"The Dark Lord will rise again...greater & more terrible" Was he really?

rainie_hp
August 12th, 2007, 2:28 am
The prophecy stated:


It will happen tonight. The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. His servant has been chained these 12 years. Tonight, before midnight... the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than he ever was. Tonight... before midnight... the servant... will set out... to rejoin... his master...

Now we know that the prophecy came true...but what I always question myself is that was he really that terrible? I mean he lasted for like...3 years. But was he really that greater and terrible than he ever was? I didn't particularly get the feeling, what about you guys? Or was the prophecy just stating that he had tendencies/potential to become more terrible?

wizard2423
August 12th, 2007, 2:48 am
I think because of the fact he was able to take control of the Ministry, Hogwarts, and basically run the country he was worse than the last time. Dumbledore never would have imagined him taking Hogwarts, although if you think about it he really didn't because Snape was headmaster and he was good...but in essensce he did have the school......i guess

snapegirl
August 12th, 2007, 2:50 am
We can't be totally certain of what Voldemort did during his first stint as Dark Lord. However, it's pretty certain that he didn't control Hogwarts or the Ministry. He didn't order a succesful attempt on Dumbledore's life either. (Regardless of why Snape killed Dumbledore, I got the feeling Voldemort never actively tried to get rid of him the first time.)
So I think Voldemort was more terrible and stronger this time around. Even if he only lasted three years, in those years he acomplished things he didn't or couldn't do before.

Wisp
August 12th, 2007, 2:51 am
I agree. His attack on the wizarding world was more swift and powerful.

nekurasunshine
August 12th, 2007, 3:34 am
He didn't really seem as scary as we see him in during his last attempt for power... like in Godric's Hollow, although that was from the view of a one-year-old. Having said that, last time he didn't have control of the ministry, and make everyone's life a living hell.

sardonyx
August 12th, 2007, 3:59 am
Voldemort is probably the element in the series that required the greatest "willing forfiture of disbelief" from me. I just never believed him as a villain. He always seemed like Don John in Much Ado About Nothing, he has absolutely no motive, he's a made-up cardboard villain, he's just there to give the rest of the characters something to do.

And as far as being some sort of irrational, super evil.....eh...weak...we're constantly told how evil he is but somehow...he's a sort of comic-book spook....and he falls short of being a metaphorical evil (like Sauron in LOTR). He should either be a real guy gone bad, with a real understandable motive or a symbol....he's written somewhere between those two with the weakest elements of both....and he just doesn't work for me.

So the answer is no....he didn't come back worse than before...because it's hard to know how bad he is in either occurance...

LudwigVan
August 12th, 2007, 4:03 am
I think because of the fact he was able to take control of the Ministry, Hogwarts, and basically run the country he was worse than the last time. Dumbledore never would have imagined him taking Hogwarts, although if you think about it he really didn't because Snape was headmaster and he was good...but in essensce he did have the school......i guess

Totally agree, he accomplished more than when he rised for the first time. He corrupted the entire ministry and the school. Also the hatred for muggles and muggle borns increased

wizard2423
August 12th, 2007, 4:07 am
How could you say he was a "cardboard character"? No motive? His motive was that he grew up without love and it turned him against the world....al he needed was a hug.

GoldSeven
August 12th, 2007, 7:05 am
How could you say he was a "cardboard character"? No motive? His motive was that he grew up without love and it turned him against the world....al he needed was a hug.

That sums up why I agree with Sardonyx ;) I never liked Voldemort as a villain either. I think that, while all the rest of JKR's cast became more complex and more human, with a lot of motives and feelings and backstories, Voldemort always remained the storybook villain he was in book one. He worked really well as a storybook villain in book one (and I think he had his spookiest moment in book one, when he peeped out of Quirrel's head!) But as the story "grew up" and became more complex, Voldemort didn't, for me. He got a backstory, but that never really convinced me, remaining rather flat in a very vivid cast.

In another thread, a week or so ago, we discussed Voldemort's similarities and differences to Richard III in Shakespeare. I think that is the problem - in literature, you distinguish between flat and dynamic characters, and Voldemort was never dynamic. As I said - that works well with a certain type of stories, but not if he's the only flat one in a dynamic cast. He wasn't human enough to be believable - but not demonic enough to be the remote, ultimate terror he might have been for the whole thing to work.

But that's a minor thing for me, really, don't get me wrong - I read those books for the heroes, not for the villain. ;)

Magi
August 12th, 2007, 7:08 am
Voldemort actually did take over the whole wizard world (in Britain, at least) the second time around.

He probably didn't have that much control in his first reign.

bulldog7_23
August 12th, 2007, 8:03 am
That sums up why I agree with Sardonyx ;) I never liked Voldemort as a villain either. I think that, while all the rest of JKR's cast became more complex and more human, with a lot of motives and feelings and backstories, Voldemort always remained the storybook villain he was in book one. He worked really well as a storybook villain in book one (and I think he had his spookiest moment in book one, when he peeped out of Quirrel's head!) But as the story "grew up" and became more complex, Voldemort didn't, for me. He got a backstory, but that never really convinced me, remaining rather flat in a very vivid cast.

In another thread, a week or so ago, we discussed Voldemort's similarities and differences to Richard III in Shakespeare. I think that is the problem - in literature, you distinguish between flat and dynamic characters, and Voldemort was never dynamic. As I said - that works well with a certain type of stories, but not if he's the only flat one in a dynamic cast. He wasn't human enough to be believable - but not demonic enough to be the remote, ultimate terror he might have been for the whole thing to work.

But that's a minor thing for me, really, don't get me wrong - I read those books for the heroes, not for the villain. ;)

I agree, to a point. Voldemort is definitively a static character throughout the series, yes. His growth and complexities are never visible, although, partly because he, himself, is barely visible. So, of course, his lack of presence has somewhat to do with that. His identity and the threat he symbolizes is omnipresent in the series, but him, not so much. That certainly leads to the reader never being able to judge or witness any growth, as a character. However, I believe some of this may have been intentional on JKR's part. If one looks at Voldemort through the context of the story, his lack of development makes more sense. JKR uses Voldemort as an example of what occurs if someone falls so far into evil. I think she uses Voldemort to make a statement about how, once one is decidedly evil, growth and development, on a personal standpoint, is impossible. She is saying that once one reaches the epitome of absolute evil, what Voldemort represents, than the individual becomes static, can't possibly progress as a person. I think she tried to make Voldemort so evil that he lost his human elements. Unfortunately, because of this attempt at creating an absolute evil, Voldemort loses the realistic qualities all of JKR's other characters possess. He becomes a creature not human enough to be afforded sympathy by the reader but not demonic enough to be the absolute terror he was intended to represent, either. However, just as you said, I read the books for the protagonists and the plot, not so much for the villain.

Prince_Snape
August 12th, 2007, 9:10 am
I wonder how much of a dunderhead he was during his first reign of terror then if his second reign is supposed to be more terrible. I agree with Voldemort being carboard and cartoonish, I actually don't really see him as much of a character, more like an emboiment of evil in human (er humaniod) form which I think is what the poster above me said, ohwell. He simple isn't believable, it was like he was born evil, which I'm pretty sure Dumbledore said it wasn't possible for some one to be born evil, there was no gradual or even sudden turning point he was evil from the beggining. Also he was made out to be extremely stupid and careless which makes it extremely hard to think he could be the greatest evil wizard of all time, and no you can't explain it with arrogance, James Potter was arrogant! Voldemort simply has a stupidness worthy of a scooby doo villain, I was really hoping for a bit of substance in his character for this last book, I was sadly dissapointed.

criostoir
August 12th, 2007, 9:35 am
Now we know that the prophecy came true...but what I always question myself is that was he really that terrible? I mean he lasted for like...3 years. But was he really that greater and terrible than he ever was? I didn't particularly get the feeling, what about you guys? Or was the prophecy just stating that he had tendencies/potential to become more terrible?

He was greater and more terrible, perhaps, because he could now touch Harry without turning into "The Mummy"?

GoldSeven
August 12th, 2007, 9:44 am
I agree, to a point. Voldemort is definitively a static character ...


Aaaah, thanks - "static" was the term I was looking for as the opposite of a dynamic character. My elementary literary theory course was sooo long ago. :lol:

Dragonious
August 12th, 2007, 9:59 am
I think that he was much more terrible than he was before. Obvious there is no way of knowing unless JK writes prologue with what happen before Harry's time. But this time Voldemort was more clued up than last time and like someone said before me, he was in effect in control of the whole country. Minus a few rebels :-D

I think that he learnt some really scare powers in the time that it took him to come to full power. Like for example,
- Flight: He was able to fly without the aid of a broomstick
- MoM : He had the Ministry of Magic in his pocket
- Hogwarts: He had Hogwarts in his pocket
- His Name: "Voldemort" as a name was tabooed
- Albus : Albus Dumbledore was dead so in effect the one person that Voldemort fear most was out of his way

7Moony7
August 12th, 2007, 11:53 am
I think one is only great and terrible if one believes himself to be. Voldemort, the first time, was rising to power, and when he found out about the prophecy it was almost like... he was threatened and so, he didnt believe himself to be the ultimate greatest and most terrible. This time round though, in Voldemort's head, he imagined himself to be the greatest and most terrible, since he had conquered all the things that had stopped him (getting Harry's blood and changing wands). I think thats why he was more terrible - in the sense that he believed himself to be unthreatened. Also, I think its because this time round he was just 'coming back' not 'rising to power' as he was before... It had already been proved he could be that powerful and his reputation was already made, which invoked more fear in his hearts. 'Terrible' means to inspire terror and voldemort's reputation this time round had long time to brew.

hgrwfan
August 12th, 2007, 12:40 pm
Voldemort is probably the element in the series that required the greatest "willing forfiture of disbelief" from me. I just never believed him as a villain. He always seemed like Don John in Much Ado About Nothing, he has absolutely no motive, he's a made-up cardboard villain, he's just there to give the rest of the characters something to do.

And as far as being some sort of irrational, super evil.....eh...weak...we're constantly told how evil he is but somehow...he's a sort of comic-book spook....and he falls short of being a metaphorical evil (like Sauron in LOTR). He should either be a real guy gone bad, with a real understandable motive or a symbol....he's written somewhere between those two with the weakest elements of both....and he just doesn't work for me.

So the answer is no....he didn't come back worse than before...because it's hard to know how bad he is in either occurance...

I can see how it seems that way but I just keep thinking that this book is told from Harry's perspective. We all know that Harry sometimes has a slighted view of things. He gets an idea and runs with it. He has gotten better with giving things thought before acting on them, mostly due to Hermione. My point is that I agree that what drives Voldemort to be what he is weak but we are told the story from Harry's perspective. Most times Harry operated without having all the facts. The reason it seems like he is a comic book villian is because it is told through Harry's eyes. That is the information that Harry has. It is not terribly complexed because Harry's understanding of Voldemort is not complexed. He thinks Voldemort is evil for no good reason and so he is.

But also, when we think of serial killers that we hear about on t.v. a lot of times the killings always seem senseless to us, because we can't fathom ever doing anything like that. I mean its like okay mommy was mean to me and I was abused growing up so yeah now I am gonna abuse someone else. Isn't that a weak reason for hurting someone. It is to me because you could have chosen to help someone not go through what you did. Or you could have gotten yourself some councelling to work that out. Not saying that always works but hey maybe it could help. Voldemort's reasons for killing all those people is senseless but still a valid reason for him. Not to me or you, but it is to him. He wants power and there is his motive. He wanted to be respected and feared above all is what drives him. And definitely killing Harry has been one of his greatest desires. Yeah it is a weak motive, but my point is aren't there killings that are senseless?

YellowRose
August 12th, 2007, 1:05 pm
The prophecy stated:


Quote:
It will happen tonight. The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. His servant has been chained these 12 years. Tonight, before midnight... the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than he ever was. Tonight... before midnight... the servant... will set out... to rejoin... his master...

Now we know that the prophecy came true...but what I always question myself is that was he really that terrible? I mean he lasted for like...3 years. But was he really that greater and terrible than he ever was? I didn't particularly get the feeling, what about you guys? Or was the prophecy just stating that he had tendencies/potential to become more terrible?

Well, they had to give him some build up, otherwise what would have been the point of the series? 'Yes, he'll come back and the whole elder wand/love thing will go competely over his head, so you're OK to go Harry'. :)

I think they pointed it out very well in Potter Watch, people's fear of him made him seem much more terrible than he actually was.

Voldemorts8thHorcrux
August 12th, 2007, 4:07 pm
Last time, he didn't have complete control over the Ministry and Hogwarts, I would say greater and more powerful than before, but this time, the person to stop him stopped him earlier this time

d4rk_magician
August 12th, 2007, 4:18 pm
He definately did. He managed to achieve in little time what had taken him years to accomplish in his last rise to power. But this time he survived less time because Harry was bigger and stronger. And Dumbledore found out a way to kill him, found out he had made horcruxes...

lorna
August 12th, 2007, 4:21 pm
Voldemort is probably the element in the series that required the greatest "willing forfiture of disbelief" from me. I just never believed him as a villain. He always seemed like Don John in Much Ado About Nothing, he has absolutely no motive, he's a made-up cardboard villain, he's just there to give the rest of the characters something to do.

And as far as being some sort of irrational, super evil.....eh...weak...we're constantly told how evil he is but somehow...he's a sort of comic-book spook....and he falls short of being a metaphorical evil (like Sauron in LOTR). He should either be a real guy gone bad, with a real understandable motive or a symbol....he's written somewhere between those two with the weakest elements of both....and he just doesn't work for me.

So the answer is no....he didn't come back worse than before...because it's hard to know how bad he is in either occurance...


This sums up how I felt about Voldemort throughtout the series...ie..flat. His backstory read like DSM IV of personality disorders..how to make a sociopath and he never stopped talking. Don't yak at Harry about how great it will be to kill him...make the attempt already.

Storywise Voldemort did what he supposed to ( I love the comment about him being there to give the other characters something to do) but he never lept off the page in his own right.

PDumbledore
August 12th, 2007, 7:44 pm
The prophecy stated:



Now we know that the prophecy came true...but what I always question myself is that was he really that terrible? I mean he lasted for like...3 years. But was he really that greater and terrible than he ever was? I didn't particularly get the feeling, what about you guys? Or was the prophecy just stating that he had tendencies/potential to become more terrible?

LV was going all out this time.

teddysgirl
August 12th, 2007, 7:49 pm
i would say that voldermort was greater and more powerful than before, as he managed to do amazing amounts of work towards his takeover, in just three years of full bodily power, and that this time there was just somebody better than him who was willing to stand up and fight, whereas the order of the phoenix had never been able to achieve this before without harry.

sarahlvinpotter
August 12th, 2007, 7:51 pm
Gained more control than ever, actually had a detaild plan to get rid of DD and was obsessed to get rid of harry so was more ruthless.

lushesx3
August 12th, 2007, 7:58 pm
I guess he was greater and more terrible because he gained more control in a shorter time period...annnnnnnd He could fly without a broom! LOL.

I think he would've been a much more interesting character if he didn't have such a cliche backstory. He did scare me a bit in Book 7, but Bellatrix Lestrange scared me more.

KOTMods
August 12th, 2007, 8:01 pm
I think he probably was worse than he was before. Because imagine, he was really really mad now, he wants revenge. Also, he's managed to take over the Ministry of Magic, take over Hogwarts and get the Dementors on side. He's got alot more people with him now, so yes, I think he's more terrible.

lorna
August 12th, 2007, 8:28 pm
I guess he was greater and more terrible because he gained more control in a shorter time period...annnnnnnd He could fly without a broom! LOL.

I think he would've been a much more interesting character if he didn't have such a cliche backstory. He did scare me a bit in Book 7, but Bellatrix Lestrange scared me more.


The flying would have been more impressive if Snape hadn't been able to do that as well.

And that's the thing...there were characters who were scary than Voldemort...even DD during DH....had a bite to him that Voldemort lacked.

The worst scene of him for me, was the opening chapter of DH when he feeds poor Burbage to his snake.

I guess the scariest thing about Voldemort was he couldn't be killed...which is why I suppose his death eaters hadn't taken him out. He didn't treat them a heck of alot better than his opponents.

Ginny1984
August 12th, 2007, 9:47 pm
I think that he was greater and more terrible because he just completely lost the plot. His whole come-back seemed to focus around Harry. Maybe if he had concentrated on taking over the world then things wouldn't have been put right so easily.
It was like he was obsessed, and therefore could not concentrate properly on other things, therefore making him more dangerous than before.

NRHP
August 12th, 2007, 10:05 pm
The first time around LV didn't manage to seize power and install hist muggleborn-suppressant regime. And what is more scary than your own government turning on you...

Ginny1984
August 12th, 2007, 10:07 pm
The first time around LV didn't manage to seize power and install hist muggleborn-suppressant regime. And what is more scary than your own government turning on you...

Aah... touche.... better than my train of thought! Also based on fact :)

TreacleFudge
August 12th, 2007, 10:12 pm
The first time around LV didn't manage to seize power and install hist muggleborn-suppressant regime. And what is more scary than your own government turning on you...

*shudders* Good point...

Katy Kedevra
August 12th, 2007, 10:36 pm
First time - he was growing in power for 11 years before he was thwarted. He never gained control of the ministry, of Hogwarts, and despite outnumbering the Order of the Phoenix 2 to 1, they were still well-organized and headed by Dumbledore.

Upon his return - in just over two years he gained full control of the Ministry, while he never really came out into the open himself, causing fear and panick upon the wizarding world since they never knew what he was really up to. Also, he managed to get Muggle-borns officially registered and banned, causing a WWII-like Holocaust situation. Dumbledore died and he gained control over Hogwarts, going as far as to have children torturing other children for 'schooling'. Meanwhile, the Order of the Phoenix fell into disaray and despite their continuing willingness to fight, there was no actual counter-movement still organized by the end of it (from what I could tell). They had pretty much been run into hiding, waiting for the appropriate moment when they could all come together and fight.

I consider that a little more terrible than his first reign of terror ;P

Onyma
August 12th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Voldemort is probably the element in the series that required the greatest "willing forfiture of disbelief" from me.
Absolutely agreed.

While it is true that the second time around he seized control of the Ministry and Hogwarts, the latter of which was only accomplished through Dumbledore's mistake of getting himself cursed, his actions during his first rise made him the most feared man in the Wizarding World. Nothing he did during the second rise, not even the extermination of Muggles, lived up to his notoriety. He let Weasley family members waltz in and out of a building he controlled instead of using them as hostages. He killed no Aurors before the Hogwarts Battle. Uncharacteristic behavior from someone purely evil.

Katy Kedevra
August 12th, 2007, 11:15 pm
Absolutely agreed.

While it is true that the second time around he seized control of the Ministry and Hogwarts, the latter of which was only accomplished through Dumbledore's mistake of getting himself cursed, his actions during his first rise made him the most feared man in the Wizarding World. Nothing he did during the second rise, not even the extermination of Muggles, lived up to his notoriety. He let Weasley family members waltz in and out of a building he controlled instead of using them as hostages. He killed no Aurors before the Hogwarts Battle. Uncharacteristic behavior from someone purely evil.

To me though, he was building a new world under his regime. He had control over the ministry. He had Aurors to do his bidding now. It was another case of Voldermort's egotism getting the better of him. He thought he had defeated them. He had control, and they were so few in numbers, he deemed them insignificant, especially since he believed himself immortal. He never cared about any of his followers, but as long as he couldn't die, he didn't care what became of the Weasleys and others like them. Why go about getting rid of purebloods when he believed they posed no threat?

Of course, I don't believe there's such a thing as pure evil, so maybe that's why I don't agree with your statement as well. *shrugs*

Onyma
August 12th, 2007, 11:52 pm
Of course, I don't believe there's such a thing as pure evil, so maybe that's why I don't agree with your statement as well. *shrugs*
I don't believe in pure evil either, but that does not change the author's purport to present him as such.

avadakedavra19
August 13th, 2007, 1:10 am
I'm eeven scared of him now... but that's because it's night time and everr since I started reading these forums and Voldy's name was mentioned just before bed I would get frightened!!
Anyway... I think in a way, he was more powerful before and in a way he wasn't. VW1 he went around killing everybody and did a lot for himself instead of staying inside, anfd he was concentrating on the world.... however in VW2 it was all about Harry and not so many outsiders got in the way even though it was terrifying because he took over the ministry and hogwarts.I'm so terrified of him both times.... none of us are pure bloods and we love Harry Potter - we shoould be afraid!!!

stunnedtina
August 13th, 2007, 1:35 am
I agree with Snapegirl77's response on the first page. We don't know what his first rein accomplished, nor everything that he did. And really we don't know every move the 2nd go round either.
However, He controled the Ministry, Hogwarts, his name was tabooed, Dumbledore was out of the way. We don't know how many people exactly he killed, had killed, or was the direct cause of their death the first time but he certainly causes mass death this time around.
Yes I think this time he was greater and more terrible.

katchick
August 13th, 2007, 2:59 am
I really didn't find LV very scarry. Actually I thought he was kind of comical. Of course he was never staring me down ready to AK me. I think the real reason he wasn't very frightening was because his character wasn't developed very well. We learned a lot about Tom Riddle on a very superficial level only. We "knew" he was evil, but we never "felt" he was evil.

Spirit
August 13th, 2007, 3:55 am
I think that he was greater and more terrible because of the condition of the Ministry of Magic and the Order. The Ministry was entirely in his control and the Order was pretty much over from what Aberforth said. Voldemort was even in control of Hogwarts, something that had definitely not taken place the last time he was around. He had nearly the entire world in his hands.

Onyma
August 13th, 2007, 4:03 am
Voldemort was even in control of Hogwarts, something that had definitely not taken place the last time he was around.
And this was due to Dumbledore's error, not Voldemort's superiority. You could argue that, of course, Dumbledore would not have died without the curse Voldemort had put on the ring, but Dumbledore put the thing on of his own volition.

He had nearly the entire world in his hands.
There's more to the entire world than Great Britain.

Elysia
August 13th, 2007, 4:11 am
Voldemort is probably the element in the series that required the greatest "willing forfiture of disbelief" from me. I just never believed him as a villain. He always seemed like Don John in Much Ado About Nothing, he has absolutely no motive, he's a made-up cardboard villain, he's just there to give the rest of the characters something to do.

And as far as being some sort of irrational, super evil.....eh...weak...we're constantly told how evil he is but somehow...he's a sort of comic-book spook....and he falls short of being a metaphorical evil (like Sauron in LOTR). He should either be a real guy gone bad, with a real understandable motive or a symbol....he's written somewhere between those two with the weakest elements of both....and he just doesn't work for me.

So the answer is no....he didn't come back worse than before...because it's hard to know how bad he is in either occurance...

You know, I tend to agree with you there. I just sort of sat back and took whatever was written about Voldemort because well, he was sort of necessary in order for the books to be written. I never felt a connection to him (or Tom Riddle) in any way.

I actually thought Snape was a much more believable adversary in the beginning books, because we got to see him in his everyday life, his teaching, his machinations, his striving to get something he couldn't quite have... which made his frustrations real, and gave him at least good reason for being a bilious snipe of a character.

Voldemort, for me, was always sort of like Big Brother... he's "out there somewhere ready to get you". The Boogeyman with a sunlight deficiency. And it sort of seemed pathetic how many times he "overlooked" things that cost him the final victory. For a super-evil-dude, I expected him to be a lot more careful and skillful than that.

KOTMods
August 13th, 2007, 10:54 am
I don't think he was that terrifying...I don't understand why people feared to say his name. Yes, he killed alot of people, but people thought that Sirius Black did too, and nobody feared to say his name.

rainie_hp
August 13th, 2007, 4:50 pm
And this was due to Dumbledore's error, not Voldemort's superiority. You could argue that, of course, Dumbledore would not have died without the curse Voldemort had put on the ring, but Dumbledore put the thing on of his own volition.


There's more to the entire world than Great Britain.

That's what i thought as well, I mean apart from Great Britain, I couldn't imagine any other country terrified...I mean shouldn't he be taking over world rather than going after harry only...he had monstrous creatures and dark wizards at his side so why not take over the world? This whole thing made me question why Harry was world famous when all he did was save one country from doom not the whole world since Voldemort didn't seem so influential there did he?

Drusilla
August 13th, 2007, 7:03 pm
I think he was, because he wasn't able to gain full control of the Ministry and the press the last time around, nor was he able to gain access to and near-total control of Hogwarts (despite Snape's remaining to make sure things didn't get too awful), or order a successful attempt on Dumbledore's life (the last of which basically meant that the wizarding world was basically left without their greatest protector: in the year that followed Dumbledore's death, the best hope anyone had was Harry- who, for all his courage, was only seventeen years old after all.
Also, I don't think Muggle-borns were reduced to begging in the streets the last time round either..reading that part was truly horrifying, I thought. So he wasn't around for as long, but he certainly inflicted a good deal more damage while he was.

Katy Kedevra
August 13th, 2007, 7:32 pm
That's what i thought as well, I mean apart from Great Britain, I couldn't imagine any other country terrified...I mean shouldn't he be taking over world rather than going after harry only...he had monstrous creatures and dark wizards at his side so why not take over the world? This whole thing made me question why Harry was world famous when all he did was save one country from doom not the whole world since Voldemort didn't seem so influential there did he?

Well, we never really do hear about the entire world, do we? We do know that wizards everywhere knew about Voldemort from the Quidditch World Cup. We know Voldemort did leave the country in DH, and he had had DEs going to find the giants before. I think it's possible that he was at least feared in these other countries if not gaining power there as well. Obviously since Ron's disguise at Gringott's went over okay, Voldemort didn't have control of even the whole of Europe, but that doesn't mean that other countries didn't fear him and go through economic and social instability throughout it all.

Not to mention Voldemort showing up at Gregorovitch's house in another country... Couldn't have done too much for the feeling of security abroad.

Evil_Voldemort
August 13th, 2007, 7:40 pm
Hi. I think he nearly took over the whole Wizarding World and that's not terrible? Well I think he indeed returned greater and more terrible, ready to strike.

gelowo93
July 19th, 2010, 7:15 pm
I agree with everyone else who says that Voldemort was more powerful the second time round because he took over the Minstry, Hogwarts and ordered the attack on Dumbledore etc. in little more than 2 years (all of that's done by the beginning of DH - or early on in the book - isn't it?). I think he is feared in other countries because we see in DH that the woman who lived in Gregrovitch's old house was frightened as soon as she opened the door, but that might have been just because of him being noseless :p I'm sure he was a threat to the other countries but because he wasn't directly attacking them, they kept their heads down, while keeping an eye on Britain to see what was going on. I suppose they couldn't help Britain either because they would have done so through the Ministry and that was under Voldemort's control :shrug:

That's what i thought as well, I mean apart from Great Britain, I couldn't imagine any other country terrified...I mean shouldn't he be taking over world rather than going after harry only...he had monstrous creatures and dark wizards at his side so why not take over the world? This whole thing made me question why Harry was world famous when all he did was save one country from doom not the whole world since Voldemort didn't seem so influential there did he?

But Harry was the one who had been marked as the one who would be able to stop Voldemort, so it makes sense for Voldemort to want to get rid of Harry before he expands beyond Great Britain IMO. Also, Harry was famous for surviving the Killing Curse, not just defeating Voldemort when he was a baby :)

wolfbrother
July 19th, 2010, 7:53 pm
Yes, he was. However, this was because Dumbledore was dead more than Voldemort's doing. With Dumbledore gone, there was no-one to stop him. Everything went south really fast after Dumbledore's death.

willfitz
July 19th, 2010, 9:01 pm
I would say yes, because his new strategy of using deception and hiding in the shadows allowed him to do even greater and terrible things. During his first reign, he was just a terrorist, whereas in his second ascendancy, he managed to almost turn the entire population into his minions. I frankly find this much more great and terrible of an achievement than turning the population into his enemy.

jookyle
July 19th, 2010, 9:03 pm
Yes. On both accounts. He took control of the Ministry and Hogwarts. And as far as power, he was able to over come the power Lily put on Harry threw his means resurrection/restoration. Aside from that, he can only be more powerful in comparison to his power during the first war.

East
July 20th, 2010, 11:32 pm
Well one thing you have to take into account is that the first time around Voldemort was in power for years and years, his second reign was much swifter, but I think more powerful as well.

His second reign was much swifter, and more precise. I don't think he killed as many people, but he got control of the bigger picture, of Hogwarts, of the ministry, the news, etc.

RemusLupinFan
July 21st, 2010, 2:24 am
Though it's hard to directly compare his reigns since we didn't have a first-hand accounting of the VoldWarI, I do think Voldemort probably was "greater and more terrible" this time on account of learning from his mistakes from the first go around. In terms of trying to control the wizarding world, I think he was pretty efficient at getting to where he got in the end (IMO his efforts regarding Harry are another matter). Also, I agree that being able to gain control of key places like the Ministry and Hogwarts speaks to having a stronger reign. As far as I recall, he didn't do that last time. So all in all, I do think he had a greater and more terrible reign this time than last.

ccollinsmith
July 21st, 2010, 2:58 am
Though it's hard to directly compare his reigns since we didn't have a first-hand accounting of the VoldWarI, I do think Voldemort probably was "greater and more terrible" this time on account of learning from his mistakes from the first go around. In terms of trying to control the wizarding world, I think he was pretty efficient at getting to where he got in the end (IMO his efforts regarding Harry are another matter). Also, I agree that being able to gain control of key places like the Ministry and Hogwarts speaks to having a stronger reign. As far as I recall, he didn't do that last time. So all in all, I do think he had a greater and more terrible reign this time than last.

In the previous war, he was unable to get his hands on Hogwarts. Probably his biggest failure in the previous war was in not getting Dumbledore out of the way before trying to seize power. Consequently, he was never able to get hold of the Ministry.

In the second war, he went for Dumbledore before even attempting to take over the Ministry. This, I think, is how he was able to solidify his power. He also believed that he had control of Hogwarts, but in reality he was being undermined from within by his own hand-picked Headmaster, who was actually loyal to Dumbledore.

So Voldemort was under the illusion that Hogwarts had fallen to the Death Eaters (and the Carrows were on staff), but Snape was stalling for time so that Harry could complete his mission.

So yes, I would say that Voldemort was more formidable in some respects in the second war, in that he definitely had hold of the reins of power. But in some ways his position was even more precarious than in the first war because Snape was now in his inner circle, and Snape was working from his position at Hogwarts to help Harry destroy Voldemort.

mysterious
July 21st, 2010, 5:09 am
In the previous war, he was unable to get his hands on Hogwarts. Probably his biggest failure in the previous war was in not getting Dumbledore out of the way before trying to seize power. Consequently, he was never able to get hold of the Ministry.
Well hate to point it out, but it wasn't Voldemort who got Dumbledore out of the way, Dumbledore decided that himself, and he only had Hogwarts in his reign only so much as he had Snape. ;)

Ah, I see you share the same views. :D

Well he did rise to be more terrible for a common wizard who weren't Snape and Dumbledore, for they only knew the whole truth about Snape, and thus the fact that Voldemort had Hogwarts only in name. For everyone else it looked like Voldemort had taken over quite effectively and that it was only a matter of time when they would be forced to bow down to him.

Also this time their hopes rested on one boy whereas they had Dumbledore to fall back to in the last war.

The_Void_68
July 21st, 2010, 1:58 pm
Well we don't know for sure what he did or how powerful he was during his first reign, but we do know that he got Hogwarts and the Ministry under his control, (OK, he thought he had Hogwarts under his control), which he didn't before. So he definitely had more power - not necessarily magical power - than he did before.

Wimsey
July 21st, 2010, 1:59 pm
Well hate to point it out, but it wasn't Voldemort who got Dumbledore out of the way, Dumbledore decided that himself, and he only had Hogwarts in his reign only so much as he had Snape.None of that makes the Prophecy any less correct! It is correct if Voldemort becomes both "greater" and "more terrible" after returning than he was before. Voldemort clearly did become "greater" than before: he didn't simply eclipse the Ministry as a power, he went so far as to make the Ministry a greater power than it had been as his tool. (For comparison, just look at the relative dangers posed by the Order under Voldemort's reign to the Death Eaters under prior reigns.)

Voldemort also was a step further removed from death, as he now had 6 Horcruxes whereas he had had only 5 Horcruxes when he fell. That, too, qualifies as "greater."

And, of course, Voldemort was considerably more "terrible" because he had the greatness to implement his plans.
for they only knew the whole truth about Snape, and thus the fact that Voldemort had Hogwarts only in name.The truth about Snape is not that relevant to the Prophecy unless that truth had completely undermined Voldemort's control over Hogwarts. Along these lines, Voldemort had Hogwarts in much more than name. As a quadruple (or whatever) agent, Snape was able to ameliorate Voldemort's full effects slightly: but students still were tortured and maimed by Death Eaters (including the many Slytherins who sided with them), students seemingly could be taken from the school, and Muggleborns were barred from Hogwarts. The curriculum was greatly altered to suit Voldemort's agenda. Indeed, Snape would have been fairly limited in terms of how much he could help people: after all, Snape had to play the part, or someone who held Voldemort's ideals would have replaced him.

So, all of that goes with the increased "greatness" (Voldemort's power) and "terribleness" (the maliciousness of that power). Even when someone who hated Voldemort was put in charge of Hogwarts, he (Snape) could only soften Voldemort's changes rather than prevent them.

mysterious
July 21st, 2010, 5:55 pm
So, all of that goes with the increased "greatness" (Voldemort's power) and "terribleness" (the maliciousness of that power). Even when someone who hated Voldemort was put in charge of Hogwarts, he (Snape) could only soften Voldemort's changes rather than prevent them.

Like I said, for everyone else he had total control of Hogwarts through his dummy, so indeed he was more terrible than the last time. All I am trying to say is, it wasn't truly his, but otherwise for the sake of the prophecy, it was true.

As for the Horcruxes the moment he fell a horcrux was created, after resurrection he created only 1 knew horcrux in the form of Nagini, but then one of his horcruxes were destroyed before he rose (the diary), so we can say that, it was even footing on that account.

His plans were more organised this time, and they were producing ample results, he wasn't operating out and out, but through his minions, and that was what was creating more panic, it was his name that was reigning this time, not him and that strikes more fear in everyone. So yeah, more terrible.

ccollinsmith
July 21st, 2010, 10:48 pm
Well hate to point it out, but it wasn't Voldemort who got Dumbledore out of the way, Dumbledore decided that himself, and he only had Hogwarts in his reign only so much as he had Snape. ;)

Ah, I see you share the same views. :D

Pretty much. Yes. :lol:

I was thinking mainly in terms of Voldemort's strategy. He didn't make a play for the Ministry in the 2nd War until after the death of Dumbledore... and killing Dumbledore was definitely part of his strategy for seizing power - probably because Dumbledore stood in the way in the 1st War.

Getting Dumbledore out of the way would be the most effective way to severely damage the Order of the Phoenix, and it would certainly be Voldemort's best bid for taking over Hogwarts. He just didn't realize that there was more to Dumbledore's death than he thought... or that neither Hogwarts nor Snape were really his. :D

So while he did have the Ministry and could enact his agenda as official policy (something he couldn't do in the 1st War), he also had the seeds of his own destruction sitting right there in his inner circle, in the form of Snape. So Voldemort's position was actually more precarious, I think, than in the 1st War. (We don't know Snape's rank among the Death Eaters before he turned spy for the Order, though I highly doubt it was anywhere near "Voldemort's right hand man" - as it was after he killed Dumbledore).

Well he did rise to be more terrible for a common wizard who weren't Snape and Dumbledore, for they only knew the whole truth about Snape, and thus the fact that Voldemort had Hogwarts only in name. For everyone else it looked like Voldemort had taken over quite effectively and that it was only a matter of time when they would be forced to bow down to him.

Also this time their hopes rested on one boy whereas they had Dumbledore to fall back to in the last war.

:agree: Exactly.

person83
July 21st, 2010, 11:12 pm
it depends on who u aks some may says much worse or others may say not as bad as his first

mysterious
July 22nd, 2010, 5:14 am
We don't know Snape's rank among the Death Eaters before he turned spy for the Order, though I highly doubt it was anywhere near "Voldemort's right hand man" - as it was after he killed Dumbledore

Bellatrix won't be happy, if she hears you say that. :yuhup:

ccollinsmith
July 22nd, 2010, 2:59 pm
Bellatrix won't be happy, if she hears you say that. :yuhup:

Are you implying that Bellatrix thinks she's a man? :yuhup:

mysterious
July 23rd, 2010, 5:54 am
Are you implying that Bellatrix thinks she's a man?
You do realize that "right hand man" is not to be taken literally. :p

...right on topic, the Dark lord was indeed more mystifying and threatening, but it appeared more so in Deathly Hallows when Dumbledore was gone and JKR has done a good job in making sure that his absence was felt. :yuhup:

merrymarge
July 23rd, 2010, 6:00 am
I think he was greater and more terrible. Actually, I thought he was pretty terrifying all along.
Didn't Bellatrix think she was Voldemort's most trusted, loyal servant?

mysterious
July 23rd, 2010, 6:04 am
Didn't Bellatrix think she was Voldemort's most trusted, loyal servant?
And yet she is shocked when she comes to know that Snape knew about the plot to kill Dumbledore. ;)

winky45
July 23rd, 2010, 8:23 am
Bellatrix thought that it was wrong for Voldemort to trust Snape, actually.

Well, we don't know how VOldemort was like before he was blasted away by his own killing curse. Sometimes I think he might be physically looking a little better than the one he became at the end of GoF. If the book said that he was greater and more terrible, then he is greater and more terrible.

Winky45 :lol:

Schlubalybub
July 23rd, 2010, 9:10 am
The thing is, I think that with Voldemort having Harry's blood, that's what made him more terrible than he had been. I think that this was a nod to the taking of Harry's blood

mysterious
July 24th, 2010, 10:17 am
Sometimes I think he might be physically looking a little better than the one he became at the end of GoF.
He must have looked better, but he was loosing the charming young face, well before Harry was born, for in the chapter, Lord Voldemort's request, in HBP, Harry confirms the distortion to his charming face.

The thing is, I think that with Voldemort having Harry's blood, that's what made him more terrible than he had been. I think that this was a nod to the taking of Harry's blood
How would Harry's blood make Voldemort more terrible? :hmm:

Schlubalybub
July 26th, 2010, 9:52 am
Well, it makes him more terrible because of the events that preceded it. He's more terrible because he can, for the first time since his first encounter with him, touch the one person that gives the people hope.

wolfbrother
July 26th, 2010, 6:53 pm
Well, it makes him more terrible because of the events that preceded it. He's more terrible because he can, for the first time since his first encounter with him, touch the one person that gives the people hope.

It wasn't common knowledge though. Only few people knew that Voldemort couldn't touch Harry in the first place.

Schlubalybub
July 27th, 2010, 4:07 pm
Well, yes, but it was a prophecy, and it was made to Harry. Harry knew what Voldemort was capable of before that, and for trelaweney to tell Harry that Voldemort was coming back greater and more terrible than before it meant from what Harry knew

Nyjets4004
July 27th, 2010, 4:36 pm
Well, it makes him more terrible because of the events that preceded it. He's more terrible because he can, for the first time since his first encounter with him, touch the one person that gives the people hope.

The prophecy ment that when he rises he will be worse than he was before has downfall, so basically its like were imagining anything he did before his rise "didn't happen" which meant that the prophecy is wrong because he wasn't greater than he was or more terrible because before his downfall he actually had like an army of death eaters. All he had after his downfall was a certain handful that returned, and the ones that returned were either worried for their lives or sadistic freaks that dont count :D

I was always confused to what happened to Tom's face was it the concoction of unicorn blood and Naigini's milk that changed his appearance, other than that im at a loss for words :umm:

DeathEaterTango
August 14th, 2010, 2:51 am
I was always confused to what happened to Tom's face was it the concoction of unicorn blood and Naigini's milk that changed his appearance, other than that im at a loss for words :umm:


I believe that it was parsially a little bit but it was also from the horocruxs

Orvakki
August 15th, 2010, 5:36 pm
The Voldemort Spin-Off series did you say?

SneekyMarauder
August 15th, 2010, 7:41 pm
I think that he may have been. There had been talk about how before he had DE in the Ministry and things like that. I don't think that he ever got as far as to acctually getting Muggle borns registered and sent to Azkaban! You have to remember also, that Voldemort had to spend time in making a reputation for himself. He had to spend some years making himself look like not just an ordinary dark wizard but, THE WORST dark wizard. When he returned to power, his reputation was already built in. All he had to do was build upon it. I guess it would be hard to say because, we don't know enough exact events or examples but, it had to seem more terrifying. The 1st time they had Dumbledore, the 2nd time, they didn't. And you know that the world wasn't exactly on Harry Potter's side. The world didn't know the prophecy.

ignisia
September 4th, 2010, 7:25 am
I think taking over the government and Hogwarts gave Voldemort a lot more power this time around. In the first war, he did have the help of Peter in killing off Order members almost daily, and it wasn't wise for the average witch and wizard to trust too many people, but this time, the Order had pretty much disbanded, Muggleborns were being arrested, and most of Britain was living in fear. In the second war, Voldemort not only worked toward his plans, but he nearly achieved them.

bellatrix93
September 4th, 2010, 8:17 am
In the first war, he did have the help of Peter in killing off Order members almost daily,

Did Peter kill Order members for him? :hmm:

ignisia
September 4th, 2010, 8:25 am
Did Peter kill Order members for him?

I meant in giving their whereabouts and identities. Killing them was probably a lot easier once Voldemort knew where and who they were.

bellatrix93
September 4th, 2010, 9:20 am
I meant in giving their whereabouts and identities. Killing them was probably a lot easier once Voldemort knew where and who they were.

Oh, okay. I'm not sure why I didn't think of this, :lol:

I think Voldemort was much stronger in the second war (Judging by the amount of destruction he managed in only three years). The whole year he spent without anybody resisting him had helped him grow so powerful. I don't think even the Order did much to resist him that year, as they were so focused on protecting the Prophecy, while Voldemort was working in a more effective way by tempting Harry. :shrug:.

Also, Voldemort as far as we know, didn't infiltrate the Ministry in the first war. He only had a spy there. And as mentioned before, he didn't gain control of Hogwarts the first time, nor even had a spy.

But I think one advantage, Voldemort had in the first war and didn't have in the second, was that his followers were not known to people. Which made it very difficult for people to know which people to trust and which people to avoid.

Anyways, I don't think we can really say in which war Voldemort was stronger. Because, while we know a lot about the second war, we know very little about the first.

MissGranger1979
September 5th, 2010, 12:12 pm
I think he was definately worse the second time around - although, I think less people actually died in the Second War, but that was because it was much shorter than the first.

The fact he had the the two most important wizarding institutions under his control, the Ministry and Hogwarts, made him more powerful and an evil person in a position of power is always worse than an evil person just committing evil deeds.

lumoslauren
September 7th, 2010, 9:48 pm
Well, I can't really say if he was "greater and more terrible" the first or second time around. We do not really have a lot of information about the first time around except for a few references, and a lot of times these references were comparing the similarities between the first war and the second war. I think his reign of terror lasted longer in the first one, or at least it seems that way to me. I cannot remember if it gives how long it was in the books, but it was my impression that it lasted years. Also, if the general public are still too terrified to utter his name 16 years after the fact, it must have been quite the war. However, Voldemort did manage to take over the ministry the second time around. The death toll in the big battle was over 50 (I want to say I read somewhere that the total deaths in Deathly Hallows was in the 70s, but I'm not positive) And that's counting both sides. I've always had the impression that the death toll was much larger in the first war since it went on longer (this is only my impression, though).

So, I guess it depends on what you consider "greater and more terrible".

However, if Voldemort did not live up to the prophesy, is it just a plot hole?

No. We have to remember what prophesies are. They are not absolute truth. They just have the potential to happen. In OotP, Dumbledore tells Harry that many prophesies in the Department of Mysteries go unfulfilled. So, Voldemort definitely had the potential to come back "greater and more terrible than before" and if Harry hadn't fought, there would be no doubt that he would have been more terrible than before. But it was never completely certain that he would be.

merrymarge
September 7th, 2010, 11:59 pm
Isn't this also a comparison of the two World Wars in Muggle life? the first time was bad, but the second time was worse because Germany was humiliated in the first war. same with Voldemort. Baby Harry defeated him and he wanted revenge, so he was greater and more terrible the second time around. Besides, Harry had no true protectors the second time around. His parents were gone; his godfather, Sirius; his mentor, Dumbledore; even snape was gone. Harry was pretty much on his own the second time around.

arithmancer
January 3rd, 2011, 3:36 am
But was he really that greater and terrible than he ever was? I didn't particularly get the feeling, what about you guys? Or was the prophecy just stating that he had tendencies/potential to become more terrible?

I'd say, yes, definitely, he was greater and more terrible the second time around. He succeeded in taking over the Wizarding World and enacting his supremacist ideals, the second time around, something he failed to do in considerably more time, during the first war.

SadiraSnape
January 3rd, 2011, 3:43 am
Absolutely greater and more terrible. Setting aside all the things he accomplished in the Second Coming, he was greater and more terrible because he took in Harry's blood, and so took on some of Lily's protection. His only problem is he thought if he killed Harry, his immortality and power was secure -- he didn't know Harry was the Last Horcrux.

So the greater and more terrible part, in my opinion, hung entirely upon his using Harry's blood to become corporeal (well, more corporeal, with a real functioning body). If Harry had not been a Horcrux, and had died, there'd have been no getting rid of Voldmort.

Sophia_Weasley
January 3rd, 2011, 10:12 pm
I say yes he was greater and more terrible. The terrible part of it was him taking Harry's blood. And him being greater then before is the fact that he took over the MOM!

AlDumblydorr
January 3rd, 2011, 11:07 pm
well look at it this way: in books 1-3, he physically couldn't touch harry (although we only see evidence of that in the first book), and after he returns in the 4th book, he is fully capable of physical contact with harry. so in theory, he is stronger on that front, but then again you can argue an entire case about how taking harry's blood was a monstrous mistake on his part.

he was also able to seize control of hogwarts, something he was unable to do last time. however, dumbledore's death was the main reason he was able to do so, and dumbledore orchestrated his own death, as part of his overall plan. So technically in the moment he was stronger, but every event in the end of HBP and DH was contributing to his downfall...

So in theory, he was stronger than before, but when you actually look at each individual event and the reason behind it, you can see that his methods of rising again were contributing factors to his downfall, i.e., he was setting himself up for failure in the long run.

AccioSeverus
January 16th, 2011, 4:58 am
He was definitely greater and more terrible than ever the second time around. He seized control of the Ministry and basically ruled the Wizarding World for a time. There was many similarities to WWII and the Nazi's this time, where as last time, it was a little bit more controlled/handled. And he took Harry's blood, thus making him more 'terrible'.

dukeatreides_iv
January 16th, 2011, 10:28 pm
I wonder how much of a dunderhead he was during his first reign of terror then if his second reign is supposed to be more terrible. I agree with Voldemort being carboard and cartoonish, I actually don't really see him as much of a character, more like an emboiment of evil in human (er humaniod) form which I think is what the poster above me said, ohwell. He simple isn't believable, it was like he was born evil, which I'm pretty sure Dumbledore said it wasn't possible for some one to be born evil, there was no gradual or even sudden turning point he was evil from the beggining. Also he was made out to be extremely stupid and careless which makes it extremely hard to think he could be the greatest evil wizard of all time, and no you can't explain it with arrogance, James Potter was arrogant! Voldemort simply has a stupidness worthy of a scooby doo villain, I was really hoping for a bit of substance in his character for this last book, I was sadly dissapointed.

why couldnt Voldemort just be plain evil? in tracing the lives of many real life serial killers, it was found that there were those that as early as 7 or 8 years old were already sadists, torturing and killing animals, torturing other children.
as for being stupid, voldermort was overly proudful. and acted stupidly because of it. something he has in common with many of histories tyrants and world leaders.

PeverellWand
January 31st, 2011, 1:09 am
I think that Voldemort was greater and more terrible than before. If you look at the fact that Voldemort managed to kill Dumbldore (although technically it was the curse on one of his Horcruxes and Dumbldore's past that did it, with Snape eventually finishing him off) and during the first war Dumbldedore was always the one he feared. Plus he managed to get control of the Ministry of Magic and (even though Snape was headmaster) Hogwarts, (because Snape had to atleast look like he was doing what Voldemort wanted him to do.)
I would also argue that Voldemort was more terrible (which I take to mean evil) because if you look at how he treats everyone (his death eaters included, not just his enemies), he seems to control people by just threatening to kill or torture them, not by being charming like he did during his first rise to power (although a lot of the people he charmed did end up getting killed). I doubt he would have had many followers if he had treated them during the first war the same way as he did during the second. I doubt that he would have agreed to allow a Mudblood to survive just because one of his Death Eaters asked him to. (Im refering to Lily and Snape). It just doesn't fit with his character during the second war. Granted, his power didn't last as long, but it also didn't take him as long to rise. He already had his followers, and within three years he had the Ministry. He couldn't have done that during the first war because he didn't have the ability. He didn't rise to the same level even though he took longer to rise during the first war.

DA93
January 31st, 2011, 8:21 pm
The second time around he managed to take control of the Ministry and Hogwarts, something he didn't manage the first time around. He also managed to kill of Dumbledore, which made him the most powerful wizard in the world. I will defiantly say he was more terrible the second time around.

Ren Shacklebot
February 1st, 2011, 5:22 am
Voldemort's return might not have lasted long but he managed to do a lot of damage during the second war. A lot of famous wizards and witches died during that time -- Dumbledore, Bathilda Bagshot, Nicholas Flamel.. His total rein lasted 17 years. That's going to have a lasting affect on the magic and muggle world. I really do think do think he was worse than before.

celtics543
February 2nd, 2011, 3:59 am
I'd definitely say he was greater and more terrible than before. His reign didn't last as long, but he did more this time.

ajna
February 2nd, 2011, 5:04 am
Perhaps it seems less terrible. We almost get more stories about terror from the first reign than from the second (?) But In the second, he takes over the ministry. People go missing (scary) People are being actively put on trial, having their wands broken, having their families persecuted. Purebloods are being accounted for and measured also. Not something I think the Voldies were in position to do the first time. Much scarier. There seems to be an active campaign to destroy mudbloods. But in the first, we kind of hear of things second hand through the lens of those who repeat it...it might sound more terrible in second and third hand stories. Maybe? Maybe realization is more a matter of perspective.?

AurayaBlack
February 6th, 2011, 4:41 pm
It was much worse the second time. They were banishing Muggleborns! And the Ministry was under Voldemort's control. And, we may not hear all that much about what he did the second time, because we were following Harry's story, and The Trio were in seclusion; they didn't get any news apart from what Ron told them when he came back.

ajna
February 6th, 2011, 5:40 pm
The prophecy stated:



Now we know that the prophecy came true...but what I always question myself is that was he really that terrible? I mean he lasted for like...3 years. But was he really that greater and terrible than he ever was? I didn't particularly get the feeling, what about you guys? Or was the prophecy just stating that he had tendencies/potential to become more terrible?

I guess you would have to ask yourself if any of the things done in the second come back qualified as 'worse'? It's hard to know what your context is.

Taquiq
February 6th, 2011, 10:13 pm
I agree, he was greater and more terrible than last time because of his control basically over the wizarding world.

Female_Snape
February 12th, 2011, 1:44 am
It would be great if jk Rowling would write a pre-quel. In voldemorts point of view. It wouldn't really be for the suspense of a new story, it would be for the fans who wanted to know more about the series, as we know how it ended already. If i had 1 wish (and i wasn't aloud to wish for all the harry potter world to be real) i would wish for more hp books. Or if it was about Voldemort LV books.

Frogki
February 12th, 2011, 2:10 am
I wonder how much of a dunderhead he was during his first reign of terror then if his second reign is supposed to be more terrible. I agree with Voldemort being carboard and cartoonish, I actually don't really see him as much of a character, more like an emboiment of evil in human (er humaniod) form which I think is what the poster above me said, ohwell. He simple isn't believable, it was like he was born evil, which I'm pretty sure Dumbledore said it wasn't possible for some one to be born evil, there was no gradual or even sudden turning point he was evil from the beggining. Also he was made out to be extremely stupid and careless which makes it extremely hard to think he could be the greatest evil wizard of all time, and no you can't explain it with arrogance, James Potter was arrogant! Voldemort simply has a stupidness worthy of a scooby doo villain, I was really hoping for a bit of substance in his character for this last book, I was sadly dissapointed.

I disagree with you here - one doesn't have to be born evil to live a lifetime of wickedness. We've got a gap of some years to fill in - he lived in an orphanage, the very foundation for a sociopath. From what we heard, by the time Dumbledore got to him, it was too late. He was never cuddled by his mother - never told he was loved. He was never told that.
And that's part of the huge Harry - Voldemort conflict. They both had... Err, similar childhoods. However, I think Harry's was probably distinctly different - whether Petunia liked it or not, she had to hold Harry at times, she had to do certain motherly actions to get him to stop crying. She would have done it even if she hated it, whereas at an orphanage, that's the norm. Crying babies. Working children... You know? So in a sense, Harry did have an advantage in turning out a hero. However, I will end on this note - as Dumbledore once said, it is our choices that show who we truly are....

X_Bumblebee_X
April 1st, 2011, 8:17 pm
I think he was more terrible than before because his power reached through the Ministry and Hogwarts school which he did not have before. He controlled the lives of everyone of importance in the wizarding world, from the teachers who shaped the lives of the young wizards in training or the people who keep muggle/wizard relations civil and invisible to most.

FurryDice
April 2nd, 2011, 6:10 pm
I would say he was greater and more terrible. The first war was terrible, and people lived in fear for their lives, and lost loved ones, the DEs killed people for fun, and from the mentions of it we get in canon, it sounds like a terrifying time for the wizarding community.

The second war was all of this, too. Plus, Voldemort took over the Ministry and Hogwarts. He had the full weight of the Ministry behind his deeds in DH. People were being imprisoned for the crime of being Muggleborn, and denied their magical education because they were Muggleborn. Voldemort had the opportunity to cause so much more suffering, on a greater scale, when he controlled the Ministry. In that sense, I would say Trelawney's prophecy was correct - "greater and more terrible".

horcrux4
April 3rd, 2011, 1:42 am
I think one of the reasons that he was 'greater and more terrible' this time round was that he wasn't starting from scratch. In fact he pretty well picked up from where he left off and moved on from there. He also hadn't lost the reputation he acquired in Voldwar I so people were terrified of him immediately he came back. Once he gathered the DEs in the graveyard they were revved up and raring to go. He kind of burst onto the wizarding world this time at the top of his powers and reputation. And built on it.

bellatrix93
April 4th, 2011, 6:34 pm
I think one of the reasons that he was 'greater and more terrible' this time round was that he wasn't starting from scratch. In fact he pretty well picked up from where he left off and moved on from there.

He also had a whole year of working unopposed. He collected information and secrets from the Ministry without his spies ever being suspected, or the deaths caused by him ever being known. Also he had the advantage of Dumbledore being discredited by the Ministry. Not only did the Ministry ignore his return, but they discredited those who could work against him and stand in his way to power.

Montse
April 5th, 2011, 5:10 pm
I suppose so, as far as we know the first time he did not manage to get hold of the ministry like he did this time.

Nikkolas
August 16th, 2011, 9:59 pm
I think a lot of the people complaining about him being underwhelming are doing so because of their preset expectations of "Evil".

This is the best description we have of the First War:
"Imagine that Voldemort's powerful now. You don't know who his supporters are, you don't know who's working for him and who isn't; you know he can control people so that they do terrible things without being able to stop themselves. You're scared for yourself, and your family, and your friends. Every week, news comes of more deaths, more disappearances, more torturing … The Ministry of Magic's in disarray, they don't know what to do, they're trying to keep everything hidden from the Muggles, but meanwhile, Muggles are dying too. Terror everywhere … panic … confusion … that's how it used to be."

I think people are naturally more inclined to order than chaos. The difference between Voldemort in the First War is that he was basically Chaotic Evil. In the Second War, he was Lawful Evil. (I'm being general here - he's quite clearly Neutral Evil but just go with it)

We have a very limited view of Wizard Britian under Voldemort's reign because we're stuck with Harry and his Magical Camping Adventure. He's pretty much cut off from the larger events going on in the country. We get glimpses of it sure but never a full on view. We can't truly understand what a horribly grim and dark place it was due to our limited perspective.

However we do know how things were being re-organized. Muggleborns were being rounded up, muggles were being killed for sport, etc..

Yet, as terrible as this is, it was done so in an orderly fashion. This was the new society Voldemort was attempting to create.
Institutionalized cruelty is terrible yes....but, to some people, it's much less frightening than the alternative.

The alternative we can find in the First War. There was no grand new society building there. To create a new era, you must first tear down or subvert the old one. Voldemort's previous goal was to tear down the Wizarding World by brutal force.

To Average Joe Wizard, there was no rhyme or reason to any of it. You could be killed by your brother under the Imperius Curse. You could be ganged up on by DeatH Eaters in the middle of the night. You could die in so many ways and for what reason? Because you were part of an order that, in Voldemort's eyes, needed to go.

To us, the readers, this sort of rampaging massacre is just so much more terrifying. Oh it makes us sick to see perfectly innocent Muggle-borns being persecuted but it doesn't fill us with the same kind of dread as the idea of being murdered at any given time.

During the Second Reign, Voldemort could have you arrested and thrown in prison.

During the First Reign, you might just disappear and your friends and family will only ever find a few mutilated remains to bury.

JohanT
August 16th, 2011, 10:38 pm
In Voldemort's first reign, he rose to power through fear and chaos. Voldemort's not the type of man who wants to sit behind a desk at the Ministry, so he opted for another method: destroying the order that the wizarding world had built.
I always got the impression that the wizarding world was pretty much centered around England. After all, all of the most powerful wizards are from there, and the Ministry in England seems to have quite a bit of influence. This and the fact that Voldemort evidently had foreign wizards working for him as well.
Now, in the first war, Voldemort was gaining power through secrecy and trickery. He probably would have succeeded had it not been for Harry... but during the Second War, Voldemort is able to put his other plans to action, and basically take over the wizarding world. I don't know if he was more terrible to be honest, but I do know that he now had complete control. The problem is we don't know enough about the First War to say, but there were still disappearances, deaths, and complete paranoia.

I agree with many that Voldemort is perhaps a static character, but I think that is because his change and growth have already occurred by the time Harry comes along. He is no longer human, and we should know that monsters don't necessarily evolve. But we do see times when he was human, and in that we see his growth. True, he was always power-hungry and cruel, but in young Tom Riddle, we see Voldemort's intentions more clearly. He feared death, he wanted to be considered "special" and superior, he disliked anything that connected him to others, etc. In this, we see someone who is starved for something that he has never had, and wishes to escape the bleak life in the orphanage, where he was merely one among many other children. I always associate Voldemort's fear of death with a fear of being "normal", sinch death is what connects all humans together. Now, that is certainly not a cardboard cut-out, there is a lot more to Voldemort than his monstrous appearance lets on.

Nikkolas
August 16th, 2011, 10:50 pm
You're exactly right. Snape, Dumbledore and Voldemort are all static characters because they've already matured. Their life lessons have been taught so to speak.

There's nothing left for them to do really. All their interesting development took place before the books actually began.

However, I think a good backstory is better than bad character development any day. It's why I find Snape a far more fascinating character than Harry.

JohanT
August 17th, 2011, 2:43 am
I agree, Snape's backstory lended his character the depth that Harry's character, in my opinion, lacked. Harry is a decent character, and he has his flaws, but he never gives the impression that he is truly struggling with himself and his ideals. He never succumbs to temptation the way Voldemort, Snape, and Dumbledore did, and he never once considered trying to obtain more power. I know this is because he can "love", but in my opinion, even those who can love are attracted to power and wish to wield it.

snitchsilver32
August 18th, 2011, 4:52 am
I think Voldemort in a way, HAS to be a static character, because of the fact that he is the "bad guy". That's his role in the books, the constant foe for everyone else to battle against. He is also static because he doesn't have the capacity to be otherwise - not understanding love or friendship, he is forced to remain the power hungry evil guy.

Another thing to consider about whether he was more terrible, is not the things he did, but WHY he did them. In his first reign as Dark Lord, he did "terrible but great" things, but only because he wanted power. He didn't know of any obstacles. Then he heard the prophecy about Harry/Neville and suddenly had an obstacle to overcome. He tries, fails, withers, and comes back 14 years later as the second prophecy predicts. Suddenly his new terrible reign is focused on Harry. He commits crimes, murders, etc, but just to blindly gain power, but all to destroy Harry Potter, the Boy Who Lived, the boy who could be his downfall. The fact that he was so destructive, gained control of Hogwarts and the Ministry, killed people, just to destroy Harry is honestly more scary than just going willy-nilly to rule the world.

Sure, he wanted to destroy Harry in order to rule the world, but that wasn't necessarily his main focus anymore.

Tabbz
August 20th, 2011, 1:15 am
Didnt Harry killing Voldermort basically nip his rise to power in the bud as it was just getting started?
If Harry never knew about the horcruxes and he tried to face Voldermort, he would have been killed, end of lol. What kind of a world would have it been for those left behind with noone to trouble the Big Bad Voldy?
The other prophecy never divulged who was going to die out of the two, so why should the other prophecy be considered any less vague?

JohanT
August 20th, 2011, 1:45 am
It wasn't just getting started, it had been going on for over 11 years, I think. The way I saw it, I am inclined to believe that Voldemort had indirect control over the Ministry through the use of his spies. He had a lot of influence through these spies, and was able to weaken the government considerably, as they weren't exactly a threat to him. The only threat he had, before Harry came along, was the Order of the Phoenix, but it seemed to me that many of the Order members were wiped out during the war. I'd say Voldemort was actually winning before the prophecy.

Hedwig91
August 20th, 2011, 2:07 am
Weren`t all crimes we know about from Voldemort's first period of power against people who tried to stop him in his rise to power or simply did not obey him?
As far as I know, there were no organized actions against muggles and muggleborns going on then. During the second war however, by controlling the ministry completely, he could institutionalize every-day crimes (like concerning the education at Hogwarts and pursecuting all muggleborns), making these crimes routine in the wizarding world.
It might be that the Death Eater`s ideology has become more racist too, as Hagrid considers it a mystery why Voldemort never tried to get Lily and James Potter on his side, which implies that it`s probably not the obvious fact that she was a muggleborn. And I can`t see the Voldemort and the Death Eaters we know wanting to recruit a muggleborn and a blood traitor.

But generally I would agree to what others said, that the prophecy refered especially to his aims after Harry`s death and less to what he actually had time to do; he was capable of even more now, having conquered death.

Another thing, I don`t know wether during the first war he killed and turtured so easily people on his own side for minor mistakes. During the second war, he seems ready to kill faithful Death Eaters and thereby risking his own powerful position, just to let out his anger. Which means he can`t even control his evilness anymore, in a way.

ID824
August 20th, 2011, 4:08 am
He was absolutely greater, because he had protection against what had almost killed him before. But more terrible? I don't think so. He was the same dude after the same thing and he took up the same methods he employed before... Not worse methods.

BubblyShell22
August 20th, 2011, 2:47 pm
I guess this all comes down to matter of opinion. I feel that he was greater and more terrible than before. He took over the Ministry, he took over Hogwarts, and he had his name tabooed so that anyone who said it would be tracked down. There was an air of fear about everyone by book seven because so many things were taking place that hadn't been done in book five. Even in book six there was fear, but there was more fear in book seven once the Ministry was infiltrated.

ID824
August 20th, 2011, 4:29 pm
I guess this all comes down to matter of opinion. I feel that he was greater and more terrible than before. He took over the Ministry, he took over Hogwarts, and he had his name tabooed so that anyone who said it would be tracked down. There was an air of fear about everyone by book seven because so many things were taking place that hadn't been done in book five. Even in book six there was fear, but there was more fear in book seven once the Ministry was infiltrated.

The wizarding world was definitely more terrible than we had ever seen before; that's very true. But what the prophecy said was that he would rise again, more terrible than before. I always took that to mean more terrible than he was back before he tried to kill Harry as a baby. I guess we only hear bits and pieces about what it was like, but terror seemed to be a common theme.

tweak1
August 20th, 2011, 6:53 pm
If Voldemort was so powerful, why couldn't he get Dumbledore himself. The biggest villains are the biggest cowards.

xoxhpxox
August 20th, 2011, 6:59 pm
Well, there isn't much information on how terrible he was before he fell to Harry. Not that many bodies came out of his wand as semi-ghosts in the graveyard during GoF. Although, he was pretty cruel during his younger years as Tom Riddle. Does the prophecy include that time period as reference? Or does it refer to his reign just as the Dark Lord/Voldemort. See where I'm coming from? He was quite terrible when he killed Morfin, The Riddles, Hepizbah Smith, etc. but does that actually count towards what the prophecy is referencing to? I hope I'm making sense here...

Gwendolen
August 20th, 2011, 7:41 pm
He definitely looked terrible when he rose again, does that count?

I think he was greater and more terrible. In the first war he had to work in secret, but in the second he took over Hogwarts and the government and was able to do more or less what he liked.

At the end of the first war Dumbledore was still headmaster, and up to the end of the first war the ministry were fighting Voldemort, using unforgivable curses against the death eaters and sending them to Azkaban without trials.

In the second war, the dementors were on Voldemort's side, the ministry fell, Hogwarts fell, the ministry were rounding up muggle-borns to take their wands away, the snatchers and death eaters were able to do as they liked, and it ended in a pitched battle at Hogwarts.

ID824
August 20th, 2011, 8:24 pm
Well, there isn't much information on how terrible he was before he fell to Harry. Not that many bodies came out of his wand as semi-ghosts in the graveyard during GoF. Although, he was pretty cruel during his younger years as Tom Riddle. Does the prophecy include that time period as reference? Or does it refer to his reign just as the Dark Lord/Voldemort. See where I'm coming from? He was quite terrible when he killed Morfin, The Riddles, Hepizbah Smith, etc. but does that actually count towards what the prophecy is referencing to? I hope I'm making sense here...

This is exactly my point as well, you're making perfect sense. :)

JohanT
August 20th, 2011, 8:28 pm
But what about all of the Inferi in the cave? There were probably over 100 or so dead bodies just floating in the lake. Voldemort killed enough to make an army of them... I'd say the body count was extremely high, but the bodies that came out of the wand were just the recent killings. After all, it had been 13 years since Voldemort was in power in GoF.

ID824
August 20th, 2011, 8:46 pm
But what about all of the Inferi in the cave? There were probably over 100 or so dead bodies just floating in the lake. Voldemort killed enough to make an army of them... I'd say the body count was extremely high, but the bodies that came out of the wand were just the recent killings. After all, it had been 13 years since Voldemort was in power in GoF.

Great point!
That's another clear sign that things were pretty terrible the first time around.

Gwendolen
August 20th, 2011, 9:22 pm
We don't know whether Voldemort killed the inferi or called them up from the nearest graveyard when they were already dead. He probably wouldn't have murdered them if he didn't need to, it would have been extra effort, and he'd have to go to the bother of covering his tracks.

There were giant killings and muggle killings, so those can be added to the first war.

I don't think the killings in the first war can have gone on for years and years. We know Voldemort planned to kill the Potters after Harry was born, the first order member died just before Harry's first birthday, and the rest within six months. The war could have been going on long before the prophecy, but I don't think JKR mentioned anyone who was killed in it. I think there was only Regulus, and he was shocked to find out that Voldemort was a murderer.

JohanT
August 20th, 2011, 9:45 pm
We don't know whether Voldemort killed the inferi or called them up from the nearest graveyard when they were already dead. He probably wouldn't have murdered them if he didn't need to, it would have been extra effort, and he'd have to go to the bother of covering his tracks.

There were giant killings and muggle killings, so those can be added to the first war.

I don't think the killings in the first war can have gone on for years and years. We know Voldemort planned to kill the Potters after Harry was born, the first order member died just before Harry's first birthday, and the rest within six months. The war could have been going on long before the prophecy, but I don't think JKR mentioned anyone who was killed in it. I think there was only Regulus, and he was shocked to find out that Voldemort was a murderer.

Dumbledore specifically said "He (Voldemort) killed enough people to make an army of them". I think it's safe to say that Voldemort murdered all of the people whose bodies were in the lake.

The war was going on 10 years before the prophecy. In that period of time, many Order members died, including Fabian and Gideon Prewett and many others.
Regulus wasn't shocked to find out Voldemort was a murderer, he was upset at Voldemort's treatment of Kreacher, and the fact that Voldemort had created horcruxes. I do not think Regulus knew that Voldemort had more than one horcurx though...

Gwendolen
August 20th, 2011, 10:29 pm
Dumbledore specifically said "He (Voldemort) killed enough people to make an army of them". I think it's safe to say that Voldemort murdered all of the people whose bodies were in the lake.

He may well have. Voldemort killed lots of people starting 50 years earlier, and he could have killed more after the war started and in the second war before Dumbledore found the cave.

I would define the start of the first war as when the Ministry started fighting back. I suppose that's irrelevant though - the inferi definitely count towards Voldemort's tally before his fall. I'd say creating the inferi counts whether he murdered them or not, since it's dark magic.

The war was going on 10 years before the prophecy. In that period of time, many Order members died, including Fabian and Gideon Prewett and many others.

How did you work out the date of ten years?

In Order of the Phoenix, in Mad-Eye's photo of the order Gideon and Fabian were in the picture too, along with all the rest of the Order. Mad-Eye said:


"that's Marlene McKinnon, she was killed two weeks after this was taken, they got her whole family"


In Deathly Hallows, Lily wrote a thank you note to Sirius after Harry's first birthday, and she said:


"Wormy was here last weekend, I thought he seemed down, but that was probably the news about the McKinnons; I cried all evening when I heard."


That dates the McKinnons' deaths, and the deaths of the other Order members who died, to between the month before Harry's first birthday and six months later.

Also in the photograph Peter is described as a "small, watery-eyed man", which suggests this was after school, and would fit with it being after Harry was born.

Regulus wasn't shocked to find out Voldemort was a murderer, he was upset at Voldemort's treatment of Kreacher, and the fact that Voldemort had created horcruxes. I do not think Regulus knew that Voldemort had more than one horcurx though...

Much though I think Regulus was upset about Kreacher, I think Regulus would be as upset about the horcrux and the lake of inferi, and both involve murder.

JohanT
August 20th, 2011, 10:48 pm
The war began in 1970 and ended in 1981 when Voldemort attempted to kill Harry. 1970 was when Voldemort started gaining power. I think this was when he began adding more and more people to his inferi collection. I'm sure he already had some bodies in the lake before this.

Fabian and Gideon Prewett were killed towards the end of the war, but they were still casualties.

Perhaps you're right, though. Going by the quotes, it seems many were killed in the last 6 months, but the Order of the Phoenix was relatively small compared to the Death Eaters.

I don't think the Order really knew who all of the Death Eaters were. Voldemort operated in extreme secrecy to the extent that even the death eaters were unaware of all of their comrades' identities. Karkaroff states this in his trial after Voldemort's first downfall. But it seemed that only 3 death eaters were taken down during the first war. This is what Voldemort says in the graveyard.

Unrepentant
August 20th, 2011, 11:15 pm
I always though that the "greater & more terrible"-line referred to that Voldemort now had Harry's blood in him, and was now invulnerable to love, and in one sense "stronger".

ID824
August 20th, 2011, 11:24 pm
I always though that the "greater & more terrible"-line referred to that Voldemort now had Harry's blood in him, and was now invulnerable to love, and in one sense "stronger".

That is a plausible theory... Definitely the greater part... The only part that I've seen mentioned that seems like it could be more terrible is the fact that the ministry had been taken over. With people already not knowing who to trust, not being able to trust the ministry had to be a little more terrible. Plus the snatchers, and the ministry persecuting muggle-borns.

None of this, however, makes Voldemort himself more terrible. Just the events going on when he has returned are more terrible. That's a thin line.

JohanT
August 20th, 2011, 11:37 pm
I agree, I don't really think Voldemort himself could become more "terrible" even after the first war. After all, he was already inhuman by the time he was 16 (when he made his first horcux).

There was still an astounding amount of fear in the wizarding world in both wars, and there were many disappearances and deaths, but perhaps the main difference was in fact the death of Dumbledore. Harry, though thought of as the wizarding world's last hope, was still just a school boy. Though the wizarding world thought that Harry was truly a match for Voldemort, the more astute wizards and witches immediately realized that Harry was not even close to Voldemort's skill, but had the one thing Voldemort despised: love. But it seems like very few wizards even know about the power of love. They would have to place their faith in a young boy now that Dumbledore was dead, and I think many of them may have lost hope.

The loss of hope would have completely shattered any will to fight. Though the people of Hogwarts fought valiantly, I personally believe the majority of wizards would not want to lay down their lives.

Gwendolen
August 20th, 2011, 11:39 pm
I don't think the Order really knew who all of the Death Eaters were. Voldemort operated in extreme secrecy to the extent that even the death eaters were unaware of all of their comrades' identities.

I think you're right. I suspect Voldemort operated in secrecy while he was building his power base, to avoid attracting the attention of the ministry. He was still presentable then, he could have been trying for political power, and I think someone said he had a lot of support. I think he'd have killed people quietly and stuck them in the lake, so even Regulus, who was a death eater, didn't know what he was up to until Kreacher told him.

Once the Ministry knew what Voldemort was planning I think the war would have started in earnest, so that would explain why the Order deaths were at the end of the war.

JohanT
August 20th, 2011, 11:44 pm
I think you're right. I suspect Voldemort operated in secrecy while he was building his power base, to avoid attracting the attention of the ministry. He was still presentable then, he could have been trying for political power, and I think someone said he had a lot of support. I think he'd have killed people quietly and stuck them in the lake, so even Regulus, who was a death eater, didn't know what he was up to until Kreacher told him.

Once the Ministry knew what Voldemort was planning I think the war would have started in earnest, so that would explain why the Order deaths were at the end of the war.

Good point. I don't know if Voldemort cared about political support, though. If he wanted to take that route, it was easily available to him when he graduated Hogwarts. All of his teachers wanted him to become Minister of Magic, and he most likely would have become just that if he decided to.
But what's interesting about Voldemort is that he doesn't care about that type of ruling because there is no flexibility with sitting behind a desk.

Voldemort is what I like to call a fear-monger, he thrives on fear and chaos, and through these two things, he wields power without people even aware that he is the one in control. He loves being feared, and he can't be feared if he were the Minister of Magic, since that would take putting on a kind face and spewing sugar-coated lies to the wizarding world. I think he would find that boring.

Gwendolen
August 21st, 2011, 12:05 am
I don't think Voldemort was interested in being Minister for Magic, as then he'd end up serving the people, instead of the people serving him. I think he would have eventually made his own version, like he was going to do to Hogwarts.

Even though Voldemort was immortal, there were lots of powerful wizards who could have made his life difficult, so I think in the first war he would have needed to build up his own group of supporters to take them on. The Ministry would have found it difficult to take action if he had political support from the likes of Lucius and Sirius' parents, especially if they couldn't prove anything against him.

One of the things that made him greater the second time is he had a lot of the same supporters as the first war, but the Ministry was weaker because of Fudge, and the Order wasn't as effective, especially after losing Mad-Eye and Dumbledore.

JohanT
August 21st, 2011, 12:12 am
Yes, he would have to build up the number of supporters, but these were not open supporters. Pure blood ideology was not at all widely accepted, so many of his supporters, such as Lucius, would have to keep a low head. And this is precisely what Voldemort wanted, because with no knowledge of who the true supporters were, the wizarding world would be thrown into a state of constant paranoia.

Even in the first war, it did not seem like the Ministry was that much more effective at crushing the threat. Voldemort's power was only slightly dented by Dumbledore and the Order's interference, but even then, he was still winning. Even with the Aurors now permitted to use the killing curse, how many Death Eaters actually died? Not many, from the looks of it. No, even though the ministry was in no doubt better shape then it was in the second war, it was not in the least more effective in my opinion.

The Death Eaters were not rounded up and captured until after Voldemort's first downfall, so the Ministry would probably have remained clueless as to who they were if Voldemort had not gone to Godric's Hollow.

ID824
August 21st, 2011, 12:53 am
Good point. I don't know if Voldemort cared about political support, though. If he wanted to take that route, it was easily available to him when he graduated Hogwarts. All of his teachers wanted him to become Minister of Magic, and he most likely would have become just that if he decided to.
But what's interesting about Voldemort is that he doesn't care about that type of ruling because there is no flexibility with sitting behind a desk.

Voldemort is what I like to call a fear-monger, he thrives on fear and chaos, and through these two things, he wields power without people even aware that he is the one in control. He loves being feared, and he can't be feared if he were the Minister of Magic, since that would take putting on a kind face and spewing sugar-coated lies to the wizarding world. I think he would find that boring.

That is so true. For political stuff he had people like Malfoy.

Sergio182
August 21st, 2011, 1:55 am
I think he did become more terrible, I mean he never took over Hogwarts or the Ministry before his "death" if you can call it that... anyhow I think he was more terrible and fierce this time around than before, Voldemort accomplished things he didn't/couldn't before.

ShadowSonic
August 23rd, 2011, 2:29 pm
I have to wonder how he was able to do so much in the Second War (which only lasted like 1 year or so) than in the first one (which went on for like 100 years). Wouldn't it have been easier in the first war for him to kill the Minister of Magic and seize the Ministry since he would've had the element of surprise?

Or were the Death Eaters smaller and weaker the first time around, and by the Second they'd have placed themselves in better positions for the next war?

EDIT: ARGH, I meant to type "10" but put an extra zero in there. Sorry.

MrsPimlico
August 23rd, 2011, 3:27 pm
I have to wonder how he was able to do so much in the Second War (which only lasted like 1 year or so) than in the first one (which went on for like 100 years). Wouldn't it have been easier in the first war for him to kill the Minister of Magic and seize the Ministry since he would've had the element of surprise?

Or were the Death Eaters smaller and weaker the first time around, and by the Second they'd have placed themselves in better positions for the next war?

100 years?? Are you sure about that? I was under the impression of 10 years or so...
Anyway, during that first war, he was building his army, things were going slower. When he came back, his army was there. Things went much faster. And Dumbledore was still alive. It is once Dumbledore died that things really sped up. I do not think you could take the ministry so easily, especially during first war when everyone was aware of what was happening. Fudge messed up and Scrimgeour was barely better... the both of them made things easier for Voldemort.
I will also add something else: Voldemort was much more angry and frustrated during second war...

Gwendolen
August 23rd, 2011, 3:55 pm
Voldemort wasn't 100 years old, he was about the same age as Hagrid. They were both at school 50 years before Chamber of Secrets, because that's when Voldemort killed Myrtle.

MerryLore
August 23rd, 2011, 4:02 pm
100 years?? Are you sure about that? I was under the impression of 10 years or so...
Anyway, during that first war, he was building his army, things were going slower. When he came back, his army was there. Things went much faster. And Dumbledore was still alive. It is once Dumbledore died that things really sped up. I do not think you could take the ministry so easily, especially during first war when everyone was aware of what was happening. Fudge messed up and Scrimgeour was barely better... the both of them made things easier for Voldemort.
I will also add something else: Voldemort was much more angry and frustrated during second war...
I wonder if the biggest difference between the first war and the second was that the Ministry had been infiltrated, and was being ran by people who were in agreement with the DE's, or in total denial? Perhaps people who would have been on the side of The Order chose to believe the Ministry, while people who believed in the DE philosophy knew someone connected to the DE's, and thus it was easier to "rally the troops?"

ShadowSonic
August 23rd, 2011, 6:45 pm
I'm a little surprised that the Ministry didn't try expanding the Auror department after the war, or even establishing an official military arm.

Phoenix7Flame
August 24th, 2011, 6:20 pm
He was more terrible because he was kinda just like "guess who's back, try to stop me." He infiltrated the MoM and Hogwarts. Not positive about the whole greater aspect though. Maybe he seemed to be greater until about halfway through DH after his comeback. He was frantically searching for a wand that would work properly and he seemed to start becoming unhinged. He was even pushing away his more faithful DE's farther than we had seen before by his radical behavior. This radical behavior definitely increased when he realized Harry was hunting bits of his soul. He surely wasn't a flimsy character. Even after he was offered a second chance he stayed true to himself which could be considered a "great" trait to carry. He stayed terrible to the end.

JohanT
August 24th, 2011, 7:42 pm
He was more terrible because he was kinda just like "guess who's back, try to stop me." He infiltrated the MoM and Hogwarts. Not positive about the whole greater aspect though. Maybe he seemed to be greater until about halfway through DH after his comeback. He was frantically searching for a wand that would work properly and he seemed to start becoming unhinged. He was even pushing away his more faithful DE's farther than we had seen before by his radical behavior. This radical behavior definitely increased when he realized Harry was hunting bits of his soul. He surely wasn't a flimsy character. Even after he was offered a second chance he stayed true to himself which could be considered a "great" trait to carry. He stayed terrible to the end.

I agree, Voldemort became frantic and paranoid towards the end, but he was still extremely successful in taking over the wizarding world. I was actually surprised at how easy it was for him. I was looking back on the first war, and I really think that if it hadn't been for Dumbledore, Voldemort would have knocked over the ministry even then.

Phoenix7Flame
August 25th, 2011, 6:02 am
I agree, Voldemort became frantic and paranoid towards the end, but he was still extremely successful in taking over the wizarding world. I was actually surprised at how easy it was for him. I was looking back on the first war, and I really think that if it hadn't been for Dumbledore, Voldemort would have knocked over the ministry even then.

They actually portrayed his being paranoid in the movie fairly well...definitely different than how I expected they would, though. In the book it seemed a bit more subtle, but that's just me.

JohanT
August 28th, 2011, 1:16 am
They actually portrayed his being paranoid in the movie fairly well...definitely different than how I expected they would, though. In the book it seemed a bit more subtle, but that's just me.

I agree, he was more subtle and calculating in the book overall. I think that the reason Voldemort's "greatness and terribleness" is being questioned in this thread is simply because he looks very vulnerable in the end. But that is how it is supposed to be. He has lost control, and is spiraling downward. But this does not in any way make him less great or less terrible. He caused immense destruction before having everything turn against him.

Phoenix7Flame
August 28th, 2011, 1:58 am
I agree, he was more subtle and calculating in the book overall. I think that the reason Voldemort's "greatness and terribleness" is being questioned in this thread is simply because he looks very vulnerable in the end. But that is how it is supposed to be. He has lost control, and is spiraling downward. But this does not in any way make him less great or less terrible. He caused immense destruction before having everything turn against him.

Exactly...He tried to become less and less human through creating his Horcruxes, but in the end, he was still human. Humans are prone to making mistakes because we are not omniscient. Voldemort was definitely extremely clever but he was not all-knowing. He was simply a human who made a few mistakes leading to his demise (twice). Humans also seem to be out for revenge which is why when he came back he was greater and more terrible.

ID824
August 28th, 2011, 2:22 am
Exactly...He tried to become less and less human through creating his Horcruxes, but in the end, he was still human. Humans are prone to making mistakes because we are not omniscient. Voldemort was definitely extremely clever but he was not all-knowing. He was simply a human who made a few mistakes leading to his demise (twice). Humans also seem to be out for revenge which is why when he came back he was greater and more terrible.

I wouldn't say that he tried to become less human by creating horcruxes, that was more a by-product of creating so many horcruxes. But no matter ho his humanity deminished, his power did not.

JohanT
August 28th, 2011, 2:28 am
I have a feeling that Voldemort intended to become "more than human". Voldemort seems to despise anything that attaches him to humanity and to the normal. And mortality is human and normal. By destroying his mortality, Voldemort basically destroyed his humanity. So no, not "less than human", which is what he is, but "more than human", which is what he percieves himself to be.

ID824
August 28th, 2011, 4:40 pm
The superhuman power of immortality, but cursed to not understand the foul path and dark consequences of his actions... This really does make him a terrible wizard. Not terrible in the sense of being evil, but terrible in the sense of just not being a very capable wizard. He's just really bad at it now.

JohanT
August 28th, 2011, 8:51 pm
The superhuman power of immortality, but cursed to not understand the foul path and dark consequences of his actions... This really does make him a terrible wizard. Not terrible in the sense of being evil, but terrible in the sense of just not being a very capable wizard. He's just really bad at it now.

I think he was extremely capable. He was rather successful in becoming what he wanted to be: inhuman. But recognizing the path he was taking would require wisdom as well as the ability to feel remorse. Voldemort is extremely intelligent, but he is not wise, nor does he have the ability to feel remorse. He did not care about the consequences of his actions because he felt that his soul and his appearance were both expendable. He knew exactly what he was doing, but his humanity simply meant nothing to him. In fact, he sought to destroy it.

Macindaw
August 4th, 2012, 5:43 am
While it is true that he only lasted three years this time, with Dumbledore gone, he was able to take over the ministry of magic and hogwarts. He never even came close to taking hogwarts during the first wizarding war.

ShadowSonic
August 4th, 2012, 4:32 pm
But he only "took" Hogwarts due to Snape, who in turn was allowed to do so by Dumbledore. Without Snape would he have been able to take Hogwarts?

wolfbrother
August 4th, 2012, 5:15 pm
But he only "took" Hogwarts due to Snape, who in turn was allowed to do so by Dumbledore. Without Snape would he have been able to take Hogwarts?

Voldemort was going to place someone from his circle to be Headmaster of Hogwarts. There was nothing Dumbledore could do to stop it.

ShadowSonic
August 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Would he have been able to do so and get by Hogwarts' defenses, if it had been anyone but Snape?

Then again, Hogwarts' defenses seem to be easy enough to fool. Quirrell, Barty Crouch Jr, Wormtail, etc all got by without any kind of "Defensive screening".

Macindaw
August 4th, 2012, 6:58 pm
I think that he could have taken hogwarts even without Snape. Especially once he had taken over the ministry. If Snape didn't work, he could allways put in another death eater like lucious Malfoy. He could have even put umbridge back in charge.

wolfbrother
August 4th, 2012, 7:18 pm
Would he have been able to do so and get by Hogwarts' defenses, if it had been anyone but Snape?

Then again, Hogwarts' defenses seem to be easy enough to fool. Quirrell, Barty Crouch Jr, Wormtail, etc all got by without any kind of "Defensive screening".

Hogwarts had no defense against Dark Wizards. Voldemort could have named himself Headmaster if he wanted to. Hogwarts was considered secure because of Dumbledore.

Pokota
August 4th, 2012, 9:05 pm
Bringing up something from way back on page two, since I think it needs to be addressed.

Nothing he did during the second rise, not even the extermination of Muggles, lived up to his notoriety. He let Weasley family members waltz in and out of a building he controlled instead of using them as hostages. He killed no Aurors before the Hogwarts Battle. Uncharacteristic behavior from someone purely evil.

The second Voldemort War was conducted in a very different manner from the first one. You have to remember, in the second war he specialized in being "Sir Not Appearing In This War". He delegated being Minister to the, well, Minster for Magic: Pious Thicknesse. Whether or not people sided with Potter hinged entirely on whether or not people believed he was still alive - from a strategic standpoint, he was more dangerous for staying in the shadows because it prevented the uniting of the Potter-Sympathizers against the Death Eaters and the Death-Eater Controlled Ministry.

As for letting the Weasley family members waltz in and out of the Ministry of Magic... Arthur Weasley was the most likely wizard to know where Potter was and what he was up to, so there's no reason to kill/maim/oust/whatever him. There was no strategic or political need to remove Percy Weasley.

As for Not Killing Aurors... this is a direct result of his non-involvement policy for the second war. Simply announcing (personally) the fact that the Death Eaters were going to assault Hogwarts was enough to break morale of pretty much all of the students that didn't already know he was on his way due to Harry's earlier warning to the DA members. He was not fighting in the first half of the battle, and in the second half he was already bound by Harry's sacrifice.

Besides, his army was seen to be an extension of himself, so any kill they made would be attributed to him in the end.

----

As for the discussion at hand, it's really splitting hairs at this point. Snape was the most trusted lieutenant of Voldemort for a year before Dumbledore's death, if his words in Spinner's End are anything to go by. He would have been installed as Headmaster over pretty much anybody other than Voldemort himself because of this fact - and it was in the Death Eaters' best interests for Voldemort to stay under the radar for as long as possible because a lack of proof of existence had divided Wizard Britain from the moment he stepped out of that cauldron all the way to Harry's sacrifice.

Oh, wait, that's not what we're arguing over. No, I don't think he would have had an easier time with other Death Eaters leading Hogwarts for the simple fact that he would have had a rebellion on his hands a lot sooner. Anything that unified Wizard Britain against the Death Eaters and/or Ministry had to be handled in as gentle a manner as possible. This was his mistake with Gringotts, by the way, since angering the Goblins is a surefire way to screw up everybody's gold.

Sereena
August 4th, 2012, 10:15 pm
As for letting the Weasley family members waltz in and out of the Ministry of Magic... Arthur Weasley was the most likely wizard to know where Potter was and what he was up to, so there's no reason to kill/maim/oust/whatever him.

On the contrary, I would say that would be a great reason to (not kill him) but torture him and threaten him and his family until they either reveal where Harry and his son were or until they lure Harry and Ron out. The trio still read the news so there were ways for the Death Eaters to let them know that they had the Weasleys at their mercy and could kill them if Harry didn't turn himself in.

Pokota
August 4th, 2012, 10:24 pm
True, that is a consideration, and it's implied that's exactly what the Death Eaters are planning on doing when Harry finds the papers during the Raid On The Ministry.

And to my memory, the trio wasn't keeping current on the news until after they were reunited - after which point all the Weasleys (bar Percy) were in hiding anyway.

CallMeSeverus
August 6th, 2012, 3:39 am
I think because of the fact he was able to take control of the Ministry, Hogwarts, and basically run the country he was worse than the last time. Dumbledore never would have imagined him taking Hogwarts, although if you think about it he really didn't because Snape was headmaster and he was good...but in essensce he did have the school......i guess
This exactly. There are many things he did that are very underlooked.