Thread: Gandalf the White vs The Witch King of Angmar

I love LotR and am a huge Tolkien geek, but I think it is important that we should bear in mind that JRRT was not 100% rigorous in his "continuity." While Tolkien's Middle-earth was very fully realized compared to any author before and probably any author since, it cannot completely withstand the scrutiny to which we subject it. No work of fiction really can. Notwithstanding that we enjoy trying fit everything into a coherent and consistent metaphysical framework, the unfortunate truth (at least as I see it) remains that there are logical gaps in JRRT's works. The Nazgul are Sauron's most terrible servants, yet ultimately they are strangely powerless. It is very difficult to justify their withdrawal from Weathertop, and it is difficult (in a different way) to pin down exactly what were the WK's powers and vulnerabilities at Weathertop, the gates of Minas Tirith and on the Pellenor Fields. JRRT himself does not appear to have known to a certainty, largely because (as best as I can tell from the Letters) he did not give it the same degree of analysis that his fans have.

For example, during the interlude at Rivendell, the text makes a very big deal of the fact that the deluge at the Fords of Bruinen left the Nazgul horseless and shriven of their raiment. Gandalf and Elrond state that the Nazgul "were all unhorsed and unmasked, and so made for a while less dangerous" and thus "obliged to return as best they could to their Master in Mordor, empty and shapeless." "News of the discomfiture of the Riders has already reached him, and he will be filled with wrath."

Really? Is that all it takes to neuter the Nazgul? Take away their cloaks and their horses? Were they wearing +5 Robes of Prowess? Riding Steeds of Ultravision and Empathy Range 100"? Tolkien was a philologist masquerading as a storyteller. He was very strong as a world-builder and in establishing atmosphere. But ultimately he was not 100% rigorous in his metaphysics. Gandalf was a Maiar in human form. The WK was a human enslaved to a Ring of Power. Even though the WK derived his power from Sauron, another Maia, it is difficult for me to imagine that the WK could truly have threatened Gandalf.

In turn, I truly cannot fathom how five Nazgul failed to seize the Ring at Weathertop. It makes no sense. The best I spin I can put on it is that when Frodo put on the Ring and actively opposed them, he stood temporarily in the position of master of the Ring, and thus it was extraordinarily difficult for the Nazgul to act directly in opposition to Frodo (e.g., cutting off his hand and taking the Ring, or seizing his person and bearing him away). Yet JRRT himself didn't see it that way (at least inasmuch as his Letters suggest). Rather JRRT seems to have felt the key factor was that the WK was put off by Frodo's Westernesse blade. Personally, that doesn't work for me, given that the WK was a slave to Sauron and the Ring, and the Ring was right there for the taking. Are we truly to believe that the WK, a mighty warrior and sorceror in his mortal days, now chief of the Nazgul and soul-slave to Sauron, was hesitant to act against a halfling stranded in the Wild but bearing a "Westernesse" blade and invoking the name of Elbereth? Or because some nameless Man had a torch? It makes no sense. The WK could have won the War of the Ring with a single swift stroke. Instead he trusted to a slow acting Morgul wound. Why wasn't the WK worried that the human warrior (Strider) would take the Ring from the halfling and claim it for his own? Isn't that by far the most obvious counter to the threat posed by the Morgul wound? In fact, isn't that general idea (that Sauron would assume one of his enemies would claim the Ring) exactly what the Council of Elrond was relying on when it decided to take Sauron by surprise and attempt destroy the Ring?

My point is simply that if we poke too hard at the text it will ultimately puncture. For my part, I absolutely love treating Middle-earth as if it were a real, logically consistent universe and on that basis trying to come up with justifications for various phenomena. But ultimately there are going to be weak points. How is it that Sauron failed to confiscate the map and the key from Thror? That makes no sense whatsoever, but JRRT wasn't terribly fussed with those details. For him, the legendarium was never meant to hold up to that level of logical scrutiny. For me, the Nazgul (and all of their powers and vulnerabilities) fall into that category. I am fascinated by them, but I recognize that ultimately they were a plot device - not fully realized NPCs with detailed specifications for their special attacks and defenses.

It has, admittedly been a year since I last read The Lord of the Rings but I always got the sense that much of the Ringwraith's actions during the race to Rivendell were motivated by a desire to get the ring rather than avoiding open confrontation.

Others have noted reasons why Gandalf may have been restrained at Minas Tirith, but it's worth noting too that the Nine did not set out to kill Gandalf on Weathertop, but rather to capture a rather vulnerable Hobbit with the One Ring. Sure, they were willing to go toe-to-toe when they were all gathered, with an Istari, but it wasn't their primary focus, and Sauron would have hardly given them cake if they'd turned up at Mordor saying "We gave that Wizard a run for his money, but ooops, we let the Ringbearer pass by".

True, they get taken down by Elrond's protection over Rivendell, but even then, there is a definite sense that had Sauron put forth his might, even Rivendell would not have stood forever. Not just in the event of the Ring returning to its Master; even the mere endurance of the Ring seems to have been of sufficient worry that Elrond and others foresaw their own eventual, if perhaps slow, demise.

So it's kind of difficult to imagine how a naked contestation of wills would have ended as there doesn't seem to be an instance where both parties are similarly unbound from other concerns or not in some way with-holding a part of their power. And really, that's as it should be - for thematic reasons.

The Lord of the Rings never set out to see good and evil clash in a Manichaean grudge match, but rather to see what powerlessness and faith (estel) should do when faced with Evil. That also perhaps answers something of Vilnas' objection to the attack on Frodo at Weathertop - Frodo's willingness to defy the Ringwraiths, to defy evil, however minor, was sufficient rather than insignificant. Don't forget he "struck at the feet of his enemies" as well as calling on Elbereth; it was an act of extraordinary, if desperate, courage. The error was the Ringwraith's: they relied on their ability to utterly cower the weak and later that the Morgul blade would do its work quickly; that a mere Hobbit had no will to oppose its evil. They were wrong, but they were wrong because the very nature of their Evil was that they had entirely rejected small faith as irrelevant against great power; they like their Master could not conceive that their downfall would come through hope and mercy, not strength.

Gandalf himself sensed this would be the great "theme" of the Fellowship:

"I think, Elrond, that in this matter it would be well to trust to [...] friendship than to great wisdom. Even if you chose for us an elf-lord, such as Glorfindel, he could not storm the Dark Tower, nor open the road to the Fire by the power that is in him."

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

It has, admittedly been a year since I last read The Lord of the Rings but I always got the sense that much of the Ringwraith's actions during the race to Rivendell were motivated by a desire to get the ring rather than avoiding open confrontation.

Others have noted reasons why Gandalf may have been restrained at Minas Tirith, but it's worth noting too that the Nine did not set out to kill Gandalf on Weathertop, but rather to capture a rather vulnerable Hobbit with the One Ring. Sure, they were willing to go toe-to-toe when they were all gathered, with an Istari, but it wasn't their primary focus, and Sauron would have hardly given them cake if they'd turned up at Mordor saying "We gave that Wizard a run for his money, but ooops, we let the Ringbearer pass by".

True, they get taken down by Elrond's protection over Rivendell, but even then, there is a definite sense that had Sauron put forth his might, even Rivendell would not have stood forever. Not just in the event of the Ring returning to its Master; even the mere endurance of the Ring seems to have been of sufficient worry that Elrond and others foresaw their own eventual, if perhaps slow, demise.

So it's kind of difficult to imagine how a naked contestation of wills would have ended as there doesn't seem to be an instance where both parties are similarly unbound from other concerns or not in some way with-holding a part of their power. And really, that's as it should be - for thematic reasons.

The Lord of the Rings never set out to see good and evil clash in a Manichaean grudge match, but rather to see what powerlessness and faith (estel) should do when faced with Evil. That also perhaps answers something of Vilnas' objection to the attack on Frodo at Weathertop - Frodo's willingness to defy the Ringwraiths, to defy evil, however minor, was sufficient rather than insignificant. Don't forget he "struck at the feet of his enemies" as well as calling on Elbereth; it was an act of extraordinary, if desperate, courage. The error was the Ringwraith's: they relied on their ability to utterly cower the weak and later that the Morgul blade would do its work quickly; that a mere Hobbit had no will to oppose its evil. They were wrong, but they were wrong because the very nature of their Evil was that they had entirely rejected small faith as irrelevant against great power; they like their Master could not conceive that their downfall would come through hope and mercy, not strength.

Gandalf himself sensed this would be the great "theme" of the Fellowship:

"I think, Elrond, that in this matter it would be well to trust to [...] friendship than to great wisdom. Even if you chose for us an elf-lord, such as Glorfindel, he could not storm the Dark Tower, nor open the road to the Fire by the power that is in him."

+reps for you, great post.

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

Others have noted reasons why Gandalf may have been restrained at Minas Tirith, but it's worth noting too that the Nine did not set out to kill Gandalf on Weathertop, but rather to capture a rather vulnerable Hobbit with the One Ring. Sure, they were willing to go toe-to-toe when they were all gathered, with an Istari, but it wasn't their primary focus, and Sauron would have hardly given them cake if they'd turned up at Mordor saying "We gave that Wizard a run for his money, but ooops, we let the Ringbearer pass by".

Sorry, but Gandalf said at the Council of Elrond that he'd been 'hard put to it indeed' at Weathertop when the Nazgul came against him after nightfall, and the resulting light-show could be seen for miles. The book does not suggest that they weren't really trying to get him - he had to fend them off until dawn the next day.

Taking out Gandalf would have been the icing on the cake, if they'd managed to do that and then nabbed Frodo later. The two weren't mutually exclusive: remember, Frodo came that way later anyway, and would have done so regardless of what had happened to Gandalf.

I'd go with that - my point was not that they weren't trying, but that they weren't putting forth (or perhaps, Sauron wasn't putting forth, depending on how independent you understand the Nazgul to be) the entire strength that was available to them in doing so; or rather that there were reasons not to pursue the conflict to its ultimate conclusion.

If we go on the basis of what Gandalf reveals prior to the Council of Elrond, it is not inconceivable that a full conflict would have resulted in his defeat - but almost certainly in the "disembodying" of one or more of the Nazgul (as would be their eventual fate at the Ford of Bruínen). In that sense, one can rationally say that the priority of capturing the Ring was best fulfilled by all the Nazgul being active and ready - and that anything else, even getting to take out an Istari, was secondary. Plus, we simply do not know whether the Ringwraiths were permitted or able to draw on their full strength so far from Sauron, or even whether the later strength they possess was not the result of a waxing of Sauron's power.

They attacked Gandalf on Weathertop a) because they could, but b) because there was a real risk he would be able to aid the Ringbearer, and so make the Ring's recovery far more difficult. At the same time, they were unquestionably aware that there was a power in Rivendell that represented a similar threat, but one that was in the short term a more significant hindrance to Sauron if the Ring arrived there. In Chess terms it's as if they made a move (by attacking Gandalf) that gave them a choice in the subsequent turn to choose between taking out a Queen (pursuing Gandalf) or a Pawn that was about to reach the other side of the board and potentially check their King (the Ring reaching Rivendell).

In that sense I'm not arguing that they didn't want to kill Gandalf, or that their "hearts weren't in it" (an inappropriate metaphor for the Nazgul if ever there was one!), but rather that the immediacy of the Ring presented difficulties to their strategy. No doubt they could have pursued and harrassed Gandalf for longer - but to do so would have required their full strength (almost certainly to the extent of sapping it in a time and place where there were other Powers potentially arrayed against them). As it was, attacking him at Weathertop served their goal of denying his access to the Ringbearer (whether as a helper or a potential Wearer), and gave them the chance to set a snare in which it seems they assumed that, sans Gandalf, the Ringbearer would quickly fall to their might. It's a reasoning based on the fact that the Nazgul seem to have been motivated at once by a fear that other powers would usurp the Lord of the Ring, and a blindness brought on by supreme reliance on strength and power to cow the weak. They weren't strategically wrong in hindering Gandalf, but as I said in my post above, they were wholly wrong to assume that a Hobbit's will to defy evil meant nothing against their might.

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

I'd go with that - my point was not that they weren't trying, but that they weren't putting forth (or perhaps, Sauron wasn't putting forth, depending on how independent you understand the Nazgul to be) the entire strength that was available to them in doing so; or rather that there were reasons not to pursue the conflict to its ultimate conclusion.

Well, we can be reasonably sure that the Ring-wraiths only had their native strength to rely on early on in the book, with Sauron only lending them power later. It's the logical way to account for just how extra-scary they were at Minas Tirith. At Weathertop, the Nazgul only had enough strength to challenge Gandalf at night, and having failed to defeat him then they did the best they could - sending some of their number after him, after he'd escaped (probably to make sure he kept going and didn't hang about) while the rest lay in wait for Frodo.

If we go on the basis of what Gandalf reveals prior to the Council of Elrond, it is not inconceivable that a full conflict would have resulted in his defeat - but almost certainly in the "disembodying" of one or more of the Nazgul (as would be their eventual fate at the Ford of Bruínen). In that sense, one can rationally say that the priority of capturing the Ring was best fulfilled by all the Nazgul being active and ready - and that anything else, even getting to take out an Istari, was secondary. Plus, we simply do not know whether the Ringwraiths were permitted or able to draw on their full strength so far from Sauron, or even whether the later strength they possess was not the result of a waxing of Sauron's power.

I'd say it was a full conflict, because they had to either kill or drive off Gandalf if they were going to be able to ambush Frodo. Remember, some of them had to go after him as it was so not all of them were there at the crucial moment - not an ideal result for them at all.

In Chess terms it's as if they made a move (by attacking Gandalf) that gave them a choice in the subsequent turn to choose between taking out a Queen (pursuing Gandalf) or a Pawn that was about to reach the other side of the board and potentially check their King (the Ring reaching Rivendell).

If we're talking chess then the 'Queen' had to be threatened and forced to withdraw, and in order to drive off Gandalf they'd have had to go all out. It's made apparent later that it would have taken a concerted effort for the Nazgul to take out Glorfindel, and Gandalf would have been more powerful than him. We never get to see him really going for it in the books, it's only described very briefly and in retrospect, but from that alone we can be sure it was an epic confrontation. To force him into using his power to that extent, they must have really been going for it. The only other time he goes all out is when he's fighting the Balrog.

They weren't strategically wrong in hindering Gandalf, but as I said in my post above, they were wholly wrong to assume that a Hobbit's will to defy evil meant nothing against their might.

It wasn't really a strategy: they simply had no choice but to have a go at Gandalf and to have some of their number pursue him afterwards, because otherwise he'd have hung about and made it impossible for them to get at Frodo. As for Frodo's defiance, I think it had a lot to do with the fact he had the Ring. The other hobbits were so stricken with terror they couldn't do a thing.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

For example, during the interlude at Rivendell, the text makes a very big deal of the fact that the deluge at the Fords of Bruinen left the Nazgul horseless and shriven of their raiment. Gandalf and Elrond state that the Nazgul "were all unhorsed and unmasked, and so made for a while less dangerous" and thus "obliged to return as best they could to their Master in Mordor, empty and shapeless." "News of the discomfiture of the Riders has already reached him, and he will be filled with wrath."

Really? Is that all it takes to neuter the Nazgul? Take away their cloaks and their horses?

Well, yes: you take away what little gives them shape, probably also their weapons and tools, and their only mode of reasonable transportation (who also see for them to a degree, as Aragorn implied). You now have nine very evil and scary ghosts, but little more than ghosts without weapons, shadows of fear at best.

Are we truly to believe that the WK, a mighty warrior and sorceror in his mortal days, now chief of the Nazgul and soul-slave to Sauron, was hesitant to act against a halfling stranded in the Wild but bearing a "Westernesse" blade and invoking the name of Elbereth? Or because some nameless Man had a torch? It makes no sense. The WK could have won the War of the Ring with a single swift stroke. Instead he trusted to a slow acting Morgul wound. Why wasn't the WK worried that the human warrior (Strider) would take the Ring from the halfling and claim it for his own? Isn't that by far the most obvious counter to the threat posed by the Morgul wound? In fact, isn't that general idea (that Sauron would assume one of his enemies would claim the Ring) exactly what the Council of Elrond was relying on when it decided to take Sauron by surprise and attempt destroy the Ring?

Imagine the Witch-King there: bearing down on these little insolent hobbits, and out of nowhere one of them pulls out a powerful blade made specifically for war against you, slashes at you, and evokes the name of Varda herself. Then, someone with fire bears down on you and tries to set you aflame. Considering these things could actually do hurt to himself, he probably figured it would be best to wait. As for worrying about Aragorn taking the Ring: why would that worry the Witch-King? As far as he knows, if this man takes the Ring, he very most likely would not know how to use it and be enamoured of it and be destroyed or worse, making the aquirement of the Ring a waiting game; and even if he did have some measure of power and control, I doubt a mortal using the Ring could ever really challenge Sauron, a Maia from before the world itself, making that also a waiting game. The enemies Sauron had in mind would be more along the lines of the Chiefs of the Noldor that were left, and the Istari, beings higher than simple mortals from Middle-Earth who have real power in their own right.

But ultimately there are going to be weak points. How is it that Sauron failed to confiscate the map and the key from Thror?

Who knows where Thror was hiding it? Even better, who cares? What use would it have been to Sauron: you have a crazy Dwarf locked in what you believe to be your impenetrable fortress, holding a map and a key that are of absolutely no value to you, because you're better off leaving Smaug where he is. What's more suprising is that he just didn't kill Thror after getting the last ring, although maybe he was going to use him as some kind of bartering chip with Durin's Folk as an extra bonus from capturing him.

As for Gandalf vs. the Witch-King, which you mentioned, when do you mean? On Weathertop or before the Gate?

Originally Posted by KonstantinPalailogos

Well, yes: you take away what little gives them shape, probably also their weapons and tools, and their only mode of reasonable transportation (who also see for them to a degree, as Aragorn implied). You now have nine very evil and scary ghosts, but little more than ghosts without weapons, shadows of fear at best.

My point there is that their clothing and weapons were not - as far as we I can tell from the texts - uniquely suited to use by the nazgul. The cloaks were just cloaks. They could wield other swords. I am suggesting that the nazgul could have found other raiment and weapons nearer at hand rather than fleeing all the way back to Mordor, shapeless and impotent. Obviously they would not have had other "Morgul blades" stashed nearby, but that isn't really the issue.

Even if we take away their raiment, weapons and mounts and reduce the nazgul to "evil and scary ghosts," why do they not remain dangerous to an extent befitting their stature? Why could they not have been at least as effective as the Dead of Dunharrow?

My larger purpose was not to nitpick Tolkien, but rather to ask the group to consider that ultimately the nazgul were a plot device for Tolkien. He remained rather vague about the specific powers and capabilities of the nazgul, and that was fine for the purposes for which he used them. Unfortunately for us, it also means that it can be difficult to analyze questions like that of the OP in this thread.

Originally Posted by KonstantinPalailogos

Who knows where Thror was hiding it? Even better, who cares? What use would it have been to Sauron: you have a crazy Dwarf locked in what you believe to be your impenetrable fortress, holding a map and a key that are of absolutely no value to you, because you're better off leaving Smaug where he is. What's more suprising is that he just didn't kill Thror after getting the last ring, although maybe he was going to use him as some kind of bartering chip with Durin's Folk as an extra bonus from capturing him.

Exactly - Who really cares? Tolkien obviously didn't. Again, my purpose was not to nitpick Tolkien but to caution that not everything in LotR can hold up to the level of scrutiny to which the more aggressive breed of lore monkeys (and I certainly include myself) tend to subject it.

I very much disagree with you that a reality-based Sauron would have overlooked they key and map or dismissed them as insignificant. His prisoner had the last outstanding "dwarf" Ring of Power. You don't think Sauron would have been keenly interested in whatever else the prisoner might have had that might be useful or important? Setting that aside, wouldn't the jailors of Dol Guldur have made it a point to confiscate all personal property from their prisoners? Doesn't any competent jailor do that, to say nothing of the brutal torturors that undoubtedly ran Sauron's dungeons? I maintain that allowing Thrain to keep the key and map makes no realistic sense. My purpose in raising that example was to point out that sometimes the texts don't make sense, but that this is ok because they are "fairy stories" (to use Tolkien's own term) that are not meant to by hyper-realistic.

Having read through the discussion, a couple points:

1) The battle at Weathertop was inconclusive. Both sides were merely delayed and inconvenienced.

2) It is never clear the true extent of Gandalf's power. We know he is Maiar, but we don't know what that really means. Most of what Gandalf actually accomplishes in terms of showy magic can be attributed to his bearing the Elven Ring of Fire (which would also almost certainly have helped against the flame based Balrog). Note that Elrond's trick with the river could similarly be attributed to his wielding the ring of water, and Galadriel's cloaking of Lorien, to her wielding the ring of air.

3) We do not know the full extent and nature of the prophesy. It is possible that regardless of relative strengths, Gandalf would have lost the fight for other reasons. It is also plausable that the prophesy simply meant no male would kill the witch king because a woman would succeed at it before any male would get a decent chance to do so. In other words, immune by circumstance rather than any actual invulnerability. That the hobbits getting the ancient blades was necessary for the king's demise is academic, since it did happen.

Originally Posted by Torweld

1) The battle at Weathertop was inconclusive. Both sides were merely delayed and inconvenienced.

True, but that wasn't just the Witch-king vs. Gandalf. That was the Nazgul ganging up on Gandalf, at night when their powers were strongest, and they still couldn't get him. What we see later in the book appeared to be the Witch-king channeling Sauron's power, which is why he's extra-scary all of a sudden but then of course Gandalf had had an 'upgrade', too. The Witch-king may simply not have realised that.

The impression we get from the book is that trapped alone at Weathertop, Gandalf did better than even Glorfindel would have done in the same situation. That's a fair measure of his power.

2) It is never clear the true extent of Gandalf's power. We know he is Maiar, but we don't know what that really means. Most of what Gandalf actually accomplishes in terms of showy magic can be attributed to his bearing the Elven Ring of Fire

It's not attributed to that in the books. The Three Rings of the Elves weren't made as weapons, the power of the Ring Gandalf bore was to rekindle lost hope and courage.

The thing about Gandalf's power is that he was supposed to fully exercise it only when he absolutely had to (this was a plot device, to prevent powerful magic from dominating the plot) and not to use it to directly oppose Sauron's will. Read the Silmarillion and a very different picture of Maiar emerges, as there they were under no such constraint.

I just finished re-reading the FOTR a week or so ago, and I seem to remember Glorfindel implying that one reason he was out and about looking for the fellowship is because he was one of the few Elves that could resist the nine. Also, I seem to remember it being implied that Gandalf did not feel his defeat would be made at the hands of the 9 if all 9 were not together. So, that far away from the source of their power and their lord, the 9 were I think in a much weaker state than when closer to their lord. Just think of their actions in the Shire. They were forced to sniff around, take on disguise, question lowly hobbits, they feared when the Hobbit watch was alerted and they needed to escape. On Weathertop, they were injured by a hobbit with a knife, and had to flee before fire and a sword (of course it wasn't just any sword, so they may have recognized that). The 9 seemed genuinely bothered by Glorfindel when he charged them as an Elf Lord of old shrouded in glory.

However, we see the behavior of the 9 change the further south we go. Their behavior becomes much more aggressive and they are not required to sniff around like dogs, but ride proud with seeing eyes upon flying mounts. I would imagine the goodness of the Shire, Rivendell and the peacefulness that had come over the Lone Lands caused them some serious issues.

Now, in response to the original question about Gandalf and the Witch King, I see nothing in the books that would point towards the Witch King being able to take down Gandalf. If a hobbit with a knife and injure one, I have to think Gandalf with all his power and a mighty Elf-Blade could kick some serious Witch King booty. One reason Gandalf himself didn't just stroll into Mordor with the ring was not because he feared to, but because his power would not allow him to stay hidden. You can bet the Dark Lord was keeping an eye on Gandalf because he was a major threat. However Gandalf being bound to not directly involve himself in such a way would cause him to hold back his hand. He didn't really do much fighting until he encountered the Balrog, which was a beast of the First Age which it would appear Gandalf had permission to kill.

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

..........
The Lord of the Rings never set out to see good and evil clash in a Manichaean grudge match, but rather to see what powerlessness and faith (estel) should do when faced with Evil. That also perhaps answers something of Vilnas' objection to the attack on Frodo at Weathertop - Frodo's willingness to defy the Ringwraiths, to defy evil, however minor, was sufficient rather than insignificant. Don't forget he "struck at the feet of his enemies" as well as calling on Elbereth; it was an act of extraordinary, if desperate, courage. The error was the Ringwraith's: they relied on their ability to utterly cower the weak and later that the Morgul blade would do its work quickly; that a mere Hobbit had no will to oppose its evil. They were wrong, but they were wrong because the very nature of their Evil was that they had entirely rejected small faith as irrelevant against great power; they like their Master could not conceive that their downfall would come through hope and mercy, not strength.

Gandalf himself sensed this would be the great "theme" of the Fellowship:

"I think, Elrond, that in this matter it would be well to trust to [...] friendship than to great wisdom. Even if you chose for us an elf-lord, such as Glorfindel, he could not storm the Dark Tower, nor open the road to the Fire by the power that is in him."

This^^^^ Tolkien was creating a myth cycle for England, using as sources the many stories and myths that had already been absorbed from the extant legends abounding throughout the isles. (Celtic, Norse, early medieval Christian, etc.) He was writing from the viewpoint of a generation that had lost their best and brightest boys to a conflict on a scale never seen before. He was exploring the themes of faith, hope, fate and free will and how a courageous 'everyman' (hobbit?) could influence the outcome of the world. Most myth cycles have internal paradoxes (Merlin/Myrddin/Emrys' role in the Arthurian cycle for example) but they still resonate because they speak to us on a much deeper level than a tightly plotted crime story, for example.

As someone who has read the trilogy most years since the 60's I love the knowledge of the lore shown in these forums and am full of respect for the in-depth research shown by writers here, because when ever I reread the books I just get carried away in the word river of the epic Hero cycle and don't notice these details.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

True, but that wasn't just the Witch-king vs. Gandalf. That was the Nazgul ganging up on Gandalf, at night when their powers were strongest, and they still couldn't get him. What we see later in the book appeared to be the Witch-king channeling Sauron's power, which is why he's extra-scary all of a sudden but then of course Gandalf had had an 'upgrade', too. The Witch-king may simply not have realised that.

The impression we get from the book is that trapped alone at Weathertop, Gandalf did better than even Glorfindel would have done in the same situation. That's a fair measure of his power.

Nevertheless, while the entire might of the Nazgul couldn't bring him down, he couldn't harm them either. He didn't manage to take out even one of the lesser Nazgul. As I said... stalemate.

It's not attributed to that in the books. The Three Rings of the Elves weren't made as weapons, the power of the Ring Gandalf bore was to rekindle lost hope and courage.

Gandalf doesn't even reveal he wields the ring until the end. Intended as weapons or not, fire is fire. It is reasonable to conclude that a ring designed to control fire would give an advantage against a fire wielding creature such as a Balrog, even if it merely protected him against the heat. Gandalf's 'known' powers all center around fire and/or light. Similarly, Elrond, who we later learn wields the ring of Water just happens to transform an otherwise calm river not just into raging, but into charging water-horses. Given how much the Three were played up in the lore, and the fact they were second in power only to the One, it is hard to believe they didn't play a part.

The thing about Gandalf's power is that he was supposed to fully exercise it only when he absolutely had to (this was a plot device, to prevent powerful magic from dominating the plot) and not to use it to directly oppose Sauron's will. Read the Silmarillion and a very different picture of Maiar emerges, as there they were under no such constraint.

I have read the Silmarillion, however being Maiar doesn't mean any specific powers. Gandalf's aspect could have been that of a great swordsman, and not anything even resembling an actual wizard. We don't know. It never comes up. It could also be why the fight against the Nazgul was inconclusive. The fight may well have consisted of the Nazgul testing Gandalf and/or trying to press him into using his full power in Middle Earth, breaking his mandate. Again, we don't know the details of the battle nor the Nazgul's goals.

By the way, being prevented from using his personal power would be a reason for his overt uses of power being use of Narya. It being Elvin, it is considered being of Middle Earth and thus fair game to use.

Regardless, power one is unable or unwilling to wield is toothless.

Originally Posted by Torweld

I have read the Silmarillion, however being Maiar doesn't mean any specific powers. Gandalf's aspect could have been that of a great swordsman, and not anything even resembling an actual wizard. We don't know. It never comes up. It could also be why the fight against the Nazgul was inconclusive. The fight may well have consisted of the Nazgul testing Gandalf and/or trying to press him into using his full power in Middle Earth, breaking his mandate. Again, we don't know the details of the battle nor the Nazgul's goals.

I believe the best information we have on this is from Unfinished Tales in a brief chapter on the Istari. The material was unfinished (obviously) and therefore not canon. However, according to those musings of JRRT, Gandalf was named Olorin. He was a Maiar of Lorien (the Valar) and spent much time in his gardens of the same name. As I recall, it is suggested that he spent much time in quiet contemplation and may have been associated with dreams. Also, I believe that when Manwe asked Olorin to go to Middle-earth to help oppose Sauron, Olorin said that he feared Sauron, which Manwe indicated was a good thing.

Originally Posted by Torweld

Nevertheless, while the entire might of the Nazgul couldn't bring him down, he couldn't harm them either. He didn't manage to take out even one of the lesser Nazgul. As I said... stalemate.

Of course it was a stalemate, but the point is that if all of the Nine couldn't take Gandalf down then he's plainly possessed of considerable power.

Gandalf doesn't even reveal he wields the ring until the end. Intended as weapons or not, fire is fire. It is reasonable to conclude that a ring designed to control fire would give an advantage against a fire wielding creature such as a Balrog, even if it merely protected him against the heat. Gandalf's 'known' powers all center around fire and/or light. Similarly, Elrond, who we later learn wields the ring of Water just happens to transform an otherwise calm river not just into raging, but into charging water-horses. Given how much the Three were played up in the lore, and the fact they were second in power only to the One, it is hard to believe they didn't play a part.

Sorry, but no: the 'fire' of that Ring was only metaphorical. There's a quote:

"Take now this Ring," he said; "for thy labours and thy cares will be heavy, but in all it will support thee and defend thee from weariness. For this is the Ring of Fire, and herewith, maybe, thou shalt rekindle hearts to the valour of old in a world that grows chill."

- Cirdan's words to Gandalf, from Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

Now, maybe it helped defend him from fire (the Three Rings were said to have the power to preserve), maybe not - he has power of his own. As for destructive power, Gandalf tells the Balrog that he wields 'the flame of Anor': that's his own power, the white flame that's mentioned repeatedly.

I don't know why people try to downplay the powers of Maiar when Sauron was one. Where do you think his power came from? The power of the One Ring was a big chunk of his own power that he'd placed within it.

You've got the other two Rings the wrong way round: Galadriel had the Ring of Water, Elrond had the Ring of Air. Elrond had power over the river on the border of Rivendell because he was a powerful Elf-lord on his own turf, where he'd lived for thousands of years. He wouldn't have been able to pull off a trick like that anywhere else.

I have read the Silmarillion, however being Maiar doesn't mean any specific powers. Gandalf's aspect could have been that of a great swordsman, and not anything even resembling an actual wizard. We don't know. It never comes up. It could also be why the fight against the Nazgul was inconclusive. The fight may well have consisted of the Nazgul testing Gandalf and/or trying to press him into using his full power in Middle Earth, breaking his mandate. Again, we don't know the details of the battle nor the Nazgul's goals.

Gandalf's plainly allowed to use his power in self-defence. Yes, if Gandalf was fighting defensively at Weathertop that would explain why none of the Nazgul got fried.

By the way, being prevented from using his personal power would be a reason for his overt uses of power being use of Narya. It being Elvin, it is considered being of Middle Earth and thus fair game to use.

Regardless, power one is unable or unwilling to wield is toothless.

'By the way', you're wrong there because Gandalf was bound not to directly oppose Sauron's power with power (not just his power, just 'power'). He was there to provide the Free Peoples with counsel and to help them unite against Sauron, not to do the fighting for them. And in any case, as I said the Three Rings were not made as weapons. Here's what Elrond had to say about them:

'...they were not made as weapons of war or conquest: that is not their power. Those who made them did not desire strength or dominion or hoarded wealth, but understanding, making, and healing, to preserve all things unstained.'

- FOTR, 'The Council of Elrond'

If Gandalf and the others hadn't been bound to appear humbly and not to use their power offensively then they could have appeared openly 'in forms of power and majesty' and confronted Sauron directly. The time for such open intervention by the Valar had long since passed. (And besides, such a confrontation would have been appallingly destructive).

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Of course it was a stalemate, but the point is that if all of the Nine couldn't take Gandalf down then he's plainly possessed of considerable power.

Nor was Gandalf, 'possessed of considerable power' able to take down even the least of the Nazgul in his own defense. A stalemate is a stalemate. When neither force is triumphant, you cannot claim it proof one was more powerful than the other.

Sorry, but no: the 'fire' of that Ring was only metaphorical. There's a quote:

"Take now this Ring," he said; "for thy labours and thy cares will be heavy, but in all it will support thee and defend thee from weariness. For this is the Ring of Fire, and herewith, maybe, thou shalt rekindle hearts to the valour of old in a world that grows chill."

- Cirdan's words to Gandalf, from Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

Now, maybe it helped defend him from fire (the Three Rings were said to have the power to preserve), maybe not - he has power of his own. As for destructive power, Gandalf tells the Balrog that he wields 'the flame of Anor': that's his own power, the white flame that's mentioned repeatedly.

You are claiming that based on that one passage of Cirdan's, that Narya, the Elvin Ring of Fire was merely a moral booster? They could have just used a flag for that like most nations.

I don't know why people try to downplay the powers of Maiar when Sauron was one. Where do you think his power came from? The power of the One Ring was a big chunk of his own power that he'd placed within it.

You've got the other two Rings the wrong way round: Galadriel had the Ring of Water, Elrond had the Ring of Air. Elrond had power over the river on the border of Rivendell because he was a powerful Elf-lord on his own turf, where he'd lived for thousands of years. He wouldn't have been able to pull off a trick like that anywhere else.

It is not so much playing down his power as a Maiar as pointing out we don't know the nature of said power. Based on the information from Unfinished Tales (as related by another poster above) he could have been the Patron Saint of Pastoral Gardens. We know he was considered 'Wise," which could also have been his specialty. You also seem to be arguing against yourself. On the one hand, you insist that Narya's is over inner fires only with no literal control over fire, and on the other you insist Gandalf simply by being Maiar must therefore be powerful in battle. In the case of the ring, we know at least its title. In the case of Gandalf, all we know is that he was considered very wise and that he liked gardens.

Saruman was likewise Maiar, yet other than being able to manipulate weaker wills via words we didn't really see much overt from him, either... despite his having fallen.

I stand corrected on the wielders of the other two rings.

Gandalf's plainly allowed to use his power in self-defence. Yes, if Gandalf was fighting defensively at Weathertop that would explain why none of the Nazgul got fried.

Eliminating opponents is usually considered a wise defense. If he was forced to put up barriers and simply dig in and endure, it is hard to argue that he could have defeated the King of Angmar in battle. Not permitted to counts as not being able to, unless he broke his mandate.

'By the way', you're wrong there because Gandalf was bound not to directly oppose Sauron's power with power (not just his power, just 'power'). He was there to provide the Free Peoples with counsel and to help them unite against Sauron, not to do the fighting for them. And in any case, as I said the Three Rings were not made as weapons. Here's what Elrond had to say about them:

'...they were not made as weapons of war or conquest: that is not their power. Those who made them did not desire strength or dominion or hoarded wealth, but understanding, making, and healing, to preserve all things unstained.'

- FOTR, 'The Council of Elrond'

If Gandalf and the others hadn't been bound to appear humbly and not to use their power offensively then they could have appeared openly 'in forms of power and majesty' and confronted Sauron directly. The time for such open intervention by the Valar had long since passed. (And besides, such a confrontation would have been appallingly destructive).

Fire itself isn't 'made for war.' Nor for the most part is it used as a weapon of war. It is a clumsy, destructive tool used only situationally by armies. For the vast majority, it is harnessed instead as a tool, for cooking or to power vehicles or to warm homes and shelters. That doesn't mean it isn't ever wielded as a weapon. There is nothing in existence that is not usable as a weapon, regardless of design. Even a stuffed animal or fluffy pillow can be used in a pillow fight, or less frivolously, to smother someone. Many polearms were farm implements sharpened for war.

The reasons for Gandalf being constrained do not change the fact he was constrained. Even 'self defense' is not entirely a given. Pressed sufficiently he may have been obligated to withdraw.

Originally Posted by Torweld

Nor was Gandalf, 'possessed of considerable power' able to take down even the least of the Nazgul in his own defense. A stalemate is a stalemate. When neither force is triumphant, you cannot claim it proof one was more powerful than the other.

What I said was that Gandalf by himself did better than others would have done. He himself said that 'On foot even Glorfindel and Aragorn together could not withstand all the Nine at once.' But Gandalf could, quite evidently (he kept them at bay for a whole night, all by himself), and that says something about how powerful he was.

You are claiming that based on that one passage of Cirdan's, that Narya, the Elvin Ring of Fire was merely a moral booster? They could have just used a flag for that like most nations.

What's the matter, too subtle for you? And it's 'morale', with an 'e'.

It is not so much playing down his power as a Maiar as pointing out we don't know the nature of said power. Based on the information from Unfinished Tales (as related by another poster above) he could have been the Patron Saint of Pastoral Gardens. We know he was considered 'Wise," which could also have been his specialty. You also seem to be arguing against yourself. On the one hand, you insist that Narya's is over inner fires only with no literal control over fire, and on the other you insist Gandalf simply by being Maiar must therefore be powerful in battle. In the case of the ring, we know at least its title. In the case of Gandalf, all we know is that he was considered very wise and that he liked gardens.

We know what he can do, in broad terms. He may use his power sparingly but there's the general impression of great power held in check.

Saruman was likewise Maiar, yet other than being able to manipulate weaker wills via words we didn't really see much overt from him, either... despite his having fallen.

It's suggested in the book that his wizardry 'may have been falling off lately' (Merry says this in 'Flotsam and Jetsam'). Saruman had expended a great deal of his power, frittering it away on things he'd made. Trying to do too much too quickly, I imagine.

Eliminating opponents is usually considered a wise defense. If he was forced to put up barriers and simply dig in and endure, it is hard to argue that he could have defeated the King of Angmar in battle. Not permitted to counts as not being able to, unless he broke his mandate.

The point I've been making all along was that he would almost certainly have been capable of it but was simply not allowed to just go ahead and do it (since by defeating the Enemy's most powerful servant he would definitely have been fighting the Free Peoples' battles for them).

Fire itself isn't 'made for war.' Nor for the most part is it used as a weapon of war. It is a clumsy, destructive tool used only situationally by armies. For the vast majority, it is harnessed instead as a tool, for cooking or to power vehicles or to warm homes and shelters. That doesn't mean it isn't ever wielded as a weapon. There is nothing in existence that is not usable as a weapon, regardless of design. Even a stuffed animal or fluffy pillow can be used in a pillow fight, or less frivolously, to smother someone. Many polearms were farm implements sharpened for war.

If you use fire as a weapon, then it is one. If you wallop someone with a billhook or other agricultural implement of the sort you mention, then it's considered a weapon even if it's only an improvised one. Regardless, it's absolutely clear from what's said that the Three Rings of the Elves weren't made to have an offensive purpose; they're thoroughly defensive in nature. All very Elvish.

The reasons for Gandalf being constrained do not change the fact he was constrained. Even 'self defense' is not entirely a given. Pressed sufficiently he may have been obligated to withdraw.

And did, which is why he fled Weathertop as soon as the sun came up. It would have been off-mission for him to do anything else. He'd used his power extensively in order to keep them off him during the night, though. Self-defence includes fending enemies off, after all - but to be able to fend them off and show restraint in doing so would have required him to be very powerful indeed.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

What I said was that Gandalf by himself did better than others would have done. He himself said that 'On foot even Glorfindel and Aragorn together could not withstand all the Nine at once.' But Gandalf could, quite evidently (he kept them at bay for a whole night, all by himself), and that says something about how powerful he was.

If this thread was comparing Glorfindel and/or Aragorn with Gandalf, you might have a point. That is not the case though.

What's the matter, too subtle for you? And it's 'morale', with an 'e'.

Oh gosh, a typo, well I am completely undone.... The Three were second only to the One. Do you have any evidence at all that Narya was simply 'heartwarming?'

We know what he can do, in broad terms. He may use his power sparingly but there's the general impression of great power held in check.

We know what he did, and that the power was attributed to him by those who did not know he bore Narya. "Great power held in check' could be anything. Higher order wisdom is great power. Being able to create a balanced and pleasant garden literally out of nothing but willing it so is great power. Gandalf's great power could have been anything from creating gardens on the fly to leveling Middle Earth at a glance. We do not know.

It's suggested in the book that his wizardry 'may have been falling off lately' (Merry says this in 'Flotsam and Jetsam'). Saruman had expended a great deal of his power, frittering it away on things he'd made. Trying to do too much too quickly, I imagine.

Because a Hobbit with next to no knowledge of anything outside the Shire would obviously be an expert on Maiar.... Ever considered that Merry might have been rationalizing how much the Maiar were not wizards in the classical sense?

The point I've been making all along was that he would almost certainly have been capable of it but was simply not allowed to just go ahead and do it (since by defeating the Enemy's most powerful servant he would definitely have been fighting the Free Peoples' battles for them).

If he is not permitted to eliminate any of them even when they attack him, his theoretical power is moot. If the raw energy of the atomic bonds holding a pebble together were unleashed, it would be powerful indeed, but in lieu of a way to unleash the energy, it remains an ordinary pebble.

If you use fire as a weapon, then it is one. If you wallop someone with a billhook or other agricultural implement of the sort you mention, then it's considered a weapon even if it's only an improvised one. Regardless, it's absolutely clear from what's said that the Three Rings of the Elves weren't made to have an offensive purpose; they're thoroughly defensive in nature. All very Elvish.

You miss the point entirely. Fire not created as a weapon can be wielded as one. A harvesting scythe not created as a weapon can be used as one. You seem to be taking the position that a ring enchanted to manipulate fire as a tool, to focus flame in a forge, or to ensure the perfect cooking temperature, or to present an amazing display of fire art cannot be used to focus flame at an enemy, or raise their body temperature to the point the are cooking to death, or to strike those otherwise artistic flames out at a foe if merely wielded differently or against other targets.

"Not made for offensive use" does not mean "not usable in offensive fashion." And the Elves are not purely defensive. They take the field in offensive fashion when the situation warrants.

And did, which is why he fled Weathertop as soon as the sun came up. It would have been off-mission for him to do anything else. He'd used his power extensively in order to keep them off him during the night, though. Self-defence includes fending enemies off, after all - but to be able to fend them off and show restraint in doing so would have required him to be very powerful indeed.

Until the sun came up, though, he was pinned down. He was not able to fend them off sufficiently to flee until daylight. For all we know, the Nazgul might have likewise meant it as just a delaying action. We don't know exactly how hard they were trying to kill Gandalf either. Sauron might have been hoping Gandalf would breach his orders and either be recalled or rebel (either would have suited Sauron), but concerned that actually killing Gandalf might have upped the stakes and brought down retribution.

We simply don't know. Its not as if anyone had a chance to stop and ask what their goals were.

Originally Posted by Torweld

Oh gosh, a typo, well I am completely undone.... The Three were second only to the One. Do you have any evidence at all that Narya was simply 'heartwarming?'

And you have what, exactly, to suggest it helped Gandalf set things on fire? Remember that it's clearly stated that the Three Rings were about 'understanding, making, and healing' and 'to preserve all things unstained', rather than anything else. You also thought that Elrond had used the Ring of Water to raise that river against the Nazgul - you were wrong about that (he didn't even have that particular Ring!), so why do you imagine you're any more right about this?

We know what he did, and that the power was attributed to him by those who did not know he bore Narya. "Great power held in check' could be anything. Higher order wisdom is great power. Being able to create a balanced and pleasant garden literally out of nothing but willing it so is great power. Gandalf's great power could have been anything from creating gardens on the fly to leveling Middle Earth at a glance. We do not know.

Umm, no. It was a secret that Gandalf had that Ring, and he'd hardly be likely to tell the Balrog that he wielded it. So, the 'flame of Anor' seems infinitely more likely to be Gandalf's own power. Again, the Three Rings weren't about lending anyone strength (according to Elrond) so you're way off the mark in imagining that Ring would grant him a destructive ability. Those Rings were about preservation, not destruction.

Because a Hobbit with next to no knowledge of anything outside the Shire would obviously be an expert on Maiar.... Ever considered that Merry might have been rationalizing how much the Maiar were not wizards in the classical sense?

Through that dialogue, Tolkien was hinting at why Saruman had been unable to use his power to stop the Ents. Ever considered that authors may use such means to inform their readers? Aragorn told the hobbits that it wasn't because Saruman was overrated (to paraphrase), that he had once been both very wise and very powerful - so something had plainly happened, which reinforces what Merry says.

If he is not permitted to eliminate any of them even when they attack him, his theoretical power is moot. If the raw energy of the atomic bonds holding a pebble together were unleashed, it would be powerful indeed, but in lieu of a way to unleash the energy, it remains an ordinary pebble.

The Balrog found that Gandalf's strength was far from 'theoretical' so it's hardly moot. To hear you talk, you'd think Gandalf never used his power at all whereas it's exercised several times during the book.

You miss the point entirely. Fire not created as a weapon can be wielded as one. A harvesting scythe not created as a weapon can be used as one. You seem to be taking the position that a ring enchanted to manipulate fire as a tool, to focus flame in a forge, or to ensure the perfect cooking temperature, or to present an amazing display of fire art cannot be used to focus flame at an enemy, or raise their body temperature to the point the are cooking to death, or to strike those otherwise artistic flames out at a foe if merely wielded differently or against other targets.

No, I don't. Gandalf uses fire as a very powerful weapon. If that Ring enabled that, then it's got a destructive use (why would it need such power or such range, if it were purely for peaceful purposes?) and that's the complete opposite of what we're told the Three Rings were for. In any case, if that Ring had been designed to do what you suggest there, would Gandalf really have perverted its intended peaceful purpose by using it as a weapon? Seems against character, to put it mildly. More like the sort of thing Sauron or Saruman would do.

Besides which, if that Ring was a source of magical flame then why does Gandalf need to use a spell to start a fire?

"Not made for offensive use" does not mean "not usable in offensive fashion." And the Elves are not purely defensive. They take the field in offensive fashion when the situation warrants.

That would be during the First Age, before those Rings were made. Remember that Sauron attacked the Elves first, during the Second Age, after his attempt to subordinate their leaders via the Rings had failed. They were forced to fight against him because he wouldn't let them live freely and in peace.

Until the sun came up, though, he was pinned down. He was not able to fend them off sufficiently to flee until daylight. For all we know, the Nazgul might have likewise meant it as just a delaying action. We don't know exactly how hard they were trying to kill Gandalf either. Sauron might have been hoping Gandalf would breach his orders and either be recalled or rebel (either would have suited Sauron), but concerned that actually killing Gandalf might have upped the stakes and brought down retribution.

A delaying action? That makes no sense. He'd found them lying in wait for Frodo at Weathertop - the Nazgul needed to either kill him or drive him away as quickly as possible so that they could ambush Frodo when he got there. Sauron couldn't have known a damn thing about it, either, so I can't see how he could have anticipated it happening like that. It appeared very much to be the Nazgul reacting to Gandalf's unwelcome arrival on the scene in the only way they could.

Killing Gandalf couldn't 'up the stakes' because sending the Istari to Middle-earth was already as much of an intervention as the Valar could reasonably make. The simplest conclusion to draw is that the Nazgul were entirely unable to kill Gandalf, despite having sorely tested him that night - they just weren't powerful enough.

[QUOTE=Radhruin_EU;6259597]And you have what, exactly, to suggest it helped Gandalf set things on fire? Remember that it's clearly stated that the Three Rings were about 'understanding, making, and healing' and 'to preserve all things unstained', rather than anything else. You also thought that Elrond had used the Ring of Water to raise that river against the Nazgul - you were wrong about that (he didn't even have that particular Ring!), so why do you imagine you're any more right about this?[/auote]

It being the ring of fire suggests it helped Gandalf set things on fire. I would have thought that an obvious possibility.

As for your continued insistence that the three were made as tools therefore could not be used as weapons, the same elves made the seven and the nine. The nine we know the Nazgul wield. I doubt they use them for light entertainment at tea parties.

If it was impossible to use the three as weapons, then it would have been One Ring to Rule All Except the Three Elvin Rings.

Umm, no. It was a secret that Gandalf had that Ring, and he'd hardly be likely to tell the Balrog that he wielded it. So, the 'flame of Anor' seems infinitely more likely to be Gandalf's own power. Again, the Three Rings weren't about lending anyone strength (according to Elrond) so you're way off the mark in imagining that Ring would grant him a destructive ability. Those Rings were about preservation, not destruction.

The Balrog died. It wasn't in any position to tell anyone Gandalf had the ring. Moreover, I seem to recall mention that the rings were used in the defense of the Elvin cities. If Sauron had the One he could almost certainly have sensed their use, but if he had the One, he could have controlled the rings outright. That is what they were built for. Without it, there is nothing to indicate that anyone Sauron, Nazgul, or Balrog could tell it was the ring's power as opposed to that of the ring wielder.

Sauron even took a moment to lock on to Frodo when he used the One, and there is no indication in the Hobbit that Bilbo had any such occurrence.

Even if Sauron knew Gandalf had Narya, though, he was still limited in what he could do about it.

Through that dialogue, Tolkien was hinting at why Saruman had been unable to use his power to stop the Ents. Ever considered that authors may use such means to inform their readers? Aragorn told the hobbits that it wasn't because Saruman was overrated (to paraphrase), that he had once been both very wise and very powerful - so something had plainly happened, which reinforces what Merry says.

Although he would be better educated on the subject, Aragorn isn't an expert on Maiar either. It is not like any time an angel comes to anyone in the Bible, or a Greek god visits a mortal they rattle off a list of their powers and capabilities to whomever they visit. There may have been some record of Gandalf or Saruman's capabilities from the fall of Numenor, but it seems unlikely any of those who fled to the mainland stayed around long enough to take notes.

The Balrog found that Gandalf's strength was far from 'theoretical' so it's hardly moot. To hear you talk, you'd think Gandalf never used his power at all whereas it's exercised several times during the book.

The fight between Gandalf and the Balrog is described as mostly physical, and Gandalf took time to recover (and went up a level from the xps ). Gandalf actually died from the fight but was brought back and sent back to finish his task. The Elf on Balrog matches during the fall of Gondolin (Ecthalon and Glorfindol respectively) ended similarly except they didn't have the Valar bring them back after their respective fights.

So other than Gandalf getting a rez, there is nothing from that fight to indicate he was any more powerful than any given first generation elf lord.

No, I don't. Gandalf uses fire as a very powerful weapon. If that Ring enabled that, then it's got a destructive use (why would it need such power or such range, if it were purely for peaceful purposes?) and that's the complete opposite of what we're told the Three Rings were for. In any case, if that Ring had been designed to do what you suggest there, would Gandalf really have perverted its intended peaceful purpose by using it as a weapon? Seems against character, to put it mildly. More like the sort of thing Sauron or Saruman would do.

When did he do this? He lit pinecones on fire in The Hobbit. He made impressive fireworks, but they were described as fireworks rather than as cast spells. He 'hacked' the Balrog as it clawed him (per the text). He didn't blast it with the fire in him.

And the three were used in a defensive manner. Cancelling out a Balrog's flames or igniting pinecones to disrupt a goblin attack (rather than incinerating them directly) both sound like defensive uses to me. Putting power into fireworks to entertain a community sounds in the spirit of the original intent too. That said, you would have us believe the Elves were all a bunch of pacifists who sang Kumbaya and formed prayer circles when faced with an enemy. I think you need to reread not just the Silmarilion but also Lord of the Rings. Legolas didn't get so good with a bow purely for friendly archery contests.

Besides which, if that Ring was a source of magical flame then why does Gandalf need to use a spell to start a fire?

Manipulating an existing source of power is always less energy than creating energy out of nowhere. You are only contemplating need rather than deliberately keeping the power signature down. It could have been a deliberate choice on the part of Gandalf, or a design limitation of the ring. Either way works.

That would be during the First Age, before those Rings were made. Remember that Sauron attacked the Elves first, during the Second Age, after his attempt to subordinate their leaders via the Rings had failed. They were forced to fight against him because he wouldn't let them live freely and in peace.

Funny, I seem to recall a little altercation between the Elves and a certain Melkor, long before the rings were ever contemplated. As I said, the Elves take the field when the situation warrants. Not starting wars does not equate to not preparing for them.

A delaying action? That makes no sense. He'd found them lying in wait for Frodo at Weathertop - the Nazgul needed to either kill him or drive him away as quickly as possible so that they could ambush Frodo when he got there. Sauron couldn't have known a damn thing about it, either, so I can't see how he could have anticipated it happening like that. It appeared very much to be the Nazgul reacting to Gandalf's unwelcome arrival on the scene in the only way they could.

The Nazgul didn't know where Frodo was precisely. Nor did Gandalf for that matter. They had other agents and tieing Gandalf up meant keeping Frodo away from Gandalf's protection for the duration. Sauron need not have made the decision personally. The King of Angmar was capable of independent thought.

Killing Gandalf couldn't 'up the stakes' because sending the Istari to Middle-earth was already as much of an intervention as the Valar could reasonably make. The simplest conclusion to draw is that the Nazgul were entirely unable to kill Gandalf, despite having sorely tested him that night - they just weren't powerful enough.

First of all, Sauron is paranoid. He was worried about Gandalf or some other power taking up the ring and challenging him. He may well have been likewise paranoid about the Valar. Second, 'reasonable' is on a completely different scale to gods than to men.

I think we may have to agree to disagree here. We seem to be working on some different key assumptions, and it may be impossible to find common ground. For my part, I don't claim to know I am correct, merely that I consider my arguments as plausable. You, on the other hand, seem to be taking your interpretations as gospel.

It makes for a tough discussion.

Originally Posted by Torweld

It being the ring of fire suggests it helped Gandalf set things on fire. I would have thought that an obvious possibility.

Only if you ignore what Elrond says about what the Three Rings were for.

As for your continued insistence that the three were made as tools therefore could not be used as weapons, the same elves made the seven and the nine. The nine we know the Nazgul wield. I doubt they use them for light entertainment at tea parties.

When Gimli asked what the Three Rings were being used for, he clearly imagined just as you do that as they were said to be powerful, they simply must have some use as weapons of war. Elrond tells him that all he can say about the Three Rings is that they're being actively used but that (in essence) Gimli's got it wrong, that the Three might be powerful but not in the way Gimli imagines.

As for the Nine and the Seven, Sauron not only had a hand in making them but did something nasty to them after he'd taken them from Eregion, so that they better served his purposes. The Three were the only Rings which were unsullied, which had a purely Elvish concept behind them. Further, the Nazgul didn't even wear their rings, we're told they were in Sauron's keeping. What the Nine did need have nothing whatsoever to do with the Three.

If it was impossible to use the three as weapons, then it would have been One Ring to Rule All Except the Three Elvin Rings.

Rubbish. What has their use got to do with the ability of the One to dominate them? The Three Rings were vulnerable to the One Ring's baleful influence because even though Sauron hadn't helped make them, they used his Ring-lore. We're told that to accomplish that, the One Ring had to be immensely powerful - that's the explanation for why Sauron had to put so much of his power into it.

Even the One wasn't a destructive weapon, its intent and ability was the domination of others.

The Balrog died. It wasn't in any position to tell anyone Gandalf had the ring. Moreover, I seem to recall mention that the rings were used in the defense of the Elvin cities. If Sauron had the One he could almost certainly have sensed their use, but if he had the One, he could have controlled the rings outright. That is what they were built for. Without it, there is nothing to indicate that anyone Sauron, Nazgul, or Balrog could tell it was the ring's power as opposed to that of the ring wielder.

Gandalf couldn't have known he was going to destroy that Balrog so that's no explanation. The point is, that nobody was supposed to know who had the Three or where they were. Gandalf didn't tell anyone or wear that ring openly until after the war was over; Elrond didn't say a damn thing either. We only know about Galadriel's ring because she admitted it to Frodo after he'd caught a glimpse of it (it couldn't be hidden from him - being a Ring-bearer had rubbed off a bit on him by then). So, Gandalf would hardly be likely to tell an enemy even so much as one word about the ring he bore.

Sauron even took a moment to lock on to Frodo when he used the One, and there is no indication in the Hobbit that Bilbo had any such occurrence.

Remember that The Hobbit was written first and that Tolkien had no intent then to make any more of that ring. Initially it was nothing more than a ring that made you invisible; the significance was only added much later when Tolkien was trying to write a sequel. He didn't come up with the idea of it being the Ring straight away, nor the idea of it belonging to Sauron.

Even if Sauron knew Gandalf had Narya, though, he was still limited in what he could do about it.

One more time, we're told that it was a closely guarded secret! So they obviously had their reasons to think it important that nobody should know where the Three were.

Although he would be better educated on the subject, Aragorn isn't an expert on Maiar either. It is not like any time an angel comes to anyone in the Bible, or a Greek god visits a mortal they rattle off a list of their powers and capabilities to whomever they visit. There may have been some record of Gandalf or Saruman's capabilities from the fall of Numenor, but it seems unlikely any of those who fled to the mainland stayed around long enough to take notes.

He wouldn't have to be an expert to recognise that something had changed. Go on, if you think he was wrong then you explain why Saruman could do so little against the Ents.

The fight between Gandalf and the Balrog is described as mostly physical, and Gandalf took time to recover (and went up a level from the xps ). Gandalf actually died from the fight but was brought back and sent back to finish his task. The Elf on Balrog matches during the fall of Gondolin (Ecthalon and Glorfindol respectively) ended similarly except they didn't have the Valar bring them back after their respective fights.

The description includes fire and lightning, and the struggle was violent enough to level a substantial stone tower. You can't go by the descriptions in The Fall of Gondolin, either - Tolkien had changed his mind about Balrogs since then, the one in LOTR is way more powerful and far harder to kill. (Chris Tolkien confirms this in a note in HoME).

So other than Gandalf getting a rez, there is nothing from that fight to indicate he was any more powerful than any given first generation elf lord.

That conclusion's bogus. You need to read up on how Tolkien's ideas changed over time - The Fall of Gondolin was written three decades earlier than LOTR!

When did he do this? He lit pinecones on fire in The Hobbit. He made impressive fireworks, but they were described as fireworks rather than as cast spells. He 'hacked' the Balrog as it clawed him (per the text). He didn't blast it with the fire in him.

The word was 'hewed', not 'hacked'. And again, you can't go by The Hobbit as there, Tolkien wasn't thinking of Gandalf as anything other than your typical wizard in a children's story-book. The significance of who and what he was changed, just as the nature of Bilbo's ring changed, between The Hobbit as originally written and intended and LOTR.

And the three were used in a defensive manner. Cancelling out a Balrog's flames or igniting pinecones to disrupt a goblin attack (rather than incinerating them directly) both sound like defensive uses to me. Putting power into fireworks to entertain a community sounds in the spirit of the original intent too. That said, you would have us believe the Elves were all a bunch of pacifists who sang Kumbaya and formed prayer circles when faced with an enemy. I think you need to reread not just the Silmarilion but also Lord of the Rings. Legolas didn't get so good with a bow purely for friendly archery contests.

Oh, spare me. We're actually told that the Three Rings didn't do what people might expect but it's gone right over your head, you just can't get past the idea that they just had to have some use as weapons.

Manipulating an existing source of power is always less energy than creating energy out of nowhere. You are only contemplating need rather than deliberately keeping the power signature down. It could have been a deliberate choice on the part of Gandalf, or a design limitation of the ring. Either way works.

If it was not Gandalf's power that started that fire, why did he say that he had announced 'here is Gandalf' by doing so? Nobody knows he has that ring. It had to be his own power that was being used, there.

Funny, I seem to recall a little altercation between the Elves and a certain Melkor, long before the rings were ever contemplated. As I said, the Elves take the field when the situation warrants. Not starting wars does not equate to not preparing for them.

Did I not say that was in the First Age? Sheesh. Things were very different then, the Elves were far more powerful. They had to adapt their behaviour as time went on.

The Nazgul didn't know where Frodo was precisely. Nor did Gandalf for that matter. They had other agents and tieing Gandalf up meant keeping Frodo away from Gandalf's protection for the duration. Sauron need not have made the decision personally. The King of Angmar was capable of independent thought.

Yes, and his independent thought (and only option, really) was to try to get rid of Gandalf before he spoiled their intended ambush of Frodo.

First of all, Sauron is paranoid. He was worried about Gandalf or some other power taking up the ring and challenging him. He may well have been likewise paranoid about the Valar. Second, 'reasonable' is on a completely different scale to gods than to men.

The whole point of sending a bunch of Maiar in the guise of old men to provide counsel and so on was because full-on armed intervention would have brought about massive destruction (again). Hence the softly, softly approach.

I think we may have to agree to disagree here. We seem to be working on some different key assumptions, and it may be impossible to find common ground. For my part, I don't claim to know I am correct, merely that I consider my arguments as plausable. You, on the other hand, seem to be taking your interpretations as gospel.

I don't think it's plausible to suggest that the Rings could be used as destructive weapons when we're told point-blank that that's not what they were for. Tolkien uses words like 'preserve', and you still think 'destroy'. Damn straight I'm sticking to my guns here because there's never any hint in the book that the Three Rings could be used as weapons, and we're even explicitly told otherwise - so it's all in your head.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Only if you ignore what Elrond says about what the Three Rings were for.


When Gimli asked what the Three Rings were being used for, he clearly imagined just as you do that as they were said to be powerful, they simply must have some use as weapons of war. Elrond tells him that all he can say about the Three Rings is that they're being actively used but that (in essence) Gimli's got it wrong, that the Three might be powerful but not in the way Gimli imagines.

As for the Nine and the Seven, Sauron not only had a hand in making them but did something nasty to them after he'd taken them from Eregion, so that they better served his purposes. The Three were the only Rings which were unsullied, which had a purely Elvish concept behind them. Further, the Nazgul didn't even wear their rings, we're told they were in Sauron's keeping. What the Nine did need have nothing whatsoever to do with the Three.


Rubbish. What has their use got to do with the ability of the One to dominate them? The Three Rings were vulnerable to the One Ring's baleful influence because even though Sauron hadn't helped make them, they used his Ring-lore. We're told that to accomplish that, the One Ring had to be immensely powerful - that's the explanation for why Sauron had to put so much of his power into it.

Even the One wasn't a destructive weapon, its intent and ability was the domination of others.

If you ask a farmer what a scythe is for, they will tell you it is a tool for harvesting grain. If you ask them if it is intended as a weapon against a tyrannical government, they will tell you no, it is a tool for harvesting grain. Its maker will tell you the same. But if the farmers are forced to fight, it can and will become a weapon.

Neither designer intent nor that of the wielder are the sole determinants of utility.

You seem stubbornly unable to concede that point.

Even though Sauron had a hand in their making, the Seven and the Nine were not intended as weapons either, yet the Dwarves used to Seven to pursue wealth (economic power, which is always wieldable as a weapon), and we know how he rings of Man were used.

You are correct that the One was not overtly destructive, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a weapon. Imposing and enforcing your will over unwilling others isn't a peaceful act.

Gandalf couldn't have known he was going to destroy that Balrog so that's no explanation. The point is, that nobody was supposed to know who had the Three or where they were. Gandalf didn't tell anyone or wear that ring openly until after the war was over; Elrond didn't say a damn thing either. We only know about Galadriel's ring because she admitted it to Frodo after he'd caught a glimpse of it (it couldn't be hidden from him - being a Ring-bearer had rubbed off a bit on him by then). So, Gandalf would hardly be likely to tell an enemy even so much as one word about the ring he bore.

If the Balrog had won, what would have been the point of keeping he ring secret? Not openly advertising that you are carrying a powerful artifact is not the same as never using it, and it is only in badly written kids cartoons that heroes have to call out the names of their powers to use them.

Remember that The Hobbit was written first and that Tolkien had no intent then to make any more of that ring. Initially it was nothing more than a ring that made you invisible; the significance was only added much later when Tolkien was trying to write a sequel. He didn't come up with the idea of it being the Ring straight away, nor the idea of it belonging to Sauron.

So instead of accepting any alternative explanations, you insist that Tolkien did a retcon? What about the fact that Sauron couldn't find the ring in Mordor itself until it got to Mount Doom and Frodo put it on again?

One more time, we're told that it was a closely guarded secret! So they obviously had their reasons to think it important that nobody should know where the Three were.

You mean like idiot humans pulling a 'Boromir' and getting in the way trying to steal the thing? Or the fact that prior to LoTR, no one knew were the One was and Sauron could have found it at any moment, at which time any of them wielding any of the Three would have been instantly vulnerable to the One?

He wouldn't have to be an expert to recognise that something had changed. Go on, if you think he was wrong then you explain why Saruman could do so little against the Ents.

What changed? What do we really know about Saruman's power, before his demotion? For all we know, the constraints on them were not merely a matter of them holding back, they might have been literally constrained. Or Saurman might have been unwilling to risk recall from Middle Earth or worse punishments for stepping outside his mandate to the extent of using his full power. As with so much else, we simply do not know. We do know that The Valar wanted Gandalf to lead, but Gandalf didn't want the position. Gandalf might have been the stronger of the two all along.

The description includes fire and lightning, and the struggle was violent enough to level a substantial stone tower. You can't go by the descriptions in The Fall of Gondolin, either - Tolkien had changed his mind about Balrogs since then, the one in LOTR is way more powerful and far harder to kill. (Chris Tolkien confirms this in a note in HoME).

If you start tossing the word 'retcon' around, then all bets are off, since Tolkien may have changed his mind again about anything or everything before any such confrontation was written. Regardless, the early Elvin generations were no slouches, and should not be underestimated. Towers can be leveled by many means, including physical force. By the way, if Gandalf really was as unrestrained as you insist against the Balrog, why was he using an Elvin sword rather than primarily his own power? (That also speaks to the power of the early Elvin smiths)

That conclusion's bogus. You need to read up on how Tolkien's ideas changed over time - The Fall of Gondolin was written three decades earlier than LOTR!

Then Gandalf wasn't necessarily even Maiar, since 'that idea' came from the same source.

The word was 'hewed', not 'hacked'. And again, you can't go by The Hobbit as there, Tolkien wasn't thinking of Gandalf as anything other than your typical wizard in a children's story-book. The significance of who and what he was changed, just as the nature of Bilbo's ring changed, between The Hobbit as originally written and intended and LOTR.

No, he isn't a 'typical wizard.' He is more a wizard in the same way The Doctor is a wizard, a wise individual of an ancient race who knows rather a lot. You are the one insisting that translates into hurling powerful spells about.

How is 'hewed' vs 'hacked' a relevant distinction? I wasn't quoting, I was paraphrasing.

Oh, spare me. We're actually told that the Three Rings didn't do what people might expect but it's gone right over your head, you just can't get past the idea that they just had to have some use as weapons.

Spare yourself. Come up with better than claiming your are right solely because I disagree with you.

If it was not Gandalf's power that started that fire, why did he say that he had announced 'here is Gandalf' by doing so? Nobody knows he has that ring. It had to be his own power that was being used, there.

Riiight, because if it really was Narya's power, he would have not just used it but also shouted 'Hey look everybody, I am using Narya!' instead of acting like it is his power?

Did I not say that was in the First Age? Sheesh. Things were very different then, the Elves were far more powerful. They had to adapt their behaviour as time went on.

So despite the fact the world was darker and their numbers fewer, they dropped their guard and assumed there would never be another war? Care to try that one again?

Yes, and his independent thought (and only option, really) was to try to get rid of Gandalf before he spoiled their intended ambush of Frodo.

Got a quote handy of what he was thinking?

The whole point of sending a bunch of Maiar in the guise of old men to provide counsel and so on was because full-on armed intervention would have brought about massive destruction (again). Hence the softly, softly approach.

I didn't realize Sauron was invited to the planning sessions. Oh wait, he wasn't. And of course sending advisors never, ever, escalates into full scale war.....

I don't think it's plausible to suggest that the Rings could be used as destructive weapons when we're told point-blank that that's not what they were for. Tolkien uses words like 'preserve', and you still think 'destroy'. Damn straight I'm sticking to my guns here because there's never any hint in the book that the Three Rings could be used as weapons, and we're even explicitly told otherwise - so it's all in your head.

You sound like someone about to be run over at the next zebra crossing. Things get used in unintended ways all the time, regardless of whether you can imagine said use or not.

Let me quote The professor here:

1)«Wisest of the Maiar was Olórin. He too dwelt in Lórien, but his ways took him often to the house of Nienna, and of her he learned pity and patience.»
2) Cirdan said he was «the greatest spirit and the wisest»
3) He was a Maia of Manwë, the king of the Valar.
4) He is by that time, the chief of the Istari.
5) Tolkien's description of his effects over the Uruks of Saruman speaks for herself.
6) He was resurected by Eru himself!

Olorin's powers were far more important than what Gandalf shows in middle earth for many reasons: his wisdom, his mission (give courage to the free-people, not fight at their place), his Istar form, etc.

Tolkien actually gave enough hints about Olorin's true nature. Some even think that he was Manwë himself. Tolkien denied that, but still. No way a wraith could defeat the greatest of the Maiar. Gandlaf didn't defeated the WK because Manwë didn't include that in his job description x)

Originally Posted by Leonide

Let me quote The professor here:

1)«Wisest of the Maiar was Olórin. He too dwelt in Lórien, but his ways took him often to the house of Nienna, and of her he learned pity and patience.»
2) Cirdan said he was «the greatest spirit and the wisest»
3) He was a Maia of Manwë, the king of the Valar.
4) He is by that time, the chief of the Istari.
5) Tolkien's description of his effects over the Uruks of Saruman speaks for herself.
6) He was resurected by Eru himself!

Olorin's powers were far more important than what Gandalf shows in middle earth for many reasons: his wisdom, his mission (give courage to the free-people, not fight at their place), his Istar form, etc.

Tolkien actually gave enough hints about Olorin's true nature. Some even think that he was Manwë himself. Tolkien denied that, but still. No way a wraith could defeat the greatest of the Maiar. Gandlaf didn't defeated the WK because Manwë didn't include that in his job description x)

I don't have any objection to most of that. Among the suggestions I was responding to was that the depictions of the Elves and of the Balrog in The Silmarillion don't count since Tolkien 'changed his mind' by the time he wrote LoTR. If that is the case, all bets are off as to what Gandalf was, since tossiing out part of the Silmarillion inconvenient to said poster's argument tosses out the rest.

The Maiar are presented as the servants of the Gods (the Valar), the equivalent to Angels or possibly lesser Gods. What is not clear, though, is if their power is uniformly of the raw destructive kind, or if it varies in aspect, just as the power of dieties varies based on their realms.

Gandalf's aspect could have been wisdom, or it could have been pastoral gardens. It was not necessarily a martial aspect since that wasn't the role he was chosen for. Nor is prowess in battle the highest praised power among the Valar. As such 'the greatest of the Maiar' need not have held that title by way of raw power.

I use the example of The Doctor as that of an immortal being of great power whose power is not innate raw force, but of intellect and wisdom.

I also repeat my argument that as long as Gandalf was so constrained, the best that either side could have achieved was a stalemate. At any rate, we know that Gandalf was permitted to hedge his bets and engage using conventional force of arms. In this way, Gandalf can also potentially be likened to any modern nuclear power..... of great raw power, but if they use their full might they lose what they are fighting for and thus cannot win in such a fashion. So they must engage only by way of conventional arms, still powerful but without the same guarantees that they will not end up withdrawing before the end, bloodied beyond their tolerances to handle (or they might still win, by conventional means).

One more thought occurs to me though... wasn't this decided, in its own way? By breaking Saruman's hold over Theodin, Theodin, Merry, and Eowyn all ended up facing Angmar's King in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, and destroying him. As such, Gandalf won this contest using the power we know for a fact he possesses, Wisdom, and within the mandate we know he was given, to advise and to kindle hearts against Sauron.

Gandalf's ability to win one on one is academic, since regardless of how great and powerful he is in terms of raw power, he is as great or greater in other forms of power.

Originally Posted by Torweld

If you ask a farmer what a scythe is for, they will tell you it is a tool for harvesting grain. If you ask them if it is intended as a weapon against a tyrannical government, they will tell you no, it is a tool for harvesting grain. Its maker will tell you the same. But if the farmers are forced to fight, it can and will become a weapon.

Do I really need to repeat what the Three Rings were said to be for again? Nowhere does it mention any use that even sounds like it could be used for destructive purposes. You've added two and two together and got five.

You seem stubbornly unable to concede that point.

I'm denying its applicability. Your argument seems to be solely that because it's called the Ring of Fire, it must therefore be literally fiery in its power, rather than metaphorically. In the process, you've been trying to pretend that Gandalf relies entirely on the thing for his fire-magic, but there's no basis for that at all. The bloke's a Maia; we know there were other Maiar who could make use of fire-magic without any such artificial aid. So, why assume Gandalf needs to? Why on earth would the Valar send Maiar to Middle-earth at all if they were so lacking in power, in your version? It makes no sense: the Istari had to be able to defend themselves, in a pinch, if they were to have any hope of achieving their mission.

Even though Sauron had a hand in their making, the Seven and the Nine were not intended as weapons either, yet the Dwarves used to Seven to pursue wealth (economic power, which is always wieldable as a weapon), and we know how he rings of Man were used.

We know how the Nine Rings were used after Sauron had got his hands on them and twisted them to serve his purposes. We don't know what they were intended to do before that. We can't be sure what the Seven were originally intended for, either - all we know is that Sauron was disappointed with the results of what he'd done to them, because they couldn't corrupt the Dwarves in the way he'd intended.

You are correct that the One was not overtly destructive, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a weapon. Imposing and enforcing your will over unwilling others isn't a peaceful act.

As I already said, it was designed as a weapon but not a straightforwardly destructive one. I don't think any of the Rings provided any physically destructive power.

If the Balrog had won, what would have been the point of keeping he ring secret? Not openly advertising that you are carrying a powerful artifact is not the same as never using it, and it is only in badly written kids cartoons that heroes have to call out the names of their powers to use them.

The sole point about him not advertising that he's got the Ring of Fire is that the power he does announce (the 'flame of Anor') is therefore nothing to do with it. By saying what he does, he's telling the Balrog what he is, whom he serves, and the nature of the power he possesses by virtue of that.

Besides which, the sort of power Gandalf displays isn't something the Elves could apparently command (you'll not find mention of them doing any such thing anywhere) and hence it isn't something they could ever build into a magical item.

So instead of accepting any alternative explanations, you insist that Tolkien did a retcon? What about the fact that Sauron couldn't find the ring in Mordor itself until it got to Mount Doom and Frodo put it on again?

Yes, I do, because Tolkien bloody well did do a retcon. You need to do some more reading around the subject.

You mean like idiot humans pulling a 'Boromir' and getting in the way trying to steal the thing? Or the fact that prior to LoTR, no one knew were the One was and Sauron could have found it at any moment, at which time any of them wielding any of the Three would have been instantly vulnerable to the One?

The book doesn't explain exactly why the Three had to kept so secret, but as for the One Ring, it had been believed to have been lost in the Anduin so it can't be that. And if Sauron had ever got it back, then it would only have been like the first time he put it on - the Elvish bearers of the Three would have immediately sensed his presence and taken off their rings.

What changed? What do we really know about Saruman's power, before his demotion? For all we know, the constraints on them were not merely a matter of them holding back, they might have been literally constrained. Or Saurman might have been unwilling to risk recall from Middle Earth or worse punishments for stepping outside his mandate to the extent of using his full power. As with so much else, we simply do not know. We do know that The Valar wanted Gandalf to lead, but Gandalf didn't want the position. Gandalf might have been the stronger of the two all along.

We're told that Saruman had once been exactly what he should have been (which was why he was head of the Order in the first place), but he'd evidently lost his way and had done a long time before: by occupying Isengard to begin with, he showed that he'd become prideful and wanted to acquire the trappings of power. That was his first step down the slippery slope that led to him becoming a wannabe Dark Lord.

And why would Saruman have worried about using his power, if he still had it? He'd already done a hideous, unforgivable thing by interbreeding Orcs and Men. When he's eventually slain by Wormtongue, it's made clear that there was to be no forgiveness for him.

The thing about Gandalf is that he didn't seek power, he's humble. While Saruman was busily setting up shop in Orthanc, Gandalf was stomping around all over Middle-earth in all weathers, doing the job that they'd all been sent to do. It was because Gandalf didn't seek power for its own sake that he could resist the lure of the Ring when Frodo offered it to him (Saruman would have snatched the thing on the spot) and that, together with his later self-sacrifice to defeat the Balrog, is what proved him worthy of becoming the White Wizard in Saruman's place. It wasn't about strength, more character and some fundamental flaw in Saruman's psyche. Perhaps that came from Saruman being a Maia of Aulë's folk (just as Sauron had once been) and thus having a particular love of cunning devices, 'metal and wheels', rather than people. Gandalf, by contrast, was very much a people person.

If you start tossing the word 'retcon' around, then all bets are off, since Tolkien may have changed his mind again about anything or everything before any such confrontation was written. Regardless, the early Elvin generations were no slouches, and should not be underestimated. Towers can be leveled by many means, including physical force. By the way, if Gandalf really was as unrestrained as you insist against the Balrog, why was he using an Elvin sword rather than primarily his own power? (That also speaks to the power of the early Elvin smiths)

I mentioned a retcon which is well-known and demonstrable, a matter of fact. That does not in any way imply you can start making stuff up willy-nilly. That tower was reduced to a pile of broken, scorched rubble during that fight and whatever else, that implies that fight was truly epic.

Gandalf needed a sword because his power and that of the Balrog were very nearly equal. On a purely physical level, he had to have a weapon to stand a chance against that thing because it was much bigger than he was. (Not thirty feet tall like in the movie, but big enough to really tower over him).

Then Gandalf wasn't necessarily even Maiar, since 'that idea' came from the same source.

Nope. You need to do more reading: The Fall of Gondolin was the original 1917 story, and the actual fall of the city, slaying of Balrogs etc. was never rewritten (Tolkien had several stabs at it but never finished it). This is why it's not told in full in The Silmarillion. TFoG includes the original concept of Balrogs, where there were many of them and they were neither as powerful nor as hard to destroy as they later became. Tolkien changed his mind over those thirty years, and so talking about Elves destroying Balrogs exists in a different context to Gandalf fighting one in LOTR. The later concept of Balrogs was that there had only ever been a few of them but that they were appallingly powerful and very hard to kill. As I said, this is well-known and confirmed by none other than Christopher Tolkien.

No, he isn't a 'typical wizard.' He is more a wizard in the same way The Doctor is a wizard, a wise individual of an ancient race who knows rather a lot. You are the one insisting that translates into hurling powerful spells about.

He does use powerful spells. We see him do just that, on one particular occasion, just to demonstrate what he could do when he set his mind to it. We know the Balrogs could use magic, too. We certainly know Sauron could and did. It's not comic-book pew pew pew, but Maiar could certainly unleash powerful forces when they went all out.

Spare yourself. Come up with better than claiming your are right solely because I disagree with you.

It's because you're ignoring clear quotes, because you just can't give up on the idea of the Ring of Fire literally 'doing' fire.

Riiight, because if it really was Narya's power, he would have not just used it but also shouted 'Hey look everybody, I am using Narya!' instead of acting like it is his power?

Oh, so the spellcraft and staff-waving is just a blind, I suppose?

So despite the fact the world was darker and their numbers fewer, they dropped their guard and assumed there would never be another war? Care to try that one again?

Their sadly reduced strength meant that they had to fight defensively.

Got a quote handy of what he was thinking?

It's pretty bloody obvious. The Nazgul know that Frodo's likely to come down that road, so they lurk about the place so that they can nab him when he comes along. But oh noes! Here comes Gandalf! He'll ruin everything! They can't retreat because if Gandalf meets Frodo first, they're stuffed. The only thing to be done is to have a go at Gandalf in hopes of at least driving him off. So they do that, and it works but they have to send some of their number after him to make sure he doesn't double back. That in turn means that Aragorn doesn't have to face all of the Nine, and so Frodo doesn't get either seized or turned into a wraith and the plot can carry on its merry way.

If you think it works differently, feel free to suggest how.

I didn't realize Sauron was invited to the planning sessions. Oh wait, he wasn't. And of course sending advisors never, ever, escalates into full scale war.....

Sorry, what? If you read The Istari in UT it explains exactly why those Maiar appeared in the 'humble' form they did, rather than 'forms of majesty' who could go and kick Sauron's butt directly. The Valar had decided they'd made errors in the past and wanted to do something subtle instead. Better to provide advice and encouragement to the Free Peoples so that they could defeat Sauron themselves, because they wouldn't learn anything if it was done for them.

You sound like someone about to be run over at the next zebra crossing. Things get used in unintended ways all the time, regardless of whether you can imagine said use or not.

I'm still waiting to hear what something that's said to have been designed with understanding, making, healing and preservation has to do with your imagined version, which is apparently all about setting stuff on fire.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Do I really need to repeat what the Three Rings were said to be for again? Nowhere does it mention any use that even sounds like it could be used for destructive purposes. You've added two and two together and got five.

Since you refuse to accept the concept of a peaceful tool being useful in any way offensively ever, I really think we are at an impass. Just because two and two together don't equal five on their own does not mean two and two plus an additional one do not equal five.

I'm denying its applicability. Your argument seems to be solely that because it's called the Ring of Fire, it must therefore be literally fiery in its power, rather than metaphorically. In the process, you've been trying to pretend that Gandalf relies entirely on the thing for his fire-magic, but there's no basis for that at all. The bloke's a Maia; we know there were other Maiar who could make use of fire-magic without any such artificial aid. So, why assume Gandalf needs to? Why on earth would the Valar send Maiar to Middle-earth at all if they were so lacking in power, in your version? It makes no sense: the Istari had to be able to defend themselves, in a pinch, if they were to have any hope of achieving their mission.

I am suggesting it as a possibility, something you insist could not be, that you insist since Cirdan described the ring in a certain way (which was actually fairly vague) that description must be literal and all inclusive.

We know how the Nine Rings were used after Sauron had got his hands on them and twisted them to serve his purposes. We don't know what they were intended to do before that. We can't be sure what the Seven were originally intended for, either - all we know is that Sauron was disappointed with the results of what he'd done to them, because they couldn't corrupt the Dwarves in the way he'd intended.

At least you are finally admitting there are things we do not know. How is it you cannot admit the limitations of the knowledge you claim we do have?

As I already said, it was designed as a weapon but not a straightforwardly destructive one. I don't think any of the Rings provided any physically destructive power.

Academic. The uses of fire we see Gandalf wielding are for the most part not particularly destructive. Igniting pine cones isn't generally the the first combat choice of someone wielding a flame thrower.

The sole point about him not advertising that he's got the Ring of Fire is that the power he does announce (the 'flame of Anor') is therefore nothing to do with it. By saying what he does, he's telling the Balrog what he is, whom he serves, and the nature of the power he possesses by virtue of that.

Then why didn't he use his Maiar name, rather than some local use name the Balrog might not even recognize? He didn't even use his Elvin name. If he was announcing his true nature, he did a haphazard job of it.

Besides which, the sort of power Gandalf displays isn't something the Elves could apparently command (you'll not find mention of them doing any such thing anywhere) and hence it isn't something they could ever build into a magical item.

Where are there play by play details of any of the greater elves' abilities? Its not like Tolkien published character sheets for them. Glorfindel couldn't storm Mordor by 'the fire that is in him' but the statement implied he had more power in him than just walking up and knocking, merely not enough to challenge Sauron directly.

Yes, I do, because Tolkien bloody well did do a retcon. You need to do some more reading around the subject.

Correct me if I am wrong, but we have his son stating he did based on some notes. We do not have a direct interview with the man himself stating such. And I repeats, if you take that as a retcon, then he might have changed his mind on anything or everything else as well, and simply not left notes.

Do you happen to have any direct quotes of these statements by the way? And can you explain why the Silmarillion is as it is even though it was published after LoTR?

The book doesn't explain exactly why the Three had to kept so secret, but as for the One Ring, it had been believed to have been lost in the Anduin so it can't be that. And if Sauron had ever got it back, then it would only have been like the first time he put it on - the Elvish bearers of the Three would have immediately sensed his presence and taken off their rings.

To quote the Silmarillion, page 347:
"But Sauron could not discover them, for they were given into the hands of the Wise, who concealed them and never again used them openly while Sauron kept the Ruling Ring."

Note the phrase 'while Sauron kept the Ruling Ring,' implying they were used openly while he did not have the ring. Furthermore, on page 359 it states it was common knowledge among the Elves that the Ring of Sapphire was with Elrond and the Ring of Adamant was with Galadriel, which backs the premise that they were not particularly hidden during those years. Narya was, but the other two were not. Why was Narya hidden? Were there no hearts in need of warming? Or was it a more offensive aspected ring and thus more 'weapons grade' than the other two, regardless of design intent?

We're told that Saruman had once been exactly what he should have been (which was why he was head of the Order in the first place), but he'd evidently lost his way and had done a long time before: by occupying Isengard to begin with, he showed that he'd become prideful and wanted to acquire the trappings of power. That was his first step down the slippery slope that led to him becoming a wannabe Dark Lord.

And why would Saruman have worried about using his power, if he still had it? He'd already done a hideous, unforgivable thing by interbreeding Orcs and Men. When he's eventually slain by Wormtongue, it's made clear that there was to be no forgiveness for him.

He was head of the order because Gandalf refused the position. Saruman was elder, but not as respected and not necessarily as powerful. If he no longer had his power, how, precisely do you figure he lost it? Melkor didn't lose his rebelling against the Valar (save by his destruction of course). Sauron likewise didn't cease being a Maiar simply by rebelling, an if it was possible to just strip them of power that easily, wouldn't the earlier wars have been a lot shorter?

The thing about Gandalf is that he didn't seek power, he's humble. While Saruman was busily setting up shop in Orthanc, Gandalf was stomping around all over Middle-earth in all weathers, doing the job that they'd all been sent to do. It was because Gandalf didn't seek power for its own sake that he could resist the lure of the Ring when Frodo offered it to him (Saruman would have snatched the thing on the spot) and that, together with his later self-sacrifice to defeat the Balrog, is what proved him worthy of becoming the White Wizard in Saruman's place. It wasn't about strength, more character and some fundamental flaw in Saruman's psyche. Perhaps that came from Saruman being a Maia of Aulë's folk (just as Sauron had once been) and thus having a particular love of cunning devices, 'metal and wheels', rather than people. Gandalf, by contrast, was very much a people person.

Saruman only withdrew to Isengard after a failed attempt on the part of the White Council to take him down at Dol Guldor (Silmarillion p. 364). Breeding Orcs and Men was still just breeding. It may have been using what he found to work with in Middle Earth in evil and twisted ways, but it was still wielding the power of Middle Earth just as Gandalf rode Shadowfax, gained aid from the Lord of Eagles, and wielded an Elvin blade.

He still believed he was carrying out his mandate within his restrictions.

I mentioned a retcon which is well-known and demonstrable, a matter of fact. That does not in any way imply you can start making stuff up willy-nilly. That tower was reduced to a pile of broken, scorched rubble during that fight and whatever else, that implies that fight was truly epic.

It is only demonstrable by treating it as self evident. There are several viable explanations for what you consider contradictions. And it certainly is not 'well known.' If it is a 'matter of fact,' please present a quote and reference backing you up.

Gandalf needed a sword because his power and that of the Balrog were very nearly equal. On a purely physical level, he had to have a weapon to stand a chance against that thing because it was much bigger than he was. (Not thirty feet tall like in the movie, but big enough to really tower over him).

But if Gandalf was as all powerful as you suggest, using a sword would have been like superman wielding a twig. He would actually lose strength, since the relative weakness of the sword would actually soften the blows compared to his hitting directly.

Nope. You need to do more reading: The Fall of Gondolin was the original 1917 story, and the actual fall of the city, slaying of Balrogs etc. was never rewritten (Tolkien had several stabs at it but never finished it). This is why it's not told in full in The Silmarillion. TFoG includes the original concept of Balrogs, where there were many of them and they were neither as powerful nor as hard to destroy as they later became. Tolkien changed his mind over those thirty years, and so talking about Elves destroying Balrogs exists in a different context to Gandalf fighting one in LOTR. The later concept of Balrogs was that there had only ever been a few of them but that they were appallingly powerful and very hard to kill. As I said, this is well-known and confirmed by none other than Christopher Tolkien.

And yet the story was allowed to stand and was published as is, as part of the Sillmarillion, well after the publishing of LoTR. Given it was edited and published second, which direction is the retcon?

He does use powerful spells. We see him do just that, on one particular occasion, just to demonstrate what he could do when he set his mind to it. We know the Balrogs could use magic, too. We certainly know Sauron could and did. It's not comic-book pew pew pew, but Maiar could certainly unleash powerful forces when they went all out.

When? Which 'powerful spell' does it describe him actually casting?

It's because you're ignoring clear quotes, because you just can't give up on the idea of the Ring of Fire literally 'doing' fire.

And yet the olympic torch, which is an actual torch with actual fire, can 'rekindle hearts to the valor of old.' Nowhere in Tolkien's writings are the precise specs for any of the rings set down on paper. If you 'know' otherwise, please provide me a quote and reference.

Oh, so the spellcraft and staff-waving is just a blind, I suppose?

Showmanship and distraction. His goal is neither to reveal Narya nor to wander about saying 'Hi, I'm a demi-god!'

Their sadly reduced strength meant that they had to fight defensively.

And yet they had to fight. They are immortal. They hadn't forgotten the past wars, they were veterans.

It's pretty bloody obvious. The Nazgul know that Frodo's likely to come down that road, so they lurk about the place so that they can nab him when he comes along. But oh noes! Here comes Gandalf! He'll ruin everything! They can't retreat because if Gandalf meets Frodo first, they're stuffed. The only thing to be done is to have a go at Gandalf in hopes of at least driving him off. So they do that, and it works but they have to send some of their number after him to make sure he doesn't double back. That in turn means that Aragorn doesn't have to face all of the Nine, and so Frodo doesn't get either seized or turned into a wraith and the plot can carry on its merry way.

If you think it works differently, feel free to suggest how.

Likely to does not equal 'know.' You are speaking like you know for a fact how the Nazgul leader was thinking, not making a case for how he might have been thinking, refusing any alternative possibilities.

I gave an alternative possibility... pin Gandalf down while their other agents deal with Frodo. He was 'just a Hobbit' after all.

Sorry, what? If you read The Istari in UT it explains exactly why those Maiar appeared in the 'humble' form they did, rather than 'forms of majesty' who could go and kick Sauron's butt directly. The Valar had decided they'd made errors in the past and wanted to do something subtle instead. Better to provide advice and encouragement to the Free Peoples so that they could defeat Sauron themselves, because they wouldn't learn anything if it was done for them.

Whether you or I have read 'The Istari' is academic. You are trying to make your case as if Sauron had. Besides, they did try kicking Sauron's butt directly as I mentioned above. Sauron saw it coming and made sure his butt was not there at the time.

"Therefore, for the last time, he (Curunir, aka Saruman) aided the Council and they put forth their strength; and they assaulted Dol Gulgur, and drove Sauron from his hold, and Mirkwood for a brief while was made wholesome again" pg 364

I'm still waiting to hear what something that's said to have been designed with understanding, making, healing and preservation has to do with your imagined version, which is apparently all about setting stuff on fire.

Understanding... fire (including that with which the Balrog burns, literal and figuratively). Making.... fire (fire burns). Healing (one's wounds in battle). Preservation (of oneself and/or one's equipment against the Balrog's might and flame).

You are the one who can only imagine direct literal fire as a weapon. I made no such claims. Even so, you list 'making' in the capabilities you ascribe to the Ring.

Originally Posted by Torweld

Since you refuse to accept the concept of a peaceful tool being useful in any way offensively ever, I really think we are at an impass. Just because two and two together don't equal five on their own does not mean two and two plus an additional one do not equal five.

That's a generalised argument which doesn't account for the difference between what the Three Rings were said to be for and your notion that the Red Ring could be used to set things on fire. The implied purposes don't suggest any destructive use at all, still less such the powerful one that Gandalf displays.

I call this a failure of imagination on your part. It shouldn't be surprising that the Elves might make something that didn't have any warlike use at all. As Sauron had nothing to do with the Three Rings, their purpose was 'pure', unsullied by any thinking of his. We're told what Celebrimbor's intent was (I've mentioned it often enough) and there's not even the least hint of any destructive power - not even one with a notionally peaceful use which Gandalf might be abusing. Shall I run through the list again?

- gaining knowledge: nope, nothing to do with setting things on fire
- making: creative, not destructive
- healing: nope, nothing there to do with setting stuff on fire
- preservation: the very opposite of destruction

I am suggesting it as a possibility, something you insist could not be, that you insist since Cirdan described the ring in a certain way (which was actually fairly vague) that description must be literal and all inclusive.

Taken together with what Elrond says, it's indicative. We also know that during the siege of Minas Tirith, wherever Gandalf went people found fresh hope and courage, for a time - only to have it fade when he moved on. That chimes with what Cirdan said when he gave Gandalf that ring.

Now, you seem to think I should give your opinion equal weight just because it's your opinion, despite the lack of evidence to back it up. Sorry, no: you've simply leapt to a conclusion. It's founded on your mistaken notion that Maiar weren't really all that powerful, which clashes with what we see of them in the books. We're told the Istari had 'many powers of mind and hand'; we're also told that they were under orders to keep their powers well hidden, and not to seek the rule the wills of others by open displays of power. You've gone and mistaken appearance for actuality: they don't appear all that powerful, so you think they're not when really, they're showing restraint. In Saruman's case, there's a suggestion as to why he's no longer powerful and as for Radagast, well, he's just a hippy.

At least you are finally admitting there are things we do not know. How is it you cannot admit the limitations of the knowledge you claim we do have?

The two are not related. Elrond's statement of what the Three Rings were for seems conclusive enough to me.

Academic. The uses of fire we see Gandalf wielding are for the most part not particularly destructive. Igniting pine cones isn't generally the the first combat choice of someone wielding a flame thrower.

First off, that's a reference to The Hobbit again and I've already told you what the problem is with that. 'Hobbit' Gandalf isn't quite the same character as 'LOTR' Gandalf; the older version is your typical storybook wizard, not conceived of as an 'angelic' being in humble guise like the LOTR version. In any case, it wasn't normal fire, it was horrid magical fire that stuck and burned fiercely, and would engulf someone if they got it on them and didn't put it out quickly. So what's the peaceful use for that, then? That sort of behaviour would be characteristic of a military weapon, in real life.

You'll note that in LOTR, Gandalf doesn't set the Wargs on fire. He sets all the nearby treetops on fire to give the Fellowship light to fight by and to intimidate the Wargs.

Then why didn't he use his Maiar name, rather than some local use name the Balrog might not even recognize? He didn't even use his Elvin name. If he was announcing his true nature, he did a haphazard job of it.

Because they didn't tell anybody in Middle-earth their real names. Ever.

Where are there play by play details of any of the greater elves' abilities? Its not like Tolkien published character sheets for them. Glorfindel couldn't storm Mordor by 'the fire that is in him' but the statement implied he had more power in him than just walking up and knocking, merely not enough to challenge Sauron directly.

There are all those battles in the Sil, and no mention of battle-magic whatsoever. Whatever power Elves had, it wasn't the comic-book fantasy variety. The only beings who come close to that are Maiar. From the point of view of the book, that's fine: the only thing it seems to be clashing with is your expectation that magic in fantasy is about blowing stuff up.

Correct me if I am wrong, but we have his son stating he did based on some notes. We do not have a direct interview with the man himself stating such. And I repeats, if you take that as a retcon, then he might have changed his mind on anything or everything else as well, and simply not left notes.

It's generally accepted and utterly uncontroversial, because it's self-evidently true. All it takes is comparing the two and the differences are very apparent. The only people who have a problem with it are fools who think that everything Tolkien ever wrote was in the exact same context. The thing is, he did leave notes. Lots and lots of notes, drafts, redrafts, all sorts of bits and pieces of paper. The general course of evolution of his ideas can be followed across the decades, although it's full of digressions, false starts, abandoned ideas, and endless reconsideration. However, one can only say something is a retcon if there's a previous continuity that was changed retrospectively.

Essentially, if you want to take exception to what Chris Tolkien has to say then you need to read HoME first. Don't go casting doubt on something you've not even read.

Do you happen to have any direct quotes of these statements by the way? And can you explain why the Silmarillion is as it is even though it was published after LoTR?

You need to read the relevant volumes of The History of Middle-earth - that'll explain all that, and more.

To quote the Silmarillion, page 347:
"But Sauron could not discover them, for they were given into the hands of the Wise, who concealed them and never again used them openly while Sauron kept the Ruling Ring."

Note the phrase 'while Sauron kept the Ruling Ring,' implying they were used openly while he did not have the ring. Furthermore, on page 359 it states it was common knowledge among the Elves that the Ring of Sapphire was with Elrond and the Ring of Adamant was with Galadriel, which backs the premise that they were not particularly hidden during those years. Narya was, but the other two were not. Why was Narya hidden? Were there no hearts in need of warming? Or was it a more offensive aspected ring and thus more 'weapons grade' than the other two, regardless of design intent?

And the clutching at straws continues... it was very simple, it was because Cirdan had given it to Gandalf and to have it be known that he had one of the Three Rings of the Elves would have drawn undue attention to him.

He was head of the order because Gandalf refused the position. Saruman was elder, but not as respected and not necessarily as powerful. If he no longer had his power, how, precisely do you figure he lost it? Melkor didn't lose his rebelling against the Valar (save by his destruction of course). Sauron likewise didn't cease being a Maiar simply by rebelling, an if it was possible to just strip them of power that easily, wouldn't the earlier wars have been a lot shorter?

We don't have a 'how' for that, as Tolkien presented it as a given. I suggested earlier that he'd frittered away his power by trying to do too much too quickly. Sauron always spent a long time over things, slowly building up his power bit by bit; Saruman seemed to be trying to emulate him in an awful hurry, and I think that cost him. There's a symbolic element to it too, Saruman had effectively traded in his spiritual power for worldly power and he's shown to be have been a fool to do so. (I imagine Sauron thought this was all really, really funny).

Saruman only withdrew to Isengard after a failed attempt on the part of the White Council to take him down at Dol Guldor (Silmarillion p. 364). Breeding Orcs and Men was still just breeding. It may have been using what he found to work with in Middle Earth in evil and twisted ways, but it was still wielding the power of Middle Earth just as Gandalf rode Shadowfax, gained aid from the Lord of Eagles, and wielded an Elvin blade.

He still believed he was carrying out his mandate within his restrictions.

Saruman had been living in Isengard since 2759 TA, long before that. I think you missed the point: why there? The other two wizards remained humble (Radagast had a house, Gandalf no fixed abode) but Saruman moved into a huge fortress. Something was not quite right there, even then.

And 'Breeding Orcs and Men was still just breeding.'? No. First he had to degrade Men to the point at which they could be induced to mate with Orcs (Tolkien mentioned this in an essay). I mean come on, man, think about it! Nothing natural about it. And it doesn't matter what Saruman believed (or at least told himself), he'd lost the plot entirely. He was plotting to take the One Ring for himself, for one thing. Plus he'd been stealing other precious things and hiding them away in Orthanc.

It is only demonstrable by treating it as self evident. There are several viable explanations for what you consider contradictions. And it certainly is not 'well known.' If it is a 'matter of fact,' please present a quote and reference backing you up.

Go and do some research, please; you could do with reading both HoME and a good biography of Tolkien (I recommend Humphrey Carpenter's book). We're not discussing this on the same basis of knowledge, and no one simple quote will do - there's a whole explanation to it. I'm sorry, but just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it's not well known!

But if Gandalf was as all powerful as you suggest, using a sword would have been like superman wielding a twig. He would actually lose strength, since the relative weakness of the sword would actually soften the blows compared to his hitting directly.

Sorry, what? Where did I say he was like Superman? What's incontestable is that when he declared his power, his strength increased - we're actually shown that, when he rescues Faramir from the pyre. It's not like he hulks out or anything, though. And why the sword? Well, because it's preternaturally sharp and Balrogs were evidently tough. And you'd want to try to keep a little distance from the thing, too.

And yet the story was allowed to stand and was published as is, as part of the Sillmarillion, well after the publishing of LoTR. Given it was edited and published second, which direction is the retcon?

The original version of TFoG is NOT the one that appears in the Sil. I already said that! I also already said that Tolkien never finished any of his intended rewrites of it. You're out of your depth, here: go and do some research. Hell, just read the Wikipedia article about it.

When? Which 'powerful spell' does it describe him actually casting?

And now it turns out you don't even know LOTR all that well. It's the one he uses when they're menaced by Wargs on the way to Moria, and he sets all the trees on the hilltop alight at once.

And yet the olympic torch, which is an actual torch with actual fire, can 'rekindle hearts to the valor of old.' Nowhere in Tolkien's writings are the precise specs for any of the rings set down on paper. If you 'know' otherwise, please provide me a quote and reference.

We're told what they're for, and nowhere in what's said is there the least implication of any destructive capability. As for that mention of the Olympic torch and comparing it to the Red Ring, you've missed the obvious point that to use that torch to cause harm would be an utter perversion of its purpose. It's a symbol of peace, for heaven's sake! What kind of person would use it as a weapon?

Showmanship and distraction. His goal is neither to reveal Narya nor to wander about saying 'Hi, I'm a demi-god!'

Sauron uses spells, too. It therefore stands to reason spells actually did something, that they were a 'real' thing with a 'real' use and not just showmanship, something even Maiar found useful. And Sauron, of course, hadn't depended on any ring for his power; it's therefore bogus to imagine that Gandalf is, when he's the exact same sort of being as Sauron, apart from remaining 'angelic' rather than having 'fallen'. You've taken Gandalf's characteristically humble appearance and as the actuality, imagining he's reliant on that ring when there was a lot more to him than that, something that's only occasionally revealed but nonetheless gives no doubt that there's great power hidden within him. That can be clearly seen early on in the book, when Bilbo briefly angers him.

And yet they had to fight. They are immortal. They hadn't forgotten the past wars, they were veterans.

They had to fight defensively. That was the point. When the Three Rings were made, the glory days of the Noldor had already passed. They were unable to defeat Sauron by themselves (he kicked their butts all over Eriador, leaving only Lindon free); they had to ally themselves with Men in order to see him off. The Rings were a means of keeping some small corners of Middle-earth essentially perfect, all but immune to the effects of the passage of time and forestalling the weariness of the world that would otherwise claim their inhabitants. That's why Lorien, in particular, was a palpably unearthly place. It's also why its inhabitants tended to stay put (the effects were localised). Gandalf had use for one of those Rings because it prevented him from becoming weary on his endless quest.

Likely to does not equal 'know.' You are speaking like you know for a fact how the Nazgul leader was thinking, not making a case for how he might have been thinking, refusing any alternative possibilities.

I'm presenting the most likely scenario: a straightforward reaction by the Nazgul to Gandalf's unwelcome arrival on the scene. The simplest explanation is usually the best; it needs no unlikely elaborations in order to work.

I gave an alternative possibility... pin Gandalf down while their other agents deal with Frodo. He was 'just a Hobbit' after all.

That doesn't fit the story. They couldn't have known that Gandalf would turn up there. Nor would they trust anyone else with the Ring, for obvious reasons. Besides, if that was the plan, what happened to these 'other agents'?

Whether you or I have read 'The Istari' is academic. You are trying to make your case as if Sauron had. Besides, they did try kicking Sauron's butt directly as I mentioned above. Sauron saw it coming and made sure his butt was not there at the time.

That's just BS. I explained why the Istari appeared the way they did and why the Valar hadn't gone for something more direct to begin with. 'The Istari' is one more thing you should have read if you want to debate this properly, but haven't. It's far from academic - stop trying to make a virtue out of your own ignorance.

As for what the White Council did, the aim was to drive Sauron out of Mirkwood by force (having him lurking there was intolerable). As it was, he'd planned for them wising up eventually and so he promptly legged it, pretending to flee from them. The whole Dol Guldur thing had worked brilliantly as a distraction - Sauron had got them so worried about that that they hadn't been paying attention to what had been happening in Mordor, where the groundwork had been put in place for him to return and declare himself openly.

Understanding... fire (including that with which the Balrog burns, literal and figuratively). Making.... fire (fire burns). Healing (one's wounds in battle). Preservation (of oneself and/or one's equipment against the Balrog's might and flame).

Unsubtle, overly literal and entirely unimaginative, as if something can't be powerful unless it has a use as a weapon. You're making the same mistake Gimli does in the book and you're too focused on this 'fire' thing to see that - you can't see the wood for the trees. That passage tells us that the Three Rings of the Elves didn't do what people might expect powerful magical items might do; you, however, are simply saying exactly what people would expect. There's a very obvious clash there.

Why that 'making' line of yours is boneheadedly literal can be demonstrated by looking at the other two Rings. So the Ring of Air lets you make air, then? Wow, that sounds useful. And the Ring of Water... that lets you make water? hahaha

You

are the one who can only imagine direct literal fire as a weapon. I made no such claims. Even so, you list 'making' in the capabilities you ascribe to the Ring.

Umm, no. It's that the description of those Rings never implies they do anything so literal.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

That's a generalised argument which doesn't account for the difference between what the Three Rings were said to be for and your notion that the Red Ring could be used to set things on fire. The implied purposes don't suggest any destructive use at all, still less such the powerful one that Gandalf displays.

I call this a failure of imagination on your part. It shouldn't be surprising that the Elves might make something that didn't have any warlike use at all. As Sauron had nothing to do with the Three Rings, their purpose was 'pure', unsullied by any thinking of his. We're told what Celebrimbor's intent was (I've mentioned it often enough) and there's not even the least hint of any destructive power - not even one with a notionally peaceful use which Gandalf might be abusing. Shall I run through the list again?

- gaining knowledge: nope, nothing to do with setting things on fire
- making: creative, not destructive
- healing: nope, nothing there to do with setting stuff on fire
- preservation: the very opposite of destruction

Prove it could not be used in a destructive fashion. Conclusively. Not supposition based on your interpretations.

Making sounds creative, but making FIRE is not necessarily creative. The rest can all be used to facilitate destructive actions.

Taken together with what Elrond says, it's indicative. We also know that during the siege of Minas Tirith, wherever Gandalf went people found fresh hope and courage, for a time - only to have it fade when he moved on. That chimes with what Cirdan said when he gave Gandalf that ring.

Indicative is not conclusive. The fresh hope could have been simply because a well known great leader was in their midst. You are correct, though, that it might also have been the ring. We don't know either way.

Now, you seem to think I should give your opinion equal weight just because it's your opinion, despite the lack of evidence to back it up. Sorry, no: you've simply leapt to a conclusion. It's founded on your mistaken notion that Maiar weren't really all that powerful, which clashes with what we see of them in the books. We're told the Istari had 'many powers of mind and hand'; we're also told that they were under orders to keep their powers well hidden, and not to seek the rule the wills of others by open displays of power. You've gone and mistaken appearance for actuality: they don't appear all that powerful, so you think they're not when really, they're showing restraint. In Saruman's case, there's a suggestion as to why he's no longer powerful and as for Radagast, well, he's just a hippy.

I repeat: I NEVER SAID THE MAIAR ARE NOT POWERFUL. Just as you dispute that Narya could be used offensively, I dispute that all Maiar are powerful in the 'powerful in direct open battle' manner. I freely admit my opinion is only my opinion. You continue to speak as if you are Tolkien himself. Your opinions are likewise just opinions.

If Maiar can lose their power as easily as you claim Saruman lost his, how is it that the same didn't happen to the other Maiar? In particular, how is it that the Valar didn't simply strip Sauron and the One of power and leave them for the mortals to handle?

The two are not related. Elrond's statement of what the Three Rings were for seems conclusive enough to me.

But not to me, hence as I said, we are at an impasse. You have already convinced yourself. It is me and any others who disagree with you that you have to convince now.

First off, that's a reference to The Hobbit again and I've already told you what the problem is with that. 'Hobbit' Gandalf isn't quite the same character as 'LOTR' Gandalf; the older version is your typical storybook wizard, not conceived of as an 'angelic' being in humble guise like the LOTR version. In any case, it wasn't normal fire, it was horrid magical fire that stuck and burned fiercely, and would engulf someone if they got it on them and didn't put it out quickly. So what's the peaceful use for that, then? That sort of behaviour would be characteristic of a military weapon, in real life.

You can say that all you wish, but continually dismiss an alternate, viable explanation. What you seem to be suggesting is that Tolkien was a hack writer who had no continuity in his writing. The 'peaceful use of that' would be a forge or cooking flame that was self sustaining even in adverse conditions. The 'anything can be a weapon' works both ways. Weapons can usually be used as tools in various fashions too.

You'll note that in LOTR, Gandalf doesn't set the Wargs on fire. He sets all the nearby treetops on fire to give the Fellowship light to fight by and to intimidate the Wargs.

Which supports my premise that tools or weapons can be used in indirect or more subtle ways and need not always be overtly or directly destructive.

Because they didn't tell anybody in Middle-earth their real names. Ever.

The Balrog wasn't ove Middle-Earth. It was a fallen Maiar. It should have already known Gandalf by his proper name. You are making my case that the whole 'I am Gandalf' speach and staff waving wasn't for the Balrog but for the rest of the Fellowship, to maintain his 'secret ID' as 'a travelling wizard.' It's lucky for Gandalf that the Balrog was too busy fighting to blow Gandalf's cover.

There are all those battles in the Sil, and no mention of battle-magic whatsoever. Whatever power Elves had, it wasn't the comic-book fantasy variety. The only beings who come close to that are Maiar. From the point of view of the book, that's fine: the only thing it seems to be clashing with is your expectation that magic in fantasy is about blowing stuff up.

There are no play by play details of any of the personal battles that I remember. If I get a chance later, though, I will try to find a quote or two on the power of the first born.

It's generally accepted and utterly uncontroversial, because it's self-evidently true. All it takes is comparing the two and the differences are very apparent. The only people who have a problem with it are fools who think that everything Tolkien ever wrote was in the exact same context. The thing is, he did leave notes. Lots and lots of notes, drafts, redrafts, all sorts of bits and pieces of paper. The general course of evolution of his ideas can be followed across the decades, although it's full of digressions, false starts, abandoned ideas, and endless reconsideration. However, one can only say something is a retcon if there's a previous continuity that was changed retrospectively.

It isn't self evidently anything. The First Born are described as being more innately powerful than later generations, meaning those were more powerful elves in those battles. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Maiar are equally powerful. As such, it is reasonable to conclude Balrogs are not equally powerful. And as individually powerful as the Balrogs are, they were still facing greater numbers of Elves. Even if Tolkien himself didn't see explanations for the differences does not mean valid explanations do not exist.

Essentially, if you want to take exception to what Chris Tolkien has to say then you need to read HoME first. Don't go casting doubt on something you've not even read.

I am not doubting Chris. I am doubting you. We disagree on interpretations of other matters so why would I trust your interpretation in this matter? Especially since you have not provided any actual quote.

You need to read the relevant volumes of The History of Middle-earth - that'll explain all that, and more.

Translation: You have no actual quote to provide, merely to point me at literature. The Simmarillion contains the majority of the official published history of Middle Earth. I have been quoting it. Other than Cirdan and Elrond with respect to the nature of the Three (which neither of them had an actual hand in making, by the way), you have not provided any quotes backing up your statements.

And the clutching at straws continues... it was very simple, it was because Cirdan had given it to Gandalf and to have it be known that he had one of the Three Rings of the Elves would have drawn undue attention to him.

Then why was it not widely known that Cirdan had it? The text is conclusive. It was hidden and no one was known to have it. Cirdan was believed to have had it but that is not the same thing.

We don't have a 'how' for that, as Tolkien presented it as a given. I suggested earlier that he'd frittered away his power by trying to do too much too quickly. Sauron always spent a long time over things, slowly building up his power bit by bit; Saruman seemed to be trying to emulate him in an awful hurry, and I think that cost him. There's a symbolic element to it too, Saruman had effectively traded in his spiritual power for worldly power and he's shown to be have been a fool to do so. (I imagine Sauron thought this was all really, really funny).

Maiar lose power simply by doing things now? Saruman didn't just 'become less powerful.' He was killed by Wormtongue, a normal human. So either at least some Maiar are a LOT less powerful than you keep insisting, or Saruman was somehow stripped of power completely.

It seems more likely to me that his morale simply broke. After the failure to stop Sauron at Dol Guldor, he withdrew from the Council and set about trying to deal with Sauron entirely on his own. That failed utterly and he withdrew to the Shire, and was even challenged and ousted from there. He was rejected by his own people and during his stay at Orthanc, was pounded with doom and dispair by Sauron via the Palantir.

So it is plausable that he didn't lose power per se, but just lost his purpose and with it his will to survive.

Saruman had been living in Isengard since 2759 TA, long before that. I think you missed the point: why there? The other two wizards remained humble (Radagast had a house, Gandalf no fixed abode) but Saruman moved into a huge fortress. Something was not quite right there, even then.

But he shut his doors to the others after that failure. There was a change. We do not know when he started using the Palantir either. Sauron may have already been affecting him. And for that matter, if he had been using the Palantir prior, it might explain how Sauron so easily evaded their pre-emptive strike against him.

And 'Breeding Orcs and Men was still just breeding.'? No. First he had to degrade Men to the point at which they could be induced to mate with Orcs (Tolkien mentioned this in an essay). I mean come on, man, think about it! Nothing natural about it. And it doesn't matter what Saruman believed (or at least told himself), he'd lost the plot entirely. He was plotting to take the One Ring for himself, for one thing. Plus he'd been stealing other precious things and hiding them away in Orthanc.

These are men we are talking about. Men don't need magic to be involved in degrading sex. If absolutely nothing else, you are assuming human male, orc female rather than the other way around. In RL cases of bestiality exist. Thankfully they are rare but they exist. Plotting to take the One for himself was still arguably within his mandate. To use it beyond that, not, but he didn't advertise that until trapping Gandalf on the roof. That he might have been stripped of power is still problematic though in that it still doesn't explain why that wasn't done to the Balrogs or to Sauron.

Go and do some research, please; you could do with reading both HoME and a good biography of Tolkien (I recommend Humphrey Carpenter's book). We're not discussing this on the same basis of knowledge, and no one simple quote will do - there's a whole explanation to it. I'm sorry, but just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it's not well known!

I see no point in reading any given biography when you cannot even give me so much as a single quote backing up your claims of retcons.

Sorry, what? Where did I say he was like Superman? What's incontestable is that when he declared his power, his strength increased - we're actually shown that, when he rescues Faramir from the pyre. It's not like he hulks out or anything, though. And why the sword? Well, because it's preternaturally sharp and Balrogs were evidently tough. And you'd want to try to keep a little distance from the thing, too.

You really seem to have a narrow imagination. You cannot accept the use of one powerful being as an analogy with respect to another? Would you prefer I used Thor as an example? He was a Norse God in or out of the comics. You need to make up your mind. Either Elvin crafting compares favorably with divine might or it does not. Now you are arguing that the blade Glamdring is indeed a sufficiently powerful weapon to be of use as such to a Maiar.

This concept, by the way, that mortals make tools or weapons not just worthy of the Gods but for them exists in mythology. Odin's spear, for example, was Dwarven made.

He rescues Faramir from.... a fire...again with the fire. Quite a coincidence that the bearer of the ring of Fire seems to be effective in situations involving fire so often.

The original version of TFoG is NOT the one that appears in the Sil. I already said that! I also already said that Tolkien never finished any of his intended rewrites of it. You're out of your depth, here: go and do some research. Hell, just read the Wikipedia article about it.

Academic. It is the version his son chose to publish. That it might have ended up differently if Tolkien lived longer doesn't change the fact it is as published. Which version of the Cantina scene in Star Wars do you consider canon? Did Han shoot first or not?

And now it turns out you don't even know LOTR all that well. It's the one he uses when they're menaced by Wargs on the way to Moria, and he sets all the trees on the hilltop alight at once.

He didn't create the fire though. He tossed a burning branch in the air and magnified he fire. It is possible the invocation was literally instructing the fire what to do.

"High in the air he tossed the blazing brand. It flared with a sudden white radiance like lightening; and his voice rolled like thunder. "Naur an edraith ammon! Naur dan I ngaurhoth!' he cried."

It is plausible that Narya allowed that communication. We know that the ability to speak to otherwise inanimate objects such as trees existed in Middle Earth. The Elves knew this lore and Gandalf certainly did. I do concede that it is also possible he was invoking his power as a Maiar in this fashion, commanding the fire as Saruman commands men or orcs. However, the ability to communicate with the fire to facilitate such a use could still have come from Narya.

Regardless he still manipulated an existing fire source rather than create fire out of nothing.

We're told what they're for, and nowhere in what's said is there the least implication of any destructive capability. As for that mention of the Olympic torch and comparing it to the Red Ring, you've missed the obvious point that to use that torch to cause harm would be an utter perversion of its purpose. It's a symbol of peace, for heaven's sake! What kind of person would use it as a weapon?

That it would be a perversion of the original intended purpose does in no way prevent such a thing from being possible. And the kind of person who would use the olympic torch as a weapon would be the kind of person pressed into a situation where they would need an improvised weapon. The Olympics have come under fire in the past. Literally. War itself is a perversion of peace. That doesn't prevent it from happening. And wars are not won by insisting thrashing tools or tractors or any given tool should remain tools of peace.

Sauron uses spells, too. It therefore stands to reason spells actually did something, that they were a 'real' thing with a 'real' use and not just showmanship, something even Maiar found useful. And Sauron, of course, hadn't depended on any ring for his power; it's therefore bogus to imagine that Gandalf is, when he's the exact same sort of being as Sauron, apart from remaining 'angelic' rather than having 'fallen'. You've taken Gandalf's characteristically humble appearance and as the actuality, imagining he's reliant on that ring when there was a lot more to him than that, something that's only occasionally revealed but nonetheless gives no doubt that there's great power hidden within him. That can be clearly seen early on in the book, when Bilbo briefly angers him.

Innate power is not a 'spell' per se, and does not usually need an invocation. An invocation is used to call on some other power for aid. There is nothing in any of the writings that suggest that the Valar can assist or intervene at that kind of range. Eru presumably could, but a direct invocation there seems unlikely. Talking to what is there and asking it for aid does fit with the lore, but in terms of actual fire sources, you have the Balrog's flames, but it seems unlikely they would follow Gandalf's orders rather than those of their source.... So that leaves Narya, which again might have provided/facilitated such communication/invocation.

At least accept it as a possibility...

They had to fight defensively. That was the point. When the Three Rings were made, the glory days of the Noldor had already passed. They were unable to defeat Sauron by themselves (he kicked their butts all over Eriador, leaving only Lindon free); they had to ally themselves with Men in order to see him off. The Rings were a means of keeping some small corners of Middle-earth essentially perfect, all but immune to the effects of the passage of time and forestalling the weariness of the world that would otherwise claim their inhabitants. That's why Lorien, in particular, was a palpably unearthly place. It's also why its inhabitants tended to stay put (the effects were localised). Gandalf had use for one of those Rings because it prevented him from becoming weary on his endless quest.

A bunker is still a weapon. Defense is a weapon. I doubt the soldiers of Gondor wore armor simply to impress the ladies. The fact that the Elves were unlikely to take the field offensively any time soon doesn't mean they gave up on violence or self defense as options. Furthermore they did take to the fields again. They were there at the final battle at the gates of Mordor.

Various nations in history have gone isolationist. It doesn't mean they disarmed or stopped developing weapons.

I'm presenting the most likely scenario: a straightforward reaction by the Nazgul to Gandalf's unwelcome arrival on the scene. The simplest explanation is usually the best; it needs no unlikely elaborations in order to work.

If the Nazgul were already there and Gandalf arrived second, why did they let him get to the top of the hill in the first place? Gandalf arrived to check on a pre-arranged meeting/message drop and was beset by Nazgul. That is how I remember it. I can look it up if you insist.

That doesn't fit the story. They couldn't have known that Gandalf would turn up there. Nor would they trust anyone else with the Ring, for obvious reasons. Besides, if that was the plan, what happened to these 'other agents'?

Why does it have to have been planned in advance? Why can't it be that they saw an opportunity and went with it? Both plans are opportunistic and require no pre-planning.

That's just BS. I explained why the Istari appeared the way they did and why the Valar hadn't gone for something more direct to begin with. 'The Istari' is one more thing you should have read if you want to debate this properly, but haven't. It's far from academic - stop trying to make a virtue out of your own ignorance.

WHAT YOU OR I KNOW AS READERS IS ACADEMIC. WE ARE DISCUSSING WHAT SAURON KNEW. Sorry for the caps, but you seem very dense on some subjects. I asked you to provide a quote backing your point and again all you can come back with is an insult.... and you are the one accusing me of ignorance? Priceless.

As for what the White Council did, the aim was to drive Sauron out of Mirkwood by force (having him lurking there was intolerable). As it was, he'd planned for them wising up eventually and so he promptly legged it, pretending to flee from them. The whole Dol Guldur thing had worked brilliantly as a distraction - Sauron had got them so worried about that that they hadn't been paying attention to what had been happening in Mordor, where the groundwork had been put in place for him to return and declare himself openly.

None of that changes the fact that the White Council did try to take him on directly. They were concerned that the One had surfaced again (or at least strong leads as to where it might be found) and wanted to try to deal with him before he could regain his power, not just in terms of the One but also in terms of raw military strength. Merely moving him wouldn't accomplish either.

Unsubtle, overly literal and entirely unimaginative, as if something can't be powerful unless it has a use as a weapon. You're making the same mistake Gimli does in the book and you're too focused on this 'fire' thing to see that - you can't see the wood for the trees. That passage tells us that the Three Rings of the Elves didn't do what people might expect powerful magical items might do; you, however, are simply saying exactly what people would expect. There's a very obvious clash there.

ROFL, you are repeatedly insisting that any given thing can be used in one way and in one way ownly, and that even healing oneself in battle has no military value, yet accuse me of being 'overly literal and entirely unimaginative.' Priceless. Subtle power still has military application, whether you are able to comprehend that or not.

Why that 'making' line of yours is boneheadedly literal can be demonstrated by looking at the other two Rings. So the Ring of Air lets you make air, then? Wow, that sounds useful. And the Ring of Water... that lets you make water? hahaha

You really are kidding, right? You cannot see how control of air (which would likely include weather) or water (how much of a body is water, again? Even Orcs bleed) would have military application? We have seen what Elrond could do with water without one of the three. There is no way you are that dense. By the way, you wanted an example of how innately powerful the early generations of Elves are, how about that? Elrond wasn't at the river when he pulled that stunt. He was rather distant, meaning he not just could turn a river into a destructive force, but could do so at significant range, was able to perceive the situation at that range clearly enough to get the timing right, and could add an artistic flair to top it all off, purely on the power he possesses as an Elf Lord. And if you were ever in a desert or a drought, you could be begging for the ability to create water.

But no, there was a retcon. There is no way that 'mere elves' could be powerful, right?

[I]
Umm, no. It's that the description of those Rings never implies they do anything so literal.

The descriptions are all vague and metaphorical. We don't really have hard evidence as to what any of the rings can do. Even if Narya really does 'merely' affect confidence or inner flame, such a power could be used to make an enemy overconfident and reckless, or possibly to make them despair.

Now, it has been quite some time since I last had the pleasure of reading the books, so apologies if I claim something which may not be exactly true. I'll try to keep this brief and avoid going into the deeper currents that require more research and reading. I don't think I'll actually be able to answer the question posed in the OP, I don't think there is a "true" answer to that, but I mostly agree with the opinion people above me have expressed: theoretically Gandalf was more powerful than the WK and, again in a theoretical confrontation, I believe he would have won; however, I also agree that it is largely an academic question.

First of all, I have to say that I mostly agree that sometimes we fans may dig too deeply or try to pull apart something from Tolkien's writings in search of a hidden truth that isn't actually there. What we say or think is merely that - thoughts and opinions, the Professor might have intended something completely different. Creating an entire mythology from scratch is a daunting task and like all myths and legends, there are bound to be inconsistencies. Furthermore, this didn't happen overnight - a writer matures and changes over the years, his views and concepts shift in new directions; there's no accounting for the way a human's mind evolves. Sometimes, we risk "over-explaining" some things, which can lead us to grossly misleading opinions of what the writer actually wanted to explain.

To get back to the discussion which seems to have popped out in this last page. The conflict between the WK and Gandalf is not essential. I say this because in all of the Professor's work, the concept of direct confrontation is always frowned upon - bringing with itself tragic results. Excess pride, ofermod I believe the old English word was, is a key motif not only in many northern sagas, but in Middle-Earth as well. In addition, Tolkien was a firm religious believer and religion teaches us that pride is one of the greatest sins. Combining the two, you have the idea that too much pride and the arrogance that stems from it, sooner or later leads to just such a direct confrontation.

If we look at the history of Middle-Earth we can see plenty of examples of how this happens. The most obvious one is Feanor, who in his pride and arrogance condemned his people to great suffering. He chose the direction confrontation with Melkor and look at what that brought down upon him. We also have Turin Turambar, the Master of Doom, how many mistakes did he make in his pride? The list goes on and on, but my point was regardless of what power Gandalf actually possessed, it wasn't his physical (or perhaps I should say forceful) application of that power that mattered. Olorin wasn't sent to Middle-Earth because he could take on the Nazgul. I believe he was sent because, when he claimed he was fearful of Sauron, he had demonstrated that, in his wisdom, he had managed to master his pride. He would not let arrogance blind him on his quest; thanks to that he avoided Saruman's fate.

Ironically, it is that very same pride that brought the downfall of the Shadow. (so, you see, it works both ways) For a nearly immortal being, powerful beyond any Man and most elves, why should the Witch King fear a lone soldier (Eowyn)? Why should Saruman fear an old King, enthralled by his magic? Why should Sauron fear one mortal man, the heir of an ancient, nearly severed line? Their eyes were turned to the powerful: Gandalf and Elrond, Glorfindel and Galadriel; an so on. Most of all, why should anyone fear a small, insignificant-seeming Hobbit? I don't remember if its expressly stated in the books, but I got the feeling that even among the Wise (whom had all mastered their pride more or less) many were doubtful of Frodo's actual success.

And that is why I love Tolkien's legendarium, because is proves the true power of the average man's (or hobbit's!) spirit. Amidst immortal beings and demi-gods, with power and understanding beyond what a mortal can hope to achieve or truly understand, they rise up and do what must be done. But it is never done in outright pride or arrogance, it is never done as a way to prove oneself (Boromir sought to do this and look what came of it), true strength does not rest in power alone. It rests on knowing when NOT to use your power, that is why the Istari were forbidden to actively fight Sauron. And that is why Gandalf is greatest among them, because he had the wisdom to admit his own fear and to realise he was not all-powerful. He mastered his ofermod and thus managed to complete his quest.

I really have no idea what I wanted to say here, just threw that out. But I think threads and discussions like this are a living example to throw at people who claim that "Tolkien's writings are one-sided and simple". The level of philosophical and theological depth is sometimes mind-boggling. Keep 'em coming.

Originally Posted by Torweld

Prove it could not be used in a destructive fashion. Conclusively. Not supposition based on your interpretations.

Making sounds creative, but making FIRE is not necessarily creative. The rest can all be used to facilitate destructive actions.

You're the one who's insisting that these Rings which were said to not be weapons could still be used as weapons, but that they're not really weapons when they're used as weapons (sophistry if ever I saw it). You're also insisting that Gandalf relies on that ring to do fire-magic, and that any spellcraft he apparently uses is only showmanship despite the fact that other Maiar use spells for some evident purpose.

All of that is contrivance. Burden of proof is on you for this nonsense. I asked you before that if, as you insist, the ring was a source of fire but was not intended to be a weapon, why on earth it was made to be so powerful. What peaceful use would there be for fire-magic powerful enough and with a long enough range to set a whole hilltop on fire? You never answered that, and until you do it's a glaring flaw in what you said.

If Maiar can lose their power as easily as you claim Saruman lost his, how is it that the same didn't happen to the other Maiar? In particular, how is it that the Valar didn't simply strip Sauron and the One of power and leave them for the mortals to handle?

I'm not claiming anything there - the book says as much! And all you could come up with in return was to try to poke holes in that, including trying to pretend that Aragorn was simply wrong about it. You'll recall I suggested why Saruman might have lost his power (frittering it away bit by bit in his rush to follow in Sauron's footsteps). As for Sauron, I imagine that having originally thrown in his lot with Melkor he was beyond the authority of the Valar and they couldn't do anything about him.

You can say that all you wish, but continually dismiss an alternate, viable explanation. What you seem to be suggesting is that Tolkien was a hack writer who had no continuity in his writing. The 'peaceful use of that' would be a forge or cooking flame that was self sustaining even in adverse conditions. The 'anything can be a weapon' works both ways. Weapons can usually be used as tools in various fashions too.

I'm saying (not suggesting) that The Hobbit was written in one context and LOTR is another, different one. The two don't mesh exactly - that's the result of a shift of context from something that was written as a standalone children's book to something that's not a direct sequel, but instead an epic that partakes of his other work. Go and do some research, already: I've had this out with umpteen people just like you who have trouble believing it. It's fact, and I suggest you deal with that.

Which supports my premise that tools or weapons can be used in indirect or more subtle ways and need not always be overtly or directly destructive.

You call that subtle?

The Balrog wasn't ove Middle-Earth. It was a fallen Maiar. It should have already known Gandalf by his proper name. You are making my case that the whole 'I am Gandalf' speach and staff waving wasn't for the Balrog but for the rest of the Fellowship, to maintain his 'secret ID' as 'a travelling wizard.' It's lucky for Gandalf that the Balrog was too busy fighting to blow Gandalf's cover.

The Balrog might have heard tell of Gandalf from the Orcs. Gandalf was giving it a chance to retreat (he does this a lot - he says much the same thing to the Wargs outside Moria, and to the Witch-king too). And how could the Balrog have already known exactly who 'Gandalf' really was? He's in disguise. Nobody could tell who he was from that, any more than anyone could say conclusively who 'Annatar' was when Sauron was calling himself that.

It isn't self evidently anything. The First Born are described as being more innately powerful than later generations, meaning those were more powerful elves in those battles. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Maiar are equally powerful. As such, it is reasonable to conclude Balrogs are not equally powerful. And as individually powerful as the Balrogs are, they were still facing greater numbers of Elves. Even if Tolkien himself didn't see explanations for the differences does not mean valid explanations do not exist.

This is your ignorance talking, again, as you haven't actually read the original version of The Fall of Gondolin.

I am not doubting Chris. I am doubting you. We disagree on interpretations of other matters so why would I trust your interpretation in this matter? Especially since you have not provided any actual quote.

According to Chris Tolkien, in TFoG Balrogs were 'less terrible and certainly more destructible than they afterwards became'. Again, go and do some damn research!

Translation: You have no actual quote to provide, merely to point me at literature. The Simmarillion contains the majority of the official published history of Middle Earth. I have been quoting it. Other than Cirdan and Elrond with respect to the nature of the Three (which neither of them had an actual hand in making, by the way), you have not provided any quotes backing up your statements.

Actual translation of what I said: there is way too much to reasonably quote. You need to go and do some reading of your own; I can't fix your ignorance for you.

Maiar lose power simply by doing things now? Saruman didn't just 'become less powerful.' He was killed by Wormtongue, a normal human. So either at least some Maiar are a LOT less powerful than you keep insisting, or Saruman was somehow stripped of power completely.

Did you forget about Gandalf breaking Saruman's staff and dismissing him from the Order? Saruman lost his power, then, and became effectively little more than a bitter old man.

It seems more likely to me that his morale simply broke. After the failure to stop Sauron at Dol Guldor, he withdrew from the Council and set about trying to deal with Sauron entirely on his own. That failed utterly and he withdrew to the Shire, and was even challenged and ousted from there. He was rejected by his own people and during his stay at Orthanc, was pounded with doom and dispair by Sauron via the Palantir.

He withdrew from the Council because he was actively plotting to take the One Ring for himself. (There's something else you need to read, 'The Hunt for the Ring' in UT which gives insight into what was going on behind the scenes in LOTR).

So it is plausable that he didn't lose power per se, but just lost his purpose and with it his will to survive.

No, as that's not what happened. He'd found a new purpose for himself; he had ambitions of becoming the next Dark Lord. He also seemed to have a perfectly good sense of survival when he ran into Orthanc just ahead of the Ents. He only became truly bereft of purpose after Gandalf took away his power and authority - that's why he was indulging himself by making a mess of the Shire. That was his small revenge, he had nothing else left.

These are men we are talking about. Men don't need magic to be involved in degrading sex. If absolutely nothing else, you are assuming human male, orc female rather than the other way around. In RL cases of bestiality exist. Thankfully they are rare but they exist. Plotting to take the One for himself was still arguably within his mandate. To use it beyond that, not, but he didn't advertise that until trapping Gandalf on the roof. That he might have been stripped of power is still problematic though in that it still doesn't explain why that wasn't done to the Balrogs or to Sauron.

I'm not assuming anything: as I believe I mentioned, Tolkien wrote about that in his notes. Men had to be degraded before they'd mate with Orcs, we're told. That's 'Men', not 'men', the race rather than the gender.

And no, he was plotting to take the Ring for himself with the intent of wielding it, which was in no way within his mandate!

I see no point in reading any given biography when you cannot even give me so much as a single quote backing up your claims of retcons.

You can't expect me to quote lengthy accounts of things, which is what it would take (and you'd still probably bloody argue, then). It's all the same to me, if you want to persist in your ignorance.

You really seem to have a narrow imagination. You cannot accept the use of one powerful being as an analogy with respect to another? Would you prefer I used Thor as an example? He was a Norse God in or out of the comics. You need to make up your mind. Either Elvin crafting compares favorably with divine might or it does not. Now you are arguing that the blade Glamdring is indeed a sufficiently powerful weapon to be of use as such to a Maiar.

I'm saying your analogy was bad, because Gandalf isn't analogous to a god. He was a servant to the Powers, who were themselves godlike. The Valar resemble a pagan pantheon, so the nearest equivalent to a warrior god like Thor would probably be Tulkas. (He certainly didn't need a weapon, he used to just hit things or grapple with them).

Glamdring was a suitably powerful weapon for one Maiar to use against another. In the Sil, Fingolfin used an Elvish blade to take chunks out of Morgoth, so if he could be cut with a sword like that then a Balrog could, to.

This concept, by the way, that mortals make tools or weapons not just worthy of the Gods but for them exists in mythology. Odin's spear, for example, was Dwarven made.

Not in this mythology, it doesn't. The Valar had their own smith, and his work was without equal.

He rescues Faramir from.... a fire...again with the fire. Quite a coincidence that the bearer of the ring of Fire seems to be effective in situations involving fire so often.

He rescued Faramir from the pyre before Denethor had chance to light it! At least trouble yourself to take a look at the relevant chapter before posting yet more rubbish.

Academic. It is the version his son chose to publish. That it might have ended up differently if Tolkien lived longer doesn't change the fact it is as published. Which version of the Cantina scene in Star Wars do you consider canon? Did Han shoot first or not?

Technically, both Cantina scenes are canonical because they're both George Lucas' own undoubted work. By contrast, when it comes to the Sil's version of the Fall of Gondolin that is not canonical because it was reconstructed by Chris Tolkien. I suggest you look up what 'canon' actually is.

He didn't create the fire though. He tossed a burning branch in the air and magnified he fire. It is possible the invocation was literally instructing the fire what to do.

Yes, that seems to be exactly what it was (a statement of intent).

That it would be a perversion of the original intended purpose does in no way prevent such a thing from being possible. And the kind of person who would use the olympic torch as a weapon would be the kind of person pressed into a situation where they would need an improvised weapon. The Olympics have come under fire in the past. Literally. War itself is a perversion of peace. That doesn't prevent it from happening. And wars are not won by insisting thrashing tools or tractors or any given tool should remain tools of peace.

You were making an analogy to the Olympic torch, specifically, not just any old thing. And we're talking about Gandalf, who was an 'angelic' being. Would he really take something that had been made by the Elves for thoroughly peaceful purposes and pervert that intent by using it as a weapon, not merely improvisationally as you suggest but habitually?

Innate power is not a 'spell' per se, and does not usually need an invocation. An invocation is used to call on some other power for aid. There is nothing in any of the writings that suggest that the Valar can assist or intervene at that kind of range. Eru presumably could, but a direct invocation there seems unlikely. Talking to what is there and asking it for aid does fit with the lore, but in terms of actual fire sources, you have the Balrog's flames, but it seems unlikely they would follow Gandalf's orders rather than those of their source.... So that leaves Narya, which again might have provided/facilitated such communication/invocation.

Traditional spellcraft is very much about invocation but the fantasy variety doesn't have to be, because characters like Gandalf have innate power - in his case, the spells seem to be there to declare intent or to command.

My objection to the idea of it being Narya he's instructing is solely that I don't agree that that ring fits the role you've suggested for it, either in the nature of its power or the use to which it would be being put.

If the Nazgul were already there and Gandalf arrived second, why did they let him get to the top of the hill in the first place? Gandalf arrived to check on a pre-arranged meeting/message drop and was beset by Nazgul. That is how I remember it. I can look it up if you insist.

He said he got there and there they were.

None of that changes the fact that the White Council did try to take him on directly. They were concerned that the One had surfaced again (or at least strong leads as to where it might be found) and wanted to try to deal with him before he could regain his power, not just in terms of the One but also in terms of raw military strength. Merely moving him wouldn't accomplish either.

Not at that point, they didn't! Bilbo had only just found the damn thing.

ROFL, you are repeatedly insisting that any given thing can be used in one way and in one way ownly, and that even healing oneself in battle has no military value, yet accuse me of being 'overly literal and entirely unimaginative.' Priceless. Subtle power still has military application, whether you are able to comprehend that or not.

Waffle. Healing in battle has no provenance in this setting, you've been playing games too much. And your argument is chiefly about unsubtle power, i.e. setting things on fire.

You really are kidding, right? You cannot see how control of air (which would likely include weather) or water (how much of a body is water, again? Even Orcs bleed) would have military application? We have seen what Elrond could do with water without one of the three. There is no way you are that dense. By the way, you wanted an example of how innately powerful the early generations of Elves are, how about that? Elrond wasn't at the river when he pulled that stunt. He was rather distant, meaning he not just could turn a river into a destructive force, but could do so at significant range, was able to perceive the situation at that range clearly enough to get the timing right, and could add an artistic flair to top it all off, purely on the power he possesses as an Elf Lord. And if you were ever in a desert or a drought, you could be begging for the ability to create water.

And where has 'control' come into it all of a sudden? Did Elrond mention anywhere that those Rings could control the elements? No. That's you imagining things, again. The point on which you're being ridiculous is that Elrond said the Rings were for 'making' so you imagined that could include 'making' fire. However, applying that same argument to the other two Rings would imply 'making' air (which sounds highly unlikely) which casts doubt on the whole business. And as for 'making' water, sorry: this setting only ever features anything material being conjured out of thin air when it's the Ainur or Iluvatar himself doing it. Never, ever Elves.

The descriptions are all vague and metaphorical. We don't really have hard evidence as to what any of the rings can do. Even if Narya really does 'merely' affect confidence or inner flame, such a power could be used to make an enemy overconfident and reckless, or possibly to make them despair.

There you go again with opposites. How could it make anyone despair?

Radhruin,

You are dancing around a literal, semantic view of the term 'weapon,' unable to comprehend that the word has multiple meanings, namely that which is designed to cause harm, and that which is used to cause harm regardless of design. If you read all of Elrond's spiel, he finishes with his real concern, namely that using the Three openly would be too risky should Sauron regain the One.

You have basically taken the position that only the portions of The Hobbit and The Silmarillion convenient to your arguments are canon, disregarding the rest despite the simple facts that all three were published in their entirety, that The Lord of the Rings is clearly a continuation of The Hobbit, referencing it directly, and that the Silmarillion references both other works.

Having it out with others and simply declaring yourself victorious does not make you right.

We are done.

Originally Posted by Blackrock_EU

>>>>>>>>>>
And that is why I love Tolkien's legendarium, because is proves the true power of the average man's (or hobbit's!) spirit. Amidst immortal beings and demi-gods, with power and understanding beyond what a mortal can hope to achieve or truly understand, they rise up and do what must be done. But it is never done in outright pride or arrogance, it is never done as a way to prove oneself (Boromir sought to do this and look what came of it), true strength does not rest in power alone. It rests on knowing when NOT to use your power, that is why the Istari were forbidden to actively fight Sauron. And that is why Gandalf is greatest among them, because he had the wisdom to admit his own fear and to realise he was not all-powerful. He mastered his ofermod and thus managed to complete his quest.

I really have no idea what I wanted to say here, just threw that out. But I think threads and discussions like this are a living example to throw at people who claim that "Tolkien's writings are one-sided and simple". The level of philosophical and theological depth is sometimes mind-boggling. Keep 'em coming.

+ rep
Thank you for this-for both the elucidation and the tone. I have just realised that I never thought to ask myself the OP's question because it didn't occur to me that it was even an option in that World/Lore/Myth mostly for the reasons you explain

The themes you refer to are the themes that draw me back. Both to Tolkien and these forums.

Originally Posted by Torweld

You are dancing around a literal, semantic view of the term 'weapon,' unable to comprehend that the word has multiple meanings, namely that which is designed to cause harm, and that which is used to cause harm regardless of design. If you read all of Elrond's spiel, he finishes with his real concern, namely that using the Three openly would be too risky should Sauron regain the One.

All along, you've been trying to dance around the implications of what Elrond says. We know that the Three weren't intended as weapons of war, but if they could be used as directly harmful weapons anyway then Elrond would simply be being pedantic. I don't buy that. The implication is that they don't have any direct use as weapons; they could support the war effort, but weren't of any direct use against the Enemy.

That was why the One Ring could tempt Gandalf: through the offer of strength the Red Ring didn't offer, and as a weapon that he could have turned straight against the Enemy.

You have basically taken the position that only the portions of The Hobbit and The Silmarillion convenient to your arguments are canon, disregarding the rest despite the simple facts that all three were published in their entirety, that The Lord of the Rings is clearly a continuation of The Hobbit, referencing it directly, and that the Silmarillion references both other works.

That would be because I know what 'canon' means. The published Sil isn't an 'entirety', it's a patchwork, the best Chris Tolkien could do at the time to make it publishable. LOTR isn't a direct sequel to The Hobbit, either. The Hobbit wasn't written with the Sil in mind; LOTR was. Tolkien began by trying to write a direct sequel to The Hobbit but got stuck after a few chapters; there were all sorts of quirky oddities in the early drafts (the character who became Strider was originally a mysterious hobbit called Trotter; and among other things, Treebeard was an evil giant and it was he who'd been holding Gandalf captive). It was only when inspiration struck Tolkien to make Bilbo's ring 'the' Ring and have its owner be none other than Sauron that the work acquired the direction that gave us LOTR, becoming an epic that was tied in with the Sil. Before that, Tolkien had merely borrowed a few things from his other work to lend the fairy-tale world of The Hobbit more substance.

What you think are simple facts are in actuality neither simple nor facts, and that's been your undoing all along. It's a complex subject, and there's no substitute for reading the likes of HoME, UT, Tolkien's letters, a biography or two and so on to understand it all. Or even just looking things up in Wikipedia, and it was evident you'd not even bothered to do that much.

Originally Posted by Calta

+ rep
Thank you for this-for both the elucidation and the tone. I have just realised that I never thought to ask myself the OP's question because it didn't occur to me that it was even an option in that World/Lore/Myth mostly for the reasons you explain

The themes you refer to are the themes that draw me back. Both to Tolkien and these forums.

+rep from me also for that post. Tolkien was a complex man and his work over the decades of his life reflects that complexity. In MHO anyone who claims they understand it in it's entirety is fooling themselves. Every time I read any of the books I notice something new about it.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

That was why the One Ring could tempt Gandalf: through the offer of strength the Red Ring didn't offer, and as a weapon that he could have turned straight against the Enemy.

The One was specifically designed to tempt. That was part of its innate function. The Three were not. It is also a lot easier to be tempted to use an actual sword in war than it is to think to sharpen a farm implement. That does not mean the latter cannot become a weapon.

That would be because I know what 'canon' means. The published Sil isn't an 'entirety', it's a patchwork, the best Chris Tolkien could do at the time to make it publishable.

Canon is normally what is published, unless superseded by later canon. If Chris really didn't consider parts of the Silmarillion 'canon' he could have chosen not to publish those parts.

That Strider might have ended up a Hobbit is academic, since that isn't what Tolkien finally set down and published. The fact that Tolkien didn't decide until later that the ring Bilbo gained and Gollum lost is academic, since we are not told in the Hobbit that it is not the One.

That Balrogs seemed weaker in the earlier parts of the Silmarillion is consistent with Lord of The Rings in that we are given no reason to assume they are all equal in power, and we are told outright that the Elves are not as powerful as they were in the first age. It is also reasonable to assume it was the stronger Balrog that survived. Even if Chris says outright that his father changed his mind (which is not what he said in the quote you provided) the story remains consistent regardless.

Even the fact that Tolkien had been re-writing early battles is not conclusive, in that those stories were not finished and he could have changed his mind again. Just as the OP's question is moot in that the Witch King fell to Eowyn and there was thus never any direct no holes barred confrontation, what might have been canon remains 'might have been.' The author died and thus it is what was actually published rather than what you think should have been, or even what he might have thought should have been.

Originally Posted by Torweld

The One was specifically designed to tempt. That was part of its innate function.

Hardly, because Sauron never intended that the Ring would ever leave his hand. The Ring tempted people partly because of the power it could offer, and partly because it had some measure of malign will of its own and would make use of anyone it could.

Canon is normally what is published, unless superseded by later canon. If Chris really didn't consider parts of the Silmarillion 'canon' he could have chosen not to publish those parts.

No, canon is the author's own authentic work,and that's not wholly true of the Sil because parts of it had to be cobbled together by Chris Tolkien. You have to read the relevant volumes of HoME to find out what's up with each bit.

That Strider might have ended up a Hobbit is academic, since that isn't what Tolkien finally set down and published. The fact that Tolkien didn't decide until later that the ring Bilbo gained and Gollum lost is academic, since we are not told in the Hobbit that it is not the One.

It demonstrates what I said, that if Tolkien had continued to write a direct sequel to The Hobbit rather than extensively reconsidering things, what we would have got would have been another fairy-story. It is also far from academic about how Bilbo came by the Ring - Tolkien had to retcon the encounter between Bilbo and Gollum for the second edition of The Hobbit, because it was wildly inconsistent with LOTR's central idea of the ring being 'that' Ring.

That Balrogs seemed weaker in the earlier parts of the Silmarillion is consistent with Lord of The Rings in that we are given no reason to assume they are all equal in power, and we are told outright that the Elves are not as powerful as they were in the first age. It is also reasonable to assume it was the stronger Balrog that survived. Even if Chris says outright that his father changed his mind (which is not what he said in the quote you provided) the story remains consistent regardless.

Chris Tolkien said that (to paraphrase) his father's early notion of Balrogs had them as more numerous, less terrible and definitely easier to destroy than they were became in later work. There is no one overall, consistent 'story': Tolkien was always reconsidering things, he's infamous for that. No, you are not being 'reasonable' in the least because the continuity changes are quite genuine.

The whole reason CT added that note was that the original version of TFoG is not consistent with later work. If you'd read it, you might understand why; it's hardly surprising, since that was the first such tale Tolkien ever wrote. That lack of consistency is what forced CT to work up a different version that could be included in the Sil and not look out of place.

Even the fact that Tolkien had been re-writing early battles is not conclusive, in that those stories were not finished and he could have changed his mind again. Just as the OP's question is moot in that the Witch King fell to Eowyn and there was thus never any direct no holes barred confrontation, what might have been canon remains 'might have been.' The author died and thus it is what was actually published rather than what you think should have been, or even what he might have thought should have been.

LOTR is canon. Fully authentic, no debate. What it says, goes. That's not the case with the whole of the Sil; Tolkien never finished fiddling with it and died before it was even close to being finished, much less published. The result is that the Sil isn't wholly authentic, it's just the best stab CT could make at presenting something coherent at the time, back in the Seventies.

Originally Posted by Drachos

Hello,

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.

So what are your thoughts?

Gandalf the Grey managed to fight off all 9 Nazgûl for a whole night.
imo Gandalf the White, with seemingly some of his restrictions lifted, would send two smoking Witch-king boots back to Minas Morgul, so to speak.

I always hate watching that scene in the films.

Gandalf is/was a Maia, as "the Grey" he was restricted and forbidden from too openly involving himself in the fight against Sauron (who too, was a Maia). When he returned, unbridled and his potential fully realised as "the White" he would be more than a match for the Witch King. As powerful as the Witch King was in the eyes of Men and some lesser Elves, even, it is probably wise to remember than Glorfindel had the beating of the Witch King when he was at his pomp in Angmar.

If you are of the mind set that Glorfindel is the very same Glorfindel that threw down a Balrog (which I am) then it is fair to assume that anyone who can best a Balrog has a fair shout against the Witch King, too. Gandalf in his role as "second" to Saruman killed a Balrog. How you take his eventual death in that battle I suppose depends on how you see his relative power in that form. It seems, to me, that the Valar were not satisfied with Gandalf's influence in his Grey form. Saruman had been corrupted by Sauron and clearly Gandalf was needed, in his pre Middle Earth watered down format. I think his "death" after beating the Balrog was a convenient moment for this transformation, so maybe he could have survived the battle, had the powers that be not decided that it was a good time to give him a reboot.

So, my point is, Gandalf's various feats in his "grey" form more than allude to him being far more than a match to the Witch King in his "white" form. It is important to remember that Gandalf's key strength lies in his ability to influence and inspire people, he essentially masterminded the entire War of the Ring as it happens in the books, including with reclaiming Erebor for the Dwarves in the Hobbit. His prowess in combat is likely not unmatched. I think, though, in his holding off of multiple Nazgul at once, it is fair to assume he can handle himself.

I think, frankly, if the confrontation had happened as it had in the film, Merry's knife would have been redundant.

As an aside, Glorfindel's prediction that no man would kill the Witch King, "Not by the hand of man shall he fall" is accurate even if man is taken to mean "human". It is actually Merry's enchanted knife which breaks the Witch King's enchantments, and is responsible for his "doom" as Glorfindel says. The fact that a westernesse blade wielded by a Hobbit was enough to break this spell suggests that Gandalf the White would have very little trouble indeed.

With regards to the inconsistencies and retconning of Tolkein's works, I think it's fair to say when you write as much lore as he did, it's going to contradict its self occasionally. The thing to remember, though, is that in his mind it wouldn't have. Where we read things and take meanings to be contradictory, there is almost certainly an explanation that died with Tolkein that clears it up.

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

Gandalf the Grey managed to fight off all 9 Nazgûl for a whole night.

I could be mistaken, but it is my understanding that not all of the Nine were present when Gandalf was attacked at Weathertop. Just a point of clarification - I don't mean this as a comment on Gandalf's power one way or the other.