmerman's interpretation of LotR, he notes that the nazgul have little physical power against the fearless, their main power being fear (I think it is worth noting that). Seeing that no one actually enjoys invulnerability, and that such a concept is not even mentioned as such, I still believe they can be killed by some normal means, though, as Gandalf says, not so easily.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Rather I think they underestimate their opponent, being as they are not involved in battle all that often.

I think the sheer fact that the enemy has forced them to fight should cause them to fight with seriousness. Even with that...well come on, the "Dark Lord of Middle-Earth" was owned by a dog. He wasted his entire army when sending it out in numbers would have worked, and if I recall correctly, the top of the tower had a window which saw over the entire island, meaning he could have just looked out of it instead of sending scouts. Finrod must have sang a song to shut down Sauron's brain, because ever since he had made large mistakes and failures.

As for the Battle of the Last Alliance, I don't mean to rag on the Professor, but PJ's version did a better job of making Sauron look powerful. In the Professor's works, Sauron, with the might of the Ring, was defeated by two characters who have little impact or reference in the book. In the film trilogy, however, Sauron takes out multiple men with each swing, and it is only by chance and the luck of Isildur that he is defeated, giving off more of a "If he gets it back, we die" feeling.

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

In the film trilogy, however, Sauron takes out multiple men with each swing, and it is only by chance and the luck of Isildur that he is defeated, giving off more of a "If he gets it back, we die" feeling.

The movie Sauron was much more like what I had imagined, a figure of immense power who suffered no rival in battle.

[Raynor]

Sauron didn't actually see Luthien in his tower, because he was "wrapped in black thought". Interestingly enough, Tolkien makes a passing refference in Myths Transformed, that evil begets stupidity

Regarding Sauron in the movie, I found his depiction at the battle of the last alliance as distasteful. He was sweepping numenoreans and elves, when the books mention he was forced to fight himself. And to go from that to have his hand accidentally cut (not cut after being thrown down) is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Regarding Sauron in the movie, I found his depiction at the battle of the last alliance as distasteful. He was sweepping numenoreans and elves, when the books mention he was forced to fight himself. And to go from that to have his hand accidentally cut (not cut after being thrown down) is ridiculous.

At least the presence of Sauron in this scene was amazing in that he put the entire opposing army at a standstill as they looked on in mesmorizing fear. No other character, not even the Witch King at the height of his power, could have managed that.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Sauron didn't actually see Luthien in his tower, because he was "wrapped in black thought". Interestingly enough, Tolkien makes a passing refference in Myths Transformed, that evil begets stupidity

I know, but it still is highly pathetic. It had such an impact, I now get the feeling that a standard soldier could have beaten him in a one-on-one fight. Honestly, he seemed too pathetic to take seriously after that event. He just seemed like a fickle idiot.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Regarding Sauron in the movie, I found his depiction at the battle of the last alliance as distasteful. He was sweepping numenoreans and elves, when the books mention he was forced to fight himself. And to go from that to have his hand accidentally cut (not cut after being thrown down) is ridiculous.

Dude, the movie would lose a lot of impact if we saw the main, dangerous bad guy get taken out by two relatively minor characters just like that. A big part of the movies that made me interested was that the enemy seemed powerful. If it started out with the Dark Lord getting taken out and utterly defeated like the books, a lot of film-goers would say "So they can kill him just like that? All I see as a problem is the Ring!" If the villain is already demonstrated as defeatable and the armies soundly crushed, a large amount of the epic feel is lost. What works for books doesn't always work for movies.