Who '💀killed' the Witch King?

Mooky87 · Jul 6, 2005

My vote goes for Eowyn, but I don't believe that she could have done it without Merry. When Merry stabbed the Witch King, it gave Eowyn the opportunity she needed to kill him. Many people with disagree, and this is all IMHO, but I believe that when Eowyn stabbed the Witch King, he died. I don't believe that his "form" was destroyed, but that he died. I believe that he could have been (and was) destroyed even if Sauron was still alive.

ingolmo · Jul 7, 2005

I don't know about you guys, but having read Maerbenn's quote, I have to say that unless he was lying, we have to believe what Tolkien said on the matter. After all, it is his world.

vamp · Jul 23, 2005

True, without Merry and his blade, Eowyn could not have killed the Witch King. But remember, "no man could kill him". It had to have been Eowyn who actually killed him because she's not a man. She's a woman.

Greenwood · Aug 9, 2005

ingolmo said:
I don't know about you guys, but having read Maerbenn's quote, I have to say that unless he was lying, we have to believe what Tolkien said on the matter. After all, it is his world.

However, Maerbenn's quote must be read in context, both of the letter in which it appears and of Tolkien's other writings. As given by Maerbenn, readers might think that Tolkien actually says in letter #246 that the Witch King was not killed at Pelennor. However, that is not how the letter reads. The letter discusses what would have happened at Mount Doom if Gollum had not seized the Ring and fallen in after Frodo claimed it for himself. Tolkien says the Nazgul would have arrived to keep Frodo there until Sauron arrived. The footnote in question refers to the sentence: "The situation as between Frodo with the Ring and the Eight* might be compared to that of a small brave man armed with a devastating weapon, faced by eight savage warriors of great strength and agility armed with poisoned blades." The footnote (which refers to "the Eight") says: "*The Witch-king had been reduced to impotence." That is the full footnote. In context, clearly Tolkien's intent is merely to explain why there would only be eight Nazgul to deal with Frodo at Mount Doom.

In interpreting what Tolkien might have meant by "reduced to impotence", Tolkien's other writings cannot be ignored. Tolkien quite clearly says the Nazgul were mortal men. Tolkien is also quite clear that the mortality of men cannot be changed. Not even the Valar can change the mortality of men (or the immortality of elves). (See passages in letters #131, 156, 156, and 325 quoted here.) To change the Witch King from a mortal to an immortal violates one of the principle foundations of Tolkien's mythology! Thus the Witch King cannot be immortal. He cannot be like Sauron (a maia, not a mortal man) and have the ability to "re-form". The simplest interpretation of Tolkien's footnote, one that keeps the nature of the Witch King in line with the rest of Tolkien's writings, is that the Witch King was "reduced to impotence" because he was destroyed at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

Maerbenn · Aug 9, 2005

What I meant with “he was not killed” was that his soul/spirit did not leave Middle-earth already at that point, because the ‘link’ (‘his’ Ring of Power that Sauron held + the Ruling Ring) keeping him here was so strong. One of the Rings in that ‘link’ would have to be destroyed for him to be ‘free’.

Greenwood · Aug 13, 2005

(I prepared a long post for another thread (which became two posts because of length) that are totally relevant to this thread, so I am going to post them here also. If this is not appropriate, perhaps some moderator can delete these two posts and merely provide a link to them on the other thread.)

I think far too much is made of that brief passage about Merry's blade after the destruction of the Witch King. Interpretations often placed on it ignore the many other relevant passages in LOTR. Let's look at all the relevant passages Tolkien wrote in LOTR. Presented chronologically there are the following: (Discussion will follow in the next post.)

Earnur 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!" Those words many remembered; but Earnur was angry, desiring only to be avenged for his disgrace. [Appendix A, ROTK]

"Old knives are long enough as swords for hobbit-people," he said. "Sharp blades are good to have, if Shire-folk go walking, east, south, or far away into dark and danger." Then he told them that these blades were forged many long years ago by Men of Westernesse: they were foes of the Dark Lord, but they were overcome by the evil king of Carn Dum in the Land of Angmar. [Bombadil giving the blades to the hobbits in "Fog on the Barrow-downs" in FOTR]

"Look!" he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak that had lain hidden by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a slash. "This was the stroke of Frodo's sword," he said. "The only hurt it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth." [Aragorn to the hobbites on Weathertop in "Flight to the Ford" in FOTR]

"By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair," said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, "you shall have neither the Ring nor me!"
Then the leader, who was now half way across the Ford, stood up menacing in his stirrups, and raised up his hand. Frodo was stricken dumb. He felt his tongue cleave to his mouth, and his heart laboring. His sword broke and fell out of his shaking hand. The elf-horse reared and snorted. The foremost of the black horses had almost set foot upon the shore. [Frodo confronting the Witch King and the Nazgul at the Ford of Bruinen in "Flight to the Ford" in FOTR]

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 Dernhelm 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, Eomund's 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 ceature screamed at her, but the Ringwraith made no answer, and was silent, as if in sudden doubt. [Eowyn confronting the Witch King in "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields" in ROTK]

The face of their enemy was not turned towards him, but still he hardly dared to move, dreading lest the deadly eyes should fall on him. Slowly, slowly he began to crawl aside; but the Black Captain, in doubt and malice intent upon the woman before him, heeded him no more than a worm in the road. [Merry watching the encounter between Eowyn and the Witch-king in "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields" in ROTK]

But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.
"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. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Eowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground, torn and tumbled; and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world. [The destruction of the Witch King in "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields" in ROTK]

And still Meriadoc the hobbit stood there blinking through his tears, and no one spoke to him, indeed none seemed to heed him. He brushed away the tears and stooped to pick up the green shield that Eowyn had given him, and he slung it at his back. Then he looked for his sword that he had let fall; for even as he struck his blow his arm was numbed, and now he could only use his left hand. And behold! there lay his weapon, but the blade was smoking like a dry branch that has been thrust in a fire; and as he watched it, it writhed and withered and was consumed.
So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. 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. [Merry after the destruction of the Witch King in "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields" in ROTK]

But Aragorn came to Eowyn, and he said: "Here there is a greivous hurt and a heavy blow. The arm that was broken has been tended with skill, and it will mend in time, if she has the strength to live. It is the shield-arm that is maimed; but the chief evil comes through the sword-arm. In that there now seems no life, although it is unbroken." [Aragorn tending Eowyn in "The Houses of Healing" in ROTK]

"Do not be afraid," said Aragorn. "I came in time, and I have called him back. He is weary now, and grieved, and he has taken a hurt like the Lady Eowyn, daring to smite that deadly thing." [Aragorn speaking to Pippin about Merry in "The Houses of Healing" in ROTK]

For her shield-arm was broken by the mace of the Witch-king, but he was brought to nothing, and thus the words of Glorfindel long before to King Earnur were fulfilled, that the Witch-king would not fall by the hand of man. For it is said in the sings of the Mark that in this deed Eowyn had the aid of Theoden's esquire, and that he also was not a Man but a Halfling out of a far country, though Eomer gave hime honour in the Mark and the name of Holdwine. [Footnote about Eowyn in Appendix A of ROTK]

Discussion in next post.

Greenwood · Aug 13, 2005

Now let's look at the passages presented in the previous post. Starting with Glorfindel restraining Earnur, it is clear, nothing is said about no one being able to kill the Witch-king. Glorfindel is merely predicting that when the Witch-king is finally destroyed, it will not be a man that does the deed. Next we have Bombadil giving the blades from the barrow to the hobbits and we first hear of Angmar and its evil king.

The encounter on Weathertop is important in interpreting the possibe significance of the passage about Merry's blade at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. This is where we are told that all blades are destroyed that "pierce that dreadful King". It is also important to note that Aragorn makes no special note of Frodo's sword (which like Merry's came from the barrow). Aragorn is a Ranger of the North, heir to the throne of the North Kingdom, as well as Gondor. If these blades had some special power to kill Nazgul isn't reasonable to assume Aragorn would have recognized them and mentioned it? Why wouldn't Aragorn say: "What a pity Frodo didn't succeed in stabbing him because this special balde would have destroyed him!" (Or at least severely injured the Witch-king, "breaking the spell". etc. etc.) Why wouldn't Aragorn tell all the hobbits, "Keep those blades handy! They are your only weapon against the Nazgul!" Additionally, if these blades are so deadly to the Nazgul, why don't the Nazgul recognize them and fear them? The Nazgul show no particular fear of these blades at Weathertop or the Fords of Bruinen. [Added in edit: Just as Aragorn does not tell the hobbits that there is anything special about their swords from the barrow, neither does Gandalf or Elrond. Wouldn't they, two of the wisest in all of Middle Earth, be aware of the special deadlinesss of these blades, if they were especially deadly to the Witch-king? The hobbits are setting off for Mordor, quite likely with Nazgul eventually in pursuit; wouldn't Gandalf and Elrond tell the hobbits that their swords were potentially deadly to the Witch-King?]

Now, look at the all important encounter on the Fields of Pelennor. We find the Witch-king has evidently believed his own press about no man being able to stop him, but when Eowyn reveals she is not a man, but a woman, the Witch-king is momentarily stopped in his tracks by doubt. I picture him thinking to himself: "Whoa! Have I been misinterpreting that old fool Glorfindel's words for all these years? Am I in danger here?" I have not included the entire passage above but the Witch-king only moves on Eowyn after Eowyn kills his winged steed.

Now we get to the crucial moments. Merry stabs the Witch-king behind the knee and he cries out in "bitter pain". Eowyn uses this moment of distraction to strike. The Witch-king has not been destroyed by Merry's stab in his knee. He is still in front of Eowyn, his crown on his head above his mantle and his "shoulders bowed before her". And when Eowyn stabs the Witch-king, her sword is destroyed, just as Aragorn said any blade would be that pierced the Witch-king! If the Witch-king were already killed by Merry or Merry's wound had turned him into a mere man, why was Eowyn's sword destroyed? This certainly is not normal when a mere man is stabbed. Also, the wail of the Witch-king as he dies occurs after Eowyn stabs him, not before. His crown falls away and his cloak is empty after Eowyn stabs him, not before.

I will come back to the famous passage about Merry's blade in a moment. First look at the passages in the Houses of Healing. Eowyn's shield-arm is broken from being hit by the Witch-king's mace, but that is an ordinary wound that Aragorn dismisses. Her potentially deadly hurt comes from a sword arm that stabbed the Witch-king. Once again, if Merry had truly made the Witch-king into a mere man, how would Eowyn stabbing a mere man wound her this way? In examining Merry, Aragorn says Eowyn and Merry are both suffering from the same thing and that it comes from "smiting" the Witch-king. Then we have the footnote from Appendix A which clearly states Eowyn performed the "deed" of destroying the Witch-king, with the "aid" of Merry.

Now, lets look at the famous passage about Merry's blade. It does not say Merry's stab destroyed the Witch-king. It does not say Merry's blade dealt a mortal wound; it says it dealt a "bitter" wound. Among the definitions of the word "bitter" in the dictionary are: hard to bear; grievous or causing pain. So the wound was a very painful one, not a fatal one. Look back the passage when Merry stabs the Witch-king. The Witch-king cries out in "bitter" pain. Does anyone think Tolkien's use of the same word in the two places is accidental? What Tolkien is doing here in this passage is tying everything together for his readers. He is reminding them that the Witch-king has been the foe of the men of Westernesse (both North and South Kingdoms) for thousands of years. Now, in a bit of poetic justice the Witch-king is wounded by a blade made in the North Kingdom thousands of years earlier when they fought him and this wound leads to his destruction by Eowyn, who is "not a man".

Helcaraxë · Aug 15, 2005

Remember that no ordinary blades could kill the Witch King. It was the fact that Merry's knife had some unusual properties that made him vulnerable. A simple blow to the head by Eowyn could have done nothing.

Greenwood · Aug 15, 2005

Helcaraxë said:
Remember that no ordinary blades could kill the Witch King. It was the fact that Merry's knife had some unusual properties that made him vulnerable. A simple blow to the head by Eowyn could have done nothing.

Where does it say "that no ordinary blades could kill the Witch-king"? Eowyn's blade was presumably an ordinary blade and it killed the Witch-king.

Varokhâr · Aug 16, 2005

Anyone could've killed the Witch-king, in theory. All Glorfindel did was forsee that "no living man" would do it - and indeed, no one who could've been considered a man did it. Merry's blow to the knee, Eowyn's to the head, Frodo bringing the Ring to Mount Doom, and even Gollum causing the Ring to be cast into the fire - all of them are responsible in their own way, but neither are of the race of Edain and are male at the same time. Glorfindel merely perceived, according to the manner of his race, that no man would get in the lucky shots needed to defeat the Witch-king - the Nine were every bit as tangible as any Orc, and any stray arrow could've felled him.

The Witch-king wore armor - he wouldn't need armor if he was truly invulnerable. He had not just his helm, but a great hauberk, according to ROTK. Gandalf and Legolas may have forsaken armor, but that was because they trusted to other methods to avoid harm by weapons. The Witch-king knew he could be harmed, and wore such armor as he needed to protect himself. But, there really was nothing special about the way in which he was defeated - any male Adan could've done it, but it just wasn't how it was fated to turn out.

Daranavo · Aug 16, 2005

Well, the whole defeat reguardless was kinda silly. Here is a man who has lived....how many thousands of years? He was defeated by an ill-trained hobbit and a woman. I have a problem with that anyhow. Not to mention their defeat on weathertop. A big stretch for me to take in either event.

Greenwood · Aug 16, 2005

Varokhâr said:
The Witch-king wore armor - he wouldn't need armor if he was truly invulnerable. He had not just his helm, but a great hauberk, according to ROTK. .... The Witch-king knew he could be harmed, and wore such armor as he needed to protect himself. ....

Excellent point about the armor! I had overlooked that in my discussion!

Elthir · Aug 16, 2005

I agree that the Witch-king is not invulnerable to 'regular' weapons -- or should not be anyway (he was said to have feared Boromir).

Here's a 'pesky' quote from The Two Towers however; what do you think of it?

'The Winged Messenger!' cried Legolas. 'I shot at him with the bow of Galadriel above Sarn Gebir, and I felled him from the sky. He filled us all with fear. What new terror is this?'

'One that you cannot slay with arrows,' said Gandalf. 'You only slew his steed.'

Galin

Greenwood · Aug 16, 2005

Galin said:
Here's a 'pesky' quote from The Two Towers however; what do you think of it?

That is a somewhat pesky quote. But, as I said on another thread, Tolkien is not always completely consistent.

The quote could be dealt with by the Nazgul having superior chain mail that protects them from arrows. Afterall, in Aragorn's words, Frodo's mithril mail saved him from a "spear-thrust [that] would have skewered a wild boar." Surely Sauron would see to it that his top servants wore the best armor possible.

Arvedui · Aug 18, 2005

Greenwood said:
But, as I said on another thread, Tolkien is not always completely consistent.

Now, THAT is the perfect argument: if you feel that someone just cornered you, accuse the author for being inconsistent.

Greenwood · Aug 18, 2005

Arvedui said:
Now, THAT is the perfect argument: if you feel that someone just cornered you, accuse the author for being inconsistent.

Ahh, but I did not stop there. I advanced an argument that bricks could be thrown at.

And much as we love the dear professor, we do know that he was not perfect and was sometimes inconsistent ; though, I must admit rarely.

Ingwë · Aug 19, 2005

Here is something interesting. I found it today when I was reading the Letters. I have read them before but it seems that I have missed this passage:

I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); and I have perhaps from this point of view erred in trying to explain too much, and give too much past history.

Greenwood · Aug 19, 2005

Ingwë said:
Here is something interesting. I found it today when I was reading the Letters. I have read them before but it seems that I have missed this passage:

Yes, one of Tolkien's great gifts as a writer is that he leaves so much room for the reader's imagination to fill in.

Arvedui · Aug 26, 2005

Enough room, in fact, to keep several forums going.

Aglarband · Aug 26, 2005

Galin said:
I agree that the Witch-king is not invulnerable to 'regular' weapons -- or should not be anyway (he was said to have feared Boromir).

Here's a 'pesky' quote from The Two Towers however; what do you think of it?

Galin

Seeing that it took a blade of westernesse to kill him, it stands to reason that there are no more arrows of westernesse, or any made like the blades... So of course, you couldn't do what merry or eowyn did with arrows.

Who '💀killed' the Witch King?

Who 'killed' the Witch King?

Eowyn

Merry

Frodo (when he destroyed the One Ring)

Eowyn, Merry and Frodo

New Member

The Voidroamer

Cherry

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Member

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

The Grinding Ice

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Black Númenórean

Hopeless Romantic

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Cat in a Coat

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Stargazer

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Creeping Death

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Stargazer

Member

Share this page

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency