• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

Are the evil beings of the 3rd age stronger than the first age?

are the evil beings of the 3rd age stronger than the evil beings of the first age?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • No

    Votes: 7 70.0%

  • Total voters
    10
what are you thinking?

I'm thinking about:

A) ice cream

B) I just ordered a new copy of The Book of Lost Tales I so I could finish my post that intends to include every reference to Ecthelion (the Elf) found in The History of Middle-Earth series (I can't find my other copy, but I got some money from my birthday, and I like the edition I bought too).

C) there are also First Age Maiar that took the shape of Orcs > more terrible and longer lived than regular Orcs.

E) that I forgot D.

F) to end with something on topic. I consider that the Nine were powerful, but yet they had no great physical power, at least relatively speaking (and despite the Witch King breaking Eowyn's arm).
In general, Tolkien describes the Nine Wraiths:

"Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have
no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken."
JRR Tolkien, The Letters of JRR Tolkien, Letter 210

If that helps at all!
 
Last edited:
I'm just curious about your opinions. As you all know, the most powerful servants of Melkor are the balrogs and dragons. But apart from these two beings, evil beings of the 3rd age such as uruk-hai, olog-hai, mumakil, fellbeast, nazgul, are from the first age orcs, trolls, werewolves, and vampires Was it stronger? what are you thinking?
Uruks are an artificial "upgrade" of orcs by unknown means. So it stands to reason that they might be exception to the natural principle of entrophy.
 
I'm just curious about your opinions. As you all know, the most powerful servants of Melkor are the balrogs and dragons. But apart from these two beings, evil beings of the 3rd age such as uruk-hai, olog-hai, mumakil, fellbeast, nazgul, are from the first age orcs, trolls, werewolves, and vampires Was it stronger? what are you thinking?

I voted third age. But I cannot give my reasons until i build my case first. I have somewhat already begun this subject but more time is needed. I shall not be hasty.
 
I voted third age. But I cannot give my reasons until i build my case first. I have somewhat already begun this subject but more time is needed. I shall not be hasty.
I opened the same issue on a reddit site. People there say that the evil beings in the third age are much weaker than the evil beings in the first age. That's not all. Tolkien's universe is a fall story. So the good and the bad in the middle earth are losing power as time goes on. But I don't think so. why would Tolkien describe the third age in more detail than the first age, if power and might are dwindling? Also, after dagor dagorath, the second music of the ainur will be much more magnificent than the first one. So the power is the same, the only difference is that since there was no valar in the wars of the third age, it seems duller to us because there was no valar intervention.

I'm thinking about:

A) ice cream

B) I just ordered a new copy of The Book of Lost Tales I so I could finish my post that intends to include every reference to Ecthelion (the Elf) found in The History of Middle-Earth series (I can't find my other copy, but I got some money from my birthday, and I like the edition I bought too).

C) there are also First Age Maiar that took the shape of Orcs > more terrible and longer lived than regular Orcs.

E) that I forgot D.

F) to end with something on topic. I consider that the Nine were powerful, but yet they had no great physical power, at least relatively speaking (and despite the Witch King breaking Eowyn's arm).
In general, Tolkien describes the Nine Wraiths:

"Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have
no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken."
JRR Tolkien, The Letters of JRR Tolkien, Letter 210

If that helps at all!
The orcs you mentioned are not actually orcs. The fallen maiar. They only took the orc appearance because they fell. Also, for those who are afraid of the Nazgul, the Nazgul have great magic powers. No weapon can harm the witch king. Merry provides the witch king's death with a magical sword. Have you forgotten? :)
 
The orcs you mentioned are not actually orcs. The fallen maiar. They only took the orc appearance because they fell.

Well, what I wrote (in the post you quoted), was that there were Maiar who took the shape of orcs and lived longer than "regular" orcs. And Tolkien called them orcs . . . so, so do I.

JRRT called them Great-orcs or Orc-captains who could live far longer than the span of the lives of Men. And In Text VIII (Myths Transformed, Morgoth's Ring) he states that some Maiar "became" orcs, and allows for the possibility that their bodies could procreate, and that they could be killed.


Also, for those who are afraid of the Nazgul, the Nazgul have great magic powers.

And I said I consider that the Nine were powerful, but yet they had no great physical power . . .
which I then followed up with a quote from JRRT to back up that statement -- and in which JRRT obviously adds "against the fearless" -- which I also knew would flesh out my comment and give it the context I wanted for anyone reading my post.

"Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness." JRRT

No weapon can harm the witch king. Merry provides the witch king's death with a magical sword. Have you forgotten? :)

I haven't forgotten that some people interpret it that way :)

I have a different interpretation however. That said, there's probably at least one "Who killed the Witch-king" (or similar) thread around here somewhere, although I can't recall if I've given my opinion in every such thread.

🐾
 
The orcs you mentioned are not actually orcs. The fallen maiar. They only took the orc appearance because they fell. Also, for those who are afraid of the Nazgul, the Nazgul have great magic powers. No weapon can harm the witch king. Merry provides the witch king's death with a magical sword. Have you forgotten? :)

I think many hold the assumption that the falling must be military or power-related rather than moral. They also focus on what is falling and ignore what is improving and steghthining. I think they also ignore Tolkiens use of hyperbole in the legends of the Eldar days.
 
why would Tolkien describe the third age in more detail than the first age, if power and might are dwindling?
JRRT described the Third Age in more detail (i.e. wrote LoTR) because he had his publisher breathing down his neck to produce a sequel to the popular "The Hobbit". What he wrote about the First (and Second) Age(s) was done as a private hobby, in his unmethodical (in C.S. Lewis's opinion, who knew JRRT well) fashion: jumping from tales to poems to annals to language construction. Which parts ended up contradicting each other all too often, and needed to be adjusted in parts to what he had published in LoTR. Despite having worked on this older part of his legendarium for roughly 55 years, he never managed to get it into publishable form in his lifetime.

No weapon can harm the witch king. Merry provides the witch king's death with a magical sword. Have you forgotten? :)
Merry's weapon would have seemed no more than a dagger to Big Folk. And whatever "magic" it may have been endowed with was that of a Númenórean exile of Cardolan, the by then badly degenerated fragment kingdom that used to be part of Arnor, itself a steep step down from Númenor. Númenor, in its turn, was not even remotely a match in skill to the Noldorin Elves of the First Age, who forged Glamdring, Gandalf's sword. As I've posted elsewhere, had Gandalf the White taken Glamdring to the W-k, what would have been left of the latter would have resembled so much sliced salami. :cool:
 
I'd add my opinion about the Witch-king's defeat (in brief for now):
Éowyn's deadly blow with a sword.

Or Éomer with a sword -- if it had been him there instead, and he too had
stood up to the Witch-king and delivered the same strike.

I'm not forgetting Merry's contribution with the barrow dagger, which Tolkien
describes as breaking a "spell" that knit the Witch-king's will to his sinews.
 
I’ll throw my two cents into the pool.

The Witch-king was invulnerable to weapons, or at least “all blades perish that pierce” the Witch-king, according to Strider (Aragorn) at Weathertop. This was true of Éowyn’s sword, too; but while it seemed of no significant lineage (as were Glamdring, Orcrist, and Andúril), it was effective in “killing” the Witch-king because Merry first had stabbed him with the Barrow-blade. I don’t suppose the Witch-king was dismissed from Arda until the One Ring was undone; in the meantime, he may well have suffered as a wailing and gibbering spirit in a hole near Sauron. (The fate Lúthien foretold for Sauron in Lay of Leithian Canto IX, lines 2779-2782, in Lays of Beleriand while Huan held him pinned by his neck unless he surrendered to Lúthien the keys and words of mastery of his fortress.) Glorfindel’s prophetic words that “not by the hand of man will [the Witch-king] fall” seem to me more prescience than prophecy. In this sense, Glorfindel’s observation is more akin to young Aragorn’s insight that Elrond’s “years of … abiding [in Middle-earth] run short at last, and the choice must soon be laid on your children, to part either with you or with Middle-earth,” regarding Arwen in particular (“Tale of Aragorn and Arwen”, Appendix A), than to Mandos’ fateful Prophecy of the North in which he foretold the ruin of the rebellious Noldor, the dispossession of the House of Fëanor, and recurring treachery against and among all the Noldor that continued in rebellion. The one is foresight, the other foreknowledge, and while the difference may seem but a trifle, I believe it is nevertheless substantial.

Ecthelion mentioned that, “Tolkien's universe is a fall story.” This, I think, is an essential observation in this thread. Aragorn is great indeed, the greatest of the Númenóreans since the deaths of Isildur and his eldest son Elendur, who of all Elendil’s descendents most resembled his grandfather: Elrond is said to have been struck with the resemblance of Aragorn in mind and body to Elendur, and thus to Elendil himself. (Footnote 26 of “Disaster of the Gladden Fields”, Unfinished Tales) But Aragorn was not the equal of either of them: Elendur was 144 years old at the time of his death, Isildur 234; Aragorn lived only to 210 years when weariness overcame him, so that he surrendered his life, but Isildur was still in top fighting form beyond that. The power and effectiveness of the Eldar dwindled from the day the Sun first rose, as well as their numbers and overlordship in Middle-earth.

Melian was accounted the most beautiful Maia in the garden of Lórien, the wisest, and the most skilled in songs of enchantment. (“Of Thingol and Melian”, Silmarillion) Her daughter Lúthien was the most beautiful of all the Children of Ilúvatar; her granddaughter Elwing the most beautiful save her foremother; and Arwen, Elwing’s granddaughter, the most beautiful save her foremothers. But each was in turn a little less than Melian, except that Lúthien wove an enchantment in her dark cloak woven from her hair than even her mother had ever made, so powerful that it caused Morgoth himself to slumber. But Elwing was not Lúthien, nor Arwen Elwing.

Melian was wiser than Thingol; Galadriel wiser than Celeborn, accounted wisest of the Elf-kings at the end of the Third Age; Arwen was wiser (I assert) than Aragorn. Yet though Galadriel was instructed by Melian and patterned herself after her mentor, and Arwen instructed by Galadriel over the long years of the Third Age, each was successively less potent than her predecessor.

Elrond musing upon the banners of Gil-galad and Elendil allowed, “It recalled to me the glory of the Elder Days and the hosts of Beleriand, so many great princes and captains were assembled. And yet not so many, nor so fair, as when Thangorodrim was broken…” Then he observed that he had seen “many defeats, and many fruitless victories.” Galadriel told the Company of the Ring that she and Celeborn “ere the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin … passed over the mountains, and together through the ages of the world we have fought the long defeat.”

In Letter 195, Tolkien wrote,

I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect “history” to be anything but a “long defeat” – though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.
​
Christianity maintains that we cannot win on our own or by our own strength or merits. Middle-earth reflects this belief, never more clearly than when Frodo claims the One Ring at the Crack of Doom.
 
I’ll throw my two cents into the pool.

I'll see your two cents and raise you a mathom -- [cough] or whatever actual poker players say!

The Witch-king was invulnerable to weapons, or at least “all blades perish that pierce” the Witch-king, according to Strider (Aragorn) at Weathertop.

That's a notable "or" in my opinion :)

Invulnerable is pretty powerful. And not that anyone said otherwise, but when they had sinews, even Morgoth and Sauron were not invulnerable to weapons.

But I agree that a first stab must be "lethal", or one's sword is gonna perish!


This was true of Éowyn’s sword, too; but while it seemed of no significant lineage (as were Glamdring, Orcrist, and Andúril), it was effective in “killing” the Witch-king because Merry first had stabbed him with the Barrow-blade.

Agreed again about Éowyn’s sword being effective, but why was it effective? What does author published description say Merry's stab did? Make the invulnerable vulnerable? Or break the spell
that knit the WK's unseen sinews to his will.

Now come the interpretations. Mine is, if you can't will your body (sinews) to defend yourself against a lethal blow from a sword, spear, axe . . . or let's say, if you're fighting the fearful Mr. King and suddenly he can't will his body to move or defend himself, you might get a chance to take him out -- even if you're wounded and moving not as swiftly as you'd like.

"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."

And why does Appendix A note that the Witch-king feared Boromir (not that Boromir another one)?

Because Boromir bore barrow blades? Bah!

I don’t suppose the Witch-king was dismissed from Arda until the One Ring was undone;

Agree again. Third time here :)
 
Last edited:
Well, what I wrote (in the post you quoted), was that there were Maiar who took the shape of orcs and lived longer than "regular" orcs. And Tolkien called them orcs . . . so, so do I.

JRRT called them Great-orcs or Orc-captains who could live far longer than the span of the lives of Men. And In Text VIII (Myths Transformed, Morgoth's Ring) he states that some Maiar "became" orcs, and allows for the possibility that their bodies could procreate, and that they could be killed.




And I said I consider that the Nine were powerful, but yet they had no great physical power . . .
which I then followed up with a quote from JRRT to back up that statement -- and in which JRRT obviously adds "against the fearless" -- which I also knew would flesh out my comment and give it the context I wanted for anyone reading my post.

"Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness." JRRT



I haven't forgotten that some people interpret it that way :)

I have a different interpretation however. That said, there's probably at least one "Who killed the Witch-king" (or similar) thread around here somewhere, although I can't recall if I've given my opinion in every such thread.

🐾
The Nazgul's powers are already magical, not physical. Their main and greatest power is magic. Even Gandalf was uneasy when the witch king advanced on the door of minas tirith with a flaming sword. By the way, you probably know. The fallen maiars so the orc captains you mentioned, have any special great powers is it?
 
The Nazgul's powers are already magical, not physical. Their main and greatest power is magic.

They have physical power in any case, even if "they have no great physical power against the fearless"

Anyway, are you disagreeing with something I've said, specifically?

:)
 
Last edited:
And they have physical power too, even if "they have no great physical power against the fearless"

Anyway, since you are quoting me, are you disagreeing with something I've said, specifically?

:)
I didn't say they didn't have any physical power anyway. I just said that their greatest and most effective power is magical powers. What you said is already a quote from books.so true;)
 

Today's events

Back
Top