0

In Harry Potter, it is said that Lord Voldemort is one of the most powerful wizards of all time. But I am not very convinced about why that is the case. I guess, a more general question is, how can you tell if a wizard is powerful?

In terms of spells, to be specific, the death curse, if two wizards speak this curse to one another at the same time with the equally good wands, then who will die? Does the effect of the spell depend on the way a wizard speaks it? If so, it what way exactly? Can an average wizard cast death spell to Lord Voldemort and kill him?

In terms of wands which is sort of the guns of our world, how do we know if one wand is more powerful than the other. In the movies, I did not see why the elder wand was that special except that it looks better.

E. J.
  • 4,293
  • 27
  • 39
LaTeXFan
  • 109
  • 1
  • 4
    if two wizards speak this curse to one another at the same time with the equally good wands, then who will die Both... –  Mar 16 '15 at 06:16
  • @cde So if a wizard speaks death curse to Lord Voldemort, then he will die? (if there is no horcrux). – LaTeXFan Mar 16 '15 at 07:17
  • @20824, yup, assuming he doesn't block it some way (like Dunbledore does in OoTF) – Mac Cooper Mar 16 '15 at 08:23
  • Still why is Lord Voldemort is powerful? – LaTeXFan Mar 16 '15 at 09:23
  • 1
    Voldemorts power shows its self in many ways, first is his ability to use magic without a wand at such a young age, an average wizard will unknowingly and uncontrollably use magic, as a child Voldemort had already made his magic reliably accessible to him, to use on others, before coming to Hogwarts, this ability to use magic without a wand at will is something we see 0 other characters in the book due. – Himarm Mar 16 '15 at 13:25
  • @Himarm I'm sure we do see Dumbledore doing it at least once in the books, or it's mentioned. I can't remember exactly where.. – ZenLogic Mar 16 '15 at 14:08
  • @ZenLogic its alluded to that dumbledore has that kind of mastery but he never does anything wandless in the book itself, asaik – Himarm Mar 16 '15 at 14:10
  • @Himarm Isn't there an instance in Half-Blood Prince, in the Locket's cave in which Dumbledore doesn't use his wand, and just moves his hand over the wall and muttering incantations or something like that? Again, I'm probably remembering this completely wrong :p – ZenLogic Mar 16 '15 at 14:12
  • @Himarm we see Harry doing magic without a wand before he even gets into Hogwarts. That would be the scene at the zoo. – Escoce Apr 15 '15 at 19:35
  • @Escoce you obviously misread my comment, one of the allued to requirements to attend hogwarts is the unintentional use of magic by children, as neville says his family was worried he wouldnt get into hogwarts because he was a late bloomer. Harry never intentionally uses magic, he accidentally used magic at the zoo. Voldemort did not use his powers accidentally, he had control. that was the point of my comment. – Himarm Apr 15 '15 at 19:38
  • @Himarm your comment makes no sense though. Think logically here...oh before you went to school, you could do magic, now that you went to school, now you can't. Not without this wand anyway. – Escoce Apr 15 '15 at 19:40
  • @Himarm I think your logic is flawed. A wand is a focus, not a means. – Escoce Apr 15 '15 at 20:00
  • @Himarm I am not sold...yes many wizards may develop a crutch, but I don't believe the crutch is inherent. I think it is learned. – Escoce Apr 15 '15 at 20:10
  • @Himarm it doesn't matter. Logic stands to reason that if you have wild talent as a child, then you could learn to focus it. A wand is a tool that helps focus your magical intent, but it didn't cause it to happen. If a person looses the ability to perform magic without a wand due to relying too much on the wand, then I can't help that. And honestly I am becoming disinterested in this discussion. You are making assumptions, but there isn't any logic nor causality in your arguments, only assumptions. – Escoce Apr 15 '15 at 20:16
  • @Escoce basically your saying that everyone should be able to use magic without a wand, even though theirs 0 evidence of this being true in the books. I agree you could be trained to do it, but they dont have a wandless class is school, so unless your driven personally... no you will not be able to cast magic without your wand. your logic that despite us having no evidence that they all can cast magic without their wands, and tons of evidence showing how worthless they are without their wands, is the logic thats flawed. – Himarm Apr 15 '15 at 20:21
  • @Himarm all magic schools are a starting point. There are no magic universities. It's a 5-12 curriculum. It's up to you to go beyond the basics you learn in primary and secondary school. This is a fictional world, don't get so caught up in the details. Logic says if you can as a child then you should be able to do better as an adult with practice. Wand less magic may be like calculus compared with arithmetic...I don't know the apt comparison, but you can't say the ability just goes poof gone. It may atrophy over time since they focus on using wands at school, but that may be a detriment. – Escoce Apr 15 '15 at 20:28

1 Answers1

0

Speaking the incantation is not enough for the unforgivable curses. You have to mean it. During the battle at the Ministry in Order of the Phoenix, Harry attempts to use the Cruciatus curse on Bellatrix Lestrange, but only knocks her off her feet. She explains then that you have to actually properly mean it.

As for a wizard's power, I always thought that the power of the spell was considered, but also the ability to use difficult spells with ease. Consider Snape and his creation of spells like Sectumsempra; I think Snape had to be a pretty powerful wizard to be able to create and use his own spells like that. Also, the fact that Voldemort was able to control his magic from a very young age highlights his extraordinary ability also.

ZenLogic
  • 4,223
  • 4
  • 28
  • 34