DD duel with Grindelwald

[Jazz]

So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand? By sheer ability? that kind of defeats the purpose of an
unbeatable wand. Unless Grindenwald wasn't the master of it like LV
wasn't the master of it when he faced Harry in the end. Where did the
book say that Grindenwald got it from anyways?

I am probably screwing up his name royally...

[santosh]

Jazz wrote:

[ ... ]

Post by Jazz
I am probably screwing up his name royally...

It's Grindelwald, Gillert Grindelwald.

[Dragon Rider]

Post by Jazz
So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand? By sheer ability? that kind of defeats the purpose of an
unbeatable wand. Unless Grindenwald wasn't the master of it like LV
wasn't the master of it when he faced Harry in the end.

The wand is only unbeatable in the original Bard Tale; the actual
magical objects (DHs) were probably created by the Peverell brothers
and were very good but not divine, perfect or unbeatable.

Case in point: Ressurection Stone, that only creates a semi-memory,
semi-ghost, semi-Prori Incantantem version of dear ones, visible only
to its holder; it doesn�t actually ressurects anyone.

Post by Jazz
Where did the book say that Grindenwald got it from anyways?

He stole it from Gregorovitch.

[scenario_dave]

Post by Dragon Rider

Post by Jazz
So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand? By sheer ability? that kind of defeats the purpose of an
unbeatable wand. Unless Grindenwald wasn't the master of it like LV
wasn't the master of it when he faced Harry in the end.

The wand is only unbeatable in the original Bard Tale; the actual
magical objects (DHs) were probably created by the Peverell brothers
and were very good but not divine, perfect or unbeatable.
Case in point: Ressurection Stone, that only creates a semi-memory,
semi-ghost, semi-Prori Incantantem version of dear ones, visible only
to its holder; it doesn�t actually ressurects anyone.

Post by Jazz
Where did the book say that Grindenwald got it from anyways?

He stole it from Gregorovitch.

...

Grindenwald stole it so he was not the true master. When DD fought him
the wand was
not at full power.

[Sirius Kase]

Post by scenario_dave

Post by Dragon Rider

Post by Jazz
So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand? By sheer ability? that kind of defeats the purpose of an
unbeatable wand. Unless Grindenwald wasn't the master of it like LV
wasn't the master of it when he faced Harry in the end.

The wand is only unbeatable in the original Bard Tale; the actual
magical objects (DHs) were probably created by the Peverell brothers
and were very good but not divine, perfect or unbeatable.
Case in point: Ressurection Stone, that only creates a semi-memory,
semi-ghost, semi-Prori Incantantem version of dear ones, visible only
to its holder; it doesn�t actually ressurects anyone.

Post by Jazz
Where did the book say that Grindenwald got it from anyways?

He stole it from Gregorovitch.

Grindenwald stole it so he was not the true master. When DD fought him
the wand was
not at full power.

...

So, if Grindenwald wasn't the master, DD must have also fought the
true master at some time. Or DD wsn't the master, Harry wasn't the
master. Only the wand seems to know for sure who its master is.

[Hira]

Post by Sirius Kase
So, if Grindenwald wasn't the master, DD must have also fought the
true master at some time. Or DD wsn't the master, Harry wasn't the
master. Only the wand seems to know for sure who its master is.

I don't understand that either, if Grindelwald wasn't the master, DD
wasn't and therefore Harry wasn't, then how did the Elder Wand
recognized Harry as the master in the end?

[Lyle Francis Delp]

Post by scenario_dave

Post by Dragon Rider

Post by Jazz
So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand? By sheer ability? that kind of defeats the purpose of an
unbeatable wand. Unless Grindenwald wasn't the master of it like LV
wasn't the master of it when he faced Harry in the end.

The wand is only unbeatable in the original Bard Tale; the actual
magical objects (DHs) were probably created by the Peverell brothers
and were very good but not divine, perfect or unbeatable.
Case in point: Ressurection Stone, that only creates a semi-memory,
semi-ghost, semi-Prori Incantantem version of dear ones, visible only
to its holder; it doesn´t actually ressurects anyone.

Post by Jazz
Where did the book say that Grindenwald got it from anyways?

He stole it from Gregorovitch.

Grindenwald stole it so he was not the true master. When DD fought him
the wand was
not at full power.

...

When Gregorovitch walked in and caught him stealing it,
he was stunned by Grindy. That act wrested the power
of the wand from Gregorovitch.

[Dragon Rider]

Post by Lyle Francis Delp

Post by scenario_dave

Post by Dragon Rider

Post by Jazz
So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand? By sheer ability? that kind of defeats the purpose of an
unbeatable wand. Unless Grindenwald wasn't the master of it like LV
wasn't the master of it when he faced Harry in the end.

The wand is only unbeatable in the original Bard Tale; the actual
magical objects (DHs) were probably created by the Peverell brothers
and were very good but not divine, perfect or unbeatable.
Case in point: Ressurection Stone, that only creates a semi-memory,
semi-ghost, semi-Prori Incantantem version of dear ones, visible only
to its holder; it doesn´t actually ressurects anyone.

Post by Jazz
Where did the book say that Grindenwald got it from anyways?

He stole it from Gregorovitch.

Grindenwald stole it so he was not the true master. When DD fought him
the wand was
not at full power.

When Gregorovitch walked in and caught him stealing it,
he was stunned by Grindy. That act wrested the power
of the wand from Gregorovitch.

...

I know this just adds to the confusion, but IMHO if someone steals the
EW in a non-duelling manner from its master, it won't function
properly. However, if the thief is subsequently duelled and loses
(maybe the wand even contributes to the defeat!), THEN the winner of
the duel will be recognised as the true master.

This would help explain both how Grindenwald lost to DD and what would
happen should the original master died in the meantime.

[Sirius Kase]

Post by Dragon Rider

Post by Lyle Francis Delp

Post by scenario_dave

Post by Dragon Rider

Post by Jazz
So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand? By sheer ability? that kind of defeats the purpose of an
unbeatable wand. Unless Grindenwald wasn't the master of it like LV
wasn't the master of it when he faced Harry in the end.

The wand is only unbeatable in the original Bard Tale; the actual
magical objects (DHs) were probably created by the Peverell brothers
and were very good but not divine, perfect or unbeatable.
Case in point: Ressurection Stone, that only creates a semi-memory,
semi-ghost, semi-Prori Incantantem version of dear ones, visible only
to its holder; it doesn�t actually ressurects anyone.

Post by Jazz
Where did the book say that Grindenwald got it from anyways?

He stole it from Gregorovitch.

Grindenwald stole it so he was not the true master. When DD fought him
the wand was
not at full power.

When Gregorovitch walked in and caught him stealing it,
he was stunned by Grindy. That act wrested the power
of the wand from Gregorovitch.

I know this just adds to the confusion, but IMHO if someone steals the
EW in a non-duelling manner from its master, it won't function
properly. However, if the thief is subsequently duelled and loses
(maybe the wand even contributes to the defeat!), THEN the winner of
the duel will be recognised as the true master.
This would help explain both how Grindenwald lost to DD and what would
happen should the original master died in the meantime.

...

Yeah, I had a similar thought: that if the wizard who possesses the
EW loses the dual, the winner becomes the master of the wand. I think
this fixes any apparent logic problem. So, although Draco defeated
Dumbledore by disarming him, he never took possession. The master and
the possessor were different people. But, when Draco was disarmed by
Harry, Harry became the master, but not the possessor. I'd rather the
EW only be at risk when used in a dual, but that would mess up
Rowling's idea.

[Tim Bruening]

Post by scenario_dave

Post by Dragon Rider

Post by Jazz
So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand? By sheer ability? that kind of defeats the purpose of an
unbeatable wand. Unless Grindenwald wasn't the master of it like LV
wasn't the master of it when he faced Harry in the end.

The wand is only unbeatable in the original Bard Tale; the actual
magical objects (DHs) were probably created by the Peverell brothers
and were very good but not divine, perfect or unbeatable.
Case in point: Ressurection Stone, that only creates a semi-memory,
semi-ghost, semi-Prori Incantantem version of dear ones, visible only
to its holder; it doesn´t actually ressurects anyone.

Post by Jazz
Where did the book say that Grindenwald got it from anyways?

He stole it from Gregorovitch.

Grindenwald stole it so he was not the true master. When DD fought him
the wand was
not at full power.

...

Grindenwald had stunned Gregorovitch, so he Mastered the Elder Wand fair
and square.

[Terry Cousineau]

I feel the wand can't hurt the people who really own it, its original owner
or his disendants (DD & HP). I think that they are both desendants of the
first owner. I think DD & HP are related

[Jonathan Ellis]

Post by Terry Cousineau
I feel the wand can't hurt the people who really own it, its original
owner or his disendants (DD & HP). I think that they are both
desendants of the first owner. I think DD & HP are related

Rubbish.

On the other hand... considering that Dumbledore and Grindelwald had
once been friends - and considering that, I believe, Rita Skeeter's
comments in the paper suggest that no duel happened, and Grindelwald
actually came quietly... I wonder if that was actually what *really*
happened? There's a few other Skeeter slanders in there that turn out
to have some truth behind them.

After all that would fit with the fact that Grindelwald did indeed
have some remorse for his atrocities, later in life. Possibly that was
the start of it?

Mind you I'd be more impressed by a Dumbledore that persuaded someone
with Grindelwald's record to give himself up quietly, than someone who
actually beat him in a duel.

Jonathan.

[Toon]

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 04:22:04 +0100, "Jonathan Ellis"

Post by Jonathan Ellis
On the other hand... considering that Dumbledore and Grindelwald had
once been friends - and considering that, I believe, Rita Skeeter's
comments in the paper suggest that no duel happened, and Grindelwald
actually came quietly... I wonder if that was actually what *really*
happened? There's a few other Skeeter slanders in there that turn out
to have some truth behind them.

That's the only tabloid of hers I trust.

Post by Jonathan Ellis
After all that would fit with the fact that Grindelwald did indeed
have some remorse for his atrocities, later in life. Possibly that was
the start of it?

His actual appearance (rather than second hand stories), seems to hint
he did go quietly to be locked up, and that could be from DD reasoning
with him. Harry tried a much lesser version with Voldemort, but it
didn't take. Possibly from boring V into a coma with lengthy
exposition and no actual fighting.

[Matt Frisch]

Post by Jazz
So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand?

Because describing it as an unbeatable wand was a fairy tale, and while it
may have been a very powerful wand, it was far from unbeatable...otherwise
NOBODY COULD HAVE BEATEN THE FIRST GUY WHO HAD IT. And yet, the wand is
over a thousand years old. Obviously it changed hands repeatedly over that
time, and each time the old owner was defeated.

NONE of the hallows can do the things they are described as being capable
of doing. It's a fairy tale.

[Frodo Baggins]

Post by Matt Frisch

Post by Jazz
So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand?

Because describing it as an unbeatable wand was a fairy tale, and while it
may have been a very powerful wand, it was far from unbeatable...otherwise
NOBODY COULD HAVE BEATEN THE FIRST GUY WHO HAD IT. And yet, the wand is
over a thousand years old. Obviously it changed hands repeatedly over that
time, and each time the old owner was defeated.
NONE of the hallows can do the things they are described as being capable
of doing. It's a fairy tale.

...

Then why dki DD give so much importance to the fairy tale so as to
leave two objects which might have lead the trio astray from their
quest of the Horcruxes to the Quest for the Hallows?

[Sirius Kase]

Post by Frodo Baggins

Post by Matt Frisch

Post by Jazz
So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand?

Because describing it as an unbeatable wand was a fairy tale, and while it
may have been a very powerful wand, it was far from unbeatable...otherwise
NOBODY COULD HAVE BEATEN THE FIRST GUY WHO HAD IT. And yet, the wand is
over a thousand years old. Obviously it changed hands repeatedly over that
time, and each time the old owner was defeated.
NONE of the hallows can do the things they are described as being capable
of doing. It's a fairy tale.

Then why dki DD give so much importance to the fairy tale so as to
leave two objects which might have lead the trio astray from their
quest of the Horcruxes to the Quest for the Hallows?

...

It is like the prophecy. True or not, Voldemort lived as though they
were true and his actions mattered. The trio had to understand the
basis for his actions.

[Matt Frisch]

Post by Frodo Baggins

Post by Matt Frisch

Post by Jazz
So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand?

Because describing it as an unbeatable wand was a fairy tale, and while it
may have been a very powerful wand, it was far from unbeatable...otherwise
NOBODY COULD HAVE BEATEN THE FIRST GUY WHO HAD IT. And yet, the wand is
over a thousand years old. Obviously it changed hands repeatedly over that
time, and each time the old owner was defeated.
NONE of the hallows can do the things they are described as being capable
of doing. It's a fairy tale.

Then why dki DD give so much importance to the fairy tale so as to
leave two objects which might have lead the trio astray from their
quest of the Horcruxes to the Quest for the Hallows?

...

Because he lived a very long time filled with regret about what the Hallows
had done to him and his family. He -wanted- them to be better than they
were in the hope of redeeming his past mistakes.

It is relevant to note that despite not living up to their billing, the
Hallows were certainly very powerful magic items.

[Toon]

Post by Jazz
So, how DID Dumbledore beat someone who had the so-called Unbeatable
Wand? By sheer ability? that kind of defeats the purpose of an
unbeatable wand. Unless Grindenwald wasn't the master of it like LV
wasn't the master of it when he faced Harry in the end. Where did the
book say that Grindenwald got it from anyways?
I am probably screwing up his name royally...

DD seems to have talked him into surrender, as Harry tried with V.
It's part of the plan to bore your opponent to death.