Galadriel VS The witch- king

[Boromir88]

I found a little more to shed some further light on the Barrow-blade and could other weapons have killed the Witch-King. Now this quote I find particularly interesting:

Boromir son of Denethor (after whom Boromir of the Nine Walkers was later named) defeated them and regained Ithilien; but Osgiliath was finally ruined, and its great stone-bridge was broken. No people dwelt there afterwards. Boromir was a great captain, and even the Witch-king feared him.~Appendix A: Annals of the Kings and Rulers, Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion

Now this I find interesting is because if the Witch-King could not be harmed or killed by other blades, why would he fear Boromir?

Now what Gandalf tells in The Ring goes South:

'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. We hope that they were all unhorses and unmasked, and so made for a while less dangerous; but we must find out for certain.'

So, the Nazgul are bound to Sauron and his power, they 'stand and fall with him.' If we assume that Gandalf is right here, that is.

But, I think the Blade of the Westernesse had the effect that no other blade did. The Westernesse sword is repeatedly talked about being 'wound with spells' and 'breaking spells.':

...work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.~The Departure of Boromir

No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.~Pelennor Fields

This is from an unpublished manuscript that appears in Hammond and Skull's book:

'But above all the timid and terified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction. Narrowly it had missed him. How had he come by it -save in the barrows of cardolan. Then he was in some way mightier than the B{arrow} -wight; and he called on Elbereth, a name of terror to the nazgul. He was then in league with the High Elves ofthe Havens.

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 and hid for a while, out of doubt and fear both of Aragorn and especially of Frodo. But fear of Sauron , and the forces of Sauron's will was the stronger

So I think Merry's sword did something that no other sword could have done. It delivered...no other blade would have dealt a wound so bitter...'. It was specially made to bring the downfall of the Witch-King, and bring him to destruction.

What I think is that the Blade of the Westernesse was able to break the 'spell,' the spell holding his will and Sauron's will together...'breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.' So would this mean that the Witch-King, after being finished off and killed by Eowyn, would be unable to return back? The 'spell' was broken,' and the Blade of the Westernesse did what it was supposed to it brought the destruction of the Witch-King.

So, it seems to me that any sword could have killed/dispatched the Witch-King...I mean Aragorn could just chop off his head right? But, it would not have been a wound so 'bitter' that it 'broke the spell' and brought the downfall of the Witch-King, like the Westernesse Blade was specifically made to do.

It just didn't make sense to me why The Witch-King would fear Boromir if he couldn ot be harmed by ANY other blade. I can see why he feared Glorfindel, or Gandalf, who knew of Elbereth, and some of the Ringwraith's fears, but why would the WK fear Boromir unless if he actually could be harmed by other blades. It was just the specific Blade of the Westernesse that was able to destroy and harm the Witch-King the way no other sword could have.

Comments? This is just kind of something I've been trying to figure out lately.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Now this I find interesting is because if the Witch-King could not be harmed or killed by other blades, why would he fear Boromir?

If I may, I'll put forth a feeble theory that may well be ripped to shreds in a couple posts... Perhaps at that time, the Witch-King had not reached his full potential in terms of where power was concerned? He'd already been the Witch-King for a very long time, but perhaps he gained power as Sauron gained power over the course of the story told in the main part of LOTR. Sauron's power, especially over the ring and those directly concerned with it, increases as it is brought closer to him. It makes sense that as Sauron's Ring gains power, all of his creations would, and I include the Witch-King in that.

Or, it may have been that perhaps the Witch-King was a little more cautious back then...and when he saw a warrior with an unusual level of ability and a strong will, like Boromir, he got a little nervous.

By the time we encounter the Witch-King in ROTK, he's very confident in his abilities, cocky, even. Where did his caution go? Perhaps over the years, he'd become more and more confident because everywhere he showed his face, people cowered, died...He'd probably bested any number of warriors who attempted to kill him by the time he entered the battle for Gondor. Also, he wasn't really his own person, either. Sauron probably had considerably tightened his hold on the Witch-King by then. Obviously, the Witch-King was always under the control of Sauron, from the moment he put that Ring on his finger...but I imagine that Sauron may have given him a longer leash at times, and that the late third age wasn't one of those times.

The Witch-King probably couldn't be killed by any old weapon, but I think that the focus has been a little narrow. I think that probably a very well-made, possibly magical, possibly elf-made weapon, like Glamdring, in the hands of a powerful, highly-competent, possibly magical warrior could probably kill the Witch-King. It just might not have been as easy as the Eowyn-Merry team made it look. I expect that Gandalf could have killed the Witch-King, but it probably would have taken all the skill he had and probably a very long time to do so, and may well have cost him his life. I do think that he had a realistic view of the situation: he knew that he was probably the best choice for the job (at least logically...I bet Eowyn and Merry didn't exactly make any "Most likely to kill the Witch-King" lists), but he also had reasonable view of the outcome: he may have been able to beat his adversary, but it was also likely that he would have been destroyed in the attempt. I'm not sure they'd have been evenly matched...but I think that Gandalf has an advantage over the Witch-King in that he's not particularly afraid for himself: I doubt he fears death--his main fear probably was the loss of Middle-earth.

Alternatively, the Witch-King could have just lost physical form when bested by any other blade than the sword of Westernesse...he couldn't be killed, but his spirit couldn't run about with no way to manifest itself, either...and it may have been a painful state to be in. Gandalf and Elrond caused this once, using the river. In the long run, it didn't make much difference, but it might have been an inconvenience to the Wraiths...and to their master. Sauron probably wasn't too happy to see them return without Frodo, but also without bodies or transportation. And where did Sauron's blame for that incident fall? Probably, at least initially, with the captain of the Wraiths: our friend the Witch-King. So that could have been a source of fear for the Witch-King: the fear of displeasing Sauron. Can't imagine he's a particularly pleasant fellow on a good day, so I'd hate to see him angry...

Another question my pondering of the Gandalf vs. Witch-King debate brought to mind was this: Would Merry and Eowyn have won in a fair fight? Sure, Merry had the blade of Westernesse, but he lacks the skill that only years of practice can bring. His size is probably a disadvantage as well (almost anyone's would be, since the Witch-King is very strong)... and in a fair fight, the Witch-King probably would be the victor. The only reason Eowyn and Merry had a chance was that Eowyn was distracting the Witch-King enough that Merry had the chance to strike a blow from behind. Not, of course, to diminish Eowyn's role in the whole thing: She's strong, brave, tough, and a skilled fighter...but in any other circumstance, she would have lost. As it was, both were severely injured in payment for their win.

I feel like I'm making no sense, so I'll go back to lurking...

[davem]

I'm not sure any sufficiently 'magical' blade, even in the hand of a powerful being like Aragorn or Gandalf , could have killed Angmar. He is not simply a superhumanly powerful being, but a living symbol of Evil. The destruction of Evil (in Middle-earth at least) is not a matter of mere power (cf The Ring). A living symbol needs a symbolic death.

What we have is a symbolic event. It has to do with what Angmar symbolises to those who confront him - specifically, in this case, what he symbolises to Merry & Eowyn. To Eowyn in particular he symbolises her despair, her severe depression, the death she seeks. To Merry he symbolises all he fears, a manifestation of the 'unsupportable weight of Middle-earth' he felt back in Rohan. Their combined defiance, their refusal to be swallowed by the void he represents, is what inspires them to act. Both fight in defence of one they love - Theoden (in Merry's case also his love of Eowyn). They stand in the face of Death, 'the inevitability of Death' as Tolkien put it.

Thus, to reduce it to questions of 'power' is to miss the point. It is not simply the Blade of Westernesse that makes Angmar vulnerable to Eowyn's death-blow. It is that blade in the hand of Merry, with the desperation (& desperate hope) behind the blow he strikes. Had the blade remained in the Barrow it would have been useless - it became Angmar's bane in the hand of Merry on the Field of Pelennor. Eowyn's blade would have been nothing but a sliver of metal if she had not ridden as Dernhelm in search of Death ('Do you not know Death when you see it?').

It is the defiance of Death, inevitable Death, in the heart of an Hobbit & a Woman, that kills Angmar. But it is also the defiance of Death in the heart of the Man who made the Barrow Blade, & wound it about with spells for the bane of Mordor. It cannot be reduced to Gandalf was powerful enough to do it, or Aragorn was powerful enough.

[Boromir88]

You bring up a good point that by ROTK the Witch-King is cocky and arrogant...'no man may hinder me,' as he says, hinder meaning in effect the WK was saying he was unstoppable. What's interesting is that I think perhaps Boromir I was a big reason to boost the WK's arrogance. To finish off the quote (and I should have done this before, but it was late and I wasn't thinking):

Boromir son of Denethor (after whom Boromir of the Nine Walkers was later named) defeated them and regained Ithilien; but Osgiliath was finally ruined, and its great stone bridge was broken. No people dwelt there afterwards. Boromir was a great captain, and even the Witch-King feared him. He was noble and fair of face, a man strong in body and in will, but he received a Morgul-wound in that war which shortened his days, and he became shrunken with pain and died twelve years after his father.~Appendix A: The Stewards

So, the Witch-King had feared Boromir I, but seeing as he stabbed him with a morgul-blade and he later died, that could be a boost to his confidence, even push him to arrogance...'See here this great captain that I feared...well now he's dead...so I'm unstoppable...muahahaha.' Or something like that.

The Witch-King probably couldn't be killed by any old weapon, but I think that the focus has been a little narrow.

Well that fact that Tolkien cosistantly talks about the 'spells' wound in the Barrow-blade and it's design to bring down their greatest enemy at that time, the Witch-King makes me thing that it's that particular blade that is of importance. I think common sense could tell us that the Witch-King could be killed if he got his head chopped off...right? And it doesn't take a magical weapon to do that.

But let's take a look at some more things:

'The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him.'
If we believe Gandalf, he is saying the Nazgul cannot be destroyed in 'that way' meaning drowning. There's no mention of being 'killed,' because I think there is a difference between killing/dying, then destruction in Tolkien. So, Gandalf doesn't say the Nazgul couldn't be killed, but they couldn't be destroyed. Sauron's power is also bound to them, and they go down, or rise up with him.

But what's interesting about the Barrow-blade is the term used here:
...made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction.
The Barrow-blade was wrought with spells and made for the destruction, the 'bane' of the Witch-King. And also here:

...breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.
Now besides meaning a tendon, 'sinews' is also like a mainstay of muscular power, or strength....like the 'sinews of virtue' The Barrow-blade was able to break the spell, and the 'sinews' that were to his will. The WK had lost all power and strength because the spell was broken...his sinews of his will were broken.

I definitely think that the Barrow blade was an important tool and it did what it was designed to do...destroy the Witch-King. His sinews were broken, he lost all power and strength of the 'spell' that were intertwined to his will. Therefor, I'm thinking (but I could just be totally wrong) the Barrow-blade destroyed the Witch-King, to the point where he would be unable to return back. If we accept what Gandalf says, the WK and the Ringwraiths should fall with Sauron if Sauron does indeed fall. I think we see this in ROTK when the Ring is finally destroyed, the remaining Nazgul are also destroyed. So, conceivably after being killed the Witch-King would have been able to return. However, the Barrow-blade just doesn't kill the WK it destroys him, or destroys his spirit to the point where he cannot return. (Because as far as I know the 'spirit' in Tolkien's works could not be totally and completely annhilated).

I think any blade could have dispatched and killed the Witch-King, but it was the barrow-blade that struck a blow, taking away all his power, and in effect 'destroying' him. By all means I could just be totally off base, and am interested in hearing some responses.

Another question my pondering of the Gandalf vs. Witch-King debate brought to mind was this: Would Merry and Eowyn have won in a fair fight?

I doubt it. One on one vs. the Witch-King, straight forward fight, I doubt it. I think both Merry and Eowyn were important pieces to the destruction of the Witch-King and without one of them, neither would have succeeded in killing him. I do think Merry played the more important part, after all Eowyn just had a straight shot right to the face after Merry stabbed him and dealt him such a 'bitter' blow, but after Merry's jab he could have finished off the Witch-King, someone had to.