(no subject)
Ah.
WHY is Voldemort called the most powerful Dark wizard for a century, when Grindelwald was clearly active 50 years before?
Because that judgment comes from the POV of BRITISH wizards.
NATURALLY they would say Voldemort was stronger. After all, Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald before old Gelly could do much damage to Britain. (I think. Note that British wizards hardly mention Grindelwald's reign of terror and fail to even recognize the Deathly Hallows mark as his symbol. Bulgarian wizards - and, I suspect, ALL wizards and witches in the areas that send their students to Durmstrang - sure as hell recognize it and remember.) And, as often noted by canon-snarkers, wizards (and, in the wizards' defense, us Muggles) tend to ignore things that don't affect them. Therefore, Grindelwald was just that psycho bloke Dumbledore took down. VOLDEMORT, however...
Meanwhile, Bulgarian wizards and those hailing from other Durmstrang regions probably laugh their arses off that British wizards would think some idiot who can't even conquer a country (until 1997) is a great Dark Lord! ;) There. I have now cleared the way to get my fanwankery in line with canon.
On the personal side, I ask "Which is the stronger Dark Lord - one who was sweeping towards Britain when he was defeated, or one who was having trouble getting out of Britain when he was defeated?" ;) Grindelwald was 62 when defeated. Voldemort had an effective operating time of 58 years (as 13 years were chewed up either being a semi-ghost or a deformed baby), but was actually 71 when defeated. So, one might excuse Voldemort as simply having less operating time, but Grindelwald didn't make a 13-year screwup. XD (Frankly, he probably would have dumped the Potters in Nurmengard to starve. He imprisoned political opponents, not killed them... directly.)
On the just plain fanwanking side, I think Wizarding Britain, with Dumbledore gone, may have been one of the easier countries to conquer. Durmstrang openly teaches Dark Arts, so the students have more downright nasty spells in wartime situations. Hogwarts only teaches Defense. And while I'm hardly questioning the value of Defense Against the Dark Arts, we see in practice that British wizards tend to leave their worst foes alive - otherwise we'd stop seeing the same DEs over and over again. (Shhh. I'm talking about in canon, not in the Sacrifices Arc. ;) ) Somehow, I think that if you learned Dark Arts in school, your enemies would have a tad less chance of living to see the morrow (or, at least, they would have a far greater chance of being badly incapacitated). One wonders if Voldemort would have been vaporized far quicker if he had attempted to take Bulgaria first (or if he tried under the identity of "Tom Marvolo Riddle" and was humiliatingly rebuffed, hence leading to his finally getting around to doing the name and identity change. "I am... ahem... Lord Voldemort. Err... I... replaced... your incompetent leader... Tom Marvolo Riddle... the other day. Even though... I kind of look like him, except more snakey... And... um... now that we are under my... much superior... leadership, we... shall go back home to Britain and try conquering that instead!" [Death Eaters: "HUZZAH!"] XD).
Anyway, Grindelwald was going up against nastier foes, and apparently did not have benefit of Horcruxes. Now, he DID have the Elder Wand, but the Elder Wand doesn't protect you against sudden Stunners or Disarming - we know this from canon. Nor does it probably protect you against an AK to the back. (In other words, it's not a gamebreaker. Its effect only activates in honest battle.) Methinks he had it a bit harder than Tommy... I somehow also suspect that compelling wasn't his specialty, or Aberforth would have found himself with a continuous order to "SHUT UP!". :P
Ah... another view on that "most powerful Dark wizard for a century". I - and possibly others - have been reading this as "GREATEST Dark Lord for a century". NO. Ariana was undoubtedly rather damn powerful - I refuse to believe Kendra would have been careless enough to not erect at least a Shield Charm when doing something that could possibly set off her insane daughter, and Albus probably had instructions to get information on as many protective charms as he could, in case something ever happened to Aberforth (who could calm Ariana down) or, in general, if Ariana went into a rage when Aberforth wasn't present. So Ariana "lashing out" smashed any protective enchantments Kendra may have had up... and managed to deal fatal damage to boot. And Kendra may have been "not as young as she used to be", but that also means she wasn't a innocent, inexperienced young witch. She may not have fought back, but you'd think she would be rather experienced in Defense? (Especially as she had to deal with Ariana alone whenever Aberforth went off to Hogwarts?) ...Yeah. So I think I'm justified in thinking Ariana wasn't exactly a near-Squib who just happened to go BOOM on occasion. -_-;; And yet Ariana wasn't exactly Dark Lord material, even by HP standards. Heck, she wasn't even "barely functional wizard" material. So power=/=competence. (Alas, that none of the so-called Slytherins in canon seem to see this - and, for that matter, the vast majority of the British Wizarding World!) Rowling has actually not said whether Voldemort was in any way the most competent Dark wizard for a century, the Greatest, or what-have-you. ;)
=I have a MASSIVE ramble on what Tom Riddle really was, the explanation of some of Dumbledore's stupider behavior towards him, and the answer to what game Dumbledore was playing with Harry. Suffice to say, it all ties back to Ariana Dumbledore. ;) It's going to take a few posts, though, (because it's FREAKING HUGE - *checks*- eight pages of pure rambling, and I haven't even gotten to the Basilisk Incident) so it's coming up in the next post...=
WHY is Voldemort called the most powerful Dark wizard for a century, when Grindelwald was clearly active 50 years before?
Because that judgment comes from the POV of BRITISH wizards.
NATURALLY they would say Voldemort was stronger. After all, Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald before old Gelly could do much damage to Britain. (I think. Note that British wizards hardly mention Grindelwald's reign of terror and fail to even recognize the Deathly Hallows mark as his symbol. Bulgarian wizards - and, I suspect, ALL wizards and witches in the areas that send their students to Durmstrang - sure as hell recognize it and remember.) And, as often noted by canon-snarkers, wizards (and, in the wizards' defense, us Muggles) tend to ignore things that don't affect them. Therefore, Grindelwald was just that psycho bloke Dumbledore took down. VOLDEMORT, however...
Meanwhile, Bulgarian wizards and those hailing from other Durmstrang regions probably laugh their arses off that British wizards would think some idiot who can't even conquer a country (until 1997) is a great Dark Lord! ;) There. I have now cleared the way to get my fanwankery in line with canon.
On the personal side, I ask "Which is the stronger Dark Lord - one who was sweeping towards Britain when he was defeated, or one who was having trouble getting out of Britain when he was defeated?" ;) Grindelwald was 62 when defeated. Voldemort had an effective operating time of 58 years (as 13 years were chewed up either being a semi-ghost or a deformed baby), but was actually 71 when defeated. So, one might excuse Voldemort as simply having less operating time, but Grindelwald didn't make a 13-year screwup. XD (Frankly, he probably would have dumped the Potters in Nurmengard to starve. He imprisoned political opponents, not killed them... directly.)
On the just plain fanwanking side, I think Wizarding Britain, with Dumbledore gone, may have been one of the easier countries to conquer. Durmstrang openly teaches Dark Arts, so the students have more downright nasty spells in wartime situations. Hogwarts only teaches Defense. And while I'm hardly questioning the value of Defense Against the Dark Arts, we see in practice that British wizards tend to leave their worst foes alive - otherwise we'd stop seeing the same DEs over and over again. (Shhh. I'm talking about in canon, not in the Sacrifices Arc. ;) ) Somehow, I think that if you learned Dark Arts in school, your enemies would have a tad less chance of living to see the morrow (or, at least, they would have a far greater chance of being badly incapacitated). One wonders if Voldemort would have been vaporized far quicker if he had attempted to take Bulgaria first (or if he tried under the identity of "Tom Marvolo Riddle" and was humiliatingly rebuffed, hence leading to his finally getting around to doing the name and identity change. "I am... ahem... Lord Voldemort. Err... I... replaced... your incompetent leader... Tom Marvolo Riddle... the other day. Even though... I kind of look like him, except more snakey... And... um... now that we are under my... much superior... leadership, we... shall go back home to Britain and try conquering that instead!" [Death Eaters: "HUZZAH!"] XD).
Anyway, Grindelwald was going up against nastier foes, and apparently did not have benefit of Horcruxes. Now, he DID have the Elder Wand, but the Elder Wand doesn't protect you against sudden Stunners or Disarming - we know this from canon. Nor does it probably protect you against an AK to the back. (In other words, it's not a gamebreaker. Its effect only activates in honest battle.) Methinks he had it a bit harder than Tommy... I somehow also suspect that compelling wasn't his specialty, or Aberforth would have found himself with a continuous order to "SHUT UP!". :P
Ah... another view on that "most powerful Dark wizard for a century". I - and possibly others - have been reading this as "GREATEST Dark Lord for a century". NO. Ariana was undoubtedly rather damn powerful - I refuse to believe Kendra would have been careless enough to not erect at least a Shield Charm when doing something that could possibly set off her insane daughter, and Albus probably had instructions to get information on as many protective charms as he could, in case something ever happened to Aberforth (who could calm Ariana down) or, in general, if Ariana went into a rage when Aberforth wasn't present. So Ariana "lashing out" smashed any protective enchantments Kendra may have had up... and managed to deal fatal damage to boot. And Kendra may have been "not as young as she used to be", but that also means she wasn't a innocent, inexperienced young witch. She may not have fought back, but you'd think she would be rather experienced in Defense? (Especially as she had to deal with Ariana alone whenever Aberforth went off to Hogwarts?) ...Yeah. So I think I'm justified in thinking Ariana wasn't exactly a near-Squib who just happened to go BOOM on occasion. -_-;; And yet Ariana wasn't exactly Dark Lord material, even by HP standards. Heck, she wasn't even "barely functional wizard" material. So power=/=competence. (Alas, that none of the so-called Slytherins in canon seem to see this - and, for that matter, the vast majority of the British Wizarding World!) Rowling has actually not said whether Voldemort was in any way the most competent Dark wizard for a century, the Greatest, or what-have-you. ;)
=I have a MASSIVE ramble on what Tom Riddle really was, the explanation of some of Dumbledore's stupider behavior towards him, and the answer to what game Dumbledore was playing with Harry. Suffice to say, it all ties back to Ariana Dumbledore. ;) It's going to take a few posts, though, (because it's FREAKING HUGE - *checks*- eight pages of pure rambling, and I haven't even gotten to the Basilisk Incident) so it's coming up in the next post...=