As we probably all know, Snape kills Dumbledore. Dumbledore ordered him to, because it was the only way to prove to Voldemort that Snape was loyal to him. But was it really worth it to lose one of the greatest wizards of all time, and in exchange get someone "on the inside"? What events would have gone differently if Snape was not trusted by Voldemort? And would a victory over Voldemort still have been possible?

I haven't read the last few books (I think I read GoF, and maybe OotP). So maybe there is more stuff in the books, but in the movies it doesn't really look like anything major is possible because of Dumbledore's death.

  • 2
    There is a lot in the last books that explains why Dumbledore asks Snape to kill him, least of all the fact Dumbledore is actually dying already at that point. Perhaps it is glossed over in the films, been a while since I have seen them. – Beast-a-tron Dec 2 '14 at 11:11

Dumbledore was dead anyway, the ring that was destroying his hand was cursed and all Dumbledore/Snape could do was slow that curse down - it's stated in the book that it will kill him before long. Dumbledore was also disarmed and weakened from drinking the weird lake water/potion, and Snape can't protect Dumbledore and fight off half a dozen death eaters on his own

Killing your most powerful wizard to get a man on the inside may not make sense... but it may make sense to mercifully kill an ally who, if left to Bellatrix, would likely be tortured first.

Dumbledore was dead anyway, and probably in a much more horrible way - so to kill him in that circumstance to gain a man on the inside is probably worthwhile.

Add in the facts that

  1. Snape made a binding (and in this case, binding means "Will kill you if you break it") magical promise to Malfoy's mother to kill Dumbledore if Malfoy couldn't

  2. Dumbledore wanted to save Malfoy from having his soul destroyed by killing Dumbledore. Dumbledore was dead anyway and he knew it, but he always believed everyone was redeemable, and didn't want Malfoy to kill him. In this, we see he was proven right - at the end the Malfoys run away, and Draco is seen to be at least civil with Harry years later.

And it's obvious that it's not as simple as "Why kill your best guy?"

  • This makes a lot more sense than the movies. I don't think they even say that Dumbledore would die anyway in the movies, but it's been a while for me since I watched them. – Kevin Dec 2 '14 at 11:38
  • Dumbledore was running weak, it doesn't mean someone could kill him. You underestimated the greatest wizard of all time. – Wakanda Forever Dec 2 '14 at 14:49
  • Sachin, possibly - we'll never know. That wasn't the only reason I gave, and far more likely is the fact Dumbledore would never knowingly let a student commit murder. – Jon Story Dec 2 '14 at 16:34

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