# Who 'killed' the Witch King?



## Durin's Bane (Jun 4, 2005)

Who killed him?
Is it Eowin or Merry?
In my point of view it's Merry's barrow blade that started the wight's destruction. Being made with the purpose of fighting him it broke the spell that holded him as one whole, Eowin's stroke simply speeded up the process, yet he was already dying.
So what do you think?


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 4, 2005)

In my opinion, it was Eowin that killed the Witch King. Had in not been for Merry however, she would not have been able to do so.

Merry's wound was grevious but not I think, fatal. Had that been the only blow iI feel that he would have survived and grown strong again. But, while he was weakened by the Barrow-Blade wound, Eowin struck him the final blow that ended his reign.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 4, 2005)

Merry wounded him, giving Eowyn the opening to deal him a fatal blow. Merry's stroke is described as a "bitter" wound, not a fatal wound -- a stab in the knee is not likely to be fatal. It was Eowyn's sword thrust that killed him.


----------



## Beorn (Jun 4, 2005)

There's a thread already discussing this...a long time ago....I'm pretty sure it's this:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=14969&highlight=hauberk


----------



## Meselyn (Jun 14, 2005)

I think that Eowyn "killed" the witch king, but Merry had a part in it. He distracted the witch king long enough for Eowyn to get up.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 15, 2005)

It is very inteteresting question: Who killed him?

May we have a poll? Gothmog, Ithy?
*Eowyn
Merry
Frodo* (because tyhe Ringwraiths are servanrs of the One Ring (Sauron) and Frodo destroyed the Ring)
*Eowyn, Merry and Frodo *


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 15, 2005)

There you go. One poll


----------



## Durin's Bane (Jun 15, 2005)

Nice, Merry's in the lead with only one vote!!! (mine of course) but i think he wont stay there for long...


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 15, 2005)

WOW, we have fast moderators! Thanks, *Gothmog*!

I think Frodo killed thw Witch king because the Ringwraiths are spirits of the One Ring and while it exist the Ringwraiths will exist. I think Eowyn and Merry didn't kill the Witch king, they only make him lose his form for awhile


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 15, 2005)

Ingwë said:


> I think Frodo killed thw Witch king because the Ringwraiths are spirits of the One Ring and while it exist the Ringwraiths will exist. I think Eowyn and Merry didn't kill the Witch king, they only make him lose his form for awhile


The Nazgul are not Maia, like Sauron. They are mortal men. The rings extended their lives; the rings did not change them into immortals or into Maia like Sauron.


----------



## Durin's Bane (Jun 15, 2005)

I'm losing positions on this one...
Any way, the combination Eowin, Merry and Frodo seems rather odd.
It could be just Eowin (Merry's stroke was futile), just Merry (my position that is), just Frodo (Merry and Eowin just... did nothing which I don't think is true), or the combo Merry and Eowin (which I believe a lot of people think is the true one).


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 15, 2005)

Durin's Bane said:


> It could be just Eowin (Merry's stroke was futile)


I believe Eowyn's sword thrust was the fatal blow, but that does not make Merry's stroke futile. The Witch King had already broken Eowyn's shield arm and his mace was raised to deliver a killing blow. Merry's stroke caused that blow to miss, thus saving Eowyn, as well as wounding the Witch King and leavng him open for Eowyn's fatal sword thrust. Merry's action was far from futile. It enabled Eowyn to deliver her killing sword thrust.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 15, 2005)

The blow from Mery unwound the spell that enabled him to move his armour, so though it is notfatal, it still set eyown up to finaly kill him.
Ther witch king was dead by the time frodo destroied the ring, though you could say it was gollum who destroied the ring.


----------



## Durin's Bane (Jun 15, 2005)

No offence but Greenwood pay attention to what I write (and you read) next time. What I was posting was my opinion on the possible answers. The answer Eowin means that it was just Eowin's doing, and the answer Merry means it was only Merry's doing. That's why one option shoud be Eowin and Merry (the combination of both). And I don't think that it was done by the three of them.
And if some edditing is to be done then the first option that is now Eowin should be changed to Eowin and Merry since that's the common mind.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 15, 2005)

Durin's Bane said:


> And I don't think that it was done by the three of them.


Deffinately, frodo either did it alone, or mery and eyown. Frodo was, waht a week after? The witch king was either dead or recovering.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 15, 2005)

Durin's Bane said:


> No offence but Greenwood pay attention to what I write (and you read) next time. What I was posting was my opinion on the possible answers. The answer Eowin means that it was just Eowin's doing, and the answer Merry means it was only Merry's doing. That's why one option shoud be Eowin and Merry (the combination of both). And I don't think that it was done by the three of them.
> And if some edditing is to be done then the first option that is now Eowin should be changed to Eowin and Merry since that's the common mind.


No offence taken, and no offence meant, but I did read what you wrote. You wrote that saying Eowyn killed the Witch King meant that Merry's blow was futile. It is that view that I disagree with. Merry's blow wounded the Witch King, saved Eowyn from being killed and gave her the opening to kill the Witch King. In no way can Merry's blow be considered futile. However, if Eowyn had not been there to kill the Witch King, I believe a hobbled Witch King would have merely turned around and killed Merry. In other words, I believe Merry did no serious damage to the Witch King. Of course, all what ifs are irrelevant since they are not the way Tolkien wrote the story. The way Tolkien wrote the story is that Eowyn killed the Witch King.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 15, 2005)

What is the frodo theory? I mean how could he have killed him?


----------



## Durin's Bane (Jun 16, 2005)

Alatar said:


> What is the frodo theory? I mean how could he have killed him?


That Merry (and Eowin) simply left the Witch-King shapeless causing no real harm in the long run. But when Frodo (Gollum actually) destroyed the ring everithing created by it's power was destroyed (including the nazguls). It was Ingwe's theory by the way.
Point taken Greenwood. Sorry for my misunderstanding.


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 16, 2005)

However, the problem with the "Frodo Theory" is that there is no evidence that the Witch-King could have been re-incarnated, such a result has only happened once in the history of Arda, Beren was re-incarnated to live with Luthien.

Personlly I think that had the One Ring not been destroyed the Witch-king would still not have been given a new body. There would have been a great difference between the Witch-king and spirit of the Man that may have been held in Arda by the ring. He would most likely have been much like the dead of Dun-harrow. Spirits held in Arda but of very limited abilities.


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 16, 2005)

I don't get the point how Frodo killed the Witch King, Eowyn killed him, it's as simple as that. Frodo killed Sauron and thus killed evil, and unless the Witch King was a symbol or representation of evil instead of Sauron, I don't know how Frodo killed him. And Eowyn killed him before Frodo destroyed the Ring, so there.


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 16, 2005)

The Frodo theory is based on the idea that although Eowin Killed the Witch-king by destroying his body, his spirit was still held in Arda by his ring and had the One Ring not been destroyed then some believe that he could have be "Re-Bodied" by Sauron.

Also, Frodo did not kill Sauron (nor did Gollum) What happened is that the One Ring was destroyed and the greater part of Sauron's power and strength was destroyed with it. Sauron himself still lived though as a shadow of evil unable to take form or trouble Arda again.


----------



## spirit (Jun 16, 2005)

Durin's Bane said:


> Nice, Merry's in the lead with only one vote!!! (mine of course) but i think he wont stay there for long...



You were saying?

*voted for Eowyn... for reasons which shall not be discussed my me  *


----------



## Alatar (Jun 16, 2005)

well it say's,
a voice thin and wailing never to be heard again in that age of the world.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 16, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> The Nazgul are not Maia, like Sauron. They are mortal men. The rings extended their lives; the rings did not change them into immortals or into Maia like Sauron.


The Nazgul aren't Maia but they are Spirits of the One Ring and while it exist they won't be destroyed. How could Merry kill the Witch King (Man, owner of a Ring, shadow of the One)  ? The problem is that they aren't just Men. They have no body. Just spirits. 

And, *Gothmog*, I agree with you that Frodo didn't kill Sauron; Sauron was destroyed with the One Ring.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 17, 2005)

I still think that they are men, only with no will or body, but susepticle to wounds, as is shown when merry hits him in the leg.


----------



## Luthien Elenese (Jun 19, 2005)

and I quote:

'"Hinder me? Thou fool. *No living man* may hinder me!"
Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel.
"*But no living man am I! You look upon a woman*. Eowyn am I, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him."...

'...Eowyn it was, and Dernhelm also. For into Merry's mind flashed the memory of the face he saw at the riding from Dunharrow: the face of one that goes seeking death, having no hope. Pity filled his heart and great wonder, and suddenly the slow-kindled courage of his race awoke. He clenched his hand. She should not die, so fair, so desperate. At least she should not die alone, unaided...

'...Out of the wreck rose the Black Rider, tall and threatening, towering above her. With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears like venom, he let fall his mace. Her sheild was shivered into many peices, and her arm was broken; she stumbled to her knees. He bent over her like a cloud, and his eyes glittered; he raised his mace to kill.
*But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through his black mantle, and peirced the sinew behind his mighty knee*.
"Eowyn, Eowyn!" cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength *she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Eowyn fell forward onto her falled foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground, torn and tumbled; and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded into a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world.*'

Meanwhile, Frodo and Sam are in Shelob's lair, so how could Frodo have killed the Witch King? And Merry, not being a man, can wound him, but it is Eowyn, not the hobbits that causes him to actually _die._ It says so, right there!


----------



## Arvedui (Jun 21, 2005)

Don't confuse the "no man can kill me" with some kind of a curse. It was a prophecy. Glorfindel "saw" that the Witch-king would be killed by a woman. That didn't prevent any Man from killing him!

But when it comes to the case "Eówyn vs. Merry vs. Frodo  ," my vote goes to Eówyn.

Merry made him "mortal," but it was Eówyn who finished the business.
And Frodo was busy elsewhere...


----------



## Findulias (Jun 23, 2005)

even if Eowyn did kill the witch king, Merry broke the spell, so i don't think that he would have lived long even if Eowyn had not stabbed him, considering that he must have been pretty old. however, that puts a rather unheroic outlook on Eowyn's 'i am no man!' and i don't think Tolkien would have wanted to display Eowyn as unheroic or insignificant. as for Frodo, thats a little far fetched, actully it's alot far fetched, he died when Eowyn stabbed him, that much is obvious, his spirit didn't linger around scaring little kids into brushing their teeth, and he wouldn't have power to do anything much more significant than that. but i suppose everyones opinion makes scence to them, at least i hope.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 23, 2005)

Well i think that it could mean only merry weapon could break the spell that alowed him to move, and then eyown killed him, hmm, sounds like a mercyu kill, not good!


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 25, 2005)

Here's another quote to convince everyone that Eowyn killed him. 
From _The Return of the King_, Chapter 8: The Houses of Healing. Said by Aragorn to Eowyn:


> 'Eowyn Eomund's daughter, awake! For your enemy has passed away!'


I think the words, 'has passed away' prove that Frodo did not kill the Black Captain. And Merry only distracted him, I think everyone's understood that.


----------



## Berserker (Jun 26, 2005)

Eowyn killed him before Frodo destroyed the ring.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 27, 2005)

> Eowyn killed him before Frodo destroyed the ring.


I already mentioned that I think Eowyn destroyed his form, his body, not 'killed him'! 
You say the Nazguls are mortal? The Rings of Power were forged in the Second age and the Ringwraiths still live in the Third age. Are they mortal? No, they aren't because they are the Spirits of the One Ring. Their form was destroyed near Rivendell but they have new later - but the Ring exists. Frodo destroyed the Ring and the Nazguls were no more. Is that clear?


----------



## Arvedui (Jun 28, 2005)

The Nazgûl were mortal: they were Men, after all.

(Is that clear?    )


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 28, 2005)

Yes, dear Arvedui  
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.


----------



## Durin's Bane (Jun 29, 2005)

Nice, I have three supporters now... But still won't be back for a while...


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 30, 2005)

So do you mean to say that the Witch King's spirit lingered around on the Pelenor even after the battle? And why did Aragorn say 'your foe has passed away'. And if your theory was true, no soldier killed any other soldier of the dark forces. Because if Sauron had come to power again, he could have restored life back to those soul-less bodies. So did Frodo kill Sauron's whole army?


----------



## Maerbenn (Jun 30, 2005)

A footnote to _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_ no. 246 says that the Witch-king was simply “reduced to impotence” in the Battle; he was not killed.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 30, 2005)

ingolmo said:


> So do you mean to say that the Witch King's spirit lingered around on the Pelenor even after the battle? And why did Aragorn say 'your foe has passed away'. And if your theory was true, no soldier killed any other soldier of the dark forces. Because if Sauron had come to power again, he could have restored life back to those soul-less bodies. So did Frodo kill Sauron's whole army?


Hm...



> The Captains bowed their heads; and when they looked up again, behold! their enemies were flying and the power of Mordor was scattering like dust in the wind. As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures of Sauron, orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope. But the Men of Rhún and of Harad, Easterling and Southron, saw the ruin of their war and the great majesty and glory of the Captains of the West. And those that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for a last stand of desperate battle. But the most part fled eastward as they could; and some cast their weapons down and sued for mercy.


 _This is long quote... _
_Spirit... How can the other see it if it is a spirit. It is invisible. A Nazgul!_


----------



## Findulias (Jun 30, 2005)

Maerbenn made a very good point by bringing up that quote by Tolkien, i looked impotent up in the dictionary and it defined it as; lacking power or ability, so i must say that was a well made point. It adds a bit more meaning to the Frodo theory.


----------



## ingolmo (Jul 4, 2005)

Maerbenn's point is very illuminating. But it doesn't show that Frodo killed the Witch King, it shows that nobody did.


----------



## Mooky87 (Jul 6, 2005)

My vote goes for Eowyn, but I don't believe that she could have done it without Merry. When Merry stabbed the Witch King, it gave Eowyn the opportunity she needed to kill him. Many people with disagree, and this is all IMHO, but I believe that when Eowyn stabbed the Witch King, he died. I don't believe that his "form" was destroyed, but that he died. I believe that he could have been (and was) destroyed even if Sauron was still alive.


----------



## ingolmo (Jul 7, 2005)

I don't know about you guys, but having read Maerbenn's quote, I have to say that unless he was lying, we have to believe what Tolkien said on the matter. After all, it is his world.


----------



## vamp (Jul 23, 2005)

True, without Merry and his blade, Eowyn could not have killed the Witch King. But remember, "no man could kill him". It had to have been Eowyn who actually killed him because she's not a man. She's a woman.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 9, 2005)

ingolmo said:


> I don't know about you guys, but having read Maerbenn's quote, I have to say that unless he was lying, we have to believe what Tolkien said on the matter. After all, it is his world.


However, Maerbenn's quote must be read in context, both of the letter in which it appears and of Tolkien's other writings. As given by Maerbenn, readers might think that Tolkien actually says in letter #246 that the Witch King was not killed at Pelennor. However, that is not how the letter reads. The letter discusses what would have happened at Mount Doom if Gollum had not seized the Ring and fallen in after Frodo claimed it for himself. Tolkien says the Nazgul would have arrived to keep Frodo there until Sauron arrived. The footnote in question refers to the sentence: "The situation as between Frodo with the Ring and the Eight* might be compared to that of a small brave man armed with a devastating weapon, faced by eight savage warriors of great strength and agility armed with poisoned blades." The footnote (which refers to "the Eight") says: "*The Witch-king had been reduced to impotence." That is the full footnote. In context, clearly Tolkien's intent is merely to explain why there would only be eight Nazgul to deal with Frodo at Mount Doom. 

In interpreting what Tolkien might have meant by "reduced to impotence", Tolkien's other writings cannot be ignored. Tolkien quite clearly says the Nazgul were *mortal men*. Tolkien is also quite clear that the mortality of men cannot be changed. Not even the Valar can change the mortality of men (or the immortality of elves). (See passages in letters #131, 156, 156, and 325 quoted here.) To change the Witch King from a mortal to an immortal violates one of the principle foundations of Tolkien's mythology! Thus the Witch King cannot be immortal. He cannot be like Sauron (a maia, not a mortal man) and have the ability to "re-form". The simplest interpretation of Tolkien's footnote, one that keeps the nature of the Witch King in line with the rest of Tolkien's writings, is that the Witch King was "reduced to impotence" because he was destroyed at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.


----------



## Maerbenn (Aug 9, 2005)

What I meant with “he was not killed” was that his soul/spirit did not leave Middle-earth already at that point, because the ‘link’ (‘his’ Ring of Power that Sauron held + the Ruling Ring) keeping him here was so strong. One of the Rings in that ‘link’ would have to be destroyed for him to be ‘free’.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 13, 2005)

(I prepared a long post for another thread (which became two posts because of length) that are totally relevant to this thread, so I am going to post them here also. If this is not appropriate, perhaps some moderator can delete these two posts and merely provide a link to them on the other thread.)

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 balde 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".


----------



## Helcaraxë (Aug 15, 2005)

Remember that no ordinary blades could kill the Witch King. It was the fact that Merry's knife had some unusual properties that made him vulnerable. A simple blow to the head by Eowyn could have done nothing.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 15, 2005)

Helcaraxë said:


> Remember that no ordinary blades could kill the Witch King. It was the fact that Merry's knife had some unusual properties that made him vulnerable. A simple blow to the head by Eowyn could have done nothing.


Where does it say "that no ordinary blades could kill the Witch-king"? Eowyn's blade was presumably an ordinary blade and it killed the Witch-king.


----------



## Varokhâr (Aug 16, 2005)

Anyone could've killed the Witch-king, in theory. All Glorfindel did was forsee that "no living man" would do it - and indeed, no one who could've been considered a man did it. Merry's blow to the knee, Eowyn's to the head, Frodo bringing the Ring to Mount Doom, and even Gollum causing the Ring to be cast into the fire - all of them are responsible in their own way, but neither are of the race of Edain and are male at the same time. Glorfindel merely perceived, according to the manner of his race, that no man would get in the lucky shots needed to defeat the Witch-king - the Nine were every bit as tangible as any Orc, and any stray arrow could've felled him.

The Witch-king wore armor - he wouldn't need armor if he was truly invulnerable. He had not just his helm, but a great hauberk, according to ROTK. Gandalf and Legolas may have forsaken armor, but that was because they trusted to other methods to avoid harm by weapons. The Witch-king knew he could be harmed, and wore such armor as he needed to protect himself. But, there really was nothing special about the way in which he was defeated - any male Adan could've done it, but it just wasn't how it was fated to turn out.


----------



## Daranavo (Aug 16, 2005)

Well, the whole defeat reguardless was kinda silly. Here is a man who has lived....how many thousands of years? He was defeated by an ill-trained hobbit and a woman. I have a problem with that anyhow. Not to mention their defeat on weathertop. A big stretch for me to take in either event.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 16, 2005)

Varokhâr said:


> The Witch-king wore armor - he wouldn't need armor if he was truly invulnerable. He had not just his helm, but a great hauberk, according to ROTK. .... The Witch-king knew he could be harmed, and wore such armor as he needed to protect himself. ....


Excellent point about the armor! I had overlooked that in my discussion!


----------



## Elthir (Aug 16, 2005)

I agree that the Witch-king is not invulnerable to 'regular' weapons -- or should not be anyway (he was said to have feared Boromir).

Here's a 'pesky' quote from _The Two Towers_ however; what do you think of it?



> '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.'


 
*Galin*


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 16, 2005)

Galin said:


> Here's a 'pesky' quote from _The Two Towers_ however; what do you think of it?


That is a somewhat pesky quote.  But, as I said on another thread, Tolkien is not always completely consistent.  

The quote could be dealt with by the Nazgul having superior chain mail that protects them from arrows. Afterall, in Aragorn's words, Frodo's mithril mail saved him from a "spear-thrust [that] would have skewered a wild boar." Surely Sauron would see to it that his top servants wore the best armor possible.


----------



## Arvedui (Aug 18, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> But, as I said on another thread, Tolkien is not always completely consistent.


Now, THAT is the perfect argument: if you feel that someone just cornered you, accuse the author for being inconsistent.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 18, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> Now, THAT is the perfect argument: if you feel that someone just cornered you, accuse the author for being inconsistent.


Ahh, but I did not stop there.  I advanced an argument that bricks could be thrown at.   

And much as we love the dear professor, we do know that he was not perfect and was sometimes inconsistent  ; though, I must admit rarely.


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 19, 2005)

Here is something interesting. I found it today when I was reading the Letters. I have read them before but it seems that I have missed this passage:



> *I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained* (especially if an explanation actually exists); and I have perhaps from this point of view erred in trying to explain too much, and give too much past history.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 19, 2005)

Ingwë said:


> Here is something interesting. I found it today when I was reading the Letters. I have read them before but it seems that I have missed this passage:


Yes, one of Tolkien's great gifts as a writer is that he leaves so much room for the reader's imagination to fill in.


----------



## Arvedui (Aug 26, 2005)

Enough room, in fact, to keep several forums going.


----------



## Aglarband (Aug 26, 2005)

Galin said:


> I agree that the Witch-king is not invulnerable to 'regular' weapons -- or should not be anyway (he was said to have feared Boromir).
> 
> Here's a 'pesky' quote from _The Two Towers_ however; what do you think of it?
> 
> ...



Seeing that it took a blade of westernesse to kill him, it stands to reason that there are no more arrows of westernesse, or any made like the blades... So of course, you couldn't do what merry or eowyn did with arrows.


----------



## Inderjit S (Aug 27, 2005)

Tolkien himself commented that there were quite a few anamolies even after the revision. 

What were the Nazgul doing in the Last Alliance-they managed to escape from the battle, with a remnant of Sauron's forces, where were they? Surely they took some part in one of the battles, or in the defence of Barad-dur-surely people shot arrows at them there, and they remained unscathed? Plus they were afraid of the Numenorean host under Ar-Pharazon-they obviously though they weren't invincible!


----------



## Helcaraxë (Aug 28, 2005)

If indeed the Nazgul were protected by some sort of armor that made it invulnerable to arrows, there is no reason Gandalf would know about it. When he says that they cannot be slain with arrows, he means they themselves cannot be harmed by them. Furthermore, don't be too literal. Gandalf is speaking figuratively; that is, he does not mean that arrows cannot harm him, but, say, an ordinary dagger can.

Also, his helm seems to me more of a standard for his army than actual protection. 

Indeed the Nazgul were afraid of Ar-Pharazon, but remember that the power of Westernesse was very harmful to them; many blades of Numenor were specifically designed to combat the Nazguls' evil.


----------



## Inderjit S (Aug 28, 2005)

I doubt the Numenoreans knew much about the Nazgul-except perhaps that some of them had become Nazgul, or hated them enough to make special weapons to defeat them, unlike the Dunedain of Arnor. 

Also, Gandalf seems to think he could have killed the Witch-King, or at least driven him off.


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 30, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> I doubt the Numenoreans knew much about the Nazgul-except perhaps that some of them had become Nazgul


Perhaps they don't know much about the Nazgûl. It depends on when the Men get their Rings. 
In 1695 Sauron's forces invade Eriador. If he gave the Nine Rings to the Númenoreans (but not all owner of the Nine Rings are Númenoreans) then, then they are Men who have left Númenor and the other Númenoreans don't know. (Quite possible)
Tar-Calion the Golden seized the Sceptre in 3255. The Downfall of Númenor is in 3319. Meanwhile probably some Númenoreans went to Middle earth and took the Nine Rings but I don't think this is possible because Sauron was imprisoned by the Númenoreans while then. But if the Men took the Nine Rings in 3200+ year I would say that there were Edain who knew about the Ring. But in that case I'm sure that the King didn't know about the Rings because he would want to take them. But he even didn't knew about the one Ring. 
So we're sure that the Númenoreans didn't know about the Rings. And especially Elendil and the other Exiles who came back to Middle-earth


----------



## Maerbenn (Aug 30, 2005)

For your information; according to Appendix B, the Ringwraiths first appear in about 2251.


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 31, 2005)

> For your information; according to Appendix B, the Ringwraiths first appear in about 2251.


Thank you for the information. I used Appendix B but I didn't look for that date. But I thought about giving part of the Nine Rings to the Men of Middle earth and later giving two or three Rings to the Númenoreans.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 15, 2006)

Alcuin and I have been debating over the issue of the barrow blades on another forum. 

It seems that Tolkien considered, outside the final version of the LotR, that the swords were about the only thing able to destroy the witch-king:


Lord of the rings said:


> the Witch-King, the great captain, was actually dismayed. He had been shaken by the fire of Gandalf, and began to perceive that the mission on which Sauron had sent him was one of great peril to himself both by the way and on his return to his Master (if unsuccessful); and he had been doing ill, so far achieving nothing save rousing the power of the Wise and directing them to the Ring. But above all the timid and terrified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction. Narrowly it had missed him. How he had come by it – save in the Barrows of Cardolan. Then he was in some way mightier than the Barrow-wight; and he called on Elbereth, a name of terror to the Nazgûl. He was then in league with the High Elves of the Havens.
> 
> Escaping from a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor-knife to Frodo (as was proved in the end), he withdrew and hid for a while, out of doubt and fear both of Aragorn and especially of Frodo. But fear of Sauron…. was the stronger.
> 
> Oct 7. He arose and cried out to his companions, and drew the other four back to him. He then patrols the road to the Bridge of Mitheithel, knowing that it was practically impossible to cross the Greyflood between Tharbad and the Bridge. The Nazgûl search in vain for the Bearer while Aragorn leads Frodo in the pathless lands south of the Road.


Another discussed quote was from Tolkien's critique of the film treatment of LotR:


Letter #210 said:


> 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.)


(Imo, this cuts both ways)

Then comes the question: why didn't anyone know about the blades? In HoME VI, Gandalf makes some interesting remarks:


At Rivendell said:


> Things work out oddly. But for that 'short cut' you would not have met old Bombadil, nor had the one kind of sword the Riders fear.
> ...
> Among my father's earliest ideas for this part of the story (p. 126) appears: 'Gandalf astonished to hear about Tom.'
> 
> Another brief passage on the same slip of paper was struck out at the time of writing: Not to mention courage - and also swords and a strange and ancient name. Later on I must be told about that curious sword of yours, and how you knew the name of Elbereth.



Now, Tolkien giving up the idea of Gandalf's interest about the swords seems to imply that they lost their special power against the nazguls in the final version, but they did remain weapons against the forces of evil, seeing how the orcs of Mordor and Isengard fear them.

Also, no other story character seems to be interested about the swords, not even after the witch-king is killed - not even 'loremasters' such as Elrond, Galadriel, Denethor, Aragorn, etc. It has been argued that the blades were a secret kept by the Dunedain of the Cardolan - but it seems highly unlikely they kept such an important weapon secret from their lord of Arthedain and their elven allies, in a common war against Angmar.

Another question is, if the swords were so dangerous to the nazgul, why would the Mouth of Sauron risk presenting one to his enemies? Losing some rags is no big deal, but the most powerful weapon against the nazgul?
Looking forward to some interesting discussions...


----------



## Varokhâr (Jul 15, 2006)

Leads me to wonder about the process in which the Barrow-blades were forged. Was it a simple smithing of Numenorean weapons, or did the makers consecrate these weapons somehow? If there were shamanic traditions amongst the Dunedain, did one or more shamans bless the blades, giving them a special power against evil beings? Since magic is basically the focusing and directing of one's will into the real world, could some Dunedain shaman or other figure direct his or her will into the blades, either during or after their creation, to imbue them with some special attribute against Angmar? It would explain why _those_ blades were so feared, whilst other weapons were not.

As for why the Mouth would present one if he knew about its nature, good question. Perhaps the Mouth, in his supreme arrogance, thought it irrelevant that Sauron's enemies should possess a speciall consecrated blade, given they are so few in number and Sauron's forces so large in Mordor. Certainly the Mouth would've recognized any Numenorean ritual markings upon the blade and perhaps even perceived any spells bound to the weapon, so it was most likely not ignorance of the blade's attributes that led him to give it up. And if he didn't, someone in Mordor surely must have.


----------



## Arvedui (Jul 15, 2006)

Great read, Thorondor, and some very interesting points that are hard to argue. So I will refrain (for the moment).

But considering the action of the Mouth of Sauron, I think that the answer is quite simple: He didn't know better. The Nazgûl were occupied with the war when the blade was taken from Frodo and brought to Sauron. Most likely, the Nazgûl never saw it. Perhaps Sauron could have recognised it's worth if he had taken a closer look at it, but to him it was merely a knife, and during the period when the blade was forged, he was still on his enforced R&R.

Now, when it comes to the lack of knowledge about the value of the blades, there could also be a simple solution: Cardolan was overrun just after the blades were forged.

Concerning Varokhâr's views on how the blades become so powerful against the Witch-king etc, I lean towards the explanation that Elves or Dwarves may have been involved in the forging, or someone who was "pure-blood" Númenórean.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 15, 2006)

Well, sure, maybe the pure Numenorean thing, but these things seem to be hyped well enough as coming from those types of humans that I don't see any reason to assume that any sickening elves or superly cool Dwarves had anything to do with making them. Some humans had bits of magicalness in them, too. Anyways, I would think that the Mouth Of Sauron dude should have been able to tell that that type of sword was something pretty achingly cool, but I read nothing about how he gave the thing up. It was stolen very evilly by the evil torturer Gandalf. Nobody expected that to happen. It was only brought out to mess with the good guys.


----------



## Gil-Galad 2.0 (Jul 20, 2006)

Technically I don't think Frodo destroyed the ring since it was Gollom that fell in, not Frodo.
I think that if Merry had not stabbed the Witch king and eowyn had died that when the ring had been destroyed that it would have killed the Witch king. so its not merry and it would have been Eowyn or Gollom. but since Eowyn got him first, she gets the kill.


----------



## Arvedui (Jul 20, 2006)

I don't quite agree with you, Yay. To the Mouth of Sauron, the blade was no more than a knife, after all. And he was human, maybe at "most" a Black Númenórean. Why should he understand anything about a special blade from a long lost northern Kingdom


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 20, 2006)

He did call it "blade of the fallen west" but still took the risk of presenting it to his foes. Doesn't sound like he put much value into it.


----------



## Durin's Bane (Jul 20, 2006)

And if the blades are dangerous to the Witch King only?


----------



## Valandil (Jul 20, 2006)

I think particularly dangerous to any Nazgul.

I believe Tolkien refers to a "secret of their making" or something. Remember his view of "magic" - at least what we think of as the "good" magic in his stories. It springs from what is inherently possessed by the maker. The maker wouldn't view anything he made as "magic" himself - just the product of his natural arts.

I think the Dunedain - at least those who were Faithful - had some "secret" ways of making objects quite deadly to those frightful kinds of creatures that were so fearful to other Men.

I sometimes wonder too - why four knives - and not a sword or battleaxe to be found (that we know of)? Of course - they might have made 40 such knives - and maybe another 40 (or 100) swords. I suspect though that not too many of these special blades were made. And in some types of warfare (Medieval comes to mind) - a dagger was often used to strike the final blow.

So - a Northern Dunedain nobleman after the rise of Angmar might have had a regular sword for common use in battle - maybe a regular dagger, for finishing off other opponents - and one very special dagger, "just in case" he ran into one of THOSE.

Frankly - my own guess is that these daggers had a little Mithril in 'em. Not THAT far from Moria, now are we?  

As for the Nazgul fearing Boromir, and sometimes falling back in battle before other foes - from the "Letters" - I gathered that, while once they had been Kings, what the Nazgul were now reduced to was pretty pathetic. They put on a good show - being fearful and all - but maybe they were almost as afraid of Men as Men were of them.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 21, 2006)

No way, man. They were achingly useful in fights, at least because of their superly cool fear power. They don't seem to have brains enough to be afraid, and even if bits of their old personalities existed, they would think that they are way better than any boring human. 

Anyways, true, Arvedui person, but plus what the Thorondor_ person wrote about the guy at least knowing its origins, from what I read about the him, I would think that he would have been able to figure out how achingly cool the blade was. Knew a lot about magic, was especially intelligent, knew Sauron pretty well and had access to his level of knowledge. As to him thinking that the thing was unimportant, I see no evidence of that. I just wrote that nobody expected the thing to get so easily pilfered. The good guys are at the front gate of the bad guy country. The bad guys just tossed a large pile of demoralizing information at them. The sword was held by the Mouth Of Sauron, who was not your typical adversary, too. I certainly wouldn't get too close to the guy! Too bad that they never said what happened to him, at least as far as I know.


----------



## Hobbit-GalRosie (Aug 5, 2006)

I'm sure I remember Gandalf saying the Mouth was a Black Numenorean, just to clarify that point...though I can't _quite_ swear he wasn't merely speculating I'm still pretty darned certain.

Yay's explanation makes most sense to me; it really doesn't seem likely that the Mouth wouldn't know about these blades. You'd think being Numenorean and he did he could not fail to recognize them for what they were, and if you take into account the level of knowledge it is apparent he had, the way he was close in Sauron's own counsels, and that he himself knew a great deal about sorcery, it just seems _far_ too great a leap to assume he could have been ignorant. But then why he would have brought the blade out is beyond me. He would have had no reason to suspect it might be "stolen" from him but it still seems like a risk a person as intelligent as I just gave him credit for would not have been likely to take. Perhaps this is another example of that kind of tunnel vision evil creatures often have in Tolkien's works, similar to Sauron never contemplating that his enemies would seek to destroy the Ring, but I do not see that this would have been quite so difficult a possibility to come up with. It would have to be pure arrogance in assuming that everyone would be far too demoralised to act.

So...yes, Yay's explanation makes more sense to me than any other I can think of but I must admit there are some problems with that line too.


----------



## Alcuin (Aug 5, 2006)

I think barrow-blades, of which four were selected by Bombadil for the hobbits from the tomb of the last prince of Cardolan, were of manufacture peculiar to Cardolan. Bombadil was apparently aware of their properties: he was, in fact, aware of much of the history concerning Arnor and its daughter kingdoms, particularly Cardolan, in which lay the region he claimed as his home territory at the end of the Third Age. Information about the blades and their properties does not seem to be known to Gandalf, to Aragorn, or even to Elrond. That would suggest that they were manufactured late in the independence of Cardolan, and that the people who made them might have been killed in the war of 1409.

The 5 Nazgûl at Weathertop, however, did recognize them for what they were. Hammond and Scull commented on this using Tolkien’s notes in the _Reader’s Guide_


> … the Witch-King, the great captain, was actually dismayed. He had been shaken by the fire of Gandalf, and began to perceive that the mission on which Sauron had sent him was one of great peril to himself both by the way and on his return to his Master (if unsuccessful); and he had been doing ill, so far achieving nothing save rousing the power of the Wise and directing them to the Ring. *But above all the timid and terrified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction. Narrowly it had missed him. How he had come by it – save in the Barrows of Cardolan. Then he was in some way mightier than the Barrow-wight; and he called on Elbereth, a name of terror to the Nazgûl. He was then in league with the High Elves of the Havens. *
> 
> Escaping from a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor-knife to Frodo (as was proved in the end), he withdrew and hid for a while, out of doubt and fear both of Aragorn and especially of Frodo. But fear of Sauron…. was the stronger.
> 
> Oct 7. He arose and cried out to his companions, and drew the other four back to him. He then patrols the road to the Bridge of Mitheithel, knowing that it was practically impossible to cross the Greyflood between Tharbad and the Bridge. The Nazgûl search in vain for the Bearer while Aragorn leads Frodo in the pathless lands south of the Road.


 Hammond and Scull, _Readers Companion_ notes to p. 208. I am indebted to my friend Gordis in another forum for this quotation.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 6, 2006)

That quote has already been presented, along with other refferences from Sauron Defeated, about the special powers of the blades. These refferences which didn't make it in the final text; the interpretation that I preffer is that the particular power of the blades diminished in Tolkien's mind, which would explain why the nazguls left the blades in a tomb far from their home, near the realms of enemies they fear - while their enemies don't have the slightest clue about their supposed uniquely particular power and and they don't seem to notice it or speak about it.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 4, 2006)

I found another interesting quote in the Reader's companion; it sort of refutes the idea of the blades being known only to the dunedain of Cardolan, but it also gives the blades a good deal of importance:


Chapter 6: THE BATTLE OF THE PELENNOR FIELDS said:


> On 18 April and 6 May 1963, Tolkien wrote to Anneke C. Kloos-Adriaansen and P. Kloos that the incidents of the witch-king [damned be his name ] in Book I, Chapter 12, and of Merry's sword in the present chapter:
> 
> 
> > were intended to be integrated with the entire mytho-historical background, events in an agelong war. Frodo received his wound from the witch-king under Wheatertop, the bulwark of the ancient fortified line made by the Numenoreans against his kingdom; Meriadoc's dagger was taken from the gravemounds of the same people. It was made by smiths who knew all about Sauron and his servants, and made in prophetic vision or hope of ending just as it did. [spelling sic, courtesy of Christopher Tolkien]


----------



## Gordis (Oct 4, 2006)

And why does this quote "sort of refute the idea of the blades being known only to the dunedain of Cardolan"?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 5, 2006)

It reffers to the Dunedain as a whole, not to the ones of Cardolan; it integrates the blades "with the entire mytho-historical background, events in an agelong war" - which would not be possible if the blades were the exclusive and obscure property of the Cardolan ones only. The emphasis of Tolkien's intent is on the general dunedain, not on fractions.


----------



## Alcuin (Oct 5, 2006)

I don’t like pursuing this in two forums at once: the whole discussion becomes much more confused, and arguments and responses made in one forum become conflated with those in another. People who are not in both places can lose the threads of the discussions pretty quickly, and I do, too.

I made the argument that these blades were peculiar to Cardolan. I don’t that like that conclusion. I have to come to it because:
We know that the daggers were made by the Northern Dúnedain because Denethor tells Pippin, and Tolkien as narrator tells us. Bombadil is almost that specific when he first retrieves the knives.
We know from Tolkien as narrator that the daggers were meant to undo the spells binding the Nazgûl (specifically, the Witch-king, although I strongly suspect they were all vulnerable) to the wraith-world. We also know from previously unpublished citations if Tolkien in _Reader’s Companion_ that they acted on the Ringwraiths as the Morgul-blades acted on Frodo.
We can narrow the time in which these daggers were made to a 280-year period.
Argeleb I died in III 1356 after the Hillmen of Rhudaur made an alliance with Angmar to launch the first war between Angmar and the Dúnedain of the North. From all that we know, that has to be the first experience of the Dúnedain with the Lord of the Nazgûl _as Witch-king of Angmar. _
Tyrn Gorthad was infested with barrow-wights in III 1636 following the devastation of Cardolan in the Great Plague.
The daggers were almost certainly placed in the barrow by the Dúnedain themselves.
The barrows were successfully used by the Dúnedain as defensive positions in the disastrous war with Angmar in III 1409.
The Witch-king probably sent the wights into the barrows to prevent the Dúnedain from using barrows this way again. He succeeded.


These are _really_ potent weapons. Nobody tells the hobbits what they can do. Why would Elrond, Aragorn, Gandalf, and everyone else fail to tell them _unless_
they don’t know, or
they don’t want one of the hobbits to impetuously _attack_ a Ringwraith.

Aragorn knows that the knives are “bound about with spells for the bane of Mordor,” as you have pointed out in the other forum, but I am not at all certain that means that he knew what the intention of the weapons-maker was. It is a very suggestive comment, and I would be very pleased (really and truly) if you could show me that I am mistaken and that Aragorn did know why the blades were made.
Denethor recognized that Pippin’s dagger/short sword was “wrought by our own kindred in the North in the deep past,” but he never hints that he knew why the Northern Dúnedain made it.
Everything indicates that people knew the daggers were made “for the bane of Mordor” – to hurt Sauron’s minions. Aragorn believed even the orcs could tell it. But no character other than Tom Bombadil and the Nazgûl takes any action or makes any positive sign that indicates that he knows why these blades were made in the first place.
The upshot is that while it is clear that these are Dúnedain weapons, the _purpose_ of the weapons has been forgotten. The Eldar don’t know, the Northern and Southern Dúnedain don’t know, and Gandalf doesn’t know. The blades are buried in Cardolan, _outside_ Arthedain, in the tomb of the last Prince of Cardolan. You can argue that the folks in Arthedain were picnicking in the barrows in Cardolan, but that doesn’t make sense. Maybe they started out in Arthedain, but there isn’t any indication of it. 

I’m not kidding when I say that I don’t like the idea that these things were made in solely Cardolan. But everything that we know _so far_ makes sense only if
the weapons were made in Cardolan,
the people who made them and knew about them were killed in Cardolan during the war of 1409, and
the blades were buried with the last Prince of Cardolan.
That ties everything up in a clean simple package. That doesn’t make it right, and I find it very uncomfortable. But I’d like to see something that builds out the quote you’ve offered: the Cardolan suit still fits the quote. 

The Cardolan manufacture hypothesis, if we can give a flowery-sounding label, is a minimalist argument. It fits all the facts, not just some of them. It is not very satisfying, but it does fill up an empty space so that the rest of the story can function without interruption. It’s kind of like plain hot oatmeal on a snowy morning: it works, but it isn’t very tasty.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 5, 2006)

> Argeleb I died in III 1356 after the Hillmen of Rhudaur made an alliance with Angmar to launch the first war between Angmar and the Dúnedain of the North. From all that we know, that has to be the first experience of the Dúnedain with the Lord of the Nazgûl _as Witch-king of Angmar._


Yet when did they perceive that he was a nazgul? Because previously, it was stated in the appendices that it was only until later that this fact was discovered. The wars in the north lasted for some six centuries, how late would this "later" be?

The last prince was burried in 1409, along with many treasures. Could the blades have been put there after his burrial? I personally doubt that, as the mounds were said to have been revered by the dunedain. If I am correct, then this would reduce the period of the making of the rings to some 53 years. 

How come it is only a fraction of the dunedain tha are able to produce such formidable weapons against the nazgul? Why aren't the elves capable, the most gifted Children in terms of creative power? Or even the dwarves [who are said to be unmatched in making iron weapons and we also know they are using magic in their craft]? 

Tolkien also questioned himself concerning the use of magic by Numenoreans in making swords, since that goes against his statement that:


Letter #155 said:


> Anyway, a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but is in an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such. Aragorn's 'healing' might be regarded as 'magical', or at least a blend of magic with pharmacy and 'hypnotic' processes. But it is (in theory) reported by hobbits who have very little notions of philosophy and science; while Aragorn is not a pure 'Man', but at long remove one of the 'children of Luthien'.


So, the blades being solely a Cardolan manufacture implies a reversal of craftmanship hierarchies in Middle-Earth. In my opinion, a consistency-solution, for which you admirably argue, is not possible.


----------



## Alcuin (Oct 5, 2006)

Thorondor_ said:


> Yet when did they perceive that he was a nazgul? Because previously, it was stated in the appendices that it was only until later that this fact was discovered. The wars in the north lasted for some six centuries, how late would this "later" be?


That’s a very good question. I don’t know when the Dúnedain discovered that the king of Angmar was a Nazgûl, or whether they first realized this or Elrond did, or both together. Perhaps someone has an insight into this?



Thorondor_ said:


> The last prince was burried in 1409, along with many treasures. Could the blades have been put there after his burrial? I personally doubt that, as the mounds were said to have been revered by the dunedain. If I am correct, then this would reduce the period of the making of the rings to some 53 years.


It is quite possible that the daggers were made following the death of the last Prince of Cardolan in 1409 and put there well after his funerary rites were completed. Remember, the Dúnedain of Cardolan used the barrows as defense works against Angmar, at least once in 1409 and probably on other occasions. It would be reasonable for them to prepare weapons caches in the places they had chosen as refuges and strongholds, as well as food, water, clothing, etc., to withstand a siege. I cannot answer your question with any certainty.

Recall that Bombadil was extremely interested in reports of the Black Riders from Frodo and his companions. He and Goldberry seem personally to have known a woman buried in the tomb, and it was he who selected the daggers and told the hobbits something of their history. The inference I draw from Bombadil’s sketchy information is that all the events leading up to the burial, including the placement of the weapons, were one unbroken chain of events: attack, defeat, and the placement of funerary furnishings and burial; but then there is every reason to believe that this barrow, like many others, could have been used as a stronghold. 

My point, from which I have deviated (surprise, surprise!), is that Bombadil seems rarely if ever to have intervened in affairs that did not concern him; but if we could argue that in his view the encroachments of the Witch-king _were_ a matter of his concern, then he might intervene to offset that. It would then be possible that Bombadil was the source of information regarding the Nazgûl and how to defeat them. I do not know how that works into Tolkien’s hints about who and what Tom Bombadil was, and what role he plays in the Tale. (There are so many whacky Bombadil theories I hesitated to post this one; however, Bombadil is so obviously interested in the Black Riders, and because he *is* the agent by which Tolkien introduces the barrow-blades into the story, it has to be on the menu of things to discuss.)



Thorondor_ said:


> How come it is only a fraction of the dunedain tha are able to produce such formidable weapons against the nazgul? Why aren't the elves capable, the most gifted Children in terms of creative power? Or even the dwarves [who are said to be unmatched in making iron weapons and we also know they are using magic in their craft]?


I don’t know. I do know that Tolkien says on more than one occasion that the barrow-blades were made by the Dúnedain during their wars with Angmar; since he wrote the story, I have no reason within that framework to doubt him. 

The Dwarves were not involved in the wars against Angmar except, perhaps, in a preliminary strike by Sauron’s forces against Gundabad. (I think that the Witch-king prepared the way for his centuries-long campaign against Arnor by first seizing control of Mount Gundabad with the orcs. This secured his lines of communication and supply with Dol Guldur by giving him continual access to the Vales of Anduin, and it made his position in Angmar virtually unassailable unless he was attacked simultaneously on both sides of the Misty Mountains. His position was so flexible geographically that a successful attack against Angmar might have required even a northern assault as well: a three-pronged, well-planned, coordinated, and extremely complicated campaign.) Since they were not otherwise involved, I am not certain why the Dwarves would concern themselves with this, although they may have been providing the folk of Arnor weapons and armor. 

You are correct that the Elves possessed the greater power in these matters. However, I also hasten to point out that the Númenóreans made Orthanc and the walls of Minas Tirith of some strange material that was all but impervious even to the ravages of several dozen angry ents. The burial site of Elendil, Amon Anwar, was mightily odd as well. As Isaac Asimov observed, and I paraphrase, a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to those who do not understand it. Maybe this idea is behind what Galadriel told Sam: Men “use the same word for [the art of the Elves] and the deceits of the Enemy.”

You did, however, overlook the footnotes to Letter 155, the second of which is flagged after “Lúthien,” the last word in the final paragraph of the letter, and at the end of your citation. The text is on pp 199-200 of _Letters_, and the footnotes to Letter 155 are on p 445. Footnote 2 reads,


> Alongside the final paragraph, Tolkien has written ‘But the Númenóreans used “spells” in making swords?’


 You might also consider whether the swords were _not_ “magical,” but were rather intended to “undo” the necromancy of Sauron in making the Ringwraiths. From that perspective, a clever person might argue that the daggers were “anti-magical.” Tolkien does not seem to address this possibility in his published writings, and it seems to me rather an unnecessary stretch: too clever by half.



Thorondor_ said:


> So, the blades being solely a Cardolan manufacture implies a reversal of craftmanship hierarchies in Middle-Earth. In my opinion, a consistency-solution, for which you admirably argue, is not possible.


I think from the footnote that Tolkien must immediately have been aware of the inconsistency he introduced in this letter. The text of the Tale and the footnote indicate that the barrow-blades remain the work of the Northern Dúnedain, whether of Cardolan or not, or before or after III 1409.

I was going to add the phrase, “as long as it was before III 1636,” to the end of that last sentence until it occurred to me that the daggers could have been put there even after the barrow-wight arrived. Who would do this other than a Nazgûl I do not know, unless the wight was obliging enough to bring into the tomb trinkets left for him to collect, sort of like an overnight deposit box. I like this idea very little: it begs the question why, if the armies of Angmar collected the blades, they did not destroy them; while if the daggers were already in the tomb when the wight arrived, they could excused as having been overlooked: we must after all consider the busy life of a barrow-wight, and the many claims on his time and attention.


----------



## Seregon (Oct 15, 2006)

ingolmo said:


> Here's another quote to convince everyone that Eowyn killed him.
> From _The Return of the King_, Chapter 8: The Houses of Healing. Said by Aragorn to Eowyn:
> 
> 'Eowyn Eomund's daughter, awake! For your enemy has passed away!'
> ...


 
I disagree - 'passed away' could either be because of a lack of knowledge on Aragorn's part, or could mean what it means now - that physical form has been lost.

Also, if I remember correctly, in FotR, Aragorn says, "They were men once." Were - Once. He then talks of how their lust for power corrupted them, and now, their fate is tied to the Ring, as is Sauron's.

There's also a quote on page 50 of the Lord of the Rings book (the one with all three of them), wherein Gandalf says, "...Nine he gave to Mortal Men, proud and great, and so ensnared them. Long ago they fell under the dominion of the One, and they became Ringwraiths, shadows under his great Shadow, his most terrible servants. Long ago. It is many a year since the Nine walked abroad. Yet who knows? *As the Shadow grows once more, they too may walk again.* ..."

This means that they once roamed the earth with a physical form. When Sauron was overthrown, their physical forms diminished, and they could not leave his vicinity without being reduced to spirits, if they were indeed still with a form at all. Yet as his power grew, they were either embodied or they grew powerful enough to leave his vicinity.

I would also like to expand on a quote already given, from page 487 of said book, where Gandalf says, "One that you cannot slay with arrows. You only slew his steed. It was a good deed; but the Rider was soon horsed again. For he was a Nazgul, of the Nine, who ride now upon winged steeds. Soon their terror will overshadow the last armies of our friends, cutting off the sun. But they have not yet been allowed to cross the River, and Saruman does not know of *this new shape in which the Ringwraiths have been clad.* ..."

This can be seen to indicate their steeds, or their physical presence, yet either way, he refers to it as a shape, and puts it in words that could just as easily be refering to clothing.

I voted Frodo, because since the Riders' fates are attached to the Ring, as they are servants of Sauron, no longer mortal men, for they have not died of age or illness, and have diminished in physical power at least once, although Eowyn or Merry may have destroyed his physical presence, if the Ring were not destroyed, Sauron could easily have brought him back. Or, if Sauron had not been able to bring him back, near-to-soulless as he was, he would not have been allowed to pass to the Halls of Mandos, and would have wondered the earth, formless.

Sidenote to what I was saying:
(However, as I understand the Lore and Mythos behind it, it isn't possible that the Ring wouldn't have been destroyed, because in the first book of the Silmarillion, it talks of two incidents of unharmonious song and discord - presumably being the two times that Sauron came to power, and also says that, "And thou, Melkor, will discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory." - Iluvatar, The Silmarillion, page six. Meaning that every conflict created would not tear down Arda and the peoples within it, but make it stronger, hence, due to the predeterminism set forth there, it was impossible that they lose.) Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I wonder if the armor was not at least partially a scare tactic. Which is more frightening in battle - a guy in a black robe, or a guy in black, shiny, pointy armor?


----------



## The mouth of Sauron (Nov 10, 2015)

ingolmo said:


> I don't get the point how Frodo killed the Witch King, Eowyn killed him, it's as simple as that. Frodo killed Sauron and thus killed evil, and unless the Witch King was a symbol or representation of evil instead of Sauron, I don't know how Frodo killed him. And Eowyn killed him before Frodo destroyed the Ring, so there.


But you see after the Eowyn thrusted her blade into the Lord of the nine,his wails could still be heard.Sauron didn't really die.He is a mair and rhus won't die.He however will probably be sent to the void along with his master and yeah, a finally battle will take place


----------



## Starbrow (Nov 12, 2015)

> "Eowyn, Eowyn!" cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength *she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Eowyn fell forward onto her falled foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground, torn and tumbled; and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded into a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world.*'
> /QUOTE]
> 
> I have a question about what happened here. If the Black Captain was mortal and had a physical body, then why did his body disappear when Eowyn struck him. This would seem to indicate that he did not have a mortal body.


----------



## Exma (Nov 13, 2015)

I love reading thru these posts  they make for both an excellent debate and a treasure trove of info!
The points I'm going to post have probably been brought up already but here goes anyway:
As far as who dealt the death blow...I believe that to have been Eowyn. I agree with the opinion that Merry did weaken the Witch King. And tho it's true that only someone not a man would bring about the Witch King's demise and Merry was NOT a man...I think it's stated pretty specifically about Merry's part in the deed and shows that he did NOT deal the death blow or even close to it. I believe his cut weakened the Witch King certainly. '_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.' _RoTK, The Battle of The Pelennor Fields.
Aragorn speaks of the power of the daggers Merry and Pippin received from Tom Bombadil at the Barrows when he, Legolas, and Gimli were searching about the dead Orcs in Parth Galen for evidence of the Hobbits fate_."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." _
As far as the Witch King being mortal at the time of his death, I don't believe that he was. '_Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing. They had, as it seemed, unending life, yet life became unendurable to them. They could walk, if they would, unseen by all eyes in this world beneath the sun, and they could see things in worlds invisible to mortal men; but too often they beheld only the phantoms and delusions of Sauron.' _The Silmarillion, The Rings of Power and The Third Age. Also, when the Witch King and Gandalf met I think it showed further that the Leader of the Nine was no longer mortal at the time of his destruction._ The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter. _RoTK, The Siege of Gondor.
In regards to him being dead, dead....
I believe that Eowyn (with Merry's assistance) ended his ability to take any form of any sort ever again and that it was the destruction of the One Ring that finished off what 'mist' of him remained, yet the finality of him remains a mystery _.... a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world. _RoTK, The Battle of the Pelennor Fields. '*....and was never heard again in that age of this world. *It leaves it open ended.....that the Witch King maybe could or would return in another age and who knows as what...a servant to another Dark Lord or maybe be a Dark Lord himself


----------



## Gothmog (Nov 13, 2015)

A very good post Exma .

However, the Witch King was a Man and there for Mortal. He was Mortal before he was given the Ring and he remained Mortal after. Souron was only a Miar, Not even the most powerful of the Ainur, Melkor and Manwe, could change in any way the Gifts of Eru. It was only Iluvatar himself that could make a true alteration of any of his gifts.


> 'A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness.
> 
> Fellowship of the Ring: Chapter 2. The Shadow of the Past



The Witch King was not made immortal but was Bound to the Ring of Power which held his spirit captive and his body also. While it is possible that the Ring would hold him as a powerless wraith even after Eowyn vanquished him on the field of battle. Once the One Ring was destroyed then all the lesser rings lost their powers and became simple ornaments. At that point all the Wraiths would finally die and leave to travel beyond the circles of the world as decreed by the Gift of Eru to Men.


----------



## Exma (Nov 14, 2015)

I see your point...and you state well your argument, Hir nin  
I am afraid tho that we may have to agree to disagree on certain points. I shall post my counter later as sleep draws near and I am already nodding off


----------



## Ingolmin (Nov 17, 2016)

It was both Meriadoc the Magnificent and Eowyn, lady of Rohan who together killed the Witch king.
He died before Frodo destroyed the ring. The sword used by Merry was that of Westernesse and said to be made to kill the Chief of Nazgul, it could be only be used to kill him by a halfling or a person who wasn't a man. Eowyn being a woman also killed him.


----------



## PaigeSinclaire88 (Feb 8, 2017)

I Think it's pretty clear that Eowyn destroyed the witch king. I say this because "no man can destroy" him. And she is no man. Granted Merry is not a man either, so in essence he is destroyed by the strength of the meek and of a womans power. Tolkien was all about finding strength in the most unlikely of places, and hope when their wasn't any.


----------

