We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 78

Thread: The Nazgul

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,454
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Its not complete quote and also that only indicates WK was empowered not the rest of the Nazgul.
    It's enough to show you were badly mistaken. The rest of that quote makes no difference... you could have the whole damn letter and it would make no difference.

    Im not, Malbeth the Seer said the Stone is were Aragorn will summon the Oathbreakers, a Stone brought from Numenor non-the-less key for tha oath....
    I told you already that to 'summon' someone doesn't have to mean any sort of magic just because it's fantasy. He isn't even at the Stone when he 'summons' them, he says it while they're in the Paths of the Dead where they can hear him. "I summon you to the Stone of Erech", he says, and they follow him there.

    The contrary actually, curses usually happen when a powerful person does it, Gods or God have very few power in that. That is why Feanor cursing Morgoth as Black Enemy of the World is profound, the Valar even disagreed with him but his curse took place, Morgoth was then named the Balck enemy of the world ever since.
    You need to do a lot more background reading. No, curses are not all about personal power and if you think that gods played little part in curses then you're gravely mistaken. I've seen ancient written curses with my own eyes (the Romans, for example, were in the habit of inscribing curses on bits of lead sheet, which they then folded up) so I know people used to curse others, asking a god or goddess to do something nasty to them by way of revenge for some misdeed or slight. One more time, if you even so much as say "Damn you!" to someone then you've just cursed them, and technically speaking you've done so hoping that God will heed your words. People have been doing much the same since time immemorial - invoking some supernatural entity or other and asking them to do something nasty to their enemies.

    As for Feanor, if you actually read what's said it agrees with what I've been saying. He curses Melkor, naming him Morgoth and he lifts up his hand before Manwe as he does so, (thus asking him to bear witness). He goes on to curse how Manwe had summoned him to Taniquetil, so that he wasn't at Formenos when Melkor came to take the Silmarils and killed his father. In the Oath of Feanor, there's a curse which calls the 'Everlasting Dark' down upon anyone who breaks it, and that oath was sworn in the name of Iluvatar - that would invite him to bear witness and to enact the curse on any oath-breakers. That's how oaths and curses are supposed to work. As for the curse the Noldor later bring down on themselves for committing the Kinslaying, well, that's what happens if you anger the 'gods'. Morgoth puts a curse on Hurin and his children, much later, and that sticks because Morgoth is a god in all but name.

    I can't tell you you would never understand.
    Damn straight I wouldn't, and that'd be because you're not making any sort of sense.

  2. #52

    A remark on the "curse" of the Dead Men of Dunharrow, and other stuff

    Since the nature of this 'magic' has become a matter for dispute, I'll make another assay to clarify things; the nature of this is closely-tied, in theme, to other issues at dispute, as well as to the matter of the OP.

    The Dead of Dunharrow were "cursed" in the sole context of remaining eternally-bound to the Oath they had (seemingly fore-) sworn: there is no "curse-power" in the Stone of Erech, or in Isildur, by virtue of personal powers or right of office; the oath was sworn on an object hallowed-enough to serve as an "oathtaking stone", before the one-and-only person who was "authorized" to accept that (particular style and wording of) oath, and it is these "virtues", only, that impart any potency to the Oath (I cannot recall if there is any mention of any invocation to Illuvatar in the Oath, it may merely be presumed, as the third element that "fixes" the Oath).

    Radhruin had remarked that my earlier gloss needed to be simplified; I remain nonplussed, as there can be no further reduction. This concept really is that simple. It is not required that Tolkien tells us that the Stone of Erech had been stuffed with Elros' petrified testicles, or that Isildur was wearing his Pendant of Undead-Cursing, or that a booming voice declared from the Heavens, "Make it so!". The Oath is "a valid oath" and remains binding; that's it.

    The Witch-King's "empowerment by Sauron" has, regrettably, muddied the waters: Sauron did "whatever-it-was-that-he-did" to enhance the powers of the Witch-King, as His most-terrible weapon and the leader of His armies; it can not be assumed that these improvements were alterations/enhancements to Witch-King's "nazgulness". So, this is not something, after-all, that is germain to our discussion.

    I've developed the impression that Al has forgotten this chronology: Isildur -> Malbeth -> Aragorn; Malbeth specifically naming of the Stone of Erech in his prophecy isn't terribly surprising, or prophetic.

    I will concede that I can not dispute that, perhaps, the eight nazgul were indeed knocked out of the sky by flying volcanic rocks, but I do not subscribe to that interpretation of the text: the destruction of the Nazgul certainly was coincident with the eruption at Orodruin, and I believe that is the most that can be extracted from that fragment of text; definitely, I do not find it compelling that Orodruin "picked-off" each and every one of the Nazgul in mid-air and, at the same time, "missed" Sam and Frodo (who were at "ground zero").

    From an "Occam's Razor" approach, I prefer my interpretation: destruction of the One "broke" the Nine and, with their rings "broken", the Nazgul disintegrated; "broken Nine" harmonizes with "broken Three", which is why the wielders of the Three left Middle-Earth (the "time of the Three" had ended).

    The fact that the Nazgul did not wear their rings has been mentioned (I think, first in this thread by me), but for purposes that remain unclear in (some) places. I meant only to demonstrate that the Nazgul's bonds to their rings were so strong (read, 'absolute') that they no longer needed to wear them. As far as this is concerned, more need not be said.

    As to why Sauron dispossessed the Nazgul in the first place, there are some possibilities that may be relevant to the greater discussion. It may be that, lacking the One, Sauron had to seize the Nine, simply to continue to dominate the Nazgul; it may be that seizing these rings allowed him to leech some of their power for his own personal enhancement. I can not conceive of any other persuasive possibilities.

    HoG

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,454
    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post
    Radhruin had remarked that my earlier gloss needed to be simplified; I remain nonplussed, as there can be no further reduction. This concept really is that simple. It is not required that Tolkien tells us that the Stone of Erech had been stuffed with Elros' petrified testicles, or that Isildur was wearing his Pendant of Undead-Cursing, or that a booming voice declared from the Heavens, "Make it so!". The Oath is "a valid oath" and remains binding; that's it.
    When people swear solemn oaths on something, they do so because that something has some spiritual significance. The Stone of Erech wasn't just a big round rock - the obvious explanation was that the thing was hallowed (there was certainly something eerie and unearthly about it), and that's why the Faithful had gone to the trouble of taking the damn thing with them when they fled Numenor. Otherwise, why bother? It was hardly the most obvious or practical thing for refugees to pack. So no, of course it's not a reliquary for Elros' left nut but the idea of sacred stones is hardly novel. Nor is the idea of an oath being more profound, more forcefully binding, by having been sworn on some sacred artefact or in a sacred place.

    I will concede that I can not dispute that, perhaps, the eight nazgul were indeed knocked out of the sky by flying volcanic rocks, but I do not subscribe to that interpretation of the text: the destruction of the Nazgul certainly was coincident with the eruption at Orodruin, and I believe that is the most that can be extracted from that fragment of text; definitely, I do not find it compelling that Orodruin "picked-off" each and every one of the Nazgul in mid-air and, at the same time, "missed" Sam and Frodo (who were at "ground zero").
    Almost as if some powerful force were keeping them from harm? Fancy that

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post

    I will concede that I can not dispute that, perhaps, the eight nazgul were indeed knocked out of the sky by flying volcanic rocks, but I do not subscribe to that interpretation of the text: the destruction of the Nazgul certainly was coincident with the eruption at Orodruin, and I believe that is the most that can be extracted from that fragment of text; definitely, I do not find it compelling that Orodruin "picked-off" each and every one of the Nazgul in mid-air and, at the same time, "missed" Sam and Frodo (who were at "ground zero").


    The fact that the Nazgul did not wear their rings has been mentioned (I think, first in this thread by me), but for purposes that remain unclear in (some) places. I meant only to demonstrate that the Nazgul's bonds to their rings were so strong (read, 'absolute') that they no longer needed to wear them. As far as this is concerned, more need not be said.


    HoG
    Harper, I agree with everything else except this paragraphs Ill explain why:

    The Nazgul picked in mid-air by the volcano seems like a loose end by Tolkien in the way the Nazgul are destroyed doesn't make sense. After the Ring is Destroyed they presumably lost part of their power, but they were pretty much like Gollum but immortal and undead so even if the one is destroyed I think Nazgul did perdure.

    Yep. I think the Nazgul didn't require rings is a hint, that their transformation is complete they are Nazgul no longer men, their condition is their curse, when Sauron is destroyed they are leaderless, maybe some are in fact destroyed but by common sense some nazgul could have survived the volcano and afterwards recoup in Minas Morgul.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,454
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Yep. I think the Nazgul didn't require rings is a hint, that their transformation is complete they are Nazgul no longer men, their condition is their curse, when Sauron is destroyed they are leaderless, maybe some are in fact destroyed but by common sense some nazgul could have survived the volcano and afterwards recoup in Minas Morgul.
    This is just you second-guessing the author again. No, common sense is taking what's said at face value, in which case the Nazgul are crispy critters. You're creating a loose end by pretending otherwise, rather than clearing one up. And in any case, no more One Ring means no more Nine Rings so even if the Nazgul hadn't ended up all toasty, their long-postponed deaths would have caught up with them real quick. From a story-telling point of view, having them burnt up seems a suitably dramatic ending - better than trying to describe the disintegration of something invisible.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Harper, I agree with everything else except this paragraphs Ill explain why:

    The Nazgul picked in mid-air by the volcano seems like a loose end by Tolkien in the way the Nazgul are destroyed doesn't make sense. After the Ring is Destroyed they presumably lost part of their power, but they were pretty much like Gollum but immortal and undead so even if the one is destroyed I think Nazgul did perdure.

    Yep. I think the Nazgul didn't require rings is a hint, that their transformation is complete they are Nazgul no longer men, their condition is their curse, when Sauron is destroyed they are leaderless, maybe some are in fact destroyed but by common sense some nazgul could have survived the volcano and afterwards recoup in Minas Morgul.

    I'm not sure which part of HoG's post you are agreeing with here. It seems to me that he is saying that the Nazgul being hit be flying lava was almost coincidental, as they would have perished anyway due to the destruction of the One Ring. At least that's the way that I read it, hopefully he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

    Also, as Gandalf said, the Nazgul stand or fall by their master, which logically would read that only the destruction of the One can bring down Sauron, and obviously that would cause the nine to perish and the servants of the nine along with it.
    “If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.”
    - Will Rogers

  7. #57
    To Wolfhelm, thank you: you have confirmed that people are actually reading posts and, also, that I'm not writing mine in Linear B.

    The exact progression you've iterated (One Ring perishes, hence Nine Rings perish, hence Nazgul go *poof*) is precisely what I suggested as being infinitely-more-plausible than the absurd proposition that each and every one of the Nazgul was caught-up in the outskirts of, and destroyed by, a Thera-magnitude geophysical event that nevertheless spared the two hobbits who had been loitering impotently at ground-zero ...

    I also pointed out how this reading harmonizes with the Fading of the Three: in this thread, I originally referenced the destruction of the Nine to confirm the Fading of the Three.

    I still fail to understand the insistence, by others, upon the existence of any "loose-end": I was nine years old when I first read the climax at Mount Doom and its immediate aftermath and, even at that tender age, I immediately apprehended that the Nazgul perished because their Rings had perished, certainly not because they were overwhelmed by an airborne tsunami of lava; the reading of the text does not insist upon the latter interpretation; why would any reader?

    Something is loose, but it isn't an end, and it is not to be found in Tolkien's works.

    HoG

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    The Nazgul .... were pretty much like Gollum but immortal and undead so even if the one is destroyed I think Nazgul did perdure.
    Now I understand the angle from which you are approaching the issue. Unfortunately, you are mistaken: the Nazgul were not "pretty much like Gollum"; they had faded, while he never did (long before Frodo even meets Gollum, Gandalf actually remarks specifically upon this); faded, the Nazgul were completely reliant upon the power of their Rings for the continuance of their existence.

    HoG

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lothlorien
    Posts
    1,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post
    To Wolfhelm, thank you: you have confirmed that people are actually reading posts and, also, that I'm not writing mine in Linear B.

    The exact progression you've iterated (One Ring perishes, hence Nine Rings perish, hence Nazgul go *poof*) is precisely what I suggested as being infinitely-more-plausible than the absurd proposition that each and every one of the Nazgul was caught-up in the outskirts of, and destroyed by, a Thera-magnitude geophysical event that nevertheless spared the two hobbits who had been loitering impotently at ground-zero ...

    I also pointed out how this reading harmonizes with the Fading of the Three: in this thread, I originally referenced the destruction of the Nine to confirm the Fading of the Three.

    I still fail to understand the insistence, by others, upon the existence of any "loose-end": I was nine years old when I first read the climax at Mount Doom and its immediate aftermath and, even at that tender age, I immediately apprehended that the Nazgul perished because their Rings had perished, certainly not because they were overwhelmed by an airborne tsunami of lava; the reading of the text does not insist upon the latter interpretation; why would any reader?

    Something is loose, but it isn't an end, and it is not to be found in Tolkien's works.

    HoG
    Agreed. I had always perceived that the Nazgul were destroyed by the fading of their Rings, not by the eruption of Oroduin.

    Again, many great posts! I fear that we have taken a detour, but many good constructive posts.
    I've been at the mercy of men just following orders. Never again.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Harper, Ill explain my point:

    The Nazgul were wraiths, they just didn't fade they were both real in physical and shadow realm.

    Secondly, The three rings are out we are talking lesser rings.
    Lastly the fire of oroduin didn't destroyed the Nazgul, because we are told by tolkien how Nazgul are impervious to elemental forces, be it water or fire it just drives them off, not even Gandalf with one of three rings could vanish the Nazgul.

    for anyone that wants to prove this points wrong:
    Give me a quote by Tolkien or in his books any of them, that the lesser rings of power lost the power after the One was destroyed.
    Last edited by Al.; Oct 04 2013 at 02:41 PM.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Here a quote that validates my point:
    Gandalf speaking to Frodo in The Shadow of the Past chapter in FOTR. Gandalf says: "In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles - yet still to my mind dangerous for mortals. But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous."
    This is from Shadows of the Past, Chapter 2.

    The lesser rings, tolkien never said they lost their power as the three rings.
    Last edited by Al.; Oct 04 2013 at 02:25 PM.

  12. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Give me a quote by Tolkien or in his books any of them, that the lesser rings of power lost the power after the One was destroyed.
    We've already been through this: https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthr...65#post6937965
    Tolkien explicitly states: "Thus, as you will see, when the One goes, the last defenders of Highelven lore and beauty are shorn of power to hold back time, and depart."
    Galadriel explicitly states: "Do you not see now wherefore your coming is to us as the footstep of Doom? For if you fail, then we are laid bare to the Enemy. Yet if you succeed, then our power is diminished, and Lothlórien will fade, and the tides of Time will sweep it away. We must depart into the West, or dwindle to a rustic folk of dell and cave, slowly to forget and to be forgotten.'
    Last edited by Sidlamel; Oct 04 2013 at 04:14 PM.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Ceredig View Post
    We've already been through this: https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthr...65#post6937965
    Tolkien explicitly states: "Thus, as you will see, when the One goes, the last defenders of Highelven lore and beauty are shorn of power to hold back time, and depart."
    Galadriel explicitly states: "Do you not see now wherefore your coming is to us as the footstep of Doom? For if you fail, then we are laid bare to the Enemy. Yet if you succeed, then our power is diminished, and Lothlórien will fade, and the tides of Time will sweep it away. We must depart into the West, or dwindle to a rustic folk of dell and cave, slowly to forget and to be forgotten.'
    Al (in a rare moment of lucidity) explicitly states: "Ok I agree, the three rings loosed their power."
    What part you don't understand, I said a quote on lesser rings of power, lesser not greater. Elves and the three rings are out, I want to know what happened to the lesser rings of power.

    Try harder.

  14. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    What part you don't understand, I said a quote on lesser rings of power, lesser not greater. Elves and the three rings are out, I want to know what happened to the lesser rings of power.

    Try harder.
    Lesser rings are completely irrelevant to the argumentation at hand since the Nine Rings were not lesser rings.

  15. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Ceredig View Post
    Lesser rings are completely irrelevant to the argumentation at hand since the Nine Rings were not lesser rings.
    This.

    HoG

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Ceredig View Post
    Lesser rings are completely irrelevant to the argumentation at hand since the Nine Rings were not lesser rings.
    You are wrong Nazgul were transformed by the lesser rings of power, the nine rings.

    Stop trolling.
    http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Rings_of_Power

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    You are wrong Nazgul were transformed by the lesser rings of power, the nine rings.

    Stop trolling.
    So are you saying the passage you quoted is saying those lesser rings are the Nine Rings?

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Ceredig View Post
    So are you saying the passage you quoted is saying those lesser rings are the Nine Rings?
    Ok I was wrong the Nine rings are rings of power, now you give a quote they lost their power?

  19. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Ok I was wrong the Nine rings are rings of power, now you give a quote they lost their power?
    Can you give me a quote that they did not?
    The Three Rings which were LEAST dependent on the One and yet they lost power.
    Why on earth would the Nine which were dependent on the One NOT lose their power.
    The Nine Rings were subordinate to the One.
    The Nine Nazgul were subordinate to whoever wielded the One.
    In a what-if scenario Tolkien even states that if Frodo had claimed the One, the Nazgul would NOT have attacked him but would have waited for Sauron to come and claim it.

    Also, admitting you are wrong is one thing and I congratulate you on your honesty. You may however think twice of accusing people of trolling when they are not, and you may want to refrain from constantly telling people they do not understand Tolkien when you have proven there are occasions when it is fact you have demonstrated a lack of understanding. I do not require an apology for your behaviour. I expect it from you. But you may want to realize how you appear to others on this thread who may formulate an unfavourable opinion of you based on your current behaviour.

  20. #70

    Re: OP, I'd like to insert something that has not yet been mentioned

    What follows is not exactly "smoking gun", but I believe it is thematically tied to the OP question.

    Immediately after Tom rescues the hobbits, he digs into the barrow and unearths all of its treasures, scattering them about for any (free/good) peoples to take away as they wish; this gesture is explicitly intended to "irrevocably break the barrow's evil spell" and prevent another wight from inhabiting it.

    The existence of the barrow-wights is apparently tied to the treasure of the barrows they inhabit: I would read that Sauron used greed to ensnare these spirits, who would thereafter become invested as wights, each to its own barrow, and chained to the objects of their obsession; this theme enters Tolkien's works through ancient folklore and tradition, and is not restricted to his treatment of the Rings of Power.

    I just thought that some might find this tidbit intriguing.

    HoG

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lothlorien
    Posts
    1,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post
    What follows is not exactly "smoking gun", but I believe it is thematically tied to the OP question.

    Immediately after Tom rescues the hobbits, he digs into the barrow and unearths all of its treasures, scattering them about for any (free/good) peoples to take away as they wish; this gesture is explicitly intended to "irrevocably break the barrow's evil spell" and prevent another wight from inhabiting it.

    The existence of the barrow-wights is apparently tied to the treasure of the barrows they inhabit: I would read that Sauron used greed to ensnare these spirits, who would thereafter become invested as wights, each to its own barrow, and chained to the objects of their obsession; this theme enters Tolkien's works through ancient folklore and tradition, and is not restricted to his treatment of the Rings of Power.

    I just thought that some might find this tidbit intriguing.

    HoG
    I hadn't thought of that. That is quote interesting...nice way to link those together.

    So then basically (seeing if I understand here), the Wight could come back as long as it's treasure was still in the barrow. Similarly, the WK (or any of the Nazgul) could come back as long as the Power of Sauron was in them?
    I've been at the mercy of men just following orders. Never again.

  22. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Selebrimbor View Post
    Similarly, the WK (or any of the Nazgul) could come back as long as the Power of Sauron was in them?
    Sure, although I would prefer to say, rather, as long as their own Rings had power.

    Earlier, Radhruin made a clarification that I thought noteworthy: maia-Sauron could be expected to regenerate himself, but maybe the Witch King would require some form of assistance or intercession; one can not assume that, his status as Chief of the Nazgul and/or powerful sorcerer notwithstanding, that he could achieve this himself.

    HoG

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Lond-en-Aur, Falathlorn, Landroval
    Posts
    604
    The "lesser rings" are irrelevant and do not appear in the stories. If you remember the beginning of FoTR - Gandalf asked Frodo to put away the Ring, for 17 years I believe, while Gandalf, with growing suspicions, was off trying to figure out whether it was THE Ring, or just a lesser magic ring that confers invisibility and nothing much else.

    The "greater rings" are the ones mentioned in the famous ring poem. The Nine for Men, the Seven for the Dwarves, the Three for the Elves (greater than the others and less tied to the One), and of course, the One.

    Really, I'm just subscribing to this thread because of the stone full of the Family Jewels of Elros. Never heard that one before.
    Galadhloth, Hunter 100, Glirithil, Mini 100, Calanor, LM 100, plus lots and lots of alts
    Watchers of Elendil ~ Landroval ~ Crickhollow ~ Tarciryan Knights
    ~~~~ Imladris in the Forgotten West ~~~~

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    68
    OK, first I need to ask a question before I state me opinion. If someone is wearing the ring, can't they die, I realize that they become invisible, but if you were to track them down and stab them, then couldn't they die? If you could then why couldn't they die, after all, they aren't ghosts or anything of the sort, isn't their invisible condition a side effect from overuse of the ring? So all you'd have to do is stab them and then they'd die. I could be wrong, I am not expert, this is just what I gathered from my readings.

  25. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by ElffriendNick View Post
    OK, first I need to ask a question before I state me opinion. If someone is wearing the ring, can't they die, I realize that they become invisible, but if you were to track them down and stab them, then couldn't they die? If you could then why couldn't they die, after all, they aren't ghosts or anything of the sort, isn't their invisible condition a side effect from overuse of the ring? So all you'd have to do is stab them and then they'd die. I could be wrong, I am not expert, this is just what I gathered from my readings.
    If someone is wearing the Ring while still being mortal, yes they will die when stabbed or anything else. But the Ring does not just extend life, it slowly turns any mortal into a shadow, essentially shifts his soul/spirit (whatever you call it) into the Unseen, the Spirit world. This is what happened to the Nazgul eventually. After that the wearer ceases to be a simple mortal and thus crude violence becomes ineffective.

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 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