The White Council

Re: Death of Gil-galad

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: : The challenge to formal combat of The Witch King to Eanur of : : Gondor might be seen as forming a parallel(though we don't know : : if WK played by the rules in the end). Also Morgoth's combat : : with one of the "F" Noldor kings (can't remember which at : : present) could stand as a precedent. Giving and accepting : : challenges, therefore, does not seem to be outside the remit of : : the Demiurges of Evil.

: As I think I pointed out previously (I have not gone back and looked at my message to be sure), Sauron himself went knowingly to fight Huan, but he tried to stack the deck in his favor, and there was no real formal challenge on that occasion.

: The Witch-King's challenge to Earnur is not the same as Fingolfin's challenge to Morgoth, however. The only parallel I can see is that in both cases a powerful enemy who had been defeacted on the field of battle managed to provoke a powerful ruler into responding to insults.

: On the other hand, the Witch-king was himself just a servant whereas Fingolfin was High King of the Noldor-in-Exile. He would not have viewed himself as anyone's general or champion. The Witch-king was acting in the service of Sauron, and may well have attempted his ploy in an effort to bring about an end to the Kings of Gondor (this is purely speculative, of course, but it must have been common knowledge that Earnur was not married and therefore had no clear heir -- within less than a 100 years the Witch-king would have brought an end to the two Dunedain monarchies descended from Elendil).

: There was also never any real hope for Fingolfin to win against Morgoth (though wounding Morgoth as many times as he did -- and permantly maiming Morgoth -- was a feat unparalleled by the exploits of the Noldor). Fingolfin acted out of despair, for he thought the power of the Noldor had been broken, though only a few years later the Union of Maedhros very nearly destroyed Morgoth's power base. The Lord of the Nazgul, on the other hand, at least knew he had achieved his aim in the North: he had destroyed Arnor. It did not rise again after Angmar was destroyed. So his challenge could not have resulted from despair.

: My point is that motivations seem to play a great part in these challenges and personal combats. Sauron tried to bring about the premature prophecy of Huan's death, he deceived the Elves into making the Rings of Power, he seduced the Nine Men with the Rings he gave them, he tricked Ar-Pharazon into bringing about the total destruction of Numenor -- it would have been uncharacteristic of him to formally challenge Gil-galad.

: On the other hand, I suppose one could infer that Gil-galad might have issued a challenge to Sauron, and Sauron may have tried to gain the advantage by not discussing time and place, but merely coming out and attacking Gil-galad.

: However it befell, I feel certain Sauron was not acting in any honroable way when he met with Gil-galad on the slopes of Orodruin. Tolkien never speaks of Gil-galad having a chance to inflict harm on Sauron. Instead, they "wrestled" and Gil-galad was thereby slain, because the heat of Sauron's body was unendurable.

The forces of "Good" mostly seem to have abided by what could be called "Formal rules of war" such as issuing formal challenges, respecting the inviolability of heralds and such like. It seems that those on the "Evil" side were quite willing to use these formalities when it suited their purposes (The Mouth of Sauron's embassy for instance). It may have appeared to Sauron that giving or accepting a challenge was in his best interests when beseiged by The Last Alliance. He may have hoped that face to face he could daunt, psychologically break or subvert his leading enemies without having to resort to combat. He was unlikely to get such an opportunity without arranging a personal combat with his enemies, as appeals for a parley would probably have been rejected by the victors.

The positions of leader and champion in single combat need not be mutually exclusive. Henry V was willing to prove his claim to the French crown by single combat, knowing that his challenge was unlikely to be answered. However, there is little doubt that had his challenge been accepted the king would have fought. Indeed Heraclius, the Roman-Byzantine emperor, killed a leading Persian general in personal combat at the Battle of Nineveh in the 620's.

I would say that anyone willing to face death in single combat must have been motivated in some way, from a sense of honour, revenge, desire for fame, despair or something less obvious, but in all cases the motivation would have been great.