The Greatest Warrior...

[Estelyn Telcontar]

As an opinion topic, this has been moved to the Novices and Newcomers forum, where similar threads are located. Please continue to read and write there - thanks!

[Raynor]

Well, Fingolfin is described as the "strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant". These two statements seem to go head to head, unless Tolkien was referring to Feanor's fire, when talking about his strength - and thus considering a spiritual potence, which might or might not translate into physical/combative aptitude, depending on how hot-headed he was at the moment. So, it may be that the answer is Feanor, if he keeps his cool, otherwise it's Fingolfin.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Hmm, the trouble with Tolkien is that he sometimes makes similar statements about two (or more) different characters, and both in superlatives. The best it is generally with the "fairest" people, since there are at least twelve people who are "fairest in Middle-Earth", though with looking at more details we learn that they were "fairest of their house" or "fairest among Elven-lords" (meaning that some peasant may be better than them); sometimes it's even more complicated like that someone was "fairest of his house", but "his house was fairest of the other houses"... with the strength and so on, it's less clear... but considering what you have mentioned, I'll probably go for Fingolfin - you see - the description of him is "clear", not only in understanding it (with Fëanor, as you said, we don't know if the "fire" is not meant by it - personally, I realize that I always - sort of subconsciously - thought so; that's probably the reason why I haven't nominated him), but also in that Fingolfin is described as being superior in only these skills, and nothing more - which sort of calls for taking it as his specialization; something that is his own, in which he is a champion. Fëanor is more "universal", but less focused on one thing; and one assumes that such a person does not reach the qualities of the specialist.

[The Saucepan Man]

The fact that Turin takes on and defeats Morgoth in the final battle rather suggests to me that, in the scheme of things, he is the greatest warrior.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The fact that Turin takes on and defeats Morgoth in the final battle rather suggests to me that, in the scheme of things, he is the greatest warrior.

But how relevant is that? How much of his power would Melkor had recovered? And in what state of power would Melkor be after he fought Earendil / Fionwe / Tulkas, depending on the version? Does the power of Turin take all the credit?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The fact that Turin takes on and defeats Morgoth in the final battle rather suggests to me that, in the scheme of things, he is the greatest warrior.

Well, I thought of that same when I wrote my first post, but I didn't want to post it since I thought it's not that "canonical", and then I forgot it. Yes, taken from this point of view, I would say so as well (cf. my first post).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But how relevant is that?

I would have thought it not just relevant but entirely compelling. Taking down the ultimate source of evil is surely the 'greatest' feat that a warrior can perform.

Or are we just talking most powerful warrior ...?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I would have thought it not just relevant but entirely compelling. Taking down the ultimate source of evil is surely the 'greatest' feat that a warrior can perform.

Or are we just talking most powerful warrior ...?

In my opinion, we don't have sufficient information to conclude anything about Turin's power based on the result of that contest. If he is sufficiently weakened by the other opponent(s) I mentioned, then it would not take the greatest fighter ever to bring him down.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The fact that Turin takes on and defeats Morgoth in the final battle rather suggests to me that, in the scheme of things, he is the greatest warrior.

Since Legate qualified the terms on which I based my earlier suggestion of Eowyn, I must ask for yet more clarifications.

Are stupid, stubborn and prideful required characteristics for this macho competition or are they simply assumed qualifications?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Since Legate qualified the terms on which I based my earlier suggestion of Eowyn, I must ask for yet more clarifications.

Are stupid, stubborn and prideful required characteristics for this macho competition or are they simply assumed qualifications?

'Stupid, stubborn & prideful' does seem to fit Eowyn pretty well too......

[MatthewM]

I am not familiar with all of the characters from the earlier ages that most of you are speaking of, so I am going to answer with my obvious choice. A Man who was definitely not "stupid", although perhaps stubborn and prideful-

Boromir of the Nine Walkers, of the Third Age.

The most renowned warrior of his time, and the greatest Gondor had seen in many years. Defending Gondor on countless occassions from the growing might of Sauron, in specific his defense of Osgiliath, Boromir proved vital to Gondor's survival during the last years of the Third Age.

In addition to being the Captain of the White Tower, Boromir's death was a truly heroic one...one of a true warrior. Sacrificing himself and fighting on against ridiculous odds, only falling when numerous arrows reigned on him, shot by cowardly orcs who would not dare face him sword to sword.

I know most here will not agree, but in my opinion as far as my knowledge streches at this time, Boromir was Middle-earth's greatest warrior.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, Fingolfin is described as the "strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant". These two statements seem to go head to head, unless Tolkien was referring to Feanor's fire, when talking about his strength - and thus considering a spiritual potence, which might or might not translate into physical/combative aptitude, depending on how hot-headed he was at the moment. So, it may be that the answer is Feanor, if he keeps his cool, otherwise it's Fingolfin.

I was in the process of writing something similar, and i totally agree.

I think Feanor is perhaps not viewed as a "warrior" because of the fact that he died, simple as. I think that if he had killed one of the Balrogs and then proceeded to die, it would be completely different. He dies quite early in the story, therefore we don't manage to see a transformation or adaptation of the character. All we know is that it took several Balrogs to stay him... more than most people can take on - but it's only speculation about how he would have fared in the wars, being that he wasn't mentioned much in relation to battle previously.. the kinslaying of the Teleri i think was the bit just before.

But undoubtedley Feanor has to be in the Top Ten of "conventional" warriors - i believe.

However, on sheer favouritism, i have to go with Fingolfin Though the thought of a Feanor Vs Morgoth would have been absolutely fantastic. Place your bets now!

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

However, on sheer favouritism, i have to go with Fingolfin Though the thought of a Feanor Vs Morgoth would have been absolutely fantastic. Place your bets now!

Well, the trouble is, that Fëanor would have died without doing any harm. I can see it vividly. I doubt he would hurt Morgoth as much as Fingolfin did. There's sort of, you know - aha! - curse seen on him; he would probably end dead and what more, no eagle would probably save his body - Morgoth will feed his hounds with it. If the question is about being capable to destroy his opponent, then Fëanor - no, not, really not. He just is not the "victor" type.

Note please, that even Fingolfin ended dead - but nevertheless his deed is seen more as victorious than as defeat. Even you, Hammerhand, said that Fëanor is not seen as warrior "because of the fact he died"... but of those nominated, all did! At least Fingolfin, Túrin... but subconsciously, you see them dying a glorious death, technically a victory (in Túrin's case it is a victory, after all, without question) - but Fëanor's death was not victorious in any way. That's probably what we face here: we think of his failure - he did not reach his goal, even though he said that not even a Vala would stop him... hmm... also one thing influencing our minds without us noticing it in the first place.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well, the trouble is, that Fëanor would have died without doing any harm. I can see it vividly. I doubt he would hurt Morgoth as much as Fingolfin did. There's sort of, you know - aha! - curse seen on him; he would probably end dead and what more, no eagle would probably save his body - Morgoth will feed his hounds with it. If the question is about being capable to destroy his opponent, then Fëanor - no, not, really not. He just is not the "victor" type.

Note please, that even Fingolfin ended dead - but nevertheless his deed is seen more as victorious than as defeat. Even you, Hammerhand, said that Fëanor is not seen as warrior "because of the fact he died"... but of those nominated, all did! At least Fingolfin, Túrin... but subconsciously, you see them dying a glorious death, technically a victory (in Túrin's case it is a victory, after all, without question) - but Fëanor's death was not victorious in any way. That's probably what we face here: we think of his failure - he did not reach his goal, even though he said that not even a Vala would stop him... hmm... also one thing influencing our minds without us noticing it in the first place.

Thats what i mean, he accomplished nothing when he died, whereas Fingolfin injured arguably the most powerful God, which ties in with your answer about the glory he attained by doing so. I think a Feanor Vs Morgoth would have been interesting solely due to the amount of hate that Feanor had for him, would it equal Fingolfins rage?

Then Fingolfin beheld (as it seemed to him) the utter ruin of the Noldor, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses; and filled with wrath and despair he mounted Rochallor his great horse and rode forth alone, and none might restrain him. He passed over Dor-nu-Fauglith like a wind amid the dust, and all that beheld his onset fled in amaze, thinking Oromë himself was come; for a great madness of rage was upon him, so that his eyes shone like the eyes of the Valar. Thus he came alone to Angband's gates, and he sounded his horn, and smote once upon the brazen doors, and challenged Morgoth to come forth to single combat. And Morgoth came.

Would the "Rape of the Silmarils" equal Fingolfins realisation of his crushed empire? I don't know, maybe. I still think Fingolfin inflicted as much on Morgoth as any High Elf could, and none could or did equal it.