In Season 13 episode 23, a super-charged Lucifer says to Dean/Michael:

"I don't need an Archangel blade to kill you", and proceeds to attempt to smite him. This would imply if he wasn't super-charged he would need one.

But in Season 5, there was the whole threat of a Lucifer vs Michael fight causing global collateral damage, with Michael ultimately

being the victor.

If it was a simple sword fight that would determine the victor, then there wouldn't be a need to unleash their full Archangel power and destroy most of the planet.

So, do Archangels need to use an Archangel blade to kill one of their own?

  • It's been a while since I watched season 5, but weren't they preparing to fight using angel blades? Am I forgetting something? – Steve-O May 18 '18 at 13:41
  • @Steve-O we never saw Michael or Lucifer wield a blade in s5, but in Hammer of the Gods (5x20 iirc) the Arch angel blade was introduced - Gabriel's- although it suspiciously looked like an angel blade, but a distinction was explicitly made – Logan545 May 18 '18 at 13:49

I'm going to hazard a guess and say yes, but it would be significantly harder. We've seen an Archangel's blade used three times to kill an Arch angel (Gabriel in season 5 and 13, and Lucifer in season 13), and it's only taken a direct hit to the torso area to be successful.

I imagine any other means an Archangel could come up with would take significantly longer and would be more difficult. One piece of evidence we do have, is that AU Michael said he "ripped [AU] Lucifer apart of the skies of Abilene", which implies he didn't just stab him. Another, is that Lucifer and Michael weren't seen with Archangel blades in 5x23 Swan Song as they were about to fight.

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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