18

In the Lord of the Rings books we see Gandalf the White breaking Saruman's staff by just talking, a feat that couldn't be realized by Gandalf the Grey (IIRC Tolkien said this himself when talking about the difference between Gandalf the White and the Grey).

In the movies we see the Witch king breaking Gandalf's, but this doesn't happen in the books.

So my question is, what are the rules for breaking a staff? Who can break whose staff?

terdon
  • 4,369
  • 31
  • 35
IamVeryCuriousIndeed
  • 2,583
  • 1
  • 22
  • 39

2 Answers2

28

In the books, it is very heavily and even directly implied that the breaking of another Wizard's staff is both a show of another Wizard's authority and a symbol of the 'bad' Wizard's expulsion from both the order and the Council.

In The Two Towers, Gandalf says to Saruman (Houghton Mifflin, paperback, p. 569):

...'Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death. You have no color now, and I cast you from your order and from the Council.'

He raised his hand, and spoke in a clear cold voice. 'Saruman, your staff is broken.'

Bearing this in mind, Gandalf was specifically given power and duty in the book as part and parcel to his resurrection to cast Saruman out of his order and the Council and part of that power included the hand-in-hand destruction of Saruman's staff.

However, if one recalls back to The Fellowship of the Ring where Gandalf led the Fellowship across the Bridge of Khazad-dûm, Gandalf's staff broke when he slammed it into the bridge to break the bridge... which coincided with his later death as Gandalf the Grey. As such, the breaking of his staff was his own doing - an immense show of his power and, given what happened to him later, perhaps an 'exhaustion' of that power similar to the 'take away' of Saruman's power by Gandalf the White later on.

Community
  • 1
Aith
  • 1,382
  • 10
  • 16
  • 4
    And note that Gandalf defeated the Balrog after breaking his staff; it wasn't necessary for him to have his staff intact at all. –  Jun 19 '14 at 06:33
  • 1
    Does this self-breakage of the staff occur in the movie? It's been years since I've read the books, but I just watched FoTR last week and I don't remember that detail (or rather I remember it not breaking). – TylerH Jun 19 '14 at 13:34
  • 2
    @TylerH: No, in the movie the staff remains intact but he drops it when the Balrog's whip pulls him down into the chasm. He later catches Glamdring in mid-air while falling, but we never see the staff again. – Omegacron Jun 19 '14 at 17:04
  • @Omegacron I don't think that fact (never seeing it again) is related to whether it broke or not. To me, a staff is part of your status as much as your power. That is to say, Gandalf the Grey's staff was only suitable for a Grey Robe. He needed a new staff when he became Gandalf the White regardless of whether his old one was intact or not. – TylerH Jun 19 '14 at 17:07
  • I agree - I was simply answering your previous question of what happened to the staff in the movie version. – Omegacron Jun 19 '14 at 17:09
  • 1
    @TylerH Late but.. there are a lot of problems with that scene. Examples include: Gandalf is wise enough to not reveal where the One Ring; it's Radagast who tells Gandalf about the Nazgûl (at Saruman's bequest); Gandalf doesn't tell Frodo he's going to see Saruman; that duel is an invention of the film; Saruman doesn't take Gandalf's staff; Saruman doesn't reveal the palantír (in The Two Towers it is Gríma who inadvertently reveals it to them). Not to mention Radagast in the book has his friends (birds, beasts) look out for news so the moth is an invention too. Probably forgetting others. – Pryftan Sep 10 '17 at 13:18
  • @Pryftan you're limiting destruction of the Witchking to just a blade, when in fact Gandolf is much more powerful than just as a wielder of Glamdring, which itself was the great sword made for the High King of the Noldorin Elves of the First Age, at the height of the Elve's power, even much more so than when they crafted the rings of power. It is highly unlikely any foe, person or beast, would be resistant to Glamdring to such an extend that they could not be slain by it. – Phil Feb 02 '18 at 16:47
  • @Phil Huh? Where did I talk about the Witch-king and the blade? I was suggesting that the Witch-king could not have broken Gandalf's staff (or that it was equal - assuming he actually had Glamdring and I don't remember him having it at the time). No idea where you're getting your ideas from though because you're commenting on things irrelevant to my comment. – Pryftan Feb 03 '18 at 02:09
  • @Phil I was rather preoccupied when I responded. I wanted to say that despite the fact you seemed to be responding to something I hadn't suggested you're actually wrong that Glamdring could have done anything to the sinew of the Witch-king (1/2) – Pryftan Feb 03 '18 at 21:58
  • @Phil '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 Dúnedain 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.' Thus your claim is 100% incorrect. (2/2) – Pryftan Feb 03 '18 at 21:59
2

It is a quick visual metaphor for magic user A having dominating power over magic user B. In the case of Gandalf over Saruman, presumably this was granted by the powers that sent him back to show his 'official' assumption of head of the order.

In the movie, it is a fast way to show that Gandalf wasn't going to win a fight versus the Witch King, which is why the dramatic arrival of the Riders of Rohan was so key.

Oldcat
  • 5,188
  • 29
  • 29
  • 2
    The Witch king versus Gandalf scene in extended version must be with out doubt the scene i hate the most. In the books, from my perspective, Gandalf is never below the nazgul, the fight simply doesn't happen because Pippin leads Gandalf away from the figth to save Faramir. – Nuno Freitas Jun 19 '14 at 09:04
  • If Gandalf was able to kill Nazguls, why didn't he spend FOTR just wiping them out? LOTR is full of messages that direct physical power isn't how things should be judged. – Oldcat Jun 19 '14 at 16:18
  • Gandalf the Grey is able to hold off several Nazguls at weathertop either by raw power or from being able to use strategic position. Galdalf the White may never shows strength or might against the King of Angmar, or any nazgull, but also never is showed that he is less powerfull than him. I never said Gandalf the White would destroy him (something i believe he would, but is only is speculation and my opinion)... I wrote "Gandalf is never below the nazgul". – Nuno Freitas Jun 19 '14 at 16:38
  • He contended with them, and they left, just as when the White Rider rode to Osgiliath, but it was not a fight to the finish for either side. Just a skirmish. The Black Riders were after the Hobbits, not the wizard, and had the Morgul Blade working. To me, I just don't see power as a fixed number. At that moment of Triumph, entering the Gates of Minas Tirith with Sauron focussed, Darkness might have won a physical contest. Gandalf arranged for the Riders of Rohan to arrive to erase the moment and break the spell. – Oldcat Jun 19 '14 at 16:45
  • Given how Gandalf Sailed West with the Elves at the end of the story (in both book and movie), it can be implied that - like the Elves - his 'place' in the story wasn't necessarily that of an 'active participant'. Rather, he was a helper - much the same way that the Elves were. Elrond was conflicted by how much he should participate because his 'time' had come (Age of Elves was fading, hence, Sailing West). Given Elrond's previous wartime experience, his expertise - like Gandalf's - would have been greatly appreciated. But it wasn't his time... just like it wasn't Gandalf's, either. – Aith Jun 22 '14 at 06:40
  • @NunoFreitas It bothers me too as do all invented scenes. But the reason the Witch-king of Angmar leaves is because Rohan arrives. Also yes Gandalf the Grey can fight all the Nazgûl (and four ride after him) but they weren't as powerful as they were later on. The Lord of the Nazgûl demonstrates his power when he uses a spell with Grond to break the gate of Minas Tirith. And while maybe Gandalf wouldn't have been destroyed he wouldn't have destroyed the Witch-king because he didn't have a Westernesse blade to pierce the sinew of the Witch-king: (continuing) – Pryftan Sep 10 '17 at 13:24
  • @NunoFreitas 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 Dúnedain 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. – Pryftan Sep 10 '17 at 13:24
  • @NunoFreitas Which of course means the blade he gets from Éowyn in the film shouldn't be capable of doing what it does. But I suppose if you don't know the book then you wouldn't know the difference since it isn't discussed at all. And besides that in the film Aragorn gives the hobbits blades and there is no suggestion they are of Westernesse make. But whatever the case Gandalf couldn't have actually destroyed the Lord of the Nazgûl: Merry's blade (which is ironic since the Witch-king is responsible for the Barrow-wights) allowed Éowyn to give the defeating blow where he becomes impotent. – Pryftan Sep 10 '17 at 13:29