Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[Essex]

Originally Posted by alatar

Except that, after killing that which floored Gandalf, Eowyn then has to endure the 'running from the Gimp' scene, as for PJ, slaying the Witch-King just wasn't enough for poor Eowyn. No 'dieing scene,' where we are led to believe that after smiting such a foul creature Eowyn 'dies.' No pause in the movie to allow the viewers to consider what just happened. Merry, after stabbing the Witch-King, is not damaged enough to remain in Minas Tirith after the battle.

No big deal after all.

But we DO have the 'dying scene' and the Pause for dramatic effect BUT AFTER THE BATTLE IS DONE. We have Eomer wailing his heart out holding her 'dead' body - then we see Aragorn healing her wonded arm and body in the HoH.

We have Merry, lying near the mumakil, looking very beat up to me when Pippin finds him. If only we had the 'Are you going to bury me' line instead of 'I knew you'd find me'......

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I think Gandalf the Grey more or less conceeded defeat to the Balrog by quaking in doubt & fear even before the battle began, yet who came out the victor?

You do realize that the fear build-up was different, right? With the Balrog, it was pretty much a surprise, while Gandalf had a good amount of time to think about the fight with the Witch-King.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gandalf isn't above fear - he would be a fool not to be anxious of doing battle with the dangerous WK. But my feeling is that the majority of his anxiety is based on lack of confidence in himself due to the storm of Mordor which was crippling Minas Tirith at the time. The WK obviously used this advantage to gain confidence.

No, as mentioned, Gandalf spoke of the possibility of fighting the Witch-King, and he was very grim while speaking about it.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Tolkein meanwhile had achieved greater suspense to the confrontation, & I cannot help thinking that he decided to tonic the power of the WK at the last minute because he was concerned that the WK would otherwise not pose a threat to Gandalf the White, having failed to do so when Grey.

He didn't fail to pose a threat to Gandalf at Weathertop, the reason he attacked with all of the Nazgul was that, for stealth, he and the others were weaker, and even then Gandalf just barely escaped and was held off by four Nazgul.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Unfortunatley, for me, the WK never lived up to his character in the book as a truly powerful force in the same way as the Balrog did. The damage to his character was already done after being held off by Aragron relatively easily at Weathertop, & of course by Gandalf the Grey before then without too much danger. The added demonic force suggests that he was a touch more dangerous than before - but that is all. For that reason, the scene in the movie just does not fit either.

He wasn't driven away by Aragorn, he simply left because his work was already done. As I also mentioned, Gandalf just barely got away and was then held off by four Nazgul. If it helps, I've always seen the added demonic force as Sauron allowing him full power. Honestly, considering that Morgoth and Sauron made their kingdoms in places nobody was, and considering they never beat their enemies, the Witch-King actually has a more accomplished track record.

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

You do realize that the fear build-up was different, right? With the Balrog, it was pretty much a surprise, while Gandalf had a good amount of time to think about the fight with the Witch-King.




No, as mentioned, Gandalf spoke of the possibility of fighting the Witch-King, and he was very grim while speaking about it.




He didn't fail to pose a threat to Gandalf at Weathertop, the reason he attacked with all of the Nazgul was that, for stealth, he and the others were weaker, and even then Gandalf just barely escaped and was held off by four Nazgul.



He wasn't driven away by Aragorn, he simply left because his work was already done. As I also mentioned, Gandalf just barely got away and was then held off by four Nazgul. If it helps, I've always seen the added demonic force as Sauron allowing him full power. Honestly, considering that Morgoth and Sauron made their kingdoms in places nobody was, and considering they never beat their enemies, the Witch-King actually has a more accomplished track record.

I think we will have to agree to disgree on the above - I am of the belief that Tolkein threw in the added demonic force for the WK so as to save his credibility of being some sort of threat to Gandalf the White, which might not have otherwise looked like the case.

If Mordor wasn't so easily infront in terms of numbers etc ahead of Gondor then I doubt if Gandalf would have been as anxious of the WK. I believe in battles of this sort the human on the Good side needs confidence to see out his full potential. This applies to the Bad side too - even the WK had in the past been shaken in confidence after the battle with Gandalf at Weathertop, & the narrow escape with Frodo's enchanted blade.

As for the Balrog encounter, the movie potrays things slightly differently in that Gandalf does not contest with it until it reaches the bridge; in the book Gandalf has already ''met his match & had been nearly destroyed'' by then after ''doing all he could'' - at this stage he did not know his nemisis but admitted it was one which never gave him such a challenge compared to anything else before (therefore including the encounter with all nine Nazgul).

Tolkein never got to show (out of choice) whether the powered-up WK had the power in him to match a Balrog, but just consider the scenario of a Balrog being defeated as easiliy as the WK was by Eowyn & Merry - impossible as it would be far too strong physically as well as through it's sorcerous armoury.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I think we will have to agree to disgree on the above - I am of the belief that Tolkein threw in the added demonic force for the WK so as to save his credibility of being some sort of threat to Gandalf the White, which might not have otherwise looked like the case.

Since when did you speak for everyone in the thread? Also, if Tolkien was anything with his stories, it was picky. If Tolkien was going to make that confrontation, he would make it have meaning, not just some page filler.

Originally Posted by Mansun

If Mordor wasn't so easily infront in terms of numbers etc ahead of Gondor then I doubt if Gandalf would have been as anxious of the WK. I believe in battles of this sort the human on the Good side needs confidence to see out his full potential. This applies to the Bad side too - even the WK had in the past been shaken in confidence after the battle with Gandalf at Weathertop, & the narrow escape with Frodo's enchanted blade.

Gandalf never said he was dismayed by Mordor's armies, he was grim and doubtful only when talking about him fighting the Witch-King mano-e-mano. The Witch-King wasn't shaken when fighting Gandalf, and anyone would be slighty dismayed that they almost got killed by a specific weapon to kill them. Even then, he recovered pretty quickly from that.

Originally Posted by Mansun

As for the Balrog encounter, the movie potrays things slightly differently in that Gandalf does not contest with it until it reaches the bridge; in the book Gandalf has already ''met his match & had been nearly destroyed'' by then after ''doing all he could'' - at this stage he did not know his nemisis but admitted it was one which never gave him such a challenge compared to anything else before (therefore including the encounter with all nine Nazgul).

Yes, but when Gandalf was Gandalf the White (and thus stronger than Gandalf the Grey) He doubted that he could defeat the Witch-King in one-on-one combat. Therefore, the Witch-King was not at full power at Weathertop.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Tolkein never got to show (out of choice) whether the powered-up WK had the power in him to match a Balrog, but just consider the scenario of a Balrog being defeated as easiliy as the WK was by Eowyn & Merry - impossible as it would be far too strong physically as well as through it's sorcerous armoury.

If the Balrog was stabbed in the knee by a blade specifically made to cripple and kill it, I could very well see that happening. That was the catch with the Witch-King's death: it was a surprise attack that was done by quite possibly the most stealthy race in all of Middle-Earth with a powerful blade made to kill the Witch-King. If Merry's blade had an evil opposite, the same thing could have happened to Gandalf.

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

Since when did you speak for everyone in the thread? Also, if Tolkien was anything with his stories, it was picky. If Tolkien was going to make that confrontation, he would make it have meaning, not just some page filler.



Gandalf never said he was dismayed by Mordor's armies, he was grim and doubtful only when talking about him fighting the Witch-King mano-e-mano. The Witch-King wasn't shaken when fighting Gandalf, and anyone would be slighty dismayed that they almost got killed by a specific weapon to kill them. Even then, he recovered pretty quickly from that.



Yes, but when Gandalf was Gandalf the White (and thus stronger than Gandalf the Grey) He doubted that he could defeat the Witch-King in one-on-one combat. Therefore, the Witch-King was not at full power at Weathertop.



If the Balrog was stabbed in the knee by a blade specifically made to cripple and kill it, I could very well see that happening. That was the catch with the Witch-King's death: it was a surprise attack that was done by quite possibly the most stealthy race in all of Middle-Earth with a powerful blade made to kill the Witch-King. If Merry's blade had an evil opposite, the same thing could have happened to Gandalf.

Since when did I speak for everyone??? Oh dear ......... all you have done with the above rabble is just that & for that you are out of order. A lot of this subject is down to sheer opinion, & no proof can be clearly put to one point precisely above another in some cases - that is why I said we must agree to disagree, & accept the fact that it is mainly down to one's OWN interpretation. Some will see the WK as being more formiddable, others less so.

As for the WK being shaken by the fire of Gandalf at Weathertop, I am sure somebody in an earlier post mentioned that one of Tolkein's letters or from another reliable source stated just that.

[alatar]

Let's keep in mind that we're talking about both the movie and book characters. The recent posts seem, to me, mix the two. Note that the following characters exist in both the books and the movies:

• Gandalf the Grey

• Gandalf the White

• Witch-King (pre-Morgul signal)

• Witch-King (Pelennor)

I'm getting confused as book Gandalf the Grey drives four Nazgul from Weathertop; movie Gandalf the Grey or White does not encounter any Nazgul until he and Pippin reach Minas Tirith. The Witch-King could have overestimated his own abilities; Gandalf could have underestimated his. Plus, like many superhero brawls, assume that Gandalf can easily hold his own against the 'powered up' Witch-King. Assume that Gandalf even knows this, and also knows that according to the prophecy that he himself will not slay the King of Angmar. So I guess he shouldn't have anything to fear? But the Witch-King, being on the evil side, could attack Gandalf via the hobbits, Theoden, other innocents, etc., and this thought may concern Gandalf. He may know that, regardless of the Witch-King's boasting, that the only way that Gandalf could be overcome would be for the Witch-King to make him submit, drop his staff as it were, as the WK would have taken Merry or Pip hostage.

One possibility, hopefully clearly stated.

The movie confrontation, the more I look at it, definitely has the Witch-King and Gandalf the White at least on the same level. Peter Jackson then has the Witch-King destaff the old wizard, and to that would prove that PJ's WK is more powerful than Gandalf. Though, as some say, that doesn't indicate the outcome of a battle...

And note that, in the movies, Merry's sword is not magical. My argument is that Merry's sword, when first shown to Eowyn, is noted to be dull. Narsil and Sting, both magical swords, do not require sharpening. Also, when Eowyn sees Merry's sword, she does not make any comment about it, and she has seen many a sword to be able to note something different. And Aragorn gives the swords to the hobbits on Weathertop where he casts the bundle of them on the ground. Is this the way a person handles special swords? Anyway, that's my case.

[Essex]

I'm getting confused as book Gandalf the Grey drives four Nazgul from Weathertop; movie Gandalf the Grey or White does not encounter any Nazgul until he and Pippin reach Minas Tirith. The Witch-King could have overestimated his own abilities; Gandalf could have underestimated his. Plus, like many superhero brawls, assume that Gandalf can easily hold his own against the 'powered up' Witch-King. Assume that Gandalf even knows this, and also knows that according to the prophecy that he himself will not slay the King of Angmar. So I guess he shouldn't have anything to fear? But the Witch-King, being on the evil side, could attack Gandalf via the hobbits, Theoden, other innocents, etc., and this thought may concern Gandalf. He may know that, regardless of the Witch-King's boasting, that the only way that Gandalf could be overcome would be for the Witch-King to make him submit, drop his staff as it were, as the WK would have taken Merry or Pip hostage.

But Gandalf has the body of a human and can be killed with a sword though, correct? (esp a flaming one LOL) - so he CAN be beaten, even if he IS stronger than the WK........

PS - in the weapons and warfare movie tie-in book - it states that the sword Merry uses on the Witch King is Thedoen's sword he had as a child. Why PJ wanted to do this, he only knows........

The way I approach the film is that the stuff we do not see in the movies still actually happens. ok sometimes we have some conflicts, but to me, the movie hobbits DID meet Tom Bombadil, we just didn't see it. so merry gets his sword from the barrow-wights in my mind. (he was just given an extra one by Aragorn LOL) And therefore you could also say that movie Gandalf fought off the Nazgul on weathertop too.....

PS - Movie wise, how can you convey the brilliant text of Tolkien explaining why the Witch King was defeated? I suppose we could have Gandalf mention it later, but then how would HE know?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

But Gandalf has the body of a human and can be killed with a sword though, correct? (esp a flaming one LOL) - so he CAN be beaten, even if he IS stronger than the WK........

The Balrog wasn't able to kill Gandalf; Gandalf just ran out of juice and color...

PS - in the weapons and warfare movie tie-in book - it states that the sword Merry uses on the Witch King is Thedoen's sword he had as a child. Why PJ wanted to do this, he only knows........

So, in PJ land, Theoden's play sword is from the Barrows of the North? Could we complicate the story more?

The way I approach the film is that the stuff we do not see in the movies still actually happens. ok sometimes we have some conflicts, but to me, the movie hobbits DID meet Tom Bombadil, we just didn't see it. so merry gets his sword from the barrow-wights in my mind. (he was just given an extra one by Aragorn LOL) And therefore you could also say that movie Gandalf fought off the Nazgul on weathertop too.....

Think that you may have mentioned that once or twice before . But, regarding Merry's sword, the hobbit says that it's dull, and surely the Barrow wights would have taken better care of such an important artifact.

[Essex]

From The Istari, Unfinished Tales

.....Emissaries they were from Lords of the West, the Valar, who still took counsel for the governance of Middle-earth, and when the shadow of Sauron began first to stir again took this means of resisting him. For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years......whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt.

PS, re

Think that you may have mentioned that once or twice before

yeah I know - but everyone else is repeating themselves over these 330 odd posts that I thought I would too

[alatar]

...but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain;

Okay, but exactly what does that mean? Gandalf fell from a height of who knows while battling a Balrog. He survives the fall, and after a swim, continues the chase. We have no idea what hardships and creatures that he faced while in the depths of the earth. Afterwards, he fights and defeats the Balrog atop the mountain. At this point his spirit leaves him or something (please supply the text if possible ), and then he's sent back.

At what point does he physically die, and what is the cause of death? Exhaustion?

but coming in shapes weak and humble...

That just means that the Istari didn't get off of the boat looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Conan. They were to "advise and persuade" not bully. Also, as old men, they would be less threatening and so be able to access more people. And, maybe as they were old, some may consider them to be wise.

Originally Posted by Essex

PS, re yeah I know - but everyone else is repeating themselves over these 330 odd posts that I thought I would too

I'm hoping to repeat myself every 30 posts or so, and contradict myself every 60...

Did news reach Mordor of the fall of the Balrog at the hands of Gandalf? It must be remembered that no orc actually saw the Balrog being killed. How on earth can the WK be so confident in defeating the bane of hell, fire & brimestone, that is the Balrog? Again, we cannot be sure of this, but it does not seem to fit the idea that the WK was superior to this Demon from the Ancient World, which had all of the Fellowship dumbfounded & quaking in their boots.

Greetings to all, this is my first post

On this subject, I think it should be remembered that this is the world of Ea. Here once the beings enter, they are not as mighty as they were before. Morgoth gets seven wounds from Fingolfin, despite he is the mightiest being in the world. Ungoliant has dark magic which not even Manwe can see through.

And though she can bind Morgoth himself in her web, she is terrified of the Balrogs. I think its a case of the Dark Lords, Sauron and Melkor being very powerful, but giving that power to their servants (namely the WK, the Balrogs, the dragons).

The Dark lords themselves are not that strong in combat, most obvious in the Silmarillian where both Sauron and Melkor sue for peace when they are defeated. Whereas the Balrogs, dragons and other servants will fight to the death, with no fear, their masters are less brave.

To answer the debate, I think the WK would have ripped Gandalf a new one, because, the WK is super enhanced by sauron, because he carries one of the Nine. He is not a mere man, he is a Sorceror King who has given great power by the Dark Lord, and he is more than a match for a restricted Maiar.

As an afterthought, it should be remembered that Sauron's power is growing throughout the 3 films, made evident by Gandalf saying "his full strength gathered". It would seem that Sauron is at that point as strong as he could be without the Ring. In turn, that would make the Nazgul as strong as they could be; at Weathertop, they could still be gathering their strength and be weaker, making it possible for Gandalf or Aragorn to chase them away.

As for Gandalf the grey killing the balrog, Gorfindal kills (and is killed by) Gothmog, the leader of the Balrogs, and possible the second most powerful Maiar after Sauron in Morgoth's army. Gorfindal is an elf (granted he is an elf lord and as Elrond says "those who have existed in the undying lands have great power against the seen and Unseen"), but he managed to take down a Maiar, and Turin Tarumbar is going to come back and take out Morgoth himself, and he's only a man, so I dont think its asking too much of the Witchking to take down GAndalf.

[alatar]

ingo, welcome to the Downs! I think that those, like me, who disagree with you may simply be stating that Peter Jackson, in the RotK movie, did not demonstrate the possibility that the Witch-King could defeat Gandalf as well as you have in your posts.

[CSteefel]

I think Ingo makes a good point that one cannot decide the outcome of a battle purely based on the hierarchy in Middle Earth. Both Glorfindel and Ecthelion took down Balrogs in the Sack of Gondolin, and yet both were Elves (although mighty ones). Moreover, the particular powers that a figure has in Middle Earth is not necessarily the same as what they had in the Undying Lands, for example. And of course, it is Eowyn and Merry who finally take down the WK, despite their being relatively ordinary mortals.

Still, I think the problem with the Witch King and Gandalf is that the new powers of Gandalf were played up, both in the book and the movie. In the book, the WK is said to have been given new powers by Sauron, but Gandalf has been given additional powers as well, and as Gandalf says in meeting Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli again in Fangorn, "no weapons can hurt me". So I think there is a real problem in consistency here--it simply doesn't make sense that Gandalf should be de-staffed and unhorsed so easily...

Thanks alatar for the greeting. I would agree with you one that, The two mightiest beings we see in combat, (with the exception of Galadriel and Sauron) facing off and it ends with a few words and Gandalf being thrown to the ground.

I think the inconsistancy is in the characters becoming more powerful and then less powerful. As for Peter Jackson's portrayal of the scene, I think we would all agree that this is a powerful scene in the book, but its very short and he did the best he could without stretching it out and making it something else.

The WK couldn't have known for sure where the Ring was at the time of the Siege of Minas Tirith. It is perfectly possible that Gandalf had the Ring in his possession as the WK confronted him. So why the overconfidence shown by the WK in these circumstances? What would have happened if Gandalf DID have the Ring? Would the WK have still gone into battle, or realise that he is way overmatched & withdraw?

Originally Posted by CSteefel

Still, I think the problem with the Witch King and Gandalf is that the new powers of Gandalf were played up, both in the book and the movie. In the book, the WK is said to have been given new powers by Sauron, but Gandalf has been given additional powers as well, and as Gandalf says in meeting Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli again in Fangorn, "no weapons can hurt me". So I think there is a real problem in consistency here--it simply doesn't make sense that Gandalf should be de-staffed and unhorsed so easily...

I would re-phrase that to '' none of YOU have weapons that could hurt me . . .'', meaning that there could be other weapons which could still harm him. Interesting to know that Anduril could pierce the Witch-King, but not Gandalf the White though, a hint that the Witch King is more vulnerable to fall than Gandalf.

[Raynor]

So why the overconfidence shown by the WK in these circumstances?

Practical reasons I would say. Even if he did have some fears about this, he wouldn't show them, it would be to his disadvantage. Plus, instilling fear was his main attribute, he should use it even when bluffing.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mansun

The WK couldn't have known for sure where the Ring was at the time of the Siege of Minas Tirith. It is perfectly possible that Gandalf had the Ring in his possession as the WK confronted him. So why the overconfidence shown by the WK in these circumstances? What would have happened if Gandalf DID have the Ring? Would the WK have still gone into battle, or realise that he is way overmatched & withdraw?

We are speaking about the movies, right? Didn't one of the Winged Nazgul (whichever one) see Frodo in possession of the One Ring in Osgiliath?

I would re-phrase that to '' none of YOU have weapons that could hurt me . . .'', meaning that there could be other weapons which could still harm him. Interesting to know that Anduril could pierce the Witch-King, but not Gandalf the White though, a hint that the Witch King is more vulnerable to fall than Gandalf.

Your Gandalf quote, though fitting for how the character is portrayed by PJ, is starting to sound like 'legalese.' And how do we know how the Witch-King would be affected by Anduril?

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Since when did I speak for everyone???

You used we. It was a bad choice of words.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Oh dear ......... all you have done with the above rabble is just that & for that you are out of order.

I spoke for myself, not anyone else. All I did was provide information from the books and make a few comments. You don't have to agree with them.

Originally Posted by Mansun

A lot of this subject is down to sheer opinion, & no proof can be clearly put to one point precisely above another in some cases - that is why I said we must agree to disagree, & accept the fact that it is mainly down to one's OWN interpretation. Some will see the WK as being more formiddable, others less so.

Like I said, your was worded poorly. In the end, it does come down to people seeing the battle as one-sided or even.

Anyway, from what I summed up after reading the book, that confrontation seems to be between equals, and Gandalf showed that he was uneasy regarding the possible battle. Though the battle could have gone either way with (apparent) equal strength, it was in no way a one-sided conflict.

Originally Posted by alatar

We are speaking about the movies, right? Didn't one of the Winged Nazgul (whichever one) see Frodo in possession of the One Ring in Osgiliath?



Your Gandalf quote, though fitting for how the character is portrayed by PJ, is starting to sound like 'legalese.' And how do we know how the Witch-King would be affected by Anduril?

Isn't Frodo at this stage close to Gondor? He could have made it back in time to hand the Ring over to Gandalf.

If Sting could pierce the Witch King, why not Orcrist or Anduril? The latter is the mightiest of all the blades, unless I am mistaken.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Isn't Frodo at this stage close to Gondor? He could have made it back in time to hand the Ring over to Gandalf.

Sure, except that Gandalf was either at Helm's Deep or in route to Helm's Deep. Surely the Great Sauron would keep an 'eye' on one of his major foes.

If Sting could pierce the Witch King, why not Orcrist or Anduril? The latter is the mightiest of all the blades, unless I am mistaken.

Sting did not pierce the Witch-King or any undead, and so we don't really know what this spider's bane would have done. I'm not sure if Anduril is the mightiest of all blades. Also, note that in the movie two nonmagical blades take down the Witch-King (though in the books Merry's blade is specifically designed to bite the Angmar King.).

Cheers.

Originally Posted by alatar

Sure, except that Gandalf was either at Helm's Deep or in route to Helm's Deep. Surely the Great Sauron would keep an 'eye' on one of his major foes.



Sting did not pierce the Witch-King or any undead, and so we don't really know what this spider's bane would have done. I'm not sure if Anduril is the mightiest of all blades. Also, note that in the movie two nonmagical blades take down the Witch-King (though in the books Merry's blade is specifically designed to bite the Angmar King.).

Cheers.

I believe somebody did raise an earlier post a few months ago saying that in a letter Tolkein describes how the WK is left shaken by the fact that he was very nearly pierced by Frodo's sword at Weather Top which would have been as deadly to the WK as the WK's knife on Frodo. Whether the Sword of Elendil is the mightiest blade of all is debatable, but it must be one of them due to its ability to pierce Sauron at the height of his power.

In the movie, Galadriel gives Merry & Pippin elven blades as gifts before they depart from Lorien, so they may still have been of use to the same effect against the WK as in the book.

Frodo could have reached Gondor with the aid of Faramir if he chose to do so, in the nick of time for Gandalf to at least gain possession of the Ring, if not wield it even.

[Raynor]

I believe somebody did raise an earlier post a few months ago saying that in a letter Tolkein describes how the WK is left shaken by the fact that he was very nearly pierced by Frodo's sword at Weather Top which would have been as deadly to the WK as the WK's knife on Frodo.

The quote doesn't appear in the letters, but in materials at the Marquette collection; it is reffered to by Hammond and Scull in the LotR Companion, comments of "A knife in the dark.

But above all the timid and terrified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by own enemies for his destruction.
...
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

Whether the Sword of Elendil is the mightiest blade of all is debatable, but it must be one of them due to its ability to pierce Sauron at the height of his power.

Narsil was specifcially used to cut the ring from Sauron's hand when he was already "overthrown". We don't know if doing that required any special weapon - nor that Narsil inflicted itself any significant damage during the fight. And frankly, a mighty sword that break's under a man??

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I believe somebody did raise an earlier post a few months ago saying that in a letter Tolkein describes how the WK is left shaken by the fact that he was very nearly pierced by Frodo's sword at Weather Top which would have been as deadly to the WK as the WK's knife on Frodo.

Note that, in the books and in the movie, Frodo does not acquire Sting from Bilbo until he reaches Rivendell, which follows the events on Weathertop. I could see how, in the books, the Witch-King is somewhat stung by Frodo's blade as that blade, like Merry's, comes from the Barrow, and so it at least could be a WK-bane.

Whether the Sword of Elendil is the mightiest blade of all is debatable, but it must be one of them due to its ability to pierce Sauron at the height of his power.

Do we really know how Narsil was used in the battle with Sauron? This sword was broken in the battle, and afterwards the broken shards are used to cut the Ring from Sauron's hand. Narsil surely is one of the top swords, but Sauron may have been brought down by Aiglos.

In the movie, Galadriel gives Merry & Pippin elven blades as gifts before they depart from Lorien, so they may still have been of use to the same effect against the WK as in the book.

I know that it's quibbling, but when does Merry get his elvish blade back after his stay in Orthanc? Note that the sword that he wants to use in the service of Theoden King requires sharpening, not something you'd expect for such a fair blade.

Isn't Gandalf the White a supernatural creature of a high order, & the Witch King just a corrupted sorcerer? In this situation, has there been any example of when a supernatural creature has lost in battle in Middle Earth? For the Witch King to stand a chance, he would need Sauron to have the Ring, which would enhance his own power enormously. Being given an added demonic force out of the blue by Sauron does not make sense, as Sauron is still much weaker than ever before, & so therefore are the Nazgul.

It is a fault by Tolkein, who realised that if Sauron couldn't be used, & the Witch King was not going to trouble Gandalf the White, then a quick fix of increasing the power of the Witch King was the answer. This wasn't going to be the answer, & Gandalf had already defeated the greatest foe after the Darklord in Moria in a weaker status of his Order.

Perhaps sending another foe out of Mordor, like the Mouth of Sauron, alongside the Witch King would have been a greater task for Gandalf to face.

[Raynor]

In this situation, has there been any example of when a supernatural creature has lost in battle in Middle Earth?

Fram killed Scatha the dragon, Glorfindel - a balrog, Echtelion- Gothmog lord of the balrogs, Bard - Smaug, Turin - Glaurung.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Mansun

It is a fault by Tolkein, who realised that if Sauron couldn't be used, & the Witch King was not going to trouble Gandalf the White, then a quick fix of increasing the power of the Witch King was the answer. This wasn't going to be the answer, & Gandalf had already defeated the greatest foe after the Darklord in Moria in a weaker status of his Order.

It wasn't a fault of Tolkien's, it was a fault of the filmmakers'. This idea that the Witch-King is suddenly beefed up enough to match Gandalf was not Tolkien's. The Witch-King never approaches Gandalf's level in the books. There is a letter that indicates that the Witch-King was in some way enhanced for The Return of the King, but it's not clear whether Tolkien means narratively enhanced, or literally souped-up by Sauron. The latter, even if it were true, would still not put the Witch-King at any level near Gandalf's latent potential. Indeed, how could it? Sauron and Gandalf were equals in their beginnings, so how could a weakened Sauron enhance his fundamentally mortal servant to a level beyond (or even equal to) one of Sauron's own peers? To what degree Gandalf's Istar limitations were adjusted is unclear, but even while under those constraints he was capable of defeating a Balrog without violating the rules. The Balrog was unquestionably mightier than the Witch-King in written Tolkien, though the movies' conception of him may be different. If there's incongruence here, it's Jackson & co.'s, not Tolkien's.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Fram killed Scatha the dragon, Glorfindel - a balrog, Echtelion- Gothmog lord of the balrogs, Bard - Smaug, Turin - Glaurung.

Whether dragons possess any elevated form of fea (such as the ealar who are known as Balrogs) is debatable. Glorfindel and Ecthelion were virtually demigods. Glorfindel is said to be nearly as mighty even as some Maiar; Ecthelion must also have been.

The Peoples of Middle Earth, XIII, Last Writings, Glorfindel essay 2:

After his purging of any guilt that he had incurred in the rebellion, he was released from Mandos, and Manwe restored him.... For long years he remained in Valinor...in the companionship of the Maiar. To these he had become almost an equal, for though he was an incarnate...his spiritual power had been greatly enhanced by his self-sacrifice.

Admittedly, this reflects the power of Glorfindel post-reincarnation, but he was evidently near to the power of an incarnated Maia, as those Balrogs who were slain must have been, even before his sacrifice. (Note: after his reincarnation he was nearly equal with Maiar in their natural incorporeal state.)

[Raynor]

There is a letter that indicates that the Witch-King was in some way enhanced for The Return of the King, but it's not clear whether Tolkien means narratively enhanced, or literally souped-up by Sauron.

To me, the later seems to be case

Originally Posted by Letter #210

The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; 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.

Glorfindel and Ecthelion were virtually demigods.

As you have stated yourself, Glorfindel enhanced status appears after his death, as all reincarnated elves are, IIRC. That passage you quoted is irrelevant for Glorfindel at the time of his battle; the same goes for Echtelion. In a "mirror" argument, if he was greatly enhanced afterwards, his initial power, compared to his new one, is greatly reduced.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

To me, the later seems to be case
As you have stated yourself, Glorfindel enhanced status appears after his death, as all reincarnated elves are, IIRC. That passage you quoted is irrelevant for Glorfindel at the time of his battle; the same goes for Echtelion. In a "mirror" argument, if he was greatly enhanced afterwards, his initial power, compared to his new one, is greatly reduced.

And yet both were capable of defeating (presumably incarnate) Balrogs before their enhancement. Neither of them were typical Elves, both being considered among the mightiest warriors in Gondolin. I'll grant that they can be considered examples of "transcendence" of the limitations of their spiritual station in M-E, but they were by no means normal even prior to their near-apotheosis.

Additionally, Maiar are weaker in an incarnate state than in their natural form. I hinted at this above, but it's worth being specific about. Balrogs that were defeated by Incarnates can be assumed to be incarnated (death being otherwise impossible) and thus weaker than those primeval Spirits of Fire who first joined Melkor.

[Raynor]

I would also mention that the body of the elves, while in Arda is being weakened by the marring of Melkor and consumed by the fire of their spirit. I wonder if the diminishing of the balrog's power might have been balanced to an extent by Melkor.

I am also curious if by "they were by no means normal even prior to their near-apotheosis" you mean that they are enhanced by the light of Valinor.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would also mention that the body of the elves, while in Arda is being weakened by the marring of Melkor and consumed by the fire of their spirit. I wonder if the diminishing of the balrog's power might have been balanced to an extent by Melkor.

Corruption isn't a good thing even for baddies. It could be argued that corruption is what eventually bound Melkor, Sauron, and Balrogs to their material bodies, and weakened their spirits to the point that they could be rendered impotent by physical destruction.

That said, Morgoth's power at the time that he was responsible for the shaping of Middle-earth wasn't wholly corrupting; he originally loved light, and was nevertheless one of Eru's firstborn. Melkor corrupted Arda in many ways after it came into existence, but his connection to it was far deeper than that. He made his indelible imprint on Arda before it even became physical: in fact, before he ever committed any great evil. His part in the Music of the Ainur was, for all its contentiousness, still considered part of Eru's greater theme, its utter origin being claimed by him. Could the Music have included those crimes he later perpetrated?

Moreover, I'd say that at some point Melkor was severed from his fundamental connection to Arda. Arda was, at least for a time, "Morgoth's Ring": he and it were bound together because of his dominant hand in shaping it, and the result of the destruction of either would be the destruction of the other. Yet, in a late essay (within Myths Transformed, I believe), Melkor is said finally to have been executed as a mortal. If his connection to Arda was ultimately cut with no cataclysmic consequences for Arda, his corruption and diminution must have been driving him farther from that original vitality he had as Arda's counterpart. His later evil was thus unnatural, while the primeval theme of discord he wove into the music can still be considered natural; an observable aspect of nature, free from and above the qualification of "right" or "wrong", as Melkor himself was in his beginning.

Anyway, my point is that I don't think "Arda Marred" was a pool from which bad things received Melkor's lingering evil.

I am also curious if by "they were by no means normal even prior to their near-apotheosis" you mean that they are enhanced by the light of Valinor.

Actually, I'm not really prepared to speculate on what made Ecthelion and Glorfindel the mightiest of the Elves of Gondolin. Still, were they not extraordinary?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

It could be argued that corruption is what eventually bound Melkor, Sauron, and Balrogs to their material bodies, and weakened their spirits to the point that they could be rendered impotent by physical destruction.

While I admit this possibility, I also consider it is mainly their evil deeds which consume/ diminish their power. Concerning their vulnerability to physical destruction I would return to your previous observation that they are weakened by incarnation with this quote from Myths Transformed:

...by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form), until released by death (killing), and they would dwindle in force. When released they would, of course, like Sauron, be 'damned': i.e. reduced to impotence, infinitely recessive: still hating but unable more and more to make it effective physically (or would not a very dwindled dead Orc-state be a poltergeist?).

Originally Posted by obloquy

the result of the destruction of either would be the destruction of the other.

I believe the passage in question is this:

Originally Posted by Notes on motives in the Silmarillion, iii

The whole of 'Middle-earth' was Morgoth's Ring, though temporarily his attention was mainly upon the North-west. Unless swiftly successful, War against him might well end in reducing all Middle-earth to chaos, possibly even all Arda. It is easy to say: 'It was the task and function of the Elder King to govern Arda and make it possible for the Children of Eru to live in it unmolested.' But the dilemma of the Valar was this: Arda could only be liberated by a physical battle; but a probable result of such a battle was the irretrievable ruin of Arda.

In my interpretation, that the destruction Arda would be a result of war, not of the destruction of Melkor in itself.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Yet, in a late essay (within Myths Transformed, I believe), Melkor is said finally to have been executed as a mortal.

I agree:

Morgoth was thus actually made captive in physical form, and in that form taken as a mere criminal to Aman and delivered to NAmo Mandos as judge – and executioner. He was judged, and eventually taken out of the Blessed Realm and executed: that is killed like one of the Incarnates.

It is previously mentioned that this was possible because he became weakened and chained to his body.

Originally Posted by obloquy

His later evil was thus unnatural, while the primeval theme of discord he wove into the music can still be considered natural

I would speculate that his corruption was in direct connection with his part in the Ainulindale:

But even as Ulmo spoke, and while the Ainur were yet gazing upon this vision, it was taken away and hidden from their sight; and it seemed to them that in that moment they perceived a new thing, Darkness, which they had not known before except in thought.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Anyway, my point is that I don't think "Arda Marred" was a pool from which bad things received Melkor's lingering evil.

There is an interesting note in Myths Transformed concerning Sauron and Melkor's corruption :

Sauron, however, inherited the 'corruption' of Arda, and only spent his (much more limited) power on the Rings; for it was the creatures of earth, in their minds and wills, that he desired to dominate.

although I agree it hinges on whether corruption is a power to be used or a state of facts.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Still, were they not extraordinary?

Indeed!

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

While I admit this possibility, I also consider it is mainly their evil deeds which consume/ diminish their power.

You're partly right. It's actually not just evil deeds, but any activities reserved for Incarnates. While these activities are not evil for Ainur, they still may be argued to represent a corruption of their original forms.

I believe the passage in question is this:

In my interpretation, that the destruction Arda would be a result of war, not of the destruction of Melkor in itself.

Yes. But the paragraph continues:

Moreover, the final eradication of Sauron (as a power directing evil) was achievable by the destruction of the Ring. No such eradication of Morgoth was possible, since this required the complete disintegration of the 'matter' of Arda.

I admit that Tolkien never fully explored this, but the important thing is that he's indicating a parallel between Sauron and his Ring, and Morgoth and Arda. In Sauron's case, Tolkien says that he could never be wholly defeated in direct combat since his Ring would forever anchor him and provide a way to regenerate. Similarly, Morgoth could never be totally destroyed while his "ring" existed. Tolkien entertained the possibility that someone might break Sauron's will and claim his power as his own, but it seems improbable that the same could be done with Morgoth's power, regardless of how much Morgoth himself had ultimately dwindled.

I would speculate that his corruption was in direct connection with his part in the Ainulindale:

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The vision was here removed from them by Iluvatar. The Darkness may not represent Melkor at all, but something different, because we notice that the Ainur had known darkness before in thought. Darkness is also not always badness. If I remember correctly, there's a passage somewhere about Sauron (I believe) perverting the darkness of Mirkwood to a thing of fear. Forgive me for having no clue where it might be: I no longer have searchable texts on my computer. The Darkness seen by the Ainur could merely be a vision of the unknown, that which has not yet been unfolded and "illuminated."

Then again, it may also represent Melkor's later evil, but even then it was only a hint of it. In any case, it does not represent his hand in the formation of Arda itself.

There is an interesting note in Myths Transformed concerning Sauron and Melkor's corruption :
although I agree it hinges on whether corruption is a power to be used or a state of facts.

In fact, Tolkien gives us even more help on the issue going so far as to tell us that

It was this Morgoth-element in matter, indeed, which was a prerequisite for such 'magic' and other evils as Sauron practised with it and upon it.

And still I would argue that this portion of Melkor in everything was not necessarily a thing of evil, though it resulted in a corruption of all things. Nature is not entirely harmonious, but neither is it evil. It can be cruel, but it is still not evil; it can even be unjust, but we do not expect it to be judged for it. This coincides with Melkor's original station in Arda, in which he was answerable only to Iluvatar, and though Iluvatar rebuked him, he did not condemn him as evil. Melkor's song was discordant, like nature, but it still found its "uttermost source" in Iluvatar. Though later, "once Melkor incarnates himself and begins to break the moral laws of the Incarnates, he is no longer above those laws and is then subject to condemnation." (Quote is mine, from another thread in The Books.)

We do occasionally run into a problem when we try to take everything Tolkien wrote and make it work together. The essays in which he correlates Arda to The Ring seems to be at odds with the one that tells us that Morgoth was executed, and maybe it does represent a shift in Tolkien's thoughts. Still, I think they can be reconciled, which was my intent in my previous post.

I wonder if a mod would be so good as to move these last couple posts into a new thread in The Books forum?

I have always believed it should have been a contest between Gandalf the White & Sauron. This would be logical in that the Nazgul had already been held off by Aragorn (& Gandalf in the Books), the Balrog had been destroyed by a weaker Gandalf, so an enhanced Gandalf needs an opponent worthy of being able to defeat him.

As far as the films are concerned, perhaps the Witch King wasn't as large or as menacing as he should have been, in comparison to the Balrog which I think was awesome. I would have ;iked to have seen a crackle of that luminous energy burst through the Witch King to give him more appeal. I never believed Gandalf was anxious of the Witch King, he was afraid of Gondor not being strong enough to hold off his army until Rohan arrived. The threat of the Witch King was the last thing he needed to contend with in this overwhelming situation - there was too much for him to do by himself without the aid of Rohan.

[alatar]

Always note that, however powerful or weak Gandalf may have been in regards to the Witch-King, he had the Achilles' heel of caring about others, even the slaves of Mordor. The WK, as he rides (not flies!) towards and into the Gate at Minas Tirith, heeded not the dead or dying, whether friend or foe. All that mattered to him was to do his Master's bidding, with hopefully the chance for a little fun on the way. Gandalf, though, could be swayed at the taking of a hostage, even if he were more powerful than the WK (note the words of the Mouth of Sauron at the Morannon. He didn't say anything about killing Frodo...). Plus there's always that command that Gandalf was given not to match force with force, and so he could not fight Sauron in the way that PJ may have liked.

By the by, though tangential to the movie WK-Gandalf question, I've enjoyed the recent discussion.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by obloquy

It wasn't a fault of Tolkien's, it was a fault of the filmmakers'. This idea that the Witch-King is suddenly beefed up enough to match Gandalf was not Tolkien's. he Witch-King never approaches Gandalf's level in the books.

Actually, Gandalf was nervous about confronting the Witch-King, as evidenced in the discussion with Denethor. Gandalf was grim on the matter, and did not answer with a direct yes or no. The strength the two had was not one-sided in favor of another. If Gandalf knew the Witch-King was no problem, he would not be grim and indecisive on the matter.

Originally Posted by obloquy

There is a letter that indicates that the Witch-King was in some way enhanced for The Return of the King, but it's not clear whether Tolkien means narratively enhanced, or literally souped-up by Sauron.

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

Originally Posted by obloquy

Sauron and Gandalf were equals in their beginnings,

And where do you get this from? If you recall, Gandalf was actually afraid of going to Middle-Earth and facing Sauron. Since Sauron was already weakened yet Gandalf still was fearful, Gandalf was certainly not on the same level as Sauron in the beginning.

Originally Posted by obloquy

so how could a weakened Sauron enhance his fundamentally mortal servant to a level beyond (or even equal to) one of Sauron's own peers?

He obviously did, otherwise the Balrog-slaying Gandalf would not have been grim on the possibility of a confrontation. Besides, if Gandalf could have taken out the Witch-King in three seconds, the entire purpose of having their confrontation would be null and void.

Originally Posted by obloquy

To what degree Gandalf's Istar limitations were adjusted is unclear, but even while under those constraints he was capable of defeating a Balrog without violating the rules. The Balrog was unquestionably mightier than the Witch-King in written Tolkien, though the movies' conception of him may be different. If there's incongruence here, it's Jackson & co.'s, not Tolkien's.

We don't know that. As Gandalf the Grey, Gandalf killed a Balrog. As Gandalf the White, who was more powerful, Gandalf was uncertain of the victor in a bout between him and the Morgul Lord. There is a good chance that the added demonic force could have indeed elevated the Witch-King to a level where he would be a threat to Gandalf the White.

As for lesser beings defeating greater beings, that's strewn nearly everywhere in Tolkien's works. Huan beat Sauron, Elendil and Gil-Galad beat Sauron when he had the Ring, Luthien bested Morgoth, the numerous dragon slayings, dwarves killing Thingol, Morgoth eventually dying by the hand of Turin, Ungoliant defeating Morgoth, the Witch-King's defeat at the hands of Eowyn and Merry, Sam beating Shelob, and ultimately Frodo, Sam and Gollum finishing Sauron. Just because Gandalf's a Maia doesn't mean he's fine against anyone of lower rank.

[Raynor]

Obloquy, I will try to answer your last post when we get a separate thread, so as not to hinder this one.

Just to niggle on some arguments I don't agree with completely

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

Gandalf was certainly not on the same level as Sauron in the beginning.

I don't think we can say certainly (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by The Istari, Unfinished Tales

For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men.

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

Gandalf would not have been grim on the possibility of a confrontation

There are several factors to be considered. One is that no one can be certain that the witch king will fight alone, esspecially since he is described as driving others forward. In prior consideration, facing him could imply facing other members of his host too. Gandalf was "hard put" when he faced the nazgul on Wheatertop, and he (barely probably) escaped at sunrise.

Another thing is another part your own argument in mirror. You mentioned all those mighty persons who were defeated by lesser ones. It only makes sense that Gandalf would be cautious of even lesser foes, having history in mind.

These are my my favourite qoutes from the book in which Tolkein makes his point on this subject strongly:-


'Ai! Ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Balrog! A Balrog is come! '

Gimli stared with wide eyes. `Durin's Bane! ' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face.

'A Balrog,' muttered Gandalf. `Now I understand.' He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. `What an evil fortune! And I am already weary.'


'An evil of the ancient world it seemed, such as I have never seen before," said Aragorn. 'It was both a shadow and a flame, strong and terrible.'

'It was a Balrog of Morgoth," said Legolas; 'of all elf-banes the most deadly, save the One who sits in the Dark Tower.'

'Indeed I saw upon the bridge that which haunts our darkest dreams, I saw Durin's Bane,' said Gimli in a low voice, and dread was in his eyes.


Gandalf the White — In the words of Aragorn, "You are our captain and our banner. The Dark Lord has Nine. But we have One, mightier than they: the White Rider. He has passed through the fire and the abyss, and they shall fear him. We will go where he leads."


The book certainly makes a strong case that the Balrog was the greater task in battle than the Witch-King, though note that these qoutes are taken fron the first two volumes only. Also, just as important, it was the Black Captain who escaped from the encounter at the gate as soon as Rohan arrived, showing that a fair one vs one with Gandalf was not on his mind! He would only attack with an unfair advantage with his army behind him - what a coward!

As far as Gandalf's anxiety with the Witch King, wasn't Gandalf already shaking when he learned that Frodo had gone to Cirith Ungol? The tension just got to him, knowing that Mordor was going to obliviate Gondor without urgent aid. He was not supported in the slightest by Denethor, nor was there a guarantee that Aragorn would complete his task in summoning the King of the Dead for aid. Rohan had not yet arrived to help hold off the storm. In this sort of situation even Morgoth would be anxious.