No Living Man

[Formendacil]

I, like a few others, find it somewhat incredulous that having a hobbit and a woman (and no others!) was a part of the "formula" for killing the Witchking. The idea that a Dunadan or an Elf, or a Wizard could not kill the Witchking, just because they were not a woman and/or a hobbit.

There was a large dose of luck in Eowyn and Merry's accomplishment. The Witchking was over-confident, Merry was totally ignored, Eowyn's shield arm was broken and not her sword arm, Merry just happened to be carrying a sword that was particularly deadly to the Witchking. I might be wrong, but I'm seeing a fair element of luck in the matter. It was the luck of those characters in those circumstances that brought down the Witchking, rather than any prerequisites they happened to meet, such as Hobbit or woman.

Another thing...

The Sword (or Dagger) of the Barrow-downs.

While there is NO doubt whatsoever that it was the special power of this sword, its utter deadliness to the Witchking, that bore such a huge part in felling the Witchking, I must take exception to statements along the lines of "it had to be a sword of Westernesse (aka a Barrow-sword) to kill the Witchking".

So nothing else would have worked? What about Sting? Forged in Gondolin, "kin" to Biter and Beater (aka Orcrist and Glamdring), obviously superior to Frodo's previous sword. Do people think that if it had been Frodo in Merry's place that he wouldn't have had the same success with Sting as Merry did with his Barrow-sword? Surely the Numenoreans (men of Westernesse) were not the only ones to put spells deadly to evil on their blades. And was not Numenorean craft (and this Third Age craft at that) ultimately derived from the Noldorin and Sindarin cultures?

Or what about Anduril? Originally forged by Telchar (a Dwarf!) and reforged in Rivendell (by Elves), it was nonetheless "wound with runes" and was the very sword to have felled Sauron. Would a blow from it have been less successful than the Barrow-sword?

I'm not saying that it wasn't a good thing that Merry had his Barrow-sword, and not just some generic butcher knife out of Edoras, but the Barrow-swords were hardly the only blades in Middle-earth that could sever the Witchking's unseen sinew.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

It is really unfortunate that Prof T has to describe it such that there is no other way.

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.

This in itself accounts for two notions:
1. It has to be a Westerness dagger: made by the Numenoreans of Arnor to counter Angmar.
2. It has to be a midget with hairs on his feet.

Mark that this by no means imply that the Old Skeleton will die once the conditions are met; the hobbit in question still have to open his eyes and aim straight for the shins...

It is a wonder why Elrond did not hire a band of hobbits armed with old antique letter-openers to guard his realm...

[Firefoot]

2. It has to be a midget with hairs on his feet.

I don't think that this is true. Look at the statement again:

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.

The phrase " not though mightier hands had wielded it" is clarifying "no other blade" - not "the blade of Westernesse." It's not saying that only a hobbit wielding the blade of Westernesse could have injured the WK so badly; it's saying that should any other blade been used, even if it had been weilded by the most powerful person in Middle-earth, it could not have had the same effect on the WK. The sentence says nothing about what would have happened if that same most powerful person had been wielding the blade of Westernesse.

e.g. If Merry had used a different sword, the effects would have been less deadly. If Aragorn had used a different sword, as before, the effects would have been less deadly. But if Aragorn had used the Blade of Westernesse...? The statement doesn't say. The emphasis is on the blade being wielded, not the hands that wielded it.

[The Saucepan Man]

Haven't we been here before?

Glorfindel did not say that no man could fell the Witch-king. He said that no man would do so.

Anyone could have killed the Witch-king, given the right circumstances. But only someone who wasn't a man would do so.

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.

Like Formendacil, I highly doubt that this was the only blade capable of killing the Witch-king. Perhaps other blades wouldn't have dealt such a bitter blow in one stroke, but the likes of Glamdring, Anduril, Sting and many others would surely have been up to the task.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I might be wrong, but I'm seeing a fair element of luck in the matter.

Ah, the good ol' free will versus predestination. Tolkien already showed that he is not opposed to predestination, seeing as how Frodo and Bilbo were *meant* to have the Ring. So does that mean the Eowyn and Merry were born with an utter lack of free will? Or does it mean that through an extraordinary set of circumstances, their free will meshed perfectly with what Eru wanted? Or does it mean that it's all just pure dumb luck without the slightest hint of divine intervention?

The prophecy in itself declares the latter invalid, or maybe it doesn't. Was Glorfindel seeing what would happen, or what, given the right pure dumb luck moments, could happen?

But only someone who wasn't a man would do so.

True, in the 3rd Age. Elves knew that it was not their battle, and so involved themselves (with some exceptions) only to defend themselves and their realms. Dwarves are greedy and so only defended themselves, their kin, and their realms (with some exceptions). The 3rd Age was the time of Men. No questions asked.

But why, Saucie, would nobody (ignoring Earnur) try for a nice little throwing knife stab-wound before then? Merry had a dagger! It could have been aero-dynamic... Kidding, kidding... at least mostly. But in the previous Ages, why wouldn't someone who wasn't a man try?

Fea

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fea

But in the previous Ages, why wouldn't someone who wasn't a man try?

Lack of opportunity, I should imagine.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Not owning the references I need, and not being inclined to google it to death, I'll leave your thoughts of opportunity for someone else to poke at (perhaps see if it wiggles). However, this is not an aimless post, as I wanted to include this one thought: where no opportunity arises, don't many characters/people make their own?

I imagine that if I wanted someone dead badly enough, rather than waiting for Fate to show me the crystal clear path and give me a swift kick down it, I'd [plan carefully first and then] just do it! Tosh to lack of opportunity... if you want something badly enough, you go after it. I think that's a law of life somewhere... I've a vague memory of that being called ambition.

Fea

[The Saucepan Man]

Fair enough. I shall re-phrase my answer.

Lack of opportunity and/or ambition.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Now this may sound beside the point, but no-one seemed to have addressed the question of why no arrows could harm the Ringwraiths... Gandalf himself said that to Legolas after the elf shot down the flying beast that one of the Nazgul was riding on.

How queer: Aragorn said that any blade that pierces the old Witchking will perish. He probably had references to past instances where the old ghoul had been stabbed. Unfortunately though, none of those blades that had pierced the WK before had managed to wound him to any serious degree. Makes you wonder how many times the WK have been sticked before...

Now, given another situation where some Dunedain or Elf tried to assassinate our old zombie with an arrow through the eye (or throat for that matter). Can our cloaked chump be downed by an arrow? Nope; Gandalf said so. On the other hand, a little thrown Westerness dagger will work...

"Hinder me? Thou fool. No puny sword may hinder me! I should know... I got sliced 666 times... " - the Witchking to Dernhelm (Eowyn).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Fea

But in the previous Ages, why wouldn't someone who wasn't a man try?

I think the reason nobody tried (and we don't know for certain that nobody tried) to kill the WK in an earlier age may again have something to do with his reputation. If he was a figure who many had already tried to despatch, and failed, then it is easy to imagine why there would not be many willing to try again. And it is likely that if anybody did try to despatch him then they would not live to tell the tale. In addition, it would be likely that the WK was difficult figure to locate, let alone to find in isolation without his fellow Nazgul or minions.

Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall

Words such as those which Glorfindel speaks might be enough to scare anybody off from attempting this feat, and note that he also says that his doom is far off. If anybody believed what Glorfindel had said, then they might be assumed to also think that it would not be worth the attempt if the WK's doom was 'far off'.

This makes me wonder whether Glorfindel was right to say what he did. Did he save lives by warning people not to attempt this? Or did he only serve to add to the fearsome reputation of the WK?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

This makes me wonder whether Glorfindel was right to say what he did. Did he save lives by warning people not to attempt this? Or did he only serve to add to the fearsome reputation of the WK?

Both. Lives were saved, depending on whether or not you want to include the lives that the Witch King took because he was able to. It also boosted his bad rep, because picture this:

davem is Glorfindel. Dave says that a newbie isn't worth wasting your time over. He's a bad poster, and reading his stuff will only lower your own IQ. When davem gives this reputation (think lil green boxes), it gives un-named newbie a reeeeally bad rep. That's because davem has a high reputation. A praise from the praiseworthy, so to speak, only opposite. If davindel says that King Newbie is bad, a lot of Downer/MElings are going to hear this, and avoid the newbie.

Now this is a good thing, in that nobody will be corrupted by said newbie, but it's a bad thing because it means that nobody will bother setting the newbie on the straight and narrow (which for the Wikkie is a nice jab to the knee), because we are too busy following davem's statement to think for ourselves.

Did this make any sense, or did I just severely bungle the point I was trying to make?

Fea

[Lalwendë]

No, you didn't bungle what you were trying to say (though you made me laugh, I admit, with that choice of example ).

Glorfindel must have had a good reputation himself if his words were taken in such earnest, and presumably they were also passed on through the generations of Men. What may have been, from him, a strongly worded comment intended to prevent one person from pursuing the WK in folly, may have ended up as what Men (and the WK) took to be prophetic words.

This is all assuming that Glorfindel did not know what he said to be the truth of course. If he was just using a bit of hyperbole to prevent one man's death, then looking at the results, he may have inadvertently caused the deaths of many (as the WK went on to wreak more carnage when he could have been dealt with sooner had Men not been so afraid of him). But if Glorfindel was speaking words of truth, then ultimately he did save lives; and also again added to the WK's reputation.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

'And it is also said,' answered Frodo. 'Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.'

Sounds quite like those wicked witches in Macbeth ...

But when Glorfindel said that the ol' Witchking's doom is still 'far off', I agree that he was probably advising the puny mortal men not to pit themselves against something beyond their ability.

On the other hand, I wonder why the Barrow-wights (which are supposedly under the command of the ol' ghoul), should keep nasssty Westerness kitchen knives in their homes...

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

On the other hand, I wonder why the Barrow-wights (which are supposedly under the command of the ol' ghoul), should keep nasssty Westerness kitchen knives in their homes...

Probably for the same reason that dragons devoured some of the Seven Rings instead of handing them in to Sauron, or keeping them it their hoards. I have no idea what that reason is, but I'm sure its out there....

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

On the other hand, I wonder why the Barrow-wights (which are supposedly under the command of the ol' ghoul), should keep nasssty Westerness kitchen knives in their homes...

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It would be safer to know that the bloody things were hiding in your hoard than to be forced to wonder day and night who was stalking toward your home clutching your bane in his hands.

[Kuruharan]

On the other hand, I wonder why the Barrow-wights (which are supposedly under the command of the ol' ghoul), should keep nasssty Westerness kitchen knives in their homes...

Or perhaps it is because things like that happen to be the only form of easily accessible loot.