Hi, I looked and I couldn't find anything to answer my question, so I thought I would post it...

In DH, when they are in Malfoy Manor, Harry steals three wands and stupefies Greyback with them. It says that he hit him with a triple spell. This makes it sound as if the spell was more powerful because harry had more wands when he did it. However, this doesn't seem right. If using multiple wands made your spells more powerful, than everybody would use multiple wands all the time wouldn't they? It just doesn't seem logical to use just one wand when you could carry around three and have your spells work three times as well.

So, this is why I am wondering if using more than one wand at a time would help? What do you think??

i think the spell was more powerful, but not much. since the wands weren't his then they wouldn't even work that well, but if they all recongized him as the new master then i think it would be more powerful...but the most powerful would be if like three different people were to shoot the same spell and the same time....and i don't kno, maybe you can only buy one wand at a time or something.

I think that more than one wand most definetly does make spells more powerfull. The reason though, that most people only carry around 1 is, a) they're expensive and in everyday life, you don't want your spells to be super powerful. You'd use your wand to light a fire, and then burn the whole house down, or chop carrots, and cut all the way into and through the counter. It wouldn't actually help that much.
We have evidence that more wands=more power. In book 5, when McGonnagal gets hit with triple stunners, it sends her to St. Mungos.
More wands doing the same spell does equal more power, but in everyday life, it wouldn't really help that much.

Yes, I see what you mean about everyday life, but why would someone like an auror not use more than one wand while deuling. Also, you could have more than one wand, but not use them both in everyday situations.

I see your point about Mcgonnagol(sp?) , but she got hit with multiple spells from different wizards, not one wizard using multiple wands, that is the key difference between that and Harry cursing Greyback

I think it would make your spells a little more powerful, but wizards and witches would not choose this because
1) It is probably much more difficult
2) Spells will be less precise
3)Large cost
4) Ministry would probably frown upon you and keep you in their watch
5) Spells will not always work
6) Only one wand will usually obey a wizard
7) It would be hard to hold (LOL auror is dueling an evil wizard and suddenly drops the 16 wands he is holding)
8) people would not sell you more than one

i'm actuqally not sure the amount of wands has anything to do with it. mcgonagall was hit with three seperate curses from threee people and the same time...ouch...i think with harry it was his own inner power that really hurt greyback...the whole scene was such coas, he was all angry/scared, everything was moving so fast...he was probably feeling very emotional/powerful at the moment and the spell was more powerful than intended...three wands or not

I don't think so, it says that harry points the three wands at greyback, and..."the triple spell knocked him backwards" see, it says the triple spell.

Now, it may have just dispersed his stunner through the three wands, but each one being less powerful. As in, each spell had 1/3 the power of a normal stunning spell...
you think??

Well, I agree that more wands equals more power, but why. One spell does the job quickly and efficiently so why do more? I mean, you could kill a person with a single Avada Kedavra, so what good would three Avada Kedavra's be? Would it kill a person three times as hard, or have no special effects.

Would it matter if it was three shot by the same person, or if three people all shot one? (Kinda like All for one or One for all. Do you think that three different people would have more power or not? What do you think?

I see what you are saying about one being enough. This may be the reason that wizards only use one wand. After considering it, I can't really think of a situation when one spell isn't enough. I mean, even in the case with Greyback, one stunner would have stunned him just as well...I guess...

i guess it could be useful if you have more than one attacker. you could do a shield charm behind your back so no one can sneak up on you, and keep fighting in front.

but you can't do two spells at the same time (as far as i know) so you might as well have one wand.

i agree with the theory that the power would be divided between all the wands so each spell would be less effective than usual. there's a quote i can't remember exactly...the wand is only as powerful as the wizard. so three probably won't give you more power, as the power comes from you.

I dont really know since inm not JKR but me best assumption is that it probably did work better, but not by much considering that they werent his own wands. Since each person's wand chooses it's owner then thats makes sense right?

--Fleur

Yes, but you are still able to use other peoples wands to some success. Like in sorcerers stone and chamber of secrets when ron used charlies old wand for sometime. It was not as effective, but it still worked. What i am saying is. If you have one wand that is yours and works very well, than have another that does not work as well, but still works some. It would still be beneficial to use both. Say your wand gives you 100% of your power, and some random wand gives you 25% of your power. It would still be beneficial to use both and have 125% power instead of just using your wand and get 100% power....thoughts??

I think that Dumbledore said somewhere that the wand is kinda like a vessel. If you notice (this is only in the movie, but it's a good example, cause I think it's in the books somewhere, but failing at page numbers) that Dumbledore and others can use magic without wands. So really, the wand isn't what has the power, it's the wizzard. The wand amplifies the magic, or does it just serve as a vessel? See, that's the big question. If a wand amplifies natural magic (oh, right, the signs of being a wizard like flying onto roofs, but without a wand, yeah, theres one), then the three wand thing would make sense. Although he's dividing his magic up into three wands, it's being amplified by each, which would make sense. However, if the magic is just the vessel, then because it's being divided into three, wouldn't it just equal the same amount as usual? Unless, which is another possibility I just found, that you can cast the same spell on multiple wands at the same time, and it'll be equal in each. So, it's like casting it three times, because the spell is always equal in strength, and so casting it with three wands produces three of the same, equal strength curses. If that makes sense. That is the least likely possibility in my mind. I think the amplifying bit makes the most sense.

Right, that's a good point that lancelot243 just brought up (see bellow). "The wand chooses the wizard Mr Potter." So, each wand is pretty much special to each wizard. If Harry uses wands that do not belong to him, if we follow the amplifying or even the last theory, then it's rather beneficial. The curse is stronger, even though the one wand doesn't work quite as well as the others. So it's probably not as strong as it would be if all the wands belonged to him, but it's got to be better.

And like said before, what's the point in killing someone three times as hard? I like that, little Mugglings. I'd totally forgotten about that word until yesterday. Love it! Anyways, it's only really beneficial, if following the idea of amplification or the third idea, against someone stronger than you, so you can attack them with more strength than usual. But, since borrowed wands don't always behave, it's probably risky.

~Aeryn~

Yea, you may be right about it being more risky, so maybe thats a reason not to use multiple wands for everyday things, or even in duels that are not fatal, but it just seems like when entering into a battle with voldemort, where he is obviously stronger than you, you should take more wands to get more power...I mean maybe we are reading way too much into this and JK just meant that the three wands produced three beams of light and not separate spells. It may be an issue that wont ever be resolved, but it just seems strange to me that it would work like that...

im not sure if three wands would help more but i think it might hurt more with more than one wand than the spell would with one wand. Although it would take an impressive amount of power to work all three at once. It would also be risky to use more than one wand. the other wands could refuse to work for the wizard. or they could all backfire on the holder. I have to say that more than one wand would be to un predictible rather than helpful.

I imagine it would be fairly impractical to try and use three wands at once. It worked on this one occasion for stunning Greyback because Harry happened to chance upon another two wands. I doubt that you would normally go around with three wands. In fact, i'm not sure the same wand shop would sell you a wand twice, unless you broke or lost your original. There is also the danger of using three wands. Someone mentioned it might be useful to put a shield up behind you and duel someone infront. Judging by the amount of learning needed to produce the simplest of spells, in a duel you probably need full concentration to curse, counter-curse etc. I doubt whether you would have the time or concentration levels to do two spells at once. You'd probably try and put a shield behind you and end up stunning yourself in the back. Not what you'd want to do. As many people have mentioned, it is rarely needed that you need to use three spells, and I agree. If you have two wands that are not your originals then they arent going to serve you as well as your original. So I don't think the stuns used by wands other than your own would be up to the same standard as one cast with your original wand, despite what the book says. I've already explained the impracticality of using two spells at once. It's one of those things that only someone like Dumbledore would be able to do (and if i'm right he does something similair in the fifth movie, when he is dueling Voldemort at the end of the film in the MoM he manages to knock Harry back to a safe place while still maintaining the spell he is using on Voldemort. Pretty advanced stuff).

Yes, it would be extremely difficult to operate a wand in this way, but it is possible. It wouldn't be something used for everyday things, like summoning or packing things up or cooking. It would only be helpful in a duel, so if you don't ever get in a duel than you would never need more than one wand. However, if you are a highly trained auror whose sole job is to seek out dark wizards than 1. you would duel alot and 2. you would likely be competent enough to operate two wands.



Well if someone like dumbledore could do it why didn't he? And don't say its because he didn't need to because whether he was the best with one wand or not, if it made him better to use two wands why wouldn't he? He had the elder wand, and he obviously had another wand before that, so he had two wands that recognized him as their master. It would have been perfect to use both.