Galadriel VS The witch- king

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by obloquy

You said:
Quote:
The Witch-King also wasn't as strong as he was at the Siege of Minas Tirith.

Based on what text, exactly?

From Letter #210 in The Letters of JRR Tolkien:

[The Black Riders'] peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. (emphasis added)

Angmar was undoubtedly more powerful at the Siege of Minas Tirith than he was as the leader of the Black Riders. Sauron saw to that.

Originally Posted by obloquy

... the rest is wholly and unequivocally incorrect, and obvious enough to anyone who reads it.

It's not obvious to me. Whether Angmar had the ability to defeat Gandalf the White is open to question. You (and Boro) make a good argument, but is not as clear cut as you seek to suggest. What I find persuasive is that the confrontation between Angmar and Gandalf at the Gate of Minas Tirith is intended by Tolkien to be a moment of tension. Like Pippin, we the readers are meant to fear that Angmar may actually be capable of defeating Gandalf. Were we to believe otherwise, there would be no tension here at all. Tolkien is careful to ensure that there is a good reason for Angmar's departure, and that he is not simply seen off by Gandalf. In my opinion, Tolkien intended us to believe that there was a possibility that Angmar might defeat Gandalf. And, being the obedient reader that I am, I believe that.

And yes, I have deliberately referred to the Witch-King as Angmar because, as I have discovered previously, it riles obloquy.

But seriously, I have little problem with him being referred to as such. There are perfectly good precedents to support it, as davem, points out. And, since we all know who we are talking about by the reference, it hardly matters much.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Angmar was undoubtedly more powerful at the Siege of Minas Tirith than he was as the leader of the Black Riders. Sauron saw to that.

Good reference, Saucepan. I admit the W-K certainly seems more menacing on the Pelennor than at any point previous. I differ in my reading of that portion of the letter, however, in that I believe Tolkien may be referring to the effect of his narrative choices on the reader rather than any actual enhancement of the Witch-King by Sauron within the story. Still, even if your interpretation is correct, I maintain that he could not be enhanced enough to become a peer of Gandalf--not by a long shot.

What I find persuasive is that the confrontation between Angmar and Gandalf at the Gate of Minas Tirith is intended by Tolkien to be a moment of tension.

It is, yes. But I feel a much different tension than you and some others seem to since I now know the relative power levels of the parties involved, and also that this is not to be a duel. Gandalf's side at this point could still lose the battle, and the Witch-King could still be victorious. Gandalf, as mighty as even I give him credit for, could still be slain if he was not backed by an army. So this tension is not due to doubt whether Gandalf will stand against the Witch-King mano a mano, but whether Black will prevail ultimately. Once again, boiled down to simple logic: Gandalf and Sauron are peers; Sauron is far mightier than his Lieutenant, the Witch-King; therefore Gandalf is far mightier than the Witch-King. There is, of course, still the question of the limits Gandalf was subject to. Were they wholly removed when he became "the White"? Or was he sent back merely "clothed" rather than once again fully incarnate? As I've argued before, G had the power to own the crap out of the Balrog but he sacrificed himself in observance of his rules; if these rules were still in effect, the outcome of a duel between he and the Witch-King may have been similar--though not because the W-K was a more powerful being.

Like Pippin, we the readers are meant to fear that Angmar may actually be capable of defeating Gandalf. Were we to believe otherwise, there would be no tension here at all.

Once again, in case anyone skipped my above paragraph, the tension comes from doubt as to which side will win, not who's going to come out on top when G and W-K square off.

But seriously, I have little problem with him being referred to as such. There are perfectly good precedents to support it, as davem, points out. And, since we all know who we are talking about by the reference, it hardly matters much.

No, those are bad precedents.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Oblo

Where did this idea that the Barrow Blade was the only thing capable of piercing the WK's "magic" come from?

So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

Clearly only a Barrow Blade could have done the job. More interestingly, Tolkien states 'No other blade'. One could read this as meaning it was not only any Barrow Blade that could have done it, but only the particular blade that Merry bore. Its possible that when Tom gave that particular blade to Merry he was laying out his destiny before him. Perhaps it wouldn't even be too mad to suggest that the Blade was what drew Merry to the Pelennor with the Rohirrim. Anyway. Whether it was Merry's blade alone or all the Barrow Blades, we know that they are weapons with specific powers:

"See!" cried Aragorn. "Here we find tokens!" He picked out from the pile of grim weapons two knives, leaf-bladed, damasked in gold and red; and searching further he found also the sheaths, black, set with small red gems. 'No orc-tools these!" he said. "They were borne by the hobbits. Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.

I think what it does show is that once again we are not dealing with power vs power. Certainly the man who wrought the Blades was not more powerful than Angmar, yet he was able to create weapons that could destroy him.

[Lalwendë]

It isn't a simple question of who is the most powerful, who is the strongest, nor is it a question of hierarchies determining who will triumph. Morgoth was the greatest of the Valar and Sauron his greatest servant, so possibly the greatest of the Maiar. But the whole of both LotR and the Silmarillion show how small, insignificant peoples in terms of 'status' can beat these 'great and powerful' high status figures, whether through bravery, cunning or with the the help of the correct tools.

It was a twist of fate that brought Bilbo to the One Ring, and thus eventually to small, insignificant people causing the downfall of Sauron. Also important is pride and arrogance; Sauron had the arrogance to encapsulate much of his power into the One Ring without considering that it could be lost and that he would be unable to retrieve it. Likewise the Witch King had the arrogance to believe that he could not be undone. Perhaps he believed the prophecy about him a little too much.

One of the weapons of those on Sauron's side is propaganda if you will, i.e. their reputations as beings of great power and invincibility; they ride on their status and do not consider that the smaller people only need to reject the notion of status in order to gain the courage to face them.

In any case, the text says it was the sword itself that was the necessary 'tool' for undoing what held the Witch King together. Perhaps some of those who opposed Sauron knew that this blade was necessary, or if they really did have such power, wouldn't they have attempted to challenge the Witch King already? It seems that Aragorn might know of a tale, judging by what he says when he finds Merry's sword.

We also have to remember that the Nazgul were only shadows of the terror and power they would posess if Sauron regained the Ruling ring. Gandalf says something along the lines of that on the 1st page of FOTR in 'A journey in the dark'

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

Clearly only a Barrow Blade could have done the job. More interestingly, Tolkien states 'No other blade'. One could read this as meaning it was not only any Barrow Blade that could have done it, but only the particular blade that Merry bore. Its possible that when Tom gave that particular blade to Merry he was laying out his destiny before him. Perhaps it wouldn't even be too mad to suggest that the Blade was what drew Merry to the Pelennor with the Rohirrim. Anyway. Whether it was Merry's blade alone or all the Barrow Blades, we know that they are weapons with specific powers:



I think what it does show is that once again we are not dealing with power vs power. Certainly the man who wrought the Blades was not more powerful than Angmar, yet he was able to create weapons that could destroy him.

Good post.

I still disagree to a degree. The Barrow Blade was obviously the best sword for the job (thanks for the text reference) and totally ruined the W-K in one little stab, but I don't believe that means no other blade could have harmed him. I would especially hesitate to exclude the ancient blades of the Eldar--like Glamdring--when wielded by powers much mightier than the W-K.

Certainly the man who wrought the Blades was not more powerful than Angmar, yet he was able to create weapons that could destroy him.

Certainly? Why is that certain?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Morgoth was the greatest of the Valar and Sauron his greatest servant, so possibly the greatest of the Maiar.

I don't see how that might follow.

But the whole of both LotR and the Silmarillion show how small, insignificant peoples in terms of 'status' can beat these 'great and powerful' high status figures, whether through bravery, cunning or with the the help of the correct tools.

I think too many people get this idea when it was probably not the intention of the writer. I can't think of any examples of it from the Sil, and the only two I can recall from LotR are Merry/Eowyn and the W-K, and the whole destroying the One Ring thing. But really, these are just examples of chance and good strategy working out.

It was a twist of fate that brought Bilbo to the One Ring, and thus eventually to small, insignificant people causing the downfall of Sauron.

Ehhhhhhhh. If you want to look at it that way. Hobbits really had very little to do with it. Their contribution was just that they were humble enough (in mind and spirit) to bear the Ring for unusually long periods of time. Gandalf was the real star of the Third Age, and the overthrow of Sauron belongs to him.

Also important is pride and arrogance; Sauron had the arrogance to encapsulate much of his power into the One Ring without considering that it could be lost and that he would be unable to retrieve it. Likewise the Witch King had the arrogance to believe that he could not be undone. Perhaps he believed the prophecy about him a little too much.

I completely agree here and here:

One of the weapons of those on Sauron's side is propaganda if you will, i.e. their reputations as beings of great power and invincibility;

The Witch-King seems a lot tougher than he really is because he's cocky. Besides Gandalf and Aragorn, there's nobody on the Pelennor who is on his level, plus he's got this prophecy that says he will not fall to a man, so he struts around ruining stuff and talking smack. He's not all that, however, based on simple Tolkien hierarchies. He's at the level of a particularly powerful Man of Numenorean descent, and nothing more. Nothing close to the spiritual power of the Eldar, and insignificant when compared with the Maiar.

they ride on their status and do not consider that the smaller people only need to reject the notion of status in order to gain the courage to face them.

Now I have to disagree. What you're talking about is important against the Nazgul, because their primary and most effective weapon is fear. Without it, they're just messed up Men. However, courage means little when you're going toe-to-toe with something that is on an entirely different spiritual plane. Remember when Gandalf said that he was the only one of the Fellowship who could confront the Balrog? That's those 'spiritual tiers' in action. You absolutely mustn't underestimate their importance in Tolkien's mythos.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Oblo

The Barrow Blade was obviously the best sword for the job (thanks for the text reference) and totally ruined the W-K in one little stab, but I don't believe that means no other blade could have harmed him. I would especially hesitate to exclude the ancient blades of the Eldar--like Glamdring--when wielded by powers much mightier than the W-K.

I think the question is 'How much harm would another weapon have done him?'. What the Barrow blade did was to break the spell that knotted his sinews together, making him vulnerable. I think when tolkien states No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will. the implication is that other blades may have harmed him, but only that blade could have broken the spell & opened him up to a mortal blow. Of course, that's my reading. It does seem that its not merely a question of the power of the blade or the hand that wields it, but of the particular type of weapon used. This is common enough in myth - only a silver bullet can kill a werewolf, etc.

As to your question

:

Certainly? Why is that certain?

I think if there was another sorcerer, equal to, or greater than, Angmar on the opposing side Tolkien would have mentioned him. The man who makes the silver bullet is not more powerful than the werewolf, he just knows what will dispatch it.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

That's funny; I presented various ocasions which show that Gandalf doesn't restrain himself in times of need;

And if you did more research, as I advised, you'd recognize that in those situations that you referenced, Gandalf was necessarily still acting within his limitations.

Oh really? Why does Tolkien state in letter #246 that even if Gandalf had mastered the ring, the one-on-one confrontation with Sauron would still be a delicate balance?

The reason for this wording is explained in the letter itself; in fact, in the same paragraph you reference. It's clear to me now that, rather than actually reading Tolkien, you are in the habit of merely searching for keywords in the index, or perhaps in those wonderful .doc files of all of Tolkien's works. Anyway, here's the explanation you requested, as well as the context you shrewdly chose not to include in your post:

In any case a confrontation of Frodo and Sauron would soon have taken place, if the Ring was intact. Its result was inevitable. Frodo would have been utterly overthrown: crushed to dust, or preserved in torment as a gibbering slave. Sauron would not have feared the Ring! It was his own and under his will. Even from afar he had an effect upon it, to make it work for its return to himself. In his actual presence none but very few of equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of 'mortals' no one, not even Aragorn. In the contest with the Palantir Aragorn was the rightful owner. Also the contest took place at a distance, and in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance.

Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him -- being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. In the 'Mirror of Galadriel', I 381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond. [please note, as it's pertinent to the original topic of this thread: Tolkien allowed that this was possible: Galadriel overcoming Sauron with his Ring, overthrowing him. Witch-King, eat your heart out. -obloquy] But this is another matter. It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power. But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as is seen in Elrond's words at the Council. Galadriel's rejection of the temptation was founded upon previous thought and resolve. In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force. Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end.

[Boromir88]

the implication is that other blades may have harmed him, but only that blade could have broken the spell & opened him up to a mortal blow. Of course, that's my reading. It does seem that its not merely a question of the power of the blade or the hand that wields it, but of the particular type of weapon used. This is common enough in myth - only a silver bullet can kill a werewolf, etc.

That's what I thought too. For if we actually believe Aragorn:

'This was the stroke of Frodo's sword,' he said. 'The only hurt that it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth.'~Flight to the Ford

Merry's sword does end up perishing, but it was the one able to break the spell. So, from this, I also got that impression...any sword can 'pierce' and harm the Witch-King, and every sword will 'perish,' but it's this blade of the Westernesse that was able to break the spell.

What I'm puzzled about now is Aragorn only says 'but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King.' Does this mean this is only a 'spell' of the Witch-King's? For I would think if it applied to all the Nazgul, Aragorn would have said so. Or, perhaps I'm looking too far in and since Frodo stabbed at the WK, Aragorn only said him.

When all is said & done, it does appear overall that Sauron seems to be the most powerful enemy in ME. Not even Gandalf had the power to face the coming of Sauron at the end, as mentioned in the Council of Elrond (although even when enhanced I still do not believe he could ultimately match Sauron).

The WK unfortunately is just a "brave" cocky but powerful servant of Sauron, & through his added demonic force he thinks he can defeat an enhanced ''Balrog's Bane" - if that was the case, how many of you seriously think the WK would stand a good chance of defeating the Balrog? I think he could give the Balrog a strong battle, but ultimately the Balrog would be too strong. Therefore I think the same would happen if the WK battled it out with Gandalf the White - Gandalf's supernatural powers (in some respect comparable even to those of Sauron's) would prove too much for the WK, who would most likely withdraw with curses back to his master.

Of course, Gandalf may have been anxious to face the mighty WK - who wouldn't? But then again Gandalf was fearful of the Balrog also, knowing that he was going to be put to the true test of his powers. But I don't think the WK inspired quite that same level of fear - quite a bit of the anxiety Gandalf appeared to show was probably down to the potential ruin the WK as commander of his army could inflict on Gondor - Gandalf could not keep back the storm all by himeslf , hence the cocky nature of the WK (my army is greater than your's, so what makes you think then that you can defeat me in combat?). The WK is just making every ounce of the difficult odds count in his favour by trying to instill fear - not just of himself, but of Mordor's armies, & the fate that may fall on Gondor.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

A matter of debate; in the White Rider, he states that:"I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still".

This has nothing to do with innate power levels and everything to do with the cumulative force of Black and White (bad and good). That Sauron and Gandalf are peers is not a matter of debate: it is fact.

If he chose to obey any rules exactly at the moment of confronting the balrog, it was a dumb choice.

Well he did.

I recommend you do some more research before participating further.