Grindelwald: Character Analysis

Grindelwald was one of the darkest wizards before Voldemort. We knew before DH that he'd fought Dumbledore.

Some questions to start us off...

What did you think of him?
What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?
Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

What did you think of him?
I felt that although his magical abilities were astounding, his moral values were weak. When I first read that, I just thought he was another power-hungry politician reference. To me, he was just another man out there with power that let the power get to his head and shroud his judgement, which shows what kind of man he was.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
Great minds think alike. I think it made sense, but I think Dumbledore was blinded by the fact that he found an equal. eventually, he saw that this equal was willing to go farther than DD had thought....

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?
No.
Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?
The thing is, I feel it wasn't clear enough whether he did it to try and stop Voldemort or to keep that knowledge to himself, and die rather than imagine someone with his precious Hallows.

What did you think of him?
He seemed to be a very smart guy, who when amongst other intelligent people like Dumbledore, came up with some not so good ideas.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
They were both Hallows believers so they were obviously going to get along very well.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?
Yeah, they probably did, but he didn't need to kill all those people.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?
I didn't understand this part. His not telling did absolutely nothing to stop Voldemort.

What did you think of him?

I thought he was a simply fascinating "new" character, and an interesting contrast to Voldemort. Clearly he was able to recognize and work with an equal (in Dumbledore), something Voldemort never could do. And it may have been Dumbledore's influence, but he seemed a lot more driven by idealism and the thirst for knowledge (in his experimentation) than by simple power hunger, which is another thing that seemed to distinguish him from Voldemort.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?

Really interesting, for both characters. I think being involved with someone capable of such evil was why Dumbledore later had such insight into the minds of dark wizards later, and why he had such empathy for almost everyone.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?

Idealism is always dangerous. Using it as a justification to do whatever you want is always missing the point, though I don't think we necessarily know enough about Grindelwald to know if "for the greater good" actually was the sincere reason he did everything he did, or just the excuse he used to cover up his crimes. If the former was the case, than I will say they had a point.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

I don't think it in and of itself redeemed him; I think that action was a sign that he had already regretted enough to be redeemed.

I don't think that the duel Dumbledore won in the end was a magical one. While magic was obviously used in it, it's rather self-contradictory for an invincible wand to be defeated in actual, sincere combat. If Grindelwald really was as committed to the ideology that he supported as it seems he might have been, Dumbledore may have been able to, through intellectual debate, defeat his ideology in that final battle, rather than his wand. I think that any later change of heart or redemption could only have been possible after a... crisis of faith, let's say, and such a "duel" could have sewn the seeds of it.

I thought that the biggest difference between Voldemort and Grindelwald was that Grindelwald realized that what he had done was wrong (albeit long after he should have). Harry gave Voldemort a chance to admit to everyone he'd hurt that he had done wrong and Voldemort didn't take it. Also, Grindelwald was killing people for what he thought was the greater good. Voldemort and his followers just killed people because he thought it was funny. I'm not justifying Grindelwald; I certainly am not supporting murder, but it seems to me that Grindelwald killed when he thought it was necessary and Voldemort killed when he "was in the mood."

Another thing that I realize is that Grindelwald had friends at one time. Tom Riddle had followers, but he never had anyone he considered to be his equal. Grindelwald had people who he considered to be his equals. Voldemort did everything himself, just using his followers as expendable tools. Though we don't know for sure, it seems like Grindelwald would have been sad when someone in his inner circle died. Voldemort didn't care. Grindelwald seems to be margianally better person than Voldemort on the scope of evil people.

I thought that it was very interesting that J.K. Rowling chose to tell us what Grindelwald's first name was. Referring to him as "Gellert Grindelwald" makes him seem a whole lot more human. When one is using his first name, he seems like a real person rather than just someone you hear about and don't really have any emotion for. I think it might have been more useful for readers if we'd known more about what Grindelwald had done during his quest for world domination (maybe JKR will put that in a reference book if she writes one). Since I didn't know very much about all of the bad things that he had done, I actually felt sorry for Gellert Grindelwald (not for just Grindelwald, who still seems evil to me, but for the person who he was when he wasn't being evil), which was probably not the right emotion to have been feeling. I hope that made sense.

I was unbelievably psyched to learn about Grindelwald's past. I've always been intrigued by him and what he did as the big, bad wizard before Voldemort.
I found it interesting how he was described as being attractive. It's like how Tom Riddle was described as having incredible good looks (before he went all pallid and snakey, anyway). J.K. Rowling protrays her villains not as monsters on the outside, but as monsters on the inside, regardless of their looks.
I especially liked how she used him to underline Voldemort's absolute evil. Grindelwald's reign of terror, as described by Krum was horrible. However, Grindelwald was still not as bad as Voldemort due to his repentance later in life, a feat which Voldemort proved unable to do shortly before death.
Naturally, I also loved the Dumbledore tie-in. I do wonder how DD managed to defeat Grindelwald, if he had an unbeatable wand. Perhaps he brought up the past, made him feel guilty for Ariana's death, or somehow made him feel enough remorse to snap him out of it?

I thought that it was very interesting that J.K. Rowling chose to tell us what Grindelwald's first name was. Referring to him as "Gellert Grindelwald" makes him seem a whole lot more human. When one is using his first name, he seems like a real person rather than just someone you hear about and don't really have any emotion for. I think it might have been more useful for readers if we'd known more about what Grindelwald had done during his quest for world domination (maybe JKR will put that in a reference book if she writes one). Since I didn't know very much about all of the bad things that he had done, I actually felt sorry for Gellert Grindelwald (not for just Grindelwald, who still seems evil to me, but for the person who he was when he wasn't being evil), which was probably not the right emotion to have been feeling. I hope that made sense.

I totally agree with you there. Gellert Grindelwald did seem to have a few redeeming qualities which Grindelwald the rumour didn't. And I do think he repented to some degree while he was in prison so he wouldn't give Voldemort the information he needed.

As far as the battle with Dumbledore goes, I wonder if Grindelwald actually had control of the Elder wand as he stole it from Gregorovitch rather than defeated him in combat. In which case it would have worked like any other wand in the battle.

Albus' friendship with him seems a bit odd. He knew Grindelwald's "experiments" had been serious enough to get him expelled from Durmstrang, a school where the Dark Arts were actually taught. Yet he became a friend. I think Albus must have been so thirsty for intellectual company that he was willing to overlook things that he wouldn't later in life. Albus was a young idealist but I'm not convinced that Grindelwald was. He seemed more like a power-hungry dictator who saw in Albus' theories some principles he could use to give a veneer of idealism to his campaign.

Grindelwald being a merry, good looking man with blond curls but being wicked inside reminds me of someone but I can't pin down who.

What did you think of him? He's obviously evil,But we don't know enoff about his evil doings.I'm glad to find out what was in the book,And he only had a few brief appearances but, i think he would i kindoff sortoff fun loving Dark wizard,more comical then Voldemort.HIs wrong doing's aside, i like his character.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?I think Dumbledore was just suffering from Teenage stupidity.He could not understand the truth with out the help of his goat loving brother. Anbd Grindelwald probably wanted to satb him in the back.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?They had no point, But some time you must do bad things to do good.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?Again,We don't know the extent of his wrong doing's but i don't think it redeems him.Not compeletly, anyway, but i did like the way he kind of teased Voldemort.

I'd like to see him, at the height of his powers, vs. Voldemort.

Grindelwald, to me, seems a lot like Tom Riddle. He was obviously a very gifted wizard, but he used the powers the wrong way, though he didn't see that. Bad guys don't think of themselves as bad, because they think that what they are doing is for the best. Riddle thought that Slytherin's idea of all-magic and even half bloods getting a magical education only was a good idea. So, Grindelwald's thinking was very similar. Even Dumbledore was thinking amongst those lines. Not that muggleborns were awful, and they should be overpowered; they thought that what they were doing was right, and it felt right to them. It's just a good thing that Dumbledore reconized his weakness of power and withdrew from all that before he ended up like Grindelwald and Voldemort.
Although, just the fact that he could work with someone else, that he was that close to someone else, made him very very different from Riddle.

Grindelwald, to me, seems a lot like Tom Riddle. He was obviously a very gifted wizard, but he used the powers the wrong way, though he didn't see that. Bad guys don't think of themselves as bad, because they think that what they are doing is for the best. Riddle thought that Slytherin's idea of all-magic and even half bloods getting a magical education only was a good idea. So, Grindelwald's thinking was very similar. Even Dumbledore was thinking amongst those lines. Not that muggleborns were awful, and they should be overpowered; they thought that what they were doing was right, and it felt right to them. It's just a good thing that Dumbledore reconized his weakness of power and withdrew from all that before he ended up like Grindelwald and Voldemort.
Grindelwald thinks he's working for the "greater good" though, and establishing an effective social order. Tom Riddle uses his magic to get power for himself. His motives are purely self-centered, while Grindelwald is trying to help wizarding-kind in his own twisted way. Tom Riddle does call himself the Dark Lord, too. I don't know how much eviler than that you can go...

I also think that Gellert was a better man than Voldemort: i'm sure that he had a heart.

Yes, good point.

As with many children's books, the villain in 'Harry Potter' looks the part; Voldemort has red snake-eyes, stark white skin, a flattened nose and he is tall and skeletal. If you saw Voldy you'd run; he looks evil, he talks evil, he is evil. And in a pretty one dimentional way; his only motivation is power. Yes you could argue that, as a poor orphan, he wanted power and wealth because he never had either and was envious of those who did and wanted to 'show them all' etc. However, this argument lacks force because Voldemort always had power and what he didn't have he could steal. Besides, Dumbledore said that Voldemort's instincts were for secrecy, domination and cruelty; for Voldemort, power was not 'a means to the end' but the end in itself- he wanted power because he loved power.

But Harry Potter is not merely a children's book; the character who JKR has crafted are, with the exception of Voldemort, multidimentional, recognisable beings. Voldemort was probably the exception because he had to be 1D- the reader needed to really, really hate him by the time of final confrontation. However, not all 'villains' are unattractive psychopaths. Grindlewald is the other type of villain. The type more often found in the real world. When we first see Grindlewald he contrasts stongly with handsome, pale, aloof, dark-haired Tom Riddle, Gellert is beautiful, rosy-cheeked, laughing, with long golden curls. He's more beautiful than an angel; he's as beautiful as a demon. Although JKR doesn't tell us much about his personality, I guess that Gellert was a very different man from Tom Riddle. I'd say that Gellert used his 'glamour'* to win and keep supporters rather than fear; he charmed the heart out of Dumbledore, remember. (And, looking at it objectively, who could resist such a beautiful, seductive man? Dumbledore was, actually, incredibly vulnerable to his charms; Gellert was probably the only equal Dumbledore ever had- his presence must have been intoxicating, addictive to the lonely Dumbledore who had, before his arrival, been peerless. I wouldn't be surprised if Dumbledore visited Nuremgard- or, at least, really wanted to.)
I also think that Gellert was a better man than Voldemort: i'm sure that he had a heart. It may have been a selfish heart or a cold heart but it was still there. This is the reason he didn't tell Voldemort where the wand was and didn't seek a fight with Dumbledore or force Dumbledore to kill him; there was a tiny bit of love there. Sure, he'd have killed Dumbledore-if he had too- but i don't think he'd have intentionally made it a kill or be killed situation. That's why Gellert ended up in prison instead of dying like Voldemort. Although Gellert was a ruthless killer we are never told that he 'enjoyed' killing. He seems, from Dumbledore's description, like a beserker; when he fought, his mind was elsewhere; he fought to win rather to hurt or kill. I actually think he did think he was doing it all for the greater good, that he was destined to lead a glorious revolution after which there would be a time of peace and plenty, where the natural order of things, i.e. wizards as masters, muggles as slaves, would be re-instated and everyone would be happy. Idealists don't necessarily have to be good people.

*An old word meaning to cast an enchantment over someone by your very presence; the Veela, for example, have this power.

First of Voldemot's first objective wasn't power at all. His one driving virtue, above everything else he might be, is his fear of death.

Also, Grinderwald wasn't really discribed as some kind of angelic looking demigod.

First I thought that Grindelwald was the ultimate evil, the former Voldemort, but in DH it showed that he was just another wizard who got the wrong idea. He probably had a good side and knew to love (unlike Voldy), but he got more and more dragged to the bad side.

That Dumbledore was friend with him in his youth, shows IMO that they were alike. They fought for the same things, the Greater Good.

What did you think of him?
He was kind of what I expected him to be as far as his ideas went. He was similar to Voldemort in his views of muggles and wizard superiority. I also expected him to have a connection with Hitler - as has been pointed out many times, there are several similarities between the two. What I didn't expect was that Grindelwald was a magical genious like Dumbledore, and that they had been friends as boys.

What did you make of his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
I thought it was unexpected, but a nice turn of events. It was interesting that they were looking for the Deathly Hallows and that they were both very bright students.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?
No, I don't think they had the right idea at all. Once you start thinking that a certain group of people is better than another, despite the fact that one group may be more talented/powerful than another, this leads to feelings of superiority and greater rights, etc. It's a slippery slope that leads to one group trying to dominate over the other.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?
I think it did. I didn't expect him to try to thwart Voldemort, considering that both had very similar ideals. I would have almost expected him to join forces with Voldemort, but I'm very glad he didn't for his sake and for Harry's, since it delayed Voldemort's possession of the wand.

What did you think of him?
I really didn't think much of him. He seemed to be very evil before, and to become so powerful like that, i imagine he would need a lot of plotting, which is something i admire. I thoght it was really really noble the way his final act was to try to stop or slow down Voldemort.
What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
Well, we now know Dumbledore loved him, but before that, i realy didn't think much about it. Dumbledore can have a friend, and Dumbledore isn't perfect. It did explain a lot about how Dumbledore thinks and why he didn't want to be minister,and the way he fought against dark magic so much, etc.
For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?
I personally think they had a point, though they did go the wrong way about it. Some things you just have to do, but i just feel their cause was a bad one. I really do wonder how the wizarding world thinks of Dumbledre now that they know he was friends with grindelwald and used to support pure blood supremacy. But since we're talking about Grindelwald, he seemed to have good intentions, but the way he gone about it, killing and murder was horrible,but the deathly hallows was an interesting way of doing it.
Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?
I think it did, a bit. he would never be able to redeem himself completely, but at least he was good at heart and was trying to do the right thing.

What did you think of him?
His plans to kinda of take over the world as a teenager were bad, but he seemed to have good intentions about it.....he was friends with dumbledore, which is good, and dumbledore was even in love with him, so he spose he has some good qualities....and he wouldn't give the whereabouts of the wand, but he was also kind of evil and dumbledore had to defeat him......so yeah, I don't feel I know enough about him to make a judgement.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
It just kinda makes me sad because of the one sided love and the terrible end to their friendship and how Dumbledore had to later defeat him.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?
Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

I don't really believe in 'redemption' but it makes me respect him more.

What did you think of him?

Oddly enough, I really liked this character on a personal level as depicted in DH. However, as his deeds unfolded during the course of the story, his image was greatly damaged. We did not obtain a detailed description of his overall character, however, all of the deaths resulting from his mechanisms spoke volumes about his way of thinking and the lengths he was willing to go to attain his ends. It did not leave me holding his character in very high regard.


What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?

I thought it was great. It was interesting, but rather expected that the two intellectuals would come together in friendship.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?

Yes and no. The greater good should have been equality, not an unequal playing field where one group is seen as superior to another. Dumbledore's ultimate 'greater good' theory was more correct.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

Redemption speaks to remorse, repentance and pennance. We know that he served the latter, but unfortunately the book was unclear as to the first two ideas. I suppose if one reads that into his willingness to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts, it could be seen as redemption. However, I didn't really consider redemption an issue with respect to Grindelwald because we were simply not given enough information about him.

I think that Grindelwald is more interesting when seen in comparison to Dumbledore than Voldemort...
When considering Dumbledore, his greatness (I'm firmly in the Dumbledore rocks camp) is shown more clearly when in comparison with Grindelwald - in Grindelwald you see what Dumbledore could have been: both were idealistic young men who only really wanted to change the world for the better, both were exeptionally talented wizards, both had plans for the world under their rule. However, their main difference in character turned out to be vital - Dumbledore had compassion. And here, really, lies the key to one of the central themes of the JKR's work - compassion for the fate of those around you really is the key to good and bad. Dumbledore, who had compassion, ended up making a contribution which guided the wizarding world towards that which is good. Grindelwald, however, did not at the time feel this compassion, and as a result made terrible mistakes which lead to Dumbledore's defeat of him.

What did you think of him?
He seemed to be a very smart wizard, like Dumbledore. But unlike him, he wanted to use his ideas for the wrong purpose, evil deeds.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
I don't really know -- we didn't get a lot of infomation about it. But from what we did get, it seems as if they had some things in common, like going after the Deathly Hallows. Dumbledore most likely learned a lot from his friendship with Grindelwald, most probably dealing with dark magic. So later on in his life, he wanted to make sure that nothing like that ever comes to pass again.


For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?
Yes, hypothetically -- in terms of helping wizarding kind, but not the way that Grindelwald wanted it. A more level playing field in terms of what Dumbledore wanted, would have been the best way to go.


Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?
Not really, since information about him was scarce throughout the series. So in the end, I can't really say that he's been redeemed.

What did you think of him?
At first, I didn't like him. He was definately not a guy to mess with. I thought when he was a kid, he used Albus to help get his plans carried out. Gellert luckily arrived right at the (then) worst time in Dumbledore's life, so he could manipulate him and have him think he was doing the right thing by dominating Muggles. Basically, he took a weak, battered person who was forced to look after his troubled siblings and gave him a chance at freedom and power. I hated Grindelwald for that. I didn't think too highly at first, but I changed that opinion slightly when he stood up to Voldemort. Even though he knew he would instantly be killed if he refused, which he was, he still felt a little remorse and (indirectly) protected Harry.

What did you make of his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
It honestly scared me a bit. The fact that Dumbledore, perfect, wise, flawless Dumbledore ever was a friend of a Dark Wizard and tried to dominate Muggles with him. It made me wonder if all that really seemed to happen during the first six books was just a fluke, and all that time Dumbledore had been leading Harry towards his doom. I thought Dumbledore might have been evil, and that mysterious gleam of triumph backed that up. Of their friendship, as I stated above, Albus was in a terrible period then and Gellert got through to him. Dumbledore was so lonely at that point in his life, he would have taken Voldemort for a friend if he had been around. The fact that he went along with Grindelwald's plans even while he knew Grindelwald was evil really tells me that their friendship was never real, and it was just there to make Grindelwald happy with his plans, and give Albus a friend, no matter how cruel.

For the greater good- did they have a point?
They must have had a point. I think the thing Albus said that stands out the most to me is "So what if one small girl got neglected?" This, I believe, was the main point in the greater good's argument. No matter what you do to something, there will always be casualties. Grindelwald and Dumbledore wanted to overthrow the Statue of Secrecy, and there was no way they could do that without displeasing someone, like Ariana. I think the thing that really made Dumbledore turn back from the plan was the fact that it was his own sister Grindelwald was ignoring, and not some random person. Aberforth pointed this out to him, and Dumbledore finally admitted defeat. Dumbledore couldn't bear to have his own sister miserable even if he was in power, so he turned away from Grindelwald. The greater good was, unfortunately, inevitable, but yes, Grindelwald had the incorrect way of thinking about it.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?
He certainly showed me that there was a bit of good in him, pretty deep down, but all the terrible things he had previously done were too much and could not be canceled out. I think that he finally realized all the terrible things he had done, and tried to do during his friendship with Dumbledore and wanted to repay him by protecting him. Of course, he knew where the wand was, so he tried his best to keep it away from Voldemort and make Dumbledore happy. The fact that Voldemort still got the wand from Dumbledore's tomb doesn't matter to Grindelwald's character. As long as he tried to protect it, even though he knew he would die, proved that he felt some pity, and for that, I am glad. I knew that it was in there, and I want to see the best of all characters (except Snape, maybe. I hate Snape.) So Grindelwald will never be fully redeemed for killing Muggles, definately not, but the fact he showed remorse improves his character greatly in my eyes.

Rereading the part of DH where Grindelwald steals the Elder Wand makes me think differently about him, along with the part where he sacrifices himself rather than divulge what he knows about the wand. He only stunned Gregorovitch instead of killing him. He must have researched pretty well to have known that stunning would work instead of killing too. But I think that his refusal to tell Voldemort about the wand and the way he stunned instead of killed showed that he was interested in the greater good, and not merely his own selfish wants.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?
The fact he showed remorse improves his character greatly in my eyes.
I will focus on this question and what DeathlyH introduced.
"Isn't there any way of putting yourself back together?" Ron asked.
"Yes," said Hermione with a hollow smile, "but it would be excruciatingly painful."
"Why? How do you do it?" asked Harry.
"Remorse," said Hermione. "You've got to really feel what you've done."
After reading this, I suspect Grindelwald may have created a Horcrux (in the singular). In Nurmengard, he was an "emaciated figure...[with] eyes opening in a skull of a face...The frail man sat up, great sunken eyes fixed upon...Voldemort..."

He then says, "Kill me, then, Voldemort, I welcome death!" In his actions, many also believe (including Dumbledore) he showed remorse for his past. I believe it a possibility that Grindelwald wanted to die, but was unable to while his Horcrux existed. Thus, the remorse he felt at the end of his life (which was genuine, I believe), would have "pieced him back together," allowing Voldemort to truly kill him.

What did you think of him?

At first, he entirely confused me. I wasn't sure what to think or him or who he was- and I had certainly never expected the name from the back of a Chocolate Frog card to be so implicit in furthering our understanding of the Hallows. I came to understand though, that he perhaps was more misled and curious than overall bad.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?

I actually had my theory that they were genuinely in love with one another. And their idea in the Wizarding World wasn't exactly contrary to ideas that have been used in the muggle world by people looking for the greater good- they're not good ideas, for sure, but they are still there, so ideas like those are bound to draw people together in some small way or another. I think the story of how they separated and fell apart is one of the saddest in the books, and I think it was a source of perennial hurt for the two of them, and not just for Dumbledore.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?

Anything for the Greater Good likely should have a point, but the "greater good" is relative to a situation that we don't all share- and so any attempts to instill anything to create the greater good is likely not going to work to everyone's advantage. Sadly, some people's greater goods are often the result of personal pain or contusion, followed by attempts to overtake, harm and injure. They had a point, but Dumbledore simply wanted someone great to understand him. Grindelwald was, without doubt, a wonderfully talented individual who had delusions of grandeur and thought he could overtake the world. I feel pity for him in some ways, but his methods and thoughts were definitely too dark to be granted access.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

In my opinion, yes it did. He had obviously had adequate time to rethink his position and he also probably had adequate time to reconsider his life and times. And for the first time ever, he saw what his message of "The Greater Good" could achieve- and I think it terrified him, so he would not grant that access to Voldemort. He died for what he did, as, IMO, was fitting for someone who fell off the wagon but needed redemption, and his ability to show remorse, I agree here with DeathlyH, sewed him back together so he could face death in his own way. He no longer had to fear what he had done- after spending 53 years in a cell, he had clearly rethought his positions on many things.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

I will focus on this question and what DeathlyH introduced.
"Isn't there any way of putting yourself back together?" Ron asked.
"Yes," said Hermione with a hollow smile, "but it would be excruciatingly painful."
"Why? How do you do it?" asked Harry.
"Remorse," said Hermione. "You've got to really feel what you've done."
After reading this, I suspect Grindelwald may have created a Horcrux (in the singular). In Nurmengard, he was an "emaciated figure...[with] eyes opening in a skull of a face...The frail man sat up, great sunken eyes fixed upon...Voldemort..."

He then says, "Kill me, then, Voldemort, I welcome death!" In his actions, many also believe (including Dumbledore) he showed remorse for his past. I believe it a possibility that Grindelwald wanted to die, but was unable to while his Horcrux existed. Thus, the remorse he felt at the end of his life (which was genuine, I believe), would have "pieced him back together," allowing Voldemort to truly kill him.

I don't think he made a Horcrux. He was looking for the Hallows, wasn't he? And I do think he showed remorse. He was much much wiser than Voldemort ever was. True, he was a Dark wizard. I can't really explain it, but kind of likke, that he was more human than Voldemort. I wonder if Dumbledore ever saw him at that prison. I doubt it, but it would have been neat to have seen more of him.

What did you think of him?
Mixed feelings here. To be honest, i can see his point. Muggles and Wizards never had a really rosy relationship and Grindelwald wanted to do something about it. I think it did go horribly wrong and he grew power hungry and this led to him becoming a Dark Wizard. His ideals became warped a bit by the power he had.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
I thought it very interesting. It shows Dumbledore had similar ambitions. These two had the same ideals and wished to act upon them. I see this as realistic in the sense that even the best of us have ideas that are not considered lovely by all.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?
See my answer to question one. Yes they did have a point and good one. I could only imagine living in a world thats actually rather constrictive and hiding away from muggles and everything, would be very taxing. One cannot freely express one's self in a world like that. I think Dumbledore eventually realized that using force to do this was not the way to go. He chose to work on muggle rights and realizing muggle ignorance is just natural. Grindelwald did not realize this.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?
Good question. I havent really thought about that before. Thing was, he was a Quester. The Hallows was more or less a great secret. I believe Grindelwald realized this during his time in Nurmengard (and perhaps he realized how foolish he was), and didnt want Voldemort to know about the Hallows at all. One could only imagine what sort of combination of Horcruxes and Hallows would make. (Note: I do not believe Grindelwald knew about the horcruxes at all.) But a very powerful dark wizard like Voldy having access to the Hallows could initially spell bad news. Grindelwald stood by his Quest to the end.

He did tell Voldemort there was so much he didn't know or understand. Was he simply referring to the Hallows? Or maybe despite the fact that he was a Dark wizard, he, unlike Voldemort, understood love?

What did you think of him? As a character, I really, really like him. He was a crafty, manipulative, powerful man, and I hope that someday JKR will release more information about him. I'd definitely love to learn more about the man who captivated Dumbledore. As a person, however, he's awful. But that's a no-brainer.
What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship? I think that Dumbledore had feelings for him - and how could he resist? Grindelwald was beautiful and smart; one of (if not the only) person the young genius Dumbledore could relate to. I think Grindelwald knew how Dumbledore felt and used his looks, intellect and charm to lure Dumbledore in. Grindelwald possibly manipulated Dumbledore into agreeing with some of his more violent/radical ideas, but I don't think Dumbledore was innocent either.
For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)? I'll leave it at a simple "no".
Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him? No, but I do think that it might hint that Grindelwald felt some sense of loyalty or duty towards Dumbledore (or at least to the Elder Wand). Perhaps they made some sort of promise to each other - that they would never reveal the wand's location. Or perhaps he just didn't want to see Voldemort triumph - if Grindelwald's attempt at world domination failed, perhaps he felt as though no one else should be able to. One of those "if I can't have it, neither can anyone else" situations. Who knows! Like I said before, I'd like JKR to expand on the subject of Grindelwald.

He was a very interesting character.

He was, along with Dumbledore and Harry, the only character who recognised Voldemort as being rather comical in nature than actually fearsome, and it's the reason why I consider Grindelwald to be a superior Dark Wizard than Voldemort, because Voldemort simply didn't know enough about magic to be regarded as #1

What did you think of him?
I never really got a good taste of his character. He seems a very explosive person, very intelligent, and also a lot more human that Voldemort. The fact that he and Dumbledore had a connection showed that there was a possibility for some remorse. He didn't give up his position and tried to save his friend.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
It almost seems as though it comes from a fanfiction. They're opposites in theory, but they must've come together in their obsession with the Hallows and their intelligence. I mean, I don't recall JKR ever saying that Grindelwald loved Dumbledore back. I have this quote from JKR on Snitchseeker.com.

JKR: [re: Grindelwald] I think he was a user and a narcissist and I think someone like that would use it, would use the infatuation. I don't think that he would reciprocate in that way, although he would be as dazzled by Dumbledore as Dumbledore was by him, because he would see in Dumbledore, 'My God, I never knew there was someone as brilliant as me, as talented as me, as powerful as me. Together, we are unstoppable!' So I think he would take anything from Dumbledore to have him on his side.

This sounds as though he was using Dumbledore's love to his advantage, and he never really loved him back. It's rather sad that this is how JKR portrays it, but I think later he remembers what he had with Dumbledore and regrets using him and refuses ot give into Voldemort.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?
Unfortunately, I do see some merit in what they were thinking. Dumbedore, I think, was was talked into this thought before he really took charge with it. I think he wanted to help the Muggles in the long run, while Grindewald just wanted to stop hiding. That was a major difference. (Or I just tell myself this because I went through a whole 'I hate Dumbldore' phase after DH)

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?
A little. Not completely it made him seem more human-- If he were released out into the world after that, he would not have had the desire to enslave muggles. He'd still be rather unpleasant and snarky, but I think that would be about the worst of it. As mentioned before, I think that he regretted using Dumbledore.

Look at me. Sticking up for a Dark Wizard on the simple fact that Dumbledore loved him.

Grindlewald is interesting because when he was younger he appears to have an air of troublemaking mischief about him judging by Harry's description. Which contrasts starkly with Tom Riddle who was seen to be charming but cold and calculated. They shared similar motives about wizards assuming their rightful place above Muggles. Unlike Voldemort though, Dumbledore said Grindlewald tried to justify it by saying it would be better for the Muggles. We all know why Voldemort harbored such anti-Muggle beliefs. He was angry about his father who not only deserted him and his mother, but was an ordinary Muggle. Not at all special which he felt he, Lord Voldemort, was. It was perhaps driven by personal self-hatred more than anything. He wasn't doing it for all wizard kind, he was doing it for himself. Whereas we never know why Grindlewald did what he did. Did he really believe it would be better for Muggles his way or was he saying it to seduce Dumbledore? It would interesting to find out how a young boy with a mischievous flare and a sense of adventure becomes one of the most feared dark wizards of his generation.

What did you think of him?

I thought he was an interesting character. He was quite different from Voldemort though. While Voldemort was cold, calculating and always made sure that he was never caught, Grindelwald was caught multiple times and eventually expelled. I think Grindelwald was just ambitious and wanted power while Voldemort had an incredible amount of fear for death and didn't seem to understand the concept of love. Almost as if Voldemort was not completely human.

What did you make of his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?

IMO Dumbledore would have been very excited to have a peer with same level of intelligence to chat about. It must have been frustrating for Dumbledore that the only people with whom he could have a decent stimulating conversation were old people.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?

I do think they had a point. If Grindelwald had been a better individual, both he and Dumbledore may have even pulled it off.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

Yes, somewhat. I think Grindelwald finally realized some things after spending years in prison.

I think this is the key difference between Voldemort and Grindelwald. I see Grindelwald as a good guy gone bad (for whatever reason). Voldemort though was twisted from the outset. IMO nothing would have changed. There was no "good guy" to go back to.

What did you think of him?

It' s Dumbledore' s negative. JKR implies it many times. It is Dumbledore as a bad guy, a smart person who thinks his smartness gives him the right to rule in a fascist way.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?

Quite expected given the situation: Dumbledore looking for somebody equally smart to share his thoughts with, Grindelwald looking for friendship with powerful people. This is what makes them different: Dumbledore wanted smart companion, Grindelwald wanted power. Both being smart and powerful, they became "friends", at least Albus saw him as a friend.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?

Even Hermione agrees to that when, in DH, talks to Aberforth Dumbledore. "Sometimes you must think of the greater good" or something like this. We can say that Grindelwald' s "greater good" is indeed a motto and an excuse for his crimes. Surely Hermione does not have this in mind: she seems to support the view that, in the name of the greater good, some personal sacrifices are necessary. On the contrary, Grindelwald believed that, in the name of the greater good, some people can be sacrificed. Huge difference. The only common place is that there is something more than the individual good.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

Up to a point yes. Dumbedore mentions that Grindelwald showed signes of remorse in his later years at Nurmengard.

Too bad his character is not presented in details. If only JKR changed her mind and wrote a prequel... I would love to read the description of the Dumbledore - Grindelwald duel. It must have been more spectacular than even the Dumbledore - Voldemort duel where powerful spells and Avanta Kedavras filled the air.

Food for thought: the Dumbledore - Grindelwald duel took place in 1945, just the year the Second World War came to an end in the Muggle World. Gellert Grindelwald sounds quite a German name to me. His "terror campaign" did not take place in Britain, Dumbledore says, nor did the Second World War (but for some air strikes)... OK, it' s too far-fetched a thought but I wonder whether, back when she wrote the PS, JKR imagined Adolf Hitler as a "puppet" of Grindelwald to conquer the Muggle World why he himself was conquering the Magical World.

Does anyone here have any theories of what Grindlewald's connection to World War Two was?

It is quite clear that he has a connection as he has a German name, was defeated by Dumbledore and from what I can tell fits the description of what the Nazis called an Aryan.

I believe that he may have been the Minister for Magic in Nazi Germany.

Grindelwald MoM in WWII Germany, a very interesting thought...

When did Grindelwald flee from England? It was when Ariana was killed but which year exactly? Do we know or do we have insufficient data? Hitler rose to power in 1933.

I admire Grindelwald. I consider Grindelwald to be second only to Dumbledore in terms of power and knowledge, and I consider him to be the greatest dark wizard in the entire HP series, far more than Voldemort since Voldemort was shockingly ignorant and inept. The relationship between him and Dumbledore was one of the most fascinating elements of the series but sadly Rowling didn't go into it in detail. I also support Grindelwald's ideology of Muggle conquest.

Grindelwald MoM in WWII Germany, a very interesting thought...

When did Grindelwald flee from England? It was when Ariana was killed but which year exactly? Do we know or do we have insufficient data? Hitler rose to power in 1933.

Well, Dumbledore was born in 1881 and he was 18 when Ariana died. So Grindelwald would have fled England in 1899. Dumbledore defeated him 46 years later.

Oh, my brilliant though far-fetched theory crushed and burned! Thank you for the information. :wave:


Unless... Grindelwald grew up and became powerful enough to conquer the German Magical World and promote Hitler. :whistle:

What did you think of him?
I think he's a very interesting character, especially from the point of view of 'evil' in the magical world.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
I think it's natural that two people on the same wave length (intelligence and interests) would develop a connection and work together.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?
Possibly. Taking into account the attitudes muggles had towards magic in the past (the witch hunt), they would want an environment or a certain order of things where magic could thrive without the constant danger of exposure.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?
I haven't actually thought of this before reading the question, I just assumed he kept it a secret because he thought Dumbledore was the worthy possessor of the wand or just plainly didn't want Voldemort to have it.

I think Gellert Grindelwald is absolutely fascinating and I dearly hope JKR will write a prequel about him and Dumbledore.

He also seems to be a much cleverer and powerful than Dumbledore. His ambitions seem to be more all-encompassing (i.e. 'for the greater good' rather than just becoming immortal). I think he may have had good intentions but he got corrupted as he gained more power. I don't know if he ever loved Dumbledore in a romantic way, although I certainly think Dumbledore loved him as more than a friend, which made him very vulnerable to be used by Gellert.

I do think he felt some form of remorse in the end. I also got the feeling that he was quite contemptuous of Voldemort, that he thought Voldemort was some sort of upstart, who didn't know as much about magic as he thought he did. I think it was telling that Grindelwald was 'defeated' and imprisoned (in his own prison, no less).

I don't think that Adolf Hitler was his puppet. That would be extremely problematic, as it would remove all volition from Hitler, when everything Hitler did was his own doing. I do think he might have had some sort of destructive alliance with Hitler, or possibly those two just fed off each other. Grindelwald must've had a lot of friends and collaborators, unlike Voldemort, considering he effectively terrorised the whole of Europe. We know that Grindelwald is a German name, that he went to Durmstrang, which appears to be somwhere around the North Cape or norther Russia, and that he killed Viktor Krum's grandfather. So his reach must've been pretty wide.

I wonder though, if there was Grindelwald, whether there was also a Wizarding equivalent of Stalin? Food for thought. JKR said the Wizarding and Muggle worlds feed off each other, and Russia had been going through very dark times since 1917 (and arguably even before that).

Grindelwald is my favourite character in the HP series, because to me I know the perfect amount of information about him. I can picture him and I know of his darkness and his redemption, you know he was great and corrupted by dark arts, the rest is left to my imagination, making me want to know more. I've wanted to know more since he was first mentioned in "Dumbledore's legendary defeat of Grindelwald".

In defence of Gellert Grindelwald:

Grindelwald is referred as the second greatest dark wizard of all time, to me this depends on what is meant by greatest dark wizard. Is how dark the wizard is important or once you are classed as a dark wizard does only the threat you pose matter. Because Grindelwald does not seem all that dark to me, yet he posed the single greatest threat to the wizarding world's stability ever (breaking the International Statute of Secrecy has far greater consequences than a kind of wizarding apartheid based on blood purity, heck Durmstrang already forbade Muggle-borns from attending the school.) To look at what Grindelwald did must lead you to believe he wasn't bad to the core. He actually seems like a far more skillfull Fred or George who happens to have an ideaology which clashed with the wizarding authority's view of secrecy.

To measure how dark he is I'll contrast him with the ultimate evil (and even a lesser evil). Voldemort is designed to be the one-dimensional face of evil, Grindelwald is much more complex and as such much less evil.

Horcruxes and Hallows:

Voldemort willingly created 6 horcruxes, including one while at Hogwarts in his fifth year with his diary. He then created another 5 to bind himself to life and enhance his power further (7 parts of the soul would be greater to him), not to further any end other than his own continued existence and power. Grindelwald sought the hallows for the 'greater good' (I'll mention the Greater Good later). So the purpose of the Hallows/Horcruxes indicates that Grindelwald is far above Voldemort in moral terms, but also the means is important, as Harry pointed out to Dumbledore hallows not horcruxes. There's another dark wizard I'd like to mention here. Herpo the Foul, the wizard who first created a horcruxe and who first hatched a basilisk, Herpo also created a horcruxe, for second only to Voldemort, Grindelwald wasn't as concerned with his immortality as a dark wizard should be. This indicates that Grindelwald wasn't conqeuring the wizarding world for personal and eternal power, but for a more important purpose, which leads me to...

The Greater Good:

Voldemort sought nothing more than to further his own existence and inflict terror, sure he was alligned with the pure-blood movement, but I think that is as much as anything that this alligns with his undiluted hatred of his muggle father, for instance he himself is a half-blood, he fears fellow half-blood Harry Potter over anyone else other than Dumbledore, he presumably associated muggle-borns with muggles and therefore this policy is more an abuse of his power than him seeking power to repress muggle-borns. Unfortunately I know nothing of Herpo's intentions. But Grindelwald's quest for power was as the leader of a glorious wizarding revolution, for the muggle's own good and the benefits to wizards would be immeasureable. He sought to overthrow the statute of secrecy and have a wizard-ruled world, more importantly he recognised that he would face opponents to this and deemed that his acts against them would be 'for the greater good'. What was Voldemorts greater good? He didn't have one, he just caused terror and relished in his fear-invoking nature. He seems proud of the fact (as the diary Riddle) that the wizarding world was afraid to speak his name, there's no grand justification for it. With Grindelwald there is, to me this indicates that he recognises his acts as wrong and even regrets them, but to him the ends of his grand cause justify any means, yet he shows regret that his terrible acts are necessary for the greater good. Those aren't the actions of some dark and evil. Also remember that Grindelwald didn't care about immortality, his cause was greater than himself, probably why he was so excited that a fellow great wizard in Dumbledore had agreed to aid him in his plans, Voldemort never sought and would never accept such companionship, only unquestioning and unfailing servitude.

Gregorovitch and Nurmengard:

In his quest for the Elder Wand Grindelwald stole it from Gregorovitch, despite the reputation of having to kill to gain mastery of it Grindelwald only stuns Gregorovitch after stealing the wand, Voldemort never missed the opportunity to kill, in fact he showed mercy only once, to Lily Evans (a mudblood oddly, perhaps blood purity means less to Lord Voldemort after all) on request to Severus Snape. More important than this sole act of mercy is that Grindelwald constructed Nurmengard, a prison to hold his enemies, he didn't mean to kill anyone. In fact when still in friendship with Albus Dumbledore they sought only to use their incredible force when it was absolutely necessary for the 'greater good'. Grindelwald was no senseless killer, while he may have killed many (Krum says his grandfather wasn't the only one) it seems they were the ones who were foolish enough to try and stop Grindelwald at full power. To me Nurmengard's existence proves that Grindelwald was merely dedicated to the cause of the 'greater good', he tried to avoid killing in favour of imprisonment (otherwise Nurmengard is pointless), Grindelwald's quest has nothing to do with personal power but was all for a cause, a cause which may be wrong but when idealised to wizard working for the benefit of muggle it reads not so far from Plato's perfect city-state. In short Gellert Grindelwald was a young idealist who thought that his ends justified any means while Voldemort cared nothing for morality, and cared only for himself.

Young Riddle vs Young Grindel:

Young Gellert obviously had a bad reputation at Durmstrang where his 'experiments' endangered the lives of students and led to him being expelled by a school notoriously tolerant of the Dark Arts, while we know nothing about the nature of these experiments it was likely it was just dabbling in very powerful dark magic as I don't think anyone actually died as a result of his 'experiments'. However young Tom Riddle was punishing and tormenting his fellow orphans before he even discovered he was a wizard, and once Tom got to school he was far worse than Gellert. For a start he opened the Chamber of Secrets and was responsible for the death of Moaning Myrtle and the framing of Hagrid. And just to add to how evil Tom was at school it is assumed he had already created a horcruxe by the time he asked Slughorn about the possibility of 7 horcruxes, this is something Gellert never did at the pinnacle of his powers, and something I doubt Gellert ever considered due to him being motivated by a greater cause instead of selfish concerns of life. The point is that by the time Riddle was at school he had already delved deeper into dark magic than Gellert Grindelwald had at the height of his powers.

Redemption:

In the end it seems that like his old friend Albus Dumbledore, Grindelwald saw the error of his ways and showed genuine remorse for his actions while trapped in Nurmengard, by defying Voldemort at the end he showed that he wished to make amends for his actions. My guess is that when the 'greater good' has failed and he presumably abandoned his ideaology his cover and defence for his actions had dissapeared.

To conclude Grindelwald's defence it seems to me that he was an idealist who believed that his utopia justified his actions, while this does not remove his acts he recognises wrong, something Voldemort does not do. But what this means for his claim to greatest dark wizard is that he is the Greatest of the Dark Wizards but by no means the Darkest of Wizards.

He actually seems like a far more skillfull Fred or George who happens to have an ideaology which clashed with the wizarding authority's view of secrecy.
I think you wrote an excellent post which raised several good questions, but on this point I have to wonder. Did Fred and George ever actually subvert this statute? Grindelwald may have considered it irrelevant, but the twins were clearly raised within a law-abiding ethical framework and rejected certain aspects of it in favor of profit. Can you substantiate that they rejected secrecy as well?

I think you wrote an excellent post which raised several good questions, but on this point I have to wonder. Did Fred and George ever actually subvert this statute? Grindelwald may have considered it irrelevant, but the twins were clearly raised within a law-abiding ethical framework and rejected certain aspects of it in favor of profit. Can you substantiate that they rejected secrecy as well?

I've made a bit of a mistake here, I was more meaning that the Young Grindelwald seems like a charming trouble-maker, he seems to give off that impression to me, I meant in his personality not views that he was like the Twins. Nowhere in the books do Fred or George reject the statute of secrecy. Sorry I should have clarified that better.

Voldemort willingly created 6 horcruxes, including one while at Hogwarts in his fifth year with his diary.

Voldemort did not a create any Horcruxes during his fifth year. He didn't even commit his first murder (crucial, if one wants to split the soul) until the summer of his sixteenth year. Plus, he didn't know how to make a Horcrux at the time of his conversation with Slughorn, which took place during his sixth year at Hogwarts. We have actually no reason to assume that he began creating Horcruxes while still at school.

Grindelwald sought the hallows for the 'greater good' (I'll mention the Greater Good later).

Grindelwald sought the Hallows in order to conquer death, that is clearly indicated in the text. At the very heart of his cruel and sadistic ideology was his yearning to become immortal, his dream of becoming the Master of Death.

So the purpose of the Hallows/Horcruxes indicates that Grindelwald is far above Voldemort in moral terms, but also the means is important, as Harry pointed out to Dumbledore hallows not horcruxes.

Voldemort had no knowledge of the existence of the Hallows. Had he known about them he might not have bothered with all the soul-splitting.

Grindelwald wasn't as concerned with his immortality as a dark wizard should be.

He was very much so.

This indicates that Grindelwald wasn't conqeuring the wizarding world for personal and eternal power

On the contrary, that is exactly what he was doing. He might have been willing to share his power with Dumbledore, but their ultimate goal was, as the latter puts it in DH, to become "Invincible Masters of Death". Grindelwald dreamed of eternal power.

But Grindelwald's quest for power was as the leader of a glorious wizarding revolution, for the muggle's own good and the benefits to wizards would be immeasureable.

Do you really think he believed any of that? He emroidered his disgusting ideology with a lot of impressive talk about the greated good in order to make it sound nice, but at the end of the day, he was just as bigoted, power-hungry and obsessed with immortality, as Voldemort.

What was Voldemorts greater good?

He fought to keep the wizarding blood pure and free from pollution. That was his idea of the greater good. He wasn't merely aligned with this line of thinking, as you suggest. He was the main driving force behind it.

He seems proud of the fact (as the diary Riddle) that the wizarding world was afraid to speak his name,

I'm sure Grindelwald would have been quite flattered by this as well.

Also remember that Grindelwald didn't care about immortality,

Yes, he did. His dreams of immortality were at the very foundation of his schemes.

his cause was greater than himself,

He made it out to be, but I doubt that he ever really believed any of his own mumbo-jumbo. He clad his plans in nice words in order to delude and intrigue the gullible.

In fact when still in friendship with Albus Dumbledore they sought only to use their incredible force when it was absolutely necessary for the 'greater good'.


This is what Dumbledore was trying to make Grindelwald understand. Grindelwald was not above using unnecessary force and violence it seems.

Grindelwald was no senseless killer [...] To me Nurmengard's existence proves that Grindelwald was merely dedicated to the cause of the 'greater good', he tried to avoid killing in favour of imprisonment

This we don't know. Nurmengard might have been a place for those Grindelwald thought could become useful later or any number of other things. We simply don't know.

I don't think anyone actually died as a result of his 'experiments'.

There's no basis for such an assumption. I think that someone must have died or at least gotten seriously injured in order for Grindelwald to be expelled.

once Tom got to school he was far worse than Gellert.

You don't know this. We don't know what Grindelwald was like as a student and therefore can't make a legitimate comparison.

And just to add to how evil Tom was at school it is assumed he had already created a horcruxe by the time he asked Slughorn about the possibility of 7 horcruxes,

This is false.

this is something Gellert never did at the pinnacle of his powers, and something I doubt Gellert ever considered due to him being motivated by a greater cause instead of selfish concerns of life.

He was motivated by nothing but his cruelty, his sense of personal superiority and his obsession with power.

The point is that by the time Riddle was at school he had already delved deeper into dark magic than Gellert Grindelwald had at the height of his powers.

This is potentially false, because we don't know anything about Grindelwald's accomplishments as a student


To conclude Grindelwald's defence it seems to me that he was an idealist who believed that his utopia justified his actions

It seems to me that all of his "greater good" nonsense was simply a way to disguise his obvious instincts for cruelty and domination.

Voldemort did not a create any Horcruxes during his fifth year. He didn't even commit his first murder (crucial, if one wants to split the soul) until the summer of his sixteenth year. Plus, he didn't know how to make a Horcrux at the time of his conversation with Slughorn, which took place during his sixth year at Hogwarts. We have actually no reason to assume that he began creating Horcruxes while still at school.

Actually it is hinted that Riddle's main aim in his conversation with Slughorn was to discover what would happen should he create 6 Horcruxes, and also there were horcruxe books at Hogwarts, as Hermione uses a summoning charm and they fly out of Dumbledore's office, the book "secrets of the darkest art" which contains the instructions on how to create a Horcruxe was available to Riddle, Dumbledore removed the Horcruxe books after Riddle had left school so he knew how to make a horcruxe and had already killed his muggle relatives. Riddle aspired to make a horcruxe, knew how to and had killed. I'd say it's safe to assume he was making horcruxes while at Hogwarts.



Grindelwald sought the Hallows in order to conquer death, that is clearly indicated in the text. At the very heart of his cruel and sadistic ideology was his yearning to become immortal, his dream of becoming the Master of Death.

Grindelwald had obviously researched the Hallows very well, this is proved by how he knew (despite all the myths) that he didn't kill Gregorovitch, which also testifies that he wasn't that dark, Voldemort killed Gregorovitch without even getting the wand from him. In his research he must have found out what 'Master of Death' really meant, that he accepted death and that there were things much worse than death. Note some of his last words to Voldemort was that he "welcomed death" and implied he knew so much more than Voldemort. I think this indicates that Grindelwald knew what Invincible Master of Death trully meant.



Voldemort had no knowledge of the existence of the Hallows. Had he known about them he might not have bothered with all the soul-splitting.

Dumbledore says that he thinks Voldemort wouldn't want the Hallows (besides the wand) just as he didn't want immortality through the Elixir of Life, which he knew about. Hrorcruxes were Voldemorts chosen method, the Hallows were Grindelwald's and Dumbledore's, as Harry said "Hallows not Horcruxes".

Do you really think he believed any of that? He emroidered his disgusting ideology with a lot of impressive talk about the greated good in order to make it sound nice, but at the end of the day, he was just as bigoted, power-hungry and obsessed with immortality, as Voldemort.

I do, Grindelwald went to extreme lengths to spread the 'greater good', from debating it with Dumbledore to carving it above Nurmengard. He seemed to genuinely believe it. He also never expressed any bigoted pure-blood beliefs, but he was undoubtedly power hungry, I can concede that.


He fought to keep the wizarding blood pure and free from pollution. That was his idea of the greater good. He wasn't merely aligned with this line of thinking, as you suggest. He was the main driving force behind it.

This is hard to believe giving his own blood-status. He wasn't the driving force either, he had an intense hatred for muggles but not for half-bloods which entails muggle-blood in there. He cared for nothing but his own power, Grindelwald had a cause, a cause which he thought justified any means. What you also see with Grindelwald is the necessity to justify his actions with 'the greater good', he shows emotions near to remorse even during his reign of terror.



I'm sure Grindelwald would have been quite flattered by this as well.

While a lot of what I say on Grindelwald is speculation, it is based on the few facts we do know. This has no grounding other than Voldemort relishing in it, there aren't many similarities between Voldemort and Grindelwald besides their skill as wizards and their reputations.



This is what Dumbledore was trying to make Grindelwald understand. Grindelwald was not above using unnecessary force and violence it seems.

He probably wasn't opposed to using powerful dark magic, as is shown by his experiments at Durmstrang. But to him his caused justified any force which furthered his goal, that of overthrowing the European ministries in order to overthrow the statute of secrecy and enter a new wizarding order. In his view and any who sympathised with his view the force was necessary, even Dumbledore recognised there would be opposition and they would have to be subdued.



This we don't know. Nurmengard might have been a place for those Grindelwald thought could become useful later or any number of other things. We simply don't know.

Nurmengard is specifically called "the prison he built for his enemies". Why build a prison for your enemies if you were planning on mercilessly killing vast swathes of the wizarding and muggle world. It's possible that Nurmengard wasn't used much if he got carried away with his power, but Nurmengard's existence shows that genuinely didn't intend to kill when he didn't have to and that he probably believed in his cause.

There's no basis for such an assumption. I think that someone must have died or at least gotten seriously injured in order for Grindelwald to be expelled.

I don't think anyone died, but it's said that his experiments became too dangerous even for Durmstrang. If he was a danger to his fellow students it's perfectly reasonable to expect he'd be expelled.



You don't know this. We don't know what Grindelwald was like as a student and therefore can't make a legitimate comparison.

We can be almost certain he didn't unleash a Basilisk on his fellow students or create horcruxes. I'd say if we think Grindelwald didn't kill it wasn't worse than Voldemort.

Actually it is hinted that Riddle's main aim in his conversation with Slughorn was to discover what would happen should he create 6 Horcruxes

His initial aim was to find out what Horcruxes were and he began by asking Slughorn about them and how they're made, which proves his lack of knowledge regarding the process and the subject itself, at the time of their conversation. What ended up intriguing him the most, was, however, the idea of a seven-part soul.

You said in an earlier post that he had already made a Horcrux during his fifth year at Hogwarts, which is not true and I doubt that he made any Horcruxes at all as a student. There's not a shred of evidence to support such a conclusion.

The subject of Horcruxes was actually banned at Hogwarts during Riddle's time there and Slughorn said that one would be hard-pushed to find a book giving detailed information about them, which renders the possibility of Riddle learning about Horcruxes from a book rather unlikely

Plus, it is suggested that mutilation of the soul affects one's appearance and yet during his time at Hogwarts and even "Borgin and Burkes", Riddle remained just as handsome as ever.

Grindelwald had obviously researched the Hallows very well, this is proved by how he knew (despite all the myths) that he didn't kill Gregorovitch, which also testifies that he wasn't that dark, Voldemort killed Gregorovitch without even getting the wand from him. In his research he must have found out what 'Master of Death' really meant, that he accepted death and that there were things much worse than death. Note some of his last words to Voldemort was that he "welcomed death" and implied he knew so much more than Voldemort. I think this indicates that Grindelwald knew what Invincible Master of Death trully meant.

Dumbledore said that both he and Grindelwald thought that once they had the three Hallows in their possession, they would become literally invincible. So Grindelwald did not interpret the legend in any sort of metaphorical sense. Why else would he have bothered to look for the Hallows? If he had truly understood what conquering death was all about, why would he have been so obsessed with these objects?

As for him welcoming death... I think he really did welcome it, because it would finally put him out of his misery. I mean, he didn't seem too happy in his cell in Nurmengard so death couldn't come fast enough, I'm sure.

Grindelwald went to extreme lengths to spread the 'greater good', from debating it with Dumbledore to carving it above Nurmengard. He seemed to genuinely believe it.

I don't buy any of that. He sought power and domination and cared only about satisfying his own sadistic urges. All the "greater good" ** was only ever meant to make him and his plans seem appealing to others.

This is hard to believe giving his own blood-status. He wasn't the driving force either, he had an intense hatred for muggles but not for half-bloods which entails muggle-blood in there. He cared for nothing but his own power, Grindelwald had a cause, a cause which he thought justified any means. What you also see with Grindelwald is the necessity to justify his actions with 'the greater good', he shows emotions near to remorse even during his reign of terror.

Hitler was part-Jew (if I'm not mistaken) and yet it didn't stop him from promoting hardcore antisemitism. There are a couple of rather telling passages in DH, where it is made clear that Voldemort views both Half-Bloods and Muggleborns as a disgrace. "Genuine" blood purity is what the only thing he truly values.

Grindelwald had a cause, a cause which he thought justified any means. What you also see with Grindelwald is the necessity to justify his actions with 'the greater good', he shows emotions near to remorse even during his reign of terror.

The "greater good" slogan served no other purpose than to make his plans seem justifiable in the eyes of others. He himself felt no need to justify his own perverted dreams but in order for his vision to catch he needed it to look desirable and fair.

Nurmengard is specifically called "the prison he built for his enemies". Why build a prison for your enemies if you were planning on mercilessly killing vast swathes of the wizarding and muggle world. It's possible that Nurmengard wasn't used much if he got carried away with his power, but Nurmengard's existence shows that genuinely didn't intend to kill when he didn't have to and that he probably believed in his cause.

Nurmengard was built for his enemies sure, but why he built it we don't know. Was it out of mercy or was it because he thought there was something to gain by not killing his enemies right on the spot? We don't know and the existence of the prison proves nothing.


I don't think anyone died, but it's said that his experiments became too dangerous even for Durmstrang. If he was a danger to his fellow students it's perfectly reasonable to expect he'd be expelled.


The experiments were never said to be dangerous but "twisted". What he was doing we'll never know, just as we can't know if there were any victims or not.

We can be almost certain he didn't unleash a Basilisk on his fellow students or create horcruxes.

First of all, we don't know if Riddle ever created any Horcruxes as a student. There's absolutely no evidence to support this.

Second, Grindelwald could have done something that was just as horrible as releasing a Basilisk. We can't know.

Right, I've been busy and I'll do my reply to the Grindelwald stuff later, but Tom Riddle KNEW how to make a horcrux before he asked Slughorn and he had already KILLED. He was interested in the possibility of making 6 horcruxes as he that was the one thing he COULD NOT read about, as we think no one had ever made more than a single horcrux.

Albus Dumbledore removed the books about horcruxes after Riddle and presumably when he became headmaster as they were in his office (that's where Hermione summoned them from), they didn't just mention horcruxes, they gave specific instruction on the creation, and destruction of a horcruxe. As we know Dumbledore was not headmaster when Riddle was at school. And you can't take what the young Riddle said about not understanding horcruxes as the truth. He was (according to Dumbeldore) probably the most brilliant student they'd ever had, and by then he had a fascination with the dark arts and he had killed his muggle relatives already. He knew what a horcruxe was and how to make one (and probably had made one). So he knew how and had already fulfilled the requirements to make one, and wanted to become immortal. It's a safe bet he had created a horcruxe.

How this relates to Grindelwald? You can speculate that Grindelwald killed, but have no evidence other than his 'twisted' experiments, could merely be torture by the Cruciatus curse or it could be inventing new dark spells, but as far as we know Grindelwald did not create a horcruxe at all and didn't release a basilisk on the muggle born students. The horcruxe is regarded as the darkest of magic, it is unlikely Grindelwald topped this at all, nevermind going on to split his soul a further 5 times after Riddle's first horcruxe. Riddle was undoubtedly darker despite probably not being much more skillfull.

The subject of Horcruxes was banned at Hogwarts during Riddle's time there and Slughorn said that one would be hard-pushed to find a book giving details about them. We can therefore conclude that it wasn't simply a matter of going to the library if one wanted to learn how to split the soul etc.

Dumbledore is said to have been particularly fierce about it, long before he even became Headmaster and it is reasonable to assume that he wasted no time in making sure that any book bearing information about Horcruxes was kept out of reach for students. He most likely stored these books in the office that he occupied at the time and naturally took them along upon relocating to the Head's Office. Once again, it's safe to assume (given the canonical evidence) that Riddle had no access to information about Horcruxes and was thus forced to ask Slughorn about them.

"Sir, I wondered what you know about... about Horcruxes?" [...] He [Harry] could tell that Riddle wanted the information very, very much;

"A horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul."
"I don't quite understand how that works though, sir," said Riddle. His voice was carefully controlled, but Harry could sense his excitement.

But Riddle's hunger was now apparent; his expression was greedy, he could no longer hide his longing. "How do you split your soul"
"Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature."
"But how do you do it?" [it's the second time he asks this, with notable urgency; he really wants to know]
"By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: he would encase the torn portion - "
"Encase? But how - [this is the fourth time he shows clear signs of incomprehension] "

Riddle's reaction to this very basic information about Horcruxes strongly indicates genuine curiosity and prior lack of knowledge. Nowhere in the canon is it even vaguely implied that he was faking ignorance here (on the contrary, it's pretty clear that he wasn't) and the only reasonable conclusion would be that he knew nothing about Horcruxes at the time of his conversation with Slughorn and it's almost just as unreasonable to assume that he learned how to make one during his remaining time at Hogwarts.

His initial aim was to find out what Horcruxes were and he began by asking Slughorn about them and how they're made, which proves his lack of knowledge regarding the process and the subject itself, at the time of their conversation. What ended up intriguing him the most, was, however, the idea of a seven-part soul.

You said in an earlier post that he had already made a Horcrux during his fifth year at Hogwarts, which is not true and I doubt that he made any Horcruxes at all as a student. There's not a shred of evidence to support such a conclusion.

The subject of Horcruxes was actually banned at Hogwarts during Riddle's time there and Slughorn said that one would be hard-pushed to find a book giving detailed information about them, which renders the possibility of Riddle learning about Horcruxes from a book rather unlikely

Plus, it is suggested that mutilation of the soul affects one's appearance and yet during his time at Hogwarts and even "Borgin and Burkes", Riddle remained just as handsome as ever.

I think it was repeated mutilation of the soul that affected one's appearance. Else it would be a pretty dead giveaway that you had made a horcrux.

As to whether Riddle made a horcrux when in school, the Riddle from the diary was said to have looked sixteen years old. He made it when he was in school.

The fact that Horcruxes were a banned subject at Hogwarts is irrelevant because Riddle managed to find out about it. Hermione hadn't even heard of the word when Harry asked her. IMO the book on horcruxes was present in the restricted section of the library and Riddle managed to find a way around its protection for unauthorized access.

I agree that he didn't seem to know about the process when he was talking about Slughorn. I think he had the basic idea that it split your soul and he wanted Slughorn's opinion on how multiple horcruxes would work.


I don't buy any of that. He sought power and domination and cared only about satisfying his own sadistic urges. All the "greater good" ** was only ever meant to make him and his plans seem appealing to others.

IMO he was misguided but he believed it to an extent. He had no reason to debate it with Dumbledore otherwise. Dumbledore here was not someone who could be fooled by propaganda talk. To me it sounds like an ambitious project that two extremely intelligent and talented boys decided to start.
I don't deny that he was power hungry and wanted domination but I think to some extent he believed he was helping people.
We can't really speculate on why he wanted to do this without knowing his background. Dumbledore's reasons are pretty obvious though.


Hitler was part-Jew (if I'm not mistaken) and yet it didn't stop him from promoting hardcore antisemitism. There are a couple of rather telling passages in DH, where it is made clear that Voldemort views both Half-Bloods and Muggleborns as a disgrace. "Genuine" blood purity is what the only thing he truly values.

Frankly, I don't think Voldemort cared one whit about blood purity. That was just his propaganda. The only thing Voldemort cared about was himself.


The "greater good" slogan served no other purpose than to make his plans seem justifiable in the eyes of others. He himself felt no need to justify his own perverted dreams but in order for his vision to catch he needed it to look desirable and fair.

I don't think we can comment on this without knowing his motives. As I mentioned above, I think he believed it to an extent. Power hungry individuals with selfish motives do not like to share power but it seems Grindelwald had no problems with Dumbledore sharing the spotlight with him.

I think it was repeated mutilation of the soul that affected one's appearance.

Given the evidence in the canon, I would assume that even the smallest degree of mutilation would somehow affect one's appearance.

As to whether Riddle made a horcrux when in school, the Riddle from the diary was said to have looked sixteen years old. He made it when he was in school.

There's more to it it than that and the canonical evidence if far from clear.

Diary-Riddle said that he had decided to leave behind his diary in hope that someone would find it and continue the work of Salazar Slytherin. Yet Riddle never left it behind, but took it with him after leaving Hogwarts and waited nearly three decades before giving it to Lucius Malfoy. This suggests that he never succeeded in making a Horcrux out of it while in school but rather at some point during his adult life. The fact that diary-Riddle is sixteen does not mean that Riddle turned the diary into a Horcrux at that age.

The fact that Horcruxes were a banned subject at Hogwarts is irrelevant because Riddle managed to find out about it. Hermione hadn't even heard of the word when Harry asked her. IMO the book on horcruxes was present in the restricted section of the library and Riddle managed to find a way around its protection for unauthorized access.

Hermione had never heard of the word prior to Harry's mention of it, that is true, but she did actually come across it in a book once she began researching the subject (the book did not give any details, however). It is, what I would call a proven fact, that Riddle did not know anything about Horcruxes at the time of his conversation with Slughorn. I presented the evidence for this in my previous post , yet you have provided me with nothing but groundless assumptions and several contradictions of the canon.

I agree that he didn't seem to know about the process when he was talking about Slughorn. I think he had the basic idea that it split your soul and he wanted Slughorn's opinion on how multiple horcruxes would work.

Could you please provide the evidence for this?

IMO he was misguided but he believed it to an extent. He had no reason to debate it with Dumbledore otherwise. Dumbledore here was not someone who could be fooled by propaganda talk. To me it sounds like an ambitious project that two extremely intelligent and talented boys decided to start.

I think Dumbledore was infatuated with Grindelwald and was simply deluding himself into thinking that Grindelwald was one of the good guys. Grindelwald on the other hand was trying to delude others with a lot of impressive talk about the greater good, imo (Dumbledore certainly fell for it). Dumbledore actually believed in Grindelwald's ideas and their friendship was very fortunate for Grindelwald (who had cleverly constructed a fake ideology in order to conceal his true intentions) because he finally had someone who could help him gain what he desired most - power. JMHO, of course.

I don't deny that he was power hungry and wanted domination but I think to some extent he believed he was helping people.

I think he was consciously trying to fool people into believing that he was helping them, when in fact he never cared for anyone but himself.

The only thing Voldemort cared about was himself.

The same goes for Grindelwald, imo. The only difference is that Grindelwald is said to have felt some remorse for his deeds.

it seems Grindelwald had no problems with Dumbledore sharing the spotlight with him.

I think he was using Dumbledore. Dumbledore was brilliant and truly dedicated to Grindelwald's fake cause and that was of course advantageous for Grindelwald. In the end though, I don't think Grindelwald would ever let anyone else share the spotlight. I think he would have gotten rid of Dumbledore once he was done with him.

Given the evidence in the canon, I would assume that even the smallest degree of mutilation would somehow affect one's appearance.

Please show me the evidence from canon for this.


There's more to it it than that and the canonical evidence if far from clear.

Diary-Riddle said that he had decided to leave behind his diary in hope that someone would find it and continue the work of Salazar Slytherin. Yet Riddle never left it behind, but took it with him after leaving Hogwarts and waited nearly three decades before giving it to Lucius Malfoy. This suggests that he never succeeded in making a Horcrux out of it while in school but rather at some point during his adult life. The fact that diary-Riddle is sixteen does not mean that Riddle turned the diary into a Horcrux at that age.

The Diary-Riddle told Harry what Riddle's plans had been at the time of the making of the horcrux. Evidently, Riddle changed his mind about leaving it behind. He probably decided it was better to strategically plant it at a later time. Not to mention that the horcrux was probably his only one at the time, so he wouldn't want to risk it being destroyed so soon. If Riddle had made the horcrux after leaving school, then Diary-Riddle would have known that it wasn't intended to be left behind in school.
The Diary-Riddle also says that it was present in the diary for 50 years. I don't see a reason for Diary-Riddle to appear as a sixteen year old person as well. IMO it makes sense for the soul to take the form of the body it was inhabiting at the time of creation.


Hermione had never heard of the word prior to Harry's mention of it, that is true, but she did actually come across it in a book once she began researching the subject (the book did not give any details, however). It is, what I would call a proven fact, that Riddle did not know anything about Horcruxes at the time of his conversation with Slughorn. I presented the evidence for this in my previous post , yet you have provided me with nothing but groundless assumptions and several contradictions of the canon.

Yet Riddle seemed to know that Horcruxes were a dangerous subject so much so that he carefully planned a meeting with Slughorn. Harry mentions that it seemed like the Riddle had been working for that moment for weeks. He also knew that it had something to do with immortality.

Also note that Slughorn said he would be "hard pushed" to find a book about Horcruxes at Hogwarts. Hard-pushed not impossible.

I also find it a stretch to believe that Riddle went from first hearing about horcruxes to asking Slughorn's opinion on making seven of them in a matter of minutes if not seconds.

The way I see the scene, Riddle knew that Horcruxes had something to do with immortality and splitting your soul prior to meeting with Slughorn. He knew what it was but not the process of how it was made. His purpose of the meeting was to get as much details on the process as possible and Slughorn's opinion on making multiple ones (specifically seven).


Could you please provide the evidence for this?

Dumbledore mentions to Harry that Riddle wanted specifically to get Slughorn's opinion on making multiple horcruxes right after they see the memory. He said that no book would have given him that information and that as far as Riddle was aware, no one had split his soul more than once.


I think Dumbledore was infatuated with Grindelwald and was simply deluding himself into thinking that Grindelwald was one of the good guys. Grindelwald on the other hand was trying to delude others with a lot of impressive talk about the greater good, imo (Dumbledore certainly fell for it). Dumbledore actually believed in Grindelwald's ideas and their friendship was very fortunate for Grindelwald (who had cleverly constructed a fake ideology in order to conceal his true intentions) because he finally had someone who could help him gain what he desired most - power. JMHO, of course.

I agree that Dumbledore was deluding himself to an extent. He seemed to know what Grindelwald was deep down. That said, it doesn't make sense for Grindelwald to spend so much time and effort with Dumbledore. Grindelwald would have realized pretty soon that Dumbledore was as talented and as intelligent as himself. He would have started seeing him as a rival soon.
Quotes from Bathilda and Dumbledore suggest that they became good friends and Grindelwald didn't see him as a rival.


I think he was consciously trying to fool people into believing that he was helping them, when in fact he never cared for anyone but himself.

While I don't agree with this, you may be right about this. I don't think we have enough information to take a call on either side.
People can do horrible things believing that they are doing right. In such a situation, it may even be possible that Dumbledore going along with Grindelwald may have solidified his belief that he was doing the right thing.


The same goes for Grindelwald, imo. The only difference is that Grindelwald is said to have felt some remorse for his deeds.

As I mentioned above, we don't have enough information in the case of Grindelwald. Everyone has some motivation or a reason for doing what they do however misguided it is.


I think he was using Dumbledore. Dumbledore was brilliant and truly dedicated to Grindelwald's fake cause and that was of course advantageous for Grindelwald. In the end though, I don't think Grindelwald would ever let anyone else share the spotlight. I think he would have gotten rid of Dumbledore once he was done with him.

I don't know where you come to the conclusion that Grindelwald had his cause concocted just for public acceptance. He had to have believed in it to a certain extent to have been able to sell the idea to Dumbledore.

When Grindelwald grabbed power, he never tried to take over Britain because Dumbledore was there. He was fully aware of just how good Dumbledore was. This knowledge would have come from his interactions with Dumbledore as a youngster. He would have been well aware as a kid just how good Dumbledore
was. The prudent action would have been to take out Dumbledore then and continue with his plans. Grindelwald hadn't come to find a partner for his plans, he had come to find out more about the Hallows.

IMO Grindelwald and Dumbledore became great friends and had a shared vision of a revolution. Power blinds and corrupts. Grindelwald may have eventually become blinded by power and decided that he had enough of Dumbledore, but I don't think it was his intention initially.

The Diary-Riddle told Harry what Riddle's plans had been at the time of the making of the horcrux. Evidently, Riddle changed his mind about leaving it behind.

The diary was originally intended to be left behind, because Riddle was absoluetly sure that he would figure out how to seal a part of his soul in it before graduation. Yet, in the end, he took it with him, which suggests, imo, that he never succeeded in turning it into a Horcrux. Nothing else makes sense to me. (This is, of course, speculation, given the lack of solid canonical evidence on this particular matter)

Not to mention that the horcrux was probably his only one at the time, so he wouldn't want to risk it being destroyed so soon.

Had he known how to make a Horcrux while still in school, he would have surely wasted no time in turning the ring into one as well. So, we can logically conclude that he most likely had two Horcruxes at the end of his seventh year and had therefore no reason to worry too much about the diary. This of course brings us right back to square one and that's one of the reasons why I don't accept your theory.

IMO it makes sense for the soul to take the form of the body it was inhabiting at the time of creation.


The piece of soul in a Horcrux can no doubt take whatever form it prefers or whatever form the creator of the Horcrux wants it to take (just look at Horcrux-Harry and Horcrux-Hermione, in DH).

Yet Riddle seemed to know that Horcruxes were a dangerous subject so much so that he carefully planned a meeting with Slughorn. Harry mentions that it seemed like the Riddle had been working for that moment for weeks. He also knew that it had something to do with immortality.

Harry wanted to know what Horcruxes were as well and he worked long and rather hard for that information, without knowing anything about them, except for the fact that they were the wickedest magical invention ever (according to a book Hermione found during her research). So there's no reason to assume that just because Riddle was thoroughly prepared (according to Harry, that is and just because the main hero of the books says or thinks something, doesn't mean that it should automatically be regarded as truth, btw) that he had any prior knowledge on the subject.

Also note that Slughorn said he would be "hard pushed" to find a book about Horcruxes at Hogwarts. Hard-pushed not impossible.

Semantics. No matter how one looks at it though, it clearly wasn't a simple matter of going to the library if one wanted to learn how to split the soul. Had it been that easy, then Riddle would have never gone to Slughorn in the first place. The very fact that he asked him about Horcruxes, pretty much proves that he had not been able to find the information elsewhere.

I also find it a stretch to believe that Riddle went from first hearing about horcruxes to asking Slughorn's opinion on making seven of them in a matter of minutes if not seconds.

I have no trouble believing this.

The way I see the scene, Riddle knew that Horcruxes had something to do with immortality and splitting your soul prior to meeting with Slughorn. He knew what it was but not the process of how it was made. His purpose of the meeting was to get as much details on the process as possible and Slughorn's opinion on making multiple ones (specifically seven).

1. This conversation took place in September (at the very earliest) of Riddle's sixth year.
2. You say he created his first Horcrux (the diary) as a sixteen-year-old.
3. He turned seventeen on December 31, which would have left him no more than four months, to find out how to make a Horcrux. First of all, where would he have found the information (clearny not at Hogwarts)? The creation of a Horcrux is a "grotesque process" according to Rowling, involvning several curses (no doubt highly advanced Dark Magic), so even if we assume (against all reason) that Riddle had all the necessary information at hand, how likely is it that he would have mastered the magical theory in a matter of months (I know I said the conversation took place in September, but I'm being pretty generous with the timeline here. It could have been October or November for all we know). And if he (through some sort of miracle) succeeded in turning the diary into a Horcrux, then why didn't he leave it behind as planned?

That said, it doesn't make sense for Grindelwald to spend so much time and effort with Dumbledore.


It makes a lot of sense, imo, becuase it would have been a huge advantage to have someonse as brilliant (and as devoted to the "cause") as Dumbledore.

Grindelwald would have realized pretty soon that Dumbledore was as talented and as intelligent as himself. He would have started seeing him as a rival soon.


Exactly. Grindlewald doesn't share power.

Quotes from Bathilda and Dumbledore suggest that they became good friends and Grindelwald didn't see him as a rival.

When Ariana died and Dumbledore was a wreck, Grindelwald left without ever looking back. What a friend.

People can do horrible things believing that they are doing right.

And there are always those who commit horrible deeds just to satisfy their own sadistic urges.

Everyone has some motivation or a reason for doing what they do however misguided it is.

Yes, I agree. Everyone does have some sort of motivation for their actions, whether it's genuine principles or just a power-hugry nature and perverted dreams or power.

He had to have believed in it to a certain extent to have been able to sell the idea to Dumbledore.

No, he didn't. He was just a good liar, imo.

The prudent action would have been to take out Dumbledore then and continue with his plans.

He needed Dumbledore.

IMO Grindelwald and Dumbledore became great friends and had a shared vision of a revolution. Power blinds and corrupts. Grindelwald may have eventually become blinded by power and decided that he had enough of Dumbledore, but I don't think it was his intention initially.

I don't see the evidence for supposing Grindelwald decided he had enough of Dumbledore. My impression was that he fled after the death of Ariana, fearing possible legal fallout and/or Albus's anger. The fight started when Aberforth objected to the time Albus was spending with Gellert, so at that point it would seem that Grindelwald still very much wanted to be spending time with Albus.

You say he created his first Horcrux (the diary) as a sixteen-year-old.

This discussion has nothing to do with Grindelwald. However, Riddle seems to confirm this himself. In CoS he tells Harry he placed his "16 year old self" into the diary. By "self" I would presume he means a piece of his soul, the piece that is draining Ginny and creating the Tom Harry is talking to.

Tom Riddle could have found out how to create a horcruxe. There was a book at Hogwarts about the 'ritual' needed to create one, it's the one where Hermione finds out how to destroy them. "Secrets of the Darkest Art", it's in the canon and it was at Hogwarts. I think it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that Tom Riddle had created AT LEAST one horcruxe while at school. I think the only reason he wouldn't is if he wanted to save it for a 'special killing' (Presumably Harry's death would have been the creation of his final horcruxe, although it sort of was anyway.)

My original point to all this was that Tom Riddle before becoming Voldemot was already more evil than Grindelwald ever had been. It seems almost certain Grindelwald never wanted or did make a horcruxe, and as only one book in Hogwarts seems to go into any detail about them, and the other that mentions them refers to them as the 'most evil' of magic. He'd already killed and planned his path to immortality and ultimate power, and created at least one horcruxe.

And I don't think Grindelwald would have cast Albus aside, Albus himself said of how they both dreamt of being 'Invincible Masters of Death' and 'Glorious young leaders of the Revolution'. The most important thing is that both of them saw themselves as joint participants. Grindelwald no doubt admired Albus. Gellert wasn't Voldemort, he knew how to love and had friendship, true friendship not Voldemort's servants seeking power. I think it would be wrong to assume Grindelwald like Riddle in his emotional side, I think he was willing to share power with those he considered worthy of his friendship (Dumbledore).

However, Riddle seems to confirm this himself. In CoS he tells Harry he placed his "16 year old self" into the diary.

This has already been mentioned several times and it doesn't prove or confirm anything. Riddle said that he had decided to leave his diary behind, but he ended up taking it with him, so something must have interfered with his plans. I've already given my thoughts on the matter, so I'm not gonna repeat myself.

Tom Riddle could have found out how to create a horcruxe. There was a book at Hogwarts about the 'ritual' needed to create one, it's the one where Hermione finds out how to destroy them. "Secrets of the Darkest Art", it's in the canon and it was at Hogwarts.

First of all, we don't know if the book you mention was available in the library. In fact, given the canonical evidence, it's reasonable to assume that it wasn't. It was most likely locked away somewhere out of reach for any student. As for Hermione summoning the book out of Dumbledore's office with a simple spell... Dumbledore was dead and whatever protective and anti-theft enchantments he most likely had placed upon his office had died with him.

Secondly, the very fact that Riddle asked Slughorn about Horcruxes, proves that he wasn't able to find the information anywhere else. I know what you might say, that Riddle was particularly interested to know what would happen to a person who split their in seven. Particularly, yes, but not solely (and not initially).

It seems almost certain Grindelwald never wanted or did make a horcruxe

How can anything be "almost certain" when there's no evidence to support it?

He'd already killed and planned his path to immortality and ultimate power

This is exactly what Grindelwald was doing at roughly the same age. It's also possible that he had killed someone as well, although we can't know for sure, due to lack of evidence. I'm actually inclined to believe that someone did die as a result of his "experiments". That seems to be only kind of thing that'll get you expelled from a school like Durmstrang.

Gellert wasn't Voldemort, he knew how to love and had friendship

This is speculation on your part. We don't know if Grindelwald ever loved anyone beside himself and it seems to me that a true friend wouldn't have left Dumbledore after Ariana's death. Grindelwald was selfish, imo and cared about nothing but personal gain. He became "friends" with Dumbledore only because the latter would no doubt prove to be useful and help him further his goals.

I think that if Grindelwald had been that coldhearted and selfish, he would have reacted differently right after Ariana´s death.
Remember Bathildas narrative: She said, that he came back to her house "all of a dither" (cit.) and that he was "terribly distressed" (cit.). Either he was distressed about the fact, that Albus`sister died due to the argument he, Aberforth and Albus had or he was distressed that Albus didn´t choose him or that partly his great plans had to be rearranged due to Albus`withdrawal, imo.
In my opinion he either way showed more "care" than Voldemort at the same age had ever been capable of.

And about Grindelwald`s time at Durmstrang:
Rita wrote that there had been only "near-fatal" attacks upon fellow students and no murder. If there had been any fatality during his schooldays, Rita would definitely have written so, imo.

First of all, we don't know if the book you mention was available in the library. In fact, given the canonical evidence, it's reasonable to assume that it wasn't. It was most likely locked away somewhere out of reach for any student. As for Hermione summoning the book out of Dumbledore's office with a simple spell... Dumbledore was dead and whatever protective and anti-theft enchantments he most likely had placed upon his office had died with him.

It says Dumbledore moved them, I think it's meant that Dumbledore had moved them after Riddle so no other student would find them. Considering there are many other books of dark magic available in the library I'd say something triggered him to remove the only book on Horcruxes, I think that something was him suspecting Riddle. And we don't know if Dumbledore placed any magical protection around the books, I think it's perfectly acceptable to assume Riddle knew about horcruxes, what they were and roughly what he needed to do to create one.

Secondly, the very fact that Riddle asked Slughorn about Horcruxes, proves that he wasn't able to find the information anywhere else. I know what you might say, that Riddle was particularly interested to know what would happen to a person who split their in seven. Particularly, yes, but not solely (and not initially).

Dumbledore specifically points out that he wanted to know about the soul divided into 7 because he couldn't find out about that anywhere else, implying there was a way Riddle could have found the rest out. I'm almost certain Riddle knew what a horcruxe was. He wasn't likely to go up to Slughorn "Hi professor, I've been looking into making horcruxes and I've found out about how to make them and all that, but I just can't figure out if having 6 horcruxes would be worth it or not, any ideas?". Riddle was manipulative, he didn't want Slughorn to think he knew what he was talking about.



How can anything be "almost certain" when there's no evidence to support it?

He was interested in the Hallows like Dumbledore, that's how he wanted to get power. And it's not mentioned that he did, the fact he chose what is viewed as an alternate means of immortality (even though it isn't, and it's possible he knew that given he'd researched the Hallows a lot) and it isn't said he created one. There's also no mention of Dumbledore having experience with Horcruxes before, he'd have probably been the one to destroy Gellert's. Grindelwald was obsessed with two things; his mission to overthrow the statute of secrecy and the Deathly Hallows, I don't think he ever cared about horcruxes.



This is exactly what Grindelwald was doing at roughly the same age. It's also possible that he had killed someone as well, although we can't know for sure, due to lack of evidence. I'm actually inclined to believe that someone did die as a result of his "experiments". That seems to be only kind of thing that'll get you expelled from a school like Durmstrang.

I think seriously endangering the life of students would be enough to get someone expelled, even from Durmstrang. And I've read somewhere (can't remember where) that they endangered lives but was expelled before anyone died. Obviously as I can't remember the source it's not perfect, but it's never mentioned he killed anyone, it'd probably state that he was expelled for fatal experiments if a student had died in them.



This is speculation on your part. We don't know if Grindelwald ever loved anyone beside himself and it seems to me that a true friend wouldn't have left Dumbledore after Ariana's death. Grindelwald was selfish, imo and cared about nothing but personal gain. He became "friends" with Dumbledore only because the latter would no doubt prove to be useful and help him further his goals.

I think it's quite clear Grindelwald and Dumbledore were genuine friends until Ariana's death, or maybe even when Grindelwald turned on Aberforth before Ariana died. You seem to view Grindelwald as the same as Voldemort in how he sees others, there's no evidence for this, there's more evidence that he genuinely cared for Dumbledore, not every dark wizard is like Lord Voldemort. Grindelwald fled as he feared the consequences of being associated with the death and probably feared Albus' wrath. I think it's fairly clear Grindelwald and Dumbledore were friends, even if the friendship was inspired by Grindelwald seeing him as a great help in finding the Hallows, it was a real friendship.

Can we move all discussion regarding horcruxes from now on to the various Horcrux threads we have especially since Grindelwald has no canon relationship with horcruxes. Please keep this thread about Grindelwald's character.

We also have a lovely thread about Grindelwald and Dumbledore together called:

Grindelwald and Dumbledore: Joint Character Analysis (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108005)

Please use it when discussing their interaction :)

What did you think of him?

Very interesting character. It's a shame Rowling did not relieve as much as I would like to fully analyze him. I hope the Encyclopedia that she is planning to write will discuss him in more detail. I would like to know more about his earlier life and childhood.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?

I think they were both young and ambitious and wanted to achieve and create a whole new world together. Their friendship ended when Grindelwald killed Dumbledore's sister and of course Dumbledore felt regret for being blinded by him and not seeing his true nature.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?

Frankly I always saw that as an rationalized excuse to make it seem that what they were trying to achieve was not so bad.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

In some ways yes. I think he finally understood the dangers of the wand and even Dumbledore believed that he felt remorse during his later years. But mostly no because we still have to remember that he murdered countless wizards and witches while using the "greater good" as an excuse. To me, that noble act in the end was too small in comparison to the crimes he committed to actually fully redeem him.

What did you think of him?

We don't know a huge amount about him. We don't really know what he was like at his prime in comparison to Voldemort

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?

It makes sense. Dumbledore and Grindelwald were similar. They were both intelligent, young men who were lonely (well Dumbledore was anyway). They bonded because of that.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?

Maybe its just matter of opinion.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

Redemption is an important theme in the books and i think it was noble of Grindelwald to not betray the wands whereabouts. Severus Snape redeemed himself and that was essential for the downfall of Voldemort. I think Grindelwald has redeemed him to a certain extent

What did you think of him?

I love the contrast between him and Voldemort. I think he really believed what he was doing was for the wider wizarding world even if they didnt see it at the time. Voldy may have used all these excuses about the pure bloods recovering what was rightfully theirs etc but at the centre of his regime, Voldemort just wanted ultimate and undying power. Completely selfish and with no love what so ever. Gellert may have commited hideous things but he had a heart, he could love and he truly felt remorse imo.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?

It was nice to see a vulnerable side of DD, and to know that even the greatest wizard of all time had a grey area and some form of weakness. I felt for DD in that his first love, which would have been confusing for him what with his sexuality being a straight guy using him for his power etc. It must have been heart breaking to want someone your so close to and knowing it'll never happen. Especially if that person knows it and uses it to their advantage. I do hope that their friendship was genuine though and that even though Grindelwald didnt romantically feel for DD that he cared for him as a good friend. I have my faith though as he tried to prevent Voldy breaking into his grave and stealing the Elder wand and therefore gaining the upper hand on the person Grindelwald was bound to know DD cared massively for, Harry.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?

In some ways it makes their idealism ''better'' than Voldemorts plans. I think DD and GG's ideals, they believed, were for the wizarding world at large and they'd only use force that was required. I doubt that torture and reckless acts of murder were in their plans. The main difference i think between DD and GG is that he became obsessed with these plans and his ideas of necessary force got obscured which lead to him commiting terrible war crimes. DD could see this side of GG when he attacked Aberforth which caused their parting and for DD to see how wrong he was to get involved in such plans.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

I think he will always be held accountable for what he did, but he definitely proved that he showed regret and remorse in his later life. I think if you compare his and voldemorts afterlives Grindelwald would have gone on with a much healthier soul than Voldy did who probably remains in agony forever more.

What did you think of him?
I thought he was an interesting character. Not your usual villain and certainly not as cold-hearted and ruthless as Voldemort. Maybe that made him all the more dangerous. I don't think Grindelwald ever underestimated those fighting against him and he certainly knew and valued the power of love, his friendship with Dumbledore meant a lot to him and he was probably devastated when he realised that Dumbledore had turned against him. I believe that he thought he was making the world a better place and he certainly thought that it was justifiable to do so by any and every means, hence also with the help of the Dark Arts. I believe that every brilliant wizard feels a certain tug in the direction of the Dark Arts at some point simply because they are a fascinating branch of magic. Grindelwald possibly just got in too deep and then couldn't find his way back out.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
They were two brilliant, cunning and clever wizards when they met and naturally they became friends. Dumbledore didn't have anyone to match his abilities in Godric's Hollow and thus it is quite understandable and natural that he enjoyed spending time with Grindelwald. I don't think we should hold that against either one of them. They probably never imagined that their ideas and dreams would ever take shape, that they would ever become more than a fantasy.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?
Well, this is a tough question. Dumbledore and Grindelwald certainly didn't grasp the magnitude of their concept, they didn't understand how ambiguous their slogan was (or at least Dumbledore didn't). Many totalitarian regimes murder, torture and control their inferiors claiming to be doing so for the greater good.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?
In a way it did, yes. I believe he realised where he had gone wrong and was determined not to support anyone ever going down that path again. He was clever enough to realise that Voldemort would learn about the wand's whereabouts eventually even without him revealing them. What he did, he did out of principle and because it was the noble thing to do.

I think if you compare his and voldemorts afterlives Grindelwald would have gone on with a much healthier soul than Voldy did who probably remains in agony forever more.Yes, I definitely agree, especially given that Grindelwald never made any horcruxes (that I'm aware of). So his soul, even if it was damaged from any atrocities he committed during the war, was never split up or physically separated the way Voldemort's was.

I actually think Grindelwald was a character with more depth to him than Voldemort, who seems a little stereotypical to me in just wanting power and immortality. Maybe it's because Grindelwald had more humanity than Voldemort, who slowly lost his through the creation of the horcruxes. Unlike Voldemort, it seems Grindelwald had the ability to love, or at least to form friendships. And he did the right thing in the end, showing that he had the capacity for remorse. In fact, I had half expected him to join Voldemort's forces, but instead he set himself against Voldemort. I have to admire him for that at least.

Am I right that Grindelwald was out for wizard supremacy but Voldemort was out for pure-blood supremacy? Giving their followers a slightly different ideology at any rate? I was wondering what Grindelwald was really after. If pure-blood supremacy then Albus as a half-blood would have been outside that and I doubt he'd have supported Grindelwald at all. I think Grindelwald wanted wizard domination (with himself at the top of the heap) while Albus thought that the world would be a safer place with wizards at the helm (obviously himself and Grindelwald).

With 50+ years in prison Grindelwald had plenty of time to rethink his life and seemed to have felt some remorse for what he had done. Whether he was defending Albus and his tomb by refusing to tell Voldemort where the wand was or whether he was trying to stop Voldemort's plans for domination it's hard to tell. Jealousy that Voldemort appeared to be achieving what he had failed to do? Or final realisation that what he had tried to do had been wrong?

I think Grindelwald wanted wizard domination (with himself at the top of the heap) while Albus thought that the world would be a safer place with wizards at the helm (obviously himself and Grindelwald).

Grindelwald was quite aware of how exceptionally talented he was and thus probably believed he would be a worthy and good leader. He was power-hungry and later got too deep into the Dark Arts but I think during his teenage years he was still a visionary with a good heart and just a few twisted views and misconceptions. And I agree that Dumbledore possibly had better intentions than Grindelwald.

Jealousy that Voldemort appeared to be achieving what he had failed to do?

The question is how well Grindelwald knew Voldemort seeing as he had been imprisoned for a long time when Voldemort came to see him. I'm sure Grindelwald instantly detected that Voldemort was unusually skillful and had great knowledge of various aspects of magic (he for instance knew about the Elder Wand). But I'm not quite sure whether Grindelwald knew enough about Voldemort to be truly jealous. For example, Grindelwald probably wasn't aware that Voldemort had taken over the Ministry of Magic.

Grindelwald was quite aware of how exceptionally talented he was and thus probably believed he would be a worthy and good leader. He was power-hungry and later got too deep into the Dark Arts but I think during his teenage years he was still a visionary with a good heart and just a few twisted views and misconceptions.
He was expelled from Durmstrang (which taught the Dark Arts) which means IMO that whatever he had been experimenting with there had been pretty dire. This was just before he met Albus so I think he must have already been deep into the Dark Arts. That doesn't speak well for his being a good-hearted visionary IMO, although I'm sure he got worse as his power and domination increased.

He was expelled from Durmstrang (which taught the Dark Arts) which means IMO that whatever he had been experimenting with there had been pretty dire. This was just before he met Albus so I think he must have already been deep into the Dark Arts. That doesn't speak well for his being a good-hearted visionary IMO, although I'm sure he got worse as his power and domination increased.

Well, I believe he still had some good left in his heart because he befriended and cared deeply for Albus. In that respect he certainly differs greatly from Tom Riddle who neither knew of friendship and love nor felt the need to. And in my opinion he was a visionary. He did want to change the world, change it according to his vision which also sets him apart from Tom Riddle who I believe was never a great visionary. He sought only power and control and lacked dreams except for wanting to be immortal. At least Grindelwald thought the wizarding community could benefit from his plans and his rise to power.

J K Rowling said in an interview somewhere that Dumbledore was in love with Grindlewald, did she ever mention whether it was an one sided thing or not?

What did you think of him?

As others in this thread have said, Grindelwald made an excellent contrast to Voldemort. Through Grindelwald's character, Rowling depicts the grey area of humanity in comparison to the jet black area. Though Grindelwald's ideals were similar at one point to Voldemort's, and his actions were no less despicable, his ability to love and feel remorse show that he still remains human despite his flaws. Whereas Voldemort is an unrealistic but very accurate representation of the worst possible human being, Grindelwald is a character who has the potential of showing up in the real world.

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?

It was evident that both of these rather bright wizards had never truly met an equal. And when they finally came face to face, it must have been exciting for both of them. I do believe that Grindelwald felt affection for Dumbledore as a friend, though I think it is rather obvious that Grindelwald took advantage of Dumbledore's romantic feelings.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?

The concept of the "greater good" was initially that the Statute of Secrecy would be removed, and wizards would be free to do as they pleased. They would no longer have to remain cautious, or hide from the world as though they did not exist. It sounded as though it was a very liberating movement, but most ideologies grow corrupt as they start being enacted. This ideology of Grindelwald's certainly sounded appealing to those who had perhaps been wronged by Muggles (Dumbledore), but Grindelwald only used this as a cover. As was mentioned by previous posters, Grindelwald was already practicing Dark Magic, and no doubt intended to use it to bring the world to its knees. Perhaps he would have liberated the wizarding world, I don't know, but I know for certain that he was power-hungry, and no matter how misleading, his ideology was merely masking his plan for world domination.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

Though this act was small and did not necessarily prevent the inevitable (Voldemort breaking into Dumbledore's tomb), I would say that it was definitely a step towards redemption.

What did you think of him?
When I first heard of him, I thought he was just another evil wizard like Voldemort. I still think he is evil in that he'd go so far (murdering people and everything) to achieve his goal of taking over Muggles. But I also think he was pretty powerful, and intelligent, and maybe charismatic like Voldemort had been. What I was most surprised about was that he had apparenlty been alive the whole time (I wish that'd been mentioned before, I really had thought that when Dumbledore defeated him, he'd killed him).

What did you make to his and Dumbledore's blossoming friendship?
I think their friendship was very real because it seems that they both found someone who was their equal and shared the same thoughts/idealogy. Even though they knew each other for only two months or so, I think they got somewhat close. But I think that Gellert's goals were more important to him than his friendship with Dumbledore because Arianna's death caused him to flee, rather than think of what Dumbledore would be going through.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?
He really seemed to think that it really was for the Greater Good which implies that maybe he wasn't being all that selfish, like Voldemort was. He thought his plans would take the wizards out of hiding, and he thought he was doing something that would be beneficial and productive, so I think he had a point. In fact, sometimes I'm surprised that the wizarding population doesn't hold ill feelings towards the Muggles who once tired to persecute them and forced them into hiding and caused them to put up all these safety measures that otherwise wouldn't be there.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him? I think it did redeem him, I think it showed he may have realized the errors of his way and also that he cared for Dumbledore and didn't want his grave disturbed. If Gellert really hadn't changed and wanted to achieve power of Muggles/bring wizards out of hiding, he might have seen Voldemort as someone who would do that for him (although at the same time, he may have wanted himself to be powerful, not Voldemort).

Dumbledore defeated Gridelwald in the 1940s. That's around the same time as World War II. Do you think both are related or is it coincidence?

What did you think of him?

I think he was a person with a goal that wasn't the best for everyone but, in fact, not as bad as the things Voldemort did or planned to do. Even though we get to know that he went to Durmstrang (which is, as far as we know, not open towards muggle-born students), it has never been stated that he really cared about blood purity. His main problem was that wizards and witches had to hide instead of openly using their magic to live and stand above the muggles.

For the greater good - did they have a point (albeit not going about the right way)?

Grindelwald had a problem with the fact that wizards and witches had to hide their power instead of using it. Having to stand in the shadow of a population of less powerful people is something a lot of people may accept because "things are just better that way". Being "oppressed" in some way. Of course Grindelwald was ruthless if it comes to his goal, but I think the whole "For the greater good"-motto had a point.

Did the fact he was prepared to die rather than betray the wand's whereabouts redeem him?

Maybe. I think he also realised that he wouldn't ever live a "normal" life again and dying instead of telling Voldemort what he wanted to know was just an opportunity to let everything end earlier.