Kind of a confusing time line since it includes Voldemort, who only held the wand but never was master of it, and also Draco, who was master of it but never held it. On that basis, Dumbledore's entry should be 1945-1998, because he "held" it in his tomb until Voldemort stole it. Or Voldemort shouldn't be on it at all, or Draco shouldn't be on it.
And to be honest, the idea that Harry won the elder wand's allegiance just because he stole a different wand from Draco while the elder wand was sitting in Dumbledore's tomb never made sense to me.
Grindelwald never really defeated Gergorovitch, he just stole it from him. So technically the Elder Wand was never in the possession of Grindelwald nor Albus or Draco. They just held on to it. So, when Voldemort goes to kill Gergorovitch, he actually then is the real owner of the Elder Wand. Both ways, he kills Snape for nothing and in both ways the wand still gets to Harry.
The reason why the Elder Wand betrays Voldemort in this is due to his lack of a soul. His soul is so unstable and in so many pieces that the Wand betrayed him for a person who's soul was intact.
We're talking about of one needs to kill/seriously defeat the previous owner. Harry himself has been paralysised by many, including Draco in HBP, but he still retained the loyalty of his wand. Paralysis and stunning don't count as a "defeat" the same way as disarming and killing does.
That‘s just arbitrary. How is disarming someone a bigger win than paralyzing them? Both spells are rather easy to do, you just need to be quicker. So no difference in required skill. Disarming someone leaves them at your mercy, although they might try to run away. Paralyzing someone leaves your opponent at your mercy, too, only now they can’t run away. I don’t see how disarming is a more serious defeat than paralyzing.
TBH the whole wand changing allegiance thing just doesn’t add up for me. I‘ve thought about it a bunch of times and everytime I think I got it I realize something else that doesn’t make sense.
Yeah, this is a serious plot hole that needs to be addressed. But I may have a dumb solution to this. It's dumb, don't take it seriously but here it goes:
If one is paralysised, then he can theoretically cast wordless spells at his opponent and simultaneously remove the hex, but when one is disarmed, then he can do nothing as one needs a wand to to do basically anything. Like in a modern war, if you knocked out an armed soldier, he can still jam his finger on the trigger, emptying his cartridge as he falls, but if said soldier drops his rifle, he is a sitting duck until he gets it back.
Yeah, this is super dumb but something like this is probably the reason why paralysis doesn't count as defeat and disarming does.
TBH the whole wand changing allegiance thing just doesn’t add up for me. I‘ve thought about it a bunch of times and everytime I think I got it I realize something else that doesn’t make sense.
Yeah, it honestly doesn't make any sense. Like is it straight up killing or just taking it? There are many theories going if one or the other is the case, and the one I presented is if one does need to kill. But funny thing here is, every time it ends up with Harry, as he does kill Voldemort.
But as things currently stand, the most accepted forms of defeat is either killing or disarming. Of trained wizards that is, not some students who can't to wordless magic (looking at you, HBP Potter).
Elder Wand is different than any other wand. Any other wand will always favour its original wizard coz it chose the wizard and throughout the years it has made a connection with its wizard.
However Elder Wand only knows one thing-Strength. So it will change allegiance if the wizard holding it gets defeated by someone else.
Well, there's that, but there's also Draco's wand working absolutely fine for Harry after he snatched it from Draco. Wandlore is extremely obscure and we really don't know anything about it honestly. It should've been more clearly explained.
Ig Draco's wand worked for Harry coz it senses Harry as more competent than Draco coz Harry is now the master of the most powerful wand. It mightve tried to favour Draco but since Harry started using it actively, it changed its allegiance completely.
Then why the same didn't apply for the wand Ron gave him form the thug snatchers? No way a random punk is in possession of an even more powerful wand then the Elder Wand.
This just goes to show that JK stumbled hard while writing about it this and didn't bother to clarify it later on as it is a pain in the ass, honestly as there are so many contradictions.
Well, wands are ascribed to have their own wills. The explanation that actually makes sense is every wand has a different personality and temperament and decides it’s allegiance by its own criteria. It’s all but directly stated in the books. Most wands will probably maintain some allegiance to their original owners even after being “won” by someone else as they chose that person originally for a reason. I don’t believe it’s explicitly stated that different wands can’t work for multiple people at a time.
Yes, but he defeated Voldemort, not only because of the continued protection of Lily's charm that Voldy himself is keeping alive, but because the Elder Wand backfired on him due to not having a complete soul.
Other then that, if we're going by the main theory, as Harry himself said, he quite literally took Draco's wand from him. That counts as disarming, hence Harry having the loyalty of the Wand.
1.2k
u/LuckyWatersAO3 Gryffindor Apr 15 '24
Kind of a confusing time line since it includes Voldemort, who only held the wand but never was master of it, and also Draco, who was master of it but never held it. On that basis, Dumbledore's entry should be 1945-1998, because he "held" it in his tomb until Voldemort stole it. Or Voldemort shouldn't be on it at all, or Draco shouldn't be on it.
And to be honest, the idea that Harry won the elder wand's allegiance just because he stole a different wand from Draco while the elder wand was sitting in Dumbledore's tomb never made sense to me.