So in the movies, the Witch King seemed stronger. And I'm currently reading The Two Towers, so I don't know yet. But in my thoughts, Gandalf got a "promotion" to Gandalf the White, and nevertheless, even as Gandalf the Gray, he was a maia, but The Witch King ain't no maia. He was a MAN, a king of men better said, but he got corrupted by his ring. So, in the movie it's also stated that "No man can kill him", maybe that is true but Gandalf only took form as a man, but he was more powerful than that.
This is just one of numerous examples of Tolkien's inconsistency when it comes to the relative power of various creatures, elves, etc: eg. he would have it that an elf was able to defeat a Balrog yet gave no explanation how.
In this particular case, it's the ring the Witch King has that gives hem his power, and though that power came not from Sauron but from the Elves of Eregion (so I think I understand) Tolkien alludes to that being perverted to his will. Thus the Witch King is more powerful than a 'man'.
Also, remember that Tolkien used the 'no man can kill me' line so he could spring his 'surprise' by having a woman kill him, clearly the Witch King was killable by a human, aka. 'man' in the non-gender sense, albeit with the help of a hobbit inflicting a wound which somehow (totally unexplained) was able to weaken him.
I have to say this whole episode rang very hollow to me, and counter to many things JRRT had previously stated about the nature of the Nazgul and Sauron's hold over them.
Last edited by Kerin_Eldar; Jun 18 2012 at 05:37 AM.
The Gandalf vs Witch-King scene was unfaithful to the lore, and even if we disregard the lore, it was a bad scene generally, as it established Gandalf as "weaker" than his counterpart in the Battle. That'll explain why Peter Jackson removed the scene from the cinematic release.
Do not underestimate the Witch-king, just because he was a Man. He was the most powerful of Sauron's servants. In my opinion, his power was greater than any Man that lived, primarily because of his knowledge of sorcery and the great fear that was about him.
I believe that the Witch-King could have defeated Eowyn easily, if he actually used his full power against her. But, fortunately, he thought her to be a trivial threat, and was full of doubt, not fear, when he learned that he was fighting a woman. But even without any wizardry, he defeats Eowyn easily in physical combat because of his power of fear, and his martial prowess. You know how the rest goes, Merry shows up and stabs the Witch-King, allowing Eowyn to finish him off.
Now, considering the above, we know that the Witch-King excelled in physical combat and also had magical powers. His main power was fear. Gandalf was definitely not as proficient in arms as the Witch-King, but his magical powers were exponentially more potent. If Gandalf and the Witch-King engaged in combat, the Witch-king would have definitely put forth all his powers. But in the end, Gandalf would have won due to his superior abilities.
The only scenario in which Gandalf would have been equaled were if all the Nazgul were assembled under the Witch-King. In fact, if Sauron possessed the One Ring, the Nine would together overcome Gandalf, as they would've together become even more powerful than Durin's Bane.
Last edited by Haunt123; Jun 18 2012 at 05:43 AM.
Peaceguy
"With that, I ran back to Hobbiton, Land of the Noobs" - TSK
For me, it's Gandalf as the winner. I think the movies don't do Gandalf justice at all. He's so much more powerful than the movies protray him. He fought the nine atop weather top and would have been over come but managed to draw 4 or 5 of them off. (can't remember) but Ganfalf is awesome
Eowyn was able to kill/banish the Witch King when Merry stabbed him with the magical enchanted dagger given to him by Galadriel. The dagger had an enchantment that basically broken down whatever magic aura the Witch King had against martial weaponry and/or injury. It was folly on his part, her not being a /man/ gender wise no doubt was his downfall, as he took his time to relish toying with her; giving Merry a chance to strike and Eowyn the chance to finish the job. If it had just been a soldier, he'd of killed him outright and prob noticed Merry sneaking up.
Far as Gandalf and him ... not in the books, just an method to give an on screen nemesis to Gandalf to help explain why someone of Gandalf's power didn't just lay waste the attacking armies. Far as an elf defeating a balrog ... this Elf had the full power of his people behind him, in an era where elves were at their mightiest; in craft and prowess. An Elf Lord Glorfindel, was such a Lord. He was also killed ... the only elf known to have died, returned to the Valar and sailed back to Middle Earth; this does not often if ever happen.
"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."
Now that I've set the tone...
The thing about evil is that it tends to do stuff that brings about its own fall, like ignore a Hobbit sneaking up on it, or putting all of its power into an object that can be destroyed in order to better dominate everything.
Could Gandalf have fought the Witch-King? Considering he had already dealt with a Balrog, I would say yes. Considering he fought the Nine to a standstill before doing that, I would say yes. *If* it had come down to it, Gandalf could have prevented Sauron's greatest servant from entering Minas Tirith, and in fact did just that without having to resort to blows. The Witch-King would've escaped before any final defeat, more than likely, because it was not his fate to be killed by Gandalf. Gandalf's job wasn't to do all the work for Men, but to unite them and inspire them to fight against Sauron. When you get to the Appendices, you'll see that the Witch-King was smart enough to run from Glorfindel some 1100 years prior (give or take). The same Glorfindel, who Two Ages prior, slew a Balrog while dying himself. Which leads to my next point...
If you get into the History of Middle-Earth series, you'll get alot of info, maybe more than you could've asked for. Even disregarding that, however, you can conclude from LotR and the Silmarillion how an Elf could stand a chance against a Balrog.
1.) Elves, though incarnated, are similar in nature to the Ainur (of which Balrogs are corrupted Maiar). Neither Ainur nor Elves exist on a static scale, each occupying a rather wide spectrum proper for their kind.
2.) The particular Elves who fought and slew Balrogs (slew at the cost of their own lives when at all, mind you), stood toe-toe-toe with them, or even stabbed Morgoth himself in the foot seven times were nobility among Elves who had been born and raised in Aman, the Blessed Realm, in the Light of the Two Trees. They were nurtured on a continent as yet untouched by Melkor's influence, blessed by its inhabitants and bathed in a light of a potency and virtue that just doesn't exist anymore. They were the best of the best, with the best techniques for metalurgy and smithcraft to be found among the Elves.
3.) Sauron, had he regained his Ring, would've been *more* powerful than he had been at the end of the Second Age with his Ring. Why? Because spirits can grow in strength, just like bodies. Otherwise he should've been at exactly the same power. There's no reason the spiritual strength of the Noldor would not grow in Aman with their physical strength.
So we have the best of the best of a group of Elves who are already stronger and greater warriors than the standard Elf in Beleriand, having proven their hardiness by surviving a perilous trek across an ice-bridge in terrible cold where many were lost along the way, after having been nurtured in a land that hadn't been influenced by Morgoth.
More firmly on the subject of the Witch-King, back to how Merry's sword could afflict him. The sword was one of those retrieved from the Barrows Downs by Tom Bombadil, "work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor." It was forged in Arnor in the years when their chief foe was none other than the realm of Angmar and its Witch-King (who was already a Nazgul, just to be clear. He had just come North to unite Arnor's enemies against them and destroy the realm). Then there's the fact that while the sword *struck* the Witch-King, like Noldor slaying Balrogs, it didn't survive.
There Iluvatar permitted the Valar to maintain upon Earth an abiding place, a memorial of that which might have been had Morgoth not cast his shadow on the world." -Akallabeth, The Silmarillion
The Gandalf vs Witch-King scene was unfaithful to the lore, and even if we disregard the lore, it was a bad scene generally, as it established Gandalf as "weaker" than his counterpart in the Battle. That'll explain why Peter Jackson removed the scene from the cinematic release.
I have seen this mentioned many times and respectively disagree.
The mood of the book scene of their confrontation was at the height of the gloom of the battle, and the power and anger of the Witch King overshadowed the light of Gandalf in all that observed the scene (as I recall). Let alone that, over confidence aside, if it was an open and shut issue of Gandalf being superior the Witch King would not have been so eager for the confrontation or would have called upon the other 8 immediately. He did not, and was clearly pulled away reluctantly to conditions on the battlefield. And, notably, Gandalf allowed him to go rather than press the issue...
The portrayal in the movie was simply using the medium of film to convey the desperation of the moment in a way not available as it was in the written medium. It is differences like this with which I am more than comfortable.
Originally Posted by Haunt123
Now, considering the above, we know that the Witch-King excelled in physical combat and also had magical powers. His main power was fear. Gandalf was definitely not as proficient in arms as the Witch-King, but his magical powers were exponentially more potent. If Gandalf and the Witch-King engaged in combat, the Witch-king would have definitely put forth all his powers. But in the end, Gandalf would have won due to his superior abilities.
But, at what cost?
Let's be clear, I agree that Gandalf could without question 'win' a confrontation. However, I think Gandalf was hestitant because he was husbanding his power anticipating an ultimate confrontation with Sauron. Even 'upgraded', the experience of facing the Balrog had to be weigh on his strategem going forward. He would have an even harder conflict ahead to follow victory over the WK, that he may not then be ready to face too soon. The WK had no such hesitation and was prepared to use everything, right then.
Originally Posted by Haunt123
The only scenario in which Gandalf would have been equaled were if all the Nazgul were assembled under the Witch-King. In fact, if Sauron possessed the One Ring, the Nine would together overcome Gandalf, as they would've together become even more powerful than Durin's Bane.
Conjecture? I'd hazard that the WK alone would overcome the Balrog. But, I admit that is my personal opinion.
Last edited by Chyll_Elite; Jun 18 2012 at 11:00 AM.
Eowyn was able to kill/banish the Witch King when Merry stabbed him with the magical enchanted dagger given to him by Galadriel.
The dagger that Merry wielded had been given to him by Tom Bombadil from the barrow hoard, not Galadriel. The Men entombed in those barrows were Dúnedain. The daggers that were given to the hobbits had been crafted with techniques developed in Númenor or, as it is also known in the tongue of Men, Westernesse.
Last edited by oldbadgerbrock; Jun 18 2012 at 10:58 AM.
Reason: slight rewording for clarity
It was a prophecy given to Eärnur during the Battle of Fornost, the Witch-King was not inherently unkillable by men. Fate vs. free-will is a persistent theme in Tolkien's work, and even the Valar are bound to the mystery. Perhaps Gandalf was contemplating Melkor's fall and chose not to interfere.
"The wind of heaven is that which blows between a horse's ears."
It was a prophecy given to Eärnur during the Battle of Fornost, the Witch-King was not inherently unkillable by men. Fate vs. free-will is a persistent theme in Tolkien's work, and even the Valar are bound to the mystery. Perhaps Gandalf was contemplating Melkor's fall and chose not to interfere.
Agree, I can't remember the book. I can't remember if the Witch King knew about the prophecy. All in all what is depicted in the movies is an adaptation of the books. IMHO Gandalf had better tools / knowledge to confront the Nazgul.
Ramiros 66 (HNT) + Romiriel 78 (MNS)
Educate yourself in the matters of reality for they have no precise line between good and evil.
I have seen this mentioned many times and respectively disagree.
The mood of the book scene of their confrontation was at the height of the gloom of the battle, and the power and anger of the Witch King overshadowed the light of Gandalf in all that observed the scene (as I recall). Let alone that, over confidence aside, if it was an open and shut issue of Gandalf being superior the Witch King would not have been so eager for the confrontation or would have called upon the other 8 immediately. He did not, and was clearly pulled away reluctantly to conditions on the battlefield. And, notably, Gandalf allowed him to go rather than press the issue...
Gandalf wasn't supposed to directly oppose Sauron's power with his own; he wasn't supposed to fight on behalf of the Free Peoples, just to encourage and advise them. He stalled the Witch-king by just sitting there on Shadowfax (thus preventing the bad guys from entering the city until it was too late). He'd gone to the very limits of what he was allowed to do, just by being there. Had it been a matter of Gandalf being allowed to fight, well, if Gandalf the Grey could destroy a Balrog (after an epic struggle) then as Gandalf the White he could have destroyed the Witch-king. The thing is, he wasn't supposed to try. Neither was he 'meant' to be the one who destroyed him, that wasn't how it was fated to turn out and Gandalf had probably foreseen that. So he does what he can: he holds the Witch-king up until the appointed moment arrives, when the wind suddenly changes, the supernatural darkness lifts with the dawn, and the Rohirrim war-horns are heard in the distance.
The portrayal in the movie was simply using the medium of film to convey the desperation of the moment in a way not available as it was in the written medium. It is differences like this with which I am more than comfortable.
The movie went the way it did because the average movie-goer wouldn't have understood why Gandalf didn't fight the Witch-king himself. (Nor why it's symbolic that nothing evil gets to set foot in the White City).
Even though the Witch-king had been empowered by Sauron, as he was later in the book, he couldn't have been as powerful as a Maia. Sauron wasn't in top shape himself: he'd not got the Ring back, after all, and so was limited to a fraction of his true power (the rest being bound up in the Ring). Really powerful Elves like Glorfindel or Galadriel would have been perfectly capable of opposing the Witch-king but again, fate had other ideas. It's all because Tolkien didn't want to make the story all about Maiar and Elf-lords (or Ladies).
Gandalf wasn't supposed to directly oppose Sauron's power with his own; he wasn't supposed to fight on behalf of the Free Peoples, just to encourage and advise them. He stalled the Witch-king by just sitting there on Shadowfax (thus preventing the bad guys from entering the city until it was too late). He'd gone to the very limits of what he was allowed to do, just by being there. Had it been a matter of Gandalf being allowed to fight, well, if Gandalf the Grey could destroy a Balrog (after an epic struggle) then as Gandalf the White he could have destroyed the Witch-king. The thing is, he wasn't supposed to try. Neither was he 'meant' to be the one who destroyed him, that wasn't how it was fated to turn out and Gandalf had probably foreseen that. So he does what he can: he holds the Witch-king up until the appointed moment arrives, when the wind suddenly changes, the supernatural darkness lifts with the dawn, and the Rohirrim war-horns are heard in the distance.
The movie went the way it did because the average movie-goer wouldn't have understood why Gandalf didn't fight the Witch-king himself. (Nor why it's symbolic that nothing evil gets to set foot in the White City).
Even though the Witch-king had been empowered by Sauron, as he was later in the book, he couldn't have been as powerful as a Maia. Sauron wasn't in top shape himself: he'd not got the Ring back, after all, and so was limited to a fraction of his true power (the rest being bound up in the Ring). Really powerful Elves like Glorfindel or Galadriel would have been perfectly capable of opposing the Witch-king but again, fate had other ideas. It's all because Tolkien didn't want to make the story all about Maiar and Elf-lords (or Ladies).
And this (along with her ring) is why Dol Guldur never attacked Lothlorien (I think)
Gandalf wasn't supposed to directly oppose Sauron's power with his own; he wasn't supposed to fight on behalf of the Free Peoples, just to encourage and advise them. He stalled the Witch-king by just sitting there on Shadowfax (thus preventing the bad guys from entering the city until it was too late). He'd gone to the very limits of what he was allowed to do, just by being there. Had it been a matter of Gandalf being allowed to fight, well, if Gandalf the Grey could destroy a Balrog (after an epic struggle) then as Gandalf the White he could have destroyed the Witch-king. The thing is, he wasn't supposed to try. Neither was he 'meant' to be the one who destroyed him, that wasn't how it was fated to turn out and Gandalf had probably foreseen that. So he does what he can: he holds the Witch-king up until the appointed moment arrives, when the wind suddenly changes, the supernatural darkness lifts with the dawn, and the Rohirrim war-horns are heard in the distance.
That is the larger philosophical argument, certainly, originating from the Silmarillion rather than the story text of LotR, per se.
*shrug* I'd still like to think there was more free-will involved in the setting than everything being ordained in stone down to the second.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
The movie went the way it did because the average movie-goer wouldn't have understood why Gandalf didn't fight the Witch-king himself.
Which was largely my point, it was an artifact of the story telling medium of the film, and hence a reasonable presentation.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Even though the Witch-king had been empowered by Sauron, as he was later in the book, he couldn't have been as powerful as a Maia.
Right, I don't think there is any dispute that Gandalf > WK should it have come to that.
Last edited by Chyll_Elite; Jun 18 2012 at 03:31 PM.
Reason: some minor wording adjustment
That is the larger philosophical argument, certainly, originating from the Silmarillion rather than the story text of LotR, per se.
Originating from what Tolkien said outside the published LOTR, not from the Sil as such. The context comes from Tolkien having had his other work in mind while writing. There was material which had to be cut from LOTR's Appendices (due to publishing constraints) which would have made it plain.
*shrug* I'd still like to think there was more free-will involved in the setting than everything being ordained in stone down to the second.
Unconditional free will was the gift Men received by way of compensation for being mortal. Being a Maia, though, Gandalf was closely governed by fate (i.e. the will of Iluvatar).
Which was largely my point, it was an artifact of the story telling medium of the film, and hence a reasonable presentation.
I didn't find the scene in the extended cut of ROTK where the WiKi destroys Gandalf's staff to be the least bit reasonable. Pretty awful, actually.
It was a prophecy given to Eärnur during the Battle of Fornost, the Witch-King was not inherently unkillable by men. Fate vs. free-will is a persistent theme in Tolkien's work, and even the Valar are bound to the mystery. Perhaps Gandalf was contemplating Melkor's fall and chose not to interfere.
The words were spoken by Glorfindel to Earnur at Fornost (I believe the material appears in the RotK appendices), but it is unclear whether this was in fact a "prophesy" in the sense of conveying a fated outcome. My personal interpretation is that it was in the nature of a foreseeing on the part of Glorfindel where he perceives what will happen rather than what must happen.
The tale of those words obviously spread - as far as I know it is the only source that we have for the concept of the WK being unable to be harmed by the hand of "man." I find it entirely believable that the WK himself misunderstood the exact import of what Glorfindel said and believed himself invulnerable.
Unconditional free will was the gift Men received by way of compensation for being mortal. Being a Maia, though, Gandalf was closely governed by fate (i.e. the will of Iluvatar).
He expresses and awful lot of doubt and surprise at times for me to be completely reconciled to fate guiding all.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
I didn't find the scene in the extended cut of ROTK where the WiKi destroys Gandalf's staff to be the least bit reasonable. Pretty awful, actually.
He expresses and awful lot of doubt and surprise at times for me to be completely reconciled to fate guiding all.
Where did I say fate guides all? As Gandalf didn't know what was going to happen (only Iluvatar did), he could only have faith that things would turn out for the best. He could be afflicted by doubt at times, or be as surprised as anyone else at the way things turned out. All he got was the occasional bit of foresight, just an intuition, that if he did something specific then some good might come of it (like getting Thorin to take a hobbit with him to Erebor).
Conjecture? I'd hazard that the WK alone would overcome the Balrog. But, I admit that is my personal opinion.
Very doubtful, to say the least. The Ringwraiths weren't all that big a deal one vs one against powerful opponents. Their main weapon was terror for the masses. Gandalf held them all off at Weathertop. They also fled from Glorfindel.
The WK nearing the end of the War of the Ring does seem to have grown in strength but there is noway he'd be anything near Gandalf or the Balrog (which was equal to Gandalf the Grey).
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
Their chief weapon was surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Their two
weapons were fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Their *three* weapons
were fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion
to Sauron.... Their *four*...no... *Amongst* their weapons.... Amongst their
weaponry...were such elements as fear, surprise....
Where did I say fate guides all? As Gandalf didn't know what was going to happen (only Iluvatar did), he could only have faith that things would turn out for the best. He could be afflicted by doubt at times, or be as surprised as anyone else at the way things turned out. All he got was the occasional bit of foresight, just an intuition, that if he did something specific then some good might come of it (like getting Thorin to take a hobbit with him to Erebor).
Agree completely...
..and more broadly, as in he may have known that he would not bring down the WK, but that doesn't mean a conflict wouldn't occur at the gates.
Very doubtful, to say the least. The Ringwraiths weren't all that big a deal one vs one against powerful opponents. Their main weapon was terror for the masses. Gandalf held them all off at Weathertop. They also fled from Glorfindel.
And a Balrog wields not the light of elves...
And Gandalf delayed them when they were not commited to their strength.
*shrug* conjecture on all sides, including my own.
..and more broadly, as in he may have known that he would not bring down the WK, but that doesn't mean a conflict wouldn't occur at the gates.
I think it was rather more subtle than that: Gandalf wasn't allowed to use his power to directly oppose Sauron's will. Remember, he didn't try to stop Grond, or do anything to directly counter the spell of fear the Witch-king cast over everyone, or do anything to prevent the Witch-king from combining his power with that of Grond to shatter the gates. Gandalf may have ridden out there in hope of buying any time at all, knowing that if it didn't work then the Witch-king would cut him down. Now there's a test of faith for you.
It could be that the Witch-king knew that in the end Gandalf couldn't do a damn thing to stop him, which would explain why he was so confident.
It could be that the Witch-king knew that in the end Gandalf couldn't do a damn thing to stop him, which would explain why he was so confident.
I'm think the WK honestly believed he could defeat Gandalf straight-up. I personally believe the WK generally was overconfident of his abilities, in part based on his misunderstanding of the "prophecy" of Fornost (per my post above).
Here is my question for the group. Did the WK even know what Gandalf was? After all, initially only Cirdan knew whence the Istari came (although I think we can safely asssume that Gandalf later shared his origins with Galadriel and Elrond). Did Sauron know as a certainty that the Istari were Maiar in mortal form? Even if he did, did he share that knowledge with the Nazgul? The WK calls Gandalf "old man" at the gates. Would he choose that particular form of address if he knew what Gandalf was? If the WK thought Gandalf was a "mere" wizard (e.g., magician, sorceror, etc,. as compared to "Wizard" in the sense of Istari), that would go a long way to explaining his belief that he would easily kill Gandalf.
I will give my thoughts on Gandalf's relative power compared to the Nazgul when I have more time.
The only way I could imagine WK to being able to fight Gandalf is using power from Sauron directly, which he probably does. But it still doesn't change that Gandalf is a Maia and WK is originally a Man. So Gandalf falling that fast on the ground by a spell of WK wouldn't make much sense.
I love the Lotr movie trilogy as an adaptation, but it also has it's flaws. That would be one of them. Also, I really didn't like the "Go home, Sam" line from Frodo, or him and Sam in Osgiliath. They never passed that way and Faramir acted more smart and pleasant in the book.
'There now the numbers of Eldar increase,' Voronwë said, 'for ever more flee thither of either kin from the fear of Morgoth, weary of war.'
The words were spoken by Glorfindel to Earnur at Fornost (I believe the material appears in the RotK appendices), but it is unclear whether this was in fact a "prophesy" in the sense of conveying a fated outcome. My personal interpretation is that it was in the nature of a foreseeing on the part of Glorfindel where he perceives what will happen rather than what must happen.
The tale of those words obviously spread - as far as I know it is the only source that we have for the concept of the WK being unable to be harmed by the hand of "man." I find it entirely believable that the WK himself misunderstood the exact import of what Glorfindel said and believed himself invulnerable.
True, I don't know if the warning was intended to be delivered as a prophecy or whether it foreshadowed what would be, or what was designed to be. Perhaps it was both. Maybe he was just trying to save Eärnur from his destiny in Angmar. I don't doubt that the WK's arrogance led him to his destruction. Prophecy is seldom clear until after the fact, and not always even then. I think it was fate in that it was the will of Ilúvatar, though that doesn't mean it was absolutely unavoidable. Melkor (aka Morgoth) was able to oppose his destiny, that's what brought evil to Arda in the first place. Gandalf surely would have known this history and while he may not have been allowed to interfere, I think he had the ability. Although he would no longer be Gandalf the White, and his disobedience may even have brought down a worse fate upon the world than was the threat of Sauron. How difficult it is to watch those you love suffer and, seeing so much, know that standing back and allowing them to exercise their own free will is what's best for them. He had a choice, but being who he was did he really have a choice? There's some pretty deep theology in Tolkien's tales.
"The wind of heaven is that which blows between a horse's ears."
I'm think the WK honestly believed he could defeat Gandalf straight-up. I personally believe the WK generally was overconfident of his abilities, in part based on his misunderstanding of the "prophecy" of Fornost (per my post above).
What the WiKi actually said to Eowyn was 'No living man may hinder me', rather than that he couldn't be killed by men. What I was getting at was that as that was arguably true (barring the sort of ancient blade Pippin had with him, without which timely intervention the WiKi would have slain Eowyn exactly as he'd said he would) and with Gandalf seemingly being bound by duty not to directly use his power to hinder him either, then the WiKi would have had every reason to be confident (especially as Sauron was lending him far greater power than usual).
What would have bothered the Witch-king was if there'd been an Elf-lord there, but Sauron's overall strategy had succeeded in keeping the High Elves occupied and so there was no need to worry about that.
Here is my question for the group. Did the WK even know what Gandalf was? After all, initially only Cirdan knew whence the Istari came (although I think we can safely asssume that Gandalf later shared his origins with Galadriel and Elrond). Did Sauron know as a certainty that the Istari were Maiar in mortal form? Even if he did, did he share that knowledge with the Nazgul? The WK calls Gandalf "old man" at the gates. Would he choose that particular form of address if he knew what Gandalf was? If the WK thought Gandalf was a "mere" wizard (e.g., magician, sorceror, etc,. as compared to "Wizard" in the sense of Istari), that would go a long way to explaining his belief that he would easily kill Gandalf.
There was aparently no such thing as a 'mere' wizard, the term's applied exclusively to the Istari. Lesser magical folk are referred to as magicians (if they're not bad people) or sorcerers (if they're the sinister sort). Now as regards Gandalf, the Witch-king had to know that he couldn't be just a man: he'd fought him before (at Weathertop) and anyone who could successfully defend themselves against all nine of the Nazgul at night was plainly far more than he appeared to be. Given that Gandalf had been around for a couple of thousand years, the Enemy must have figured out long before what he had to be; Sauron wasn't stupid. I think the WiKi meant it simply as an insult, that Gandalf's day was done and that he might as well have been just an old man waving a stick.
Here is my question for the group. Did the WK even know what Gandalf was? After all, initially only Cirdan knew whence the Istari came (although I think we can safely asssume that Gandalf later shared his origins with Galadriel and Elrond). Did Sauron know as a certainty that the Istari were Maiar in mortal form? Even if he did, did he share that knowledge with the Nazgul? The WK calls Gandalf "old man" at the gates. Would he choose that particular form of address if he knew what Gandalf was? If the WK thought Gandalf was a "mere" wizard (e.g., magician, sorceror, etc,. as compared to "Wizard" in the sense of Istari), that would go a long way to explaining his belief that he would easily kill Gandalf.
I'm quite sure the Witch-King was aware of Gandalf's power, as was Cirdan, Glorfidel etc. He saw all that was in the "Unseen" world, and Gandalf's power would've been revealed to him just like Glorfindel's power was at the Ford. "Old man" must've just been an insult.
And let's be fair when it comes to WK vs Glorfindel. Yes, the Nazgul fled, but if they were in a proper fight ( Only the Nine vs Glorfindel, and not interrupted by, say, a giant flood) under the WK, Glorfindel would've been the one who would've fled.
Peaceguy
"With that, I ran back to Hobbiton, Land of the Noobs" - TSK
I didn't find the scene in the extended cut of ROTK where the WiKi destroys Gandalf's staff to be the least bit reasonable. Pretty awful, actually.
I agree completely, I watched the movies before I read the book, but after reading the book was surprised at how much they left out about Gandalf's true power and how really his power was distorted a little bit.
Melkor (aka Morgoth) was able to oppose his destiny, that's what brought evil to Arda in the first place. [...] How difficult it is to watch those you love suffer and, seeing so much, know that standing back and allowing them to exercise their own free will is what's best for them. He had a choice, but being who he was did he really have a choice? There's some pretty deep theology in Tolkien's tales.
Spot on. Much of the nature of fate in Middle Earth can be seen in Melkor's original fall:
"Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and
mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur,
that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them
forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that
no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any
alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but
mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself
hath not imagined.' Then the Ainur were afraid, and they did not yet
comprehend the words that were said to them; and Melkor was filled with
shame, of which came secret anger."
There's a more extended description of the nature of the Music of the Ainur in the Ainulindale that I can't quote at length, but reading it through you get perhaps the best overview of what is "going on" in the larger sense throughout the events of the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings.
And let's be fair when it comes to WK vs Glorfindel. Yes, the Nazgul fled, but if they were in a proper fight ( Only the Nine vs Glorfindel, and not interrupted by, say, a giant flood) under the WK, Glorfindel would've been the one who would've fled.
I'm not even sure of that to be honest. Bearing in mind this particular Elf Lord had slain a Balrog (albeit in the typical self-sacrifice manner). The Ringwraiths just don't appear to be that uber in those kinds of situations. Terror for the masses as I said.
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
I'm not even sure of that to be honest. Bearing in mind this particular Elf Lord had slain a Balrog (albeit in the typical self-sacrifice manner). The Ringwraiths just don't appear to be that uber in those kinds of situations. Terror for the masses as I said.
I thought the consensus opinion was the Glorfindel in LotR is a different Glorfindel than the Balrog killer of old...
edit: curious, more than anything
Last edited by Chyll_Elite; Jun 19 2012 at 01:15 PM.
I think I remember reading somewhere that is was the SAME Glorfindel from Gondolin, sent back to Middle-Eath with the Istari (I'm not certain on this, so please no-one shout at me )
Initially Tolkien's position on Glórfindel does seem to have been two Elves with the same name, but he actually revised this as part of his later revision of the metaphysics of Arda (particularly with regard to what death meant for the Elves). The last "canon" was that the Glórfindels were one and the same, and, as Geinir suggests, Glórfindel was re-embodied (re-incarnated) from the Halls of Mandos as an exceptional act and arrived back in Middle Earth as a precursor to the Istari.
It's probably worth noting that "reincarnation" in Middle Earth is still quite a bit closer to Incarnation in the Catholic and Christian sense than it is to, say, Hindu reincarnation. Thus, as Gandalf returns unambiguously as "Gandalf" (albeit increased in stature and power), so too, Glórfindel is reincarnated presumably in much the same form as that which he had at Gondolin.
This is largely because of the nature of the Elves, who are bound entirely to Arda, both hroa (body) and fea (soul/spirit). Thus reincarnation is less a significant spiritual transition from one body to the next as it is a "reclothing" of a fea with its proper hroa.
I'm not even sure of that to be honest. Bearing in mind this particular Elf Lord had slain a Balrog (albeit in the typical self-sacrifice manner). The Ringwraiths just don't appear to be that uber in those kinds of situations. Terror for the masses as I said.
Well, we are speculating, so it's difficult to be sure of most things
What I meant by "fled" was "fled (if he wanted to survive)". I'm sure Glorfindel would've not fled, being a fearless First Age hero and all
Peaceguy
"With that, I ran back to Hobbiton, Land of the Noobs" - TSK
Initially Tolkien's position on Glórfindel does seem to have been two Elves with the same name, but he actually revised this as part of his later revision of the metaphysics of Arda (particularly with regard to what death meant for the Elves). The last "canon" was that the Glórfindels were one and the same, and, as Geinir suggests, Glórfindel was re-embodied (re-incarnated) from the Halls of Mandos as an exceptional act and arrived back in Middle Earth as a precursor to the Istari.
It's probably worth noting that "reincarnation" in Middle Earth is still quite a bit closer to Incarnation in the Catholic and Christian sense than it is to, say, Hindu reincarnation. Thus, as Gandalf returns unambiguously as "Gandalf" (albeit increased in stature and power), so too, Glórfindel is reincarnated presumably in much the same form as that which he had at Gondolin.
This is largely because of the nature of the Elves, who are bound entirely to Arda, both hroa (body) and fea (soul/spirit). Thus reincarnation is less a significant spiritual transition from one body to the next as it is a "reclothing" of a fea with its proper hroa.
Thanks for that.
(Not to mention it is probably further confused by how much was J.R.R.'s revision and how much was his son's editing. )
(One of these days I'll go back and read all the surrounding works again...)
Also, remember that Tolkien used the 'no man can kill me' line so he could spring his 'surprise' by having a woman kill him, clearly the Witch King was killable by a human, aka. 'man' in the non-gender sense, albeit with the help of a hobbit inflicting a wound which somehow (totally unexplained) was able to weaken him.
Actually the hobbit wound is explained. Merry got the sword from the barrow-downs. It was westernese and had been made with the purpose of fighting Angmar.
Actually the hobbit wound is explained. Merry got the sword from the barrow-downs. It was westernese and had been made with the purpose of fighting Angmar.
So in theory, if the hobbits had not taken their "shortcut" through the forest, found Bombadil, gone to the Barrow downs the fell asleep to the East side of one of the stones, then Sauron would have won
Actually, remembering Merry stabbing the Witch-king in the leg brings up a question that has been bugging me: When Frodo stabs the WK on weather top, why doesn't it harm him? :/ surely they are blades of the same design and crafting? thanks if someone can answer this
Actually, remembering Merry stabbing the Witch-king in the leg brings up a question that has been bugging me: When Frodo stabs the WK on weather top, why doesn't it harm him?
It's because Frodo didn't actually hit him, just slashed his cloak.
It's probably worth noting that "reincarnation" in Middle Earth is still quite a bit closer to Incarnation in the Catholic and Christian sense than it is to, say, Hindu reincarnation. Thus, as Gandalf returns unambiguously as "Gandalf" (albeit increased in stature and power), so too, Glórfindel is reincarnated presumably in much the same form as that which he had at Gondolin.
This is largely because of the nature of the Elves, who are bound entirely to Arda, both hroa (body) and fea (soul/spirit). Thus reincarnation is less a significant spiritual transition from one body to the next as it is a "reclothing" of a fea with its proper hroa.
That's covered in Morgoth's Ring, the initial idea of them being 'reborn' was done away with. Instead the Valar can construct a new body for the Elf identical to the old one (using the memory of the body the spirit in question retains).
So, yes, they're both the same which is why I can't see the WK being much cop against Glorfindel.
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
Member Online status:
Reputation:
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Originally Posted by Haunt123
Grand Member Online status:
Member Online status:
LotroNotes.com Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Century Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
)
Junior Member Online status:
Reputation:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
