Wizards vs. Muggles (was Re: In Defense of Salazar

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 40984

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "corinthum" <kkearney at s...> wrote:
> Treyvan wrote:
> 
>  > It seems hypocritical of Slytherin to call
>  > them that, considering he prefers students who have a "certain
>  > disregard for rules." I think Slytherin didn't trust
>  > muggle-borns to keep the location and existence of the school 
>  > secret.
>  > After all, the castle was built as a safe haven, away from the 
eyes  of muggles. Revealing any information about Hogwarts to the 
muggle parents of witches and wizards put the school and all the 
students  in jeopardy. The four founders might have been the best 
wizards of their time, but I doubt very much they could have held off 
a muggle army.
> 
> And Naama countered:
> 
>  > You know, I've never seen why not. It seems to me, from what 
we've  seen so far, that a) Muggles simply couldn't have found 
Hogwarts and b) wizards can easily defeat any number of Muggles.
>  
> I have to agree with Treyvan on this one.  Hogwarts is enchanted to
> look like a run-down, dangerously decrepit castle, but it is still
> visible.  And if enough muggle-born wizards let it leak that this
> place was a haven for wizards and witches, I wouldn't put it past 
the
> muggle kings of that time period to send an army to investigate.
> 
> Also, although wizards are capable of magic, and could no doubt 
defeat a large number of muggles, they are not invincible.  I'm 
picturing the end of Star Wars Episode 2, where several vastly 
outnumbered Jedis (people who are powerful, magical, and trained to 
fight) are eventually cornered by their non-magical oponents.  If the 
wizarding population was so small that they had to marry muggles just 
>to survive, then a decent sized army could probably defeat them. 
> 

You know, the whole "wizards had been persecuted" thing has always 
seemed FLINTy to me. I mean, we have Harry reading the amusing tale 
of Wendolin the Weird and the flame freezing spell - which goes to 
show that witch hunts were completely futile. On the other hand, we 
have this vague tale of wizard persecution as what led to the 
establishment of Hogwarts.
I just don't see how a *qualified* wizard, unless taken unawares, can 
not overcome just about any number of Muggles. Particularly 
medieval Muggles. Just based on the spells and charms we know of now, 
the wizard can:
1. Banish something big (rock, tree) at the advancing army
2. Hop on his broom and circle above, hitting the Muggles with 
whatever curses and jinxes he wants
3. Cover himself with an invisibility cloak and do the same.
4. Disapparate from the scene of battle. 
5. Alternatively, Disapparate, Apparate at the Muggle leader's side, 
kill him and Disapparate, thereby demoralizing the enemy.

Etc. There must be many, many more ways - using enchanted suits of 
armour, for instance. Setting a dragon or two on the Muggles (bit 
risky that, though. Dragons don't seem very malleable, do they? <g>). 
OR, how about sprinkling some Swelling potion on his enemy's heads 
while flying above? JKR's brand of magic is just too powerful and 
diverse to make it feasible for Muggles to overcome wizards, IMO. 

Which actually makes me think that maybe the persecutions we are told 
about were persecutions of people who had magical abilities but were 
not qualified wizards. Say, a child like Harry, who causes all kind 
of weird things to happen, but who doesn't have the knowledge to 
control and use his power. As we have seen, Harry was certainly no 
immune to Muggle persecution. Maybe that's why it was so important 
then to establish a school of wizardry? It's a safe haven for magic 
children where they can learn the tools of their trade in peace. Once 
they qualify, they are more than able to protect themselves from 
Muggle persecution. 


Naama