Written by Mr. Mouseburger 30th Jun 2005
The Witchking orders his Nazgul to devour a mortally wounded Theoden (q.v.) when its path is blocked by a masked Rohir warrior, who refuses to let their king have such an undignified death. As the Nazgul lunges at the warrior, they sidestep and with two powerful blows, sever the head of the beast. This causes the Witchking to fall off his mount.
We then have a battle between this masked Rohir and the Witchking. To emphasise just how one-sided this battle is going to be, the Witchking unveils the biggest flail in cinematic history and, for added effect, he allows the ball to hit the floor with a resounding thump. This flail though is a cumbersome weapon, and the masked Rohir manages to dodge a few of the blows before finally being hit on the shield. The impact is so crushing that the Rohir crashes to the floor, arm broken and shield shattered to pieces.
It is at this point where the Witchking decides to have a quick gloat. "You fool," he cries, "no *man* can kill me" and he prepares to end this insolent curs life. However, the Witchking has made a critical error of semantics, for while he is distracted with the Rohir warrior, Merry, a young hobbit (i.e. not a man), sneaks up behind him and stabs him in the leg. This hurts like buggery, and the Witchking, roaring in pain, falls to his knees.
The witchking adopts the "i am a hard b***ard" pose
His error is compounded when the Rohir warrior removes their helmet to reveal Eowyn, a shieldmaiden. She cries, "I am no man" and stabs Witchy in the face with her sword. This kills the Witchking and, as his spirit leaves the armour for the choir invisible, it contorts.
A nice little twist of words, and I always love seeing a beautiful woman using a blade to dispatch evil, but let's be a little honest here.
He's the friggin' Witchking! The Nazgul! The baddest of all the bad! He delivers one or two pitifully executed blows that a ten-year-old child could deflect (even easier for a warrior princess), and ends up getting stabbed in the face after getting shanked by a sawed-off!
Again, he's the Witchking! He should not be able to feel pain! He should be MADE of pain! Such things as stab wounds in the leg should only tickle him in a non-too-unpleasant manner, not cripple and disable him long enough to receive death!
I know, I know, it was Tolkien that set this series of events in motion, but nonetheless. The Witchking should have slaughtered legions of men before meeting his end. Legions, I say.
While I agree this event is easily misunderstood due to its treatment in the movie, it is easily explained by Tolkien in Fellowship of the Ring and the appendicies to the trilogy. Eowyn's blade is very special and more importantly, she IS no ordinary shieldmaiden. The power of the blow was not an issue since the witch-king could only be killed by a female or non-human. Also left out of the movie was the devastation the WK wreaked upon the Fields of Pelennor prior to his final encounter, including causing the bravest warriors to flee in terror at the sight of him.
As far as Merry's "sawed-off" this blade is even more special than Eowyn's blade and Merry is NOT a man (Hobbit) Peter Jackson's decision (which he took diredctly from Tolkien's notes regarding the film's if ever made in the future) to leave out the character of Tom Bombadil and the ensuing incident where the hobbits are nearly killed by barrow-wights and grab 4 (I believe) ancient blades was crucial in fully explainang the death of the WK. Here is an excerpt from a "Merry Brandybuck's Biography" website regarding this part of the books.
Sword of Meriadoc Brandybuck
Merry's sword played a crucial role in the War of the Ring. The sword came from a barrow on the Barrow-downs that may have been the grave of the last prince of Cardolan, who was killed in battle against the forces of Angmar in 1409. The Hobbits were trapped in the barrow by a Barrow-wight and when Merry awoke from the Barrow-wight's spell, he had a memory of a Man who had fought the Witch-king of Angmar long ago.
Tom Bombadil rescued the Hobbits and gave them blades from the barrow. The swords had been made for the war against the Witch-king of Angmar by the Men of Westernesse. They were long, leaf-shaped daggers damasked with serpents in red and gold, and they had black sheaths of light metal set with fiery stones.
Merry used the sword in Moria and at Amon Hen, where he managed to cut off the hands and arms of several Orcs before he and Pippin were captured. He laid the sword on the lap of King Theoden of Rohan when he became his esquire. But the final and most important time that Merry used the sword was at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. As Eowyn confronted the Witch-king and was nearly slain, Merry pierced the sinew of the Witch-king's knee, causing the Nazgul to stumble forward. Eowyn then thrust her sword between the Witch-king's crown and mantle and he was vanquished. Afterwards, the blade of Merry's sword disintegrated.
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 Dunedain 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.
The Return of the King: "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields," p. 119-20
Thanks for the insightful post, lownote
OB
Thanks, lownote. I never knew that.
Weird, how a three-hour movie ultimately seems too short. ^_^
On a side note, I think that the Barrow-Downs sidequest might have been quite enthralling on the big screen. Maybe PJ should consider making another Lord of the Rings, this one showing everything we didn't see. It might make for some intense filmmaking if done correctly.
Another point to keep in mind is that the Nazgul are far from battle machines. Their main weapon, Tolkien says, is fear. They have little power over the fearless. And while Sauron "powers up" the WK for the battle of Pellenor, Jackson's idea that the Witch King could "break" Gandalf is a stretch.
"The Witchking orders his Nazgul to devour a mortally wounded Theoden..."
The Witchking IS the Nazgul. He orders his mount, a fell beast, to kill Theoden. That mistake irritates me. :p
I completely agree with you, so many people make this mistake, you never find out what the bat-snake-thing is called, as the word fell is used to mean "vile" and "evil".
Why is the Witch-King labeled as a Major Baddy. Remember there's a difference between a major antagonist and chief villain. A major antagonist is someone who is a huge threat to the heroes (e.g. the Witch-King of Angmar) but a chief villain is the mastermind of the whole scheme. That and Gandalf did remark that the Witch-King is Sauron's most fearsome servant. Servant means henchman. Henchman menas Minor Baddy. Catching my drift here? The Witch-King is a henchman not a major villain. People really should learn the difference.
I read your message Iownote but I'm pretty sure that you're for the most part incorrect. I'm pretty sure that he did kill more than his fair share of Rohirrim and Gondorians with his Fell Beast but this is just off-screen. The bulk of the Battle of Pelennor Fields is focused on the Rohirrim bravely defending Minas Tirith despite the fact they did not aid them in their time of need. Considering the fact we see quite a few of the Fell Beasts picking up and dropping opponents from a fatal fall any one of them could've been the Witch-King's mount. Also I'm pretty sure it was the Witch-King who offed Denethor's bodyguard Iorlas (Extended Edition only).
As for the pitiful fight with Eowyn that's also partially untrue. Like the author of this piece says the battle is evidently one-sided. And by the way no matter how downright evil someone is, no matter how intimidating, no matter how badass everyone and everything has its weakness. Sauron it's the One Ring, Shelob it's light, Gimli it's his height. Apparently the Witch-King is quite the badass but nevertheless isn't quite skilled with the sword. Also during the fight he in fact almost killed Eowyn before Merry interfered (although I do admit it's kinda hard to believe he got defeated by someone as pathetic as Merry). Also I think it's the magic in the sword that killed the Witch-King rather than the bitter irony.
I'd also like to reinforce my point of changing the Witch-King to a Baddy Minor. Sure he's one of the film's major antagonists but through and through he's essentially Sauron's second-in-command. Also in case no one has noticed out of all the film's main antagonists (Witchy, Lieutenant Gothmog, Sauron, Gollum, Lord Denethor and Saruman and the Mouth of Sauron in the Extended Cut) he has the least amount of screen time. If anyone else think's about it clearly he doesn't really deserve the title of Baddy Major no matter how badass and memorable he may be.
This is an interesting thread - I hope its not too stale for a reply.
I agree with Ocafi that setting up the witchking with a little more cinematic "badass" buildup might have given us a better picture of him. But these movies were so much for the readers (who know he is a badass), and they had to find time for so many things that I understand why they didn't include more WK carnage.
But that is beside the point. The point is that the WK was Saurons most trusted servant. He literally caused the demise of Arnor for Sauron in the past - destroying an entire kingdom of dunedain for Sauron. He was Saurons answer to Gandalf the Grey. Fortunately for Minas Tirith, he wound up facing Gandalf the White, and in the book was not a match for him. This doesn't make him a non-badass however - Remember Gandalf told the remains of the fellowship when they met him again that they (paraphrasing) would not meet anyone more powerful than he unless they should stand before the dark throne itself.
In a dramatic sense, this scene with Eowyn and Merry and the WK is wonderful. Eowyn was someone without normal rational fear - her only fear was to live while others fought in the battles that truly mattered, particularly after finding no joy with Aragorn. Merry, who had been treated like baggage for the journey to Gondor, felt similarly, wanting to participate in the battles which his friends were fighting. The irony is that they both wound up striking the most potent blow against Sauron that could be struck, defeating the WK which even Gandalf wasn't (apparently) capable of doing.
While she was fearless and stoutly faced the WK, I think Eowyns final blow was essentially meaningless. The text that lownote quoted from Tolkien himself seems unequivocal to me. Clearly Merry's blade undid the witchking. Eowyns fight with him gave Merry both the chance and the courage to strike the fatal blow.
As for "sawed off". Isn't this the point of the entire tale? That the small, ordinary people turned out to have the power to make extraordinary impact on the big world outside of their mundane lives? In this manner, Merry's success is a foreshadow of Frodo and Sam's ultimate blow to the enemy.
Cheers!