MetaFic

That is a very good question... I think he didn't want to destroy an ancient artefact that had some cultural significance. That or he wanted to have it available if a certain dark wizard decided to do something worse than petrify muggle-borns.

ass. He seemed sometimes to place objects and concepts above living beings, and also seemed to be the sort of person who didn't like to lose. My guess (although JKR does not relate) is that, as omega13b says, he didn't want to destroy a valuable artifact, but also that he wanted the advantage it gave him.

In that case, why7 didn't Harry snap the wand at the end of DH? Perhaps they are all a tad thick

Maybe it's like the One Ring, and passes unharmed through fire, etc. Anyone up for a sidetrip to Iceland to get rid of it? :-)

Dumbledore at least had the temptation to keep on doing great things with it. He could break it, but he just might need that extra juice sometime. For the greater good, of course. If Harry had no intention of using it, hell, have a barbecue. Toss the ring in there as well, pound the stone to powder and pour it in the Tay. Leaving these things just lying around where anyone could stumble across them seems more than a little silly.

The whole idea of wandlore fell down pretty dramatically in the last couple of books for me. So your wand changes allegiences when it's convenient for the plot? Er, OK...

The Rat
_______________________________
Standing here in my Reckless Hat

...no other wand would have him? The fight with Grindelwald broke his old one, and Ollivander just didn't seem to have any more Death Sticks in stock?

I've been wondering about that... I mean, with that logic, every single time someone would disarm someone else, their wand would switch owners. Or maybe it wouldn't work in a situation where the previous owner didn't feel threatened by their "attacker". But in that case, what the hell happened between Draco and Dumbledore?
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Night falls and I'm running in circles (Whoa-oh-oh)
I'm being chased by my imagination (Whoa-oh-oh)"
Alesana - The Thespian

In Tails of Beetle the Bard, Dumbledore did clarify something about that. Most wands don't switch owners if their owner is defeated. The way Dumbledore words it is that only wands that are attracted to power switch owners when its owner gets defeated. GoF does establish wands do have a personality (If I recall, Ollivander called Fleur's wand tempermental).

Throughout the books wands are shown as not working quite right when they aren't 'yours'. Ron had Charlie's ... he did better after CoS when he got his own. Neville had his Dad's ... he did better when he got a new one after OotP. Harry couldn't use the stolen snatcher wand in DH very well, Hermione's didn't work very well for him. Hermione hated Bellatrix's wand in DH.

The point of The Elder Wand was that it DID work well for you when you defeated it's owner. That doesn't actually happen as a general rule - it happened only to *this* wand.

So Voldemort has his wand and it doesn't work against Harry's because they are brother wands. So he wants another one. He takes Lucius's ... fail. So he seeks the one wand he believes is more powerful above all others. He seeks the one wand he believes he can guarantee will 'give him loyalty' - a wand that WILL work right for him after acquisition.

It never was about ALL wands switching allegieance - it's legend about the Elder Wand. It is something DIFFERENT about that wand. And that's why Voldemort wants it.

And the fact that it didn't kill Harry WAS NOT because Harry was the master of it, having defeated Draco. Harry didn't die because Voldemort blasted the Horcrux and NOT Harry. But Dumbledore wasn't sure how much of the legend was actually true and gave Harry just enough to make sure that he could fool Voldemort. The fact that Harry was the Master of the Elder Wand was effectively psycobabble to confuse Voldemort while he pointed a wand at him.

One could argue that the difference of the Elder Wand was that it had *no* allegiance and would work for whoever had it. It could be said that it didn't kill Harry because it hit the Horcrux not because it recognised it's master.

I think you are confusing two spearate incidents. The Elder Wand worked quite well against Harry in the Forbidden Forest, but it killed the soul chip that was the unknown Horcrux instead of Harry. If Voldemort had known Harry was a Horcrux I doubt he would have tried to kill him. (Melindaleo covers this in The Seventh Horcrux) Also, in the Forest Harry did not raise a wand against Voldemort; to the Elder Wand he was just another target.

There is a weird logic here: In the Forest Voldemort had two Horcruxes remaining, Nagini and Harry. Harry is hit with the AK and dies, but the destruction of the Horcrux also takes down Voldemort - except Nagini still lives so Voldemort can't die and Harry is tied by blood to Voldemort so Harry can't die either. Oops!

The psychout duel in the Great Hall was a different situation; Voldemort is facing Harry - again. (I cannot help but think of Jaffar's line from Aladin used in A Very Potter Musical "How many time must I kill you, boy!") Now Harry is holding Draco's wand in opposition to the Elder Wand. The Elder Wand recognises the wand that last defeated it. The fact that Harry is holding it is not important. Had Voldemort killed Dumbledore and then faced Harry who held the yew/phoenix wand, the results in the Great Hall would have been the same. As far as the Elder Wand is concerned, it is the wand and not the wand's owner.

I have absolutely no idea what you just said.

Having read my note while completely awake I have to agree with you. Let's see if I can stay on topic today...

There is something off about all the Hallows. They don't act as normal magical constructs would (within Jo's little world). I agree with your comment about the Elder Wand having no allegiance. It seemed to work for the person who beat its last owner. What if that isn't the criterion for the Elder Wand? I have wondered if it cares nothing about the Wizard but rather recognizes the wand that last beat it. Harry has Draco's wand but he wasn't holding it in the Forbidden Forest. In the Great Hall the Elder Wand is facing the wand that last beat it. Doesn't matter if the regular wand has changed hands a thousand times, it remains the wand that last beat the Elder Wand. Therefore the Elder Wand will not attack its superior. It also means Dumbledore had it wrong and the Elder Wand's current user dying undefeated means nothing to the Wand.

Getting back to Bransfolly's original question - Dumbledore probably didn't break the Elder Wand because he does have this little power trip complex. He never trusted himself with a power position in Government. Yes, he's Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot and Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards but these are more Head of State roles, not Head of Government. But he does like having the trappings of Power without affecting others. The Elder Wand fits that bill quite nicely so he is not going to destroy it.

After reading other comments, I have became confused. Wasn't the the first question, "If Dumbledore wanted to be the wands last true master why didn't he just snap it?". My opinion is mostly that "The Hallows" are indestructible". The stone was struck with a formidable goblin-made sword with basilisk-venom in-coated with it. Though the horcrux within it didn't survive, it retained it's magical properties(Harry used it in chapter: The Forest Again), except a crack in the middle.

I am quite sure, even if the cloak would have survived, in those kinds of extreme situation. so I don't think that Dumbledore and his procedures had the resource nor power to successfully destroy it.

As for the alliance of one wand, Rowling, intentionally omitted the particular process on which a wand changes it's owner. if it was as simple as disarming the owner then i am afraid Most of the D.A members would have lost their wands' alliance while learning "Expelliarmus".

Not true. JK did explain it a little more in Dumbledore's cometary in Tales of Beedle the Bard.

I should read "Tails of Beetle the Bard" one more time. Thank you for the clarification.

The HP World according to Chatmandu:
"Dumbledore didn't break the Elder wand because he still was still enthralled with the Hallows. He was soooo close; twice he had control of two out of three! Harry didn't break the wand (in the book!) out of respect for Dumbledore."

The HP story is full of instances where Wizards use other's wands without taking them. Sometimes it is familial, Ron using Charlie's old wand (why did Charlie need a new one?), Draco is using his mother's in the final battle. However, Wizards do use other's wands without taking them away. Tom Riddle used Harry's in the Chamber, Voldemort uses Lucius' during Harry's flight from Privet Drive. Ollivander performs magic with each TriWizard Champion's wand. Harry uses Hermione's, Hermione uses Bellatrix's, Ron is using Lord knows whose wand at the end of the book.

As far as the Elder Wand goes, the first time it changes hand is when it is stolen from the Peverell brother before he is murdered with a slit throat. Grindelwald stole it from Gregorovitch and Voldemort stole it from Dumbledore's tomb. So duelling or combat is not necessary for the thing to work for another Wizard. Harry never had any claim to the Elder Wand so why did it recognize its true master? Because Harry was holding the wand that last defeated it. Harry was NOT holding Draco's wand when he faced Voldemort in the forest.

Once again we have the HP world according to Chatmandu: "While there seems to be a tie between a Wizard/Witch and their wand, the Elder wand has no tie to any particular Wizard, it only respects the last wand that beat it."

Note - If the HP world according to Chatmandu EVER coincides with the HP world according to Jo Rowling it is merely by pure dumb luck.