Relative Powers

[littlemanpoet]

A certain rpg has got me thinking about this (not the first time).

I'd like to get it situated somewhat "officially" and systematically the hierarchy of Powers in Middle Earth/Arda, all the way from the top to the bottom; that is, from Eru to spiders and goblins.

Tolkien is the source for this.

I'll start with a list, which I'm hoping is more or less in order by greater power. ... I'll follow it with a "for instance" or two. I'm sure my list is incomplete. Feel free to add to it. At the top of the list will be individual entities, but lower down it will be groups.

Eru
Morgoth
Manwë
Varda
Tulkas
Aulë
Lorien
-
-
-
Ancalagon
Ungoliant
Glaurung
Smaug
-
Sauron
-
Witch King of Angmar
-
Gandalf the White
Saruman
Gandalf the Grey
Balrog
Blue Istari
Radagast
-
-
Fëanor
Glorfindel
Finrod Felagund
-
-
Ent
Troll
-
Shelob
-
Beleg
Turin
-
Elf
Uruk hai
Warg
Human
Dwarf
Orc
Gollum
Goblin
Hobbit
Spider

*******************
For instances:

*We know that one Dragon would burn one Dwarf to a crisp; but 20 Dwarves were able to take out one Dragon.

*Gandalf the Grey defeated a Balrog

*Glorfindel died at the hands of a Balrog

What other "for instances" are there? I'm sure there have to be plenty. And surely I'm wrong on some of this. Tell me where, and show me how.

*******************

EDIT: [u]For those of you who are new to this thread that has already spanned 6 pages, here is a link to the Updated List (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showpost.php?p=456232&postcount=68), which reflects my thoughts after observing many great minds work through a lot of the issues raised by this topic. Enjoy!

[Eonwe]

I think Witch King should be somewhere lower. Or Feanor and some of the other elves a bit higher.

[Formendacil]

Interesting list you're making up there...

'twould be a bit much for me to get into everything listed here, so I'll deal with two positionings that I find somewhat incongruous...

The first is the positioning of Finrod Felagund below Glorfindel.

Finrod was an exceptional Elda. He was able to contest Sauron himself in a battle of music, and though he lost, it was not until after a great battle. Glorfindel, though valiantly fighting a Balrog, was still easily slain. It was not until after his reincarnation (and by reason of his reincarnation) that he began one of the "Great". And, for what it's worth, Finrod was also reincarnated.

The second is the positioning of Beleg at a higher point than Túrin Turambar, and I'll admit here to relying completely on a possibly faulty memory, but I seem to recall a line or two in either the Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales stating how Túrin, at the height of the prowess was a greater warrior than virtually any Elf (I may be thinking specifically of the Saeros situation here...). All the same, I would personally like to have Túrin on my side in a battle rather than Beleg, if it came down to overall prowess.

[littlemanpoet]

Formendacil, I acceed to your well made points until they are proven false by yet greater efforts at erudition. ;) I must say that I find it hard to countenance Túrin and individual Elves as above Ents, but, well, these were singular Elves, now, weren't they?

Eonwe, I appreciate your opinion, but I need some evidence before I'll make an alteration.

Eru
Morgoth
Manwë
Varda
Tulkas
Aulë
Lorien
-
-
-
Ancalagon
Ungoliant
Glaurung
Smaug
-
Sauron
-
Witch King of Angmar
-
Gandalf the White
Saruman
Gandalf the Grey
Balrog
Blue Istari
Radagast
-
Túrin Turambar
-
Fëanor
-
Finrod Felagund
-
Glorfindel
-
-
Ent
Troll
-
Shelob
-
Beleg

-
Elf
Uruk hai
Warg
Human
Dwarf
Orc
Gollum
Goblin
Hobbit
Spider

[Bêthberry]

I suppose you assume Tolkien is extraneous to Middle-earth, otherwise you would have started your list with him? ;)

And the eagles would be placed where?

[Glirdan]

Just got a question. What about the other Vala?? Where's Mandos and Yavanna?? Because they are of greater power then Lorien. If I'm correct, Yavanna is the second highest Valier, is she not? And Aulë, Ulmo and Mandos were of all greater power then Tulkas.

As for Hobbit, I think they deserve a place higher then Goblin's. After all, Bullroarer did invent a game after knocking off the head of a goblin. :p I also think that they should be in between Orc and Dwarf because of their feats, even if they were few.

I believe that Ungoliant deserves a place higher up. After all, she did almost kill Morgoth.

I can't think of anything else other than the remianig Valar (Vana, Nessa, etc.) and they all do deserve a high place. They are Valar.

Oh, wait!! I've just remembered a few Maiar. Eonwe, Osse and Uinen all deserve a place in there for being a few of the Maiar named.

Wow, that's a lot!! Well, take what you want. After all, it is your list.

[Raynor]

Earendil slew Ancalagon the black, Thorondor marred Melkor's face, Echtelion killed the lord of the balrongs, Eonwe was the mightiest in arms in all Arda, Hurin was the "mightiest of the warriors of mortal Men". In the second prophecy of Mandos, Turin is said to kill Melkor, so let's give him some more credit ;).

[Anguirel]

Oh, this is a real sweetshop of a thread. You know it's bad for you, but you have to indulge in it nonetheless...

Putting Turin above Feanor is nothing short of preposterous! I'd put him back where he was, on about Beleg's level. Some reference to him being Adanedhel and Elf-like in prowess wouldn't justify him being cabable of beating Feanor in his wrath, who faced battalions of Balrogs. And bringing up the Dagor Dagorath is just eschatological and odd. Our description of it is vague and mucked up.

I'd also put Maedhros and Fingolfin, in that order, above Feanor (though admitting Fingolfin's place hurts); though a genius and a great artist, I don't think Feanor was necessarily the best warrior of the Eldar-except with words and will-are we factoring that in?

Hurin I would put...above Glorfindel but below Finrod. Actually, Beleg should be above Glorfindel too. Glorfindel had pretty hair and was brave and nice, but Beleg was the best tracker in the world, could find his way around the Girdle, turned up to the Nirnaeth and survived, and could definitely have beaten the majority of Elves. Remember he was a swordsman as well as an archer...

[narfforc]

And where is Tom Bombadil on the list?

[Lalwendë]

Let me crack open a can of worms. I wonder where and indeed why Ungoliant should be on this list at all. I would argue that she is incredibly difficult to place as she is possibly 'outside' any kind of hierarchy.

there in Avathar, secret and unknown, Un- goliant had made her abode. The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwe, and that in the beginning she was one of those that he corrupted to his service. But she had disowned her Master, desiring to be mistress of her own lust, taking all things to herself to feed her emptiness; and she fled to the south, escaping the assaults of the Valar and the hunters of Orome, for their vigilance had ever been to the north, and the south was long unheeded. Thence she had crept towards the light of the Blessed Realm; for she hungered for light and hated it.

In a ravine she lived, and took shape as a spider of monstrous form, weaving her black webs in a cleft of the mountains. There she sucked up all light that she could find, and spun it forth again in dark nets of strangling gloom, until no light more could come to her abode; and she was famished.

Now Melkor came to Avathar and sought her out; and he put on again the form that he had worn as the tyrant of Utumno: a dark Lord, tall and terrible. In that form he remained ever after. There in the black shadows, beyond the sight even of Manwe in his highest halls, Melkor with Un-goliant plotted his revenge. But when Ungoliant understood the purpose of Melkor, she was torn between lust and great fear; for she was loath to dare the perils of Aman and the power of the dreadful Lords, and she would not stir from her hiding. Therefore Melkor said to her: 'Do as I bid; and if thou hunger still when all is done, then I will give thee whatsoever thy lust may demand. Yea, with both hands.' Lightly he made this vow, as he ever did; and he laughed in his heart. Thus did the great thief set his lure for the lesser.

The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwe - this suggests that she was not 'created' and so was outside Eru's creation, but entered his world where she attracted Melkor's attention.

But she had disowned her Master, desiring to be mistress of her own lust, taking all things to herself to feed her emptiness - she is the servant of Melkor which obviously means he has been able to enlist her, but note, he was unable to control her, as she was able to leave his service. He must then win her back with a lie.

she was loath to dare the perils of Aman and the power of the dreadful Lords, and she would not stir from her hiding. Therefore Melkor said to her: 'Do as I bid; and if thou hunger still when all is done, then I will give thee whatsoever thy lust may demand. Yea, with both hands.' - This suggests that Ungoliant was afraid of the Valar and the Elves, but does this mean they were more powerful than her? Perhaps she feared what they could do en masse? Or maybe she even feared to upset them, knowing she was an 'outsider'? Or was this just fear as she wished to be left alone to live as she needed, feeding off Light?

Ungoliant also clearly thinks that Melkor has the potential to defeat the rest of the Valar; maybe she was convinced by him as she wished rather to be on the winning than losing side if he was to defeat them? Anyway, in terms of power hierarchies, it suggests some fluidity and ambiguity, certainly at that point in the history of Ea.

I think Ungoliant is too difficult to place in such a structure; there is much evidence that she was from outside Ea, and as such was (is?) an independent being. If we take her as a natural complement to Eru, the Darkness or Void to his Light, then we could even see her as comparable in power. ;)

Well, I've finished my main course of worm pie, now for some pudding. I think I'll open another can of nice, sweet, juicy worms...

Where does Tom Bombadil sit on this list? Not to mention Goldberry...



Nice thread, much potential for fisticuffs and duelling. And worms. ;)

[Earendilyon]

Some thoughts:

* Melkor/Morgoth is a difficult one. If you view the original Melkor, he's on the right place in your hierarchy; but would you view Morgoth at the end of the FA, he would have to end up far lower.
* Ungoliant should be far higher (she ensnared Morgoth!)
* the WiKi between Saruman and Gandalf the Grey
* Túrin below Fëanor
* Ents above named Elves
* Shelob

Where would we put Tom B.?

[Earendilyon]

The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwe - this suggests that she was not 'created' and so was outside Eru's creation, but entered his world where she attracted Melkor's attention.

.....

I think Ungoliant is too difficult to place in such a structure; there is much evidence that she was from outside Ea, and as such was (is?) an independent being. If we take her as a natural complement to Eru, the Darkness or Void to his Light, then we could even see her as comparable in power. ;)

I think she was created [Eru is, like God in RL, in Tolkien's world the Creator of all] and was one of the Ainur who stayed (initially in her case, of course) with Eru. Like Tulkas she probably entered Eä later from the Void, where she wandered from the Timeless Halls (much like Melkor). But that's another discussion alltogether, of course :)

[Thinlómien]

* I'm not sure if all the dragons should be above Sauron. At least I would put Smaug below him.
* The Witch King is placed far too high. If Gandalf could cope with all the nine the same time, he's definitely too high up. Besides he was killed by a human, who wasn't even a great war hero. Thirdly, the rangers were able to drive away the single nazguls. Fourthly he and his 8 fellow buddies were not a match for Aragorn and Glorfindel.

I'm rather interested where Aragorn should be placed on that list.

*I would drop Túrin far lower. He doesn't deserve to be so high up. Wasn't it said that Fëanor was the most powerful of the children of Ilúvatar?
*Shelob should be higher up. It is said about her that no war hero of ancient times could have vanquished her. Or wait... Something like that. I should probably check but I'm too lazy. At least she should be above trolls. I think you overvaluate trolls. Pippin slew one. Tom, Bert and William are surely dangerous, but not more dangerous than Shelob!
*Ang, I disagree about Fingolfin and Maedhros. I'm a fan of Maedhros, but I would put him below Fingolfin and them both below Fëanor. He was maybe a stupid guy, but he was a powerful genious.
*And I would place Gollum above an orc and spider over hobbit. Bilbo was an exceptional hobbit and he had an exceptional ring. An average hobbit is a plump farmer. I don't doubt that a spider is more powerful.

Where would you people place the Ring? That's an interesting question.

[Lalwendë]

Where would you people place the Ring? That's an interesting question.

The Ring could go either near the top or at the bottom.

Top because it has incredible inherent powers and even those as 'strong' as Gandalf and Galadriel would not use it. It also has a lure, and a reputation which may be even stronger than its actual power in terms of 'enslaving' or enrapturing people.

Bottom because all that power could be riding on the reputation of the object - we have seen how it had different effects on different people; perhaps some were more able to disregard the 'hype'? ;) And most importantly, bottom because after all, it was destroyed when a weakened Hobbit lost his footing while prancing about. It's almost a comedy ending (though dark comedy) that this object which meant so much to Sauron was destroyed by a cosmic banana skin!

[Boromir88]

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for lmp, interesting thread you got going here. But to back up what Eonwe said about the WK being lower. I would agree.

Tolkien tells us that the Nazgul's primary weapon is fear, they have no great physical power over the fearless (like Gandalf, Glorfindel, Aragorn...etc) They thrive off of fear, and that's why they can be so powerful, but those who are fearless the Nazgul don't have too much power over. Even when the W-K is granted extra demonic force from Sauron during the Siege of Gondor I still think the WK fled from the gate because Gandalf stood strong at the gate and showed no fear.

So for the W-K, I'm not sure how you worked out the list, but I would put at least Gandalf the White above the Witch-King. So I would put at the least Gandalf the White above the WK. Maybe even Gandalf the Grey, who fought several of the Nazgul on Weathertop.

I don't know if there is a clear hierarchy to this, it may just be getting more confusing. Because I also think Glorfindel can take the W-K anyday, as he drives them into the fords. Being Glorfindel of Gondolin slaying a balrog, and reincarnated as Glorfindel of Rivendell, I think he should also above the WK. Which means do we drop the WK below?
Witch King of Angmar
-
Gandalf the White
Saruman
Gandalf the Grey
Balrog
Blue Istari
Radagast
-
-
Fëanor
Glorfindel
Finrod Felagund

You may want to re-order that to:

Gandalf the White
Saruman
Gandalf the Grey
Feanor
Glorfindel
Finrod
Witch-King
Balrog
Blue Istari
Radagast

It's hard to compare the Istari to the Elves, but if you are going to put a Balrog above the Istari, then I think that group of 3 powerful elves needs to be put above them. Because Glorfindel defeated a Balrog, and I do agree that Feanor in hte hierarchy of things is tougher than Glorfindel.

LMP, I don't think there is a clear cut hierarchy, as I think you can see by now. It's not like there's destinct levels, there are certainly those like the valar who are more powerful than everyone. But for Elves, and Istari, and Maia...etc there's a bunch of tangles if you get what I mean.

Eowyn defeats the WK but I would not put her above a Balrog or any of the Istari, or any human. A lot of factors must be considered. One would be I definitely think the WK needs to be dropped down. Even with Demonic powers granted by Sauron and being the Ruler of the Nazgul he was still once a human and doesn't have much power over the fearless. So, I think he needs to be dropped down, maybe even below a Balrog in the list I made above.

I dropped the WK down so far, because again the "fear factor" and if Glorfindel isn't afraid of the WK then I doubt Feanor or Finrod would be. Especially not Feanor. I hope you can make some sense of this mindless pile of jumbo.

[drigel]

many tangles, but interesting to consider.


Tolkien tells us that the Nazgul's primary weapon is fear
especially for us mortal readers. I would lower the WK even further down than Boro. To the undying, the fear would be from the various poisonous weaponry the WK wielded, and the flying creature that gave an obvious advantage. Also, perhaps, the legions that were usually at his command.

So that leads me to think about something that is not a single person, but an "entity" of one: the Army of the Dead. would that be considered on the list? Big fear factor on that one (at least for mortals).

Also what about my favorite critter: Huan?

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien tells us that the Nazgul's primary weapon is fear, they have no great physical power over the fearless (like Gandalf, Glorfindel, Aragorn...etc) They thrive off of fear, and that's why they can be so powerful, but those who are fearless the Nazgul don't have too much power over. Even when the W-K is granted extra demonic force from Sauron during the Siege of Gondor I still think the WK fled from the gate because Gandalf stood strong at the gate and showed no fear.

especially for us mortal readers. I would lower the WK even further down than Boro. To the undying, the fear would be from the various poisonous weaponry the WK wielded, and the flying creature that gave an obvious advantage. Also, perhaps, the legions that were usually at his command.

So that leads me to think about something that is not a single person, but an "entity" of one: the Army of the Dead. would that be considered on the list? Big fear factor on that one (at least for mortals).

Both great points. I've thought for a long time now that some if not most of the power of the Nazgul resides in their ability to foster fear - especially considering the 'death of the WK prophecy' which helped ensure his scary, untouchable 'power' went before him. And thinking about it, many of the powers of Sauron, from Nazgul to Ruling Rings, are based upon sheer fear.

But if we think about it, fear should actually place the Nazgul and the Ring and other such entities high on a list of 'power', instead of low. Power isn't just about the ability to wield a sword or cast a spell, it's also about the ability to control, and fear is a major weapon in achieving this end - otherwise how could a man who is allegedly hiding in a primitive cave somewhere be causing so many things to happen in the world right now? :eek:

[drigel]

like the thread says - it's all relative. It depends on whose perspective you are taking.

Mabye LMP should construct a grid, instead of working in a linear fashion.

Personally, I would place Huan in between Sauron and G the White

:)

edit:
and fear is a major weapon in achieving this end
well, then you would (by the end of the 3rd age at the least) have to put Galadriel on that list, because she was much feared by many non-elvish folk, right? She should at least be up there with the Feanor/Glorfindel group

or perhaps you would have to multiple lines - say for elves, the top would be:
Morgoth
Balrog
Sauron

for humans it would be:
Sauron
WK
Ancalagon

etc :)

[Boromir88]

But if we think about it, fear should actually place the Nazgul and the Ring and other such entities high on a list of 'power', instead of low. Power isn't just about the ability to wield a sword or cast a spell, it's also about the ability to control, and fear is a major weapon in achieving this end -
And of course I would agree, fear can be a powerful weapon. Saruman also uses it sometimes, his manipulating abilities help him out a bunch. But, I would put those who don't show fear, and are fearless (like Gandalf and Glorfindel seem to be) above the WK. That's what makes the WK so strong, and there are very few who don't show any fear for the WK, but for those few who would qualify in the "not fearing" category I would put above him. :)

[Eonwe]

Eonwe, I appreciate your opinion, but I need some evidence before I'll make an alteration.

Will do, mi'lord! :)

Actually, are you looking for hard and fast evidences, or are you looking for interpretations of data?

An interpretation of data is as follows:

Finrod Felegund, as per your list already, is below both Feanor and Glorfindel. Finrod strove with Sauron on Tol-in-Gauthrol and matched him fairly well. Fairly well, though Sauron obviously had the mastery. We can assume, by common sense, that Sauron is quite a ways above the Witch King. And if Finrod is near Sauron, then he is above the Witch King. And so are Feanor and Glorfindel.

Also, Glorfindel was said to have slain a Balrog in the sack of Gondolin. Balrogs being what they are, corrupted Maia, no less, I would say that is a considerable feat. I would think Balrog would be above Witch King as well, considering they were the primary servents of Morgoth.

Not to mention Gandalf. I think he is a bit of an enigma, considering that he is expressly forbidden to match himself power-for-power against the enemy. I think he would end up quite a bit farther up then you would expect, in a duel. (Remember, Gandalf the Grey is matched against the Balrog after performing the shutting spell, which seems to have weakened him quite a bit.)

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks one and all for a very interesting and robust response to my humble thread. Now for answers to the replies (through Eonwe) so far:

Just a few points. Bullroarer Took was an exceptional Hobbit. So I can place him individually above Goblins, but not your typical Hobbit. Humans apparently have a greater potential than Elves, which is foreshadowed in Ilúvatar's words in the Ainúlindalë; however, the typical Human is far below the typical Elf in relative power. Therefore, Húrin and Túrin can conceivably considered to have attained a higher degree of power than Fëanor. Sorry, Ang. We are factoring in all the primary modes of power, not merely swordsmanship or magic, but will, word of power (closely related to magic, I suppose), and all other such that have an effect upon reality within the confines of Arda.

Ang, I need a reason to put Maedhros and Fingolfin above Fëanor.

Lalwendë, there is enough in the quoted text to include Ungoliant in the list. The "it is said" bit is a classic Tolkienism that is used to suggest legend and folklore rather than feigned history. Therefore, I'm going to go with the feigned history. One of the presuppositions for this thread is that there is no being that is independent of the creation of Eru.

I'm all for worms, fisticuffs, well made points, and corrections backed by evidence to this list. But it being my list, I will make decisions now and then to end certain points of debate, as I did above regarding Ungoliant. It was a very good effort, Lal, but doomed, as it butted its head up against an immutabilty. ;)

Earendilyon: WiKi?

Thinlomien: Why put Smaug below Sauron? Does it say that Fëanor was the most powerful? If so, that is good evidence, but let's be sure. Where did Gandalf cope with all 9 Nazgúl at the same time? The Witchking was killed by means of a word of prophecy as much as by a woman and a Hobbit by whom the prophecy was fulfilled. Do you really think you can place Merry and Eowyn above Maiar? I can't agree on Gollum being more powerful than a typical Orc. He was, after all, just a Hobbit addicted to the Ring. The Ring itself, being a part of Sauron's power, would have to go below Sauron, but above Saruman and Gandalf, who admitted that it was too much for him. And no, Tom Bombadil does not become more powerful than Sauron on that account, because the Ring was of a nature by which it wouldn't affect him.

Boromir, even though the primary weapon is fear, it's not the only weapon. The Witch King and the other Nazgúl were negative spiritual forces. I think the Witch King left the Gate because of Rohan; he was ready to take on Gandalf right then and there, which suggests to me the WK at least thought he could win. Also, the power of the Nazgúl seems to have become greater later in the War. Which suggests to me that at one point Glorfindel is greater, but not later on. I'm not sure I can prove that. Any takers?

Eonwe, I'm looking for both hard and fast, and reasonable interpretations of data; if we don't allow the latter, there's no hope for getting anywhere with this (as if there ever were ha ha!). Slaying a creature does not make someone more powerful than that creature. Fate can come into play, and so can luck and skill. It helps, but does not create a one to one correlation.

Eru
Morgoth
Manwë
Varda
Yavanna
Ulmo
Aulë
Mandos
Tulkas
Lorien
Vana
Nessa
Earendil
Ancalagon
Ungoliant
Glaurung
Smaug
Sauron
Eonwë
Osse
Uinen
The Ring
Witch King of Angmar
Gandalf the White
Saruman
Gandalf the Grey
Balrogs
Thorondor
Eagles
Fëanor
Finrod Felagund
Húrin
Túrin Turambar (Morgoth slaying is eschatological)
Blue Istari
Radagast
Glorfindel
Tom Bombadil
Ents
Trolls
Shelob
Beleg
Goldberry
Elves
Uruk hai
Wargs
Humans
Dwarves
Orcs
Bullroarer Took
Gollum
Goblins
Spiders
Hobbits

Thanks much, the response has been very helpful so far. There's a long way to go, too.

[Formendacil]

In Unfinished Tales, "The Quest for Erebor", Gandalf goes on for some time about what the effects on Middle-Earth would have been without the events of The Hobbit. Bearing particularly on this situation, he refers to the devastating effect on Rivendell had Smaug not been killed, and from the passage, one gains a direct feeling that although Sauron might not have had direct control over the dragon's actions, he would definitely have been able to use him, and would have been the senior partner in any partnership they might have formed.

So I agree with Thinlómien, Smaug ought to be placed below Sauron.

[littlemanpoet]

I can see the Smaug/Sauron pseudo-alliance working much like the Sauron/Shelob one. However, I am put in my (by way of example) of historic wars, during which one nation, quite powerful, does the work for another just as powerful country such that the third, attacked, nation, is attacked from both sides; this doesn't necessarily indicate that one power is greater or lesser than another, just useful to the initiator.

[Eonwe]

I take it you have regected my analysis of data? Thou stick in the mud! :p ;)

LMP, are you dealing with these entities as people, or people groups? Are 'Ents', 'Goblins', 'Hobbits', and 'Elves', waiting to be fleshed out, or are you planing to keep them that way?

Because I don't think you really can. Balrogs come in all different shapes and sizes. Same for pretty much ever other race. I realize that will make your job allot harder. Or are you shooting for a more general overview of a certain race?

[Elu Ancalime]

Good point Eonwe. I think if an Ent and an orc each had on free hit on each other, we know who would win. But, a group of orcs in there natural state (with weapons) and Ents in their natural state (themselves), the battle would be more even, no matter what Flotasm and Jetseam says. ;)

There are other thing too. Like, Isildur i think would be way below Sauron no matter what; even though he "defeated" him, it was more chance, he did not best him. Perhaps there should be a seperate list for individuals that is somewhat based on their grouping; a list of only species would be a lot easir in different ways I think. Some things however, might be so small in entity they might be mixed with groups. (like Ungilont, even though there would be a spider gruop, and then spiders could be broken down into spiders of Mirkwood, of Ered Gogoroth, etc)
________
Glass Pipes (http://glasspipes.net/)

[littlemanpoet]

I take it you have regected my analysis of data? Thou stick in the mud!No. I'm holding on to it for more consideration.

LMP, are you dealing with these entities as people, or people groups? Are 'Ents', 'Goblins', 'Hobbits', and 'Elves', waiting to be fleshed out, or are you planing to keep them that way?Individuals may be extracted from people groups.

Because I don't think you really can. Balrogs come in all different shapes and sizes. Same for pretty much ever other race. I realize that will make your job allot harder. Or are you shooting for a more general overview of a certain race?
More general, but specified as much as is not unwieldy. I'm wondering about pulling apart the Eldar into their various people groups?

Please do recall, Elu, that this is not just "battles". This is the physical, psychic, and spiritual aspects of each individual & people group, as described by Tolkien.

[Elu Ancalime]

Ah, right. Powers implied in my head made me thing of turnbased RPG. :rolleyes:
________
Weed vaporizers (http://weedvaporizers.info/)

[Mister Underhill]

I've always thought this sort of "power" hierarchy is a red herring. Put rock, scissors, and paper in a hierarchy... see what I mean? Sauron's will beats Orcs, Orcish muscle beats hobbits, hobbit fortitude beats Sauron. If you need a snappy rhyme in a hurry, a Spider is a better bet than an Ent, but if you need to roust a wizard, talk to Treebeard.

What do you measure? Denethor has the power to set armies in motion with a command, but Legolas could put an arrow through his eye. Which is more "powerful"? If it's a good home-cooked meal you want, forget them both and see Sam. Which is a more accurate measure of power: the sheer magical force that Gandalf could project, or the wisdom which guided his decisions?

The problem with this sort of list is that it does seem to evoke a videogame mentality -- you start comparing Gandalf and Saruman's mana points, or Aragorn's armor class vs. Boromir's armor class.

If you're talking Middle-earth Fight Club, there are still a few kinks to be worked out. Sauron pre-Ring, Sauron with Ring, and Sauron the giant flaming eyeball are all different animals. Same with Sauron on the battlefield vs. Sauron the insidious court advisor vs. Sauron the commander-in-chief.

Anyway. I've lodged my complaint. Carry on with the list-making.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Child grumbles and then begins to jump up and down in an agitated fashion, waving her hands in the air......

Littlemanpoet

Stop!

I know what RPG you are talking about, but Mr. Underhill is right. You can't do this. Well, of course, you can, but I mean the whole idea of making such a list runs counter to the message and spirit of Tolkien. Everything in LotR makes me realize that, at any given instant in time, the tables can be turned and someone from the bottom of the list can defeat someone higher up. What that means is that the list has no real meaning.

If Hobbits are listed number 167 (or whatever they are), then how come Frodo managed to outwit Sauron and destroy the Ring? How could Samwise possibly have defeated a gigantic spider, which should have had him for lunch? There are dozens of examples like this, involving races other than hobbits, but I am too lazy to list them all out.

P.S. f you really want to continue with this enterprise, I believe you've left Galadriel off your list....

[Lalwendë]

Lalwendë, there is enough in the quoted text to include Ungoliant in the list. The "it is said" bit is a classic Tolkienism that is used to suggest legend and folklore rather than feigned history. Therefore, I'm going to go with the feigned history. One of the presuppositions for this thread is that there is no being that is independent of the creation of Eru.

I'm all for worms, fisticuffs, well made points, and corrections backed by evidence to this list. But it being my list, I will make decisions now and then to end certain points of debate, as I did above regarding Ungoliant. It was a very good effort, Lal, but doomed, as it butted its head up against an immutabilty.

Hey, is this a democracy or a dictatorship? ;)

I still say that there are elements in Tolkien's work that defy all attempts to be 'classified', and I think Tolkien intended it that way. One of the essential aspects of Faerie is that it is enigmatic and we cannot fully grasp what it means or how it works, and Tolkien's world works in the same way. Characters such as Ungoliant, Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are outside the logical world order, even that of Ea.

In fact, the layering of older drafts upon later drafts and the use of characters and situations which defy even religious (in terms of Eruist) logic help create the very essence of magic and faerie which is conveyed by Tolkien's work. Of course, the human urge (and even more so in the case of the Tolkienists' urge) is to classify and order everything, but sometimes we can't and we might have to accept some things that don't make us feel comfortable that this whole world is ordered by Eru.

The early version of Ungoliant (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=425058&postcount=35) from the Big Ungoliant Thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12335&highlight=ungoliant+spiders) .

[Thinlómien]

I do agree the list is a bit weird thing to do. But I thnk the power should be measured in how much did/could the individual affect the world. Or that at least has been my unofficial guideline. That can be used for all my reasoning.

[Earendilyon]

lmp,

the Wiki is the WitchKing.

I can't agree on Gollum being more powerful than a typical Orc.
IIRC, The Hobbit tells us, that Gollum once and a while ate some stray Orcs.

[Lalaith]

Mr Underhill's paper/scissor/stone analogy also occurred to me.
And Child is right too - where *is* Galadriel?

[drigel]

And Child is right too - where *is* Galadriel?
and Melian, and Huan, and....

[Earendilyon]

And Child is right too - where *is* Galadriel?

and Melian, and Huan, and....
Back to Valinor, back to Valinor, dead, and .... ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

I seem to recall there being an earlier thread which tried to do the same thing. Couldn't find it though.

I am with Mister U and Child on this issue. It is impossible to come up with a neat and logical heirarchy of power when we are dealing with such a range of characters with varying types of power in a world such as Middle-earth.

Elempi, you say that you are looking at all aspects of power within each individual and each group. But different types of power will prove the most decisive in different situations. It was said that there was power, of a kind, within the Shire. Hobbits excel, more than most other characters, at hiding themselves away when they do not wish to be seen and in feats of great endurance. It was these abilities that enabled Frodo and Sam to destroy the Ring and save Middle-earth. So they were very powerful in that situation, moreso than Sauron since they defeated him, yet they would not fare well in a one-on-one with him. Saruman had great powers of persuasion and could corrupt nations and control vast armies, yet he was felled by the lowly Wormtongue. The power of Men was in their ability to resist the inevitability of the Music of the Ainur and embrace change, making them more powerful in may ways than Elves, yet Elves were, in general terms, their superiors in physical prowess and spiritual fortitude. The Witch King, particularly at the Siege of Minas Tirith, was one of the most powerful beings of his Age in many ways, and yet he had a fatal weakness which was exploited (unwittingly) to great effect by a mere Hobbit and a shieldmaiden. Turin was a powerful warrior and yet, in consequence of Morgoth's curse, everything that he tried to achieve turned to ruin. His powers were restricted by his circumstances.

And I just don't think that you can measure these varying types and degrees of power against each other in order to give each character a "power" rating. Whether they are more powerful, in absoute terms, than another character depends upon the circumstances of any given situation.

And then there is the problem of the nature of the information that we have to work from. You place the Dragons above Sauron. Sauron was, however, a Maia, whereas we have no conclusive indication as to the nature of Dragons. They may have been Maiar spirits trapped within the bodies of great beasts, but they may also have been great beasts raised to a higher level. Either way, it is impossible to say whether they are of a higher order than a "senior" Maia like Sauron. Instinctively, I would say not. Balrogs are another example. Depending upon the source, they were either incredibly powerful Maiar, limited in number, or they were lesser Maiar, great in number and little more powerful than the greatest Orc captains. You place them below the Witch-King. On one analysis, I would agree with you. On another, I would not.

Similarly, the relative power of a being depends upon the point in time that we are considering and the circumstances then prevailing. As others have pointed out, the powers of both Morgoth and Sauron waned over time. Saruman and Gandalf (and indeed all of the Istari) were greater Maiar and so incredibly powerful in their "natural" state. And yet, as the Istari, their powers were limited and they could be vulnerable to the lowliest of blows, as Saruman's death shows.

But, ultimately, I think that Child has it right, when she says:

... the whole idea of making such a list runs counter to the message and spirit of Tolkien.It is in the nature of Middle-earth that an individual's natural power is of less importance than the circumtances in which that character finds himself and, more significantly, his ability and strength of will to achieve his aims. In that regard, Frodo was infinately more powerful than, say, Boromir. And Turin, too. One of Tolkien's central themes, and one which runs through his writings, most particularly The Hobbit and LotR, is the ennoblement of the humble or, in other words, the fortitude of the least powerful to overcome the vast "powers" arrayed against them, and to prevail.

[drigel]

Its interesting to make an order of sorts, but since we of the physical dimension can never make sense, or quantify (or understand really what the authors conception of - ) the powers of the unseen world of ME, the list could never get into detailed definitiveness - if thats a word.

other than yea - Manwe trumps Sauron, etc - the rest is like having a blind man pick a favorite color...

Back to Valinor, back to Valinor, dead, and ....
Aye, but what a glorious death it was :)

[Morsul the Dark]

I dont know much in the ways of the upper spectrum but the lower i more grasp...

Dwarves should be above humans for this simple reason they have about equal strength but dwarves are smaller sooo proportionally they have greater strength

[narfforc]

Where on the list would The Half-orcs come, lower or higher than the orcs, and what about Troll-men?

[littlemanpoet]

Finrod Felegund, as per your list already, is below both Feanor and Glorfindel. Finrod strove with Sauron on Tol-in-Gauthrol and matched him fairly well. Fairly well, though Sauron obviously had the mastery. We can assume, by common sense, that Sauron is quite a ways above the Witch King. And if Finrod is near Sauron, then he is above the Witch King. And so are Feanor and Glorfindel.The Witch King's power comes from the ring he wears, the power of which is derived from the One Ring. Otherwise, he is a Black Numenorean Man; as such, he is less than many Elves. But the 'otherwise' is not the case we are dealing with. The nub of the issue is that Gandalf the White and the Witch King seem to be more or less evenly matched (Jackson was stupid for having WK break Gandalf's staff), but the WK the more dire of the two. If so, then the WK is greater than Balrogs. Which I find troublesome, because I'm not sure he is. So let's say that the Witch King actually is lesser than Gandalf the White. I think it's still safe to say that WK is greater than Saruman.

Now as to Finrod and Fëanor. So if it's true that Fëanor strove with a host of Balrogs and held his own, well, that's pretty incredible! That puts Fëanor above Gandalf the White but under the Ring, but that just doesn't seem right to me. At best Fëanor and Finrod go between Saruman and Gandalf the Grey.

Also, Glorfindel was said to have slain a Balrog in the sack of Gondolin. Balrogs being what they are, corrupted Maia, no less, I would say that is a considerable feat. I would think Balrog would be above Witch King as well, considering they were the primary servents of Morgoth.Although a considerable feat, to slay a creature in pitched battle is a different thing than to slay a creature in one to one combat. All kinds of extraneous factors come into pitched battles. Still, it is an incredible feat.

Not to mention Gandalf. I think he is a bit of an enigma, considering that he is expressly forbidden to match himself power-for-power against the enemy. I think he would end up quite a bit farther up then you would expect, in a duel. (Remember, Gandalf the Grey is matched against the Balrog after performing the shutting spell, which seems to have weakened him quite a bit.)I still see the Maiar of Valinor as above Gandalf the White, until someone can show me otherwise.

I've always thought this sort of "power" hierarchy is a red herring. Put rock, scissors, and paper in a hierarchy... see what I mean? Sauron's will beats Orcs, Orcish muscle beats hobbits, hobbit fortitude beats Sauron.
I mean the whole idea of making such a list runs counter to the message and spirit of Tolkien. Everything in LotR makes me realize that, at any given instant in time, the tables can be turned and someone from the bottom of the list can defeat someone higher up. What that means is that the list has no real meaning.
For example...Saruman had great powers of persuasion and could corrupt nations and control vast armies, yet he was felled by the lowly Wormtongue.

Hobbit fortitude was not enough to defeat Sauron. Galadriel's Phial played an important role when they faced Shelob. Sting held Sam in good stead in the Tower of Cirith Ungol. My point is that we have here the power of Elves combined with the power of Hobbits, strength married to strength. I strongly disagree that this runs counter to the message and spirit of Tolkien. I would guess that among his notes such lists may very well be found. I have created such comparative lists in my own writing (not to say mine is on a par with Tolkien, far from it); such questions naturally arise from the writing process, and for me, in the appreciation process as well.

And your own point, Child, reinforces my efforts here: the tables can be turned because a certain Hobbit speaks a prayer to one of the highest ranking Valar in a time of need, while wielding and Elven sword and Phial of light. So in the Shelob instance alone, we have an evil spider spirit (who is clearly more than just a spider) facing a Hobbit fortified with the strength of Elves and a Vala.

Saruman's case is quite interesting. As I have already distinguished between Gandalf the Grey and White, it would be well to distinguish between Saruman of Orthanc and Saruman divested, or whatever adjective you wish to apply. The point is, Wormtongue wouldn't have had a prayer against Saruman before Gandalf the White broke Saruman's staff. Saruman divested was a crushed wizard, a broken but eloquent man.

Hey, is this a democracy or a dictatorship?This thread is a democracy and my list is a dictatorship. If you wish to be a dictator too, start a rival list. :D My list will continue to be Eru-centric, even to the extent of Ungoliant, Tom Bombadil, and Goldberry. I acknowledge the layering of which you speak; still, I believe there to be principles of spirit written into the texts that adhere to a hierarchical approach to "powers".

I do agree the list is a bit weird thing to do. But I thnk the power should be measured in how much did/could the individual affect the world.Precisely. I could not have said it better. I would include groups as well. I bolded 'weird' because the word also has connotations of power of spirit; so I agree too.

the Wiki is the WitchKing.Okay. Thanks.
IIRC, The Hobbit tells us, that Gollum once and a while ate some stray Orcs.But Gollum is wearing the Ring when he kills these orcs (or Goblins, I like to differentiate between the two); he could never have done so without the Ring.

Dwarves should be above humans for this simple reason they have about equal strength but dwarves are smaller sooo proportionally they have greater strength.You make a good case. Yet there is the potential in Humanity that goes far beyond Dwarvish potential. On the other hand, that potential is found in individuals, not groups; so as groups, I think that I am persuaded to put Dwarves above Humans .... in general.

Where on the list would The Half-orcs come, lower or higher than the orcs, and what about Troll-men?Uruk Hai are half-orcs. Hmm... maybe the belong between Humans and Orcs? Troll-men? Where are they found in Tolkien?

Eru
Morgoth
Manwë
Varda
Yavanna
Ulmo
Aulë
Mandos
Tulkas
Lorien
Vana
Nessa
Earendil
Ancalagon
Ungoliant
Glaurung
Smaug
Sauron
Eonwë
Osse
Uinen
The Ring
Gandalf the White
Witch King of Angmar
Saruman
Fëanor
Finrod Felagund
Melian
Galadriel
Thingol
Elrond
Gandalf the Grey
Glorfindel
Balrogs
Húrin
Túrin Turambar (Morgoth slaying is eschatological)
Círdan
Blue Istari
Thorondor
Eagles
Huan
Radagast
Tom Bombadil
Ents
Trolls
Shelob
Beleg
Goldberry
Elves
Wargs
Dwarves
Humans
Uruk hai
Orcs
Bullroarer Took
Gollum
Goblins
Spiders
Hobbits

[Formendacil]

You know, LMP, one could almost categorize you as Catholic, with your desire to rank things by power in a hierarchy. :p

Don't get me wrong, it's a fun idea and certainly generates a lot of fun debate. I just wonder if you're not coming across as too serious about it! After all, Middle-Earth isn't Dungeons & Dragons!

[Thinlómien]

Elempí, I wouldn't put Elrond and Galadriel over Gandalf the Grey. Gandalf the Grey was after all the one who dared to go to Dol Guldur and came back alive. Also he started the Erebor quest and the Ring quest. He defeated a balrog. I think Galadriel thought of him as more powerful than herself (or wiser, at least) and a proud noldo wouldn't do that without a reason. On what basis do you put Elrond and Galadriel over him?

Also, you're being contradictionary: The Witch King's power comes from the ring he wears, the power of which is derived from the One Ring. Otherwise, he is a Black Numenorean Man; as such, he is less than many Elves. But the 'otherwise' is not the case we are dealing with. The nub of the issue is that Gandalf the White and the Witch King seem to be more or less evenly matched (Jackson was stupid for having WK break Gandalf's staff), but the WK the more dire of the two. If so, then the WK is greater than Balrogs. Which I find troublesome, because I'm not sure he is. So let's say that the Witch King actually is lesser than Gandalf the White. I think it's still safe to say that WK is greater than Saruman. and But Gollum is wearing the Ring when he kills these orcs (or Goblins, I like to differentiate between the two); he could never have done so without the Ring.. So the Ring affects Witch King's position on the list, but not Gollum's? Care to explain yourself?

[drigel]

Im wondering exactly what game LMP is trying to work out. I recently have played Risk ME edition, which I def recommend

[Bêthberry]

Im wondering exactly what game LMP is trying to work out. I recently have played Risk ME edition, which I def recommend

Perhaps lmp is a Middle-earth man of mystery, going back in time to find M-e's "mojo." Maybe he should have named this thread "Awsome Powers." ;)

[narfforc]

To Littlemanpoet, you know the old chesnut about the Balrogs wings ie LIKE two vast wings, well in the chapter The Battle of The Pelennor Fields Tolkien says: and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls. Is Tolkien saying half-trolls exist or is he likening them to an idea of what a half-troll would look like, either way the creature would be formidable. The problem of the list, is that when listing Men or Elves, there are sub-catergories, not all men are equal.

[Morsul the Dark]

you forgot Nazgul :p

Actually i like the list but yes i agree sub categories should be in there


and unless its in the tales of tom bombadil(that song or whatnot) i think goldberry should be a little lower

and maybe hobbits above spiders(but thats almost too close to say)

[Lalwendë]

Certainly Tom Bombadil should be above The Ring as it has no effect on him at all. This would then place Tom above Gandalf and Galadriel, and I don't know if everyone would be OK with that, but I think he would be appropriately placed above them. Gandalf and Galadriel were deeply affected by the Ring, and had to struggle to resist it, but to Tom it was just a trinket.

[narfforc]

Just to try and clear up a small point made by Littlemanpoet, that the half-orcs were Uruk-hai. In Robert Fosters Complete Guide to Middle-Earth he writes thus:

Half-orcs Servents of Saruman, used by him as spies and soldiers. They were seemingly the product of a cross between Men and Orcs. Although tall as Men, they were sallow-faced and squint-eyed. The Chief's Men were half-orcs.
The half-orcs (the term is not used in The Lord of the Rings) were definitely not Uruk-hai.

Fosters guide is considered one of the better ones, even by Christopher Tolkien.

In Tylers The Tolkien Companion under the Uruk-hai section he states thus: Saruman himself attempted further genetic experiments with the race of 'Great Orcs'- with singularly unhappy results: creatures known as 'Half-orcs' which were said (by Sarumans enemies) to be the result of cross-breeding between Uruk-hai and certain degenerate Men in his service.

It may well be that The Uruks were a cross between Men and Orcs, but they were created by Sauron, not Saruman as it appears in the films. The Uruks first appeared about TA 2475.

[davem]

Certainly Tom Bombadil should be above The Ring as it has no effect on him at all. This would then place Tom above Gandalf and Galadriel, and I don't know if everyone would be OK with that, but I think he would be appropriately placed above them. Gandalf and Galadriel were deeply affected by the Ring, and had to struggle to resist it, but to Tom it was just a trinket.

Well, Tom is unaffected by the Ring, but I'm nit sure this is the same thing as being more powerful than it. Quite simply, the ring has nothing to take hold of Tom by - he has no desire to be anything other than he is, or possess anything he doesn't already have ('He is' as Goldberry says of him). Certainly the Ring can do things Tom cannot. And Gandalf states at the Council that Tom could not stand against Sauron himself.

What we're dealing with is the question of the precise power of the Ring & how it works. It plays on the individual's desires, so a being without desire would be impervious to its allure. This also means that Tom could never use the Ring (Galadriel tells Frodo that he could only use the Ring if he trained his will to the domination of others. Tom has no desire to do that (from what we know of him)). Certainly he is not powerful enough to destroy it, & this being the case can we really say he is more powerful than it? It could not dominate him, he could not destroy it.

Actually, he could well be less powerful than it in a real sense. After all, we seem to be judging a person's/thing's 'power' by its effect on the world/other people.

[littlemanpoet]

You know, LMP, one could almost categorize you as Catholic, with your desire to rank things by power in a hierarchy.I have a great respect for the entire Church, into the current century; that includes the Catholic, of course. The nature of spiritual reality is hierarchy. That's one of my primary reasons for starting this thread. And I don't mind having a little fun with it. :D

Elempí, I wouldn't put Elrond and Galadriel over Gandalf the Grey. Gandalf the Grey was after all the one who dared to go to Dol Guldur and came back alive. Also he started the Erebor quest and the Ring quest. He defeated a balrog. I think Galadriel thought of him as more powerful than herself (or wiser, at least) and a proud noldo wouldn't do that without a reason. On what basis do you put Elrond and Galadriel over him?Mostly to distinguish between him as Grey and White. But your points are well taken. I'll place him above his two fellow Elven Ring-bearers.

Im wondering exactly what game LMP is trying to work out.The Yule Log (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showthread.php?t=12478&page=1), in the Rohan forum, set in the beginning of the Third Age; I have posited an evil Maia (one of Melkor's original followers) who was Morgoth's "cook"; that is, chief torturer of fëar. This Maia was trapped for the entirety of the Second Age in the deeps of Thangorodrim, but the cataclysm that sank Numenor at the end of the Second Age, caused this Maia's release. Just my little bit of story making, no canonicity to it at all; but I'm trying to be faithful to Tolkien all the same.

... in the chapter The Battle of The Pelennor Fields Tolkien says: and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls. Is Tolkien saying half-trolls exist or is he likening them to an idea of what a half-troll would look like, either way the creature would be formidable. The problem of the list, is that when listing Men or Elves, there are sub-catergories, not all men are equal.I shall add half-trolls, but in italics. Now I just need to figure out an appropriate place for them... I agree with sub-categories. Care to suggest placements?

And thanks for the solid research on Uruk-hai versus half-orcs. I just learned something new about LotR.

you forgot Nazgul.Oops! :eek: ...i think goldberry should be a little lower How low?

Certainly Tom Bombadil should be above The Ring as it has no effect on him at all.Well, that's a very interesting point, which I wrestled with when I first included him in my list. My rationale for his placement below Radagast was that he is no Maiar, but a nature spirit (which may be another kind of incarnated Maiar); and that he is not superior to the Ring but not at all in the same context. This is because the Ring is all about power and the acquisition of more while Tom Bombadil is, by nature, about remaining precisely within his limited sphere of power and authority. I'm not sure my rationale is sound, but I'd like to see it exploded before I change his placement, if you please. Ah, I see that davem has answered you with pretty much the same reasoning I've tried to use.

I'm moving Hobbits above Spiders. Think of the incident in the Hobbit. How many Spiders were there? What if there were as many Hobbits as Spiders ... on neutral ground? That's the trouble though: the Spiders would probably win in Mirkwood, and the Hobbits would win in the Shire. However, that's only in battle. The Hobbit culture is definitely superior to that of Spiders. Hobbits up. But then why not above Goblins? Because Goblins are more ruthless, though probably more cowardly. Well. Cowardliness is a worse disease than ruthlessness overcomes, so I think I'll put Hobbits above Goblins too.

Eru
Morgoth
Manwë
Varda
Yavanna
Ulmo
Aulë
Mandos
Tulkas
Lorien
Vana
Nessa
Earendil
Ancalagon
Ungoliant
Glaurung
Smaug
Sauron
Eonwë
Osse
Uinen
The Ring
Gandalf the White
Witch King of Angmar
Saruman
Fëanor
Finrod Felagund
Melian
Gandalf the Grey
Galadriel
Thingol
Elrond
Glorfindel
Balrogs
Nazgúl
Arwen Undómiel
Húrin
Túrin Turambar (Morgoth slaying is eschatological)
Círdan
Blue Istari
Thorondor
Eagles
Huan
Aragorn son of Arathorn
Radagast
Tom Bombadil
Ents
Trolls
Shelob
Beleg
Frodo Baggins
Eldar: Vanyar
Eldar: Noldor
Eldar: Teleri
Legolas
Eldar: Sindar
Faramir
Humans: line of Elros
Gimli the Dwarf
Half-trolls
Eldar: Laiquendi
Eldar: Nandor
Eldar: Avari
Wargs
Dwarves
Goldberry
Denethor
Boromir
Humans: Gondorians
Humans: Umbarians
Humans: Rohirrim
Humans: of the North (Bree, Dunlendings, Beornings, Esgaroth, etc.)
Humans: of the East & South (non-Umbarian Harad, Easterlings, etc.)
Half-orcs
Uruk hai
Orcs
Meriadoc Brandybuck
Samwise Gamgee
Peregrin Took
Bullroarer Took
Gollum
Hobbits
Goblins
Spiders

[Elu Ancalime]

Let me know if this makes sense: Can we really count Tom Bombadill if we dont know who/what he is? Obviously, sine the whole [ring cant control him, but he cant control ring] thing adds some debate, and for all we know, (this is a reference to Battle for Middle-Earth 2) he could have a "Sonic Singing" power that would blow a humanoid Sauron away. Like RL, you cant really define a power of something unless you know enough about what it has done, and what it pre-hinted.


Also, about spiders-hobbits:Bilbo was as we know an excdptional hobbit. Think of what might have happened if you gave the Ring and Sting (dont forget an empty stomach!) to each hobbit and give them a spider of Mirkwood, a la gladiator style. Tooks might be able to beat some, but not all.
________
Toyota carina (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Carina)

[littlemanpoet]

I guess my answer, Elu, is that all we can go on is what is provided. We don't know all about all kinds of characters. Maybe Arwen inherited a gene from Melian (through Luthien) that gives her the ability to put a girdle of protection around the entirety of Gondor! But we only know what the books tell us, and that will have to suffice.

[Legolas]

The Valaquenta lists the Valar in "due order" which I interpret as 'order of power.' The list splits males and females, so we are left to look elsewhere to decide how the lists look when merged.

The names of the Lords in due order are: Manwë, Ulmo, Aulë, Oromë, Mandos, Lórien, and Tulkas; and the names of the Queens are: Varda, Yavanna, Nienna, Estë, Vairë, Vána, and Nessa. Melkor is counted no longer among the Valar, and his name is not spoken upon Earth.

In your most recent list, this would place Oromë in front of Mandos, and the missing females (Nienna, Estë, Vairë) inbetween Yavanna and Vána.

Lórien would need to be moved up, between Mandos and Tulkas. (He is currently below Tulkas in your list.)

I would also support Ulmo moving above Yavanna and Varda. Ulmo, the third Valar described, is given two full paragraphs in the Valaquenta, immediately following Manwe (undoubtedly the most powerful of the 14) and Varda - no one else is given that much attention.

I do not think Varda is necessarily greater in power than Ulmo. She is mentioned before Ulmo with Manwe, but I think this would be the case anyway, as to include her in Manwe's description since they are together. She is certainly powerful since Melkor "feared her more than all others whom Eru made," but I think this is because of her predisposition against him:
Out of the deeps of Eä she came to the aid of Manwë; for Melkor she knew from before the making of the Music and rejected him, and he hated her,

Anyway, Ulmo's Valaquenta description and every appearance he makes afterwards wreak of power; they are very detailed and the Valaquenta notes that "He is next in might to Manwë." I interpret this to be 'second in power' - the might of the Valar is not physical strength.

Ulmo is the Lord of Waters. He is alone. He dwells nowhere long, but moves as he will in all the deep waters about the Earth or under the Earth. He is next in might to Manwë, and before Valinor was made he was closest to him in friendship; but thereafter he went seldom to the councils of the Valar, unless great matters were in debate. For he kept all Arda in thought, and he has no need of any resting-place. Moreover he does not love to walk upon land, and will seldom clothe himself in a body after the manner of his peers. If the Children of Eru beheld him they were filled with a great dread; for the arising of the King of the Sea was terrible, as a mounting wave that strides to the land, with dark helm foam-crested and raiment of mail shimmering from silver down into shadows of green. The trumpets of Manwë are loud, but Ulmo's voice is deep as the deeps of the ocean which he only has seen.

Nonetheless Ulmo loves both Elves and Men, and never abandoned them, not even when they lay under the wrath of the Valar. At times he win come unseen to the shores of Middle-earth, or pass far inland up firths of the sea, and there make music upon his great horns, the Ulumúri, that are wrought of white shell; and those to whom that music comes hear it ever after in their hearts, and longing for the sea never leaves them again. But mostly Ulmo speaks to those who dwell in Middle-earth with voices that are heard only as the music of water. For all seas, lakes, rivers, fountains and springs are in his government; so that the Elves say that the spirit of Ulmo runs in all the veins of the world. Thus news comes to Ulmo, even in the deeps, of all the needs and griefs of Arda, which otherwise would be hidden from Manwë.

[narfforc]

I am really enjoying this post, what a minefield, thanks Littlemanpoet. Here are a few things to think about.


The Druedain
Luthien (who defeated Sauron in a battle of power, and had power over Morgoth)
The Mearas (Shadowfax, Nahar)


The point on Half-orcs, I would put them in this order

The Uruk-hai (Great Orcs)
The Orcs (Goblins)
The Half-orcs (ie:The squint-eyed southener in Bree and The Chiefs Men).

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks for an excellent contribution, Legolas. I've placed the Vala based on your suggestions, but on some you made no suggestions. Those Vala are placed more or less without objective reasoning to back them up, so please offer suggestions anyone.

narfforc, thanks for the thoughts. I just cannot bring myself to put half-breeds with humans above "pure-bred" orcs because orcs are inferior to humans. Therefore, the half-breed must come between. I'm thinking about dispensing with my distinction between Orc and Goblin, as they seem to be the same thing. However, it seems to me that there are mountain orcs that are of the smallest and most cowardly variety, as compared to Mordor orcs, such as Grishnakh, who is not cowardly and really quite dangerous. Granted, Grishnakh seems to be an unusually canny orc, so he deserves inclusion. Still, I think Mordor orcs are a bit above mountain orcs. So I guess I'll stick with my distinction. Or are Mordor orcs always Uruk-hai? I'm thinking not... any help?

Eru
Morgoth
Manwë
Ulmo
Varda
Yavanna
Aulë
Oromë
Mandos
Lorien
Nienna
Tulkas
Estë
Vairë
Vana
Nessa
Earendil
Ancalagon
Ungoliant
Glaurung
Smaug
Sauron
Eonwë
Osse
Uinen
The Ring
Gandalf the White
Witch King of Angmar
Saruman the White
Fëanor
Finrod Felagund
Melian
Gandalf the Grey
Lúthien
Galadriel
Thingol
Elrond
Glorfindel
Balrogs
Nazgúl
Arwen Undómiel
Húrin
Túrin Turambar (Morgoth slaying is eschatological)
Círdan
Blue Istari
Thorondor
Eagles
Huan
Mearas
Aragorn son of Arathorn
Radagast
Tom Bombadil
Ents
Trolls
Shelob
Beleg
Frodo Baggins
Eldar: Vanyar
Eldar: Noldor
Eldar: Teleri
Legolas
Eldar: Sindar
Faramir
Humans: line of Elros
Gimli the Dwarf
Half-trolls
Eldar: Laiquendi
Eldar: Nandor
Eldar: Avari
Wargs
Dwarves
Goldberry
Denethor
Boromir
Humans: Gondorians
Humans: Umbarians
Humans: the Druedain
Humans: Rohirrim
Humans: of the North (Bree, Dunlendings, Beornings, Esgaroth, etc.)
Humans: of the East & South (non-Umbarian Harad, Easterlings, etc.)
Meriadoc Brandybuck
Samwise Gamgee
Peregrin Took
Bullroarer Took
Saruman divested
Grishnakh
Half-orcs
Uruk hai
Orcs
Gollum
Hobbits
Goblins
Spiders

[narfforc]

I think that the Woses (Druedain) should come down the list of humans, maybe at the end, as they are quite primitive. Also you have still not put The Mearas (Nahar and Shadowfax) in.

[littlemanpoet]

I think that the Woses (Druedain) should come down the list of humans, maybe at the end, as they are quite primitive. Also you have still not put The Mearas (Nahar and Shadowfax) in.

Primitive is in the eye of the beholder, don't you think? My sense was that they were close enough to the earth such that they had not lost the blessing of Yavanna. But I didn't have it that clearly thought out until just now. :eek:

Where would you put the Mearas? Basically, they're horses that were bred in Valinor by the Eldar, and the understand human speech with an intelligence beyond typical animal. Seems to me, that puts them up there with Huan?

[Lalaith]

I don't understand what Melian is doing so far below the other Maia, particularly as no-one, not even Morgoth, could get through her girdle...and IMO Feanor's too high up.
Are you talking Feanor with or without Sils? Sauron with or without ring?

[littlemanpoet]

I don't understand what Melian is doing so far below the other Maia, particularly as no-one, not even Morgoth, could get through her girdle...and IMO Feanor's too high up.
Are you talking Feanor with or without Sils? Sauron with or without ring?
You make a good point regarding Melian.

I had Feanor lower, but people pointed out that he took on a whole squadron of Balrogs! :eek: Do you think the Silmarils actually enhanced his effect upon Arda?

As for Sauron, I suppose we could distinguish between the two, as I've done with Gandalf the Grey & White. Where would you place the two types of Dark Lord?

[The Saucepan Man]

Does "power" include self-control? If so, Feanor should definately be lower. Turin too, probably.

[littlemanpoet]

Does "power" include self-control? If so, Feanor should definately be lower. Turin too, probably.
If it were the main ingredient, I'd agree! It is an ingredient, though; just imagine if those two had it!

[mark12_30]

I'm moving Hobbits above Spiders. Think of the incident in the Hobbit. How many Spiders were there? What if there were as many Hobbits as Spiders ... on neutral ground? That's the trouble though: the Spiders would probably win in Mirkwood, and the Hobbits would win in the Shire. However, that's only in battle. The Hobbit culture is definitely superior to that of Spiders. Hobbits up.

This exemplifies what Underhill and C7A were referring to. Bilbo defeated the spiders; but would Ted Sandyman have half a chance?

I do appreciate your statement regarding Catholicism, spirituality, and hierarchies. "I too am a man under authority, and I say to this soldier...." etc. But that (then) brings it down to the hierarchy of individuals, does it not? Bilbo over spiders, Ted Sandyman under spiders.

And what if some of the spiders are cowardly, and some are braver than others?

Could even Bilbo have defeated Shelob-- with Sting but without the phial of Galadriel? How much of Hobbits-Defeating-Spiders depends on Elvish artistry and contributions? How well would Bilbo have done with a normal dagger instead of Sting? Does it matter?

Personally, I'd get flummoxed (as you can see) just having to sort two or three characters. I'm rather impressed that you've gotten this far. Please continue having fun & sorting the list. I'm going to go compare your ranking for Shelob and Aragorn....

[mark12_30]

I had Feanor lower, but people pointed out that he took on a whole squadron of Balrogs! :eek:

Bilbo took on Smaug. So why isn't he above Smaug? Bard killed Smaug. I dunno. THe whole point of good stories is the surprises. As long as these rules are "meant to be broken..." (are they?)

ps. Where IS Bilbo? ... And Sam defeated Shelob. Why's he so low on the list...? I guess I don't yet understand the logic.

Cheers, lmp, and enjoy!

EDIT post-script:

Okay. I think I see what bugs me. "Bur Frodo was not your average hobbit." The good stories are about the exceptions to the rules. But they are operating within the averages, aren't they? Bilbo (in Mirkwood) outsmarts numerous average spiders. (Bilbo is exceptional.) Gollum outsmarts lots of (average) orcses. (Gollum is exceptional.)

It seems to me you need -- scratch that, rudely put, sorry, rephrase. If I was tackling this, I would need (at least) two lists: First, a general hierarchy of races. Then hierarchies of the individuals within races. And I guess then, hierarchies of individuals that exceeded where their races were. Or something like that. (cue Underhill's Rock/scissors/paper analogy here; brilliant point IMO.) Anyway: to me it makes more sense to
--- graph this in at least 2-D, race-wise
--- distinguish between "average" and "exceptional" individuals

....must go. Wish I could linger.

[Earendilyon]

Bilbo took on Smaug. So why isn't he above Smaug? Bard killed Smaug. I dunno. THe whole point of good stories is the surprises. As long as these rules are "meant to be broken..." (are they?)

ps. Where IS Bilbo? ... And Sam defeated Shelob. Why's he so low on the list...? I guess I don't yet understand the logic.

Bilbo outsmarted Smaug for a while, because Smaug allowed him to (after an initial wavering, because Bilbo had an unfamiliar scent) like a cat playing with a mouse (at least, that's how I read it).

I think Sam didn't defeat Shelob. It's more that she unwillingly commited hara-kiri.

[Lalaith]

Do you think the Silmarils actually enhanced his effect upon Arda?

Well...I remember some quote from the Silmarillion, when Luthien wore the Silmaril, set in the Necklace of the Dwarves, "no Elf would dare assail her."
It was only when the Silmaril passed to Dior that the sons of Feanor rose up again.
I'd always thought that it was power of Luthien + power of Sil = unassailable.

But maybe it was just the power of Luthien herself.

[narfforc]

Maybe it was because Luthien was so beloved by the elves, that the Sons Of Feanor feared more the backlash, and were willing to wait their time, than be utterly vanquished by those who would be outraged by any assault.

[littlemanpoet]

Sorry for responding to this after so much passage of time. Much has been distracting me of late.

Bilbo defeated the spiders; but would Ted Sandyman have half a chance?I daresay Ted Sandyman had enough orcish in him to go below hobbits. Which means I'm changing hobbits to be higher than orcs. Not in bodily strength, but in moral, cultural, and generally human superiority.

I do appreciate your statement regarding Catholicism, spirituality, and hierarchies. "I too am a man under authority, and I say to this soldier...." etc. But that (then) brings it down to the hierarchy of individuals, does it not? Bilbo over spiders, Ted Sandyman under spiders.Perhaps. Why is this necessarily so? I don't follow the reasoning.

And what if some of the spiders are cowardly, and some are braver than others?This isn't a concern because the only individual 'spiders' Tolkien described were Ungoliant and Shelob, and their 'characters' are clearly dilineated so that placing them in the hierarchy is a matter of discerning and cataloguing superior versus inferior character traits. And Earendilyon's points are apt in this consideration.

Could even Bilbo have defeated Shelob-- with Sting but without the phial of Galadriel? How much of Hobbits-Defeating-Spiders depends on Elvish artistry and contributions? How well would Bilbo have done with a normal dagger instead of Sting?A valid question. It depends upon the significance of Sting and the Ring in Bilbo's encounter with the spiders. My conclusion on this is that without the Ring or Sting, Bilbo still would be superior to one spider, perhaps in combat, but most certainly in culture and moral superiority.

Does it matter?For the sake of this discussion, yes. :p

THe whole point of good stories is the surprises. As long as these rules are "meant to be broken..." (are they?)I'm not making rules. I'm doing something descriptive. As such, I suppose you could say that I'm building guidelines for the description, but I'm no authority. Just enjoying the pursuit. It is succeeding in helping me find a new way to get back into the stories. I know the stories too well, almost; so now I have a new lens through which to observe the many characters in the Legendarium. As to surprises, are they not very often generated by character? "This is what Sauron's like, so this is what's going to happen." "'Gollum would do such and such, wouldn't do so and so." This is viewing things from what is possibly an authorial perspective.

Do you think the Silmarils actually enhanced his effect upon Arda?
Luthien wore the Silmaril, set in the Necklace of the Dwarves ... "no Elf would dare assail her." ... It was only when the Silmaril passed to Dior that the sons of Feanor rose up again. .... I'd always thought that it was power of Luthien + power of Sil = unassailable. ... But maybe it was just the power of Luthien herself.I think you were right in what you always thought. Luthien was of course powerful in her own right. Add the silmaril to that, and her might is increased to something greater than Feanor's since his power was self-seeking and hers was based in love. She was, I believe, one of the most important characters in the entire Legendarium. Maybe THE most important ... to Tolkien?

The sons of Feanor may have feared a backlash, but I think that merely political motivation pales by comparison to the spiritual power of love in Luthien, kindled to greater heights by the light of the holy trees in the silmaril.

[littlemanpoet]

Guiding Principle: Context is the determiner.

Eru Ilúvatar
Melkor the Morgoth (primordial)
Manwë Súlimo
Ulmo
Varda Elbereth Gilthoniel

Yavanna Kementári
Aulë
Oromë
Mandos
Lorien

Nienna
Tulkas Astaldo
Morgoth (earthbound)
Estë
Vairë

Vana
Nessa
Arien
Tilion
Ancalagon

Ungoliant
Sauron
Eonwë
Uinen
Ossë

Glaurung
Melian
Olórin
Curumo
Aiwendil

Pallando
Alatar
Salmar
Eärendil amongst the stars
Thorondor

Gwaihir
Landroval
Eagles of Manwë
Hawks of Manwë
Smaug

Gandalf the White
Saruman the White
Lúthien Tinúviel
Fëanor
Galadriel

Fingolfin
Fingon
Finrod Felagund
Gandalf the Grey
Gothmog the Balrog

Balrogs
Elwë Thingol
Finwë
Olwë
Finarfin

Eärwen of Alqualondë
Turgon
Maedhros
Idril Celebrindal
Angrod

Orodreth
Finduilas
Aegnor
Glorfindel
Celebrian

Elrond
Celeborn
Huan
Carcharoth
Witch King of Angmar

Khamul, 2nd Nazgúl
Nazgúl
Tuor
Húrin
Túrin Turambar (Morgoth slaying is eschatological)

Beren
Eärendil in Middle Earth
Elwing
Gil-galad
Círdan

Elros
Aredhel
Maglor
Amrod
Amras

Eöl
Maeglin
Celegorm
Curufin
Caranthir

Elladan
Elrohir
Arwen Undómiel
Aragorn son of Arathorn
Radagast the Brown

Blue Istari
Shelob
Tom Bombadil
Treebeard
Ents

Mearas
Trolls
Beleg
Frodo Baggins (the nine fingered)
Eldar: Vanyar

Eldar: Noldor
Eldar: Teleri
Legolas
Eldar: Sindar
Faramir

Humans: line of Elros
Dúrin I
Azaghàl
Gimli the Dwarf
Beorn

Dain Ironfoot
Balin lord of Moria
Thorin Oakenshield
Half-trolls
Eldar: Laiquendi

Eldar: Nandor
Eldar: Avari
Dwarves
Goldberry
Denethor

Eärnur
Boromir
Bard
Humans: Gondorians
Humans: Umbarians

Humans: Rohirrim
Humans: of the North (Bree, Dunlendings, Beornings, Esgaroth, etc.)
Humans: of the East & South (non-Umbarian Harad, Easterlings, etc.)
Bilbo Baggins
Meriadoc Brandybuck

Samwise Gamgee
Peregrin Took
Bullroarer Took
Hobbits
Gothmog, Lieutenant of Morgúl

Mouth of Sauron
Saruman divested
Ravens
Crows
Wargs

Ted Sandyman
Gríma Wormtongue
Sméagol
Half-orcs
Uruk hai

Orcs
Gollum
Spiders

[The 1,000 Reader]

Can't we all just agree that things are based on situation? :)

Looking at that list, I'd put Luthien above Gandalf. Putting all of Angband to sleep is enough to qualify her for a higher position. Also, since Tolkien set the situation at Minas Tirith to appear as a clash of equals, I would put Gandalf the White and the Witch-King side by side. This is a list, yes, but due to no conflict at the gates of Minas Tirith and the way the passage was written, the best choice in my opinion would be to list them as equals.

In the end, however, I would agree that the situation is too important a factor. The only characters that can safely be put on the list are Eru and Tom Bombadil. Even that is unsure.

[Bêthberry]

And Nienna, who influenced Olorin so much? Just think of her lessons of pity and the role pity plays in LotR.

[narfforc]

How right Bethberry, how influential and important was Nienna in the outcome of the fate of Arda. I have thought much on Olorin and his wanderings to her house, and how her teachings of endurance of hope, shine through Gandalf into Middle-Earth. Surely pity it is which saved the day, and did that voice of pity in Frodo's head, have it's origin in Nienna.

[Legolas]

And Nienna, who influenced Olorin so much? Just think of her lessons of pity and the role pity plays in LotR.

Nienna, Estë, and Vairë have not been placed because their integration into the list in relation to the males is uncertain and undiscussed so far. See my post (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=454637&postcount=53) above.

What moved Varda and Yavanna back on top of Ulmo? And the other rankings of the males [Manwë, Ulmo, Aulë, Oromë, Mandos, Lórien, and Tulkas]? The order prior to my post was restored in this last list.

[littlemanpoet]

Oops! I fear that I used the wrong base list for my update. Which is why I need to have just one list. From now on I'll link to that one list. Sorry. I'll go fix.

The Updated List (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showpost.php?p=456232&postcount=68)

[Nogrod]

As I can see the whole of this as a nice exercise, I would really like to hear the point of this all. In the tradition of scholastics from the middle-ages, it is downright understandable to search for the "order of creation", where every being had its place in the order of things, created by the supreme craftsman. But would Tolkien had such a thomistic view of the world? (He was catholic, to be sure, but anyway.) And how can you compare individuals with "races" or "subcultures", and put them in the same line?

The Nienna -affair seems to me the most telling one: Gandalf is the hero of the story, but he could not be, what he is, without Nienna.

But what about Tom Bombadill? He (and Goldberry) are not seduced by the ring - neither are they able to use it (?) - but still controlling it, seeing through it and being able to understand it. They are powers beoynd the Middle-Earth proper. Like the ents, they are somewhat immune to these petty skirmishes of men versus the evil.

I can see the LotR and Silm. as stories about the Valar, the Maiar, the elves (elevated mankind), men and the evil. These last ones seem to be the focus. The others are important, but not in the same league with the earlier ones. The Maiar are the tools of the Vala, and that's simple. But the Ents, Tom & Goldberry, the dwarves (due to their birth)? They seem to have some kind of justification of their own, not readily compared to other players on the scene?

So basically it's a question of humans trying to resist the evil, and that's it? These others have their role in the making their part of the affairs, but the scope is on people. These "middle-ones" just play in to the hands of the narration. Nevertheless, these others being much more powerful and independent of the things men (hobbits?) hold dear, they really rise in stature in the eyes of the reader. They are the heroes, without being heroes....

[Legolas]

The Nienna -affair seems to me the most telling one: Gandalf is the hero of the story, but he could not be, what he is, without Nienna.

Nienna's placement above Gandalf is not disputed - it is a given.

Not only is she in the top 16 by being one of the Valar - she is in the top ten as she is listed as one of the Aratar.

The Silmarillion:

Among them Nine were of chief power and reverence; but one is removed from their number, and Eight remain, the Aratar, the High Ones of Arda: Manwë and Varda, Ulmo, Yavanna and Aulë, Mandos, Nienna, and Oromë. [...] surpassing beyond compare all others, whether of the Valar and the Maiar, or of any other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Eä.

Unlike the separate Valar/Valier lists, the listing of the Aratar is apparently not in order since it conflicts with those lists - Oromë is listed 'in due order' before Mandos.

The names of the Lords in due order are: Manwë, Ulmo, Aulë, Oromë, Mandos, Lórien, and Tulkas; and the names of the Queens are: Varda, Yavanna, Nienna, Estë, Vairë, Vána, and Nessa.

[Bêthberry]

Nienna, Estë, and Vairë have not been placed because their integration into the list in relation to the males is uncertain and undiscussed so far. See my post (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=454637&postcount=53) above.

What moved Varda and Yavanna back on top of Ulmo? And the other rankings of the males [Manwë, Ulmo, Aulë, Oromë, Mandos, Lórien, and Tulkas]? The order prior to my post was restored in this last list.

I asked about Nienna because originally the list in post # 68 included Nessa, but not Nienna, and I wondered how dancing on the green, green grass of home would merit a citation but weeping upon Ezellohar in order to help The Two Trees come forth did not, as well as weeping upon the ruined ground of Ezellohar in order to clear away the defilement of Ungoliant. To say nothing of the lesson of endurance and hope, and of course pity, as narfforc said more eloquently than I.

But I see that the man poet edited his list last night, so that original cause for query has been removed.

[Legolas]

My comment still stands...she was not included yet because her placement among the males had not been discussed to that point. The list has rolling admission.

[Orcrist Wielder]

Thank you littlemanpoet for at least putting our brethren on the list, but i still have to ask Where are the other dwarves????? where among the creations of Eru ( and of couse of Mathar) do we have our well deserved place in the list..... almost at the bottom¡? :eek: humans and even hobbits have their own "individual" champions, so
what about our greatest father Dúrin or the great deeds of Azaghàl fron Belelgost of whom even the great worm ran away from on the Nirnaeth. then there is of course the great battle of the five armies (in wich even tough slained, i died from many wounds from many foes and killed the orc leader) ;) ,Dain ironfoot or even more recently Balin lord of moria... i think that at least one of them should rank above Gimli (with all due respect to thy son of Glóin) even tough it has been telled that only him among the creations of mathar-eru ever saw the blessed kingdom in life....

[obloquy]

Why does everyone have such a boner for the Witch-King? He's way too high on your list. Being scary to Hobbits and average Men doesn't make someone powerful. He shouldn't be above any Eldar (seriously, are you joking or just trying to bait me?), nor should he be above Hurin or Turin or Huan or any of the Istari. Wait, you even gauged him above Balrogs? He was a MAN with delusions of invulnerability and a knack for freaking people out: Hurin would have laughed in his skinny face.

[Kuruharan]

But maybe it was just the power of Luthien herself.

-and-

Maybe it was because Luthien was so beloved by the elves, that the Sons Of Feanor feared more the backlash, and were willing to wait their time, than be utterly vanquished by those who would be outraged by any assault.


I suspect her maniacal, bloodthirsty husband and the Ents probably had more to do with it than anything.

While I on the whole find this exercise to be a bit…hmmm…silly…I am curious as to why the Wargs in general are above the dwarves. The citable instance is when they chase the dwarves up the trees. However, Gandalf was right up there with them, most of the dwarves were unarmed, and they were grotesquely outnumbered (I suspect the unarmed bit was the decisive factor…the fact that Tolkien portrayed the dwarves as setting out on the quest totally unarmed is one of my greatest problems with The Hobbit, but that is a matter for another time). The dwarves did not seem particularly bothered by wargs in the Battle of Five Armies. The wargs didn’t develop a civilization…even the orcs had a rudimentary…uhhh…culture.

“But they were just animals and couldn’t manipulate tools,” you say.

"Exactly!" I reply.

[Bêthberry]

I
“But they were just animals and couldn’t manipulate tools,” you say.

"Exactly!" I reply.

I know lots of cats who are quite successfully able to manipulate their human owners. :p

Now, back to the regularly scheduled topic.


My comment still stands...she was not included yet because her placement among the males had not been discussed to that point. The list has rolling admission.

And Nessa was rolled before the other Queens, I guess. Well, she first appears in post #21:


Eru
Morgoth
Manwë
Varda
Yavanna
Ulmo
Aulë
Mandos
Tulkas
Lorien
Vana
Nessa
Earendil
Ancalagon
Ungoliant
Glaurung
Smaug
Sauron
Eonwë
Osse
Uinen
The Ring
Witch King of Angmar
Gandalf the White
Saruman
Gandalf the Grey
Balrogs
Thorondor
Eagles
Fëanor
Finrod Felagund
Húrin
Túrin Turambar (Morgoth slaying is eschatological)
Blue Istari
Radagast
Glorfindel
Tom Bombadil
Ents
Trolls
Shelob
Beleg
Goldberry
Elves
Uruk hai
Wargs
Humans
Dwarves
Orcs
Bullroarer Took
Gollum
Goblins
Spiders
Hobbits


and then post #50 continues with the inclusion of Nessa but omission of Nienna.


Eru
Morgoth
Manwë
Varda
Yavanna
Ulmo
Aulë
Mandos
Tulkas
Lorien
Vana
Nessa
Earendil
Ancalagon
Ungoliant
Glaurung
Smaug
Sauron
Eonwë
Osse
Uinen
The Ring
Gandalf the White
Witch King of Angmar
Saruman
Fëanor
Finrod Felagund
Melian
Gandalf the Grey
Galadriel
Thingol
Elrond
Glorfindel
Balrogs
Nazgúl
Arwen Undómiel
Húrin
Túrin Turambar (Morgoth slaying is eschatological)
Círdan
Blue Istari
Thorondor
Eagles
Huan
Aragorn son of Arathorn
Radagast
Tom Bombadil
Ents
Trolls
Shelob
Beleg
Frodo Baggins
Eldar: Vanyar
Eldar: Noldor
Eldar: Teleri
Legolas
Eldar: Sindar
Faramir
Humans: line of Elros
Gimli the Dwarf
Half-trolls
Eldar: Laiquendi
Eldar: Nandor
Eldar: Avari
Wargs
Dwarves
Goldberry
Denethor
Boromir
Humans: Gondorians
Humans: Umbarians
Humans: Rohirrim
Humans: of the North (Bree, Dunlendings, Beornings, Esgaroth, etc.)
Humans: of the East & South (non-Umbarian Harad, Easterlings, etc.)
Half-orcs
Uruk hai
Orcs
Meriadoc Brandybuck
Samwise Gamgee
Peregrin Took
Bullroarer Took
Gollum
Hobbits
Goblins
Spiders



Then in response to your post #53 Nienna is placed, and appears in post #55:


Eru
Morgoth
Manwë
Ulmo
Varda
Yavanna
Aulë
Oromë
Mandos
Lorien
Nienna
Tulkas
Estë
Vairë
Vana
Nessa
Earendil
. . . .

but she was omitted--most probably inadvertently I would assume given LMP's meticulous work here, unless he loves to throw out a few nets with which to catch some fish--in post #68 as originally posted 03.25.2006 at 12.10 am (my time I guess), to be reinserted in edit at 9:38 pm of the same day.

So, your argument that Nienna had not been included because because of your post #53 does not apply to my question, which pertained to a removal.

You know, I really agree with Child and Mr. U and SpM that this kind of thing seems to run counter to Tolkien's use of Frodo, but isn't it fun? I wonder if we could also do a parallel list about Spiritual properties, a hierarchy of the most true. By how much would it differ from this one?

Really, we do dance upon barrow tops. ;)

[Rimbaud]

Why not go the whole hog and couch the debate in more sensible terms; ie 'who could whup whom?'

I'm fondly imagining that Tulkas would give Sauron the royal smack-down.

Or, more pertinently, I don't think you can place such disparate entities on any sort of coherent list. You could have an amusing debate on which Elf was the fastest or which Dwarf the dwarfiest, but comparing gods and mortals is a plan which aft gan aglay so often that the mice have given up.

[littlemanpoet]

As I can see the whole of this as a nice exercise, I would really like to hear the point of this all.Sheer curiosity. Oh, you wanted something more than that? Hmmm..... well, how about this: I just really wanted to get a handle on how certain evil Maiar would compare in terms of spiritual hierarchy to, say, Blue Istari, and the whole thing sort of snowballed. Oh. Well, that's just another way of saying "sheer curiosity". Well, that's the point of it I guess. Sorry to disappoint. ;)

In the tradition of scholastics from the middle-ages, it is downright understandable to search for the "order of creation", where every being had its place in the order of things, created by the supreme craftsman.Now you know how theology got its start. :p

But would Tolkien had such a thomistic view of the world? (He was catholic, to be sure, but anyway.)You just answered your own question. Yes.

And how can you compare individuals with "races" or "subcultures", and put them in the same line?The wording of your question seems to presume that you can't. I'm not having a problem with it. Care to describe what you think can't be done about it?

Thank you littlemanpoet for at least putting our brethren on the list, but i still have to ask Where are the other dwarves?????I hope that my latest edits satisfy your request a little bit?

Why does everyone have such a boner for the Witch-King?I've dropped the Witch-King a certain degree, because it occurred to me that much of the Witch-King's seeming height of power at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields was due to the power and will of Sauron so focused upon said battle. Nevertheless, the ring the Witch-King wears IS who the Witch-King is, and therefore must be understood as central to his power, which is (ahem) more than 'skinny faced'. So above Húrin he goes until you can persuade me otherwise, or else start your own list (if you like) as I've suggested already to others....

I am curious as to why the Wargs in general are above the dwarves.Point taken. I've lowered them, and added Ravens and Crows to a (I suppose) reasonable place.

You know, I really agree with Child and Mr. U and SpM that this kind of thing seems to run counter to Tolkien's use of Frodo, but isn't it fun?Now you're talking.

I wonder if we could also do a parallel list about Spiritual properties, a hierarchy of the most true. By how much would it differ from this one?
Why not go the whole hog and couch the debate in more sensible terms; ie 'who could whup whom?'These last two quotes are akin, so I shall answer them together. This more or less started as a "who could whup whom", but as more information came forward it became obvious that spiritual power, cultural strength, and other considerations are at least as important as battle prowess.

And here is the Updated List (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showpost.php?p=456232&postcount=68).

[obloquy]

I've dropped the Witch-King a certain degree, because it occurred to me that much of the Witch-King's seeming height of power at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields was due to the power and will of Sauron so focused upon said battle. Nevertheless, the ring the Witch-King wears IS who the Witch-King is, and therefore must be understood as central to his power, which is (ahem) more than 'skinny faced'. So above Húrin he goes until you can persuade me otherwise, or else start your own list (if you like) as I've suggested already to others....

Are you familiar with Hurin? Have you read about him?

Additionally, what about Huan, Radagast, and the Blue Wizards? All of these folks are incarnate Maiar and would own the hell out of the WK. Cirdan is Calaquend (although Telerin [edit: some may have noticed this error]) as well, homeboy, so the WK's got nothing on him. Turin ruined Glaurung, so how do you reconcile that?

I won't make my own list, but I might rearrange yours a little.

I recommend:

- add Olorin to the list immediately above or below Sauron
- move Eonwe to right below the Valar and move Sauron and Olorin just below him
- add Arien above Sauron and below Eonwe
- drop Earendil below all the Maiar
- Ungoliante should be somewhere amidst the Valar, though who is above and below I couldn't say
- add Curumo (to distinguish between Saruman in his incarnate form and his natural form, as with Olorin and Gandalf above) and place him just below Olorin
- move the dragons below all the Maiar
- add Gothmog and place him below Curumo
- move the Balrogs to the bottom of the Maiar list but above all the others except for Glorfindel, Luthien, Thingol, Feanor, Finrod, Galadriel, and Galdor (who you need to add)
- remove The Ring
- what's Arwen doing on this list?

[narfforc]

Sorry Obloquy but to have the list with all sorts of minor beasties on, and not Arwen, after all she is the daughter of Elrond and grand-daughter of Galadriel, she must have some power; more than a lot of the humans on the list. In saying all that, it is never apparent, we can only assume by her lineage and teachings at Rivendell, that she has power, surely she didn't spend all day lounging around like some bored little princess. If she did have power, where on the list would Elladan and Elrohir come?, who must surely have had special training.

On another note, where is that great dragon-slayer Bard?

[The 1,000 Reader]

Are you familiar with Hurin? Have you read about him?

Additionally, what about Huan, Radagast, and the Blue Wizards? All of these folks are incarnate Maiar and would own the hell out of the WK.

I get the feeling that the Morgul Lord would have beaten a large hound. Also, just because a character is a maia doesn't mean they win. Just look at Sauron. Finally, Turin climbed up a gorge and stabbed Glaurung in the stomach while he slept.

[Earendilyon]

Some minor nit-picks:
Nevertheless, the ring the Witch-King wears IS who the Witch-King is
IIRC, the Nine Rings were in Sauron's possession, not in the Nazgûl's.

Additionally, what about Huan, Radagast, and the Blue Wizards? All of these folks are incarnate Maiar
You're assuming here that Huan is a Maia, while there's no text supporting that idea, as far as I know.

[narfforc]

I think that Huan, like the the Mearas, were special bred animals from Valinor. Were they not bred by Orome, for his hunting of the evil creatures of Middle-Earth?. If Huan was a Maia, why was he given special permission to speak, even non-Maia creatures can speak, even Gurthang spoke, surely a Maia would be able to converse in any body quite freely.

[drigel]

You're assuming here that Huan is a Maia, while there's no text supporting that idea, as far as I know.

here's another rub to the list that I havent thought until now - the power of fate or doom (or prophecy), as it incorporates with the characters, examples:

WK was not going to be slain by any "man" - wouldnt that default him above at least all the human males? What about elvish males?

Huan -
.....and it was decreed that he should meet death, but not until he encountered the mightiest wolf that would ever walk the world.
so, regardless of the Maiar issue, a timeline to be considered - any entity having hostile actions towards Huan before the wolf encounter would be dealing not only with Huan, but also with the doom that was bound to to that hound dog.

After all, we seem to be judging a person's/thing's 'power' by its effect on the world/other people.
- remove The Ring
Or, if you include objects, then consider others - the Watchers, Orthanc, the Mirror of Galadriel, etc etc.

[narfforc]

I think the problem with a list like this, is its fragmentation. If you were to sub-catergorize into species or items, sort them out into some kind of order, then you could try and slot them into place. At the moment there is a lot of problems trying to come to terms with species against species, and there are persons in the wrong order in there own catergory. This will also cause problems no doubt, with people claiming Elendil to be more powerful than Aragorn. One thing to remember Middle-Earth was in decline, and so were its people, The Three were made to hold back that decay. Another problem to occur is that of double entries, or in the case of Olorin/Gandalf the Grey/White, triple. If this is the case then what do we do with Feanor, do we place him as the greatest elf that ever lived, then put in another entry for him somewhere further down the list, after the madness of The Kinslaying. Another one is the Hurin/Turin saga, should we look at individuals at the greatest moment , or at their worst/weakest. If the list intended to show what order individuals were in solely on the height of their powers, then it would be very different than at their lowest.


Sorry The 1,000th Reader, but Turin didn't stab Glaurung while he slept, he did it as the worm crossed a ravine, after he had been sleeping.

[obloquy]

I get the feeling that the Morgul Lord would have beaten a large hound. Also, just because a character is a maia doesn't mean they win. Just look at Sauron. Finally, Turin climbed up a gorge and stabbed Glaurung in the stomach while he slept.

and

You're assuming here that Huan is a Maia, while there's no text supporting that idea, as far as I know.

That "large hound" defeated the Morgul Lord's master, Sauron. There's no question Sauron was immeasurably superior to the WK even in the Third Age, during which he was greatly reduced from his original non-incarnate form of the First Age before the making of The One Ring. Huan was greater than any non-Maiarin being of the Third Age, period. Read about him again.

And while I admit that Tolkien did go back and forth about Huan's original nature (Maia vs. 'special beast') the Maiarin origin is the most likely considering these points: Huan formulated his own thoughts in his heart (Sil.), rather than parroting those of others or being a sort of puppet to another's will; Huan defeated Sauron, as well as a mega-beast that was saturated with Morgoth's mojo; it is said of Huan that "no wizardry nor spell, neither fang nor venom, nor devil's art nor beast-strength could overthrow [him]." Additionally, there is Tolkien's footnote to Myths Transformed (in which he debates the nature of the Eagles and Huan) that says "As the Valar would robe themselves like the Children, many of the Maiar robed themselves like other lesser living things, as trees, flowers, beasts. (Huan.)" Tolkien's words, not mine. In any case, since this discussion is not about Huan's nature exactly, but rather about his relative power, I'll reiterate my suggestion to go read about him again and then tell me what "feeling" you get.

WK was not going to be slain by any "man" - wouldnt that default him above at least all the human males? What about elvish males?

No, because this prophecy had nothing to do with power, just a prediction of events. Just because Glorfindel predicted that the WK wouldn't be slain by a living Man (and I believe this prophecy refers to the maker of the Blade of Westernesse rather than Eowyn) does not mean that no Man had the power to overcome him.

Or, if you include objects, then consider others - the Watchers, Orthanc, the Mirror of Galadriel, etc etc.

And especially the Silmarils.

Sorry Obloquy but to have the list with all sorts of minor beasties on, and not Arwen, after all she is the daughter of Elrond and grand-daughter of Galadriel, she must have some power; more than a lot of the humans on the list. In saying all that, it is never apparent, we can only assume by her lineage and teachings at Rivendell, that she has power, surely she didn't spend all day lounging around like some bored little princess. If she did have power, where on the list would Elladan and Elrohir come?, who must surely have had special training.

She may have some level of power, but what did she ever accomplish that gives us any sort of reading on that power? As far as we know, she was a housewife with fabulous cooking skills.

A lot of the people on this list would be difficult to place exactly in relation to others of similar spiritual stature. I suggest moving to a bracket format wherein varying degrees of power are recognized within a bracket without requiring those beings to be sorted when it's impossible to gauge them against one another.

[Formendacil]

That "large hound" defeated the Morgul Lord's master, Sauron. There's no question Sauron was immeasurably superior to the WK even in the Third Age, during which he was greatly reduced from his original non-incarnate form of the First Age before the making of The One Ring. Huan was greater than any non-Maiarin being of the Third Age, period. Read about him again.

And while I admit that Tolkien did go back and forth about Huan's original nature (Maia vs. 'special beast') the Maiarin origin is the most likely considering these points: Huan formulated his own thoughts in his heart (Sil.), rather than parroting those of others or being a sort of puppet to another's will; Huan defeated Sauron, as well as a mega-beast that was saturated with Morgoth's mojo; it is said of Huan that "no wizardry nor spell, neither fang nor venom, nor devil's art nor beast-strength could overthrow [him]."

It seems to me, Obloquy, that you rate Huan's power a little too highly. The passage in the Silmarillion dealing with Huan and Sauron's fight definitely presents Huan as the victor- but the fight ends in a stalemate: Sauron cannot escape without abandoning his body, and so being weakened in a way not dissimilar to the loss of the Ring during the Siege of Barad-dûr. However, here is the text:

But no wizardry or spell, neither fang nor venom, nor devil's art nor beast-strength, could overthrow Huan of Valinor; and he took his foe by the throat and pinned him down. Then Sauron shifted shape, from wolf to serpent, and from monster to his own accustomed form; but he could elude the grip of Huan without forsaking his body entirely.

Call me a fool, perhaps, but reading this passage does not suggest to me that Huan was necessarily more powerful than Sauron, but that he succeeded in getting the upper hand in the fight- an upper hand he may well not have had, were Sauron not to have thought to make Huan's "Death by Greatest Wolf" prophecy come true in person. Had Sauron attacked in his own form, or some other form, the outcome might have been very different.

Next, notice that Huan does not- or, I theorize, cannot- kill Sauron. Sauron cannot escape him without grave humiliation, but Huan does not kill him. It is Lúthien, later on in the same paragraph, who threatens him with being stripped of his flesh, and being sent back to Angband a naked spirit, suggesting that this power lies in Lúthien, not Huan.

A final point to note about the fight between Huan and Sauron is that Sauron started out with a disadvantage:

Then Sauron sprang upon Lúthien; and she swooned before the menace of the fell spirit in his eyes and the foul vapour of his breath. But even as he came, falling she cast a fold of her dark cloak before his eyes; and he stumbled, for a fleeting drowsiness came upon him. Then Huan sprang.

Huan does not attack Sauron until he has stumbled and been distracted, giving him an edge.

Again, call me a fool if you like, but reading about the fight tells me one thing: it took both Huan and Lúthien to beat Sauron. Before Sauron was cornered by Huan, Lúthien could not threaten him with the division of fëa and hröa- in fact, she fainted at his attack. Likewise, Huan could not defeat Sauron, only deprive him of the victory, and he was aided by Lúthien's cloak, and by Sauron's own choice to attack him in Werewolf form to fulfill the prophecy.

I respectfully submit to the littlemanpoets of the jury that Sauron be placed above Lúthien and Huan.

[drigel]

No, because this prophecy had nothing to do with power, just a prediction of events.

I agree - it didnt imply power. It was a prophecy, not an utterance of doom, or command of fate.

Just because Glorfindel predicted that the WK wouldn't be slain by a living Man (and I believe this prophecy refers to the maker of the Blade of Westernesse rather than Eowyn) does not mean that no Man had the power to overcome him.
uncoventional thinking there. I wouldnt go that far. But, to me, it doesnt really matter how you interpret the prophecy or truth soothing,
..Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall.
the WK did indeed not fall by the hand of man, and there were plenty of chances by numerous men to fell the WK.

Like the Huan example, the difficulty is in quantifying entities who are special and unique, and have, apart from magical or supernatural abilities, also may have dooms or fates that are of... a more.... divine nature that supercede anything else.

Apples to apples it would be Sauron over Huan. Lordliness, skills over nature and technology, powers of command, etc.
Apples to oranges it would be Huan over Sauron. Put them both in the Thunderdome, one on one, and it would be Huan having the mastery, as it was related in the Silm. And thats with (IMO) Sauron having personal powers that far exceeded what he had in the 2nd or 3rd ages.

And especially the Silmarils.
especially especially the Two Trees

[Formendacil]

Apples to apples it would be Sauron over Huan. Lordliness, skills over nature and technology, powers of command, etc.
Apples to oranges it would be Huan over Sauron. Put them both in the Thunderdome, one on one, and it would be Huan having the mastery, as it was related in the Silm. And thats with (IMO) Sauron having personal powers that far exceeded what he had in the 2nd or 3rd ages.

As I said in my last post... I disagree.

Huan had an advantage at the start of the fight that was not related to either his strength or Sauron's. I refer, of course, to Lúthien's cloak, which she brushed past him as he attacked. Furthermore, Sauron did not utilize his full abilities in battle, but rather changed form and attacked as a Werewolf, hoping to fulfill the prophecy about Huan.

Had Sauron attacked as himself, or maybe as an oliphaunt or something, the outcome could have been different. And, yes, the prophecy would have been nullified- but since Sauron DIDN'T, Huan went on to die at Carcharoth's jaws.

It's very analogous to the Witchking situation. Had Glorfindel and the Witchking fought during the fall of Arnor, it's entirely possible that the Witchking would have been destroyed then and there. But they didn't, so we are left with the "not by hand of man shall he fall"- which is, of course, what happens. But this does not mean that Glorfindel (or Eärnur, for that matter) COULDN'T have defeated the Witchking, but that they DIDN'T.

So, although I acknowledge the fact that Huan was a very impressive beast, and probably worth more than the Fëanorian lord he served, and that he was definitely a challenge for Sauron, I don't think that one-on-one he could have taken Sauron down. He needed Lúthien's help just as Lúthien needed his.

[obloquy]

blah blah blah

Actually, Formendacil, I agree with you (mostly--your excuses for Sauron are weak, in my opinion*) and I never suggested putting Huan above Sauron. All I said was that he was more powerful (by far) than the Witch-King. Sauron obviously belongs near the top of the Maiar bracket, and Huan somewhere amidst it or near its bottom--it's tough to say exactly. My points about Huan were just that 1) he was likely a Maia and 2) he was considered especially mighty on a First Age level which means he was mightier than nigh all that lived in the Third Age, excepting those other Maiar and maybe one or two Eldar. The same goes for Hurin and Turin. They were studs of First Age proportions.

Additionally, some Eldar ought to be inserted into a special bracket that places them parallel to the Maiar. Luthien was obviously exceptionally powerful, perhaps ranking among Olorin, Sauron, Melian, and Curumo. Glorfindel I would say was less powerful, though he could stand his ground against a Balrog and thus deserves to be ranked near them. Feanor, Galadriel, Finrod, Thingol, Finwe, Fingolfin and Finarfin (in approximately this order perhaps) should be placed only slightly below Luthien (who was the greatest of all the Children). You might add Olwe and Ingwe as well, except that we can only guess that their kingship was a result of a certain high degree of power on their part.

Here's an interesting thread (involving myself and Formendacil, incidentally) about power levels among the Umaiar (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11553).

*Had Sauron attacked in his own form, or some other form, the outcome might have been very different.
What form of defense might Sauron have employed that did not include wizardry or spells, fangs or venom, devil's art or beast-strength?

Next, notice that Huan does not- or, I theorize, cannot- kill Sauron. Sauron cannot escape him without grave humiliation, but Huan does not kill him.

At this point in Sauron's existence, forcing him to abandon his shape is as close as anyone can get to 'killing' him. His spirit can only be truly destroyed by Eru, and he's not yet incarnate to the point of any sort of death being permanent.

but he could not elude the grip of Huan without forsaking his body utterly.
This makes it clear that the power Sauron could not elude was Huan's, not Luthien's. The next line is ere his foul spirit left its dark house, Luthien came to him...
So his only option was to abandon his body (death) until Luthien provided him the opportunity to be released on the condition that he give his tower to her.

[drigel]

nice points!

I understand the point of Luthien's contributions, but I also think that Sauron's tactics were employed to instill fear, and not with the knowledge that he had to assume a certain form in order to slay the hound. I submit that he had no knowlege of, or took little heed to, the prophecy concerning Huan. And certainly had no (or little) knowlage Huan's nature:

....no wizardry or spell, neither fang nor venom, nor devil's art nor beast-strength, could overthrow Huan of Valinor
until well into the fight. That means no fear in Huan of Sauron's manifistations or magic in my book.

I still lean towards the hound, but would place Sauron above him in the master list, if that makes sense. But that's just me, I suppose. I would argue that Huan was a greater agent (handling much higher stakes) for Eru than Gandalf was.

Had Glorfindel and the Witchking fought during the fall of Arnor, it's entirely possible that the Witchking would have been destroyed then and there.
Who is to say that he didnt have the chance to, but avoided the confrontation? I would think in all those years, he must have had a shot or two.

[littlemanpoet]

here's another rub to the list that I havent thought until now - the power of fate or doom (or prophecy), as it incorporates with the characters ... any entity having hostile actions towards Huan before the wolf encounter would be dealing not only with Huan, but also with the doom that was bound to to that hound dog. ... Or, if you include objects, then consider others - the Watchers, Orthanc, the Mirror of Galadriel, etc etc.All of this is very much to the point, drigel. Well done!

Another problem to occur is that of double entries, or in the case of Olorin/Gandalf the Grey/White, triple.I'm okay with this. I think the multiple entries helps to delineate what we're talking about because in a story characters cannot be static. Some rise, others fall. It could be argued, however, that Fëanor, for example, never lessened at all, but the power of the Oath overwhelmed him .... which is saying something rather important since he is "the greatest of the Children of Iluvatar" (Sil, p. 96).

Additionally, there is Tolkien's footnote to Myths Transformed (in which he debates the nature of the Eagles and Huan) that says "As the Valar would robe themselves like the Children, many of the Maiar robed themselves like other lesser living things, as trees, flowers, beasts. (Huan.)"

Warning: potential Tolkien heresy ahead: I distrust Tolkien's latter day (1965-1973) theologizing and philosophizing about his Legendarium, especially as he was rethinking the whole thing from a round world mythos starting point. However, your quote in this instance seems reasonably fairminded (out of context, since I don't have the tome [and don't want it but have read it]).

... this prophecy had nothing to do with power, just a prediction of events.Hello?!? :eek: Since when does prophecy not have to do with power? Since when is "just a prediction of events" ... "just a prediction"? Prophecy is ALWAYS a phenomenon involving power - power of the word. Who spoke it? That person and his/her source of knowledge must be factored into an understanding of the power wielded in order to fulfill the prophecy.

I respectfully submit to the littlemanpoets of the jury that Sauron be placed above Lúthien and Huan.So noted. Sound reasoning that is true to the texts wins out.

Updated List (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showpost.php?p=456232&postcount=68)

[Thalion]

Can someone explain how the Blue Istari are placed above Radagast? I gotta believe Radagast places higher than 2 wizards who are never fully described...seeing as how there is very little on the Blue Istari under those names and we have at least that Radagast has some power over Birds, Animals, ect..., he should rank higher...

Alternatively, if Olorin and Gandalf get different entries, then Alatar and Pallando should be different entries than blue Istari and these should be ranked accordingly...but since there isn't much on Alatar, Pallando, OR Blue Istari (except that the Blue Istari failed in their mission because they presumably went into the East and never came into the story again), and there is at least some power residing in Radagast over birds/beasts/ect, then he should still rank higher

[Aiwendil]

While I agree with those who have argued that this kind of list is ultimately impossible to reasonably construct, a few points do seem quite wrong to me in the list.

First, I agree with Thalion about Radagast. Why is he placed so low? He should be roughly as high as the other Istari; and I would place him above the Blue Wizards. Of course, the place of the Blue Wizards themselves can be no more than an uninformed guess, since we have no real information about them.

Second, why is Beren lower Aragorn? I would place him roughly on par with Hurin and Turin. For that matter, Tuor (who is missing from the list) should be on about that level as well.

Third, why is Arwen so high? As far as I can tell, her "power" consists entirely of beauty and banner-weaving ability.

Fourth, I think Ungoliant ought to be higher. She is a strange and unique figure in the Legendarium, and she seems (to me, at least), to have a kind of profound, primordial power. Consider that she almost defeated Morgoth before the Balrogs came to his aid.

That brings us to Morgoth. It seems to me that if we distinguish between Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White, we ought also to distinguish the primordial Melkor from the pseudo-historical Morgoth, who had divested himself of most of his power and was even wounded by Fingolfin.

I also don't understand why the Balrogs are not higher; nor why Frodo is as high as he is.

[Legolas]

Ungoliant appears to be more powerful than Ancalagon, though I don't know of any characteristics of the two that we can compare. Morgoth struggled with Ungoliant and could not control her. Would he have struggled with Ancalagon if he turned against him?

Third, why is Arwen so high? As far as I can tell, her "power" consists entirely of beauty and banner-weaving ability.

Apparently she was also a good cook (per oblo's post). On a serious note, she is overrated in my estimation - I definitely would not place her above the three wizards (or even Hurin, Turin, Beren maybe?).

Is Galadriel truly the most powerful of the Noldorin royal line?

[Thalion]

Fourth, I think Ungoliant ought to be higher. She is a strange and unique figure in the Legendarium, and she seems (to me, at least), to have a kind of profound, primordial power. Consider that she almost defeated Morgoth before the Balrogs came to his aid.

I'm not entirely sure where I would place Ungoliant, but I think there is something that is being lost here in the discussion of her battle with Morgoth. When Morgoth was almost defeated by Ungoliant, it was because she had within her the light of the two trees of Valinor..., the light gave presumably immense power that combined with her "natural" strength/power/ability was nearly too much for Morgoth (reminiscent somewhat of Carcharoth when he had the Silmaril in him)

When making a determination of where to place Ungoliant, it should therefore be noted that her placing on the list should be deminative of what I would deem her "natural power", not that as it was magnified as a result of the light of the trees within her...

[Lalaith]

Legolas, Tolkien says Galadriel was
the greatest of the Noldor, except Feanor maybe,though she was wiser than he

[Formendacil]

I'm not entirely sure where I would place Ungoliant, but I think there is something that is being lost here in the discussion of her battle with Morgoth. When Morgoth was almost defeated by Ungoliant, it was because she had within her the light of the two trees of Valinor..., the light gave presumably immense power that combined with her "natural" strength/power/ability was nearly too much for Morgoth (reminiscent somewhat of Carcharoth when he had the Silmaril in him)

When making a determination of where to place Ungoliant, it should therefore be noted that her placing on the list should be deminative of what I would deem her "natural power", not that as it was magnified as a result of the light of the trees within her...

I agree in general, Thalion, that Ungoliant's position on the list should be made with the her normal abilities in mind, but those normal abilities would appear to be fairly large to begin with.

Let us first look at Shelob, Ungoliant's offspring. Shelob is a pretty fearsome creature. Sam had the luck to be carrying a Gondolin-wrought sword on which Shelob was foolish enough to impale herself, but it says right there in the text that any other sort of assault would have been pretty much futile. "Not though the hand of Beren, Húrin, or Túrin wielded it" says the text, more or less.

Therefore, Shelob is a pretty fearsome creature. How much moreso, therefore, should Ungoliant be? After all, just as the Spiders of Mirkwood are the offspring (or so it appears) of Shelob and males of lesser stature, I seem to recall it being said that Ungoliant mated with lesser males, thus producing children- of which Shelob is one.

Therefore, if we assume a similar disparity of power between Ungoliant and Shelob as between Shelob and her offspring, we get a pretty powerful being indeed.

Personally, I should place Ungoliant just below the Balrogs- or possibly above, since the case could be made that it took all of them to drive her off, and that one of them couldn't have done so alone.

[Legolas]

Legolas, Tolkien says Galadriel was

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I recalled this quote - 'A sister they had, Galadriel, most beautiful of all the house of Finwë' - but nothing else to be found in The Silmarillion. Also, didn't see Fëanor above her. Fëanor and Finrod would've been my candidates.

[Thalion]

A number of notes:

1) In noting that all other species differentiate between a leader and all others generally, I think ENTS should be broken into ENTS and Treebeard, Treebeard's placing directly above all other Ents...small but somewhat (in)consequential

2) Why does Balin deserve placing above Thorin, whom for awhile he was subserviant to?

3) Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are very far apart on the list...again, what is the rationale? I think since they are both enigmas of Tolkien's work, they should be placed relatively close together...

4) Regarding the Ring and future placement of the Silmarils...I think one shouldn't place these on the list at all...the list looks to be one of living characters, the Ring may be considered the "essense" of Sauron, but thats still NOT Sauron...just as the Silmarils are the "embodiment" of the two trees, but they are not the two trees...if you include the two trees of valinor on this list, then yes, you should include the silmarils, and then by conjecture, you could include the Ring...but since I don't think there is any intention of including the two trees of Valinor (I personlly see this as silly), I think by the same logic you shouldn't include either of the other two...specifically, the Ring reflects the power that wields it (albiet with an evil/Sauron twist)...it isn't an entity unto itself...

5) Beren is listed lower than Aragorn? Aragorn may be the savior of Gondor, but Beren cut a Silmaril from Morgoth's crown...additionally, he was able to pass through the Girdle of Melian...he prowess seems a little low on the list

[littlemanpoet]

Can someone explain how the Blue Istari are placed above Radagast?Good point. And welcome to the Downs. :) I think ENTS should be broken into ENTS and Treebeard.Done.Why does Balin deserve placing above Thorin, whom for awhile he was subserviant to?Though subservient to Thorin, my reading of TH and LotR show Balin as more noble of character. Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are very far apart on the list...again, what is the rationale?Tom is lord of his realm whereas Goldberry is a river-daughter and rises to become Tom's spouse; beautiful and pucent in her own realm, yes, but that realm is small (her home and its surroundings).Regarding the Ring and future placement of the Silmarils...I think one shouldn't place these on the list at all.I'm persuaded, and have changed my "guiding principle" accordingly.Beren is listed lower than Aragorn?No longer. Thanks for your excellent points, Thalion.

why is Beren lower Aragorn?noted.why is Arwen so high?By deduction from heredity. But I'll grant that she doesn't exhibit this; although Tolkien says that she is the image of Luthien. What does that count for?we ought also to distinguish the primordial Melkor from the pseudo-historical MorgothDone.

Shelob is raised as recent arguments reflect.

I'm debating with myself whether there's really a difference between Olórin and Gandalf the White. I'm not sure there is.

Updated List (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showthread.php?p=456232#post456232)

[Mister Underhill]

...Bilbo still would be superior to one spider, perhaps in combat, but most certainly in culture and moral superiority. (#67)

Though subservient to Thorin, my reading of TH and LotR show Balin as more noble of character.(#106)Nobility of character, cultural superiority, and general moral fiber are difficult metrics. If you factor these in, aren't you obliged to bump the likes of Morgoth, Fëanor, Sauron, and Saruman (for starters) down the list a ways for their social and moral defects? Furthermore, I can't see what Trolls are doing so far up the list considering they have even less culture than orcs, apparently; all they have going for them is size, strength, and an amusing accent.

[obloquy]

I'm debating with myself whether there's really a difference between Olórin and Gandalf the White. I'm not sure there is.

You're unaware of the difference between a Maia in its natural incorporeal form and one that has been fully incarnated in the form of an old man?

Here's how I would design the list:

RED: [gods - Valar] *Melkor; *Manwe

RED-ORANGE: [unknown] Ungoliante? Tom Bombadil?

ORANGE: [angels - Maiar] *Eonwe; Arien; *Sauron; *Olorin; Melian; Curumo; Gothmog; Huan

ORANGE: [demigods - Eldar] *Luthien; *Galadriel; *Feanor; Glorfindel; Ecthelion; Galdor?

ORANGE: [creatures - Dragons and Others] *Ancalagon; Glaurung; Carcharoth; Smaug; Draugluin

YELLOW: [heroes - Eldar, Atani, Dwarves] *Hurin; Turin; Tuor; Beren; Thrain; Aragorn

GREEN: [the children - Elves, Men/Hobbits, Dwarves] Celeborn; Boromir; Legolas

BLUE: [lesser humanoids - Orcs]

BABY BLUE: [beasts]

Colors indicate possible overlaps between categories. For example, Ungoliante might be considered more powerful than some Valar. Another example is Ancalagon and Glaurung being on par with the Maiar, perhaps. Rankings in each bracket are more or less approximate, except where marked by an asterisk, which indicates that the individual is fairly certainly in the correct position (usually the top positions of the tier). Obviously my list isn't as extensive as yours, but I don't necessarily think it should be. Some things go without saying, and many individuals are impossible to gauge.

[littlemanpoet]

Nobility of character, cultural superiority, and general moral fiber are difficult metrics. If you factor these in, aren't you obliged to bump the likes of Morgoth, Fëanor, Sauron, and Saruman (for starters) down the list a ways for their social and moral defects? Furthermore, I can't see what Trolls are doing so far up the list considering they have even less culture than orcs, apparently; all they have going for them is size, strength, and an amusing accent.
I suppose we could quantify everything, but that might just take the fun out of it for a lot of us. Not to mention the mystery.

"Intelligence consists of (1) speech (2) tool usage (3) et cetera...."

(1) speech: +0 for no speech; +1 for 1 to 1000 word vocab; +2 for 1000 to 10,000 word vocab, et cetera.
(2) tool usage: +0 for none; +1 for 1 tool; +2 for two tools, etc.
(3) ad nauseum.....

blah.

You're unaware of the difference between a Maia in its natural incorporeal form and one that has been fully incarnated in the form of an old man?No. I am not unaware of this. It was my understanding that the Maiar who entered Arda clothed themselves in corporeal forms of one kind or another. Do you mean to tell me that Maiar in Valinor live there incorporeally?

[obloquy]

No. I am not unaware of this. It was my understanding that the Maiar who entered Arda clothed themselves in corporeal forms of one kind or another. Do you mean to tell me that Maiar in Valinor live there incorporeally?

Yes. At least, they can, and it is written that Olorin in particular often did. Clothing oneself in material raiment is very (in fact, crucially) different than incarnation. The Istari were incarnate, meaning they could be slain as any Man or Elf, and could not simply shed their bodies if they tired of them.

[Formendacil]

Obloquy is correct that the Istari were a special form of Maiar Incarnate. Although all Ainur who descended into Arda had the power to take forms, which most did, it was natural for the Valar and Maiar to not be bound to a certain form. Indeed, the permanence of the forms of Morgoth, the Balrogs, and Sauron after the Fall of Númenor, appears to be tied directly to the fact that they are evil.

However, when the Valar sent the Istari to Middle-Earth, the Istari did not just take a form LIKE the Children of Eru, as they were accustomed to doing. Instead, they took a form that was the SAME as that of the Children of Eru. In so doing, they became, in a pure physical sense, old men. The only extraordinary thing about them was their incredible longevity. Apart from this, such special traits as they had, such as wisdom or a certain magical talent, while not exactly common, were still found in the Children of Eru- particularly those of Elven race.

The power of the Istari is a veiled power- it is not the raw might of the Maiar. This was a part of the intention of the Valar, for they had learned well the great lesson of the Second Age: Men do not like to be forced to do things. Instead of being sent to Middle-Earth to lead the fight against Sauron, they were sent to HELP the fight against Sauron.

For this reason, although Gandalf and Saruman may well, singly or together, have been able to take Sauron on in a battle as Maiar, once in Middle-Earth they were forced to work in more circuitous ways. Not all power was gone from them, to be sure, but they were rather tightly constricted in what they were able to do.

That said, this entire plan of the Valar failed. Saruman turned to evil, the Blue Wizards vanished, Radagast was distracted, and Gandalf died.

At this point Eru stepped in, and decided to make use of Gandalf. He restored him to full life, granted him authority previously given to Saruman, and returned him to Middle-Earth. It also seems apparent that he removed some of the restrictions that had formerly bound the Istari.

As Gandalf tells Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli in Fangorn, none of their weapons could harm him. Although this statement can be interpreted a number of ways, it seems clear that Gandalf was no longer a mere old man in terms of his physical presence. It seems clear that he had to keep himself, as before, rather in the background, aiding the fight rather than leading it, but it is also clear that many of the actions he undertakes as Gandalf the White he COULD not have undertaken as Gandalf the Grey. More importantly, neither could Saruman.

This is important, because it demonstrates the changed parameters within Gandalf could move. Even as Gandalf the White, he was inherently, in his native Maia strength, probably no greater than Saruman- who had been appointed the White for good reason. However, he clearly seems to be able to operate under much less constraint than even Saruman had done under the original orders of the Istari.

So, the question is, and I leave it to the debating teams to get the mental juices started, whether or not Gandalf the White returned to Middle-Earth able to use ANY and ALL of his native Maiarin powers, and chose not to (for whatever reasons), or whether he returned to Middle-Earth with authority to act more broadly than before, but still not in the freedom he would have enjoyed in Valinor.

If the former is the case, then Gandalf the White and Olórin are one and the same in terms of power. If the latter, then Gandalf the White is a step above Gandalf the Grey and Saruman, but a step below Olórin.

[narfforc]

I agree with everything Formendacil says, and he ties up much of the Gandalf/Maiar problem quite nicely. On the question of The Return of Gandalf, I believe Tolkien says, he returned with enhanced sanctity. Was this because the Valar had seen the fall of Saruman into evil, and Radagast become distracted, that they wished Gandalf to have more ability to combat these weakness's, in this case does sanctity mean free from sin?. Doesn't Tolkien say of The Istari: clad in the bodies of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, maybe Gandalf the White returned with less of these problems to worry him, giving him more purity to his inherent power.

[obloquy]

...

I agree with everything Formendacil says, and he ties up much of the Gandalf/Maiar problem quite nicely. On the question of The Return of Gandalf, I believe Tolkien says, he returned with enhanced sanctity. Was this because the Valar had seen the fall of Saruman into evil, and Radagast become distracted, that they wished Gandalf to have more ability to combat these weakness's, in this case does sanctity mean free from sin?. Doesn't Tolkien say of The Istari: clad in the bodies of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, maybe Gandalf the White returned with less of these problems to worry him, giving him more purity to his inherent power.

There's no reason to believe he came back less incarnate than he was originally. He still employed Shadowfax for travel rather than shedding his corporeal raiment and traveling on the spiritual plane, even when speed was critical. In fact, there's not even any indication that his mandate had changed: he evidently still was not allowed to throw fireballs at mortals and shrivel them with his eyes. I theorize that the enhancements given consisted of the authority to break Saruman, a revitalizing through rebirth (he had been incarnate for many centuries and was no doubt weary), and the new provision that he could use all power necessary to protect himself from death, so he didn't have to bend over and take it like he did from the Balrog.

Here's some more reference on the topic:
Ëalar and Incarnation (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=5879)
The Ainur and their physical forms (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11462)
The Powers of the Istari (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2412)
gandalf and sarumon (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=726)

[narfforc]

Who said he came came back less incarnate???????????

[obloquy]

whether or not Gandalf the White returned to Middle-Earth able to use ANY and ALL of his native Maiarin powers, and chose not to (for whatever reasons),

In order to use all of his powers as a Maia, Gandalf must necessarily be in his natural eala form--or closer to it. All powers of a Maia are not available to them when they are bound to a corporeal form, so unless he was less incarnate as the White, this is not a possibility. I have taken for granted my own belief that Gandalf Incarnate (both Grey and White) has always had the same power accessible to him, and his restraint was voluntary and submissive to the Powers that sent him.

[Thalion]

Since Gandalf says specifically he represents "Saruman as he should have been", it seems that Gandalf the White still falls short of Olorin...Saruman as he should have been would not have shown his full might as that of a Mair...neither would then Gandalf the White...

[The 1,000 Reader]

That "large hound" defeated the Morgul Lord's master, Sauron. There's no question Sauron was immeasurably superior to the WK even in the Third Age, during which he was greatly reduced from his original non-incarnate form of the First Age before the making of The One Ring. Huan was greater than any non-Maiarin being of the Third Age, period. Read about him again.

I've read all of that and I stand by what I said. I agree with For and I have also stated that "just because your a maia doesn't mean you win." Huan beating Sauron doesn't make him stronger than all maia, it just means that he beat Sauron. Even then, that was because Sauron chose to attack the harmless woman on the sideline rather than the deadly hound that had just dropped its guard and cowered away from him. That choice got Sauron a face full of magical cloak and then a neck full of teeth.

[Legolas]

Huan beating Sauron doesn't make him stronger than all maia,

I think the point was not "Huan is stronger than all Maiar" - it was "Huan is stronger than the Witch-King." The Witch-King is not a Maia. He is a man, corrupted and made super-scary by Sauron's magic. Huan defeated Sauron, and Sauron was undisputedly greater than the Witch-King.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Huan defeated Sauron, and Sauron was undisputedly greater than the Witch-King.

Yes, but Sauron was crippled and made a stupid choice. He also wasn't in his "regular" form. Just because Sauron botched his fight terribly doesn't mean that the Witch-King can't pin Huan to the ground.

[littlemanpoet]

After reading the various well argued points on Gandalf the White as compared to Olórin, it seems to me that both manifestations should be represented. While I think Formendacil makes strong points in terms of Gandalf the White's status in terms of sanctity, it seems to me that Gandalf's own words to Aragorn and company clear up the matter.

Updated List (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showpost.php?p=456232&postcount=68)

[Thalion]

What places Carcharoth much higher than Huan...they slew each other...? And since the prophesy is being taken into account about Huan's death and his placement in relation to Sauron, since when does Carcharoth deserve a placing significantly higher than Huan?

Additionally, in reading simply the last lines of Feanor, Fingolfin, Fingon, and Finrod, we are given the following statements in the Sil:

Feanor: "Then he died; but he had neither burial nor tomb, for so fiery was his spirit that as it sped his body fell to ash, and was borne away like smoke; and his likeness had never again appeared in Arda, neither has his spirit left the halls of Mandos. Thus ended the MIGHTIEST OF THE NOLDOR (emphasis added), of whose deeds came both their greatest renown and their most grievous woe."

Fingolfin: "He passed over Dor-nu-Fauglith like a wind amid the dust, and all that beheld his onset fled in amaze, thinking that Orome himself was come: for a great madness of rage was upon him, so that his eyes shone like the eyes of the Valar"...Morgoth comes to the challenge but "and it is said that he took not the challenge willingly; for thorugh his might was greatest of all things in the world, alone of the Valar he knew fear"....hense we can deduce that Morgoth feared either death, defeat, or Fingolfin himself......Fingolfin wounds Morgoth "with seven wounds, and seven times Morgoth gave a cry of anguish, whereat the hosts of Angband fell upon their faces in dismay..." so Fingolfin is making a mockery of Morgoth so badly that his forces are crying on the ground......finally he falls to the ground, but "Thirse he was crushed to his knees, and thrice aroce again and bore up his broken shield and stricken helm"...until finally he falls in the pit and with his last "desperate stroke Fingolfin hewed the foot with Ringil........Thus died Fingolfin...most proud and valiant of the Elven-kings of old".

Fingon: "AT last Fingon stodd aone with his guard dead about him; and he fought with Gothmog, until another Balrod came behind and cast a thong of fire about him. Then Gothmog hewed him with his black axe, and a white flame sprang up from the helm of Fingon as it was cloven. Thus fell the high king of the Noldor..."

Finrod: "Thus King Finnrod Felagund, fairest and most beloved of the house of Finwe..." after he dies at the hands of a werewolf...

My points from these texts are the following:

Feanor and Fingolfin most definetly deserve placing above the other two...in what order it is hard to say...Fingolfin wounded Morgoth multiple times...no small feat, yet Feanor is named specifically Mightiest of the Noldor...yet Fingolfin caused Morgoth to feel fear, so this one is a toss up in my mind...

Finrod comes next...although he strove with Sauron for a long time, he eventually LOST and was eventually killed by none other than a "simple" werewolf...although he possssed powers to decieve Sauron (continue his and Beren's disguises) in his powers of song, that doesn't to me seem to imply great powers as this list seems to be conveying...additionally, since he doesn't die with a title like that of Feanor or Fingolfin, I believe he deserves to be placed lower than them on the list

Fingon ranks the lowest of these...he strives with Gothmog and presumably is doing fine until another Balrog gets in the picture and allows Gothmog to kill him...however, the white flame that leaps up from his helm seems somewhat pertinent as it characterizes somewhat of his character...none-the-less...I'd place him last of the 4

[littlemanpoet]

What places Carcharoth much higher than Huan...they slew each other...?
What is known about the two? I have yet to reread about them.

[Thalion]

Of the two beasts it is said that they fought to the death, that Huan actually slays Carcharoth, but that he dies as a result of venom of Morgoth in his wounds...because he left Aman with the Noldor, he too would die, but not unitl he encountered the mighiest wolf that would ever walk the world...

[The 1,000 Reader]

he eventually LOST and was eventually killed by none other than a "simple" werewolf.

He strives with Gothmog and presumably is doing fine until another Balrog gets in the picture and allows Gothmog to kill him...however, the white flame that leaps up from his helm seems somewhat pertinent as it characterizes somewhat of his character...none-the-less...I'd place him last of the 4


Okay, Finrod was killed by a single werewolf of no great stature whereas Fingon is on par with Gothmog and is brought down by a dirty tactic and Finrod is tougher? If anything, I'd rank Finrod as the lowest of them.

[Raynor]

yet Feanor is named specifically Mightiest of the Noldor.I don't think that might in itself is too much of a thing. Since he didn't use his mind, but rushed foolishly into battle, loosing his life for nothing, he only proves his "brutish" force. I would place Fingolfin above him, for his abilities, and deeds:
Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and of hand, more learned than his brothers; his spirit burned as a flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Okay, Finrod was killed by a single werewolf of no great stature whereas Fingon is on par with Gothmog and is brought down by a dirty tactic and Finrod is tougher?That was no small feat, considering esspecially the condition in which Finrod was:
But when the wolf came for Beren, Felagund put forth all his power, and burst his bonds; and he wrestled with the werewolf, and slew it with his hands and teeth; yet he himself was wounded to the death.

[littlemanpoet]

I'm going to stick with Fëanor as the greatest of the Noldor. Though Fingolfin is the most noble, it is the oath of Fëanor that takes power over Fëanor. This shows that the oath is greater than its speaker, not that Fëanor is less after speaking it than he was before. The oath was spoken invoking none other than Ilúvatar, so Eru's power is what overcomes Fëanor's native strengths, by Fëanor's own will, having spoken the oath. It is clear that Tolkien (I assume rather than C.T., though I may need correcting on this) takes this oath so seriously that he does not quote it verbatim, but narrates it. The point of this, in case anyone may miss it (at least it seems obvious to me), is that by narrating the oath rather than quoting it, Tolkien avoided calling it into being.

Your points regarding the four chief Noldoran Elves have been very well put, and I've placed them as seems best to me, though I don't consider the issue completely resolved.

I've placed Uinen over Ossë because she has the power to restrain him.

I've dropped Smaug below the eagles and hawks of Manwë because I don't see the evil spirit in him as being greater than the spirits who take shape as eagles and hawks, or as greater than Melian to Tilion.

One question that needs resolving: Are the "spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles [that] flew ever to and from [Manwë's] halls" (Sil p. 40) different beings than Thorondor and the Eagles that play the role of rescuer in The Hobbit and LotR?

Updated List (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showpost.php?p=456232&postcount=68)

[Lalaith]

Humph...so despite everything Tolkien says to the contrary, Galadriel gets 5th place? When boys get together.... :rolleyes:

[Legolas]

One question that needs resolving: Are the "spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles [that] flew ever to and from [Manwë's] halls" (Sil p. 40) different beings than Thorondor and the Eagles that play the role of rescuer in The Hobbit and LotR?

These quotes indicate to me that they are the same.

Thorondor is sent from Manwë, and is 'mightiest of all birds that have ever been.'

And the Eagles brought news of much that passed in those days to the sad ears of Manwë. Now, even as Fingon bent his bow, there flew down from the high airs Thorondor, King of Eagles, mightiest of all birds that have ever been, whose outstretched wings spanned thirty fathoms; and staying Fingon's hand he took him up, and bore him to the face of the rock where Maedhros hung.

Thorondor's statement points out that he and his eagles are the 'Eagles of Manwë.'

But the watch of the great eagles was now redoubled, and they marked Húrin well, far below, forlorn in the fading light; and straightway Thorondor himself, since the tidings seemed great, brought word to Turgon. But Turgon said: 'Does Morgoth sleep? You were mistaken.'

'Not so,' said Thorondor. 'If the Eagles of Manwë were wont to err thus, then long ago, lord, your hiding would have been in vain.'


The term 'the great birds of heaven' indicates likewise.

But Eärendil came, shining with white flame, and about Vingilot were gathered all the great birds of heaven and Thorondor was their captain, and there was battle in the air all the day and through a dark night of doubt.

[Side note] Morgoth's limp from Fingolfin is often mentioned, but never his facial scar from Thorondor:

And Morgoth took the body of the Elven-king and broke it, and would cast it to his wolves; but Thorondor came hasting from his eyrie among the peaks of the Crissaegrim, and he stooped upon Morgoth and marred his face. The rushing of the wings of Thorondor was like the noise of the winds of Manwë, and he seized the body in his mighty talons, and soaring suddenly above the darts of the Orcs he bore the King away.

Morgoth went ever halt of one foot after that day, and the pain of his wounds could not be healed; and in his face was the scar that Thorondor made.

(all of the quotes above are from The Silmarillion)

And the eagles of The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings are Thorondor's descendents:

There came Gwaihir the Windlord, and Landroval his brother, greatest of all the Eagles of the North, mightiest of the descendants of old Thorondor, who built his eyries in the inaccessible peaks of the Encircling Mountains when Middle-earth was young.

[Thalion]

Of Galadriel it is said in the Sil (Of the Rings of Power...) "yet she herself was of the Noldor and remembered the Day before days in VAlinor, and she was the mightiest and fairest of all the Elves that remained in Middle-earth."

Unless there is another reference that I'm missing, I don't think Galadriel is ever named above any of the males of the house of Finwe...

[Thalion]

What's with the "Gothmog 2nd Nazgul, Khamul, 3rd Nazgul" stuff...

Khamul is named 2rd of the Nazgul behind the Witch King, and no other Nazgul are named...

Gothmog refers to two entities in the legendarium...

1) The Lord of the Balrogs killed by Ecthelion of the Fountain

2) The Leutenient of Morgal who commanded the troops of Sauron after the Witch King is defeated by Eowyn and Merry

...of the second, which I believe is where you are getting the reference to him being a Nazgul it is never stated that he is one...and Since Khamul is specifically named 2nd in command (albeit only in Unfinished Tales)...Gothmog couldn't have been 2nd...PJ represented Gothmog as an half orc creature thing in RotK if you remember the movie, but other than that, we are given no reference to him...he could have been Nazgul, Orc, Man or other, but he is never described beyond this that I am aware of and therefore I don't believe he can be properly placed as a Nazgul...

[littlemanpoet]

Humph...so despite everything Tolkien says to the contrary, Galadriel gets 5th place? When boys get together.... :rolleyes:
Instead of merely complaining (as girls are wont to do in the company of the superior gender :p ), how about putting together an argument to support your contention?

[littlemanpoet]

Much thanks, Legolas. In that case, Thorondor, Gwaihir and Landroval must be raised up the list.

I stand corrected in terms of the names of the Nazgúl.

Is there any reference that anybody else knows of as to the nature of this second Gothmog? I fear that I was influenced by a certain Avalon Hill LotR game which named one of the Nazgúl "Gothmog". I thought that perhaps they based this decision on some authoritative documentation. My mistake.

As to Galadriel, there is much written (and much of it contradictory) in Unfinished Tales; does anyone care to venture a conclusion from that rather difficult set of texts? I have mostly found the contradictions between them inscrutable of a useful conclusion.

Updated List (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showpost.php?p=456232&postcount=68)

[Thalion]

Is there any reference that anybody else knows of as to the nature of this second Gothmog? I fear that I was influenced by a certain Avalon Hill LotR game which named one of the Nazgúl "Gothmog". I thought that perhaps they based this decision on some authoritative documentation. My mistake.

That's the unfortunate bit of business is that there isn't any other reference to him (unless there is one in HoME that I missed)...Letters doesn't even contain any mention of him...

...A few games out there have named all 9 Nazgul, some even with plausible names that are feasible Numenorean in nature (given that it is said that some of the Nazgul were fallen kings of old)...however, Tolkien himself doesn't name them, and any placing of Gothmog as a Nazgul while possibly may not be INcorrect, it technically isn't accurate...

[narfforc]

I think what Tolkien is saying, in reference to Galadriel, is after The Ban is lifted, she is the mightiest and fairest of The Noldor to remain in Middle-Earth. She refuses to go back to Valinor at that point. The moment Tolkien is referring to is of course during The Third Age and after the fall of Gil-Galad.

[Thalion]

I think what Tolkien is saying, in reference to Galadriel, is after The Ban is lifted, she is the mightiest and fairest of The Noldor to remain in Middle-Earth. She refuses to go back to Valinor at that point.

That would be my interpretation as well.......in fact in Letters Tolkien speaks specifically to how she refuses/can't go back to Aman even after the ban because she was one of the main conspirators of the original emigration of the Noldor...but she is redeemed as a result of her good deeds on Middle Earth and her passing the temptation to take the Ring when Frodo gives it to her...I believe there is even a reference somewhere to her having committed no evil deeds, yet because of the ban she was herself caught up the acts of Feanor...thus again...she can't be held higher than any of theh High Kings of the Noldor or her brother Finrod

.....an interesting side note I was thinking about, if one list the houses of the sons of Finwe in order of "might" or "relative powers", how would you rank them?...sticking to just Feanor, Fingolfin and Finarin, which house ranks highest and lowest? (by default that leaves someone in the middle)...slightly off topic I kno, but not necessary outside the realm of this thread...

[Lalaith]

Instead of ignoring the superior gender, when they make posts, elempi, as boys are so often wont to do...(post #102, to be precise).... ;)

Here's that quote again, this time in full...:

'Galadriel was the greatest of the Noldor, except Feanor maybe, though she was wiser than he, and her wisdom increased with the long years. (...) These two kinsfolk [Feanor and Galadriel], the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor, were unfriends for ever.'

Nothing about the Third Age, there...

[Thalion]

I think Beorn (and possibly his race) should be higher on the list...Dain, Balin, and Thorin Oakenshield were all at the Battle of the Five Armies, yet it wasn't until Beorn showed up that they really had a chance of winning ("But even with the Eagles they were still outnumbered. In that last hour Beorn himself had appeared......he seemed to have grown almost giant-size in his wrath"..."The roar of his voice was like drums and guns; and he tossed wolves and goblins from his path like straw and feathers. He fell upon their rear and broke like a clap of thunder thorugh the ring." He also kills Bolg himself ("crushed him") which finally caused the goblins to be dismayed and flee the battle)...

...No other person or being saved the battle from loss (or at least thats how I read it)...even though these other great dwarves were there...I would still account Gimli higher than Beorn because of his special context and the fact that he is allowed to go into the west with Legolas, but Beorn deserves to be placed above Dain, Balin and Thorin who were all at the Battle of the 5 Armies yet didn't turn the tide...

[Thalion]

'Galadriel was the greatest of the Noldor, except Feanor maybe, though she was wiser than he, and her wisdom increased with the long years. (...) These two kinsfolk [Feanor and Galadriel], the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor, were unfriends for ever.'

What work does this come from? I'm not denying its authenticity, I just wasn't able to find it myself...

EDIT: NM, I found it in Unfinished Tales

HOWEVER...in reading the passage (and this is going to sound picky)...I wonder what Tolkien means by the word greatest...to me it seems possibly to imply fame or had the most dealings with others...almost like he's saying "Galadriel had the most renoun of the Noldor, except Feanor maybe, though she was wiser than he..."...not so much that she was the most commanding or had more power than others, just that because she stayed in Middle Earth so long and because she strove against the forces of evil so long, she invariably will appear to be "the greatest" or have lasted the longest or something along those lines......

...A reading of the word "great" in the OED (for which Tolkien himself was a writer) leads one to be able to draw this conclusion, although it necessarily allows one to see the word "greatest" in a more common meaning of implying more power or statur...I back this by saying that the essay to which the lines come from are characterized by Christopher Tolkien as a "very late and primarily philological essay..."

[Formendacil]

'Galadriel was the greatest of the Noldor, except Fëanor maybe, though she was wiser than he, and her wisdom increased with the long years. (...) These two kinsfolk [Fëanor and Galadriel], the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor, were unfriends for ever.'

Borrowing this quote from Lalaith, I feel like putting my two bits into the conversation here.

Personally, I would rate Galadriel as either second or third of the Noldor. Although this passage equates her as an equal of Fëanor, I am inclined not to give it TOO much weight. As with LMP, I am inclined to discount quite a bit (although not so much as he) of what Tolkien wrote in his later years. In the case of Galadriel in particular, I find that Tolkien gets more and more fond of her over the years, making her more and more special.

Now, whatever Tolkien may say about Galadriel's greatness, I think a look at the Silmarillion will show just who the greater Elf was: Fëanor. He wasn't as GOOD an Elf, I would agree, and he was a good deal more rash at times, but in terms of POWER, there is really no Elf that can compare with Fëanor. In terms of physical feats, he was amazingly skilled. The Silmarils, the Palatíri, and a host of unnamed objects beside, were all the products of his hands. He was also an accomplished warrior, fell and fey in battle. Then there is the strength of his mind: he was a brilliant oratorian, moving the majority of the Noldor to follow him into exile. His words to the Messenger of the Valar (some say it was Mandos) were such that even the Messenger was amazed. And then there is the "fire of his spirit" which burned his body as it departed, and which caused his mother to perish.

Say what you will about Galadriel, her accomplishments are a good deal more muted.

So I would place Fëanor at the top of the list of the Noldor. Galadriel, as I have already mentioned, would probably be second. I left the possibility of bumping her down to third, in light of Fingolfin's accomplishments, but I think that she rightly belongs above him.

[Lalaith]

I would agree, Form. If we measure power for example in terms of being "a great character", Feanor is greater than Galadriel.
Also, while she was superior, morally speaking, his creative spirit was greater.

I always remember the first time I heard Feanor mentioned, when Gandalf talked about how he longed to see his hands at work, via the Palantiri. I thought at the time, if Gandalf has such admiration for him, well...

[obloquy]

Good posts, Lalaith.

Greatest of the Eldar (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2525)

By the way, arguing with Tolkien himself will only make this thread more hopeless than it already is.

[Lalaith]

Obloquy, I've only read the first twenty posts or so of that thread you linked to but it is hilarious. Thank you.

Edit: I've read the whole thing now and it doesn't get any less funny...

[obloquy]

Obloquy, I've only read the first twenty posts or so of that thread you linked to but it is hilarious. Thank you.

Edit: I've read the whole thing now and it doesn't get any less funny...

Yeah, it's pretty good stuff. It's a terrible shame that burra's graph doesn't show up because it's one of this forum's most brilliant posts.

[narfforc]

I'd like to go back to the Luthien debate, and say a few things that may have been missed. Firstly the powers Luthien employed, these were:

1. Her Song/Singing/Voice

2. Her Beauty

3. Inherent Power

1a.The song of Luthien released the bonds of winter, and the frozen waters spoke, and flowers sprang from the cold earth where her feet passed.

1b. But Luthien heard his answering voice, and she sang then a song of greater power. The wolves howled, and the isle trembled.

1c. Then suddenly she eluded his sight, and out of the shadows began a song of such surpassing loveliness, and of such blinding power, that he listened perforce; and a blindness came upon him, as his eyes roamed to and fro, seeking her. All his court were cast down in slumber, and all the fires faded and were quenched; but the Silmarils in the crown on Morgoth's head blazed forth suddenly with a radiance of white flame;...................She cast her cloak before his eyes, and set upon him a dream, dark as the Outer Void where once he walked alone.

1d. The song of Luthien before Mandos was the song most fair that ever in words was woven, and the song most sorrowful that ever the world shall hear ....... And as she knelt before him her tears fell upon his feet like rain upon the stones; and Mandos was moved to pity, who never before was moved, nor has been since.

2a. Then all memory of his pain departed from him, and he fell into an enchantment; for Luthien was the most beautiful of the Children of Iluvatar.

2b. Then Morgoth looking upon her beauty conceived in his thought an evil lust, and a design more dark than any that had come into his heart since he had fled Valinor. Thus he was beguiled by his own malice....

3a. It is told in the Lay of Leithian how she escaped from the house in Hirilorn; she put forth her arts of enchantment, and caused her hair to grow to great length, and of it she wove a dark robe that wrapped her beauty like a shadow, and it was laden with a spell of sleep.

3b. Then Luthien stood upon the bridge, and declared her power: and the spell was loosed that bound stone to stone, and the gates were thrown down, and the walls opened, and the pits laid bare.

3c. But suddenly some power, descended from of old from divine race, possessed Luthien, and casting back her foul raiment she stood forth, small before the might of Carcharoth, but radiant and terrible. Lifting up her hand she commanded him to sleep, saying: 'O woe-begotten spirit, fall now into dark oblivion, and forget for a while the dreadful doom of life.' And Carcharoth was felled, as though lightning had smitten him.

Well there we go, seems like a pretty good C.V to me, and what a mighty person, some powerful beings she got the better of there. What price for Beauty and a Song, did a bit more damage than the swords of The Noldor, including Ringil. One can say that Morgoths lust defeated him, but it must have something to feed off, and evil thought must have a reason. So whether you rate Luthien as an Elf or Hybrid Maia/Elf she deserves to be close to were her mother sits on the list.

[littlemanpoet]

Instead of ignoring the superior gender, when they make posts, elempi, as boys are so often wont to do...(post #102, to be precise).... ;) Ah, thanks for the reminder. I consider myself answered, thou most superior of the inferior gender. :p

EDIT: But it occurs to me that Lúthien never made it to Valinor (except for the Halls of Mandos which don't exactly count), so cannot be considered as one "of Valinor". Therefore, I take the liberty of leaving her at a superior position to Galadriel. I recall now that my original reason for holding her as above even Fëanor, was that she was born of the union of Thingol, one of the three Eldest of the Eldar, and of Melian the Maiar. Being half-Maiar places her above any other Eldar, seems to me.

EDIT: I've just read narfforc's excellent post, and am all the more convinced regarding Lúthien.

Updated List (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showpost.php?p=456232&postcount=68)

[littlemanpoet]

I don't know why unsupported opinions are being given so much weight here, but I'm done with it.
Well, ouch. :( Sorry to cause you such frustration. I'd be very much obliged to you if you would explain to me where I've gone wrong, and how to correct it.

[Thalion]

Greatest of the Eldar

By the way, arguing with Tolkien himself will only make this thread more hopeless than it already is. I don't know why unsupported opinions are being given so much weight here, but I'm done with it.

After reading this linked thread, I wish I had joined the forums 4 years ago to get in on that debate...but without going into a great discussion over it, what I think everyone missed in that thread is what does the word "greatest" mean...I said something earlier about what does "greatest" mean in the Oxford English Dictionary...the very dictionary Tolkien worked on...the dictionary that he relied upon most...the word greatest can mean many things...suffice it to say that varying opinions of the meaning of this word will give each person a different meaning to a statement of one elf as the "greatest"...none-the-less...I think narrorc makes valid points as to her positioning on this list...

on to other matters...

1) I think Tilion should be next after Arien...although she is called "mightier than he", Tilion still is able to defeat the spirits of Morgoth sent to asail him "Then he assailed Tilion, sending spirits of Shadow against him, and there was strife in Ilmen beneath the path of the stars; but Tilion was victorious." Because not much else is said concerning them, I think they should rank 1/2 wherever they are placed...

2) Since Gandalf the Grey was felled by a "regular" Balrog, I think its only fair to put Gothmog above Gandolf the Grey...just a small point, maybe up for contention

3) Not sure why Gothmog the Leutenient of Morgul and the Mouth of Sauron are down so low...for some reason I just have to believe they would be higher up than hobbits...

[obloquy]

Well, ouch. :( Sorry to cause you such frustration. I'd be very much obliged to you if you would explain to me where I've gone wrong, and how to correct it.

Actually, I was too harsh. It was just a few posts that were bugging me. Your list is looking decent. I'm still annoyed by Hurin's and Turin's placement, as well as the ranking of Nazgul above any Eldar (even generic tribal entries). Also, Ancalagon above Sauron is incorrect, in my estimation. I think there's a good bit of confusion in the lower ranks, too. Radagast and the Blue Wizards below Arwen and Aragorn; Frodo above generic Eldarin tribes; Legolas ranked above the Sindar; Mouth of Sauron below Hobbits; Gothmog of Morgul below Hobbits; if Frodo's ranking is due to his bearership, Smeagol is way too low; Dwarf heroes are too low; W-K still bugs me; Eagles and Hawks are too high, or are we comparing the entire group vs. individuals?; Gothmog the Balrog might be too low. Quite honestly, I think I just like my design better. It allows us to rank power levels without necessarily measuring each individual against the adjacent one.

Anyway, sorry about the previous post. I'll fix it.

[obloquy]

2) Since Gandalf the Grey was felled by a "regular" Balrog, I think its only fair to put Gothmog above Gandolf the Grey...just a small point, maybe up for contention

Thing is, Tolkien tells us that Gandalf allowed himself to be killed so as not to violate the guidelines of the Istari, while still ensuring that the Balrog did not survive to cause further trouble. Tolkien's comments indicate that Gandalf (even as "the Grey") was capable of handling the Balrog much more decisively than he did.

[Thalion]

Thing is, Tolkien tells us that Gandalf allowed himself to be killed so as not to violate the guidelines of the Istari, while still ensuring that the Balrog did not survive to cause further trouble. Tolkien's comments indicate that Gandalf (even as "the Grey") was capable of handling the Balrog much more decisively than he did.

What are you referencing? One of the HoME? Unfinished Tales Essay on Istari?

[obloquy]

What are you referencing? One of the HoME? Unfinished Tales Essay on Istari?

Letter # 156 paragraph 4 is what I'm referencing specifically.

For in his condition it was for him a sacrifice to perish on the Bridge in defence of his companions, less perhaps than for a mortal Man or Hobbit, since he had a far greater inner power than they; but also more, since it was a humbling and abnegation of himself in conformity to 'the Rules': for all he could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success.

In other words, he allowed himself to die in submission to the rules of the Istari; had he disobeyed those rules, he evidently could have prevented his own defeat.

[Formendacil]

In other words, he allowed himself to die in submission to the rules of the Istari; had he disobeyed those rules, he evidently could have prevented his own defeat.

This, however, is exactly the reason that Gandalf the Grey is a seperate entity from Olórin. The Rules which caused Gandalf to die were the very rules that, as one of the Istari, he had to follow in Middle-Earth. Without the rules, yes, he would have probably been able to deal without the Balrog with much greater ease, but he wouldn't have been Gandalf the Grey, he would have been Olórin of Valinor.

It was the Rules that defined Gandalf the Grey. Therefore, what Gandalf the Grey was capable of is dependent on the Rules.

I therefore support the position that Gothmog, Chief of the Balrogs, should be placed ahead of Gandalf the Grey.

[Legolas]

Is there any reference that anybody else knows of as to the nature of this second Gothmog? I fear that I was influenced by a certain Avalon Hill LotR game which named one of the Nazgúl "Gothmog". I thought that perhaps they based this decision on some authoritative documentation. My mistake.

There are several threads here that argue Gothmog's race - orc, man, Nazgul, etc. To me, the safest conclusion is that he was not a Nazgul because he was never explicitly stated to be one.

EDIT: But it occurs to me that Lúthien never made it to Valinor (except for the Halls of Mandos which don't exactly count), so cannot be considered as one "of Valinor". Therefore, I take the liberty of leaving her at a superior position to Galadriel. I recall now that my original reason for holding her as above even Fëanor, was that she was born of the union of Thingol, one of the three Eldest of the Eldar, and of Melian the Maiar. Being half-Maiar places her above any other Eldar, seems to me.

That's what the 'Greatest of the Eldar' thread oblo linked to above points out. Tolkien speaks of Feanor and Galadriel as the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor, and notes that Luthien is the greatest of all the Eldar:

Who together with the greatest of all the Eldar, Lúthien Tinúviel, daughter of Elu Thingol, are the chief matter of the legends and histories of the Elves.

[Lalaith]

Oh, I quite agree about Luthien. Mary Sue she may have been, but we have to take the Professor at his word.

[obloquy]

This, however, is exactly the reason that Gandalf the Grey is a seperate entity from Olórin. The Rules which caused Gandalf to die were the very rules that, as one of the Istari, he had to follow in Middle-Earth. Without the rules, yes, he would have probably been able to deal without the Balrog with much greater ease, but he wouldn't have been Gandalf the Grey, he would have been Olórin of Valinor.

It was the Rules that defined Gandalf the Grey. Therefore, what Gandalf the Grey was capable of is dependent on the Rules.

I therefore support the position that Gothmog, Chief of the Balrogs, should be placed ahead of Gandalf the Grey.

Sure, I concede the point about Greynerd being ranked lower than Gothmog. I just couldn't let Gandalf be dissed for dying to an 'ordinary Balrog.'

[the phantom]

what I think everyone missed in that thread is what does the word "greatest" mean..
Excellent point. Quotes pointing out levels of "greatness" cannot be used directly to determine levels of "power". They are two different words. As The Barrow-Wight said on another thread, according to his dictionary Luthien being the "greatest" means that she was the "largest" of the elves.

[the phantom]

I skimmed the thread as best I could, and I didn't happen to spot one of my favorite quotes from the Silmarillion. So, here it is. And if it's already there and I just missed it, it can't hurt to read it again. ;)
For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of Iluvatar, and a bright flame was in him. The works of wonder for the glory of Arda that he might otherwise have wrought only Manwe might in some measure conceive.
In other words, Feanor should remain very very high on the list, no matter what arguments others come up with.

[Thalion]

Well this will be the second time I attempt to post this as the first one timed out on me...grrr...

For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of Iluvatar, and a bright flame was in him. The works of wonder for the glory of Arda that he might otherwise have wrought only Manwe might in some measure conceive.

This passage, finally supplied by the phantom, speaks to the "greatness" of Feanor...when so many often say that Feanor is the greatest in a particular character aspect such as metalurgy or works of hand this passage lends them credibilty...not only that but it even characterizes Feanor as "mightiest...in beauty" a character trait often described of Galadriel or Luthien...

...this is not the importance of this passage, per say...its importance is to lend crediblity that Feanor is the "mightiest" or "greatest" in certain catagories...this question is often posited in response to the passage concerning Luthien being the "greatest of the Eldar"...people ask "greatest in what"...and the correct answer is essentially..."not in anything in particular, just the greatest" since Tolkien doesn't qualify this statement...but he does quality the statements about Feanor...which lead us to believe possibly that Luthien is the greatest elf of all...

...but to do so would not necessarily be to take the entire quotion in the correct context...I repeat it here one more time for argument:

Who together with the greatest of all the Eldar, Lúthien Tinúviel, daughter of Elu Thingol, are the chief matter of the legends and histories of the Elves.

The crux of this statement is "WHAT DOES GREATEST MEAN?!"...this question defines the statement...how you answer it will alter your beliefs as to what placement Luthien deserves amongst the elves.......as I've said multiple times before, defining "greatness" can be to say "of most renown" or "most famous"...to define "greatness" in this way would no way place Luthien atop a list of the highest in relative powers, but yet it would be an accurate description of the passage presented above...I say this because the alternate definitions of "greatness" that I provided can be gathered from the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives not concrete definitions of things, but rather contextual definitions to provide readers with alternative uses of a word as authors have used it over time...while this may not be greatly important, what is important is that Tolkien was a writer to this dictionary at one point in his life...this means he was chiefy aware of alternative definitions to words...including such words as "greatest"...

...additionally, a definition of "greatest" as "of most renown" or "most famous" is outside a proper reading of the passage above...the passage speaks of the history of elves and which elves concern their history most chiefly...this means that to call Luthien the "greatest" in this context could very well mean that she is in fact the elf to which tales telll the most about or to which legends most often speak about...legends may speak about Luthein more often than others for various reasons including that her tale with Beren is a bittersweet tale with a somewhat happy ending(?), that it is important for understading the history of the Elves (and later Numenoreans) or that is the most beautiful tale when sung in Quena or Sindarian and that they enjoy hearing it most just as some of us prefer to watch certain movies over and over (or read certain books...cough cough....Tolkien works....cough cough) because they are most entertaining...this doesn't mean that she had more power than other elves simply that the Lay of Luthien would be the "greatest tale" of the elves because it speaks of lmany emotions including love, despair, hope, ect...

...lastly, and least we not forget...Luthien is most chiefly written to be Tolkien's wife...so there is obviously some author's prejudice here...although I do not argue with what Tolkien wrote, I simply mean to say that understanding this may create a greater understanding why she may be accounted amongst the very highest echelon of elves...

[davem]

The crux of this statement is "WHAT DOES GREATEST MEAN?!"...this question defines the statement...how you answer it will alter your beliefs as to what placement Luthien deserves amongst the elves.......as I've said multiple times before, defining "greatness" can be to say "of most renown" or "most famous"...to define "greatness" in this way would no way place Luthien atop a list of the highest in relative powers,

I think the issue is one of context. What did Tolkien mean by saying both Feanor & Luthien were 'greatest'?

Tolkien states at different times that Frodo, Sam & Aragorn was the 'hero' of LotR. Clearly they can't all have been the hero - simply that at different times Tolkien considered one to be the hero, at other times he considered another to fulfil that role. But in terms of context a statement may be qualified by what isn't stated

In Appendix F we find the 'clear' statement about Elves:

They were tall, fair of skin & grey-eyed, though their locks were dark save in the golden house of Finarfin.

Now, CT has stated in BoLT1:

Thus these words describing characters of face and hair were actually written of the Noldor only, and not of all the Eldar: indeed the Vanyar had golden hair, and it was from Finarfin's Vanyarin mother lndis that he, and Finrod Felagund and Galadriel his children, had their golden hair that marked them out among the princes of the Noldor. But I am unable to determine how this extraordinary perversion of meaning arose.

Because of this, in the revised 50th anniversary text the editors (Hammond & Scull) add the following note to LotR:

These words describing characters of face & hair in fact applied only to the Noldor.

So, what we have is an apparently clear statement about the physical attributes of the 'Eldar' as a whole, but which in fact only applies to the Noldor. Whether this failure to distinguish between the Noldor & the Eldar as a whole applies in the case of Luthien vs Feanor is probably impossible to answer, but certainly it might be true to say that while Luthien was the 'greatest' of the Eldar, Feanor was the 'greatest' of the Noldor (unless we give that crown to Galadriel). Yet, Luthien was not strictly 'Eldar, but half-Eldar-half Ainur.

Let's not forget that Tolkien often made 'poetic' statements about characters & events as well as strictly 'factual' ones. And once we introduce the 'Translator Conceit' we have to ask which 'writer' within the Legendarium wrote which statement. There are a number of 'contributors' to the Legendarium, from Pengolodh to Bilbo, & one could speculate that they may have had their own particular biases.

I think this alone shows that we must be very careful about simply trying to trump each other with quotes....

[narfforc]

Davem makes a good point concerning the translator. At one point Feanor is 'Mightiest in beauty', then Luthien is considered the most beautiful of all the Children of Iluvatar. Feanor is 'Mightiest in valour, then Fingolfin is the most valiant. My problem is that Fingolfin was valiant in facing Morgoth in battle, how valiant was Luthien then?

[obloquy]

I think the issue is one of context. What did Tolkien mean by saying both Feanor & Luthien were 'greatest'?

Tolkien states at different times that Frodo, Sam & Aragorn was the 'hero' of LotR. Clearly they can't all have been the hero - simply that at different times Tolkien considered one to be the hero, at other times he considered another to fulfil that role. But in terms of context a statement may be qualified by what isn't stated

In Appendix F we find the 'clear' statement about Elves:



Now, CT has stated in BoLT1:



Because of this, in the revised 50th anniversary text the editors (Hammond & Scull) add the following note to LotR:



So, what we have is an apparently clear statement about the physical attributes of the 'Eldar' as a whole, but which in fact only applies to the Noldor. Whether this failure to distinguish between the Noldor & the Eldar as a whole applies in the case of Luthien vs Feanor is probably impossible to answer, but certainly it might be true to say that while Luthien was the 'greatest' of the Eldar, Feanor was the 'greatest' of the Noldor (unless we give that crown to Galadriel). Yet, Luthien was not strictly 'Eldar, but half-Eldar-half Ainur.

Let's not forget that Tolkien often made 'poetic' statements about characters & events as well as strictly 'factual' ones. And once we introduce the 'Translator Conceit' we have to ask which 'writer' within the Legendarium wrote which statement. There are a number of 'contributors' to the Legendarium, from Pengolodh to Bilbo, & one could speculate that they may have had their own particular biases.

I think this alone shows that we must be very careful about simply trying to trump each other with quotes....

I've seen these points before. The problem with your argument is that the note about Luthien being the greatest of all the Eldar is actually attached to a statement about Feanor and Galadriel being the greatest of the Noldor. In other words, Tolkien did not forget about one or the other, nor did he confuse his terms.

[davem]

I've seen these points before. The problem with your argument is that the note about Luthien being the greatest of all the Eldar is actually attached to a statement about Feanor and Galadriel being the greatest of the Noldor. In other words, Tolkien did not forget about one or the other, nor did he confuse his terms.

Aren't you giving too much weight to a single statement? Tolkien's thoughts were often in flux, & often one statement is contradicted by another. Look at the way Orodreth's character changes over the course of the Legendarium. At various times we have Feanor in the Ascendent, then Luthien, then Galadriel, & taking one statement about hierarchy as being definitive is purely arbitrary.

As I said originally - we have to look at what is 'unsaid' in any particular statement, not just at what is said.

[obloquy]

Aren't you giving too much weight to a single statement? Tolkien's thoughts were often in flux, & often one statement is contradicted by another. Look at the way Orodreth's character changes over the course of the Legendarium. At various times we have Feanor in the Ascendent, then Luthien, then Galadriel, & taking one statement about hierarchy as being definitive is purely arbitrary.

As I said originally - we have to look at what is 'unsaid' in any particular statement, not just at what is said.

Tolkien's words on this don't conflict. I understand that he often changes his mind, but in this case the quoted material is not in conflict with older statements. Additionally, it provides a concept of all three respective "statures" as they were conceived at a single time, without any one individual of this sort of triumvirate receiving special mention due to momentary whim. Again, at the time he wrote this, he was considering the stature of all three simultaneously and as compared with one another. Therefore it is the most solid conception.

Unless you're positing that there was another Elda besides these three who might be considered "greatest." In which case I'd like to see your references.

[davem]

Tolkien's words on this don't conflict. I understand that he often changes his mind, but in this case the quoted material is not in conflict with older statements. Additionally, it provides a concept of all three respective "statures" as they were conceived at a single time, without any one individual of this sort of triumvirate receiving special mention due to momentary whim. Again, at the time he wrote this, he was considering the stature of all three simultaneously and as compared with one another. Therefore it is the most solid conception.

Unless you're positing that there was another Elda besides these three who might be considered "greatest." In which case I'd like to see your references.

And who wrote this statement - I mean within the Legendarium? Is the statement to be considered the opinion of that particular writer or one by the 'translator' Tolkien. Is the writer qualified to make an objective judgement or is he simply making a personal assessment? What standards is this writer using - what does he mean by 'greatest'? How is he using the term?

[Thalion]

Tolkien's words on this don't conflict. I understand that he often changes his mind, but in this case the quoted material is not in conflict with older statements. Additionally, it provides a concept of all three respective "statures" as they were conceived at a single time, without any one individual of this sort of triumvirate receiving special mention due to momentary whim. Again, at the time he wrote this, he was considering the stature of all three simultaneously and as compared with one another. Therefore it is the most solid conception.

I'd concur that the statement itself contains within it a hierarchy of charcters as Tolkien (possibly through some source, I forget who within the legendarium wrote that particular statement) saw them...but again, I'd question as to what hierarchy we are talking about...Tolkien choose his words very carefully being a philologist...what exactly is the right reading of the word "greatest"?...maybe only he knows...

[obloquy]

And who wrote this statement - I mean within the Legendarium? Is the statement to be considered the opinion of that particular writer or one by the 'translator' Tolkien.

The statement wasn't written within the Legendarium. It was one of Tolkien's essays, written about Middle-earth from without.

Is the writer qualified to make an objective judgement or is he simply making a personal assessment?

He's qualified to judge objectively. They're his creations.

What standards is this writer using - what does he mean by 'greatest'? How is he using the term?

It's used as you see it. A general "greatness of being," obviously not intended to indicate the size of the individuals. One might say that Tarkovsky is the greatest of all film directors, and while that statement is certainly debatable and the criteria for judgment obscure, the intended meaning is clear--Tarkovsky is superior to all other film directors. Unlike my example, the statement we're discussing is not debatable since it comes from the Creator. Since the statement is unqualified, the criteria for judgment are evidently all those things that make an Elda an Elda (or Noldo). It may be true that Feanor was a "greater" craftsman than Luthien, but that does not change that as individuals are estimated in greatness by their Creator, Luthien is greatest.

[davem]

The statement wasn't written within the Legendarium. It was one of Tolkien's essays, written about Middle-earth from without.

Then its opinion. We know how Tolkien altered his opinions on characters & events within the Legendarium, back & forth. If it was an essay by Tolkien commenting on the Legendarium its just his opinion

He's qualified to judge objectively. They're his creations.

This would only be true if he had never made any contradictory statements about the Legendarium. As he did so, it has questionable weight.

It may be true that Feanor was a "greater" craftsman than Luthien, but that does not change that as individuals are estimated in greatness by their Creator, Luthien is greatest.

At one point in an ever changing, ever evolving creation. If you compare what we know of both Luthien & Feanor, where's the evidence for Luthien's superiority? Are you just accepting that Luthien is 'greater' because in one essay Tolkien expressed his opinion that she was?

I accept that Tolkien is better qualified to judge than any of us, but he changed his opinion too much for his words to be taken as the final 'fact'.

The Translator Conceit is central to this discussion. Tolkien too is a 'Translator' after all. By placing himself in that role (as I've argued before) he becomes a character in his own creation. So effectively we have two Tolkien's - the primary world Oxford professor who invented the legends of Middle-earth, & the secondary world 'translator' of the Red Book. Which one wrote the essay?

[Formendacil]

To go back to Tolkien's Fëanor statement, which the Phantom so eagerly supplies, one can see that Tolkien is NOT saying that Fëanor was the greatest craftsman (and so greater than Lúthien) but that he was the greatest all around- and then lists several fields as examples.

Since Tolkien elsewhere makes a similar (although without examples) statement about Lúthien being the greatest- and since he also makes a statment lumping the two of them together with Galadriel as the greatest, it is clear that they are both great, that one of them is the greatest- and that Tolkien's word, alone and by itself, cannot be taken as the final authority.

One must therefore, to determine which is the greater, take a look at the achievements and accomplishments- and failures- of the respective Elves to decide who is the greater.

[davem]

To argue against myself (which I have the greatest joy in doing) the statement re Feanor says he was made the greatest of the Eldar, not that he was, at least in the end, actually the greatest. Melkor was originally made the greatest of the Valar, but he subsequently fell from that position through his own actions. The same could be said of Feanor.

Of course, that doesn't clear things up, as Luthien (as I stated earlier) is not technically one of the Eldar (though the Eldar claim her as one of their own). She was half Eldar - half Ainur. Of course she would be 'greater' in terms of sheer power than Feanor, simply due to being half divine. Hence, Tolkien is technically wrong to class her as greatest among the Eldar.

Its equally true to say that Shadowfax is greater among equines than Bill, but we're not comparing like with like, so the comparison is ultimately false. Remove Luthien's divine aspect, (ie put aside those things she could only do due to that divinity) inherited from Melian, compare her to the 'unfallen' Feanor, at the height of his power & who is superior then?

This is my point about taking into account what isn't said as well as what is said & not taking statements (even ones by Tolkien) at face value.

[narfforc]

As we can see with the HoME, Tolkien was a niggler. He changed things all the time, can anyone put their hand on their heart and say that Tolkien would have been happy with every sentence of The Silmarillion as published, why do you think he never finished it.

[obloquy]

When one of you finds the true source of the quote provided from the '77 Silmarillion within HoMe (where we can be assured of its authenticity) and compares the date of that material with the date on The Shibboleth of Feanor, I'd be willing to bet the latter is the later.

Luthien was an Elda by nature. There is no two ways about it, since, having been born an Incarnate, her nature could not have been Maia. She was infused with the blood of an incarnate Maia, yes, but that does not change that she was an Elda. If you want to disqualify her because of her advantage, that's one thing. But to say she's not even an elf is retarded.

As for "fallen" and "unfallen" Feanor, there's no indication that he was any less powerful in his end than he was in his beginning. Elves did not diminish through physical exertion as clothed/incarnate ealar did. The quote supplied by the phantom about Feanor's might was from within the narrative and at a time when Luthien did not yet exist. It therefore does not conflict with Tolkien's later (presumably) note wherein he, as the creator of the mythos, unequivocally states the top three greatest Eldar, side-by-side, and which of the three is the greatest of all. Tolkien is not coyly toying with his reader since this piece was evidently not part of anything he ever expected to be published. Yes, sometimes he messes around and throws things out there only to jerk them back (Gandalf = Manwe?), but in this case his statement bears finality and is never contradicted.

I'm done.

[narfforc]

I'd be willing to bet that not everything Tolkien ever wrote has been commited to the published page, things will be released in the future that will either enlighten or confuse. The only books you can quote from are The Hobbit and LotR, the rest was work in progress. Anything in HoME that does not appear in LotR should be discounted, because Tolkien did not use it, and anything published after his death cannot be used 100% as evidence, we do not know if he would have used it or not, yes Tolkien wrote those words, but which version is correct 1940 or 1950. We are just going to have to admit that Tolkien wrote many versions of the same story, of which some are contradictory. Remember it was Christopher Tolkien who released The Silmarillion, if Tolkien was with us still, would he say: But Christopher old chap, you put in the wrong bits. Even in Letters you can see the stories changing with time, a letter written in the 40s, may well have been written differently in the 60s.

[Legolas]

This list is based on the all of the works we have this far. I don't perceive anything else being published. It is useless to throw out quotes because he may have contradicted them in unpublished writings. This matter is not contradicted by anything else we have, so there's no question - it is the way things were in Middle-earth according to JRR, which is what we're looking for in this thread.

[littlemanpoet]

What would you think of opening the list up to votes?

My thought is to pick one of the more debated personages, and request nominations, with backing evidence, to be laid out. After the nominations have been collected (and seconded?), I can start a temporary poll thread on that particular personage, and after perhaps a week or two, close the poll and modify the list accordingly.

Or would we prefer just to discuss things and have me make my best fallible conclusions?

[obloquy]

What would you think of opening the list up to votes?

My thought is to pick one of the more debated personages, and request nominations, with backing evidence, to be laid out. After the nominations have been collected (and seconded?), I can start a temporary poll thread on that particular personage, and after perhaps a week or two, close the poll and modify the list accordingly.

Or would we prefer just to discuss things and have me make my best fallible conclusions?

Hey, as long as the Witch-King is kept appropriately humble, I think I can keep my mouth shut on the rest. ;)

Sorry to sound snippy above, davem. I've just said all I think can be said on the matter.

[Thalion]

Two things:

The quote supplied by the phantom about Feanor's might was from within the narrative and at a time when Luthien did not yet exist.

The first tales of Luthien existed in 1917 (BoLT2, p3 (The Tale of Tinuviel)...I believe before Feanor was thought up (or discovered ;) )

The only books you can quote from are The Hobbit and LotR, the rest was work in progress.

I think that is far stretch...if we can only quote for the the Hobbit and the LoTR, this is a rather short list with nearly no mention of 1st age elves and not much concerning peoples of the 2nd age......I think although CT did edit the Silmarillion and may have in fact included alternate versions of things (he clearly favors latter versions of the tale of Turin), I wouldn't venture to say that we can't trust anything except that which Tolkien published in his own lifetime...as a perfectionist, Tolkien himself didn't think he was finished with LoTR when he published it, but the publishers were demanding a book...besides, even if Tolkien had the lift of an elf, it is doubtless that his tales would ever be finished entirely as he was always in the process of re-writing...

[obloquy]

The first tales of Luthien existed in 1917 (BoLT2, p3 (The Tale of Tinuviel)...I believe before Feanor was thought up (or discovered ;) )

I didn't mean before Luthien was conceived by Tolkien; I meant before she was conceived by her parents.

[the phantom]

The quote supplied by the phantom about Feanor's might was from within the narrative and at a time when Luthien did not yet exist.
Luthien did exist at the time. She was born when "the glory of Valinor was at its noon", where as the quote is from the passage mentioning Manwe's grief at Melkor's marring of Feanor, after Feanor and the Noldor have set off for Middle Earth.

The quote definitely includes her.

But I don't think the quote necessarily conflicts with the "Luthien is the greatest" quote. As Thalion has brought up more than once, what does "greatest" mean? What did Tolkien have in mind? It is very possible that there are some components such as popularity and renown wrapped up in "greatest".

For instance, it could be said that Star Wars is the greatest movie of the 20th century. Star Wars was absolutely huge! It sold gobs of tickets, mountains of merchandise, and featured cutting edge details and special effects (when it came out). It resulted in five more blockbuster movies, books, comics, fan clubs, toy collections, conventions, and fan websites. No one would argue if someone wrote in a book that Star Wars was the greatest movie force of the century.

However, that does not mean Star Wars, when compared to the other movies in the century, had the best writing, directing, acting, sound, visuals, sets, or anything else. In other words, it doesn't mean that Star Wars was the "best" film.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Tolkien saying Luthien was the "greatest" does not mean that she was more "powerful" or "talented" than Feanor any more than it means that she would beat Feanor in a game of billiards. Tolkien didn't say that. He only said she was the "greatest".

Feanor, on the other hand, got some extremely specific praise.
For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of Iluvatar, and a bright flame was in him. The works of wonder for the glory of Arda that he might otherwise have wrought only Manwe might in some measure conceive.
That quote is almost too ridiculous to believe. It's overwhelming. It says that the King of Arda, Manwe, is the only one who can even begin to comprehend the things Feanor was capable of. I mean... wow! :eek:

All of this next part is a rambling opinion of a sleepy biased phantom, so feel free to ignore it-

I have always gotten the feeling that Feanor was the most powerful/talented/whatever in Tolkien's world, but that Tolkien simply didn't like him as much as Luthien and Galadriel, and so did what he could to put them on level with Feanor. As we know, Luthien was Tolkien's wife, so he obviously favored her, and we've also discussed on this forum Tolkien's increasing Galadriel worship as he aged. This certainly influenced his writings.

From deeds and such it seems clear to me that Feanor was superior, and I think Tolkien knew it. When he wrote the quote I supplied, I think it was a moment when he was reluctantly admitting Feanor's unfathomable power- I don't recall seeing any quote of that magnitude about the others, probably because Tolkien, despite his love for them, couldn't bring himself to write things that were distorted beyond the normal amount of author bias.

When you consider Tolkien's feelings towards Luthien and Galadriel, I think it is not just likely, but a guarantee, that he favored them more than he should have in some of his writing. Anyone who has ever written stories or RPGed much can certainly understand this point. If a character within your story sort of represents you or a dear friend, you tend to give them more credit than they really should have.

[davem]

This list is based on the all of the works we have this far. I don't perceive anything else being published. It is useless to throw out quotes because he may have contradicted them in unpublished writings. This matter is not contradicted by anything else we have, so there's no question - it is the way things were in Middle-earth according to JRR, which is what we're looking for in this thread.

New Tolkien material is being published all the time in Vinyar Tengwar, so we can't say that there is no 'new' material out there which may alter our perceptions of the Legendarium. Osanwe Kenta for instance is a major (though short) work which definitely should have been included in HoM-e. CT for his own reasons left it out. Again, CT has edited HoM-e, and any final word on date of writing, relevance, what's included & what's left out was his.



Luthien was an Elda by nature. There is no two ways about it, since, having been born an Incarnate, her nature could not have been Maia. She was infused with the blood of an incarnate Maia, yes, but that does not change that she was an Elda. If you want to disqualify her because of her advantage, that's one thing. But to say she's not even an elf is retarded.

The fact that she had the blood of an incarnate Maia surely makes her more than an Elf. Luthien is unique. She is not pure Eldar. In fact she makes me think of figures like Merlin, Achilles, Cuchulllain (or Jesus) who have one 'human' & one divine parent. These beings, in myth & reality (if you are a believer) are children of this world & the otherworld, & play a very specific role in myth of linking the two worlds & providing a kind of living 'bridge' between them.

I didn't say she wasn't 'even an Elf', I said she was far more than an Elf, & so Feanor cannot be fairly compared with her.


As for "fallen" and "unfallen" Feanor, there's no indication that he was any less powerful in his end than he was in his beginning. Elves did not diminish through physical exertion as clothed/incarnate ealar did. The quote supplied by the phantom about Feanor's might was from within the narrative and at a time when Luthien did not yet exist. It therefore does not conflict with Tolkien's later (presumably) note wherein he, as the creator of the mythos, unequivocally states the top three greatest Eldar, side-by-side, and which of the three is the greatest of all. Tolkien is not coyly toying with his reader since this piece was evidently not part of anything he ever expected to be published. Yes, sometimes he messes around and throws things out there only to jerk them back (Gandalf = Manwe?), but in this case his statement bears finality and is never contradicted.

I'm done.

Sorry, but you're still avoiding the central question - which is what did Tolkien mean when he used 'greatest' in this specific context. Luthien was clearly not greater than Feanor in every way - she was not a 'greater' warrior, she was not a 'greater' creative artist, She was not a 'greater' disaster, her ego was not 'greater', she was not physically 'greater' in terms of height or girth. Greatest in what sense is still the issue. And who is supposed to have written these quotes (within the Legendarium)? One could see one of the descendents of Feanor or one of their people (one of the Elves of Eregion for instance) producing the statement that Feanor was the 'greatest' of the Eldar, while one of the Elves of Rivendell produced the statement that Luthien was the 'greatest'.

Assuming we're dealing with the figure of 'Tolkien the Translator' being the source of this particular essay we can only say that having read all the available texts (principally the Red Book) he would have formed his own personal & possibly biassed opinion, & opinion cannot be treated as 'fact'.

but in this case his statement bears finality and is never contradicted.

No, all we can say is that he died before he could change his mind. Looking at the way Tolkien changed his mind back & forth we can only talk about any statement of his being his 'last' one not his 'final' one. I suspect when we all get to finally meet up with him his (at that time current) Legendarium will not correspond with what he has left us. It may be slightly or very different, but for certain I'm betting it will not be in any sense 'final'.

[narfforc]

I was not saying that we should pack up and go home, we should carry on as normal, however I state again, quoting from anything not published during Tolkiens lifetime cannot be done with absolute certainty. A lot of arguments go back and forth until they descend into bickering, and then things get a bit heated. I just wanted to say that quoting from HoME can be very dangerous, some people may think that its the truth, in the same way the films have muddied the waters. As I said before, try to keep in mind when quoting anything:

1. Was this Tolkiens final word on the matter, ie: was it published whilst alive.

2. Are there any other versions that may contradict the matter.

3. Are there any other statements that may contradict the matter.

The reason I put number three in is because I would ask you, Who is the most beautiful of the Children of Iluvatar?

Tolkien states on one hand that Feanor is, then he says that Luthien is. Then there are other statements:

1. For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of Iluvatar.

2. Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and hand, more learned than his brothers; his spirit burned as a flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Finarfin was the fairest, and wise of heart.

3. Galadriel, most beautiful of all the house of Finwe..

How many contradictions are there in that lot.

Carry On Quoting.

[davem]

Was this Tolkiens final word on the matter, ie: was it published whilst alive.

Of course, as we see with both TH & LotR Tolkien wasn't averse to altering even his published works for subsequent editions. Plus if we take into account the changes made to the published works since his death (between 300 - 400 changes to the text in the recent 50th anniversary edition of LotR) we seem to be on very shaky ground even with the works published during his lifetime.

[Lalwendë]

I can see the Four Horsemen of Canonicity approaching over the horizon...

I think what this illustrates is just how difficult it is to make any kind of objective judgement on 'power' or 'strength'. Putting aside what we would define as powerful ourselves, from what we interpret to be 'powerful' in Arda, we sometimes have no clear primary source to draw on. Tolkien's books are layered and complex, way beyond the complexity of just having lots of characters and places and storylines; they are complex because he has given an illusion of reality through having the translator conceit and rewriting versions of his work.

Maybe the arguing is all part of what he hoped might happen? Have we thought of that? ;)

[littlemanpoet]

The translator conceit is one that Tolkien put into the work in order to create a feigned reality. That he succeeded is proved by how similar our discussing behavior is to that of theologians and historians. At the risk of seeming heresy, as the theologians who discuss the Christian Bible acknowledge one Author, so must we. Thus the translator conceit is a level of complexity, in fact a kind of game, that doesn't necessarily obtain for the purposes of this thread.

[davem]

The translator conceit is one that Tolkien put into the work in order to create a feigned reality. That he succeeded is proved by how similar our discussing behavior is to that of theologians and historians. At the risk of seeming heresy, as the theologians who discuss the Christian Bible acknowledge one Author, so must we. Thus the translator conceit is a level of complexity, in fact a kind of game, that doesn't necessarily obtain for the purposes of this thread.

So are you saying we should discount any qualitative statements Tolkien makes, or that we should take them all into account - even when they contradict each other?

And I'd say that the TC cannot be left out of any analysis of the Legendarium. Its far more than merely a 'kind of game' - unless you conside sub creation as a whole a kind of 'game'.

[The Saucepan Man]

I can see the Four Horsemen of Canonicity approaching over the horizon...Saucepan neatly sidesteps one gaping can of worms and promptly falls into another ...

As regards the Feanor debate, I would repeat a question that I posed (and comment that I made) earlier:

Does "power" include self-control? If so, Feanor should definately be lower. Turin too, probably.Feanor's talents in many fields are undoubted. It is clear that he was an immensely powerful chap. But it also cannot be denied that he was incredibly lacking when it came to self-restraint. There are many examples of the adverse consequences, for himself and his kin, of his feiry hot headedness. The question is whether this simply represents a misuse of his undoubted power, or whether it in itself diminishes his power.

I am not talking here in terms of his morality and the negative consequences of this for others. Although a number of his deeds were of dubious morality, that in itself is not a reason to move him down the "power list", as it does not seem that we are holding the moral failings of Morgoth and Sauron against them. What I am considering is how his failings negatively impacted upon himself and his family. His Oath blighted his life and the lives of his sons. His rash pursuit of Morgoth led to his premature demise. These were consequences of his very nature, not simply the manifestations of his power. So can it not be said that, taken as a whole, his "power level" is diminished by his impetuous and hot-headed nature?

There are others, Luthien and Galadriel included, who, while lacking in his raw power, chose their courses of action more carefully, and in a more measured way. In many ways, perhaps, they were wiser. Should this not be considered as an aspect of "power"?

[Thalion]

There are others, Luthien and Galadriel included, who, while lacking in his raw power, chose their courses of action more carefully, and in a more measured way.

I think by going down this route you will be "knocking down a peg" a lot of Elves...first and foremost practically ever Noldor, or at least all those who followed Feanor...even Galadriel we are given at times to believe left Valinor because of her loath for Feanor and a desire to make sure he failed in his quest in Middle Earth (although thats simply this person's interpretation...I have a feeling, that it will still much contention)...and Fingolfin "rashly" charged to the gates of Angband...Fingon allowed his troops to move forward against the hosts of Angband too soon when Gwindor charged first...Thingol 'forces' Beren to go to Angband to get a Silmarill for his daughters hand...all of these cases (and more) can be considered rash decisions or more biased towards personal feeling or without much thought put into them...

[drigel]

The translator conceit is one that Tolkien put into the work in order to create a feigned reality..... in fact a kind of game, that doesn't necessarily obtain for the purposes of this thread.
If we are quantifying the qualities of the players, then the realization of the reality has to be a given. If the reality is feigned, then so is the list. :)

One could see one of the descendents of Feanor or one of their people ....producing the statement that Feanor was the 'greatest' of the Eldar, while one of the Elves of Rivendell produced the statement that Luthien was the 'greatest'
here is the rub that is presented, in terms of TC. Especially if one considers that much (or most) of the original history to have come from prose or song, then translated (and translated again and again etc.), one can easily get mixed messages as to who is "greatest". Or, ranking the "greatness". If I am a poet or a songsmith being commisioned by the House of Fingon, or the Court of Cirdan, the Family of Gil-Galad, you better believe I am going to ensure my sire is getting his/her's money's worth. Praise will gush forth in abundance. Subjectivity will be a casualty of convenience.

[Formendacil]

Another point regarding the "rash" business....

LMP started this thread with a "who could whup whom?" sort of idea in mind. And while he's since taken more into account than mere physical strength/power, one should probably still keep in mind that "greatest" as being measured on this list, is ultimately "who could whup whom".

Fëanor, in my opinion, could probably "whup" either Lúthien or Galadriel- either physically, or in terms of persuasiveness and force of will. Or, at least, he'd probably be the best at it of the three. I don't think that he could actually persuade or dominate either Lúthien or Galadriel- but neither could either of them do the same to him.

[Thalion]

Especially if one considers that much (or most) of the original history to have come from prose or song, then translated (and translated again and again etc.), one can easily get mixed messages as to who is "greatest".

The problem with this argument is that in reality, the stories WERE NOT PASSED DOWN...Tolkien, for as much as he claimed to have "discovered" elements of his tales and to have been working on how they came to be in existence today when the history was supposed to take place years and years ago, created every story that we have from his own mind... he may have made revisions, but one can hardly consider that as the same as passing down stories from generations to generations...and again...Tolkien, as a philologist, choose his words carefully...since he was ulitmately the one writing the "final" stories as we would see them (or as he was working on them to become final) he wasn't restrained to believe whatever a past "story teller" communicated to him...

...as much as Tolkien wanted a mythology that incorporated elements of many of the tales we have today in various cultures, we must remember that his works didn't actually form the trunk from which all these various branches with similar elements came from...therefore, the work of this one man is what we are to consider...

[narfforc]

Everything cannot be won by brute strength and willpower alone, how powerful is beauty and love. This may go off track a bit, but listen to Johnny Cash sing A Thing Called Love, I know it is only a song but the sentiment is there. Who decrees with what and how someone can 'whup' another, Luthien may have had Feanor eating out of her hand, if the sight of her could enflame lust in one of the most powerful beings in Arda, then I am afraid Feanor could have been vunerable to. We know that Feanor suffered from Greed, Jealousy and Pride, surely this is proof of some weakness of his mind.

[drigel]

the same as passing down stories from generations to generations....
I wasnt implying "generations" (these were elves after all), I was implying possibly 3-4 levels. This is all off topic (sorry LMP). An example could be:
prose (original) / history (TC)
narrative (TC)
translation (from elvish to "westron" - Bilbo/Frodo)
and again translated from "westron" to early english (Aelfwine).
Or, any other combination. Granted, the effect may work only for me, and I tip my hat to the author. My point wasnt particularly TC, but the "commissioned artist's Conciet" of the subject.

and again...Tolkien, as a philologist, choose his words carefully...since he was ulitmately the one writing the "final" stories as we would see them (or as he was working on them to become final) he wasn't restrained to believe whatever a past "story teller" communicated to him..
I would say that history, as written by different authors of different races and cultures, spanning ages lost long ago, was exactly the point of the works. And if you really subscribe to the above idea, then only TH and LotR are the only sources you can refer to in building a list, as those were the published works that were considered "final" by the author.

[the phantom]

There are others, Luthien and Galadriel included, who, while lacking in his raw power...
There's no need to go further than that, Sauce. I think raw power is what we're looking for, not virtues.

lmp, since this is your thread why don't you tell me, would a good description of what you are looking for be sheer amount of knowledge, strength of will, number of skills, strength of skills, ability to impact mind and matter, and ability in battle?

Not to mention, SPM, that Luthien was rash as well. She disobeyed her father and left the safety of Doriath to chase Beren, and almost paid dearly for her actions (Celegorm and Curufin).

Everyone acts unwisely under extreme circumstances, and Feanor's were arguably the worst any elf ever faced. He loved his father more than any son loved his father, he created the greatest work of skill ever- the Silmarils, and both his father and the Silmarils were stolen from him in a single day. That, coupled with Morgoth's efforts to corrupt him, was more than an elf could handle. After all, the Valar themselves told the Noldor as they left that they did not have the power to contest with Morgoth. If true, then surely there was no way Feanor could've remained unaffected by Morgoth's attempts to corrupt him, especially when you consider that marring Feanor was Morgoth's primary goal.

Morgoth was the most powerful being ever created by Eru, and so I find it difficult to hold the unfortunate events that followed against Feanor as much as many of my fellow Downers do. In my opinion, Feanor's fall was inevitable the instant the Valar allowed Morgoth to roam free and Morgoth resolved to ruin Feanor.
Fëanor, in my opinion, could probably "whup" either Lúthien or Galadriel- either physically, or in terms of persuasiveness and force of will. Or, at least, he'd probably be the best at it of the three.
I agree.
Luthien may have had Feanor eating out of her hand, if the sight of her could enflame lust in one of the most powerful beings in Arda, then I am afraid Feanor could have been vunerable to.
I doubt Feanor would be as vulnerable as Morgoth in this area. Feanor seems to love above all else things that were of himself- his father, his sons, and his crafts. If he had molded and sculpted Luthien from stone and she then came to life, I can imagine he would have quite a bit of love for her, but even then I doubt she'd have him eating out of her hand. He wasn't the sort to allow someone else to master him. Not to mention he already had a wife, and elves are by their nature not prone to straying.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Yes, normally the Elves were faithful, but it seems Fëanor was susceptible in that area - not to Lúthien, but to Galadriel. "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn" in UT relates his request for her hair as a keepsake (trophy?). Apparently it became his inspiration for the Silmarils.

Sorry if that was wandering too far, but there are some interesting thoughts about those characters in that chapter.

[Formendacil]

Another thing to note about Fëanor and women in general is that he loved his wife Nerdanel dearly- at least in the beginning. As evidence one can relate a few pertinent passages from the Shibboleth, as well as the physical evidence of Seven Sons.

However, it is also said of Fëanor, that he took the advice of few- only his wife Nerdanel, and then but only for a little while.

Fëanor was, from what evidence we have, initially in love with Nerdanel, but as time went on, this love soured. His only true, abiding passions were for his father, his sons, and his Silmarils.

Esty makes a good point about Galadriel, but I would still be inclined to think that her hold over him, had she wanted one, would have been more of a temporary one, likely to dissipate over time.

[davem]

The problem with this argument is that in reality, the stories WERE NOT PASSED DOWN...Tolkien, for as much as he claimed to have "discovered" elements of his tales and to have been working on how they came to be in existence today when the history was supposed to take place years and years ago, created every story that we have from his own mind... he may have made revisions, but one can hardly consider that as the same as passing down stories from generations to generations...and again...Tolkien, as a philologist, choose his words carefully...since he was ulitmately the one writing the "final" stories as we would see them (or as he was working on them to become final) he wasn't restrained to believe whatever a past "story teller" communicated to him...

I think the point is that the TC was a central concept for Tolkien. As far back as the BoLT a primary concern was not simply the stories themselves but the means by which those stories had survived, had been transmitted from the time of the events they recorded down to the time he himself translated them for a modern readership. His model, as Flieger shows in 'Interrupted Music' was the ancient texts like the Mabinogion (taken from the Red Book of Hergest among others - & that title being the same as the one he gave Bilbo's work is probably not a coincidence). Ancient stories survived down through time in place names, manuscripts, folklore & songs, as we know, but most importantly they survived in varying versions, many of which were contradictory.

It is this illusion of verisimilitude which Tolkien strove to create in order to bring a sense of 'reality' to the stories of the Legendarium. A careful reading of LotR, for instance, will reveal that there are various 'styles' incorporated in that work (the passages referring to the Rohirrim for example are full of alliteration) this gives a sense that LotR is a 'compendium' (there's also a mention in the text of 'Findegil the King's scribe' who is one in a series of 'compilers/redactors' in a long sequence of transmission).

Moving on to the Notion Club Papers we see Tolkien trying a different method of transmission - psychic(memory) & physical (reincarnation).

The cetral importance of this aspect for Tolkien can be seen in the very fact that he introduces himself into the Legendarium as 'translator'. He 'appears' in the story both in the Prologue & in Appendix F. This both makes him part of the secondary world he has created &, paradoxically, separates him from it in that he becomes not the maker of the stories but merely the last one who passes them on. So they become not Tolkien's mythology, but England's. He's effectively saying 'This is not my my mythology, its ours. So, as Flieger has so effectively shown, there have to be 'discrepancies', 'contradictions' in the text. These don't make the Legendarium less 'believable' as Myth, but actually more so, because they make it just like the genuine myth/legend cycles we have.

In short, the contradictions are inevitable, necessary & most importantly deliberate. Think of all the named writers, loremasters & bards within the Legendarium. These are individuals, producing their own works, which are collated & passed on by others.

[The Saucepan Man]

There's no need to go further than that, Sauce. I think raw power is what we're looking for, not virtues.As I said, I am not talking about morality or virtue here, but innate qualities and failings.

Although the list may have started out as "who could whup whom", lmp when pressed accepted that we are looking here at qualities other than "raw power", in terms of physical strength. And, if that is the case, I do not see why an innate mental weakness such as Feanor's rash nature should not be taken into account in the same way that we would take an innate physical weakness into account.

It depends, I suppose, on exactly what we mean by "power". But, if we are looking at a character in the round and considering spiritual and mental, as well as physical, strength, then surely Feanor's mental weakness, his rash and hot-headed nature, must be taken into account. It hampered his ability best to achieve what he wanted to achieve and was therefore something that weakened his overall "power" in the broadest sense.

The fact that Morgoth "targetted" him is a fair point, but there must have been some mental weakness there for him to have fallen for it in such a big way. Indeed, that was no doubt one of the main reasons why Morgoth identified him as a means to further his plans. Morgoth was, in effect, playing to Feanor's weaknesses.

And while it is true that a similar failings may be seen in a number of other characters, particularly other Noldor, in no one was it as pronounced, or indeed as influential, as in Feanor. And to the extent that other characters show similar mental weaknesses, then these should be taken into consideration when assessing, in broad terms, their "power". Turin is, I think, a good example here.

And one final point. Even if we are just looking at "who could whup whom", Feanor's mental wekaness still plays a role. It is something that a clever foe, perhaps one such as Galadriel, would have been able to use against him.

[the phantom]

Where are you getting this that Feanor is mentally weak, Sauce? That's one of those things that always gets thrown around about him because it sounds good. But in reality, from what I've read, he was rather strong mentally.

Are you saying he was weak because he was influenced by Melkor? That's hardly good reasoning. That's like saying the strongest man in the world is physically weak because he can't lift a mountain.

The two trees were the most amazing of the Valar's works, so Melkor resolved to destroy them. The Silmarils were the most amazing of the Elves' works, so Melkor resolved to steal them. Feanor was the most amazing Elf, so Melkor resolved to mar him. It's as simple as that. Only the Valar could have prevented Melkor from achieving his goals. Only they had the power.

But instead of hindering Melkor, they helped him by giving Feanor a punishment (temporary banishment from Tuna) that, as Tolkien said, made the lies of Melkor appear to be true. Given the fact that the only beings powerful enough to undo Melkor's lies instead increased them, is it any wonder Feanor remained stained by Melkor, and that his father's death at Melkor's hands and the theft of his treasure pushed him over the edge?

The circumstances of Feanor's fall were extreme. His fall was the result of a precise series of awful events orchestrated (in Melkor's case) or at least not stopped (in the Valar's case) by beings with greater power than his own. And the fact is, Feanor's fall had to happen in such a way, because he was not weak willed or weak minded. Only events exactly as they happened could have broken him.

[littlemanpoet]

So are you saying we should discount any qualitative statements Tolkien makes, or that we should take them all into account - even when they contradict each other?

And I'd say that the TC cannot be left out of any analysis of the Legendarium. Its far more than merely a 'kind of game' - unless you conside sub creation as a whole a kind of 'game'.
Of what use is it in this "relative powers" game?

[davem]

Of what use is it in this "relative powers" game?

When people start using quotes from the works to justify who goes where in the hierarchy we have to analyse those quotes to see who says those things, what they say, why they say it & what they leave out.

Overall The Sil has an anti-Feanorian bias (being, one could speculate, due to the fact that Bilbo, the principal compiler of the Red Book, used sources of information, both living & written, that he found in Rivendell). So, the Feanoreans look bad in the Legends.

Take Celegorm & Curufin's attack on Beren & Luthien - who wrote that is important because the writer attributes various motives to C&C which may or may not have been true.

Or take Feanor. Was Feanor's story written as 'journalism' or as 'tragedy'? If SpM is correct that a characters moral/psychological strengths & weaknesses play a part in how we judge their innate 'power' (& thus where they belong in the hierarchy) then we have to ask 'Who's writing the report? Are they dependable - have they recieved full psychoanalytical training? Or we're they producing a work of moral didacticism, which may have little relation to actual events?'

One final point - if the Elves (as stated in Ainulindale) are bound by the Music as by Fate, then can we consider any of their actions to be 'courageous'? Wouldn't they only be able to follow the 'program'? Also, wouldn't it take greater courage for Men (who have no idea of their post-mortem state - or indeed whether they have any) to lay down their lives than for Elves (who know exactly what will happen to them) to do so?

[The Saucepan Man]

Where are you getting this that Feanor is mentally weak, Sauce?I never said that Feanor was mentally weak. I said that he had a mental weakness which should be taken into account when assessing his relative power.

But you concerted defence of him does illustrate another problem inherent in trying to come up with this kind of a list. It will always, as far as certain characters are concerned, be highly objective. Lmp recognises this and so retains for himself the final word. But there will always be disagreement over the placing of favourite characters.

One further point that has been bothering me. Why are Radagast and the Blue Wizards so low? They were Maiar, albeit subject to the restrictions imposed upon the Istari. As such, they should be an a par (if slightly lower, perhaps) than Saruman the White and Gandalf the Grey. They may not have used their power to great effect in the overall scheme of things, but they would undoubtedly have had a similar "level" of power.

And are Aiwendil, Alatar and Pallando on the list? I don't recall them being there. If they are not, they should be placed similarly, relative to Olorin and Curumo.

[the phantom]

I never said that Feanor was mentally weak. I said that he had a mental weakness which should be taken into account when assessing his relative power.
Ah, I understand what you mean. Thanks for pointing that out. But my response to that would be that every single being besides Eru had some sort of mental weakness from Manwe down to the common orc. Feanor's only showed through the way it did because he was specifically marked and attacked by the most powerful being in all of Arda (and a couple of unfortunate events and a blunder or two by the Valar didn't help).
But you concerted defence of him does illustrate another problem inherent in trying to come up with this kind of a list. It will always, as far as certain characters are concerned, be highly objective. Lmp recognises this and so retains for himself the final word. But there will always be disagreement over the placing of favourite characters.
Quite right.

On the subject of "favourite characters", I readily admit that I absolutely love Feanor, but at the same time I think my approach to him is far more factual than emotional. Indeed, it was ignoring emotion and taking into account facts that made me a huge fan of Feanor in the first place.

When one reads the Silmarillion, it is natural to come away from it not liking Feanor. He is not treated with as much sympathy as he could've been- he is not treated like a hero. Feanor's actions are never remotely excused, and the Valar are never said to have made a mistake in their dealings with him. If I had just read the book, I probably would think Feanor was an out of control, egotistical, evil jerk, and that the Valar were practically perfect.

But I didn't just read. I considered the facts apart from the way in which they were presented. I thought, "Hmm, Feanor couldn't possibly hope to remain unaffected by Melkor if Melkor was trying to influence him. After all, Melkor obviously was capable of fooling Manwe. Given that, it appears Feanor is being banished from his home for not doing the impossible. The primary objectives after discovering Melkor's evil should have been to catch Melkor and to undo his evil words. But instead, the first thing the Valar do is give Feanor a punishment that reinforces Melkor's lies. Wow. That is, without a doubt, the worst possible decision they could've made."

So, as I hope you can see, my pro-Feanor stance grew from my examination of events, not from the way the events were presented. Surely that counts for something, and puts my opinions in a better light than some others who fanatically support one character or another.

[The Saucepan Man]

When one reads the Silmarillion, it is natural to come away from it not liking Feanor.Well, I could not honestly say that I "like" Feanor. He did too may heartless things, and unnecessarily so, to garner my affection. The burning of the ships, forcing the remaining Noldor to brave the Hellcaraxe, for example. That said, I nevertheless find his story fascinating and he undoubtedly contributes hugely to the tale. For that, I can admire and respect him as a character.

Yes, others had various weaknesses that affect their "power". But Feanor's mental weakness was hugely detrimental to his own well-being, that of his entire line and most of those who came into contact with him.

So, as I hope you can see, my pro-Feanor stance grew from my examination of events, not from the way the events were presented.I can understand that. But I still think that, in your admirable defence of him, you err on the side of ignoring his negative qualities.

[littlemanpoet]

Regarding the Translator Conceit, play with it if you like, or not. It matters not to me. I think there may be more to it than I have so far cared to think. However, it can also render itself to such efforts as this thread no better than a confounding befuddlement bearing no useful results.

As to Fëanor, my further reading in the Sil has pointed up something rather critical to understanding him and his fellow Noldor: (p. 104: But the dawn is brief and the day full often belies its promise; and now the time drew on to the great wars of the powers of the North, when Noldor and Sindar and Men strove against the hosts of Morgoth Bauglir. To this end the cunning lies of Morgoth that he sowed of old, and sowed ever anew among his foes, and the curse that came of the slaying at Alqualondë, and the oath of Fëanor, were ever at work.

There are three things at work here, then, dooming the Noldor: (1) the lies of Morgoth (2) the oath of Fëanor (empowered by Eru since his name is invoked in it) (3) the curse that came of the slaying at Alqualondë (at the bidding of Manwë). Now, this curse affected the offspring of Fingolfin as much as it did the sons of Fëanor; whereas the children of Finarfin (Finrod & Galadriel for example held themselves aloof from it. Only Fëanor and his sons swore the oath. Morgoth's lies affected many: all and sundry. So the oath is the most specific and most powerful being from Eru; the curse less powerful and less specific, being from Manwë; the lies are the most far flung, and only as powerful as those who heard them allowed them to be, which reflects back upon the oath and curse. One thing more should be said. Being Eldar does not remove choice. It sets a doom, but within that doom are many choices, for which every Eldar is accountable. There is therefore a limit to the "determinism" some would read into the doom of the Eldar.

Sauc'sy point as to Fëanor is an interesting one. Tolkien goes to great trouble to establish the psychological (as it were) roots of Fëanor's character, what with his mother leaving the body after giving birth, leaving him a sort of orphan and then Finwë's resulting favoritism which caused its own problems. Loss of a parent is a rather obvious treatment in the Legendarium, repeated over and over again, with varying results depending upon the character. That Fëanor's character is so rash and, well, fiery, seems to be a powerful intrinsic aspect, complicated further by his orphanhood. A more self-absorbed character most of us have never met. So is Saucy right? And if so, what do we make of it?

lmp, since this is your thread why don't you tell me, would a good description of what you are looking for be sheer amount of knowledge, strength of will, number of skills, strength of skills, ability to impact mind and matter, and ability in battle?All of it and then some probably. Who had the ability to affect Middle Earth the most, and who did so?

This has been a fascinating discussion on many levels, but I find myself most intrigued by the current (halted) discussion between the phantom and the saucepan man in regard to Fëanor. Very well argued on both sides. (p66) For Fëanor was driven by the fire of his own heart only, working ever swiftly and alone; and he asked the aid and sought the counsel of none that dwelt in Aman, great or small, save only and for a little while of Nerdanel the wise, his wife.(p69)High Princes were Fëanor and Fingolfin, the elder sons of Finwë, honoured by all in Aman; but now they grew proud and jealous each of his rights and his possessions.Then the lies of Morgoth about Fingolfin's supposed ambitions reach Fëanor's ears - - - and he chooses to believe them. Why? Because the seeds of pride and jealousy had already been sown in his heart. By Morgoth? No. Fëanor began to love the Silmarils with a greedy love, and grudged the sight of them to all save to his father and his seven sons; he seldom remembered that the light within them was not his own.It's not a mental weakness that is the primary failure in Fëanor. Rather, it's the "will to hording" that Tolkien frequently wrote about, which comes of loving a thing more than it deserves. So misplaced love is Fëanor's greatest character flaw, and as Tolkien indicated, this was because he loved things of his own making too much. I suddenly see a lot of what Tolkien feared in himself, in Fëanor.

[Mister Underhill]

So is Saucy right? And if so, what do we make of it?I think he is, and I think what we make of it goes back to earlier observations that the list has little merit without some context.

If the context is simply that two given characters go into a cage and fight to the death, then you can sort out the beginnings of a list rather easily (I expect that's mostly what drives the current rankings, with a few notable exceptions). A theme of Tolkien's is that evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory. Consequently, while evil or deeply flawed characters bring more ability and/or will to project raw power onto the field, in practice they are not as "powerful" as they might seem since their attitudes towards power and its use and the choices they make ultimately leave them vulnerable.

I suddenly see a lot of what Tolkien feared in himself, in Fëanor.Nice insight!

[davem]

A theme of Tolkien's is that '. Consequently, while evil or deeply flawed characters bring more ability and/or will to project raw power onto the field, in practice they are not as "powerful" as they might seem since their attitudes towards power and its use and the choices they make ultimately leave them vulnerable.

I think it could be argued that this is an instance of Tolkien imposing his own beliefs, or hopes, on his creation. Certainly in M-e its true that 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory', but is that true in the primary world? Certainly we would all wish it to be the case, but how many of us can say it reflects our everyday experience?

If Feanor was Tolkien's own alter-ego, it seems he was punishing himself for his 'sins' in Feanor's fate. Maybe Tolkien created the world as he felt it 'ought' to be in his Middle-earth. I suppose it could be argued that if the primary world had been as Tolkien felt it should be he wouldn't have bothered to create a 'secondary' one. So, was M-e really a 'reflection' of our world, an attempt to enable us to see things 'as we were meant to see them' (OFS) or was it his attempt to get us to see the world as he felt it ought to be, but plainly was not (in his view)? In short, was M-e truly 'escapist' in the pejorative sense?

Yet this begs a further question - if the 'primary' world is not (as our experience suggests) a place where goodness & compassion ultimately win out, why do we respond so strongly to a world that is so 'out of touch' with our experience? Where does our innate sense that the way things work in M-e is 'right' & the way things seem to be in the 'real' world is wrong or 'faulty' come from?

[Aiwendil]

Certainly in M-e its true that 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory', but is that true in the primary world? Certainly we would all wish it to be the case, but how many of us can say it reflects our everyday experience?

Yet this begs a further question - if the 'primary' world is not (as our experience suggests) a place where goodness & compassion ultimately win out, why do we respond so strongly to a world that is so 'out of touch' with our experience? Where does our innate sense that the way things work in M-e is 'right' & the way things seem to be in the 'real' world is wrong or 'faulty' come from?

Interesting questions. However, I don't think that Tolkien would have seen Middle-earth as fundamentally different from the 'primary' world in this regard. It is an over-simplification to say that in Middle-earth 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory'. Yes, this is true to an extent - but it does not mitigate the Long Defeat. Self-sacrifice does not always lead to victory, and indeed it seems that the forces of good are doomed to lose in the end - at least within the world.

But insofar as the victory that arises from self-sacrifice is the 'eucatastrophe' of the story, I think Tolkien would say that it does accurately represent the real world. Tolkien thought that the eucatastrophe was a true 'glimpse of the Evangelium'.

[drigel]

I think it could be argued that this is an instance of Tolkien imposing his own beliefs, or hopes, on his creation.
The Feanor story does have something to do with subcreation. I also read it as a tale of the inevitablitly of disaster when children abide with the holy. But it's also about decline, and pride. Feanor isnt all powerfull. He is flawed, like all of us. The power that comes from him is the work he crafted, which was greater than him or any of the other children - well nigh unto the Vala themselves. This sets him apart for me, regardless of physical attributes.

So, was M-e really a 'reflection' of our world, an attempt to enable us to see things 'as we were meant to see them' (OFS) or was it his attempt to get us to see the world as he felt it ought to be, but plainly was not (in his view)? In short, was M-e truly 'escapist' in the pejorative sense?
I dont think that was the intent of the author. It is IMO a reverse reflection, to stay with your analogy. But being of, and about Fairy is beyond conscious human history. Its Europe, not of an earlier time, rather than an earlier imagination (paraphrasing). You can define or describe a reflection, but you cant pick it up, weigh it, or break it apart.

[davem]

However, I don't think that Tolkien would have seen Middle-earth as fundamentally different from the 'primary' world in this regard. It is an over-simplification to say that in Middle-earth 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory'. Yes, this is true to an extent - but it does not mitigate the Long Defeat. Self-sacrifice does not always lead to victory, and indeed it seems that the forces of good are doomed to lose in the end - at least within the world.

Yet this is a central theme in LotR - it is Frodo's act of mercy to Gollum (as Tolkien himself stated) which ultimately leads to the destruction of the Ring. Yet is this actually logical, or is it Tolkien's fantasy of how acts of mercy ought to work out in real life. Of course, within the story it 'makes sense', & seems a 'logical' conclusion, but is that merely because we have been 'taken in' by the story? If we were told by someone that a similar series of events had happened in real life would we be inclined to believe them? In other words, based on our real life experiences, would we believe such a thing could happen, or would we instead think 'Er, I'd like to believe that, but life isn't like that.'

I suppose what I'm asking is, while we can accept Eucatastrophes in stories, do they actually happen in real life - or do we merely wish that they would happen? Perhaps we even convince ourselves sometimes that they do happen. But what's interesting is our desire for them - where does that come from is what I'm asking. Do stories shape our desire, make us want things that aren't true, or do they awaken a sense of something else, a sense that the stories are telling us the way things really were meant to be? Are they attempts to awaken 'memories' of 'Arda Unmarred', do they in effect 'alienate' us from our fallen state so that we will seek our unfallen state?

And, yes, I know this takes the thread way off-topic.....

EDIT. My thinking here is inspired by an essay I read recently 'the LotR as Literature' by Burton Raffel in the collection Tolkien & the Critics. Raffel mentions a story by Nathaniel West 'A Cooll Million'. In one episode

'the naive hero defends a young lady from a bully, beats the bully fair & square, holds out his hand to the bully afterwards, & is promply hauled into oblivion (the young lady, who faints at this sight, is promptly raped by the bully)'

Now what's interesting is that in reading this precis I felt the 'wrongness' of this incident far more than if I'd read of that in a newspaper as an actual event in the real world. In the latter case I'd probably have thought 'Horrible, but typical - that's the kind of society we live in!' but in a 'secondary world' its almost as if I expect 'better' from the subcreator - I want to be told how things ought to be, not how they are. Its as if West (& maybe I'm being unfair on him, as I haven't read the actual story) has 'let me down' by simply telling me how things are in the world I live in.

Yet Tolkien's Legendarium is full of such horrors as well as moral victories - The Sil in particular - but in a sense they don't move us as much, feel as 'True' as the Eucatastrophes'. They merely show us the world as we know it, as opposed to the way we feel it should be...

[drigel]

while we can accept Eucatastrophes in stories, do they actually happen in real life - or do we merely wish that they would happen?
Its as if West (& maybe I'm being unfair on him, as I haven't read the actual story) has 'let me down' by simply telling me how things are in the world I live in.
There is no "happily ever after" in that example that you gave. There was none for Frodo either. In terms of justice, that is. The rest of ME - yes. But, isnt the whole point of eucatastrophes the fact that it is an internal process? Is not whole point of self sacrifice in the deed itself, regardless of outcome? If I experience eucatastrophe standing right next to you, would you notice it?

They merely show us the world as we know it, as opposed to the way we feel it should be...
I wouldnt want it any other way. What I feel "should be" may not be how you feel.

[davem]

There is no "happily ever after" in that example that you gave. There was none for Frodo either. In terms of justice, that is. The rest of ME - yes. But, isnt the whole point of eucatastrophes the fact that it is an internal process? Is not whole point of self sacrifice in the deed itself, regardless of outcome? If I experience eucatastrophe standing right next to you, would you notice it?


I wouldnt want it any other way. What I feel should be may not be how you feel.

So are Eucatastrophes merely subjective? Tolkien says the greatest Eucatastrophe was the Resurrection of Jesus. So, would you say the Eucatastrophic experience is merely how we feel about an event rather than the event itself being, by its nature, Eucatastrophic? The problem I have with that is that for an event to produce a Eucatastrophic experience in an individual it must be in response to a specific kind of event (a sudden unexpected turn of events, never to be looked for to recur', etc) - a 'miraculous grace'. If you experienced a feeling of Eucatastrophe at a particular event, & I didn't wouldn't that mean I'd missed something - ie that I wasn't responding to an objective occurrence which I should respond to in a similar way?

[littlemanpoet]

There was a potential Eucatastrophe in LotR, in the situation between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum. Though it could have been, it was not, and this was because of choice. Sméagol was on the verge of repentance when Sam woke up. What if Sam had remained asleep and Frodo woken instead? What if Sam had not reacted out of his biases, but had seen Sméagol at a spiritual crossroads, assuming that such a thing was even possible for Sam? And what if Sméagol had not withered and been subsumed into Gollum's hatred by Sam's meanness? Tolkien, it is known, did find it necessary to think out an entire plot development based on this possible turning point, so we know that it was pivotal. But Sam did react meanly. Frodo did remain asleep. Sméagol was subsumed into Gollum. Thus we had not a Eucatastrophe, but a tragedy. This tragedy became however part and parcel of a yet greater eucatastrophe, however devastating and tragic it was for Sméagol.

The example you offered, davem, was not tragedy but irony, and a most black one at that, in that it was so unremitting. There was no grace in it. We know that the world can be that ugly, and that potential is, I think, what you (and I) react so strongly against (I had the same experience watching the recent film, Crash which I never saw to the end I was so revolted).

But we also believe that primary life has the potential for grace, for eucatastrophe. (I see that I am at this point merely repeating what Tolkien said so well in On Fairy Stories.)

My point in bringing up this potential eucatastrophe in LotR is that the best stories do reflect real life as we know it, with all of its best hopes and worst fears.

I do, of course, have my own answers to the 'ultimate' questions you raise, but I feel it would be better for you to arrive at answers you need rather than for me to supply those that I need.

[drigel]

So are Eucatastrophes merely subjective? Tolkien says the greatest Eucatastrophe was the Resurrection of Jesus. So, would you say the Eucatastrophic experience is merely how we feel about an event rather than the event itself being, by its nature, Eucatastrophic?
Its all relative - varying degrees. The Resurrection is the ultimate, for Christians anyways, but for a Hindu... eh - not so exciting. I do commend you for the use of the word eucatastrophic, hussah!

There are other experiences for me that have occured in a space and a time that is of a more immediate nature to my personal reality, therefore I can only say for myself that it is a subjective internal process. Or lets say 2 people get in to a car accident, and both have near death experiences. They might not relate to it in the same way. One might say "I was so lucky", and thats it. The other would say "I was granted grace for some reason. I have been on the wrong path, now I am set on the right path", etc. For a society - the group as a body would have to have something in common for the group as a body to experience eucatastrophe - a common faith, a common enemy that has been overcome, a UFO landing in London, etc.

There are ideals revolving around the works that dont ever change, but ideals mean nothing without the individual. The primary world "as it should have been" for me would only apply to Valinor. In the sub-creation of ME, you would have to force justice onto a world where the genie is already out of the bottle, as it were.

I guess the point I was driving at was that it's not my nature to expect the external world to fit itself in my consciousness, regardless of my state of grace. I feel that I would be delusional or hallucinating otherwise. IMO, there were many acts of self-sacrifice in the 1st (or any) age that went unrewarded, ignored, that had no positive results for the individual. Those acts were just as significant and important (if only for the self-sacrificer's grace, or spiritual state) as the ones that had results, and were recorded in song. Conversely, how many goodly creatures died in the War of Wrath, when Beleriand was broken? Yet this is an event that I would say would be considered Eucatastrophic, at least to the players in the drama.

If you experienced a feeling of Eucatastrophe at a particular event, & I didn't wouldn't that mean I'd missed something - ie that I wasn't responding to an objective occurrence which I should respond to in a similar way?
Or, on the other hand, if you, along with a group of others, watched me commit an act of sacrifice, and didnt get rewarded for the act, would you think I was a loser? I wouldn't, no matter how many people thought I was.

[Mister Underhill]

Certainly in M-e its true that 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory', but is that true in the primary world? It is an over-simplification to say that in Middle-earth 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory'. Yes, this is true to an extent - but it does not mitigate the Long Defeat.There is a certain tension between faith in an ultimate spiritual victory, and the pessimism of "The Long Defeat". I think it's a very relatable tension, and one that makes the spiritual elements of LotR all the more believable. The promise of eternal bliss may ring hollow while we're down here suffering in the muck.

But within a spiritual context, one can argue (I daresay Tolkien might argue) that self-sacrifice always leads to (spiritual) victory, even if within the bounds of time and the material world it yields an apparent defeat. There is the grace of the act itself -- of serving others; then there are the (often unknowable) consequences of the act, however small, within the grand scheme of things.

These ideas sounded more coherent when they were in my head.:rolleyes: Still, pressing on:
There is no "happily ever after" in that example that you gave. There was none for Frodo either.Except that Frodo's journey didn't end with his voyage West; in a way, it was only beginning.

[littlemanpoet]

Upon further reading in the Sil it becomes clear that Finarfin's heirs also fell under the curse.

(129)Then the sons of Finarfin departed from Menegroth with heavy hearts, perceiving how the words of Mandos would ever be made true, and that none of the Noldor that followed after Fëanor could escape the shadow that lay upon his house.Grim words.

So all the Noldor were under Mandos' curse that was sanctioned by Manwë, as a result of the Slaying of Alqualondë.

Only the sons of Fëanor were bound by the oath of the Silmarils. However, Fingolfin's house, by his oath to follow Fëanor wheresoever he leads, does play into this oath. Complicated.

Now here's a question: How did the lies of Morgoth get spread, with him holed up in Thangorodrim during that centuries long siege?

Updated List (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showpost.php?p=456232&postcount=68)

[narfforc]

Morgoth had many spies, and once the seeds were sown, it only took time for the half-truths and lies to grow, a bit like Chinese whispers. One of the reasons Hurin was shunned was because no-one trusted that Morgoth released him for any good reason than to do harm.

[Yuukale Narmo]

I'm sorry, but i just couldn't read all of the replies to the topic, my primary intent here is just defend the position on 3 elves, in my opinion, the mightiest of all elves.
Fëanor, Galadriel, Fingolfin.
I really think they should be placed above the witch king (in the original and first post of the list)
Why ?

The Feanor story does have something to do with subcreation. I also read it as a tale of the inevitablitly of disaster when children abide with the holy. But it's also about decline, and pride. Feanor isnt all powerfull. He is flawed, like all of us. The power that comes from him is the work he crafted, which was greater than him or any of the other children - well nigh unto the Vala themselves. This sets him apart for me, regardless of physical attributes.


Considering Fingolfin in a 1X1 contest with morgoth, he proved to be quite a worthy enemy (ok, morgoth had already shed much of his power in the land but still was supreme ruler)

Now consider Fëanor, he was the greates of all elves, because he just had more than any other. His mother just gave more of her Fëa to feed him, than did any other mom, so this fact, thus the dagor dagorath episode makes me believe he was the mightiest in body of all elves and men (i would also include "mind" but by doing this we would need to compare him with Felagund).

And Galadriel, where does she stands ? It is said that she could perfectly match any elf (phisically speaking) in the games held at Valinor , and if my memory does not fail me, she could match quite well Fëanor's phisical prowess too...

So, if Fëanor is stronger than Fingolfin and Galadriel is not far from Fëanor's power....
Thus, elves are fearless, so any of these could easily overcome the Witch-King....

I'll stop by here, let's see wat you think about my theories.

Namárië.

[littlemanpoet]

Yuukale Narmo, thanks for joining the discussion. I'm in agreement with you. Please click on the link, "Updated List", below in this post for the most recent edition of the list.

EDIT: Well, I could kick myself. I forgot to put the link up. Here goes....

Updated List (http://www.forums.barrowdowns.com./showpost.php?p=456232&postcount=68)

[mark12_30]

There is a certain tension between faith in an ultimate spiritual victory, and the pessimism of "The Long Defeat". I think it's a very relatable tension, and one that makes the spiritual elements of LotR all the more believable. .

Sam's white star above the Ephel Duath comes to mind.

But within a spiritual context, one can argue (I daresay Tolkien might argue) that self-sacrifice always leads to (spiritual) victory, even if within the bounds of time and the material world it yields an apparent defeat. .

Well said.

There is the grace of the act itself -- of serving others; then there are the (often unknowable) consequences of the act, however small, within the grand scheme of things. .

Also well said. ..."I go now to my fathers, in whose mighty company I shall not now be ashamed."

Except that Frodo's journey didn't end with his journey West; in a way, it was only beginning.

Aye. The grey rain curtain rolling back to reveal white shores and a far green country, with the wind carrying sweet song and fragrance, is heartbreaking due to our temporary loss... not Frodo's.



Now here's a question: How did the lies of Morgoth get spread, with him holed up in Thangorodrim during that centuries long siege?

Lies echo in the mind of the listener long after the liar has departed.