Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, so let’s settle this once and for all. Read the following threads, decide for yourself, and then vote.

The Balrog Theorem (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11337)

Balrog Sprinters? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10529)

Ah, so maybe they did have wings… (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=418)

Balrogs DO have wings (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=935)

Do Balrogs have wings? What Color is Legolas's Hair? What is Tom Bombadil? Entwives? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=3826)

Decisive proof the Balrogs had wings! (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1990)

balrogs and wings debate (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=694)

Arien, Balrogs and wings (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=14718)

I do realise that I could simply have added a poll to an existing thread, but which one? I figured instead it would be better to start “afresh.”

And may Eru (and the Wight) have mercy upon me.

[Durelin]

Balrogs! What fun! *recalls a fateful day when Balrog wings did fly through the air...*

Regardless of whether a Balrog's wings are figurative or literal, they have what are called 'wings.' And of course they're not going to use them to fly! They're just to look more imposing! It's like when a lizard puffs up at you to make himself look bigger, or when a cat's fur stands on end. Why bother to flap those wings if they can just hang there behind you and make you look like a badder demon than you already are? Besides, I'd find it very difficult to chop the wings off the Balrog I have in my mind... ;)

[Mister Underhill]

Downers who are seriously interested in getting to the bottom of the wings question will no doubt find an essential addition to Fordim's not quite exhaustive bibliography in this thread, despite its shattered condition (the result of several wars and violent migrations):

Were Balrogs winged? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=565)

Make sure to lay in a supply of strong coffee and powerful aspirin before you begin...

P.S. -- Wight, I admire your tenacity -- still hanging on to the no-wing dream after all these years. It's over, Johnny! It's over! ;)

[Lindolirian]

I voted for "Yes" because I still hold to the theory that as Maiar, they can change their form and thus have wings if they wish, but I think that there is too much evidence against their ability to fly. So yes to wings and no to flight. And now I'm done with this evil, evil debate. :p Edit: Evidently not (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=368364&postcount=17)... O well!

[The Barrow-Wight]

Just so you pro-wingers aren't confused, I'm pretty sure Fordim was talking about the books, so you might want to reconsider ;)

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Does it mean working wings? Because a child could wear cardboard shaped like angel-wings, and they still are wings.

For me, Balrogs can have wings, but they're vestigial.

[Formendacil]

Does it matter?

Quite frankly, that is my greatest question concerning the Balrog wings debate.

Thinking more seriously on it, I have to say that I like the idea of winged Balrogs that are unable to fly. Kind of like....

The DODO.

I think Balrogs with wings look infinitely cooler, but I have to ask why Morgoth would give them wings if they can't fly. On the other hand, what if they CAN fly? How long do you seriously think they would have tolerated Thorondor and his eagles nesting on Thangorodrim? From what I know of Morgoth (and the Balrogs), I think that not-very-long is a reasonable assumption.

So, my opinion is that Balrogs cannot fly. Hence, wings would be redundant. If wings are redundant, why would Balrogs have them? If there is no reason for Balrogs to have them, it follows that they would most likely not have.

Okay, so that's my opinion on the subject: Balrogs did not have wings.

Do I think it matters: no!

Is there a way to conclusively prove it one way or another? Not unless Tolkien left a secret manuscript relating to Balrogs and their physical appearance, which is both improbably and laughable. Call me a cynic, if you like, but I don't think this debate will ever be settled, even by a vote. (Unless, of course, the majority of people around here are movie-fans, in which case they would likely overbalance the scales, and cover all the lands in a second darkness.... Oh wait, I'm getting carried away...)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Thanks for that other thread Underhill. It was, um, interesting. . .

(Can someone please pass me another aspirin?)

Thanks, as well, to the Wight /B] for not closing this thread the instant it opened. He was even the first to vote!

It's interesting to see who is voting which way, as well. So far, some of the really 'heavy hitters' have gone with the "no" side. I am delighted to see, however, that SaucepanMan has agreed with me on the "yes" side. Now if we can convince davem to weigh in on the topic, and if he votes "yes" as well, then we will have finally found something upon which [B]SpM, davem and I all agree. Should such a thing occur, I wonder if the Downs would implode or something? If it does happen, I may have to delete the thread instantly for fear that Bethberry might also vote yes, in which case I am sure the repurcussions would be much further reaching than the Downs.

But to address your excellent question Formendacil: I really don't know. Before I came to the Downs, I did not even realise that there was a debate about the wings. I was blithely and rather naively sure that they did have wings and was stunned to see such heated opinions on the matter. At first I thought the whole fight was a bit silly, but as I followed its contours I realised that the discussion has a lot to offer: I learned all kinds of very interesting things about the First Age, about the battles in which Balrogs featured, about the nature of Balrogs as created/evil beings. . .in short, while the answer to the question might be unattainable, the process of discussing it is wonderfully interesting and productive.

[Neithan]

but I have to ask why Morgoth would give them wings if they can't fly.
Actually Morgoth could not have given Balrogs wings because, as Maiar, they chose their own shapes. The question then becomes, why would they give themselves worthless wings when they could have, just as easily, had wings that worked?
I still hold to the theory that as Maiar, they can change their form and thus have wings if they wish
Actually the Balrogs had become incarnate in their forms and could no longer change them (if they could still change their forms then the two who met their end by falling of of cliffs would have done so to escape their fate).

That's it for me until I have a chance to look through the links provided.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I've read past Balrog wing discussions with aloof amusement and never really taken a stand on the issue. It's always seemed to be the Middle-earth equivalent to the theological debate on how many angels could dance on a pinhead. (Yes, that was a matter of serious discussion; I remember hearing about that in church history, though I no longer remember the details.) However, considering the textual sources and the fact that not all appendices given to creatures in nature are functional, I will go out on a "limb" (pun intentional) and say that I too am of the opinion that Balrogs did have wings, though they were not able to fly.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

ha HA ha ha haaaaaaa. . .

I knew that if I tried long enough and hard enough I could drag you Esty into the dark abyss from which none have ever escaped.

Now, dare you face the chilling terror of the orc-reproduction debate? Or, scarier still (if such a thing is possible) the ears of Elves (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11526)?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I already voted there, Fordim, but you can't tell what! ;)

[obloquy]

Actually Morgoth could not have given Balrogs wings because, as Maiar, they chose their own shapes. The question then becomes, why would they give themselves worthless wings when they could have, just as easily, had wings that worked?

There's no reason to believe that Morgoth couldn't have given them their forms. That Maiar created forms for themselves was not an axan, just generally the way it happened. If Balrogs were anything like the John Howe conception, I think it is pretty unlikely that they made themselves look so horrible. After all, they weren't created evil, and originally loved the light. Also, if there was one specific Balrog shape, I think it is more likely that Morgoth fashioned the bodies for them.

The books speak of dark "gifts" that Melkor gave to those who followed him, and I believe that they were gifts of those things that were meant for Incarnates, such as food and sex. It jives with the biblical account of the origin of demons--there are quite a few biblical models for Tolkien's writing. Obviously, this rebellion doesn't immediately make them into huge ghastly beasts. If they chose their own forms in which to partake of these gifts, I do not doubt that they would have been impressive and even beautiful. It is only in time, having nurtured evil thoughts and perpetrated evil deeds, and when their forms began to become more than mere raiment, that Maiar lost their ability to appear fair. I don't think this loss would have resulted in the giant, horned, winged monsters that Howe depicts, as glorious as Howe's paintings are. Instead I always imagined Balrogs as tall, impressively built humanoids with an aura of darkness that reflected the corruption of their powerful fea inside. The bit in FotR when Gandalf is on one side of the door and the Balrog is on the other is giving me chills right now as I remember it.

Anyway, I think that it suited Melkor's purposes to have his servants incarnate, and he intentionally made them so. Whether this included creating their forms for them or not, one can't say for sure. But it was possible.

I also think it's silly to think they would've given themselves functionless wings, Esty. :P

[drigel]

Spirit of Fire
Many forms of fire

Fire needs fuel
There is fuel below me but not above

Shadowy wings
Shadows can be used for many purposes
Aerodynamic laws not being on of these

Balrogs had shadowy wings but they were not used for flight

:)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I also think it's silly to think they would've given themselves functionless wings, Esty. :P

I did not claim that they chose that form themselves, oblo. Perhaps Morgoth, as their lord and master, wanted to keep them frustrated by giving them wings and the wish to fly, but not the capability! :p

[obloquy]

Tushie!!!

[Lindolirian]

I also think it's silly to think they would've given themselves functionless wings True, but the teeth seen here (http://www.1000pictures.com/aircraft/wwii-ftr/P-40-1.jpg) have no functional prupose either. It's intimidation. If you were an angry form-changing demon, you'd give yourself wings just to look frightening too. :rolleyes:

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Allow me to be the first to point out that the machine upon which those teeth have been painted has wings that actually work, and that it can fly. . .

Hmmmm. . .I wonder. . .do balrogs have teeth?

[obloquy]

I think in general people make demons out to be much more beastly than they are. The extent of a fallen angel's carnality is stooping to the level of Man. We're not talking about a wild animal who'll bark and growl and roar and drool. Tolkien was very severe with Bakshi's version of the Bridge because Tolkien's intention was for the Balrog to maintain a dignified and sinister silence. There's no need for eye spots, or horns, or spikes, or scary wings. Durin's Bane was intimidating enough to even Gandalf when he had not even seen him yet.

Think about what we're talking about, folks. These are ancient, mighty fallen spirits, not guard dogs.

[mark12_30]

Well, since I can't exactly decide (and on some days don't care) I'm going to have to log on as an even number of alt-egos and vote myself into neutrality.

Or I guess I can just sit back and watch.

Either way, I'm enjoying the details of the discussion. "Ancient mighty spirits"-- nicely put, obloquy; quite a ring to it.

And about the "if he had wings why not fly back out of the chasm"-- maybe he had enough wind knocked out of him, or was just dizzy enough that he couldn't recover. These assumed bodies are pesky things, and I suspect they have a way of operating unexpectedly under duress.

[Formendacil]

Think about what we're talking about, folks. These are ancient, mighty fallen spirits, not guard dogs.

Okay, sorry to take this out on a not-so-necessary tangent, but guard dogs got me thinking.

What's the most fearsome guard dog in middle-earth? Carcharoth. Not exactly a Balrog, but not TOO far behind, and if we remember that he is a whelp of Draugluin, it would perhaps not be too improbable to say that he was at least part-Maia (aka supernatural) ancestry, above and beyond the power infused into him by Morgoth or by eating the Silmaril.

Which isn't to say that the Balrogs had guard dog status, by any means, but if you think about the way they do Morgoth's bidding unquestioningly, they certainly don't seem to be portrayed as particularly independent fellows.

Not that they aren't fearsome, and it really doesn't have much to say about their actual shape, but perhaps its worth noting that for all their terror, the Balrogs did the bidding, unquestioningly, of their master. Since they are said to be of the same general shape, it would seem wise therefore to assume that their looks were derived from a "Master" plan, to which they became bound thereafter (being of considerably lesser power than either Sauron or Morgoth, they would seem to have a much more limited potential for changing their shapes. And the more permanently attached to that shape, the less easy it would seem to be to change it. And the Balrogs would seem to have been pretty attached, in the end, to those shapes).

[Nimrodel_9]

How many times have we been through this? YES, balrogs had wings, but they were not used in flight. Perhaps some could fly, but I would say most couldn`t. That`s all I have to say. ;)

Nimmy

[obloquy]

Good post, Formendacil.

It is true that Maiar could take the form of anything, not just humanoids, and frankly, I forgot about Huan when I posted above. He was originally conceived of by Tolkien as an incarnate Maia. If this is the case, he's an unusual example and I can't really explain it. It seems that Tolkien changed his mind about Huan's nature, however, in a note from Myths Transformed: The same sort of thing may be said of Húan and the Eagles: they were taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher level - but they still had no fëar.

I know my accepting stance on that note contradicts previous posts of mine, but I now see a reason for Tolkien to come to the conclusion he did.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Just thought I would pass along to you all that I raised this issue with Mrs. Hedgethistle and she said, "Of course they have wings, you can see them right there in the movie!"

So that, as they say, is that.

*Fordim makes mental note to ask Mrs. Hedgethistle about Elves' ears*

[obloquy]

Again, I'll shamelessly hijack the thread: Elf ears, Man ears, and Hobbit ears are all "slightly pointed". It's canonical. Hobbit ears are directly said to be such by comparison to Elf ears, and it is well established in Tolkien's writings that Man and Elf were physiologically identical, to the point that they could only be distinguished from one another by the relative intensity of their eyes.

[Lyta_Underhill]

This is a total whim, and I've never weighed in before on the Balrog and wing question. I regret being sadly out of date and not having the time to read a WHOLE lot of threads on the subject, but the simple thought occurred to me that a being who chooses a weapon of fiery whips would probably not do so if said being had wings. Wouldn't the whips recoil and constantly tear the wings? Thus, out of reverse logic, I choose No. Ask me again tomorrow and I'll forget I even said anything about it! ;)

Cheers,
Lyta

[radagastly]

Like many others, I've never weighed in on the Balrog-wing controversy. I guess I just wanted to see them the way I see them, and not be argued with. (yes I know I ended that with a preposition--I was never a fan of Alexander Pope, or his Latin!).

I think they had wings but never flew. I'm also not saying they couldn't fly, just that they didn't. If it matters, I think that they couldn't fly, and the wings were reverse-vestigial. (In other words, I don't think they could fly, they just hoped to one day.)

Of course, that doesn't explain why the Moria Balrog would have gone all the way from Beleriand to the Misty Mountains on foot when he could have just have easily found refuge closer.

For what it's worth Fordim, I think you have an upcoming ultertior motive for these polls that you have yet to reveal. So, what's up?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

It's intimidation. What a brilliant and simple explanation! There are plenty of examples of animals who have some kind of physical techniques of increasing their size for that very purpose, so that seems very logical to me. And, since Morgoth was able to corrupt, but not create, maybe he never got the hang of making wings that were actually able to carry the Balrogs!

[Rilwen Gamgee]

I agree with Lindolirian's intimidation theory. The form of Balrogs' wings, as I invisioned them, were shadowy, but with form. Not possessing form enough to actually fly, but enough to frighten its...victim(s).

As many members and a few non-members repeated numerous times, somewhere in the FotR, Tolkien mentions shadows emerging from the Balrog like wings.

Please, whatever anyone wishes to think is great; I'm a believer in forming one's own visuals of characters, but I intend to stick fast to my imagination.

[the phantom]

You all seem to forget that Tolkien had an opinion about this.

From HoME XXVIII, part 3, subsection 2, draft C, entitled "questions I should've answered"-
I think that Balrogs could've had wings if they chose but didn't have wings so they couldn't fly but if they did they still couldn't fly unless they wanted to fly in which case they could but only if they had had wings but they didn't have wings since they couldn't fly.
I think that answers the question.

I'm not sure what the question is, though.

[davem]

So far, some of the really 'heavy hitters' have gone with the "no" side. I am delighted to see, however, that SaucepanMan has agreed with me on the "yes" side. Now if we can convince davem to weigh in on the topic, and if he votes "yes" as well, then we will have finally found something upon which [B]SpM, davem and I all agree.

Sorry, but I can't join my esteemed colleagues. I don't recall any mention of Balrog's wings in The Sil, of Balrog's flying (other than 'metaphorically' to Morgoth's aid). I do think they may have had pointy ears, though.

(If someone has already done that joke I'm sorry.....)

[Lothingranor]

I think that Balrogs may or may not have had wings. They were still Ainur after all, and could change thier forms at will. In the Fellowship of the Ring, we are told that the shadow about the Balrog was LIKE wings. Later the wings are refered to as if they actually exist. This has been debated constantly among Pro wingers and Anti wingers. Keep in mind though, we are never told the nature of the Ainur's shape shifting. It may be that the Balrog of Moria didn't have wings at first, but on the Bridge of Khazad-Dum, it may have formed the shadow about it into wing like shapes, and later the shadow solidified into actual wings. So the Balrog basically adds wings to it's form. My theory is based on my belief that the Balrogs retained their ability to change shape, though. If someone can prove that they lost this ability, my point is voided.

As for whether or not they fly, I have no clue. Tolkien makes a point to say that Morgoth never learned the secret of flight, but remember in the story of Beren and Luthien, Sauron took a winged form and flew away. Not to mention Morgoth also managed to breed winged dragons too. However, being that Balrogs are Maiar, if they could fly, they certainly wouldn't need wings to do it. God I have no life.

[Son of Númenor]

I have yet to see a convincing argument against Underhill's thesis (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=9006&postcount=81). It seems logical that if members of the Fellowship, who have just seen a Balrog up close and personal, mistake a flying creature for a Balrog, Balrogs must a) have wings and b) be capable of flight.

[Sharkû]

But doesn't this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/balrog.JPG) remind you of a badly drawn elephant?

[Evisse the Blue]

:D

You all seem to forget that Tolkien had an opinion about this.

From HoME XXVIII, part 3, subsection 2, draft C, entitled "questions I should've answered"-
I think that Balrogs could've had wings if they chose but didn't have wings so they couldn't fly but if they did they still couldn't fly unless they wanted to fly in which case they could but only if they had had wings but they didn't have wings since they couldn't fly.

So then it's settled. They didn't. :p

[The Saucepan Man]

Before I came to the Downs, I did not even realise that there was a debate about the wings. I was blithely and rather naively sure that they did have wings and was stunned to see such heated opinions on the matter.This sums up entirely my own reaction to the issue. I recall that one of the things that I found most fascinating when I first came to the site (the main site that is - the discussion forum came later) was the fact that there were serious, intelligent and detailed articles concerning such matters. Not just whether Balrogs had wings, but also a couple of wonderful articles (by the esteemed Messrs Wight and Underhill) on the question of whether Olog-Hai were immune to the petrifying effects of sunlight. It had never really occurred to me to ponder such questions before.

By the time I came to the discussion forum, the issue had already been comprehensively argued with persuasive arguments both ways. So, although I am familiar with the arguments, I have never felt it necessary to weigh in with my opinions on the matter.

If I had to give a logical answer, I would say that Balrogs could not have had wings. It simply does not square with them being unable to fly when pitching down the various chasms that members of their order have fallen down. And I cannot see the point of them having flightless wings, especially in a world which does not presuppose evolution. And there are a variety of other ways in which they could have made their chosen forms intimidating.

But, as with many such questions, my ultimate reaction is not a logical one. Unless the issue is definitively proved one way or the other (and this one most certainly is not), I go with the conception that I formed when I first read the book. And, although it may well be a result of misinterpreting the "wings like shadows" reference, the Balrog of Moria most definately had wings when I first read the book. So, there we have it. Balrogs have wings. :p ;)

[mark12_30]

I have yet to see a convincing argument against Underhill's thesis (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=9006&postcount=81). It seems logical that if members of the Fellowship, who have just seen a Balrog up close and personal, mistake a flying creature for a Balrog, Balrogs must a) have wings and b) be capable of flight.


Whoa!!

Mister Underhill rules. I'm off to cast my vote. Good thing I waited.

[Fingolfin II]

It seems logical that if members of the Fellowship, who have just seen a Balrog up close and personal, mistake a flying creature for a Balrog, Balrogs must a) have wings and b) be capable of flight.

Not necessarily. To the Fellowship (with, perhaps, the exception of Legolas), the Fell Beast that the Nazgul was riding appeared to just be a dark shadow from afar.

'Elbereth Gilthoniel!' sighed Legolas as he looked up. Even as he did so, a dark shape, like a cloud and yet not a cloud, for it moved far more swiftly, came out of the blackness in the South, and sped towards the Company, blotting out all light as it approached. Soon it appeared as a great winged creature, blacker than the pits in the night.

The Balrog was described as a creature of fire and shadow. Here, the only indication is that the creature in this excerpt is one of shadow (meaning it's very dark).

If, as you suggest, Son of Numenor, that Balrogs have wings and are capable of flight, then surely Gothmog and the Balrogs that Gandalf and Glorfindel fought would have flown to safety instead of plunging into deep water in one case, and falling to their ruin in the other two?

There are several arguments avalaible on this contentious issue, which I won't reiterate, but I'm certainly an ardent anti-winger ;).

[Neithan]

Well I still haven't had time to look through all of the links provided but I feel the need to add a couple of comments.
It seems logical that if members of the Fellowship, who have just seen a Balrog up close and personal, mistake a flying creature for a Balrog, Balrogs must a) have wings and b) be capable of flight.
Wait a minute, it's not as simple as that. Gimli didn't mistake it for a Balrog, he said that it reminded him of the shadow of the Balrog.
I think that Balrogs could've had wings if they chose but didn't have wings so they couldn't fly but if they did they still couldn't fly unless they wanted to fly in which case they could but only if they had had wings but they didn't have wings since they couldn't fly.
An interesting quote! This is even more confusing than Bilbo's farewell speech (intentionaly I am sure), but it does seem to say that they didn't have wings. The fact that he says that they could have had wings if they wanted does prove that they weren't given bodies by Morgoth though. :)
My theory is based on my belief that the Balrogs retained their ability to change shape, though. If someone can prove that they lost this ability, my point is voided.
Well there is quite a bit of evidence that they had lost this ability. For one, they had been in that form for a very long time. Also, as I said before if they still had this ability they could not have died by falling off of a cliff. For more information on the subject try here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=5879)
Edit: Oops, the last post was finished as I was making mine which is why I say some of the same things.

[Lhunardawen]

First and foremost...
Sorry, but I can't join my esteemed colleagues. I don't recall any mention of Balrog's wings in The Sil, of Balrog's flying (other than 'metaphorically' to Morgoth's aid). I do think they may have had pointy ears, though.
davem said a joke. DAVEM POSTED A JOKE! In the BOOKS!!!

Okay, I'll stop now. Back to the topic...

First Age says Balrogs flew. They might have had wings. Third Age recounts no Balrog flight. They might not have had wings.

The only idea I can glean from these (loose) observations is this:

Balrogs did fly, with wings. Somehow Morgoth's defeat removed the ability and made the wings merely vestigial. Didn't Morgoth give them this gift for their service to him? But since he was thrust into the Void, the gifts became void (bad pun, yes). :rolleyes:

[Fingolfin II]

Didn't Morgoth give them this gift for their service to him?

But isn't it said in HoME (not sure which) that Morgoth would kill the Eagles and use their wings in an attempt to fly, but that for all his power he could never master flight? And as well as this, I don't think it would be in Morgoth's power to bestow gifts that alter the physical being of an Ainu.

Also, let me throw another argument - that's bound to have been already mentioned in one of the other Balrog threads - if Gothmog could fly, what use would his troll-guard be to him? I'm assuming that trolls can't fly and that if Balrogs had wings and could fly that they would do that, which would give them a much greater speed and strategic advantage over their opponents than if they fought on the ground.

[Mister Underhill]

Hey Sono! Nice to see you back posting. Both you and mark12_30 demonstrate your keen intelligence (not to mention good taste) once again. :D

My own exhaustive (some might say exhausting) research on this topic has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that Tolkien conceived of Balrogs as winged creatures, at least at the time of the writing of LotR. There is compelling evidence of First Age wingers, too, but I won't rehash arguments I've made of old in the linked threads here.

I will, however, note that the Silm "troll-guard" reference is suspect to say the least. See this section of my Olog-hai article (http://www.barrowdowns.com/articleshifi.php#DECONSTRUCTING) for a comprehensive investigation -- or just let me sum it up for you: this section of the published Silm was constructed from various source texts by Christopher. Not one of Tolkien's source texts as published or described in HoME refers to trolls, so how they got into Christopher's Frankenstein version is anybody's guess. This instance is also the sole mention of trolls in the entire published Silm as far as I know.

So troll-guard references in relation to the Balrog debate are simply not compelling.

[Esgallhugwen]

Ok here's my pathetic attempt at giving my humble opinion after humming and hawing over my fellow BDer's posts.

In my opinion they did have wings.

Now to incorporate some proof to my flimsy theory, I agree that evolution would be out, though at first my proof and opinion was going to be that, well Ostriches and Emus are huge birds but their weight and over all proportions prevent them from flying to any extent[I]so yes the Balrogs could have had wings, but aside from evolution the weight theory can still be put into effect for obvious reasons, they were freakin' huge!

Now for them being able to have changed forms, Morgoth's Maia, very much like himself, would have lost their ability or capability to perform certain tasks, after all due to Morgoth's downfall he was only able to pervert and contort and not make things of his own. Perhaps it could be the same for his followers, maybe after a period of time they were unable to change to anything else and unable to use their wings in flight due to them no longer being of the Light, or perhaps the wings could potentially be in a stunted form from their inability to have changed further due to their degradation, thus not allowing them flight.

So I believe the Balrogs had wings but were unable to fly.
I think thats all I have to say for now untill I think of something better.

[HerenIstarion]

Ah, for the fifth year we disagree on this subject :)

On balrog origins, see here (http://69.51.5.41/showpost.php?p=207732&postcount=32) (One Hand tied behind their backs by Mithadan, post #32)

I consciously avoided wings issue in the article linked to.

But I still hold they did not have wings

Arguments (not touching on traditional 'like wings' quote from LoTR, for it may be used as pro and contra argument likewise.

Balrogs may have had wings originally (that is, as Tolkien envisioned them, as 'fallen angels'. Allegedly, angels having wings and balorgs too. Excuse me drawing in this inappropriate imagery, but have you played Heroes of Might and Magic IV? I suppose you must have, Mr.U? Remember 'angels' and 'demons' of that game? Former have feather wings and the latter leather wings - but that is part of the whole Western mythic imagery - as bats (leather wings) are associated with vampires (Evil) and dove (feather wings) with Holy Spirit, basilisk (leather wings) is scared away by cockerel (feather wings) etc.

But winged angels (besides two first orders, cherubs and seraphs, who have four and six ccorrespondingly), appearence is not confirmed by any sacred text. It's just a popular belief, kind of an 'urban legend' for first Christians (see link to mark 12_30's post below). So I hold that as Tolkien 'conscioulsy' revised his work, he changed his mind (as it may be misleading to imagine things which are spiritual, and may actually have no physical 'look' at all)

What am I driving at? As was discussed in many good threads around the Downs (Ëalar and Incarnation (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=5879) by obloquy for one, it is in Haudh-en-Ndengin, Do Ainur have wings (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=11539) by Estelyn for two, mark (pun intended) mark 12_30's post there). Ainur, in general, do not need physical bodies for travel, unless they are tied to their bodies (Deliberately for Istari, habitually for balrogs - practicing incarnate activities making the bondage unbreakable - see excerpts from Osanwe-Kenta on the subject here (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=365945#post365945) - The Ainur and their physical forms by Neithan)

But once they 'grow' incarnate, their physical forms are:

1. What they chose in the beginning and grew accustomed to
2. Reflection of their inward status - hence Sauron being only 'terrible' after some point

And another very grave but - BUT in both cases, biological functionality plays the major part - i.e. spirits who fly take form of eagles - i.e. physical apparatus designed for flight. Humanoid form, however, is an apparatus specifically designed for upright walking. Wings on it look as out of place as they would on a seal or a snail. Biological inconsistency, so to say. (Or John Travolta with a bottle of whiskey by the fridge)

And there is also age old argument of mine about two duels with balrogs. (Gandalf and Glorfindel). In both cases balrogs do fall down the abyss. Why should they fall, if the are winged and able of flight? In Gandalf's case it may be argued that the abyss below the bridge is too narrow for such a huge flier to spread its wings, but in Glorfindel's case the abyss is quite wide - enormous Thorondor flies down and up it to recover Glorfindel's body after the battle is over.

[narfforc]

Many years ago, whist I was still a young pup, I asked this question to a grey beard during Oxonmoot (Tolkien Society). His answer was What does the good book say. Here is what it says exactly, His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out LIKE two vast wings. It does not say, its two vast wings reached out. A few sentences later are the words that have made this one of the most asked questions over the years, it drew itself up to a great height, AND ITS WINGS were spread from wall to wall. What Tolkien is talking about here are the Balrogs SHADOW wings. So the answer to this question is yes and no, the wings were there for show, like a politicians smile.

NOMOREIHERE

[davem]

I suppose its possible that the 'wings' were a deliberate illusion created by the Balrog to intimidate the Fellowship: 'His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.' Which implies that the Balrog, being a creature of 'shadow & flame' had control over its 'appearance'.

The 'wings' would not be real, but would seem so. It could not use them to fly only to intimidate. I get the sense of them being intended to give a sense of there being no escape - they 'were spread from wall to wall' - increasing the impression of size & power. In that sense they weren't 'wings' at all - they weren't a means to fly - perhaps Tolkien is using the word 'wings' in the sense of a house having 'wings'. The Balrog was making itself 'bigger' - like a cat raising its hackles...

[HerenIstarion]

The Balrog was making itself 'bigger' - like a cat raising its hackles...

That, Sir, is worthy of the title Quote of the Day!

Which I have a pleasure of opening up a thread for:

Quote of the Day (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=368707#post368707)

[Kransha]

Ah, a question I have carefully avoided answering, despite the debates, ceaseless as they are, that sway my opinions.

Now, though, in the culminating resolution (in poll form, no less), raised by the scholarly Professor Hedgethistle, I must cast my die...or something.

I try to use logic when thinking over the problem, rather than diggin through references. Usually, I like debates with supportive facts, but the Balrog-wings debate is no simple debate, so I only use straight book-reference, no Letters or Silmarillion extras. Those are my grounds. Here are, in my mind, the different supported cases that could be argued, regardless of illogic:

Case #1 - Balrogs have no wings, and the description of Balrogs is completely metaphoric.
Case #2 - Balrogs have "shadow projections," wing-like structures that are not really wings, but kinda are.
Case #3 - Balrogs have useless wings, like some flightless though winged animals.
Case #4 - Balrogs have vestigial wings for intimidation purposes
Case #5 - Balrogs have capes, ala Batman (copyright DC Comics, 19something5)

Well, now I must go through the process of approval or dissaproval.

Case #1 seems senseless when taken literally. Obviously the Balrogs had SOMETHING that the Fellowship saw, and weren't just big flaming giants. So, this case is illegimately disproved. I think that, despite Tolkien's penchant for metaphor, despite cordial dislike of allegory, he was not trying to indicate that Balrogs had no protrusions of any kind. To me, that puts the kibosh on Case #1.

Case #2 is a pretty legit deal. Shadowy, semi-magical projections are, in essence, a good case to plead for. They would not allow the Balrogs to fly in principle, but still match the description fit, and are, via the invention of the simile; "like wings." In order, though, to research the use of the term "wings" ala Balrogs one must discover what wings are. Even though this principle analysis of wings may have been conducted before, I'll do it again for the benefit of others.

According to Webster's Seventh New Collegate Dictionary, published in 1961 (one of the nearest publications to the time of the books' publication, I believe), a wing is:

1. a; one of the moveable feathered or membranous paired appendages by means of which a bird, bat, or insect is able to fly; b; any of the various organic structures (esp. of a flying fish or flying lemur) providing means of limited flight; 2. an appendage or part likened to a wing in shape, appearance, or position, as a: a device used for swimming attached to the shoulders; b: a turned-back or extended edge on an article of clothin; c: a sidepiece at the top of an armchair; d: a foliacious, membranous, or woody expansion of a plant; e: a vane of a windmill or arrow; f: a sail; g: one of the airfoils that develope. . .et cetera

Most of that is just misleading. Just wipe from your minds definitions 2:a-2:g, though the actual second definition is intriguing. Perhaps the term wing does apply to Balrog appendages using Definition 2 or 1:b (means of limited flight i.e. flying fish - lemur). The definitions provide evidence for Case #3 and #4 in a sense, but you have to analyze and re-analyze to discover if ol' dead Webster was actually in agreement with one or the other. Vestigial or useless wings are semi-common (vestigial wings are not, but it is not an inane or foreign concept).

In fact, Case #4 goes hand in hand with Case #2. If Balrogs have vestigial wings, they function on the same principle as shadowy extra appendages, intimidating/scaring/just being there sorts of things that serve little more purpose. But, were Balrogs designed to be scary or effective? Melkor seemed to be pretty with the idea of effectiveness in his monsters, but he did sacrifice intelligence when making orcs, possibly, as well as the ability to withstand sunlight, which means that maybe he was more concerned with making scary creatures that couldn't fly. But, it is awfully silly to give something wings that don't work, or to have wings that don't work. Balrogs may not have been created by Morgoth literally, or they may have been, but it seems that, in a world of villainous, fiendish efficiency, the Pits of Utumno and realm of the Dark Enemy, things with wings would fly. So, perhaps they really didn't have anything that allowed them to fly. So, Case #4 is assimilated into Case #2. Case #3 went bye-bye a while back. That leaves:

Case #1 - Doubtful
Case #2 - Strange, but plausible
Case #5 - Just plain weird...but...

If I may entertain a totally serious idea – maybe Balrogs wear capes?

Hey, it’s possible. This is, of course, far more of a humorous prospect, but it does make sense, to a degree; giant capes, possibly bionic or grafted onto their shoulders. Some artists have depicted Balrogs as wearing clothes of a sort, armor and the like. Trolls and orcs wore clothes, or so we are led to believe, on occasion. Maybe Balrogs did too? Maybe Morgoth had them fitted with trended, wing-like capes, clipped to their elbows and wrists so they could flap about and look as if they had wings. Maybe they just liked the feel of capes, and kept them around, which provided a shadowy illusion, as well as intimidation, as well as the ideals of wings, as well as the concept of fire-resistant material. Maybe….

Or maybe I’m off my rocker.

But, seriously, there is my contribution. Balrog capes.

As far as the Balrog in Moria, I like to think that it had wings but, because it had spent so much time underground in a relatively confined space, its wings no longer allowed it to fly. Perhaps Morgoth’s original Valarauka could fly, but the Moria Balrog could not, and thus, fell (on several occasions) to some degree of doom. Poor balrog. Jerry Springer would’ve had a field day.

So, I cast a vote for Balrog Capes.

For the poll, I vote yes…unofficially.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I have yet to see a convincing argument against Underhill's thesis (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=9006&postcount=81). It seems logical that if members of the Fellowship, who have just seen a Balrog up close and personal, mistake a flying creature for a Balrog, Balrogs must a) have wings and b) be capable of flight. (SoN)
Gimli wasn't officially a Balrog expert. And he didn't actually see the Balrog fly.

Perhaps he did see wings, and thought they work.

So, maybe they did have wings.

[Lalwendë]

Now it's my turn to have a go...

Much in the manner of David Frost on Through The Keyhole (or perhaps not...) "Let's look at the evidence so far..."

The dark figure streaming with fire raced towards them. The orcs yelled and poured over the stone gangways. Then Boromir raised his horn and blew. Loud the challenge rang and bellowed, like the shout of many throats under the cavernous roof. For a moment the orcs quailed and the fiery shadow halted. Then the echoes died as suddenly as a flame blown out by a dark wind, and the enemy advanced again.

'Over the bridge!' cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. 'Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!' Aragorn and Boromir did not heed the command, but still held their ground, side by side, behind Gandalf at the far end of the bridge. The others halted just within the doorway at the hall's end, and turned, unable to leave their leader to face the enemy alone.

The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm.

'You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. 'I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.

From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming.
Glamdring glittered white in answer.

There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell back and its sword flew up in molten fragments. The wizard swayed on the bridge, stepped back a pace, and then again stood still.

'You cannot pass!' he said.

With a bound the Balrog leaped full upon the bridge. Its whip whirled and hissed.
'He cannot stand alone!' cried Aragorn suddenly and ran back along the bridge. 'Elendil!' he shouted. 'I am with you, Gandalf!'

'Gondor!' cried Boromir and leaped after him.

At that moment Gandalf lifted his staff, and crying aloud he smote the bridge before him. The staff broke asunder and fell from his hand. A blinding sheet of white flame sprang up. The bridge cracked. Right at the Balrog's feet it broke, and the stone upon which it stood crashed into the gulf, while the rest remained, poised, quivering like a tongue of rock thrust out into emptiness.

With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard's knees, dragging him to the brink. He staggered, and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into the abyss.

'Fly, you fools!' he cried, and was gone.

The first description of the Balrog says the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. This does not say it had wings, but the shadows looked like wings.

The second description says suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall. This suggests that it did have wings, but what have we already read? That it was the shadows which looked like wings; we cannot take this out of context.

Finally, when the Balrog falls, With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. So why, when the bridge collapses, does the Balrog not put his 'wings' into action? If he does have wings, then they are certainly not useable ones, and has already been said, evolution is not a factor in Middle earth so why would he have merely vestigial wings?

Now, the Balrog is a creature of shadow and fire, he (and we assume it is a 'he', it could indeed be a female Balrog but I won't open that can of worms) is not made of flesh and blood. So when the shadow about him 'reached out like two vast wings' then I would think that the Balrog absorbed some of this shadow into his own being, thus making it indeed appear that he had wings! The picture which comes to mind is the old film Nosferatu where the vampire appears enormous by way of using his shadow to impressive effect. In the case of the Balrog, he uses the shadow to actually make his own being appear different. So no, he does not have wings, but he does appear to have them.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Just a quick note.

There have been a few people who have weighed in on the issue in the thread but who have failed officially to cast their vote. I wonder if they are pretending to achieve a resolution and then losing their nerve when it comes to actually nailing their colours to the masthead, as it were, in the form of a vote.

But back to this important topic:

I really don't see why the balrog not flying out of the abyss means that its wings don't work. . .

1) perhaps the cavern is too narrow for the wings to work (a brilliant little solution achieved by the film-makers)

2) this is my theory: it could have flown out but didn't want to. When Gandalf returns to the Fellowship he tells them that:

'Long I fell, and he fell with me. His fire was about me. I was burned.'

And then a bit further on:

'Ever he clutched me, and I hewed him, till at last he fled into dark tunnels.'

OK, so what point are these lines making? Well, rather an obvious one I should think: that Gandalf and the balrog are fighting with one another. Why would the balrog want to fly out of the abyss? He's trying to destroy Gandalf, and Gandalf is falling so "he fell with me". Neither one of them is afraid of being killed by the impact of falling because, well, they're maia. I can't imagine the balrog thinking "oh dear, an oopsie. I'm falling -- better fly away. I suppose I can let Olorin go, I've got something more important to do than kill him anyway. . ." The balrog's only thought when he starts to fall is, apparently, to destroy Gandalf as he takes the wizard with him rather than try to save himself (why not pull an Indianna Jones and use the whip as a safety line instead of to snare Gandalf?).

I can already anticipate someone saying that the balrog could have seized Gandal and flown out with him but again, why? Why grab your opponent in one hand only to bring him back up to where his companions are, much closer to escape, when he's already falling (without wings) into a darker and more terrible realm into which you can pursue him -- and if you have wings, that pursuit will be a whole lot easier.

The second quote demonstrates that this is not about two guys trying to get away from one another and save their own skin, but two Mighty Opponents trying to wipe each other out. When the balrog flees, Gandalf doesn't 'fly the coop' so to speak he -- like the balrog earlier -- goes after him.

But this is all just secondary. Mister Underhill's thesis alone is enough to satisfy me as to the presence and usefulness of balrog wings. Sure Gimli may not be a balrog expert, but he did see one!!

[drigel]

ugh i dont want to get sucked into this but.. metaphors people lol
IMHO:
Balrogs "flying" in the Silm would be the same as the fellowship flying after Gandalf fell: "Fly you fools!".... one of many examples, like, why arent we asking: did Shadowfax have wings?

The parallels of both the LOTR balrog's and Gothmog's demise are curious, but one aspect says it all for me. They both involve: (drumroll)... falling. :)
thats it - no more poetry :)

[The Saucepan Man]

Didn't Gothmog drown in the Fountain of Gondolin after being impaled on Ecthelion's helmet? I suspect that his shadow wings got soggy and weighed him down. ;)

It was the Balrog that Glorfindel fought that fell.

I have never read either actual passage. Would anyone care to submit them for analysis?

[Lalwendë]

But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard's knees, dragging him to the brink. He staggered, and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into the abyss.

This could suggest that the Balrog flung his whip (or whatever it is you do with a whip) because he hoped to catch hold of Gandalf and so save himself from falling! Yet in an almost comic moment, Gandalf lets go, and so the Balrog too falls.

There have been a few people who have weighed in on the issue in the thread but who have failed officially to cast their vote. I wonder if they are pretending to achieve a resolution and then losing their nerve when it comes to actually nailing their colours to the masthead, as it were, in the form of a vote.

Do we get fined if we don't vote? ;) I forgot to, but I will do so right now.

[drigel]

SPM
I think your right. But doesnt 3 make a trend? :) Ecthelion's helm was the final blow that snuffed Gothmog.
I think there would be more votes if there was a catagory for "had wings, but not used for flight".

[Mister Underhill]

The second description says suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall. This suggests that it did have wings, but what have we already read? That it was the shadows which looked like wings; we cannot take this out of context.
The old "like" chestnut. If you want the whole context, back up a few paragraphs, where the Balrog is first seen. "It was like a great shadow..." By the logic of the "like" argument, we must conclude that the "shadow" is metaphorical.

In past battles, evidence has been presented that Tolkien frequently uses "like" to create a mood, especially when introducing his evil characters. There are a few long posts ranging over this ground in the Were Balrogs winged? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=565&page=1&pp=40) thread, starting out around page 3 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=565&page=3&pp=40). See this post (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=9024#post9024) in particular for a list of examples.

Balrogs most certainly were creatures of flesh and blood -- you'd have a tough row to hoe arguing otherwise: "His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake. We fought far under the living earth, where time is not counted. Ever he clutched me, and ever I hewed him..." We could get into a whole fëa/hröa thing here, but I'll desist.

As to how a winged Balrog might fall during a battle -- it's no mystery. Wings may be hewn as easily as limbs or necks, I reckon.

P.S. -- Gandalf only lets go in the movie.

[drigel]

Ever he clutched me, and ever I hewed him..." We could get into a hole fëa/hröa thing here, but I'll desist.

Now that would be a balrog discussion that would be INTERESTING :smokin:

[The Saucepan Man]

Is anyone actually inclined to be persuaded one way or the other by the various arguments? As for me, whatever the arguments, I will only accept wingless Balrogs if presented with irrefutable proof that Tolkien intended them so. It's an emotional/intuitive thing, y'see.


I think there would be more votes if there was a catagory for "had wings, but not used for flight"I assume that, of those who have voted "Yes", a proportion are of the "winged but flightless" camp. On the basis that the vote has hovered around the Yes: 60% No: 40% mark more or less since inception, I would speculate that there would be a roughly equal three-way vote, although (on the basis of the comments made here) those of us who believe that Balrogs had wings and were fully capable of using them for flight unless constrained from doing so would might possibly fall into the minority.

As an aside, it is interesting that the ratio of "Yes" to "No" on this poll is remarkably similar to the result of the "Did Elves have pointed Ears?" poll. Are there any conclusions to draw from this? I suspect not, as the Elf ears poll is "confidential". Although we know that Fordim, at least, has voted "Yes" for Balrog's wings and "No" for pointed Elf ears. In contrast, I have voted "Yes" to both questions, and for broadly the same reasons.

[the phantom]

There have been a few people who have weighed in on the issue in the thread but who have failed officially to cast their vote. I wonder if they are pretending to achieve a resolution and then losing their nerve when it comes to actually nailing their colours to the masthead, as it were, in the form of a vote.
Any floating voters?
I'm not voting. It would end the debate.

(actually, I don't care too much, I just enjoy watching everyone go back and forth- great stuff from both sides)

[drigel]

As with the movies and with most subjects on this wonderfull website, I enjoy the forum for the various different views and learned exchanges. It's through here where I pick up bits and pieces of lore that i otherwise would surely miss myself. Otherwise, I remain entrenched in my own personal Idaho otherwise known as ME.
:)

[The Saucepan Man]

Is anyone actually inclined to be persuaded one way or the other by the various arguments?Just to be clear, I did not mean by this comment to suggest that the discussion is futile or pointless. It is, in fact, both entertaining and engrossing as far as I am concerned. However, this does seem to be one of those issues in which views are generally pretty firmly entrenched - most probably because it is a debate which has been raging for so long.

[mark12_30]

Is anyone actually inclined to be persuaded one way or the other by the various arguments?
As may be observed above, I had been flippantly neutral and/or indifferent for the past thirty years (thirty years is a LONG time to not care about balrog wings) until the other day when I was soundly convinced by the logic (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=9006&postcount=81) of Mister Underhill-- by which I remain satisfied, and unrattled by other arguments I have read since.

So yes, it can happen.

[mark12_30]

Tuppence turn: thanks to Lalwendë for supplying the text...

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.

From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming.
Glamdring glittered white in answer.

There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell back and its sword flew up in molten fragments. The wizard swayed on the bridge, stepped back a pace, and then again stood still.

At this moment, the two have had a major power encounter: enough to (a) shatter the sword of the balrog and and make him step back, and (b) make Gandalf sway on the bridge. So the Balrog had already taken a 'hit'. The second dose of power (from Gandalf's striking the bridge) may have affected him as well, but either way, the first hit may have weakened him enough to make him unsteady.

And meanwhile, wasn't the air in the mines, especially at the bridge, cold and sinking? No hot updrafts? So even a jet (or an eagle) might have dropped in those conditions, as they sometimes do when encountering downdrafts while crossing mountains.

[Lalwendë]

As someone who used to take a great interest in psephology, the study of voting patterns, this is starting to get really interesting. We have already had questions raised about whether the voting system is flawed, a former floating voter being persuaded by some pamphleteering, even questions raised as to what leads us into voting a certain way! And they wonder why real elections can get so fraught! Is the Barrow-Downs Select Committee going to examine the results? ;)

And like Saucepan Man says, I'm finding it entertaining, by the way!

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Much as I would like Balrogs to have had wings, (I.e. they would look cooler) I have to say no. Among all the obvious arguing about how the Proff wrote that fateful scene in Moria, I have one view that sets it for me.

Here is my little theory of sorts.

Melkor, who we all know and love, made the Balrogs, yes? It is my reading that suggest that they were among the first creatures he... invented?.... and I do not think that had the Balrogs had wings then the appearance of Ancalagon and the flying dragons would not have been met with such fear and horror. It is my opinion that flying Balrogs would be slightly more frightening than the dragons. Also, perhaps winged creatures were a later thought of Melkors, and they were not given to another of his creatures (Unless I messed something).

However, This theory does not throw away the theory of later Balrogs having wings. Melkor could have improved on his original design. Bit I do not think he did. For surely if he did, then the armies of the elves would have been wiped out completely very early. As powerful as Balrogs were, give them wings and they are near invincible. Yes they were Mair and thus originally could change shape. But I like to think that Melkor constrained them so they could not change his own (as he may call it) perfect vision of fear.

As for winged but flightless, I think about it this way; if I were Melkor, would I waste time on wings that did not work? What would be the point?

In summery; Balrogs no wings. Wings reserved for Dragons like Ancalagon. Balrogs first thought, wings after thought.

Mind you, I could be wrong. Fell free to criticise.

[Mithalwen]

But as yet no hanging chad....
and no scope for spoiling ballot papers.

I think balrogs probably used their wings rather as chickens use theirs..........

Maybe balrog wings is just another gimmick by KFC?

[mark12_30]

As someone who used to take a great interest in psephology, the study of voting patterns, this is starting to get really interesting. We have already had questions raised about whether the voting system is flawed, a former floating voter being persuaded by some pamphleteering, even questions raised as to what leads us into voting a certain way! And they wonder why real elections can get so fraught! Is the Barrow-Downs Select Committee going to examine the results? ;)

And like Saucepan Man says, I'm finding it entertaining, by the way!

Pamphleteering? Nay, my duck, it was oratory of the highest ilk-- reported by our beloved Professor himself, and spoken by his sidekicks: Gimli, and Frodo of the Cold Shoulder. Mister Underhill had the good sense to quote it.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

My ulterior motive (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=368914#post368914) revealed at last.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Late as usual! If I've duplicated anything I apologize, but here is more food for thought.

First, if Balrogs flew in the First Age, how do we explain the following quotations that were part of the Legendarium from its earliest date? The italics are mine.

The eagles dwell out of reach of Orc and Balrog, and are great foes of Morgoth and his people. (Shaping of Middle-earth, p. 23

But he loosed upon his foes the last desperate assault that he had prepared, And out of the pits of Angaband there issued the winged dragons, that had not been seen; for until that day no creatures of his cruel thought had yet assailed the air. Lost Road, p. 329

There is also this quotation that suggests Melkor’s own inability to fly. If the Balrogs knew how to fly, why would Melkor not go and get the secret from his own allies, rather than trying to capture eagles to force the information from them?

Then arose Thornder, King of Eagles, and he loved not Melko, for Melko had caught many of his kindred and chained them against sharp rocks to squeeze from them the magic words whereby he might learn to fly (for he dreamed of contending even against Manwe in the air); and when they would not tell he cut off their wings and sought to fashion there from a mightly pair for his use, but it availed not. BoLT2, p. 193

As others have pointed out, even in the later writings, there is no mention of Balrogs taking wing to save themselves in any of their fights, even though we have cited instances of Balrogs plunging downward from high places, and falling into crevices.

It seems that everything boils down to five particular passages: the reference in the appendix of LotR, the two mentions of wings in the books itself, the conversation between Gimli and Frodo that Mr. Underhill cited, and the one passage where the Balrogs are said to have come to Morgoth’s aid. Let me take these one at a time…not necessarily in the order listed. I think we have to look very closely at the language and style of writing that’s used and see how this compares with the language and style of other passages to determine if JRRT was speaking literally or figuratively.

First, we’ve already discussed the Gimli sighting. With all respect to Mr. Underhill, I don’t think this proves the case. Gimli says the distant winged thing reminds him of “the shadow of the Balrog”. He says nothing about physical form or wings. The emphasis here is on the “unlight” or “shadow” that invariably cloaks all evil creatures. This is something that Tolkien frequently focuses on. Two evil creatures could have the same dark shadow surrounding them and strike the same feeling of dread, but have very different physical features.

Second there is the appendix reference discussing what happened to the dwarves:

Thus the roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth.” RotK, App. A

The key word here is “flying”… Is it literal or figurative? I think it is the latter. We do have other examples where Tolkien uses the word “flying” to describe someone fleeing something. Thus, Frodo talks about “flying” from the Shire in Shadow of the Past or Tolkien mentions dwarves flying south in front of the dragons. Both of these come from the first two chapters, which is the only place I looked. I could probably find more examples of figurative use if I looked further. (In fact, there’s a reference to Gandalf “flying down the steps” in the chapter where he fights the Balrog.)

Next, there’s the time when the Balrogs come to aid Morgoth:

Swiftly, they arose and passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of Fire.” Morgoth’s Ring,

But again, the language here can be viewed literally or figuratively. There are other places where similar words are used with a figurative meaning: Luthien in human form was said to be “swift as bird on wing” and Fingolphin “passed over Dor-nu-Fauglith like a wind amid the dust”, yet he was clearly on horseback. I don’t see the language of this quote as firm proof.

Finally, there are the words in LotR itself. These have already been quoted… The first passage (like two vast wings) is clearly a simile. But is the second (its wings were spread from wall to wall) a metaphor or a literal description? There are definitely times when Tolkien uses a simile first and then goes on to use a metaphor. The one instance I can remember is when the men from Far Harad are said to be “like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues.” In the very next sentence, he calls them “troll-men”.

But there is another argument here that I think is very convincing to show that the second phrase has to be a metaphor, and not a literal description. This is not my original idea: you can find the whole argument in the “Balrog” entry in the Encyclopedia of Arda. I will try to paraphrase it.

First, we know from Tolkien’s text that the chasm is 50 feet wide, and that the hall was “cavernous”, “loftier and far longer than the one in which they had slept” Using this information, the Encyclopedia says this:


The hall is gigantic. If the chasm is fifty feet wide, then the entire hall must be at least several hundred feet longer than it is wide, and the chasm’s length defines the width of the hall. So we can derive a fairly reliable minimum width somewhere in the region of seventy-five to one hundred feet. This is supported by the text, which tells us that the hall was so wide that it needed pillars down the centre to support the roof”…

This means that, if the Balrog’s wings were real, and literally spread ‘wall-to-wall’, its minimum wingspan is also somewhere approaching one hundred feet.”

This, as the entry further explains, raises a serious problem. We know that the Balrog manages to follow the orcs into the Chamber of Marzabul though the same entrance that the Orcs came in. The orcs leapt “one after another” into the Chamber. That implies a door that is not huge.

It should also be noted, and this is a further $.02 from me, that the members of the Fellowship were also told to “slam” the door and they “wedged it with broken sword-blades and splinters of wood.” For them to be able to do this, implies a door that isn’t huge. . There was simply no way that a Balrog with a 100-foot wingspan could have squeezed into the Chamber even if the door was 10-12 feet wide. The meaning of the quote has to be figurative rather than literal.

The Balrogs apparently could control the shadow about them enough to give the illusion of wings, but that's a far cry from real wings, vestigal or full size.

I don’t know… Tolkien changed his mind about so many things about Balrogs. He decreased their numbers and added the shadows. Maybe he also had it in his mind to add real wings, but he never did the revisions of the Legendarium, and never unequivocally said that Balrogs had wings or could fly….

I vote no!

Now, I must definitely have a look at Fordim's "ulterior motive".

[Neithan]

And meanwhile, wasn't the air in the mines, especially at the bridge, cold and sinking? No hot updrafts? So even a jet (or an eagle) might have dropped in those conditions, as they sometimes do when encountering downdrafts while crossing mountains.
That may be true, but this is not the only instance of Balrogs falling. Two "died" by falling of cliffs. If Tolkien meant for Balrogs to be able to fly, he would not have written three instances where they fell, without giving any explanation of why they didn't just fly away. So, even without the damning evidence provided by child, we can say, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Balrogs could not fly.
We know that Sauron changed into a flying creature and flew away, so it stands to reason that the Balrogs as Maiar could have given themselves wings that worked. I can't see that Balrogs would give themselves wings to intimidate but decide that they didn't want these wings to work. That would be incredibly stupid.
I think that Balrogs could've had wings if they chose but didn't have wings so they couldn't fly but if they did they still couldn't fly unless they wanted to fly in which case they could but only if they had had wings but they didn't have wings since they couldn't fly.
Why was this quote largely ignored?

[drigel]

The BoLT2, p. 193 quote is interesting.
Spirits of fire originally, perhaps the shadowy characteristics - including the wings - were a result of M's failed attempts at flight. Mabye this was the best M could come up with..

Possibly, their shadowy wings were the legacy of Morgoths stewardship over them.

drigel's balrog thesis so sayeth he :)

[obloquy]

Good post, Child. I'm glad someone referenced the old dimensions/proportions argument, as it is one of the most convincing pieces for me as well.

Hookbill: Melkor did not create Balrogs.

I also have not voted.

[obloquy]

Why was this quote largely ignored?

I think that quote was a joke.

[mark12_30]

If HoME XXVIII has been published, I want to know how we all missed the publication of 14-27.

[the phantom]

They weren't published. I raided CT's house and took them. They go up to XXXI. They're great. XVII includes a drawing of elvish ears. They are not pointy. They're round, and sort of resemble oranges. It doesn't look like they can be used to fly. There's also a balrog drawing. It doesn't have wings, but a note at the bottom adds that balrog wings would be pointed if they had them.

[mark12_30]

"Angel of music", indeed! That's quite an opera, and well sung!

[Mister Underhill]

There is also this quotation that suggests Melkor’s own inability to fly. If the Balrogs knew how to fly, why would Melkor not go and get the secret from his own allies, rather than trying to capture eagles to force the information from them?On the other hand, there are citations aplenty regarding winged servants of Morgoth, the most obvious of which is Thuringwethil, "the messenger of Sauron, [who] was wont to fly in vampire's form to Angband..." See also the words of Carcharoth in the Lays: "Though winged creatures to and fro unnumbered pass here, all I know."

The speculation on the dimensions of the hall in the Encyclopedia of Arda is just that -- pure speculation. We can't draw any reliable inference of the dimensions of the hall side of the bridge based on the width of the chasm; there's no correlation between the two.

As far as the Chamber of Mazarbul -- there's no reason to think that wings would make a stitch of difference as to whether or not a winged or unwinged Balrog would be able to pass through the door. Why wouldn't a Balrog, like any winged creature, be able to fold its wings into its body? By the same logic, no garden-variety songbird should be able to fit through the round hole of a bird-house.

You can read all the "wings", "winged", "flying", etc. figuratively, but there sure seem to be a lot of wing references cropping up in relation to Balrogs. The debate surges on! :)

[Bêthberry]

posted by Mr. Underhill

You can read all the "wings", "winged", "flying", etc. figuratively, but there sure seem to be a lot of wing references cropping up in relation to Balrogs. The debate surges on!

Clearly, some of us are winging it while others are not. :D

[mark12_30]

Child, you are eloquent, and thorough, and persuasive.

But if Balrogs were so groundbound, then why didn't Frodo (and the rest of the fellowship) just look at Gimli and say, "In the air?"

They had just as much reason to guess "Black Rider" as they did to guess "balrog". The reason they didn't guess "Nazgul" first is that they had no reason to suspect a Nazgul could fly; they'd always been on the ground before.

All the falling-from-mountainside arguments don't convince me. There are large birds that can fly, but need room, headwind and some luck to get off of the ground. (Canadian geese; swans.)



EDIT

You know, thirty years later, and here I am. Balrogs? I feel like a lounge-lizard. I can't believe I got sucked into this.

Wings, I tell you. Wings.

[obloquy]

What did the Fellowship really know about Balrogs, anyway? We know that, at the very least, the shadows looked like wings. That's all the Fellowship ever saw of Balrogs, so, whether Balrogs could fly or not, or had wings or not, the Fellowship only knew what they saw, which was a dark shape with wings (of shadow or otherwise). They may have seen it, but none of them knew anything about what they saw.

Maybe when Frodo said it was not a Balrog it was because he happened to know, where Gimli did not, that Balrogs cannot fly, since Frodo had spent his time in Rivendell educating himself.

[HerenIstarion]

...to fly in vampire's form...

But what is vampire form? Is it a man in black evening dress, top hat and red velvet lining to his cloak with wings attached to his back, or rather a batlike animal life form (with maia spirit in) with a body specifically designed to fly? If the former, I'll accept wings on a balrog gladly... :p

Maybe when Frodo said it was not a Balrog it was because he happened to know, where Gimli did not, that Balrogs cannot fly, since Frodo had spent his time in Rivendell educating himself.

I don't think so :) I always imagined (stress on imagine, it's my personal feeling), that what Frodo felt is what Frodo felt - that is, balrog was different from what Nazgûl felt like (by feel) - former fierce and fiery, latter cold and dreary (like, I can tell the difference if I close my eyes and wet my hands, whether it is a water I dip my fingers in or, say, oil or any other liquid). I entanlge myself in words with the hope you follow my meaning - his knowledge of the difference was by heart, rather than by mind/acquired data. After all, it is stated several times that bearing the Ring Frodo grew more perceptive.

[Mister Underhill]

I'll hold you to that, HI, since the "vampire form" is certainly a bat or bat-like creature.

oblo, I think it was that old shoulder wound, and not a class on Balrog physiognomy that he audited in Rivendell, that told Frodo that the flying thing was a Nazgûl on the wing. (Look at me, I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.)

EDIT: Ai, cross-posting domino-effect with HI. Forgive the redundancy...

[Child of the 7th Age]

As far as the Chamber of Mazarbul -- there's no reason to think that wings would make a stitch of difference as to whether or not a winged or unwinged Balrog would be able to pass through the door. Why wouldn't a Balrog, like any winged creature, be able to fold its wings into its body? By the same logic, no garden-variety songbird should be able to fit through the round hole of a bird-house.

Mr. Underhill -

Everything that Tolkien tells us indicates that the chamber was very large. Certainly, a term like "cavernous" suggests a hall of immense proportions.

I agree that the Balrog would be able to fold his wings back. The real issue here is the wingspan to body ratio. It's my understanding that every flying creature in existence has a ratio of roughly 3 to 1 in terms of wings and body. Let's make the width of the hall smaller just to be fair, since we do not have specific dimensions. If the hall was 75 feet across instead of 100, that would make the wings 75 feet outstretched, and the Balrog 25 feet high. There's no way a 25 foot Balrog gets through that door, even if his wings (which he doesn't have :D ) are folded flat.

Also, a twenty-five foot Balrog doesn't seem to fit well with anything else we know. I believe we have just two references to how tall Balrogs were. One early passage in HoMe describes a Balrog as "no more than man-high yet terror seemed to go before it." Another description from BoLT states that the Balrog was "double his stature", 'his' in this context refers to Glorfindel. The latter quote would make a Balrog 13-14 feet tall. It was not so much the physical size of the Balrog as the fear he instilled and the shadow he carried along. Such creatures of 6-14 feet could get through that door, but their wings could not possibly have touched the sides of a "cavernous" hall when stretched out from wall to wall. Hence, the reference in the text must be figurative rather than literal.

Helen - -

I'll stick with Obloquy's answer here.

Note that the only real description we have of the creature is this:

it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape, maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.

Nothing about wings. Since flying things have a wingspan of three times their body length, wouldn't someone have clearly commented on those wings at some point in the Legedarium? They would have been so noticeable. Tolkien is very clear about winged and flying dragons. Why would he treat a Balrog differently?

Regarding time ill spent....don't feel bad. This is a subject I swore never to touch. I promise never to think about Balrogs after today.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Regarding time ill spent....don't feel bad. This is a subject I swore never to touch. I promise never to think about Balrogs after today.

You know, thirty years later, and here I am. Balrogs? I feel like a lounge-lizard. I can't believe I got sucked into this.

Wings, I tell you. Wings.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa

[obloquy]

And I agree with you both, Underhill and HI, but my suggestion is not a ludicrous one and the possibility that there is another explanation should at least weaken what others have found to be firm proof.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

There have been a few people who have weighed in on the issue in the thread but who have failed officially to cast their vote. I wonder if they are pretending to achieve a resolution and then losing their nerve when it comes to actually nailing their colours to the masthead, as it were, in the form of a vote. (Fordim)
Well, Professor, I'm one of them. I adamantly believe that they don't fly (after Morgoth's return, at the very least), but I'm still torn between the shadow-wings, or real wings made useless by something. And since the question is "Do Balrogs have Wings", I will not chip in a vote yet until I'm quite certain in the issue. So there. :smokin:

Re Mr. Underhill's thesis: It was a bias on part of Frodo and Gimli: they saw wings (which may be real or ephemeral), and they assumed flight. It's nature: I see cigarette, I think smoker.

[Lyta_Underhill]

The real issue here is the wingspan to body ratio. It's my understanding that every flying creature in existence has a ratio of roughly 3 to 1 in terms of wings and body. Let's make the width of the hall smaller just to be fair, since we do not have specific dimensions. If the hall was 75 feet across instead of 100, that would make the wings 75 feet outstretched, and the Balrog 25 feet high. Since this has become rather a technical argument, can anyone tell me what the air-speed velocity of an unladen Balrog is? (That is, assuming he can attain the air...) ;)

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. There's no point in asking whether it is an African or European Balrog, as this is Middle Earth we're talking about! :D

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Hookbill: Melkor did not create Balrogs.

Oh, did I say "Create"? Sorry, I kind of meant 'invented' if you take my meaning. No, he did not create them. But he did take those Maiar spirits and entrap them in those bodies as he did with many of his... inventions?... Like that of Carcharoth, a spirit trapped in the body of a wolf that was made huge by Melko.

That’s just my thinking.

Lyta_Underhill: is that an African or ... Oh... Never mind. (Python ROCKS!)

[obloquy]

"Invention" doesn't fit either. Melkor and the Balrogs were Ainur, beings of the same order, and although Melkor was mightier, Balrogs existed independent of him. He corrupted them, and maybe played a part in their incarnation, but credit for the "invention" of all Maiar goes exclusively to Eru.

I don't recall any mention of Melkor "trapping spirits" inside bodies, but I am pretty rusty. Could you provide some text to that effect?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Obloquy, You and your technicalities! What I mean was the guise of the Balrogs was invented by Melko... can we drop that now? Thank you.

(Roots through silm) Well, I couldn't find it, but I did prove myself wrong, as my Carcharoth statement was wrong... i just seem to remember Melko trapping things in bodies. I suppose one could look at Glaurung, as it says "The evil spirit that dwelt within him" spoke, that would seem to suggest, to me anyway, that Melko trapped things in other bodies. I may of course be completely miss reading.

I am sorry about that misunderstanding Obloquy.

[Neithan]

From the Sil,
and Sauron brought werewolves, fell beasts inhabited by dreadful spirits that he had imprisoned in their bodies.

[obloquy]

Obloquy, You and your technicalities! What I mean was the guise of the Balrogs was invented by Melko... can we drop that now? Thank you.

Maybe it was his design, but we can't say for sure.

Well, I couldn't find it, but I did prove myself wrong, as my Carcharoth statement was wrong... i just seem to remember Melko trapping things in bodies.

You weren't far off. Thanks to Neithan's research, we have indication that Melkor did trap spirits in bodies.

I am sorry about that misunderstanding Obloquy.

Hey, it's nothing! I don't want you to feel like I jumped on you, I just like to keep things accurate in case someone who doesn't know any better is following along.

Edit: The quote is good enough for me here since it is sort of off-topic, but if that was a key point in the discussion, I would ask for you to find the original reference in HoMe. The '77 Sil can sometimes be misleading; see Underhill's article on Gothmog's troll-guard for a case in point.

[Mister Underhill]

If memory serves, Balrogs were "made" by Morgoth in early versions; not made, but merely "multiplied" by him later on; and in still later versions (which I think are the foundation for the 77 Silm), the Balrogs are Maiar (or Umaiar) who followed him into corruption. See HoME X to trace this evolution.

[obloquy]

Yeah, Underhill is right. I tend to ignore the obsolete versions when I post, which is probably unfair to those who have not gotten to the last few volumes of HoMe.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

It reminds me of Jesus' claims.

Way off, dude!

Hear me out! The way I see it, Tolkien left ambiguous clues about the Balrog that could be seen one way or another. Because of that, we have our own interpretations of what a Balrog should look like, or how a Balrog could travel.

Now I was chewing on that thought in my mind when it struck me: Jesus left some clues to his real identity, just enough to at least make us think of the possibility. He didn't overwhelm us with irrevocable proof of his Lordship. He made us free to choose what to make of him: a lunatic, a great teacher and prophet, or what he really claimed to be.

I know I might be committing Gorthadian suicide when I post this, but I just had to post it. Do what you will.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

The one thing that I worry about with this poll is that many people may be voting "Yes" because they would like Balrogs to have wings. I almost did. I really had to think about my Balrogian (My new word) theory. I remember having many a heated debate and I will admit I did sway this way and that to begin with. It was only when I re read Silmarillion last that in began to think about how I saw balrogs. I came to my conclusion by thinking; "Well, Melkor wasn't stupid. He wouldn't give them useless wings." Especially now considering that quote about no other creatures of Melkor ever taking to the air.

[Lindolirian]

Now I was chewing on that thought in my mind when it struck me: Jesus left some clues to his real identity, just enough to at least make us think of the possibility. He didn't overwhelm us with irrevocable proof of his Lordship. He made us free to choose what to make of him: a lunatic, a great teacher and prophet, or what he really claimed to be.Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Not too much ambiguity there...:rolleyes: But just so that this doesn't turn into a religious debate (since the Downs is not the place for it), I won't go any further but will add a reminder: In the saloons and pubs in western US of the late 1800s, it was not uncommon to see on the list of rules (among things like No Guns, No Cheating, No Cussing) it would say "No discussion of Politics or Religion" because it almost always erupted into a fight. Not saying that that would happen here, but its still a sensitive subject.:)

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I did not mean it that way, Lindo.

To believers, it is unambiguous, because we believe it--like someone believing that Balrogs have (or don't have) wings, and that all evidence point to it. But to others, well, they look at the same evidence, and they don't see it that way--like how the other side would react to the same quote. That is how I see it.

And yes, I know I should not discuss religion here, but, well, the parallelism is just too glaring.

So there. :smokin:

[HerenIstarion]

The way I see it, Tolkien left ambiguous clues about the Balrog that could be seen one way or another

I suppose that is because, up to a point, it does not really matter, after all. The point is, the higher, the nobler is the creature in its 'normal' state, the more terrible its fall if it does fall

[Child of the 7th Age]

Since this has become rather a technical argument, can anyone tell me what the air-speed velocity of an unladen Balrog is? (That is, assuming he can attain the air...)

Lyta Underhill -

I would encourage you to look closely at this article that suggests a way to factor in the following variables: aerodynamic center of wing body combinations---lift, normal force, pitching moment, aerodynamic centre, upwash, drag. (http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/subject-listing/esdu/ES229.html)

Please note that this method applies for zero or near zero roll angle solely to balrogs with diaphanous wings. When predicted values were compared with experimental values extracted from the literature an accuracy of 10 per cent was indicated. This is illustrated for results in the angle of attack range of 20 to 25 degrees, and the ranges of experimental parameters used are tabulated. Such a method applies to both the straight or swept-forward trailing-edges of the wings, but has been found to be satisfactory for moderate trailing-edge as well.

For balrogs with non-diaphanous wings, please consult Fordim Hedgethistle's well known treatise "Vortex interference factors as Applied to Balrogs". Fordim's analysis takes the body-alone contribution (ESDU 89008 provides values for both First and Third Age Balrogs) and adds contributions from the wing (in the presence of the body) and from the change in body lift-curve slope due to the wing.

Hope this clears up any questions in your mind!

[The Saucepan Man]

The one thing that I worry about with this poll is that many people may be voting "Yes" because they would like Balrogs to have wings. But what's wrong with that?

[the phantom]

The one thing that I worry about with this poll is that many people may be voting "Yes" because they would like Balrogs to have wings.
But what's wrong with that?
Come now, SP. Surely you know what is wrong with that sort of approach.

If you are someone like me who does not have a preference on the issue then you don't really mind people thinking what they want. But if you believe there is a definite answer then you do mind.

The fact is, when there is a definite right or wrong it doesn't really matter what you think, what you want, or what you'd like. Wouldn't you admit that there'd be something seriously "wrong with that" if I liked the thought and wanted to believe that Aragorn was a hobbit, though he is most definitely not?

Imagination is great, but it's not perfectly okay to let everyone believe what they want to believe about everything.

You can only do that when the answer is up in the air (or not up in the air, for you anit-wingers :p ).

So your opinion is probably justified in this case, but don't let it bleed over into other things.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

More than one hundred posts to the thread. . .

bwa HA hahahahahahahahahaaaaaa


*rubs hands*

[The Saucepan Man]

Phantom, just to clarify, my question was asked in the context of the topic of this thread.

[the phantom]

I saw that coming the day the thread opened, Fordy. :p

[the phantom]

my question was asked in the context of the topic of this thread
I hoped it was.

The purpose of my post was more for impressionable Downers who might take an on-topic statement made by an influential member and apply it to other things- a scary thought.

I thought that some damage control was necessary. ;)

[Garen LiLorian]

Although Mr. Underhill's 'Gimli' thesis is one of the more interesting features of the debate, (to my mind) I have one small worm in that apple. The Fellowship, at that point, hadn't actually seen any Nazgûl since leaving Rivendell. It seems entirely possible that Gimli had never seen one at all, unless he was present at the Lonely Mountain debacle. Assuming he wasn't, it's pretty fair to assume that when he sees a big evil shadow thingy, he thinks 'Balrog'. I mean, it kinda reminded me of the Balrog. Not that I thought it was, just the description reminded me of it.

That all being said, I'm still on the pro-winger side of the debate.

[obloquy]

But what's wrong with that?

Is it fine with you that some people insist that Sauron was a disembodied eyeball during the War of the Ring? Or that the Witch-King's proper name is Angmar? :D :D :D

Good point, Garen. Combine Gimli's possible lack of experience with Ringwraiths with the Fellowship's lack of knowledge of Balrogs and I think that argument is effectively neutered.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

But what's wrong with that?

What’s wrong with it is that’s not the question. The question is "Did Balrogs have wings" and not "Do you think Balrogs would look nice with wings?" or "Would you like Balrogs to have wings" :p Silly!

[The Saucepan Man]

Is it fine with you that some people insist that Sauron was a disembodied eyeball during the War of the Ring? Or that the Witch-King's proper name is Angmar?Well, I do not presume to dictate how anyone should approach the book. Although, on a discussion board such as this, I would expect participants in any discussion on such issues to accept, for the purposes of the dicussion, the "stated" facts as we know them.


The question is "Did Balrogs have wings" and not "Do you think Balrogs would look nice with wings?" or "Would you like Balrogs to have wings" :p Silly!Since it is clear from this thread that there is (as yet) no definitive answer either way by reference to the published materials, then I see no problem in people answering the question on the basis of personal preference. I did.

I will accept non-winged Balrogs if the proposition can be established beyond all reasonable doubt (in the way that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that Aragorn was not a Hobbit). If, despite such rigorous proof, anyone wants to continue imagining Balrogs as winged, then that's fine by me. Although, in those circumstances (and assuming that they were acquainted with all the relevant facts), I would expect them to answer "No" to the question posed by this thread.

:p Backatcha! ;)

[Lyta_Underhill]

I would encourage you to look closely at this article that suggests a way to factor in the following variables: aerodynamic center of wing body combinations---lift, normal force, pitching moment, aerodynamic centre, upwash, drag.
Ah, but this opens a brand new can of worms! The Balrog (if it had wings, which I'm saying it doesn't, so why I'm going on like this, I can't fathom, except that it gives me a fine sense of the absurd..) cannot necessarily be assumed to have rigid wings and a rigid body. I suppose, if one wanted, one could open a spin-off thread, entitled "Are Balrogs Built Like Aircraft?" and even more elusively, "Can Balrogs Break the Sound Barrier in Flight?" both of which would assume a priori that Balrogs not only have wings but can fly in a straight line. There would, of course, be the dissenting school which bases their calculations on the flight of large birds and would perhaps extrapolate the difference between the flight of Thorondor and the flight of Gwaihir, thus determining the exact measure by which the size of the Great Eagles had diminished over the course of two Ages.

Then, there would be the splinter school of thought, which would spin off yet a third speculative thread, "How Badly Does the Fiery Whip Get Tangled up in a Balrog's Wings?" and finally, "Did Gandalf Smite the Balrog, or Did it Smack Itself in the Face with its own Weapon and Expire of its own Stupidity?" But all this is, of course, a ridiculous flight of fancy.

For balrogs with non-diaphanous wings, please consult Fordim Hedgethistle's well known treatise "Vortex interference factors as Applied to Balrogs". Fordim's analysis takes the body-alone contribution (ESDU 89008 provides values for both First and Third Age Balrogs) and adds contributions from the wing (in the presence of the body) and from the change in body lift-curve slope due to the wing. Can I get this on Interlibrary Loan? ;) You know, I never even considered the contribution of translucency in the equation! I must go back and tease my hair out some more and scribble purposefully until it all comes clear!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Michael Wilhelmson]

Just like to say that, just because a Balrog might have wings, doesn't mean it can use them. If the Balrog is just a corrupted form of a Maiar by Morgoth, then it might suggest that a Maiar is somewhat angelic in appearance. This would mean that a Balrog's wings would be bare and useless. In conclusion, IF a Balrog did have wings, they would probably be shriveled and barren, and do nothing more than to remind an unfortunate viewer of the demon's past status.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

[Gandalf: ]Long I fell , and [the Balrog] fell with me.
[I]LR III 5
According to Physics, their freefall velocity will increase with a factor of g for every second they fall. So, if I see it correctly, by the time they reach the bottom, they would have enough of a velocity to squash them flatter than a pancake (even if it was water that they hit).

Retardation of freefall due to wings, anyone? :smokin:

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, I'm going to go ahead and call it. According to my fellow BDers:

*drum roll*

Balrogs have wings.

(That may or may not be functional.)

Next Up: "Can orcs repent?"

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

I've done years of pondering on this.

I started out as a pro-winger, using the 'if they don't, why'd Tolkien use the word 'wings'' argument.

Then I saw the movie, and thought 'hey, if the movie people think they had wings, they must have researched it clearly, right?'

I also thought since John Howe thought they had wings, and he must have scanned this in detail to do his sweet art, it was an option.

Then, in the last year, after reading the books a few more times, I went anti-wing. I can't remember my reasoning why. I'm sure it was legit ... it doesn't matter now.

Because here is the unyielding, unchanging, inarguable truth about Balrogs ...

Are you ready?

Here goes;

Balrogs have NO discernable features whatsoever.

That's right. And Tolkien wanted it that way, otherwise he would have been more clear in his description, just like how he was clear in EVERYTHING else's descriptions.

Imagine some smoke. Imagine slightly man-shaped even darker smoke in that cloud of smoke. Throw some glowing red eyes in the vicinity of the face. Light the smoke trailing off the 'headish cloud' on fire.

That's a Balrog. Yes, I personally think it's a solid being. Yes, I think the sooty, ashy movie Balrog's skin is a pretty accurate interpretation. Yes, both arguments for and against wings are good.

But logic dictates that if neither argument has a definitive, inarguable proof of being the correct truth, than neither of them can themselves be true.

The argument is irrelevent.

Thanks for coming out.

[Finwe-89]

Ok, Balrogs did NOT have wings, Tolkien made own pictures of his books, here's a link to a picture of a Balrog that as been made by Tolkien:


http://img-fan.theonering.net/rolozo/images/nasmith/bridge.jpg

[Mister Underhill]

That painting is not by Tolkien; it's by Ted Nasmith.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Ugh ... Nasmith.

He couldn't resist the scales and tail, and reptilian feature. And who ever said Balrogs had horns? And yet EVERYBODY draws them with horns, or paints them with horns. And I see the "devil" influence even goes to that pointy end on it's tail.

Oh well, at least Nasmith got the size about right. But it seems awfully ... Trollish.

And it's scales look like the creature from that episode of Star Trek, you know the one, the evil puddle who kills Tasha Yar.

If it was darker and all you could see was Gandalf, the fiery mane, and the eyes and nose, it'd be better. That evil shadow is supposed to shut out even the brightest, Gandalfiest of light.

[Neithan]

And the invented adjective of the day is...Gandalfiest.:p
Seriously though that pic was really bad.

P.S. Balrogs don't have wings.

[Aiwendil]

Yes, Nasmith's Balrogs are not so good - though I'm very fond of much of his other work. Actually, though, I'm not that satisfied with a lot of Balrog art - this is one area where I think the Hildebrandts, John Howe, and Alan Lee are not up to their usual standard.

[Formendacil]

Yes, Nasmith's Balrogs are not so good - though I'm very fond of much of his other work. Actually, though, I'm not that satisfied with a lot of Balrog art - this is one area where I think the Hildebrandts, John Howe, and Alan Lee are not up to their usual standard.

But how do you properly capture the image of a creature described in terms like "shadow", whose chief defining physical trait (wings) doesn't actually exist (remember, I'm a no-winger ;) ) or at least isn't conclusively supported, and who is described as by Tolkien as having no need to speak as it's mere presence was fearful. In the same way as it had no need of a voice, it really had no need of a particular form (although it did have one) to evoke its terror. It simply WAS terror.

How do you evoke "terror" in a visual image?

I don't know the answer, but the answer of many artists would seem to be to fall back on motifs familiar to us as evil, such as horns and pointed tails (and wings? :p )

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

It was right before our eyes!

You might be surprised. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=372134&postcount=34&highlight=Balrog-wing)

[gorthaur_cruel]

How does "I won't answer" answer the question? :p

[Aiwendil]

Formendacil wrote:

How do you evoke "terror" in a visual image?


You make a good point. Still, the Balrog must have looked like something. My ideal picture of a Balrog would be one in which the physical outlines of the creature were vague, in which shadowy-like "wings" are depicted without giving the unmistakeable impression of real, physical, bat-like wings, more a mass of fire and shadow than a clearly physical being, and yet with a man-like (though perhaps monstrous) figure at the center.

But that's just me.

[Aiwendil]

It occurs to me that I haven't voted. So, for what it's worth . . .

Yes, all seven Balrogs had wings.

[HerenIstarion]

Yes, all seven Balrogs had wings

That maybe, or maybe not. Meanwhile, the numerous hosts of them marched on feet... ;)

But such a claim by Aiwendil opens up the trouser of time for yours truly to slip in his theory (posted on the Downs long ago too :D):

There are Balrogs, and there are balrogs:

The number of balrogs always was dubious thing. Passages like:

…and upon them rode the Balrogs in hundreds…

…and the number of Balrogs that perished was a marvel and dread to

the hosts of Melko…

…and they mingle with the Balrogs that pour about the breach…

(The Fall of Gondolin)

…a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants

that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwe…

(Annals of Aman)

strongly imply the great number of those, at least several thousand. Yet these lines were written when Tolkien started to create his mythology, in 10s and 20s of XX century. In the same period balrogs were not summoned, but ‘wrought’ by Melko after the fall of the Lamps. Yet, since the conception that Melkor/Morgoth was unable to create anything but to mock the doings of others was introduced, the idea of ‘wrought’ balrogs was abandoned. Consequently and gradually, their number in Tolkien’s imagination diminishes, until it reaches the mark of ‘at least three, at most seven’. The last quote given above is mostly interesting in the view, for it was there, that in a marginal note Tolkien added:

'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed

It may sound like contradiction in terms. Hosts of balrogs consisted of 3 persons? As a solution - there (I assume) must have been two different types of balrog. Philological analysis above does not contradict such a statement (i.e. Thunderbird may be applied to a bird proper, yet first thing one remembers upon hearing may be a Ford’s motorvehicle. Or, on the other hand, whales where thought to be fish before closer examination had proved they are mammals). So in this case balrog as general term is applied to anything that looks like one. And looks presumably may be altered by Morgoth (up to a point, for he disperses his power gradually, and, also presumable, must lose an ability after some point. (I.e. no more balrogs after certain time, but plenty before the point of no return is reached), who is Master of the Fates of Arda, had put important portion of himself into the matter of it and therefore has partial power over anything consisting of the matter. But Balrogs in essentia, corrupted spirits, e.g. Umaiar, are up to seven only. [and not created but 'summoned'] It would have been logical for Morgoth to conform the looks of the new adepts (if balrogs were formed from captive elves and men or strongest orks) to the most terrible looks (wings or no wings) of the Balrog

I suggest to distinguish those two types in writing with capital letter. Thus Umaiar whose number was determined as 3 to 7 will be marked as Balrogs, and the rest as balrogs

Self plagiarism, but timely one...

But my statement above stands as it is - hosts of balrogs indeed marched on feet, otherwise, why should 'boarding' Gondolin walls have been such a problem? Whilst Balrogs had at most 'shadow' wrapped around in the likeness of wings

Still more, at times my dentist qualifies for the title of Tormenting Demon as well...

cheers

[The Saucepan Man]

Meanwhile, the numerous hosts of them marched on feet... Well they'd look a bit silly marching on wings. ;)

Perhaps they reserved their aeronautic abilities for formation flying displays and fly-pasts at Angband victory parades. :D

[narfforc]

I do not wish to enter this argument again, having already had my say, however I would just like to point out one small thing. The only published work of Tolkien regarding Balrogs is LotR. We cannot guess as to whether he would have been happy with the finished Silmarillion, nor anything else published after his death, he was a revisionist. Whatever is written in The Histories, are thoughts on the subject, who knows what his final version would of been. Quoting from unpublished works, to give strength to your argument is wrong. As I said earlier, the only thing we truly know Tolkien was happy with, are the words in Lotr, so read what they say.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

I can't believe anything in the History of Middle Earth is 'lawful canon' as far as the story goes.

I believe if something doesn't make it into the actual story, all versions aside, it isn't canon.

However, the thing about Balrogs and the HoME are that, aside from not being canon, it does give some more evidence at least to what Tolkien originally envisioned things looking like. Of course, if those depictions didn't make it to the books, tough break.

Anyway, it's not that hard to depict / draw / render something with vague features. Just use lots of black.

The darker, the more accurate. After all, if the Balrog's shadow was enough that it actually smothered out and blocked view of a gaping rift filled with fire, it must have been pretty dark.

Anyway, if you look at things this way, you'll get another notion.

The Lord of the Rings (let's can all Silm references for a moment) was supposed to have been written by Frodo and Sam, with a lot of account filled in by Merry and Pippin, and a fair bit of old history and higher matters that happened told to them by Aragorn. Gimli and Legolas theoretically kept in touch with the Hobbits and helped too.

So the idea is, Frodo (with help) was describing what he saw in that chamber. And it's pretty obvious he didn't see much, if his description is that vague. It seems pretty clear that all the members of the Fellowship could see Gandalf pretty clearly, and the chamber behind and around the Balrog was pitch black, filled with smoke.

The only thing that gave the impression of man shape in the darkest of dark places was probably the fact that the Balrog's hair (hair-like shape) was on fire, and highlighting the "humanoid silhouette" of the Balrog from behind.

Trying to humanize, or even 'demonize' the Balrog in the traditional 'demon' sense, just doesn't do it justice.

It's a spirit of fire, which is physically incarnate and wrapped in shadow. Fire, shadow ... neither thing has solid substance (clearly the Balrog does, otherwise Gandalf couldn't have grappled with it or stabbed at it). If it had no solid mass, it's own weight falling off the mountain couldn't kill it, and it wouldn't have needed wings to fly, being a gaseous entity.

Well, that's my two cents for the moment.

[narfforc]

Yes and why in all creation have wings that are of no use. it does not fit into the way Tolkien told stories. If they had wings, he would have given them flight. Like the dragons.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

How does "I won't answer" answer the question? :p (narfforc)
How come Tolkien left Bombadil ambiguous? ;)

If [Balrogs] had wings, he would have given them flight. Like the dragons. (narfforc)
Well, what if they were bereft of their power to fly, then stuck in a winged incarnate form? Like the Three Elven Rings losing potency at the fall of the One.

[narfforc]

Sorry I do not go for the "What ifs", I only read what is. Show me where Tolkien says anything like that and I will conceed to your point, where does it ever say in the published (during his lifetime) works, that they ever flew. The only person who bereft them of the power of flight was Tolkien, by excluding it. This thread has a lot of suppositions in it. The only man that knew the Truth was Tolkien, and his are the only words that count. I can forgive our desire for more, I do it all the time. Our wish that this great piece of work could somehow have told us everything, but did`nt. So when discussing the written word of Tolkien, we must stick to what is plainly written and not let our imagination go too far. When I cast off this mortal coil, I like many of you will seek out The Prof, and ask him a multitude of questions. I assure you somewhere near the top will be the words Wings and Balrogs.

[HerenIstarion]

This thread has a lot of suppositions in it

Aye :D. That what makes discussion fun :). If all were given and explained, what would be the point of us here? Why would we gather at all, typing heatedly? Whoever discusses things like 'Sun is hot' or 'Water is wet'? It would all come down to 'Tolkien rules!' confirmed by chorus of 'yes-es'. End of the board, everybody can go home now.

So, even most 'outrageous' blunderings sometimes made during the process should not be taken as personal offense never ever ever never. Still more suppositions are not meant to be offenses.


peace :)

[narfforc]

I agree, it is nice to discuss possibilities, to go beyond the written word, as long as we keep our feet on the ground. I am just not a big fan of "What If", especially when there is no basis for them. How can we get from the description of,

and the SHADOW about it reached out LIKE two vast wings.

to discussing whether the were bereft of flight in the dim past we know nothing about. The sentence does not say.

and its two vast wings reached out like shadows.

The important word here is LIKE. This translates into english as.

1. Resembling, similar to
2. Having characterisics of.

These are the words that Tolkien wrote, and as a Professor of English he would have known what LIKE meant

[HerenIstarion]

The sentence does not say.

and its two vast wings reached out like shadows

Good :D. Being an inveterate no-winger myself, can not agree more.

Yet my previous post just meant what it meant. It is not good to be involved on such a personal level :)

To repeat myself from a little bit earlier on, after all, the message I see the balrog bearing on (besides linguistic Vala+Rauko musings and derivatives, besides plot and tension purposes) is that even the most noble and radiant creature may fall, and the higher it originally stood, the lower its fall would be. Repetition of Morgoth/Sauron theme on a slightly minor scale. In this respect, it does not even matter (though may still cause a lot of interest) that much whether it had wings, six teeth or a floating kidney ;)

cheers

[Aiwendil]

narfforc wrote:
The sentence does not say.


You are right. I think there are two distinct types of "factual" questions about Middle-earth. There are those that have relatively certain answers (even if those answers are difficult to find) and those that do not. The question of Balrog wings falls into the latter category, I think. I am a pro-winger if divisions must be drawn - but I do not think that there is anything like a forcing argument for either side. This is in contrast to questions such as, for example, "is Ingwe the same person as Imin from the Cuivienyarna?", in which case I think there is a compelling argument for the answer "no", even though others may disagree.

That, I think, is why the Balrog wing question, the Elvish ears question, and the Tom Bombadil question are so notorious - not because they're any more interesting than other questions, but because they are simply not answerable, in any kind of satisfactory way.

HerenIstarion wrote:
But my statement above stands as it is - hosts of balrogs indeed marched on feet, otherwise, why should 'boarding' Gondolin walls have been such a problem?

I would just like to remind those who are not so familiar with HoMe that this argument is not quite as forcing as it might at first sound, since the Fall of Gondolin was written in the 1910s, at which time there can be little doubt that they were wingless.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Here, best as I can figure it, is the etymology of the word balrog:

bal is a form of the archaic bale, which is OE for "fire"

rog is a form of OE roge which means a "pyre"

So that makes sense, bal+rog = fire+fire. No allusion to wings or flying though. . .

Some other interesting tidbits:

ballyragging (from "to ballyrag"), means to attack someone with abusive language

rog means "to shake a person or thing"

Not really relevant, but interesting notheless.

[narfforc]

I would like to say on a lighter note
The Balrog could not even float
When it fell, from on high
We all know it could not fly.

Some may laugh and some may hoot
But it didnt have a parachute
If its wings, it did but hide
Then why did it, just not glide.

Some may think it was like a cloak
But come now, that`s beyond the joke
If wings it had, what were there shape
I heard it said like Batmans cape.

I met a Balrog once before
He came a-knocking at my door
I asked him then, "Where are your wings"
Upset he said, "I never had them things"

Please forgive my little joke
Fun at you, I do not poke
A laugh at this, I could not pass
I hope you all don`t think me crass.


NOMORIHERE

[Formendacil]

I would just like to remind those who are not so familiar with HoMe that this argument is not quite as forcing as it might at first sound, since the Fall of Gondolin was written in the 1910s, at which time there can be little doubt that they were wingless.

That is true, however....

It should perhaps be noted that there is no evidence that Tolkien's perception of Balrogs as wingless ever changed. There are many examples of elements in the Tale remaining unchanged from its conception circa 1920 until its last known form in the early 1970s. And their is no real evidence that Tolkien ever changed his perception of this aspect of the Balrogs.

- A thought from another convinced no-winger

[Aiwendil]

Formendacil:

It should perhaps be noted that there is no evidence that Tolkien's perception of Balrogs as wingless ever changed. There are many examples of elements in the Tale remaining unchanged from its conception circa 1920 until its last known form in the early 1970s. And their is no real evidence that Tolkien ever changed his perception of this aspect of the Balrogs.


If we change "evidence" to "hard evidence", then I agree.

Fordim wrote:

Here, best as I can figure it, is the etymology of the word balrog:

bal is a form of the archaic bale, which is OE for "fire"

rog is a form of OE roge which means a "pyre"

So that makes sense, bal+rog = fire+fire.

Allow me to pick a nit. This is indeed interesting - but it is not right to call it "the etymology" of the word Balrog. The etymology of "Balrog" is:

bal Sindarin, from primitive Quendian root BAL- = "power"
rog Sindarin, from root primitive Quendian RUK- = "demon"

[The Saucepan Man]

Do Balrogs Have Wings? (http://www.xenite.org/tolkien/do-balrogs-have-wings.html) by Michael Martinez (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/member.php?u=63)

I'm sold. :D

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Sorry I do not go for the "What ifs", I only read what is. (narfforc)
Well, although my theory above wasn't stated anywhere, it doesn't mean it isn't in the realm of possiblity. The fun of these discussions are, Tolkien created a world with rules. As long as you fall within those rules, almost anything goes (note the almost. There are some situation I cannot foresee now where the rules might not work.)

For example, I wouldn't say Orcs have wings, even though Tolkien did not explicitly say they did not have wings. ;)

[Neithan]

Here are my thoughts on that article.
However, when I have asked people in many forums to try, no one has succeeded. You must use all four parts of the sentence. You cannot drop any part. It is simply not possible to rewrite the sentence so as to show something other than flight. Hence, there is no ambiguity in the passage concerning the Balrogs' mode of travel.
In the final analysis, one must accept that the Balrog of Moria had wings because J.R.R. Tolkien said it had wings, and that the Balrogs flew to Lammoth because the sentence cannot mean anything else.
We shall see about that.
swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.
Four parts of the sentence you say? Very well.
1)swiftly they arose--As he points out himself they were underground but even if that were not so it does not follow that they flew. Arose can be interpreted as they were in a sleep or simply idle and when they heard their master's cry they came forth once more. Indeed this is normally how I interpret the word when used in such a context.
2)they passed with winged speed--"winged speed" is an ambigous term. "Winged" is used here as an adjective to describe the word speed not the manner of their travel. Here Tolkien compares the speed of the Balrogs to the speed of flight. As a general rule one does not compare a thing to itself. So here "winged speed" means that they traveled with the speed of a winged creature. Actually when interpreted this way it becomes an argument against Balrogs flying.
3)passed....over Hithlum--this one needs no rewriting, one can run over land just as one can fly over it. Also there is the example of Fingolfin and his horse.
4)Tempest of fire--I see no reason that "tempest" should denote something coming from the sky. As I see it "tempest" could mean either sky or land it rather refers to the fire of the Balrogs erupting in their rath an covering the "battle field" of Lammoth.
So the new sentence would be: "Swiftly they came forth once again, and they passed with the speed of one in flight over(as I said I don't think that this need be changed at all) Hithlum, they came to Lammoth with there flames wreathed about them in a great tempest."
There you have it.

The short answer is that they were Maiar and that Maiar can whatever they please.
The obvious problem is that they had become trapped in there forms and so could no longer fly (assuming they couldn't fly before they became trapped in that form).

"what it was could not be seen: it was LIKE a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe yet greater".
This is not the same as saying that the shadow spread out LIKE wings. In this quote he has to say like because to leave it out would be to say "it was a great shadow". But the Balrog was not a "great shadow" it was a being with a physical form that was wraped in shadow. The meaning of "like" changes completely from the one sentence to the other as anyone can see.

I could go on but I am already late for something so I will leave it at that for now.

[Formendacil]

Do Balrogs Have Wings? (http://www.xenite.org/tolkien/do-balrogs-have-wings.html) by Michael Martinez (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/member.php?u=63)

I'm sold. :D

While I respect Mr. Martinez on a great number of Tolkien-related questions, and I agree with him on most, the Balrog debate is not one of them.

Quite frankly, Mr. Martinez does exactly what this and every other Balrog-related thread in every Tolkien-related forum across the web has done, and like just about every other fan, he has joined one or the other respective camps.

His is that of the wingers. Mine is that of the non-wingers. Each have their arsenal of evidence and it depends, with almost every piece, on the reader's perceived intention of the original author's mind.

There are times that I think we have gone so far into the minds of the characters and their world, that we think we have gone into the mind of Tolkien himself. We haven't, exactly, of course, but it is still a game that we play.

Did Balrogs have wings?

Of course not. It says so right there in the Lord of the Rings. If you read it the RIGHT way... :p

[HerenIstarion]

bal Sindarin, from primitive Quendian root BAL- = "power"
rog Sindarin, from root primitive Quendian RUK- = "demon"

Quite so, but that Bal is as in Valar rather, whilst Balrog's Bal is:

ÑGWAL- torment. Q ungwale torture; nwalya- to pain, torment; nwalka cruel. N balch cruel; baul torment, cf. Bal- in Balrog or Bolrog [ruk], and Orc-name Boldog = Orc-warrior ‘Torment-slayer’ (cf. ndak).

RUK- demon. Q ranko demon, malarauko (*ñgwalaraukō, cf. ñgwal); N rhaug, Balrog.

So still my dentist ;)

1910's re: quite so. Just trying to see the picture as a whole. (Cf threads like Two Gandalfs and Evil Things)

[narfforc]

Like I keep saying, people are quoting things that Tolkien may have wrote, but did not ultimately sanction, You cannot quote from The Silmarillion, it was published after his death, and you cannot know if seeing that sentence he would have been happy leaving it in, especially after what had already been published in LotR, the SHADOW spread out LIKE wings.

[HerenIstarion]

Like I keep saying, people are quoting things that Tolkien may have wrote, but did not ultimately sanction, You cannot quote from The Silmarillion, it was published after his death, and you cannot know if seeing that sentence he would have been happy leaving it in, especially after what had already been published in LotR

Though I see your point, I tend not to put that much weight on published work as opposed to not published, and what is later as opposed to what was written earlier. After all it is all chance - per instance, should publisher's reader read early version of Quenta in 1937, instead of just seeing scraps of Lay of Leithian, who knows what order (and what kind of at all) books would have been published in? Does the printing press sanctify the truth? Tolkien was not happy with lot of things in his published works either, he just had less freedom to alter them.

Do not misunderstand me - I do rely heavier on what is published and/or what represents later view of the author, but still, I generally tend to view the legendarium as a whole (one may say, historically, or even 'historiographically'), as a complex compilation of sources. Quoting myself from C-Thread (http://69.51.5.41/showpost.php?p=319776&postcount=127):

we, readers ... of Tolkien, are free to use any of the texts (starting with the very first up to the very last) which we know to be canonical – i.e. by Tolkien himself, and apply to them our own judgement.

and part of the list from the same post:

A) What Tolkien was creating is nearly as complex as the history of the world itself
B) What he did create, must be viewed (as he himelf was evaluating it as such, 'finding out' rather than 'inventing') as history derived from and depending on different and quite a number of sources as well
C) Following A and B, different sources need not be in agreement between themselves

(Cf also Two Gandalfs (http://69.51.5.41/showpost.php?p=365648&postcount=4) by littlemanpoet)

Following said, there is a place in my head for hosts of marching corporate balrogs and for 7 Balrogs corporate too but wrapped in shadow (even if two types (http://www.geocities.com/gl_century/articles.html#_Balrogs_1) of balrog be purely speculation of yours truly, after all. Freedom of the reader? I suppose, but inside the boundaries set by the author. See C-Thread again)

On the other hand, as any historian may agree, it happens that even most smart&clever bookworm may err reading his sources. I'm 100% sure it is not me who's erring in ripping balrog wings off (if they were there in the first place), I know I'm right, and, following narfforc, I proclaim the truth to stand as 'balrogs had no wings', but (and here we part company with narfforc :)) source read-outs may differ, so everybody, who can not be convinced is welcome to have their own opinion on the subject :)

PS Funny how I, having proclaimed in one of my previous that 'physical form does not count that much' spent precious hour pondering the subject (I lost count of 'agains' to go at the end of such sentence :))

[Aiwendil]

HerenIstarion wrote:

Quite so, but that Bal is as in Valar rather, whilst Balrog's Bal is:


ÑGWAL- torment. Q ungwale torture; nwalya- to pain, torment; nwalka cruel. N balch cruel; baul torment, cf. Bal- in Balrog or Bolrog [ruk], and Orc-name Boldog = Orc-warrior ‘Torment-slayer’ (cf. ndak).

RUK- demon. Q ranko demon, malarauko (*ñgwalaraukō, cf. ñgwal); N rhaug, Balrog.


Ah, so 'twas in the 1930s ("Etymologies"). But in author's note 28 to "Quendi and Eldar" (1959-1960):

Some other derivatives [of *RUKU] are in Quenya: . . . rauko and arauko (< *grauk-) 'a powerful, hostile, and terrible creature', especially in the compound Valarauko 'Demon of Might', applied later to the more powerful and terrible of the Maia servants of Morgoth. In Sindarin appear, for instance, raug and graug, and the compound Balrog (equivalents of Q rauko, etc.)

So it would appear here that "Balrog" is the S. cognate of Q. "Valarauko", which is translated "Demon of Might" rather than "Demon of Torment".

Or perhaps there are hosts of "Demons of Torment" and a seven powerful "Demons of Might"?

[davem]

Ah, so 'twas in the 1930s ("Etymologies"). But in author's note 28 to "Quendi and Eldar" (1959-1960):

Some other derivatives [of *RUKU] are in Quenya: . . . rauko and arauko (< *grauk-) 'a powerful, hostile, and terrible creature', especially in the compound Valarauko 'Demon of Might', applied later to the more powerful and terrible of the Maia servants of Morgoth. In Sindarin appear, for instance, raug and graug, and the compound Balrog (equivalents of Q rauko, etc.)

So it would appear here that "Balrog" is the S. cognate of Q. "Valarauko", which is translated "Demon of Might" rather than "Demon of Torment".

John Garth ('Tolkien & the Great War') gives an account of the origin of Balrogs & the original meaning of the name:

Tolkien had listed several monstrous creatures in the 'Poetic and Mythologic Words of Eldarrissa & its ethnological chart: tauler, tyulqin, and sarqin, names which in Qenya indicate tree-like stature or an appetite for flesh. . . All these new races of monsters proved transitory, bar two: the Balrogs and the Orcs. Orcs were bred in 'the subterranean heat and slime' by Melko: 'Their hearts were of granite and their bodies deformed; foul their faces which smiled not, but their laugh that of the clash of metal. . .' The name had been taken from the Old English orc, 'demon', but only because it was phonetically suitable. The role of demon properly belongs to Balrogs, whose Goldogrin name means 'cruel demon' or 'demon of anguish'. These are Melko's flame-wielding shock troops and battlefield captains, the cohorts of Evil.

The Balrogs were 'born' on the battlefields of WW1 & I can't help feeling that however much Tolkien's thoughts about them & their nature may have developed over the course of his life, what they meant & their appearance would have changed little in essence.

If we imagine German troops approaching through the mist & smoke of no man's land, spraying flame from their dreadful Flammenwerfers, I think its easy to see where Tolkien got the idea from. We can even see a possible origin for their 'whips of flame':


The smaller, lighter Flammenwerfer (the Kleinflammenwerfer) was designed for portable use, carried by a single man. Using pressurised air and carbon dioxide or nitrogen it belched forth a stream of burning oil for as much as 18 metres.

(Good article here:http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/flamethrowers.htm)

[HerenIstarion]

Ah, so 'twas in the 1930s ("Etymologies"). But in author's note 28 to "Quendi and Eldar" (1959-1960)

True. Still:

I generally tend to view the legendarium as a whole (one may say, historically, or even 'historiographically'), as a complex compilation of sources.

+ rauko and arauko (< *grauk-) 'a powerful, hostile, and terrible creature'[/i] is both powerful and terrible/hostile

;)

Or perhaps there are hosts of "Demons of Torment" and a seven powerful "Demons of Might"?

Perhaps :D

If we imagine German troops approaching through the mist & smoke of no man's land, spraying flame from their dreadful Flammenwerfers, I think its easy to see where Tolkien got the idea from.

Plausible. Very plausible. My compliments :). Thanks for the link, too. It is most interesting that on Somme, Brits already had their own flamethrowers ready (quoting from the article you linked us to, davem):

The British, intrigued by the possibilities offered by flamethrowers, experimented with their own models. In readiness for the Somme offensive they constructed four sizeable models (weighing two tons each), built directly into a forward trench constructed in No Man's Land a mere 60 yards from the German line.

But those were not portable, though.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by narfforc
Like I keep saying, people are quoting things that Tolkien may have wrote, but did not ultimately sanction, You cannot quote from The Silmarillion, it was published after his death, and you cannot know if seeing that sentence he would have been happy leaving it in, especially after what had already been published in LotR

That's what erasers and pre-death publications are for. Regardless of how [horrifyingly] much writing someone's got laying around, if a writer has written something that he wants to change, he will track down the proper page[s] and rewrite it. If he died before he could change it, than it stays canon, because it is what was last written. You can't say "what he would want now" because he's not alive now to want it. Although I'll stick with not wholly trusting C's work, because it is obviously not J.R.R's, I still insist on wings, whether or not they were made of shadow.

Before I thought of the wings in terms of an ostrich, or a dodo (<-also explains that inconvenient extinction), but after Saucie's article, I'm all for too big to fly around under ground.

Sorry if this post is a little admonishing, hurried, or offensive to anyone, but I'm in a bit of a hurry and have about 20 seconds before I have to leave.

Regards,

Fea

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:
The Balrogs were 'born' on the battlefields of WW1 & I can't help feeling that however much Tolkien's thoughts about them & their nature may have developed over the course of his life, what they meant & their appearance would have changed little in essence.

I think you are right. Still, unless one accepts something like HerenIstarion's theory that there were in fact two quite distinct types of creature referred to as Balrogs/balrogs, there is some major change in Tolkien's conception of them represented by his correction, in the Annals of Aman, of a reference to a "host" of Balrogs, with the note that there were only "3 or at most 7".

Anyone who's really interested in that issue might want to look at this discussion (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=4455) in the New Silmarillion project.

HerenIstarion wrote:
+ rauko and arauko (< *grauk-) 'a powerful, hostile, and terrible creature' is both powerful and terrible/hostile


Yes, but if "Balrog" is the cognate of "Valarauko" then the "Bal" comes not from NGWAL- but from BAL-.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

If we imagine German troops approaching through the mist & smoke of no man's land, spraying flame from their dreadful Flammenwerfers, I think its easy to see where Tolkien got the idea from.

Only if the German troops were flying toward the Allied lines with great big, entirely functional, wings.

(Very interesting link and information, though.)

narfforc: from LotR, written by J.R.R. Tolkien and published in his lifetime:

it stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall.

[Neithan]

OK Fordim, you are just trying to annoy us no wingers aren't you? I must admit I gritted my teeth when I first saw what you wrote, you know full well the argument about the meaning of that quote so I will not bring it up again.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK Fordim, you are just trying to annoy us no wingers aren't you? I must admit I gritted my teeth when I first saw what you wrote, you know full well the argument about the meaning of that quote so I will not bring it up again.

I am well aware of the argument indeed:

1) The statement "and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings" conclusively proves that there are no wings, only shadows that look like wings. (This is a common occurence in the English language, in which the following sentence, "That animal looks like a dog" conclusively proves that said creature is a cat.)

2) Having proved incontrovertibly with the above sentence that the great shadowy forms that look like wings are in fact not wings, we can finally interpret the extraordinarily ambiguous claim that "its wings were spread from wall to wall" as meaning "its great wing-like shadows spread out from wall to wall".

How could anyone disagree with such unassailable logic? :D :rolleyes: :p

[Formendacil]

Like I keep saying, people are quoting things that Tolkien may have wrote, but did not ultimately sanction, You cannot quote from The Silmarillion, it was published after his death, and you cannot know if seeing that sentence he would have been happy leaving it in, especially after what had already been published in LotR, the SHADOW spread out LIKE wings.

That's what erasers and pre-death publications are for. Regardless of how [horrifyingly] much writing someone's got laying around, if a writer has written something that he wants to change, he will track down the proper page[s] and rewrite it. If he died before he could change it, than it stays canon, because it is what was last written. You can't say "what he would want now" because he's not alive now to want it. Although I'll stick with not wholly trusting C's work, because it is obviously not J.R.R's, I still insist on wings, whether or not they were made of shadow.

Tolkien himself, as his letters and his son testify, was very careful to stand by anything he had actually published. Consistency with the Lord of the Rings (and to a much lesser degree considering the lesser degree of facts to be found, in the Hobbit as well) was very important to Tolkien. Notice that he broke off his new theory about "the Problem of Ros" because it didn't jive with what he had written about Cair Andros.

Tolkien felt bound by what had appeared in print, hence the final editions of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings must be taken as solidly canonical. Anything else, while quite often demonstrably provable as Tolkien's last word on the subject, and quite often in step with his published works, cannot be given as high a proven standing, especially on matters where he changed his mind repeatedly, and did not seem to have made it up conclusively.

Therefore, with regards to the great Balrog debate, the only published references we have to go by are those in the Lord of the Rings. As Mr Martinez in the above article notes, and as I believe is correct, at the time of writing, the Balrogs (whatever their in-story origin) were wingless, and couldn't fly, and Tolkien wrote the chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-dum" with this intent.

Since the author never changed these passages, it must be held the Balrog in the Lord of the Rings is wingless. As already noted, the author spent great pains to keep his texts consistent. Thus, had he wanted winged Balrogs, he would surely have edited the passage in the Second Edition. Most likely, he never noticed the discrepancy, but that in itself is telling. I personally feel that it shows that Tolkien never changed his mind about Balrogs (whatever their origins) being wingless.

[Neithan]

How could anyone disagree with such unassailable logic?
Good God Fordim you can be irksome. You will excuse me, I hope, for taking a torch to your straw man but the example you gave misrepresents the argument.
Having proved incontrovertibly with the above sentence that the great shadowy forms that look like wings are in fact not wings
Notice that Tolkien says that "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings" not "the two vast wings reached out like shadow" or even that the "shadowy forms", as you put it, reached out. The subject of the sentence is "shadow" not "wings" or "shadowy forms".
we can finally interpret the extraordinarily ambiguous claim that "its wings were spread from wall to wall" as meaning "its great wing-like shadows spread out from wall to wall".
It is not uncommon to refer to something(shadow) by a metaphor(wings) that you used earlier.

[HerenIstarion]

Yes, but if "Balrog" is the cognate of "Valarauko" then the "Bal" comes not from NGWAL- but from BAL-

Probably. I suppose you're right, but it still does not eliminate the possibility that the Sindarin word may be simple blend of both stems (like to the Orthank, or Galad[h]riel connotations)

Thanks for the link - I enjoyed evening of remembrance, re-reading that 'clash of civilizations' there :). In case we move or update again, and the link is lost (as most of my linking of yore was), I repeat it here with the title and author:

Bye bye Balrogs (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=4455&page=1&pp=40) by jallanite (http://69.51.5.41/member.php?u=110) is the place Aiwendil invited us to visit

cheers :)

[narfforc]

I flew down the motorway last month, the policeman that stopped me didnt care if I was a shadow or not, he still booked me.

[The Saucepan Man]

Just before he stopped you, did you catch sight of something bright in your rear-view mirror like flashing headlights? ;)

[narfforc]

Funny you say that, yes, like a red and blue thingy and headlights like bolts of lightning. No we shouldnt joke Saucepanman, this is serious. I am old enough to remember over 35 years of this argument, and all we ever achieve is gain new recruits to either side of the fence, rarely will anyone change their mind. To think this started 50yrs ago, over two sentences in LotR. My own personal view(And there is no basis for this), Is that like most of Tolkiens creations, no two were the same. This has led to speculation that, like most Maiar, they fell into different classes ie the most powerful being Gothmog, could one class have wings and another not, who knows.

[Elemmírë]

I don't know if this has been said before, but it's my reason for thinking that they don't have wings:

Lúthien was able to see Gondolin from the air after their rescue from Thangorodrim. Okay, Ancalagon was the first of the winged dragons, and he didn't show up till the War of Wrath. So... if there was some sort of creature who was really capable of long distance flight like the eagles, couldn't Morgoth have used them to find Gondolin? Especially after Hurín brilliantly half gave the location away?

[Neithan]

Morgoth had flying creatures (such as the vampires), but I believe it was the Eagles who kept them away from Gondolin.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

It's "Demon of Might", not "Demon of Flight".

I think it's about time to remind everybody that this is;

"DO BALROGS HAVE WINGS?"

Not;

"CAN BALROGS FLY?"

I realize to some people the questions may go hand in hand, but the fact is, plenty of pro-wingers think that they could have had them, even if they were non-working, and not be able to fly. Others believe they may have been able to fly, even without wings.

Superman could fly, and he didn't have wings. Maybe Jean Grey from X-Men is a better example, since she used her mental power to do it, which is more 'Maiar' spirit-like.

And to further the superhero talk ... "Demon of Might" in no way gives me the sense of wings, flying or what not. A demon is not a devil, or an angel. And Demon of Might sounds more like the Incredible Hulk to me.

But then, once again, they couldn't fly. At least not in the conventional sense. Otherwise they wouldn't be falling to their deaths all the time.

As for the 'they're Maiar, they can do anything they want' nonsense ... no way. Just like Gandalf, they were stuck with the bodies given to them, they can't just wrench their fea away from their hroa like that. They have to die. Sauron couldn't even render himself noncorporeal at will when he was a shapeshifter, he was still stuck switching from one body to the next.

Although there is this possibility (which supports John Howe's paintings to some degree). Balrogs are more chimeric creature than spirit monster, and when the Chamber of Mazarbul collapsed on it, it broke his wings, rendering him flightless.

That's THIN.

None of this flight nonsense.

Hospital buildings have wings ... it just refers to something branching off of the original object. In this case, shadow.

There's 20 different definitions in the dictionary for the word wing. I selected a few;
1. One of a pair of movable organs for flying.
5. An ARM of a human.
7. Something that resembles a wing in appearance or position relative to a
main body.
10. The fender of a car.
12. Either of the projections on the back of a wing chair.
14. A structure attached to and connected to a main building.
16. A group affiliated with a larger organization.
20. An emblem indicating a qualified pilot.

Now, looking at the non-bird / bat wing definitions;

Wings have a very common theme; they are always referring to (in the cases of 7, 10, 12, 14, or 16) outlying parts of a central object. In the case of 7, it fits the Balrog perfectly - shadows and smoke surrounding a 'shape like a man but greater' really fit the bill. But those five definitions give the idea of something that comes along with the main object, but isn't quite the main object.

And on that note, 20. provides a unique notion; a pilot, when he becomes a pilot, gets his metal wings (yes, a pin). The Balrogs, when they became servants of Morgoth, were wrapped in shadow. They got their 'wings', once again the wings are nothing but shadow, even if this time it's a little more metaphorical than 'the wings are made of shadow, but shaped like wings'. Yeah, that's thin too.

I mean ... Gandalf screamed "fly you fools!" at the Fellowship, knowing full well that none of them had wings.

BUT TOLKIEN USED THE WORD "FLY"! THE FELLOWSHIP MUST HAVE HAD WINGS!

See, to me ... that would be the same argument.

Winged; to move on, or as if on wings. To fly. Swift.

The whole thing comes down to Mercury, of Roman myth, who "had wings on his feet" and was the fastest of all the gods.

That part of it is total simile.

That's why he called Aragorn "Wingfoot". Going REALLY FAST. I imagine Balrogs, having a great deal longer legs than humans (if they stood around fifteen feet tall, their legs would be roughly nine feet long), could run INCREDIBLY fast. Much faster than Ents. Many miles an hour faster than Ents. These long legs and the great amounts of muscle they had (judging from the word 'might') would likely enable them to jump INCREDIBLY HIGH as well. Over hill tops? Definitely. Has anyone read the Incredible Hulk, or seen the somewhat horrible movie? Imagine seven black creatures surrounded by shadow doing that, and heading in your direction.

It would look like a thunderstorm, and the echoing boom of their landing, smashing through trees, and so forth, would make all the hills echo.

And I still stand on the point that there's no way of knowing whether they had wings or not, because every instance of the word's use was simile, the lighting in Khazad Dum was little to none because of the Balrog, and the argument has never actually been settled.

[HerenIstarion]

To think this started 50yrs ago

Think Gulliver. And eggs...

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I've been wondering: would Arien be the representative of the race the Melkor seduced to become Balrogs (before they were Balrogs, that is).

They were both spirits of fire, and it was said that Melkor failed to draw her to his service.

In this case, would the "arising" fire-tempests of Hithlum be the last time a Balrog was discarnate (after all, they were were sorely trounced in the Battle of the Powers, and Morgoth was absent after that to "give" them new forms)?

Then again, how could they have held their whips? Could Morgoth's return have given them new power to reclothe themselves? Since Morgoth remained stuck in one form forever after his meeting with Ungoliant, I have always assumed he could "give power" to whoever is in his vicinity (he must have given a lot to Ungoliant). But still, the whips are a problem. Are they somehow part of their power?

Sorry, just rambling here.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Well, Morgoth, unlike Sauron, didn't rely in his later years on a ring to do his creating, which bound things to it. So, presumably, his "gifts" (and the mark of shadow and being burnt by the sun) lasted forever.

Sauron's werewolves were created long before he thought up rings and Barad-Dur, and Gandalf hinted that several of them were still around, within Barad-Dur. Their construction, or at least genetic tampering, wasn't done with any ring for luck and power, and they had nothing to do with it.

The same would be true of Morgoth, who had the power to make the Music of the Ainur, even if his songs were those of discord and chaos.

The powers given to his disciples were permanent.

Smaug only ever grew stronger, even after Morgoth was cast into the void. The same is true about Sauron. Durin's Bane, presumably, was stronger than before as well.

Anyway, whether it was visible or not, the Balrogs had to have solid mass. They had to be real, vile creatures, and not just phantoms of smoke and shadow. The whips were real whips (and no, Durin's Bane's whip wasn't referred to as flaming ... although I believe Feanor may have been killed by red hot lashes).

The sword of red hot metal was presumably either reflecting the red in the Balrog's eyes, or was heated by the tremendous fiery spirit of the 'Rog. If it erupted in fire at the touch, and burned Gandalf just to touch it, it seems like Balrogs are filled with red hot fire (or magma for innerds, as the movie depicted it).

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

If the Balrog's bodies were permanent during the Battle of the Powers, they would have not survived beyond that time.

Since they were some of Morgoth's best warriors, they would have been in the forefront of the battle, and they would have been slain by the Valar's warriors. If their body is permanent, they would have died with the loss of an incarnate form (cf. Saruman).

So, the body they used before the battle must not have been that permanent.

After Morgoth's return, of course, the bodies became permanent. Ergo, the truly dead Balrogs.

[Aiwendil]

Nilpaurion Felagund wrote:
After Morgoth's return, of course, the bodies became permanent. Ergo, the truly dead Balrogs.

Why would their bodies "of course" become permanent after Morgoth's return?

[Neithan]

I think he was referring to the fact that they were obviously incarnate during the war between the Noldor and Morgoth. I think that it is just as likely that they became incarnate while Morgoth was imprisoned though.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

The idea of the permanence of the Balrogs' later bodies came from obloquy's post in Ëalar and Incarnation (q.v. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=203402&postcount=1)).

[Estelyn Telcontar]

And Balrog has stormy eyes
That flash at the wingless lies,
For Balrog has wings to fly
Above the chasm...

(*to be sung to the tune of "Windy")

Ahem! We now return you to your regular no-solution, fruitless, angel-pinpoint-dancing arguing...

[Neithan]

The idea of the permanence of the Balrogs' later bodies came from obloquy's post in Ëalar and Incarnation
I don't think that there can be any question that the Balrogs' bodies were permanent, the point of contention is when this happened (not that it really matters that much).

[Formendacil]

I don't think that there can be any question that the Balrogs' bodies were permanent, the point of contention is when this happened (not that it really matters that much).

Agreed. After all, the Balrogs killed by Ecthelion, Glorfindel, and Gandalf did NOT return to a corporeal form, as they surely would have, had they been able.

[narfforc]

Sorry DAVEM, but the old flamethrower theory is a non starter. I recently attended the AGM (Lincoln) where Mr Garth was guest speaker. The questions that were aimed at the poor man after his speech, must have left him thinking that the lunatic asylum had let out its patients. These were some of those questions:-

1 Do you think Tolkien based The Eagles on The R.A.F (Appararently because they saved us all)
2 Do you think Tolkien based The Mumakil on Tanks (Appararently because some were decorated with horns)

Now don`t get me wrong, Tolkien must have been affected by The Great War, but these things are stretching it a bit far, when Tolkien has all the source he requires in Northern Mythologies ie-Norse. I suggest people read this, and look up the name Surt (with the flaming sword) and his connection to a certain bridge. Stop trying to guess what Tolkien was thinking, by looking at things through your eyes, Tolkiens love of Language brought him into contact with these mythologies a long time before The 14-18 War.

Respect. Hope to see you in Brum.

[davem]

Narfforc

I'm not sure the Surt connection, which undoubtedly is there, is the whole explanation for Balrogs. I'd say Surt provided part of their origin & Tolkien's experiences on the Somme the rest. If you read Garth's analysis of The Fall of Gondolin you can see that his wartime experiences played a major part in forming that tale.

Orcs & balrogs, however, are not enough to achieve the destruction of Gondolin. 'From the greatness of his wealth of metals & his powers of fire' Melko constructs a host of 'beasts like snakes & dragons of irrisitible might that should overcreep the Encircling Hills & lap that fair plain & its fair city in flame & death'. The work of 'smiths & sorcerers', these forms (in three varieties) violate the boundary between mythical monster & machine, between magic & technology....a third variety, the iron dragons, carry orcs within & move on 'iron so cunningly linked that they might flow... around & above all obstacles before them...

The more they differ from the dragons of mythology, however, the more these monsters resemble the tanks of the Somme....

In 1916, Tolkien was anticipating the dictum of Arthur C Clarke that 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' From a modern perspective, this enemy host appears technological, of futuristic; the 'hearts of blazing fire' of its brazen dragons remind us of the internal combustion engine.But to the Noldoli the host seems the product of sorcery. 'The Fall of Gondolin', in Tolkien's grand unfolding design, is a story told by an elf; & the combustion engine, seen through enchanted eyes, could appear as nothing other than a metal heart filled with flame.

So, I think we have Tolkien seeing the horrors of the Somme 'through enchanted eyes'. Of course his reading of northern myth was mostly responsible for the 'enchantment', but what he 'saw' was tanks, enemy soldiers with flame throwers, poison gas clouds & the wanton destruction of both ancient cities & countryside.

In other words, while I don't think we can explain Balrogs as 'only' German soldiers with flammenwerfers, neither do I believe we can totally account for them by reference to norse fire giants. Certainly Garth shows that Tolkien's pre-WW1 'mythology' was a very 'tame' thing & only began to take on its true depth as a result of his wartime experiences. If Surt is the source of the Balrog it is Surt with his flaming sword in one hand & a flammenwerfer in the other.

Looking forward to Brum....

[narfforc]

Yes I do take your point on Tolkien being affected by the horrors of The War, and surely anyone surving that horror was changed in some way or another. During the mid 70s when I joined the Army, I got the chance to visit some of our veterens at The Royal Hospital (Chelsea). What struck me most, was the humour of the old fellows. There is a common bond that bridges generations within the Military family, I spent 24yrs surviving a few horrors myself, and have been affected. So yes Tolkiens story becomes more dark after the war, yet as he got older look at the humour within LotR. I think the stories were already there, because he had read versions of them all his life. The Balrog existed in the form of Surt, as the Valar are in the forms of Hephaistos/Aule or Demeter/Yavanna and Artemis/Nessa. All the source material to Sub-Create is already there like Fenrir/Carcharoth or even Atlantis/Atalante, but if I where looking for the origins of the Balrog, I know that starting with the Edda`s would be a dead Surt.



I hope you know some good restaurants in Brum.

[Nirvana II]

the question is not "Do Valaraukar have wings?",but "Are Valaraukar solid?" . Think of what a Balrog is made of. Darkness and fire. If they really are made of that, then they could probably choose to have wings or not to have wings.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Shape-shifting of any variety was something Tolkien made a habit of mentioning.

The only few examples came from ... Beren, Luthien and Sauron, and Beorn and his offspring.

He went out of his way to say that these were special instances of that sort of power being used ... nothing like that was even mentioned referring to Balrogs.

Anyway, Morgoth was the one who wrapped them in their shadows, they just volunteered for the super-villain makeover. They couldn't just change at will ... it's not like they were made of smoke. Just surrounded by it.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Somehow, I kept getting shot down...

But why won't anyone subscribe to the theory I put forth?

'Yet it has a bottom, beyond light and knowledge,' said Gandalf. 'Thither I came at last, to the uttermost foundations of stone. He was with me still. His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake.'

1. The Balrog that Gandalf fought can swim.

2. The same Balrog is a slimy creature... not just something of darkness and fire.

3. The same Balrog was awaken by Pippin's itchy fingers.

Pippin felt curiously attracted by the well. While the others were unrolling blankets and making beds against the walls of the chamber, as far as possible from the hole in the floor, he crept to the edge and peered over. A chill air seemed to strike his face, rising from invisible depths. Moved by a sudden impulse he groped for a loose stone, and let it drop.

Mind you, this was a well with water in it.

It point to something fishy - something so grosteque as to be attributed only to the perverted mind of the foul Enemy of the World, who in ages past twisted and mocked all that came within his grasp. The 'wings' that the Balrog had are fins that that Morgoth manufactured.

While these measly 'evidences' can hardly support the grounds that Balrogs in general have fins, they do create the basis for beliefs that Balrogs have wings that serve no other purpose than decoration.

Ahem... You can stone me now.

[Formendacil]

While these measly 'evidences' can hardly support the grounds that Balrogs in general have fins, they do create the basis for beliefs that Balrogs have wings that serve no other purpose than decoration.

Ahem... You can stone me now.

So...

Was the Balrog a "flying fish"? Or just the swimming kind? ;)

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

While I can hardly claim any expertise on Balrogs, I am skeptical as to the relationship between fishes and Maiar...

I am more of the opinion that Evil Bio-engineer Professor Morgoth mutated the excess appendages of his deluded servants into something too obsene to be imagined...

"How's my pretty demon-fish roasting?" - Morgoth

[Morsul the Dark]

I have thought of an interesting idea....maybe wings on balrogs are gender specific Like most birds are colored differently depending if they are male or female and such

Maybe female balrogs have wings while males don't or vice versa??

[Formendacil]

I have thought of an interesting idea....maybe wings on balrogs are gender specific Like most birds are colored differently depending if they are male or female and such

Maybe female balrogs have wings while males don't or vice versa??

Were there even any female Balrogs?? :eek:

[Morsul the Dark]

I dunno but who's to say they don't really get too gender specific when it comes to beasts

Edit:So now we'll argue whether or not there were female balrogs instead of if they had wings :p

[the guy who be short]

Balrogs are Maiar...

I was going to leave the reply there, until I realised I'd be invading Burra's position. :D

Anywho, the Ainur didn't have genders in the way we know them, if I recall correctly. They simply took genders in Arda because they were mirroring the Children.

This isn't 100%. I recall something like this in the Silm, but it's oh, 10 paces away. Can't be bothered with that now, can we? ;)

[Morsul the Dark]

Balrogs are Maiar...

I was going to leave the reply there, until I realised I'd be invading Burra's position. :D

Anywho, the Ainur didn't have genders in the way we know them, if I recall correctly. They simply took genders in Arda because they were mirroring the Children.

This isn't 100%. I recall something like this in the Silm, but it's oh, 10 paces away. Can't be bothered with that now, can we? ;)

Tahat's right they took shapes so dosnt that mean some could be form with wings and some without?

my evidence is the fact that radagast gandalf and saruman dont look exactly the same and they too were maiar

[Folwren]

Originally posted by Morsul the Dark:
my evidence is the fact that radagast gandalf and saruman dont look exactly the same and they too were maiar

That logic makes no sense. Horses are animals and they're different from birds, that are also animals, and although two horses are never going to look exactly alike, no horse will ever have wings (like a bird). Of course those three wizards looked different than eachother!

I vote that Balrogs do not have wings. I only have the LotR to draw from because I've not read any of the other books all the way through and haven't read about any other Balrogs... Be that as it may, in the LotR, it says:

His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.

Okay, guys, in that second part of the sentence (and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings) what's the subject? The shadow is the subject. Not wings. The Shadow is compared to Wings, but the Shadow is not Wings. Tolkien was an English Teacher, he studied the language, he taught it, and he was an awesome writer - he's not going to write something like that and want it to mean that the Balrog had wings and go off and make the shadow the subject.

And, if you don't like that reasoning, why didn't it fly? It didn't have to walk across that bridge and fall when the stone broke. You could say it didn't have room, but what are the chances of that in the huge hall they were in?

- Folwren

[obloquy]

Oh, come on! That's the most retarded bit of logic I've heard on the subject. Horses are animals and they're different from birds, that are also animals, and although two horses are never going to look exactly alike, no horse will ever have wings (like a bird). Of course those three wizards looked different than eachother!

excuse me, but as a retard, I must object to your use of the word "retarded" in this context.

[the guy who be short]

What it was could not be seen: it was a great shadow, in the middle of which was
a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater.Men don't have wings.

[mithrandir094]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up before, but Arien, the Maya chosen to guide the vessel of the sun, is a spirit akin to the balrogs. to quote the sil: she was "from the beginning a spirit of fire, whom Melkor had not deceived nor drawn to his service." i've always wondered how she traversed the heavens. perhaps wings? then couldn't balrogs also have wings?

personally, i've always been an anti-winger, based on the fact that Balrogs are Maiar and therefore can change their shape. So i always thought they had or didn't have wings depending on their choice of shape.


For what it's worth....

[Folwren]

Originally posted by obloquy:
excuse me, but as a retard, I must object to your use of the word "retarded" in this context.

I am very sorry that I offended you. It was entirely unintentional. I'll be more careful in my choice of words next time I feel like...being not exactly nice.

- Folwren

[Morsul the Dark]

So i always thought they had or didn't have wings depending on their choice of shape.


For what it's worth....


I'm sorry falwren this quote was more what I meant

and also if all balrogs are maiar right and they all formed the same, then why wouldnt the five wizards also form exactly the same and vice versa.

[the guy who be short]

The Balrogs were fallen Maiar. Generally, a fallen Maia or Vala would become stuck in one form, sort of as a punishment (well, more as a plot device really). So I'd argue against Balrog Shapeshifting.

The Istari took the likeness of human forms - but they could presumably strip themselves of these at need. Thus, Gandalf the Grey Uncloaked.

[Gurthang]

Well, Balrogs have always had wings to me. The whole 'shadow spreading from wall to wall like wings' quote and then one of those threads that Fordim linked for us provided me with more evidence to support my decision.

But I want to point out that wether they have wings or not is not really found in the text. :eek: It seems that if we believed that Balrogs did have wings before all these debates, we read all the text in a way that supports our conclusion. Likewise, if we didn't believe before, then we are inclined to see the writings as discounting the possibility. So really, I've always thought they had wings, and I think that any reference would just support my side. Yet that same reference will support the other side, because they will read it so.

So this debate is really just how we have felt from the beginning, not how it really is. :p

[Bêthberry]

I don't see why balrogs wouldn't have wings, although they might prefer buffalo chips and hamburgers as more substantial fare. Think of the crispy fries! :p

[Kuruharan]

Does anybody have any idea what Zimmerman's Balrog looked (or would have looked) like?

If we could find that out I think we'd have our answer right there.

Just for the record (even though I think I've said this elsewhere) there are two primary objections I have to Balrog wings.

A) If the Balrog had wings that spread all the way across the 2nd Hall, how did it manage to get those wings into the Chamber of Mazarbul? This “folding” the wings business does not hold water because the Balrog has arms which would be mightily in the way of folding. And even so, hundreds of feet of wingspan are not going to just fold into a nice small package. They would at the very least have to be wrapped around the Balrog several score of times so that it would be essentially tied up. If the Balrog folds the wings on its back rather than its sides that is going to create one Udun of a pile of stuff on his back that is probably not going to easily fit through anything.

Besides if the Balrog has a wingspan a hundred feet wide then they will probably stretch far above its head when folded creating another set of problems in getting through doors.

B) If the Balrog had wings that spread all the way across the 2nd Hall, how did it manage to get the body necessary to support those wings into the Chamber of Mazarbul?

I've never seen a good response to these points. Usually when they are brought up the pro-wingers start humming and hawing and try to change the subject.

If one assumes no wings and a Balrog whose actual body was no more than 10-15 feet tall (and probably at the lower end of that), all problems with interpreting the texts suddenly vanish (like a Balrog falling into an abyss).

Also, I’m not so sure that most of the Fellowship, aside from Gandalf, really got a good look at the thing. It’s chief characteristic was it’s darkness. Darkness is a bit hard to see through. Note that when the Balrog takes a stab at Gandalf, the Fellowship can’t even see it’s flaming sword because of the shadow until it slices at Gandalf. I don’t think they could really see it.

Now, I'm perfectly well aware that all of these things have already been said, however, repetition and beating one's own chest are themes of this type of debate...so there! ;) :p

EDIT: I used to be a member of the pro-wing camp but I found it impossible to successfully answer the above points and was thus forced to change my position.

[Gurthang]

Here's a new thought that I certainly haven't heard: Shape-shifting.

Beorn in The Hobbit was able to change completely into a bear. A Balrog, presumably a more potent(I use that to mean having more power of spirit or Fea or might, whatever you want to call it) creature than Beorn, could very plausibly 'create' these wings at need and then simply 'uncreate' them to fit into a tight spot. I mean to say that he would simply push his shoulders out to make the wings and then the Balrog would simply shed them away. And since shape-shifting was not unheard of in Middle-Earth, this could easily have happened.

Now, I know you are all shouting 'but a Balrog is stuck in that form!' Well, who's to say that it couldn't slightly alter its form? I mean, what difference would this be from say, reaching out with it's arm? It simply extends part of itself; stretching out sideways, if you will.

Well, I think it would work. :p I'll just sit back now, and let you all ridicule me for my strange possibility. :D

[Kuruharan]

The problem with this idea is that when somebody is capable of shape-shifting we know and there is no doubt about it. A shape-shifting Balrog doesn't have any textual support (at least that I can remember off the top of my head).

Hint: The only real problem with the belief that Balrogs don't have wings is how they managed to get to Lammoth from Angband quickly enough to save Morgoth. I admit I find this to be a bit difficult, but I find the problems of space and movement underground to be the decisive factor in the matter.

[HerenIstarion]

My impression is, the winged balrog simply looks cooler, and thus pro-winger camp does not want to give up on such a sweet dude :D

Giving a little twist to the thread here, let me invite you to follow the link of Hookbill the Goomba's current signature: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/hukbillgoomba/Balrogs.jpg

Nice joke, to my liking, but looking at it I've notices also a strange thing dangling behind both figurines, suspiciously resembling no less than a tail!

Wings? Legs? Nope - tail!

I suppose it's tied up with wonderfully wrong 'winged theory' - as flying creature presumably would require some kind of tail for steering, but, gawks, whoever heard about a tail on a balrog? Hang that PJ (not an appeal I usually issue, but that was outrageous! :eek: )

[Morsul the Dark]

Ok lets think this through morgoth mocked life right?

Orc=elves
trolls=ents
balrogs=???dragons possibly

if this is true we can assume balrogs have wings on the basis that dragons(most notibly smaug) had wings and as for wing folding that depepends on the wing strutcure it could indeed fold quite tiughtly though i do agree that is a dangerous blow to the wing theory however considering a balrog flight is quitew possible with wings thinking it through most biords ride on air current which has to do with hot air and such doesnt the bakrid provide its own rising heat to glide upon.

Scientificly speaking were looking at raptor like wings made for gliding not so much flapping which would make them more leathery and in fact thinner because there would be less need for muscle in the wing which in turn would make it easier for the wings to be folded into smaller area of space.

Another thing however against wings is the fact that balrogs live underground(Im talking moria if you know more about other balrog locals please tell me) and if all balrogs were to live mainly underground isnt it in fact useless to form with wings.

However no conclusion ever will be reached I myself believe balrogs have wings.

[The Saucepan Man]

Ok lets think this through morgoth mocked life right?Morgoth did not create Balrogs ...

[Morsul the Dark]

true but one would assume he had a hand in shaping them

edit:this isnt cryptic clues you dnt have to continuously shoot me down :rolleyes: just kidding

I thought he did create them but at any rate wouldn't he have helped shape balrogs?

[Kuruharan]

balrogs=???dragons possibly

Uhh...no. Whatever his reasons in corrupting balrogs, mocking dragons were not among them because Morgoth had not conceived of breeding/corrupting dragons yet.

as for wing folding that depepends on the wing strutcure it could indeed fold quite tiughtly though i do agree that is a dangerous blow to the wing theory however considering a balrog flight is quitew possible with wings thinking it through most biords ride on air current which has to do with hot air and such doesnt the bakrid provide its own rising heat to glide upon.

Scientificly speaking were looking at raptor like wings made for gliding not so much flapping which would make them more leathery and in fact thinner because there would be less need for muscle in the wing which in turn would make it easier for the wings to be folded into smaller area of space.

The thickness of the material is not so much the problem. It is the length of the wings that causes the issues. In fact, thinner wings would only compound the problem because the more easily the wings fold together the longer the wings will be vertically (making it harder to get through doors) rather than distributing some of the wings horizontally.

[Morsul the Dark]

Why would easier folding make them longer? thats a confusing argument the easier they fold they smaller space they would fold into...let me demonstrate take a piece of paper fold in in half its still pretty big fold it though four times when expanded same space when retracted smaller...i dont want to sound condesending it just the only way i could think of to explain my point....why would easier folding make them longer?

I mean even this is a possible(however much less likely) idea th4e fact that the balrogs smoke becomes wings...if they are indeed magical and can make weapons from fire(sword whip) whos to say they can't form wings with smoke? that way when not needed they disapate and voila wingless balrog like i said this second theory is less likely...much less likely

[Mister Underhill]

I've never seen a good response to these points. Usually when they are brought up the pro-wingers start humming and hawing and try to change the subject.With all due respect, I've never been much impressed by these arguments. They rely on conjecture about so many things.

For starters, how can you draw anatomical conclusions regarding lift and mass about a creature that exudes flame and shadow, even if we did have anything more than the barest of hints as to its proportions (how tall is a "great height"?)?

The Chamber of Mazarbul is a "large" square chamber, with a "high" door opening off of a "wide" corridor. Clearly there's some room to work here. What do these adjectives mean? Any dimensions you produce are pure guesswork.

The Second Hall is "cavernous", but "loftier and far longer" than the one they slept in (which again is given no certain dimensions). Is it as wide as the original chamber? Less so? How wide is that? All guesswork.

Bottom line, this whole wing mass argument doesn't make me hum and haw, it makes me say: all pure speculation.

[obloquy]

With all due respect, I've never been much impressed by these arguments. They rely on conjecture about so many things.

For starters, how can you draw anatomical conclusions regarding lift and mass about a creature that exudes flame and shadow, even if we did have anything more than the barest of hints as to its proportions (how tall is a "great height"?)?

But it's fairly clear that Balrogs were incarnated and thus bound to physical laws. Is there suspicion that the physics of flight in Middle-earth may differ from those in the modern world?

The Chamber of Mazarbul is a "large" square chamber, with a "high" door opening off of a "wide" corridor. Clearly there's some room to work here. What do these adjectives mean? Any dimensions you produce are pure guesswork.

The Second Hall is "cavernous", but "loftier and far longer" than the one they slept in (which again is given no certain dimensions). Is it as wide as the original chamber? Less so? How wide is that? All guesswork.

The rebuttal to this line of reasoning that I have seen points to the definition of "chasm" which is described as "narrow." To be considered "narrow" it would need to be longer than it is wide, and we do have a figure for the span of the bridge, although I can't recall exactly what it is. 50 feet?

Bottom line, this whole wing mass argument doesn't make me hum and haw, it makes me say: all pure speculation.

You're right, but I think it's logical speculation.

Edit: Yeah, I'm not sure which dictionary qualifies chasms as narrow. Maybe it's a myth.

[Mister Underhill]

But it's fairly clear that Balrogs were incarnated and thus bound to physical laws. Is there suspicion that the physics of flight in Middle-earth may differ from those in the modern world? I don't know. Has anyone ever done any calculations on what Smaug's wingspan would need to be? What are the physics of Legolas being able to walk on top of snow? I feel comfortable discarding these suppositions about Balrogs, especially when they proceed from such little starting information. How tall, exactly, is a Balrog? What does it weigh? What anatomical device allows it to exude flame and shadow? You can't start doing math on completely conjectural figures and convince anyone who has any kind of a textual commitment to the wings debate. The rebuttal to this line of reasoning that I have seen points to the definition of "chasm" which is described as "narrow." Hmm... just glanced over the passage -- the bridge is "narrow", but I don't see the adjective applied to the chasm. If I've missed it, I'm sure you'll provide the cite. :)

Besides, I think it's the walls of the Hall that the wings are spread to, not the sides of the chasm, however big it is (we don't know). There's no textual evidence here at all as far as I can see, and not even enough of a basis for logical supposition or inference.

[obloquy]

I don't know. Has anyone ever done any calculations on what Smaug's wingspan would need to be? What are the physics of Legolas being able to walk on top of snow? I feel comfortable discarding these suppositions about Balrogs, especially when they proceed from such little starting information. How tall, exactly, is a Balrog? What does it weigh? What anatomical device allows it to exude flame and shadow? You can't start doing math on completely conjectural figures and convince anyone who has any kind of a textual commitment to the wings debate.

Well I think most of us just assumed that Tolkien's imaginary history of our earth conforms to the same laws of nature. That Smaug was appropriately proportioned for flight is evidenced by the fact that he flew. The actual calculations don't really matter, unless someone challenges the logistics of him being X big, thus having Y wingspan, and still fitting into Z cavern. The same goes for his fire-breath: we assume there was some physiological mechanic that allowed for it, from the gland that shoots the flammable substance, to its ignition, to the fire-resistant flesh that must have coated his snout. The Balrog's flame and shadow may have been something different, something related to the eala's fiery nature. The math and biology of these things doesn't come into question, however, since reasonable assumptions can be made about them without creating conflicts.

Besides, I think it's the walls of the Hall that the wings are spread to, not the sides of the chasm, however big it is (we don't know). There's no textual evidence here at all as far as I can see, and not even enough of a basis for logical supposition or inference.

If there's a tiny little bridge across the gap I think it's reasonable to suppose that the gap, too, stretches from wall to wall. Otherwise there'd be less perilous ways to cross near the walls. If the bridge spans a 50-foot chasm, and if a chasm is, in fact, defined as "narrow," then the width of the room would necessarily be greater than 50 feet, and therefore so would the Balrog's literal wingspan. Such a wingspan would be unwieldy for a being that could fit through the man-sized doorways and halls of Moria. But I didn't mean to imply that the text called the gap "narrow," only that I once read an article that cited a dictionary entry qualifying chasms as such.

[Mister Underhill]

The math and biology of these things doesn't come into question, however, since reasonable assumptions can be made about them without creating conflicts.I guess my point is that you can't make a convincing argument that the Balrog couldn't enter such and such a room when you don't know:


Anything about the Balrog's anatomy except that he's in shouting distance of man-height (and has wings ;)).
The size of the door.
The size of the room.
You can make stuff up until the cows come home, but the only thing we know for sure is that the bridge span across the chasm is about 50 feet long.

I'm a bit confused on your extrapolation about the chasm, the bridge, etc. The Balrog stands at the foot of a bridge. The bridge reaches 50 feet to the far side of the chasm. Given that its wings spread "from wall to wall" perpendicular to the bridge, how can we infer anything about its wingspan from this information?

[obloquy]

The idea is that if the bridge spans 50 feet, and a chasm is by definition "narrow" (longer than it is across), then the chasm must be more than 50 feet long and thus the room is more than 50 feet wide. If the Balrog's wings were literal, then they literally stretched the entire width of the room ("width" being the space that is perpendicular to the bridge's span), making his wingspan greater than 50 feet.

[Mister Underhill]

I guess I just don't get (1) how you deduce that the chasm is narrow one way or another or (2) even if it is, how this affects the question at hand. I've done up a little thumbnail sketch and attached it to show where I'm coming from.

[obloquy]

Yeah, I dunno. The article supposed that the room's dimensions were the opposite of how you've presented them. I can't remember if it offered any argument to support the position. Maybe someone else read it and remembers.

Anyway, I've been in the no wings camp for a while based on my impressions of Balrogs as a whole, but I can't deny that Tolkien most probably envisioned the Balrog scene with literal wings. It's definitely how I imagined it when I first read LotR.

[Kuruharan]

My computer has gone all wonky and is in a bed at a computer hospital so I don't have time to answer in detail at the moment, but there is one thing I'd like to say...

let me demonstrate take a piece of paper fold in in half its still pretty big fold it though four times when expanded same space when retracted smaller

The Balrog just can't fold its wings in half. If it folds the wings it has to do so up and away from its arms in order to give its arms enough room to move about and flail with that whip. That means the wings must go up when folded.

[Mister Underhill]

If it folds the wings it has to do so up and away from its arms in order to give its arms enough room to move about and flail with that whip. That means the wings must go up when folded.More speculation. You can't say with certainty based on the text how the wings "must" function.

[obloquy]

The article I referred to here was presented over at GreenBooks at TheOneRing.net. I'll reproduce it here to keep the thread self-contained, but the site is here (http://greenbooks.theonering.net/guest/files/080101.html).


VII. Wingspan: "If you are pained by external things, it is not they that disturb you, but your own judgment of them. And it is in your power to wipe out that judgment now." Marcus Aurelius

Let us return to the pro-wing side of debate and try to ascertain a rough estimate of the size of Balrog wings. The only reference that is available is the Durin’s Bane passage that is written above. Because the wings were spread from wall to wall, if we knew the width of the walls, we would know a Balrog’s wingspan. So let’s dig through what Tolkien wrote and see if we can obtain a rough estimate. In The Fellowship of the Rings, we find these words:
"...a slender bridge of stone, without kerb or rail, that spanned the chasm with
one curving spring of fifty feet."

So now you see why I wanted to get a founded definition of chasm because it will aid us here. Fifty feet cannot be the length of the chasm because its width would have to be orders of magnitude smaller in order for it to be narrow, and that scenario does not fit Tolkien’s description. He states:

"Down the centre stalked a double line of towering pillars. They were carved
like boles of mighty trees whose boughs upheld the roof..."

So the room is so wide that it needs two gargantuan rows of columns to support the roof. Therefore, the room’s width must correspond to the chasm’s length, meaning that the chasm is 50 feet wide. Tolkien provides no numerical data about the chasm’s length, so we must return to the definition of "chasm." Because a chasm is narrow, meaning it is much longer than it is wide, we know the room must have been more than 50 feet wide. If the room were exactly 50 feet wide that would not correspond to the definition either because the chasm’s cross section would be a square, and a square isn’t narrow. Minimally, for something to be called narrow its length must be at least twice its width, else the two sides are comparable in magnitude. So we may assume that the room was at least100 feet wide though it was probably much wider.

Because we are assuming that Balrogs have wings, we are reading the wings-from-wall-to-wall passage literally. Thus, if Balrogs do indeed have wings, they must be at least 100 feet in span. We also know that Balrogs were able to deftly use their whips, so the wings must have been able to fold behind them. Otherwise, it would not have been able to enter the chamber at all. The average body length to wingspan ratio for animals with wings that fold on their backs is 20/7, which tells us that the Balrog was at least 35 feet tall. However, many readers and many artists envision a gigantic Balrog anyway, so why is such a picture not feasible in the context of the passage? Again, it’s not an exact science, but there are some key points to be made.



It’s not feasible for a 35-foot creature to live for millennia in a city that was built for dwarves.
In the Chamber of Mazarbul when the Fellowship had barred the door to Balin’s tomb and was watching it slowly opened, Tolkien tells us that the "...orcs one after another leaped into the chamber." We are also told that they "...clustered in the doorway."


This terminology seems to suggest that the door was not extremely large, and thus the orcs had to cluster to get through it. But it may be that Tolkien was saying that the gap in the door was just wide enough for the orcs to pass through one at a time. Can we learn anything about how wide the gap was? Before the orcs came through, Tolkien said that the door was open wide enough for an arm, shoulder, and foot to be thrust through. Remember Boromir notching his sword as he hewed at the greenish arm and Frodo stabbing at the foot. After the foot was withdrawn, the orcs and trolls regrouped and rammed the door, about which Tolkien wrote:

"It cracked and staggered back, and the opening grew suddenly wide."

So the opening grew wide compared to what it had been. It could be that it swung nearly open, but just as likely, it could be that it opened the width of one or two orcs. So this is not conclusive that the door was small, but one more piece of evidence that lends itself to the small door theory is that it could be wedged with broken blades and wood.

"Slam the doors and wedge them!'

"…then he wedged it with broken sword-blades and splinters of wood."

Such a tactic would be much less effective on a massive door, and one does not usually speak of slamming a very large door. Still, this evidence is not absolutely conclusive but tends to favor a smaller door scenario, one that is, say, 10 feet in height that would be massive enough to weather the ramming and hammering of the orcs yet small enough to be slammed and wedged. Let us continue for a moment with this assumption in mind. It is very unlikely that something 35 feet tall with a wingspan of 100 feet could fit through a door 10 feet in height or be able to lay hold of the iron ring on the door.

"Then something came into the chamber- I felt it through the door,
and the orcs themselves were afraid and fell silent. It laid hold
of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell."

But the Balrog did come through the door after it countered Gandalf’s shutting spell, and the fact that it was able to able to grab the door’s iron ring suggests that the Balrog had hands that were appropriate for a much smaller creature. (If you happen to be six feet tall, imagine trying to go through a door about 1.7 feet high with 17-foot wings on your back. Sounds more like Through the Looking Glass to me.) There are two other facts that help suggest that a smaller Balrog, one of about 14 feet in height, is more consistent with Tolkien’s writings.

One is Glorfindel’s battle with the Balrog during the Fall of Gondolin. Tolkien writes in The Book of Lost Tales:

"Then Glorfindel's left hand sought a dirk, and this he thrust up that
it pierced the Balrog’s belly nigh his own face (for that demon
was double his stature)…."

So the Balrog was twice the height of Glorfindel. Estimating Glorfindel’s height takes a little bit of digging, but Tolkien does give a discussion of ‘Númenórean Linear Measures’ in The Unfinished Tales. In it Tolkien said that Galadriel was

"the tallest of all the women of the Eldar of whom tales tell"

and was said to be of man-height

"according to the measure of the Dúnedain and the men of old."

For the Dúnedain, man-height was a specific length equaling two rangar, units of measurement that equaled 38 inches. So Galadriel was 6 feet 4 inches tall, and from The Lord of the Rings, we also know that Celeborn was this tall as well. Elendil, of the race of men, was counted as being one of the tallest of the Númenóreans with a height of nearly 7 feet 11 inches. Glorfindel, though an elf-lord, was not a king, so the range for his height is probably between 6 and 8 feet. For the sake of continuing this argument, let’s place him as an even 7 feet in height, which is probably a generous assumption. A 7-foot Glorfindel gives us a 14-foot Balrog, which is much easier to digest when considering the confines of Moria. A 14-foot Balrog would be able to maneuver through dwarf-made cities, though doubtless he would still have some difficulties, and still adhere to lines like the following:

"What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the
middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape, maybe, yet greater;
and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it."

Tolkien wrote an earlier draft of the previous passage that is found in The History of Middle-earth, which provides further instruction.

"[the Balrog] strode to the fissure, no more than man-high yet terror
seemed to go before it."

This draft was rejected, but it shows that the Balrog was originally going to be man-high, which is, as previous discussed, six feet four inches tall. In is unlikely that Tolkien rejected this draft to make the Balrog fives times higher than he originally intended, and the fact that Tolkien wrote that the Balrog

"…leaped across the fissure"

suggests that the Balrog was large but not a mammoth 35-feet tall. In fact, there are numerous example of leaping Balrogs, especially in the passages on the duel with Glorfindel, which would be awkward for a giant Balrog to do. Also remember that in The Unfinished Tales, when Echthelion slew Gothmog in the battle by the fountain, that Ecthelion, who was wounded, leaped on Gothmog and drove his spiked helmet into the Balrog’s chest, a feat that would be impossible with a 35-foot monster.

"Then leapt Echthelion lord of the Fountain, fairest of the Noldoli,
full at Gothmog even as he raised his whip, and his helm that had a
spike upon it he drave into that evil breast, and he twined his legs
about his foeman's thighs; and the Balrog yelled and fell forward…."

So we have a 14-foot Balrog with 100-foot wings. To illustrate the enormity of these proportions, let’s go back to our 6-foot human example. If you were the Balrog, you’d now have to go through a 4.3-foot door, which you could do, except that you’d have wings 42.9 feet in span on your back! So stand up and put your arms out like wings. Now imagine that each of your arms is longer than two basketball goals put together. If someone were to describe you at this point, how likely is it that they’d leave off a description of your wings? It would be the most noticeable thing about you and probably the first thing they would mention. Yet Tolkien, a master of description, never gives us an explicit one: not in the Durin’s Bane, Dagor Bragollach, Glorfindel, or Echthelion passages. You could call this an oversight. You could call it added mystery, or you could call it reason to read that wings-from-wall-to-wall passage figuratively so that the meaning of all the other passages becomes clear. I choose to let the gist of 16 passages guide my interpretation of two rather than letting two guide my interpretation of 16.

I realize that, though there is supporting evidence for 10 to 14 foot Balrogs, there is no conclusive evidence, and so if I’ve done little to persuade you, I can offer no concrete evidence to back my claim. It is the plethora of implicit evidence that eventually convinced me to change my mind, and let me reiterate that "implicit" leaves room for an argument. As I stated in the introduction, I have put forth a guess because, in the end, all arguments in this debate involve assumption. Mine is no exception. Yet the argument that Balrogs are approximately 14 feet tall is compelling, and because I accept it, it is difficult for me to believe that Tolkien, a master of narrative, would not highlight the most salient feature of the Balrog: its disproportionate, airliner-sized wings.

Child of the 7th Age referred to this same argument several pages back in the thread. I believe her source was the somewhat summarized version at The Encyclopedia of Arda (www.glyphweb.com/arda).

[The Saucepan Man]

Because a chasm is narrow, meaning it is much longer than it is wide, we know the room must have been more than 50 feet wide.A chasm does not necessarily have to be narrow. The dictionary definition that I have simply refers to a chasm as a "deep fissure". But, even accepting that the chasm was narrow, it does not follow that the length of the chasm was delineated by the width of the chamber. The chasm might well (and probably did) continue beyond the bounds of the chamber. It is entirely feasible, therefore, that the width of the chamber was equal to or less than the width of the chasm.

Say the chamber was 40 foot wide (and the double line of towering pillars is not incompatible with this, particularly if its height was greater than its width) and the Balrog therefore had a 40 foot wingspan, that would, according to the ratio you have given, make the Balrog 14 foot tall, which is the assumption of the remainder of the argument.

Although I cannot resist making one further point:

In fact, there are numerous example of leaping Balrogs, especially in the passages on the duel with Glorfindel, which would be awkward for a giant Balrog to do. Not if it had wings ... :D

I can't deny that Tolkien most probably envisioned the Balrog scene with literal wings. It's definitely how I imagined it when I first read LotR.This is all that is required. If one imagines it with wings then, in the absence of any firm evidence to the contrary, one is quite entitled to continue imagining it as such.

[Mister Underhill]

There are so many unfounded assumptions in that article that it would take a post of a similar length to rebut them all -- "narrow" as an essential part of the definition of chasm? And even so, who says the bridge spans the chasm's width, and not its length? "Minimally, for something to be called narrow its length must be at least twice its width." Huh? According to who? His deductions about the door of the Chamber of Mazarbul are pure invention. One can wedge a door that's thirty feet wide and thirty feet tall as easily as one that's five by five. Tolkien's talking about wedging, not barring, as occurs in the movie.

Fortunately, SPM has already rebutted the only faulty assumptions that really need to be addressed. :)

[obloquy]

A chasm does not necessarily have to be narrow. The dictionary definition that I have simply refers to a chasm as a "deep fissure". But, even accepting that the chasm was narrow, it does not follow that the length of the chasm was delineated by the width of the chamber. The chasm might well (and probably did) continue beyond the bounds of the chamber. It is entirely feasible, therefore, that the width of the chamber was equal to or less than the width of the chasm.

Valid points. I'm not sure which dictionary the author of the article is working with.

This is all that is required. If one imagines it with wings then, in the absence of any firm evidence to the contrary, one is quite entitled to continue imagining it as such.

Yeah, but I also imagined the hall much wider than 40 feet. :P

[The Saucepan Man]

Yeah, but I also imagined the hall much wider than 40 feet.So did I as it happens, but then imagination and enchantment are rarely fettered by such mundane matters as cold logic. ;)

[obloquy]

There are so many unfounded assumptions in that article that it would take a post of a similar length to rebut them all -- "narrow" as an essential part of the definition of chasm? And even so, who says the bridge spans the chasm's width, and not its length? "Minimally, for something to be called narrow its length must be at least twice its width." Huh? According to who? His deductions about the door of the Chamber of Mazarbul are pure invention. One can wedge a door that's thirty feet wide and thirty feet tall as easily as one that's five by five. Tolkien's talking about wedging, not barring, as occurs in the movie.

Fortunately, SPM has already rebutted the only faulty assumptions that really need to be addressed. :)

Dear Mister Underhill, I think you're missing the most important and convincing point in the article: he quoted Marcus Aurelius.

I do think he envisions a much larger room than I ever did. Still, we can make reasonable assumptions about how wide the room is based on the fact that there were two rows of mighty columns upholding the roof. It seems very unlikely that the room was a mere 30 feet wide, and that these columns were only a couple feet in diameter and stood only 5 feet or so from each wall and each other.

[Folwren]

I can't grasp the difficulty in this. What part of the books are you people who think there are wings taking off of? Where are wings mentioned when Balrogs are mentioned other than in the LotR? Tell me where to look them up, look them up yourself, consider the way Tolkien writes about the Balrogs and study the way he mentions his wings. Obviously there have to be other places than in The Bridge of Khazad-dum where wings on Balrogs are mentioned or else this wouldn't be such a difficult problem.

My lack of knowledge of his other books bother me greatly.

- Folwren

[the guy who be short]

I've always imagined the (non-existant) Balrog wings to be leathery. Certainly they are portrayed so.

Now, Balrogs are creatures of fire and shadow. Leather wings would simply burn off. Ergo, Balrogs don't have wings. Well, not leathery ones.

Either that or they're fireproof, and Balrogs don't have nerves.

[Mister Underhill]

oblo -- fair point. The bottom line is that we can't draw any definitive conclusions about the sizes of various rooms, doorways, chambers, or wingspans, so arguments which claim that "the Balrog couldn't fit in there if it had wings" just don't hold water.

P.S. -- I was a little shaken up by that Marcus Aurelius quote. I was going to counter with a Moe Howard quotation, "You moron!" -- but since the author of the article doesn't post here, I didn't bother checking my sources.

[davem]

I can't grasp the difficulty in this. What part of the books are you people who think there are wings taking off of? Where are wings mentioned when Balrogs are mentioned other than in the LotR? Tell me where to look them up, look them up yourself, consider the way Tolkien writes about the Balrogs and study the way he mentions his wings. Obviously there have to be other places than in The Bridge of Khazad-dum where wings on Balrogs are mentioned or else this wouldn't be such a difficult problem.

My lack of knowledge of his other books bother me greatly.

- Folwren

There isn't a single mention of Balrogs having wings in the whole of the Legendarium (not even in LotR, if you read what Tolkien actually said). On the other hand, he clearly states that The Prancing Pony had wings, so I was wondering if anyone could work out how that flew......

[Mister Underhill]

(not even in LotR, if you read what Tolkien actually said) Of course you have to take this with a grain of salt coming from the man who doesn't consider The Hobbit to be a Middle-earth book. :p

[davem]

Of course you have to take this with a grain of salt coming from the man who doesn't consider The Hobbit to be a Middle-earth book.

We're not talking about TH here. And I notice again that you ignore the fact that I've made a convincing argument. :p

The Prancing Pony is clearly stated to have wings. Therefore, by your literalist reading of the text, it must have been able to fly.

[Mister Underhill]

Actually I once again find your argument unconvincing: "wing: 6 : a part or feature usually projecting from and subordinate to the main or central part <the servants' wing of the mansion>".

[The Saucepan Man]

I can't grasp the difficulty in this. What part of the books are you people who think there are wings taking off of? Where are wings mentioned when Balrogs are mentioned other than in the LotR?The point is that the description of the Balrog can be (and has been) interpreted by many readers as portraying a winged Balrog. Moreover a significant number of people (even those who are now non-wingers) seem to have imagined a winged Balrog when they first read the book. Most artists portray a winged Balrog. So I would answer your question with another question: Where does it state conclusively in any of Tolkien's works that Balrogs did not have wings? :p ;)

As for references to Balrogs other than Durin's Bane, is there any particular reason to conclude that different Balrogs did not take slightly different physical forms?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

"Difficile est saturam non scribere" - Juvenal.

Actually I once again find your argument unconvincing: "wing: 6 : a part or feature usually projecting from and subordinate to the main or central part <the servants' wing of the mansion>".

So in actual fact, the shadow of Durin's Bane spread out like two vast subordinate architectural components, which suggests that Tolkien imagined it to look something like the Ashmolean Museum. No wonder the poor creature couldn't fly.

Like Estelyn, I've never really thought much about the balrog wings issue. I've always assumed that the reference to 'its wings' in The Bridge of Khazad-dûm is simply the result of a lapse in concentration. Thinking that the audience will understand that he's still talking about some amorphous shadowy projection, Tolkien then turns his wing simile into a metaphor, forgetting that ambiguity is the mother of contention. Without this slip I doubt that the passage in the appendices would have been read as anything but an example of Tolkien's fondness for the fast-disappearing use of 'fly' to mean 'flee' which Child pointed out earlier in the thread. In other words: no, Durin's Bane at least had only a threatening shadow which spread out like wings.

So much for my opinion, which is nothing new or original, nor particularly worth posting on its own. What I do have to relate is that tonight, in a fit of insanity, I decided to look at the earlier drafts of The Bridge of Khazad-dûm in The Treason of Isengard to see if they confirmed my theory. I expect that what follows has probably been said more than once before as well, but not, I think, in this thread.

Christopher Tolkien mentions three drafts prior to the published version. The earliest of these, 'A', has:The creature made no reply, but standing up tall so that it loomed above the wizard it strode forward and smote him.A pencilled annotation to this manuscript reads "Alter description of Balrog. It seemed to be of man's shape, but its form could not be plainly discerned. It felt larger than it looked."

The 'B' version has the Balrog stand facing Gandalf, but still makes no mention of wings. These enter the passage in the third draft, which has "...the Balrog halted facing him and the shadow about him reached out like great wings."

Christopher Tolkien notes that the 'him' here is Gandalf, since the Balrog is always referred to as 'it'. The contentious literal reference to 'its wings' enters the text in the final version only, and I think that the development of Tolkien's thinking is quite clear: the Balrog must somehow feel greater than it actually is; it does so through the use of shadow; the shadow spreads like wings. When writing the final version, Tolkien made an understandable mistake in thinking that it would be a really good idea to refer to this shadow directly as a set of wings, possibly because this identifies it as something which is definitely a part of the Balrog and under its control. That this was not one of his better ideas is borne out by the last fifty years of discussion.

Of course it's always possible that this is all an obscure joke at the expense of obsessive compulsives. Perhaps HoME XXXI will have something to say on the subject: "My father's earliest typescript of this passage has finally come to light beneath a floorboard at our old house in Northmoor Road. Beside the description of the Balrog as written in version 'C', he has written hastily in pencil: 'Make Balrog appear to have and not have wings. Cf. angels on pin-head. Keep them talking forever."

[Folwren]

My question is answered. I remain stead fast in my opinion of non-winged Balrogs.

There are more than one definition of 'wing' in the Webster Dictionary of the English Language. Look it up. Mister Underhill had the awesome idea of doing so without being told and giving you the 6th definition that explained the winged Prancing Pony.

I've said so before, and I'll say so again, with Tolkien being the writer and English major and teacher that he was, he wouldn't write one sentence in the LotR in which the Shadow is his subject and the Wing his adjective and intend for a Balrog to have wings. And if he did, than C.S. Lewis, who read all of his stuff and critiqued a lot of it (I don't know if he was his editor for the LotR) would have caught it likewise.

Don't have time to explain myself any more.

-Folwren

[Mister Underhill]

What I do have to relate is that tonight, in a fit of insanity, I decided to look at the earlier drafts of The Bridge of Khazad-dûm...Welcome to the nuthouse, old boy. I'm sure we have a dank padded cell and a spare straitjacket which will accomodate you. It's funny, those passages in HoME VII -- you can sense the care with which CT dances around the wings issue without offering an opinion one way or the other.

Vis a vis the Pony's wings -- I give davem credit for not being that deliberately obtuse and for arguing, as Juvenal suggests, satirically; my reply was made in the same spirit.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I had much the same impression of HoME VII. It's obvious that CRT is aware of the argument, but he seems reluctant to commit himself. This is a wise policy, and one which I'd happily followed for fifteen years until last night. Of course, father and son may have had a secret pact never to tell anyone about the wings: a punishment for those telephone calls at three in the morning, perhaps.

Saucepan, you're absolutely right: I don't remember any direct statement from JRRT that Balrogs don't have wings. There's also no particular reason to assume that individuals don't differ, so even if we could prove that the Balrog of Moria was bereft of wings it still wouldn't close the issue. Therefore, wrong and illogical though I believe the artists to be, anyone is welcome to believe what they like on this subject. That is, of course, one of the ingredients of irresoluble debate.

[Mister Underhill]

Throwing in your lot with the no-wingers after such a cursory examination of the evidence, eh? In that case, we'll get you a room in the "special" wing (wing! -- oh, the irony!), extra medication, and a restricted diet to go with that straitjacket. Mind you don't mess up the newspaper if Sharkû will be reading it after you, and for your own good I advise you not to get into a comparison of Hobbit vs. LotR geography with davem. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

You know me, Underhill: post now, research later.

It will be good to have more time to draw pictures of Florence and listen to The Goldberg Variations. Perhaps, too, the audience will be captive enough to listen to my new theory: if one were to put all of Tolkien's writing from all sources into chronological order, take every twelfth word and write them as one continuous stream of letters, then take every twelfth letter of the sequence and translate the resultant words from their respective languages, it will give the sinister connection between the Cotton Library fire of 1731, this picture (http://www.lilitu.com/catland/) by Louis Wain, a freemason's headstone in Repton churchyard and the disappearance of the S.S. Waratah. The Medici popes and the Kennedy assassination might be involved too, but that depends on the size of the publisher's advance.

[davem]

I don't remember any direct statement from JRRT that Balrogs don't have wings.

I don't remeber any direct statement from JRRT that Hobbits don't have wings, either - & Gandalf did clearly tell them to 'Fly!' I think we have to ask what Hobbit wingspans might be...

[Morsul the Dark]

strangely we have an "elastic statement" I notice both sides use the same quote to support their ideas.

but here's what it all comes down to:

I don't remeber any direct statement from JRRT that Hobbits don't have wings, either - & Gandalf did clearly tell them to 'Fly!' I think we have to ask what Hobbit wingspans might be...
It would be...oh I'd say......three and a half feet tall so about 9 foot wing span? :p

Here's the thing if you were to think of a bird....the wingspan is usually(now I'm estimating) about three times longer than its height... so A Balrog at 15 feet tall..

That's why he called Aragorn "Wingfoot". Going REALLY FAST. I imagine Balrogs, having a great deal longer legs than humans (if they stood around fifteen feet tall, their legs would be roughly nine feet long), .Keeper ofDolGuldur said this

One would assume the wingspan at about 45 feet

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=182

considering they fold away from the body kind of like a vulture they would go down to 20 feet across... and still leave room or whip snapping and sword wielding.

now The Guy who be Short brought up an interesting point
Now, Balrogs are creatures of fire and shadow. Leather wings would simply burn off. Ergo, Balrogs don't have wings. Well, not leathery ones.

as for the material one would assume they have glands which secreet flame resistent chemicals kind of like sweat.

[the guy who be short]

as for the material one would assume they have glands which secreet flame resistent chemicals kind of like sweat.Perhaps they wore Kevlar? :D That wasn't really meant to be taken seriously though - I'm quite sure the majority of those "Winger" oddballs believe the wings are made of shadow and fire like the rest of the 'Roggies, thus the inability to fly

The shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.If the Balrog had wings, why that terminology? Why liken shadow to wings if the Balrog already had wings? Surely Tolkien could just say "The shadowy wings reached out" or something like that? Bottom line, why use a simile for something that exists already.

[Mister Underhill]

Do you mean like when he says about the Balrog when we first see it: ""it was like a great shadow..."?

[the guy who be short]

Do you mean like when he says about the Balrog when we first see it: ""it was like a great shadow..."?Exactement. Obviously the Balrog wasn't a great big shadow, thus the use of simile.

[Folwren]

Originally posted by the guy who be short:
If the Balrog had wings, why that terminology? Why liken shadow to wings if the Balrog already had wings? Surely Tolkien could just say "The shadowy wings reached out" or something like that? Bottom line, why use a simile for something that exists already.

Exactly my reasoning. Any writer, any English major, or any English Professor, will know the difference between a subject and an adjective. He mentioned the wings to explain the shadow, whereas had he wanted the Balrog to have real wings, he would have mentioned the shadow to explain the wings.

I like your points, TGWBS. :D

- Folwren

[The Saucepan Man]

I repeat my earlier question.

The text notwithstanding, how come so may people (including those who have since become non-wingers) imagine the Balrog to have wings when they first read this passage?

Personally, where there is any ambiguity, I tend to place the greater value on instinctive reader reaction (my own in particular) than I do on cold logical analysis after the event.

[the guy who be short]

The text notwithstanding, how come so may people (including those who have since become non-wingers) imagine the Balrog to have wings when they first read this passage?Where are the statistics to prove this? I imagined a wingless, very dark and almost manlike being nothing like the odd demon-beast creature of the films. Looks like we need yet another poll to determine this mystery. :D

[The Saucepan Man]

Where are the statistics to prove this?Anecdotal evidence from a perusal of the various Balrog-wing debates, my dear fellow.

Although I defer to no one's imagination but my own on the issue. :p ;)

[Folwren]

Asked by The Saucepan Man:
The text notwithstanding, how come so may people (including those who have since become non-wingers) imagine the Balrog to have wings when they first read this passage?

The only reason I did (yeees, I did picture him first with wings) was because a year or two before I'd read the book, I saw an awesomely painted picture by John Howe of the Balrog and Gandalf on the Bridge. His Balrog had wings. The image stuck in my head, though I only saw it once, I think, and when I read it, that's what I pictured.

Even if I am one of those who pictured him first with wings, I still think that Balrogs don't have them.

- Folwren

[Morsul the Dark]

The shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.

like two vast wings
you use like to support your argument why would tolkien say like

but heres the other half of the sentence:

like two vast wings

why use the word two...this implies that the shadow spread out from him in two directions. not in all directions why would they only go in two directions unless they were wings?

[Kuruharan]

…a Balrog with three bottoms.

More speculation. You can't say with certainty based on the text how the wings "must" function.

We can speculate on where the wings would need to be in comparison to the weapons that the Balrog used, specifically the whip. Using a whip well is not as easy as it looks and if the Balrog was lashing back over its shoulder it would necessarily be beating its own wings to shreds (please argue with me on this point). To avoid this it would need to be lashing to the side and down. I don’t have a problem with this. I think this would be the most effective way for the Balrog to use its whip because it was taller than its enemies. Slashing around in large circular motions would whack the largest area and the most enemies as possible. However, this means that the wings would need to be up and out of the way of these motions (unless, of course, the new argument is that the Balrog could not hurt itself with its own weapons). We are back to how this 80-100 foot wingspan could be folded and pass through doors that can be described as “the narrow opening of the door,” can be wedged by broken swords and splinters of wood, and only allows one orc through at a time.

The bottom line is that we can't draw any definitive conclusions about the sizes of various rooms, doorways, chambers, or wingspans, so arguments which claim that "the Balrog couldn't fit in there if it had wings" just don't hold water.

But we can (and have) made reasonable assumptions that tend to weigh heavily against massive wings.

I tend to place the greater value on instinctive reader reaction (my own in particular) than I do on cold logical analysis after the event.

Killjoy.

why use the word two...this implies that the shadow spread out from him in two directions. not in all directions why would they only go in two directions unless they were wings?

Because the expression “like one vast wing” would be exceedingly odd.

[davem]

but heres the other half of the sentence:

like two vast wings

why use the word two...this implies that the shadow spread out from him in two directions. not in all directions why would they only go in two directions unless they were wings?

What has it got in its pocketses? he cried. The light in his eyes was like a green flame as he sped back to murder the hobbit and recover his 'precious'.

Why would Tolkien say the light in Gollum's eyes was like 'green flame' unless Gollum's eyes really were on fire?

Frodo sat silent and motionless. Fear seemed to stretch out a vast hand, like a dark cloud rising in the East and looming up to engulf him. 'This ring!' he stammered. 'How, how on earth did it come to me?'

Why would Tolkien say that 'Fear' was 'like a dark cloud rising in the east' unless Frodo's fear actually caused a dark cloud to form?

'So he journeyed by night up into the highlands, and he found a little cave out of which the dark stream ran; and he wormed his way like a maggot into the heart of the hills, and vanished out of all knowledge.

Why would Tolkien say Gollum was 'like a maggot' at that point unless he really had turned into a maggot?

'Me, sir!' cried Sam, springing up like a dog invited for a walk. 'Me go and see Elves and all! Hooray!' he shouted, and then burst into tears.

Why would Tolkien say Sam sprang up 'like a dog' unless Sam actually became a canine at that point & started barking & wagging his tail?

Presently Sam appeared, trotting quickly and breathing hard; his heavy pack was hoisted high on his shoulders, and he had put on his head a tall shapeless felt bag, which he called a hat. In the gloom he looked very much like a dwarf.

Why would Tolkien say Sam looked like a dwarf if...

Can you see where I'm going with this, 'cos I could go on all night?

The road wound away before them like a piece of string.

Which may answer the old question - How long is a piece of string? It goes ever on....

[Morsul the Dark]

yes well like i estimated withn the help of Keeper ofDolGuldur's statement we can assume a balrog at 15 feet tall so the balrogs wingspan is about half of your 80-100ft span.

yes but couldn't tolkien have easily said "like wings" which would allow more argument that the smoke loomed about him...in fact why use the wing analogy at all why not say "The smoke loomed about the greats beast"

and as we see the bal rog even with wings could use a whip in FOTR....in not saying the movie should be a basis of argument but it is kind of like a demonstration to show it is possible.

through doors that can be described as “the narrow opening of the door,” can be wedged by broken swords and splinters of wood, and only allows one orc through at a time.

but then we are saying a balrog is not nearly as big as we originally thought even without wings balrog isnt the smallest guy around remember he basicly tore the door to bits with a counterspell.(I believe gandalf calls it that) so who's to say he didn't blow a huge hole in the wall he could fit through

Edit:Touche davem :smokin: however I was more drawing from the point that "two" wings implies the smoke went only in two directions have you ever seen smoke go only in two direction no it swirls around everywhere

[the guy who be short]

To further capitalise on the use of the word "like" for the Anti-Wing camp...

The sentence includes a simile. A simile compares one thing to a different thing.

For example, one can say "Tom leapt like a fox." That is okay. Tom's leap is compared to that of a fox.

One cannot say "Tom leapt like a Tom." It doesn't make sense. You can't compare something to itself, or it's just a description and the word "like" becomes redundant.