Plus he'd take them down before they really got started, probably.

 

Dont forget he apparently was in contact with the greatest names of their field, studied with Flamel who's a fountain of knowledge, and conversed with Gallert a lot about stuff. Also, he was considered a prodigy, so add all that together, and it's not really hard to see how he got where he was.

 

Experience is an amazing thing. If a new Dark Lord emerged, it's entirely possible that an old and experienced Harry Potter leading aurors would be able to kill/capture a prodigious young aspiring Dark Lord. The Elder Wand is the unbeatable wand, held by a wizard with presumably more experience than the Dark Lord he's hunting. I don't see why you think he'd lose it.

 

Didn't he get rid of the elder wand.. or was that the movie only? I always did think that destroying the wand was a tad rash.

 

He stuck it in Dumbledore's tomb, if I'm remembering it right.

 

Harry wouldn't be ruthless enough like Crouch was. He would still be using Expelliarmus. Harry would be their no 1 target and wouldn't have Blood wards to protect him anymore.

 

Harry Stupefied a DE off of his broom in mid-air, killing him, and Blasted another with Confringo in DH, did he not? I think that whole situation with Lupin arose only because Harry tried to have mercy on Stan Shunpike. Harry, besides being willing to use Unforgivables, isn't all that overly-merciful IMO. Even Wormtail would have spent the rest of his years having his soul eaten so...

Besides the Disarming Charm being relatively effective throughout the books...Snape, thought to be the third strongest wizard in the entire series, is actually the first one to use it, and teach it to Harry (indirectly).

 

Yeh but when Crabbe was using killing curses on him he was still using Disarming Charm. Its a weakness of him. Snape uses Sectumsempra. Harry didn't even use it on any DE even though he saw how useful it is. Would he even be good at leading the light side like Dumbledore or Crouch was? We all know his decision making isn't that good. Ron would be his right hand man and he wouldn't be of much use.

 

It isn't a weakness to want to try and defeat your enemy without maiming him.

 

So the way to lead the light is to follow Crabbe and Snape's example? Dumbledore didn't kill Grindelwald, nor did we ever see him trying to do more than incapacitate the vast majority of his enemies - just like Harry. And we know that Harry has it in him to be lethal or merciless when he needs to, as was just cited.

It's not like he thought Voldemort was going to live through their final confrontation, even if he gave him the choice. He knew how Tom would choose, and he knew that it would kill him, and Harry had no qualms with being more or less the direct cause of his enemy's death.

 

In a war where people on your side are being killed and your enemies are being temporarily incapacitated, it is a weakness.

Dumbledore is an anomaly due to his overwhelming skill in comparison to most of those he fights. Dumbledore and Grindelwald had their previous relationship, so his reticence in that situation is also explainable.

 

It absolutely is not a weakness. Not when there are countless other options that Harry can, and did use. There's an awful lot of indie!harry in some of these responses that I thought died long ago.

 

I'm just saying, Dumbledore was making active decisions not to kill those people. As you say, his skill is overwhelming. Going purely by the evidence, Dumbledore could have almost totally devastated Voldemort at the MoM, killing all the DEs he had so effortlessly roped together. But he let them live. He chose to disarm rather than kill. Who's to say Harry at 100 wouldn't be good enough, being a master of defensive magic, to do similar things?

 

It's a numbers game. If both sides have roughly equivalent numbers, but one side temporarily incapacitates the other in a way that can be instantly reversed on the battlefield, and their only prison isn't able to prevent a rescue/escape, then the other side will inevitably prevail(barring deus ex machina).

Moral superiority is all well and good until your friends and family start dying and your victories are all temporary.

Dumbledore chose not to kill, and he was losing the war. Voldemort was winning right up to the moment he was blasted into oblivion on halloween.

 

True enough, but I'm not debating the strategic validity of Dumbledore's mercy, only asserting that it exists, and in a manner not outrageously dissimilar to Harry's. But Lupin wouldn't have had the sack to chastise Dumbledore even though he abides by similar principles.

 

If Harry had killed lets say Dolohov when he had the chance Lupin would be still alive. Also how the hell did the new ministry led by the trio let Lucius get away.

 

Eh Lucius got away because Harry owed Narcissa Malfoy for not ratting him out in the Forbidden Forest.

 

But before that Harry saved Malfoy Jr wouldn't they be even.