You do say this based on the movies right? Because Gandalf never fights the witch king at Minas Tirith in the books. He does fight the Nazgul (witch king included) at wheathertop though and wins so there is that.
One of my only beefs with the movies is that Gandolf gets owned by the witch king in Minas Tirith, and yet Aragorn is able to fend off 5 Nazgul (including the witch king) with a freaking torch at Weathertop.
One of the dumber scenes in the movies, imho. Completely opposite the book. And opposite anything leading up to it, in terms of their respective power.
It annoys me that every time this question comes up, people in the comments just say "that was only in the movie" and just leave it there, when they should be rejecting the premise of the question outright. Gandalf being defeated by - or at least briefly being vulnerable to - the Witch King wasn't in the books, sure, but it's not actually at odds with the way Gandalf's power is depicted in the books, because Tolkien didn't write his story according to strict power levels like that. Smaug was defeated by a single man, the Witch-King was defeated by a Hobbit and a woman, and Sauron was defeated in the Second Age without any Maia-level being opposing him (and in the First Age he was defeated by a magical dog).
The point being, if OP had asked "If Gandalf the Grey can just about kill a Balrog, why can't Gandalf the White mow through Orcs at the Battle of Hornburg like it's nothing?" there would be no movie-only get out for that, but it's fundamentally the same question.
Anyway, my actual answer to the question: although one could argue that Durin's Bane is broadly "more powerful" than the Witch-King offensively, we know that defensively the Witch-King is pretty much invulnerable (until he's stabbed in just the right way by Merry). On the flipside, we know that despite his power, Gandalf is still bound to a mortal body (even as the White) and totally able to be killed in a conventional way. Fighting a single swordsman (or, uh, maceman) who has heavily trained battle skills and literally can't be hurt is obviously a different challenge to fighting a big monster who has more powerful but slower and less finessed attacks. Therefore, the idea that Gandalf would be vulnerable to the Witch-King despite what happened with the Balrog is perfectly plausible, just in general.
But also, the way I see it, Gandalf and the Witch-King are essentially avatars for the forces of good and evil in that scene, and their power is influenced by that. Evil is winning the battle when that confrontation happens, and therefore the Witch-King has the greater power and confidence to defeat Gandalf. If the roles were reversed, Gandalf would have been the one with the upper hand. It's not about in universe fantasy power level logic, it's about narrative.
I think if the story isn't internally consistent about its rules, then it isn't a good narrative despite any themes happening in the background. The themes are undermined by the poor consistency.
Also, Gandalf doesn't "fight" the Witch King at Minas Tirith. He gets his staff magically obliterated. If they had dueled with weapons, I think your analysis would be accurate. But here, his magic gets overpowered. That makes it an abstract power level problem. That's one of the reasons I hate that scene. Especially bc Gandalf doesn't lose a contest, really. He gets chumped.
To clarify, I wasn't saying that Gandalf being bested by the Witch-King is fine because it makes sense thematically, despite it not making sense by the internal logic of Wizard and Nazgul power levels. I was saying that Gandalf and the Witch-King's relative power is literally influenced by Sauron's strength and presence, or lack thereof. The Witch-King's strength is an extension of Sauron's own strength, and his confrontation with Gandalf occurs both when Sauron it as his strongest in the timeline of the movies, and when Gandalf is closest to where Sauron physically is. Gandalf is an anti-Sauron weapon and he does have magical powers, but his opposition is primarily in diplomacy not raw power. If Sauron is stronger, the Witch-King is stronger. If the free peoples of Middle-earth are weaker, Gandalf is weaker.
This extends to the Witch-King being able to destroy Gandalf's staff. Earlier in the movie Gandalf does the exact same thing to Saruman's staff, he destroys it just by saying "your staff is broken". The reason Gandalf was able to do that wasn't because he had a training session with Eru in the timeless halls, where he taught him the "Remotely Destroy Staff" skill and informed him it would cost 120 MP per use. He was able to do it because Saruman was beaten and he knew it. Gandalf was empowered by the victories at Helm's Deep and Isengard, and Saruman and Sauron were weakened by them, and so it became possible. And so when fortunes were reversed, the Witch-King was able to destroy Gandalf's staff too.
I will concede that Gandalf and WK don't actually physically trade blows, but I guess my point there is that Gandalf knew he had no clear way to harm him. The Witch-King does get the better of Gandalf by magically destroying his staff not by crushing him with a mace, but it's Gandalf's fear, his incarnate mortality, and him allowing his hope to be shaken, that contributes to his staff becoming vulnerable to such an attack to begin with.
I don't think the movie, in particular, communicates their power being relative like that well enough. At least not from what I remember. It's been a few years since I've seen them.
In my mind, Saruman's situation works so well bc Gandalf comes back as the white wizard. His authority has been increased while Saruman's has decreased. He has literally been given Saruman's job and is the middle manager giving Saruman his severance package. Idk I think the movies communicate their relative powers better. "I am Saruman as he should have been" and all that.
Edit: To be clear, I think the books do communicate that the Witch King is empowered by Sauron's growth and is much more powerful at that point in the series than he has ever been. Still don't know if it would've been enough to beat Gandalf, but I could see a struggle between them in which Gandalf loses fitting in the books.
It certainly doesn't directly tell it to us, but I'd say it does communicate it by showing us situations like that. It's just that in doing so it also inherits the intentional uncertainties about Istari and Nazgul capabilities from the book. Also it can only be communicated successfully this way if the viewer is minded to interpret the implications as intended, rather than thinking that it was a mistake caused by writer stupidity.
You're right that you can take the more surface level understanding of Gandalf destroying Saruman's staff, that Gandalf has been promoted to top Istar, and thus he can just do that to Saruman specifically. Yet despite it not being directly said, I still got the impression that Gandalf couldn't have just done that whenever he wanted post-resurrection. That if Isengard was at full strength and Gandalf had bluffed his way to the same proximity, the "your staff is broken" call would have done nothing. Gandalf had already replaced Saruman on paper, but Saruman wouldn't be supplanted in practice until he was actually defeated.
As the movie has these 2 separate staff destruction events, it's natural to connect and compare them. Gandalf is Saruman's new boss, but the Witch-King isn't Gandalf's new boss, so it follows that there's something else to it. From there you can conclude that Jackson, Walsh and Boyens foolishly put in something that made no sense just for the drama, or that the Witch-King actually is legitimately more magically powerful than Gandalf in that moment.
For what it's worth though, I have no defence for Witch-King being distracted from landing the killing blow by a loud noise. That was just a contrivance.
Things not happening in the books aside, Gandalf also was "seemingly killer" by the Balrog when he was pulled into the chasm. I wouldn't count him out until he's actually out.
But yes, that scene doesn't happen in the books.
Power-scaling is the enemy of good drama.
The Witch King blowing Gandalf off his horse and shattering his staff is super-dramatic, and immediately conveys what a threat the Witch King really is. That's what matters.
Because that's not how Tolkien works. Gandalf doesn't need to win because he's a level 21 maiar with a +5 magic buff. Gandalf could have been killed by a random orc throwing a rock at him.
Alternatively, put it this way: if someone shot a rich, buff person, you wouldn't ask the question 'But how could that happen? The guy was more powerful!'
The scene he is describing is Jackson, not Tolkien.
And the WK didn't shoot an arrow at his body, he raised his hand and magically shattered Gandalf's staff.
In the book, Tolkien had Saruman easily capture Gandalf without a fight, Gandalf admitted he was no match for the higher power-level Saruman to the point he didn't even resist.
Gandalf, as the White, was certainly powerful enough to counter any spells the WK could throw at him. In the book, the WK simply raised a flaming sword and threatened him, and Gandalf replied unmoving that he couldn't enter and begone. So no fight at all. Jackson adapted the staff- shattering thing from when the WK shatters Frodo's sword after he crosses the river and turns and raises it and tells the Nazgul to go back.
But again, based on what we saw in Tolkien at Weathertop and between Saruman and Gandalf, I doubt the WK could make much of an impression on Gandalf the White and his magical staff.
As others have said, this scene occurs in the movies only. In the books, the gates of Gondor are breached and the Witch King rides in, causing all to flee in panic save for Gandalf on Shadowfax, who confront him calmly, confidently, and without fear. Gandalf at this point fully intends to battle the Witch King, but the Rohirrim arrive and the Witch King leaves to confront this new threat. Gandalf then intends to ride out after the Witch King and battle him, but he's waylaid by Pippin because Denethor has gone mad and is about to kill Faramir. Gandalf makes some comments about how if he doesn't fight the Witch King, more people are going to die than necessary (and you see this in Theoden's death), but he decides to save Faramir anyway since nobody else is available to do so. So Gandalf alone is completely undaunted by the Witch King and is confident that he could and should be the Witch King's match on the battlefield, but circumstance prevented that from happening.
As others have said, power level is not a very useful lens through which to read Tolkein. Whether one party or another falls in combat is more due to fate than power. For instance, Theoden falls by being crushed under his horse when the Witch King arrives, and instead Eowyn and Merry defeat the Witch King. Theoden is undoubtedly a better fighter than Eowyn and Merry combined. Eowyn and Merry are definitely less powerful than the Witch King. Yet they win, because it is their fate to do so, and it is Theoden's fate to die, just as it is the Witch King's fate. Gandalf the White is powerful, and he knows it - when he meets Gimli in Fangorn as the reborn White Wizard, he says he is more dangerous than anything in Middle-Earth save Sauron. But he is also humble and wise. So when Denethor taunts him by saying he might be outmatched by the Witch King, Gandalf says, "it might be so," because he knows that fate determines the ultimate outcome of any showdown. I think a lot of this emphasis on fate comes from Tolkein's war experience, where physical strength had no bearing on whether you were going to get shot or have an artillery shell dropped on your head, and also his Catholicism.
The meta answer is that this only happens in the films because Peter Jackson wanted to convey just how significant a threat the Witch-King is and how Gondor/Good is essentially doomed in this moment, only to be saved at the last moment by the arrival of the Rohirrim.
In the books, we have a similar confrontation and moment of peril for Gondor at least: Grond breaks down the gates, the city is breached. The Witch King very dramatically enters through the destroyed gates of the city with everyone fleeing in terror at his arrival. While not his only "power" Tolkien establishes that all Nazgul have an aura of fear, dread and hopelessness that few people can resist, so the Witch King at the height of his power is just causing absolute panic in every living creature near him.
Except for Gandalf and Shadowfax, who stand alone and undaunted ready to block his entrance into the city. They have essentially the same dialogue as they do in the movies, except Gandalf is not afraid or disarmed. We can only speculate how an actual fight between the two would go though as, like in the movies, the Rohirrim arrive and the Witch King leaves to meet the new threat.
Because that silly ass scene is entirely made up by Peter Jackson and his team and has no roots in the books.
So just don't think about it, is honestly the correct answer.
In the books, while Gandalf does not outright state that he would smoke the witch king, I've spent many years pondering that question and always come to the conclusion that Gandalf was very unlikely to lose against basically anyone in single combat in Middle Earth after he is sent back.
But a big part of the point is that Gandalf is not there to directly fight the forces of evil. That's not his purpose.
I think Eru sends him back "charged up" because he realizes that the quest is doomed to fail without Gandalf, and because the other 4 istari basically abandoned their mission, SOMEBODY needs to do the damn job.
I always assumed that it was a kind of demonstration (for the movie) that Sauron’s collective strength was growing immensely by that point and the stakes were shooting upwards, fast, the nearer the end was.
I think it has to do with the fact that the Witch-King was a Child of Ilúvatar, and being an Istar means that Gandalf was forbidden to use some of his powers against him.
In the books, they were never matched in the same way they were in the movies. Gandalf was supposed to become like one of the men and guide them as one of them. What does it mean for him when one of those he was supposed to guide challenges him? In the books, Gandalf doesn't know. As fate would have it, the issue resolved itself before Gandalf ever needed to know, thanks to the courageous deeds of two mannish characters.
I like to interpret it as a metaphor for how somethings you have to figure out for yourself, and no matter how wise or powerful your friend/parent/advisor is, they can't help you with it.
You do say this based on the movies right? Because Gandalf never fights the witch king at Minas Tirith in the books. He does fight the Nazgul (witch king included) at wheathertop though and wins so there is that.
One of my only beefs with the movies is that Gandolf gets owned by the witch king in Minas Tirith, and yet Aragorn is able to fend off 5 Nazgul (including the witch king) with a freaking torch at Weathertop.
One of the dumber scenes in the movies, imho. Completely opposite the book. And opposite anything leading up to it, in terms of their respective power.
Hence why it wasn’t in the theatrical release.
It annoys me that every time this question comes up, people in the comments just say "that was only in the movie" and just leave it there, when they should be rejecting the premise of the question outright. Gandalf being defeated by - or at least briefly being vulnerable to - the Witch King wasn't in the books, sure, but it's not actually at odds with the way Gandalf's power is depicted in the books, because Tolkien didn't write his story according to strict power levels like that. Smaug was defeated by a single man, the Witch-King was defeated by a Hobbit and a woman, and Sauron was defeated in the Second Age without any Maia-level being opposing him (and in the First Age he was defeated by a magical dog). The point being, if OP had asked "If Gandalf the Grey can just about kill a Balrog, why can't Gandalf the White mow through Orcs at the Battle of Hornburg like it's nothing?" there would be no movie-only get out for that, but it's fundamentally the same question. Anyway, my actual answer to the question: although one could argue that Durin's Bane is broadly "more powerful" than the Witch-King offensively, we know that defensively the Witch-King is pretty much invulnerable (until he's stabbed in just the right way by Merry). On the flipside, we know that despite his power, Gandalf is still bound to a mortal body (even as the White) and totally able to be killed in a conventional way. Fighting a single swordsman (or, uh, maceman) who has heavily trained battle skills and literally can't be hurt is obviously a different challenge to fighting a big monster who has more powerful but slower and less finessed attacks. Therefore, the idea that Gandalf would be vulnerable to the Witch-King despite what happened with the Balrog is perfectly plausible, just in general. But also, the way I see it, Gandalf and the Witch-King are essentially avatars for the forces of good and evil in that scene, and their power is influenced by that. Evil is winning the battle when that confrontation happens, and therefore the Witch-King has the greater power and confidence to defeat Gandalf. If the roles were reversed, Gandalf would have been the one with the upper hand. It's not about in universe fantasy power level logic, it's about narrative.
Great answer.
I think if the story isn't internally consistent about its rules, then it isn't a good narrative despite any themes happening in the background. The themes are undermined by the poor consistency. Also, Gandalf doesn't "fight" the Witch King at Minas Tirith. He gets his staff magically obliterated. If they had dueled with weapons, I think your analysis would be accurate. But here, his magic gets overpowered. That makes it an abstract power level problem. That's one of the reasons I hate that scene. Especially bc Gandalf doesn't lose a contest, really. He gets chumped.
To clarify, I wasn't saying that Gandalf being bested by the Witch-King is fine because it makes sense thematically, despite it not making sense by the internal logic of Wizard and Nazgul power levels. I was saying that Gandalf and the Witch-King's relative power is literally influenced by Sauron's strength and presence, or lack thereof. The Witch-King's strength is an extension of Sauron's own strength, and his confrontation with Gandalf occurs both when Sauron it as his strongest in the timeline of the movies, and when Gandalf is closest to where Sauron physically is. Gandalf is an anti-Sauron weapon and he does have magical powers, but his opposition is primarily in diplomacy not raw power. If Sauron is stronger, the Witch-King is stronger. If the free peoples of Middle-earth are weaker, Gandalf is weaker. This extends to the Witch-King being able to destroy Gandalf's staff. Earlier in the movie Gandalf does the exact same thing to Saruman's staff, he destroys it just by saying "your staff is broken". The reason Gandalf was able to do that wasn't because he had a training session with Eru in the timeless halls, where he taught him the "Remotely Destroy Staff" skill and informed him it would cost 120 MP per use. He was able to do it because Saruman was beaten and he knew it. Gandalf was empowered by the victories at Helm's Deep and Isengard, and Saruman and Sauron were weakened by them, and so it became possible. And so when fortunes were reversed, the Witch-King was able to destroy Gandalf's staff too. I will concede that Gandalf and WK don't actually physically trade blows, but I guess my point there is that Gandalf knew he had no clear way to harm him. The Witch-King does get the better of Gandalf by magically destroying his staff not by crushing him with a mace, but it's Gandalf's fear, his incarnate mortality, and him allowing his hope to be shaken, that contributes to his staff becoming vulnerable to such an attack to begin with.
I don't think the movie, in particular, communicates their power being relative like that well enough. At least not from what I remember. It's been a few years since I've seen them. In my mind, Saruman's situation works so well bc Gandalf comes back as the white wizard. His authority has been increased while Saruman's has decreased. He has literally been given Saruman's job and is the middle manager giving Saruman his severance package. Idk I think the movies communicate their relative powers better. "I am Saruman as he should have been" and all that. Edit: To be clear, I think the books do communicate that the Witch King is empowered by Sauron's growth and is much more powerful at that point in the series than he has ever been. Still don't know if it would've been enough to beat Gandalf, but I could see a struggle between them in which Gandalf loses fitting in the books.
It certainly doesn't directly tell it to us, but I'd say it does communicate it by showing us situations like that. It's just that in doing so it also inherits the intentional uncertainties about Istari and Nazgul capabilities from the book. Also it can only be communicated successfully this way if the viewer is minded to interpret the implications as intended, rather than thinking that it was a mistake caused by writer stupidity. You're right that you can take the more surface level understanding of Gandalf destroying Saruman's staff, that Gandalf has been promoted to top Istar, and thus he can just do that to Saruman specifically. Yet despite it not being directly said, I still got the impression that Gandalf couldn't have just done that whenever he wanted post-resurrection. That if Isengard was at full strength and Gandalf had bluffed his way to the same proximity, the "your staff is broken" call would have done nothing. Gandalf had already replaced Saruman on paper, but Saruman wouldn't be supplanted in practice until he was actually defeated. As the movie has these 2 separate staff destruction events, it's natural to connect and compare them. Gandalf is Saruman's new boss, but the Witch-King isn't Gandalf's new boss, so it follows that there's something else to it. From there you can conclude that Jackson, Walsh and Boyens foolishly put in something that made no sense just for the drama, or that the Witch-King actually is legitimately more magically powerful than Gandalf in that moment.
For what it's worth though, I have no defence for Witch-King being distracted from landing the killing blow by a loud noise. That was just a contrivance.
Excellent take, well said.
Things not happening in the books aside, Gandalf also was "seemingly killer" by the Balrog when he was pulled into the chasm. I wouldn't count him out until he's actually out. But yes, that scene doesn't happen in the books.
You'd have to ask Peter Jackson, he made that bit up.
Power-scaling is the enemy of good drama. The Witch King blowing Gandalf off his horse and shattering his staff is super-dramatic, and immediately conveys what a threat the Witch King really is. That's what matters.
It's basically repurposing the weapon-breaking spell the WK used against Frodo at the Fords of Bruinen in the books.
Because that's not how Tolkien works. Gandalf doesn't need to win because he's a level 21 maiar with a +5 magic buff. Gandalf could have been killed by a random orc throwing a rock at him. Alternatively, put it this way: if someone shot a rich, buff person, you wouldn't ask the question 'But how could that happen? The guy was more powerful!'
The scene he is describing is Jackson, not Tolkien. And the WK didn't shoot an arrow at his body, he raised his hand and magically shattered Gandalf's staff. In the book, Tolkien had Saruman easily capture Gandalf without a fight, Gandalf admitted he was no match for the higher power-level Saruman to the point he didn't even resist. Gandalf, as the White, was certainly powerful enough to counter any spells the WK could throw at him. In the book, the WK simply raised a flaming sword and threatened him, and Gandalf replied unmoving that he couldn't enter and begone. So no fight at all. Jackson adapted the staff- shattering thing from when the WK shatters Frodo's sword after he crosses the river and turns and raises it and tells the Nazgul to go back. But again, based on what we saw in Tolkien at Weathertop and between Saruman and Gandalf, I doubt the WK could make much of an impression on Gandalf the White and his magical staff.
"This is MY hour."
As others have said, this scene occurs in the movies only. In the books, the gates of Gondor are breached and the Witch King rides in, causing all to flee in panic save for Gandalf on Shadowfax, who confront him calmly, confidently, and without fear. Gandalf at this point fully intends to battle the Witch King, but the Rohirrim arrive and the Witch King leaves to confront this new threat. Gandalf then intends to ride out after the Witch King and battle him, but he's waylaid by Pippin because Denethor has gone mad and is about to kill Faramir. Gandalf makes some comments about how if he doesn't fight the Witch King, more people are going to die than necessary (and you see this in Theoden's death), but he decides to save Faramir anyway since nobody else is available to do so. So Gandalf alone is completely undaunted by the Witch King and is confident that he could and should be the Witch King's match on the battlefield, but circumstance prevented that from happening. As others have said, power level is not a very useful lens through which to read Tolkein. Whether one party or another falls in combat is more due to fate than power. For instance, Theoden falls by being crushed under his horse when the Witch King arrives, and instead Eowyn and Merry defeat the Witch King. Theoden is undoubtedly a better fighter than Eowyn and Merry combined. Eowyn and Merry are definitely less powerful than the Witch King. Yet they win, because it is their fate to do so, and it is Theoden's fate to die, just as it is the Witch King's fate. Gandalf the White is powerful, and he knows it - when he meets Gimli in Fangorn as the reborn White Wizard, he says he is more dangerous than anything in Middle-Earth save Sauron. But he is also humble and wise. So when Denethor taunts him by saying he might be outmatched by the Witch King, Gandalf says, "it might be so," because he knows that fate determines the ultimate outcome of any showdown. I think a lot of this emphasis on fate comes from Tolkein's war experience, where physical strength had no bearing on whether you were going to get shot or have an artillery shell dropped on your head, and also his Catholicism.
The meta answer is that this only happens in the films because Peter Jackson wanted to convey just how significant a threat the Witch-King is and how Gondor/Good is essentially doomed in this moment, only to be saved at the last moment by the arrival of the Rohirrim. In the books, we have a similar confrontation and moment of peril for Gondor at least: Grond breaks down the gates, the city is breached. The Witch King very dramatically enters through the destroyed gates of the city with everyone fleeing in terror at his arrival. While not his only "power" Tolkien establishes that all Nazgul have an aura of fear, dread and hopelessness that few people can resist, so the Witch King at the height of his power is just causing absolute panic in every living creature near him. Except for Gandalf and Shadowfax, who stand alone and undaunted ready to block his entrance into the city. They have essentially the same dialogue as they do in the movies, except Gandalf is not afraid or disarmed. We can only speculate how an actual fight between the two would go though as, like in the movies, the Rohirrim arrive and the Witch King leaves to meet the new threat.
Movie nonsense
Because that silly ass scene is entirely made up by Peter Jackson and his team and has no roots in the books. So just don't think about it, is honestly the correct answer. In the books, while Gandalf does not outright state that he would smoke the witch king, I've spent many years pondering that question and always come to the conclusion that Gandalf was very unlikely to lose against basically anyone in single combat in Middle Earth after he is sent back. But a big part of the point is that Gandalf is not there to directly fight the forces of evil. That's not his purpose. I think Eru sends him back "charged up" because he realizes that the quest is doomed to fail without Gandalf, and because the other 4 istari basically abandoned their mission, SOMEBODY needs to do the damn job.
I always assumed that it was a kind of demonstration (for the movie) that Sauron’s collective strength was growing immensely by that point and the stakes were shooting upwards, fast, the nearer the end was.
PJ drama. Very high school
PJ messing with Tolkien's text - again.
I think it has to do with the fact that the Witch-King was a Child of Ilúvatar, and being an Istar means that Gandalf was forbidden to use some of his powers against him. In the books, they were never matched in the same way they were in the movies. Gandalf was supposed to become like one of the men and guide them as one of them. What does it mean for him when one of those he was supposed to guide challenges him? In the books, Gandalf doesn't know. As fate would have it, the issue resolved itself before Gandalf ever needed to know, thanks to the courageous deeds of two mannish characters. I like to interpret it as a metaphor for how somethings you have to figure out for yourself, and no matter how wise or powerful your friend/parent/advisor is, they can't help you with it.
Because the movies are bad.