Debate Tournament - Round 2: Outcasts vs. Elves/Dwarves

[Anamatar IV]

Before the debate begins, would both teams please post their team of four debators.

The Guild of Elves/Dwarves gets first choice of sides.

The judges are:
Maedhros - Scholars
Chymeara- OiE
Anamatar - Tolkienology
Snaga - Periur
Ithynluin - taking place of the poll


The debate will last 7 days from the first post made by the Guild of Elves.

The topic is:

Who was the primary factor in the death of the Witch-King, Eowyn or Merry?

Guild of Elves/Dwarves Team:

Ledreanne
Bethelarien
omnipotent_elf
The_Swordmaster

Guild of Outcasts Team:

Nóm
YayGollum
Rhiannon
The-Elf-Herself

LET THE DEBATING BEGIN

[omnipotent_elf]

Ok, i'll do an opening, allthough i dont have much time :(

I believe that it was Eowyn who had the pivotal role in the witch kings demise
It was eowyn who actually proved that the Nazghul (even tho she it was just a steed) were vulnerable. This would have been invaluable for moral, and proven that they were not invincible, thus providing the confidence needed for destroying the witch king

*sorry it's short guys, again, i dont have much time unfortunately, but i thought i'd get the ball rolling :D*

[Nóm]

RoTK
So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

"No other blade..."

So the blade is unqiue. How is it unique?

"not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter..."

It had an effect on the witch-king that other blades did not.

How bitter was it?

"...cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

"unseen sinews to his will"... what does this mean?

It has to mean the unnatural ability of his spirit to hang on to his body, that if not for the spell that Merry broke, would have long since released the spirit and rotted away.

So Merry's blow broke that unnatural ability for the spirit to remain with the body.
Spirit departing from body = death.

Merry was the primary factor in the death because it was the blow he dealt which broke the spell, opening the Nazgul to death (the releasing of his spirit).

Aside from the implications of the quote above, we also have that Aragorn and Glorfindel used fire to keep the nazgul at bay. Surely the mighty Glorfindel, balrog slayer, feared by the Witch-King, renowned warrior who's power is comparable to that of a Maia, could have and would have slew the Nazgul if just any sword could do it.

Eowyn delt the final blow, but it was only effective because of Merry's. Her dealing this final blow does not make her the primary factor in the witch-king's death anymore than Gollum was the primary factor in the destruction of the ring, merely the final.

The wicth-king's death was the result of a team effort on the part of Merry and Eowyn; but Merry's part was the primary factor.
RoTK
It was not long before Gandalf himself came in search of them. He stooped over Merry and caressed his brow; then he lifted him carefully. 'He should have been borne in honour into this city,' he said. 'He has well repaid my trust; for if Elrond had not yielded to me, neither of you would have set out; and then far more grievous would the evils of this day have been.'
Far more evil.

GoE/D
I believe that it was Eowyn who had the pivotal role in the witch kings demise...

and you believe that because:
It was eowyn who actually proved that the Nazghul (even tho she it was just a steed) were vulnerable.

Because the winged steed was a just beast raised by Sauron, whereas the Nazgul were half-dead men (a thing unnatural) under control of Sauron, it does not follow that the wraith could be killed only because the beast he rode upon could. At the Ford of Bruinen, the horses were destroyed, but there was no doubt whatsoever on the part of Gandalf, that the Nazgul had survived.

So her slaying of the steed did not prove that the nazgul were vulnerable.

This would have been invaluable for moral, and proven that they were not invincible,

It did not prove that witch-king was not invincible, though it did help morale, with Merry.

...thus providing the confidence needed for destroying the witch king

It did give 'the confidence needed for destroying the witch-king', as it gave Merry the confidence to stab him.

[Scatha]

If there are no objections, I would like to take Ledreanne's place in this debate, as she feels unable to participate.

[Bethelarien]

Scatha already has the approval of the GoD/GoE team.

[Nóm]

Okay, I'm just glad this thing is going to happen then.

[Scatha]

Originally posted by Nóm
So her slaying of the steed did not prove that the nazgul were vulnerable.



It did not prove that witch-king was not invincible, though it did help morale, with Merry.



It did give 'the confidence needed for destroying the witch-king', as it gave Merry the confidence to stab him.


Why Nom, you just gave us the answer.

If Eowyn had not slain the steed of the witchking, Merry wouldn't have had the courage to attack the wraith. So it was Eowyn who played the pivotal role in the slaying of the witchking.

[Bethelarien]

First of all, thanks to Anamatar for starting this round for us, and thanks to the GoO for debating.

I'll be taking a slightly different approach to the subject. :D

From Return of the King, Appendix A:
"Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall." (Said by Glorfindel, in speaking about the Witch-king.)

Glorfindel's prophecy to Eärnur is thus fulfilled, as Éowyn slew the Lord of the Nazgûl, not a man.

One may argue that just as Éowyn was not a man, neither was Merry, as he was a Hobbit. However, one can look at the context of the prophecy.

The word 'Man', with a capital 'M', is used to denote the race of Men, as used, for instance, in Gandalf's letter to Frodo in The Fellowship of the Ring:

"You may meet a friend of mine on the road: a Man, lean, dark, tall, by some called Strider."

Here, the word 'Man' is clearly used to denote his race.

On the other hand, the word 'man', with a lowercase 'm', is used to denote gender. Therefore, an Elf can be a man, meaning that he is a male Elf.

Therefore, I believe that Glorfindel's prophecy could not have been fulfilled by Merry, as he was a man, though a Hobbit.

In this context, therefore, it was not by Merry's hand that the Witch-king fell. It was Éowyn who slew him, Éowyn who was nearly killed because of it, Éowyn who fulfilled the prophecy. Hers was the greater part of it, and her injuries because of it were far greater.

Therefore, it was Éowyn who had the pivotal role in the downfall of the Lord of the Nazgûl, the Witch-king of Angmar.

[omnipotent_elf]

So Merry's blow broke that unnatural ability for the spirit to remain with the body.

The witch king, on accepting the ring, lost all of his spirit, so therfore it had none of it's own anyways, merely a puppet of Sauron. As such, this spirit could have been channeled through it's ring, and not just through it's sword.

Spirit, i agree, would have been lost in the sword. HOWEVER, the sword was not the only thing holding the witch kings spirit. The ring would have held spirit, and therefor the destruction of the sword, while damaging, would not have caused death.

Because the winged steed was a just beast raised by Sauron, whereas the Nazgul were half-dead men (a thing unnatural) under control of Sauron, it does not follow that the wraith could be killed only because the beast he rode upon could.

this 'winged steed' is in-itself unnatural. The horses ridden by Nazghul are horses, things natural to the lives of both merry and Eowyn. The destruction of a winged steed, destruction of an unnatural being, would have led to the thought that the Nazghul likewise, while unnatural, are also not invicible. This caused the feeling that the witch king, was in-fact destructable (non invicible), and as such, eowyns role in this caused the destruction of the witch king.

Surely the mighty Glorfindel, balrog slayer, feared by the Witch-King, renowned warrior who's power is comparable to that of a Maia, could have and would have slew the Nazgul if just any sword could do it

This would have been just legend to both Eowyn and Merry, and the fact that Glorfindel did not infact slay a Nazghul would have created the invincible aura. Eowyn proved that the unnatural of Sauron was destructable, thus instilling courage, and thus playing a pivotal role in the witch kings demise.

[YayGollum]

The craziness that this Scatha person is pretty much the same thing as ---> "Oh, but Glorfindel and Tom Bombadil and Aragorn and lots of other people helped Frodo live long enough to get to Gollum so he could destroy the One Ring!" That's just craziness. That doesn't make any of those people more responsible than Gollum for destroying the One Ring.

Anyways, of course we're debating!

All of that craziness about Glorfindel talking doesn't really matter. Or should we really believe every little thing any old elf decides to blurt out? They're not always right, you know. Looks like the WitchKing dude wanted him to be right, but oh well. That Return Of The King book definitely says that Eowyn killed the WitchKing guy. No doubt about it. That doesn't mean she was the most responsible for his death, though. I hope that makes sense. Well, it should be clear to you if read what the Nom lady had to say in her first post. Things about Merry's sword. It's creepy and weird and magical and without it, Eowyn wouldn't come close to killing the WitchKing.

Why do you people think that the WitchKing lost his spirit when he put his ring or power on for the first time? That's just craziness. What, did something just possess his body? I never knew that. oh well. There had to be some kind of spirit there no matter what, though. And what's all of this craziness about whoever killed that scary vulture thing? Does it really have anything to do with who was more responsible for the WitchKing guy's death?

[omnipotent_elf]

All of that craziness about Glorfindel talking doesn't really matter.

These prophecies often turn true, and as such, had large impacts on the lives of the future generations (merry and eowyn - morale in believing they could kill the witch-king) so therefor does matter.

Morale is important, because Frodo, when in the shire, attempted to just run from the Nazghul, and the then known stider also attempted to hide from them. their belief in killing the witch-king at this point is that they cant
In ROTK, The witch king is actually fought, and this is mainly due to the 'invicible' aura being removed, and the belief that they could actually kill the thing.

They're not always right, you know

THIS ONE WAS RIGHT

Why do you people think that the WitchKing lost his spirit when he put his ring or power on for the first time? That's just craziness. What, did something just possess his body? I never knew that

The ring corrupted his spirit. His spirit controlled his body. Over time the witch king had his spirit corrupted the same way in which the one ring corrupted bilbo. The ringwraiths were totally corrputed, the Witch-King more than the others. By the time of his death, the witch king, for all intensive purposes, had lost his spirit.

Things about Merry's sword. It's creepy and weird and magical and without it, Eowyn wouldn't come close to killing the WitchKing.

Your argument (thus far) is one that merrys involvement with the sword is greater then Eowyns entire involvement. Like you say, it is craziness for something to just "posses his body", and likewise is craziness for all things to rely on one piece of weaponry, a sword as the chief involvement in the death of the witch king. Not only that,

And what's all of this craziness about whoever killed that scary vulture thing? Does it really have anything to do with who was more responsible for the WitchKing guy's death?

Untill eowyn, nothing know had killed the Ringwraiths (mysterious steeds included) had positively killed them. Now something had. There fore it was important, as it was a catylst to everything else that happened

[Bethelarien]

All of that craziness about Glorfindel talking doesn't really matter.

On the contrary, it was a prophecy, therefore, it did indeed matter. Prophecies played a huge part in Middle-earth. The Curse of Morgoth on Hurin, Morwen, and their children can be looked on as a prophecy, as he was foretelling what would happen to them.

So in all actuality, Glorfindel's prophecy does matter. He was foretelling what would happen. And, indeed, his prophecy was fulfilled--by Eowyn, the pivitol role in the Witch-king's downfall.

As Omni mentioned, the slaying of the Nazgul's steed was a catylst to everything else that happened.

Without Eowyn slaying the steed of the Nazgul, Merry would not have had the courage to strike at the Lord of the Nazgul. Therefore, Eowyn provided the ability to do so, making her the pivotal participant.

[Nóm]

As for Glorfindel's prophecy...
Now even if by "man" he means "male person" this prophecy does not tell us anything we do not already know. Eowyn did kill the witch-king. Tolkien says so.

In this context, therefore, it was not by Merry's hand that the Witch-king fell. It was Éowyn who slew him, Éowyn who was nearly killed because of it, Éowyn who fulfilled the prophecy.
If Glorfindel does mean "male person" then yes... her slaying witchking was the fulfillment of the prophecy, however, this does not mean that her role was the primary.

Hers was the greater part of it, and her injuries because of it were far greater.
Greatness of injury is irrelevant, though they were both seriously injured.

...this 'winged steed' is in-itself unnatural.

Unnatural how? It was a beast taken and nurtured by Sauron... surely it was a fell beast, a beast turned to evil uses... but there is nothing unatural in this. No more unnatural than men of the East under command of Sauron, or even as a horse taken into the domain of sauron and used for evil purposes.


The horses ridden by Nazghul are horses, things natural to the lives of both merry and Eowyn.

They are horses, but no more natural. They are only more common, they are known to Merry and Eowyn, but have no less of a place in the world than did the big winged beast.

So this:
The destruction of a winged steed, destruction of an unnatural being, would have led to the thought that the Nazghul likewise, while unnatural, are also not invicible.

Is not true because the steed was not unnatural.

This caused the feeling that the witch king, was in-fact destructable (non invicible), and as such, eowyns role in this caused the destruction of the witch king.

What indication is there that people thought the witch-king could be destroyed only because they saw his beast could?


This would have been just legend to both Eowyn and Merry...

Do you mean back when the witch-king ran away as a coward when he saw Glorfindel approaching? Yes, sure it could only be legend to folks like Merry and Eowyn, but Merry and Eowyn's knowledge of that day is not the point. The point is that if the witch-king could have been killed without Merry and his blade... then greats like Glorfindel would have surely already taken him down.

The witch king, on accepting the ring, lost all of his spirit, so therfore it had none of it's own anyways, merely a puppet of Sauron.

He had lost his will to Sauron's. But he did not loose his spirit. Wherever his spirit went, there he was!

Spirit, i agree, would have been lost in the sword. HOWEVER, the sword was not the only thing holding the witch kings spirit. The ring would have held spirit, and therefor the destruction of the sword, while damaging, would not have caused death.

Sauron, and even the Ring of the witch-king would have a hold over his will, but the loss of the witch-king's body.... the releasing of his spirit from that body... is death. Maybe his spirit stayed in the dark dominion of Sauron, still under his control, but the nazgul was killed. It was the spell what somehow bound his spirit to his body in such a way that he lived on half-dead, which ended by Merry's hand.

The point is that whaveter it was that had a hold over the witch-king, that enabled him to exist as a wraith, was ended by Merry.

These prophecies often turn true, and as such, had large impacts on the lives of the future generations (merry and eowyn - morale in believing they could kill the witch-king) so therefor does matter.

No, my teammate Yay is correct. The prophecy does not matter, at least not as it was used in your earlier arguement. It only tells us what we already know.

However, it is my belief that Glorfindel's prophecy was a riddle. People heard it as "man", or maybe even some heard it as "Man" but it really ment both. Can't prove it, just my belief.

Morale is important, because Frodo, when in the shire, attempted to just run from the Nazghul, and the then known stider also attempted to hide from them. their belief in killing the witch-king at this point is that they cant
In ROTK, The witch king is actually fought, and this is mainly due to the 'invicible' aura being removed, and the belief that they could actually kill the thing.
&

[quote]There fore it was important, as it was a catylst to everything else that happened...

Eowyn did cause Merry to find courage. But it was still Merry's own courage that allowed him to stand up to the witch-king, or sneek up to him. The thing to help inspire courage is hardly primary, when the result of the courage is so big it becomes the primary factor.
It was Merry's courage that brought him along to Gondor in the first place.

The ring corrupted his spirit. His spirit controlled his body. Over time the witch king had his spirit corrupted the same way in which the one ring corrupted bilbo. The ringwraiths were totally corrputed, the Witch-King more than the others. By the time of his death, the witch king, for all intensive purposes, had lost his spirit.

He never lost his spirit.

If you mean he lost his will, then I will agree. However, we are to look at when he was destroyed, not when his will fell into Sauron's control. Sauron, the Necromancer, was somehow the cause of the spell that kept this wraith alive, that spell that Merry broke, and no one else could have.

Untill eowyn, nothing know had killed the Ringwraiths (mysterious steeds included) had positively killed them. Now something had.

You can not include the steeds with the nazgul. Nazgul = ring wraith (in the black speech). Steeds were not a part of the wraiths. They were simply steeds.

Also, Legolas had shot down a winged steed.
There is no reason the steeds can not have been easily killed by any weapon.

and likewise is craziness for all things to rely on one piece of weaponry, a sword as the chief involvement in the death of the witch king.

But the wound dealt by Merry, the wound that no other blade could have dealt though mightier hands weild it, was the cheif element in the destrouction of the witch-king. So Merry's role was the primary one, even though they worked as a team.

Your argument (thus far) is one that merrys involvement with the sword is greater then Eowyns entire involvement. Like you say, it is craziness for something to just "posses his body", and likewise is craziness for all things to rely on one piece of weaponry, a sword as the chief involvement in the death of the witch king.
She could not have killed him if not for Merry breaking the spell that kept him alive. After Merry broke that spell, anyone could have then struck and killed the witch-king,
I dare say he would have eventually died even if someone did not wound him after Merry did. His life was unnaturally long, so I would reason that if the cause of that long "life" was removed, age would have caught up with him at last, as it did with Bilbo when he gave up the One Ring. Though this is just my reasoning, and is nowhere stated that I know of. But, it does make sense.

Regardless of whether or not Merry's blow alone would have ended the witch-king, the fact remains that he took something unnaturally deathless, and enabled it to die just as any other living man can die.

Merry was the owner of the only blade that could have broke the spell that binded the witch-king's will to his body. He was also the one that dealt the blow.

Eowyn can not have killed the witch-king without Merry, she could not have done it alone, or even with Aragorn at her side. Merry could have killed the witch-king in any circumstances, so long as he had his blade and tried.

Merry was the key to it's death.
This blade and Merry's stabbing of the nazgul where the crucial things. There is no way the witch-king could have been destroyed otherwise while Sauron lasted. Because Merry was the key player, his action the key element: he was the primary factor.

[Bethelarien]

Eowyn did cause Merry to find courage.
Exactly. Therefore, without Eowyn, Merry would likely not have stabbed the Nazgul. So had Eowyn not killed the steed, Merry would not have done his part. So Eowyn is still more pivotal.

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Bethelarien
Eowyn did cause Merry to find courage.
Exactly. Therefore, without Eowyn, Merry would likely not have stabbed the Nazgul. So had Eowyn not killed the steed, Merry would not have done his part. So Eowyn is still more pivotal.

To countr our claim the Eowyn could not have killed witch-king if not for Merry's part, you provide that he would probaly not have done what he did if not for Eowyn. That is fair enough, and I agree with it. However, both things were pivotal. Outcasts argue that Merry's was more pivotal though.

For one, it was Merry who found his own courage to wittingly take action, even though it was inspired by an unwitting outside source. When is courage not inspired by soemthing outside? It is always something outside of a person that causes them to find courage within.

Second, we can not know if not for Eowyn, that Merry would not have found courage anyhow.

Third, while both things were pivotal, it was Merry's rendering of the witch-king into something that could be killed that was the most pirvotal, and primary factor in the death of the witch-king.

It turned the witch-king from something that could not be killed by anything other than Merry's blade, into a being that could be killed just like any other man. If not for Merry, no one could have killed the witch-king in any circumstances.

The nazgul existed for so long because they could not be killed in the way a man can be killed, but Merry changed all of that when no one else could. This is why his part is the primary factor.

[Scatha]

Originally posted by Nóm

For one, it was Merry who found his own courage to wittingly take action, even though it was inspired by an unwitting outside source. When is courage not inspired by soemthing outside? It is always something outside of a person that causes them to find courage within.

Most people find courage within themselves, as did most of the others in the fellowship. So to help someone find his courage is a key factor.


Second, we can not know if not for Eowyn, that Merry would not have found courage anyhow.

Agreed, but neither did Tolkien know this, for there is nothing that he wrote to counter this.

Third, while both things were pivotal, it was Merry's rendering of the witch-king into something that could be killed that was the most pivotal, and primary factor in the death of the witch-king.

It turned the witch-king from something that could not be killed by anything other than Merry's blade, into a being that could be killed just like any other man. If not for Merry, no one could have killed the witch-king in any circumstances.

That is not entirely the case, as more then one of the hobbits had a blade that was similar to his. It could just as well have been another.


The nazgul existed for so long because they could not be killed in the way a man can be killed, but Merry changed all of that when no one else could. This is why his part is the primary factor.

The nazgul existed for so long, because of the power of Sauron, not because they could not be killed. If not for Sauron's powers, the nazgul would have been dead a long time ago.

[YayGollum]

Yikes! Well, I had a nice birthday, anyways. :rolleyes: Let me see here. It looks like we've proved that pretty much anyone had the ability to kill the WitchKing right after Merry saved the day. Looks like what that Glorfindel guy had to say didn't really matter. It is possible for the guy to have been wrong. sorry about that. Anyways, Tolkien was always capitalizing race names sometimes and not doing it other times. Also, I don't see what that Glorfindel guy's words helped out very much since I doubt that Merry and Eowyn never knew about them. oh well.

What else? Yes. That creepy vulture thing's death and Eowyn helping Merry out with courage. Sounds like more of this type of arguement. ---> "Oh, but Glorfindel and Tom Bombadil and Aragorn and lots of other people helped Frodo live long enough to get to Gollum so he could destroy the One Ring!" How many people would call those guys more of a hero than the people that actually get the job done?

Then there's that thing about the WitchKing's spirit. I was just wondering why you people thought that he was immediately under Sauron's creepy mind control right when he put his ring of power on. I don't think so. It was a little more gradual than that. Also, am I the only one that thinks that the WitchKing wasn't as dominated by Sauron as the others? He seems to have a personality shining through. I'd like to know what he was like when he was normal. Or maybe he's just so much of a slave of Sauron's that he's actually kind of another Mouth of Sauron? oh well. just rambling. Was there anything else I was supposed to address?

[omnipotent_elf]

It was Merry's courage that brought him along to Gondor in the first place.

Dont forget that Merry wouldn't have even BEEN at the Pellenor Fields if Eowyn hadn't taken him there.

Then there's that thing about the WitchKing's spirit. I was just wondering why you people thought that he was immediately under Sauron's creepy mind control right when he put his ring of power on. I don't think so

Quite right, neither do I. In fact, as i posted earlier, it corrupted his spirit OVER TIME, so much so, that for all intensive purposes, Sauron controlled his spirit by the time of his death

and for all intesive purposes means that he did not infact lose his spirit, but indeed his will

The nazgul existed for so long because they could not be killed in the way a man can be killed,

so did their steeds (yay's 'vulture like things') and eowyn was the FIRST to kill such a creature. What more pivotal role then to prove it was actually possible.....



"Oh, but Glorfindel and Tom Bombadil and Aragorn and lots of other people helped Frodo live long enough to get to Gollum so he could destroy the One Ring!" How many people would call those guys more of a hero than the people that actually get the job done?

Is one deed greater than a great amount of them? NO

Then why was Merrys one deed more influential, more pivotal then the many deeds accomplished by Eowyn?

The ends justify the means, in many respects
Unnatural how?

the winged steeds are unnatural. How else would you describe a being which is not natural i occurence. It was not made in nature, thus unnatural. Something indeed corrupted in such a way has to be unnatural, as it is not a naturally occuring thing.

It is soo similar to the Nazghul, as they are in themselve unnatural, and the link is clear. That is why eowyns killing of one of these things is so pivotal in the witch-kings demise, as the death of one such unnatural thing leads to the assumption that the other is also killable.

by thw way, happy b'day yay

[Aulë]

Anamatar actually meant to say that the debate concludes at 5:50 AM (American EST) on the 10th of June (Tuesday).

Debate on. :)

[Nóm]

That is not entirely the case, as more then one of the hobbits had a blade that was similar to his. It could just as well have been another.
As for the other hobbit blades being able to deal out a wound like Merry's it can be doubted...

Pippin does think to himself at the Morannon:
RotK
He drew his sword and looked at it, and the intertwining shapes of red and gold; and the flowing characters of Numenor glinted like fire upon the blade. 'This was made for just such an hour,' he thought. 'If only I could smite that foul Messenger with it, then almost I should draw level with old Merry. Well, I'll smite some of this beastly brood before the end.

But for the sake of arguement, even if Pippin's blade could have done this, we still have what... two blades in all the world? The fact is that Merry had the only (or maybe one of two) blades that could do this, and he did do it - set the wraith up so that it could be killed.

However:
RotK
No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.


We are told no other blade. This means no other, not a few others, or even one other.

Most people find courage within themselves, as did most of the others in the fellowship. So to help someone find his courage is a key factor.

Merry did find it within himself, though he was moved to it by an outside factor. See even when the rest of the Fellowship found courage throughout the quest, they were inspired by something outside... to save others, or to save the world, to destory the ring. There was always soemthing outside that was worth finding courage for. And did the fellowship not find courage in eachother? When someone finds courage, they are finding courage within, regardless of what what caused them to do this. You can not just hand courage over... it must always be found within.

Agreed, but neither did Tolkien know this, for there is nothing that he wrote to counter this.
But this does matter because we know there is a chance Merry might have done this without Eowyn, whereas her part could never have been enough to kill the wicth-king, nor anyone else's part if not for Merry. Merry's role was the primary because of this among other things: His role was the crucial one, the one that can not have been accomplished by anyone else or with other blades. Merry did what only he could have done - allow the witch-king to be killed. Doesn't matter if fifty men tried to take the witch-king down, let alone Eowyn alone... without Merry's part it would have been a losing battle.

The nazgul existed for so long, because of the power of Sauron, not because they could not be killed. If not for Sauron's powers, the nazgul would have been dead a long time ago.
I will not argue with the statement that Sauron was to blame for the wraith's long life, but he did achieve that by making the man into a wraith, a thing that can not be killed as a living man can. So I do argue with your statement that... "not because they could not be killed".
Regardless of the fact that it was Sauron's doing... it remains that the wraiths could not be killed by just anyone. It was the spell that allowed this man to go on living forever, halfdead, that was broken by Merry. Surely this was the spell of Sauron the necromancer. The fact is that Merry broke the spell when no one else (unless you believe Pippin might have) could do it.

Dont forget that Merry wouldn't have even BEEN at the Pellenor Fields if Eowyn hadn't taken him there.
I wont forget that Eowyn brought him there, but I will not think that she forced him. He went under his own freewill, so he must get credit for that too.

o did their steeds (yay's 'vulture like things') and eowyn was the FIRST to kill such a creature. What more pivotal role then to prove it was actually possible.....
She did not kill a wraith, she killed a beast, no one could have doubted that the steeds could be killed.
Even if that did somehow prove that the wraith could be killed (which it did not!) I'd still say Merry's role was the biggest, as it could not have been killed without him.
You argue that Eowyn's role was so pivotal because it proved the witch-king could be killed, and you argue that it proved this because the steed was not made by nature.

the winged steeds are unnatural. How else would you describe a being which is not natural i occurence. It was not made in nature, thus unnatural. Something indeed corrupted in such a way has to be unnatural, as it is not a naturally occuring thing.
But...
RotK
And behold! it was a winged creature: if bird, then greater than all other birds, and it was naked, and neither quill nor feather did it bear, and its vast pinions were as webs of hide between horned fingers; and it stank. A creature of an older world maybe it was, whose kind, fingering in forgotten mountains cold beneath the Moon, outstayed their day, and in hideous eyrie bred this last untimely brood, apt to evil. And the Dark Lord took it, and nursed it with fell meats, until it grew beyond the measure of all other things that fly; and he gave it to his servant to be his steed.

This sounds like an old, even hidious beast, probably a giant bird... but no matter what it is, it is indeed a beast and like the horses and the steed that Legolas shot down, it could be simply killed by a weapon, it was no wraith. But here is the fact that can not be argued with: The steed was just a fell beast, and not the wraith. They were not one but two, who happend to work together for a time.

The death of the steed was not proof that the wraith could be killed. So, Eowyn did not prove the wraith could be killed. So, her role was not pivotal for the reason you gave. Also I ask you again: where is the indication that anyone concluded the wraith could be killed only because the steed could?

Is one deed greater than a great amount of them? NO

Then why was Merrys one deed more influential, more pivotal then the many deeds accomplished by Eowyn?

His deed was the primary factor because it is the one element that no matter how the wraith might die.... had to be there. It was the only crucial element in the destruction of the witch-king - Merry, his blade and the bitter wound, undoing the spell that had kept this wraith unnaturally alive and unable to be killed.

It was the most pivotal because he turned the wraith into something that could have been killed by anyone with any blade. Without Merry, no one could kill the witch-king, but with just about anyone, or maybe even alone, Merry's part could have killed the witch-king. It was the most crucial factor, by very far.

Merry's part made the impossible possible. Without Merry's part the wraith's death was impossible.

[Rhiannon]

Out of the wreck [of his winged steed] rose the Black Rider, tall and threatening, towering above her [Eowyn]. With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears like venom he let fall his mace. Her shield was shivered in many pieces, and her arm was broken; she stumbled to her knees. He bent over her like a cloud, and his eyes glittered; raised his mace to kill.
But he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving in to the ground. Merry's sword has stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Eowyn did deal the death blow, she would not have been around to do so without Merry's interference- the Nazgul would have already killed her after she had fallen following his previous blow. Even if Merry's sword contained no special property that made it possible to slay the Witch King, he still made it possible for Eowyn to do so by preventing her death, making him an absolutely vital element in the Witch King's death. He is even more vital in the next paragraph:
"Eowyn! Eowyn! cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her.
Not only did Merry make it possible for Eowyn to deal the death blow by preventing her death, he is responsible for her dealing it at all; would she have risen from her knees with a shattered arm and dealt a killing blow if Merry had not called to her? My argument is that no, she would not, making Merry the primary factor in the Witch King's death.

[omnipotent_elf]

I wont forget that Eowyn brought him there

surely that has a pivotal role in the witch kings demise. That is the only reason for their positions near it.

Merry's sword has stabbed him from behind,

a cowards blow in reality, only thrown because of eowyns courage. Without eowyn, merry wouldnt have been given the chance.He was a mere hobbit, not a warrior with the capability of battling the Witch King in one on one combat. He WOULDNT HAVE EVEN BEEN AT PELLENOR FIELDS IF IT WASNT FOR EOWYN. Without eowyns MANY deeds, Merry wouldnt have participated in the witch kings demise. Thus Eowyn must be the more pivotal. Without her, Merry accomplished nothing.

Not only did Merry make it possible for Eowyn to deal the death blow by preventing her death, he is responsible for her dealing it at all; would she have risen from her knees with a shattered arm and dealt a killing blow if Merry had not called to her?

same argument as above. Would merry have been involved if it wasnt for eowyn? no.

Not only did Merry make it possible for Eowyn to deal the death blow by preventing her death, he is responsible for her dealing it at all; would she have risen from her knees with a shattered arm and dealt a killing blow if Merry had not called to her? My argument is that no, she would not, making Merry the primary factor in the Witch King's death.

Agreed, it's a symbiotic relationship. However, does merrys dealings account for all of eowyns.Infact, it is eowyn who does more for merry, in the same way as Merry returning the favour in the same vain in the end. Would Merry have destroyed the spell if Eowyn didnt reveal the witch kings back?.

This sounds like an old, even hidious beast, probably a giant bird... but no matter what it is, it is indeed a beast and like the horses and the steed that Legolas shot down, it could be simply killed by a weapon, it was no wraith. But here is the fact that can not be argued with: The steed was just a fell beast, and not the wraith. They were not one but two, who happend to work together for a time.

A giant bird?. If it was a giant bird it would have been descibed so. If it was a giant bird it would have been seen before it appears carrying a Nazghul

if bird, then greater than all other birds, and it was naked

this is not bird. It is an unusual being, and as such it is unusal. IT IS UNUSUAL AS ARE THE NAZGHUL, and thus there is a link. As such, if you kill one, the theory is you can kill the other. That is human nature and belief, and allthough merry isnt human, he demonstrates the same values and beliefs of many humans.



This debate is asking weather Eowyns actions were more pivotal than merrys. Through the sheer volume of her actions, Eowyn must have been more pivotal. Without Eowyn, Merry accomplished nothing.

I agree, merrys action was primary. YET, this debate isnt asking who killed the witch king, it is asking whose role was more pivotal. Without Eowyn, Merry accomplished nothing. She even provided the oppertunity Merry needed for stabbing the witch-king , cowardly, in the back. She did everything except "break the spell", something which only occured through her bravery. How more pivotal can a character be.

side note: I cant wait to see this in ROTK in the cinema....

[The-Elf-Herself]

Ah, my first actual post. Huz-oops *coughs* anyway...

surely that has a pivotal role in the witch kings demise. That is the only reason for their positions near it.


You could also argue that the entire Fellowship had a pivotal role in destroying the One Ring, since they protected Frodo during the quest, even Legolas and Gimli. However, say if they hadn't come, if another elf or dwarf would have come in their place. Can you honestly say they wouldn't have done the same job effectively? Who's to say that someone else wouldn't have taken pity on Merry and taken him along? Sure the likelihood of that occurring might be slim and the fact that he and Eowyn were both being shunned from helping may have caused some empathy on her part, but hte possibility does exist. Why not also say the horse had a pivotal role, since it carried them there?

a cowards blow in reality, only thrown because of eowyns courage. Without eowyn, merry wouldnt have been given the chance.He was a mere hobbit, not a warrior with the capability of battling the Witch King in one on one combat.

Cowardly? Hitting a deadly enemy in a vulnerable spot is cowardly? I thought that would be good tactics, facing him head-on may seem heroic, but not effective in the long run. Eowyn nearly died because of her courageous confrontation and were it not for Merry's cunning blow with the barrow-blade it might have been all for nothing.

He WOULDNT HAVE EVEN BEEN AT PELLENOR FIELDS IF IT WASNT FOR EOWYN. Without eowyns MANY deeds, Merry wouldnt have participated in the witch

same argument as above. Would merry have been involved if it wasnt for eowyn? no.


Yes, I believe you already addressed your opinion of that.


Agreed, it's a symbiotic relationship. However, does merrys dealings account for all of eowyns.Infact, it is eowyn who does more for merry, in the same way as Merry returning the favour in the same vain in the end. Would Merry have destroyed the spell if Eowyn didnt reveal the witch kings back?.


Oh, you mean how he destroyed it with his "cowardly" stab? He may have still had a chance, although not having Eowyn's warrior skills, he was a quick hobbit and having the courage to want to face the battle to begin with, may have stabbed the Witchking if he had the chance. Eowyn made it much easier of course and in this instance her aide may have been a necessity, but that hardly makes her more pivotal.


A giant bird?. If it was a giant bird it would have been descibed so. If it was a giant bird it would have been seen before it appears carrying a Nazghul


Nom said probably a giant bird, not absolutely definitely. And even if it were so, how do you know it would be seen before it appear carrying the Nazgul? When Legolas shot the other down, it certainly wasn't easy to locate, even with his keen vision.

this is not bird. It is an unusual being, and as such it is unusal. IT IS UNUSUAL AS ARE THE NAZGHUL, and thus there is a link. As such, if you kill one, the theory is you can kill the other. That is human nature and belief, and allthough merry isnt human, he demonstrates the same values and beliefs of many humans.


Just because it is an unusual doesn't mean that it has any connection to the Nazgul. The crebain were unusual, but they could be killed.

[Bethelarien]

Originally posted by Nóm
As for the other hobbit blades being able to deal out a wound like Merry's it can be doubted...

Pippin does think to himself at the Morannon:

RotK
He drew his sword and looked at it, and the intertwining shapes of red and gold; and the flowing characters of Numenor glinted like fire upon the blade. 'This was made for just such an hour,' he thought. 'If only I could smite that foul Messenger with it, then almost I should draw level with old Merry. Well, I'll smite some of this beastly brood before the end.

But for the sake of arguement, even if Pippin's blade could have done this, we still have what... two blades in all the world? The fact is that Merry had the only (or maybe one of two) blades that could do this, and he did do it - set the wraith up so that it could be killed.

Indeed, Nom. But you forget-Sam also had a blade of the same sort. All three hobbits (not including Frodo, who had the Elvish Sting) had a blade of Westernesse, or Numenor. All three blades were taken from the same barrow. Therefore, all three blades would have had the same power. It mattered not which of the hobbits stabbed the Witch-king. Any of the three could have done it. Merry just happened to be there at the right time, again thanks to Eowyn.

Originally posted by The-Elf-Herself
Cowardly? Hitting a deadly enemy in a vulnerable spot is cowardly?
No, but it is indeed cowardly to hit an enemy from behind. This tactic is usually reserved for use by thieves or other...unsavory characters. So although I readily admit his action was necessary, it was still cowardly.

When all is said and done, Merry would not even have been there if not for Eowyn. He would not have been presented with the opportunity to (cowardly) stab the Witch-king in the back. Therefore, Eowyn plays the pivotal role.

[Rhiannon]

When all is said and done, Merry would not even have been there if not for Eowyn.

I think that even if Eowyn had not brought Merry to Pelennor, he would have found someone else to take him, making that argument irrelevant.


He would not have been presented with the opportunity to (cowardly) stab the Witch-king in the back. Therefore, Eowyn plays the pivotal role.

And Eowyn would not have been presented with the opportunity to decapitated the Witch King at all without Merry's supposedly cowardly stab, making Merry the primary factor in the Witch King's actual death, which is the topic of debate.

[Nóm]

At the heart of GoD/E's arguement has been the claim that Eowyn was pivotal because she gave Merry courage.

But now suddenly Merry's deed was less because:
No, but it is indeed cowardly to hit an enemy from behind. This tactic is usually reserved for use by thieves or other...unsavory characters. So although I readily admit his action was necessary, it was still cowardly.

a cowards blow in reality,


Indeed, Nom. But you forget-Sam also had a blade of the same sort.

I saw no need to mention Sam. The fact is that Merry's blade is said to have been the only blade..."no other blade". This means that Pippin and Sam's blade could not have done what Merry's did.

But even if they could have, it makes Merry's role no less primary. The fact remains that he broke the spell that had kept the witch-king "alive" and unable to be killed, and no one else there could have done it.

Without Merry's deed the witch-king could not have died.

All three hobbits (not including Frodo, who had the Elvish Sting) had a blade of Westernesse, or Numenor. All three blades were taken from the same barrow.

That is true, but this does not have to follow:

Therefore, all three blades would have had the same power.
In truth it is not common for men to make "magic" blade. Merry's could very well have had a power that the others did not, and Tolkien's words suggest this has to be the case. "No other blade".
Any of the three could have done it. Merry just happened to be there at the right time, again thanks to Eowyn.
I disagree that all could have done it, for the reasons I gave above. But even if all of the barrow blades could have done it, and Merry just happened to be there at the right place and time the fact remains that he did do it. He did end the spell that kept that wraith alive.

Omnipotent-elf,

Your claim that Eowyn giving Merry a lift is more important than the fact that Merry was willing to go is unreasonable.

Merry should get as much credit for this as Eowyn.

As far as getting to the battlefield, both played equal parts.

only thrown because of eowyns courage.
Nay. You can not act out of another person's courage, only your own, Merry acted out of his own courage.
Without eowyn, merry wouldnt have been given the chance.
We can not know this. But what we can know is that without Merry's part, the witch-king could not have been killed there. Also, as my team has shown, Eowyn would have died.

He was a mere hobbit, not a warrior with the capability of battling the Witch King in one on one combat.
Eowyn was not capable of this either. But there is a chance Merry could have done this alone, all it would have taken is courage and for the witch-king to have his attention elsewhere.

He WOULDNT HAVE EVEN BEEN AT PELLENOR FIELDS IF IT WASNT FOR EOWYN.
As things happend, Merry would not have did what he did if not for Eowyn. For him to have been there without Eowyn something else would have had to happen.... our imagination is the limit there. But as my team said:
I think that even if Eowyn had not brought Merry to Pelennor, he would have found someone else to take him, making that argument irrelevant.
Very likely... Merry was quite determined.

Without eowyns MANY deeds, Merry wouldnt have participated in the witch kings demise. Thus Eowyn must be the more pivotal.
But, EOWYN WOULD HAVE BEEN DEAD AND THE WITCH-KING VICTORIOUS IF IT WASNT FOR MERRY. ;)

Without her, Merry accomplished nothing.

We have agreed that it was a team effort that brought down the witch-king. Eowyn can not have killed the nazgul without Merry. Eowyn would have been dead without Merry.

Merry's role was primary because he was the only one who had the that only blade that could make the nazgul into something that could be killed.

this is not bird. It is an unusual being, and as such it is unusal. IT IS UNUSUAL AS ARE THE NAZGHUL, and thus there is a link. As such, if you kill one, the theory is you can kill the other. That is human nature and belief, and allthough merry isnt human, he demonstrates the same values and beliefs of many humans.


Tolkien says it could have been bird. But first you claimed that it was unnatural, but now you only say it was "unusual"... I'll not argue with that. I ask again: Where is the indication that anyone concluded from the death of the beastly steed that the nazgul, unnaturally half-dead being, could be killed too?

By the debate Host:
The topic is:

Who was the primary factor in the death of the Witch-King, Eowyn or Merry?

By GoE/D
I agree, merrys action was primary.
So, we're done here now? ;)

YET, this debate isnt asking who killed the witch king, it is asking whose role was more pivotal. Without Eowyn, Merry accomplished nothing. She even provided the oppertunity Merry needed for stabbing the witch-king , cowardly, in the back. She did everything except "break the spell", something which only occured through her bravery. How more pivotal can a character be.

Primary factor in the death of the witch-king. We say it is he who with the only blade that could have done it, crept in and broke the spell that enabled the witch-king to die.

[YayGollum]

Yes, happy birthday to me! Also, Yay for other Outcasts showing up!

Anyways, I don't really get all of this about Eowyn giving Merry courage and how the death of the vulture thing helps out with Merry stabbing the WitchKing.

Here's the scene in my mind ---> It's a battle. Lots of confusion. All kinds of people running around and killing each with all kinds of noise and distractions and craziness like that. The WitchKing, Merry, and Eowyn are all pretty close to each other. I'd bet that not a lot of other people would want to be very close to the WitchKing and there's plenty of other things to grab their attention. Eowyn kills the vulture thing. Lots of writhing and grossness and scary noises, I bet. Confusion. Merry stabs the WitchKing. Lots of Argh!s and Owie!s and things like that. The dude looks down and says to himself, "Oh, great. They got me! That wasn't supposed to happen! I thought I was pretty much invulnerable. oh well. I remember some elf saying something about only dudes being able to kill me. No problem except for this limp. Wait a minute. That dude's a lady!"

The WitchKing is killed by Eowyn. All thanks to Merry. I don't really think that Merry actually sat down and thought things out like, "Hm. Well, Eowyn just killed that vulture thing. I bet stabbing this guy would be helpful! Huh. I wonder why I never thought about being useful before! oh well. Here goes!" No, that's just craziness. It was a spur of a moment type thing. All kinds of confusion and noises and distractions in the way. He stabs the guy. Not really thinking about the fact that some lady killed some vulture thing.

[Bethelarien]

Again, I want to thank the Guild of Outcasts for debating with us, and our lovely host, and the judges. Without all of you, this wouldn't be possible. (Sounds like one of those corny speeches actors give at the Academy Awards!)

To sum up our position and arguments:

The Guild of Elves/Dwarves team declares that Eowyn played the pivotal role in the Witch-king's demise. Our reasoning is thus:

First of all, Eowyn actually slew the Witch-king. Her deeds show that she was the more important of the two.

Second, Eowyn--and Eowyn alone--fulfilled Glorfindel's prophecy, thereby proving that she was the pivotal person.

Third, if it weren't for Eowyn, Merry would not have been at the Pelennor Fields. GoO can conjecture all they like about how "it is likely someone else would have carried Merry", but our esteemed opponents cannot prove that. Therefore, if Eowyn had not taken him, it cannot be proven that he would have been there to deal the blow to the Lord of the Nazgul.

Fourth, while Merry did play an important part in stabbing the Witch-king (albeit it was from behind, a somewhat cowardly move), we put forth that any of the other swords of the Westernesse could have done the same deed. Therefore, it was not even Merry--it was the sword.

Because of the overwhelming evidence, the GoE/D team states that Eowyn played the pivotal role in the demise of the Witch-king.

[YayGollum]

Woah! That's just craziness, Bethelarien person! Why do you even have that second point? oh well. Not a huge deal.

Anyways, I thought that the idea that Merry would most likely have gotten to that battle without that particular lady's help made all kinds of sense, but oh well. How many people actually doubt that it would have happened?

You people come up with crazy ideas with no proof, too. --->

Merry would have never thought about messing with the WitchKing if Eowyn never killed the vulture thing (I still don't get that.) ,

those other swords could have broken that creepy spell, too (We proved that wrong with quotes.),

Eowyn was the only one there that could kill the WitchKing (That's dealing with the crazy prophecy that doesn't really matter, and besides, after Merry broke that creepy spell thing, it seems to me to be achingly obvious that anyone could kill the guy. There was no creepy spell that made it so only a lady could kill him. No matter who killed the guy in the end, Merry still made it all possible. Everyone could throw themselves at the WitchKing and noone would be anywhere near as effective until Merry helped them out.).

Well, I already talked about your fourth point, but Yikes! Now you're saying that even though you think Eowyn was more important, some lifeless thing was more responsible for helping out than the person that used it? Makes no sense to me. That's like blaming a gun for killing someone and letting the guy that pulled the trigger walk away.

Overwhelming evidence? *collapses* How much of our posts do you understand? Or are you just saying that because you're trying to convince judges a little? Whoops! Nevermind. *runs away*

[Scatha]

Yay, that is called a closing statement for the debate. We are still awaiting that from your guild.

How much of our posts do you understand?

Remarks like these are called attacking a person, instead of what is debated, which is not appreciated.

[Aulë]

As of 6 hours ago, this debate was closed.
Anamatar shall be setting up a judgement thread shortly. :)

[Ithrynluin]

The debate has officially ended. Closing thread. I'll post my judgement in a few days' time.