So who really 💀killed the Nazgul Lord?

Landroval · Feb 16, 2002

So who, exactly, killed the Nazgul Lord - Merry or Eowyn? Was it Merry's special sword from the Barrow Downs that killed him, even though it pierced only the back of his knee, or was it Eowyn whose (common) sword apparently went through his head?

I have always believed it was Merry's, but I have seen both ideas presented in various places around here. I guess I would just like a definitive answer.

Thanks...

Landroval

Beorn · Feb 16, 2002

Perhaps you should....

Perhaps you should check out:

http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=734

It tells talks of the whole debate of this exact question!

daisy · Feb 16, 2002

Did Merry's sword actually have powers or was it just from an old barrowight?
I have always assumed it was Eowyn

Someone else probably has an entire quote or three page passage that will offer more proof than you ever thought possible....

Landroval · Feb 17, 2002

Thanks, Mike B. That thread does, indeed, answer the question for me.

Bucky · Feb 17, 2002

I just read that part the other day.

JRR spells it out quite explictly.

Merry's sword broke the spell that knit the unseen sinews to his (#1's) will.

Eowyn then killed him like any regular man getting a sword upside the head.

Landroval · Feb 17, 2002

Ok, so hypothetically speaking, if Aragorn had had more than just the shards of Narsil on Weathertop, could he have dispatched one or more of the Nazgul? If so, then he missed a great opportunity by not having the sword reforged sooner. Or would a slash from the hilt-shards of Narsil had a similar effect and the full blade would not be necessary. Why didn't he even try to use Narsil, unless he was still trying to hide his identity from the enemy.

Just wondering...

Landroval

Bucky · Feb 18, 2002

First, I believe that the blades Tom gave to The Hobbits at the Barrow were specifically made with 'spells for the bane of Angmar' (paraphrase), of which the ruler was the Witch-king (#1, Lord of Morgul, King of the Ringwraiths, etc). I would assume those blades would have had no specific 'power' placed in them to effect the other 8 Nazgul.

On the Weathertop incident, I think Aragorn was more interested in 'damage control' than elimination.
It was 5 on 1 (unless you count Hobbits cowering on the ground), so Aragorn was using a weapon which would have a negative effect on the greatest number at once: fire.

Speaking of fire, if the Nazgul feared it, why did the Black Captain have flames running down his sword at the gate of Minas Tirith & pits filled with it dug all around the walls?
Or is it more specifically 'those who wield fire' that Aragorn actually says?

On the shards of Narsil, I don't know that any 'spells' or 'power' to hurt the Nazgul or #1 in particular were put into it at it's original forging.

Lantarion · Feb 18, 2002

I think Aragorn couldn't have killed any of the Nazgûl with a normal sword. If Merry's blade broke away the spell binding the Witch King halfway in the netherworld, then I think Aragorn's sword might have broke them away at least a bit, because it was made by Telchar. So he wouldn't have necessarily killed any of the Ringwraiths, but he might have certainly wounded them badly, so they would have been forced to return to Sauron to re-acquire their physical forms.

Bucky · Feb 19, 2002

But, they had no physical forms to re-acquire to begin with.

They wore robes to give 'physical form to their nothingness when having dealings with the living' as Gandalf says.

Read the whole exchange at the Pelanor Fields.
It would appear those blades were specifically 'enpowered' against the Witch-king.
Merry stabs #1, then Eowyn can chop his head off.

I doubt that would've worked for the other Nazgul, as they weren't enemies known to exist (or be an active enemy) in the beginning of the 3rd Age when the Dunedain forged these powerful weapons.

Maybe that's why Toklien had them go out with Sauron in a 'blaze of glory'.

Elendil's sword, on the other hand, was probably forged prior to the existance of the Nazgul & passed down from generation to generation.

aragil · Feb 20, 2002

As far as I know, the Witch King was special even for the Nazgul. None of the other Ringwraiths had any prophecy that 'man' could not kill them. The Witch King was a sorcerer, I'm not sure that the others were. It was the Witch King's own sorcery that the Barrow-blade undid, making him vulnerable to Eowyn. My impression is that unless the other Nazgul had bound themselves up with similar spells, then they would be perfectly vulnerable to 'normal' weapons.

DGoeij · Feb 20, 2002

As I have always understood this part of the story, the Witch King was meant to be brought down by 'no man' as was foretold in some sort of prophecy, as he boasted to Eowyn before they fought.
After Eowyn revealed herself as being a woman, the Witch King became troubled. Not for long, because he immediatly tried to kill Eowyn. My guess is that the prophecy gave Eowyn the possibility to destroy the Witch King, but she wasn't mighty enough to actually do it on her won.
So Merry was essential in that, and so was his blade, clearly one of the last weapons in ME that could do real damage to the Witch King.
This moment of weakness was enough for Eowyn to fulfil the prophecy.
So I see it as Eowyn killed/destroyed the Witch King, but she never could have done it without Merry.

Bucky · Feb 21, 2002

Exactly.

Now, as for the other 8, if a regular weapon could kill them, why couldn't drowning in the Bruinen at the Ford of Rivendell?

Gandalf states "The Ringwraiths themselves cannot be so easily destroyed." when telling the story to Frodo.

My guess is they are all dabbling in 'sorcery', but that has nothing to do with their 'invincibility' or the 'difficulty' in killing them. I guess they were all bound by certain spells just by the rings they posessed & their relationship to the One Ring.
I believe it says somewhere that they live or die by their Master's power.
Look at the Elven Rings. They were never touched by Sauron, yet their power failed when the One was destroyed.
The Nine Rings & those bearing them were certainly more deeply intwined with the fate of the One Ring as Sauron helped forge those.

DGoeij · Feb 21, 2002

My guess is that the Witch King allready had the prophecy against him before he actually became a Nazgul. I mean technically Nazgul are ghosts, putting fear into your hearth and in heavier sense the Black Breath. I don't think they really could be killed by an average weapon. On Wheathertop, Frodo managed to 'hurt' one with the Elvish battle cry, backed up by the stroke of his Numenorean sword.
I think that at the Fords, the 'spell' of their fearfull forms was temporarely broken (horses gone, cloaks gone) and they had to find a new outfit in Minas Morgul before they were really able to do anything again.
But it stays rather unclear about what could really 'hurt' a Nazgul. Only thing sure is that they were bound to the One Ring, the destruction of that artifact resulted in the destruction of the Nazgul.

Lindir · Feb 21, 2002

This is what the Appendix says about the prophecy:

'Eärnur 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." These words many remembered; but Eärnur was angry, desiring only to be avenged for his disgrace.

And the Which-king was already a Ring-wraith at this point. But it might have been an older prophecy anyway I suppose.

DGoeij · Feb 21, 2002

Good quote Lindir.
I don't know if Glorfindel mentioned an older prophecy. I'll dive into the Sil to see what's in there. I'm not quite sure if I saw it anywhere else than in LOTR.

Lantarion · Feb 21, 2002

Whether the prophecy has the words 'a Man' or 'man' as a broader term, it does not mean the gender! The term used for humans in Middle-Earth was Men, and I think this is what it meant.
But perhaps this prophecy was not an increadibly powerful one, like the fate of the Silmarilli, but it could be gainsaid by one who carries a greater fate. Beren walked freely into Doriath, and so perhaps Eowyn had a heavier doom about her which allowed her to kill the Witch King.

Cian · Feb 21, 2002

Appendix A indicates to me that technically both Éowyn and Merry 'fulfilled' ... Imo anyway, because it's added Merry was "also not a Man" but a Halfling (technically not a 'Man' despite Hobbit status as a branch of the Human Race).

Cian · Feb 21, 2002

And oh yeah, Éowyn did the deed! Merry "aided"

Just to get my vote in the new thread.

DGoeij · Feb 21, 2002

I do think gender was an issue here. When the Witch King faced Dernhelm he was boasting and over-confident, but when Eowyn revealed herself, he was seriously taken aback

quote from ROTK, chapter The Battle of the Pelennor Fields:
(typing errors on my account)
A sword rang as it was drawn. 'Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.'
'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'
Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernehlm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. 'But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomunds 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.'
The winged creature screamed at her, but the Ringwraith made no anwser, and was silent, as if in sudden doubt.
(end quote)

At least the Witch King felt that woman or man made some difference.

Harad · Feb 21, 2002

Prophecies are meant to have loopholes. E.g. A "boy" could do the deed and not be a "man."

So who really 💀killed the Nazgul Lord?

New Member

In the shadows

Member

New Member

Elite

New Member

Elite

no house

Elite

Just another loremaster

Pan Narran

Elite

Pan Narran

Member

Pan Narran

no house

sylvan madman

sylvan madman

Pan Narran

Harad

Guest

Share this page

Similar threads

Today's events

Similar threads

Search Wiki

Share this page

Most viewed threads of 2026