The Lord of the 💀Nazgul vs 🧙Gandalf the White

[Greenwood]

Ulairi

You are at it again! You posted the following earlier, quoting Gandalf's description of his encounter with the Nazgul at Weathertop:

"I galloped to Weathertop like a gale, and I reached it before sundown on my second day from Bree - and they were there before me. They drew away from me, for they felt the coming of my anger and they dared not face it while the Sun was in the sky. But they closed round at night, and I was besieged on the hill-top, in the old ring of Amon Sul. I was hard put to it indeed: such light and flame cannot have been seen on Weathertop since the war-beacons of old."

You said that you could find no place where it mentions how many Nazgul were at Weathertop. However, the quote you give above is not complete. In the book Gandalf continues speaking saying the following:

At sunrise I escaped and fled towards the north. I could not hope to do more. It was impossible to find you, Frodo, in the wilderness, and it would have been folly to try with all the Nine at my heels. So I had to trust to Aragorn. But I hoped to draw some of them off, and yet reach Rivendell ahead of you and send out help. Four Riders did indeed follow me, but they turned back after a while and made for the Ford, it seems. That helped a little, for there were only five, not nine, when your camp was attacked.

Normally, I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you merely missed the reference to all nine Nazgul in the paragraph following the one you typed, but twice before I have caught you misrepresenting passages from Tolkien for the sole purpose of stirring up debate. I find it hard to believe this one is an accident. This is particularly true since the fact that all nine Nazgul did not dare face an angry Gandalf the Grey in daytime and that he could hold them all at bay at night makes a rather strong case that Gandalf the White, far stronger than Gandalf the Grey, would easily be able to take on the Lord of the Nazgul.

Can't you find anything of interest to discuss without distorting Tolkien just to stir up debates? Three strikes and you are out as far as I am concerned.

 

[Ged]

Bravo Greenwood, I agree with you.

 

[Viceras Daydark]

Woke up, bout to go back to bed, but I will share my quick thoughts.

You have:

Lord of the Nazgul
-Not in possession of a Ring of Power
-Of Man

vs.

Gandalf the White
-In Possession of a Ring of Power
-Of Maiar

The odds lean against Gandalf I would say. Let us not forget that after the hobbits and Strider left Bree, a lightning storm was seen. This storm was Gandalf fending off the Ring Wraiths. He came out on top against them (I forget if all of them were there or if only 4 or 5) then, I'd be quite confident to assume he would do more than beat the Lord of the Nazgul. Gandalf's nature was that of Guidance though. He could have done much, yet he merely guided the mortals, allowing them to do it for themselves. That was his nature. Let us not forget of his parting before the return to the Shire.

-Viceras Daydark

 

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Ged

Ulairi said:

Originally posted by Ged
My feeling about the confrontation between Gandalf and The Lord of the Nazgul at the gates of Minas Tirith is that Gandalf KNEW that he would not be the one to kill the LoTN. He KNEW this in the same way that his wisdom told him that a hobbit should carry the ring. He didn't attack the LoTN because that would have been folly in the thousands of attackers swarming behind. No, he was watching and waiting only.

Originally posted by Ulairi
Ged, I agree. However, in this thread we are being theoretical and hypothetical, so, what you have stated is irrelevant to the thread. No offence.

Ulairi, not exactly sure what you mean by "theoretical and hypothetical". I am simply trying to explain why Gandalf didn't attack the Lord of the Nazgul at Minas Tirith, because the fact that he didn't do so has been used previously as an argument in favour of him being weaker than LoTN.

It is not clear to me why this is "irrelevant", but no offense taken.

All of the above was posted by Ged

Ged, I am sorry. I got you confused with someone else. I was going on two threads at the same time and I got a little mixed up but I stuck to the topic somehow. Weird. What I meant to say to you is that I disagree as Gandalf was a Maia, and not a man. The prophecy of the Witch-King was the he would be killed by no man, but Gandalf was one of the Maiar, so perhaps he could have killed him and he would still be fulfilling the prophecy.

Originally posted by Greenwood

Ulairi

You are at it again! You posted the following earlier, quoting Gandalf's description of his encounter with the Nazgul at Weathertop:

You said that you could find no place where it mentions how many Nazgul were at Weathertop. However, the quote you give above is not complete. In the book Gandalf continues speaking saying the following:

Normally, I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you merely missed the reference to all nine Nazgul in the paragraph following the one you typed, but twice before I have caught you misrepresenting passages from Tolkien for the sole purpose of stirring up debate. I find it hard to believe this one is an accident. This is particularly true since the fact that all nine Nazgul did not dare face an angry Gandalf the Grey in daytime and that he could hold them all at bay at night makes a rather strong case that Gandalf the White, far stronger than Gandalf the Grey, would easily be able to take on the Lord of the Nazgul.

Can't you find anything of interest to discuss without distorting Tolkien just to stir up debates? Three strikes and you are out as far as I am concerned.

Greenwood, if you can believe this but this time it was an honest mistake. I did not read on as I usually do. I do not stir up debate all the time, only when I am bored and trust me, that doesn't happen often in my case.

Originally posted by Greenwood
Can't you find anything of interest to discuss without distorting Tolkien just to stir up debates?

There are many things I do and they are mostly associated with Tolkien. I either argue on the forum or I read Tolkien. So, don't criticize people when you have no proof to back up your criticizm in the near future Greenwood.

 

[Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn]

Ulairi,

So, don't criticize people when you have no proof to back up your criticizm in the near future Greenwood.

Have you ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?

On two previous occasions you have admitted posting in a deliberately misleading manner for the purpose of stirring up debate. Given that context, Greenwood's comment is entirely justified.

Your admitted falsifications are going to cast a shadow on every post you make here from now on. I think you'd better get used to the idea that your past actions are going to have consequences. If you want to get your credibility back, you're going to have to work at it, and snapping at Greenwood isn't going to help the healing process any.

 

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn
Ulairi,



Have you ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?

On two previous occasions you have admitted posting in a deliberately misleading manner for the purpose of stirring up debate. Given that context, Greenwood's comment is entirely justified.

Your admitted falsifications are going to cast a shadow on every post you make here from now on. I think you'd better get used to the idea that your past actions are going to have consequences. If you want to get your credibility back, you're going to have to work at it, and snapping at Greenwood isn't going to help the healing process any.

Point well taken Dhon-buri-Dhon, my apologies Greenwood. Btw, good example, I have not heard of that story in a while.

 

[Gimli]

Damn all you who say "might" or "could" God dang it he could beet all the ringwraiths with 2 hands behind his back and his legs choped off

From your loving friend Gimli

 

[Úlairi]

Where's the proof Gimli?

 

[Gimli]

There is no need for proof but if you want it then ill give it to you.
Someone before did say that if merry and that shield maiden could been the witch king then so can gandalf and also gandalf said that the hobbits are only allowed to see a fration of his power and by reading the hobbit and the lod of the rings a fraction of his power is pretty dang strong. Plus Gandalf is to wizardish to be killed by a puny Witch King.

You loving friend ZGimli

 

[Úlairi]

I believe that I am wasting my time with you Gimli.

 

[Gimli]

You would most likely be right in that assumpuan (pardon the spelling)

You loving friend Gimli

 

[Úlairi]

I'm glad you digested that well, Gimli. Not very man people can.

 

[Elu Thingol]

Posted by Ulairi
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
Oh - one other thing, Ulairi: How could Gandalf the White be decapitated or stabbed to death? He himself tells Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli something to the effect that no weapon could now hurt him (sorry I had to paraphrase here - I don't have the text in front of me and will gladly accept a correction if I mis-remembered the quote).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfinished Tales Page 503
"For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of the earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tolkien clearly states here that the Istari could be slain. Gandalf the White states that he was 'Saruman as he should have been'. Saruman was once like this and he too could be slain. So obviously these terms are contradictory. I am unsure which to believe, but IMO I will stick to the fact that Gandalf the White could be slain.

Ulairi you say that the Istari can be slain and I agree with you. However, I don't believe Gandalf could be killed by regular weapons. "Indeed my friends, none of you has any weapon that could hurt me." (Gandalf Book II pg. 125). So we see that he can not be hurt by an axe, bow and arrow, or a sword. It is safe to say now he can only be killed by a magical weapon or some sort of sorcery.

In your quote from unfinished tales it says the Istari were clad in bodies as of men or similar to men but these bodies are probably stronger than men and are similar in that of looks and most weaknesses. And about your Saruman reference I believe Gandalf is only saying that he has taken Saruman's place the quote says nothing of Gandalf's present power. Indeed we can infer that Gandalf is now much more powerful than Saruman when he easily breaks his staff at Orthanc.

 

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Mithrandir2003
However, I don't believe Gandalf could be killed by regular weapons. "Indeed my friends, none of you has any weapon that could hurt me." (Gandalf Book II pg. 125). So we see that he can not be hurt by an axe, bow and arrow, or a sword. It is safe to say now he can only be killed by a magical weapon or some sort of sorcery.

Here is a quote from LoTR that supports my opinion(s):

"I fear, Sam, that they believe your master has a deadly wound that will subdue him to their will. We shall see!"
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: Chapter XII: Flight to the Ford Pages 213-214

I will quote Aragorn as best I can from the movie:

"This is a Morgul-blade."
Aragorn, 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring', directed by Peter Jackson

The weapons that the Nazgul had were definitely not ordinary. We cannot say what effect they would have on Gandalf the White.

Originally posted by Mithrandir2003
And about your Saruman reference I believe Gandalf is only saying that he has taken Saruman's place the quote says nothing of Gandalf's present power. Indeed we can infer that Gandalf is now much more powerful than Saruman when he easily breaks his staff at Orthanc.

Interpret it however you wish Mithrandir2003.

 

[Elu Thingol]

I'm simply saying that Gandalf can't be equal to Saruman in abilities and in power as you suggest or it would of been a much better fight. Admit it Gandalf and Saruman aren't equals. Gandalf is just saying he is the Saruman that should've been not Saruman.

 

[Úlairi]

As I have said, you may interpret the text which ever way you deem. You can take it out of context and defragment it like I do, I don't care Mithrandir2003.

 

[Elu Thingol]

whatever

 

[Úlairi]

****Ulairi, you have been warned many times before, and given your last. Now, action must be taken. I will inform all the other moderators

--<B>--