Merry''s treacherous attack

Vronsky · 11-05-2002, 08:15 AM

What do you think of Merry's attack on the Lord of Nazgul: stabbing him from behind in the back. Rather treacherous, don't you think, not the kind of behavior of a hero. Looks very similar to Gollum's attack on Sam in Shelob's liar.

Cheers!

Beleg Strongbow · 11-05-2002, 09:16 AM

Doubtful. Merry was goin after the guy with all he had; its not really his fault.

Helix · 11-05-2002, 09:57 AM

And it was Merry who killed the Witch King, not Eowyn.

bropous · 11-05-2002, 11:56 AM

Oh, and so for Merry to actually exhibit bravery in the battle with the Witch King, he would have had to move around to the front of the Lord of the Nazgul and attack him from a frontal position?

Bollocks.

What you are advocating with this question is the very same frontal assault on an immovable enemy which was the hallmark of large unit operations during World War One, which Tolkien himself was nearly annihilated by. By that reasoning, an amphibious landing in the enemy's rear is cowardly even though it results in a shattered front line and retreat by an entrenched enemy.

What you espouse flies right in the face of the doctrine of maneuver warfare. In maneuver warfare, instead of attacking the enemy where he is strongest, one uses forces to go directly for the vulnerabilities in the enemy's rear after AVOIDING direct contact with enemy forces en masse.

Merry was the weaker of the combatants, he had only LIMITED opportunity to slash at the Witch-King, his passions and emotions overcame the "spell" of fear which had caused so many greater Human warriors to blanch and run and allowed him to act on the moment of opportunity, and he had no concept that his attack would be the very blow which undid the Witch-King's "spell" and allowed Eowyn to drive the point of her sword between helm and hauberk. He had no idea that his glancing blow would be the end of the Lord of the Nazgul, and for all he knew, the black bastige could have spun right around and lopped his little head off in retaliation.

In the face of overwhelming odds, he struck out to defend someone he cared about. At risk of his own life, he acted without regard to his own safety.

An act of cowardice? In no remote manner.

Dunadan · 11-05-2002, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vronsky
stabbing him from behind in the back.

Minor point of information: stabbed from below, in the knee. But considering there wasn't a ladder handy (I believe this was yet another thing Sam forgot to pack), we might let him off.

Just goes to show: you've gotta watch these Brandybucks.

Oh, and hello and welcome!

cheers

d.

Vronsky · 11-05-2002, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bropous

An act of cowardice? In no remote manner.

Perhaps Tolkien wants us to see that battle is no honourable and civilized thing, and that those involved act primarily just to survive, whatever it takes, even cowardice and treachery.
Although Merry's act makes him less brave, it also makes him more interesting, more human, compared to a flat, predictable, stereotype champion character like f.i. Faramir. Even Gollum is more interesting than him, I think.

Cheers!

zavron · 11-05-2002, 12:54 PM

it was eowyn who killed the witch king

because he said that merry was stung like a fly when he attacked then eowyn shuved her sword in his chest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One day i went to st. Ives
I met a man with seven Wives
each wife had seven sacks
each sack had seven cats
each cat had seven kittens
Wives, Sacks, Cats, Kittens.
How many were going to st Ives?
answer:

Just Me!

highlight the spoiler!

BeardofPants · 11-05-2002, 02:24 PM

Not this again.

Merry dealt the blow that unknit the spells that bound him so that Eowyn could then deal the death blow to the head. If Merry had not hacked at his knee, then Eowyns normal sword would not have been able to touch him. It was TEAM WORK. Sheesh.

Brop, I love how you slung "bollocks" in there.

Keith K · 11-05-2002, 07:20 PM

Merry had to hit him from behind. He did not have time to run around to the witch kings front as Eowyn was about to recieve her death blow.

Lefty Scaevola · 11-05-2002, 07:23 PM

It was a melee form of battle including arrows and thrown weapons, not a duel or match. The ethic in such is to strike at whatever target is presented.

Celebrian · 11-05-2002, 08:39 PM

If Merry had tried to crawl around so the Nazgul could see him I doubt he would have been able to help Eowyn at all. It was only because the Nazgul didn't know Merry was there that Merry was able to kill him. And Merry was the one who killed the Nazgul, he isn't a man, he is a Hobbit, so he is just as eligibel as Eowyn.

***Rían*** · 11-05-2002, 09:42 PM

I like your summary, bropous. Well said.

Vronsky · 11-06-2002, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith K
Merry had to hit him from behind. He did not have time to run around to the witch kings front as Eowyn was about to recieve her death blow.

Try to leave your outrage aside for a second, fellas:
the main question here is, in my view, why T. decided to remove the Witchking from the storyline in this particular manner. A sneaky attack from behind is not a hero's way to act, whatever reason. T. could have chosen for a more heroic solution.

Cheers!

Diamond of Long Cleeve · 11-06-2002, 05:11 AM

Sorry to be so ignorant. It seems that there has been endless discussion on merry v eowyn in the death of the witch king and I assume a similarly long discussion on why Theoden seems to think it was him. Can anyone summarise this for me or point me to where the discussion can be found? Many thanks.

Beleg Strongbow · 11-06-2002, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vronsky

Although Merry's act makes him less brave,

We've been saying it hasn't! Merry fought the Witch-King when he didn't have to and was already almost out of the battle. He struck out however he could to help Eowyn.

Faramir Took · 11-06-2002, 11:53 AM

Merry was truly brave, honourable, as well as being a hero. He stabbed the nazgul fro behind, yes, however listen to Gandalf's descriptions of the nine throughout the entire trilogy, and you should realize that whatever way a nazgul is killed, it ia a great accomplishment.

Dunadan · 11-06-2002, 12:00 PM

Haud on, does it not say that the Witch-king "paid Merry no more heed than.." something or other crawling in the mud (sorry, I don't have my copy of RotK to hand)? Which would imply that he did see Merry and knew he was there, just decided to ignore him.

Add to that the fact that the cream of Gondor's fighting men would largely pepper their breeks and head for the hills at the mere sight of the Nazgul...

Like I said, you gotta watch these Brandybucks

Firekitten2006 · 11-06-2002, 02:07 PM

Ok this is the one reason I am re reading the trilogy. But for now cant we just leave it at Merry is a freakin hobbit! He's what 3 or 4 feet tall? In my opinion its a pretty big deal just for him to stab him whereever he stabs him! And yeah, it does seem like team work to me! Helloooo ppl!

Sminty_Smeagol · 11-06-2002, 04:36 PM

I believe that it did not make Merry a coward in that he stabbed from behind. GIVEN THE SITUATION... It's not like he intentionally crawled around the back and snuck up behind the nazgul and stabbed at him... like a coward. BRAVERY is sort of a state of mind... and an "according to the circumstances" type of thing. It is the motivation behind what a character does. I do not believe the motivation behind Merry stabbing the witch king from behind was that of cowardice. And I think it would be a horrible, stupid thing if he had thought to himself "Oh, he's about to kill that girl, but I don't want to stab him for the back because that's cowardly, I'll run around to the front real fast and..." *plop* off falls eowyn's head. And THAT wouldn't have been bravery at all. Not even if he had run around to the front just to be "brave" would it have been bravery, since that would have been for self-benefit, saying "I want people to think I'm brave so I'll run around to the front real fast", that would have been arrogancy.

Vronsky · 11-07-2002, 03:54 AM

Okay, then please compare Merry's act with the way Sam deals with Snaga: a very similar situation as Sam tries to help Frodo here.
Sam is (also) no match at all against the Orc, but he doesn't attack him at the moment when Snaga's back is turned to him. He cries out first, to draw Snaga's attention (and distract him from Frodo, for sure) which makes this confrontation a duel instead of an assasination. Mind you: Sam bears the Ring at this time, which he easily could have used, as he did a little earlier.

Also, what is your feeling that the Nazgul is defeated in such a sneaky way, instead of a fair fight? To me, it makes the Good a little less 'good', and one could almost pity the evil a little here.

Cheers!

PS
Thanks for the discussion guys!!

11-05-2002, 08:15 AM	#1
Vronsky Sapling Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 11	Merry''s treacherous attack What do you think of Merry's attack on the Lord of Nazgul: stabbing him from behind in the back. Rather treacherous, don't you think, not the kind of behavior of a hero. Looks very similar to Gollum's attack on Sam in Shelob's liar. Cheers!

11-05-2002, 09:16 AM	#2
Beleg Strongbow Truest of Friends Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Pennsylvania, but I have a vacation home in the Westfarthing. Posts: 520	Doubtful. Merry was goin after the guy with all he had; its not really his fault. __________________ "...Beleg Strongbow, truest of friends, greatest in skill of all that harboured in the woods of Beleriand in the Elder Days..." Aure Entuleva! John Kerry for President!

11-05-2002, 09:57 AM	#3
Helix Elven Warrior Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: School! Posts: 107	And it was Merry who killed the Witch King, not Eowyn. __________________ Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo. -Elvish Greeting

11-05-2002, 11:56 AM	#4
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	Oh, and so for Merry to actually exhibit bravery in the battle with the Witch King, he would have had to move around to the front of the Lord of the Nazgul and attack him from a frontal position? Bollocks. What you are advocating with this question is the very same frontal assault on an immovable enemy which was the hallmark of large unit operations during World War One, which Tolkien himself was nearly annihilated by. By that reasoning, an amphibious landing in the enemy's rear is cowardly even though it results in a shattered front line and retreat by an entrenched enemy. What you espouse flies right in the face of the doctrine of maneuver warfare. In maneuver warfare, instead of attacking the enemy where he is strongest, one uses forces to go directly for the vulnerabilities in the enemy's rear after AVOIDING direct contact with enemy forces en masse. Merry was the weaker of the combatants, he had only LIMITED opportunity to slash at the Witch-King, his passions and emotions overcame the "spell" of fear which had caused so many greater Human warriors to blanch and run and allowed him to act on the moment of opportunity, and he had no concept that his attack would be the very blow which undid the Witch-King's "spell" and allowed Eowyn to drive the point of her sword between helm and hauberk. He had no idea that his glancing blow would be the end of the Lord of the Nazgul, and for all he knew, the black bastige could have spun right around and lopped his little head off in retaliation. In the face of overwhelming odds, he struck out to defend someone he cared about. At risk of his own life, he acted without regard to his own safety. An act of cowardice? In no remote manner. __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

11-05-2002, 02:24 PM	#8
BeardofPants the Shrike Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA <3 Posts: 10,647	Not this again. Merry dealt the blow that unknit the spells that bound him so that Eowyn could then deal the death blow to the head. If Merry had not hacked at his knee, then Eowyns normal sword would not have been able to touch him. It was TEAM WORK. Sheesh. Brop, I love how you slung "bollocks" in there. __________________ "Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords

11-05-2002, 07:20 PM	#9
Keith K Elf Lord Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: charlotte, n.c. Posts: 1,081	Merry had to hit him from behind. He did not have time to run around to the witch kings front as Eowyn was about to recieve her death blow.

11-05-2002, 07:23 PM	#10
Lefty Scaevola AngAdan Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Boerne, Texas Posts: 856	It was a melee form of battle including arrows and thrown weapons, not a duel or match. The ethic in such is to strike at whatever target is presented. __________________ Gaius Mucius Scaevola Older, richer, and wiser than you "Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor, but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Iluvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, ... And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me,"

11-05-2002, 08:39 PM	#11
Celebrian Enting Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Calgary Posts: 75	If Merry had tried to crawl around so the Nazgul could see him I doubt he would have been able to help Eowyn at all. It was only because the Nazgul didn't know Merry was there that Merry was able to kill him. And Merry was the one who killed the Nazgul, he isn't a man, he is a Hobbit, so he is just as eligibel as Eowyn. __________________ All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost. Tall ships and tall kings, three times three. What brought they form the foundered land Over the flowing sea? Seven stars and seven stones and one white tree.

11-05-2002, 09:42 PM	#12
*Rían* Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!) Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Not where I want to be ... Posts: 15,254	I like your summary, bropous. Well said. __________________ . I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva!

11-06-2002, 05:11 AM	#14
Diamond of Long Cleeve Elf Lord Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Sydney Posts: 569	Sorry to be so ignorant. It seems that there has been endless discussion on merry v eowyn in the death of the witch king and I assume a similarly long discussion on why Theoden seems to think it was him. Can anyone summarise this for me or point me to where the discussion can be found? Many thanks. __________________ On the Internet, nobody knows you're a cat.

11-06-2002, 11:53 AM	#16
Faramir Took Hobbit Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Beacon Falls CT Posts: 19	Merry was truly brave, honourable, as well as being a hero. He stabbed the nazgul fro behind, yes, however listen to Gandalf's descriptions of the nine throughout the entire trilogy, and you should realize that whatever way a nazgul is killed, it ia a great accomplishment. __________________ Faramir son of Peregrin

11-06-2002, 12:00 PM	#17
Dunadan The Quite Querulous Quendi Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oxon, UK Posts: 638	Haud on, does it not say that the Witch-king "paid Merry no more heed than.." something or other crawling in the mud (sorry, I don't have my copy of RotK to hand)? Which would imply that he did see Merry and knew he was there, just decided to ignore him. Add to that the fact that the cream of Gondor's fighting men would largely pepper their breeks and head for the hills at the mere sight of the Nazgul... Like I said, you gotta watch these Brandybucks

11-06-2002, 02:07 PM	#18
Firekitten2006 Elven Warrior Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: the US of A! But I wish i was in austraila, never been, just think it would be a fun place to live :) Posts: 372	UGH Ok this is the one reason I am re reading the trilogy. But for now cant we just leave it at Merry is a freakin hobbit! He's what 3 or 4 feet tall? In my opinion its a pretty big deal just for him to stab him whereever he stabs him! And yeah, it does seem like team work to me! Helloooo ppl! __________________ I'm Baaaack!!

11-06-2002, 04:36 PM	#19
Sminty_Smeagol Manic Cardboard-Box Dweller Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In a house Posts: 1,071	I believe that it did not make Merry a coward in that he stabbed from behind. GIVEN THE SITUATION... It's not like he intentionally crawled around the back and snuck up behind the nazgul and stabbed at him... like a coward. BRAVERY is sort of a state of mind... and an "according to the circumstances" type of thing. It is the motivation behind what a character does. I do not believe the motivation behind Merry stabbing the witch king from behind was that of cowardice. And I think it would be a horrible, stupid thing if he had thought to himself "Oh, he's about to kill that girl, but I don't want to stab him for the back because that's cowardly, I'll run around to the front real fast and..." plop off falls eowyn's head. And THAT wouldn't have been bravery at all. Not even if he had run around to the front just to be "brave" would it have been bravery, since that would have been for self-benefit, saying "I want people to think I'm brave so I'll run around to the front real fast", that would have been arrogancy. Last edited by Sminty_Smeagol : 11-06-2002 at 04:38 PM.

11-07-2002, 03:54 AM	#20
Vronsky Sapling Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 11	Okay, then please compare Merry's act with the way Sam deals with Snaga: a very similar situation as Sam tries to help Frodo here. Sam is (also) no match at all against the Orc, but he doesn't attack him at the moment when Snaga's back is turned to him. He cries out first, to draw Snaga's attention (and distract him from Frodo, for sure) which makes this confrontation a duel instead of an assasination. Mind you: Sam bears the Ring at this time, which he easily could have used, as he did a little earlier. Also, what is your feeling that the Nazgul is defeated in such a sneaky way, instead of a fair fight? To me, it makes the Good a little less 'good', and one could almost pity the evil a little here. Cheers! PS Thanks for the discussion guys!!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why did Saruman attack Rohan?	Gordis	Lord of the Rings Books	18	11-07-2007 09:18 PM
Pippin's stone and the attack at the Chamber of Marzabul	The Wizard from Milan	Lord of the Rings Books	20	01-19-2006 02:16 PM
Star Wars: Episode 2: Attack of YODA!!!!!!!	Darth Tater	The Star Wars Saga	96	12-23-2002 05:25 AM
Gallup Poll, Saddam, and other matters. (no US bashing!)	BeardofPants	General Messages	32	08-13-2002 07:34 PM
Star Wars Episode II - Attack of the Clones	bmilder	The Star Wars Saga	38	09-10-2001 11:25 PM