Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[JoltFlame]

Gandalf.

[Inziladun]

If the Balrog was 'greater', why is it that Gandalf was the one who returned, after throwing his enemy down a mountain?
I really don't see the merits of an argument about the WK being superior to Gandalf. The Morgul-lord was a Man fundamentally. Physically and spiritually he had been altered drastically by Sauron, but those changes ultimately diminished him. Gandalf explains the effects of a Ring of Power on a mortal:

'A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness.'

Perhaps, through the WK's utter submission to the will of Sauron, he was able to 'borrow' some of Sauron's power occasionally, such as the words of 'power and terror' that helped break the Gates of Minas Tirith.
As Tolkien said in one of the Letters, the WK there had been given an added 'demonic force' by being placed in command by Sauron. But even with that additional power, he does not (in the books) rise to Gandalf's challenge, or attempt to ride past him into the City? Why not? Certainly, the Rohirrim had just arrived, and Sauron's forces had a new army to fight. All the same, if the Morgul-lord had gone into the City then, leading his forces, I think they could have taken Minas Tirith.
So why did the Witch-king not do so? He lacked the power. Instead, he runs away and, as Morthoron noted, gets offed by a woman half his size, and a Hobbit probably a quarter his size.

[JoltFlame]

The Lord of the Nazgûl could not be defeated by the hand of a man, Éowyn would have been torn to pieces if it weren't for Merry.

Gandalf is a powerful wizard, yes, but he is still mortal whereas the Leader of the Nine is not.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

The Lord of the Nazgûl could not be defeated by the hand of a man, Éowyn would have been torn to pieces if it weren't for Merry.

So you're saying Gandalf couldn't have defeated the Witch-King, and Éowyn couldn't have done it but for Merry. If we follow this to it's logical conclusion, we'll have to assume Merry is more powerful than Gandalf. Is that really what you're thinking?

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

Gandalf is a powerful wizard, yes, but he is still mortal

I'm not sure about that. He has come back from death (whatever that exactly means in his case), and I think he would have been very very hard to kill a second time, if it was possible at all. Remember what he told the Three Hunters (LotR Book III, The White Rider)?

Indeed my friends, none of you have any weapon that could hurt me.

And this included Andúril, which Isildur had used to cut the Ring from the hand of Sauron himself - so I take it this was more a statement about Gandalf himself, in his resurrected state, than about the quality of their weapons. Or do you think that little flames effect on the Witch-King's sword made that much of a difference?

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

whereas the Leader of the Nine is not.

No, he wasn't mortal any longer in the strict sense of the word - but neither had he gained the immortality he may have hoped for when he accepted the Ring from Sauron. Rather, he had renounced and forfeited both life and death (the Gift of Ilúvatar) for a mere undead shadow of both. So he couldn't die - but he could still be destroyed.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

It is true that he confronted a greater foe, and died.

He defeated the Balrog. His physical manifestation, the body that his spirit was cloaked in, died, but the Maia that was Gandalf did not. The Valar brought him back to finish his task. So do you think the Valar would actually allow him to fall to the WiKi when they did not against the Balrog? Sorry, that makes no sense.

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

The Lord of the Nazgûl could not be defeated by the hand of a man, Éowyn would have been torn to pieces if it weren't for Merry..

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

Gandalf is a powerful wizard, yes, but he is still mortal whereas the Leader of the Nine is not.

Was Gandalf 'mortal' after he was ressurrected by the Valar? Could he even be considered a 'man' or was he a different being altogether after being revivified by Valinor? "Gandalf? Yes... that was what they used to call me. Gandalf the Gray. That was my name. I am Gandalf the White." He was now an angelic messenger sent back at "the turning of the tide."

As far as the WitchKing, he fleed like a coward from Glorfindel, and was destroyed by a young maiden and a hobbit. Those are not bullet points to put on one's resume. In fact, there is not a single instance during the War of the Ring where he succeeded in direct confrontation. He wasn't even successful with other Ringwraiths surrounding him.

But really, this is all academic. JoltFlame, what proofs can you provide from the text to support your claim? I have yet to see anything direct and concrete from you regarding your stance, or at least anything that hasn't been discounted as cheap parlor tricks on the part of the WiKi.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The Valar brought him back to finish his task.

Just to be perfectly accurate to Tolkien's concept, it was Eru (God) who sent Gandalf back, enhanced in power. I rather doubt that Eru would have bothered to send him back in a state that would be capable of being easily defeated by someone who was, when all is said and done, a thrall of Sauron's, bound to him and the world by a ring of Power. Referring to the resurrected Gandalf, Tolkien said (letter 156) that his wisdom and power were now much greater. If no physical weapon could harm him, as is the clear implication in his remark to Aragorn et al in Fangorn, then what weapon would the Witch King have? Fear? "Magic"? Since in Tolkien's world, magic is

(okay, let's finish what I was typing when the computer went bats...)

derived from the personal power and ability native in the being who wields it. Sauron used his own power in making the Ring powerful, and thus lessened his own strength without it. One can only presume that to some extent, Celebrimbor did the same thing. And it would explain why the Rings could only give power commensurate with the ability of its bearer. Which means that ultimately, the Witch King could never have had ability greater than Gandalf's, because he was natively human, while Gandalf was in reality a Maia, cloaked in a human but not mortal form. Destructible, yes. Mortal, as Men are mortal, no.

[JoltFlame]

It ought to be obvious that I was referring to the dagger which Merry possessed.

In regard to the question stating if Gandalf was mortal, I have to say, that is foolish, even for a question. He returned enhanced and wiser but he was still mortal, of course, and a man only.

The Black Captain also gained strength before assaulting the White City, and his power increased as time passed, that is why he was able to outmatch The White Rider.

[Mugwump]

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

In regard to the question stating if Gandalf was mortal, I have to say, that is foolish, even for a question. He returned enhanced and wiser but he was still mortal, of course, and a man only.

Utter nonsense, Jolt. While the Istari were clothed in the bodies of old men, and those bodies could feel and be affected by the same things as men's, there is absolutely no doubt that they were Ainur, the same type of being as the Valar and the Maia, with powers and defenses far, far greater than any possessed by a mortal man.

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Just to be perfectly accurate to Tolkien's concept, it was Eru (God) who sent Gandalf back, enhanced in power. ... Referring to the resurrected Gandalf, Tolkien said (letter 156) that his wisdom and power were now much greater.

What part of Gandalf's power do you think comes from his staff in the first place, Ibrîn? Is it really a source of his power and sustenance, as your Latinate signature phrase implies (aside from its more mundane meaning), or is it merely used to focus Gandalf's inherent powers?

For whatever reason, Peter Jackson's Gandalf of Return of the King is a very different Gandalf from Tolkien's. Throughout the movie he lessens in favor of Aragorn, as though there were some insidious transference of power and wisdom from the former to the latter. Even the actor playing Gandalf, Ian McKellen, pitches in with the weakening of Gandalf, by making him cough while smoking in one scene, with Jackson's apparent acquiescence. (I heard McKellen admit that, in typical preachy liberal Hollywood fashion, he did it to add an anti-smoking message to the movie). By the end of the film there's no doubt in the mind of the audience that Aragorn could whip Gandalf's butt in a sword fight, for instance.

(By the way, you're missing a "u" in antiquum.)

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

It ought to be obvious that I was referring to the dagger which Merry possessed.

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

In regard to the question stating if Gandalf was mortal, I have to say, that is foolish, even for a question. He returned enhanced and wiser but he was still mortal, of course, and a man only.

Foolish? Let us do math, shall we? How are you at counting past 1000? How about past 2000? Are you using both fingers and toes yet? Gandalf had been in Middle-earth for over 2000 years at the time of the War of the Ring. Please, can you tell me what mortals live over two millenia? He obviously is not a 'mortal man' within the parameters set by Tolkien. The oldest known 'mortal man' was Elros Half-elven, who loved to be 500, but he was given special dispensation and chose the gift of mortality. On a side note, nowhere does it say the WitchKing could indeed not be killed by the hand of man. You misunderstand a prophecy given by Glorfindel, who said:

"Do not pursue him! He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall."

Just as you took the narrowest view of the quote, so did the WiKi. Glorfindel's prophesy was indeed fulfilled when Eowyn, a female, slew the WiKi, with the aid of a Hobbit (who was indeed an adult male, but technically not a 'man'), but this was only based on circumstance. Nowhere does it say that the WiKi could not be killed by a man. This is emphasized when the WiKi flees from Glorfindel, rather than face an Elf of Aman in his wrath. Why run if the WiKi could not be slain? Was it because Glorfindel was a male Elf but not a 'man'? If that is the case, then Gandalf, a Maia, was no more a 'man' than Glorfindel was a 'man'. Gandalf may have 'appeared' to be a man, but that is no more the case than Glorfindel or Meriadoc not being defined as 'men'.

Which brings us to your contention that the blade of Westernesse used by Meriadoc played a part in the WiKi's destruction. The text points to the blade and not the bearer as the reason for its effect on the Wiki; therefore, a Dunedain male, a mortal man and maker of the knife, would have had the same effect on the WiKi as a Hobbit. The Dunedain who crafted the baneful blades wrought the knives for one specific reason, to kill the WiKi. They didn't make them in fashionable designed colors and hand them out to the ladies of their court.

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

The Black Captain also gained strength before assaulting the White City, and his power increased as time passed, that is why he was able to outmatch The White Rider.

That is not mentioned in the movie, and there is not much emphasis on that point in the book. Funny you should believe something as truth when such a thing is never discussed in movie terms. As far as the movies, PJ was all over the place in regards to the liberties he took from the books, and his annoying inconsistencies were noted several times in this thread. In the books, the WiKi neither broke Gandalf's staff, nor seemed to intimidate him in the least. When facing the Balrog, Gandalf showed real concern. That just was not the case with the WiKi. The WiKi was not, as Tolkien stated, Gandalf's primary foe, Sauron was.

Please read the book again as many times as necessary. Use it like shampoo, wash, rinse, repeat.