King of the Dead vs Witch King

What a fantastic finale it would have been, King of the Dead vs Witch-King, both as dead kings of old, a true symbol of evil looking to grow in power against another who is fighting to end his own evil-enduring punishment. I might add that this battle would have kept in line with the prophecy, as the King of the Dead was of course not a living man. And I think it would have easily matched the symbolic end to the WK in a meaningful fashion by comparison to his real end.

[Boromir88]

It would be a complete and utter draw. The Dead Army were used as a scare device by Aragorn, they were 'shadows barely visible to the eye,' and could not do any physical harm to any physical being on Middle-earth. They could of course scare people, as they did with the corsairs, but nothing else. A 'shadow' or a 'spirit' is something that is intangible, and cannot bring physical harm to anyone or anything, they are more or less just there. As is the case with Sauron when the Ring is destroyed:

...if the One Ring wwas actually unmade, annihilated, then its power would be dissolved, Sauron's own being would be diminished to a vanishing point, and he would be reduced to a shadow, a mere memory of malicious will.~Letter to Milton Waldman

Sauron would be reduced to a 'vanishing' point, but the Dead Army curse was for their spirit to never 'rest' until their oath to Gondor was fulfilled. And again, being called 'shadows' would mean they could not have done any physical harm.

Now the Witch-King was invisible, but unlike the King of the Dead he was not tangible. He had a physical body, that was bound to Sauron's power as long as Sauron's power (the Ring) was still in existance. And as can be seen on the Pelennor fields his physical self could be destroyed. Where hte King of the Dead had no physical body, and was 'barely visible.'

In conclusion this means, that the King of the Dead could not physically kill the Witch-King, it was not something he was capable of doing. The only way he could defeat him would be to send him fleeing, but why would the Witch-King fear the very fear that he uses? And the Witch-King could not physically kill the King of the Dead, because the King of the Dead did not have a physical body, he was a 'spirit,' and that in Tolkien cannot be destroyed. So, it would be a draw.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It would be a complete and utter draw. The Dead Army were used as a scare device by Aragorn, they were 'shadows barely visible to the eye,' and could not do any physical harm to any physical being on Middle-earth. They could of course scare people, as they did with the corsairs, but nothing else. A 'shadow' or a 'spirit' is something that is intangible, and cannot bring physical harm to anyone or anything, they are more or less just there.

I would like to hear of more evidence to prove that the King of the Dead was as you say just a scare tactic figure, & not capable of causing harm to the WK, who himself is neither living nor dead. Were not the Dead Army cursed by Isildur until they returned to fight against Sauron when the need next arised? It seems that there is more to this than you mention. I think it would be very difficult to answer what the Dead King was truly capable of.

[The 1,000 Reader]

To be honest, it is not confirmed that the dead army was powerless. Gimil simply said that he didn't know if their blades would do harm anymore, but they inspired enough fear that they didn't need them.

Being a "supreme undead" of sorts, I don't think that the Witch-King could be harmed by the King of the Dead, especially if the King could not attack after all. However, the Witch-King may not have been able to damage the undead king either.

So, unless taking in a deep breath and blowing out would scatter the King of the Dead to the wind, it's a draw.

[Boromir88]

I would like to hear of more evidence to prove that the King of the Dead was as you say just a scare tactic figure, & not capable of causing harm to the WK, who himself is neither living nor dead.~Mansun

Sure thing,

To be honest, it is not confirmed that the dead army was powerless. Gimil simply said that he didn't know if their blades would do harm anymore, but they inspired enough fear that they didn't need them.~1,000 Reader

It can be confirmed quite easily, not even looking at Gimli's words, because that would be 'hearsay.'

Let's look at the curse of Isildur:

"Though shalt be the last king. And if the West prove mightier than thy Black Master, this curse I lay upon thee and thy folk: to rest never until your oath is fulfilled. For this war will last through the years uncounted, and you shall be summoned once again ere the end."~The Passing of the Grey Company

This curse was laid upon their spirits, their 'spirits' will never rest. And how do we know this? Because they are literally dead. In Letter 192, Tolkien says that in his fight with the Balrog 'Gandalf really died,' because all death is in Tolkien is the seperation of the spirit (or fea) from the body (hroa). So, their physical bodies were dead, decipated, non existant, it was their spirits that weren't able to rest until their oath was fulfilled.

And being the dead, spirits, shadows, shades, whatever you want to call them, they have no physical body. And having no physical body, means you can't physically effect or harm anyone, because this means they are intangible. As the Sauron quote that is provided in my first post shows. Also, to note that after Merry and Eowyn kill the Witch-King:

'Witch King had been reduced to impotence'~Letter 246

After being killed he was reduced to impotence, meaning his body was dead and having no physical body, simply being a spirit, he would be 'impotent,' he couldn't harm anyone.

The whole point that I'm trying to make is being dead, a spirit, a shadow...whatever, means that you have no physical body, because in Tolkien death is the seperation of the spirit from the body. And having no physical body means you can't harm anything, or anyone physically. Eventhough if you could still visibly, and barely see the Dead Army, they were still spirits with no physical body.

The Witch-King is different from the Dead Army, he first off is invisible, without his black cloak, you wouldn't see him. But opposite of the King of the Dead, he still had a physical body, you just couldn't see it. He was still tangible, and could still physically harm anyone on Middle-earth, because he had a body. And we know he had a body, or he wouldn't have been killed on Pelennor fields, he wouldn't have been stabbed in the back of the knee, and he wouldn't have had a sword that was shoved in his face.

So, again in conclusion. The King of the Dead you could barely see his spirit, but he had no body, so he couldn't harm you physically and he himself couldn't be harmed physically. The Witch-King, was invisible (if he didn't have his cloak) but he still had a physical presence, which is why he could be killed. Which means, it would be a draw, because the King of the Dead could not have killed the Witch-King, unable to harm him, and the King of the Dead...well he was already dead with no body, so the Witch-King couldn't defeat him.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The whole point that I'm trying to make is being dead, a spirit, a shadow...whatever, means that you have no physical body, because in Tolkien death is the seperation of the spirit from the body. And having no physical body means you can't harm anything, or anyone physically. Eventhough if you could still visibly, and barely see the Dead Army, they were still spirits with no physical body.

Dude, if you need a body to do anything, how did the Aniur make Arda? Also, the Dead Army wasn't at the same level the Witch-King and Sauron were when they were shadows. The Dead Army was just under the curse. They were spirits, not crippled spirits. Seeing as how they weren't crippled spirits, a rare case in Arda, it's still unsure if they could do anything or not.

[Boromir88]

When did I say you needed a body to do anything? I just said that you need to have a body to bring any sort of physical harm to something else. Oh and the Ainur were known to make bodies of their own.

Also, the Dead Army wasn't at the same level the Witch-King and Sauron were when they were shadows. The Dead Army was just under the curse. They were spirits, not crippled spirits.

A 'crippled' spirit is your own definition and I have no clue where you came up with it. But, being 'dead' means you're spirit has seperated from your body...the King of the Dead, was physically dead, he was a spirit. And his spirit was cursed to never rest until his oath had been fulfilled. Spirits, as I have shown with 2 different quotes were impotent and could not physically harm anything....the same thing happens to Saruman when he dies.

[luthien-elvenprincess]

And being the dead, spirits, shadows, shades, whatever you want to call them, they have no physical body. And having no physical body, means you can't physically effect or harm anyone, because this means they are intangible.

The whole point that I'm trying to make is being dead, a spirit, a shadow...whatever, means that you have no physical body, because in Tolkien death is the seperation of the spirit from the body. And having no physical body means you can't harm anything, or anyone physically.

So, again in conclusion. The King of the Dead you could barely see his spirit, but he had no body, so he couldn't harm you physically and he himself couldn't be harmed physically.

Boromir88, I understand your assertion that a spirit cannot physically harm another, due to the fact that they have no fleshly body with which to inflict harm; however they did cause physical harm to occur as a result of their ability to produce fear and dread.

During the battle at Pelargir, the Shadow Host caused such a "madness of terror" that the enemy leaped overboard, many drowned. The physical harm that came to them was a direct result from the fear that the Shadow Host induced.

I agree that a battle between the King of the Dead and the Witch King would end in a draw, since the King of the Dead could not be killed, since he was already dead, and the Witch King would hardly be frightened by any of the Shadow Host.

[Boromir88]

Luthien, well put.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

When did I say you needed a body to do anything? I just said that you need to have a body to bring any sort of physical harm to something else.

You pretty much said it right there. To cause physical harm you have to be able to actually interact with physical things. FYI, the Aniur didn't have bodies when they made Arda.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

A 'crippled' spirit is your own definition and I have no clue where you came up with it. But, being 'dead' means you're spirit has seperated from your body...the King of the Dead, was physically dead, he was a spirit. And his spirit was cursed to never rest until his oath had been fulfilled. Spirits, as I have shown with 2 different quotes were impotent and could not physically harm anything....the same thing happens to Saruman when he dies.

Look at Sauron; a horribly crippled spirit when he was finally defeated. The Witch-King was vanquished from the world when he died. The dead army just pretty much died regularly but got to stay in Middle-Earth. Also, the curse wouldn't be lifted until they fought for Gondor. If they were expected to fight, then why were they cursed with something that wouldn't let them fight?

[Boromir88]

You pretty much said it right there. To cause physical harm you have to be able to actually interact with physical things.

But I never said someone needed 'flesh' to be capable of doing anything, as you have asserted. I only said that in order to physically bring harm to someone else, one would have to have a physical body.

Which, I did admit that luthien brought up a good point, in that I obviously did not take into consideration that the Dead Army was able to kill the corsairs with their fear and driving them off the boats to their watery grave (that I would certainly classify as being able to 'physically harm' because with their fear they were able to kill the Corsairs). That's something I wasn't considering...by 'physical harm' I was talking about the fact that the King of the Dead could not have stabbed the Witch-King with a sword...or couldn't have drop kicked him in the face.

FYI, the Aniur didn't have bodies when they made Arda.

...Ya I kind of knew that.

Look at Sauron; a horribly crippled spirit when he was finally defeated. The Witch-King was vanquished from the world when he died. The dead army just pretty much died regularly but got to stay in Middle-Earth.

It doesn't matter how they died is the whole point. All death is, in Tolkien, is the seperation of the spirit from the body. The King of the dead was...dead therefor he couldn't have had a tangible body. And in order to be able to fight and 'brawl' with something that did have a tangible body, you needed to have one yourself.

Also, the curse wouldn't be lifted until they fought for Gondor. If they were expected to fight, then why were they cursed with something that wouldn't let them fight?

They did fight for Gondor, just not in the way of slashing people up or round house kicking them. They were able to fill the Corsairs with madness and have them jump off the boat...after this Aragorn holds their oath fulfilled.

The end of that, I'm sorry, just doesn't make any sense. Isildur was spiteful because of their betrayal, so he cursed them,ther isn't some sort of magical power to keep their bodies intact so they could still fight. They betrayed Gondor, Isildur cursed them until their oath was fulfilled, which they did. After being cursed they hid in their mountains, died, but being cursed their spirits couldn't rest until they fulfilled their oath. Isildur's curse was a show of spite. So, he didn't care whether they were capable of fulfilling their oath or not. He despised them for their betrayal so he laid a curse on them, if they were able to fulfill it good for them, if not too bad shouldn't have betrayed Gondor.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

But I never said someone needed 'flesh' to be capable of doing anything, as you have asserted. I only said that in order to physically bring harm to someone else, one would have to have a physical body.

In other words, flesh to be capable.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The end of that, I'm sorry, just doesn't make any sense. Isildur was spiteful because of their betrayal, so he cursed them,ther isn't some sort of magical power to keep their bodies intact so they could still fight. They betrayed Gondor, Isildur cursed them until their oath was fulfilled, which they did. After being cursed they hid in their mountains, died, but being cursed their spirits couldn't rest until they fulfilled their oath. Isildur's curse was a show of spite. So, he didn't care whether they were capable of fulfilling their oath or not. He despised them for their betrayal so he laid a curse on them, if they were able to fulfill it good for them, if not too bad shouldn't have betrayed Gondor.

Isildur may have been angry, yes, but he specifically cursed them, not just casted a random spell. A "controlled" curse would likely stay to what was said. Also, standing there and looking scary technically doesn't count as fighting. If the curse was made with specific words, then the curse likely held to those words. It was like a contract.

Overall, the undead army was a special case which we don't have much info on, so all we can do is speculate. Your opinion is equal to mine. If anything, we should be talking about how a man of Numenor pulled a curse out of his rear.

[Boromir88]

In other words, flesh to be capable.

No you said that I claimed to be able to do absolutely anything (which you said was how were the Ainur capable of making Arda without bodies) one must have a body. And I'm saying, I never said this, I only said to be able to punch someone else with a tangible form, you must have a form yourself.

It was like a contract.

Curses are far more spiteful than contracts. They aren't something that are easy to break. It's a form of revenge because someone did injustice to you or someone/something you hold very dear. Curses aren't some nice sweet thing like 'I'm going to curse you because you betrayed me...you aren't going to rest until your oath to fighting for Gondor is going to be fulfilled. I'm going to be soft on you though, and just so you can break this curse I gave you, I will make sure that you are able to fulfill it.'

Curses aren't sweet like that, and they aren't something that can be easily broken. There is nothing 'easy' about a curse, if the Dead Army was incapable of breaking it that's their own problem and they will have to live with it. Take a look at the curse placed upon the sons of Feanor, and the curse Morgoth put on Hurin and his house.

I don't see how hard it is to recognize that being dead means you have no body, and there is no special little sweetness curse Isildur gave them to make sure their bodies stayed intact. Because being dead, means you have no physical body.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

No you said that I claimed to be able to do absolutely anything (which you said was how were the Ainur capable of making Arda without bodies) one must have a body. And I'm saying, I never said this, I only said to be able to punch someone else with a tangible form, you must have a form yourself.

What can someone in Middle-Earth do without a body? They need a body for everything.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Curses are far more spiteful than contracts. They aren't something that are easy to break. It's a form of revenge because someone did injustice to you or someone/something you hold very dear. Curses aren't some nice sweet thing like 'I'm going to curse you because you betrayed me...you aren't going to rest until your oath to fighting for Gondor is going to be fulfilled. I'm going to be soft on you though, and just so you can break this curse I gave you, I will make sure that you are able to fulfill it.'

Dude, they were ghosts trapped under a mountain, unable to enjoy anything in the world. That curse sure wasn't sweet. All I was saying was that the curse was specific. If the curse stated it could be broken with combat, combat would break it. Simple.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Curses aren't sweet like that, and they aren't something that can be easily broken. There is nothing 'easy' about a curse, if the Dead Army was incapable of breaking it that's their own problem and they will have to live with it. Take a look at the curse placed upon the sons of Feanor, and the curse Morgoth put on Hurin and his house.

Like I said, of course a curse isn't sweet, and Isildur's curse was easily broken. It's not that hard to fight for Gondor. Also, Morgoth's curse had no terms of breaking in it, and was a fully damning act. Keep in mind that Morgoth's curse came from Morgoth, who was far more skilled in the cursing department than Isildur.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I don't see how hard it is to recognize that being dead means you have no body, and there is no special little sweetness curse Isildur gave them to make sure their bodies stayed intact. Because being dead, means you have no physical body.

Of course they had no body, they were dead. However, they did have something, or were somthing more than ordinary spirits, seeing as how they could be seen, and they were damned people, not people who simply croaked. They were Middle-Earth's only ghosts, spirits that were tied to the living world, and little is known about them.

[Boromir88]

Of course they had no body, they were dead. However, they did have something, or were somthing more than ordinary spirits, seeing as how they could be seen, and they were damned people, not people who simply croaked. They were Middle-Earth's only ghosts, spirits that were tied to the living world, and little is known about them.

But there is no different forms of spirits...a spirit has no body, and with no body, you can not touch or feel something that is tangible. I don't get what it's so hard about...if Sauron, WK, and Saruman, aren't good enough for you, how about these other two examples. This first one is Glaurung and Nienor where we are told about Glaurung's eyes:

'they were terrible, being filled with the fell spirit of Morgoth, his master'~The Grey Annals: The War of the Jewels

Morgoth had put a 'fell spirit' in Glaurung's body. And this is also something Sauron did with wolves, inhabitting spirits into wolf bodies. Because, in order to cause any sort of actual harm a spirit must have a body. You have not shown why the Dead Army would be any different.

That curse sure wasn't sweet. All I was saying was that the curse was specific. If the curse stated it could be broken with combat, combat would break it. Simple.

But, there is no 'special terms' of the curse. Isildur just says in order for them to rest, they have to fulfill their oath to Gondor. Obviously, Aragorn thought they did this when they scared the Corsairs off the ship. And as luthien points out this is a form of killing. The Corsairs were filled with madness because of the Dead Army so they jumped, and died. And Aragorn believed that this fulfilled their oath.

Like I said, of course a curse isn't sweet, and Isildur's curse was easily broken. It's not that hard to fight for Gondor. Also, Morgoth's curse had no terms of breaking in it, and was a fully damning act. Keep in mind that Morgoth's curse came from Morgoth, who was far more skilled in the cursing department than Isildur.

My point was curses aren't some sort of soft easy fix, which for some reason you have just pulled out this, which makes it seem like Isildur was soft on them:

If they were expected to fight, then why were they cursed with something that wouldn't let them fight?

It sounds like you're making Isildur sound soft on them. It looks like you're saying Isildur pitied them and when he cursed them saying to lift it they had to fulfill their oath to Gondor, he wouldn't have placed a curse that made them unable to fulfill their pledge. And all I'm trying to say is Isildur could care less whether or not they were able to break the curse, because curses are a strong form of revenge. Isildur wanted to make sure they paid, and could care less if they couldn't break the curse he laid upon them.

What can someone in Middle-Earth do without a body? They need a body for everything.

May I ask for some proof of this statement?

Of course they had no body, they were dead. However, they did have something, or were somthing more than ordinary spirits, seeing as how they could be seen, and they were damned people, not people who simply croaked. They were Middle-Earth's only ghosts, spirits that were tied to the living world, and little is known about them.

And again, having no physical body means you can't touch, feel, punch, something that had a form. I was asked to support this, and I think I have given very reasonable (5 to be exact) where in order to fight with a tangible body, a spirit must have a form of it's own. Why is the Dead Army any different? You say because they were damned? So what, they had no body, show me where something without a body could hurt a being that did.

It just so happens that the Dead Army were 'barely visible' ghosts whoever said that they were the only ones?

Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless.~Letter 210

This is Tolkien talking about the Nazgul's power of fear, eventhough the Nazgul weren't ghosts, I think it is the same type of fear the Dead Army inspired into the Corsairs. It was a 'ghost-like' fear. So, again, whoever said that the Dead Army were the only ghosts around town that could be seen? (And mind you we are told they were 'barely visible'.)

Overall, the undead army was a special case which we don't have much info on, so all we can do is speculate. Your opinion is equal to mine. If anything, we should be talking about how a man of Numenor pulled a curse out of his rear.

If that's your opinion, that's ok by me, you're entitled to it. I was asked to provide proof for me saying that the King of the Dead could not have killed the Witch-King, and I've done so. If it's your opinion that he could, that's your opinion...but it does help if you can support it.

if they actually did fight the Witchking would have one because like the prophercy said that no man could kill the Witchking the King of the Dead even though being dead he was still a man

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Morgoth had put a 'fell spirit' in Glaurung's body. And this is also something Sauron did with wolves, inhabitting spirits into wolf bodies. Because, in order to cause any sort of actual harm a spirit must have a body. You have not shown why the Dead Army would be any different.

The spirits could very well have just been the seeds of evil and hatred. Also, why wouldn't the spirits just make their own bodies?

Originally Posted by Boromir88

But, there is no 'special terms' of the curse. Isildur just says in order for them to rest, they have to fulfill their oath to Gondor. Obviously, Aragorn thought they did this when they scared the Corsairs off the ship. And as luthien points out this is a form of killing. The Corsairs were filled with madness because of the Dead Army so they jumped, and died. And Aragorn believed that this fulfilled their oath.

They did cause chaos with their appearance, however, like I said, standing around looking scary isn't really fighting, and in the end the subject is still uncertain, as Gimil stated.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It sounds like you're making Isildur sound soft on them. It looks like you're saying Isildur pitied them and when he cursed them saying to lift it they had to fulfill their oath to Gondor, he wouldn't have placed a curse that made them unable to fulfill their pledge. And all I'm trying to say is Isildur could care less whether or not they were able to break the curse, because curses are a strong form of revenge. Isildur wanted to make sure they paid, and could care less if they couldn't break the curse he laid upon them.

I know what it sounds like, but the curse was made with exact words. Isildur wasn't thinking about the future, he just wanted them to suffer. It just came to be that he used those words, and so the curse would fall upon them.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

May I ask for some proof of this statement?

All the people who died in the books weren't able to interact with Middle-Earth at all save for the dead army.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

And again, having no physical body means you can't touch, feel, punch, something that had a form. I was asked to support this, and I think I have given very reasonable (5 to be exact) where in order to fight with a tangible body, a spirit must have a form of it's own. Why is the Dead Army any different? You say because they were damned? So what, they had no body, show me where something without a body could hurt a being that did.

The dead army were the only spirits that were still bound to the realm of the living. With everyone else, once they died they were to move on to a different world, being powerless in Middle-Earth. The dead army, however, were still beings of Middle-Earth. Also, in countless tales of ghosts, objects fly through the air and beings are possessed. If a spirit can take over a person, I'm pretty sure that counts as physical interaction.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

This is Tolkien talking about the Nazgul's power of fear, even though the Nazgul weren't ghosts, I think it is the same type of fear the Dead Army inspired into the Corsairs. It was a 'ghost-like' fear. So, again, whoever said that the Dead Army were the only ghosts around town that could be seen? (And mind you we are told they were 'barely visible'.)

Tolkien pretty much said they were the only ghosts around, since everything else was an aniur, or a "zombie" so to speak. The nazgul were more like zombies. Also, if you're comparing the dead army to the nazgul, that's actually backing up the dead army's chances of physical interaction. Just pointing that out dude.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

If that's your opinion, that's ok by me, you're entitled to it. I was asked to provide proof for me saying that the King of the Dead could not have killed the Witch-King, and I've done so. If it's your opinion that he could, that's your opinion...but it does help if you can support it.

I never said that the King of the Dead could kill the Witch-King, just that he could interact with the world. I've supported my opinion as well, so now there's nothing left for us to talk about, save for how Isildur managed to curse them in the first place.

[narfforc]

I have thought often of the question that The 1'000 Reader poses, how did Isildur curse the men of the mountains. In The Passing of The Grey Company it reads: Then Isildur said to their king:'Thou shalt be the last king. And if the West prove mightier than thy Black Master, this curse I lay upon thee and thy folk: to rest never until your oath is fulfilled. For this war will last through years uncounted, and you shall be summoned once again ere the end.

Now the questions I pose are:

1. Did the curse come into being only if the West won, if so was that at the moment Sauron was defeated, and Isildur took to himself The One Ring?

2. It would have to be a very powerful curse to withold the spirits of men from Mandos, other spirits had been witheld, and by what means?

3. Was there some power in The Black Stone, or was the One Ring responsible for the power of the curse, how else could Isildur have achieved this thing, nowhere does it states that he is a powerful sorceror/magician?

4. There are problems with the Ring argument, could Sauron or another Ringbearer have lifted the curse if that was the source of its power, why has the Heir of Isildur got the power to lift the curse, when he is not the Ringbearer, this suggests that the power of the curse is within Isildur and his line?

I am sorry if this is a bit off the path of the thread, however I would like to leave this thought, Has anyone considered the belief that the The Witch-king was responsible for controlling the spirits in Tyrn Gorthad.

[Macalaure]

I've been thinking about this for some time, too.

If I remember correctly, which hopefully I do since I can't check right now, Isildur cursed them before the Battles of the Last Alliance ('And if the West prove mightier') and so before he had the Ring. For this reason I don't think it had anything to do with it. But even if it did, I don't see why Aragorn should not be able to lift it. The curse holds as long as the oath is unfulfilled, and Aragorn is the only one who can hold it fulfilled.

The curse directly interferes with the plan of Eru. It is borderline necromancy in fact. I cannot believe Isildur, or any child of Eru not in alliance with Morgoth or Sauron, had any kind of power like this.

What I think is possible, and can get me out of this dead end argument, is that Isildur indeed did not curse them: He only uttered the words in anger. But the words were perceived by someone mightier and he was it who put the curse into being. Only Eru comes into consideration here.

This theory, of course, is unprovable. But I think it at least works logically.

[narfforc]

Yes you are right Macalaure and I know that, what I was suggesting was, did the One Ring once in the posession of Isildur give added power to the curse. The word spoken in anger, coming to fruition. The word IF in the sentence suggests that if Sauron had not been defeated, then the Men of the Mountains would have died quite normally, why not just say: You let us down therefore you're cursed whoever wins. When did this curse start to take effect anyway, did they all die very quickly or did the Army of the Dead get a new recruit every so often until they all died, if so what about their children and their childrens children, was this army getting bigger by the day?

You are also right I think about Isildur not having the power to do this thing under normal circumstances, where did the power to invoke this curse come from, I do not believe it was from Eru, yet I would admit that he permitted it, and at the time only he would know why.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by narfforc

Yes you are right Macalaure and I know that, what I was suggesting was, did the One Ring once in the posession of Isildur give added power to the curse. The word spoken in anger, coming to fruition.

Possible, yes. But I don't see a real connection there.

The word IF in the sentence suggests that if Sauron had not been defeated, then the Men of the Mountains would have died quite normally, why not just say: You let us down therefore you're cursed whoever wins.

The way I understand it is, that if Sauron won, then the power of the Dark Lord was greater than theirs. After the victory it would have been unchallenged in Middle-earth. And since the West, and I understand "The West" as more than just the Last Alliance but also the Valar who are 'in alliance' with it, was then powerless in M-E, any curse would have been null anyway.

When did this curse start to take effect anyway, did they all die very quickly or did the Army of the Dead get a new recruit every so often until they all died, if so what about their children and their childrens children, was this army getting bigger by the day?

I think there are two possibilities to read it.
One: The curse only applies to those who swore oaths to Isildur, so their children shouldn't be affected by it. Those who swore live and die like everybody and are then forced to remain. The house of the king is extincted and the remaining people have no king anymore.
Two: The curse applies to all of the king's folk and every child is pertained by it. Not nice. What about the children of the children? It's unthinkable in my mind that all dead people of this folk go to the mountain once their dead.
Unless, one might say that all these children had no children. Then the curse not only condemns the oathbreakers, but lets their whole folk die out! Eru must have had one hell of a genocidal mood at the end of the second age.

You are also right I think about Isildur not having the power to do this thing under normal circumstances, where did the power to invoke this curse come from, I do not believe it was from Eru, yet I would admit that he permitted it, and at the time only he would know why.

It is interesting that the curse contains a prophetic component. Where does this come from? I don't recall Isildur prophecies things anywhere else. Was somebody else leading his thoughts as he spoke?
The only one who knows all fates is Eru. Mandos is not powerful enough and wouldn't oppose Eru, and the curse doesn't have Manwe's 'handwriting' to me. Who else could it have been?

[narfforc]

Then until Sauron either won or lost, the curse had no power, and when Sauron did lose, Isildur had the One Ring. Something gave power to the curse, whether it be Eru or the Ring, and that something had to be far more powerful than what was inherant in man, for it to withold the Gift of Iluvatar. The One Ring had already done this by ensnaring the Nazgul, it is not a great leap to think that Isildur could do something similar, but only with the aid of the Ring, Isildur was mighty amongst men, and the Numenoreans were great men. The Ring gave power according to the native power of the bearer, there was a great difference between Isildur wearing it and the halflings.

[Boromir88]

if they actually did fight the Witchking would have one because like the prophercy said that no man could kill the Witchking the King of the Dead even though being dead he was still a man~The Failed King

Actually the prophecy says that he would not be killed by a man. The prophecy is made by Glorfindel, and he says:

Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of a man will he fall.'~Appendix A: Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion

This is basically Glorfindel looking into the Witch-King's future, to put it that way, and prophecying that a man would not kill him. It doesn't say that a man 'could not kill him' but that he would not be killed by a man.

If The Witch-King could not be killed by a man, he would not have feared Boromir I:

Boromir son of Denethor (after whom of the Nine Walkers was later named) defeated them and regained Ithilien. But Osgiliath was finally ruined, and its great stone-bridge was broken. No pepople dwelt there afterwards. Boromir was a great captain, and even the Witch-King feared him.~Appendix A: The Stewards

Why would the Witch-King fear him, then if he couldn't be killed by a man? Note: this isn't Boromir of the Fellowship, but Boromir I the Steward.

1,000 Reader, yes I think the effectiveness of the Dead Army we have debated to death, and there's nothing more to add.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Actually the prophecy says that he would not be killed by a man. The prophecy is made by Glorfindel, and he says:


This is basically Glorfindel looking into the Witch-King's future, to put it that way, and prophecying that a man would not kill him. It doesn't say that a man 'could not kill him' but that he would not be killed by a man.

If The Witch-King could not be killed by a man, he would not have feared Boromir I:

Why would the Witch-King fear him, then if he couldn't be killed by a man? Note: this isn't Boromir of the Fellowship, but Boromir I the Steward.

1,000 Reader, yes I think the effectiveness of the Dead Army we have debated to death, and there's nothing more to add.

The WK said no living man could hinder him - the Dead King is not a living man. Also, the WK is not above fear, so there is a chance the Dead army could have made him retreat, as it certainly would have been a shock even to him to see an undead army confront him. Would he have known what this Dead army was capable of?

[Boromir88]

the Dead King is not a living man.

But the Dead King has no body, so he could not literally inflict damage on him (as in punch, stab, or kill).

Also, the WK is not above fear, so there is a chance the Dead army could have made him retreat

No, hte WK, is not above fear, but why would the Witch-King be afraid of the very fear that he uses and the rest of the Nazgul:

Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless.~Letter 210

I would call the Dead Army's fear, a 'ghost-like' fear, and the way the Corsairs were sent into a maddening jump to their death. So, why would the WK fear the very fear that he inspires? Or vice versa?

Originally Posted by Boromir88

But the Dead King has no body, so he could not literally inflict damage on him (as in punch, stab, or kill).


No, hte WK, is not above fear, but why would the Witch-King be afraid of the very fear that he uses and the rest of the Nazgul:

I would call the Dead Army's fear, a 'ghost-like' fear, and the way the Corsairs were sent into a maddening jump to their death. So, why would the WK fear the very fear that he inspires? Or vice versa?

The Wk would not have known of this new enemy if it confronted him. He may well have withdrawn.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

1,000 Reader, yes I think the effectiveness of the Dead Army we have debated to death, and there's nothing more to add.

Thanks for agreeing. I've had many annoying trials in which the other side would never stop, even when bested, from liberals to atheists. The fact that you'll let this end means a lot.

Even though the Witch-King may have been surprised at first by the King of the Dead, I don't think he'd retreat. He wouldn't want to give up Minas Tirith, and the King of the Dead may have also been afraid of the Witch-King. Also, seeing as how the Witch-King apparently had control over Barrow-Wights, he might have retaliated in some way instead of fleeing. Of course, whether or not the Witch-King could use a spell to somehow interact with the Dead Army is unknown. Overall, I just don't think the Witch-King would flee.

Also, in case it could be lost in the above text, like I said, the King of the Dead may have been more afraid of the Witch-King.