In the Harry Potter universe, does a wizard need to have a wand on him or her to Apparate?

I'd like to clear this up, because I've seen contradictory statements. In https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/10329/4918 , DVK tells us that they do need one, and that's why Lily couldn't Apparate with Harry when the Dark Lord attacked them in their house. In https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/8769/4918 , Slytherincess expresses the opinion that they don't need a wand.

  • 2
    I suspect it's useful, and necessary unless you're unusually skilled (e.g. Dumbledore, Voldemort), but I don't think it's confirmed. In Deathly Hallows, we get this line: "Ron was now trying to Disapparate without a wand", but it's not clear if wandlessness, injury or other enchantments are what stop him from being successful.
    – alexwlchan
    Commented Sep 14, 2015 at 16:31
  • 4
    Well Harry did apparate as accidental magic as a child wandless.
    – Tdmut
    Commented Sep 14, 2015 at 21:24
  • I've always thought they must need a wand. What else that's consistently controlled and significant magic can they do without one?
    – ThruGog
    Commented Sep 14, 2015 at 21:35
  • 1
    @ThruGog: I believe Animaguses can turn to their animal form without a wand, in a controlled way. That counts as significant. Sirius Black telling that he has turned to a dog in Azkaban shows that this works without a wand.
    – b_jonas
    Commented Sep 27, 2015 at 22:35
  • 1
    In Deathly Hallows chapter 14, Ron hopes that Mr and Mrs Cattermole could escape safely by side-along-apparition. Harry wonders if that's possible, since only Mr Cattermole had a wand with him, but didn't dare to ask. Hermione would probably know the answer, but she's not in a mood to talk about it at that time. I can't really take this as evidence either way, since Harry doesn't know much about the rules of magic, but it's still worth mentioning.
    – b_jonas
    Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 14:28

4 Answers 4


They do

In Book of Spells, Miranda Goshawk recounts the story of a witch who was unable to Apparate until she had retrieved her wand.

The following day Snickerton led a band of men to arrest the accused witch. Cornered at her shop, she was unable to explain why she owned no scissors. Snickerton insisted that her hands should be tightly bound to stop her cursing them all and set about searching for the wand he swore he had seen her using. After several hours, however, he had found nothing suspicious, and his friends were starting to doubt him.

At last, Madam Crimp asked whether she might at least be unbound to scratch her chin, on which there was a large wart. Unable to see the harm in this, her foolish accusers agreed.

The moment Madam Crimp touched the wart, it sprang out of her face, revealing itself as her concealed wand. She promptly Disapparated along with a large bag of gold, and was never seen in London again.

Wonderbook: Book of Spells - Chapter 4

This would imply that a wand is needed to disapparate. (Or at least makes it much easier, like by most other magic.)

  • 4
    I think the last statement is most correct. It's not impossible without a wand, just more difficult. It also reminds me of Ollivander in DH, he states something along the lines of magic being able to be channeled through almost any object, but wands make it much easier and more controllable. (More controllable in reference to underage magic persons having uncontrolled bouts of magic, such as Harry apparantely Apparates to get away from bullies as a child)
    – DBPriGuy
    Commented Jan 4, 2017 at 0:00

I think it is possible to apparate without a wand. May be wand makes it easer to apparate.

Ron was now trying to Disapparate without a wand.

“There’s no way out, Ron,” said Luna, watching his fruitless efforts. “The cellar is completely escape-proof. I tried, at first. Mr. Ollivander has been here for a long time, he’s tried everything.”

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 23. Malfoy Manor

If we go back to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, when the training for apparition test was going on. There is no mention of wand work.

He waved his wand. Old-fashioned wooden hoops instantly appeared on the floor in from of every student.

“The important things to remember when Apparating are the three D’s!” said Twycross. “Destination, Determination, Deliberation!

“Step one: fix your mind firmly upon the desired destination,” said Twycross. “In this case, the interior of your hoop. Kindly concentrate upon that destination now.”

“Step two,” said Twycross, “focus your determination to occupy the visualised space! Let your yearning to enter it flood from your mind to every particle of your body! “

“Step three,” called Twycross, “only when I give the command... turn on the spot, feeling your way into nothingness, moving with deliberation. On my command, now... one —”

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 18, Birthday Surprises

Regarding Lily Potter's death, there might have been a charm (Anti-Disapparition Jinx) on the house like in Hogwarts as security feature. I say this because we don't see Voldemort apparating inside the house.

The gate creaked a little as he pushed it open, but James Potter did not hear. His white hand pulled out the wand beneath his cloak and pointed it at the door, which burst open.

He was over the threshold as James came sprinting into the hall. It was easy, too easy, he had not even picked up his wand

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 17. Bathilda’s Secret

  • 1
    +1 I think this is right. One of the rare instances of "atypical" magic where Rowling has basically provided a complete tutorial! :) as you say, no mention of a wand (to make things easier or for any other purpose) so I reckon taking the lessons in HBP at face value - no wand needed.
    – Luna
    Commented Sep 16, 2015 at 21:47

I don't think that wizards require wands to apperate. There are numerous examples of magic in general being cast without a wand (Dumbledore's casting of Arresto Momentum in POA, the guy in PS in the leaky caldron making the spoon stir) even if apparition isn't seen explicitly.

Given that we know wandless magic is possible, it seems to me that the only barrier would be the power level of the witch/wizard in general. It is logical to assume that wandless magic would be even more difficult that non-verbal magic which most cannot do. Given this, and that apparition requires a relatively high level of power anyway, I think that it is possible, but also unlikely that any but a few of the most powerful characters (Dumbledore, Voldemort, Bellatrix, McGonagall etc) would have been able to accomplish wandless apparition.

  • 2
    The way to make this answer better than the others would be to reference an example where someone Apparated, obviously or implicitly, sans employment of a wand. As it is now, this doesn't really do much better than the answers already given. :-( Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 11:39
  • 1
    Dumbledore casting Arresto Momentum is an invention of Alfonso Cuaron, if memory serves. Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 11:46

Wizards don't need wands to apparate, it's kind of like using the floo powder to travel, you don't need any wand just like there are some nonverbal spells as illustrated in Harry potter and the half blood Prince

  • 1
    While this seems like a plausible theory, do you have any evidence to support it? Commented Sep 15, 2015 at 13:25
  • 1
    Floo Powder is a magical object or perhaps substance so I think that's a very different situation.
    – ThruGog
    Commented Sep 15, 2015 at 16:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.