This conversation is completely pointless, as has been stated by others, the magics are just to different to even compare. And you are not even discussing this Bio, you are having a fucking debate with the others. They bring up something that could possibly bring Gandalf down, and you counter it. (The rest of you morons are doing nothing but quoting BioPlague, and doing it half ass'd.)

I personally feel that Dumbledore would win, but hell you can't really argue over things that are completely different.

"Gandalf can just say a word and blow up Dumbledores Wand, sure he could, but what kind of magic is this? Hell, it could be "Telepathy" for all we know, and hell if that was the case what is to say Occlumancy couldn't stop it?

Either way, if you want to argue whom is stronger, put it on a level that they can compete on, the fact that their magics are so totally different makes this a pointless "discussion".

I also think your views on Sauron Vs. Voldemort are flawed, I mean for one, lets look at the age difference. I mean hell this even applies to Gandolf, they are practically fucking immortal. It makes sense they would learn/gain more power.

I think you are also forgetting one thing about Voldemort, while it doesn't really show all that much, he did take over the entire Ministry of magic in days. And as Britain is suppose to be wizard high capitol of the world, that could say something. (Maybe I just look to far into that)

We have seen Sauron in all his glory but hell he had a lot more book time.

Now as I am starting to 'debate' I will pull out, continue your 'conversation' but this is utterly pointless lest you can get on the same foothold and argue about something that both could possibly do.

Edit: Where the Fuck does all this BS about Dumbledore being the worlds most manipulative fuck come from? Let's all base this off of Canon and Movies like we are LotR shall we? And not the fandoms that support your views. Sure Dumbledore does some things that could be considered 'manipulative' but hell in my views it just shows one thing. He has the 'stones' that Gandalf lacks to get the job done!

 

LotR was written by Tolkien. Harry Potter was written by J. K. Rowling. No aspect of these two even compares. Not even the characters.

LotR was written by Tolkien with a scope Rowling wouldn't probably even comprehend... the Good/Evil conflict is much more personalised in Harry Potter. To protect the heroes (the fellowship) Tolkien needed someone who could stop Sauron's henchmen (who frankly seem more powerful than Voldemort) and so Gandalf has powers no HP character could dream of. Rowling needed a character who could protect the hero (Harry) from Voldemort's henchmen, and we can all agree that no Death Eater ever stood up to Dumbledore. He was the only one the Dark Lord Ever Feared. Keep in mind that if Sauron could actually walk around with all his powers, Frodo's remaining lifespan could've been counted in nanoseconds. Not so in HP. Since the villain is so much weaker, Jo didn't need some character as powerful as Gandalf.

The question of a duel should never have come up. If you want to measure their powers, measure them in the respective worlds. There it's a draw, IMHO.

 

While this is comparing 2 different things I do think that Gandalf would win ( a very close win). Because hes technically immortal. To me thats his trump card over dumbledore.

 

Well, Dumbledore has apparation which would really even it out but Tolkein wrote magic out to be so much stronger then magic in HP so I would have to give it to Gandalf.

Also, the Dumbledore Vs. Voldemort fight was shit in the movie compared to the fight in the book which was awesome.

 

Gandalf vs Dumbledore is like comparing Hulk Hogan with a baby. A human with Goku at the end of DBGT Neo with an agent. Gandalf would kill Dumbledores ass from Valinor to Mordor and back again and stop for tea in Bags End.

 

This thread is pointless, we have the answer in the books themselves :

Who is alive at the end of 'his' books ?...

...Gandalf.

 

Who gets killed by one of his students?


Dumbledore.

 

Quirrel? Technically, Draco only disarmed Dumbledore, but that's beside the point.

 

But what about Monty Python and the Holy Grail's Black Knight?

 

Shouldn't you be flirting with Tinn?

I know it's difficult for someone who's only mood is "spite" to understand but this thread was created for fun.

And of course I'm debating it. When someone says the movies showcase long incantations, I'm going to shoot it down because it just doesn't happen. It'd be stupid to agree or "see their point" because there's nothing to see. It doesn't exist.

As for Dumbledore being manipulative - read Deathly Hallows. If you have you'd have no doubt that Dumbledore's intentions from the very beginning (since Harry is marked) is to have Harry eventually sacrifice himself to Voldemort. The look of triumph in Book IV, the fact that he admits to Snape that Harry is going to need to off himself; the fact that he specifically locks the Resurrection Stone in a Snitch so Harry doesn't try to unite them in an attempt to utilize them to fight Voldemort, the Deluminator and Ron, etc, etc, etc.

The entire book is about murkying Dumbledore's "sweet old man" persona.

 

Considering this site enjoys crossovers from Shezza and various others, we obviously deal with the question of cross-universe comparisons (though it is not ever so bluntly stated).

How will HP adjust in the world he's placed in? Will he be defeated by certain creatures or will he be the strongest person? How about other characters? I think it's almost Pot-Kettle-Black to think they (questions comparing universes or which gauge strengths and weaknesses) suck or to think them pointless. It's for fun and entertainment and I enjoy debating such things.

Despite it being too different to compare, a large majority feel Dumbledore is the weaker of the two. And on an HP site, albeit, not one that wholly respects Rowling as much as it once did but it does show that there's something obvious about a meeting between the two (to this group) that would lead with Gandalf winning.

 

It doesn't really matter whether it's a HP site or not to who thinks who would win. It's not like some Competetition between HP and Lord of The Rings. Tolkein wrote Gandalf to be insanely powerful.

New question: Who would win, Gandalf or Harry from Joe6991's trilogy?

 

My comment on this discussion would be that Gandalf was afraid of the power he would succumb to if he were to weild the One Ring.

Dumbledore was afraid of the power he would succumb to if he became Minister of Magic.

From a moral standpoint Dumbledore in a moment of weakness dons the Gaunt ring and thus gets his hand mangled. He sacrifices himself to allow Snape to continue serving Voldemort.

Gandalf refuses to wear the One Ring and when he "sacrifices" himself, it's to fight one badass Balrog to buy the fellowship the time to get away.

Dumbledore wanted Harry to sacrifice himself to defeat Voldemort.

Gandalf warned Frodo of the perils of the One Ring and specifically did not want Frodo sacrificed. He put together a team of the mightiest heroes in the land to make certain that didn't happen. Gandalf was pretty straightforward with Frodo never deluding him about what he faced.

Dumbledore had folks like Dung Fletcher, Tonks, and Arthur Weasley watching over Harry and constantly kept Harry in the dark.

All arguements of power aside, if you were the next poor SOB that destiny has chosen to smite a bad guy, who would you want at your back? I'm thinking Gandalf.

Finally, Dumbledore is just a pale clone of Gandalf, who was bears a passing resemblance to Merlin.

Gandalf is the clear winner in my book.

Jim

 

I presume this is just a one on one dual and not a total defeat (Gandalf being immortal would win hands down)

Gandalf does fear the witch king. He just doesn’t let that fear rule him. Gandalf also feared facing the Balrog yet he also faced him down. Fear is irrelevant.

But if you think it is then Dumbledore wins. He truly does not seem to fear anything apart from those he loves being hurt. He doesn’t fear death or Voldemort or any other tangible thing.

Gandalf fears many things but he doesn’t let the fear master him.

The idea of the istari' power being tied to their staff is vague at best. In the unfinished works and essays by Tolkein it is said that even he was undecided on how relevant they truly were to the wizard’s power.

Gandalf staff broke while smiting the bridge in Moria but it was never broken by someone which may be relevant.

To my knowledge a full account of what happened during his latter fight with the Balrog is never given but we can assume at that point he didn’t have his staff since it broke. Yet he battles the Balrog for days and in his own words the top of the mountain seemed to be on fire. So he must have been able to harness his powers with out it or he managed to defend himself with just his sword (Even though it is a fine elven sword it is still just a sword)

Again is the unfinished works this is covered.

Gandalf was specifically stated to be the weakest of the five wizards in terms of raw power yet greatest in wisdom and lore and most importantly for middle earth compassion (Which is why Cirdan gave him the ring)

What happened to him as after he came back as the white is a matter of debate. Did more of his natural power get unlocked or did he get gifted with more.

His ring while certainly handy did not grant his a decisive edge is battle. At most it would give him a little boost in power but he was still well below Saruman and other even with it. Its power lay in its ability to light the fires of resistance in the free people of middle earth and help ease his burdens.

The elven rings power lay not in battle or domination but in preservation as it is the wish of all elves that things should stay as they once were and not whither and die.

Gandalf at his true potential even with the ring is by himself not a powerful foe. Gandalf’s power lay in him compassion and wisdom. After all his was the disciple of the Valar of compassion unlike Sauron and Saruman who were of Aule the smith.

As stated the fact his power is locked in his staff is debatable but not really relevant. The point of Gandalf true power is also debatable as I have shown. Since this whole debate is about a battle of skill and power a lot of Gandalf’s gifts are useless as they do not help in battle.

The unbeatable wand is a helpful tool but obviously not unbeatable.

Gandalf’s immortality doesn’t really some into this. He is locked into a human body and capable of being killed and since it is a debate on a single battle and who wins the fact that he wouldn’t really "Die" is irrelevant.

Again assuming this is a one on one battle this part is totally pointless.

But if you just want to debate who is better and manipulating I'd have to say it’s pretty much a tie. Sure Gandalf’s plans had more of a grandiose feel to them but they were no more or less impressive.

Both inspired loyalty from those around them and manipulated grand events.

Here is were the real question lays.

Dumbledores magic seems more accusable. It can be turned to more things a lot easier.

Before they got to Moria and they were attacked by the wolfs. Gandalf did a fine job of dispatching them but Dumbledore wouldn't have even battered an eye. A few waves of his wand and the would have all shot away or been turned into bunnies or frozen in place.

In Moria he would have been able to bring the battle to the Balrog from a greater distance and been able to break the bridge while not bloody standing on it. He could have brought the roof down on the balrog on transfigured the columns to attack it.

Gandalf couldn’t do much to help the injured in the houses of healing in MT. Now while we have never seen Dumbledore do much healing we know magic can heal broken bones "In a trice" and Dumbledore is a master at the mind arts and may have been able to battle the Black breath (We can’t know for sure either way)

Gandalf drove away the Nazgul with a ray of light. Dumbledore could have made his Patronus chase them away and protect everyone and then blown the damn birds out of the sky.

While I think Gandalf is a great wizard with a lot going for him in terms of bringing ownage to a battle I think Dumbledore would win.

But in the roll that the Wizards had to fill in Middle earth I think Gandalf would have been far better. I doubt Dumbledore could have resisted the temptation to weild the ring and thus would have doomed middle earth.

Melkor was by in far the most powerful of all the Valar to start with. All the Valar that went down to earth combined had a hard time dealing with him until Tulkis came down and laid the smack down on him. It’s hard to judge him with his powers diminished since we have nothing good to judge him against. He was beaten my the Valinor host but that was a army of insanely powerful both in numbers and "Magic/power" He was almost beaten in a straight fight by Fingolfin an elf... although and elf of great power.

Manwe like Gandalf is powerful but not in terms of straight battle power. He is knowledgeable in lore and wisdom far more than most but it is shown that the like of Tulkis and Orome were more feared on the battlefield.

Sauron is both powerful in terms on power and knowledge and is thus a very frightening enemy. Tolkien himself said that Sauron was a "Better" Darklord than Melkor. He kept his head longer and didn’t lose power the way Melkor did for a long time.

Saruman was said to be the most powerful in terms of raw power. He was also wise in lore being a student of Aule and also has a great deal of knowledge from his travels in the east and studies in Gondor and Isengard. Up until his fall when he forsook a large part of his power and lore in favor of "Wheels and gears" he was by in far stronger than Gandalf. Saruman at his peak power is by infar more powerful than Gandalf the white. He is probably the second most power entity on middle earth behind Sauron.

Gandalf I have already covered. He like Manwe is powerful but his great strength lies outside the field of battle.

The Witch-king. A very hard individual to judge. By in far his great power is fear like all the Nazgul yet if someone is immune or able to with stand that he seems to be no more powerful than a great warrior.

Glorfindel was able to fight off five Nazgul but he is one of the great elf lords. Aragorn was able to fend off five including the Witch king at weather top.

Most of the Eldar and a few of the great men would be able to stand up to him. His individual power is not great it is his cunning and ability to drive his men which makes him a great foe.

In terms of Battle power.

Eru>Melkor>Sauron>Saruman>Galadrial>Gandalf>Elrond>Aragorn>Witch King

 

Lets look at it from a slightly different viewpoint. Power can also be measured by the amount of influence you have right?

Dumbledore is: Order of Merlin 1st class, Grand mugwump, OotP leader, headmaster, Defeater of grindwald, (supposed) transfiguration master. Lived ~120 years

Gandolf is: Servant of the secret fire, wielder of the flame of Arnor (Presumably the name of the ring of power), Holds council with the elves, is a known adviser of kings, has favor with the Ents, was Reborn, and is Immortal.

Power wise, Gandolf Trumps Albus. Dueling... It's hard to say. Gandolf works indirectly most of the time so we really can't gauge his ability for direct magical combat well. He seems to need some time to charge his spells, but I'd put them on several orders of magnitude stronger than Dumble's spells. The only direct magic we see him use really is in the fangorn forest in the movie. but if you consider it he managed to vaporize and arrow AFTER it was launched and heat an enchanted broadsword to glowing in only a few seconds. all without so much as singing the people involved. And of course we have the incident in 'the hobbit' that has already been discussed...

Frankly I think their magic is equally as accessible, the difference is simply in the scope of the power they use and their personalities. Gandolf tends toward group spells which would presumably take more strength of mind to keep controlled. He generally doesn't bother using it One on one because he has other ways of defending himself and so doesn't bother....
Dumbledore has been raised to use magic for nearly everything, and is surrounded by people who think the same way. He probably has more Variety in his choices, but by the time he's managed to transfigure and animate everything the way he wants it, Gandolf could probably have summoned an earthquake and dropped half a mountain on him, or called down lightning out of the clear sky. Dumble's magic pretty much has to travel in straight lines, Wand to target so to speak. Gandolf just needs to visualize the effect he's going for...

Personally I'd say Gandolf without a doubt. At least he's the one I'd rather have backing ME up.