In our world among the most common1 super powers people want will include breathing under water/without an oxygen supply. A lot of common things for ideas for spells in Harry Potter seem to come from ideas of "That would be cool to be able to do", of which breathing underwater certainly falls into.

Is there any reason why the weren't more common usage spells for breathing underwater?

1Probably not near the top but I doubt it's too far away.

  • Relevant question: scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/154810/…
    – tobiasvl
    Mar 16, 2017 at 9:04
  • @tobiasvl That's what I read before asking this.
    – TheLethalCarrot
    Mar 16, 2017 at 9:08
  • 1
    Because wizards and witches don't spend any more time underwater than we do? The equivalent question on Wizarding SE would be 'Muggles have invented underwater breathing equipment. Why aren't they all underwater?'. Mar 16, 2017 at 9:26

1 Answer 1


Why does there need to be?

You've got one spell - the Bubble-head charm - in addition to things like Gillyweed. It works perfectly fine. Just because Harry & Co. didn't find it doesn't mean that it's not common - in fact, by the time of The Order of the Phoenix, we see that it is common - everyone is doing it. Presumably, it's taught in the fifth or later years,and the older students taught it to the younger ones.

  • In the question that @tobiasvl linked to the implication is that it is only common knowledge after it was used in the tournament. And asking why does there need to be on a spell can be asked to all of them so that point doesn't really stand.
    – TheLethalCarrot
    Mar 16, 2017 at 10:00
  • @TheLethalCoder I'm saying that one spell is enough. Having more than one would be... useless.
    – Mithical
    Mar 16, 2017 at 10:01
  • And my question is why aren't they more common not why aren't there more. Before the tournament it seemed that not many people knew about them...
    – TheLethalCarrot
    Mar 16, 2017 at 10:11
  • @TheLethalCoder and my answer was that it's apparently taught at a later time. Remember, we mostly see a bunch of kids learning, which isn't exactly a realistic representative of what the general population knows.
    – Mithical
    Mar 16, 2017 at 10:12
  • Taught later would imply that more people would know about it. Take a real world example that kids in school are aware of upcoming material.
    – TheLethalCarrot
    Mar 16, 2017 at 10:22

Your Answer

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

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