Dumbledore/Grindlewald duel.

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 175787

---  "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:
>
> "Donna" <djmitt@> wrote: 
> 
> > How did Dumbledore win the duel with Grindelwald
> > when he had an unbeatable wand???
> 
> ...
>
> The Elder Wand was the most powerful wand in the 
> world but whoever gave it the name "unbeatable" was
> obviously engaging in a bit of hyperbole as history 
> is full of instances where the master of the wand
> gets murdered.
> 
>  Eggplant Gellert Grindelwald
>

bboyminn:

After thinking about it for a while, I'm going to have
to agree with Eggplant. We need to separate the Legend
of the Elder Wand and the fairytale of The Three 
Brothers from the reality of the immensely talented
wizards who created extraordinary object of immense
power, but also within the realms of normal magical
science.

In other words, the Elder Wand is an immensely 
powerful wand created by an immensely talented wizard.
But it is not a wand given by Death that can defeat
Death. The books tell use this much. 

--- DH; HB, Am.Ed., 'Kings Cross', pg 714 ---

"So it's true?" asked Harry. "All of it? The Peverell
brothers --"

"--were the three brothers of the tale," said
Dumbledore, nodding. "Oh yes, I think so. Whether
they met Death on a lonely road...I think it more
likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted,
dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those
powerful object. ..."

- - - end quote - - -

So, the implication seems to be that the Elder Wand,
while immensely powerful, was not the unbeatable
wand of legend. 

As to the other difficult aspects of the wand that
have been discussed; it is anyone's guess. I think
the wand can reasonably distinquish between a true
combat 'Expelliarmus' and a practice session spell.
I see no conflict there. 

As to whether Grindelwald was the true master of 
the wand. I think so, but admit the evidence is
thin. One could say that Grindelwald, allowed 
himself to be seen. He was sitting in the window
smiling and calm when Gregorovitch entered. 
Grindelwald also cast a curse that stopped 
Gregorovitch from re-capturing the wand. By some
stretch that could be considered a defeat. In a
manner of speaking they dueled, and Grindelwald
won. But I acknowledge it is only 'in a manner of
speaking' that this happened. 

This is tricky, because if the current owner dies
a natural death, then ownership and mastery seem
to die with it. You can't capture from or defeat
a dead person. So, in that case, the wand just
becomes another wand. That seems to be what
Dumbledore is saying, and what he intended.

But if that is true, if ownership and mastery of
the wand must occur by some means of defeat or
forceful capture, then is Grindelwald's capture
sufficient? And if it is not, then how can 
ownership and mastery pass to Dumbledore? Wouldn't
Dumbledore have to defeat Gregorovitch, the wand 
true Master? 

I admit on this last part; I'm not sure. It seems
as if there is some subtle aspect of Grindelwald's
capture of the wand that made it the equivalent of
a defeat, so he was Master. If Dumbledore defeat
Grindelwald then, Mastery would transfer to 
Dumbledore. That seems to be the only way it makes
sense. Assuming you accept that we have discredited
the 'unbeatable' aspect.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn