That in particular reminds me of the thread I started on here: http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=6564

Talk about the worst possible thing you could do in a war: hand your enemies your own troops on a silver platter!

 

Garret P.I. I think you overestimate the skill of the wizarding population. Remember, most wizards in the MoM can't even do a sheild charm. This isn't like the Muggle world where anyone can pick up a gun (well, in some countries at least) and become a fighter. It''s all about skill, and not many people have it.

Also, remember that the bad guys had practically all the skilled people. Voldemort, Bellatrix, Snape...even Mcgonagall, Shaklebolt and Slughorn combined lost to Voldemort in a duel. To a certain extent, where Voldemort was concerned, resistance was futile.

You also forget the size of the wizarding population, about 3000-5000 persons. If you say that there were about 300 people at the battle of Hogwarts, then that makes up 10% of the entire wizarding UK population. 10% of a popualtiopn at war is a reasonable amount.

 

I particularly loved Jbern's response to this issue. Set up your people in a nice blind, set up a killing field and trigger the Taboo. Wax the Death eaters... Wash rinse and repeat till you've eradicated dozens of Death Eaters.

The response that "But you don't know where they'll appear" is kinda irrelevent. They're going to appear near where the taboo was triggered. Just being near the taboo in an open field is enough. You're still in an open field while your opponents are firmly entrenched in a fortified position and they're picking your ass off from cover. You're stuck in the middle of a field with no cover.

It's a bad place to be if you're a deatheater or snatcher.

 

First off, I respect your opinions and points... but I think you're dead wrong.

I honestly think you're severely underestimating the relative skills and talents of the wizarding population in general and confusing "conducting a war" with "fighting".

I worked for the NSA and the USAF as an intel analyst, and let me tell you, carrying out a war does not require fielding hugely talented troops.

It requires that you have people do what you tell them when you tell them. That's what most military training involves. It's about making you do what you're trained to do when the shit starts flying.

So again, do not confuse martial duels with war... they are not the same thing at all.

That said, sure, many may not all know how to create shields, but the train up time for it looks to be in the areas of a couple weeks, tops.

But more importantly I think the lack of shielding talent is more a matter of magical specialization because of how people apply their skills in a day to day job.

Meaning that just like people in the real world who stop using Algebra from highschool and forget it completely in their adult years, certain talents like casting a shield spell likely deteriorate through disuse.

It's the old "Use it or lose it" mantra that programmers live and die by.

But regardless of that... Someone makes those foe glasses, sneakoscopes, wizarding wirelesses, magical tents, quaffles, bludgers and such for the wizarding world. So it's a fair bet that the general populace knows plenty of magic that far far outstrips the skills of the schoolkids.

But back to the issue of the death eaters.

The two things that the Death Eaters were always shown doing, and what made them powerful, was not so much skill as how they applied their attacks.

1. They attacked their opponents in an organized mass.
2. They apparated away before the authorities arrived.

This is more or less the same tactic that Special Forces teams use in combat. They use it mainly because it relies on sudden strikes to cause as much damage as possible, and immediate withdrawl to prevent reprisals and organized defense. It's get in, shoot everything you got, and get the hell out.

It all comes down to
1. Sudden and quickly applied maximum firepower combined with the element of surprise
and
2. Mobility to enter and exit conflict quickly.

Nothing more. It's the ability to exit combat quickly that gives them the edge.

And with apparation and port keys, you pretty much have a sure fire "get in/get out" methodology that beats the hell out of standard airlifts and rapid deployment insertion craft.

This sort of attack strategy is also the tool of Guerrilla warfare and the tool of the sniper. Attack and fade away before you can be struck back at. That's not skill... that's just a tactic. It's also one that has it's own weaknesses when you get right down to it. If you have people waiting for the attack, or able to lock your forces down and prevent retreat, you can be suckered in and eradicated.

Don't believe it? Imagine being a death eater who appears in the middle of an open field with no cover and suddenly anti portkey and apparition wards go up, and to your front, left, right, and rear are wizards waiting for you and sitting in prepared positions that give them more than 50% cover. More than 50% of your spells are going to hit that cover and do jack shit. You however are going to be hit from all sides and be massacred in short order. You might be one skillful fuck... but you're going down from that damn body bind that hits you from behind.

Bull. All it takes is the correct application of surprise and properly applied firepower.

For example... someone Imperios a Death Eater and gave him a silenced bag containing a full grown mandrake root. The person then tells the Deatheater

"When you are summoned by Voldemort, go to him. Carry this bag under your robes. When he shows up, open the bag and toss the mandrake root on the floor under your robes."

There ya go...your own little suicide bomber.

The Mandrake comes out, and everyone in the area DIES when it starts screaming.

No real skill involved, but there sure as fuck would be a ton of dead death eaters as a result and Voldemort himself would likely be killed as well. Sure, he'd get another body again... but it'd sure as hell inconvenience him.

Okay, let's do a little math.

Rowlings initially said she imagined that the Wizarding population was about 3000, so I'll give you that right off. The problem is, her later comments and the facts presented throughout the books contradict this number dramatically.

She initally put Hogwarts population at 1000 students. If that were accurate, then fully one third of the whole of Wizarding Britain is in primary school.

I mean that's just fucking ridiculous and is CLEARLY contradicted by the sheer number of adults to children in the story.

So, 3000 people?
*Howls of derisive laughter*

Sorry *wipes tears of laughter away*

Okay ok seriously. If 3000 is just plain fucked... then what is the real number?

Okay, she lowered the number of students at Hogwarts to 600 (split among the 4 houses) But then at the Quidditch World Cup the Stadium was said to hold around 100,000 people (from all over europe) and there was a "Ministry task force of 500" seeing to security.

I'm quoting straight from the source here.

So 600 students plus 500 ministry officials... that's 1100 people. So let's be practical here. Now we've got one third of the UK Magical population either in the security personel for the ministry... or in primary school?

No fucking way.

You do know that to pay the salaries of one government employee, it usually takes the taxes of at least 10 adults in the workforce being taxed in the normal world, right? Someone pays those ministry wages my friend.

That would mean that the base population just to support the security forces of Wizarding Britain, you'd need a base of 5000 people in the work force. And given the sheer number of ministry government departments (Even Arthur Weasley's Misuse of Muggle Artifacts office is staffed by at least two people... and it's the most understaffed office of the lot) you might as well rack up another few hundred other ministry employees, doubling that number at a minimum. Add in support staff like mailroom, cafeteria workers, cleaning staff, supply purchasers, the list goes on.

So to get a realistic look at what the real population of Wizarding britain let's return to the issue of the Quidditch World Cup for a moment.

100,000 people. That's what the stadium was said to have capacity for, and it was filled. But at the same time, clearly not everyone in the whole of the Wizarding world was there (As pointed out by Ron, they wouldn't have been going if they hadn't lucked into some freebie tickets... thus it's fair to assume that not everyone was so lucky as to get such tickets) Thus let's say, simply for the sake of arguement that one out of every 5 persons in all of Europe (including the UK) who were magical (not counting werewolves and the like who would be refused admission or be unable to afford it) actually went to the Quidditch world cup. Sure, it's likely a wildly out of skew number given normal sporting event attendance (far less than 1 in 5 people attend live sporting events on a regular bases, and it's very likely that people that didn't have their national team go on to the world cup would attend as well in force)

That would mean that the European Magical population is 500,000 total at a pretty reasonable minimum.

Now, lets look at relative population densities (the UK's population in 2000-2002 was right around 59, 200,000 vs a european population of 661,390,000 (subtracting 59,000,000 from the gross european population in 2002 of 728, 000,000)

That gives us a factor of roughly 8.104 percent of everyone there was from the UK.

Out of 100,000 people that means that 8104 were from Wizarding Britain. That's more than Double Rowlings' 3000 right there alone.

Add in all the people that DIDN'T go to the World Cup in Britain alone, and you're at a pretty likely minimum of 40522 wizards and witches in the UK.

So am I saying that the Wizarding population for the UK is 40k? You bet your ass I am. If you're going to be even slightly realistic about it.

Besides, clearly, money and commerce play a huge role in how the Magical world works, and if you've ever read The Wealth of Nations you know that for wealth and influence to have meaning, you must have a sophisticated economy. And Population is key to economy. Without a magical population of at least 20k or more, you wouldn't have enough people to operate a sustainable modern economy, much less a whole banking system to serve it.

If there were only 3000 Wizards and Witches in the whole of the Wizarding UK you wouldn't have enough of a population base for coined wealth to mean anything. It'd still be in the Barter and Trade stages of economy.

Therefore I call bullshit on the whole "there's only 3000 wizards in the UK" idea.

 

Can't argue with canon my friend. You can say canon is crap and unrealistic, which it is in terms of numbers (I'd estimate the UK magical population at around 15k, simply through taking the numbers of students in each year at Hogwarts and extrapolating these numbers for the entire age range of the wizarding population, 0-150), but canon is canon and you can't change that. If you could, you could bend anything in the HP world to your liking and any discussion about the world becomes moot. Which is why we have fanfiction. Leave fanon for fanon and canon to canon.

Confusing Muggle and magical worlds here. As I said in my original statement, to fight magically you need skill or you get your ass kicked. As for killing Voldemort with a mandrake, it most likely wouldn't work. First off, he'd notice the imperius. Secondly, he'd know what the Death Eater was about to do via legilimency. Thirdly, even if the DE got through all of that, Voldemort has considerable skill and reaction times; it wouldn't be too much trouble to protect his hearing or disable the Death Eater very quickly.

Your other arguments also are assuming the existence of wards, which are fanon not canon.

 

This has nothing to do with Fanon vs Canon.

It's about multiple pieces of Canon that flat outright contradict each other.

That she said she imagines the population to be about 3000 is clearly canon. It's not in the books, yeah, but it was stated by her. Noone can argue that.

But that single piece of canon is no more or less valid that her other canon comments about there being 1000 students at hogwarts, or 500 ministry workers managing security at the World Cup (Mind you, that's in addition to the UK attendees at the World Cup.)

Even with her changing it to 600 still would mean that more than 20% of the total population is under 18 in the UK wizarding world. That's just plain physically impossible. You can't have that much of your population be under the majority and have any sort of functioning societal structure.

And that's the point. You're saying her quote of 3000 is true.

But for that to be the case... her other quotes that are EQUALLY CANON would have to be false.

I know you see the quandry here. And I'm not dogging you for supporting canon. Canon is critical in good fic writing and good story telling. But in this case we've got completely contradictory statements from her, and only one can be true. At that point I think logic has to be applied to determine the truth of the situation.

We simply can't have it both ways. Her other quotes and items mentioned in the story cannot all be true if the wizarding world's population in the UK is only 3000.

As such, because there is only one piece of canon stating 3000, but multiple pieces of canon showing the numbers being vastly larger... I'll go with the 3000 number either a misstatement, or it being the total number of wizards in the greater London area or in England (but not the whole of the UK), or that it's her just being a fucking idiot and not thinking it through logically before opening her mouth.

What I'm saying is that you have to weigh all the canon statements, and eliminate the ones that are contradicted based on what is the most LIKELY truth based on available evidence.

In that case, the evidence of the 100,000 person stadium, the 500 person detachment, and 600 students (as well as the attendees at the Quidditch cup) shows FAR FAR more evidence for validity of the larger number than her off the cuff statement naming 3000.

So it's not about abandoning canon for fanon. It's about choosing which canon is correct. JKR can't keep her story and facts consistent, and that's been a criticism that has been ongoing for a while.

 

Most of the information JK gives is in her interviews she gives to fans seems flawed and contradicting, it is hard to take her interview answers as actual Canon considering how many times she says one thing in one interview and then says something different in another.

Problem with the interviews is that when she is asked a question she doesn't have a whole lot of time to prepare a legitimate answer. She gives an answer for one interview that she was not that prepared for then a year later gives another interview she isn't prepared for. And chances are she doesn't even remember what she was asked before.

If the people that interviewed her were smart they would give her a list of questions beforehand so that when it is time for the interview she has real in depth answers to the questions.

 

Just wanted to point out something- Wards are canon. Okay, so JKR never used the term, but it is implied clear as crystal.

I will not comment on what Dumbledore placed on the Death Eaters to prevent Apparation, since it seems like a spell placed individually on each person rather than a mass area-of-effect "ward".

But when Harry and Co. entered Hogsmeade in DH and later tried to Disapparate, it is quite obvious there was a ward in place preventing them from doing so. It can't be an Anti-Apparation spell placed on them since they weren't hit with anything.

Call it a Massive Area-of-Effect Anti-Apparation spell/jinx/hex if you must. I however, prefer to shorten that to Anti-Apparation ward. They mean the same thing after all. Is a ward not merely a defensive Area-of-Effect spell? JKR may not have used the term "ward", but the magic itself is canon.

The "other arguments" made by Garret shouldn't be dismissed just because the term itself isn't canon. The magic is, and his arguments still stands. If you must, replace "anti-portkey and apparation wards" with "anti-portkey and apparation massive area-of-effect jinx/spell/hex", because they (at least the anti-apparation ones) do exist.

 

The only area-of-effect anti-apparition spells that we know of for certain are those on Hogwarts and later Hogsmeade, and we've no idea how long they took to set up, how many wizards it took of what competance etc. For all we know it could be a feat that is singular to wizards of such calibre as the Founders, Dumbledore, Voldemort etc.

And even the area of effect spells are exactly that: spells, not wards. Wards imply a boundry, a spell is simply something that has been palced upon an object. For a further example, the blood binding charm that was placed by Dumbledore on Harry wasn't a ward with boundries but a charm upon Harry's person.

It's mostly semantics, but I just get annoyed when the protection spells on Hogwarts (or where ever) are shown as some glowing half-sphere of magic. They are spells placed upon the building, not a boundry (unless of course the particular spell used is a property line or an age line, neither of which are on Hogwarts).

 

Re the numbers.

One thing that JKR is apparently famous for is being bad with numbers. I've read an essay somewhere that suggests that she tends to use numbers impressionistically, rather than as a literal statement of quantity. By this, I mean that statements such as Harry seeing 200 Slytherins all squashed at one end of the Quidditch pitch, while not realistic (if there's, say, 5 boys and 5 girls per year in Slytherin then that means 70 students not 200), is a kind of indicator-of-perspective description where Harry feels nervous because there's a lot of Slytherins all razzing him at once.

I would take JKR's off-the-cuff numbers (and even some of the ones that are wildly at variance canonically) with a bit of a grain of salt, and run with realistic extrapolations from the fact that the number of professors in Hogwarts is not consistent with a thousand students (my high school taught probably as many subjects as Hogwarts did and we had something like, 20 or 30 teachers as opposed to just ten or twelve) for the reason in parentheses and others as well.

 

Once again, you contradict yourself: You say wards imply a boundry, but isn't an area-of-effect spell like those anti-apparation ones in Hogsmeade implying an boundry too? You mentioned a spell is something placed on an object, but surely that cannot be the case for the ones in Hogsmeade, which are so massive they cover the entire town, and who knows, perhaps they even extend further than that. Is this not clearly implying a boundry?

Same goes for whatever stuff there are placed on Hogwarts and it's surroundings. There is a boundry involved in this case too.

And I doubt the placing of these anti-apparation wards (Yes, I will call them wards now, since they apparently fulfil your criteria of a "ward" and also because I tire of calling them "mass area-of-effect spells/jinxes/hexes) on Hogsmeade, at least, is "singular to wizards of such calibre as the Founders, Dumbledore, Voldemort etc" because as far as we know, the wards were placed after Dumbledore is killed, and since there has been no known sightings of Voldemort in Hogsmeade (He sent Snape to the region instead) before the "Final Battle", they are probably erected/casted by the Death Eaters or Snape. Whether or not it took a whole regiment of Death Eaters to cast them, we will never know and it is incorrect to simply conclude so.

And lastly, there are protective wards placed on No.4 Privet Drive, and not just Charms placed on Harry's person, or he wouldn't need to go back. Isn't it stated in canon that "As long as Harry can call the place home, the protection will be activated each year until he is of age", or something like that? Yes, the blood-binding charm placed on him is a spell, but the protective ones enveloping No.4 Privet Drive is by your definition a ward, since there is a boundry involved, ie. it cannot be simply a spell placed on the house as it would have to cover the garden, backyard and whatnot too.

Nobody said wards have to be "glowing half-spheres of magic". They are simply protective/defensive spells/charms/whatever that cover a boundry, be it small or large.

 

There are no spells on Privet Drive. There is the one charm on Harry, and that is it. So long as Harry calls Privet Drive (or indeed, where ever Petunia lives) home, then the charm remains in power. (Page 737 OotP, British Hardback.)

Not really. Just as a spell can be cast upon an abstract idea such as a job (the curse on the DADA job at Hogwarts) or indeed a name (the Taboo) so too a spell can be cast on a town without there having to be any physical boundries. If you're in Hogsmeade, then you can't apparate, if you're not in Hogsmeade, then you can. Rather than a physical boundry it is a boundry of definition.

What we know of Voldemorts movements and what he actually did are two very different things.

 

I guess I was wrong about there being any protections on the house. It would seem that there is just the blood charm placed on Harry.

There is absolutely no canon proof that you can place a spell over a town without involving any physical boundaries. Just because you can put a Taboo on a name or a curse on a job doesn't mean you can place a huge area-of-effect protective spell on a town without there having to be any physical boundaries. They are totally different magical enchantments. There would be too much complications for the latter to not involve such such boundaries. For example, what if you want to increase the area under the influence of the enchantment? If the spell is merely casted on "Hogsmeade" and doesn't involve physical boundaries, increasing the area of effect would be nigh impossible.

I'd like to remind you that the anti-apparation wards protecting Hogwarts extend to almost the Forbidden Forest, and not just the castle itself. There is obviously some form of physical boundary in effect, and the wards can't merely be spells casted on the place, "Hogwarts". But it would seem like you are just too stubborn to concede this point.

If there are no physical boundaries, why would Snape have to run to a certain point before being able to Disapparate in HBP.

Also, "Snape had managed to Disapparate just beyond the school's boundaries." (HBP Page 564 UK Hardcover Edition). There are boundaries involved. Canon has spoken up. Hence, by your definition, wards exist. End of argument.

What, pray tell, would Voldemort be doing in Hogsmeade when he was abroad hunting for the Elder Wand for almost throughout the entire book? Also, despite the taking over of the Minstry by the Death Eaters, a sighting of Voldemort in a prominent town like Hogsmeade is bound to be big news which would spread and quickly reach the ears of the Order and further spread by Fred and George on that radio station of theirs. Also, given that Harry's visions have enabled him to more or less track Voldemort on his Elder Wand quest, it would be highly impossible that he would not have a vision of Voldemort if he is in Hogsmeade performing the "feat".

 

This simply proves my point further. The spell is on Hogwarts (and Hogwarts grounds) but as soon as a place is no longer known as as Hogwarts, being called the Forbidden Forest instead, the spell is no longer active.

Extrapolation of known canon to unknown canon. You can place a country-wide spell on a name. You can cast a school-wide spell on a job. Why not a spell on a town?

They sound pretty much the same to me.

And?

Setting up spells on the town. I'd like to remind you that it is with Voldemort's voice, not Snape's, that the Caterwauling charm on Hogsmeade sounded with.

Because of course, the most powerful wizard in Britain has no way of making himself unknown when he wishes to. How could I have forgotten that with the massive powers of Fred and George Weasley arrayed against him, Voldemort would be helpless.

/sarcasm.

Need I remind you that Voldemort completely kicked the Order's arse in DH? They were helpless against him.

 

Did you not read this? I believe the argument ends here.

But yet apparently he can't make himself untraceable from a seventeen year-old boy with hallucinations. /sarcasm

Need I remind you that through his visions, Harry is more or less informed of Voldemort's movements as the latter goes about trying to find the Elder Wand?

 

Need I remind you that Harry's visions are few and far between?

I didn't read it, but again, as with the Forbidden Forest, it strengthens my case. It does not say that Snape had to move past the ward's boundries, but the school's boundries, indicating that the anti-apparition spells are linked directly to the definition of being either in Hogwarts or not.

 

Oh, but they all seem to occur when Voldemort is in the midst of doing something important, like tracking down Gregorovitch or Grindelwald. Surely, something as important as Voldemort placing complex wards over a town would be in his visions.

"The school's boundaries". Is that not a physical boundary? So according to your definition, wards exist, be it whether the wards are casted over an area or a "place".

But the fact Snape had to run up to a certain location before Disapparating, as though he had to cross an imaginary line outlining the physical boundaries of the wards should be proof enough it is casted over a physical area. I've provided canon proof, while all you've brought up is "Extrapolation of known canon to unknown canon."

 

You haven't provided canon proof: you've provided a canon situation and given your particular interpretation of it. Ther's a difference.

I would call it more of an ontological boundry. The particular definition of ontological in this case being: "Of or relating to essence or the nature of being." So the spells are cast on, and linked to, the essence of the being, in this case Hogwarts. It may be that is some cases this will also have a physical boundry as a by-product, but in other cases not (e.g. Taboo, DADA curse).

As I said in my first post re: wards it's mostly semantics, but I like to live in the fine details.

I would change the wording of that sentence to:

 

If "the school's boundaries" isn't a physical boundary, then there exists no physical boundaries in the magical world? Ontological boundary? You've got to be kidding me. From your definition, you are making Hogwarts sound like it's sentient. It is in no way an ontological boundary.

Also, the quote I provided proves there are physical boundaries involved, which is in line with YOUR definition of wards, so by all accounts wards exists. This is what I meant by canon proof.

That can be translated to: Wards exists, but I prefer to call them "Massive Area-of-Effect Protective/Anti-Apparation spells/charms/jinxes" even though they obviously mean the same thing since I am too stubborn to concede the point.

Just to make it clear- Nobody said wards have to be big glowy, shiny spheres of magic that are tangible or crackle with intense energy. That belongs to fandom. But wards do exists in canon, and are basically large area-of-effect spells placed over a physical area. If you wish to call them by their long-winded name, go ahead. Live in the fine details. But don't let your disdain of fandom's interpretation of wards blind you to the fact that they exist, despite the term itself not being used in canon.

 

Actually it can just be translate to "spells", which is what they are called in canon. And my version does differ from yours in the method of casting. In my version, the spells are cast upon an abstract idea: the idea of Hogwarts. In your idea, the wards are cast over a clear physical place.

The definition again: "Of or relating to essence or the nature of being."

Not "a being", just "being". Hogwarts exists (well, exists in the Harry Potter universe, and India), therefore it partakes in being.