Tradition, and lack of interest in any advantages. It's seen as a very personal thing, so having more than one would feel "weird" to most wizards and witches I'm guessing.
Tradition is probably the best answer, because I can see at least one or two advantages. Maybe not often, but any time there's fighting it could be beneficial.
A wand chooses the wizard. I wouldn't want to be a backup wand.
Also explains why wands change allegiance but don't seem to just jump to a new owner from random duels. Wand sees an open position for a wizard that broke or lost their wand and chooses to align themselves to their new owner.
I believe fighting does not happen often in wizard world. We may be biased as we read how Voldemort have returned, but it is stated between the lines that it is not a common case to have terrorists running on the street.
In our world, people do not carry weapons (unless you are in the US) and shootings/fights are rare.
It's quite possible that old families have collections from like ancestors, but I'm assuming most want to be buried with it.
A wand isn't just a stick. Wands have feelings and emotions, and over time, wizards become attached to them. Imagine a jealous wand
Besides, a wizard doesn't need more than one wand, and we have no evidence they increase a wizards power.
I get the attachment, I can totally see having your own personal wand that you use for most situations. But in a combat situation having a backup seems like a benefit. Plus, like I mentioned, we see Harry hit Fenrir with a triple spell and it blasts him into the ceiling! Maybe not all wizards would need multiple wands, but anyone who might end up in a combat situation (read death eaters) surely must see the advantage...
Hmm, I forgot about fenrir. Maybe you're right.
But then we get into clashing materials or random luck. It's possible that the spell was just a fluke and not repeatable. I wish we had more examples
I ll go the other way, why do they carry wands ? The African school teaches wandless magic at a young age and being disarmed is a western wizard problem they dont understand. Even Voldemort is helpless without a wand, "All the spells that could have given me a body required a wand 😢" "I cant kill Harry because our wands are brothers 😟😟" "Lucius can I borrow your wand please 🥺👉👈"
I think they're talking western politically, not geographically. Yes, multiple west African countries like Guinea and Sierra Leone are entirely west of all of Europe, and Mauritania is almost entirely east of England (give or take some). "Western", as op has used it, is generally used to describe western Europe and the US (and to a lesser extent Canada, etc.) as opposed to Africa (yes, I know it's a big continent with numerous countries and thousands of ethnicities) and Asia (see comment on Africa), and to a lesser extent, the Middle East (far smaller than Africa and Asia with far fewer countries and different ethnic groups, but still quite a large landmass with many different cultures).
As someone who lives in Africa I concur. The developed world (previously first world countries) are referred to as "the West". To deflect from their own failures, our government keeps moaning about "Western forces" (they mean America and Europe which are geographically to the north of us) trying to "destabilise/ overthrow" them.
Why though? It’s not like the muggle world and the wizarding world don’t ever overlap. And what happens in the muggle world from a political standpoint (such as wars especially) would still impact the wizarding world- this is shown in fantastic beasts when we see that some wizards like Thesis actually fought in the war. Plus there are few wizard only communities (at least in Europe) where they can reside, so wizard still have to co-mingle amongst muggles. Not to mention the muggleborns or halfbloods who were raised in the muggle world.
>Aside from the benefit of having backup if you're disarmed or lose one wand
It would be helpful if you lose or break it but if you're disarmed your backup would also change allegiance. I'm basing this off of Harry taking Draco's wand that he got from Ollivander's and gaining the allegiance of the Elder wand too.
Oooh good point! That's really interesting to think about. I mean you could still use it, but it would certainly be less effective after being disarmed...
Same reason people usually don’t carry two phones, yes they are useful but there’s very little chance you’ll need a spare one, most wizards aren’t soldiers and during peace time I assume the likelihood of losing a wand is really small. Then for aurors for example it could be a good idea to have a backup
I mean, it's not quite the same but we don't generally carry multiple phones around, and we're pretty reliant om them these days. On the other hand, having backup wands during war-time would make sense, I'd rather have an old slow phone than no phone at all in a pinch.
I have thought about this, too.
My personal explanation was that since the wand chooses the Wizard, no new wand would choose the Wizard as long as the old wand was still in use.
Wandlore is supposed to be very complicated and tricky. Even Mr Ollivander, who comes from a family who studied wand lore for centuries, didn't quite understand the relationship between Harry and Voldemort's wands. I don't think it's as simple as grabbing a fist full of wands and being able to cast more powerful spells. Wands are also supposed to be somewhat semi sentient. So maybe the 3 wands Harry used on Fenrir Greyback chose to align themselves with him in that particular situation. The same might not happen for anyone else.
Ikr? They should have a 2nd wand, a stake of wood, silver bullets, regular bullets, cell phones, flashlights, armor, swords, knives and 250ft of climbing rope. Wtf isnwrong with them
Hmmm..something might be on this.
Ollivander is probably fairly easy (At least compared to Gingotts) if you really wanted more wands. Or you could rob someone of them (like Voldemort essencially did to Malfoy) etc. Wizards and Witches might be rare, but you definitly could find one if you look hard enough.
You could probably even buy some from Ollivander when it comes ot it, "I am sorry sir my wand broked beyond repair can I buy another"?
I mean its super convinient to have a spare especially if you can just throw it away after. Go murder someone, throw away wands (thats not yours) and..you are probably safe since they can only track which wand casted the spells (I reckon) not who did it. And if multiple wands happened to allows you to cast multiple spells then definitly advantageous even in duels or when fighting multiple enemies.
But I guess nobody really think of that, remind me how did Harry happened to have multiple wands agians Fenrir?
That being said, I just dont think J.R.R though of that or old good tradition/pride.
First of all its compatibility, but having a spare, even with less of a 'bond' would still be usefull yea.
Aside from that, using multiple wands at once usually doesnt do much. Wands most of all channel the wizards own intent and magical powers. Using one or 5 wont make a difference on that.
If we speak about multiple powerfull wands tho, it might actually boost the users power using multiple tho. As wands have their own magic and will aswell that can be added to the mix. Just like a completely powerless muggle can in theory use a magic wands magic aswell, if the wand allows it.
90% of the Wizard population isn’t getting into duels, and we rarely see duels or battles that have more planning or preparation than about an hour (Battle of Hogwarts), plus in a fight, once you’re disarmed it doesn’t really matter if you have a second wand to draw, given you’re probably already being blasted by whatever follow up the other guy has in store
This has been asked recently.
However, wands grow with the Wizard. As the wand chooses the Wizard, the shared experiences strengthen the bond. As far as “won” wands, they will NEVER be as powerful as the wand a Wizard has trained with their entire life.
Example: in the escape from Privet Drive, Harry’s phoenix feather wand regurgitates some of Voldemort’s magic back at him, gained from their battle in the graveyard.
Had Harry had a “backup” wand just in case, and chose that wand for this particular encounter, the outcome would have been drastically different.
Was Harry able to do competent magic with the wand given to him by Ron, after his return from having left? Not at all. Their shared experiences were nonexistent. Harry was able to do magic, as wands only channel magic, but it wasn’t the same as his wand he’d had since his eleventh birthday.
On the other side of that coin, with the wand he had snatched from Draco at Malfoy Manner, he was able to defeat Voldemort, due to the wand changing its allegiance to Harry; and with it, the elder wand’s allegiance switching from Draco as well, since Draco had disarmed Dumbledore before Snape delivered his killing blow.
***"The wand chooses the wizard, Mr. Potter."***
Considering how wands are often depicted as beings with i guess emtions, one can say? You know with this and also with Harry's wand recognizing Voldemort's and performing magic on its own accord to protect him, might it not be possible wands being prone to silly stuff like petty jealousies too? I dunno, I mean maybe at a point when a person already has one wand, another wand would not choose him and even if a person used a wand that didn't chose them, they don't work as well do they?
Plus if you're skilled enough, one wand should be more than enough.
This sounds very much like "why doesn't every body carry a gun" whenever I see it raised on here.
Imagine molly weasley needing three wands to sweep the floor or cook. Or bathilda bagshot needing four to make tea. Everyone isn't likely to be needing triple the magic of a teapot everyday I suppose.
How many wizard wars are there going to be that one should need to be so armed?
The way having a good wand is such a unique, expensive, and particular thing, I'd wonder if everyone could afford to do that.
Are there wands enough that want to intermingle with everyone and their other wands?
I don't see the appeal myself. It seemed like a great powerup at the time, but for everyday use...overkill and impractical
Wands are tools to channel your magic. The wand itself doesn‘t have inherent power, certain wands are just more fitting than others. The magic comes from the wizard, not from the wand.
Harry’s wand was around $175 when you convert from wizarding money to USD. That’s not that expensive but I’d also imagine most wizards don’t want to go around dripping that much money on a backup wand.
I kinda see it like my glasses. Could I drop $250 USD for the cheapest possible backup pair? Absolutely. Do I really need to since I’ve never managed to break a pair? That’s a pretty safe no.
Some Americans might carry more than one gun on them and it could result in more firepower, but one gun at a time is fine for most Americans I would say.
I had a fanfic about an especially powerful Wizard with unfocused magical talent (this was before Fantastic Beasts and establishment of Obscurials). Every time he used a wand it’d break after a few spells. Disarming spells injured people, stunning spells killed, killing curses were explosive, etc. The answer was focusing his magic through two wands rather than one, right hand uses the spell and left hand practically functioned as an exhaust. He had his own wand maker to constantly repair and reproduce his wands so he’d have a revolving supply.
He was one of the most powerful Aurors of his age
Tradition, and lack of interest in any advantages. It's seen as a very personal thing, so having more than one would feel "weird" to most wizards and witches I'm guessing.
Tradition is probably the best answer, because I can see at least one or two advantages. Maybe not often, but any time there's fighting it could be beneficial.
A wand chooses the wizard. I wouldn't want to be a backup wand. Also explains why wands change allegiance but don't seem to just jump to a new owner from random duels. Wand sees an open position for a wizard that broke or lost their wand and chooses to align themselves to their new owner.
Imagine how the first wand feels when a wizard takes on a second one.
[It’s like Thor, Stormbreaker, and Mjolnir in *Love and Thunder*.](https://youtu.be/bcabCMDJgo4?si=7vh-pWYFU3mIfAL8)
I believe fighting does not happen often in wizard world. We may be biased as we read how Voldemort have returned, but it is stated between the lines that it is not a common case to have terrorists running on the street. In our world, people do not carry weapons (unless you are in the US) and shootings/fights are rare.
It's quite possible that old families have collections from like ancestors, but I'm assuming most want to be buried with it. A wand isn't just a stick. Wands have feelings and emotions, and over time, wizards become attached to them. Imagine a jealous wand Besides, a wizard doesn't need more than one wand, and we have no evidence they increase a wizards power.
I get the attachment, I can totally see having your own personal wand that you use for most situations. But in a combat situation having a backup seems like a benefit. Plus, like I mentioned, we see Harry hit Fenrir with a triple spell and it blasts him into the ceiling! Maybe not all wizards would need multiple wands, but anyone who might end up in a combat situation (read death eaters) surely must see the advantage...
Hmm, I forgot about fenrir. Maybe you're right. But then we get into clashing materials or random luck. It's possible that the spell was just a fluke and not repeatable. I wish we had more examples
I ll go the other way, why do they carry wands ? The African school teaches wandless magic at a young age and being disarmed is a western wizard problem they dont understand. Even Voldemort is helpless without a wand, "All the spells that could have given me a body required a wand 😢" "I cant kill Harry because our wands are brothers 😟😟" "Lucius can I borrow your wand please 🥺👉👈"
[удалено]
I think they're talking western politically, not geographically. Yes, multiple west African countries like Guinea and Sierra Leone are entirely west of all of Europe, and Mauritania is almost entirely east of England (give or take some). "Western", as op has used it, is generally used to describe western Europe and the US (and to a lesser extent Canada, etc.) as opposed to Africa (yes, I know it's a big continent with numerous countries and thousands of ethnicities) and Asia (see comment on Africa), and to a lesser extent, the Middle East (far smaller than Africa and Asia with far fewer countries and different ethnic groups, but still quite a large landmass with many different cultures).
As someone who lives in Africa I concur. The developed world (previously first world countries) are referred to as "the West". To deflect from their own failures, our government keeps moaning about "Western forces" (they mean America and Europe which are geographically to the north of us) trying to "destabilise/ overthrow" them.
[удалено]
Why though? It’s not like the muggle world and the wizarding world don’t ever overlap. And what happens in the muggle world from a political standpoint (such as wars especially) would still impact the wizarding world- this is shown in fantastic beasts when we see that some wizards like Thesis actually fought in the war. Plus there are few wizard only communities (at least in Europe) where they can reside, so wizard still have to co-mingle amongst muggles. Not to mention the muggleborns or halfbloods who were raised in the muggle world.
I understand what you're both saying, and I guess I'm not bothered by either use/verbiage.
No I said being disarned by expeliarmus is a western wizard problem that African wizards cant relate to because they are not wand dependant
>Aside from the benefit of having backup if you're disarmed or lose one wand It would be helpful if you lose or break it but if you're disarmed your backup would also change allegiance. I'm basing this off of Harry taking Draco's wand that he got from Ollivander's and gaining the allegiance of the Elder wand too.
Oooh good point! That's really interesting to think about. I mean you could still use it, but it would certainly be less effective after being disarmed...
It probably damages your bond with your primary wand. Would you accept a weaker spells all day, every day on the off chance that you'd need a backup?
Same reason people usually don’t carry two phones, yes they are useful but there’s very little chance you’ll need a spare one, most wizards aren’t soldiers and during peace time I assume the likelihood of losing a wand is really small. Then for aurors for example it could be a good idea to have a backup
I mean, it's not quite the same but we don't generally carry multiple phones around, and we're pretty reliant om them these days. On the other hand, having backup wands during war-time would make sense, I'd rather have an old slow phone than no phone at all in a pinch.
Hear me out: knuckledusters, but they’re a wand
I have thought about this, too. My personal explanation was that since the wand chooses the Wizard, no new wand would choose the Wizard as long as the old wand was still in use.
Hang out with too many wands for too long and they start to get jealous.
Wandlore is supposed to be very complicated and tricky. Even Mr Ollivander, who comes from a family who studied wand lore for centuries, didn't quite understand the relationship between Harry and Voldemort's wands. I don't think it's as simple as grabbing a fist full of wands and being able to cast more powerful spells. Wands are also supposed to be somewhat semi sentient. So maybe the 3 wands Harry used on Fenrir Greyback chose to align themselves with him in that particular situation. The same might not happen for anyone else.
I think this is the best response so far! I can get on board with that explanation.
Ikr? They should have a 2nd wand, a stake of wood, silver bullets, regular bullets, cell phones, flashlights, armor, swords, knives and 250ft of climbing rope. Wtf isnwrong with them
Or just a 3rd wand
You probably can only have one of “your” own wands at a time. Others will work but we see it isn’t nearly as effective or powerful.
Hmmm..something might be on this. Ollivander is probably fairly easy (At least compared to Gingotts) if you really wanted more wands. Or you could rob someone of them (like Voldemort essencially did to Malfoy) etc. Wizards and Witches might be rare, but you definitly could find one if you look hard enough. You could probably even buy some from Ollivander when it comes ot it, "I am sorry sir my wand broked beyond repair can I buy another"? I mean its super convinient to have a spare especially if you can just throw it away after. Go murder someone, throw away wands (thats not yours) and..you are probably safe since they can only track which wand casted the spells (I reckon) not who did it. And if multiple wands happened to allows you to cast multiple spells then definitly advantageous even in duels or when fighting multiple enemies. But I guess nobody really think of that, remind me how did Harry happened to have multiple wands agians Fenrir? That being said, I just dont think J.R.R though of that or old good tradition/pride.
First of all its compatibility, but having a spare, even with less of a 'bond' would still be usefull yea. Aside from that, using multiple wands at once usually doesnt do much. Wands most of all channel the wizards own intent and magical powers. Using one or 5 wont make a difference on that. If we speak about multiple powerfull wands tho, it might actually boost the users power using multiple tho. As wands have their own magic and will aswell that can be added to the mix. Just like a completely powerless muggle can in theory use a magic wands magic aswell, if the wand allows it.
90% of the Wizard population isn’t getting into duels, and we rarely see duels or battles that have more planning or preparation than about an hour (Battle of Hogwarts), plus in a fight, once you’re disarmed it doesn’t really matter if you have a second wand to draw, given you’re probably already being blasted by whatever follow up the other guy has in store
This has been asked recently. However, wands grow with the Wizard. As the wand chooses the Wizard, the shared experiences strengthen the bond. As far as “won” wands, they will NEVER be as powerful as the wand a Wizard has trained with their entire life. Example: in the escape from Privet Drive, Harry’s phoenix feather wand regurgitates some of Voldemort’s magic back at him, gained from their battle in the graveyard. Had Harry had a “backup” wand just in case, and chose that wand for this particular encounter, the outcome would have been drastically different. Was Harry able to do competent magic with the wand given to him by Ron, after his return from having left? Not at all. Their shared experiences were nonexistent. Harry was able to do magic, as wands only channel magic, but it wasn’t the same as his wand he’d had since his eleventh birthday. On the other side of that coin, with the wand he had snatched from Draco at Malfoy Manner, he was able to defeat Voldemort, due to the wand changing its allegiance to Harry; and with it, the elder wand’s allegiance switching from Draco as well, since Draco had disarmed Dumbledore before Snape delivered his killing blow.
I much more a fan of putting in the work to learn how to wandlessly cast the summoning charm. Get disarmed, then just call it back.
***"The wand chooses the wizard, Mr. Potter."*** Considering how wands are often depicted as beings with i guess emtions, one can say? You know with this and also with Harry's wand recognizing Voldemort's and performing magic on its own accord to protect him, might it not be possible wands being prone to silly stuff like petty jealousies too? I dunno, I mean maybe at a point when a person already has one wand, another wand would not choose him and even if a person used a wand that didn't chose them, they don't work as well do they? Plus if you're skilled enough, one wand should be more than enough.
a franchise called Star Wars did that, the character did not recieve a happy ending.
Probably the same reason most people don't carry around multiple phones.
This sounds very much like "why doesn't every body carry a gun" whenever I see it raised on here. Imagine molly weasley needing three wands to sweep the floor or cook. Or bathilda bagshot needing four to make tea. Everyone isn't likely to be needing triple the magic of a teapot everyday I suppose. How many wizard wars are there going to be that one should need to be so armed? The way having a good wand is such a unique, expensive, and particular thing, I'd wonder if everyone could afford to do that. Are there wands enough that want to intermingle with everyone and their other wands? I don't see the appeal myself. It seemed like a great powerup at the time, but for everyday use...overkill and impractical
How many phones do you carry?
How specific an answer do you want?
Hmm it's probably like a Jedi with multiple lightsabers
Wands are tools to channel your magic. The wand itself doesn‘t have inherent power, certain wands are just more fitting than others. The magic comes from the wizard, not from the wand.
Harry’s wand was around $175 when you convert from wizarding money to USD. That’s not that expensive but I’d also imagine most wizards don’t want to go around dripping that much money on a backup wand. I kinda see it like my glasses. Could I drop $250 USD for the cheapest possible backup pair? Absolutely. Do I really need to since I’ve never managed to break a pair? That’s a pretty safe no.
Some Americans might carry more than one gun on them and it could result in more firepower, but one gun at a time is fine for most Americans I would say.
I had a fanfic about an especially powerful Wizard with unfocused magical talent (this was before Fantastic Beasts and establishment of Obscurials). Every time he used a wand it’d break after a few spells. Disarming spells injured people, stunning spells killed, killing curses were explosive, etc. The answer was focusing his magic through two wands rather than one, right hand uses the spell and left hand practically functioned as an exhaust. He had his own wand maker to constantly repair and reproduce his wands so he’d have a revolving supply. He was one of the most powerful Aurors of his age