What if a MAN actually stabbed the Witch-king instead of Éowyn?

Question

Now we all know about the prophecy that "no living man" may slay the Witch-king of Angmar in LOTR. This prophecy was fulfilled when Éowyn, a female, stabbed the Witch-king in the head, thus killing him.

But what if instead of Éowyn, it was a Man, like say Aragon or Éomer, who delivered the "fatal" blow to the Witch-king with their sword? Would the prophecy hold true and the Witch-king NOT die?

It's a prophecy. Since it wasn't prophesied, by definition, it can't happen. — Valorum, May 06 '16 at 11:27
Perhaps a good question would be whether prophetic visions in LOTR are fated to occur. — Valorum, May 06 '16 at 11:29
".. fatal blow to the witchking with their sword? Would the prophecy hold true and the witchking NOT die?" They would die if it was a fatal blow (by definition of 'fatal')! — Andrew Thompson, May 06 '16 at 11:49
@Richard I believe it was Glorfindel who made the 'prophecy' about the witchking — TWL, May 06 '16 at 11:51
@AndrewThompson haha.. you've got a point there! What I actually meant by 'fatal' blow was the FINAL blow of the sword to the witchking's invisible head — TWL, May 06 '16 at 11:53
Perhaps 1) 'fatal' blow ..or.. 2) head blow .. would go better there. It really jumps out at me as odd, the way it is currently written .. — Andrew Thompson, May 06 '16 at 11:55
Could he be killed by a hobbit, elf, dwarf or other member of a non-man race? Additionally, could he be killed by a non-living being such as a member of the Army of the Dead? — Rogue Jedi, May 06 '16 at 12:31
@RogueJedi: my first guess when reading the scene as a kid is that he would be killed by Merry :) — Taladris, May 06 '16 at 13:19
@Richard - Only unfulfilled Tolkien prophecy I remember was Mîm being slain by a poison dart. And CT says that was only because Tolkien never got around to rewriting Mîm's death. — ibid, May 06 '16 at 13:28
‘Fear not, Macbeth; no man that's born of woman shall e’er have power upon thee.’ — , May 06 '16 at 14:31
Well I guess it doesn't help that the movie makes it looks like it was his utter shock at a woman being there which prevented him from reacting in time... — , May 06 '16 at 19:51
Technically it says "not by the hand* of man shall he fall". Does that mean a man could kill him with his foot*? You gotta look out for these loopholes... — Darrel Hoffman, May 06 '16 at 20:24
@DarrelHoffman - now, in living kung-fu color ---- BRUCE LEE in "FEETS OF FURY MEETS LORD OF RINGS"!!!! "So, ancient king of evil, you think you are strong? Hiiiii-YAAAAAAAH!" :-) — Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні, May 07 '16 at 21:41
I figure if there's some sausage, he's considered a man, hobbit, elf or otherwise. — iMerchant, May 09 '16 at 00:51
@user35609 who's inactive so won't see this: As long as we're quoting let's at least be accurate. From 4.1: Second apparition, a bloody child Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth Had I three ears, I'd hear thee. Apparition Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn / The power of man, for none of woman born / Shall harm Macbeth. Same thing. As you imply nothing about can't, only about shan't. The Weird Sisters (that's how they name themselves) are deliberately misleading him, to deliver his soul to hell. The audience can follow as it happens. Angels and ministers of grace defend us! — Lesser son, Dec 19 '21 at 00:08

Binary Worrier · Accepted Answer · 2016-05-09T17:55:56.857

138

For one thing "Prophecies" in Tolkien's work aren't the "Nostradamus" kind of prophecies that we are used to, it's not a fortune teller saying "you'll meet a tall dark witch-king and end him". Neither is it a fairy tale curse or enchantment Before your 16th summer you shall prick your finger . . . there by forcing fates hand.
These are not a Tolkien prophesy.

Tolkien was more of a "fate" guy, for example when the elves gave chase to Morgoth after the kinslaying they were given the Doom of Mandos. That isn't "a punishment" but lays out the consequences foreseen by those who can see further and more clearly the effects of a given action. If you do this, then this will be your fate.

Glorfindels words that became "The Witch-king prophesy" are . . .

He will not return to this land. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall.

... and were spoken to Eärnur, a "man" ergo, non elf. So Glorfindel may have been saying "This foe is beyond your powers, it would take an Elven Lord (like me) to bring him down, and I can't see myself taking him on anytime soon".

On the other hand, it may have been Glorfindel getting a sense of the Witch-king's doom, he may have felt that it wasn't a man who would kill him.

Also the magic that protected the Witch-king wasn't specific to "men" (i.e. this shield does a quick chromosomal check of the attacker and just deflects blows from people with Y chromosome). The magical protection was magical and protected him against all blows.

However while Eowyn landed the fatal blow, it only succeeded because Merry's first blow unwound the Witch-king's magic defenses.

To answer the question

But what if instead of Eowyn, it was a Man like say Aragon or Eomer who delivered the fatal blow to the Witch-king with their sword? Would the prophecy hold true and the Witch-king NOT die?

If it had been Aragon or Eomer who landed the blow after Merry disabled the Witch-king's shields (as it were), then the Witch-king would have died, and proven the "prophecy" false, however that didn't happen. Could it have happened? Let's let Morpheus answer that

No, what happened, happened and couldn't have happened any other way.

edited May 09 '16 at 17:55

answered May 06 '16 at 13:07

Binary Worrier

13,510
4
61
73

82

Oooh. Citing The Matrix in LOTR answer, ergo, you earn an upvote. – DVK-on-Ahch-To May 06 '16 at 13:08
15

@DVK-in-exile: Yeah, but it's from the second movie, which may nullify the coolness :p – Binary Worrier May 06 '16 at 13:09
I would also maybe note the general Elven disdain for the race of man's power - seeing them as a lesser, weaker species that is much more prone to the corruption of Sauron. This is also more then likely part of why it is stated that it will not be (less powerful) man that brings down the witch-king. – Mark May 06 '16 at 13:19
3

The second Matrix movie had that really awesome, extended, semi-vampire-inspired fight scene, so IMHO it has enough redeeming qualities that it's still nice to see it referenced here and there. – Todd Wilcox May 06 '16 at 15:44
8

@BinaryWorrier I think your interpretation "This foe is beyond your powers, it would take an Elven Lord (like me) to bring him down" is the most satisfying and made the most sense to me! – TWL May 06 '16 at 18:35
Is there any solid evidence that the Witch-king was shielded against all blows before Merry's strike? We do know he has the 'all blades that pierce him are destroyed' thing, but that's still clearly in place when Eowyn stabs him. No 'shields' seem to have been lowered. – James M. May 07 '16 at 04:59
1

@james if you follow the link under "Merry's first blow" there's a good discussion of that exact point. – Binary Worrier May 07 '16 at 15:28
@BinaryWorrier I looked there and the only relevant thing I saw was "Based in part on this quote, some go even farther and suggest that the Witch King was immune to physical weapons before being hit by the barrow blade. No clear answer is known.", which is rather unhelpful. Am I missing something? – James M. May 07 '16 at 18:56
1

Sorry no, that's the non-conclusion I'm pointing to. It can be interpreted in several ways, personally I read the "unknitting" as making him vulnerable, allowing Eowyn to finish him off. You could argue that Eowyens blow would have killed him regardless, or that Merry's blow would have killed him eventually, or that he may have been wounded by one or the other but not fatally. There is no clear answer, just what we each take from the text (imho) – Binary Worrier May 07 '16 at 23:56
However while Eowen ahem, you meant EowYn? :P – Federico May 09 '16 at 08:19
1

Note that, technically, Merry isn't a Man either (he's a Hobbit). – January First-of-May May 09 '16 at 13:18
4

@JanuaryFirst-of-May Lo these many years ago, someone posted a hilarious first-person-smartass dialogue between Eowyn and the Witch-King on rec.arts.sf.written covering this point; the bit I remember is "No man can slay me" "I am a woman" "Bah, this Westron is so imprecise, I didn't mean vir, I meant homo" "In that case, permit me to point out that Meriadoc, who is not homo but [some made-up Latin word], a Halfling, has just introduced a blade of Gondolin to your knee." Sadly, DejaNews is no longer a thing. – zwol May 09 '16 at 14:36
@zwol - I'm pretty sure I've never seen this particular version before, but I did read a somewhat more serious discussion that mentioned something very similar. I've even seen a version saying that both Merry and Eowyn were significant for the prophecy. – January First-of-May May 09 '16 at 14:42
2

Your answer started well, but I disagree with your conclusion. No, the Witch-king was fated to be killed by Eowyn, which is what Glorfindel prophecised in an unclear manner. Had it been Aragon (for example), Glorfindel never would have made the prophecy in the first place. There is no such thing as a false prophecy in LotR, exactly for the reasons you stated at the top of your post: they aren't foretelling, they are a description of the truth!. When Glorfindel made his prophecy, it was already true -- Eowyn was fated to destroy the Witch-king, and nobody else could have done it. – Andres F. Jun 08 '17 at 16:56
1

@AndresF. Ah, but when I ask "If it had been Aragon or Eomer" I also ask "Could that have happened?" and answer it "No", for the reasons you've clearly outlined in your comment. I believe we're in agreement, it happened the way it happened and couldn't have happened any other way. – Binary Worrier Dec 22 '22 at 12:22
@zwol checking up on my old comments, I decided to look up the quote you described on Google Groups. Here's the post, from 2009. The made-up word is dimidiulus. – January First-of-May Jun 24 '23 at 18:36

score 39 · Answer 2 · answered May 06 '16 at 14:19

No, the thing is, the prophecy that the Witch-king would not be slayed by a man was just that: a prophecy. It was a prediction of the future. So, what happened was, Glorfindel probably looked into the Witch-king's future and saw that no man would kill him.

This looking into future business is finicky, unless you use Galadriel's mirror. With the mirror, you can actually see events that happen in the future, past or present: "Things that were, things that are, and some things that have not yet come to pass". But even then, it's not set in stone. Things in the future may change. Same with Elrond (and later, Arwen) who actually saw Arwen having a son with Aragorn, though the future is not set in stone.

But with Glorfindel, and all these 'set in stone' prophecies (like the Words of the Seer about the Doors of the Dead), they can't physically see what's gonna happen, they just get a feeling, or they don't find what they're looking for. Like with Glorfindel: he tried to figure the Witch-king out, and couldn't find the future where a man kills him. So that's what he prophesied.

It's not that because of the prophecy, no man will be able to kill the Witch-king, more like no man is going to kill him, therefore the prophecy exists. In other words, a situation where a man stabs him or tries to kill him in any way, simply was never meant to happen.

Precisely. If a man was going to kill him, then then any prophecy involving the Witch-king's death obviously would reflect that fact (or be wrong). — T.E.D., May 06 '16 at 18:13
It was a prophecy, but also an advice, and Elves seldom give unguarded advice, for advice is a dangerous gift, even from the wise to the wise, and all courses may run ill. — Glorfindel, May 08 '16 at 13:31
+1 Though it was a description of the future, not a prediction. Other than that, I agree with you. — Andres F., Jun 08 '17 at 16:58
This is the right answer. Glorfindel didn't say no man can kill him, just that no man will. Whoever causes his fall will be other than a man. That the Witch-king made the same unjustified assumption so many of we readers do is on him, not Glorfindel, nor Merry or Eowyn. — Lesser son, Dec 18 '21 at 23:33

zwol · Answer 3 · 2016-05-11T22:22:04.843

The case of Huan is similar, and instructive, because someone did try to cheat. Huan was a wolfhound, and there was a prophecy saying that he could only be killed by "the greatest wolf that would ever live". Sauron (yes, that Sauron) turned himself into the greatest wolf that had ever lived, attacked Huan — and was defeated. Some years later, Huan was slain by a still mightier wolf, Carcharoth, who had not yet been born when Huan fought Sauron.

I don't recall exactly how it's put, and don't have a copy of The Silmarillion to check, but I believe it is made reasonably clear that Sauron could not qualify as "the greatest wolf that would ever live" because that was Carcharoth. That position was already taken.

So with the Witch-King: he must have fought plenty of "men" (however we define that) in the course of his career as a warlord, conqueror, and Ringwraith, but it was Eowyn and Meriadoc who killed him, and Glorfindel predicted that "not by the hand of man will he fall" because it was Eowyn and Meriadoc who killed him. In the scientific terms familiar to us here in the Fifth Age, the causality runs backward in time; if he had fallen in some other way, Glorfindel would have seen something different.

(One can interpret Ainulindalë to be saying that the entire history of Arda is laid out in the Music of the Ainur, and therefore any event is knowable in advance, although only Ilúvatar knows all of it.)

+1 for We might conclude from this that the history of Arda is knowable in advance. Illuvitar alone knew every theme and inflection of the music of creation, the varla knew their own pieces and could perceive some other parts, but none knew it's full extent. The music is a "cosmic design" and the wise know that everything that happens is fated to happen, how much you can see of the future depends on how well you understand that music. It's a very Cathloic philosophy — Binary Worrier, May 09 '16 at 11:12
But if I remember correctly, humans aren't bound by the Music of the Ainur. — wyvern, May 11 '16 at 23:05
@sumelic I don't know enough of the lore to confirm or deny or even speculate on that point. — zwol, May 11 '16 at 23:09
+1 Awesome, concise answer. In my opinion this should be the accepted answer. — Andres F., Jun 08 '17 at 16:59

score 2 · Answer 4 · answered May 17 '16 at 07:26

In addition to other answers here, I'd like to point out that Eowyn was able to kill the Witchking thanks to Merry stabbing him in the knee with a barrow-blade, distracting him with the surprise of pain and breaking the spell binding his undead flesh to his will. Eowyn would have probably been slain then and there if it were not for Merry.

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; he raised his mace to kill. But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry’s sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.

- The Battle of the Pellenor Fileds, LotR

This brings us to the fact that Eowyn was able to carry Merry with her on her horse only because she was a woman and didn't weigh as much as a man. Theoden told Merry previously that none of his Riders can bear him as a burden.

Thus, in that strange way that prophecies find their fulfillment, the Witchking couldn't be killed by a man, because it needed a Hobbit and a woman for the job :)

What if a MAN actually stabbed the Witch-king instead of Éowyn?

4 Answers4