We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 120
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Lebtron View Post
    Second, Elrond is using some kind of metaphysics. A fact you deny as this would be what you call magic.
    Not necessarily. Psychic powers would not necessarily be 'magic' because they'd not be supernatural - if they existed they'd be natural, just on a level of nature beyond our knowledge and that is very much how Tolkien talks about the arts used by the Elves. And there's a proven example of something like that in the books: Gandalf apparently has psychokinetic powers, which he uses to disarm Denethor during the pyre scene in ROTK. The sword just flies out of Denethor's hand, as if seized by an invisible force. (Something similar had happened earlier, too, when Aragorn & Co. had mistaken Gandalf for Saruman: Gimli's axe had leapt from his hand). Men and hobbits would find such power inexplicable and so to them it would seem supernatural, so it could be a case of sufficiently advanced psychic powers being indistinguishable from magic.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Midwest, US
    Posts
    34
    As far as OP goes. my opinion is Sauron cast his nets far and wide and most of the men he enslaved were from the south or east. When he distributed the rings to men, his guise had already been revealed, Celebrimbor was slain and Moria was shut. Just my opinion but I don't see many lords of Numenor accepting rings of power from a dark and mysterious stranger during this time period. Of course he had necromantic powers and you could pick any mortal who ever lived to be a ringwraith candidate if you so choose.

    Concerning the magic of Middle Earth, I think anything goes. Gandalf says he knows a few hundred spells of command just from memory, in many languages, when trying to open Moria's west gate. He also says he knew many spells of holding when trying to seal the door during their escape from the mines, and that the Balrog knew him and what he was about just by touching the door, not to mention the Balrog soon countered with a powerful spell of his own. Just my opinion but this implies a deep, years long study of a craft, not just mastering knowledge but also spells and the artifice needed to cast them.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Not necessarily. Psychic powers would not necessarily be 'magic' because they'd not be supernatural - if they existed they'd be natural, just on a level of nature beyond our knowledge and that is very much how Tolkien talks about the arts used by the Elves.
    Ok, i think i understand your argument. Even if it is highly doubtly that such psychic powers in our world exist (greetings to James Randi), as scientists we still have to considerate that possibility. Problem is that such a highly speculative hypothesis would us force to think about every other unlikly idea too (e.g. we are all part of the matrix). Which would us lead to the same conclusion, we have not enough knowledge to differantiate between magic and not magic, not even in our own world.

    So for me and under inclusion of Occam's razor the ideas of them just having other physics is still the most possible solution. But of course as middle earth is just a fantasy place, there must not even exist a logical explanation for anything. Maybe they do not even have physics

  4. #54

    With the exception of Burley ...

    ... everyone who has posted on this page needs to go back to the first page and read (for the first time, evidently) my entry.

    HoG

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post
    ... everyone who has posted on this page needs to go back to the first page and read (for the first time, evidently) my entry.
    Wind your neck in, matey. There's no call for that.

    Isildur cursed the Dead of Dunharrow, using the "virtue" of the Stone of Erech and his own rights as master of the Stone
    What have you got to back up the idea that the Stone of Erech could challenge the will of Mandos over what became of the spirits of Men? Where could the Numenoreans have acquired such power? They had no control over death or what happened after it at all, which was why it became an obsession to them. It seems more likely that the Stone was hallowed (I can't imagine why else the Faithful would have brought the thing with them, as it couldn't have been easy) and that made it an obvious place to swear a solemn oath.

    The rightful King had Iluvatar's ear to some degree. The old Kings in Numenor had offered prayers on behalf of their people atop the Meneltarma, with Manwë sending two of his Eagles to bear witness. Such priest-kings (being earthly intermediaries with the Powers, as they evidently were) could therefore plausibly have had the authority to pronounce such a doom on oath-breakers and have it stick, if it was deemed to accord with fate (i.e. the will of Iluvatar). If you look at what Isildur said, he seemed to know what was going to happen and such foresight would likely have been divinely inspired.

    The Ringwraiths can not stand against water and fire, because the magic that sustains their being is a magic that is against nature, and even the most benign forces of nature will inflict pain, and even grievous harm: the very universe rebels against their abominate existence.
    The Witch-king wasn't to be warded off with something as simple as water, although we're told the others avoided crossing it. I always imagined it had more to do with Ulmo's lasting influence over the waters of the world, that water had a virtue that pained them or some such. As for fire, the Enemy made widespread use of it as a weapon (and the Witch-king even strikes a pose with a flaming sword at the gate of Minas Tirith) so I don't think it can be quite that simple.

    Gandalf the Grey pits the Sacred Fire of Anor against the Balrog, and reminds Durin's Bane that the Fire of Udun can not prevail
    Does he? There seemed to be a lot of hewing with Glamdring rather than wielding of any sort of flame (it seems to me that trying to use fire against a Balrog wouldn't work out too well). What Gandalf actually says is that he's a servant of the Secret Fire (which is one way of declaring who and what he is), a wielder of the Flame of Anor (and it is never made clear exactly what this means), and that the 'Dark Fire' will not avail the Balrog (which seems to me to be because Gandalf has some degree of protection against fire, so he only gets scorched a bit when others would be burned alive). The bit about 'flame of Udun' is just a poetic alternative to saying 'Balrog', Udun being another name for Utumno.

    In the Silmarillion, the sons of Feanor find they have lost all rights to possessing the Silmarils their father had made, because of all of the crimes ("against nature") they have committed in pursuit of their retrieval
    An odd slant to put on it. I thought it was a simple case of the Silmarils not suffering their touch because they'd committed such evil deeds. Where does 'against nature' come into it? It was against their fellow Elves.

    Gandalf the White summons Saruman to stand before judgment, breaks his staff, and ejects him from the Order of the Istari, but only because his reincarnation has imbued him with the Right
    It'd be rather more to the point to say that Gandalf had been granted authority over him by some Power, having demonstrated his worth by sacrificing himself to destroy a terrible evil while at the same time, Saruman had forfeited all legitimate claim to the office he held. Reincarnation alone wouldn't gave Gandalf that authority.

    Elrond summons the flood to wash away the Ringwraiths because he is a Lord of the Eldar who has invested himself in the valley of Rivendell, and has made himself Master of the Vale.
    No argument from me there but it is legitimate for people to wonder where all that water had actually come from.

    All of Tolkien's Middle-Earth literature is saturated with this stuff.
    True enough (your excesses aside) but there's more to it than that. Tolkien isn't very consistent.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Radhruin you seriously need to pay attention to chronology and continuity in LOTR lore, The hobbit is first published first, second is LOTR and third is Silmarillion.
    Stories like the Fall of Gondolin predate the Hobbit by several years. These stories were revised several times, and their different 'versions' are discussed in HoME. The Silmarillion contains some of these stories, made to be mostly consistent by Chris T. Through it we can better understand Tolkien's views on magic than we can with the Hobbit.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Haunt123 View Post
    Stories like the Fall of Gondolin predate the Hobbit by several years.
    Twenty years in the case of The Fall of Gondolin...

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Twenty years in the case of The Fall of Gondolin...
    Yep. I always wanted to read that story in its earliest form, but alas, I just can't find it

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Twenty years in the case of The Fall of Gondolin...
    Wrong, Tolkien never got around to publish anything from Silmarillion.

    Source:
    The Lord of the Rings is an epic high fantasy novel written by English philologist and University of Oxford professor J. R. R. Tolkien. The story began as a sequel to Tolkien's 1937 children's fantasy novel The Hobbit, but eventually developed into a much larger work. It was written in stages between 1937 and 1949, much of it during World War II.[1] It is the third best-selling novel ever written, with over 150 million copies sold.[2]The title of the novel refers to the story's main antagonist, the Dark Lord Sauron,[note 1] who had in an earlier age created the One Ring to rule the other Rings of Power as the ultimate weapon in his campaign to conquer and rule all of Middle-earth. From quiet beginnings in the Shire, a Hobbit land not unlike the English countryside, the story ranges across north-west Middle-earth, following the course of the War of the Ring through the eyes of its characters, notably the hobbits Frodo Baggins, Samwise "Sam" Gamgee, Meriadoc "Merry" Brandybuck and Peregrin "Pippin" Took, but also the hobbits' chief allies and travelling companions: Aragorn, a Human Ranger; Boromir, a man from Gondor; Gimli, a Dwarf warrior; Legolas, an Elven prince; and Gandalf, a Wizard.The work was initially intended by Tolkien to be one volume of a two-volume set, with the other being The Silmarillion, but this idea was dismissed by his publisher.


  10. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    words
    We are talking about when it was written. Tolkien's views on his own stories are told in what he wrote, not what was chosen to be published by A&U. The chronology and continuity of Tolkien's lore was determined by the chronology of his writings, not that of the writings determined by A&U to be the most profitable.
    Last edited by Haunt123; Dec 02 2012 at 12:35 PM.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Haunt123 View Post
    We are talking about when it was written. Tolkien's views on his own stories are told in what he wrote, not what was chosen to be published by A&U. The chronology and continuity of Tolkien's lore was determined by the chronology of his writings, not that of the writings determined by A&U to be the most profitable.
    Im Talking from the reader's point of view, you or rad or anyone didn't see those writtings until they were published, that is why published>tolkien scrabblings.

    Tolkien was a repectable author of books, so "might have been" doesn't exists its just what is established as cannon that works in discussions like this.

    Hobbit>LOTR>Simarillion

    thats the order they were published, all of them are linked in story, but more strongly Hobbit and LOTR.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Wrong, Tolkien never got around to publish anything from Silmarillion.
    What I said was that TFoG was written twenty years before The Hobbit was published, which is correct. Elements of what appears in the published Sil were also written before LOTR was even published. The order in which they were written has a great deal to do with the development of Tolkien's ideas and writing; the order in which they were actually published is largely immaterial to that.

    So, it remains that The Hobbit wasn't written to fit in with Tolkien's other work. LOTR was, and that led to a visible difference in style, content and context between The Hobbit and LOTR. As a result, LOTR is not a true sequel to The Hobbit. There are close links between the two but also differences, because in writing LOTR Tolkien forced a substantial retcon on The Hobbit but didn't revise it to take full account of that.

    Essentially, as we're talking about LOTR then whatever LOTR has to say comes first, and whatever's in The Hobbit a decided second. You can't insist that it carries equal weight. And you certainly can't say we should ignore Tolkien's other work (as it existed at the time LOTR was written) as he brought characters and ideas through from it, providing clear references back to it.
    Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Dec 02 2012 at 01:34 PM.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    What I said was that TFoG was written twenty years before The Hobbit was published, which is correct. Elements of what appears in the published Sil were also written before LOTR was even published. The order in which they were written has a great deal to do with the development of Tolkien's ideas and writing; the order in which they were actually published is largely immaterial to that.

    Im just using facts, your opinion is mostly what you argue about you don't like using the hobbit as a prequel to LOTR because of the style it was written in, yet its a prequel...just deal with it.

    Beorn is CANNON
    Magic seen in the hobbit is CANNON
    Bilbo's sword Sting is CANNON
    Bilbo's magical ring is CANNON
    etc.

    Tolkien son published the Silmarillion and he left out many other writtings for sake of coherence and continuity with story, basically you are wrong in not accepting The hobbit and Magic in LOTR.

    http://youtu.be/0J1JSLzja7E



    Last edited by Al.; Dec 02 2012 at 02:11 PM.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Im just using facts, your opinion is mostly what you argue about you don't like using the hobbit as a prequel to LOTR because of the style it was written in, yet its a prequel...just deal with it.
    Context matters. You keep forgetting that part.

    Beorn is CANNON
    Magic seen in the hobbit is CANNON
    Bilbo's sword Sting is CANNON
    Bilbo's magical ring is CANNON
    etc.
    The style of magic actually changes markedly between the two books. Gandalf's magic is all styled after fireworks in The Hobbit (complete with white-hot sparks and the smell of gunpowder) but that's entirely absent in LOTR, it's more, well, wizardly there. And suited to an adult audience. Context, again.

    And it's 'canon'. You keep using this word (well, you would be if you could spell it properly, anyway) but I do not think it means what you think it means. It actually means that Tolkien definitely wrote that stuff... and that's all. It says nothing about the context of what he wrote, or the relationship between The Hobbit and LOTR.

    Tolkien son published the Silmarillion and he left out many other writtings for sake of coherence and continuity with story, basically you are wrong in not accepting The hobbit and Magic in LOTR.
    That's not what I'm saying about The Hobbit at all; having due regard to its context isn't rejecting it out of hand. And I certainly never said there's no magic in LOTR, just that Men didn't have the knack for it, as a rule. What I don't agree with is the sort of simplistic stuff you've been posting about it.

    That's also the second time you've tried to make out I'm 'wrong' about something that I never even said.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Shrewsbury, UK
    Posts
    53
    [QUOTE=Radhruin_EU;6552215]Wind your neck in, matey. There's no call for that.


    Blimey a fellow matelot?

    I must agree with Rad in general here, there still is a plethora of stuff that Tolkien had written but has yet to be published even now. His son has authorised publication of some of it and has written some himeself, but is always very very careful to source his FATHER as the originator.

    My one bug bear is the Unfinished Tales for obvious reasons!

  16. #66

    Mostly an answer to Radhruin, but

    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Hobbit>LOTR>Simarillion
    In terms of Canon, however, we must prefer LotR>Hobbit>Silmarillion: the Hobbit was revised by JRRT to become "LotR-compliant", not the other way around, and the Silmarillion was likewise (not completely, or perfectly-satisfactorily) edited to marry with what had been published as LotR.

    A more complete hierarchy of deference should probably run thus,

    LotR>Hobbit>Silmarillion>UT>LT >others

    Please forgive me for splitting hairs, but I think JRRT's identified intentions, where they can be identified at all, must be preferred.


    For Radhruin_EU,

    You go to great lengths to pretend you do not understand what I say, or pretend that I say something different, and then "counter" it by regurgitating what I said: logicians actually have a name for this style of argumentation, called Straw Man, and it is invoked to identify fallacy.

    The "virtue" of the Stone of Erech is its hallowed status as an artifact rescued from the Downfall; it is Gandalf or Elrond or Aragorn who, in TFotR, explains to the hobbits the vulnerability of the Nazgul to primal forces (I can't be bothered to find an exact quote, but IIRC, it's in Rivendell before the Council; also, c.f. Silmarillion, Rings of Power); the Flame of Anor can only be the tongue of the Secret Fire, but you obtusely fail to acknowledge Gandalf's simple declaration that the "false" fire can not prevail over the "true" fire; Kinslaying, blasphemy, oath-breaking, and ravishment (the auto-censor won't allow me to use the real word) are only some of the crimes committed by the Sons of Feanor, and all of these are crimes "against the natural order"; Gandalf's Right to depose Saruman comes with his "Gandalf-the-White" reincarnation, this is explicitly stated in the episode on the steps of Orthanc; the "source" of all the water summoned in the flood is irrelevant, because the river/river-valley provided it (perhaps an avalanche above a small alpine lake at the river's source; who cares?), and provided it in response to Elrond's command, because Elrond (and Elrond only) possessed the right to issue such a command (why did Gandalf make the horses? to conceal Elrond's identity/status ...).

    No one here should need to be fed pablum, but you insist on being spoon-fed and, at the same time, argue that there's more to the baby-food than baby-food.

    It is very clear to me that you have no interest in finding/providing answers, but are interested only in going-on talking. Certainly, I could be wrong, but I must call things as I see them.

    Apologies for the tone,

    HoG

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,550
    Who exactly were the Ringwraiths before they were Ringwraiths?
    I don't know specifically but I am sure you can find them in the movie "Office Space" (1999).

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post
    You go to great lengths to pretend you do not understand what I say, or pretend that I say something different, and then "counter" it by regurgitating what I said: logicians actually have a name for this style of argumentation, called Straw Man, and it is invoked to identify fallacy.
    There's also the 'fallacy fallacy', identifying fallacies which don't exist. There was no 'straw' about my reply to you, just irritation at your manner.

    The "virtue" of the Stone of Erech is its hallowed status as an artifact rescued from the Downfall
    What I asked was what made you think any such item could keep the spirits of dead Men from going off to the Halls of Mandos as they should. I'm not seeing any answer to that, there.

    it is Gandalf or Elrond or Aragorn who, in TFotR, explains to the hobbits the vulnerability of the Nazgul to primal forces (I can't be bothered to find an exact quote, but IIRC, it's in Rivendell before the Council; also, c.f. Silmarillion, Rings of Power);
    Quote, please. I don't recall it being quite so pat.

    the Flame of Anor can only be the tongue of the Secret Fire
    Pfft. Who says?

    but you obtusely fail to acknowledge Gandalf's simple declaration that the "false" fire can not prevail over the "true" fire
    Gandalf doesn't put it in those terms.

    Kinslaying, blasphemy, oath-breaking, and ravishment (the auto-censor won't allow me to use the real word) are only some of the crimes committed by the Sons of Feanor, and all of these are crimes "against the natural order"
    According to who? Seems to me you're just making things up to suit yourself.

    Gandalf's Right to depose Saruman comes with his "Gandalf-the-White" reincarnation, this is explicitly stated in the episode on the steps of Orthanc
    Being reincarnated is not the same thing as being granted authority to go with it. That 'episode' does not appear to me to explicitly state anything of the sort.

    the "source" of all the water summoned in the flood is irrelevant, because the river/river-valley provided it (perhaps an avalanche above a small alpine lake at the river's source; who cares?), and provided it in response to Elrond's command, because Elrond (and Elrond only) possessed the right to issue such a command (why did Gandalf make the horses? to conceal Elrond's identity/status ...).
    I said it was a fair question, nothing more. Hardly irrelevant in any case. And Gandalf made the water-horses to terrify the horses the Ring-wraiths were riding, so that they went wild and ran downstream - ensuring their riders were caught by the full force of the flood.

    No one here should need to be fed pablum, but you insist on being spoon-fed and, at the same time, argue that there's more to the baby-food than baby-food.
    Just one more piece of rudeness to add to your earlier display. For someone who's just got here, you're going out of your way to be both arrogant and abrasive.

    It is very clear to me that you have no interest in finding/providing answers, but are interested only in going-on talking. Certainly, I could be wrong, but I must call things as I see them.
    ...while failing to provide quotes when they're needed. And being downright rude to anyone who dares either (a) pay insufficient attention to you for your liking or (b) disagree with your interpretations. You make me look like a saint

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post
    In terms of Canon, however, we must prefer LotR>Hobbit>Silmarillion: the Hobbit was revised by JRRT to become "LotR-compliant", not the other way around, and the Silmarillion was likewise (not completely, or perfectly-satisfactorily) edited to marry with what had been published as LotR.

    A more complete hierarchy of deference should probably run thus,

    LotR>Hobbit>Silmarillion>UT>LT >others

    Please forgive me for splitting hairs, but I think JRRT's identified intentions, where they can be identified at all, must be preferred.
    Well said I stand corrected.

    I just don't like the idea radhruin and other have taken to not "acknowledge" the hobbit events as if they "aren't LOTR style" so they must be discarded...

    Obviously Christopher Tolkien knows better, he says there were more than 2 versions of Silmarillion at one time, and that you have to view tolkien sub-creation as LOTR-Hobbit centric then Silmarillion as its add-on to the mythology of the LOTR mainly.

    Also, rad you fail to acknowledge the prophecy gift dunadan have in the third age, they were some among rangers and Gondor who had it because of numenorian blood still lingered in them, if prophecy is not magic I don't know what is.

    Other magic man race had by the third age is Aragorn healing ability, other is that ability to see farer into the distance more than normal men, crafting of weapons in Gondor was partially magic involved been decendants of numenor some knowledge was passed down to them.

    Other magical abilities are well known: Shape shifting Beornings, ability to track the impossible prey, experts in rituals to counter evil rituals, etc. Some men effectively twart evil by using relics made of ages ago.

    Galdalf's sword is magical and can pierce evil creatures with ease, made by elves but some like Aragorn's Anduril flame of the west was first crafted by men and reforged by elves so the magic of the sword was made by men too.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Himring
    Posts
    713
    (Whispers to AI, Narsil was made by Telchar of Nogrod so it was dwarvish)

  21. #71
    *sigh*

    This has gone on for far too long, so I'm going to settle the issue once and for all.

    1: The Witch King of Angmar
    2: Groucho
    3: Harpo
    4: Chicko
    5: Zeppo
    6: Gummo
    7: Larry
    8: Curley
    9: Moe

    I hereby declare the matter resolved, closed and ended!

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Himring
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    There's no evidence of that in Gondor at all. We have one example of something magical made by the Dunedain and that had been made at least sixteen hundred years before, somewhere in the North-kingdom. (The Barrow-blades have to be that old because they were found in Cardolan). By contrast there was certainly nothing fancy about Boromir's sword, as it couldn't cleave troll-hide.
    Tuors axe "Dramborleg" was possibly found in a woodshed, yet killed five Balrogs, I myself have seen Katanas bounce off Bamboo without cutting, which had more to do with the quality of the cut and the swordsman rather than the sword, maybe Boromir was feeling tired and emotional, the ring was heavy on his mind.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    I just don't like the idea radhruin and other have taken to not "acknowledge" the hobbit events as if they "aren't LOTR style" so they must be discarded...
    And again, you've entirely misunderstood what I've been saying. You're hopeless.

    Obviously Christopher Tolkien knows better, he says there were more than 2 versions of Silmarillion at one time, and that you have to view tolkien sub-creation as LOTR-Hobbit centric then Silmarillion as its add-on to the mythology of the LOTR mainly.
    This seems to be a comprehension (nor just not-reading, or it-all-going-over-your-head problem on your part). As I said: LOTR was written to fit in with Tolkien's other tales as they existed at the time. I don't need to be told that all that material went through assorted versions because hey, guess what? I've got HoME, the books Chris Tolkien put together over the course of years, to tell me that.

    Also, rad you fail to acknowledge the prophecy gift dunadan have in the third age, they were some among rangers and Gondor who had it because of numenorian blood still lingered in them, if prophecy is not magic I don't know what is.
    No on both accounts. I mentioned Malbeth the Seer myself, earlier on, and I don't see prophecy as being magic because it's far more likely to be divine inspiration. It's a gift, not any sort of mechanistic magic.

    Other magic man race had by the third age is Aragorn healing ability, other is that ability to see farer into the distance more than normal men, crafting of weapons in Gondor was partially magic involved been decendants of numenor some knowledge was passed down to them.
    Aragorn was more than merely human because of his ancestry, so not an example that applies to others. That ability was specifically said to be unique to the Line of Kings - 'and thus shall the rightful king be known'.

    Other magical abilities are well known: Shape shifting Beornings, ability to track the impossible prey, experts in rituals to counter evil rituals, etc. Some men effectively twart evil by using relics made of ages ago.
    And now you're just repeating yourself; I talked about shape-shifting earlier. And sorry, but 'experts in rituals to counter evil rituals'? What? I said that there's that one proven example of Dunedain magic (the Barrow-blades) myself but as I also said, that was just the one example and from at least sixteen hundred years in the past, with no indication there was ever more than just one guy who was able to make things like that and it looks very much like a lost art.

    Galdalf's sword is magical and can pierce evil creatures with ease, made by elves but some like Aragorn's Anduril flame of the west was first crafted by men and reforged by elves so the magic of the sword was made by men too.
    Gandalf's sword had been made by the Elves of Gondolin, and Narsil was made by the famous Dwarf-smith Telchar. 'Nuff said.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Morthaur View Post
    Tuors axe "Dramborleg" was possibly found in a woodshed, yet killed five Balrogs, I myself have seen Katanas bounce off Bamboo without cutting, which had more to do with the quality of the cut and the swordsman rather than the sword, maybe Boromir was feeling tired and emotional, the ring was heavy on his mind.
    The axe was the weapon the Sindar preferred at the time, and Tuor had been brought up by them ('fostered by the Grey-elves of Mithrim'). 'Dramborleg' is a Sindarin name. More likely it's Elvish, then, yes?

    As for Boromir: 'the sword rang, glanced aside, and fell from his shaken hand. The blade was notched.'. It didn't just glance off, it was a solid blow with all his strength behind it but the blade not only failed to cleave the Troll's hide, it was notched in the process. Then up comes Frodo and stabs the Troll in the foot with Sting, which goes through its hide like a hot knife through butter. Boromir's sword evidently wasn't all that.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,242
    I'll say that I agree with Radhruin here. But, as you can see, this has been a pretty long argument. So unless you want it to continue for 2-3 pages, just agree to disagree. Using my magical foresight skills I foresee no end to this.

 

 
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload