Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[obloquy]

The Witch King obviously seemed not to have known.

I suspect the Nine didn't "know" much at all of anything. They worshipped Sauron as God and were deluded not only about Sauron's place in the grand scheme of things but also, no doubt, about their own. Probably intentionally.

The bottom line of the Gandalf v. W-K debate, which is easily demonstrated and I have done so elsewhere, is that Gandalf's enemy, to whom he was an equal match and thus appropriately chosen, was Sauron, not the Witch-King. The Witch-King was a lesser being (by far, in fact) than Sauron his master.

This type of discussion promotes oversimplification, though. Tolkien's definitions of power are complex, and reducing the question to who would win in one-on-one duels is misleading. One of the things that complicates things is that duels do happen, so we know that questions of "power" are not purely metaphysical, but even so the victory is generally determined on a metaphysical level, i.e. the more powerful "spirit" ought to be victorious.

I explain here.

Yes, we can [trust Gandalf], if it is agreeable that the character is an honest, reliable & symbolic creature representing good.

Well, Gandalf does not always know. He admittedly makes mistakes in judgment. Yet, he also does not brag, and is chosen by Manwe specifically because of his humility. I think in this case, since Gandalf knows the spiritual nature of Elves, Men, Saruman, the Witch-King, and Sauron, we can trust him.

As feebly as Essex makes his sappy point about the small overcoming the great, I do understand it. The idea does not apply to David and Goliath, nor to Merry and the Witch-King, nor to anything in LotR that I can think of. However, the potential of an example ever occurring probably can't be unequivocally denied. Still, there are evidently some barriers which simply can't be transcended:

[Messenger of Manwe to Feanor:]"Vala he is, thou saist. Then thou hast sworn in vain, for none of the Valar canst thou overcome now or ever within the halls of Ea, not though Eru whom thou namest had made thee thrice greater than thou art."

[Essex]

Originally Posted by obloquy

As feebly as Essex makes his sappy point about the small overcoming the great, I do understand it. The idea does not apply to David and Goliath, nor to Merry and the Witch-King, nor to anything in LotR that I can think of.

Can't find an example? Maybe you need to read the book again.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE WHOLE BOOK IS ABOUT. The weak overcoming the strong.

Frodo overcame the WK's attempt to subdue him at Weathertop. He again overcame their attempts to persaude him to com over to their side at the Ford. With his compassion towards Gollum, he helped to destroy Sauron.

[Raynor]

The weak overcoming the strong.

I agree:

Originally Posted by Letter #131

[In the Story of Beren and Luthien the Elfmaiden] we meet, among other things, the first example of the motive (to become dominant in Hobbits) that the great policies of world history, 'the wheels of the world', are often turned not by the Lords and Governors, even gods, but by the seemingly unknown and weak – owing to the secret life in creation, and the pan unknowable to all wisdom but One, that resides in the intrusions of the Children of God into the Drama.

Originally Posted by Council of Elrond, FotR

Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Council of Elrond, FotR

I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one will. This is the hour of the Shire-folk, when they arise from their quiet fields to shake the towers and counsels of the Great.

[Thenamir]

For a humourous look at the relative power of Sauron and Gandalf (or just for demented mathematics majors), see this page for a weird look at Tolkien as Calculus.

What were the Powers of a Balrog?

From: Erik Tracy

The Balrogs were originally Maiar, angelic beings of lessure stature than the Valar (like Morgoth), but immortal beings which nonetheless possessed considerable power. They were chiefly spirits of fire which meant they could control and create fire about them, but they also could control and use "magic" (See Magic in Middle-earth). Notice the confrontation between the Balrog of Moria and Gandalf. He tries to hold the door to Balin's Tomb, but the Balrog uses a "counter spell" to open the door which results in the door breaking:
"...I found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before. I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door...Then something came into the chamber- I felt it through the door, and the orcs themselves were afraid and fell silent. It laid hold of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell. What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst in pieces. Something dark as a cloud was blocking out all the light inside, and I was thrown backwards down the stairs." (Fellowship of the Ring)
Clearly, the Balrog knew that there was a spell on the door and also knew that another coeval spirit put it there. It also used a counter spell to gain control of the door. Although Balrogs are not depicted as conversant this does not mean they are merely strong and brutish. They are Maiar and would therefore have knowledge (i.e. magic) that in most likelihood surpassed the Elves and certainly all Mortals.

Balrogs were immensely strong and powerful. Their mere presence was enough to cause fear and inaction in their enemies. Notice the response of Legolas and Gimli when they first see the Balrog in Moria:
"He drew, but his hand fell, and the arrow slipped to the ground. He gave a cry of dismay and fear...But it was not the trolls that had filled the Elf with terror...Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Durin's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face." (Fellowship of the Ring)
[URL]

As can be seen, Balrogs were fiercesome opponents and NEVER to be taken lightly. They were Morgoth's most deadly servants after Sauron, & as it appears they were never under any direct command from Sauron, so they were more or less their own bosses. If only the Witch King could deliver such power!

...''So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.' Of course, he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater. When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with Theoden, nor with Saruman. He is still under the obligation of concealing his power and teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel' - no more violently than the release of St. Peter from prison.''...

[The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, (#156)] [URL]

So, as it appears, if the Witch King had battled with Gandalf, you would see the real Gandalf the White uncloaked. On the basis of power, victory must surely be awarded to Gandalf as a result.

Certainly Sauron knew of the existence of the Balrog (especially at the point when his orcs entered Moria), and the Balrog seems to have tolerated the presence of Sauron's orcs. Yet I do not believe that Sauron could have controlled or commanded the Balrog - at this time he lacked the One Ring which held a large part of his native power. Without the One Ring, Sauron would not have had the ability to dominate a will as strong as a Balrog.

Is this a dead giveaway that if even Sauron could not control a Balrog without the Ring, the Balrog was the most powerful enemy after the Dark Lord, even perhaps in these circumstances on the same level?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Is this a dead giveaway that if even Sauron could not control a Balrog without the Ring, the Balrog was the most powerful enemy after the Dark Lord, even perhaps in these circumstances on the same level?

A dead give-away? Surely you don't consider Erik's speculation as hard proof.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by obloquy

The idea does not apply to David and Goliath,

I think that Essex was using a colloquialism; Regardless, your argument (I assume) was that David had God on his side, and so even if he were smaller and weaker than Goliath, it was God that actually did battle with Goliath. My question is, did not Goliath have God (or gods) on his side as well? If we take the celestial out of it, you end up with an unarmored boy killing an armored soldier. To me, when someone points to this event, it is to mean that the seemingly weak overcome the strong, nothing more.

nor to Merry and the Witch-King, nor to anything in LotR that I can think of.

I'm sorry; I'm at a loss here. Do you mean that it was Merry's blade, not Merry? Or is 'everything done' by the agents of Eru? One possible example, I think noted by Gandalf in Rivendell (though correct me if I error), is that 'the Shire' thwarts the Nazgul. Think that Gandalf says something like, "Whodathunkit that the Witch-King of Angmar would fail to find and kill one lonely unguarded (except by a gardener) hobbit?"

However, the potential of an example ever occurring probably can't be unequivocally denied. Still, there are evidently some barriers which simply can't be transcended:

Think that I'm with you here. However, why do entities like the Christian Satan and Tolkien's Melkor bother? Surely these supernaturally-intelligent beings realize the end of the game won't be a win for their team. Is the play, the process, the road, or like here at the Down's, the discussion, the thing and not the end that matters? Or why else bother?

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by alatar

I think that Essex was using a colloquialism; Regardless, your argument (I assume) was that David had God on his side, and so even if he were smaller and weaker than Goliath, it was God that actually did battle with Goliath. My question is, did not Goliath have God (or gods) on his side as well? If we take the celestial out of it, you end up with an unarmored boy killing an armored soldier.

If you "take the celestial out of it" you end up with a meaningless myth. In the Old Testament, gods other than the Hebrew God Yahweh are false gods; powerless, and therefore only pagan symbols, not real beings. If you imagine that Goliath had any real gods backing him, you deprive the story of its relevance, since it is relevant only as an expression of the sole divinity of Yahweh. It was never a story of the weak overcoming the strong; it was always a story of Yahweh protecting his chosen people from the surrounding pagans. If you don't share that Hebrew monotheism, there's no reason to believe it ever happened, and there's no lesson to be learned from it. Whether you believe the story or not it is completely misapplied in this discussion.

To me, when someone points to this event, it is to mean that the seemingly weak overcome the strong, nothing more.

I never said Biblical misunderstanding and misapplication is uncommon.

I'm sorry; I'm at a loss here. Do you mean that it was Merry's blade, not Merry?

Yes, it was Merry's blade. The blade was imbued with the power of its anonymous maker, which was power enough to undo the protective power over the W-K. How much part Providence played in these circumstances is a pretty wide-open discussion.

[Essex]

Yes, it was Merry's blade. The blade was imbued with the power of its anonymous maker, which was power enough to undo the protective power over the W-K. How much part Providence played in these circumstances is a pretty wide-open discussion.

You're missing the point entirely. The reason why the Witch King fell (and therefore Middle-earth was saved) was that his arrogance (or shortsightedness perhaps) caused his downfall in the end, exactly the same way as his Master.

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!

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.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by obloquy

If you "take the celestial out of it" you end up with a meaningless myth. In the Old Testament, gods other than the Hebrew God Yahweh are false gods; powerless, and therefore only pagan symbols, not real beings. If you imagine that Goliath had any real gods backing him, you deprive the story of its relevance, since it is relevant only as an expression of the sole divinity of Yahweh. It was never a story of the weak overcoming the strong; it was always a story of Yahweh protecting his chosen people from the surrounding pagans. If you don't share that Hebrew monotheism, there's no reason to believe it ever happened, and there's no lesson to be learned from it. Whether you believe the story or not it is completely misapplied in this discussion.

So what you're saying is that, for all, the words "David and Goliath" mean 'God protecting his chosen.' Interesting. Googling "David and Goliath" results in not only the Biblical references, but also the cartoon, the clothing company and many 'headlines' (such as here) where the words are used to mean something other than your definition.

Anyway, my point, now too long in the making, is that the reference to DvG to me (and I assume at least one other far across the pond) is shorthand for the weak beating the strong.

I never said Biblical misunderstanding and misapplication is uncommon.

I apologize for being dense, but I'm not sure what that means.

Yes, it was Merry's blade. The blade was imbued with the power of its anonymous maker, which was power enough to undo the protective power over the W-K. How much part Providence played in these circumstances is a pretty wide-open discussion.

Agreed. But if we extend your DvG argument, is not Merry's hand, the hand of the blade's maker, the leg of the Witch-King and the worms underneath all the work of the hand of Eru? As you say, this may be another thread's material, but what part does an individual play? Could Merry have resisted planting the blade in the Witch-King's sinew?

But to get back on track, did PJ consider this topic so deeply? Or is there the cinematic formula to be followed that audiences require a 'boss' in a story on which to focus?

[Essex]

Quote:
I never said Biblical misunderstanding and misapplication is uncommon.

I apologize for being dense, but I'm not sure what that means.

LOL Alatar. What obloquy is saying is that some people can 'mis read' the Bible and therefore come up with 'incorrect' arguments. i.e. what we've been saying about David and Goiliath being Weak vs the Strong.

In other words people don't read the Bible, or understand it's meanings, 'correctly'.

But then how can the Bible be read correctly one way or the other? It's been studied for a few millenia, and there is no stone cold way or reading the Bible and knowing EXACTLY what it's meaning is. Pretty much the same way that we cannot certainly state who would win G v WK, as we can read the 'evidence' in various bits of Tolkien's works and letters (which conflicts with itself in some cases as the Bible also does) in different ways depending on our view.

Being a Catholic, like Tolkien, I have heard many an argument over what certain parts ot he Bible are telling us, but I have never had the temerity to tell someone that they MISUNDERSTAND the Bible, as we can all take different things from it.

PS, you may have missed my last post as we may have cross posted, Alatar

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

LOL Alatar. What obloquy is saying is that some people can 'mis read' the Bible and therefore come up with 'incorrect' arguments. i.e. what we've been saying about David and Goiliath being Weak vs the Strong.

Much agreed, now that that's more clear (the fact that I routinely disagree with Peter Jackson shows how dense I must be ).

In other words people don't read the Bible, or understand it's meanings, 'correctly'.

Agreed. But when you use a colloquialism and some assume a dissertation...

But then how can the Bible be read correctly one way or the other? It's been studied for a few millenia, and there is no stone cold way or reading the Bible and knowing EXACTLY what it's meaning is. Pretty much the same way that we cannot certainly state who would win G v WK, as we can read the 'evidence' in various bits of Tolkien's works and letters (which conflicts with itself in some cases as the Bible also does) in different ways depending on our view.

I think that regardless of the material that we need to be consistent and leave the pretzel-making to the bakers.

PS, you may have missed my last post as we may have cross posted, Alatar

Yep. Not only am I dense, but obtuse as well.

[obloquy]

I am not bothered by things being called "a modern-day David and Goliath" or "a scenario reminiscent of David and Goliath" or whatever. As a cliche it's harmless--still misapplied, yet harmless all the same. But when one uses the story (not the cliche) as a historical example of the underdog prevailing, I have to balk.

--

The power hierarchy was evidently important to Tolkien. He talked about power and spiritual "greatness" often. Melkor was the greatest of the Valar; the Valar were the Powers, greater than all other sentient creation; Sauron was the greatest of Melkor's servants; the Maiar were greater than the Eldar; Melian, a Maia, mothered the greatest of all the Eldar; The Eldar are greater than Men; the Numenoreans are greater than other varieties of Men; and so on and on. Barriers are occasionally breached, such as when elves slay Balrogs or when they are reincarnated nearly as powerful as Maiar. But when individuals create exceptions to these general rankings of power, it is usually a revelation of that individual's true latent power rather than a negation of the hierarchy.

I think this whole disagreement stems from a fundamentally different view of Tolkien's work. Some seem to see LotR as a self-contained story, starting at its first chapter and ending at its last. This might be too strict a definition for anyone here on this forum, but the viewpoint must exist in various degrees. Others can only see LotR as a microscope over the latter part of the Third Age of Tolkien's Middle-earth, a product only of what came before it and not of any conscious desire of the author to create moral lessons. I think that these two perspectives differ greatly, and I am buried deep in the latter camp. In my eyes, Tolkien wrote histories of a fictional world. History provides lessons and surprises, but not contrived ones that are intended to uplift; rather, only incidental ones that may sometimes encourage but often enough disgust our sense of justice and burn our hearts like acid. To me, Tolkien told us nothing more than what happened on the Pelennor, and what happened was necessarily predicated upon rules and circumstances established previously. So it was not Merry's inherent value and courage that overcame the Witch-King, but an ancient power and a miraculous circumstance. That Merry had the bravery to strike is a credit to him, but I do not see the same lesson to be learned as some sincerely do.

Like our world, Tolkien's has rules, and just as the danger of me standing in opposition to a speeding train is obvious, so is the danger, for example, of an Elda standing in opposition to Morgoth. Eowyn defied the Witch-King, and I think that it might be argued that her power truly overcame his, but there was no transcendence of hierarchy here; both were mortal Men, fear whose power would be measured on the same scale. When the Witch-King stood before Gandalf, he faced a power that he likely did not comprehend, and, I believe, could not have overcome.

Tolkien's world is real enough to me that I have difficulty entertaining ideas that I feel run counter to what I have come to understand about it and its established rules. I do not claim that this is a superior perspective of Tolkien's work, but it is preferable to me and is the only way that I can discuss Tolkien. Having defined these differing perspectives, however, I do think that I have a better understanding of the nature my disagreement with certain posters.