# Eärnur and the Witch-King



## Kahmûl (Jan 22, 2004)

When Gondor came to the aid of Arnor and the witch-king came out to face Eärnur why after his first charge at him did he run into the shadows if no man could kill him?


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 22, 2004)

Kahmûl said:


> When Gondor came to the aid of Arnor and the witch-king came out to face Eärnur why after his first charge at him did he run into the shadows if no man could kill him?


from the appendices in LOTR:


> .... Then so utterly was Angmar defeated that not a man nor an orc of that realm remained west of the Mountains.
> 
> But it is said that when all was lost suddenly the Witch-king himself appeared, black-robed and black-masked upon a black horse. Fear fell upon all who beheld him; but he singled out the Captain of Gondor for the fullness of his hatred, and with a terrible cry he rode straight upon him. Earnur would have withstood him, but his horse could not endure that onset, and it swerved and bore him far away before he could master it
> 
> ...



The Witch-king's forces had already been totally destroyed. He attacked Earnur as a last, ditch act of revenge and laughed at him when Earnur's horse bolted, but the Witch-king himself fled from Glorfindel. Now we come to probably one of the most misquoted and misunderstood passages in LOTR. No where does it say that the Witch-king *cannot* be killed by a man, or anyone else. The Witch-king's fleeing from Glorfindel shows that he is vulnerable. Glorfindel's famous (infamous ?) line is merely foretelling the future that the Witch-king's doom, far in the future will not be "*by the hand of man*". It does not say that the Witch-king *cannot* be killed by man, it says that he *will not* be killed by man. This prophecy caould as easily been fulfilled by the Witch-king being killed by a falling rock.  All it says is that his death will not be at the hands of a "man". As we all know, in the end, Glorfindel's foretelling (prophecy, whatever you want to call it) turns out to be correct. The Witch-king is not killed by a "man", but rather by a woman, Eowyn. Look at the scene in "The Battle of Pelennor Fields":


> "Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"
> 
> ..... "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. ......"
> 
> The winged creature screamed at her, but the Ringwraith made no answer, and was silent, as if in sudden doubt.


Even the Witch-king doesn't say "no man can kill me", but no man may "hinder" him. When Eowyn reveals herself as a woman, he is thrown into doubt and confusion. Picture him in his head saying to himself: "Whoa! Have I been misconstruing Glorfindel's prophecy all these years?" The Witch-king knows he is not immortal, remember he started out as a regular man before Sauron gave him one of the Nine rings. The power of the rings has meant that he does not grow old and die, it does not make him invulnerable.

So the answer to your question is that he does not return to fight Earnur because he fears Glorfindel, and he is not immortal. And the famous line of Glorfindel's is spoken after he flees. No doubt, the Witch-king will use this prediction in the years to come. It certainly aids him, adding to his power of fear, if everyone thinks he cannot be killed.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 22, 2004)

_Whoa! Have I been misconstruing Glorfindel's prophecy all these years?" _

Exactly.
He seems to have taken it more literally than it was intended.

As might also be said for PJ & some others I've seen posting here lately who've read the books too.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jan 22, 2004)

Heck, if one of the Hobbits had stabbed the W-K on Weathertop they would have killed him. (Letter #211.)

Shouldn't this be in the LoTR forum?


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 22, 2004)

Inderjit S said:


> Heck, if one of the Hobbits had stabbed the W-K on Weathertop they would have killed him. (Letter #211.)


I will have to look up the letter you cite, but yes I agree. The Witch-king could be killed by anyone, if they could get past the "shield" of fear and terror he instilled in all who came in contact with him. Glorfindel's prophecy would tend to make it that much harder for anyone to conquer that fear in a confrontation.





> Shouldn't this be in the LoTR forum?


I agree. Maybe a moderator can move it.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 22, 2004)

_I will have to look up the letter you cite, but yes I agree. The Witch-king could be killed by anyone, if they could get past the "shield" of fear and terror he instilled in all who came in contact with him_

Not so quickly!

This is quite opposite of the last discussion on the subject where most people were insisting NO man or even _male_ of ANY race could kill or harm The Lord Of The Nazgul.


Back to my point.......

I will have to dig out the Letters - we 're-did' the living room recently, threw out all the old furniture & my books aren't next to the computer in a messy pile like Bilbo's anymore.....  

But, in the confrontation with Eowyn & Merry on The Pelannor Fields, it says in ROTK of Merry stabbing The Witch-King:

'No other blade, not though mightier hands had weilded 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.' 

There's alot more keeping the Nazgul alive than conning their enemies by fear......

They are bound to the fate of the Ring.
They stand or fall by the fate of The Ring.

The Black Captain, having been Witch-King of Angmar, encurred the wrath of the Dunedain of Arnor & those 'blades of Westernesse' that Tom Bombadil gave the Hobbits were especially bound with spells for his 'bane' & there had an especially ill effect on him.


----------



## Snaga (Jan 22, 2004)

I suspect that Aragorn's words after the attack on Weathertop also contribute to the impression of invulnerability. It seems to me that Tolkien deliberately created that impression, in order to add to their menace.


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 22, 2004)

The Nazgul are kept alive by the power of the Rings in the sense that they do not die of natural causes. Read Gandalf's words to Frodo in "Shadow of the Past"; paraphrasing (I don't have the book in front of me): a mortal who possesses one of the Great Rings does not die, but neither does he gain more life; he does not age. As for Merry's stab of the Witch-king, he stabbed him in the back of the knee. The wound may well have been made more "bitter" because of the blade of Westernesse, but it is hardly a fatal wound. If you look in HoME #8 "The War of the Ring" you will see that in the early versions of the Witch-king's death on the fields of Pelennor, Tolkien has the deed done by Eowyn alone. It isn't until late versions of the story that Merry gets added. Tolkien clearly thought Eowyn alone could kill the Witch-King. Merry's stab distracted the Witch-king from Eowyn, allowing her to deal him a fatal blow, but Merry's wound was not necessary. (In a endnote to one of Tolkien's letters Humphrey Carpenter [changed in edit] also states the Witch-king was killed by Eowyn.) Yes, Merry helped, but is wounding of the Witch-king was just that, a wound. Eowyn killed him.

As for Aragorn's comments at Weathertop, he says that any blade that pierces the Nazgul's flesh will be destroyed. (Added in Edit: It is the fact that Frodo's blade is undamaged that shows his thrust did nothing more that cut the Nazgul's cloak.) He does not say that it will cause no injury. And we see at the Pelennor that both Merry's and Eowyn's swords are destroyed after stabbing the Witch-king.

I agree with Snaga, Tolkien deliberately gives his readers an "impression" of the Witch-king's invulnerability to heighten the dramatic moment of Eowyn revealing herself. But, Tolkien plays fair. He never states the Witch-king is invulnerable.


----------



## Beleg (Jan 23, 2004)

I would like to note onething. 
The Witch-King is said to have passed into the shadows. Night had fallen. 
And in the light of this Letter#210 [And other citations]



> Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning_ fear_ which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in _darkness._ The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken.



The italics are Tolkien's. The ploy of witch-king seems to be straightforward: He disappeared in the night, because darkness greatly enhances the fear he inspires. 
By Glorifindel's words_ 'Do not pursue him'_ it seems to me that the Earnur was in the process of following him. Perhaps The Witch-king wanted to lull him into the night, allow Earnur to follow him, and when they are alone, with W-K's power much more enhanced simply breakdown his resilience. It seems to me that physically he would be no match for Earnur. 

The line in the Quote ''_they have no great physical power against the fearless'_ backs Greenwood's theory that Ewoyn could have killed him alone. 

The reference Inder mentions is from 210 not 211. 



> Aragorn did not 'sing the song of Gil-galad'. Naturally: it was quite inappropriate, since it told of the defeat of the Elven-king by the Enemy. The Black Riders do not scream, but keep a more terrifying silence. Aragorn does not blanch. The riders draw slowly in on foot in darkness, and do not 'spur'. There is no fight. Sam does not 'sink his blade into the Ringwraith's thigh', nor does his thrust save Frodo's life. (If he had, the result would have been much the same as in III 117-20:the Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed.)



And Greenwood's reference to Humphrey Carpenter [Not C.T although he made some additions/suggestions] pointing out Ewoyn as W-K slayer is an endnote to 'III 117-20' In the above Quote.


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 23, 2004)

Beleg,

Thank you for your notes. I was confused when I looked up letter 211 and couldn't find anything relevant.  And you are absolutely right I meant Humphrey Carpenter, the editor of Tolkien's letters, not CT. I will correct it via an edit.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jan 23, 2004)

Sorry for the mistake in the Letter no. It is (As Beleg) shows Letter 210. I must check next time. 

Greenwood-the drafts for LoTR are exactly that drafts. Ideas changed. Heck, I could say Saruman had shape-shifted into a Balrog if I wanted to use draft writings.  

Gandalf says a lot of things, he is by no means infallible, he tells Frodo after the incident at the Ford of Bruinen that the Nazgûl "cannot easily be destroyed" and that the "power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him" which gives you the impression that they can only be destroyed with the destruction of the Ring.

Boromir's description of the fall of Osgiliath in which him, Faramir and two others escaped and the menacing presence of the Witch-King who set Orks and Men alike cared with fear gives us the impression of the immense fear that the Nazgûl’s presence created. Of course Boromir and co. thought they had driven back the forces of Mordor, unaware that it was just a ply for the Nazgûl to cross the Anduin to get to the enigmatic "shire" and find the Ring, whilst trying to keep their presence as secret as possible, despite the madness that spread wherever they came, through Rohan, Eriador or the Shire. 

Gandalf of course warns Frodo about the Ringwraiths earlier in the book, in 'The Shadow of The Past'. The riders seem to be afraid of Elves. As Gandalf tells Frodo, the Nazgûl did not scare the Elves who had lived in the Blessed Realm and had power over the seen and unseen. Khamul also departs when he hears the Gildor and his folk singing. 

Gildor knows what the Riders are, but is reluctant to tell Frodo. (He evidently knew what they were, since the messages that the Riders were abroad had reached Rivendell.) He tells Frodo that ere long "his heart tells him" (Tolkien later claims in 'Ósanwe-Kenta' that such expressions are a kind of pseudo-message from Eru) Frodo will know a lot more about the Nazgûl then him.
The fear that the presence of the Riders brings is of course emphasised throughout the book. Whether it is the "dogs and geese", Nob, the Hobbits, the men of Dunharrow, Aragorn (who speaks of the Riders with pain) or even Radagast and Gandalf. 

Gandalf seems to have some power over the Nazgûl. He drives them away on Weathertop though their power seems to be greater at night, since they attack him and lay siege to him at night and he leaves before dawn with the Nazgûl hot on his trail up unto the Ettenmoors when they depart for the bridge on order to block any hope of escape across there. They are of course driven back by Glorfindel who leaves a Elf-stone on the last bridge.

Their power also increases when they are gathered together. They are more powerful (naturally) in lonely, unpopulated places. Though Aragorn claims it is doubtful whether they would attack Bree that night because of the lights and merriment four of them storm through the following night and cast down the West Gate (With some help fro Harry maybe. They had been talking to him some days earlier as Aragorn observes.) Gandalf hears rumour of them when he is passing north and south through Eriador. 

Their effects on the people in the 'Battle of Pellenor Fields' is amazing. Their menace and their ability to create fear seems to have reached new levels, as the quote from #210 explains. Beregond tells Pippin about the danger of the Nazgûl, Gollum had the utmost fear for them ('Wraiths on wings!) heck, Frodo is even (temporarily blinded when one of them passes over them on the Emyn Muil) Grishnákh warns Ugluk on the dangers of his scepticism as to the power of the Nazgûl, the tracker seems to be joyous when he learns of the death of the Witch-King, and Shagrat and Gorbag (Gorbag; who was a Ork of Minas Morgul, the city of the Ringwraiths) comment on the Nazgûl giving them the creeps and the soldiers of Minas Morgul were said to slay themselves at his will. When he was killed they seemed to lose hope for a while, though Gothmog took over and the seemingly quasi-independent Haradrim (no. some 20,000 or so) and garrison of Easterlings and other Men situated in Osgilaith who were being held in reserve stem the tide back into the favour of Sauron's forces, despite the resolve of the Rohirrim and the regiment from Minas Tirith under Imrahil. But the loss of the Witch-King was of course a huge blow to Sauron, as Gandalf says. 

That is not to say that the Nazgûl were beyond fear. They seem to be afraid of Elves, Gandalf (and as we later learn with the exception of the W-K, they get confused and weak in the daytime. Something similar seems to happen to Frodo after he is stabbed in the journey to Weathertop, he welcomes the night and his vision is distorted in the day-time) fire seems to be their 'friend' Gandalf drives away the Nazgûl using flaming brands (who were surprised to meet any resistance at all. All the Hobbits threw themselves in the ground anyway) and the Hobbits and Glorfindel and Aragorn use flaming brands from to drive them into the Bruinen and thus into the flood. (Though Gandalf is sceptical as to whether Glorfindel and Aragorn were powerful enough to withstand all nine on their own.) Frodo sees the brands, but the figures holding them are shadowy to him, though he makes out the small figures of the Hobbits. Saruman may have withstood them in Isengard. 

So we get the impression that though the Nazgûl are very powerful, they do feel fear and can be destroyed though it is surprising that the W-K is slain by Merry and Éowyn. 

Merry's sword of course play a huge part in the death of the W-K as shown by Letter #210. Both Bombadil and Denethor comment on the age and splendour of the short swords. The Mouth of Sauron seems to recognise it, as he when he is describing to the captains Sam's barrow-sword he calls it "blade of the downfall west" though the Mouth is a Black Númenórean. 

The W-K of course deploys a similair tactic to later lure Earnur (easily his match in battle prowess) when he challenges him to single combat and he never comes back, nor do any of his knights that wene with him.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 23, 2004)

_If you look in HoME #8 "The War of the Ring" you will see that in the early versions of the Witch-king's death on the fields of Pelennor, Tolkien has the deed done by Eowyn alone. It isn't until late versions of the story that Merry gets added. Tolkien clearly thought Eowyn alone could kill the Witch-King. _

Consideing Tolkien did not publish the story that way,

A. He more clearly rethought it & changed his mind.
B. It doesn't count as it was rewritten & published in a different form that HE himself approved. That was & is the FINAL word on the subject. HoME really is only open to being brought in as a possible source of factual information when debating The Simarillion.

_
Merry's stab distracted the Witch-king from Eowyn, allowing her to deal him a fatal blow, but Merry's wound was not necessary._

No?

Reread:

'No other blade, not though mightier hands had weilded 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.' 


BREAKING THE SPELL

Furthermore, the beginning of the paragraph:

'So passed the sword of the barrow-downs, work of Wesstrenesse. But GLAD would he he have been to know it's fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, & cheif among theif foes was the dread realm of Angmar & it's sorcerer king. No other blade....' 

_(In a endnote to one of Tolkien's letters Humphrey Carpenter [changed in edit] also states the Witch-king was killed by Eowyn.) Yes, Merry helped, but is wounding of the Witch-king was just that, a wound. Eowyn killed him._

Merry wounded & distracted the Witch-king, & Eowyn's blow did indeed kill him, this is true, but you seem to be missing the obvious point Tolkien has made that the sword Merry struck The Witch-king with was quite necessary too.


----------



## Kahmûl (Jan 23, 2004)

Inderjit S said:


> When he was killed they seemed to lose hope for a while, though Gothmog took over and the seemingly quasi-independent Haradrim (no. some 20,000 or so)


Why didn't another Nazgûl take over Minas Morgul and which of them took over the tower of Cirith Ungol?


----------



## Inderjit S (Jan 23, 2004)

Gothmog may have been a Nazgûl; we are never told. He was the lieutenant of Minas Morgul, and so the W-K's 'second hand man'. We see the W-K leading out a host of Orks and Men (no other Nazgûl) from Minas Morgul. Some may have joined the fray though a few were hovering over-head. At least one was (as you say) in Mordor since he took charge (or so to speak, even though there was no-body to take charge of) Cirith Ungol after the fight between Ungol and Morgul and the escape of the 'spies'. We are never told who took over Cirith Ungol, simply because it is impossible to know. It may have been Kahmul, though him and the W-K are the only ones that are ever 'named'.

Some Nazgûl remained in Minas Morgul after the departure of the Morgul host (As Sam notes to Frodo) and that one of the Nazgûl who remained in Morgul was the one who sent Gorbag and the one who took charge of Cirith Ungol. (As he tells Shagrat about his message.) 

Some of the Nazgûl may not have been in Morgul. Kahmul and his messenger from Dol Guldur may not have gone to Morgul, or if they did, they may have come out not long after. It is possible that one of these two was a errand rider too and from Barad-dur and the one who was waiting on the east-bank of the Anduin and whose fell beast had been shot down by Legolas, sent to see what Saruman was doing (and then spy on Rohan, though they did as Gandalf was told and 'hid' themselves by not lighting torches in their encampment in Dunharrow) and the one who passed over Frodo and Sam on the Emyn Muil and the Dead Marshes (the one seen by Gollum and co. was the messenger sent to Saruman.)


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 23, 2004)

I am not trying to supercede LOTR with anything from HoME. If you look at the early parts of the Uruk vs Uruk-hai thread that I started two years ago you will see that I am well aware of the difference between a primary source (LOTR) and a secondary source (HoME). I merely point to the earlier versions of the Witch-king's death in HoME as evidence that Tolkien, at least while he was evolving the story always seemed to mean to have Eowyn kill the Witch-king.

Neither am I dismissing Merry's part in the demise. My point is that while Merry's wounding of the Witch-king was important, it was not the deathblow. Eowyn dealt the deathblow. If Merry had not struck his blow than Eowyn probably would have been unable to deliver her fatal thrust. If the hobbits had been able to connect with the Nazgul at Weathertop, they also would have dealt a "bitter" wound, perhaps even a debilitating one, but a stab in the leg is generally not fatal (unless you cut an artery  ). If Merry's wound was fatal to the Witch-king there would have been no need for Eowyn's. His spirit would already have been wailing its way into the air.


----------



## Bucky (Jan 23, 2004)

I never said Merry killed the Witch-king.
It's the 'breaking of the spell' that is the key part of Merry stabbing the Witch-king.....

I think I'm repeating that alot.  

However, I don't think it can be unequivically stated in the light of the paragraph I quoted that without Merry's stabbing with THAT partitular blade Eowyn would've been able to kill The Witch-king with the same thrust of the sword, distraction or no distractions.

If all it took was the physical blow, then he would've drowned in the flood at the Ford Of Bruienen too.....

And Tolkien wouldn't have gone out of his way to mention the 'blade of Westernesse' in detail & the BREAKING OF THE SPELL'.


_Why didn't another Nazgûl take over Minas Morgul and which of them took over the tower of Cirith Ungol?_

I think it's pretty logical to assume 'Gothmog' may well have been one of the other eight Nazgul too, always have - even if PJ made him a goard headed orc.


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 23, 2004)

Bucky said:


> If all it took was the physical blow, then he would've drowned in the flood at the Ford Of Bruienen too.....


Then Tolkien wouldn't have had him around for Eowyn's big moment at Pelennor.  

As for the blade of Westernesse, I think Tolkien was just tying everything together. The main thing of that paragraph is how happy the forger of the sword would be to know it was used to deal a blow to the Witch-king of Angmar.

[added in edit]There is also the fact that if some "spell" that made the Witch-king so special was broken by Merry's dagger thrust, why then was Eowyn's sword so spectacularlydestroyed when she struck her blow? Why also was her near fatal injury through the sword arm as Aragorn says in the Houses of Healing? If Merry's thrust made the Witch-king mortal and vulnerable, why does he still seem to have all these powers when Eowyn strikes him? I think there is a tendency to read way too much into that single sentence of Merry's stab breaking a "spell". Making it as important as many seem to do, just doesn't fit in with the rest of what is written.


----------



## Garwen (Feb 16, 2004)

*Witch King*

It had not been for told then, not until Glorfindel, (the Wise Noldorin) said so:"Do not pursue him! He will not return to this land. Far off yet is his doom ,and not of the hand of man will he fall.' These words many remembered. You could imply (excuse me of my spelling)That a Hobbit, or anything but a man, meaning a woman, (Eowyn)could kill him And the neat thing about the book is that you will not find out until the later part of the story. which is what ,makes the books great.


----------



## jallan (Feb 19, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> As for the blade of Westernesse, I think Tolkien was just tying everything together. The main thing of that paragraph is how happy the forger of the sword would be to know it was used to deal a blow to the Witch-king of Angmar.


Here is the paragraph:


> 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 Dúnedain 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.


What is Tolkien tying together? He could have contrived to put a special sword into Éowyn’s hand had he wished. But if you could establish that one datum of his paragraph was the _main thing_, which you haven’t, it wouldn’t make the rest of the paragraph any less true.

If no other blade than the one Merry held could have so wounded the Nazgûl, how did Éowyn’s blade of less anti-Nazgûl power actually kill the Nazgûl? Obviously only because the Nazgûl was sorely weakened as would have happened with no other blade than the one Merry used.

Greenwood posted:


> There is also the fact that if some "spell" that made the Witch-king so special was broken by Merry's dagger thrust, why then was Eowyn's sword so spectacularly destroyed when she struck her blow? Why also was her near fatal injury through the sword arm as Aragorn says in the Houses of Healing?


Why not? The question is double-edged. Obviously the Nazgûl was not rendered altogether powerless but was weakened enough to be killed.


> If Merry's thrust made the Witch-king mortal and vulnerable, why does he still seem to have all these powers when Eowyn strikes him?


That the Witch-king was now more vulnerable would not of necessity reduce all its powers to the point where it could be attacked without harm to the attacker. Obviously its powers were not so reduced. But they were reduced to the point that a lesser blade could deal it a death stroke.


> I think there is a tendency to read way too much into that single sentence of Merry's stab breaking a "spell". Making it as important as many seem to do, just doesn't fit in with the rest of what is written.


How important do many make it? Tolkien claims only Merry’s blade could have so badly wounded the Nazgûl. That’s plain enough and clear enough. Then immediately after Éowyn’s unmagical blade actually kills the Nazgûl. How can that be if not because Merry’s blow caused a weakening of the Nazgûl which allowed Éowyn’s unmagical blade to strike a killing blow?

That is the importance that Tolkien gives to Merry’s blade:


> 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.


Tolkien gives the blade that importance.


----------

