Nazgûl Theme
 

Though the topic has come up before, as has the question in the new Nazgûl theme, feel free to discuss it again here.

Who was responsible for the destruction of the Lord of the Nazgûl?
1) Eowyn
2) Merry
3) Eowyn and Merry

Give your answer and your reasoning.

I'd have to go with Eowyn. Although she could not have made the final blow without Merry's help, it was still Eowyn who dealt the killing stoke to his head. As i said in the last topic about Smaug, any medical examiner would conclude that the death was caused by the blow to the head caused by Eowyn. (In the Smaug discussion, i talked about Bard's arrow) But, with out Merry stabbing his knee, she would have been killed first. Technically and medicaly speaking, Eowyn was responsible for the death of the King of the Nazgul.

I think that you have to give credit where it's due. I would say Eowyn and Merry.
Merry saved Eowyn and in the process, gave her a chance to deliver the killing blow to the Nazgul. It was both of them.

3. Eowyn and Merry

Eowyn might not have had the chance to fell the Witchking if Merry had not stabbed it first, which distracted him enough for Eowyn to slay him.

Eowyn and merry, definetly. They both needed each other to defeat the Witch King.

In my opinion, the answer would have to be both Éowyn and Merry. Éowyn would almost certainly have been killed had Merry not distracted the Witch King by stabbing him in the leg, but Merry almost certainly could not have finished the killing of the Witch King or have done any more damage at all. However, he gave Éowyn the opportunity to slay the Witch King. Each would have been doomed without the aid of the other.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: ElanorGamgee ]

I have to go with Eowyn and Merry also, because of what was said above, and this quote, in the same chapter:

I think this proves that Merry had a very great deal to do with the Witch-king's death. Eowyn would have never defeated him without Merry.

Merry's part was most important. If he hadn't piercesd the flesh with his Westernesse blade, Eowyn wouldn't have had a chance.

3. Eowyn and Merry

Why? Because, as others have already stated, without Merry, Eowyn would've died, but without Eowyn, the Nazgul wouldn't have died. So.... you get the picture.

I don't know. {not to go against what you ppl are saying, cause I get what you mean.} But I kinda agree with Lindolirian. I mean, Merry was really scared and I don't think he would have done it on his own. Unless that is if he had to save someone like the story goes.

But then again, Eowen would have died if it wasn't for Merry. So that would make me think it was both of them that were responsible. But I don't know. I guess i would have to go with Both cause I'm just confused right now. [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Eruwen ]

Looks like I'm jumping on the bandwagon (so far) and going with Merry & Eowen. I think Elrian's point about the Blade of Westernesse makes the strongest suit as to why.

Since your question is:

I would have to say that the 'responsibility' lies with both Eowyn and Merry. Merry's strike with the blade of Westernesse allowed Eowyn the opportunity to strike the fatal blow.

If you had asked who 'killed' The Lord of the Nazgul, I would have to say that it was Eowyn who gave him that mortal blow as foretold in his prophecy.

I agree with you Piosenniel! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

I'd always thought it was Merry. Borrowing from the quote above:
So it seems that only the blade that Merry bore was capable of actually destroying the Witch-King's "body", or Life Force if you like. Technically, the Nazgul was already dead when Eowyn dealt her stroke, and it still broke her weapon, anyway.

And as for the Prophesy; well, Merry is a Hobbit, not a man, thank you very much.

All hail Meriadoc, Slayer of the Nazgul!

*joins the crowd on the bandwagon* [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

After reading many of the above posts I have come to a new conclusion. First, i would like to say that i did not realize that the Witch King was protected by a spell which Merry broke. I assumed that he only wounded and starlted the Nazgul into falling where Eowyn could kill him. But now i understand that she could not have killed him with out the spell being broken, so as i said in my earlier post (only a bit modefied), technically and medically speaking, it was BOTH Merry and Eowyn who were physically responsible for ending his existence.

I would have to agree with everyone else (well, almost) on this thread and say that both Merry and Eowyn had a hand in the Lord of the Nazgul's distruction. All of the reasons why have been pretty much covered with opinions and passages from the book, so I will not repeat [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Nahhhhhh...Eowyn was definitely a stabber-come-lately. It was Merry who actually "done the deed."

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

Weee! Lookit me! I'm riding on a bandwagon! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Eowyn and Merry of course.

(Sorry about that. I'm just surprised to agree with everybody. I usually shun those bandwagons like the plague.)

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

*Waves at bandwagon as it rolls on by* Looks like fun up there, bit crowded though! Merry and Eowyn together actually killed him from a stabbing-with-pointy-objects point of view, but from a command-and-control point of view, we should give partial credit to Elfhelm, the marshal who commanded Dernhelm/Eowyn's eored. Neither Merry nor Eowyn would have been there if he hadn't sympathized and looked the other way.

I wouldn't normally bring up the commander, because that could get into arguments like 'The Thain of the Shire saved Middle Earth by not locking Frodo up for his own protection when he started muttering about a quest!' However, in this case, the teaming of Eowyn and Merry depended on a personal decision of Elfhelm's in his capacity as a military commander. Moreover, Elfhelm's decision could have cost him his head, if Eowyn and/or Merry were killed and Theoden lived to find out Elfhelm let them ride into battle. So in this case I think he should get partial credit for permitting this partnership to form at great personal risk.

::waves down the bandwagon and hops aboard:: Well, this is new . . .so this is what it looks like from on one of these? :: peers about fascinatedly::

*L* The both of them. Naturally. Sort of like those three-stone arch-doorways; pull just one stone away and the whole structure comes tumbling down on y'head.

First, let me say that I do not believe that the Nazgul were dead creatures. I think they were men who by the power of the rings given them and the power of the One Ring through them had passed into a state between the actual mortal world and death. They were wraiths, spectral figures just on the edge of death.

Merry's blade did indeed strike a bitter blow in severing the fragile control that the Nazgul's soul had over its almost vanished, thinned out physical body. In doing so, the spirit/soul was unable to strike a mortal blow to Eowyn. But the spirit was still present, and fighting for control

If Eowyn had not cleaved the head from the shoulders, effectively killing the physical body and releasing the soul, the Ringwraith may have bided his time and eventually come back in some other physical form.

Yo! Merry bandwagon over here! See, by the time Éowyn struck her "fatal" blow, the Nazgûl had already left the scene. She was stabbing at an empty mantle.

Now I'm not saying that Éowyn wasn't a doughty shieldmaiden. Her blow would have been fatal, if the Nazgûl had been there to take it...but he wasn't.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

Eowyn little red wagon here -

When Merry challenges the Nazgûl , the Nazgûl replies:

Now if I'm not mistaken - isn't Merry a man? Not a Man, per se, but of the male persuasion?

So, though he could strike the Nazgûl and cause some significant damage, it was Eowyn who struck the fatal/mortal blow that sent the Nazgûl soul off from ME.

*looks puzzled and then thinks, um, outside the, er, barrow*

Why, surely, is it not Gandalf who is 'responsible for the destruction ...'? It was he who orchestrated everyone's effort.

*curtsies*

on the Bombadil bandwagon,
Bethberry

why does Theoden say he helped kill the lord of the Nazgul when he didnt do anything?he was basically gone the whole time, passed out...

Heen-1

Theoden was the King. His were the warriors who killed both the winged Beast and his rider, the Lord of the Nazgûl. It was his right to claim his victory through them.

Ah, yes, the prophecy. I was wondering when that would figure in the discussion.

I think it is ambiguous in these passages as to whether 'man' means one of male gender or human (as opposed to Elf, Hobbit, Dwarf). [Similar to reasoning that Neil Armstrong flubbed his line when he stepped on the moon. "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind."] My opinion has always been that Tolkien purposefully made the wording this way so that it would predict BOTH a Hobbit and a Woman as the Witchking's bane. The Black Captain was well aware of the prophecy and even if he had understood one interpretation (which he did not), he would never have guessed both. Either way the Witchking figures it will take someone MORE powerful than a man to destroy him - not a woman and a halfling. Hubris.

More about that 'man' definition. Recall Gandalf's discussion of Pippin's status with Ingold at the gate in the wall of the Pelennor in Minas Tirith. To the point, Pippin finally cries:
Of course, it took both Éowyn AND Merry to destroy the Witchking and fulfill the prophecy.

Theoden was not referring to the Nazgul, but rather to the Southron king with the Serpent Banner.

I go back and forth on who slew the Nazgul Lord, though I lean towards Birdland's view not only for the same reasons per the quote she cites, but also because Eowyn's sword shatters on "impact". Aragorn, after the Weathertop incident, also seems to suggest that a normal blade will not harm a Nazgul.

In reply to Birdland (and Mithadan): Well, if she was stabbing at nothingness, why did her sword break? Surely it shattered against his being or the spell that knit him together.

And what was holding the crown above the mantle? The mantle was empty AFTER she stabbed him, AFTER he had fallen. The mantle still followed the form of his shoulders as she drove the sword.

The Lord of the Nazgûl is STILL invisible - he's still there, described as he was earlier:

He was still there AFTER Merry stabbed him behind the knee - he cried out and his stroke went wide.
I can't afford to have doubts about this! I've got a painting in the works! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I think that both of them were responsible. I don't think that either one could have done it single handidly.

I think that precisely who slew the Nazgul shouldn't affect your painting Lostgariel.

I attach significance to Eowyn's blade shattering because the Barrow blades did not break but rather smoked and melted away. In other words, the Barrow blade survived and penetrated the Nazgul due to its spells while Eowyn's blade broke into pieces as if it struck against something too strong for it to slice. Also, look at Tolkien's description of the passing of the Barrow blade and how its "maker" would have been pleased at its fate.

I agree, btw, that the Nazgul was "still there" when Eowyn's blade struck. I don't necessarily agree that Eowyn's blade had any effect.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Mithadan ]

Thanks Mithadan, for your perspective. Now I'm full of doubt. But as you say, it shouldn't have too much affect on my painting. The hobbit ears - pointy or not-pointy - is a more pressing question to consider! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

But if Éowyn didn't even help in the defeat of the Witchking, I'm severely disappointed. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

I had forgotten that in Flight to the Ford Aragorn talks about the fates of blades that pierce the Nazgûl.

So, since Merry’s sword pierced the Witchking, it smoked away – perished. Was a Númenórean blade required to smite a Nazgûl? Or would any blade do? Did Éowyn never have a chance to do the deed because of inferior technology?

Had Aragorn suspected that Frodo might fulfill the prophecy during the attack at Weathertop? Did he understand that it would take a Halfling to destroy the Lord of the Nazgûl? I wouldn’t be surprised; he’s one wise Ranger! And he has ‘the foresight of his kindred’.

Out of curiosity, did Éowyn’s sword break similarly to Narsil? (I’m a little fuzzy on how exactly Narsil was broken. And too lazy to look it up right now.) For another thread, I guess.

Instead of feeling that Merry weakened the Witchking up for Éowyn, I’m beginning to feel that Éowyn distracted him, allowing Merry to finish him off. Merry dealt the death-blow. Even so, I still think it was a team effort.

This does change the way my painting will look. The point of view may possibly change. The lighting and colouring that determine the focus will definitely change.

Oh! This is fun!

I'm as wishy-washy as Aragorn - on his bad days! Go not to Strider for firm decisions for he will be full of doubt. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Lostgaeriel ]

First of all, welcome to the Downs, Bethberry!

Secondly, since Nar brought up Elfhelm as being due some credit, then doesn't Mr. Bombadil also deserve some? After all, didn't he give the hobbits each a Westernesse dagger after he rescued them from the Wight? Merry wouldn't have had his blade if not for TB.

But ultimately, I'd have to say that it was the hand of Eru, having everyone in just the right place at the right time for all of the events to line up properly...

Yup. Eru destroyed the Witch King. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: Evenstar1 ]

Poor Merry. There he'll be, telling his grandkids (for the umpteenth time) how he single-handedly slayed the Witch-King, and some little mite's gonna pipe up: "But Grand-Da, wasn't it actually the hand of Eru that slew him?" Or worse still: "I thought Éowyn got him, Grand-Da!"

Main Entry: [1]sin·ew
Pronunciation: 'sin-(")yü also 'si-(")nü
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sinewe, from Old English seono; akin to Old High German senawa sinew, Sanskrit syati he binds
Date: before 12th century
1 : TENDON; especially : one dressed for use as a cord or thread
2 : obsolete : NERVE
3 a : solid resilient strength : POWER <astonishing intellectual sinew and clarity —Reynolds Price> b : the chief supporting force : MAINSTAY — usually used in plural <providing the sinews of better living —Sam Pollock>

Just thought you'd like to consider, that in the "old-fashioned" sense of the word, "sinews" can refer to the binding force of the entire physical body, or even be thought of as "will" or "strength".

So when Tolkien says "sinews" he may have been referring to more than Merry severing someone's Achille's Tendon.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

Too bad neither isn't an answer, because even if technically Eowyn hit the final blow and without Merry crippling him and giving her a chance to do it it wouldn't have happened, it could have been a self fulfilling prophecy and he might have only died because of Glorfindel's prophecy and timing. What are the odds that in that exact place, hundreds of years after the prophecy that two non men/humans would be there? And even so, maybe the Witch King only died because he believed it possible he could. I don't presume to answer but magic in Middle Earth was unexplainable, and destiny in the end killed him. And wasn't he dead already, undead.

I vote Merry and Eowyn. Ditto on the points Lostgariel made previously. I see it that way too.

I'm beginning to wonder whether the Lord of the Black Rider was actually and finally destroyed.

Yes, Merry struck a mortal blow as did Eowyn (imo), but at the end of the passage in the ROTK, Tolkien writes:

Does this leave open the possibility for him in a future age to regain his strength and come back?

Lostgaeriel,

Somewhat off-topic, but-- Re: your painting, Tolkien does clearly say in his letters that hobbits have pointy ears. Found it last night:

Letter 27:
That, I believe, was in reference to Bilbo. (Merry might not, for instance, be wearing green breeches?) But there's no mistaking the ears. "Slightly pointed" I think contrasts with, say, Spock ears, or the huge ears that one sees in the old fairly illustrations... chihuahua ears...

--Mark12_30