Gandalf the White vs The Witch King of Angmar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vilnas

The words were spoken by Glorfindel to Earnur at Fornost (I believe the material appears in the RotK appendices), but it is unclear whether this was in fact a "prophesy" in the sense of conveying a fated outcome. My personal interpretation is that it was in the nature of a foreseeing on the part of Glorfindel where he perceives what will happen rather than what must happen.

The tale of those words obviously spread - as far as I know it is the only source that we have for the concept of the WK being unable to be harmed by the hand of "man." I find it entirely believable that the WK himself misunderstood the exact import of what Glorfindel said and believed himself invulnerable.

---

True, I don't know if the warning was intended to be delivered as a prophecy or whether it foreshadowed what would be, or what was designed to be. Perhaps it was both. Maybe he was just trying to save Eärnur from his destiny in Angmar. I don't doubt that the WK's arrogance led him to his destruction. Prophecy is seldom clear until after the fact, and not always even then. I think it was fate in that it was the will of Ilúvatar, though that doesn't mean it was absolutely unavoidable. Melkor (aka Morgoth) was able to oppose his destiny, that's what brought evil to Arda in the first place. Gandalf surely would have known this history and while he may not have been allowed to interfere, I think he had the ability. Although he would no longer be Gandalf the White, and his disobedience may even have brought down a worse fate upon the world than was the threat of Sauron. How difficult it is to watch those you love suffer and, seeing so much, know that standing back and allowing them to exercise their own free will is what's best for them. He had a choice, but being who he was did he really have a choice? There's some pretty deep theology in Tolkien's tales. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vilnas

I'm think the WK honestly believed he could defeat Gandalf straight-up. I personally believe the WK generally was overconfident of his abilities, in part based on his misunderstanding of the "prophecy" of Fornost (per my post above).

---

What the WiKi actually said to Eowyn was 'No living man may hinder me', rather than that he couldn't be killed by men. What I was getting at was that as that was arguably true (barring the sort of ancient blade Pippin had with him, without which timely intervention the WiKi would have slain Eowyn exactly as he'd said he would) and with Gandalf seemingly being bound by duty not to directly use his power to hinder him either, then the WiKi would have had every reason to be confident (especially as Sauron was lending him far greater power than usual).

What would have bothered the Witch-king was if there'd been an Elf-lord there, but Sauron's overall strategy had succeeded in keeping the High Elves occupied and so there was no need to worry about that.

Quote:

---

Here is my question for the group. Did the WK even know what Gandalf was? After all, initially only Cirdan knew whence the Istari came (although I think we can safely asssume that Gandalf later shared his origins with Galadriel and Elrond). Did Sauron know as a certainty that the Istari were Maiar in mortal form? Even if he did, did he share that knowledge with the Nazgul? The WK calls Gandalf "old man" at the gates. Would he choose that particular form of address if he knew what Gandalf was? If the WK thought Gandalf was a "mere" wizard (e.g., magician, sorceror, etc,. as compared to "Wizard" in the sense of Istari), that would go a long way to explaining his belief that he would easily kill Gandalf.

---

There was aparently no such thing as a 'mere' wizard, the term's applied exclusively to the Istari. Lesser magical folk are referred to as magicians (if they're not bad people) or sorcerers (if they're the sinister sort). Now as regards Gandalf, the Witch-king had to know that he couldn't be just a man: he'd fought him before (at Weathertop) and anyone who could successfully defend themselves against all nine of the Nazgul at night was plainly far more than he appeared to be. Given that Gandalf had been around for a couple of thousand years, the Enemy must have figured out long before what he had to be; Sauron wasn't stupid. I think the WiKi meant it simply as an insult, that Gandalf's day was done and that he might as well have been just an old man waving a stick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vilnas

Here is my question for the group. Did the WK even know what Gandalf was? After all, initially only Cirdan knew whence the Istari came (although I think we can safely asssume that Gandalf later shared his origins with Galadriel and Elrond). Did Sauron know as a certainty that the Istari were Maiar in mortal form? Even if he did, did he share that knowledge with the Nazgul? The WK calls Gandalf "old man" at the gates. Would he choose that particular form of address if he knew what Gandalf was? If the WK thought Gandalf was a "mere" wizard (e.g., magician, sorceror, etc,. as compared to "Wizard" in the sense of Istari), that would go a long way to explaining his belief that he would easily kill Gandalf.

---

I'm quite sure the Witch-King was aware of Gandalf's power, as was Cirdan, Glorfidel etc. He saw all that was in the "Unseen" world, and Gandalf's power would've been revealed to him just like Glorfindel's power was at the Ford. "Old man" must've just been an insult.

And let's be fair when it comes to WK vs Glorfindel. Yes, the Nazgul fled, but if they were in a proper fight ( Only the Nine vs Glorfindel, and not interrupted by, say, a giant flood) under the WK, Glorfindel would've been the one who would've fled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

I didn't find the scene in the extended cut of ROTK where the WiKi destroys Gandalf's staff to be the least bit reasonable. Pretty awful, actually.

---

I agree completely, I watched the movies before I read the book, but after reading the book was surprised at how much they left out about Gandalf's true power and how really his power was distorted a little bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oraekja

Melkor (aka Morgoth) was able to oppose his destiny, that's what brought evil to Arda in the first place. [...] How difficult it is to watch those you love suffer and, seeing so much, know that standing back and allowing them to exercise their own free will is what's best for them. He had a choice, but being who he was did he really have a choice? There's some pretty deep theology in Tolkien's tales. :)

---

Spot on. Much of the nature of fate in Middle Earth can be seen in Melkor's original fall:

"Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and
mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur,
that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them
forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that
no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any
alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but
mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself
hath not imagined.' Then the Ainur were afraid, and they did not yet
comprehend the words that were said to them; and Melkor was filled with
shame, of which came secret anger."

There's a more extended description of the nature of the Music of the Ainur in the Ainulindale that I can't quote at length, but reading it through you get perhaps the best overview of what is "going on" in the larger sense throughout the events of the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haunt123

And let's be fair when it comes to WK vs Glorfindel. Yes, the Nazgul fled, but if they were in a proper fight ( Only the Nine vs Glorfindel, and not interrupted by, say, a giant flood) under the WK, Glorfindel would've been the one who would've fled.

---

I'm not even sure of that to be honest. Bearing in mind this particular Elf Lord had slain a Balrog (albeit in the typical self-sacrifice manner). The Ringwraiths just don't appear to be that uber in those kinds of situations. Terror for the masses as I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath

I'm not even sure of that to be honest. Bearing in mind this particular Elf Lord had slain a Balrog (albeit in the typical self-sacrifice manner). The Ringwraiths just don't appear to be that uber in those kinds of situations. Terror for the masses as I said.

---

I thought the consensus opinion was the Glorfindel in LotR is a different Glorfindel than the Balrog killer of old...

edit: curious, more than anything

I think I remember reading somewhere that is was the SAME Glorfindel from Gondolin, sent back to Middle-Eath with the Istari (I'm not certain on this, so please no-one shout at me :()

Initially Tolkien's position on Glórfindel does seem to have been two Elves with the same name, but he actually revised this as part of his later revision of the metaphysics of Arda (particularly with regard to what death meant for the Elves). The last "canon" was that the Glórfindels were one and the same, and, as Geinir suggests, Glórfindel was re-embodied (re-incarnated) from the Halls of Mandos as an exceptional act and arrived back in Middle Earth as a precursor to the Istari.

It's probably worth noting that "reincarnation" in Middle Earth is still quite a bit closer to Incarnation in the Catholic and Christian sense than it is to, say, Hindu reincarnation. Thus, as Gandalf returns unambiguously as "Gandalf" (albeit increased in stature and power), so too, Glórfindel is reincarnated presumably in much the same form as that which he had at Gondolin.

This is largely because of the nature of the Elves, who are bound entirely to Arda, both hroa (body) and fea (soul/spirit). Thus reincarnation is less a significant spiritual transition from one body to the next as it is a "reclothing" of a fea with its proper hroa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath

I'm not even sure of that to be honest. Bearing in mind this particular Elf Lord had slain a Balrog (albeit in the typical self-sacrifice manner). The Ringwraiths just don't appear to be that uber in those kinds of situations. Terror for the masses as I said.

---

Well, we are speculating, so it's difficult to be sure of most things:)

What I meant by "fled" was "fled (if he wanted to survive)". I'm sure Glorfindel would've not fled, being a fearless First Age hero and all:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

Initially Tolkien's position on Glórfindel does seem to have been two Elves with the same name, but he actually revised this as part of his later revision of the metaphysics of Arda (particularly with regard to what death meant for the Elves). The last "canon" was that the Glórfindels were one and the same, and, as Geinir suggests, Glórfindel was re-embodied (re-incarnated) from the Halls of Mandos as an exceptional act and arrived back in Middle Earth as a precursor to the Istari.

It's probably worth noting that "reincarnation" in Middle Earth is still quite a bit closer to Incarnation in the Catholic and Christian sense than it is to, say, Hindu reincarnation. Thus, as Gandalf returns unambiguously as "Gandalf" (albeit increased in stature and power), so too, Glórfindel is reincarnated presumably in much the same form as that which he had at Gondolin.

This is largely because of the nature of the Elves, who are bound entirely to Arda, both hroa (body) and fea (soul/spirit). Thus reincarnation is less a significant spiritual transition from one body to the next as it is a "reclothing" of a fea with its proper hroa.

---

Thanks for that.

(Not to mention it is probably further confused by how much was J.R.R.'s revision and how much was his son's editing. )

(One of these days I'll go back and read all the surrounding works again...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kerin_Eldar

Also, remember that Tolkien used the 'no man can kill me' line so he could spring his 'surprise' by having a woman kill him, clearly the Witch King was killable by a human, aka. 'man' in the non-gender sense, albeit with the help of a hobbit inflicting a wound which somehow (totally unexplained) was able to weaken him.

---

Actually the hobbit wound is explained. Merry got the sword from the barrow-downs. It was westernese and had been made with the purpose of fighting Angmar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morinehtan

Actually the hobbit wound is explained. Merry got the sword from the barrow-downs. It was westernese and had been made with the purpose of fighting Angmar.

---

So in theory, if the hobbits had not taken their "shortcut" through the forest, found Bombadil, gone to the Barrow downs the fell asleep to the East side of one of the stones, then Sauron would have won :p

Actually, remembering Merry stabbing the Witch-king in the leg brings up a question that has been bugging me: When Frodo stabs the WK on weather top, why doesn't it harm him? :/ surely they are blades of the same design and crafting? thanks if someone can answer this :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geindir

Actually, remembering Merry stabbing the Witch-king in the leg brings up a question that has been bugging me: When Frodo stabs the WK on weather top, why doesn't it harm him?

---

It's because Frodo didn't actually hit him, just slashed his cloak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

It's probably worth noting that "reincarnation" in Middle Earth is still quite a bit closer to Incarnation in the Catholic and Christian sense than it is to, say, Hindu reincarnation. Thus, as Gandalf returns unambiguously as "Gandalf" (albeit increased in stature and power), so too, Glórfindel is reincarnated presumably in much the same form as that which he had at Gondolin.

This is largely because of the nature of the Elves, who are bound entirely to Arda, both hroa (body) and fea (soul/spirit). Thus reincarnation is less a significant spiritual transition from one body to the next as it is a "reclothing" of a fea with its proper hroa.

---

That's covered in Morgoth's Ring, the initial idea of them being 'reborn' was done away with. Instead the Valar can construct a new body for the Elf identical to the old one (using the memory of the body the spirit in question retains).
So, yes, they're both the same which is why I can't see the WK being much cop against Glorfindel.

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."

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.