So we know there has been multiple goblin rebellions. I can presume when it came to the negotiating table, the wizards were in a stronger position than the goblins as they were able to ban goblins from having wands, yet they don't seem to have been an outright win as I doubt the wizards would have let them retain Gringotts if that was the case given how much power they wield controlling magical Britain's largest (only?) bank. Obviously, this suggests goblins, who are presumably outnumbered a fair bit, have some very effective ways of dealing with wizards.

I presume in the rebellions they had some captured wands but could they have trained with them quickly enough to put up a good fight against a witch or wizard who has been waving a wand since they were 11? To take it to completely unsubstantiated territory I presume that while the secrets of making good wands is a trade secret, making a crude wand is possible? Maybe.

In the DH, Ron was quoted as saying "Well, goblins can do magic without wands". So presumably Goblins have some wandless magical abilities. I'm not sure even how to speculate what they might be. I presume they're not as versatile or powerful as wanded magic though as they sound pretty desperate to gain wand rights. Though it could also be a status thing.

There are also melee weapons. While I have no doubt goblins armed with regular weapons would get steamrolled, I'm not so sure about enchanted weapons. We really have no idea to the limits of Goblin craftsmanship. For all we know they have artefacts that can mimic wanded magic spells like invisibility or shields. Maybe they have enchanted arrows that can't be blocked or maybe fly around cover, seeking targets.

I'm thinking about this because I'm considering rolling with some of the suggestions from my Voldemort and Dumbledore team up thread.

 

Griphook: "The right to carry a wand has long been contested between wizards and goblins."
Ron Weasley: "Well, goblins can do magic without wands."
Griphook: "That is immaterial! Wizards refuse to share the secrets of wandlore with other magical beings, they deny us the possibility of extending our powers!"


That's the goblin magic quote. But pretty much all we know about goblins is that there have been many, many rebellions (they were subjugated by wizards, wands likely played a crucial part in allowing wizards dominion over other magical races, which is why the other intelligent magical race wants them so bad - wands are the best way of casting magic in the books by far), metallurgy with magical properties and banking.

I'm personally imagining something similar but more than house elf magic, but still much less flexible than wand magic. I doubt there are any 'spell-like' goblin-made magical artefacts other than weapons and armor, since those would likely be very wanted by wizards. Something like that would have been mentioned.

 

Goblins can definitely produce enchantments: see the Thief's Downfall, which removes all enchantments from those under it, including polyjuice and the Imperius curse.

Speaking of, this makes you wonder: if relations were better between wizards and Goblins, would the goblins have been willing to install a Thief's Downfall in the Ministry entrance? That alone would counter the Imperius Curse and make Voldemort's takeover MUCH more difficult.

 

There could be a cultural thing going on there. Something like having to rely on goblins for a shield because you're too weak a wizard/witch to do it yourself.

 

Do we really know what a 'rebellion' is in terms of HP world? It's a tiny population of people. Most of those people are not in any way proficient in martial magic (to the point that the standard shielding charm seems beyond many of them). It's not conducive for our picture of the concept.

A 'rebellion' could basically be a violent strike at Gringotts, or a riot. I doubt it is anything like we might consider, with large chunks of the country being run by rebels and armies moving about.

So how do goblins fight wizards? They grumble, they refuse to allow access to the vaults unless demands are met and bolt the front door. They pick a few street fights and maybe form a mob, run loose for a bit... and then the aurors show up and two dozen or so casualties later (almost entirely goblin) and it's back to counting knuts and moaning about how the wizards won't let you use a wand (but out of earhot).

 

"In 1752, another goblin rebellion occurred in Great Britain. Due to mismanaging this rebellion, Minister for Magic Albert Boot resigned. His replacement, Basil Flack, lasted in office only two months, resigning when the goblins allied themselves with the werewolves. Hesphaestus Gore was then elected Minister."

Though the information comes from the HP wiki from Pottermore it does suggest it lasted a lot longer than that.

I'm highly doubtful the goblins would have been able to retain any power at all if the rebellions were as one-sided as you suggest. Why would they let them have Gringotts after something like that?

Given how much attention is given to them in History of Magic it's safe to assume they were some very significant events.
--- Post automerged ---
From GF31

While they were called both riots and rebellions in this instance, they were "bloody and vicious".

 

I think this is a bit simplistic. The world doesn't operate on the basis of "groups with power take literally everything from groups with less power". Successful invaders would frequently leave existing power structures in place, for example.

So long as wizards are able to subject Gringotts to wizarding jurisdiction, I don't see why they would confiscate it.

Also consider the real life example of the Jewish people throughout history. They were widely hated throughout Europe, they were a group with very little power and periodically faced violent suppression. And yet in spite of this, Jewish moneylenders were still frequently financially successful.

With regards to goblin magic, I suspect their magic is largely oriented around creating enchantments and enchanted items. From the way they covet wands and their continued use of weaponry, I doubt they have the ability to cast magic "on the go" like wizards and house-elves do.

 

If you imagine it in the context of a feudal Europe-like scenario, a "rebellion" doesn't need to be large scale, considering the relative size of the "kingdom" and both factions. Even as few as 250 to 500 people/goblins/whoever, armed and determined, would constitute a viable threat to the established order.

 

No doubt. Is there actually confusion about this in the thread?

 

One more thing to be considered is the fact that the statue of secrecy came into effect in 1692 (signed 1689). I think it is safe to assume that while relations between muggles and wizards were not great, they would have united against another species. I am not sure if that is the only way it coud have played out though. Maybe a three way fight?

Whatever happened, wizards seemed to have won. Until you read this:

So, goblins are free from wizarding power, but it is only because the latter let goblins do(mostly) whatever they want.

Consider the fact that after the fall of the ministry, goblins were almost subservient to Voldemort.