Talk:Witch-king of Angmar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien and his legendarium. Please visit the project page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Assessment B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

Contents 1 Grima 2 Black Numenorean? 3 Infobox 4 Was he killed, and by whom? 5 return to middle earth? 6 Numbers don't add up 7 Fiction 8 Confronation with Gandalf 9 Page name

[edit] Grima

I added a few sentences about Grimas capture and how he told them the whereabouts of the Shire. It's not really in the same tone as the rest of the entry(which, by the way, reads like Cliffnotes), but I think it is significant enough to be included. Also, when the Nazgul went forth from Minas Morgul they were not yet the black riders, they didn't recieve their horses and rainments until a few weeks later, at Sarn Gebir. Should the article be changed, or is too trifling a detail to be included? Drzava 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Numenorean?

Where does it come from that the Witch-king was a Numenorean? This is assumed by some but I've never seen a single source that labels him as such. Aris Katsaris 19:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At the moment I cannot recall the reference, but this seems to be quite common, I am pretty certain it was stated in text somewhere (In Rings of Power?) — I’ll go index diving. In any case we do know three of the Nazgûl were Númenórean, and Khamul (second-in-command) was not one of them. [[User:Anárion|Image:Anarion.png]] 20:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a piece of fanon to have him be such -- in Usenet conversations I've participated in nobody could ever identify anything in the texts that identified him as Black Numenorean.Aris Katsaris 21:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right: I could find NO statement on which of the Ringwraiths were Númenóreans in any of the source texts (excluding materials in Vinyar Tengwar, which I do not have access to). It would seem to be MERP who first unambigiously identified him as one. Although I have to say that if I had to guess which of the Ringwraiths were Númenórean, I'd also pick him: he is described as a sorceror even before he got the Ring (Númenóreans knew "magic"), and was strong-willed enough to still hold an identity after millennia of servitude. [[User:Anárion|Image:Anarion.png]] 21:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We need to somehow address this. ?!? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. --UrbaneLegend 19:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See a FAQ item in the Encyclopedia of Arda for a detailed answer.

[edit] Infobox

There seems to be conflicting information in the infobox on the actor who potrays the Witch-king of Angmar in the film trilogy. At the bottom, it says that Lawrence Makoare plays him, which is true for Return of the King, but at the top, it says that Shane Rangi plays him. IMDB.com says that Rangi is uncredited in the role for Fellowship of the Ring [1], but it also gives a credit to Brent McIntyre [2] for the Witch-King role. Is there any way to sort this out? - Maaya 22:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm tempted to argue for Makoare's credit, as the Witch King's principal scenes and the majority of his solo screen-time in the trilogy are in ROTK, but I suppose that's not really encyclopedic as it's inaccurate to omit the other stunt performers who portrayed the WK in the previous films. Maybe we should just credit all three? --Urbane legend 10:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Was he killed, and by whom?

The accepted wisdom is that Éowyn and Meriadoc killed the Witch-king on the Pelennor Fields. However a close reading of The Return of the King can support a different hypothesis — that he did not die at that time, and that it was only Meriadoc who dealt significant damage.

Meriadoc struck him in the back of the knee, a feat made possible because of his sword; "No other blade ... would have dealt ... a wound so bitter, ... breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

This wound caused him to stumble in pain; so physical dissolution was not instantaneous. Merry had time to call Éowyn's name twice, and she had time to struggle from her knees and strike with her sword at his head, while the wraith remained bent over in bitter pain. Her sword shattered, so it must have encountered some aspect of the Witch-king's powers — and at that moment the crown fell to the ground, and his body was gone. Did Éowyn's blow instantaneously dismiss the wraith, or was this just a co-incidence of timing? He did not necessarily die at that time either; his voice "was never heard again in that age of this world" (Referring to the Third Age, which finished only a few years later when the Ring-Bearers sailed into the West). A possible implication is that his voice was heard again in a later age, although the destruction of the One Ring would have made further survival of the Wraiths difficult to say the least, especially given that they were originally Men (albeit probably Second Age Númenoreans, and therefore very long-lived).

An aside into the protective prophecy; given in The Return of the King as "no living man may hinder me" (The Witch-king) or "not by the hand of man shall he fall" (Gandalf), but the original prophecy by Glorfindel at the Battle of Fornost was "not by the hand of Man shall he fall". But both Éowyn and Meriadoc were of the race of Men (Hobbits being an accepted but not explicitly cited sub-branch of the race), and Meriadoc was male as well. The most obvious reading of the events of the battle is that Éowyn's blow caused his death by sole virtue of her being female; this appears to have been viewed as plausible by the Witch-king himself at the time. But Glorfindel's specific reference to the Race of Men does not support this.

Meriadoc's Westernesse sword was uniquely capable of causing severe damage to the witch-king, and was explicitly credited with causing physical dissolution, even though Glorfindel's prophecy should have precluded this; so either the prophecy was inaccurate, or he did not "fall" at that point in time, and was only temporarily defeated. In either case it is unlikely that Éowyn's blow was effective, it was simply co-incident with the destruction of the Witch-king's body by Meriadoc.

References for this hypothesis; Witch-king of Angmar, 1981 fourth edition The Lord of the Rings 0-04-823187-8, http://www.glyphweb.com/arda and Hobbit. However I have not double-checked Glorfindel's prophecy in original form, only from within Wikipedia, and the capitalisation of the word "man" is important.

--YojimboSan 09:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting hypothesis. My take has been that Meriadoc's Barrow-sword not only injured the Witch-king, "cleaving the undead flesh," albeit in a non-mortal place behind the knee, but also rendered him vulnerable to ordinary swords, "breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will". So I do believe that while Éowyn delivered the fatal blow, Meriadoc delivered the more critical blow that led to his demise. You are correct that he did not "die," in the sense that he did not cease to exist. Like other mortal Men in Tolkein's universe, his spirit endures, but not in Middle Earth. My sense is that he "fell into the nothingness that awaited him and his Master(s)." Finally, regarding the prophecy, my take is that although "Man" may have been taken to mean "the Race of Men," even by Glorfindel himself, it was later revealed to mean "man," as in a male human. This would be in line with Tolkein's own personal Christian beliefs, where many Prophets from the Old Testament prophesized, but they weren't completely understanding of their own prophecies. LotR 19:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup. I'm wondering whether or not the current wording on the entry, stating that Éowyn's sword-thrust "caus[ed] him to wither and pass away from this world" should be changed slightly; not to directly claim otherwise, but to describe rather than to ascribe. Your view would allow Meriadoc's blow to render the wraith vulnerable to other physical harm, and Éowyn's to kill his body; but I don't feel there is a very good explanation of the sudden disappearance of the body itself in that case. As a related problem, we don't know what happened to his Ring of Power; like an Elven Ring, perhaps it was not visible to someone without sufficient skill to see it clearly, and was lost on the battlefield (although wouldn't Gandalf have gone looking for it to prevent it causing harm to others?) --YojimboSan 02:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We certainly should not go beyond what Tolkien has said. I can't recall if he was more specific in any of his letters.

As for the Witch-king's ring, it is explicitly stated in the book that Sauron holds the Nine. (At the Council of Elrond, I believe.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll have to stop speculating about the Nine Rings now, and go re-read FotR ;-) I've re-worded the description of the Witch-king's death to remove the direct phrasing that Éowyn caused his fall/death, and instead described the order of events more neutrally, I hope. Thanks for your comments. --YojimboSan 09:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference Aragorn's comment that "all blades perish that pierce that dreadful king"... suggesting that ordinary swords were quite capable of injuring the Witch-king, and must have done so previously in order for Aragorn to know that. There is nothing anywhere in the texts indicating some sort of 'spell of protection' which kept the WK safe from ordinary blades. Merry's blade was of a kind that was deadly to the Witch-king (once said by Tolkien to be as dangerous to the WK as the Morgul blade was to Frodo), but it did not kill him: "Not by the hand of man was the Lord of the Nazgul doomed to fall, and in that doom placed his trust. But he was felled by a woman and with the aid of a halfling." - WotR, pg 390

In addition to that and other direct statements that Eowyn delivered the fatal blow, there is also the fact that her sword shattered when she struck - indicating that the WK was still 'alive' at that point, and his demise clearly took place immediately thereafter. The 'spell' Merry's sword was not one of 'protection' but instead said to 'knit the WK's unseen sinews to his will'... Merry's strike made it impossible for the WK to control his leg muscles, so he fell down. Just as Tolkien described when commenting on an early proposed movie script, "Sam does not 'sink his blade into the Ringwraith's thigh', nor does his thrust save Frodo's life. (If he had, the result would have been much the same as in III 117-20: [the WK death scene] the Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed.)" - Letters #210

As has been noted, there are several statements indicating that Sauron had the Rings of the Nine. There is one line, "the nine the Nazgul keep", during the Council of Elrond which is often interpreted to suggest the opposite but it is contradicted by explicit quotations that the Nazgul did not bear their Rings both before and after this. There is also the flood... only the WK and his horse made it out of that reasonably intact (though he lost his cloak) and thus there would be eight Rings lost in the river if the Nazgul had been wearing them. Finally, there does seem to be some indication that the WK could have recovered if the One had not been destroyed, but there are differing interpretations on that. --CBD 13:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference Aragorn's comment that "all blades perish that pierce that dreadful king"... suggesting that ordinary swords were quite capable of injuring the Witch-king, More to the point, I think, was the previous sentence that 'This [the rent in the WK's cloak] was the stroke of Frodo's sword... The only hurt that it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish...' I disagree that this suggests what you say it did though; Frodo's sword came from the same barrow as Merry's and would have been of similar make. Presumably Aragorn knew what he was talking about when it came to Numenorean blades.

The quote about Sam's sword in the WK's thigh -- well, neither a stab behind the knee nor a stab to the thigh is ordinarily fatal.

ISTM the only ordinary sword we ever see threatening the WK is Eowyn's, and that blow is struck after Merry's. In trying to decide whether that made a difference, I don't think "No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter..." can be ignored.

However, since this is all speculative and arguable, I don't think the article need approach it at all. The bare facts of his last encounter are all that is needed, as well as noting that this caused him to be "reduced to impotence" (if I'm remembering the quote correctly) but not killed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] return to middle earth?

“

One thousand years into the Third Age, Sauron took a new form as the Necromancer, and founded the fortress of Dol Guldur in southern Mirkwood in 1050 of the Third Age. This signalled the return of the Nine Nazgûl to Middle-earth.

”

As far as I know, the Nazgul have always been in Middle-earth... where does Tolkien suggest this not to be the case? TerraFrost 08:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Off hand I don't know what Tolkien may have specifically said about this, but I do know that the Ringwraiths were not explicitly killed in the Second Age, nor was the One Ring destroyed, thus it would follow that they remained physically bound to Middle Earth. LotR 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. — Nice quotation marks.

The Nazgul disappeared for a thousand years after Sauron fell at the end of the Second Age. There is some indication that during this time they were greatly weakened and may even have been 'incorporeal'... or moreso than usual. On the other hand, they may have just been hiding. In any case, while the Nazgul were certainly still bound within Arda they had 'vanished' from Middle-earth for a long time. --CBD 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers don't add up

The Witch-king of Angmar and the other eight Nazgûl rode swiftly from Mordor to the lands of the Shire. They continued to search for "Baggins" until they tracked him to Buckland. Five of the Riders raided Buckland but could not find the Ring.

The Witch-king led four other Nazgûl to Weathertop

Count it. Witch-king, plus 4 Nazgûl that went with him, plus 5 Nazgûl that raided Buckland, is 10, not 9. While I realise that this may just be unclear (one of the nazgûl from the raid could have also been at weathertop, although this is unlikely), it should in any case be changed. --82.5.72.10 22:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction

I don't think posting a "Biography" is exactly keeping up with distinguishing fact and fictional (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28writing_about_fiction%29). Something else, please? 66.15.182.14 16:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confronation with Gandalf

This section seems to be kind of long and seems to digress into assessing Gandalf's powers. It spends a great deal of time discussing the depiction of this battle in the film and talking about how the fans felt slighted by it. I wonder if this is not deviating a bit from the aim of the article and has strayed from the topic of the Witch King himself. Indeed it should be noted that Gandalf and the Witch King have clashed in both the book and on screen in the deleted content. Yet, do we need a large analysis of the conflict? Especially the film conflict that exists only in a deleted scene? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.204.201.206 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

A "weasel" box has recently appeared over this subsection, in addition to the "cleanup" box. I have watched the section grow large and wordy over time (myself contributing to some of it). Although I agree that it could be trimmed down, I tend to allow the addition of content, and the current version was arrived at by consensus. Any comments/thoughts/objections regarding trimming this section back? LotR 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the section is devoted to an in-depth analysis of a scene that didn't even appear in the theatrical release of the movie, it seems far, far too long. I say that even though I agree with its points. (I'll go further and say that it reflects much of the director's fundamental misunderstanding of LotR's story, which led to the movie telling an entirely different story altogether. But that's not something that should be included in the article at all.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to clean up this section except by posting this. Could someone please assess and modify to make it compatible with the entry? Sorry I should read a bit more on editing standards, but if i try to sleep without fixing this it will drive me nuts. I make no comment on the facts or otherwise, just grammar/syntax. Signed Brett Halstead Caton, 4.20 AM sydney time 10 feb 2007.

My version:

"Other fans think the Witch-king would have won the battle for in the beginning section of the "The Battle Of The Pelennor Fields" it states that for the Witch-King "...Victory was slpping form his grasp even as he stretched out his hand to seize it"... Although he is an undead human, when he was in Angmar he became a powerful sorcerer and exceeded the power of the other Nazgul. Gandalf may be a Maia like Sauron, but Sauron was defeated by a mortal man. There also could have been different factors regarding WeatherTop. Perhaps Morgomir was about to be killed and the Witch-King had to retreat with the rest of the Nazgul? Therefore, it is quite controversial."

Original: "Other fans think the Witch-king would have won the battle for in the beging section of the The Battle Of The Pelennor Fields It states that The Witch-King ...Victory was slpping form his grasp even as he stretched out his hand to seize it... Although he is an undead human, when he was in Angmar he became a powerful sorcerer and exceeded the power of the other Nazgul. Gandalf maybe a Maia like Sauron, but Sauron was defeated by a mortal man. There also could have been different factors regarding WeatherTop. Prehaps Morgomir was about to be killed and the Witch-King had to retreat with the rest of the Nazgul. Therefore it is quite controversial."

Your clean up of the new addition is fine, except the text in question has been already reverted. The reason for this is that the subsection is already too long (see Talk and cleanup box), and it diverges into a conjectured debate that is only marginally relevant to the article. We need to trim the section, not add to it. In fact, the debate-like quality of the text seems to attract more and more accretions like this, which is all the more reason it needs to be trimmed back. With regards to the section, the facts are this: In the book the battle was aborted whereas the extend version of the film has the Witch-king defeating Gandalf -- that's the difference between the two versions. Everything else about who would've won in Tolkien's version is conjecture. Some discussion may be made regarding Tolkien fan reactions to this, but it should be NPOV, that is, does not seek to debunk or exonerate the movie. LotR 18:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to shorten out the article by pretty much getting rid of information that is not that useful to the subject in question. Please improve it if you can le Dan 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A good start. LotR 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

Kunz506 moved this page from "Witch-king of Angmar" to "The Witch-king of Angmar". And then, Uthanc parformed cut-and-paste move to "Witch-king of Angmar". I have reverted the cut-and-paste move and requested to move to the old title by an admin at WP:RM#Uncontroversial proposals. --Kusunose 15:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)