Witch-King of Angmar and the Black Riders

[Ted C]

I agree, the Witch-King is just as vulnurable as the others. Fate just kinda gets in the way of things sometimes, but luckily doesn't factor into debates

Indeed, if not for fate, I think that Gandalf might well have handed the Witch King his head. By Gandalf's own estimate, he was the most dangerous being in Middle Earth short of Sauron by that time. Furthermore, he had a weapon well-suited to destroying a Ringwraith in Glamdring, which might well have killed the Witch King and survived intact.

The only thing that might have tipped the balance the other way was the fact that Sauron was propping up the Witch King with all his will for that confrontation.

[Edi]

Regarding the One Ring and using it: It does not turn the wearer insrtantly into a wraith. In The Hobbit, Bilbo had to squeeze through the orc door and lost his buttons and in Return of the King, Gollum bit off invisible Frodo's finger.

It takes a long time of exposure to become a wraith, and for hobbits and dwarves, even longer still. I think there was some mention somewhere in the Appendices that dwarves could not be corrupted in the manner of men, that they just became greedy, surly and suspicious.

Edi

[Guardsman Bass]

It takes a long time of exposure to become a wraith, and for hobbits and dwarves, even longer still. I think there was some mention somewhere in the Appendices that dwarves could not be corrupted in the manner of men, that they just became greedy, surly and suspicious.

If I remember right, it was that they couldn't be dominated by Sauron through the Rings, so he just took them back.

[Balrog]

It's because of the way Aule made them, unable to be dominated by the minds of others or somesuch. I'll have to start looking up dwarves again...

[Ted C]

It's because of the way Aule made them, unable to be dominated by the minds of others or somesuch.

As I recall, he made them to be resistant to the powers and tricks of Morgoth. Sauron learned his methods from Morgoth, so...

[Stark]

Does anyone have any idea where the Witch-King's superiority comes from? Was he the greatest king? Is his ring better? Is it because he's a sorcerer/necromancer/wizard/etc? Do vanilla Nazgul have magic powers beyond their innate Ringwraith stuff? I'm curious, because regular Nazgul aren't a problem for Gandalf (even several), but the Witch-King alone was a serious threat to the guy that killed a Balrog. I figure it's due to his status as a proper magic-using wizard or because Sauron provides more of his power to the Witch-King through his ring, but I've never seen a source for either possibility.

[NeoGoomba]

Does anyone have any idea where the Witch-King's superiority comes from? Was he the greatest king? Is his ring better? Is it because he's a sorcerer/necromancer/wizard/etc? Do vanilla Nazgul have magic powers beyond their innate Ringwraith stuff? I'm curious, because regular Nazgul aren't a problem for Gandalf (even several), but the Witch-King alone was a serious threat to the guy that killed a Balrog. I figure it's due to his status as a proper magic-using wizard or because Sauron provides more of his power to the Witch-King through his ring, but I've never seen a source for either possibility.

I always figured that it was, as you mentioned, the fact that Agmar was the "greatest king". Perhaps it was his innate powers and superior willpower that he possessed as a man before he was corrupted by his Ring that allowed him to retain his will (to a degree) while under Sauron's domination.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

Does anyone have any idea where the Witch-King's superiority comes from? Was he the greatest king? Is his ring better? Is it because he's a sorcerer/necromancer/wizard/etc?

I believe that, in life, he was the mightiest of the lords corrupted by Sauron. From what I have gathered (and, admittedly, a great deal of speculation) he was a great Numenorian of royal lineage that was ruling over holdings in Middle-Earth.

Do vanilla Nazgul have magic powers beyond their innate Ringwraith stuff? I'm curious, because regular Nazgul aren't a problem for Gandalf (even several), but the Witch-King alone was a serious threat to the guy that killed a Balrog.

The powers of the Nazgul are based on three core principles: Innate power, power gained from the ring, and the power of their master.

The first one is the reason that Sauron gifted the rings to "powerful kings of men." After all, why settle for weak servants when you could have strong ones? In addition, it is stated quite clearly that the powers of the Nazgul vary from Nazgul to Nazgul, with Khamul being the second most powerful of the Nine. (though, yes, he was severely weakened by the light)

Secondly, the ring powers. These are much more vague, but it seems to be a power enhancer/multiplier rather than just a few set abilites you gain. The books speak of the kings becoming greater in all their works prior to their corruption, in addition to gaining great wealth and virtual immortality, so they seem to support this hypothesis.

Thirdly, the power of Sauron has some bearing on the power of the Nazgul. How much? Very difficult to say. I put forward that they remain just as personally powerful regardless of the waxing/waning of Sauron, but merely have no support base or places to fall back to should they be discovered by the Wise, and hence must keep a much lower profile. This theory is supported by the Witch-King's emergence and rule over Carn-Dum (Third Age ~1300-~1975) and war with Arnor despite Sauron's defeat in the Second Age and failure to re-emerge until year 1980 of the Third Age.

I figure it's due to his status as a proper magic-using wizard

Perhaps, in a sense, but that distorts the concept a bit. Beings in Tolkien's universe seem to have more of an innate "Power" than set spells and wizardry. When using "magic" it seems to be more an extension of that power than, say, the invocation of astral powers via ritual that we see in D&D. I hypothesise that it was the Witch-King's actual level of power (innate plus what he gained from the ring, of course) that allowed him to stand against Gandalf, rather than merely the fact that he had "spells" to fight him with and the other Nazgul did not. A third factor that might or might not have been present was the will of Sauron being focused on the area, and perhaps dampening Gandalf's powers. I have, however, no way to support that, and it is little more than speculation.

or because Sauron provides more of his power to the Witch-King through his ring, but I've never seen a source for either possibility.

I have never heard of anything like that. In fact, it runs counter to several sources. I have no doubt Sauron is capable of empowering his forces, (hell, it is demonstrated that Melkor could) but I think it more likely he does it through bending his will to that task rather than using the rings as a channel.

[Jade Falcon]

It's a shame that we never got any more background on the Nazgul, or more properly, the Kings they were before their corruption. For one, I'd like to know where their realms were. For instance, the Witch King himself founded the realm of Angmar seemingly to bring about the downfall of Arnor, yet he was a King prior to that.

[Balrog]

About the only thing we know for sure about their backgrounds was that Khamul was an Easterling and three of the others were Numenoreans; WK might've been a Numenorean himself, a high lord or something.

[Ted C]

As I recall, much of Numenor was under Sauron's sway late in the island nation's existence, but I can't remember if the Rings had already been made at that time.

If they were (and I think Sauron had his Ring at the fall of Numenor), then some of the Nazgul were probably very prominent Numenoreans back in the day, before Illuvatar sank the island. Powerful Numenorean leaders manipulated through their Rings would explain much about how they got so arrogant that Sauron could actually convince them to try to invade Valinor.

[Ted C]

A little research finds that the Rings had been forged and Sauron had started given nine of them to men early in the second age, well before the fall of Numenor. Most of the Nine are probably Easterlings or Southrons, since Sauron's conquest of Middle-Earth was cut short by the intervention of the Numenoreans.

Still, it's quite possible that Sauron reclaimed some of those rings and gave them to Numenoreans during his captivity. The Numenoreans were already pretty arrogant by this time, and Ar-Pharazon craved immortality. Ar-Pharazon seems to be a confirmed kill in the destruction of Numenor, but other Numenoreans may have survived to become Ringwraiths.

[Eframepilot]

I remember from somewhere that three of the Nazgul were originally Numenorean. I assume that they were Numerorean lords who came to rule over parts of Middle-Earth in the middle of the Second Age and received the rings from Sauron as peace offerings or something, unaware of their true danger.

[Prozac the Robert]

Do we have any idea of what the nine rings were supposed to do? The one ring gives power over the others, the three help preserve and strengthen things, and the seven seem to relate to gold. So what do the nine do?

[VT-16]

Probably help the Kings of Men do what Men do best.

....

Wage war? :P

[Eframepilot]

Do we have any idea of what the nine rings were supposed to do? The one ring gives power over the others, the three help preserve and strengthen things, and the seven seem to relate to gold. So what do the nine do?

Make you invisible. Enhance your natural abilities: greater strength, speed, intelligence, etc. (AD&D stat boost?) Give you the power of Command, i.e. be able to dominate the wills of other men and thus wield massive armies via super charisma. (This was something that Boromir said that the One Ring could give him, but the Nine ought to have the same power on a smaller scale.) Enable and enhance the use of sorcery?

The above is all speculation, save the "make you invisible".

[Jade Falcon]

No offence, but where was it ever stated that any of the lesser rings made the bearer invisible? Now I haven't read the Book of Lost Tales or any of the vast material that Christopher Tolkien has been churning out from his fathers notes, so if its there, I don't know about it.

[Balrog]

'Men proved easier to ensnare. Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their days, great kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing. They had, it seemed, undending life, yet life became unendureable to them. They could walk, if they would, unseen by all eyes in this world beneath the sun, and they could see things in worlds invisible to mortal men; but too often they beheld only the phantoms and delusions of Sauron. And one by one, sooner or later, according to their native strength and to the good or evil of their wills in the beginning, they fell under the thralldom of the ring that they bore and under the domination of the One, which was Sauron's. And they became for ever invisible save to him that wore the Ruling Ring, and they entered into the realm of shadows.'

At least, that's what the Sil tells us about their beginnings.

No offence, but where was it ever stated that any of the lesser rings made the bearer invisible? Now I haven't read the Book of Lost Tales or any of the vast material that Christopher Tolkien has been churning out from his fathers notes, so if its there, I don't know about it.

Do you mean one of the Great Rings, or the lesser ones before them? We don't know much about the lesser ones, save that they were made as essays in the craft by the Elven-smiths before they made the Great Rings, and that some were more potent then others. Whether they all made you invisible, it's not known. The Three didn't make you invisible, but the Nine did, and so could the Seven if not for the Dwarves' nature.

[Jade Falcon]

Well first off, by the 'Lesser Rings', I meant the 3, the 7 and the 9, to distinguish it from the One Ring, but thanks for the quote. I never realised that they made the bearer invisible.

It also suggests though that some of those Kings at least weren't necessarily evil at first but were corrupted by their ring.

[Stark]

I figure it's due to his status as a proper magic-using wizard

Perhaps, in a sense, but that distorts the concept a bit. Beings in Tolkien's universe seem to have more of an innate "Power" than set spells and wizardry. When using "magic" it seems to be more an extension of that power than, say, the invocation of astral powers via ritual that we see in D&D. I hypothesise that it was the Witch-King's actual level of power (innate plus what he gained from the ring, of course) that allowed him to stand against Gandalf, rather than merely the fact that he had "spells" to fight him with and the other Nazgul did not. A third factor that might or might not have been present was the will of Sauron being focused on the area, and perhaps dampening Gandalf's powers. I have, however, no way to support that, and it is little more than speculation.

I mentioned this because all the five wizards are maiar, and there aren't any others. If the Witch-King is just a powerful Man with a Ring, it seems a bit odd that he can threaten (and be confident of defeating) a maiar like Gandalf. Gandalf's even got a ring too, and I always figured the Elven rings were better than the human ones. I'm just not seeing where the Witch-King had some kind of edge or advantage. I don't recall if he was described as Sauron's most powerful servant. His power from back in the Angmar days seemed to be related to his magic (the other Nazgul don't even have names, let alone nifty titles) but even then the Elves and Men kicked his ass and he ran away.

Again, Gandalf can scare off regular Nazgul in small groups with no danger, but he was afraid of the King by himself, and the Witch-King was confident of killing a maiar. This doesn't make alot of sense to me unless the Witch-King is significantly more powerful than the others, and 'he used to be hardcore' doesn't really sound like the sort of power he'd need.

[Surlethe]

I mentioned this because all the five wizards are maiar, and there aren't any others. If the Witch-King is just a powerful Man with a Ring, it seems a bit odd that he can threaten (and be confident of defeating) a maiar like Gandalf. Gandalf's even got a ring too, and I always figured the Elven rings were better than the human ones.

Two things: Elves and Men can certainly defeat Maiar (for example, Luthien defeating Sauron, Glorfindel and the Balrog), so there's some precedent for a mortal, especially an enhanced one, to defeat a Maia; and I'm fairly certain Galadriel makes clear that the Elven rings, while more potent, can't be put to use as the Nine or the One can, to wage war.

I'm just not seeing where the Witch-King had some kind of edge or advantage. I don't recall if he was described as Sauron's most powerful servant. His power from back in the Angmar days seemed to be related to his magic (the other Nazgul don't even have names, let alone nifty titles) but even then the Elves and Men kicked his ass and he ran away.

I guess that power may also be related to the number of worshippers you have and the time you have to build up a power base; the Witch-King seems to be rather more potent when he's at the head of an army than when he's all alone in the wilderness.

Again, Gandalf can scare off regular Nazgul in small groups with no danger, but he was afraid of the King by himself, and the Witch-King was confident of killing a maiar. This doesn't make alot of sense to me unless the Witch-King is significantly more powerful than the others, and 'he used to be hardcore' doesn't really sound like the sort of power he'd need.

Does the Witch-King know Gandalf's a Maia?

[Imperial Overlord]

The Istari (the Wizards) were limited to using the lore and power attainable by men while on Middle Earth. So the Witch King could definitely be a threat to Gandalf.

[Stark]

Really? So all the things Istari could do is theoretically available to regular Middle Earth people? Wierd.

Mentioning Glorfindel again maybe suggests the Witch-King is maiar level power: Glorfindel is pretty absurdly powerful, and he didn't kill the Witch-King back in the Angmar days. Again, it's the Witch-King of Angmar kicking Arnors ass, not the Witch-King and his funky bunch. Glorfindel alone can deal with a few Nazgul, but once again the Witch-King is far more dangerous than them.

How much of this can be put down to Gandalf being a big pussy? He was crapping his pants when he sensed the Balrog (a relatively equal foe). He wouldn't have lasted for days of fighting if he was outmatched, whereas the Witch-King apparently expected to school Gandalf in a few minutes tops to facilitate the invasion.

Also, the Witch-King is uber and there's a Super Saiyan square-off at the gates... then the Rohirrim show up, and the Witch-King loses his bottle and runs off (I think to take tactical control of the critical area). Why would he give a shit if he was so powerful? The Rohirrim had no magic weapons and no powerful heroes to threaten him, and yet their arrival disrupted his plans and he panicked. Maybe RTSs have corrupted my mind, but surely he could have let the Rohan forces chop up his largely worthless infantry for a few minutes while he killed Public Enemy Number One? Instead he leaves, ignoring his objective to go and slaughter regular, nonmagical human troops. I figure the total loss of the entire army he brought to Gondor would be worth destroying the gates and killing Gandalf, since that would basically guarantee victory for another assault. But I don't clearly remember the whole 'Sauron craps his pants over the Ring being at Gondor and attacks early' thing, so I'm probably missing something.

[Gandalf]

Really? So all the things Istari could do is theoretically available to regular Middle Earth people? Wierd.

Well, not regular people like Jim the Rohan Blacksmith. Luthien was half Maia Elf princess and Glorfindel was some funky powerful Elf Lord.

[Stark]

Didn't Glorfindel come back from the Undying Lands like Gandalf did? I mean, it's a big retcon by Tolkien, but I was under the impression that by the time he was fighting Angmar, he'd already left then come back.