How to take a Ring from an unwilling Ring-wielder? - crazy ideas

[CAB]

I guess I missed something somewhere, but why did whether or not Aragorn had complete knowledge of the barrow blade become such an issue? We don’t know that he looked at it prior to Weathertop, do we? He probably wouldn’t recognize it immediately after the Nazguls’ attack either. It was dark, the blade hadn’t actually hit the Witch King, and he had other things to do and think about.

I personally think Aragorn had to have some knowledge of the blades. Later, when he had time to look at them, he probably recognized them. If Denethor knew that they came from the North, then Aragorn probably did too. When he spoke of ‘bane of Mordor’ later, he may have just been trying to save time by not giving a long explanation. Again, he had other things to think about and do. Mordor was the center of evil during the Lord of the Rings, the Nazguls’ master lived there, so what he said was close enough to the whole truth, considering the situation.

As far as the barrow blades being the only thing that can destroy the Nazgul, I don’t buy it. If this was true, the Nazgul would be all but unbeatable late in the Third Age. Gandalf also said that neither Aragorn, Gimli, or Legolas had a weapon that could hurt him. Wasn’t Aragorn carrying a blade that was almost certainly very similar to the one that “killed” Sauron? Maybe when he said this and that the Nazgul couldn’t be killed by arrows, Gandalf was referring to their abilities to be rebodied. I would guess that any being with a physical body could have that body harmed by normal physical means (stronger beings would be less affected than weaker ones, of course), mystical weapons just did it better. I agree with Gordis that the barrow blades were most likely made specifically to deal with the Witch King (but would probably affect the other Nazgul the same way).

Originally Posted by Landroval

If, despite the textual evidence, your persist in your personal interpretation, fine by me.

I don’t understand what you are saying here Landroval. It is clear that the Ring often forces (or tries to) its bearer to put it on. This sometimes happens when no Nazgul are present, as Gordis pointed out. Also, if the Nazgul had the power to command Frodo, why have him just put on the Ring? Sure, that made it easier for them to see him, but why stop there? Why not command him to drop his sword, leave the fire (which they feared) and his friends?

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Landroval

You probably misunderstood me; I was reffering to his cry of Elbereth.

Ahh... Then how is that the sign of weakness?

I conceed I went a bit overboard; the main point remains - the fall of Osgiliath refutes your point that Mordor was closely guarded.

How??? What has the burning of Osgiliath in the Civil war of Eldacar and Castamir to do with Mordor?

You are contradicting yourself
"But the know-how came from Numenor, here you are right. The Mouth of Sauron (or his Master) recognised the sword design and called it "the blade of the Downfallen West".

Why do you think that I am contradicting myself?

If there was any real deadly threat about that sword, the chief nazgul would _not_ have confronted it alone, with the others standing back. He would have most likely paralysed Frodo, as he did at the Ford.

You are contradicting the textual evidence "No other sword..."

He wasn't waiting, nor was he paralysed, he stumbled and bowed at the time when he was hit. That is what usually happens when a knee sinew is cut.

Then WHY did Tolkien write about a spell being broken? You dismiss it entirely.

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by Landroval

If, despite the textual evidence, your persist in your personal interpretation, fine by me.

From “The Flight to the Ford”:

[Frodo] bitterly regretted his foolishness, and reproached himself for weakness of will; for he now perceived that in putting on the Ring he obeyed not his own desire but the commanding wish of his enemies.

Originally Posted by CAB

I don’t understand what you are saying here Landroval. It is clear that the Ring often forces (or tries to) its bearer to put it on. This sometimes happens when no Nazgul are present

I feel like Glorfindel telling Frodo to get on the horse in regards to the will of the Ring and “the commanding wish” Frodo’s enemies: were it not for the Ring, it is likely his enemies’ “commanding wish” would have had little or no effect upon him. On Weathertop, you may well argue that the Nazgûl desired that he should place the Ring on his finger, and yes, I agree that might have increased the power of the Ring’s urging Frodo to obey. But why was Frodo tempted to put on the Ring when he saw Khamûl questioning the Gaffer? or in the Woody End, when Khamûl was sniffing him out? Or how did the Ring end up on his finger in the Prancing Pony, when he fell off the table? and how did it come to fall off Gollum’s finger in the tunnels of the orcs?

I agree with you, Landroval, that the influence of the Nazgûl on Frodo was powerful on Weathertop, and their machinations may have overcome his resistance to putting on the Ring; but I also agree with Gordis: the Ring has influence over those who bear it.

‘A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it… It was not Gollum, Frodo, but the Ring itself that decided things. The Ring left him.’

Not to mention the torment that the Ring gave Frodo as he approached, entered, and traveled through Mordor. That was not the malice of someone focusing attention on him: if anything, Sauron suspected that Aragorn and Gandalf had it. The Ring was malicious and evil in its own right; and while it may have had no more “intelligence” than a computer program, it was constantly bothering Frodo and relentless in attempting to influence his thought and actions. The Ring worked on its own to master Frodo and cause him to use it at inappropriate times (inappropriate for Frodo, that is, not the Ring). In Letter 246:

Frodo was given ‘grace’ … in his resistance to the temptation of the Ring (at times when to claim and so reveal it would have been fatal)...

Originally Posted by Landroval

What's your point? It doesn't say Merry's blow somehow left all the body of the w-k without his presumed invulnerability to normal weapons. If anything, he still have magic running through him, seeing that Eowyn's sword is destroyed.

Surely this belongs in some other thread. The old debate about whether Merry could have killed the Witch-king with his one blow, or whether Eowyn with hers, or whether it required them both and specifically in the order in which they attacked, is an old discussion. Surely there is a thread around here that we can resurrect to have this debate. The general consensus is that it took them both; if you want to debate this, let’s do it away from this discussion. (If I misunderstood you, Landroval, I withdraw this paragraph. I just don’t want to get dragged into that particular discussion... It is too complicated, and needs it own space.)

“Work of Westernesse” and “blade of the Downfallen West" both refer to the weapons of the Dúnedain, and the Dúnedain are what remain of the Númenóreans, but in permanent exile. I had never considered that the Númenóreans in their hey-day in Númenor had concocted such a weapon; but the text seems to indicate that it was devised in Arthedain or Cardolan for the wars against Angmar. (And Landroval, if you are suggesting they were developed in Cardolan, I tend to agree with you, even though I have no evidence for it other than that the blades were found in the tomb of the last prince of Cardolan, and the secret for making them seems to have died out with Cardolan.)

Originally Posted by Landroval

Gandalf also said that neither Aragorn, Gimli, or Legolas had a weapon that could hurt him. Wasn’t Aragorn carrying a blade that was almost certainly very similar to the one that “killed” Sauron?

It was the same sword:

…before all went Aragorn with the Flame of the West, Andúril like a new fire kindled, Narsil re-forged as deadly as of old…

The differences were that (1) Gil-galad was with Elendil; Aragorn was by himself. (We can assume that Elendil would have been proud of Aragorn: Elrond said that of all his forefathers, Aragorn was most like Elendur, Isildur’s eldest son, who in turn was most like Elendil himself. As Aragorn’s foster-father, Elrond was proud of him.) No slight to Legolas or Gimli, but neither of them – nor both of them together – were likely to be the equal of Gil-galad in fighting prowess. (2) Do you suppose that Narsil, and in its later incarnation, Andúril, might have been forged by Telchar (and especially reforged by the last of the Noldorin smiths in Rivendell) for fighting Morgoth’s creatures, and thus particularly effective against Sauron? Nah, couldn’t be – no weapon is ever forged to fight “good” or “evil”: just consider those Barrow-blades … or Morgul-knives.

Originally Posted by Landroval

If there was any real deadly threat about that sword, the chief nazgul would _not_ have confronted it alone, with the others standing back. He would have most likely paralysed Frodo, as he did at the Ford.

Assuming that the Black Captain did recognize the weapon and the risk it posed to him, he did exactly the right thing, particularly if he had any notion that Frodo might pose a deadly threat to him: attack immediately, while your opponent is off-balance. But to do that in the face of mortal danger takes a lot of courage – possibly something left over from the Nazgûl’s life as a Númenórean, something that echoed his past before his fall. (Aragorn does the very same thing to the Nazgûl: he attacks them while they are slightly off-balance, having stopped for whatever reason to look at Frodo, and while the Witch-king's attention was elsewhere. “Hey! Where’d that fire come from?!”)

Originally Posted by Landroval

He wasn't waiting, nor was he paralysed, he stumbled and bowed at the time when he was hit. That is what usually happens when a knee sinew is cut.

That’s right. It’s also why the blow of his mace went wide of Éowyn’s skull: once his knee no longer worked, he was literally off balance – and in real physical pain, something he might not have experienced since he became a wraith. And he’d land on all fours: knee, knee – OW! – palm, palm. “Shock” is the medical term for that feeling, although Tolkien uses an older word, “swoon.” (Not in regards to the Witch-king.) If he tried to get up, his knee would give out again as soon as he tried to use his leg, putting him on all fours again.

I think the point of the “no other sword” text is that there was “no other sword” that was capable of dealing such a blow to the Nazgûl that it broke “the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.” Aragorn knew that “all blades perish” that hit a Nazgûl, and neither Merry’s nor Éowyn’s was an exception.

Originally Posted by CAB

I personally think Aragorn had to have some knowledge of the blades.

Perhaps he had heard of them before; but whether he had or not, he probably got a crash-course on them from his foster-father, Elrond.

Originally Posted by CAB

As far as the barrow blades being the only thing that can destroy the Nazgul, I don’t buy it. If this was true, the Nazgul would be all but unbeatable late in the Third Age.

They were. From “The Hunt for the Ring” in Unfinished Tales,

Now few could understand even one of these fell creatures [the Nazgûl], and (as Sauron deemed) none could withstand them when gathered together under their terrible captain, the Lord of Morgul.
…
[The Nazgûl] found [Sarn Ford and the southernmost borders of the Shire] guarded, for the Rangers barred their way. But this was a task beyond the power of the Dúnedain; and maybe it would still have proved so even if their captain, Aragorn, had been with them.

It was not the individual Barrow-blade that Merry wielded against the Witch-king that was unique, but the construction of those Dúnedain knives we call Barrow-blades that was unique. The reason Tom chose them was because he understood what the knives were (for to the Dúnedain, they were knives, but long enough as short swords to the hobbits) and the identity and nature of Frodo’s pursuers. Criticizing a movie treatment in Letter 210 (O! what we have said about PJ?!?) point 11, regarding the encounter on Weathertop:

Sam does not ‘sink his blade into the Ringwraith’s thigh’... (If he had, the result would have been much the same as in [“The Battle of the Pelennor Fields”]: the Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed.)

For Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin each, Tom “chose a dagger, long, leaf-shaped, and keen, of marvelous workmanship, damasked ... in red and gold. They ... seemed untouched by time, unrusted, sharp, ...”

Originally Posted by Landroval

the analysis that Gordis and Alcuin did failed to mention one thing:

Gordis and I are actually arguing this simultaneously in two venues at the moment. I don’t know why: it just worked out that way. This quote did come up in one of my posts elsewhere in the ether. Indeed, the Witch-king intended to be well-informed: that’s why he established camp at Andrath, a central location accessible to the Shire, the East Road, Bree, and the Greenway. (It must have been an important place at one time.)


By the way, weren’t we discussing how to get a Ring of Power from a bearer who declined to part with it gracefully? The tie-in is Frodo’s declining the Witch-king’s polite invitation to Mordor to discuss legal possession of his, whatchamacallit, dingus, right?

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

It was the same sword:

I could be wrong, but I thought that (unlike in the movie) Isildur defeated Sauron with his own sword and, only after, used Narsil/Anduril to cut the Ring from Sauron’s hand.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

The differences were that (1) Gil-galad was with Elendil; Aragorn was by himself. (We can assume that Elendil would have been proud of Aragorn: Elrond said that of all his forefathers, Aragorn was most like Elendur, Isildur’s eldest son, who in turn was most like Elendil himself. As Aragorn’s foster-father, Elrond was proud of him.) No slight to Legolas or Gimli, but neither of them – nor both of them together – were likely to be the equal of Gil-galad in fighting prowess. (2) Do you suppose that Narsil, and in its later incarnation, Andúril, might have been forged by Telchar (and especially reforged by the last of the Noldorin smiths in Rivendell) for fighting Morgoth’s creatures, and thus particularly effective against Sauron? Nah, couldn’t be – no weapon is ever forged to fight “good” or “evil”: just consider those Barrow-blades … or Morgul-knives.

Your right. I used a poor example. Anduril might be especially strong only against evil beings.

The problem is that I can only recall two instances (perhaps there are others?) of someone implying that a particular physical body couldn’t be destroyed by normal means: Gandalf speaking about himself and Gandalf speaking about the Nazgul. With Gandalf himself, I have to assume he was referring to himself only after his “upgrade”, since his actions (and especially his injury in The Hobbit) indicate that this couldn’t be true prior to this. I think anytime that Gandalf seemed to avoid opponents armed with only normal weapons after his upgrade can be explained other ways, so I’ll leave that question alone (though my personal opinion remains that he was at least somewhat vulnerable to them). I will also not press the fact that Saruman ran from the Ents, who seemed to be using only brute force. It would make sense that Saruman’s body was pretty much the same as Gandalf’s, pre-upgrade.

But what about the Nazgul? Just to be clear Alcuin, I don’t doubt that the barrow blades were particularly effective against them (so I am not arguing against Gordis’s theory of what happened on Weathertop, a theory I like very much), I just don’t think they were the only things that could hurt them. They don’t act like beings who can only be killed by weapons that are accounted for and under guard. Why this quote?

‘And in any case that is not their way. In dark and loneliness they are strongest; they will not openly attack a house where there are lights and many people - not until they are desperate, not while all the long leagues of Eriador still lie before us.’

Sure, it wasn’t their way to openly attack Bree and they were stronger in the wilderness, but if they were invulnerable why would the added strength be needed? Why would they be concerned about ‘many people’ if these people were incapable of harming them?

Why did the Nazgul flee from the Elves in the Shire? They may have possessed (or have been assumed by the Nazgul to possess) some mystical weapons, but hardly barrow blades. Same thing with Glorfindel. Didn’t Gandalf seem to injure a Nazgul outside Minas Tirith without a barrow blade?

No other blade, not that mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter...

Note that this doesn’t imply that no other blade could have wounded the Witch King at all (actually, it does just the opposite), only that the barrow blade wounded him worse than any other blade would.


So, I again agree that the barrow blades were particularly effective against the Nazgul, but not that they were the only things capable of harming them.

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

I agree with you, Landroval, that the influence of the Nazgûl on Frodo was powerful on Weathertop, and their machinations may have overcome his resistance to putting on the Ring; but I also agree with Gordis: the Ring has influence over those who bear it....

No, it is wrong understanding.
Nazgul can't influence Frodo. It is the Ring was affecting those, who came in connection with it. The Nazgul got enslaved by the Ring long ago and with no turnabout, while Frodo was still fighting against its influence.
We do not know till what degree the Ring of Power was regarded by Nazgul as a weapon and treat, but they avoided to come close to it, trying to be cautious in treating Frodo. Because, as you just said if "were it not for the Ring, it is likely his enemies’ “commanding wish” would have had little or no effect upon him". More than that, if Frodo would comprehensibly use the power of the Ring and order to Nazgul, they wouldn't be able to harm Frodo or to take the ring by force.
The incident on the Weathertop explained by Tolkien as a moment of Frodo's weakness. He just got scared and wanted to hide, to run away. If he would be more brave, he would turn Nazgul into his loyal followers. Of course, using the Ring for putting somebody (even Gollum) under your control would have irreversible effect on the wielder, binding him with the Ring even closer, but the fact is that Nazgul did not know at what extend Frodo has mastered the Ring and were aware that they won't be able to resist the orders of the Ringbearer.
"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 man's weakness was that he did not know how to use his weapon yet; and he was by temperament and training averse to violence. Their weakness that the man's weapon was a thing that filled them with fear as an object of terror in their religious cult, by which they had been conditioned to treat one who wielded it with servility. I think they would have shown 'servility'. They would have greeted Frodo as 'Lord'." Letter 246

[Landroval]

We don’t know that he looked at it prior to Weathertop, do we?

In 6 days with four hobbits, each carrying a barrow blade, Aragorn had plenty of time, IMO.

Then how is that the sign of weakness?

It shows that he wasn't in control of the ring, otherwise he wouldn't appeal to the exact opposite of the ring's power.

What has the burning of Osgiliath in the Civil war of Eldacar and Castamir to do with Mordor?

I fail to see how the southern kingdom, with its main city in ruin for several centuries, could maintain the "close guard" on Mordor to which you reffered previously.

Why do you think that I am contradicting myself?

Once you argue that the blades are somehow specific to Cardolan and therefore unknown to the other kingdoms, but then you quote the mouth of sauron, recognizing the blades as being of Numenor.

You are contradicting the textual evidence "No other sword..."

Before I answer, is your position that only Merry's barrow blade could hurt the nazguls?

Then WHY did Tolkien write about a spell being broken? You dismiss it entirely.

The one thing we know was severed from the w-k's will was the sinew, I never negated that. I dislike repeating myself, but the w-k maintained his magic, as seen from Eowyn's blade still dissapearing after Merry's strike.

If I misunderstood you, Landroval, I withdraw this paragraph. I just don’t want to get dragged into that particular discussion... It is too complicated, and needs it own space.

Well, fine by me if anyone wants to resurrect such a thread. As it stands, the barrow blade issue (its origin, lore and effects) is central to this thread, so I think it belongs here too.

And Landroval, if you are suggesting they were developed in Cardolan, I tend to agree with you, even though I have no evidence for it other than that the blades were found in the tomb of the last prince of Cardolan, and the secret for making them seems to have died out with Cardolan.

I am not arguing such a thing; the evidence you reffer to is circumstancial, and nothing excludes that other kingdoms had them too. Also, Arveleg, who was slain at Weathertop, was of Arthedain and not of Cardolan, if it him which you reffer to.

Assuming that the Black Captain did recognize the weapon and the risk it posed to him, he did exactly the right thing, particularly if he had any notion that Frodo might pose a deadly threat to him: attack immediately, while your opponent is off-balance.

The right thing?? Why would the chief nazgul risk his life, alone and not unaided? Is it possible that he didn't have any means of ranged attack? And if he did, why didn't he use them? My answer is that he saw nothing deadly about the sword, and that is why he went in alone.

They were [unbeatable]

I strongly disagree; the first quote doesn't rule out that they would be beaten if alone or separated from their captain - moreover, this is just the conception of Sauron and no one else's. As far as the second quote goes, it doesn't rule out that with Aragorn's help, they couldn't have defeated the nazgul - nor do I think that at that moment, those dunedain were the mightiest warriors of _all_ middle earth (seeing that at least Gandalf was able to kick them around). Let us also consider letter #210:

Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. 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.

and to reffer to your own text from UT:

Yet this weakness they had for Sauron's present purpose: so great was the terror that went with them (even invisible and unclad) that their coming forth might soon be perceived and their mission be guessed by the Wise.
...
Therefore when Osgiliath was taken and the bridge broken Sauron stayed the assault, and the Nazgul were ordered to begin the search for the Ring. But Sauron did not underesteem the powers and vigilance of the Wise, and the Nazgul were commanded to act as secretly as they could.

Their main perk is fear, not some invulnerability/invincibility, otherwise Sauron would probably not give a fig about the power of the wise.

Indeed, the Witch-king intended to be well-informed

Ever since 3017, Sauron was terrified by the fact that Gollum was captured by Aragorn, and from that time on, all his inteligence forces were working overtime. I doubt that the w-k ever neglected the gathering of info, esspecially in this critical mission.

weren’t we discussing how to get a Ring of Power from a bearer who declined to part with it gracefully?

True enough, but Gordis' premises about the reasons of the nazgul on wheathertop were too juicy (and questionable) to be left ignored.

I could be wrong, but I thought that (unlike in the movie) Isildur defeated Sauron with his own sword and, only after, used Narsil/Anduril to cut the Ring from Sauron’s hand.

Hm, in the Council of Elrond, it is stated that Narsil was the Sword of Elendil - it was probably used to both "overthrow" Sauron and cut the ring.

[Landroval]

Sorry for double posting

Originally Posted by Olmer

Nazgul can't influence Frodo.

Even if we disconsider Frodo's acknowledgement of the commanding wish of his enemies, there still were his reactions to the main weapon of the nazgul - fear.

More than that, if Frodo would comprehensibly use the power of the Ring and order to Nazgul, they wouldn't be able to harm Frodo or to take the ring by force.

I certainly agree - if they had any reason to fear his control, they would attack him from afar.

If he would be more brave, he would turn Nazgul into his loyal followers

I disagree; the letter you turn to for evidence regards a much further moment in time - Frodo in Mordor - , when he was far greater. And even then, it states that he needed "time, much time" before he could control the nazguls.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Landroval

In 6 days with four hobbits, each carrying a barrow blade, Aragorn had plenty of time, IMO.

Sure, he had the time, but did he have the inclination? It makes sense that he would, but we don’t really know. I don’t see how Aragorn’s knowledge in itself applies to Gordis’s theory anyway. It is what the Nazgul thought/knew that is important.

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Assuming that the Black Captain did recognize the weapon and the risk it posed to him, he did exactly the right thing, particularly if he had any notion that Frodo might pose a deadly threat to him: attack immediately, while your opponent is off-balance.

Originally Posted by Landroval

The right thing?? Why would the chief nazgul risk his life, alone and not unaided? Is it possible that he didn't have any means of ranged attack? And if he did, why didn't he use them? My answer is that he saw nothing deadly about the sword, and that is why he went in alone.

I agree with Alcuin here, but (I believe) for a more specific reason. If the Nazgul thought that Frodo had some control of the Ring (which seems to me to be the most important part of Gordis’s theory) then perhaps the Witch King wanted to “disable” Frodo before he could exert any control over the Nazgul. To the Nazgul, Frodo also seemed to have knowledge of how best to defeat them (Frodo having apparently made a special trip to the barrows, to obtain a blade which was made specifically to destroy the Witch King), but I think this is less likely to draw an immediate attack than fear of control via the Ring. As for ranged weapons, maybe they had some with them, maybe they didn’t. If they were commanded to bring Frodo to Sauron either alive or as a wraith, then they probably couldn’t consider using any that they might have had.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I certainly agree - if they had any reason to fear his control, they would attack him from afar.

Why? So far as I can tell, distance is no factor regarding control via the rings, but it is definitely a factor when using swords, arrows, etc. Greater distance would be their enemy in this case.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Their main perk is fear, not some invulnerability/invincibility

Agreed. We often see the Nazgul use fear, but pretty much never see them use some sort of invulnerability in any way we might expect it to be used. One case that might be noted is the Witch King ignoring the dangers before the walls of Minas Tirith. But I think this instance isn’t really a strong argument for Nazgul invulnerability due to the fact that the Witch King was on a horse there and we can safely assume that the horse could be killed. I think his actions in this case can be explained by trust in his aura of fear.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Hm, in the Council of Elrond, it is stated that Narsil was the Sword of Elendil - it was probably used to both "overthrow" Sauron and cut the ring.

Yeah, maybe I put that the wrong way. I wasn’t trying to debate what actually “killed” Sauron; the damage he must have received before the Ring was taken, or the taking of the Ring itself. My point was that Isildur almost certainly damaged Sauron with his own sword before using Narsil. It doesn’t really matter though, as I accept Alcuin’s point that the blades (both Isildur’s and Elendil’s) may have been especially strong only against evil beings, and so, might not be expected to be of much use against Gandalf.

[Landroval]

Sure, he had the time, but did he have the inclination?

For someone renowned for keeness of the eyes (and a survivor in wild lands), these kind of things couldn't escape the notice.

I don’t see how Aragorn’s knowledge in itself applies to Gordis’s theory anyway. It is what the Nazgul thought/knew that is important.

The way I see it, neither Aragorn's nor nazgul's behavior show much importance given to the blade.

As for ranged weapons, maybe they had some with them, maybe they didn’t.

They have at least magic, seeing how Frodo was "stricken dumb" at the Ford - and that sure was a ranged atack , which wouldn't have killed Frodo.

One case that might be noted is the Witch King ignoring the dangers before the walls of Minas Tirith. But I think this instance isn’t really a strong argument for Nazgul invulnerability due to the fact that the Witch King was on a horse there and we can safely assume that the horse could be killed. I think his actions in this case can be explained by trust in his aura of fear.

Indeed; moreover, he was enhanced in power at that time:

Originally Posted by Letter #210

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.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Landroval

For someone renowned for keeness of the eyes (and a survivor in wild lands), these kind of things couldn't escape the notice.

Weren’t the swords sheathed? I don’t doubt that Aragorn noticed the sheaths, but he couldn’t know exactly what was in those sheaths without looking more closely. Since these blades were so rare at that time, he probably couldn’t tell what they were until looking at a whole blade. Remember that the Hobbits didn’t completely trust him at this time, so Aragorn may have been hesitant to ask to look at one of their swords.

Originally Posted by Landroval

They have at least magic, seeing how Frodo was "stricken dumb" at the Ford - and that sure was a ranged atack , which wouldn't have killed Frodo.

This has already been answered, Landroval. Part of the theory (at least as I understand it) is that after the Nazgul withdrew from Weathertop, the Witch King had to prepare this spell to which you refer. According to this idea it wasn’t something he could do on a whim. This could be right or wrong, but since it is part of a theory that so nicely explains the happenings on Weathertop and doesn’t contradict anything we know, I will accept it.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Olmer

... They would have greeted Frodo as 'Lord'." [/B] Letter 246

Heh up!!, it's letter 246 again!!

Come on in letter 246 your times is up!

so- what did he write in letter 247? ... just some doodles and maybe a recipie for marrow soup???

[Gordis]

Well, this tread has become so multi-themed that it is difficult to follow who believes what. Also I have difficulty to keep up with you, guys at the rate the new posts appear. So, I decided to address matters one by one stating only my opinion. Sorry if I repeat myself.

1. Was it the Ring who made Frodo desire to put it on, or the Nazgul?

The various examples of Frodo, Gollum, Bilbo etc. being compelled to put the Ring on, when no nazgul were around, points that it was the Ring. The only textual evidence against it (the quote about 'commanding wish of his enemies") may be due to
a. Frodo's misunderstanding of the situation (as I have argued earlier) or
b. That in this particular case it were indeed the nazgul who sent their additional command to put on the Ring to him. Why? Because Frodo was halfway in the Wraith-World already, due to the Morgul wound. I strongly believe, that had he put the Ring on at the Ford, he would have become a wraith immediately. Wearing of the Ring ultimately leads to wraithing. Morgul wound leads to the same. Accumulated effect of the two would likely turn him into a wraith on the spot.

Also, note that the "commanding wish" to STOP was pretty efficient. It was Asfaloth, urged by Glorfindel, who bore Frodo away. Otherwise he wouldn't have moved. That was because he was half-way into a wraith under their command. Without the Morgul wound, ( not without the Ring - here I disagree with Alcuin) I doubt the nazgul would be able to send him any commands. They couldn't command him before and they couldn't later. So the Ford case was exceptional.

But IF at Weathertop the nazgul DIDN't command him to put on the Ring, they MIGHT have assumed that he put it on in order to USE IT AGAINST THEM (here I refer to the famous L # 246).

2. Nazgul invulnerability.

I agree that this question is very ambiguous. It depends very much on our understanding of the nature of the nazgul bodies. And we don't have it. Tolkien was never clear on the point himself, and he changed his conception right in the middle of writing LOTR, failing to correct the few remaining vestiges of the previous ideas. I have discussed it at length in another thread, but I can't even remember which one now.
ALSO, an unknown value in the equation are their Nazgul Rings. It looks like they wore them all through the Second Age and most of the Third. Sauron took them from the nazgul before the time of the LOTR. It makes sense that WITH the rings they were more invulnerable than without, does it not?

So, here I admit that everything I say is pure conjecture.

I believe that the nazgul COULD be wounded by ANY weapon.Here I agree with CAB. That's why Aragorn knows "that all blades perish that pierce this dreadful King." The question is HOW BADLY wounded? Piercing a heart that doesn't pump blood (and we don't know even if it does or not) is no big deal. It may be painful, but it will heal eventually. That is one possible explanation (the nazgul bodies being so inhuman functionally that piercing them is no big deal).

At Minas Tirith the Witch-King came forward, wearing no protection on his head or face, save the crown. Why was he "heeding no dart?" Thee were archers aplenty on the walls. The same at Fornost. He came forward all alone, when all his army was dead or scattered. This time, he wore a black mask, though, probably it was a metal mask, like in the helm of Turin.

Note that to our knowledge the Witch-King was the FIRST nazgul ever killed (over 4500 years or something). And they must have been in tight places and bloody combats. Last Alliance, Fornost, siege of Minas Ithil - there must have been a lot more. If they had ordinary physical (though invisible) bodies, and no magic protection at all, someone somewhere would be killed over so long a period, IMHO.

Now let us discuss this MAGIC protection, the mention of the spell being broken by Merry's sword. No, I didn't say that by the breaking of the spell the WK lost his magic. I only think that the breaking of the spell made him more vulnerable to ordinary weapons, like Eowyn's. Someone argued, that the Barrow-blade brought him into the physical plane again. May be, may be not. There could be a wealth of conflicting theories here. I will tell you mine:

I think that had Eowyn sliced at the Witch-king's neck BEFORE Marry hit him, the Witch-King wouldn't be killed. He would have felt pain in his neck, but that is all. Because Eowyn's sword would have shattered before actually beheading him, perhaps just drawing some blood and then falling into useless fragments.

After all, what is the point of shattering the blade AFTER they are used on the Nazgul? I think the idea was to make them shatter at the first contact with the nazgul blood (or whatever they had inside), making the blades useless BEFORE any actual damage could be done. Same with arrows.
Merry's sword broke the spell, and Eowyn's sword did shatter, but it shattered AFTER it did the damage.

3. Now what about Anduril/Narsil, Glamdring ....as well as Gandalf and Glorfindel ?

At Weathertop, Gandalf was fighting nazgul with fire, not with his sword (as far as we know). There is no mention that Gandalf drew Glamdring at the Gate of Minas Tirith, though the WK had his sword in his hand. (And note Gandalf wielded Glamdring against the Barlog) Aragorn didn't draw what remained of the Narsil at Weathertop - he used firebrands instead. To me, it looks like Gandalf and Aragorn knew that their weapons COULDN'T do any serious damage to the nazgul.

Gandalf likely was thinking of fighting the WK with fire bolts and lightnings again, and Aragorn used fire. By the way, note that at Weathertop Aragorn told the hobbits to prepare the sticks to light when the nazgul approached. He didn't tell them to use their swords. (That is a very good argument proving that Aragorn DIDN't know about the BD blades properties).

So, I believe, NO other sword but that of the Barrow Downs could KILL (not simply wound) a nazgul, making him a mere houseless spirit bound to ME as long as the Nine rings held power.

Now whom did nazgul really fear? Gandalf, who used not blades, but magic fire, and even more so Glorfindel, a Calaquendi Elf, a resurrected elf, almost a Maia. Isn't it reasonable to suppose, that the nazgul feared them when they were not using blades, but magic? Glorfindel may have been a great fighter, but Earnur was the best blade in Gondor, still at Fornost the Witch-King believed he could take him on single-handedly with no danger to himself. And that was before the prophesy "no living man". But when he saw Glorfindel, he decided to flee.


Now my replies to Landroval:

Then how is that the sign of weakness?
It shows that he wasn't in control of the ring, otherwise he wouldn't appeal to the exact opposite of the ring's power.

Well, if Gandalf wielded the Ring he wouldn't be appealing to Morgoth, at least initially, would he? I should say that Frodo being able to call on Elbereth while wearing the Ring with part of Sauron's will in it, shows his independence of its evil influence, proves that he has a strong will of his own.

I once had a wild theory that it was Gandalf who felt (via Narya) that Frodo has put on the Ring, and somehow suggested these words to him, the same way as he suggested to take off the Ring when Frodo was almost caught by Sauron at Amon Hen. Sort of Ring-Ring communication.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Gordis:" What has the burning of Osgiliath in the Civil war of Eldacar and Castamir to do with Mordor?"
I fail to see how the southern kingdom, with its main city in ruin for several centuries, could maintain the "close guard" on Mordor to which you reffered previously.

Let us get this straight. I was speaking of the period when the blades were forged, between 1300 and 1409. At this time all was well in Gondor and Mordor was desolate and closely guarded. The only problem for the Northern kingdom was Angmar. Osgiliath was burned in 1437. Civil war in Gondor lasted ten years - till 1447. After that everything was well till the Great Plague and that was in 1636, 200 years later. At this time, indeed Mordor was practically abandoned by Gondor, but it was not untill 1980 that Mordor had really become an evil place. But all this is immaterial, if we speak of the period of 1300-1409.

Once you argue that the blades are somehow specific to Cardolan and therefore unknown to the other kingdoms, but then you quote the mouth of sauron, recognizing the blades as being of Numenor.

There is such thing as general design, craftsmanship etc. The BD blades certainly looked Numenorean, and for those who were more competent (Denethor) they looked Arnorean.
Another matter is the spell on the blades, their magic. I believe that the art of enspelling blades came from Numenor, but was all but lost in the Downfall. There is hardly a single major invention that the Numenoreans made in exile. Their knowledge only dwindled, not increased. That last remnant of old lore may have been preserved in Cardolan, but lost in Arthedain and Rhudaur. Or it was re-discovered in Cardolan alone..
Now the High Numenoreans may have produced blades wrought with spells against orcs, against Sauron, even, maybe, against Nazgul. But these particular blades made in Cardolan between 1300 and 1409 were wrought with spells against the King of Carn Dum - a very specific spell. And it took a person really knowledeable in magic to know what exactly this spell was. It was not evident either to Aragorn or Denethor. Maybe not even to Gandalf.

By the way, it was really fortunate for the Mouth of Sauron that Mordor ended so soon after he foolishly allowed Gandalf to take Frodo's blade from him. I believe, the 8 remaining nazgul would have torn him to pieces had they heard of it. They only never got a chance...

Originally Posted by Landroval

Before I answer, is your position that only Merry's barrow blade could hurt the nazguls?

"Hurt" - no, any blade could do it. "Kill"- yes, only the BD blade were able to. That is my opinion.

And Landroval, don't you think that these two quotes are CONFLICTING?

Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless

faced by eight savage warriors of great strength and agility armed with poisoned blades.

[Butterbeer]

Conflicting??


only if you wholly fail to see that it is clearly a metaphorical example.

[CAB]

I agree with most of what you said Gordis, but I am only going to post where I differ with you. It is no fun to just say ‘I agree’ over and over.

Originally Posted by Gordis

So, I believe, NO other sword but that of the Barrow Downs could KILL (not simply wound) a nazgul

It seems to me that if a normal weapon can damage a Nazgul, then it must be able to kill it also. Enough slight hurts would eventually add up to the destruction of the body. This may seem like quibbling over the details, but I think it is important because it explains why the Nazgul couldn’t simply walk into Minas Tirith (for instance) and start killing everyone in sight.

Originally Posted by Gordis

At Weathertop, Gandalf was fighting nazgul with fire, not with his sword

I think it is entirely possible that Gandalf’s fire was a more effective weapon against the Nazgul than his sword. However, I believe the main reason he used it on Weathertop was because he was facing superior numbers and wished to keep his enemies at a distance. Much safer than fighting hand to hand vs. nine opponents.

Originally Posted by Gordis

Aragorn didn't draw what remained of the Narsil at Weathertop - he used firebrands instead.

He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt. ‘Not much use is it, Sam?’ said Strider. ‘But the time is near when it shall be forged anew.’

Originally Posted by Gordis

By the way, note that at Weathertop Aragorn told the hobbits to prepare the sticks to light when the nazgul approached. He didn't tell them to use their swords. (That is a very good argument proving that Aragorn DIDN't know about the BD blades properties).

Yes, it is. But why didn’t he know? I maintain that he hadn’t seen the blades themselves (only their sheaths and hilts) and that this was why he didn’t know their true nature. Even if he wasn’t familiar with these kinds of swords, he probably could have deduced their purpose.

Later, when he found Merry and Pippin’s blades discarded by the Orcs, he stated that the blades were mystical and made by the Dunedain. I think we can assume that he recognized (as Denethor did) that they came from the North. Also he would have noticed that the blades were short and probably bronze, not the kind of swords that would be a Numenorean soldier’s primary weapon. If they weren’t primary weapons (and being bronze, probably weren’t very good back-up weapons either) but were still mystical, then they were probably meant for an important specific purpose. So, we have blades that come from Arnor, aren’t very useful in a regular battle against regular opponents, yet are mystical, and probably have an important, specific purpose. What else are they likely to be made for other than killing the Witch King?

[me9996]

Of coarce there is the classic 'kill him and take the ring' stratigy or the old 'chop of the finger' trick.

Or you could try hypnotisim, or maybe a game of riddles ...

I hope I understand the topic

[Landroval]

Weren’t the swords sheathed? I don’t doubt that Aragorn noticed the sheaths, but he couldn’t know exactly what was in those sheaths without looking more closely...

I disagree; he was able to match swords and sheats very easily in TTT:

Originally Posted by The departure of Boromir

He picked out from the pile of grim weapons two knives, leaf-bladed, damasked in gold and red; and searching further he found also the sheaths, black, set with small red gems.

Originally Posted by Fog on the barrow-downs

They gleamed as he drew them from their black sheaths, wrought of some strange metal, light and strong, and set with many fiery stones.

Part of the theory (at least as I understand it) is that after the Nazgul withdrew from Weathertop, the Witch King had to prepare this spell to which you refer. According to this idea it wasn’t something he could do on a whim.

I don't remember anything about preparing spells in advance, anywhere in Tolkien's work. If anything, words of command are spoken ad hoc - the same with w-k's attack.

This could be right or wrong, but since it is part of a theory that so nicely explains the happenings on Weathertop and doesn’t contradict anything we know, I will accept

Yet it is a theory that presumes wild courage on behalf of creatures known for their cowardice, ignorance on behalf of the most learned people of Middle-Earth, wild presumptions about hobbit mastering the ring, despite counter-evidence, ignorance on behalf of the nazgul about Tom, despite long neighboring life and despite heightened intelligence gathering.. let me catch my breath

That in this particular case it were indeed the nazgul who sent their additional command to put on the Ring to him. Why? Because Frodo was halfway in the Wraith-World already, due to the Morgul wound.

You've got the events all mixed up; the morgul wound occured after the ring was put.

He would have felt pain in his neck, but that is all

You previously argued that pain is not something that the wraiths felt...

After all, what is the point of shattering the blade AFTER they are used on the Nazgul? I think the idea was to make them shatter at the first contact with the nazgul blood (or whatever they had inside), making the blades useless BEFORE any actual damage could be done. Same with arrows.
Merry's sword broke the spell, and Eowyn's sword did shatter, but it shattered AFTER it did the damage.

I disagree; Aragorn states that "but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King." - pierce then perish.

By the way, note that at Weathertop Aragorn told the hobbits to prepare the sticks to light when the nazgul approached. He didn't tell them to use their swords. (That is a very good argument proving that Aragorn DIDN't know about the BD blades properties).

He told them to use fire because in darkness the power of the wraiths is increased manifold.

Well, if Gandalf wielded the Ring he wouldn't be appealing to Morgoth, at least initially, would he? I should say that Frodo being able to call on Elbereth while wearing the Ring with part of Sauron's will in it, shows his independence of its evil influence, proves that he has a strong will of his own.

Since even Gandalf would succumb to the ring, I don't see how Frodo could maintain his independence.

By the way, it was really fortunate for the Mouth of Sauron that Mordor ended so soon after he foolishly allowed Gandalf to take Frodo's blade from him. I believe, the 8 remaining nazgul would have torn him to pieces had they heard of it. They only never got a chance...

Who would expose the only deadly weapons against themselves to their enemies?? Esspecially considering that during the parley the mouth of sauron was exposed. Presenting them alone was taunting their enemies to take them – as it actually happened. Some rags and elvish rubbish are of no importance - but not the deadliest weapons... right?

Conflicting??
only if you wholly fail to see that it is clearly a metaphorical example.

Very well put, BB.

I maintain that he hadn’t seen the blades themselves (only their sheaths and hilts

As quoted above, the sheats and hilts contain the most of the identifying elements of the blades.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Landroval

I disagree; he was able to match swords and sheats very easily in TTT:

Originally Posted by The departure of Boromir

He picked out from the pile of grim weapons two knives, leaf-bladed, damasked in gold and red; and searching further he found also the sheaths, black, set with small red gems.

Maybe we are talking about two different things here Landroval. In this case, I am speaking of Aragorn’s knowledge on Weathertop, months before the time of this quote. That he could recognize the knives and sheaths among the Orc gear is meaningless anyway. I could probably do that myself. Don’t you think they would stand out a bit?

Originally Posted by Fog on the barrow-downs

They gleamed as he drew them from their black sheaths, wrought of some strange metal, light and strong, and set with many fiery stones.

Aragorn wasn’t present when this happened. If you are equating Aragorn’s knowledge with Tom’s, then I must disagree. Tom lived near and probably often met men who carried these blades, and so, could be expected to recognize them by their sheaths alone. Aragorn lacked this experience.

Originally Posted by Landroval

As quoted above, the sheats and hilts contain the most of the identifying elements of the blades.

Sure, to someone who is very familiar with them (like Tom) or among a bunch of Orc weapons (Aragorn, later)


I think that your idea that Aragorn knew what kind of blades the Hobbits were carrying is flawed in another way. You have argued that the blades were “anti-evil” or “anti-Sauron and servants” rather than “anti-Nazgul”. You have also argued (and here I agree with you) that the Nazgul could be harmed by weapons other than those which are meant solely for them. So, if Aragorn knew that the Hobbits had magical, anti-Mordor swords, why didn’t he tell them to use them on Weathertop or at the ford? If the fire was so important (and I don’t doubt that part), why not a flaming branch in one hand and a mystical anti-evil sword in the other? Or, if he assumed that they couldn’t handle that, how about two Hobbits with flaming branches and two with the blades?

Originally Posted by Landroval

I don't remember anything about preparing spells in advance, anywhere in Tolkien's work. If anything, words of command are spoken ad hoc - the same with w-k's attack.

He (Gandalf) followed after the drivers and prisoners right to the edge of the great hall, and there he sat down and worked up the best magic he could in the shadows.
‘A very ticklish business, it was,’ he said. ‘Touch and go!’ -The Hobbit

So, not only did Gandalf sit down and work something up, but since it was the “best magic he could” we can assume that he could do better under different circumstances (almost certainly meaning: more time to prepare).

‘I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time... -Gandalf in The Fellowship of the Ring

Originally Posted by Landroval

Yet it is a theory that presumes wild courage on behalf of creatures known for their cowardice

Can’t say that I see that. Two of the Nazgul showed the typical cowardice and , as I see it, the Witch King faced the barrow-blade (which really isn’t any different than the rest of us facing any blade, which would hardly be uncommon) in order to avoid control by Frodo via the Ring.

Originally Posted by Landroval

ignorance on behalf of the most learned people of Middle-Earth

Don’t see that either. I suppose you must be referring to Aragorn’s knowledge of the blades, regarding which I (and Gordis too) have pointed out that Aragorn probably hadn’t actually seen the blades themselves at that point. Gordis seems to think that Aragorn wouldn’t recognize the blades even if he did see them and, while I disagree with her there, I don’t think this idea is too much of a stretch.

Originally Posted by Landroval

wild presumptions about hobbit mastering the ring, despite counter-evidence

That counter-evidence is one individual. Not a very strong survey, if you ask me. The presumption would follow from pretty strong evidence (considered in the moment): The Hobbit carrying the Ring (the Ring being an object of enormous power and fear to them, a feeling we probably can’t imagine) defeated a barrow-wight. I don’t think it matters too much if they had heard of the wight’s defeat before (as long as they didn’t hear about Tom’s involvement) or guessed it from Frodo’s possession of the blade. How else would they expect him (in that moment) to have defeated a wight other than by using the Ring? The theory also doesn’t necessarily require that Frodo has mastered the Ring (in the Nazgul’s eyes), only that he has gained some control of it.

Originally Posted by Landroval

ignorance on behalf of the nazgul about Tom, despite long neighboring life and despite heightened intelligence gathering

The theory does not require ignorance of Tom, only ignorance of his having been the one to defeat the wight.

If the Nazgul’s intelligence gathering had been as complete as you suggest, then the Hobbits should have never made it to Bree.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Aragorn states that "but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King.

This is something I meant to bring up before. Isn’t the ability to destroy blades implied to belong to the Witch King alone? It seems to be said regarding only him and not as being one of the Nazgul.

[Landroval]

Aragorn wasn’t present when this happened. If you are equating Aragorn’s knowledge with Tom’s, then I must disagree. Tom lived near and probably often met men who carried these blades, and so, could be expected to recognize them by their sheaths alone. Aragorn lacked this experience.

Well, if Aragorn didn't know about the marks of such a blade at wheatertop, how did he know about them later? I don't know about any crash-course on the blades he had with Tom afterwards .

So, if Aragorn knew that the Hobbits had magical, anti-Mordor swords, why didn’t he tell them to use them on Weathertop or at the ford? If the fire was so important (and I don’t doubt that part), why not a flaming branch in one hand and a mystical anti-evil sword in the other? Or, if he assumed that they couldn’t handle that, how about two Hobbits with flaming branches and two with the blades?

It only makes sense that if the blades are in whatever degree dangerous to the nazgul, they are at least as dangerous to the orcs, who don't have the power of Sauron in them as much as the wraiths do. That is why the orcs were more afraid of the blades than the nazguls were. I hope I am making sense, if not, I will try to rephrase.

he sat down and worked up the best magic he could in the shadows.

He sat down and worked up the best magic; I don't see any sign of preparation here. The best magic could simply reffer to Gandalf's condition; the results of his magic are definitely defined by his state of energy/health/etc - after he destroyed the chamber of Mazarbul, he was so tired he couldn't even light the staff for the others.

Don’t see that either. I suppose you must be referring to Aragorn’s knowledge of the blades, regarding which I (and Gordis too) have pointed out that Aragorn probably hadn’t actually seen the blades themselves at that point.

I am reffering to the fact that no one - Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel (even Denethor may be relevant here) made any remarks about the particular power of the blades against the nazgul.

Two of the Nazgul showed the typical cowardice and , as I see it, the Witch King faced the barrow-blade (which really isn’t any different than the rest of us facing any blade, which would hardly be uncommon) in order to avoid control by Frodo via the Ring.

I was mainly reffering to the chief nazgul - walking in alone on Frodo.

That counter-evidence is one individual. Not a very strong survey, if you ask me

The ring (and the rings) give power according to the stature of the wielder - why wouldn't the nazguls know that, if Gandalf and Galadriel know? They know if from themselves and they saw what kind of creature a hobbit is and they inferred what kind of power a hobbit would derrive from the ring in time, if ever. Their conclusion? Let's analyse the scene: they come for Frodo and his ring, and he attacks them - did they actually expect him to attack? No, they didn't, Aragorn says so himself. They actually expected Frodo to be more submissive - i.e. less in control of the ring than he actually was . As Aragorn states, they didn't expect resistance!

The theory does not require ignorance of Tom, only ignorance of his having been the one to defeat the wight.

Well, if they didn't expect resistance from Frodo, then Tom was the natural explanation.

If the Nazgul’s intelligence gathering had been as complete as you suggest, then the Hobbits should have never made it to Bree.

IMO, this may simply be a matter of distance between them and the hobbits.

Isn’t the ability to destroy blades implied to belong to the Witch King alone? It seems to be said regarding only him and not as being one of the Nazgul.

Hm, I don't see Aragorn's words in a restrictive way; he may simply have mentioned just the w-k seeing that Frodo only stabbed at him.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Conflicting??

only if you wholly fail to see that it is clearly a metaphorical example.

Yes I wholly fail to see that. Where is the metaphor?

Originally Posted by Landroval

Well, if they didn't expect resistance from Frodo, then Tom was the natural explanation.

Nay, Gandalf was the natural explanation. He WAS around. He had the Power. He knew about Frodo and the Ring. Tom was maintaining perfect neutrality with the wights for 1500 years. Why would he go amok now?

Originally Posted by CAB

It seems to me that if a normal weapon can damage a Nazgul, then it must be able to kill it also. Enough slight hurts would eventually add up to the destruction of the body. This may seem like quibbling over the details, but I think it is important because it explains why the Nazgul couldn’t simply walk into Minas Tirith (for instance) and start killing everyone in sight.

In principle you are right. If a nazgul it attacked by a whole croud with ordinary blades, he may eventually be killed. But for that they have their aura of fear.
Then again not only blades are dangerous. Someone might use a burning torch. Another may pout boiling oil etc, etc.

Originally Posted by CAB

It is clear to me he didn't deduce their purpose. Not before Weathertop or the Ford, that is.

But could he deduce the purpose of the blades even if he got a good look at therm? I doubt it. Denethor, an expert in the old lore, said only that the blades came from Arnor of old. There were runes on the blade, but no one read them to us aloud. Did these runes tell clearly "this is the bane of the Witch-King of Angmar?" I doubt it. Probably, even if the runes could have been read or deciphered, they contained less clear message. After all Aragorn DID see the runes clearly at Amon Hen, but he mistakenly told that the blades were "for the bane of Mordor".

Originally Posted by CAB

So, we have blades that come from Arnor, aren’t very useful in a regular battle against regular opponents, yet are mystical, and probably have an important, specific purpose. What else are they likely to be made for other than killing the Witch King?

That is so. But neither Aragorn, nor the Wise were omnipotent or all-knowledgeable. Take the Ring. It really needed to put 2 and 2 together to understand WHICH ring Bilbo had. But Gandalf didn't until it was almost too late (at least if we believe his own story)
Take the Palantir of Orthank. Gandalf and Aragorn knew all the data. They knew that Orthank was never plundered or secked. They knew thast of old there used to be a Stone there. They knew the Ithil stone was captured. But still it took Gandalf and Aragorn to see the shiny ball flung at them from the Tower to understand the nature of the link between Barad Dur and Orthank. And so on and so on. Perhaps, if Aragorn had more time to scratch his head over the blades he could have come to your conclusion. But he had other things on his mind than to think about some old blades.
And then, there were plenty of orcs in Angmar. There were some swords (Orcrist, sting, Glamdring, particularly "effecient" against orcs. Why couldn't old Arnorian blades be of the same kind?

Originally Posted by Landroval

You previously argued that pain is not something that the wraiths felt...

I told there might be several theories about what sort of bodies the nazgul had - really living (physiologically), or not. Tell me, if you keep a nazgul without food or water for a year, does he die or not? Does his heart beat or not? What colour is his blood? You don't know. Right. Neither do I.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I disagree; Aragorn states that "but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King." - pierce then perish.

I never argued that any blade perished at the mere sight of a nazgul. There sure had to be a direct hit - not only clothes, but body. And Aragorn said "pierce" not "wound". I see no contradiction to my idea. And you still didn't answer what was the POINT of damaging a weapon AFTER it was used to wound or kill?

Originally Posted by Landroval

Since even Gandalf would succumb to the ring, I don't see how Frodo could maintain his independence.

Eventually succomb. It was discussed in LoTR and in the Letters. Initially Gandalf would use the Ring to do good.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Who would expose the only deadly weapons against themselves to their enemies??

The foolish Mouth and his Master were no nazgul. I doubt anyone asked the opinion of the remaining Eight.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Esspecially considering that during the parley the mouth of sauron was exposed. Presenting them alone was taunting their enemies to take them – as it actually happened. Some rags and elvish rubbish are of no importance - but not the deadliest weapons... right?

You are still arguing that the Barrow-Blades were NOT deadly to the nazgul??? And how about "no other blade..."???

Originally Posted by Landroval

As quoted above, the sheats and hilts contain the most of the identifying elements of the blades.

All the elements needed to recognize them as Numenorean in Exile / Arnorian.
But only the runes on the blade gave away the nature of the spell laid on them.

Originally Posted by CAB

So, if Aragorn knew that the Hobbits had magical, anti-Mordor swords, why didn’t he tell them to use them on Weathertop or at the ford? If the fire was so important (and I don’t doubt that part), why not a flaming branch in one hand and a mystical anti-evil sword in the other? Or, if he assumed that they couldn’t handle that, how about two Hobbits with flaming branches and two with the blades?

Indeed. No other argument is really needed.

Originally Posted by CAB

That counter-evidence is one individual. Not a very strong survey, if you ask me. The presumption would follow from pretty strong evidence (considered in the moment): The Hobbit carrying the Ring (the Ring being an object of enormous power and fear to them, a feeling we probably can’t imagine) defeated a barrow-wight. I don’t think it matters too much if they had heard of the wight’s defeat before (as long as they didn’t hear about Tom’s involvement) or guessed it from Frodo’s possession of the blade. How else would they expect him (in that moment) to have defeated a wight other than by using the Ring? The theory also doesn’t necessarily require that Frodo has mastered the Ring (in the Nazgul’s eyes), only that he has gained some control of it.

Very well said, CAB.

Originally Posted by CAB

This is something I meant to bring up before. Isn’t the ability to destroy blades implied to belong to the Witch King alone? It seems to be said regarding only him and not as being one of the Nazgul.

there is this quote when Gandalf tells Legolas that a nazgul couldn't be killed with arrows. So perhaps the ability to destroy blades belongs to all the nazgul. But the Witch King is so much stronger, in all ways and smarter than the others so it was him that mattered the most. Also if I am right, and blades were destroyed before making much damage, that assuring in part the nazgul "invulnerability", then the others should have such a protection as well - no one of them was ever killed, to our knowledge.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Well, if Aragorn didn't know about the marks of such a blade at wheatertop, how did he know about them later?

Can you prove that he know about them later?

Originally Posted by Landroval

That is why the orcs were more afraid of the blades than the nazguls were.

A nazgul wouldn't have left such a blade lying on the ground unguarded. The orcs did. They blasdes were not particularly dangerous to THEM, just unpleasant. And orcs couldn't know these were specific anti-nazgul weapons.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I am reffering to the fact that no one - Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel (even Denethor may be relevant here) made any remarks about the particular power of the blades against the nazgul.

Here I agree with you.
To me it means that NO ONE, save the nazgul themselves and Tom, still remembered these particular blades with this particular spell. They took them for usual Numenorean/Arnorean "anti-evil" or "anti-orc" variety. Note that the Mouth of Sauron and probably Sauron himself were equally mistaken, it seems.

The nazgul recognized the blades because in their presence the blades burned red in the Spirit World. Sting burned blue ONLY when orcs were around. Gandalf, Galadriel etc. had access to the Spirit World, but the blades didn't glow without a nazgul nearby. Likely no nazgul was at hand when Sauron examined Sam's blade (if he did, of course). And the Mouth was no wiser than Denethor.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Yet it is a theory that presumes wild courage on behalf of creatures known for their cowardice

And that is a PERSONAL INSULT! and absolutely out of the blue. Read everything that is said about the nazgul. Sure they had their specific phobias, but then again, when necessary, they faced daylight, water, fire and magic blades. And made the Gondorean army and a whole guard of rangers run screaming away.

I was mainly reffering to the chief nazgul - walking in alone on Frodo.

Again, I repeat the Witch-King was NO coward. After Fornost, he came all alone to face all the allied army of Arnor and Gondor after his own soldiers were killed to the last man and the last orc. He was going to fight with Earnur - the best sword of Gondor. Perhaps he did fight with him man to man later, in Morgul, whatever the Gondoreans may have believed.

If the Witch-King disappeared when he saw Glorfindel, that was because he was brave, but NOT SUICIDAL. Read what Myths Transformed tell about the Resurrected Elves and you will see WHY. Even "their position in space was at will", the super-powerful magical dudes...)

The Witch-King attacked Eowyn even AFTER he understood how dangerous this no-man was. Had he been a coward, he could have turned away and left - she would have hardly ran after him.

He entered the waters of Bruinen, even though he most likely knew that Elrond could command the water to rise. After all, wasn't Rivendell besieged by Angmar for quite some time, between 1356 and 1409?? How did the Elves defend their VALLEY (not a FORTRESS)? Surely by strengthening the perimeter defenses - the flooding river and other traps around.

And sure he was the only one who attacked Frodo, though he saw clearly what kind of a blade he had and though the hobbit wore the Ruling ring, "the object of terror" for the nazgul.

And you call the Witch-King a coward, Landroval?

[Landroval]

Yes I wholly fail to see that. Where is the metaphor?

Tolkien used the word "compared to"; plus the nazgul aren't savage people, at least not in the direct sense of the word. Moreover, the fictitious event you are reffering to is much further in time, when Frodo is far greater - as I pointed to Olmer previously.

Nay, Gandalf was the natural explanation.

And, even if true, this is relevant to your theory - how? Not to mention that Goldberry was expecting the hobbits and received news about them .

And Aragorn said "pierce" not "wound". I see no contradiction to my idea.

I see; so if one gets stabbed, that doesn't qualify as a wound?

And you still didn't answer what was the POINT of damaging a weapon AFTER it was used to wound or kill?

I am afraid that since no one seems to complain about it, you raised a false dillema. Not to mention that it would still come handy if your enemy's sword perishes - after all, not all first wounds are lethal.

Initially Gandalf would use the Ring to do good.

Not for long, if you ask me; and Frodo's independence would last even less, seeing that we are comparing a maia with a secondborn; but I will conceed we are merely speculating.

The foolish Mouth and his Master were no nazgul.

I see; so neither the mouth knew about how just deadly that sword is, plus he is foolish, even though his name/action/ranks qualify him as their highest 'diplomat' around, so to speak . So much ignorance on all sides...

You are still arguing that the Barrow-Blades were NOT deadly to the nazgul?

It depends on where the wound occured, strenght, shock, etc..

But only the runes on the blade gave away the nature of the spell laid on them.

Hm, can you quote a text concerning the runes on the blades?

Can you prove that he know about them later?

You're joking, right?

And orcs couldn't know these were specific anti-nazgul weapons.

You've missed my point; I am not arguing these were anti-nazgul, only that the orcs feared them - apparently, more than the nazguls do.

Note that the Mouth of Sauron and probably Sauron himself were equally mistaken, it seems.

Yea, can you believe it??
I find that hypothesis to be absurd.

Even "their position in space was at will", the super-powerful magical dudes

Would you be so kind as to provide that quote?

And you call the Witch-King a coward, Landroval?

Oh, your sweetheart? (Gosh, I remember how good it was teasing girls.)
Gordis, though I left your other (good) points, unaddressed, they are irrelevant as long as the main issue I raised previously is left standing: the nazguls underestimated Frodo at Wheathertop, not the other way around.