Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
discussion
The sword of Godric Gryffindor
date
newest »



I don't know if the sword on its own would have killed the Horcrux, due to the presence of the basilisk poison. I'm thinking it wouldn't, because it would be equivalent to smashing the locket with one's boot to kill the Horcrux.


Nope, you're crazy.
It's not said anywhere that Goblin-made objects are made with basilisk venom. The sword of Griffindor absorbed it when Harry used it to kill the basilisk.
Hermione explains some of this before they leave the Burrow. She tells Ron and Harry that basilisk venom is one of very few ways to kill a horcrux. Fiend fire is another way to do it.
There's nothing at all to suggest that the sword could destroy a horcrux on it's own. But it's an old sword, so who knows what else it has absorbed.

Yep, it's only because the sword came in contact with the venom. It wasn't a horcrux destroyer all on its own.

I have many swords. Like buster, fantasy, omens, gryffindor sword As a swords lover i am collecting replica swords from last 2 years and i really enjoy swords movies...
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Just watched the movie with my boyfriend last night, and we got to wondering about the sword, the basilisk poison and the pendant.
Now mind you, it's been a while since I've last read the book, so the answer might be in there, but I can't remember it...
If the sword hadn't been drenged in basilisk poison, would it still have been able to destroy the horcrux?
It's established that in book #2 that basilisk poison can kill a horcrux, and that the sword only takes in that which makes it stronger, i.e. it is drenged in the poison in book #7...
So, my question is: Can the sword only destroy the horcrux in the pendant, because it is drenged in basilisk poison, or is the sword mighty enough on its own, to be able to destroy the horcrux?
Thanks in advance... :)