# The Nazgûl: mortal or immortal



## Ingwë (Aug 8, 2005)

The Nazgûl are the Nine servants of the Dark lord Sauron. They possess the Nine Rings of the Mortal men doomed to die  . They were mortal men but what happened when they got the Nine Rings? Did they become immortal or they didn't? Are they immortal? 

[I decided to start this thread after the debate 'Who 'killed' the Witch King? ' ]


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 8, 2005)

Gandalf in "The Shadow of the Past" in FOTR:


> "A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he _fades_: he becomes in the end invisble permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings. Yes, sooner or later -- later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last -- sooner or later the dark power will devour him."


They do not die while they are under the control of the Rings, but they are not immortal in the same sense as the elves are immortal.


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 8, 2005)

I think as you or you think as me  I and Arvedui debated in the thread 'Who killed the Witch king?' 



Arvedui said:


> The Nazgûl were mortal: they were Men, after all.
> (Is that clear?    )


I hope I will se him in this thread  

And I said:


Ingwë said:


> But they have Rings of Power and they don't die. Without the Rings (and perhaps the One Ring) they are mortal, but we have Rings


----------



## Led Zeppelin (Aug 8, 2005)

Didnt it say somewhere that they are neither living nor dead? Maybe they dont even exist, they are just spirits of the corrupted men?


----------



## Maeglin (Aug 8, 2005)

Yes, Aragorn does tell Frodo and the others at Bree that they are neither living nor dead, but that they were indeed men once. I think the best explanation is that they are men that have simply faded, as Gandalf described could happen to a mortal. So I suppose they are just spirits, if that is what one is reduced to after fading.


----------



## Arvedui (Aug 9, 2005)

The Nazgûl were Men, and thus they were mortal.
Only the Valar could change the fate of the Children of Eru. And I guess that they would need the consent of Eru as well.

I believe that this is a case that borders on the problems related to the origin of Orcs: Morgoth could not have created the Orcs, because he did not have the power to give them independant life. Thus, Sauron could not have changed the fate of the Black Númenóreans.

IMO....


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 9, 2005)

I think that they are immortal till the Ring exists. We know that Aragorn tried to fight them but he cannot. 
As Greenwood mentioned, "A mortal, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die. I think he doesn't die till the One exists. They disappeared after the destroying the One Ring. The Ring gives them the Power.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 9, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> The Nazgûl were Men, and thus they were mortal.
> Only the Valar could change the fate of the Children of Eru. And I guess that they would need the consent of Eru as well.


The Valar *cannot* change the fate of Elves or Men! From Tolkien's letter #131:


> The doom or gift of God, of mortality, the gods of course cannot abrogate, but the Numenoreans have agreat span of life.


From letter #153:


> Ommortality and Mortality being the special gifts of God to the _Eruhini_ (in whose conceptions and creation the Valar had no part at all) it must be assumed that no alteration of their fundamental kind could be effected by the Valar even in one case: The cases of Luthien (and Tuor) and the position of theor descendents was a direct act of God.


From letter #156:


> There they became the Numeroreans, the Kings of Men. They were given a triple span of life -- but not elvish 'immortality' (which is not eternal, but measured by their duration in time of Earth); for the point of view of this mythology is that 'mortality' or a short span, and 'immortality' or an indefinite span was part of what we might call the biological and spiritual _nature_ of the Children of God, Men and Elves (the firstborn) respectively, and would not be altered by the One, except perhaps by one of those strange exceptions to all rulkes and ordinances which seem to crop up in the history of the Universe, and show the Finger of God, as the one wholly free Will and Agent.


From letter #325:


> As for _Frodo_ or other mortals, they could only dwell in _Aman_ for a limited time -- whether brief or long. The _Valar_ had neither the power nor the right to confer 'immortality' upon them.


If the Valar cannot make mortals into immortals, then certainly Sauron and his Ring could not!


----------



## Hammersmith (Aug 9, 2005)

It depends what "mortal" and "immortal" mean. The elves are not truly immortal in the sense that they could be killed or die in certain ways, though they did not succumb to age. We know that the Wraiths could be killed by something as simple as a piece of cold steel, and the "no man born of a woman" malarky was not so much a "can't be" as a "won't be" in my mind. I don't think we'd ever see a Ringwraith in a zimmer frame, but they were only as immortal as the elves were.


----------



## Arvedui (Aug 10, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> The Valar *cannot* change the fate of Elves or Men!


I know. I was just being a little careless when typing.
I could say that it won't happen again, but I guess it will.  


Hammersmith said:


> It depends what "mortal" and "immortal" mean. The elves are not truly immortal in the sense that they could be killed or die in certain ways, though they did not succumb to age.


The correct word is _Longevity_, not _immortality_ when it comes to the Firstborn.


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 10, 2005)

Let we use the books...



> Down like lashing whips fell a torrent of black rain. And into the heart of the storm, with a cry that pierced all other sounds, tearing the clouds asunder, the *Nazgúl came, shooting like flaming bolts, as caught in the fiery ruin of hill and sky they crackled, withered, and went out*.


They went out after the destroying the One Ring. They were no more. They aren't immortal as the Elves but they are immortal while the One Ring exists.


----------



## Eledhwen (Aug 10, 2005)

AT THE END OF THE BATTLE OF THE PELENNOR FIELDS
"And still Meriadoc the hobbit stood there blinking through his tears, and no one spoke to him, indeed none seemed to heed him. He brushed away the tears and stooped to pick up the green shield that Eowyn had given him, and he slung it at his back. Then he looked for his sword that he had let fall; for even as he struck his blow his arm was numbed, and now he could only use his left hand. And behold! there lay his weapon, but the blade was smoking like a dry branch that has been thrust in a fire; and as he watched it, it writhed and withered and was consumed.


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.*"

Only a knife like Merry's could have undone the spell that allowed the witch king to command his body to remain whole. Once that spell was broken, the witch king's mortality was laid bare to Eowyn's attack.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 10, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> I know. I was just being a little careless when typing.
> I could say that it won't happen again, but I guess it will.


Arvedui,

Forgive me if I came across a bit too strong. I am aware from your past posts that you are quite knowledgeable in matters of Tolkien.


----------



## Arvedui (Aug 11, 2005)

Don't worry, I did not find your reply strong in any way.
I think that it is fair that such mistakes are corrected, especially on this matter, as I believe it to be of crucial importance when it comes to understanding the questions concerning the topic of this thread, and also the origin of Orcs.


Greenwood said:


> I am aware from your past posts that you are quite knowledgeable in matters of Tolkien.


 Not nearly enough, my firend. Not nearly enough.


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 11, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> Only a knife like Merry's could have undone the spell that allowed the witch king to command his body to remain whole. Once that spell was broken, the witch king's mortality was laid bare to Eowyn's attack.


*So you say that the Witch King was immortal till Merry undone the spell that allowed the witch king to command his body to remain whole?*


----------



## Hammersmith (Aug 11, 2005)

Ingwë said:


> *So you say that the Witch King was immortal till Merry undone the spell that allowed the witch king to command his body to remain whole?*


An interesting premise. If that were so, what was so significant about an old elven dagger?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 11, 2005)

I don't think it's an elven dagger; after Tom gives the daggers to the hobbits: "he told them that these blades were forged many long years ago by Men of Westernesse". In the Silmarillion, Eonwe gave the numenoreans wisdom and power, and we also learn there that "the Dunedain became mighty in crafts, so that if they had had the mind they could easily have surpassed the evil kings of Middle-earth in the making of war and the forging of weapons" - so it could be just the craft of the numenoreans that made this blade so powerful.

However, the next quote, from the same chapter 8, _could_ imply some sort of magic of (some of) the numenoreans: "whether by some virtue in these sheaths or because of the spell that lay on the mound, the blades seemed untouched by time, unrusted, sharp, glittering in the sun". ("Pure") humans (i.e. who aren't related by blood to the elves, such as Aragorn) don't have magic abilities; but the descendants of Elros do have some remnants of the elven magic, so maybe it is one of them who was involved in making the dagger magical.


----------



## Hammersmith (Aug 11, 2005)

Okay, firstly I confused myself between the Gondolin-forged Sting and the weapons of the other hobbits. Sorry  .

But surely any spell laid on the mound would be of an evil origin designed to protect _all _of the mound's treasure, rather than only the swords?

I think I may have gotten us off track. Basically, the question hinges largely on whether it was specifically Merry and/or his use of the dagger of Westernesse that caused the Witch King's mortality, or whether the King was naturally subject to injury and death, though immune to age and disease like the elves' longevity.

I can't see that quote regarding hypothetical spells as relating too much to the daggers themselves, but rather to the entire hoard. Even if it were as you say, other than establishing a precedent of magic over the weapon, what good would it do Merry, a spell of preservation against a wraith?


----------



## Eledhwen (Aug 11, 2005)

Ingwë said:


> *So you say that the Witch King was immortal till Merry undone the spell that allowed the witch king to command his body to remain whole?*


There were two known 'achilles heels' when it came to Nazgul immortality. One was the destruction of the One Ring, which they believed would never happen; the other was the power of the making spells in the blades of Westernesse. I would surmise that the Nazgul were either unaware of the power in the knives, or thought them all long destroyed.

I think that if the Ring had endured and been returned to Sauron, then the Nazgul would have continued to exist as appendages to his power.


----------



## Borzagnazgork (Aug 12, 2005)

You know, i have been pondering about the same thing myself. I am leaning towards their immortality being the same or similar to the elves in that they can just die of old age but can if someone kills them. 

Another point that cannot be overlooked is that after a certain amount of time their bodies dissipated until only their spirits survived. This is why at weathertop when Frodo put on the ring he saw them in a shadowy white form, their true spiritual form. So is it really possible to kill a spirit? 

Yet another important point that i noticed was when Eowen killed the Witchking of Agmar. How did she kill him if he cannot be killed. Obviously there is some sort of affect on merry when he stabs him. Well, like all things in the realms of fantasy and epic stories, all the character adhere to prophesy. The prophesy of the witchking was that he could be killed by no man. There is a glich in that because he indeed was not killed by a man but a woman. 

Thats about all i wish to add on to this...feel free to elaborate more on what i wrote.


----------



## Arvedui (Aug 12, 2005)

OK.
Last things first: It was never said that the Witch-king *could not* be killed by a man. This is the correct statement, as said by Glorfindel to Eärnur after the destruction of Angmar:


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


 From _Lord of the Rings, Appendix A, Gondor and the heirs of Anárion._

This was mere forsight, not a curse or a doom. Therefore it is wrong to say that he was unkillable by man.

Concerning the blades of Westernessë:
As Greenwood so kindly provided the quote, I would say that all the information one might need, can be found there.
The blade was forged in Arnor (not Númenor), with the specific purpose of being able to break the spell of the Ring that once had enslaved the Witch-king to Sauron, and in the process given him unnaturally long life.
The people of Arnor seemed to have known perfectly well what they were up against, and it is even stated specifically that the blade was forged "when the Dúnedain were young," so that I guess that it is perfectly safe to suppose that they still retained a lot of the skills and knowledge of the Númenóreans at the time.

It wouldn't matter much who wielded the blade. It was the blade itself that was crucial to the destruction of the Witch-king, not the wielder.

To sum it up:
- Glorfindel "saw" that somewhere in the future, the Witch-king would be destroyed.
- Someone in Arnor made a blade with the specific purpose of being able to brake the spell that kept the W-K alive.
- Somewhere along the way, that blade ended in the barrow-downs.
- Merry got it from Tom B.
- Merry broke the spell with the blade, making the Witch-king subject to wounds and hurt from ordinary weapons (and every other object).
- Éowyn killed the Witch-king.


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 12, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> - Someone in Arnor made a blade with the specific purpose of being able to brake the spell that kept the W-K alive.


Let me see... That blade was made with specific purpose but can someone else kill the Witch King without that blade? I think that no one can kill him. But then the Nazgûl have specific kind of immortality. They are immortal till the One Ring forged by Sauron exist or other magic power broke spell that kept the Witch King alive (but that spell is the Power of the One Ring).


----------



## baragund (Aug 12, 2005)

Here's a thought that might have people scratching their heads...

If the Barrow Downs blade broke the spell that kept the Witch King alive, would he not start to revert to his 'natural' state? That is, his body would age to however many hundreds or thousands of years old? Think of how Bilbo aged after he passed the One Ring to Frodo, now multiply that effect on the Witch King by, say, a factor of one hundred.

One could suppose that after Merry's blow, the Witch King would have died of old age. Perhaps Eowyn's coupe de grace was not necessary.

(btw, Welcome to the neighborhood Borzagnazgork  I think you'll find folks here to be mellow, friendly and most willing to share insight on all things Tolkien.)


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 12, 2005)

baragund said:


> One could suppose that after Merry's blow, the Witch King would have died of old age. Perhaps Eowyn's coupe de grace was not necessary.


You really made me scratching my head.  
Maybe the Witch King really didn't need Eowyn's help to die but he also had his Ring. Does breaking the spell mean breking the power of his own Ring. But here comes the question where are the Rings of the Nine. They carry them or they are hold by Sauron? But are the powers of the Witch-King's Ring and the One Ring related. I mean what happens if something (the blade) brake the power of one of the Rings. and we must answer the question which Ring gives the power of immortality to the Witch-king. I think that the One Ring gives him the immortality. 
Then thread is interesting... So there is a case in which that blade didn't broke W-K's immortality...


----------



## baragund (Aug 12, 2005)

Ingwe, my impression is that the Nazgul got their power (longevity, strength, ruthlessness, ability to strike fear into others, etc.) from each of the Nine Rings that were given to them by Sauron. To maintain that power, their Rings must be worn. 

Based on the quotes provided above by Greenwood and Eledhwen, the Barrow Downs blade had the ability to break the part of the Witch King's Ring's power that gave him longevity. With that spell broken, the Witch King would have shriveled up like a raisin and died. Eowyn's blow simply hastened his end. Another interesting thing to consider is whether the Barrow Downs blade broke the power of the Witch King's Ring itself, or only that Ring's effect  on the Witch King. I mean, after Eowyn put the finishing touch on the Witch King, could his Ring have been left in the dirt, fully functioning, waiting for some poor slob to pick it up, put it on and become the newest Nazgul?

I believe that the Nazgul's Rings each had powers of their own but they were all ruled (controlled) by the One. That's why the remaining eight Nazgul were not affected by the Witch King's demise. To kill them, you would have to a) stab them with another Barrow Downs blade, b) somehow destroy their own Rings or c) destroy the One.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 12, 2005)

> To maintain that power, their Rings must be worn.


Then this would imply that the wraiths have managed to rescue their rings from the waters of the Ford, after they were drowned.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 12, 2005)

baragund said:


> Ingwe, my impression is that the Nazgul got their power (longevity, strength, ruthlessness, ability to strike fear into others, etc.) from each of the Nine Rings that were given to them by Sauron. To maintain that power, their Rings must be worn.
> .
> .
> .
> I mean, after Eowyn put the finishing touch on the Witch King, could his Ring have been left in the dirt, fully functioning, waiting for some poor slob to pick it up, put it on and become the newest Nazgul?


I will have to dig out the actual quote tonight, but Tolkien wrote that Sauron held the Nine Rings himself. The Nazgul no longer wore them.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 12, 2005)

> I will have to dig out the actual quote tonight, but Tolkien wrote that Sauron held the Nine Rings himself. The Nazgul no longer wore them.


Hm, it may be that there is an inconsistency in Lotr; at the council of Elrond Gandalf says: (emphasis added):
"Some, Galdor, said Gandalf, would think the tidings of Gloin, and the pursuit of Frodo, proof enough that the halfling's trove is a thing of great worth to the Enemy. Yet it is a ring. What then? _The nine the nazgul keep_. The seven are taken or destroyed."
However, Galadriel says:
"You saw the Eye of him that holds the seven and the nine"


----------



## baragund (Aug 12, 2005)

The term "held" could be interpreted as a) in physical possession or b) exerting control or dominion.

If it is a), then it becomes a difficult stretch to understand how Sauron could keep control over the nine Black Numenoreans who were given their Rings. One would have to get into some kind of long-distance telepathic (for want of a better term) control by Sauron over their minds and bodies. It becomes more plausible if it is b) because the very instruments of control are placed on their fingers so that creates a physical (sort of) link between the Nine and their master.

Clear as mud?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 12, 2005)

Well, we also have this quote from UT, The hunt for the ring:
"At length he resolved that no others would serve him in this case but his mightiest servants, the ringwraiths, who had no will but his own, being each utterly subservient to the ring that had enslaved him, which Sauron held"


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 12, 2005)

OK, I have now had a chance to look at my copy of Tolkien's _Letters_. In Letter #246 Tolkien discusses what might have happened at Orodruin if Gollum hadn't been there. He discusses a scenario where Frodo faces the Nazgul sent by Sauron after Frodo claims the Ring for himself. Tolkien writes:


> Would they have been immune from its power if he claimed it as an instrument of command and domination?
> 
> Not wholly. I do not think they could have attacked him with violence, nor laid hold upon him or taken him captive; they would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor commands of his that did not interfere with their errand -- laid upon them by Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had primary control of their wills.


So we have a direct statement from Tolkien that Sauron held the nine rings of the Nazgul; in keeping with Galadriel's statement tha Thorondor quoted above.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 13, 2005)

There is one more quote from The hunt for the ring, UT, which sustains this idea (emphasis added):


> They were by far the most powerful of his servants, and the most suitable for such a mission, since they were entirely enslaved to _their Nine Rings, which he now himself held_; they were quite incapable of acting against his will, and if one of them, even the Witch-king their captain, had seized the One Ring, he would have brought it back to his Master


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 13, 2005)

baragund said:


> To kill them, you would have to a) stab them with another Barrow Downs blade, b) somehow destroy their own Rings or c) destroy the One.


So we come to a conclusion that the Nazgûl were immortal and their immortality was given by the One Ring. They cannot destroy the Nine Rings because they are hold by Sauron.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 13, 2005)

I think far too much is made of that brief passage about Merry's blade after the destruction of the Witch King. Interpretations often placed on it ignore the many other relevant passages in LOTR. Let's look at all the relevant passages Tolkien wrote in LOTR. Presented chronologically there are the following: (Discussion will follow in the next post.)


> Earnur now rode back, but Glorfindel, looking into the gathering dark, said: "Do not pursue him! He will not return to this land. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall!" Those words many remembered; but Earnur was angry, desiring only to be avenged for his disgrace. [Appendix A, ROTK]
> 
> "Old knives are long enough as swords for hobbit-people," he said. "Sharp blades are good to have, if Shire-folk go walking, east, south, or far away into dark and danger." Then he told them that these blades were forged many long years ago by Men of Westernesse: they were foes of the Dark Lord, but they were overcome by the evil king of Carn Dum in the Land of Angmar. [Bombadil giving the blades to the hobbits in "Fog on the Barrow-downs" in FOTR]
> 
> ...


Discussion in next post.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 13, 2005)

Now let's look at the passages presented in the previous post. Starting with Glorfindel restraining Earnur, it is clear, nothing is said about no one being able to kill the Witch-king. Glorfindel is merely predicting that when the Witch-king is finally destroyed, it will not be a man that does the deed. Next we have Bombadil giving the blades from the barrow to the hobbits and we first hear of Angmar and its evil king.

The encounter on Weathertop is important in interpreting the possibe significance of the passage about Merry's blade at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. This is where we are told that *all* blades are destroyed that "pierce that dreadful King". It is also important to note that Aragorn makes no special note of Frodo's sword (which like Merry's came from the barrow). Aragorn is a Ranger of the North, heir to the throne of the North Kingdom, as well as Gondor. If these blades had some special power to kill Nazgul isn't reasonable to assume Aragorn would have recognized them and mentioned it? Why wouldn't Aragorn say: "What a pity Frodo didn't succeed in stabbing him because this special blade would have destroyed him!" (Or at least severely injured the Witch-king, "breaking the spell". etc. etc.) Why wouldn't Aragorn tell all the hobbits, "Keep those blades handy! They are your only weapon against the Nazgul!" Additionally, if these blades are so deadly to the Nazgul, why don't the Nazgul recognize them and fear them? The Nazgul show no particular fear of these blades at Weathertop or the Fords of Bruinen. [Added in edit: Just as Aragorn does not tell the hobbits that there is anything special about their swords from the barrow, neither does Gandalf or Elrond. Wouldn't they, two of the wisest in all of Middle Earth, be aware of the special deadlinesss of these blades, if they were especially deadly to the Witch-king? The hobbits are setting off for Mordor, quite likely with Nazgul eventually in pursuit; wouldn't Gandalf and Elrond tell the hobbits that their swords were potentially deadly to the Witch-King?]

Now, look at the all important encounter on the Fields of Pelennor. We find the Witch-king has evidently believed his own press about no man being able to stop him, but when Eowyn reveals she is not a man, but a woman, the Witch-king is momentarily stopped in his tracks by doubt. I picture him thinking to himself: "Whoa! Have I been misinterpreting that old fool Glorfindel's words for all these years? Am I in danger here?" I have not included the entire passage above but the Witch-king only moves on Eowyn after Eowyn kills his winged steed. 

Now we get to the crucial moments. Merry stabs the Witch-king behind the knee and he cries out in "bitter pain". Eowyn uses this moment of distraction to strike. The Witch-king has not been destroyed by Merry's stab in his knee. He is still in front of Eowyn, his crown on his head above his mantle and his "shoulders bowed before her". And when Eowyn stabs the Witch-king, her sword is destroyed, just as Aragorn said any blade would be that pierced the Witch-king! If the Witch-king were already killed by Merry or Merry's wound had turned him into a mere man, why was Eowyn's sword destroyed? This certainly is not normal when a mere man is stabbed. Also, the wail of the Witch-king as he dies occurs after Eowyn stabs him, not before. His crown falls away and his cloak is empty after Eowyn stabs him, not before.

I will come back to the famous passage about Merry's blade in a moment. First look at the passages in the Houses of Healing. Eowyn's shield-arm is broken from being hit by the Witch-king's mace, but that is an ordinary wound that Aragorn dismisses. Her potentially deadly hurt comes from a sword arm that stabbed the Witch-king. Once again, if Merry had truly made the Witch-king into a mere man, how would Eowyn stabbing a mere man wound her this way? In examining Merry, Aragorn says Eowyn and Merry are both suffering from the same thing and that it comes from "smiting" the Witch-king. Then we have the footnote from Appendix A which clearly states Eowyn performed the "deed" of destroying the Witch-king, with the "aid" of Merry.

Now, lets look at the famous passage about Merry's blade. It does not say Merry's stab destroyed the Witch-king. It does not say Merry's blade dealt a mortal wound; it says it dealt a "bitter" wound. Among the definitions of the word "bitter" in the dictionary are: hard to bear; grievous or causing pain. So the wound was a very painful one, not a fatal one. Look back the passage when Merry stabs the Witch-king. The Witch-king cries out in "bitter" pain. Does anyone think Tolkien's use of the same word in the two places is accidental? What Tolkien is doing here in this passage is tying everything together for his readers. He is reminding them that the Witch-king has been the foe of the men of Westernesse (both North and South Kingdoms) for thousands of years. Now, in a bit of poetic justice the Witch-king is wounded by a blade made in the North Kingdom thousands of years earlier when they fought him and this wound leads to his destruction by Eowyn, who is "not a man".


----------



## Eledhwen (Aug 14, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> If these blades had some special power to kill Nazgul isn't reasonable to assume Aragorn would have recognized them and mentioned it?


Aragorn commented on Frodo's mis-stab at the Witch King, which was not what saved him. Why then did the Witch King leave without the Ring? Because the name of Elbereth _was_ deadly to him though Frodo's attack was not. 



Greenwood said:


> Now, lets look at the famous passage about Merry's blade. It does not say Merry's stab destroyed the Witch-king. It does not say Merry's blade dealt a mortal wound; it says it dealt a "bitter" wound.


You missed the later passage about Merry's blade, which I quoted on page 1 of this thread:- *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.*

This quote was not the opinion of a character in the story (and therefore fallible) but spoken by the Narrator. It states very clearly that Merry's blade undid the ability the Witch King had to prevent damage to his own body (note he has sinews, so he is not pure spirit, just invisible).


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 14, 2005)

> Just as Aragorn does not tell the hobbits that there is anything special about their swords from the barrow, neither does Gandalf


Alot of the knowledge and power of Numenor dissapeared with its fall, and not everything about it was known by Gandalf, Aragorn or Elrond. If the theory that one of descendants of Elros put a certain magic in the blade is correct, we shouldn't expect Gandalf to recognize it, since he wasn't able to recognize even the particular magic of the One ring.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 14, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> Aragorn commented on Frodo's mis-stab at the Witch King, which was not what saved him. Why then did the Witch King leave without the Ring? Because the name of Elbereth _was_ deadly to him though Frodo's attack was not.


Aragorn had already stated why the Witch-king retreated. It is found three paragraphs before he discusses Frodo's unsuccessful stab at the Witch-king:


> "I think I understand things better now," he said in a low voice. "There seem only to have been five of the enemy. Why they were not all here, I don't know; but *I don't think they expected to be resisted.* They have drawn off for the time being. But not far, I fear. They will come again another night, if we cannot escape. *They are only waiting, because they think that their purpose is almost accomplished, and that the Ring cannot fly much further. I fear, Sam, that they believe your master has a deadly wound that will subdue him to their will.*
> ["Flight to the Ford", FOTR; emphasis added]


The Witch-king withdrew becuase he had succeeded in stabbing Frodo with his Morgul blade. He thought he had now only to wait for Frodo to succumb to the wound. In the meantime, he would reunite all the Nazgul for another attack. The Witch-king showed no fear of the supposedly deadly blades from the barrow.




Eledhwen said:


> You missed the later passage about Merry's blade, which I quoted on page 1 of this thread:


I did not miss that passage. It is the very passage I am primarily discussing and you will find it with all the other passages from LOTR I included in my post # 34 above.




Eledhwen said:


> This quote was not the opinion of a character in the story (and therefore fallible) but spoken by the Narrator. It states very clearly that Merry's blade undid the ability the Witch King had to prevent damage to his own body (note he has sinews, so he is not pure spirit, just invisible).


1)The Narrator is ultimately Frodo (and his heir Sam and his heirs) since the book is supposed to be based on the Red Book of Westmarch. There is no infallible Narrator (within the context of the story). 2) No, the passage does not say that. It says no other blade would have dealt such a "bitter" (read painful) wound. It does not say that no other blade could have killed the Witch-king. Eowyn's clearly did. The passage must be read in context with the rest of what is written in LOTR. If the power of the Witch-king had been destroyed by Merry's blade, why was Eowyn's blade destroyed when she stabbed the Witch-king? How could she be suffering from the same malady as Merry which came from stabbing the Witch-king? If the blades from the barrow were so deadly to the Witch-king, why was this never mentioned by Aragorn, Gandalf or Elrond?




Thorondor said:


> Alot of the knowledge and power of Numenor dissapeared with its fall, and not everything about it was known by Gandalf, Aragorn or Elrond. If the theory that one of descendants of Elros put a certain magic in the blade is correct, we shouldn't expect Gandalf to recognize it, since he wasn't able to recognize even the particular magic of the One ring.


The blades from the barrow have nothing to do with Numenor. They are products of Arnor in Middle Earth when Arnor fought Angmar and its Witch-king some 1500 years after the destruction of Numenor. Wild, unfounded theories about descendents of Elros making the blades are irrelevant. This is just another example of your habit of postulating some theory to suit yourself and then treating it as a fact. 

As for Gandalf and the Ring, Gandalf immediately knew it was one of the Great Rings, he just did not guess it was The One Ring.


> "When did I first begin to guess?" he mused, searchig back in memory. "Let me see -- it was in the year that the White Council drove the dark power from Mirkwood, just before the Battle of Five Armies, that Bilbo found his ring. A shadow fell on my heart then, though I did not yet know what I feared. I wondered often how Gollum came by a *Great Ring, as plainly it was -- that at least was clear from the first.*"
> ["The Shadow of the Past", FOTR; emphasis added]


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 14, 2005)

> They are products of Arnor in Middle Earth when Arnor fought Angmar and its Witch-king some 1500 years after the destruction of Numenor


I misinterpreted the passage "so passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse"; I stand corrected.


> Wild, unfounded theories about descendents of Elros making the blades are irrelevant


I disagree; chapter 1, TTT, emphasis added: "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_"


----------



## Arvedui (Aug 15, 2005)

Ingwë said:


> So we come to a conclusion that the Nazgûl were immortal and their immortality was given by the One Ring. They cannot destroy the Nine Rings because they are hold by Sauron.


No, _we_ do not come to any such conclution, even if perhaps _you_ do.  
Men are not immortal, not even Elves are immortal in the true meaning of the word _immortal,_ although their spirits do not die.
But as I have stated before: no Ring can change the destiny of any "race." Only Eru could have changed the fate of the Black Númenóreans. And I don't think he did.


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 15, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> No, _we_ do not come to any such conclution, even if perhaps _you_ do.
> Men are not immortal, not even Elves are immortal in the true meaning of the word _immortal,_ although their spirits do not die.
> But as I have stated before: no Ring can change the destiny of any "race." Only Eru could have changed the fate of the Black Númenóreans. And I don't think he did.


I mean that the Nazgûl are immortal till some spell supports their immortality - they didn't die while the One Ring was lost and I think that they wouldn't die if the Ring wasn't destroyed. I think that you cannot disprove that contention 




> Mount doom
> And into the heart of the storm, with a cry that pierced all other sounds, tearing the clouds asunder, the *Nazgúl* came, shooting like flaming bolts, as caught in the fiery ruin of hill and sky they crackled, withered, and went out.





> The Field of Cormalen
> But the *Nazgúl *turned and fled, and vanished into Mordor's shadows, hearing a sudden terrible call out of the Dark Tower; and even at that moment all the hosts of Mordor trembled, doubt clutched their hearts, their laughter failed, their hands shook and their limbs were loosed. The Power that drove them on and filled them with hate and fury was wavering, its will was removed from them; and now looking in the eyes of their enemies they saw a deadly light and were afraid.


The second quote is after the destroying the One Ring. We see that the Nazgûl still exist after the destruction but they vanished. The Power of the One was no more so the Ringwraiths disappeared.  
And I think that the Ring don't change the destiny of any race. What do you think about Gollum? And what about Bilbo? Their life lengthened while they wielded the One Ring.


----------



## Eledhwen (Aug 15, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> The Witch-king withdrew because he had succeeded in stabbing Frodo with his Morgul blade. He thought he had now only to wait for Frodo to succumb to the wound. In the meantime, he would reunite all the Nazgul for another attack.


Granted; but why then did Aragorn say what he did about the name of Elbereth?


Greenwood said:


> The Witch-king showed no fear of the supposedly deadly blades from the barrow.


There is no evidence that he was aware of the spells on the hobbits' blades. All he saw were dirks in the hands of child sized, frightened little men.

Do you understand the phrase "breaking the spell that knit his (the Witch King's) unseen sinews to his will."? It implies that a spell (probably from the 9 rings) gave him the ability to repair (knit) his undead sinews just by willing it. In the context in which it was given, it also implies that Merry's blow was constructive in the slaying of the Witch King, which Eowyn ultimately executed. You could argue that the spells on Merry's blade merely allowed his own blow to hurt the Witch King (ie: it did not open the way for Eowyn to slay him, meaning that she could have done it anyway given any distraction that allowed her blow, and that he was not immortal at all), but the amount of storytime given to it gives me the impression that the effect was stronger than that. The nazgul had already survived the fords of Baranduin, and one had had his flying steed shot out from under him and survived.


----------



## baragund (Aug 15, 2005)

Greenwood, thank you so much for the extensive and thoughtful explanation of the events surrounding the death of the Witch King, the nature of the Nazgul's "immortality", and the nature of the Barrow blades.  I think I understand where you're coming from and it makes sense to me. There are just two issues that are still unclear to me. I'm not trying to be obtuse or argumentative, but these two issues just don't quite yet "fit" for me.

1. I'm still hung up on the references to "spells" in the description of the Barrow blades. As Eledhwen and Thorondor pointed out, there seems to be spells associated with these blades. Was it a property of the Barrow blade that made Merry's blow "bitter" and enabled Eowyn to deliver the fatal blow? Or was it merely the fact that the blow was delivered by someone other than a Man that made the blow bitter? Would the blow have been just as bitter if Merry was wielding a garden-variety blade forged in, say, Rohan? 

2. Let me go back to the issue of who held the Nine Rings and their effect on the Nazgul. All the quotes provided above pretty much demonstrates that Sauron was in physical possession of the Nine Rings and their influence over the nine Black Numenoreans remained undiluted regardless of their location. That strikes me as different from how it works with the One. The effects of the One Rings seems to dissipate (if not entirely go away)when one is not in physical possession of it. That sure seemed to be the case with Bilbo and I think there were even some brief references to a slight reduction of impact on Gollum. Were the nature of the Nine vs. the One different or was it simply the fact that the Nine were held by Sauron that their control of the Nazgul remained total?


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 15, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> I disagree; chapter 1, TTT, emphasis added: "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 would say you have found an inconsistency on Tolkien's part, on several levels. 1) Men in Middle Earth in LOTR are not supposed to have magic powers. 2) Why would these blades from the North be concerned with the "bane of Mordor"? Mordor did not exist when the Dunedain fought the Witch-king of Angmar. As far as the Dunedain knew Mordor had ceased to exist as a threat with the destruction of Sauron at the end of the Second Age.




Ingwë said:


> The second quote is after the destroying the One Ring. We see that the Nazgûl still exist after the destruction but they vanished. The Power of the One was no more so the Ringwraiths disappeared.


I think you are misreading that second quote. That passage actually takes us back to before the Ring was destroyed. The Nazgul leave the battle and disappear into Mordor because they have been summoned by Sauron to deal with Frodo at Orodruin. Sauron had just become aware of his danger when Frodo claimed the Ring for himself and put it on. Sauron needed the Nazgul to get to Orodruin before the Ring could go into the fire and the winged Nazgul were the fastest servants he could send. As we know they were not fast enough. As for the hosts of Mordor facing the army of the West, they trembled because Sauron's will was no totally removed from them and fixed on the danger Frodo represented to him.



Ingwe said:


> What do you think about Gollum? And what about Bilbo? Their life lengthened while they wielded the One Ring.


This is completely in keeping with what Gandalf told Frodo in "The Shadow of the Past" in FOTR:


> "A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he doe not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a wearinesss. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he _fades_: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings.






Eledhwen said:


> Granted; but why then did Aragorn say what he did about the name of Elbereth?


Because the Nazgul did not expect to be resisted. Instead of easy prey they were confronted with resistance, including the formidable Aragorn and even the little hobbits were calling on one of the most powerful of the Valar. The name Elbereth would be a fearsome one to the Nazgul. To shift to a non-Tolkien tradition think of all those vampire stories where the mere sign of a cross is enough to cause the vampire to recoil.



Eledhwen said:


> There is no evidence that he was aware of the spells on the hobbits' blades. All he saw were dirks in the hands of child sized, frightened little men.


Angmar and its Witch-king fought Arnor and its successor states for nearly seven hundred years. Is it likely the Dunedain were producing blades deadly to the Nazgul during that long war and the Nazgul never once encountered one or even heard of them? Or are we to believe that the only such blades ever produced were in that particular barrow that the hobbits were imprisoned in. Was the production of such deadly blades such a secret that the knowledge of their existence was kept from the rulers of the Dunedain of the North, or was not passed down to Aragorn?



Eledhwen said:


> Do you understand the phrase "breaking the spell that knit his (the Witch King's) unseen sinews to his will."? It implies that a spell (probably from the 9 rings) gave him the ability to repair (knit) his undead sinews just by willing it.


I understand that the *entire* sentence is: "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." I do not think your "implication" follows at all. "Knit" does not necessarily mean repair. According to my Random Hosue Webster's Dictionary it means: "to join closely and firmly"; the definition that implies repair, as in knitting broken bones, is a subsidiary definition, it is not the main one. I think the passage merely states that no other blade would have inflicted such a bitter (read painful) wound on the Witch-king.



Eledhwen said:


> In the context in which it was given, it also implies that Merry's blow was constructive in the slaying of the Witch King, which Eowyn ultimately executed.


Merry's blow certainly gave Eowyn the opening to kill the Witch-king.



Eledhwen said:


> You could argue that the spells on Merry's blade merely allowed his own blow to hurt the Witch King (ie: it did not open the way for Eowyn to slay him, meaning that she could have done it anyway given any distraction that allowed her blow, and that he was not immortal at all),


That is exactly what I am arguing.



Eledhwen said:


> but the amount of storytime given to it gives me the impression that the effect was stronger than that.


And the amount of storyline Tolkien devoted to keeping Eowyn's identity secret as Dernhelm and Eowyn's dramatic revealing of her identity during her confrontation with the Witch-king, along with Glorfindel's prophecy that the Witch-king would not "fall by the hand of man" and the honor and respect Eowyn is given for her deed by Gandalf, Aragorn and everyone else give me the impression that she didn't just stab an empty cloak or a mere mortal that Merry had already killed. I do not see Tolkien playing such games with his readers. We have the great dramatic confrontation of Eowyn and the Witch-king and then 2-3 pages later a single sentence where Tolkien is telling his reader's, never mind, Eowyn didn't really do much; it was all Merry really. Sorry, I don't accept tolkien doing that.



Eledhwen said:


> The nazgul had already survived the fords of Baranduin, and one had had his flying steed shot out from under him and survived.


Perhaps the Nazgul are good swimmers and it wasn't much of a crash landing. Neither of the above compare with having a sword thrust down your gullet.





baragund said:


> 1. I'm still hung up on the references to "spells" in the description of the Barrow blades. As Eledhwen and Thorondor pointed out, there seems to be spells associated with these blades. Was it a property of the Barrow blade that made Merry's blow "bitter" and enabled Eowyn to deliver the fatal blow? Or was it merely the fact that the blow was delivered by someone other than a Man that made the blow bitter? Would the blow have been just as bitter if Merry was wielding a garden-variety blade forged in, say, Rohan?


I would say that Tolkien was inconsistent. He clearly states in one of his Letters that men (mortals) did not have magic abilities (in LOTR), yet he does talk about "spells" with these blades. I would say that Tolkien was saying that somehow these blades dealt a more painful wound to the Witch-king than an equivalent blade might have done, but I think mainly in the passage in question he is reminding his readers of the great antiquity of the battle between the Witch-king and the Dunedain and I think Tolkien is making it a kind of poetic justice that a blade forged thousands of years earlier by someone who presumably lost his fight against the forces of the Witch-king should now inflict a "bitter" wound on the Witch-king that led to his destruction by Eowyn.



baragund said:


> 2. Let me go back to the issue of who held the Nine Rings and their effect on the Nazgul. All the quotes provided above pretty much demonstrates that Sauron was in physical possession of the Nine Rings and their influence over the nine Black Numenoreans remained undiluted regardless of their location. That strikes me as different from how it works with the One. The effects of the One Rings seems to dissipate (if not entirely go away)when one is not in physical possession of it. That sure seemed to be the case with Bilbo and I think there were even some brief references to a slight reduction of impact on Gollum. Were the nature of the Nine vs. the One different or was it simply the fact that the Nine were held by Sauron that their control of the Nazgul remained total?


As for the One Ring versus the Nine and Gollum, Bilbo and the Nazgul, I think you have to go back to Gandalf's explanation of the power of the Rings to Frodo that I quoted near the beginning of this post. Gollum and Bilbo never fell completely under the influence of the Ring and Sauron as the Nazgul had. Neither Gollum nor Bilbo had used the Ring enough to "fade" and become permanently invisible in the real world and totally under the power of Sauron. The Nazgul, on the other hand, had succumbed and were now permanently invisible and under the control of Sauron, even though they no longer wore the Nine. Since neither Gollum nor Bilbo had totally succumbed, the effect of the Ring on them did lessen somewhat. But, in Gollum's case he came by the Ring by an act of murder and he had possessed it for many years, probably about five times his normal lifespan, so he could never fully be free from it. One of Bilbo's first acts after acquiring the Ring was one of pity, sparing Gollum's life when he could have killed him, and his period of possession was much shorter and he never used it for evil purposes.


----------



## Maerbenn (Aug 16, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> He clearly states in one of his Letters that men (mortals) did not have magic abilities (in LOTR), yet he does talk about "spells" with these blades.


If you are interested, I commented on that letter here.


----------



## Arvedui (Aug 16, 2005)

Sinew:
1) a strong band of tissue in the body that joins a muscle to a bone
2) a source of strength or power

From _Oxford's Advanced Genie_

The second option opens a different interpretation than the one that seems to have been used in the posts above, especiallly concerning the effect of Merry's blade on the W-K. But as long as we can't ask Prof. Tolkien directly which meaning he was thinking about, this question will remain wide open, although everything I have read concerning this matter leads be to believe that it was meant as a "source of strength or power."



Greenwood said:


> I would say you have found an inconsistency on Tolkien's part, on several levels. 1) Men in Middle Earth in LOTR are not supposed to have magic powers. 2) Why would these blades from the North be concerned with the "bane of Mordor"? Mordor did not exist when the Dunedain fought the Witch-king of Angmar. As far as the Dunedain knew Mordor had ceased to exist as a threat with the destruction of Sauron at the end of the Second Age.


 You are quite right that Mordor was not a matter to which this particular smith was giving thought. As it says in the Book:


> 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.


And I think (or interpret, if you will) that although Men as such lacked magical powers, some explanation can be found in the phrase "wrought it slowly long ago..." I have always read that line with an understanding that this particular blade took a long time make, because the smith was spending a lot of time to make sure that it could be able to inflict damage on the Witch-king.

Concerning another matter: the effect of the Nine. 
This is a thought that has been looming on the edge of my mind for the last couple of days, and it finally sort of surfaced with this quote:


> "A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he doe not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a wearinesss. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings.


 and what Greenwood wrote:


Greenwood said:


> The Nazgul, on the other hand, had succumbed and were now permanently invisible and under the control of Sauron, even though they no longer wore the Nine.


(I write this as a series of questions, so that it can be easier for you lot to reply step by step, and tell if I have lost it somewhere along the way):
If I understand this right, then the effect of the Nine is seemingly to give extraordinary long life, and some extra powers, right?
But the user does not grow, and he does not obtain *more* life, he just *continues*, right?
But what is written with very little print on the back of the contract is that it causes it's user to fade, thereby leaving the physical world and enter the twilight, right?
And when entering the twilight world, you are completely under Sauron's control, right?

What I conclude from answering *yes* to those questions is that, in relation to the topic of this thread, the Nazgûl never became immortal, they just weren't attacked in the right way before the Battle of Pelennor Fields!

or I could of course be wrong...


----------



## baragund (Aug 16, 2005)

This is a great discussion, guys!  I thought I had a pretty good bead on things, but Greenwood's, Arvedui's and Eledhwen's thoughtful posts are really improving my understanding of the nature of the Nazgul.

Greenwood's last post answered my last two questions of the issue so I think the matter is cleared up for me. Also, I think I can clarify Eledhwen's outstanding question about spells. With the explanations given, the phrase "...breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will..." should refer to the spell of the Nazgul Ring that gave the Witch King his power, rather than any spell placed on the Barrow Downs sword. As for Arvedui's reference to that blade being slowly wrought, that could simply be the difference between a sword that was made quickly and cheaply vs. one of high quality. Think of a comparison between a cheap steak knife one would by at Wal-Mart vs. the finest cuttlery available at Williams-Sonoma...  

Finally, I would suggest the answer is "yes" to each of Arvedui's questions at the end of his last post, and yes, it seems like the Witch King or any of the other Nazgul could be killed by anybody other than a Man. It could be a Dwarf, an Elf, a Woman or a Hobbit.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 16, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> The second option opens a different interpretation than the one that seems to have been used in the posts above, especiallly concerning the effect of Merry's blade on the W-K. But as long as we can't ask Prof. Tolkien directly which meaning he was thinking about, this question will remain wide open, although everything I have read concerning this matter leads be to believe that it was meant as a "source of strength or power."


I opened my good old Random House Webster's Dictionary and found the following for sinew: 1. a tendon. 2. Often, <sinews.> a source of strength, power, or vigor: the sinews of the nation. 3. strength; power; resilience: great moral sinew. Clearly, the first definition is a literal one, with the second and third being figurative. Also, clearly in the passage in ROTK, the "sinews" being referred to are literal ones in the body of the Witch-king. I recognize that it is one of the beauties of language that a word can have more than one meaning when used in a sentence and you have raised an interesting idea here. However, personally, I think it is too great a stretch.



Arvedui said:


> And I think (or interpret, if you will) that although Men as such lacked magical powers, some explanation can be found in the phrase "wrought it slowly long ago..." I have always read that line with an understanding that this particular blade took a long time make, because the smith was spending a lot of time to make sure that it could be able to inflict damage on the Witch-king.


Are you suggesting then that we are to believe that this property was true of only Merry's blade among the blades the hobbits got from the barrow? It seems to me to be quite a stretch that of all the blades made in the North Kingdom, the only one with the ability to kill the Witch-king should end up in the hand of the one hobbit who gets close to the Witch-king. I am not saying this kind of thing is impossible. Clearly, Tolkien has written the story with the implication at various times that higher powers are at work, but I believe he always gives his readers a hint of this when he invokes such an intervention. My interpretation of the phrase "wrought it slowly" is more along the lines of baragund's, that these were carefully made blades. The fact that they ended up buried in a barrow indicates to me that they belonged to a high personage, not a commoner, in that the barrow was clearly the burial place of such a person, and not just a foot soldier. When I read the phrase, I picture these blades being made by a master armourer for important people. And since they were being made in wartime, I can certainly see the maker wishing, as he worked on them, that they are used to strike a blow against their hated enemy, and not just getted used to cut up dinner. This is a perfectly natural thing in someone making a weapon during wartime. I am sure that during World War II many workers in armament plants had such thoughts and may have said such prayers as they worked. I see the "spells" referred to here as just that sort of thing. As I have already pointed out the Witch-king shows no special fear of these blades either at Weathertop or the Ford. Indeed, at the Ford he destroys Frodo's blade with the mere wave of his hand. There certainly doesn't seem to have been much power in these blades.



Arvedui said:


> If I understand this right, then the effect of the Nine is seemingly to give extraordinary long life, and some extra powers, right?


Actually, Gandalf is not speaking specifically about the Nine, but rather refers to all the Great Rings and he is also specifically referring to the Great Rings effects on mortals -- while a mortal possesses them the mortal does not die. I would also say that the implication is that the mortal does not age or die of natural causes, not that it means the mortal cannot be killed. We must remember that in Middle Earth elves do not die (of disease or old age), but they can be killed.



Arvedui said:


> But the user does not grow, and he does not obtain *more* life, he just *continues*, right?


Yes.



Arvedui said:


> But what is written with very little print on the back of the contract is that it causes it's user to fade, thereby leaving the physical world and enter the twilight, right?


Only if the mortal frequently uses the Ring to make themselves invisible, mere possesion of the Ring does not cause the Ring to fade. Neither Bilbo nor Gollum have faded.



Arvedui said:


> And when entering the twilight world, you are completely under Sauron's control, right?


I would say you are under Sauron's control in the twilight world because it was by the power of the Ring that you gained entry to that world. I think the exchange between Gandalf and Frodo in Rivendell in "Many Mettings" in FOTR is relevant here. When Frodo awakes and is asking Gandalf about the events at the Ford of Bruinen:


> "I thought that I saw a white figure that shone and did not grow dim like the others. Was that Glorfindel then?"
> "Yes, you saw him for a moment as he is upon the other side: one of the mighty of the Firstborn. ..."


So I would say the "twilight world" or the "unseen world" is not evil in itself, just that the Rings are an evil way to gain entry to it and thus leave you under Sauron's control.



Arvedui said:


> What I conclude from answering *yes* to those questions is that, in relation to the topic of this thread, the Nazgûl never became immortal, they just weren't attacked in the right way before the Battle of Pelennor Fields!


I agree with you that the Nazgul never became immortal. As for "the right way" to attack them, I would say that the tremendous fear they wielded prevented nearly all from getting close enough to attack them. Only someone of tremendous inner strength and power such as Gandalf, Glorfindel and even Aragorn could stand up to a Nazgul. Gandalf stood up to five of them at Weathertop. It must also be remembered that the Nazgul usually worked as a team. Once again, I quote Gandalf speaking to Frodo at Rivendell:


> "On foot even Glorfindel and Aragorn together could not withstand all the Nine at once."


In addition to the great fear the Nazgul wielded that prevented nearly all from ever actually fighting them, the misinterpretation of Glorfindel's long ago prediction also worked in the Witch-king's favor. If people thought the Witch-king could not be killed, why would anyone sacrifice themselves in an attempt they thought was doomed to fail.




baragund said:


> Finally, I would suggest the answer is "yes" to each of Arvedui's questions at the end of his last post, and yes, it seems like the Witch King or any of the other Nazgul could be killed by anybody other than a Man. It could be a Dwarf, an Elf, a Woman or a Hobbit.


I would say the Witch-king *could* be killed by anyone with sufficient courage to stand up to him. Glorfindel's famous line merely predicted that the Witch-king *would not* fall to a man. "Could" and "would" are two very different things. As I commented above, the misinterpretation of Glorfindel's prediction certainly would work in the Witch-king's favor in giving him an aura of invincibility. I would say that even the Withc-king came to believe in the wrong interpretation as I posted earlier: when the Witch-king tells Eowyn "no man can hinder me" and she reveals she is not a "man", the Witch-king is practically stopped dead in his tracks by doubt. Such doubt can only e read as fear on his part that maybe this woman in front of him was a threat to him. If he thought he truly could not be harmed by anyone, why hesitate in doubt? Why not just laugh at Eowyn and kill her instantly?


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 17, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> I think you are misreading that second quote. That passage actually takes us back to before the Ring was destroyed. The Nazgul leave the battle and disappear into Mordor because they have been summoned by Sauron to deal with Frodo at Orodruin. Sauron had just become aware of his danger when Frodo claimed the Ring for himself and put it on. Sauron needed the Nazgul to get to Orodruin before the Ring could go into the fire and the winged Nazgul were the fastest servants he could send. As we know they were not fast enough.


I made one very, very long post for this thread but I closed the window!!! This makes me crazy  ! mayde I really misread the quote but as you say, Sauron became aware of Frodo and the Ring, then he send the Nazgûl (which is plural and which is singular of that word?) but they *fled *when Frodo destroyed the One Ring (the first quote). 

*And...*
_



*HoMe 9:* Mount Doom

Click to expand...

_


> _And far away as Frodo put on the Ring the Power in_
> _Baraddur was shaken and the Tower trembled from its foundations to its proud and bitter crown. The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, the Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door in Orodruin, and all the plot [> devices] was laid bare to it. Its wrath blazed like a sudden flame and its fear was like a great black smoke, for it knew its deadly peril, the thread upon which hung its doom. From all its policies and webs its mind shook free, and through all its realm a tremor ran, its slaves quailed, and its armies halted and its captains suddenly steerless bereft of will wavered and despaired. But its thought was now bent with all its overwhelming force upon the Mountain; and at its summons wheeling with a ...ing cry in alast desperate race there flew, faster than the wind, the Nazgul, the Ringwraiths, with a storm of wings they hurtled towards Mount Doom. _


 


Arvedui said:


> I write this as a series of questions, so that it can be easier for you lot to reply step by step, and tell if I have lost it somewhere along the way):
> If I understand this right, then the effect of the Nine is seemingly to give extraordinary long life, and some extra powers, right?
> But the user does not grow, and he does not obtain *more* life, he just *continues*, right?
> ...
> What I conclude from answering *yes* to those questions is that, in relation to the topic of this thread, the Nazgûl never became immortal, they just weren't attacked in the right way before the Battle of Pelennor Fields!


Right  
The effect of the Nine gives long life, but also specific immortality. We find that the life of the 'users' of the Nine Rings continues. They didn't die of natural death as the other man die. I think they will live till someone try to kill them with something specific that has the power to kill a Nazgûl or till the Power that holds the spell that longers the Ringwraiths' life be broken. I think that they _became_ immortal but they could be killed with spoecific power. They do _not _die as the ither men die. 
And about the blade that killed the Witch King *Eledhwen* is right: 


Eledhwen said:


> You missed the later passage about Merry's blade, which I quoted on page 1 of this thread:- *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.*
> This quote was not the opinion of a character in the story (and therefore fallible) but spoken by the Narrator. It states very clearly that Merry's blade undid the ability the Witch King had to prevent damage to his own body (note he has sinews, so he is not pure spirit, just invisible).


Though you try disproving her opinion I agree with Eledhwen 


*And...a 'huge' 'thank you, guys'! This is the best thread that I have started!   Interesting discussion, considered opinions... Really good thread *​


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 17, 2005)

Ingwë said:


> I made one very, very long post for this thread but I closed the window!!! This makes me crazy  ! mayde I really misread the quote but as you say, Sauron became aware of Frodo and the Ring, then he send the Nazgûl (which is plural and which is singular of that word?) but they *fled *when Frodo destroyed the One Ring (the first quote).


You seem to still be misreading the quote. The Nazgul *did not* flee when "Frodo destroyed the One Ring". The Nazgul were summoned away from the battle at the Black Gates by Sauron when Frodo claimed the Ring for himself and put it on. Frodo did not destroy the Ring; it was destroyed when Gollum fell into the Cracks of Doom with it. The Nazgul arrive too late and are destroyed, presumably as the Ring melts in the lava of Mount Doom. It is clear from the above that the scene back at the Black Gate has to be a step back in time, even though it occurs in the book after we have read about the destruction of the Ring.

I don't understand why you cite HoME 9. What is relevant is what is in the published LOTR, not a draft from the HoME series. On the other hand what you cite from HoME 9 does not contradict what is in LOTR so I really don't see the point.



Ingwe said:


> The effect of the Nine gives long life, but also specific immortality. We find that the life of the 'users' of the Nine Rings continues. They didn't die of natural death as the other man die. I think they will live till someone try to kill them with something specific that has the power to kill a Nazgûl or till the Power that holds the spell that longers the Ringwraiths' life be broken. I think that they _became_ immortal but they could be killed with spoecific power. They do _not _die as the ither men die.


In Tolkien's Middle Earth "immortality" has a very specific meaning that is not equivalent to its meaning in the real world. In Tolkien's creation, the elves are immortal in that they do not age nor die of illness, but their bodies can be killed. In that event their spirits go to the Halls of Mandos where they remained within the "world" as long as the world continues to exist. An elf's spirit can even be released from the Halls of Mandos and they can return in bodily form, even to Middle Earth in certain isolated cases. That is Tolkien's version of immortality. Mortals, on the other hand, are subject to disease, old age and death. A mortal's death is permanent in that when a mortal's body is killed his spirit leaves the world entirely to only Eru knows where. Even the Valar cannot change the differing fates of mortals and "immortals" in Middle Earth. A mortal possessing a Great Ring, does not age, so he does not die of old age (or illness) but he is not "immortal". His body can still be killed. And if even the Valar can not change the differing fates of elves and men, how could Sauron possibly have that ability through his Rings?



Ingwe said:


> And about the blade that killed the Witch King *Eledhwen* is right:
> Though you try disproving her opinion I agree with Eledhwen


As I have already pointed out, I did not miss the passage Eledhwen points out. I included it among with the other passages I quoted from the books. It is in fact the very passage that I am primarily discussing. I believe it is wrong to ignore all the other relevant passages in LOTR when interpreting that one passage. It must be looked at in the context of the whole book. To interpret that passage in the way that it sometimes is, to say it means Merry killed the Witch-king, requires that the rest of what is written in LOTR be ignored. However, you are entitled to have your own opinion.


----------



## baragund (Aug 17, 2005)

Ingwe, I would be careful about using HOME vol. 7-9 as your source of Tolkien's thinking. As I understand it, those volumes represent the _history_ of the writing of LOTR and they contain drafts of passages that show how Tolkien's thinking of the story evolved. 

Not only that but the passage from HOME 9 you provided appears to be an earlier draft of what Sauron did when he discovered the some little pipsqueak had HIS ring at the Crack of Doom. He forgot the war he was waging, forgot everything else and bent his total effort to recovering his Ring. The fastest way of doing that was sending the Nazgul. The One Ring was destroyed as they "hurtled" toward Mount Doom. That broke the spell and they probably died in a similar manner as the Witch King when he was killed by Eowyn. Their physical bodies suddenly became 3000-plus years old and probaby turned to dust.

And regarding the blade that killed the Witch King, our earlier posts thorughly explored that issue and I'll have to agree with Greenwood. The context of how the word "spells" were used, the point of view of the Narrator (who was, after all, Frodo not Tolkien) and the discussion of Glorfindel's prophecy makes the most logical sense to me.

If I could digress a little bit, I wonder if we could discuss the Nazgul's powers. We know their Rings gave them long life, although I'm not sure their existence can be called "immortal". We know they have an ability to strike unnatural fear in Men's hearts, to the point that they become practically paralyzed with fear and, thus, easily defeated. Anything else? Any super-human or super-natural abilities like abnormal strength, stamina or magical abilities? Two things come to mind that indicate they do have extra powers that must have been conferred to them from their Rings:

1. Some kind of magic must be present or they would not have been able to shatter Frodo's sword at the Ford of Bruinen.

2. They must have been pretty strong if Glorfindel, who was able to take out a Balrog by himself, did not want to go against all Nine of them, even with Aragorn by his side.

Thoughts?


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 17, 2005)

baragund said:


> Two things come to mind that indicate they do have extra powers that must have been conferred to them from their Rings:
> 
> 1. Some kind of magic must be present or they would not have been able to shatter Frodo's sword at the Ford of Bruinen.
> 
> ...


Tolkien certainly doesn't give us many examples of what the Nazguls powers might be beyond instilling fear in their opponents. Fear, however, is a very potent weapon if it can so incapacitate an opponent to the point that they cannot defend themselves. I agree with you that the scene at the Ford certainly indicates powers beyond mere fear. The very name "Witch-king" would seem to indicate the possession of some kinds of extraordinary powers.

As for Glorfindel at the Ford I have always considered it a matter of primarily being outnumbered by slightly better than 4 to 1 (I am discounting the hobbits in such a fight, so it was 2 (Glorfindel and Aragorn) vs. 9) and also being on foot versus mounted enemies. You can be more powerful than any of your opponents and also better armed, but still be at a considerable disadvantage if they have superior numbers and mobility.


----------



## baragund (Aug 17, 2005)

Aragorn took on five of them at Weathertop. The addition of Glorfindel evened the odds, don't you think?  

Now my memory has been contaminated by the films, but wasn't Gandalf about to have some kind of big show-down with the Witch King when Grond (the battering ram, not our TTF Elder Statesman  ) broke the gates of Minas Tirith? I have an impression that Gandalf was getting ready for a BIG fight (more than what would be needed to fight a mere mortal) before the Witch King got distracted by the charge of the Rohirrim.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 17, 2005)

baragund said:


> Aragorn took on five of them at Weathertop. The addition of Glorfindel evened the odds, don't you think?


At Weathertop the Nazgul withdrew of their own choice since they thought they had accomplished their mission in wounding Frodo with the Morgul blade. It was never a real "fight" between Aragorn and the five Nazgul. Considering that apparently all Aragorn had to fight with was a broken sword, I would say he was lucky.  



baragund said:


> Now my memory has been contaminated by the films, but wasn't Gandalf about to have some kind of big show-down with the Witch King when Grond (the battering ram, not our TTF Elder Statesman  ) broke the gates of Minas Tirith? I have an impression that Gandalf was getting ready for a BIG fight (more than what would be needed to fight a mere mortal) before the Witch King got distracted by the charge of the Rohirrim.


Yes, that was looking like a great confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-king until the Rohirrim arrived. Of course, the Witch-king may not have realized how powerful Gandalf was. But, hey, I agree with you that the Witch-king was probably given considerable power through his ring and long service to Sauron. It is one of Tolkien's gifts as a writer that we are free to speculate on what these powers might have been since Tolkien never revealed them. Tolkien has given considerable range to our imaginations.


----------



## Arvedui (Aug 18, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> Are you suggesting then that we are to believe that this property was true of only Merry's blade among the blades the hobbits got from the barrow? It seems to me to be quite a stretch that of all the blades made in the North Kingdom, the only one with the ability to kill the Witch-king should end up in the hand of the one hobbit who gets close to the Witch-king. I am not saying this kind of thing is impossible.


I am not suggesting anything.
What I meant, and as I should have written, of course, is that I have always read this line as I explained, *up until now.* 
Again, I have engaged in a discussion on TTF, and ended a little wiser than I was at the outset. Thanks, everyone.  


Greenwood said:


> So I would say the "twilight world" or the "unseen world" is not evil in itself, just that the Rings are an evil way to gain entry to it and thus leave you under Sauron's control.


I wasn't completely satisfied with my reasoning; there was something lacking. With your comment, it seems rather complete.
I think that you are very right.


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 18, 2005)

> You seem to still be misreading the quote. The Nazgul *did not* flee when "Frodo destroyed the One Ring"*. *_The Nazgul arrive too late and are destroyed, presumably as the Ring melts in the lava of Mount Doom_*... *It is clear from the above that the scene back at the Black Gate has to be a step back in time, even though it occurs in the book after we have read about the destruction of the Ring.


Gollum destroyed the One Ring but this is mistake that may be missed. They were destroyed when the One Ring was destroyed by Gollum. The most important that I'd like to mention is that the Nazgûl disappeared when the Ring melted in the lava  



Greenwood said:


> I don't understand why you cite HoME 9.


_



there flew, faster than the wind, the Nazgul, the Ringwraiths, with a storm of wings they hurtled towards Mount Doom

Click to expand...

_


Greenwood said:


> The Nazgul leave the battle and disappear into Mordor because they have been summoned by Sauron to deal with Frodo at Orodruin... Sauron needed the Nazgul to get to Orodruin before the Ring could go into the fire and the winged Nazgul were the fastest servants he could send. As we know they were not fast enough.


The sense of the HoMe quote is like your quote  The Nazgûl hurtled towards Mordor; the Nazgûl were summoned by Sauron to deal with Frodo. 



> A mortal possessing a Great Ring, does not age, so he does not die of old age (or illness) but he is not "immortal".


I meant that you say, but I called it 'specific immortality. 

And about the Narrator... Indeed the Narrotor is Frodo, but Tolkien is the author of the books. And if you don't assume that the info in the book written by 'Frodo' is true, then you may say that there are no true materials in the books that we can use. 



> Ingwe, I would be careful about using HOME vol. 7-9 as your source of Tolkien's thinking. As I understand it, those volumes represent the _history_ of the writing of LOTR and they contain drafts of passages that show how Tolkien's thinking of the story evolved.


As Gorhmog told me, the HoMe books include the foundations of the books, the LotR, Sil, Ut are based on the HoMe books.


----------



## baragund (Aug 18, 2005)

Ingwe, the narrator of a story (the point of view from which a story is told) does not necessarily does not necessarily mean he has all of the information and history of what's going on. LOTR was told from Frodo's perspective. It was his personal experience, information he gathered from the rest of the Fellowship, and some element of "historical" research. That body of knowledge is not necessarily complete and possibly incorrect. Frodo certainly was not fully knowledgable of the entire history of Middle-earth but that doesn't mean that history is incorrect.

I'm not sure I'm explaining this clearly...  

As for HOME vol. 7-9, yes it is the foundation of the published LOTR but there is a LOT of stuff that Tolkien discarded and changed before his final version. I'm going through vol. 7 myself and here are some of the things that Tolkien started to develop and then ultimately discarded:

*Bilbo had a wife and Frodo was Bilbo's son
*Aragorn was a Hobbit
*One of the purposes of the quest was to get more dragon gold
*"Tweaks" of characters and the order of events too numerous to list

Really, if you want to get the truest sense of Tolkien's intent, you need to reference the published LOTR, Tolkien's Letters and possibly his later writings (after the publication of LOTR).


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 18, 2005)

Ingwë said:


> Gollum destroyed the One Ring but this is mistake that may be missed. They were destroyed when the One Ring was destroyed by Gollum. The most important that I'd like to mention is that the Nazgûl disappeared when the Ring melted in the lava


Perhaps I am the one misreading, or at least not understanding, what you are trying to say. We seem to be in agreement that the Nazgul are destroyed when the Ring is destroyed in the Cracks of Doom. I don't understand what you are trying to say with: "Gollum destroyed the One Ring but this is mistake that may be missed." What mistake are you referring to? Earlier, you seemed to be saying that the passages you quoted from LOTR indicated that the Nazgul still existed at the battle before the Black Gate after the Ring was destroyed. Now, I guess you didn't mean that, but I don't understand what you did mean?



Ingwe said:


> As Gorhmog told me, the HoMe books include the foundations of the books, the LotR, Sil, Ut are based on the HoMe books.


The HoME series include Tolkien's notes and drafts, but LOTR is his final version. The HoME series include much that Tolkien chose not to include in LOTR, either becuase he thought the material unnecessary, or too complex, or he rejected it after considering it. It is of interest in seeing how Tolkien worked and how the story evolved in his mind, but it cannot be used as a substitute for what he finally published. As for The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, these are Christopher Tolkien's version of his father's unpublished material. They reflect Christopher's best effort to make a coherent version of his father's drafts, but they are not the same thing as LOTR since Tolkien did not finish them and even Christopher admits they are not all consistent within themselves or with LOTR. If there is any sort of disagreement or ambiguity between them and LOTR, LOTR has to be the final authority since that is what Tolkien himself published. Certainly there are materials published in the HoME series by Christopher (and Tolkien's Letters) that indicate Tolkien was rethinking some things in LOTR. These matters are of interest, but since Tolkien never incorporated these changed views in a later edition of LOTR, they cannot change the published LOTR.


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 19, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> Perhaps I am the one misreading, or at least not understanding, what you are trying to say. We seem to be in agreement that the Nazgul are destroyed when the Ring is destroyed in the Cracks of Doom


Yeah, we are in agreement because that moment is clear 



Greenwood said:


> I don't understand what you are trying to say with: "Gollum destroyed the One Ring but this is mistake that may be missed." What mistake are you referring to?


I previously said that Frodo destroyed the One Ring but it is not so: Gollum destroyed it when he fell in the lava. I said it was Frodo but the most important for this thread is n ot who destroyed the RIng. That's why I said that the mistake 'who destroyed the One Ring - Frodo or Gollum' may be missed.  



Baragund said:


> I'm going through vol. 7 myself and here are some of the things that Tolkien started to develop and then ultimately discarded:


Thank you. Actually, I haven't read History of Middle earth... I have the books on my comp... I have HoMe 12: good edition and I can use it. I also have some other books but the edition is horrible... I can't use them. The parts of the books are in different files, etc... I cannot find the books in Bulgaria. And I cannot by them from Amazon.com because as far as I know they do not deliver their products to Bulgaria  . 

And something interesting:


> Letter 91 To Christopher Tolkien (29 November 1944)
> Frodo and Sam, fighting with the last Nazgul on an island of rock surrounded by the fire of the erupting MountDoom, are rescued by Gandalf's eagle; [/QUOTE]It seems that Tolkien's thought about the Nazgûl changed. he didn't want to 'destroy' the Nazgûl after the destroction of the One Ring but in the published LotR he destroyed them
> 
> And I'm gonna start a few new threads about the Nazgûl


----------



## Thorondor_ (Sep 4, 2005)

> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think there is any inconsistency:
- Aragorn, as a "long descendant of the children of Luthien", has, thus, magical powers; so should other such descendants. My theory was, and is, that such a descendant, with magical powers, put spells on the blades;
- the spells of the blades weren't acting against a land (be it Angmar or Mordor) but against the beings of evil (and Mordor here is a metaphor for evil). Thus, even if the orcs didn't inhabit, at the time of TTT, the land of Angmar, they still were subject to the effects of the blades.



> Perhaps the Nazgul are good swimmers and it wasn't much of a crash landing. Neither of the above compare with having a sword thrust down your gullet.


 I think that no amount of "ordinary" damage could kill the witch king; as Gandalf says in chapter 3:


> I thought they were all destroyed in the flood, said Merry.
> You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that, said Gandalf. The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him.





> The Winged Messenger! cried Legolas. I shot at him with the bow of Galadriel above Sarn Gebir, and I felled him from the sky. He filled us all with fear. What new terror is this?
> One that you cannot slay with arrows, said Gandalf. You only slew his steed. It was a good deed; but the Rider was soon horsed again.


 (from the White Rider, TTT)


----------



## Yohaikara (Sep 26, 2005)

In think they are neither live or dead, they are between.In the book Frodo started to become similar the Nazgul. They don't have body, they are conected with horses or "dragons"?. They are just an "energy, power", they are waiting for death but they can't die.


----------

