War is not dead they just cut off his finger with the ring on it and as WAR said you can't kill WAR 05:49, October 4, 2009 (UTC)Smallville944

Theoretically, wouldn't Famine be the second oldest, as he embodies true hunger, and the leviathans, which were the first beasts, were the first to display hunger, which would have then made Famine emerge.. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:53 PM, October 14th 2011

Shoutout to admins-- The front page lists 'Horsemens'. "Horsemen' would be the proper plural form. Edit

Admins, please fix plural form in the front page. FTWinchester (talk) 13:50, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

I suggest adressing the incorrection directly to an admin (e.g. ImperiexSeed) directly on their talk page as a shoutout on this talk page is unnecessary. 18:44, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I just figured not all admins are frequently logged in, so it may take a while if I addressed it only to one of them. FTWinchester (talk) 23:23, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Page LockEdit

Any specific reason to lock this page?ME$$AIAH 10:54, May 21, 2013 (UTC)RaghavD

Overview Edit

"The Horsemen are concepts with no form or depth, simply air follicles with no polymers or mass." What? Who wrote this? Not only does it sound gibberish and too technical, none of these were also mentioned in canon, as well. FTWinchester (talk) 02:28, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

"The Horsemen are concepts with no form or depth" is good enough on its own, right? Just cut out the rest. It seemslike whoever wrote that had a good laugh. RaghavD Heck yes, I'm so ODD!! 13:49, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

What do we mean by 'no form or depth', though? They clearly manifest in humanoid forms. As for the depth, do we mean, character depth? Dimensional depth? Because they do have both. Unless I'm missing something here. If so, please help me. FTWinchester (talk) 14:02, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

They are concepts originally. They need forms to communicate with others, otherwise they don't actually require any form, IMO. Ok, the sentence isn't making sense to me, now that I've gone over it in my head for like 4-5 times. What can we write to replace this? Have they been described on the show? RaghavD Heck yes, I'm so ODD!! 14:10, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

I understand that they are concepts with no form, but for most of the time, they take physical forms. It's the depth I don't understand. FTWinchester (talk) 17:52, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

The Horsemen are by FAR the weirdest creatures in Supernatural. They're concepts/events, therefore in their original state, they have no weight or dimension. I think RaghavD worded it right when he said, "They need forms to communicate with others." They certainly do not take vessels (like Angels, demons, or Leviathans), and most likely manipulate the air to configure a form. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:01 PM, August 26th 2013
How sure are you it's the air they manipulate and not the perception of the people they talk to? Or reality itself? I'm not saying it's impossible--but it's unsupported in canon. More so, I have never heard of what "air follicles" are. Maybe "hair follicles", but yeah. No. FTWinchester (talk) 01:20, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
I didn't comment because I saw that you changed the wording and it seemed good enough to read.  RaghavD Heck yes, I'm so ODD!! 04:15, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
War, the Red Horseman, could be a standard of how Horsemen takes shape. They do take shape. All I'm saying, is they could bend the air around them to form a body. Or, they each could configure a "flesh body" uniquely. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:34 PM, August 27th 2013

Death and the other 3 Edit

I think a comparrison between the Archangel's can be made with the horsemen, the way people have argued that Michael and Lucifer can't be that much more powerful than Gabriel and Rapheal due to them all being the same rank despite Micheal being 'far more powerful' than Rapheal, while a similar powr difference with Lucifer and Gabriel would be logical, yet Gabriel, although taking him by surprise, was able to appear unnoticed by Lucifer and proceed to throw him across a room with his telekinasis, I did initially believe the power levels between the Archangels was not so severe, but looking at Deaths abilities and function compared with his 3 younger brothers, while all being horsemen, death is many times more powerful than his siblings.

Able to function without his ring and seemingly much older and capable of things far beyond his little brothers, I think Michaels place may indeed be relevant above his younger 3, especially rapheal and Gabriel, although death does not seem to have any loyalty to his siblings, resented Lucifers apocalypse, and did not seem at all hostile to the winchesters.

Am I going somewhere with this or am I not?? what you guys think??

Princepurple (talk) 13:33, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

I've always personally believed Archangels trump over every creature but God and Death. And, from my standpoint, I do believe you're going somewhere; Archangels are shown to possess dominion over Horsemen. They are able to bind them to their vessel's forms, for instance. Now, Archangels can't kill the Horsemen (War, Famine and Pestilence) unless they wipe out their natures. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:13 PM, November 5th 2013
That is of course with the exception of Death, who will one day reap even God himself, Since Archangel's can be killed, they die, a function possible due to death's existance, it should be noted that yes Lucifer was able to bind death, but so were the Winchesters although I believe death could likely blink and kill any archangel, simply because he is the personification of all possible deaths that can be expirienced by any Living enity and therefore he can kill anything, I think that's why when Dean approached him with his sythe, it burnt hot, as the sythe would  not be able to perform the function of death upon the force that allows it to do such, as such I believe God and Death are as old as eachother as polar opposites and God cannot kill death.
But this specific topic is aimed more towards how it is possible for beings of the same rank to massively outpower there lower bretheren.
Princepurple (talk) 01:11, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Who created Horseman Edit

Who created Four horseman of the apocalypse are they primordial being? I am so confused

No one individual created Famine, War and Pestilence. In fact, no one created them. They became reality, in existence, when their attributes, famine, war and pestilence, popped up. When the angels argued in heaven, War, from that point on, became apart of the series' world. -- ImperiexSeed, 7:17 PM, January 11th 2014


Why is this locked? Also,

"War seemed to have not manifested for a good long while until after Lucifer's release, and the Horsemen, but Death, trotting behind him."

is grammatically incomprehensible. FTWinchester (talk) 14:51, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

As I said in the feed, I was working on rewording the page to sound and read better, and I locked it so that I wouldn't run into a ton of editing conflicts. Sorry that you can't comprehend it, but should be very simple to comprehend. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:37 PM, March 8th 2014

Yeah, no. It hardly makes sense at all. Your main topic (I assume the resurgence of the horsemen) is cluttered with an additional clause that has an ambiguous pronoun (him refers to War or Lucifer?), as well as using a conjunction (and) as opposed to a preposition that indicates togetherness (with). Remove your phrases and your statement would read as...

"War seemed to have not manifested for a good long while until after Lucifer's release, and the Horsemen trotting behind him."

...which reveals the problem with the statement. The phrase about the horsemen is either a) incomplete or b) required the past tense of trot to make sense within the context of War's resurgence (which is in past tense), or c) replace and with with to maintain the continuous tense of trot.



"War seemed to have not manifested for a good long while until after Lucifer's release, and the Horsemen trotting behind War (additional info i.e.,) supported the plan to usher the apocalypse."

or b)

"War seemed to have not manifested for a good long while until after Lucifer's release, and the other Horsemen trotted behind the red horseman."

or c)

"War seemed to have not manifested for a good long while until after Lucifer's release, with the other Horsemen trotting behind him."

Ultimately, I would argue a complete rephrasing to something concise and precise, such as,

The horsemen have not manifested on Earth for a long time until after Lucifer's release.

FTWinchester (talk) 17:32, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

First of all, c) is incorrect, cause only Famine and Pestilence were trotting behind him; Death had to be freed and would've played no part in the apocalypse if Lucifer didn't free him. Also, your ultimatum is incorrect; Death didn't manifest on Earth due to Lucifer's release, he had to be freed. He slumbered in his cell in what one could equate to his 'true, reaper form' till being finally released. I'll rephrase it so you can grasp an excruciatingly easy sentence. Thanks for striping my sentence down to try an make me look like an idiot. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:10 PM, March 8th 2014

Actually my point here is the grammar, and content is only secondary--something I should have clarified even more to spare you from feeling attacked or frustrated. Stripping sentences of intervening phrases allows you to see if you have proper agreement within your sentences. It's a basic rule in subject-verb agreement and I just used it, along with removing ambiguous pronoun references, to show how incoherent your statement is grammatically. For example, sir, notice how the phrase I used above 'along with removing ambiguous pronoun references' can be removed stripped from the rest of the sentence and still not make me look like an idiot?


It's a basic rule in subject-verb agreement and I just used it, along with removing ambiguous pronoun references, to show how incoherent your statement is grammatically.
It's a basic rule in subject-verb agreement and I just used it (...) to show how incoherent your statement is grammatically.

Such phrases should not drastically affect how your basic sentence is constructed, again, gramatically. Look it up. Thanks for disregarding everything about grammar and focusing on what wasn't my focus to begin with, as well as disregarding my logical/academic approach and responding with such tone (hint: this underlined phrase could also be stripped from the first part of the sentence and the remaining words still won't make me look like an idiot--amazing!!). Besides, regardless of the manner of how Death came to earth, the point is he wasn't manifesting (in other words, present or perceived) at all on earth for a long time.

I really hate it when civil discussions turn out like this, but hey, two can play that game! Capeesh?  FTWinchester (talk) 20:48, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that there can't be grammar without content, therefore a grammatical mistake is a content mistake. I'm sorry for that mistake. I rephrased with option c) but tweaked it a little. The page, as a whole, needed to be reworded and redone astronomically, which I thought I did fantastically. I hope we can splint this friendship back to what it was, and thanks for correcting me. I'm being colossally mature by saying so. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:21 PM, March 8th 2014

Points could be expressed with examples, but anyway. Like I've told you several times before, I hate getting into these arguments because they leave a really bad feeling for hours and hours on end. So my apologies too, for jumping the gun. Just like to reiterate what I said to you before--please don't load and cock your gun everytime I point out one mistake or question, especially on something so little as one sentence in an entire article. I would never point out mistakes just for the sake of pointing it out. I always make sure I have facts or logic to civilly back it up and/or suggestions/alternatives, or I don't jump in at the discussion at all. For my part, I intend to leave this argument to die a natural death and carry on with the usual job we have at hand. FTWinchester (talk) 21:37, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

Why is this page still locked? Imperiexseed locked it so he could change some stuff without being interrupted....but that was over 3 months ago. He must be done by now, and it NEEDS to be unlocked...

What is exactly the difference between the Ring of the Death and the others Horsemen?Edit

This is something I begin to ask myself after watch another time Supernatural... When the Winchester cut the finger of the others horsemen, they dissapeared, and as "Pestilence" say... Hunger and War in that moment could not recover, as they were like a shell, and we can think that "Pestilence" was the same... 

But "Death" give to Dean the Ring and it seems it did not affect him. 

Is because he is the oldest? Because he have too much power? Because he have the Reapers to do the job? Because he was only lending? Or because it was the will of "Death" and unlike the other Horsemen, he give the ring instead of being stolen? 00:07, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

I think that you probably got the right answer with at least one of the things you listed: either because Death doesn't need his ring because he is more powerful than the other Horsemen and thus able to manifest/sustain himself without the ring binding him together, or because both times he was separated from his ring, he gave it up willingly as opposed to the other Horsemen who had it abruptly ripped away from them before they could foresee and prepare for it, or possibly both. Death's power is probably the reason, but I am really intrigued by the idea that he retain himself because he lent his ring by choice, since choice is such a big theme for Supernatural.--NaiflidG (talk) 01:57, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

Horsemen Rings used against LeviathanEdit

Do you think Sam and Dean could have used War and Famine's rings to make the Leviathan go against each other making them eat and kill one another and solve their black ooze issue. I mean they love eating so Famine's powers should have great affect on them.Noremac2 (talk) 05:54, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

If Dean or Sam put on War or Famine's ring, yes they could make Leviathan fight or eat each other. But if the writers actually did that, there wouldn't have been a whole season seven and, to be honest, it would've been a really cheap resolution to their problem. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:00 AM, December 22nd 2014

Horsemen AgesEdit

Do have any proof, statement or quote that proves the ages of Horsemen? It's written as Death>Famine>War>Pestilence. Are we sure about it? SeraphLucifer (talk) 17:09, July 15, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Archangels Edit

Are the Horsemen stronger than the archangels? Kajune (talk) 09:15, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think so since Lucifer did not need them to bind, but Famine might be. We can't compare him with an Archangel since he was ultra weakened. SeraphLucifer (talk) 09:50, September 8, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

I like to think the Horsemen are stronger. Lucifer needed magic to bind them, and even that wasn't very powerful. I think we can say for certain that Death is more powerful, but my belief is the other three are too. What does anyone else think? Kajune (talk) 11:32, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I know, he didn't bind other 3, only Death. Also Pestilence was way weaker than Lucifer. 12:11, September 8, 2016 (UTC)SeraphLucifer (talk)SeraphLucifer

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.