Talk:Witch-king of Angmar

Single Source warning?

Why is there a "This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source" warning at the top of the page? Seems a bit silly, seeing as one could argue there is only one canonical source for information about the Witch-king, namely The Lord of the Rings. Captain Chaos (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Has more than one source. Removed that tag and the other one because that was also incorrect - there are inlines citations here, maybe not enough, but that is a different tag, refimprove, I think. Maybe someone will add that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Vendetta against Isildur

I noticed that the Witch-King carries out Sauron's campaign of revenge against Isildur's legacy specifically. Sauron is foiled when Isildur absconds with a sapling from the White Tree in Numenor and is defeated when Isildur cuts the One Ring from him. Fast forward to the Third Age, the Witch-King launches into an attack on Arnor first, the heirs of Isildur's fourth son. He overruns Cardolan with evil wights, captures Fornost as his own and drives the last king off to die in the icy wastes of the north (the cold climate itself a remnant of Morgoth's long occupation of Utumno and Angband). A young prince of Gondor to the rescue is what ousts him and wreaks Angmar. Years later, the Witch-King takes Minas Ithil, the city built and ruled by Isildur (and home to the White Tree for a time). He then issues a challenge to the now King of Gondor, the same who bested him as a prince long ago. He violates the terms of the duel and captures the king. Ithilien, the land once personally ruled by Isildur, is depopulated and turned into a wilderness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.122.50 (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say rather a determined campaign against the Faithful. Sauron sought to dominate Middle-earth, and the Kingdoms in Exile were thus necessary targets, the only ones with substantial strength to resist him. Tolkien writes (App A?) that the Witch-king went after Arnor first because it was in disarray while Gondor remained strong. (Though how "Tolkien's sources" knew that is a mystery: no-one that we know of actually interviewed the Witch-king.) As for Ithilien, it lay next to Mordor; Minas Ithil was militarily the obvious place to start in the push against Gondor. Certainly both Sauron and the Witch-king could carry grudges -- this is clear from Gandalf's descriptions -- but Isildur's line and lands also just happened to be in the way. (And of course this is mostly speculation, falling squarely under WP:OR.)  Elphion (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

All true, but I think Tolkien strongly suggests that the Witch-King was a king or chieftain among the Black Numenoreans; and as such, he would have a special hatred and grudge against the Dunedain and all their kingdoms. 214.13.130.104 (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Where does Tolkien imply at all (let alone strongly) that the Witch-King was a chieftain of the Black Númenóreans? Look at the timeline alone: The Nine have already appeared by about SA 2251 (Appendix B), when the division in Númenor was only just beginning, and long before the Kingdoms in Exile had even been dreamt of. Elphion (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fate of the Witch-King's ring

The entry currently states: "The fate of the Witch King's ring is not clear, it was not reported to have been recovered at the battle site..." Of course not, he did not wear it. Sauron held the nine rings:

"The Nine he had gathered to himself; the Seven also, or else they are destroyed. The Three are hidden still." - Gandalf in The Fellowship of the Ring. (Galadriel says something similar)
"They were by far the most powerful of his servants, and the most suitable for such a mission, since they were entirely enslaved to their Nine Rings, which he now himself held..." -Unfinished Tales
"They would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor command of his that did not interfere with their errand - laid upon them by Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had primary control of their wills..." -The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letter #246

The nine rings given to Men were buried in the wreck of Barad-dur, shorn of their power (like the Three). This is a non-debate and the graph should be eliminated. Bflood (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, there's a real inconsistency, as Gandalf says at the Council of Elrond, "The Nine the Nazgûl keep." This one sentence may be a mistake on Tolkien's part, though. I agree that the paragraph doesn't need to be in this article. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, given multiple other citations, within LOTR and in other writings, I would go with the overwhelming weight of the evidence. (Also, the ring was never found, no mention of Frodo seeing the rings on the wraiths' hands, etc.) But we agree - this is a small point that doesn't belong in the article. Bflood (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Be bold! (Now that no one has objected.)

By the way, have you taken a look at Wikipedia:Fiction? It suggests that we avoid writing about fiction from an "in-universe" point of view. I agree with this philosophically: aside from things that are clear in the text (and sometimes not even for them), there's no "fact of the matter" in fiction. What objectively exists is the contradiction of one sentence with several others, not some real location of the Nine Rings that we can come to a conclusion on from the evidence. (On the other hand, I have enjoyed writing some possibly excessive plot summaries from an in-universe point of view.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've had other changes simply reversed (on the Gollum page, fer instance). Anyway, it's done now. I've eliminated the graph. I think the discussion of the Nine's rings would be more appropriate to the 'Nazgul' page anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflood (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 August 2009 Bflood (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a change this big on the Talk page was a good way to handle it, I think. Also, if people revert your changes, you can (calmly) explain your reasons on the Talk page. Incidentally, I didn't see your log-in name in the history of Gollum. People may take your ideas more seriously now that you're not so anonymous. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Who attacked the Prancing Pony?

The article currently states: In LOTR "The Fellowship of the Ring", as in Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated adaptation, they attack the Prancing Pony inn of Bree themselves and wreck the hobbits' rooms, whereas in the book their local accomplices do the deed.

Local accomplices? I think most readers (including 2 movie directors) interpret the attack as the work of the Nazgul. I'd like to see some other sourcing to say it wasn't. I can find nothing in the text stating it was NOT the Nazgul. Before the attack, Strider suggests that they will not 'openly attack' the a well-lighted place where there are many people. But sneaking into bedrooms in the middle of the night is not an 'open attack'. Granted, there is nothing that explicitly states it WAS them, but in the Tale of Years the attack on the Pony is lumped together with the attack on Crickhollow, supporting the idea that it was the other group of Ringwraiths. Bflood (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've elminated this graph. The topic is mentioned on the 'Nazgul' page, where it's better described and sourced. As it's unclear that the Witch-King participated (even IF the Nazgul were the attackers), seems unnecessary on this page. Bflood (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Undead

In "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields", the narration says, "No other blade... would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh..." So whatever "undead" means, I think the Lord of the Nazgûl qualifies. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Undead the topic specifically refers to people who have died and are still animated. The lord of the Nazgûl does not fit this description having never died. Adding him to the category is original research, changing the meaning of the text to fit the description that you want. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, saying that by "undead" Tolkien meant "undead" is not OR or changing the meaning of the text, and I don't want any particular definition.

I didn't look anything up since I didn't think categories needed citations, but since you mention OR, here are some citations for the Nazgûl being undead.[1], [2], [3], [4], and others that you can see by searching GB for "Tolkien undead".

On my talk page, you wrote, "...the Nazgûl are not dead, a key factor in the inclusion in the commonly accepted meaning of 'Undead'". Having been dead is indeed part of one definition I found: "Now esp., (of a supernatural being, esp. a vampire) technically dead but still animate." (NSOED, 1993). However, two other definitions are less specific: "no longer alive but animated by a supernatural force, as a vampire or zombie" (Dictionary.com, based on the Random House Unabridged) and "No longer living but supernaturally animated, as a zombie." (American Heritage—both definitions are at Dictionary.com. Merriam-Webster bizarrely defines it only as a noun, a vampire or zombie, both of which as usually understood have been dead.)

The Nazgûl Lord is certainly animated by a supernatural force, "the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will", so according to the latter two definitions, the question is whether he's still alive. I can see why you say he never died, since the process they went through seems to be gradual, although "they entered into the realm of shadows" may mean some transition from alive to not alive. (Or it may not.) However, Éowyn uses the definition of "undead" as "not alive"—"For living or dark undead, I will smite you..." She's presumably not an expert, but I see no reason Tolkien would take an ironic attitude toward her knowledge here, the narration's use of "undead" a couple pages later looks very much like settling the question she raised.

In addition, the word "wraith" isn't usually used about living people (except as a figure of speech). As Tolkien knew perfectly well, the original uses were of a ghost and of an illusory figure of a living person, in Gavin Douglas's translation of the Aeneid, where Juno creates an image of Aeneas

Sic like as, that they say, in diuers placis,

The wrathis walkis of goistis that are dede...

Thiddir went this wrayth or schaddo of Enee... [5]

(Some may want a modernization: "Such like as, that they say, in diverse places,/ The wraiths walk of ghosts that are dead... Thither went this wraith or shadow of Aeneas...")

In short, I can see some doubt about whether Tolkien meant the Ringwraiths to be undead in what you consider the commonly used sense, but with citations that they're undead, I think the benefit of the doubt goes with his words. Also, the sense you consider "commonly used" seems to be more limited than some dictionaries' view, which does fit the Nazgûl. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, I stand corrected and will update the article accordingly Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Named

I know that Tolkien never named him, but in The Atlas of Middle-Earth: Revised Edition, Karen Wynn Fonstand gives his name as Angmar, most notably on page 56 (Battles - T.A.: 1200-1634). Given that the book was not endorsed by Tolkien's estate, I don't feel it's that relevent, but I thought I might include it to see if it warrents mention in the article. 173.180.89.129 (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That might be the way noblemen sometimes get referred to by their titles. E.g. 'John Smith, Duke of Buckingham' gets shortened to 'Buckingham'.

—WWoods (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)