Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[obloquy]

There is far more evidence to support Gandalf and Sauron's equal stature than there is to the contrary. I won't go into it again here, but I'll provide some links for further research:

Here and here can be found the most important elements to the argument. Near the end of the first thread is a wonderful piece of research by gorthaur_cruel, but its date (1956) and incongruence with the bulk of Tolkien's writing render it all but useless, much like the Fall of Gondolin is for Balrog discussions.

Additionally, Sauron during the War of the Ring can be considered far weaker than he was in his original form, since he was not in possession of a large portion of his power (though he is said to be in "rapport" with it at all times), and he was also incarnate, having "died" several times already. Gandalf was, of course, limited similarly, but the point is that both were.

It's literally.

You sound pretty positive. Maybe you could share your iron-clad evidence for this assertion?

When placed in command of the armies, he was given "An added demonic force."

So Sauron doles out some extra "demonic force" to his servants from time to time? Why now? Why not before the Nazgul went to The Shire, and why didn't they all receive some? This isn't even Middle-earth vocabulary: "demonic force" is a reference to the impression a reader gets from the Witch-King, not something Sauron is capable of dispensing.

The Witch-King, even with all his buddies, would not challenge the power of ring-bearing Galadriel. Gandalf had a Ring of Power, too, and was even greater in innate power than Galadriel. The Witch-King had fled from Glorfindel (see Appendix A), and yet Glorfindel, even after his enhancement through reincarnation, is said to be almost an equal to the Maiar. How, please, could a mere Man (originally mighty, perhaps, but certainly not even one of the greatest of the Atani) who was hopelessly enslaved to Sauron approach this kind of spiritual power? The answer is that he could not, and I have never seen any shred of evidence to support the idea.

Edit: Great post, mansun!

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Additionally, Sauron during the War of the Ring can be considered far weaker than he was in his original form, since he was not in possession of a large portion of his power (though he is said to be in "rapport" with it at all times), and he was also incarnate, having "died" several times already. Gandalf was, of course, limited similarly, but the point is that both were.

That doesn't really say who was stronger. It just says that both weren't at the 100% they were at in the beginning.

Originally Posted by obloquy

You sound pretty positive. Maybe you could share your iron-clad evidence for this assertion?

It's right in the book dude. The quote was provided on the last page.

Originally Posted by obloquy

So Sauron doles out some extra "demonic force" to his servants from time to time? Why now?

Apparently, Sauron cared more of the war than his ring at that time.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Why not before the Nazgul went to The Shire, and why didn't they all receive some?

Likely because their strength would have gotten the attention of the elves or an Istari, who would rally up the people or something of that sort.

Originally Posted by obloquy

This isn't even Middle-earth vocabulary: "demonic force" is a reference to the impression a reader gets from the Witch-King, not something Sauron is capable of dispensing.

It's a literal force. The book even says that when Sauron appoints him as the leader of the host assaulting Minas Tirith that he's given an added demonic force, and he does appear more powerful than he was in earlier confrontations. It is not an impression like fear: it's specifically stated to be an added demonic force.

Originally Posted by obloquy

The Witch-King, even with all his buddies, would not challenge the power of ring-bearing Galadriel.

That's because Galadriel was very mighty (in the magical arts at the very least) and she had an entire realm of warrior elves at her disposal. Also, Dol Guldur, which was commanded by Khamul the Easterling, assaulted Lothlorien three times: the Nazgul did attempt to defeat her.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Gandalf had a Ring of Power, too, and was even greater in innate power than Galadriel. The Witch-King had fled from Glorfindel (see Appendix A), and yet Glorfindel, even after his enhancement through reincarnation, is said to be almost an equal to the Maiar. How, please, could a mere Man (originally mighty, perhaps, but certainly not even one of the greatest of the Atani) who was hopelessly enslaved to Sauron approach this kind of spiritual power?

The Witch-King was skilled with the magical arts, likely was a great warrior, destroyed Arnor, and in the siege of Minas Tirith was given additional power. Gandalf clearly was not passing the situation off as a minor detail or something casual, and as I've said before, being a Maia, while somewhat of an advantage, is not a clear-cut victory. The higher-ranked beings of Middle-Earth have lost countless times. Even if Gandalf was wise to those events, that does not mean that he was assured victory due to his origin.

Originally Posted by obloquy

The answer is that he could not, and I have never seen any shred of evidence to support the idea.

That is only your opinion in the end, and the scene in the book where Gandalf met the Witch-King at the gates of Minas Tirith was most definitely not a confrontation where one combatant was depicted with any sort of strength over the other. Indeed, if the Professor gave one of the two any sort of visible edge, the whole point of the scene would be void. The scene was not to tell us that Gandalf would be a safety-blanket or that the Witch-King was about to whup him to the moon: it was to build tension and have us be unsure of who'd win.

I grow tired of debating this subject, so unless you want to press the matter on, I'll stay away from this discussion.

The fact that the Witch King withdrew at the gate as Gandalf challenged him means that Gandalf did win. The Witch King effectively threw in the towel as though this battle was no longer for him. I don't remember the Balrog withdrawing when confronted by the entire Company - it knew it could defeat any of them with it's power. That's how it is as the books are concerned.

As I have said in many previous posts, PJ should have made the Witch King something like as hulking a foe as the Balrog in appearance to show that his power had been upgraded. Some of that crackling electrical energy would have done the trick. As far as the films go, the Witch King won, all because of some nitwit script writers. This was not all PJs fault - if you listen to the commentary for this part, the two ladies speaking appear to be responsible for this ridiculous scene. Gandalf was nearly blown to smithereens through one bolt of fire by the Witch King! Now who on earth would have honestly wanted that to happen in the film?!

[obloquy]

It's right in the book dude. The quote was provided on the last page.

I'm aware of what's in the book; perhaps more aware than you'd like me to be. I do not contest the fact that Tolkien wrote this, I contest how it is being interpreted. The letter in question is a point-by-point critique of the unproduced M.G. Zimmerman film treatment of LotR. Tolkien explains not only the flaws in Zimmerman's revisions, but also the intended effect of his writing choices. The letter is not in answer to questions about the nature of the Witch-King's power at different points in the story; rather, it is an exploration of Tolkien's literary intentions. I'll reproduce the paragraph in full here, since its previous quotation in this thread deprived it of context:

9. Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-King, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others [though note that he is nevertheless not excluded from the above explication that the Nazgul rely on fear rather than any true power. -obloquy]; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken. See III 114.

It is possible that Tolkien intended to convey that Sauron had enhanced the Witch-King in some way. However, it seems more likely to me, given the context of the excerpt and the manner of the letter, that Tolkien is describing the literary effect of Sauron's decision to put him in command of the assault on the Pelennor. We, the reader or viewer, see in the Witch-King in III "an added demonic force" that is due to his portrayal at first as a scary wraith, and later as a military captain. In the last sentence Tolkien still qualifies the Witch-King's appearance at the Pelennor by reminding us that the darkness, under which the Nazgul seem more terrible, had only recently passed.

Also notice how Tolkien says "he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III." By whom must he not yet be raised to that stature? It sounds like he's telling Mr. Zimmerman that he must not yet raise him to that stature in his film, implying that the "added demonic force" (or increase of stature) of Vol. III is given by the author, not by Sauron. The command of the army is given by Sauron, which results in an impression of increased stature on the reader.

Whether you agree with my analysis or not, it is impossible for you to claim that Tolkien's intention was, without a doubt, that Sauron had pumped some extra bad-guy juice into his pet.

That is only your opinion in the end

It is not only my opinion if there is no evidence to support the contrary.

and the scene in the book where Gandalf met the Witch-King at the gates of Minas Tirith was most definitely not a confrontation where one combatant was depicted with any sort of strength over the other.

Again, I'll reproduce the whole segment so we don't forget the details:

In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.

All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dinen.

'You cannot enter here,' said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. 'Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!'

The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.

'Old fool!' he said. 'Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!' And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.

Gandalf did not move.

Chilling to the spine, gorgeous and one of the best portions of the whole book. Gandalf stands in the way of the Witch-King, untrembling, unhesitating, and tells him that he cannot enter the city. The Witch-King obeys. The Witch-King confronted Gandalf by accident, not because he was planning to fight him. Gandalf was waiting for him, and prevents his advance. The Witch-King mouths off, but his words are empty and his threat does not even get Gandalf to move. The Balrog at least prompted Gandalf to prepare for combat! Gandalf may still be required not to reveal his true power, but he defeated the Balrog while observing that limitation, and he is here, at the gates, in front of the Witch-King, obviously unafraid. Granted, the Witch-King does not appear afraid either, but there's no reason to think that he had any idea what Gandalf really was, and he is notoriously overconfident, having misinterpreted Glorfindel's prophecy.

The tension of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields is due to the uncertainty as to whether Minas Tirith can hold out against the siege. It has nothing to do with which leader is personally more powerful.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mansun

The fact that the Witch King withdrew at the gate as Gandalf challenged him means that Gandalf did win. The Witch King effectively threw in the towel as though this battle was no longer for him

No it doesn't. The Witch-King had to leave because his army was going to get owned by Rohan, and Gandalf had to put off the fight to save Faramir. Gandalf didn't win squat, and neither did the Witch-King. The fight was put off. Nobody overpowered the other.

Originally Posted by Mansun

I don't remember the Balrog withdrawing when confronted by the entire Company - it knew it could defeat any of them with it's power. That's how it is as the books are concerned.

The Witch-King withdrew to save his army, not because Gandalf was stronger. It's present in the text.

And obloquy, The Witch-King most certainly does not obey. He was about to attack Gandalf with his sword or a spell. When Gandalf tells the Witch-King he cannot enter, the Witch-King just laughs in his face and tells him off. Also, it states that "There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force." The wording of this statement implies that the Witch-King was given an "added demonic force." Being chosen to lead the army would in no way give him an added demonic force: it would just mean that he was leading the army, and he had led other armies in his time. The professor specifically wrote that the Witch-King had been given extra power in this encounter.

Obloquy, step down from your perch for a second and realize that your "proof" is not really solid proof. It's just your interpretation of the writings. Heck, even your statement of Gandalf and Sauron having equal power came as a sudden jump in the link you posted. At Minas Tirith, Gandalf and the Witch-King were apparently equal. Gandalf having an advantage would just make Gandalf a safety-blanket who would handle Gondor's problems. The Witch-King having the advantage would make Rohan's arrival seem more like a writer's trick to save Gandalf. It was an equal stand-off, and it was by chance that the two did not have the fight they were prepared for.

[obloquy]

You have completely ignored my argument about the letter, and have yet to provide any support for your opinion from the text. The conclusion that Gandalf and Sauron were equal is not a sudden jump in logic. I quote, once again:

To the overthrow of Morgoth he [Manwë] sent his herald Eönwë. To the defeat of Sauron would he not then send some lesser (but mighty) spirit of the angelic people, one coëval and equal, doubtless, with Sauron in their beginnings, but not more? Olórin was his name.

Even if you had provided a rock-solid defense of the letter's intended meaning, which you did not even attempt to do, it would still not have proved that the Witch-King had miraculously been pumped up to the level of a "peer" (to use Tolkien's word) of his master.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

You have completely ignored my argument about the letter, and have yet to provide any support for your opinion from the text.

I would have two things to mention regarding your request.

First, there is the problem of burden of proof. If I understand you correctly, you argue that Zimmerman made, concerning that specific subject, errors of 'theatrical' presentation, of how he related the story, shifting emphasis where it shouldn't, while still being true to the original meaning - as opposed to The 1,000 Reader's interpretation of the text as reffering to errors of what was being reported (therefore, a problem of accuracy primarily, not one of literary impact on the reader). While, in theory, both views are consistent with Tolkien's resentment, it should be noted that the bulk of Z's errors mentioned in the letter are of accuracy:

- inclusion of flags, Gandalf spluttering, contraction of time, Tom as owner of the woods and as 'old scamp', the landlord asking Frodo to register, Aragorn leaving the inn at night, Rivendell similar to Lorien, Aragorn singing the song of Gil-Galad, orcs with beaks and feathers, Galadriel as Elvenqueen, the presence of private 'chambers', hobbits eating 'ridiculously long sandwiches', the spiral staircase of Orthanc, etc.

Most, if not all, of Tolkien's criticism regards problems of accuracy, not merely of 'how' things are related. Tolkien doesn't explicitly say if a specific criticism regards the problem of "how" or the problem of "what" is being told; so both sides share the burden of proof, of presenting evidence outside of the letter that could verify their interpretation. However, if the sheer number of accuracy errors in an indicator, then this was foremost a problem of accuracy, of what was being told, not a problem of literary effect, that is, of how the story was told.

The second aspect is that of false dilemma: even if Tolkien was reffering first and foremost to a literary effect on the reader in that paragraph, that still doesn't exclude the witch-king actually receiving the greater power mentioned in the text. In fact, if he indeed became more powerful, the literary impact on the reader would be more natural and more easy to come by - actual increase would be a means to literary impact (an end).

[alatar]

Don't have my books in front of me, but in Fangorn, when Gandalf confronts the Three Hunters, does he state something about 'unless he were brought in front of the Dark Lord' or something? My take is that, as the White, Gandalf could have equalled Sauron, were he permitted to use force and the dark side as Sauron did, but was bound by the rules.

Why else did Sauon fear Orthanc, though it contained a much smaller army?

Anyway, if Gandalf could be somewhat equal to Sauron, I cannot see how a lesser being on the food chain could be 'brought up' by demonic force or otherwise to this same level. Note that this does not bear on the outcome of a battle, as one never knows what the WK had up its sleeves.

There is no proof the added demonic force would have made the Witch King the equal of Gandalf the White. I have read posts saying the upgraded Witch King was now much more powerful than before - was he? Where does it say in any text that the extra force made him so? Wasn't he still much weaker than when Sauron last had the Ring, & Gandalf at the height of his power? None of it seems to make sense - we have a weakened Sauron who upgrades a weakened Witch King to the same level as Gandalf? All that without the Ring? Not possible. So when the Witch King dies, Sauron becomes weaker again due to the wonderful demonic force of his vanishing into thin air?

I agree with the above post in that the Witch King may not have known the true nature of Gandalf. Calling a balrog slayer an old fool!

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would have two things to mention regarding your request.

Thanks for the response.

First, there is the problem of burden of proof. If I understand you correctly, you argue that Zimmerman made, concerning that specific subject, errors of 'theatrical' presentation, of how he related the story, shifting emphasis where it shouldn't, while still being true to the original meaning - as opposed to The 1,000 Reader's interpretation of the text as reffering to errors of what was being reported (therefore, a problem of accuracy primarily, not one of literary impact on the reader).

The 1,000 Reader is claiming that Tolkien says Sauron gave the Witch-King extra power, period. I am saying that that is not exactly what Tolkien says. At most, he allows the reader to draw that conclusion. I am arguing that his letter was referring to the kind of force or power that the author should provide to the Witch-King in Vol. III, vs. how he is presented earlier on.

it should be noted that the bulk of Z's errors mentioned in the letter are of accuracy:

You're right, but why are these issues of accuracy important to Tolkien? This is a film treatment, so he knows things will have to be adjusted. Many of the items are extremely minor, and don't compromise anything fundamental to the narrative. But they're important because of the impression they make: the Balrog laughing or sneering, for example, or Gandalf "spluttering." It does not affect the tale being told for these two characters to behave in these ways, but it does affect their air of dignity, i.e. the impression of their dignity on the reader.

Most, if not all, of Tolkien's criticism regards problems of accuracy, not merely of 'how' things are related. Tolkien doesn't explicitly say if a specific criticism regards the problem of "how" or the problem of "what" is being told; so both sides share the burden of proof, of presenting evidence outside of the letter that could verify their interpretation.

I allow the possibility that Tolkien meant the note to be interpreted how The 1,000 Reader chooses to interpret it, even though I think he could have worded it more clearly if that was his intention. The 1,000 Reader is the one claiming there is no question.

However, if the sheer number of accuracy errors in an indicator, then this was foremost a problem of accuracy, of what was being told, not a problem of literary effect, that is, of how the story was told.

I disagree, and reiterate that many of the errors in accuracy are only important because they compromise Tolkien's intended effect, mood, air, etc. There will be modifications to a story that is to be made into a film: errors in accuracy, in other words. Many of these that Tolkien has chosen to pick on are particularly egregious because they make his characters (whether Gandalf or Hobbits or Rivendell) seem different than he intended.

Tolkien says "[The Witch-King] must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III." Raised by whom? Is Tolkien saying "he must not" because he is drawing conclusions based on evidence (e.g. "he must not be as powerful as he is later since he seems to be unable to defeat Gandalf."), or is he urging that Zimmerman must not yet raise the Witch-King to that level? Similarly, in the next sentence, Tolkien says "There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force." He is obviously put in command by Sauron, but who has given him "an added demonic force" is not as clear. Tolkien could have said "There, given added demonic force by Sauron, he is put in command." The impression would even be more clear if Tolkien had written "There, put in command by Sauron, he is then given added demonic force." Instead, Tolkien does not make it clear that Sauron is giving anything to W-K but command. He even includes the indefinite article "an" which changes the impression of that "demonic force" from something specific that Sauron might have to give, to something amorphous that is, more likely, simply an aspect of the Witch-King's appearance at that time. Which brings me again to the point that "demonic force" is not Middle-earth vocabulary, and gives the impression that Tolkien is speaking of literary intent rather than a Middle-earth fact.

The second aspect is that of false dilemma: even if Tolkien was reffering first and foremost to a literary effect on the reader in that paragraph, that still doesn't exclude the witch-king actually receiving the greater power mentioned in the text. In fact, if he indeed became more powerful, the literary impact on the reader would be more natural and more easy to come by - actual increase would be a means to literary impact (an end).

Or he becomes more powerful in the reader's eyes simply by receiving supreme command of the siege on Minas Tirith. That's my impression. The real false dilemma is that even if the sentence were proven to be intended the way The 1,000 Reader claims, it does not prove that the Witch-King had been elevated to a level commensurate with his master.

Edit: I think I've made my point as well as I can. In fact, I'm repeating myself in my efforts to clarify my argument. Still, one last P.S. before I rest my case: the note's (putative) claim that the Witch-King was literally enhanced is otherwise uncorroborated. It exists only in an obscure note to a script writer and clearly (as I hope I have shown above) could have been meant as an expression of narrative choices rather than further (and very important!) info on the nature of the Witch-King. Whereas other individuals who received genuine enhancement of power (Gandalf and Glorfindel, for example) have narrative accounts or essays--with (and this is crucial) the history of Middle-earth as the topic rather than narrative decisions--that express the fact explicitly. And that's all that I think I can say about the letter.

As for the Witch-King being an equal match for Gandalf (which really is an issue independent of the debated note), I'll argue that until I'm blue in the face, or until I get banned again.

[Essex]

I really hate stepping back into this argument again (oh no I don't) - I'm repeating myself as well, as much as anybody.

But here's my succinct and well thought out argument on whether Movie or Book Witch King (and remember we're meant to be discussing the movie here!)could 'take Gandalf out' or 'own Gandalf' etc.




David slew Goliath




PS and to add, in post script, about Gandalf saying 'no weapon could kill me' and explaining how great he was to anyone who would listen. That's HIS opinion. Who's to say he's right in everything he says? He's no doubt a clever fella, but he's not the Pope.


PPS to you non Christian's out there I mean he's not infallible


PPPS - I swear this is true - As I finished editing my post and went back to the main page, look what quote was at the top of the screen....

"Old Fool! Old Fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain! - Lord of the Nazgûl"

This vindicates my opinion entirely!!!!!!! It MUST be true - Tolkien sent me a message from Beyond the Grave. The Witch King can whip Gandalf's butt!

[alatar]

I knew that you could not long resists this, Essex.

Regardless of the books, PJ watered down the Gandalf character in more ways than just his resistance to Witch-King spookings. This was to make Aragorn seem more heroic and more in control, and so you know what question that begs...

[obloquy]

David slew Goliath

I don't see how this can have any relevance here. It is not some inspirational story of the insignificant overcoming the mighty, as you seem to think. 1 Samuel 17:45 (KJV):

45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.

46 This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.

Victory over Goliath belonged to God, not to David personally. David's success was miraculous, achieved only because David was the agent performing God's will. If the Witch-King came to Gandalf in the name of Eru then sure, I'd put my money on him. The idea is ludicrous, though.

There is no analogy here. The lesson we learn from the story of David and Goliath is exactly the opposite of the one you attribute to it: you assign credit to David, when the whole point is that David was God's agent and God defeated Goliath. Furthermore, even if we accept your argument as having any significant relation to Middle-earth, Eru God is expressly on Gandalf's side, so unless you think it was possible for Goliath to defeat David against God's will, your "succent" (??) argument is revealed to be in full support of my opinion and in direct contradiction to yours.

Edit: Wait, did you seriously imply that the Pope is infallible? That makes me wonder if posting in response to someone so oblivious to facts and reason is really a good idea.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

This is a film treatment, so he knows things will have to be adjusted.

I agree; he hinted at this at the beginning of the letter, when he said "the canons of narrative an in any medium cannot be wholly different".

Originally Posted by obloquy

but why are these issues of accuracy important to Tolkien? ... Many of the items are extremely minor, and don't compromise anything fundamental to the narrative. But they're important because of the impression they make:

He did express irritation (and resentment) for errors varrying from carelessness to the pan of the story being "simply murdered". On many 'details' he also said that are important to him (such as the names of persons).

Concerning the factor of impression and its relation to the actual world the story depicts, I would note that he believes that a successful writer makes a believable story, in which what "he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world" (sorry for the long quote):

Originally Posted by On fairy stories

Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called “willing suspension of disbelief.” But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful “sub-creator.” He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed.

My question would be: why would Tolkien risk producing an impression on his reader (an increase in stature of the witch-king) which is not actually reflected in the reality of that world - esspecially since it would cost him 'nothing' to close that gap and it would be 'necessary' (if I may say so, considering Sauron's desperation)? If this aspect is important (and from the letter it would seem so), why risk having some readers not get it (because it would be based on mere impression, not 'facts') while others would get it, but wouldn't believe it, for lack of actual support? Would anything justify this complication? I believe his interest in plausibility is underline even in this letter, when he underscores the importance of seasons (" The Lord of the Rings may be a 'fairy-story', but it takes place in the Northern hemisphere of this earth: miles are miles, days are days, and weather is weather.")

Originally Posted by obloquy

The real false dilemma is that even if the sentence were proven to be intended the way The 1,000 Reader claims, it does not prove that the Witch-King had been elevated to a level commensurate with his master.

I agree that this quote does not adress their comparative powers at all; I intended to mention that in my post as well, but I forgot from "hand to mouth". In the text, there is, at most - to my knowledge, one other refference (besides Gandalf's 'softness' in regards to Denethor's remarks) which might indicate that Gandalf admits he is overpowered, although it is marred by its generality (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by The White Rider, TTT

I have spoken words of hope. But only of hope. Hope is not victory. War is upon us and all our friends, a war in which only the use of the Ring could give us surety of victory. It fills me with great sorrow and great fear: for much shall be destroyed and all may be lost. I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still.

Originally Posted by obloquy

the note's (putative) claim that the Witch-King was literally enhanced is otherwise uncorroborated

I believe the following could be relevant to our discussion:

Originally Posted by The siege of Gondor

The Nazgul came again, and as their Dark Lord now grew and put forth his strength, so their voices, which uttered only his will and his malice, were filled with evil and horror.

Not definitive, but still, in line with the witch-king uttering words of power that apparently help shatter the city gate, approaching the gate alone and having flames run down his sword.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

My question would be: why would Tolkien risk producing an impression on his reader (an increase in stature of the witch-king) which is not actually reflected in the reality of that world - esspecially since it would cost him 'nothing' to close that gap and it would be 'necessary' (if I may say so, considering Sauron's desperation)? If this aspect is important (and from the letter it would seem so), why risk having some readers not get it (because it would be based on mere impression, not 'facts') while others would get it, but wouldn't believe it, for lack of actual support? Would anything justify this complication?

Don't forget the nature of the letter. You mention readers who might misinterpret it, but it was originally a letter to an individual; one which Tolkien surely never imagined might be published. He responded to many letters asking questions about his characters, including Sauron, Gandalf, and the Witch-King, in which we would expect him to present clear-cut facts about those characters for the recipients of the letters and whomever they might share them with, but this isn't one of those letters. This is a letter devoted specifically to narrative decisions. I don't necessarily think that any incidental insight it provides ought to be disregarded because of that, but I do think that it gives us additional reason to question Tolkien's choice of words.

You ask why Tolkien would create this impression if it was not representative of the reality. I believe that it was congruent with the reality, but that the reality was merely that the Witch-King now commanded an army in open daylight. That narrative revelation conveys "an added demonic power."

"...Black is mightier still." Indeed! Gandalf was never the dominant force in Middle-earth. That was always Sauron. Whether this quotation refers to Sauron personally (though Sauron was never called Sauron the Black) or Sauron's combined power in Middle-earth is debatable. The greatness of Gandalf's original spirit in relation to Sauron's is actually irrelevant to this quotation since his purpose in Middle-earth was not to go head-to-head with the Dark Lord. It's interesting in itself that extra-LotR texts appear to support that Gandalf and Sauron were peers, but that fact doesn't really shed any light on his analysis of the status of his mission. His mission did not include revealing himself in any mightiness.

Letter #156[Gandalf] is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of 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. He seldom does so, operating rather through others, but in one or two cases in the War (in Vol. III) he does reveal a sudden power: he twice rescues Faramir. He alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of Nazgul to Minas Tirith, when the City has been overthrown and its Gates destroyed--and yet so powerful is the whole train of human resistance, that he himself has kindled and organized, that in fact no battle between the two occurs: it passes to other mortal hands. In the end before he departs for ever he sums himself up: "I was the enemy of Sauron."

Sauron was his enemy and opposite, but his mission entailed not a duel, but the kindling and guidance of the peoples of Middle-earth in their own defense. When he expressed his uncertainty about his mission, "Black is mightier still," I believe we can safely assume he did not have direct conflict with Sauron in mind.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Victory over Goliath belonged to God, not to David personally. David's success was miraculous, achieved only because David was the agent performing God's will. If the Witch-King came to Gandalf in the name of Eru then sure, I'd put my money on him. The idea is ludicrous, though.

Crazy, as you say, but the point being made is that sometimes, when Eru is on your side or you just get lucky and roll that '20,' the unlikely happens.

There is no analogy here. The lesson we learn from the story of David and Goliath is exactly the opposite of the one you attribute to it: you assign credit to David, when the whole point is that David was God's agent and God defeated Goliath. Furthermore, even if we accept your argument as having any significant relation to Middle-earth, Eru God is expressly on Gandalf's side, so unless you think it was possible for Goliath to defeat David against God's will, your "succent" (??) argument is revealed to be in full support of my opinion and in direct contradiction to yours.

Interesting point. But even David had his bad days and suffered losses, though surely God was 'on his side.' Eru obviously lets the dark side win now and again; why not this day? The ways of Him who shaped Arda are not our ways, and there's that mysterious way of working thing too.

Edit: Wait, did you seriously imply that the Pope is infallible? That makes me wonder if posting in response to someone so oblivious to facts and reason is really a good idea.

I think we are to read between the lines a bit, as we all seem capable of doing, when we read Essex's words. Again I assume that he was just using words to convey an idea in a way many (but not all) may understand. And note that, after having posted all of my serious and heated posts on this issue beforehand, most likely I will only be able to 'unsay' whatever I'd said before, not having the need to post as vehemently as I did when RotK:EE first came out.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Don't forget the nature of the letter. You mention readers who might misinterpret it, but it was originally a letter to an individual

I agree; however, I was reffering to the books having this possible believability problem, I apologise if I wasn't specific enough.

Originally Posted by obloquy

You ask why Tolkien would create this impression if it was not representative of the reality. I believe that it was congruent with the reality, but that the reality was merely that the Witch-King now commanded an army in open daylight. That narrative revelation conveys "an added demonic power."

Well, it wasn't technically daylight, since they were fighting under Sauron's Shadow. As I see it, the witch-king is consistently described as leader of armies and a high-ranking (if not highest) in Sauron's army/subjects - starting from the Prologue, to Aragorn's, Tom's, Gandalf's mentionings, and finishing with the appendices and tale of years. If Tolkien intended to present him in increase stature only as a military comander at the Pelennor Fields, he spoiled that "surprise" by other (past and not only) refferences.

[The Saucepan Man]

I am somewhat at a loss to see the relevance of all these textual references to a discussion of the characters and events of the film, which are (to varying degrees) frequently different from those presented in the book.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me if there is no textual basis for the outcome of the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-King if it works on screen (which it does for me).

The characters of Gandalf and the Witch-King, and the portrayal of their confrontation, on film were largely determined by reference to the necessities of the medium and the other choices made by the film-makers. As alatar has pointed out, the character of Gandalf the White was significantly watered down in the film, a choice made by Jackson and co, rightly or wrongly, to enhance the impression of Aragorn as the principal “hero”. Similarly, the power of the Witch-King was enhanced to provide an “on-screen” counterpoint to Gandalf.

The main relevance of the “added demonic force” reference in the letter, as I see it, is that Jackson and co may have read it and interpreted it as justification for the change made (not that they appear to have felt that such justification was needed for the changes that they made on a more general level).

[Essex]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I don't see how this can have any relevance here. It is not some inspirational story of the insignificant overcoming the mighty, as you seem to think.

OK - let me give you another anlaogy.

Hereford beat Newcastle in the FA Cup in 1972

wait, did you seriously imply that the Pope is infallible? That makes me wonder if posting in response to someone so oblivious to facts and reason is really a good idea.

maybe I should have put a few smiley faces on the post. I was trying to have a laugh but didn't realise I had to put bells and whistles around it to explain the humour!!! But to explain my points

1/ Giant killings take place.
2/ Tolkien's Middle-earth is not 'black and white'
3/ If a character says something, do we take that as 'Cannon' or just their opinion?

a few funny faces to complete my post..............

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The characters of Gandalf and the Witch-King, and the portrayal of their confrontation, on film were largely determined by reference to the necessities of the medium and the other choices made by the film-makers. As alatar has pointed out, the character of Gandalf the White was significantly watered down in the film, a choice made by Jackson and co, rightly or wrongly, to enhance the impression of Aragorn as the principal “hero”. Similarly, the power of the Witch-King was enhanced to provide an “on-screen” counterpoint to Gandalf.

The main relevance of the “added demonic force” reference in the letter, as I see it, is that Jackson and co may have read it and interpreted it as justification for the change made (not that they appear to have felt that such justification was needed for the changes that they made on a more general level).

In that case, the power of the Balrog of Morgoth must have been significantly watered down in the film as well, even though on face value this demon seems to be on a level similar to Sauron.

With regards to the earlier comment about ''Black is mightier still'' - do you remember this quote:-

''Dangerous!' cried Gandalf. 'And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.''

I assume then that Black meant Sauron, or perhaps Mordor in general.


Essex likes to refer to analogies, but they are not that effective when you are comparing a Supernatural god-like creature against a powerful sorcerer. This duel is an exceptional case, and although no battle actually takes place between the two, the fact that Gandalf has already defeated another supernatural terror in combat makes a strong case that he is favourite against anyone else, save the Dark Lord himself, which is what the above quote justifies.

One other point, Gandalf knows he should not reveal his true nature or power unless he is absolutely called to do so, hence his denial to Denethor, who has no knowledge of what Gandalf is. Gandalf also says to the Balrog '' I am a servant of the secret fire ... the dark fire will not avail you'', which may suggest even the Balrog did not know what kind of opponent he was originally up against.

It is likely that the enhanced Witch King would have forced Gandalf into revealing his true power in battle, since the Balrog was able to do so immediately. In this case, I cannot give the Witch King a hope in hell of victory against a maiair, though I could not gaurantee a victory for Gandalf either, since the Witch King may well decide he is overmatched & ride off, as he has done in the past when confronted by Glorfindel. Gandalf wouldn't chase the Witch King to destroy him.

[Raynor]

In this case, I cannot give the Witch King a hope in hell of victory against a maiair

Why? Sauron himself was previously defeated when he fought against two non-maiar (and Fingolfin wounded even Melkor). There is no single circumstance that I know of when a body is made invulnerable.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why? Sauron himself was previously defeated when he fought against two non-maiar (and Fingolfin wounded even Melkor). There is no single circumstance that I know of when a body is made invulnerable.

How exactly did they manage it? Was it down to a mixture of fate & luck, or through the power in them? There would be no luck or even fate involved if Gandalf fought the Witch King - it would like drawing fire against fire.

[Raynor]

Was it down to a mixture of fate & luck, or through the power in them?

All of them, I suppose. However, given the exact same conditions, I doubt that a certain fight between the same opponents, if repeated, will always have the same outcome (unless the disparities in advantages are enormous).

There would be no luck or even fate involved if Gandalf fought the Witch King

Well, this promises to be a ping-pong ; why would you exclude luck or fate?

Originally Posted by Raynor

All of them, I suppose. However, given the exact same conditions, I doubt that a certain fight between the same opponents, if repeated, will always have the same outcome (unless the disparities in advantages are enormous).
Well, this promises to be a ping-pong ; why would you exclude luck or fate?

How would the Witch King use luck to defeat Gandalf? If Gandalf had a back spasm & the Witch King dealt a vital blow?

[Raynor]

How would the Witch King use luck to defeat Gandalf?

There is no single clue as to what abilities either of them would use in an actual one-on-one confrontation. That is why I consider your claim that luck has no place there as unwarranted, at least for the time being - we have no evidence of whatsoever; it is an "argument from ignorance", a fallacy.

Originally Posted by Raynor

There is no single clue as to what abilities either of them would use in an actual one-on-one confrontation. That is why I consider your claim that luck has no place there as unwarranted, at least for the time being - we have no evidence of whatsoever; it is an "argument from ignorance", a fallacy.

Gandalf would use his ring plus supernatural powers of a maiar; the Witch King only has his lesser ring, modest sorcery & the added demonic force to help counter the maiar. Gandalf has a formiddable elvish blade, a mightier steed, & likely as not a higher power potential to draw upon. Unless there is a weakness in either where luck could lead to their downfall, it should be ruled out. The only character acting rash & overconfident in this scene is the Witch King.

Above all Gandalf prevented the Lord of the Nazgul entering Minas Tirith, & is therefore victorious overall.

[Raynor]

Gandalf would use his ring plus supernatural powers of a maiar; the Witch King only has his lesser ring & added demonic force to help counter the maiar. Gandalf has a formiddable elvish blade, a mightier steed, & likely as not a higher power potential to draw upon.

I will repeat, we have no clue how these abilities will be used, how they are countered, what is their effects on the opponent, if Gandalf and the witch-king would necessarily make the same decisions each and every time, etc.

Nothing warrants an automatic result; such a result is possible only if we would be dealing with a very, very simple situation. This is not the case; quite the contrary.
Edit:

Above all Gandalf prevented the Lord of the Nazgul entering Minas Tirith, & is therefore victorious overall.

He is victorious overall because of the whole "whole train of human resistance, that he himself has kindled and organized" (letter #156); there isn't just one cause to the departure of the witch-king, and if victory occured, it was due to mass organisation, not to personal martial abilties proved in combat.

[Essex]

'Dangerous!' cried Gandalf. 'And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.'

Mansun - re your quote from the book above - as I said earlier, does it really PROVE how strong a character is if the character himself says how 'strong' they are? I put it to you that the above is Gandalf's OPINION.

Whereas, for example, the Numenorian blade that Merry used WAS proved to help destroy the Witch King as it was mentioned in the text by the 'narrator'

but to add a further twist to this, can we even trust the 'narrator' of the story, as the LOTR was supposedly handed down from the notes taken by Bilbo / Frodo / Sam after the War of the Ring was completed? What do THEY know of this supernatural blade that was used on the Witch King? - maybe I should delete this last paragraph as it may send as down another cul-de-sac of opinion, denial and arguments...........

[Raynor]

Aragorn knew:

Originally Posted by The Departure of Boromir, TTT

- No orc-tools these! he said. They were borne by the hobbits. 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

In the prologue of FotR, it is stated that an intermediary copy of the Red Book was made at the request of Ellesar; "in Minas Tirith it received much annotation, and many corrections".

[Essex]

well said. that is very interesting. so we CAN forget my last paragraph at least.

but what of the rest? Can we take a character's opinion to be Cannon? I don't think so......

Originally Posted by Essex

but what of the rest? Can we take a character's opinion to be Cannon? I don't think so......

Yes, we can, if it is agreeable that the character is an honest, reliable & symbolic creature representing good. If you can't trust Gandalf, then who else can you trust? My own opinion is that Gandalf was the voice of Tolkein himself, a character there to clarify anything the audience did not understand. Indeed Gandalf was the chief of Good, Sauron the opposite.

Gandalf made the claim of being the most dangerous opponent after Sauron on the basis of defeating a Balrog, & through his enhanced powers after his resurrection, so he is a proven force. The Witch King, however, is not proven in combat at the highest level. In previous encounters with Gandalf & Aragorn he has failed, & he did not fancy a duel with Glorfindel either. So there is nothing to measure the power of the Witch King against.

Does anyone know if Mordor had news of Gandalf defeating the Balrog? The Witch King obviously seemed not to have known.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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!