|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nalin sternbolt
Lindon
Feb 5 2013, 5:15pm
Post #1 of 3
(1681 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Aragorn (Elessar) versus "Witch-king"
|
Can't Post
|
|
Where: Battle of Pelenor Fields
Aragorn:
Anduril-sword that matched Sauron in the previous age.
Elf-stone of Arwen. which for this post has the ability to counter the Black fear of the Witch-king
Armor: at least enough for a fair fight.
Dunedain blood... lets just say that Aragorn is not a "man" like the prophesy says but is Numenorean, and can "kill" the "Witch-king" if victorious! [at least for this post]
Witch-king of Angmar:
Sword of the Witch-king: tainted with "black death"
mace or flail
Armor: enough protection for a fair fight
No Army of the Dead or Grey Company etc and the other has no legions of Mordor and Minas Morgul (plus other Nazgul to lend power).
Peter Jackson, Phillipa Boyens, or Fran Walsh (or anyone else on the Hobbit production) NEED to come out to the Seattle Comicon, @ www.emeraldcitycomicon.com
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Feb 5 2013, 7:27pm
Post #2 of 3
(1613 views)
Shortcut
|
I think Aragorn is a Man no matter what. The Dunedain were always considered of the race of Men. Superior to other types of Men, but still the same race. "Not by the hand of man" applies to Aragorn.
The W-King can't be hurt by any blade other than the Barrow-blades, as far as we know, and any blade attempting to wound him is dissolved, which Aragorn says himself. Wouldn't Anduril perish too? Hard to say, given its lineage, but I wouldn't bet on it surviving. Even Merry's blade that was enchanted for the express purpose of killing the W-King perished afterwards, and Merry's arm went numb in the process, so the spell to kill the Nazgul wasn't enough to ensure the survival of the assassin.
The W-King shattered Eowyn's shield and broke her arm--he may have been ghost-like, but was deadly in combat. And he left the Black Breath on her. Would the Elessar stone have deflected the Black Breath, or Aragorn done so himself? Just a maybe.
I think it would be over in a few minutes, an end to Aragorn.
|
|
|
Nalin sternbolt
Lindon
Feb 6 2013, 4:18pm
Post #3 of 3
(1615 views)
Shortcut
|
|
wait, maybe we're not thinking on a different level...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I know that Tolkien referred to the "Witch-king" as being under a prophesy that "he could not be killed by any mortal man". ...but is that "could" or "would". We might be interpreting the prophesy from the Witch-king's perspective (and feed into his "fear" since he'd like all people to THINK that he's invincible to mortal man). this is often the follies of foretelling the future, even the wisest cannot see all things.
What if the Arnorian prophet (Barahir perhaps) foretold of him dying by Eowyn and he made the prophesy by seeing this in a vision... which would lend the expectation that "oh, a person that isn't a mortal man would kill the Witch-king. don't worry He WILL die (just not by a mortal man)!!" That would then turn into legend and myth which history creates into a fabric of fiction that could warp into an invincibility myth. (dost thou not know the prophesy, die now and curse in vain!!)
NOTE: during the battle of Pelanor fields it was Aragorn that Tolkien described as nearly invincible (particularly in wrath). He also would drive hosts before him due to his might and power!!
I really don't think the jury is OUT on this one. I think that the argument for Aragorn is open and legit!
Peter Jackson, Phillipa Boyens, or Fran Walsh (or anyone else on the Hobbit production) NEED to come out to the Seattle Comicon, @ www.emeraldcitycomicon.com
|
|
|
|
|
