Slaying of the Witch king

[burrahobbit]

See I told you. You can bring my donuts to Norman.

[Secret Fire]

Merry was a Hobbit and Hobbits are, as I understand it, a sub-division of the race of Man. So, strictly speaking, Merry was a man and therefore fell within the category of beings that Glorfindel had foretold would not be responsible for the Witch King's demise.

Actually, I believe that hobbits were a race apart, seeing as treebeard added them to the list and the fact that they were much more hardy and resilient to the ring's power than men are. I believe that men and hobbits are completely different races.
In regards to the prophecy, Glorfindel prophesied that the witch king would not die at the hands of a man, not that hecould not die in such a way, this is very similar to how Huan would not perish except at the "hands" of the greatest hound that would ever walk the earth, it was simply stating what would happen, not that it could not happen another way, simply that it would not.
Here's another thread idea: were hobbits men? probably not a good thing to start here, as this type of thread is all opinion and leads to much argument. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

[tom bombariffic]

Well if they weren't originally men, I don't know what they were, because the Silmarillion only speaks of the entry of Elves, men and dwarves into the world, and of course other mysterious races like the ents. Bu nowhere does it speak of another mortal race - I think they must have evolved from men, or how else did they get there?


Oh and by the way, in response to your little riddle quote thing, I suppose you are silence!

[ October 08, 2003: Message edited by: tom bombariffic ]

[Secret Fire]

yes, silence I am.
Well, remember that the histories of ME were written by [I]elves[/] who had probably never heqard of a hobbit, as almost nobody had, save the rohirrim who had heard of hobytlan. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[The Saucepan Man]

I believe that men and hobbits are completely different races.

From the Prologue to LotR, Concerning Hobbits:

It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours; far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves ... But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered.

This speaks to me of common ancestry, and the argument put forward by tom bombariffic (based upon there being no reference to any Hobbit Awakening in the Silmarillion) is often used to support the view that Hobbits were descended from the first Men that awoke in Middle-earth.

Yes, there are other threads on this. I would give the links, but my Search function is unfortunately not working at the moment (something to do with AOL, I think). [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Anyway, I said that it might be stretching it a bit to regard Merry as a man and therefore unable to "break" the prophecy. The point is that it is Eowyn revealing herself as a woman, not Merry's presence (which the Witch King is almost entirely oblivious to), that concerns the Witch King.

In regards to the prophecy, Glorfindel prophesied that the witch king would not die at the hands of a man, not that he could not die in such a way

Quite right. Just as the phantom said. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

The prophecy is nevertheless relevant because, since Glorfindel had foreseen that the Witch King would not be destroyed at the hands of a man, he was never going to be destroyed at the hands of a man. Armed with that knowledge, the Witch King was fearless in battle with men, but that same knowledge caused him "sudden doubt" when Eowyn revealed herself to him as a woman. And Merry's amazement at this turn of events allowed him to conquer his paralysing fear and to start to crawl to one side. He is able to do so because the Dark Captain "in doubt and malice intent upon the woman before him, heeded him no more than a worm in the mud".

So the Witch King's doubt, triggered by the "breaking" of the prophecy, contributes to Merry being able to position himself so as to be in a position to stab the Lord of the Nazgul with the Barrow blade, which in turn allows Eowyn to finish him off.

Hmm, typing that out brings it home to me just how ingenious Tolkien was, bringing all these threads together in that one key dramatic moment. [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[Secret Fire]

CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP Very well stated, I agree

[Eladar]

I often end up in Norman. Perhaps our paths will cross.

Go OU!!!

[rudeboy]

Do you think the Witch King would have been killed that way if Sauron regained the one? In FotR Gandalf says they are mighty opponents but only shadows of the power & terror they would be if the ring were on their masters hand!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think if Sauron had the One Ring then it may have increased the terror that the Witch King was able to put forth. Everything seems smoother with a bit of confidence behind you! Still, had Eowyn and Merry been brave enough to carry things out the way that they did, the end result would probably have been the same.

[Secret Fire]

Also, it was most likely possible for Eowyn to slay the Witch King because she feared "neither pain nor death" and the Witch King's power is mostly through amplifying the fear in the hearts of men/animals/elves who had not been in the Blessed Realm. The absence of such fear probably aided her greatly. Merry, on the other hand, was mostly aided by his smallnedd and apparent insignificance. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Lost One]

Like all good prophecies, Glorfindel's was more complicated than it looked at first sight, and had more than one possible interpretation. Most people, and presumably the Witch-king, thought it meant 'man' in the general sense i.e. any mortal being, member of 'mankind'. At the Pelennor the prospect was suddenly raised of a more limited meaning - not by the hand of any literal Man (adult male human). Eowyn and Merry were both part of 'mankind', but the Witch-king suddenly realised the loophole, hence his worried pause. In theory, other non adult males could have contributed to his end as well - a male child, for example.

[elfling]

I do beleive the prophesy ia relevent. Glorfindal made the prophesy but where did he get his revelation from. A man of any kind(elf, hobbit ect.) I beleive would not be able to kill the W-K. It had to be a woman. This was the prophesy or rules not made by Glorfindal but only revealed by him. Merry helped by injuring the W-K with the magical? sword but I beleive without Eowyn he would have survived.

[Secret Fire]

A man of any kind(elf, hobbit ect.) I beleive would not be able to kill the W-K. It had to be a woman.

Careful there, elfing. You're bringing in too many arguments all at once there: Who really killed the witch king, are hobbits men, would an elf be considered a man, etc.
Anyway, Glorfindel prophesied that the witch king would not be killed by a man, not that he could not be killed by a man, but simply that it was not going to happen that way.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

I'm sorry this is a bit off topic (and maybe just speculation) but I don't have my books here right now and I would like to hear some arguments from you.

Didn't Frodo get a sword from the barrow-downs just like e.g. Merry did? In that case and considering your posts above; didn't Frodo have the chance to "break the spell" of that Nazgul he stabbed (at Amon-Sûl)? Yes, he made just a cut to the cloak of the Nazgul but if he had stabbed a bit harder? (Okey, now this became speculation...sorry. Answers still appreciated)

[ October 16, 2003: Message edited by: dancing spawn of ungoliant ]

[Essex]

'Look!' he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak that had lain there hidden by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a slash. 'This was the stroke of Frodo's sword,' he said. 'The only hurt that it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth.'

Yep, it only got his cloak, and yes, maybe if it HAD pierced his skin it could have had the same effect as Merry's sword.

But IT DID NOT HAPPEN. So glorfindel's propehsy still stands. It was like second site. It did not happen BECAUSE of the propehsy, if it did, the prophesy would have been different.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

While that might be how every reader to read the Return of the King and how even Eowyn herself interpreted Glorfindel's words, I can't help but believe it is utterly and completely incorrect. It's obvious that the Witch-King did not recognize what the words meant either. "Not by the hand of man will he fall", said Glorfindel. Tolkien referred to Men in general as the race of Men, and Eowyn was included in that race. While she was a woman, and that does seem to be how she was able to fulfill this prophecy, I don't think it's correct. And even with Merry being a Hobbit, and closely related to the race of Men, it is still possible. "Not by the HAND OF MAN will he fall," but maybe by the HANDS OF MEN. Glorfindel's words may have meant that it had to be a group effort that brought down the Morgul Lord, because in solo combat, he was undefeatable. Obviously as an ambiguous prophecy, this is just one of many contributing factors, concerning definition of the word 'man' in his prophecy.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Essex, maybe I'm misreading your words, if so then I apologise, but you say that the event (Frodo's 'potential' slaying of the Witch King) did not happen BECAUSE of the prophecy. This is incorrect. Nothing was caused because of the prophecy. It was the events which caused the prophecy.

As a philosophy student I'm perhaps a bit ashamed to be asking this, but does this imply backward causation? I know I should be able to work it out myself but I'm very sleepy right now!

[Lost One]

I still think people are being way too literal, analysing what the prophesy meant and whether Eowyn and Merry 'counted' as Men. Tolkien was a sophisticated literary historian, and knew all about mythic and literary prophesies: they are supposed to mislead people. Oedipus fled his 'parents' in horror, straight to his real parents; 'Birnham Wood', didn't really come to Dunsinane, but did so in effect to scupper Macbeth's confidence (a story Tolkien refers to in his letters); Henry IV knew he would die in Jerusalem ('What room is this?' 'The Jerusalem chamber, my lord'), and so on. Glorfindel was given an insight (from the Valar?) which it is likely he himself didn't understand. Only when Merry and Eowyn lay on a pile of empty clothes did people know what it had all meant. Like all good solid prophesies, it led the subject to his ruin.