Nicely put, Blazzano. I agree on all counts.

 

Question. What information do we have about Professor Flitwick? Particularly with regards to his past, like was he around to fight against Grindelwald and things like that. I've seen it written where he is part goblin, but is that just pure fanon?

 

He is part-Goblin, has been a friend of Dumbledore for years and was once a duelling champion. Other than that he's just characterised as a teacher that squeaks when he's surprised and falls off his seat a bit more often than most. Also as very good at charms.

 

Wouldn't there have to be? Until someone else referred to him as that, he was just another dark wizard. It may never be known when that point in time was, but it did happen.

 

I imagine it was about the time he started calling himself Lord Voldemort. Since Dark Lord isn't actually an official title of any sorts, they just decided that he was a Lord who was dark, hence the Dark Lord. A Dark Lord isn't any different to your average dark wizard, they just get called Lord a bit more.

 

Well, if others actually refer to them as a Dark Lord, it tends to indicate that they have significantly more power than your average dark wizard - in terms or magic and/or followers, usually.

 

The indefinite article is not appropriate for use with the phrase "Dark Lord".

There are not Dark Lords, plural. Therefore there's no such thing as "a" Dark Lord. You only use "a" to denote one choice among many.

Voldemort was not a Dark Lord. He was the Dark Lord. The greatest, most powerful, most fearsome Dark wizard of all history.

No other wizard - not even Grindelwald - was referred to as such.

 

I disagree with this, calling him the Dark Lord could just mean that he is the only person known as a Dark Lord at the moment, not that he was the only one ever.

I've always had a bit of a problem with the idea that Voldemort was the worst ever. Because at the end of the day, he didn't do that much. I mean, after like 20 years of trying he only achieved one year in power, and it's not like he went on a mad genocidal rampage killing thousands.

 

I think you're missing the point. Voldemort was dark. He was (or at least called himself) a lord. Thus, he is the Dark Lord. It was a specific title like He Who Must Not be Named or whatever, from my understanding.

Dark Lord isn't some classification of dark wizards. You don't get promoted to Dark Lord after killing a thousand muggles or something. So just because he is called the Dark Lord does not mean he is the worst dark wizard ever or something.

 

It could. But given that no other wizard has been referred to as "Dark Lord", let's not assume, shall we?

I disagree with your "not the worst ever" point on a number of fronts.

1. Why are we judging this in terms of consequences? When he's described as the most powerful, what is being referred to are his capabilities, not his specific actions.

2. Also important is the amount of fear he generates. He may not have had the "kill count" of, say, Grindelwald, but he achieved a kind of bogeyman status that someone like Grindelwald never had. He's fearsome partly because of how evil he is, not just his abilities.

3. One year in power is nothing to scoff at. So far as we know, he's the only Dark wizard to ever achieve victory - no matter how short. From the way they are usually talked about, Dark wizards occupy the same social space as criminals/serial killers. Voldemort was more than a criminal.

4. You forget that Voldemort was facing off against Dumbledore, quite possibly the greatest wizard who had ever lived. As soon as Dumbledore was dead, Voldemort achieved victory in a matter of weeks. Just think of what kind of imbalance of power that suggests: a single wizard outweighted the combined efforts of thousands.

 

I think you completely missed the point of my post actually. I wasn't arguing that Dark Lord is a classification of wizards, in fact if you scroll up a few posts I said

I was arguing against the idea that Voldemort was the worst wizard of all time, as many people seem to think.


EDIT to address Taure's points:

Mostly I think it's because we view all of his actions from a very skewed perspective. We see it from the view of the people most involved in the conflict, and during the conflict as opposed to after the events. I think that it will always be the current dark wizard, or oppressor, or whatever, who is seen as the worst ever. Because the people have never experienced anything else. Of course in this case there are people who have experienced life against Grindelwald, but as far as I recall there is never any comparison made between the two.

I just disagree with the way people claim Voldemort to be the greatest of all time, when he is the only one we ever see.

As for Dumbledore, he faced a Dumbledore well past his prime. And Grindelwald too was only stopped by Dumbledore. Only that one wizard was able to defeat him, after thousands had already tried.

 

Wasn't Grindelwald referred to as a Dark Lord on Dumbledore's every flavor bean card in PS?

 

Nope. Famous for his defeat of the Dark wizard Grindelwald.

 

Is it mentioned in canon or any canon-related material that a wizard other than Voldemort succeeded in creating a horcrux?

 

Well, he didn't originate the idea, because he was asking Slughorn about it, and there were books about them that he learnt about them from.

So presumably there have been others. In Tales of Beedle the Bard Dumbledore speculates that the Warlock's Hairy Heart is a reference to horcruxes, so it sounds like they've existed for a long time.

 

I love stories that flesh out Herpo the Foul. Soooooo many possibilities.

 

He also created the first basilisk, if I'm getting my HP trivia right.