No man can kill the Nazgul - or can they?

[Noble Elf Lord]

As far as I know, the Witchking and the other Nazgul fought in the battle of the Last Alliance. If so, why did they flee after "defeat"? Since they could not have been killed by any of the warriors of the Alliance, should´nt they have swiped the hole army away and gained a nice bunch of wraith slaves? By the way, where is everyone? I have been away for weeks, and there aren´t any new posts anywhere. Rise from your graves and start writing, my fellow vampires!

[Valandil]

What makes you think that no man can kill a Nazgul?

Or that they had any power to do ANYthing after their Lord Sauron was slain by Gil-galad and Elendil?

[brownjenkins]

Actually, the Nazgul did seem to be quite active in Angmar after Sauron's downfall. But, to the general question, it seems that any Nazgul could be killed with and enchanted blade wielded by someone with a strong enough will to face them. The "no man can kill them" idea is related specifically to the Witch King, and is probably better interpreted as "no man will be the one to kill him".

The prophecy didn't make him invincible, it just pointed to how his fate would play out.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

IIRC, wasn't the text, "No living man may hinder him"? If so, that would seem to indicate that no man would be able to do him real harm.

[brownjenkins]

At the Battle of Fornost Glorfindel said to Earnur (to dissuade him from following the Witch King), "Do not pursue him! He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of Man shall he fall." Which I would call a prophecy.

Later, the Witch King says to Eowyn, "Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!" But I've always taken that as the Witch King taking Glorfindel's prophecy, which he undoubtably heard of, too much at face value. It wasn't that a man couldn't have dealt the blow, just that a man wouldn't.

The breaking of any general protection from ordinary weapons the Witch King may have had seems to have come from Merry's enchanted barrow-blade, at which point anyone probably could have dealt the blow Eowyn did.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

At the Battle of Fornost Glorfindel said to Earnur (to dissuade him from following the Witch King), "Do not pursue him! He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of Man shall he fall." Which I would call a prophecy.

Later, the Witch King says to Eowyn, "Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"

Thanks for the quotes - I had forgotten the exact words.

Interesting how the WK took Glorfy's words and kind of expanded on them. Reminds me of Eve in the Garden of Eden expanding on God's words ... and they both got into trouble!

[Finrod Felagund]

I always figured it referred to the Witch-King alone and did not apply to the other Nazgul

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

"No living man may hinder him"? If so, that would seem to indicate that no man would be able to do him real harm.

Actually, it says that no living man can stop him. "To hinder", which means to hold back, is not equal "to fall", to go down, and quite incongruent with "to kill", to eliminate.It doesn't say that some harm can't be inflicted.

Here we have a proud boasting of an unconquerable warrior. His personal believes has nothing to do with an ingenuity of Arnor's smiths, who came up with a spell, which gave an ability to their blades to cut through the invisible web of substance and time bonds which was holding a nazgul together. So, the wraith were not invincible.
I think that some time ago a lot more than The Nine was walking around. (After all, by Gandalf's believe, a lot of lesser rings were made ,which have been in a circulation for quite longer time than the fabled 20, and all of them were perilous for mortals. Guess, how many mortals became as lucky as Smeagol?)
Seems to me that men of Arnor were in a successfull campaign for the elimination of some wandering wraith.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Olmer

Actually, it says that no living man can stop him. "To hinder", which means to hold back, is not equal "to fall", to go down, and quite incongruent with "to kill", to eliminate.It doesn't say that some harm can't be inflicted.

That is why I put 'real' harm. Obviously, a scratch on his knuckles wouldn't really hinder him, but it seems that any serious harm would do so.

[Noble Elf Lord]

Originally Posted by Valandil

What makes you think that no man can kill a Nazgul?

Or that they had any power to do ANYthing after their Lord Sauron was slain by Gil-galad and Elendil?

Because they didn´t... Just kidding. I suppose all I can say is that I think that the bond between the One and the 9 was so strong that the Nazgul could not have entirely vanished (=died).

Sorry to split hairs but Isildur "slay" Sauron.

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by Noble Elf Lord

Sorry to split hairs but Isildur "slay" Sauron.

In what sense do you mean he slew him? He merely cut off his ring, after Sauron was thrown down by Elendil and Gil-Galad. Elrond says that the heat of Sauron's hand destroyed Gil-Galad - there was no way for Isildur to cut the ring if Sauron was not neutralised at that time.

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by Landroval

In what sense do you mean he slew him? He merely cut off his ring, after Sauron was thrown down by Elendil and Gil-Galad. Elrond says that the heat of Sauron's hand destroyed Gil-Galad - there was no way for Isildur to cut the ring if Sauron was not neutralised at that time.

What I think he meant was something more along the lines of Isildur initially slaying Sauron. (Note that as a response to Val saying that Sauron was slain by Elendil and Gil-Galad.)

[Noble Elf Lord]

Originally Posted by Landroval

In what sense do you mean he slew him? He merely cut off his ring, after Sauron was thrown down by Elendil and Gil-Galad. Elrond says that the heat of Sauron's hand destroyed Gil-Galad - there was no way for Isildur to cut the ring if Sauron was not neutralised at that time.

Hold your horses, I didn´t say Isildur slay Sauron, just quoted. And I think you got a good point there, E and G-G´s weapons probably made it possible to Isildur to cut the Ring. Then again, I thought the Ring was supposed to make Sauron invincible? Ignoring that E and G-G theory, how come was it possible to hurt Sauron? A paradox or a dilemma? By the way, check out my riddle in the riddle thread. I hope it´s not too easy.

[Landroval]

I didn´t say Isildur slay Sauron,

It certainly looked that way

I thought the Ring was supposed to make Sauron invincible?

No; its primary purpose was to subdue the rings of the other elves, and it did have their properties too. But no one in Ea is invicible, by any means - save Eru, when He may come at the end, as foretold in the Athrabeth.

[Fohel]

Originally Posted by Landroval

In what sense do you mean he slew him? He merely cut off his ring, after Sauron was thrown down by Elendil and Gil-Galad. Elrond says that the heat of Sauron's hand destroyed Gil-Galad - there was no way for Isildur to cut the ring if Sauron was not neutralised at that time.

Didn't Isildur take Elendil's sorwd, Narsil and use it to cut the ring off Sauron's hand? If this is so wouldn't Elendil have to be dead first?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Ellendil mortaly wounded Sauron's body, and was crushed or suffacated when Suaron fell on him. Isildur cut off Sauron's finger with the ring on it. Isildur may or may not have finished off Sauron's body.

Edit: I seem to remember the above from somewhere in HoME, but it is porely indexed, and I can not find it nor be sure of its authenticity.