# The Ultimate Fighter



## Voldemort (Oct 7, 2003)

This question has been bothering my friends and I for a long time, so I am going to see what you guys think. Which one of these guys is the most powerful and would beat the others in a fight?? I didnt put Sauron in because he would obviously wipe the floor with them, but assume that each is at their full power (ie Saruman still has his staff).


----------



## BlackCaptain (Oct 7, 2003)

Gandalf, although the second most powerful being in ME next to Sauron, would not win a fight. He doesnt have THAT kind of power. Aragorn is a war leader, rather than a warrior. While I'm sure he has great swordsmanship (and a great sword) I dont think he is the greatest. If Legolas were on here I'd vote for him. No man can beat an Elf in battle, unless they're one of the greatest (giving Aragorn a fighting chance against him). 

I voted the Witch King, simply because he's killed so many and he's by far the absolute coolest character ever created in the history of everything that ever existed forever.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Oct 7, 2003)

The Mouth of Sauron and Saruman are no warriors. 

The Mouth possess cunning, but not prowess in battle.

Saruman is an excellent loremaster and holds great power, but never shows even the smallest tendency to fighting physical battles. He leaves that up to the 'lesser' folks.

Boromir and Faramir are fine warriors in their own right, but...

I think it all boils down to Aragorn, Gandalf and the Witch-King. 

BC, why you think Gandalf would not win a fight is beyond me. He does not think twice when it comes to wielding a sword (unlike Saruman apparently), and he is a terrible foe to have.

And why wouldn't a man be capable of beating an elf in battle??

Legolas is way overrated. What would put him above the likes of at least these last three I chose? Not much, if anything.

I put the Witch-king on the third place, Aragorn comes in second, and Gandalf as the victor.


----------



## Rhiannon (Oct 9, 2003)

A fight with _all_ the others?

I don't think it's fair to pitch Boromir, Faramir, and Aragorn against the wizards...

But I rather think Gandalf the White would win out.


----------



## YayGollum (Oct 9, 2003)

I didn't care about this too much, so I just went for the evil Saruman. He would use his achingly evil voice to mess with people's brains and make them kill each other. Very fun.


----------



## BlackCaptain (Oct 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> *BC, why you think Gandalf would not win a fight is beyond me. He does not think twice when it comes to wielding a sword (unlike Saruman apparently), and he is a terrible foe to have.
> 
> And why wouldn't a man be capable of beating an elf in battle??
> ...



I think that Gandalf wouldn't win THIS battle because Aragorn probably wouldn't fall under his fear... While I'm sure Gandalf is a great warrior, most of it comes from the fear he implants in his foes, at least thats what I cought whilst I was reading.

A man could beat an Elf in battle... but I think you're undermining Legolas here. He is the Prince of one of the greatest Elven realms in the Hither lands, and Elves are simply more keen, accurate, powerful, and swift in battle than men in general. Aragorn possibly could best Legolas, but it would be a good fight and I would just pick Legolas.

I think Legolas is underrated because everyone thinks he's overrated... Just because half the population falls in love with him he gets a bad impression as the character used to draw in more box office sales. We have to give credit where it's due.

Still, I think that the age, wisdom, and "Magical" (rather influencing via outside forces, if that's acurate enough) powers of the Witch King and Gandalf would best Aragorn... When I say Magical i mean the fear or hope that those two can just implent in people at thier coming (Or at the rumour of it ). Too bad we never DID get to see Gandalf and the Witch King duke it out.


----------



## Red Istar (Oct 16, 2003)

Gandalf. 

I agree, BlackCaptain, I would have loved to seen (read) Gandalf and the WK go at each other.


----------



## Kahmûl (Oct 16, 2003)

I chose the Witch-King.


----------



## Inderjit S (Oct 16, 2003)

Legolas may be 'over-rated' but he is no weakling.  



> He was tall as a young tree, lithe, immensely strong, able swiftly to draw a great war-bow and shoot down a Nazgul, endowed with the tremendous vitality of Elvish bodies, so hard and resistant to hurt that he went only in light shoes over rock or through snow, the most tireless of all the Fellowship


 _The History of Eriol/AElfwine; BoLT 2_


----------



## BlackCaptain (Oct 16, 2003)

There! That's what I meant! I just didnt have proof or anything.. haha


----------



## meneldor (Oct 21, 2003)

i choose Turin Turambar, or his father Hurin, who stood before Morgoth and defied him.


----------



## Gandalf White (Oct 21, 2003)

I'm taking this question to mean which of the choices could beat all of the others in a 1 vs. 1 fight. I can see only one apparent answer to the question....me!  

1) Aragorn, no matter how great a warrior, could not hope to best Gandalf the White in battle, as shown in the meeting in Fangorn, where the three hunters thought he was Saruman. 

3) After Gandalf became the White, Saruman was pretty much vested of his power and his staff broken, all at Gandalf's command. 

4+5) Great fighters, but not so great as Aragorn, who would not be able to best Gandalf. 

6) I'm sorry, BC, but I don't think the Witch King could win this. Gandalf the _*Grey*_ was able to hold off _all nine_ Nazgul, including the Witch King, during the night. They didn't dare face him in the daylight. Admittedly, he did flee the morning after, but imagine how much easier it would be for Gandalf the _*White*_ to face the Witch King alone. 

7) This is the one I am least sure about, as I don't know much about the Mouth of Sauron. Still, though, I think Gandalf wins.


----------



## Elka (Oct 30, 2003)

HHUUUMMMMM Its a tie: Gandalf and Aragorn. Can't seem to choose......


----------



## Gandalf White (Oct 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elka _
> *HHUUUMMMMM Its a tie: Gandalf and Aragorn. Can't seem to choose...... *


 Come now! Surely you don't think that Aragorn could beat Gandalf the White in a 1 v 1 fight???


----------



## Elka (Oct 30, 2003)

Well no, but I meant that they are the best fighters, but of course that gandalf is better that Aragorn.


----------



## Lantarion (Oct 30, 2003)

Here's my take on it (most of the opinions below are speculatory):

Aragorn: A 'normal' Man, who has a certain Númenórean aspect (pre-corruption of course) about him and is very adept with a sword. He has also lived in the wild and 'on the lam' for most of his life so he is street smart and would probably be very good in a physical fight or brawl.

Gandalf the White: A Maia, or angelic being, in the form of an aged sage and wizard. Though we are not privvy to the capacity of his powers, I think it can be assumed that if he can crack Saruman's staff asunder with a single word (a fantastic scene btw), and if we can also assume that the Valar or perhaps even Ilúvatar sent him back to Arda in a new, amplified form then I believe that apart from Sauron, Olórin as 'the White' was the most powerful being in Middle-earth at the time.

Saruman the White: Also a Maia, and the most powerful of the five Istari sent to Middle-earth. His strength in magic would presumably have been very great, but it is my opinion that he had focused that strength into honey-tongued cunning and commanding his hordes of troops, as well as controlling many areas at the same time, that he was unable any longer to use his magical capabilities to their full extent. I believe that he would have not needed to 'stoop' to physical combat, but I also believe that the strain would have wearied him soon. So not a strong candidate.

Faramir: A kind-hearted captain and warrior, an apt scout and fighter; also probably fairly nimble (having lived in the lush woods of Ithilien for a long time), so certainly good at physical combat. Close to Aragorn's prowess, or better in some ways.

Boromir: A very strong, stout warrior; but he would have relied on heavy-handed, crushing blows rather than dodging or parrying, but his endurance and speed would have made him a deadly opponent, better perhaps than Faramir or Aragorn, if it were not for his heavy-handedness.

The Witch-king: An undead wraith of a Man, probably of Númenórean descent, being one of Ar-Gimilkhâd's followers perhaps; once presumably a lord of men in Middle-earth, and an adequate warrior. But his chief weapon, as of all the Nazgûl, would have been fear and forerunning anxiety, followed by paralyzing strategies (e.g. the Black Breath), and then either a killing blow or convertative action (e.g. Frodo's almost being turned into a wraith like them). A formidable opponent, because fear is something unconquerable by force.

The Mouth of Sauron: No more than an emissary, a negotiator and uppity statesman, made arrogant by his association with Sauron. Maybe of Black Númenórean descent, and quite probably of normal lifespan. But not a warrior, more of a cunning or insulting psychological tool (did Sauron use him against Rohan and Harad as well?).

Now I'm in no way implying that those are correct, but that's how I see it at this time.


----------



## Gandalf White (Oct 30, 2003)

Very well put; much better than mine, I might add. 

I take it you came to the same conclusions: Gandalf the White would win. Am I correct?


----------



## Turin (Oct 30, 2003)

I see that Túrin isn't on the list, so I guess I'll have to go with the Witch King, I don't really know why I voted for him.


----------



## Gandalf White (Oct 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Turin _
> *I see that Túrin isn't on the list, so I guess I'll have to go with the Witch King, I don't really know why I voted for him. *


 Agh! Did you not read the post previous to mine, or my previous post? 

The arguments plainly laid out who would win! 

It's ok, I forgive you...


----------



## Lantarion (Oct 31, 2003)

> *Originally posted by Gandalf White*
> I take it you came to the same conclusions: Gandalf the White would win.


Are you kidding?! The Witch-king would be bulldozed! *imitates the crunching of bones*
Buahaha.

But I suppose if one were to slipp Gandalf some Longfarthing Leaf bfore the fight, he might be a little more easy-going.


----------



## Gandalf White (Oct 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *Are you kidding?! The Witch-king would be bulldozed! *imitates the crunching of bones*
> Buahaha.
> 
> But I suppose if one were to slipp Gandalf some Longfarthing Leaf bfore the fight, he might be a little more easy-going.  *


 Then after he gets beat up, he stars in several commercials illustrating the dangers of using drugs.   No, I'm sure Gandalf would be very responsible in that area! 

However, since you belittled my favorite character in such a way, I do have a little nit-picking to do.   When the Witch-king would get bulldozed, there would be no crunching of bones, cuz he doesn't have any!  *imitates the crunching of...of....* well, you get the point!


----------



## jimmyboy (Nov 6, 2003)

> but he would have relied on heavy-handed, crushing blows rather than dodging or parrying


Speaking this of Boromir reveals some lack of knowledge concerning this man. In my opinion, Boromir can be considered one of the sturdiest and most able warriors of the latter part of the Third Age. Reading of his deeds (and of Faramir's) in battles against the Black Captain and the allies of Mordor show him to be of the stoutest heart, of the sturdiest courage, and most able leadership in battle. He is indeed descended from noble and strong blood, Numenorean blood to be more exact. He was held in the highest esteem by his people, in fact he was their Captain, and they all looked to him and to his brother for hope in the coming war against the Enemy. Would you look to merely an unskilled brawler to be the Captain of such a great people as the descendents of Numenor? I wouldn't, and I'm sure neither would Gondor nor it's lord, Denethor.

I don't remember where such information is found, whether in the LOTR, the Sil, or in certain indexes, but he is described as a very skilled man of arms, not just as a brawler or brute. No, he's very able with a sword, and likely with many other kinds of weaponry found in his world. I'm sure that if we could ask Aragorn of his opinion of Boromir the warrior he'd probably tell you pretty much what I said.

Concerning Aragorn, he's also a very exceptional man, obviously, and an exceptional warrior. I think it's in Unfinished Tales where the story is told of the Dunedain fighting against the Black Riders in defending the Shire. In this particular battle, Aragorn was not present, because it says that "even if their Chieftain had been present the Rangers probably could not have held off the Black Riders". Or something to that effect, as I'm going by memory. I'm certain the "Chieftain" is Aragorn, and it speaks of him as possibly being the deciding factor in battle against the Nazgul. One does not say that of merely a good leader or an adequate fighter. In fact, Aragorn was the one probably most feared by the Enemy, which is why Aragorn was careful about keeping his identity secret until the right moment. Again, you don't say such things about any but the most extraordinary warrior and Captain.

Remember too that Aragorn was the one who fought off five of the Nazgul, _including_ the Black Captain, at Weathertop. Who else was with him? Gandalf? Boromir? Legolas or Glorfindel? Nope, just a few Hobbits. So basically he was by himself defending them. Most others would have probably ran in fear, or just quailed and been killed.

OK, having said all that, I'd still say that in any one-on-one battle, in the end the winner would likely be Gandalf. If Aragorn went against the Black Captain, who knows; it would probably depend on several factors, like whether it was day-time, night-time, or how tired or rested Aragorn was. He too has some kind of power inherent in himself, as a descendent of Elros and Elendil, not to mention his unusually strong heart and mind. True, the BC was a very powerful sorcerer and had gained much power that wasn't inherent to his being, and that would make it more likely for him to win. But again, it would just depend...


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 7, 2003)

Jimmyboy, I didn't mean to imply that Boromir was an average or bad fighter; I know that besides his stunning relentlessness and determination in battle he was extremely adept with a sword. What I meant was that the image I get of him in a fight is more a strength-favouring and speed-based attack tactic than guile or agile acrobatics and the like. Upon closer examination I think it would be difficult to decide who would win if Aragorn and Boromir fought: but Aragorn's character is made out to be more like a legendary king and knight, whereas Boromir is a great captain and leader and able fighter; in these circumstances Boromir might be seen to lose, though in 'reality' it might go differently. 
Sorry if I bashed your favourite character.


----------



## jimmyboy (Nov 9, 2003)

No worries, Lantarion. 
Boromir's not my favorite; that would be Aragorn. Faramir would probably be a close second or third fave.

Something else I'd like to say is that speed and straight-forwardness are probably better tactics than acrobatics and such. The acrobatics comes from Hollywood, not reality, in my opinion. (Though I admit that the acrobatic fighting looks cool on the movie screen, like Darth Maul, etc.)


----------



## elf_queen (Nov 12, 2003)

I think that it would be Gandalf. Here's how I figure it out:

The Witch-King sweeps the board with Faramir, Boromir, and Aragorn. Sure, they're great warriors, but they're normal, abeit a bit of Numenorean blood. 

We aren't given much information about the Mouth of Sauron, but he doesn't seem as unbeatable as the Witch-King. 

A wizard would easily be able to kill the Witch-King. 

That leaves Gandalf and Saruman. I think that Gandalf would win, once he turned White. Because if he's white, then that means he has the same or greater amount of power than Saruman. Plus, he's on the good side, which means that he can resist most evil things that Saruman uses to decieve people, like his voice. I'd say that those things are his main weapon, which means that Gandalf wins.


----------



## Flame of Udûn (Nov 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Gandalf White _
> *However, since you belittled my favorite character in such a way, I do have a little nit-picking to do.   When the Witch-king would get bulldozed, there would be no crunching of bones, cuz he doesn't have any!  *imitates the crunching of...of....* well, you get the point!   *


Who says the Witch-king has no bones?


----------



## Rhiannon (Nov 12, 2003)

> Who says the Witch-king has no bones?



Well he hasn't got a _head_, after all.


----------



## jimmyboy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Well he hasn't got a head, after all.


Sure he does; it's just not attached to his body.


----------



## Flame of Udûn (Nov 13, 2003)

How does he not have a head?


----------



## meneldor (Nov 13, 2003)

Why can't we open this topic to all characters from all ages? This post would be argued till the end of time!!!


----------



## Gandalf White (Nov 14, 2003)

The Witch King (and all the other Nazgul, for that matter) are _wraiths._ 

They wear black cloaks to hide their _nothingness_.

Yikes, meneldor, that would be utter madness!


----------



## Turin (Nov 14, 2003)

Ah, I still think Turin could beat em all, I don't care what you say. (This was posted for the sole purpose of annoying GW).


----------



## Gandalf White (Nov 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Turin _
> *Ah, I still think Turin could beat em all, I don't care what you say. (This was posted for the sole purpose of annoying GW). *



Annoy me?  How so? I didn't mean madness as in "no one could beat Gandalf," I meant it as "there would be so many choices and valid points that it would be utter chaos." 

And no, Gandalf the White could beat Turin any day. 

also posted for the sole purpose of annoying Turin


----------



## Flame of Udûn (Nov 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Gandalf White _
> *The Witch King (and all the other Nazgul, for that matter) are wraiths.
> They wear black cloaks to hide their nothingness.*





> Merry's sword had stabbed [the Witch-king] from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.


 _The Lord of the Rings The Battle of the Pelennor Fields_ 
Doesn't sound much like nothingness to me.


----------



## Gandalf White (Nov 17, 2003)

I still hold that Black Rider's bodies were not 'human,' and definately had no bones. 



> Wraith: _n_ *1.* the ghost of a person seen before or soon after his death. *2.* a specter; ghost.



I cannot remember where we are told they wore black cloaks to conceal their nothingness, but I am sure it exists. Also, Aragorn's talk with the hobbits at Weathertop tells us they do not have eyes. 



> Eowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground, torn and tumbled...


 _The Lord of the Rings; The Battle of the Pelennor Fields_


----------



## Flame of Udûn (Nov 18, 2003)

A sinew (AKA tendon) is a cord that connects a muscle to a bone.


----------



## Gandalf White (Nov 18, 2003)

If you think that under those black robes are men, you are sorely mistaken. They are named Ring_wraiths_ for a reason. I posted the definition of a wraith before:


> Wraith: n 1. the ghost of a person seen before or soon after his death. 2. a specter; ghost.



This is what Gandalf (a very reliable source) says about them.


> [speaking to Frodo] 'you were half in the wraith-world yourself, and they might have seized you. You could see them, and they could see you.'
> 'I know,' said Frodo. 'They were terrible to behold! But why could we all see their horses?'
> 'Because they are real horses,; just as the black robes are real robes that they wear to give shape to their nothingness when they have dealings with the living.


 I think there are several things we can deduce from this passage. 
1) Black Riders are not living human beings. (..."when they have dealings with the living.")
2) Black Riders are invisible, or at least "nothingness" without their cloaks. 

This sounds like our normal conception of a ghost. And ghosts certainly do not have bones. 

Finally, if the Witch King had bones and muscle, where did they all go when


> Eowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground, torn and tumbled...



I seem to remember another quote about Merry's deed, which would perhaps enlighten the matter further. Perhaps someone else knows what I am talking about.


----------



## Celebthôl (Nov 18, 2003)

None of the Nazgul had bones, end of story, they just had nothingness.


----------



## Flame of Udûn (Nov 19, 2003)

The way I imagine it, the Nazgul have corporeal, tangible forms, they were just invisible. Why else would they fear a sword, or for that matter, any matter at all? I also recall another quote about "knitting his unseen sinews to his will" [could someone find it?]. As they have sinews, I don't why they can't have bones. Unseen, yes. Intangible no. 
About wraith, Tolkien used words in different ways in circa 1950 than the 2003 definition (e.g. shadow).


----------



## Lord Tuor (Nov 19, 2003)

> None of the Nazgul had bones, end of story, they just had nothingness.


if this were the cas then when Frodo (or anyone else for that matter) put on the ring they would have lost their bones, considereing the prolonged affect of wearing the ring is to become a wraith. so i must agree with Flame of Udun in that the ringwraiths are not untangable only unseeable


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 20, 2003)

Yes, excellently argued as well, Flame of Udûn.


----------



## Red Istar (Nov 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Flame of Udûn _
> *The way I imagine it, the Nazgul have corporeal, tangible forms, they were just invisible. Why else would they fear a sword, or for that matter, any matter at all? I also recall another quote about "knitting his unseen sinews to his will" [could someone find it?]. As they have sinews, I don't why they can't have bones. Unseen, yes. Intangible no.
> About wraith, Tolkien used words in different ways in circa 1950 than the 2003 definition (e.g. shadow). *



I agree.


----------



## FoolOfATook (Nov 24, 2003)

If we're talking about the complete legendarium, my vote goes to Turin.

If we're limiting our choices to those in LOTR, I gotta go with Aragorn.

I mean, come on- the Witch King got beat by a girl... 

(Ducks from the various objects being thrown at him by Rhiannon)


----------



## Saermegil (Nov 24, 2003)

I would say Gandalf or the Witch-King.
I think the witch king was there, just invisible. 
Ever seen that movie _Ghost_? Maybe it was like that. 

I would love to say just Gandalf, but I have a secret feeling the reason we never saw a fight between him and the WK was because Tolkien thought Gandalf would lose


----------



## Gandalf White (Nov 24, 2003)

*holds head in hands and groans* 



> _Originally posted by Saermegil _
> *I would love to say just Gandalf, but I have a secret feeling the reason we never saw a fight between him and the WK was because Tolkien thought Gandalf would lose *


 Have you not read what I previously posted in this thread? There _is_ a battle between Gandalf and the Witch King; on Weathertop, soon after the hobbits leave Bree. 

Imagine, if Gandalf the *Grey* can beat back the Witch King and *8* other Nazgul, how easy would it be to defeat the *1* WK as Gandalf the *White*? So go ahead and vote for GW!  

Oh, and I must say to all you others, _if you think the Nazgul are living, breathing men who happen to be invisible, you're just plain wrong..._


----------



## Saermegil (Nov 25, 2003)

If Gandalf is sow strong, why did he not just kill the WK and be done with him? Why complicate the issue?


----------



## Gandalf White (Nov 25, 2003)

What this poll is discussing is a "no strings attached" battle. I mean, we know Aragorn and Faramir would never want to fight each other, and that Gandalf wasn't allowed to show his full strength. 

If you simply place any two together, without LotR relationships, who would win? 

However, in the books there _were_ strings. As I said, Aragorn would never take up his sword against Faramir. There was a prophesy about no living man being able to destroy the WK. Gandalf, while not a man, had the body of one, and so I believe may have been unable to do so.


----------



## Inderjit S (Nov 25, 2003)

Gandalf states on several occasions that he may not be powerful enough to battle the W-K, despite their skirmish on Weathertop. Aragorn claims that he is more powerful then all the Nazgûl, but whether or not this statement is true in any way is debatable. 

But I suspect that Gandalf was more then a match for the W-K. 

Faramir is a greater warrior then any of the Rohirrim, Boromir was a greater warrior then him. One presumes that Aragorn is greater then them both. Boromir most likely had greater inherent bodily strength then Aragorn. (Caradhras.)

The Nazgûl’s power was more due to the fear their presence aroused. The Men of Minas Tirith couldn't stand to hear their fell voices, especially in the Siege of Minas Tirith when their voices were said to be filled with the malice of their master. Their presence was enough to cause distress amongst Men and Orks alike. Even Boromir and Faramir, two of the mightiest Men of that time were unable to withstand them, neither were the Rangers. They were of course not indestructible as the W-K was slain by Éowyn and Merry. 

Prince Imrahil was another great man, as were Erkenbrand, Halbarad, Théodred, Théoden and Elfhelm. Beorn, though probably would have trounced all of them.  

But in the entire legendarium, my vote would go for Húrin Thalion.


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Nov 25, 2003)

> But in the entire legendarium, my vote would go for Húrin Thalion.



Indeed, you are even smarter than I thought


----------



## redline2200 (Nov 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Inderjit S _ Even Boromir and Faramir, two of the mightiest Men of that time were unable to withstand them, *neither were the Rangers* . [/B]



I disagree. I think the Rangers could withstand some of the Nazgul (probably not all). Remember Amon Hen when Aargorn stood up to the 5 nazgul there? And also, some of the rangers went with Aragorn to the paths of the dead, and the dead wield the same power the Nazgul do, and the rangers withstood them there.

Not really an important point to the argument, but i thought i would put my 2 cents in.

As far the topic itself, Gandalf would win hands down.  


> And so I am, very dangerous; more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.


 -Gandalf the White _The Two Towers_


----------



## Húrin Thalion (Nov 27, 2003)

A general misconception is about how much Aragorn really was invovled at Weathertop. Nothing specific is ever said about him chasing them away, or anything of the sort, only that he leapt forward against them with a brand in each hand, and then Frodo was struck. What is so great with letting the Ringbearer be struck? And then, the enemy withdrew after achieving their objective.

To the other part of your post. That is a statement of Gandalf, but it is very hard to value it. People can be dangerous in other ways than in fighting alone.

Måns


----------



## redline2200 (Nov 27, 2003)

You have to realize that jumping at the Nazgul is much more than any other man would do! The warriors at Minas Tirith fell on their faces weeping when they _heard_ the nazgul cries. Aragorn was surrounded by 5 _by himself_ and he put forth an attack. I think that is a feat, regardless of how much it helped.

I see your point about Gandalf, but how can you say that what he say cant really be valued? oh wel, it is a matter of opinion and doesnt really need to be discussed further

Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## jimmyboy (Nov 29, 2003)

You all have some good things to say. As one said, this discussion could go on indefinitely!  

Did you guys see that scene in the extended "Two Towers" DVD, the one with Boromir and Faramir after they recaptured Osgiliath? (VERY good scene, now one of my favorites!) This is just how I imagined Boromir, and how I tried to portray him in my previous post. I remember one particular scene from one of the books, maybe it was the Council of Elrond, where Boromir describes one of their first battles against the Black Captain. He said that few would stand their fearful presence, and that in one battle only four men survived; he, Faramir, and two others. I think this says a great deal about both men. Also remember how that during Gandalf's battle with the balrog in Moria that the only two who actually would have stayed with Gandalf to fight were Aragorn and Boromir. It's been a little while since I've read that part but I do remember this. 

If it came down to it, I think both Aragorn and Boromir would have put up a worthy fight against the Black Captain, though I do believe the BC to overall more powerful than either one of them. Glorfindel's prophecy about the BC not being destroyed by any man doesn't mean that he _could not_ be defeated by any man (ie-male), but IMO that he _should not_ be defeated by any man. In other words, that's not how he was doomed to meet his end.

But, to stay on topic, Gandalf would end up the victor in any one-on-one contest.


----------



## Red Istar (Dec 2, 2003)

> Glorfindel's prophecy about the BC not being destroyed by any man doesn't mean that he could not be defeated by any man (ie-male), but IMO that he should not be defeated by any man. In other words, that's not how he was doomed to meet his end.



That's what I've always held....


----------



## Gandalf White (Dec 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jimmyboy _
> *Glorfindel's prophecy about the BC not being destroyed by any man doesn't mean that he could not be defeated by any man (ie-male), but IMO that he should not be defeated by any man. In other words, that's not how he was doomed to meet his end.*



But if he was doomed to meet his end by someone other than a male, doesn't it hold that a male could not kill him? 

This is what the WK says to Eowyn, when she basically tells him to move away from her fallen father:


> Thou fool. No living man may hinder me.


 Either he was bragging, and rather over-confident, or it was true that a male could not harm him, because it was foretold otherwise. 

I have a feeling we're basically saying the same thing...


----------



## celebdraug (Dec 4, 2003)

I chose Gandalf


----------



## jimmyboy (Dec 5, 2003)

> Thou fool. No living man may hinder me.


Well, he said this to a woman, meaning that she could not hinder him. Hence I think he meant that no living person may hinder him.

I do think he was bragging, and he was over-confident. Yet he could walk the talk, so he wasn't just bragging. He knew his power and how dangerous he was.


----------



## Gandalf White (Dec 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jimmyboy _
> *Well, he said this to a woman, meaning that she could not hinder him. Hence I think he meant that no living person may hinder him.
> 
> I do think he was bragging, and he was over-confident. Yet he could walk the talk, so he wasn't just bragging. He knew his power and how dangerous he was. *


 When he said 'no living man,' the WK meant male. Remember, _at that time he did not know he was talking to a woman._ Right after he said that, Eowyn reveals herself, *casting the WK into doubt!* 

There is another thread discussing this and the conclusion seems to be this: the prophecy concerning the WK foretold that a woman would slay him. So while men were capable of killing him, they were unable to do so.


----------



## Ghan-buri-ghan (Dec 5, 2003)

Eh, you're all wrong.

Legolas could beat em all, assuming a fair fight (no witchery stuff).

An arrow from 100 paces and it's all over.

Think Indiana Jones in the first movie against the two-handed sword fighter: ranged weapons always win!


----------



## Gandalf White (Dec 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ghan-buri-ghan _
> *Legolas could beat em all, assuming a fair fight (no witchery stuff).*


 That's not a fair fight! Take away Gandalf's power and, well, he just isn't Gandalf.


----------



## Paul (Dec 5, 2003)

Gandalf is an istari and not gifted with just the powers of cunning like saruman hes also a great warrior


----------



## The PETER (Dec 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Paul _
> *Gandalf is an istari and not gifted with just the powers of cunning like saruman hes also a great warrior *



Uhm, I don't think that I really got that. Saruman is an istar, too. And I believe, that Saruman _could've_ become as mighty a warrior as Gandalf, had he chosen to (I don't know if he did or not ;PP but I assume he didn't). It's just that, as previously stated, Saruman is no warrior. He chose to put his powers in his words. 
Furthermore, as Måns so graciously told me, Gandlaf is not a warrior. Had he wanted to, he could have done much more than he did. Manwë himself chose Ólórin, not to send a great warrior, but a wise maia, who could teach the Children of Ilúvatar to survive by themselves. About who would win the battle, well, Gandalf has got the most experience (being a maia he's lived since the beginning of Eä), and would probably cream the other ones. However, I do believe that an elf (most any warrior-elf) could beat Aragorn. I mean think about it. If you live and fight for thousands of years (slight exaggeration in some cases), you should get pretty much very good at fighting, right? 


Oh well, The PETER out...


----------



## Lantarion (Dec 5, 2003)

Yes, well stated The PETER. 


> _Originally posted by The PETER_
> Saruman is an istari, too.


Well unless Saruman had a split personality, he was not _an Istari_; he was an _Istar_, in singular form!


----------



## The PETER (Dec 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *Yes, well stated The PETER.
> 
> Well unless Saruman had a split personality, he was not an Istari; he was an Istar, in singular form!
> *



:O My mistake. Sholud've known better. Won't happen again.
Thanks and out...


----------



## jimmyboy (Dec 7, 2003)

> I do believe that an elf (most any warrior-elf) could beat Aragorn.


Now this is doubtful. I know there are conflicting descriptions of elves and their strength, but it seems to me that warrior Men are generally considered at least as strong as elves, physically at least. During the journey of the Fellowship, we see the two Men, Boromir and Aragorn, doing much of the heavy work, like carrying the smaller people through the snow. Heck, they're the ones who bulldozed a path through the thick snow. Legolas was no doubt strong for his size, but I really don't believe he was as strong as either of the men. (Yeah, I know, there's an early description of Legolas as him being "immensely strong", but this description doesn't mesh with the story version.) 

For some reason, and the reason still escapes me, many of us tend to minimize Aragorn's abilities and strength. "He's a good leader, but not so great a warrior?", etc. 
Why is this?


----------



## Lantarion (Dec 7, 2003)

It's called "jealousy".  
Haha no but I guess that the way Tolkien idolized the Elven ways and people, in relation to the race of Men who, although very industrious and strong, were not as aesthetically inclined or as interesting as Elves.
I'm not saying it's so, but that is the very basic way of seeing Elves vs. Men.


----------



## The PETER (Dec 8, 2003)

Well, maybe Aragorn can surpass an elf in strength, but in experience? Never. Elves have been around for hundreds of years, and Legolas lived in Rhovanion, Mirkwood, where he'd probably had to fight some spiders each and every day (sure he was a prince, but I still think he's fought pretty much). So the experience (feels like an overused word to me now) he has gained in his long years of living should beat most any mortal being just like that *snaps fingers*. At least that's the way it _should_ be. I'm not telling you it is that way, even if it's sort of reasonable.


----------



## Ghan-buri-ghan (Dec 8, 2003)

IMHO, and I think many agree, that humans are unsurpassed in their capacity for destruction. Remember in the first age, the treason of the humans at Nirnaeth Arnoedad (the spelling's gotta be close!) It would not have been so grievous had the humans not been so fierce. They helped overwhelm the elves and their (loyal) human allies.

That said, the elfies may be older, but in the third age, during the fading of the Eldar, Aragorn far surpasses them. Gandalf himself named Aragorn the greatest hunter and adventurer in middle earth. (Shadow of the Past, vol 1.)

Ya wanna put Aragorn up against some of these first age elfs, like Fingolfin, or Finrod, or heck, maybe Gil-Galad (but I wonder about Gil-Galad) I would hedge my bet.

(but again, like i said before, one arrow from a hundred paces and THEY'RE ALL TOAST, the elfs and Aragorn too!)


----------



## jimmyboy (Dec 9, 2003)

Peter, what you said makes sense. However, I say that Aragorn had been travelling, learning, and fighting for almost his whole life, whether on his own or with others. I do not think this can be said of most elves, even if they are older than Aragorn. They tended to keep to themselves and guard their own borders. Most of them do not seem to be adventurous enough to go out and learn and fight like Aragorn or his men did. 

I tend to think of Legolas as an exception rather than the norm among elves. Like Boromir and Faramir, he was a prince, responsible for his people as the son of the King. Hence, he likely was also the Captain, or a captain, of his father's warriors. So naturally he'd have a considerable amount of fighting experience. Yet, why then did he and the sons of Elrond follow Aragorn? I don't mean just follow him where he went, but they followed his lead, including his lead in battle, and they trusted his judgement and wisdom. So did Gandalf. He trusted Aragorn's abilities and wisdom, and even said something about one relying only on one's own counsel in dire times, but that Aragorn was one who could, and who could succeed doing it. OK, not the exact words but that was the idea. 

So then...
what does all this say about Aragorn?


----------



## The PETER (Dec 11, 2003)

Sure, what I'm saying isn't that "Aragorn is weak, elves rule!", but more that "Aragorn should reasonably be a lesser warrior than most elf-soldiers".
So why are they following him? He is the king, the heir of Isildur son of Elendil, and Gandalf, well, I'm not really gonna answer that one, due to not being knowing enough, however I seem to not remember Gandalf "leaning" on to Aragorn (if that is what you meant). Oh well, gotta go to bed now.


----------

