Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

I have borrowed this from another thread:-

Originally Posted by Mansun

But just look at what Wikipedia has to say of Balrogs:-

A Balrog is a demon from J. R. R. Tolkien's Arda legendarium. A Balrog (Sindarin for "Demon of Might"; the Quenya form is Valarauko) is a tall, menacing being in the shape of a man, having control of both fire and shadow. One was noted to wield both a flaming sword and fiery whip of many thongs.

The Balrog induces great terror in friends and foes alike and can shroud itself in darkness and shadow. It can only be defeated by some person or thing of equal power, and amongst its own evil allies is rivalled only in its capacity for ferocity and destruction by the dragons, but the Balrogs are more powerful than dragons.[1]

According to The Silmarillion the Balrogs were originally Maiar, of the same order as Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf.

Can the enhanced Witch King match such a foe? It appears not, since he would need to be at least in equal power to Sauron, Saruman, Gandalf & the Balrog of Morgoth to be so. This ends the debate once & for all - Gandalf, Balrogs, Saurman, Sauron are all essentially closely matched, that we know. The Witch King, however powerful a sorcerer, cannot fall into this supernatural category & must therefore be deemed a weaker opponent.

Now I really cannot add more to this issue - all the evidence points to a likely victory for Gandalf, since the Witch King must be of at least equal power to kill a Maiar. So from the dark side, effectively, only Sauron or a Balrog (or the evil Saruman) could have potentially killed Gandalf.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Mansun

all the evidence points to a likely victory for Gandalf, since the Witch King must be of at least equal power to kill a Maiar.

I diagree - because of this one line from ''The Istari' which I'll repeat again.

with the consent of Eru they sent members of their high order, but clad in bodies as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject of the fears and pain and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain.

This has been my argument all along. And no one has persuaded me against it yet.

Originally Posted by Essex

I diagree - because of this one line from ''The Istari' which I'll repeat again.

with the consent of Eru they sent members of their high order, but clad in bodies as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject of the fears and pain and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain.

This has been my argument all along. And no one has persuaded me against it yet.

Nobody has ever answered how Sauron, in his weakest form, was able to significantly increase the Witch King's power. The Witch King, even in his greatest form with the Ring in Sauron's hand, failed to make a great impact in the second age. Yet we must believe a weaker Witch King can topple Gandalf in his greatest form?

[Essex]

you don't have to believe me. It's just my point of view - Gandalf can be slain, Tolkien says so. I'm not going on about who is more powerful than the other - I'm just trying to explain that it's not always the greatest foe who wins a battle. Usually, yes - but not always.

If one says that so and so (Gandalf) is stronger than so and so (WK) then he must win in battle then this is very 1 dimensional thinking.

Originally Posted by Essex

you don't have to believe me. It's just my point of view - Gandalf can be slain, Tolkien says so. I'm not going on about who is more powerful than the other - I'm just trying to explain that it's not always the greatest foe who wins a battle. Usually, yes - but not always.

If one says that so and so (Gandalf) is stronger than so and so (WK) then he must win in battle then this is very 1 dimensional thinking.

Gandalf is not just a vulnerable human being, otherwise his burns suffered against the Balrog would have killed him far earlier. Plus, his battle against the Balrog lasted 2 days at least, which no ordinary human body could cope with. Yes, Gandalf does eventually die as a result, but a normal human body would not have sustained the fire of a Balrog, & thus he would have died instantly. We cannot therefore assume Gandalf is as vulnerable as what the Silmarillion makes out with confidence. His Maiar powers obviously shield his body to a large extent, or at least allow him to heal very quickly.

In Middle Earth history, can you think of any examples whereby the weaker baddie defeats a so called mightier goodie?

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gandalf is not just a vulnerable human being, otherwise his burns suffered against the Balrog would have killed him far earlier. Plus, his battle against the Balrog lasted 2 days at least, which no ordinary human body could cope with. Yes, Gandalf does eventually die as a result, but a normal human body would not have sustained the fire of a Balrog, & thus he would have died instantly. We cannot therefore assume Gandalf is as vulnerable as what the Silmarillion makes out with confidence. His Maiar powers obviously shield his body to a large extent, or at least allow him to heal very quickly.

In Middle Earth history, can you think of any examples whereby the weaker baddie defeats a so called mightier goodie?

And I'm happy with you ASSUMING that as you say - as long as you're not just categorically TELLING me, as others have, that Gandalf would have won against the WK with 100% certainty. I am using 'Canon' to explain my point - i.e. what Tolkien himself wrote about the Istari. Your point above, (and my views on whether the WK could have defeated Gandalf as well) are conjecture - what COULD have happened. I just can't agree with posters who say with the utmost certainty what WOULD have happened if they did actually fight.

As to your second question, I can turn it around to show the two biggest 'victories' of weaker goodies vs baddies in the books. A 'weak' hobbit helps defeat the Witch King himself (how ironic is that statement in this thread), and two 'weak' hobbits defeat Sauron.

Originally Posted by Essex

As to your second question, I can turn it around to show the two biggest 'victories' of weaker goodies vs baddies in the books. A 'weak' hobbit helps defeat the Witch King himself (how ironic is that statement in this thread), and two 'weak' hobbits defeat Sauron.

Tolkein appears to have an obssession with the weaker goodie overcoming the mightier baddie. But not so, it appears, the other way round.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Essex

And I'm happy with you ASSUMING that as you say - as long as you're not just categorically TELLING me, as others have, that Gandalf would have won against the WK with 100% certainty. I am using 'Canon' to explain my point - i.e. what Tolkien himself wrote about the Istari. Your point above, (and my views on whether the WK could have defeated Gandalf as well) are conjecture - what COULD have happened. I just can't agree with posters who say with the utmost certainty what WOULD have happened if they did actually fight.

As to your second question, I can turn it around to show the two biggest 'victories' of weaker goodies vs baddies in the books. A 'weak' hobbit helps defeat the Witch King himself (how ironic is that statement in this thread), and two 'weak' hobbits defeat Sauron.

Gandalf would have slaughtered the Witch-King, no question.

I disagree with your examples, by the way. I don't see any of this underdog theme in Tolkien at all. I have no idea how Mansun can claim Tolkien is "obsessed" with the idea.