Merry''s treacherous attack

[Vronsky]

What do you think of Merry's attack on the Lord of Nazgul: stabbing him from behind in the back. Rather treacherous, don't you think, not the kind of behavior of a hero. Looks very similar to Gollum's attack on Sam in Shelob's liar.

Cheers!

[Beleg Strongbow]

Doubtful. Merry was goin after the guy with all he had; its not really his fault.

[Helix]

And it was Merry who killed the Witch King, not Eowyn. :D

[bropous]

Oh, and so for Merry to actually exhibit bravery in the battle with the Witch King, he would have had to move around to the front of the Lord of the Nazgul and attack him from a frontal position?

Bollocks.

What you are advocating with this question is the very same frontal assault on an immovable enemy which was the hallmark of large unit operations during World War One, which Tolkien himself was nearly annihilated by. By that reasoning, an amphibious landing in the enemy's rear is cowardly even though it results in a shattered front line and retreat by an entrenched enemy.

What you espouse flies right in the face of the doctrine of maneuver warfare. In maneuver warfare, instead of attacking the enemy where he is strongest, one uses forces to go directly for the vulnerabilities in the enemy's rear after AVOIDING direct contact with enemy forces en masse.

Merry was the weaker of the combatants, he had only LIMITED opportunity to slash at the Witch-King, his passions and emotions overcame the "spell" of fear which had caused so many greater Human warriors to blanch and run and allowed him to act on the moment of opportunity, and he had no concept that his attack would be the very blow which undid the Witch-King's "spell" and allowed Eowyn to drive the point of her sword between helm and hauberk. He had no idea that his glancing blow would be the end of the Lord of the Nazgul, and for all he knew, the black bastige could have spun right around and lopped his little head off in retaliation.

In the face of overwhelming odds, he struck out to defend someone he cared about. At risk of his own life, he acted without regard to his own safety.

An act of cowardice? In no remote manner.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Vronsky
stabbing him from behind in the back.
Minor point of information: stabbed from below, in the knee. But considering there wasn't a ladder handy (I believe this was yet another thing Sam forgot to pack), we might let him off.

Just goes to show: you've gotta watch these Brandybucks.;)

Oh, and hello and welcome!

cheers

d.

[Vronsky]

Originally posted by bropous

An act of cowardice? In no remote manner.

Perhaps Tolkien wants us to see that battle is no honourable and civilized thing, and that those involved act primarily just to survive, whatever it takes, even cowardice and treachery.
Although Merry's act makes him less brave, it also makes him more interesting, more human, compared to a flat, predictable, stereotype champion character like f.i. Faramir. Even Gollum is more interesting than him, I think.

Cheers!

[zavron]

it was eowyn who killed the witch king:confused: because he said that merry was stung like a fly when he attacked then eowyn shuved her sword in his chest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One day i went to st. Ives
I met a man with seven Wives
each wife had seven sacks
each sack had seven cats
each cat had seven kittens
Wives, Sacks, Cats, Kittens.
How many were going to st Ives?
answer:Just Me!highlight the spoiler!

[BeardofPants]

Not this again. :rolleyes: Merry dealt the blow that unknit the spells that bound him so that Eowyn could then deal the death blow to the head. If Merry had not hacked at his knee, then Eowyns normal sword would not have been able to touch him. It was TEAM WORK. Sheesh.

Brop, I love how you slung "bollocks" in there. :D

[Keith K]

Merry had to hit him from behind. He did not have time to run around to the witch kings front as Eowyn was about to recieve her death blow.

[Lefty Scaevola]

It was a melee form of battle including arrows and thrown weapons, not a duel or match. The ethic in such is to strike at whatever target is presented.

[Celebrian]

If Merry had tried to crawl around so the Nazgul could see him I doubt he would have been able to help Eowyn at all. It was only because the Nazgul didn't know Merry was there that Merry was able to kill him. And Merry was the one who killed the Nazgul, he isn't a man, he is a Hobbit, so he is just as eligibel as Eowyn.

[Rían]

I like your summary, bropous. Well said.

[Vronsky]

Originally posted by Keith K
Merry had to hit him from behind. He did not have time to run around to the witch kings front as Eowyn was about to recieve her death blow.

Try to leave your outrage aside for a second, fellas:
the main question here is, in my view, why T. decided to remove the Witchking from the storyline in this particular manner. A sneaky attack from behind is not a hero's way to act, whatever reason. T. could have chosen for a more heroic solution.

Cheers!

[Diamond of Long Cleeve]

Sorry to be so ignorant. It seems that there has been endless discussion on merry v eowyn in the death of the witch king and I assume a similarly long discussion on why Theoden seems to think it was him. Can anyone summarise this for me or point me to where the discussion can be found? Many thanks.

[Beleg Strongbow]

Originally posted by Vronsky

Although Merry's act makes him less brave,

We've been saying it hasn't! Merry fought the Witch-King when he didn't have to and was already almost out of the battle. He struck out however he could to help Eowyn.

[Faramir Took]

Merry was truly brave, honourable, as well as being a hero. He stabbed the nazgul fro behind, yes, however listen to Gandalf's descriptions of the nine throughout the entire trilogy, and you should realize that whatever way a nazgul is killed, it ia a great accomplishment.

[Dunadan]

Haud on, does it not say that the Witch-king "paid Merry no more heed than.." something or other crawling in the mud (sorry, I don't have my copy of RotK to hand)? Which would imply that he did see Merry and knew he was there, just decided to ignore him.

Add to that the fact that the cream of Gondor's fighting men would largely pepper their breeks and head for the hills at the mere sight of the Nazgul...

Like I said, you gotta watch these Brandybucks

[Firekitten2006]

Ok this is the one reason I am re reading the trilogy. But for now cant we just leave it at Merry is a freakin hobbit! He's what 3 or 4 feet tall? In my opinion its a pretty big deal just for him to stab him whereever he stabs him! And yeah, it does seem like team work to me! Helloooo ppl!

[Sminty_Smeagol]

I believe that it did not make Merry a coward in that he stabbed from behind. GIVEN THE SITUATION... It's not like he intentionally crawled around the back and snuck up behind the nazgul and stabbed at him... like a coward. BRAVERY is sort of a state of mind... and an "according to the circumstances" type of thing. It is the motivation behind what a character does. I do not believe the motivation behind Merry stabbing the witch king from behind was that of cowardice. And I think it would be a horrible, stupid thing if he had thought to himself "Oh, he's about to kill that girl, but I don't want to stab him for the back because that's cowardly, I'll run around to the front real fast and..." *plop* off falls eowyn's head. And THAT wouldn't have been bravery at all. Not even if he had run around to the front just to be "brave" would it have been bravery, since that would have been for self-benefit, saying "I want people to think I'm brave so I'll run around to the front real fast", that would have been arrogancy.

[Vronsky]

Okay, then please compare Merry's act with the way Sam deals with Snaga: a very similar situation as Sam tries to help Frodo here.
Sam is (also) no match at all against the Orc, but he doesn't attack him at the moment when Snaga's back is turned to him. He cries out first, to draw Snaga's attention (and distract him from Frodo, for sure) which makes this confrontation a duel instead of an assasination. Mind you: Sam bears the Ring at this time, which he easily could have used, as he did a little earlier.

Also, what is your feeling that the Nazgul is defeated in such a sneaky way, instead of a fair fight? To me, it makes the Good a little less 'good', and one could almost pity the evil a little here.

Cheers!


PS
Thanks for the discussion guys!!

[Millane]

no i dont think that the way merry kills the witchking, opposed to killing him in a one-on-one duel, should make it any less good... I think that he could manage even that is a tremendous acheivement... i think that killing someone in the heat of battle not in a duel would be harder.. in battle there is more distractions more dangerous from being killed by someone other than your opponent (remember there are flying arrows and i bet if an orc had of come bye he wouldnt have minded taken a shot at poor ol merry) in a duel it is just the same minus the distractions and outside threats...
GO MERRY!!!

[Sminty_Smeagol]

Merry is merry, sam is sam. And I haven't read LOTR in a year (and have only read it once), and I am not sure of the situation, but the way it sounds, the witchking was pretty much in mid blow when merry attacked him. If he had shouted, surely the witchking would not have stopped the momentum and turned around... he would have killed eowyn and the nturned around.

I may be entirely incorrect, but please forgive as I have only read the books once, and that was a year ago.

[Lefty Scaevola]

What high battlefield dignity could Angmar claim, who was attempting to torment Theoden, crushed under a horse shot by an arrow. In a melee, mano a mano duel are only by MUTUAL CHOICE, not a right or privilage.

[Vronsky]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
What high battlefield dignity could Angmar claim, who was attempting to torment Theoden, crushed under a horse shot by an arrow. In a melee, mano a mano duel are only by MUTUAL CHOICE, not a right or privilage.

Exactly, and both Sam and Merry had that very choice in that highly critical situation: Sam opted for the dual, Merry didn't, that's the difference in character.

[bropous]

Another point: Snaga is just a mortal Orc. The Witch King has a cloak of fear about him which caused the defenders of Osgiliath, brave and fearless to the man, to flee the bridge ad give up battle.

The Nazgul, as they flew over the fields of Pelennor, caused Gondorian warrior men to blanch and quail, and had Gandalf the White not faced the Nazgul Lord at the very gates of Minas Tirith the Mordorian forces would have had the first ring of the city's defenses.

Merry, RIGHT NEXT TO THE LORD OF THE NAZGUL, was feeling the full effects of this fear face-up, full-blast. It was all he could do to move, much less mount an attack.

Eowyn's head was MOMENTS from being separated from her curvaceous form. Merry had only that moment in which to act; he had not the luxury of saying, "Hey! Orc-breath! Turn your invisible arse around or I'll give you a dagger up the strap, you great flying git! Lay off the chick!" He saw the noble and brave Theoden die at the hands of this butcher, and here was Eowyn ready to depart the mortal coil as well. He snapped to that he had a blade in his hand, and he acted. Bravery is not just face-to-face fighting skill, as others have pointed out, it is having the strength of character to act in a way which provides positive result in a time of chaos and crisis.

You ask as to whether the Lord of the Nazgul should have died a more heroic death. Why? Was HE somehow an honorable creature? With his power, all he had do is lift a buttock and send some foul wind her way and Eowyn would have been unconscious. Yet he had to gloat, revel in his OWN cowardice using immense power to smite the almost defenseless, and in exercising his hubris he sowed the seeds of his own destruction.

"...the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil)...". THIS is why the Witch King dies in the manner in which he does: NOT because he is brought down by cowardice to teach us all that cowardice is what war really is, but to reiterate the central theme of the entire work.

That central theme is that the smallest person can make a difference. Actions by the weakest among us can bring down the greatest of those who place themselves above us, or who are placed there by us.

The Witch King comes to his end because he ignores that which he deems too insignificant for his attention.

One is reminded of the old Norse tale of the goddess Frigg who sought to ensure her son Balder would not be slain by a weapon as foretold by the Norns (Norse gods, while powerful and long-lived, were actually capable of being killed). The Norns (Norse fates) also said that when Balder died, the apocalyptic end of the world, Ragnarokk, would be unleashed. She went to every living thing on Earth, and got each living thing to swear that NO weapon would ever be fashioned from it. In her travels, she passed some mistletoe hanging in a tree. She thought about it, and decided that mistletoe was too scrawny and weak to ever present ANY threat of use as a weapon, and went about her business wihtout getting its oath as well. Well, the evil god Loki saw this, and hating Balder, he fashioned an arrow from the mistletoe and brought it back to Asgard, the home of the Norse Gods.

There was a celebration going on there, as Frigg had returned and told her husband Odin that she had ensured Balder would never be killed by a weapon. All the Aesir (Norse gods) were taking turns throwing weapons at Balder, which just bounced off with no effect. they were all slamming down great quantities of mead, and having a great time, except for the blind god Hod. He could not see Balder so he could not join the game, and Loki came to him and told him he would help aim if Hod would like to shoot an arrow at Balder.

Hod accepted, and Loki guided him to the spot where Thor and Frey and other gods were throwing axes and spears and darts and shooting arrows at Balder, who was unharmed. Loki steadied the bow for Hod, who, laughing with joy because he was part of the game finally, drew back the string and let loose the arrow.

The arrow of mistletoe, which Frigg had determined too weak and insignificant to pose a threat, slammed right into Balder's throat and he was dead on the spot.

[Vronsky]

Originally posted by bropous


You ask as to whether the Lord of the Nazgul should have died a more heroic death. Why?



It would have made the triumph of 'Good' over 'Evil' more glorious and unquestionable, it's a stain on the major turning point of the epic. Unless T. tries to tell us something with it, of course


[/QUOTE]
That central theme is that the smallest person can make a difference. Actions by the weakest among us can bring down the greatest of those who place themselves above us, or who are placed there by us.
[/QUOTE]

But why insist to narrow the meaning of 'weak' down to physical weakness only. Weakness of character applies here just as well, as in Merry's case.

[Millane]

It would have made the triumph of 'Good' over 'Evil' more glorious and unquestionable,
on the contrary it would have made the witchkings defeat a lot more questionable... a hobbit killing the lord of the nazgul in a duel... thats beleivable... i think that had tolkien written it any other way it would just have made it too unbeleivable to take serious...

[Ocarina654]

i have not been on this board for quite a while. but heres wat i have to say! Merry killed the Nazgul because he had to. He was brave even going near it. most people would ran as soon as they saw it! Merry stabbed him in the knee!! if he hadn't Eowyn would be dead and all you Eowyn lovers would never love Eowyn. cause she'd be dead. Brop, very good! i think that hits the spot!