Galadriel VS The witch- king

[Boromir88]

You bring up a good point that by ROTK the Witch-King is cocky and arrogant...'no man may hinder me,' as he says, hinder meaning in effect the WK was saying he was unstoppable. What's interesting is that I think perhaps Boromir I was a big reason to boost the WK's arrogance. To finish off the quote (and I should have done this before, but it was late and I wasn't thinking):

Boromir son of Denethor (after whom Boromir of the Nine Walkers was later named) defeated them and regained Ithilien; but Osgiliath was finally ruined, and its great stone bridge was broken. No people dwelt there afterwards. Boromir was a great captain, and even the Witch-King feared him. He was noble and fair of face, a man strong in body and in will, but he received a Morgul-wound in that war which shortened his days, and he became shrunken with pain and died twelve years after his father.~Appendix A: The Stewards

So, the Witch-King had feared Boromir I, but seeing as he stabbed him with a morgul-blade and he later died, that could be a boost to his confidence, even push him to arrogance...'See here this great captain that I feared...well now he's dead...so I'm unstoppable...muahahaha.' Or something like that.

The Witch-King probably couldn't be killed by any old weapon, but I think that the focus has been a little narrow.

Well that fact that Tolkien cosistantly talks about the 'spells' wound in the Barrow-blade and it's design to bring down their greatest enemy at that time, the Witch-King makes me thing that it's that particular blade that is of importance. I think common sense could tell us that the Witch-King could be killed if he got his head chopped off...right? And it doesn't take a magical weapon to do that.

But let's take a look at some more things:

'The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him.'
If we believe Gandalf, he is saying the Nazgul cannot be destroyed in 'that way' meaning drowning. There's no mention of being 'killed,' because I think there is a difference between killing/dying, then destruction in Tolkien. So, Gandalf doesn't say the Nazgul couldn't be killed, but they couldn't be destroyed. Sauron's power is also bound to them, and they go down, or rise up with him.

But what's interesting about the Barrow-blade is the term used here:
...made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction.
The Barrow-blade was wrought with spells and made for the destruction, the 'bane' of the Witch-King. And also here:

...breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.
Now besides meaning a tendon, 'sinews' is also like a mainstay of muscular power, or strength....like the 'sinews of virtue' The Barrow-blade was able to break the spell, and the 'sinews' that were to his will. The WK had lost all power and strength because the spell was broken...his sinews of his will were broken.

I definitely think that the Barrow blade was an important tool and it did what it was designed to do...destroy the Witch-King. His sinews were broken, he lost all power and strength of the 'spell' that were intertwined to his will. Therefor, I'm thinking (but I could just be totally wrong) the Barrow-blade destroyed the Witch-King, to the point where he would be unable to return back. If we accept what Gandalf says, the WK and the Ringwraiths should fall with Sauron if Sauron does indeed fall. I think we see this in ROTK when the Ring is finally destroyed, the remaining Nazgul are also destroyed. So, conceivably after being killed the Witch-King would have been able to return. However, the Barrow-blade just doesn't kill the WK it destroys him, or destroys his spirit to the point where he cannot return. (Because as far as I know the 'spirit' in Tolkien's works could not be totally and completely annhilated).

I think any blade could have dispatched and killed the Witch-King, but it was the barrow-blade that struck a blow, taking away all his power, and in effect 'destroying' him. By all means I could just be totally off base, and am interested in hearing some responses.

Another question my pondering of the Gandalf vs. Witch-King debate brought to mind was this: Would Merry and Eowyn have won in a fair fight?

I doubt it. One on one vs. the Witch-King, straight forward fight, I doubt it. I think both Merry and Eowyn were important pieces to the destruction of the Witch-King and without one of them, neither would have succeeded in killing him. I do think Merry played the more important part, after all Eowyn just had a straight shot right to the face after Merry stabbed him and dealt him such a 'bitter' blow, but after Merry's jab he could have finished off the Witch-King, someone had to.