Dragons vs. Balrogs?

[Ilúvatar]

Which are actually the mightiest? For instance, if Gothmog would have challenged Glaurung in a duel back in the old days, who would have won? I can't remember I've read anywhere which are the most powerful. My call would be for the dragons though, since they seem to have a bit more intellectual skills than the balrogs. And why not, Glaurung could just fly up in the air and breath fire at Gothmog, but seriously, would that do any damage since balrogs are practically made of flames? If giving this a thought, you would maybe vote for Gothmog since he wouldn't have so hard hurting Glaurung, just a little slash with the wip and the sword, and he's out of the game? Glaurung would probably, if the flames don't work, have to attack with claws or bite Gothmog or something, and that probably wouldn't have been too successful since he would probably have burned himself (if dragons dont have some sort of natural resistance to fire too, even though they're scales alone are very protective). But, Glaurung is also a powerful spellcaster, for example he made Morwen forget all about her life with Húrin and the rest of her family and former life. So what do you think? Gothmog or Glaurung?

[Kuruharan]

Glaurung could just fly up in the air and breath fire at Gothmog

Well, Glaurung could not fly, but some dragons could.

There is one point when Voronwe and Tuor are passing the Spring of Ivrin where Voronwe says that Glaurung was the "most fell" of the servants of Morgoth. Glaurung is the most prominant of the Morgothers in the Wars of Beleriand, after Sauron went into hiding.
The attack of Ancalagon the Black and the other winged dragons drove back the forces of the Valar, but that may have been due to the shock of seeing flying dragons.
On the whole the dragons seem to be more feared by the Elves, or at least more prominant in the stories.
However, Balrogs seem to have been something of the guard of Angband, so they would not be free to rampage about and reek havoc across the lands like the dragons were.

I guess at the moment I'll cast my vote for dragons, but I reserve the right to change it at a moments notice. smilies/wink.gif

[avarerniliel]

Dragons all the way! smilies/smile.gif Of course I am a bit biased, but here's why I think they are more dangerous.

Dragons are not contained creatures like Balrogs are. I see the point about a dragon breathing fire would do no damage to something practically made out of fire! Even though they don't appear in Tolkien's works, dragons don't only breathe fire. Ice, acid, and even electricity and more are options, well, depending on the species (and age, anywhere from wrymling to wrym.) of dragon. Dragons also have other weapons, teeth, claws, and some have completly different habits all together. Dragons are intelligent creatures and can be powerful spell casters. This comes from a dragon expert. I'd love to hear an argument from the opposite side though, supporting the Balrogs. (Whom I certainly don't believe to be harmless butterflies, but terribly dangerous creatures in their own right.)

For now, I say dragons. So my vote is for Glaurung, the wrym. smilies/wink.gif

[Joy]

Because the Balrogs are Maia's, I believe that they would be the strongest.

[obloquy]

It's possible that the spirits of dragons were Ainur as well.

In the Lord of the Rings it is said that besides Sauron, Balrogs were the greatest of Morgoth's servants. I'm sorry I can't provide the exact quote for you.

[avarerniliel]

Darn, can't think of any quotes for the dragons now, but, um...I'll find something! Eventually...

[Thingol]

Lets consider the facts:
1. All those that kill a Balrog are themselves killed in the process.
2. Every person who killed a Dragon survived.
3. Look at the types of people it took to kill a Balrog. Ecthellion, Glorfindel, and Gandalf. Two of the greatest and most powerful elves ever to exist and Gandalf, enough said.
4. Bard was able to kill Smaug, no offense to Bard but he's no Gandalf.
5. The Balrogs have quite an impressive resume of slain elf lords; Feanor, Fingon, Glorfindel, and Ecthellion. They took Maedhros and Hurin (the greatest mortal warrior ever) hostage. Dragon's haven't even killed any lords of men, let alone someone like Gandalf.
6. Just because Balrogs don't speek doesn't mean they are not smart. A few Balrogs knew to get out of Beleriand during the War of Wrath, the dragons just flew out to be destroyed by the Valar. The Balrogs definatly have wills of their own, where as the Dragons probably were wholly under the power of Melkor, at least at first.

The Dragons might be more physically impressive, capable of doing considerable damage to an army for example, but in Tolkien's works it is spiritual or magical power that is of more significance. Gandalf and Denethor never clash physically; fireballs don't shoot from their eyes, their wills clash like unseen swords. It is this unseen power that is the real measure of how strong one is in Middle Earth. The Nazgul have this dark spiritual aura that is matched by the white light that comes from Glorfindel and Gandalf. In all of the major confrontations in the Lord of the Rings (Gandalf and the Balrog, Glorfindel and the Nazgul, Gandalf and the Witch King, and even Sam and Shelob) the real battle is fought in the spiritual or if you prefer magical realm. Sam doesn't defeat Shelob with his physical strength, his spirit is given a boost by the Phial of Galadriel. It is not clear whether or not Dragons are inhabited by Maiar or are beasts with the power of Melkor infused into them. Even if Dragons are Maiar they are still only inhabited by Maiar, the Balrogs are in a more "pure" form. In Tolkien's works, as a creature becomes more bound to a body it becomes less powerful. The Balrogs are pure spirits of shadow and fire; their aura of power is not masked by any bodily form, it emanates from the center of the shadow that they weave about themselves. On the other hand the Dragons are not described as having an evil or dark aura surrounding them, they are merely terrible to behold. One on one I doubt that even Ancalgon the Black would be a match for a Balrog.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[obloquy]

Once again, Thingol, you and I shall meet on the battlefield of perpetual Balrog dispute. Here's the new issue:

Even if Dragons are Maiar they are still only inhabited by Maiar, the Balrogs are in a more "pure" form. In Tolkien's works, as a creature becomes more bound to a body it becomes less powerful. The Balrogs are pure spirits of shadow and fire; their aura of power is not masked by any bodily form, it emanates from the center of the shadow that they weave about themselves.

Are you intending to imply that Balrogs are just fear, "unhoused"? Or even just "clothed" fear? If this was the case, Balrogs would never have been killed. Rather, they would have simply been bereft of their raiment until they could fashion another one. This re-embodiment would help answer some questions (specifically the much disputed AAm note), but it is also a quite widely rejected notion. No, Balrogs were slain, and it is never suggested that they were re-embodied. This means they must have been not merely clothed, but permanently incarnate.

[Ilúvatar]

Well, after seeing all the quotes and wise words ;-), I must agree that balrogs seems to be a harder opponent. And by the way, sorry that I wrote that Glaurung had wings, since Morgoth first released winged dragons just before he was captured. Quite hard to imagine a dragon without wings, isn't it? Anyway, balrogs seem to have won the "duel" ;-). And as someone said, the people who have killed balrogs are much more powerful than those who have killed dragons (maybe except for Túrin, he was quite powerful, but that was Glaurung), for example if you would compare Glorfindel and Bard. How powerful wouldn't then Ecthelion be, since he slayed Gothmog after already having battled a long time? Then on the other hand, Húrin slayed 70 trolls when he covered the retreat of Turgon...I'm gonna quit now, this is a different subject :-). But just a last note: Gothmog would probably have slayed 70 trolls without any problems, no matter if they were Olog-hai or "normal" trolls, but the Olog-hai didn't exist at that time, so...

[Airetauriel]

Just adding my input - Balrogs all the way, won't bore you again with all the reasons, they've been posted.

But what a fight! Tolkien missed that potential! (though what they'd fight over, who knows? The best dark hole to hide in, probably!)

Airetauriel

[obloquy]

I'd like to point out that Hurin's heroic slaughter of trolls is actually somewhat questionable. This bit conflicts with all the available texts we have describing the last stand of the Nirnaeth, and the text from which it was lifted remains unfortunately unpublished. I don't mean to say we can't take Christopher at his word that this piece exists, just that the original is not available for examination. There's a little more detail about this in Underhill's phenomenal article on the Olog-Hai of the First Age, found here (http://www.barrowdowns.com/Articles.asp?Size=).

I'm also personally of the opinion that, like "true" mythology, there is no reason that these tales cannot exist simultaneously in several forms -- some exaggerated, some more realistic -- told by various loremasters and storytellers. I certainly believe the mighty Hurin was capable of such a noble massacre!

[Kuruharan]

Well, since nobody else is taking up for the poor dragons I guess the task falls to me.

1. All those that kill a Balrog are themselves killed in the process.

This would be a true statement, except for one little thing. We do not have the deaths of all the Balrogs and Dragons described to us. For death's of Balrogs we have Gothmog, the one that Glorfindel killed, and Durin's Bane. We don't know the exact circumstances of the death's of the other four (or however many, I personally think that seven Balrogs is a bit low, but that's another thread.) For Dragons we have Glaurung, Smaug, and Ancalagon the Black. The Balrogs that we know of were killed when they were fighting against one opponent and concentrating on that one opponent. The Dragons in the list were killed when they were leaping over gorges, or town baiting, and in the War of Wrath. Earendil was no mere mortal man and he had a Silmaril which was no doubt of great aid to him. The other two dragons were killed when they were not fighting a single opponent (or not fighting at all) and distracted. (Not that I'm finding fault with Turin and Bard, the best way to kill an enemy is when they are not expecting it, especially when that enemy is a dragon.)

2. Every person who killed a Dragon survived.

I refer you to my answer of point 1. We don't know for sure.

3. Look at the types of people it took to kill a Balrog. Ecthellion, Glorfindel, and Gandalf. Two of the greatest and most powerful elves ever to exist and Gandalf, enough said.

Yes, but do we know if any of the above ever faced and fought a dragon? I would hardly say that Turin was a slouch at the fighting either, even if he was a puny man.

4. Bard was able to kill Smaug, no offense to Bard but he's no Gandalf.

Ah, yes the seeming weak spot. However, as I stated above, Bard shot Smaug when he was "town-baiting" not when he was fighting Smaug face to face. Gandalf as far as we know never even saw Smaug, we don't know what would have happened if he had.

5. The Balrogs have quite an impressive resume of slain elf lords; Feanor, Fingon, Glorfindel, and Ecthellion. They took Maedhros and Hurin (the greatest mortal warrior ever) hostage. Dragon's haven't even killed any lords of men, let alone someone like Gandalf.

Ever notice how when Balrogs (notice the plural) kill an Elf-lord and so forth, they rarely did it by themselves. It took the whole pack of them to off Feanor, Fingon was holding his own until another Balrog snuck up behind him and cast a thong of fire about him, Maedhros was ambushed and outnumbered, and Hurin was exhausted from fighing all day and night, and Gothmog was not the one to take Hurin but Hurin was buried underneath orc arms until he could not move. That (as far as we know) Dragons have not killed someone like Gandalf is true and I can't find anything to say to it except...
But he loosed upon his foes the last desperate assault that he had prepared, and out of the pits of Angband there issued the winged dragons, that had not before been seen; and so sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet that the host of the Valar was driven back, for the coming of the dragons was with great thunder, and lightning, and a tempest of fire.
I always thought that some Maiar spirits in incarnate form were in the army of Valinor (I might be wrong about that) and they seem to have given way to the Dragons and some of them may have been "killed."

6. Just because Balrogs don't speek doesn't mean they are not smart. A few Balrogs knew to get out of Beleriand during the War of Wrath, the dragons just flew out to be destroyed by the Valar. The Balrogs definatly have wills of their own, where as the Dragons probably were wholly under the power of Melkor, at least at first.
I agree entirely with the part about Balrogs speaking. However, some Dragons were also smart enough to get out of Beleriand, or there would have been no Smaug. Ancalagon's group did not fly out to be destroyed by the Valar, they drove the host of the Valar back, they were (or some of them were) destroyed by Earendil and the Great Eagles. While we're on that we don't know that some of the Great Eagles (who apparently had Maiar spirits) were not also killed in this battle. Dragon's most certainly had a will of their own. Remember that Glaurung disobeyed Morgoth by appearing too early (and almost breaking the Seige of Angband). Glaurung is also spoken of gratifing his own malice in his tormenting of Turin, not just the malice of his master. We never hear one word (except for the escape at the end, which seems to have been something of a general rout) of Balrogs doing anything disobedient or particularly independent.

*Whew!* I think I'll stop now!

P.S. Not that I am totally convinced that Dragons were more powerful than Balrogs, but I did not want Dragons to go down without somebody trying to defend them. smilies/smile.gif

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]
Drat my inability to spell, I must learn to proofread my posts!

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[Thingol]

You read too much into my posts obloquy, smilies/biggrin.gif I wasn't trying to suggest that the Balrogs are pure Fear, but that they contructed their own forms. The Balrogs seem to have less substance to them and are definatly less attached to their body's and more connected with the spiritual world than the Dragons are. There are two plains of existance in Middle Earth, the physical and the spiritual or magical. The way I see it is that on the physical plain Dragons have no rival in plain destructive power. However, in the spiritual realm Balrogs take the cake. As I pointed out earlier it seems to me that Tolkien considered the power one posses in the spiritual realm as more indicative of the overall power of the individual. On a side note it seems that as one gets closer to death, ones connection with the spiritual realm becomes stronger, hence Glorfindel and Ecthillion were able to slay Balrogs. Tolkien regarded those deeds as one of the greatest, if not the greatest deeds of all the children of Illuvitar.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Daisy Sandybanks]

Okay, I was going to put my vote in for the Dragons, but Thingol there made it a little hard for me to do so with his/her statement on Balrogs.... darn... ohwell, I still love Dragons anyway! smilies/biggrin.gif

[Thingol]

I'm a he, so it would be his smilies/biggrin.gif We do know who killed the other Balrogs Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a host (host being anywhere from 3-1000 Balrogs smilies/biggrin.gif ) of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwë, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Kuruharan]

And I was forgetting the way that Glaurung blasted his way through the hosts of Nargothrond. True, Orodreth was no Finrod, Fingon, or Feanor, but he was still a son of Finarfin and a mighty elf-lord. No Balrog is described as personally blowing his way through a host.

However, on the whole I think that your theory on physical v. spiritual power may have something to it.

However, all of this has done little to answer the question of who would win a fight between a Dragon and a Balrog.

[avarerniliel]

Hmm...Balrogs may be pure fear, but dragons are still mightier. Though, perhaps Tolkien prefered Balrogs and wanted them to be more powerful than dragons. But I have numerous sources stating that dragons are the most powerful and dangerous of beasts. I'll list them on my next post, I don't have access to them now.

[Thingol]

Well Balrogs are not pure Fëa, they created their own body (Hroa) I guess my post was confusing. smilies/redface.gif

[Thingol]

Once again, Thingol, you and I shall meet on the battlefield of perpetual Balrog dispute lol, I just noticed that obloquy. I love debating Balrogs with you but I think we agree on most points. We just midunderstand eachother's posts sometimes (this post being an example). Plus, it seems that we both like to argue. smilies/evil.gif

[Gorin Icearms]

Whew, I got tired just reading this smilies/biggrin.gif Personally I would lean more towards Balrogs in a fight. Dragons are tough and all, but die too easily.

[avarerniliel]

How on earth can a dragon die easily? If anything dies easily, it's a human! smilies/tongue.gif

[Gorin Icearms]

Thingol said
---------------------------------------------
Lets consider the facts:
1. All those that kill a Balrog are themselves killed in the process.
2. Every person who killed a Dragon survived.
3. Look at the types of people it took to kill a Balrog. Ecthellion, Glorfindel, and Gandalf. Two of the greatest and most powerful elves ever to exist and Gandalf, enough said.
4. Bard was able to kill Smaug, no offense to Bard but he's no Gandalf.
5. The Balrogs have quite an impressive resume of slain elf lords; Feanor, Fingon, Glorfindel, and Ecthellion. They took Maedhros and Hurin (the greatest mortal warrior ever) hostage. Dragon's haven't even killed any lords of men, let alone someone like Gandalf.
---------------------------------------------

This is what I meant. Compared to Balrogs, Dragons go down without much difficulty. smilies/smile.gif

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: Gorin Icearms ]

[Maltaharma]

I'd have to vote for the Balrog. After all, dragons are basically lizards, whose fire comes from within. Balrogs are demons made of fire, something conceived in the bowels of hell. If you make a dragon pink and give it puppy eyes and eyelashes, it automatic becomes tame. It becomes more like a Barney dragon. Make a Balrog pink...HA! I dare you to even try. "Bye, bye you fellowship guys. I've got a gnarly staff and I don't know why..."-LOTR the lost musical

[Kuruharan]

...and when Glaurung sallied forth at the Dagor Bragollach, the Balrogs were in his train as if they were escorting him. Seems like if they were escorting Glaurung, the dragon might have been the more powerful and important figure rather than the other way around.


(Yes, I know that I don't know when to quit! smilies/tongue.gif )

[obloquy]

'It was a Balrog of Morgoth,' said Legolas; `of all elf-banes the most deadly, save the One who sits in the Dark Tower.'

[Kuruharan]

Look's like we are going to have a battle of the dueling Elves, but Voronwe (who would probably know better than Legolas) said,
"'Fear lingers in this place...Yea, a great evil!...See!' said Voronwe, and his face was pale with dread and loathing, 'Here not long since was the Great Worm of Angband, most fell of all the creatures of the Enemy!'"

[Thingol]

Technically the Balrogs are not creatures of the enemy. The Balrogs were not made by Melkor, on the other hand Melkor infused the dragons with his own power. Its still not definate that Maiar inhabited dragons at all, so concievably Voronwe's statement can be reconciled with a little bit of word twisting. Legolas' statement is a little more definate.

[Kuruharan]

word twisting
Exactly, you're twisting the words around to try and make them conform to your point of view rather than taking them at face value. smilies/wink.gif

Creatures does not necessarily mean that he created them. Remember that Melkor created nothing himself, he warped things that others made and 'twisted' them to his own purposes. He took Elves, beasts, or whichever you prefer to make orcs. He took the spirits of Maia and changed them into terrible demons of fire or monsters in the forms of spiders (ugh!) or dragons. So he actually did not create anything.

He also infused Balrogs with his power as well.

If somebody who was not in the midst of this discussion read that passage, they would probably include Balrogs in the list of Morgoth's creatures.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[littlemanpoet]

Okay, let's take a Balrog - say the one that Gandalf fought, and a dragon - day Smaug. List their fighting/power qualities.

In this corner we have Balrog, a big dark shadowy demon (maiar) which is made of fire, with huge wings, a sword of fire, and a whip. The balrog has horns, a toothy maw, two arms to wield sword and whip, and two legs on which to walk. It doesn't speak, but it not stupid. Fear goes before it.

In the other corner we have Smaug, a huge wyrm whose leathery skin is encrusted in gems (except for one spot), armed with breath of fire, not to mention sharp teeth, has a tail he can probably use to lethal effect, walks on four limbs, and has wings big enough to carry his body high and fast. And he can speak. He is clever and wise, and admittedly vain. Fear goes before him as well.

Okay. First off, the Fear that goes before them both is probably neutralized by the fact that both are tough beings; and if Fear does affect them, it's moot to say whose will do worse to the other.

Since the Balrog does not speak it will not attempt to take advantage of Smaug's vanity. Since Smaug is incredibly smart he knows the Balrog does not speak and wouldn't listen anyway, so he doesn't waste words on them.

They both see each other's wings, so they know they can both fly. So they're not going to avoid each other's weapons that way.

Smaug's fire breath can reach his enemy from a distance, whereas the Balrog's greatest weapon from a distance is its whip. Problem (as pointed out already): Smaug's won't do much against a fire-demon, so he must resort to teeth, limbs and tail.

The Balrog's whip will get to Smaug before Smaug can close in on the Balrog, so Balrog either tries to cut Smaug with the whip-tip (which it must know won't do much good) or tries to wrap Smaug up. Balrog being no dummy, it tries to wrap Smaug up.

Smaug gets wrapped around the maw (it being closest) before he can close in on Balrog. Teeth or immobilized. All four sets of claws come to bear. Balrog's whip being occupied, its fire-sword comes down.

Hmmm - here's an interesting question: can a Balrog fire-sword cut through dragon-hide? through gems? If Balrog's sword is a physical entity, my guess is that gems melt, but after repeated hits. Then dragon hide, being not as tough as gems, gets cut pretty quickly. If Balrog's fire-sword is a spiritual entity, discussion over. Smaug is wounded with each hit.

But if Balrog's fire-sword is only physical, Smaug has time. Can Smaug's claws scratch a Balrog raw enough to kill it? If an elf-lord could slay it without a magical sword, yes. (unless all elf-swords are by definition magical but then maybe dragon claws may be just as magical).

Then it may be that both Balrog and Smaug naturally use their wings and they plummet to earth and they both wham against bedrock and break whatever crust they crash against and both wind up dead.

There you have it, a draw.

But seriously (if this can be considered serious at all), it all does depend on how spiritual we consider Balrogs to be and dragons NOT to be. Maybe dragons are more spiritual than we're giving them credit for being....

Enough already. smilies/biggrin.gif

[Kuruharan]

Just to stoke the already raging fires here...

I'm not convinced that what Tolkien said about the Balrog not speaking in that particular instance at the Bridge meant that Balrogs could not speak at all. (Although I'm open to suggestions about it.)

The wings business is seemingly permanently up for debate.

You overlooked the Dragon's spell from their eyes, and the size of a Dragon's tail. It would probably have greater reach than a Balrog's whip, but obviously be rather unwieldy.

[Thingol]

It never says anywhere that Melkor let any of his power pass into the Balrogs. Everyone is still describing a fight between a Balrog and a Dragon in physical terms. If the Dragon clawed the Balrog, or if the Balrog could penetrate the Dragon's hide. In the scene where Gandalf fights the Balrog the only physical contact is their swords clashing once. They don't shoot fireballs or lightning bolts at each other. The real battle is on a plain that we can't see. This is where the real battle takes place. Obloquy pointed out to me in a different post that general combat that occurs during a battle is different than a duel between 2 great beings of power. Considering that Tolkien is one of the most descriptive author's of all time it is important to note that his description of the major duels (notice duels, like Glorfindel and the Nazgul, Gandalf and the Balrog, Gandalf and the Nazgul, Sam and Shelob, not battles like Pellanor Fields or the Hornburg) is lacking in physical description. This is not because Tolkien was not capable of it, it was a conscience choice. Notice when Sam fights Shelob, Tolkien only gives 3 lines to Sam's actual physical sword attack on Shelob. On the other hand he gives whole paragraphs to the light of the Phial of Galadriel. The spirit of Sam (enhanced by the phial and his closeness to death) sets the Phial's potency in motion and it blazes forth. It is the light of the phial that defeats Shelob, not Sam's strength. The same principles must be applied to a fight between a Balrog and a Dragon. Tolkien would not have spent time describing the physical fight between two such powerful creatures. He would have described the reflection on the physical world of the spiritual or magical battle that is taking place. Like the duel between Gandalf and the Balrog. Gandalf is a white light surrounded by a dark cloud. As I have mentioned before, the dragon is a being of pure physical power, made that way by Morgoth as to do the most damage to armies and such. The Balrogs are more akin to Sauron, beings of extreme spiritual potency. Tolkien clearly put more emphasis on the importance of spiritual power, that is why I believe the Balrog would win in a duel.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[avarerniliel]

'Twas a dragon! The most feared of all beasts and greatest in the land!

Note the "in the land" part. Tolkien, though he may have admired dragons, prefered Balrogs. When it comes to this matter, you can't just consider LOTR, it may be a biased book (no offense meant at all!!). Granted, all books are biased, but use other references to figure this out! Dragons still rock. And if they breathe ice, couldn't they just freeze the balrog, then send it crashing off a cliff so that it shatters into a million pieces and is dead?

Ok, so I know this isn't supportive of my side but, did Gandalf kill the Balrog he took on or not? Or did he just follow it up the stairs?

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: avarerniliel ]

[littlemanpoet]

Yikes! Pretty serious debate here! I was trying to lighten things up. smilies/wink.gif Not to mention everything I'd read up to my first post on this thread was pretty theoretical. Sorry if I offended. smilies/eek.gif

You overlooked the Dragon's spell from their eyes, and the size of a Dragon's tail. It would probably have greater reach than a Balrog's whip, but obviously be rather unwieldy.

Oops! Okay:

Smaug hits Balrog with Eye of Terror from all the way across the - ahem - PHYSICAL - battle field. Balrog being much mightier - SPIRITUALLY - is not dissuaded. No, the opposite. It comes forth in its cloud of night and flying toward Smaug, flings its looooooooonnnnnng whip, closing Smaug's snout shut.

Ya know, it's looking more and more like the Balrog's the tougher dude.... at least in Tolkien's scheme.

I'm writing my own unpublishable tome in which dragons are spirits in wyrm shape, and are much tougher than Tolkien's dragons. More akin to Chinese, I suppose.

Don't let the fun get snuffed by theoretical fumes! smilies/biggrin.gif

[Kuruharan]

*sigh* Even though I think it's getting to the point where we are talking around in circles and not getting anywhere I'll give it one more go.

Thingol:
This is an obvious statement looking back over the course of the discussion, but I'm going to make it anyway. smilies/wink.gif I think that you are putting a bit too much emphasis on the spiritual over the physical.

Now before I continue, let me clarify so to make sure that I am not misunderstood. I don't mean to say that the spiritual is not important. In fact I agree that the spiritual is more important than the physical. However, I think you are overstating the importance of the spiritual. Let us take for instance the battle between Sam and Shelob. Yes, Tolkien spent much more time discussing the internal battle inside Sam than on the actual events. However, this is because what physically happened does not take much to describe. The internal struggle is much more complex and dramatic, and it requires much more description. Sam physically wounded Shelob's eyes. And it was not Sam who really wounded Shelob in the gut, all he did was hold the sword over her head. Shelob's brute physical strength trying to crush Sam drove the blade in. Then the light from the phial caused her intense physical pain. In a small aside, I can almost feel sympathy for Shelob in that condition because I have had a bright light shined in my eye after it's been damaged, the pain that causes is intense beyond words! But anyway, yes the spiritual is immensely important. In the case of Sam and Shelob, Sam's spirit caused the phial to burn brightly, which ultimately drove Shelob off. However, the point is that the enemy must still be physically defeated. Shelob would not have fled if Sam had not so severely damaged her person.

Back to Dragons and Balrogs, I still find it hard to believe that a Balrog would be able to spiritually cow a Dragon sufficiently to impair their fighting skills enough to have such a decided advantage. I still remain unconvinced that the spirit and terror of a Balrog was that much greater than a Dragon. The Balrogs do have an impressive record of victories, but as I said before, they normally did it in a group. Dragons would blast through entire armies by themselves. As you say, Balrogs were probably not designed for army busting, and Dragons probably were. However, if you set the two of them against each other (one on one), I just don't see the Balrog having an overwhealming advantage. The Balrog may (and I'm not necessarily conceding the point) have had a greater spirit of terror, but I think that even in this case the Dragon would have had sufficient spiritual strength to compensate, and that it had greater physical force to make up the difference.

What we probably have here is a push. smilies/wink.gif

littlemanpoet:
Just funnin' ya! smilies/biggrin.gif I should have put some smile thingies in my post to make that clear. Anytime I'm talking about Balrog wings I'm usually only kidding. smilies/wink.gif

[littlemanpoet]

Just funnin' ya! I should have put some smile thingies in my post to make that clear. Anytime I'm talking about Balrog wings I'm usually only kidding.


I toook no umbrage, bro! smilies/biggrin.gif

I theeeenk you have a lot of good points there, Kurubuddy. Jus' one theeng. Eet occurs to meee zat 'ol Smaug and maybe other dragons are not only vain but cowards, too. They would never fight an opponent unless they were (however arrogantly & wrongly) convinced that they could win without any trouble. I intend to read up on Glaurung to see how he fits this characterization, but both Smaug and Chrysophylax (from Farmer Giles) were BOTH vain AND cowardly. All this to say that if a Tolkienian dragon ever saw a Balrog coming near with intent to warring, it would scoot the other way fast as its wingies could tek it. A Balrog, by comparison, does not have this cowardly streak. 'Course, mebbe it knows it's just the hottest thing this side of Udun. Eh? smilies/wink.gif

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[obloquy]

I'm not convinced that what Tolkien said about the Balrog not speaking in that particular instance at the Bridge meant that Balrogs could not speak at all. (Although I'm open to suggestions about it.)

Of course Balrogs could vocalize. Maiar were not beasts.

Good quote, Kuruharan, but I don't think Balrogs should be classified as "creatures of the Enemy." They're not his creatures, they're spirits of the same order as Morgoth. Granted, they're his servants, but there's a distinct difference between the farmworker and the pig. Still, I would hesitate to group Dragons in with the likes of Orcs and Trolls.

He [Glaurung] was yet young and scarce half-grown (for long and slow is the life of those worms)
Grey Annals §116

The Balrogs allied themselves with him of their own free will, being nearly coeval with Morgoth himself. However, Dragons, as suggested by the above quote, were somehow bred by the Enemy.

The impression we get of Dragons is that they are more like beasts than anything else. They never do much more than wreak havoc, and they are not exactly 'fit' and agile. They're tanks, while Balrogs are generals.

Balrog versus Dragon? Balrog, by a mile. Balrogs versus Dragons? Balrogs, still. But the hypothetical scenario in which Dragons excel is Dragon versus village or army. I'd be willing to wager a Dragon would slaughter more on his own than would a Balrog. On the flipside, in one-on-one combat, regardless of the opponent, I'd always put my money on the Balrog.

I won't even go into the spiritual aspect of it, since we don't know what sort of fea resides within the Dragon shell. But I will say that Balrogs have much more apparent spiritual potency, and the fear that 'goes before' Dragons isn't the same as that which accompanies Balrogs.

Thingol:
On a side note it seems that as one gets closer to death, ones connection with the spiritual realm becomes stronger

Interesting...elaborate, please.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

[Thingol]

It seems that as men, elves, hobbits, dwarves, etc... get closer to death they become more powerful. The characters just seem to get a boost of energy when they are in hopeless situations. Take Fingolofin when he rides out to challenege Melkor for example; he is compared to Orome. Maybe it is just the fact that he is really angry, and the anger sets his spirit in motion, not his closeness to death. But when reading the fight between Shelob and Sam and it says that Sam sees his death in Shelobs eyes. He reaches for the phial and his spirit blazes forth. Its tough to describe, its just that when Tolkien's characters are faced with death they become more grim and powerful. Tolkien uses the word fey several times when describing Eomer during the battle of Pellanor Fields. Subsequently he does not recieve a single wound. Again perhaps this is more because of anger than closeness to death. When Glorfindel fights the Balrog he is desperate and I'm sure Ecthellion felt the same way. They both probably knew they were going to die. I'm not doing a very good job of explaining it, but when reading the passages where characters fight a desperate battle it seems that they gain a boost of power. I've always attributed this boost of power to the characters getting closer to death.

[Kuruharan]

(Dang it! My hi-liter is running out of ink! Dumb research paper!)

Anyway,

littlemanpoet:

"Jus' one theeng. Eet occurs to meee zat 'ol Smaug..."

Not only are we now talking in circles, we are seemingly just a bit intoxicated too. smilies/wink.gif

Moving on to more serious matters, while I love Farmer Giles of Ham, I really don't think that you can take Chrysophylax as an example of Middle earth dragons.

When is Smaug cowardly? He flew by himself and single handed and destroyed two kingdoms. Sounds rather brave to me.

The Balrog ran from Gandalf and it fled from the War of Wrath. Of course fleeing from the War of Wrath was sensible, but not exactly brave.

obloquy:

Balrog versus dragon? Balrog, by a mile...On the flipside, in one-on-one combat, regardless of the oppponent, I'd always put my money on the Balrog.


Perhaps I have failed to understand something. Why? It seems to have been generally agreed that the physical strength of a Dragon was greater. You have not come up with a convincing reason to make me think that a Balrogs spiritual power would be able to daunt a Dragon, in a battle between a tank and a general it is always best to bet on the tank. It is better suited for fighting. Is that not the situation being discussed here?

Thingol:

So, drawing on the Suicide in Middle Earth thread, on the eve of battle should warriors give themselves a 'Marc Antony' fatal wound and then be able to perform great feats of heroics? smilies/smile.gif

Actually, I sort of understand what you are saying. I think what you mean is that the individual in question has gone beyond the point where they have anything to lose. If you have nothing to lose, then you can fight without fear or concern because all you have to think about is trying to accomplish something great before you die.

This is the same sort of idea that Sun Tzu advocated in certain situations in The Art of War because once soldiers get in this frame of mind they become almost impossible to defeat.
This is also the idea that the French Foreign Legion operated on. The recruits had no future except the Legion, best to fight and die and accomplish something great because there is nothing else to gain.

(Somebody needs to start a thread about Farmer Giles of Ham sometime.)

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[Kalimac]

One word: Balrog.

One reason: Picture Smaug being shot down by Bard the Bowman aiming his one trusty arrow at the dragon's weak spot.

Now picture Bard the Bowman destroying the Balrog by shooting it in its exposed chest with his one trusty arrow.

Nah, didn't think so smilies/smile.gif.

[Kuruharan]

*Sigh*

I already answered this...

[obloquy]

The only evidence I can present to you is that the quote I gave was from LotR, which was published by J.R.R.T. himself, and therefore the standard to which all other Middle-earth texts are compared. It is the only true 'canon' Middle-earth text. So if the Unfinished Tales quote you brought up conflicts with the LotR I gave, it must be an outdated notion or a slip-up. I don't believe that it conflicts, however, and I showed you the reasons for that -- Dragons are beasts, like Carcharoth or Draugluin, whereas Balrogs are soldiers, akin to Sauron and even Morgoth himself.

You want convincing evidence that spiritual puissance makes a difference? How were the Nine driven into the waters of Bruinen by Glorfindel? How did bent, wrinkled Gandalf defeat a Balrog? Why was Fingolfin's duel with Morgoth utterly futile? The potency of spirit is a tremendously important part of the conflicts in Tolkien's writings. You can't overestimate it.

in a battle between a tank and a general it is always best to bet on the tank.

I disagree. The tank is only useful at long range, and only if the general is vulnerable to its firepower. Also, the Dragon is not impervious to the Balrog's attacks, unlike the tank to the general's. But this illustration can only take us so far. I can't prove it to you because I cannot produce a documented duel between a Balrog and a Dragon.

[littlemanpoet]

Even though Unfinished Tales has been - ahem - discredited as not canon (to which I must vehemently disagree), I read some of the descriptions of Glaurung. He appears to be far tougher than Smaug was ever described to be. That may be because of the audience of The Hobbit. However, the unique thing about Glaurung, whom JRRT describes as the greatest of the dragons, is that he HAS MORGOTH'S SPIRIT WITHIN HIM. Therefore I must side with obloquy regarding the puissance of spirit (sorry I'm sobre now), while NOT overlooking the fundamental reality of physicality. Glaurung's puissance was evoked in two ways: (1) his reeeelly bad smell and firey breath and largeness of size; and (2) his cunning which was given to him by Morgoth. Of the two, his cunning and his strategems were by far the more powerful of the two, meaning that his SPIRIT/intelligence got him further than his strength; and I do not deny the importance of his physical strength.

The soldier - tank analogy is helpful, but we better not get too tied to it. I can't say why, I'm not smart enough. It does speak to a sense that I had, but the best words I could put on it were - um - a man and a dog. smilies/biggrin.gif

If we were to pit Glaurung against a Balrog, now there we might have a real battle! No cowardice there.

By the way, I'd like to set the record straight on one thing. The Balrogs are not bodiless. They are beings made of fire, as far as I can tell, but they DO have a physical presence.

[Kuruharan]

Okay, lots of points here. I'm afraid that I am going out the door to class and I don't have time to answer them right now. But I'd like to clear up a misunderstanding.

I did not mean to sound like I was doubting the importance of the spiritual. What I was doubting was that a Balrog would have such a significant spiritual advantage over a Dragon as to be decisive.

More later... smilies/wink.gif

[obloquy]

I don't dispute UT's canon, I was just making a point. Nonetheless, where certain points conflict with LotR, we have to disregard them. As I said, I don't believe the UT quote is contradictory to the LotR quote.

I also agree that the tank and general analogy is not appropriate for anything more than my original purpose -- as mere comparison.

I thank you, littlemanpoet, for bringing up the point about Glaurung being inhabited by Morgoth's spirit. It was gnawing at my brain, and I wanted to mention it, but I couldn't find where I had read it so I avoided bringing it into the discussion.

Have to run now, but I will check on this thread later.

[Kuruharan]

Okay, it's later. smilies/smile.gif

First, most tanks have shorter range weapons to take care of particularly aggressive enemies that get underneath the range of their big gun. You're not helping yourself with that analogy.

I do have a theory for looking at the passage about Morgoth's spirit.

A few days ago Thingol said that it did not say in the books that Morgoth put any of his power into Balrogs. Now that I have had (a very little) time to check I find that he is right. However, I was able to find some other things that are kind of interesting. Essentially it boils down to the fact that everything has something of Morgoth's spirit in it. That is what is meant by the phrase Arda Marred. Everything has some "Morgoth Element" in it's make up. What does this have to do with Balrogs and Dragons you ask?

Well, in another example, Morgoth's words to Ungoliant were, "For with my power that I put into thee thy work accomplished. Ungoliant was as far as anyone can tell was also a Maiar, yet Morgoth put his power into her to increase her strength. I think it a reasonable assumption that he did the same thing with Balrogs and Dragons. He put his power into the World to ruin it, and he put his power into his servants to strengthen them and increase the ruin. Balrogs were definitely Maiar, but they were apparently weaker than Ungoliant. If Melkor strengthened a greater being like Ungoliant with a part of his spirit, would it not make sense for him to do so with Balrogs as well.

While it's not certain that Dragons had Maiar spirits inside of them, they certainly had something because he spoke, "by the evil spirit within him." Some will no doubt argue that this is Morgoth's spirit, but I think that some of it at least was the spirit of some other entity because Glaurung had a rather independent streak.

I'd like to go on a little longer but I'm out of time (again)...

[Thingol]

I do not think that Melkor ever put any of his power into the Balorgs. It explicitly states that Melkor put forth his power into beings whenever he did so. It explicitly states that he put forth his power into Ungoliant, into the Dragons, into Charchoth, into Arda itself, etc... The reason he put forth his power into Ungoliant was because the task that they set out to accomplish was exceptionally dangerous and difficult. They went into the very heart of the Valar's realm and destroyed the Two Trees. Balrogs are totally independent of Morgoth. It is uncertain whether or not any of the Dragons fled or were merely driven off, but it is explicitly stated that some (perhaps only 1) Balrog(s)rebelled against Melkor and fled. However, I guess that the assumption that things that have recieved the power of Melkor partially lose the ability to make their own descissions is flawed because Ungoliant certainly had a will of her own that was quite different from Melkor's. I just think that Tolkien would have mentioned it if Melkor had infused the Balrogs with his own power, considering he explicitly stated all the other instances where Melkor let his power pass into other creatures. The Balrogs were Melkor's elite force and I think Tolkien would have said so if Melkor enhanced them with his power.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[obloquy]

Yes, as I've said twice before, the tank analogy has served its purpose -- comparison -- and has become stretched.

Ungoliant was as far as anyone can tell was also a Maiar, yet Morgoth put his power into her to increase her strength.

Actually, I don't know of any evidence to support this (that Ungoliante was a Maia). I would find it hard to believe she had a spirit of any less potential than a typical Vala, since it is said that, after being fed from the trees and jewels, Morgoth was unable to master her. As for the 'with my power' bit, I can't find where that comes from. It's in the published Silmarillion, but the original text doesn't seem to be contained in HoMe. Unless I missed it somewhere, I would be careful not to assume too much based on Morgoth's wording. The concept of Morgoth actually channeling his power into another being is rather dubious. But you're right about the "Morgoth element": all physical matter had this evil property. The matter that Balrogs created their physical bodies with; the matter that Ungoliante used to create her physical form; and likely the same matter that was used in the devising of Dragons. Spirits like the Balrogs or Ungoliante were probably somewhat attuned to this little bit of Morgoth in each of them.

I pointed out above that Dragons were bred by Morgoth. There is the possibility that they were a Balrog/reptile hybrid, as hideous as the idea is. In any case, they occupied a different position than the Balrogs in Morgoth's armies. They never held ranks or commanded troops, and were never spoken of as 'most deadly of Morgoth's servants,' but rather as 'most fell among Morgoth's creatures.' I think the former is clearly a much broader statement.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

[littlemanpoet]

The erudition of you guys is staggering! No joke. I am definitely rereading The Simlarillion in its entirety. Way to go, guys. It's been too long. On to the quotes:

where certain points in UT conflict with LotR, we have to disregard them.

Granted.

I thank you, littlemanpoet... You're welcome, obloquy.

Morgoth [did not] put any of his power into Balrogs.
I'll take your word for it.

...everything has something of Morgoth's spirit in it... Kuruharan: From my reading of all the Glaurung texts in The Silmarillion and many in the UT, it is clear that the Morgoth spirit in Glaurung was more powerful than in most servants of Morgoth. Also, it is clear (at least to me) from the readings that if it were not for the Morgoth spirit in Glaurung, he would be no more and no less than a giant serpent with the intelligence and instincts of a serpent. The Morgoth spirit it him appears to be what gave him his sentience.

Glaurung had a rather independent streak. Please provide examples of this, Kuruharan.

Balrogs are totally independent of Morgoth. Please provide some evidence for this, Thingol.

the assumption that things that have recieved the power of Melkor partially lose the ability to make their own descissions is flawed I think the texts bear this out, as you show, Thingol. On Balrogs, I was hesitant, but reading "Of the Enemies" in The Silmarillion leads me to accept your thought that The Balrogs were Melkor's elite force and I think Tolkien would have said so if Melkor enhanced them with his power.
To say that the Balrogs were totally independent of Morgoth, and that they were his elite force, is to say two different things.

I don't know of any evidence to support this (that Ungoliante was a Maia). In The Silmarillion, "Of the Darkening of Valinor", it says, "...but some have said...when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwe, and that in the beginning [Ungoliant] was one of those that he corrupted to his service. But she had disowned her Master..." This supports that she was a Maia, and that she did have a will of her own.

There is the possibility that [dragons] were a Balrog/reptile hybrid, as hideous as the idea is. smilies/eek.gif smilies/eek.gif smilies/eek.gif What more can I say? smilies/biggrin.gif

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Kuruharan]

The erudition of you guys is staggering! No joke.
Thank you! smilies/smile.gif
...the praise of the praiseworthy is beyond all rewards.

Thingol:
I do not think that Melkor ever put any of his power into the Balorgs.
I'm afraid that I have to say that I find your reasoning for this unconvincing because of your own point.
The Balrogs were Melkor's elite force...
To me this seems like added reason for Melkor to give them extra power, so that they would be more effective. No, you are right that it isn't explicitly stated, but why would Melkor not give the Balrogs some of his powers. He put some of his power into everything else, why leave his elite stormtroopers out?
There is a interesting passage in the section about the Enemies.
...and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts.
It's the treacherous gifts that bears emphasis. I think that this could be a vague reference to Melkor giving some of his power to Balrogs. What I mean is that these guys are spirit. What sort of gift could a spirit be given? An increase in power is what jumps to mind.
Tolkien may not have said anything because he assumed that we would take it for granted that Melkor put some of his power into Balrogs. (Well, actually I suspect it's because he was not expecting people years later to be splitting his sentences apart exploring all the possible hidden meanings behind everything. smilies/wink.gif )

obloquy:
I would be careful not to assume too much based on Morgoth's wording.
Ah, now here's an interesting point. It is rather difficult to get to the truth behind something when those who know the most about a thing are pathological liers by nature. However, Morgoth is spoken of in several places as spending his spirit on his servants so I think that we can take it that some sort of power transfer was taking place.
They never held ranks or commanded troops, and were never spoken of as 'most deadly of Morgoth's servants,' but rather as 'most fell among Morgoth's creatures.'
Okay, a couple of things about this. Glaurung became a "Dragon-king of Nargothrond" after the sack of Nargothrond, commanding orcs in his own right. He led orcs in the sack of Nargothrond as a matter of fact. (Note how he deprived them of their plunder.)
I think that it would be helpful to remember the relative positions of Voronwe and Tuor to the Morgothers. They were enemies. (I know this seems ridiculously obvious, but please follow me for a minute.) Sometimes the word "creatures" can be used as a put-down for somebody you are speaking unfavorably about. I think that may be what is going on here. Voronwe is speaking in disgust about his enemies, and lumping them all together under the insulting word "creatures." I doubt that in his fear and disgust he was being technical as to whether or not Morgoth had 'bred' the bodies of particular servants. He was speaking in shock and horror.

littlemanpoet:
From my reading of all the Glaurung texts in The Silmarillion and many in the UT, it is clear that the Morgoth spirit in Glaurung was more powerful than in most servants of Morgoth.
No arguments on that point here. smilies/smile.gif
Glaurung had a rather independent streak.
Certainly. When Glaurung first appeared it was during the Seige of Angband when he tried to break through the leaguer. This was not the will of Morgoth. The text states that Morgoth was angry at Glaurung for this. I think that somewhere it said that Glaurung delighted in tormenting Turin to gratify his own malice, as opposed to just the malice of his master, like there was some seperation between their spirits.

Did somebody way back in the thread mention Carcharoth? I can't find it. Maybe it was another thread. Anyway, I think a comparison with Carcharoth might be instructive here.
...and put his [Morgoth's] power on him. Swiftly the wolf grew, until he could creep into no den, but lay huge and hungry before the feet of Morgoth. There the fire and anguish of hell entered into him, and he became filled with a devouring spirit, tormented terrible and strong.
Here Morgoth put his power on Carcharoth, and a spirit entered into him. I think that something similar may have happened with Dragons. Morgoth found a big lizard, put his power on it, and then a Maiar spirit entered into the Dragon. I think that may be a reasonable explanation of the whole combination of Morgoth's power and independent Maiar spirit thing. Obviously the Balrogs and Ungoliant were the reverse of this process, but I think that the example is still illuminating (if you can call it that considering what we are dealing with. smilies/wink.gif )

When Morgoth fell asleep when Beren and Luthien took the Silmaril, all the hosts of Angband fell asleep with him. It did not say that the hosts of Angband, except Balrogs, fell asleep. All were put to sleep. I think this shows some sort of relationship between the spirits of Balrogs and the spirit of Morgoth.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[obloquy]

Quoth the poet:
"..." This supports that she was a Maia, and that she did have a will of her own.

It supports that she was a spirit that Morgoth corrupted, but that does not necessarily mean Maia.

For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts.Silmarillion

The actual meaning of this passage may be that he corrupted other Maiar with gifts, after the days of his greatness, but the possibility that "others" is intended more broadly cannot be denied. In fact, the labels "Valar" and "Maiar" seem to be not so much the name of their species or race, but simply titles given to the station they occupy within Arda. That Melkor could be "no longer counted among the Valar" shows us that one could be excluded from this order. The Valar were "the powers," and the Maiar were "the people of the Valar." This allows that Ungoliante was actually neither, as well as any other Ainu who may have descended into Arda without being designated Valar (as Tulkas was), or without subjecting themselves to a Vala for servitude (Tom Bombadil?! smilies/wink.gif). On an aside, perhaps the innate power of the Ainu (before it became either Vala or Maia) determined to which group it would belong, and not the other way around -- in other words, it is possible that these unassigned Ainur had power to rival the Valar. Theoretically. smilies/smile.gif

Here is a quote to support my argument above:
Thus it came to pass that of the Ainur some abode still with Ilúvatar beyond the confines of the World; but others, and among them many of the greatest and most fair, took the leave of Ilúvatar and descended into it.Silmarillion

If Ungoliante had served Morgoth when he was still among the Valar, she would, by definition, be a Maia. But as soon as she forsook him, would she not then be an unaffiliated Ainu? Did Sauron ever become an unaffiliated Ainu, rather than a Maia of Morgoth, formerly of Aule? Did Melian's life in Beleriand remove her from the service of Vana and Este, and thus also from the order of Maiar? Though all these would remain Ainur, could the title of Maia still be applied to them?

To me this seems like added reason for Melkor to give them extra power, so that they would be more effective. No, you are right that it isn't explicitly stated, but why would Melkor not give the Balrogs some of his powers.

I don't think Morgoth was so generous. He would have feared rebellion and usurpation if they became too powerful. He may have told them he was enhancing them, but I highly doubt he would have actually done so (hence "treacherous gifts"). As for Glaurung, I would say that the spirit of Morgoth within him is not Morgoth's power, but Morgoth's malice and hate.

Morgoth is spoken of in several places as spending his spirit on his servants so I think that we can take it that some sort of power transfer was taking place.

Could you direct me to some of these places? I know he squandered his spirit in devising new evils, corrupting races (Trolls, Orcs), and breeding new beasts (Glaurung smilies/wink.gif), but this does not necessarily mean enhancing the spirit of these creatures with his own.

Sometimes the word "creatures" can be used as a put-down for somebody you are speaking unfavorably about. I think that may be what is going on here. Voronwe is speaking in disgust about his enemies, and lumping them all together under the insulting word "creatures.

This I disagree with just because I do. smilies/smile.gif

I doubt that in his fear and disgust he was being technical as to whether or not Morgoth had 'bred' the bodies of particular servants. He was speaking in shock and horror.

Could he not then also have exaggerated a bit?

It did not say that the hosts of Angband, except Balrogs, fell asleep. All were put to sleep. I think this shows some sort of relationship between the spirits of Balrogs and the spirit of Morgoth.

Do you mean to say that Morgoth was sustaining all of his hordes by his own power, like a puppeteer? And that they fell asleep only because Morgoth did? No, I think it's more reasonable to assume that they had all been affected by the same spell.

I hate to cop-out on you, but the truth is, if you say your quote doesn't conflict with mine, then Balrogs were more powerful since "servants" encompasses more than "creatures" (in this context). If you say the quotes do conflict, then the LotR one must stand as the answer to the question.

I have to go now, so I apologize for any errors that I may have been able to catch with sufficient time to go over the post again and edit. smilies/smile.gif

[obloquy]

...the wills of Orcs and Balrogs etc. are part of Melkor's power 'dispersed'. Their spirit is one of hate. But hate is non-coöperative (except under direct fear). Hence the rebellions, mutinies, etc. when Morgoth seems far off. Orcs are beasts and Balrogs corrupted Maiar.MT

This is a useful quote to support my contention that the power Morgoth put into his servants was to control them, rather than to enhance them.

Here's another one, also from Myths Transformed in an Author's note:
One of the reasons for his self-weakening is that he has given to his 'creatures', Orcs, Balrogs, etc. power of recuperation and multiplication. So that they will gather again without further specific orders. Part of his native creative power has gone out into making an independent evil growth out of his control.

The power he put into them also served to allow them to recuperate and multiply on their own, perpetuating his evil even after he was imprisoned.

And with that I must go, yet again. I shall be back later!

[Kuruharan]

The Big East Tourney is on right now so I'll try to be brief (for once).

Okay, I'll buy the renegade Ainu theory for Ungoliant (although if a Ainu wasn't a Valar, I thought that they were by default a Maiar whether they were speifically serving one of the Valar or not).

I don't think Morgoth was so generous. He would have feared rebellion and usurpation if they became too powerful.
And
Do you mean to say that Morgoth was sustaining all of his hordes by his own power, like a puppeteer? And that they fell asleep only because Morgoth did?
I do not believe it was a matter of being generous. It was a matter of making his fighters as effective as possible. I believe that the treacherous part was while it enhanced their powers, it also created a dependence on Melkor on the part of those who accepted those gifts.
In answer to the puppeteer part the answer is in a way, yes. I believe that there was some sort of puppeteer relationship between the Dark Lords and their minions. Remember how the orcs of Sauron were running about all distraught when the Ring was destroyed because there was no will there to direct them. I think a comparison with Aule is instructive in this case. Remember how when he created the Dwarves, Iluvatar told him that they were utterly dependent on him for their existance, and if Aule happened to be thinking about something else then the Dwarves would simply stand idle. I think the relationship between Morgoth and his hordes was similar.
And, as powerful as Luthien was, I think it is just a bit much to think that her spell was able to cast all the hosts of Angband into sleep. If she could do that then why didn't the Valar (beings of much greater power) do something similar, and then they would not have missed those Balrogs and Sauron?
Moving down to your second post for just a second since it deals with the same thing, I think that it is a combination of both control and enhancement. For creatures like orcs multiplication and recuperation would be good things to have. For creatures like Balrogs and Dragons thinks like having a power of terror and cunning would be very good things indeed.

Um, which quotes contradicting each other are you referring to? There have been so many quotes used that it's hard to keep track! I would feel rather foolish constructing a big huge explanation only to find out that you had not been talking about that particular quote at all! smilies/smile.gif

Gotta go! smilies/wink.gif

[Thingol]

I believe the two conflicting quotes that Obloquy was referring to are the one by Legolas and the one by Voronwe. As Obloquy pointed out that by interpreting Voronwe's quote in the matter in which you prefer it comes into conflict with Legolas' quote in The Fellowship of the Ring. In a conflict between the two quotes Legolas' quote has to be considered cannon because it is from The Lord of the Rings. Because of this it makes more sense to interpret Voronwe's quote in the manner in which myself and Obloquy have previously stated. Let me attempt one more analogy on Balrogs and Dragons. Sauron is diminutive compared to a Dragon such as Smaug or Glaurung, but would you say that a Dragon would be able to defeat Sauron in a duel? I hope not. Allow me to take it one step further, Melkor, after he destroys the two trees, is also tiny compared to a Dragon, but even after Melkor squandered most of his power I would not say that he was weaker than even Ancalgon the Black. The Balrogs were of the same order of Sauron and akin to Melkor, being his servants from before Arda was created. Manwe tells Feanor that even if he were 100 times more powerful his war on Melkor would still be hopeless. This is not because the elves could never physically defeat Melkor, (They kept him bottled up for several hundred years, and if it wasn't for Ulfang they probably would have been able to destroy his armies and break Angbad) it was because Melkor's spirit was too great to be conquered by anyone but the Valar. Unlike the Dragon's Melkor could not have been physically destroyed unless his spirit could be conquered. Even if Fingolofin had stabbed Melkor 100 times, he still would not have killed him. The same seems to be true of the Balrogs. Do as I say! Swords are no more use here. Go!...Over the bridge! Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly! -Gandalf, The Bridge of Khazud-Dum

On the other hand Dragon's do not need to be defeated on a spiritual level to be killed. In more general terms, if a Balrog had marched (possibly even flew smilies/biggrin.gif) into Lake Town and started destroying the town, Bard could have shot the Balrog as full as a pin cushion with arrows and the Balrog still would not have died. In the Seven Thanes of Morgoth thread Obloquy eloquently states that in their final conception Tolkien envisioned Balrogs as a kind of creature that had no match among the Free Peoples, more powerful than Elves, and virtually untouchable by Men.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Kuruharan]

I believe the two conflicting quotes that Obloquy was referring to are the one by Legolas and the one by Voronwe.
I thought those were probably the ones that he was referring to. However, if that is the case, there is a long digression that I will feel obligated to make, so I want to make sure before doing so. smilies/smile.gif (Although if obloquy doesn't pipe up soon, I may go ahead and do it anyway.)

Ah, the cycle begins anew...
Obviously on the point of whether or not Balrogs and Dragons have relatively equal spirits there is never going to be agreement, because I believe that the spirits of Dragons were Maiar as well, and it's not likely that you'll be able to find a way to dissuade me on that point. It's just about as unlikely that I'll ever be able to convince you two that while the spirit of a Dragon may not have been quite equal to that of a Balrog, it was close enough to prevent the Balrog always having such a decided advantage. smilies/wink.gif

Unlike the Dragon's Melkor could not have been physically destroyed unless his spirit could be conquered. Even if Fingolofin had stabbed Melkor 100 times, he still would not have killed him. The same seems to be true of the Balrogs.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this because spirits can't be destroyed by anyone but Iluvatar. Their bodies are a different matter altogether. As you yourself have pointed out, Balrog's bodies were killed.

Do as I say! Swords are no more use here. Go!...Over the bridge! Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!
He might very well have said the same thing if a Dragon had come blazing across the Bridge. I don't think that you are fully appreciating the situation. The primary goal was not to kill the Balrog, it was to allow the Ringbearer to get out of there alive and continue the Quest.

In more general terms, if a Balrog had marched (possibly even flew) into Lake Town and started destroying the town, Bard could have shot the Balrog as full as a pin cushion with arrows and the Balrog still would not have died.
You do not know this. What if Legolas had been able to pull himself together and shoot the Balrog while it was distracted by Gandalf? He might have hit a weak spot in its armor for all we know. While I personally don't think that Balrogs had wings and thus would not be able to fly over Laketown reeking havoc, I think it might be possible to kill a Balrog by shooting it in the back or something while it was distracted by town baiting. They were not immune to weapons. Ecthelion apparently killed a Balrog with his helmet spike, why wouldn't swords and arrows hurt them? Gandalf said that he hewed the Balrog with his sword as if he thought that doing so would do some good.

Tolkien envisioned Balrogs as a kind of creature that had no match among the Free Peoples, more powerful than Elves, and virtually untouchable by Men.

Couple of things, Gothmog did not kill Hurin, in fact he seems not to have engaged him at all. He did kill Faenor and Fingon, but one time he had his whole bunch there together, and the other time he only downed Fingon after one of his cronies snuck up from behind and cast a thong of fire about Fingon. As far as we know Turin never met a Balrog, and he only managed to kill Glaurung by sneaking up underneath him while he was crossing a gorge. Glaurung had personally wasted thousands of Elves and Men before.

But all of this is really irrelevant to the discussion. What we are trying to decide is how well they would do against each other.

On the other hand Dragon's do not need to be defeated on a spiritual level to be killed.

I agree with this in a way, but totally disagree with the way that you are discounting their spiritual power. Dragons clearly had spiritual power in the way that they could ensnare people with their spell.
What I agree with is that you did not necessarily have to encounter them on that level to kill them. I rather doubt that in the heat of battle you had a great deal of time to be worrying about the spiritual power of your opponent. You are just trying to hack to pieces whatever happens to be in front of you.

[Thingol]

Even if the spirit that inhabits a Dragon is a Maia it did not construct its own Hroa (body) and has become completely trapped on the physical plain. On the other hand Balrogs created their own Hroa and seem to be able to manipulate their form, at least to some extent. The manner in which the Balrogs are described also lends credence to the assumption that they are still deeply connected to the magical or spiritual realm. As for what I mean by the duel between Fingolofin and Melkor I mean that Fingolofin could never have destroyed Melkor's physical form, even if he had stabbed him 100 times. The reason Glorfindel's helmut spike was able to kill Gothmog was because Gothmog was defeated on a spiritual level first. In all of the instances where a Balrog was killed I contend that the Balrog must have been defeated on a spiritual level first. Gandalf's quote supports this theory, Swords are no more use here. Because of this there is no way that a stray arrow would have been able to kill a Balrog. On the other hand Dragons clearly do not need to be defeated on the spiritual level to be defeated. The manner in which the Dragons are described is always physically terrifying; the description of Durin's bane is very different. As I've stated before in all of the major duels Tolkien spends practically no time describing the physical battle. This is not because Tolkien couldn't or because there is less to describe, Tolkien was certainly capable of creating a vivid description of a physical duel, it was because he chose not to. I'm curious to know if you would put the Dragons above Sauron or even Melkor (in his reduced state) simply because the Dragons are much larger and physically impressive Kuruharan?

[Kuruharan]

I'm curious to know if you would put the Dragons above Sauron or even Melkor (in his reduced state) simply because the Dragons are much larger and physically impressive Kuruharan?
Certainly not above Morgoth. He was a Vala and of a higher order of creation than the Maiar. He was also their master, and they were at least to a degree under his thrall.
Sauron, well Sauron is probably of a different type than the spirits of Balrogs and Dragons. I don't mean that he was a different type of Maia, I mean that his personality, skills, and powers were different. He was a controller, administrator, and leader. And note that everytime that he went into combat himself, he lost. He was beaten by Huan, he was personally defeated by Gil-Galad and Elendil, fighting just does not seem to be his thing.
Even if the spirit that inhabits a Dragon is a Maia it did not construct its own Hroa (body) and has become completely trapped on the physical plain. On the other hand Balrogs created their own Hroa and seem to be able to manipulate their form, at least to some extent.
Where does it say that Balrogs constructed their own hroa?
Just because Gandalf said that the Balrog had become "a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake" does not mean that the Balrog had assumed the form of a snake. It was a metaphor. I think the ability for them to increase the relative fire or darkness was just another useful function that their hroa could perform depending on the need. It would be a nice trick.
Because of this there is no way that a stray arrow would have been able to kill a Balrog.
Again, I must say, you don't know this.
The reason Glorfindel's helmut spike was able to kill Gothmog was because Gothmog was defeated on a spiritual level first.
Well, it was Ecthelion's helmet spike, but I still rather doubt that they had a great deal of time for spiritual victories or defeats with a big battle swirling about them. If you mean that the individual in question had to overcome the terror of a Balrog before fighting it, that would also hold true for a dragon. Especially if you were silly enough to look into a Dragon's eyes (*cough* Turin *cough*).

[Thingol]

Yeah, I meant Ecthillion, sorry about that. The difference between the Dragons and Balrogs is that the spirits of Dragon's (be they Maia or Elf) entered into an already existing creature that Melkor had bred. On the other hand the spirits of Balrogs did not enter into any beast, but were incarnated into a body that they created. This is exactly what happened to Melkor. The Balrog is able to draw itself up to a great height, fire blazes forth from its body, and it certainly has control over the shadow that surrounds it. I did not say that it actually changed its shape after it fell into the water with Gandalf, I understand that the snake comment was only a metaphor. Anyway before I respond to the rest of your last post I want to quote from the Letters of Tolkien in an attempt to clear up the nature of magic in Middle Earth. Some of this is not very pertinent to the Balrog/Dragon debate, but interesting none the less. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is a latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between magia and goeteia[1]. Galadriel speaks of the "deceits of the Enemy". Well, enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose of use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is domination of other free wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but "magic" that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate. Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive the Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and `life'…The basic motive for magia - quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work - is immediacy: speed, reduction of labor, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect.

1 Greek equivalent of goetia; the English form Goety is defined in the O.E.D. as `witchcraft or magic performed by the invocation and employment of evil spirits; necromancy.
Anyway, a difference in the use of "magic" in this story is that it is not come by "lore" or spells; but it is an inherent power not possessed or attainable be Men as such...
Alongside the final paragraph, Tolkien has written: 'But some Númenóreans used "spells" in making swords? Letter #155

In Tolkien's Middle Earth magic is the ability of ones Fea to affect the physical world. The elves specialize in using their Fea to create what Tolkien calls art, but they are also capable of using their spirit in a destructive way. The same is true of the enemies, but they choose to use their power to dominate others. It is important to note that men do not have this ability. The spirits of men are not bound to the Earth and subsequently have very little power to physically affect the world. The only slight exception to this is the Númenóreans sword craft. However, this is not the same as elven magic, it is lore. Lore is the ability to create items of magical properties. The power that comes from lore does not reside in men, it comes from the item the man is wielding. The reason I am brining this up is because it shows the nature of magic in Tolkien's works and the relative impotence of man's magical/spiritual power. My main point is that even though the spiritual/magical power of men is no where close to that of an elf, let alone a Maia, they are still able to slay Dragons. While I can not prove beyond a doubt that the Balrog can not be destroyed without first being defeated, or at least stunned, on a spiritual level I think it is a reasonable assumption. If this is not the case then how else can you explain the futility of Fingolofin's duel or Manwe's statement that Feanor's war against Melkor was doomed to failure? I don't see any reason why a great spiritual/magical battle couldn't have taken place in the midst of a great battle. The Witch King harnesses his magical power to break the gates of Minas Tirith in the midst of a great battle and moments later a spiritual/magical confrontation occurs between Gandalf and The Witch King.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, Thingol, for the quotes on magic vs. goetia and the helpful conclusions regarding human magic. I would add a caution in one regard, though. You tend to describe the physical and spiritual battles as rather separate affairs, taking place perhaps at the same place, but not necessarily at the same time. I think that in both Tolkien's mythos and in reality (on which his mythos is healthily based), the physical and spiritual dimensions are not so easily teased out. I would go so far as to say that they cannot be so teased out one from the other. An author must make it appear so to some degree just because it's so hard to describe both at the same time. Tolkien was an exception of genius in this regard, but that also has to do with the fact that he was writing myth rather than just a novel. To sum up, I think that the Balrog was both physical and spiritual at once, and the battle with Gandalf was both physical and spiritual at once, and it clouds the issue to read into Tolkien's story an invisible spiritual battle that he does not even describe.

[Thingol]

and it clouds the issue to read into Tolkien's story an invisible spiritual battle that he does not even describe. While the actual spiritual battle is not described, the reader does see the reflection of this battle on the physical world. For the most part this reflection is in the form of a white light shining through the body of one of the good guys vs. a dark cloud emanating from one of the bad guys. In addition when the Witch King unleashes his power the entire battle stops and he seems to grow larger and more terrible. I agree with you littlemanpoet, that the spiritual/magical battle occurs simultaneously with the physical battle. For example it is a combination of magical power (the Witch King's spell) and physical power (Grond) that breaks the gates of Minas Tirith. Although Grond was a weapon of lore, so it was a double dose of magic. smilies/smile.gif However, I believe that the spiritual battle is more important than the physical battle, even if they are occuring at the same time. I've said it before, but I'll say it again, Melkor was not able to be defeated by the Noldor because his spirit was too great to overcome, not because he was too physically powerful. Also in the Valaquenta Sauron is described as the greatest of Melkor's servants. As I type this I notice the word servant is used to describe Sauron. I haven't looked, but I'd be willing to wager that all of the Maia that are described are described as servants and not creatures. Tolkien was very careful with the use of language, and I doubt it is coincidental that the Maia are referred to as servants and the rest of Melkor's armies as creatures. I think this pretty much proves that Voronwe's comment does not conflict with Legolas' comment to Celeborn (I also noticed that neither Celeborn nor Galadriel correct Legolas).

[Kuruharan]

I like the section on the nature of magic. That is probably one of the most misunderstood aspects of Tolkien's world.

If this is not the case then how else can you explain the futility of Fingolfin's duel or Manwe's statement that Feanor's war against Melkor was doomed to failure?
I explain it by saying that we are not talking about the same thing. You are talking about Elves vs. Valar. I'm talking about Balrogs (Maiar) vs. Dragons (Maiar).

I think that in both Tolkien's mythos and in reality (on which his mythos is healthily based), the physical and spiritual dimensions are not so easily teased out. I would go so far as to say that they cannot be so teased out one from the other.
Excellent way of looking at it. That was more or less what I was trying to get out, although you did it in a much more coherent fashion.

However, I believe that the spiritual battle is more important than the physical battle, even if they are occuring at the same time.
You're still looking at them as being two different things. What littlemanpoet is saying is that the two are closely interconnected, not that they are just occurring at the same time.

Tolkien was very careful with the use of language, and I doubt it is coincidental that the Maia are referred to as servants and the rest of Melkor's armies as creatures.
I still say, in spite of obloquy's objection, that 'creatures' was a negative and all inclusive term for the entirety of Morgoth's forces.

I think this pretty much proves that Voronwe's comment does not conflict with Legolas' comment to Celeborn
I can see that I am going to have to go on my big, long digression. (oh, goodie smilies/smile.gif ) Unfortunately, it is very long and I can't do it now, I'll have to come back and do it later. smilies/frown.gif

(I also noticed that neither Celeborn nor Galadriel correct Legolas).
Had either one of them ever been in the presence of a Balrog or a Dragon? Would they know?

Again, I have to go back to the point of the Balrogs escorting Glaurung at the Battle of Sudden Flame, as if they were subordinated to him in some way.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[Thingol]

Had Voronwe ever been in the presence of a Balrog or a Dragon? Also Glaurung may have just been able to move faster. smilies/smile.gif Also at the time of the writing of the Dagor Bragollach Balrogs may not have taken on the same significance that they had in the Lord of the Rings. At one point there were thousands of Balrogs that rode on mechanical dragons. Later the number might have been reduced to as little as 3. I'm not positive of when the Dagor Bragollach was written, but I'm sure Obloquy or someone will correct me if it was written after the Lord of the Rings. Even assuming that the Balrogs had taken on the same significance at this time I see nothing wrong with the Balrogs escorting Glaurung in the battle. Obloquy and I have said that the specialty of Dragons was in fighting against armies, not in fighting duels. It would make sense in a large battle to have a Dragon lead the charge, since they possess the greatest physical destructive power and the strategy of Morgoth in the Dagor Bragollach was to surprise the Noldor with an incredibly destructive first blow. The Noldor were driven back so suddenly that they did not have a chance to regroup. However, in Tolkien's works combat during a battle is different from a duel between two foes of great strength. As for Vala/elf and Maia /elf not being the same you are missing my point. The only distinction between a Vala and a Maia is in the degree of power. The point I am trying to make is that the same relationship exists between a battle between a Vala and an elf and a battle between a Maia and an elf. If the spirit of a Vala has to be overcome in order for it to be slain then the same is true of a Maia. Both the Maia and the Valar are Ainur, they are exactly the same except in their spiritual/magical power. If Morgoth had to be overcome on a spiritual plain then the same is true for Maia. I'm not saying that it is only the spiritual plain that matters, but that in order for one opponent to defeat another then their spirits must be at least on an equal level at the time of the battle. This is why Gandalf tells Aragorn and Boromir that the Balrog is a foe beyond either of them and that swords are of no more use. Men lack the connection to the spiritual/magical world and therefore stand no chance against a foe like a Balrog. On the other hand they seem to do alright against Dragons. smilies/biggrin.gif

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Thingol]

I just re-read the thread, this is a fun debate smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/biggrin.gif

[obloquy]

For the most part I believe I've made my points on this topic. I have been watching it, and I wish you both luck (Thingol and Kuruharan) in hashing it out.

However, a few minor things, mostly unrelated to the topic heading:

I'm talking about Balrogs (Maiar) vs. Dragons (Maiar).

Are we taking this possible origin of the Dragons' spirits for granted now? smilies/smile.gif As I said, I believe Tolkien would have mentioned this significant point somewhere. The only Maiarin servants he mentions are the Balrogs and the Orc chieftains. In addition, since the Dragons' specialty was firebreathing, would it not make sense that they (as Maiar) would be fire spirits? Would they not then simply be Balrogs, regardless of their physical shape or attributes?

Had either one of them [Galadriel; Celeborn] ever been in the presence of a Balrog or a Dragon? Would they know?

Galadriel would know. More than Voronwe, for sure.

I think that in both Tolkien's mythos and in reality (on which his mythos is healthily based), the physical and spiritual dimensions are not so easily teased out. I would go so far as to say that they cannot be so teased out one from the other.

I do agree with you here. I think that these "spiritual" battles would be happening simultaneously with the physical duel, and not as if there are two spiritual beings wrestling on a different plane or in a different dimension, but merely as a clash of wills. It's not Gandalf's superior muscles or fighting technique that allowed him to throw down Durin's Bane. His will had conquered the Balrog's, and only then could he physically defeat him. Saruman was defeated solely by Gandalf's more potent will. Their duel existed entirely on the spiritual level, and Saruman's sundered staff was the physical, somewhat symbolic evidence of the outcome of that invisible battle.

You're still looking at them as being two different things. What littlemanpoet is saying is that the two are closely interconnected, not that they are just occurring at the same time.

Out of curiosity, do you think the Balrog could have defeated Gandalf with his fighting prowess alone?

[Thingol]

I just want to clearly illustrate my points in an outline form. What can I say, I'm a freak. smilies/biggrin.gif

1. Man's spiritual/magical power is very weak, not on par with an elf's, let alone a Maia.
2. Men have killed Dragons.
3. In order for a "powerful" being to be defeated it must be confronted by an opponent of at least equal spiritual/magical power.
4. Balrogs are only slain by elf lords, who died in the process, and the Valar, it is very doubtful that a man could kill a Balrog (see Gandalf's quote to Aragorn and Boromir)
5. Since men have killed Dragons this means that the spiritual/magical power of a Dragon is not very potent.
6. Dragons are the most powerful beings in existance in terms of pure physical power, but I do not believe that Balrogs can be physically destroyed unless they are met by an opponent with equal or greater spiritual/magical power.
7. Voronwe's quote and Legolas' quote do not conflict with eachother. If one insists they do, then Voronwe's quote must be disregarded. The Lord of the Rings is cannon over the Unfinished Tales. Any ideas or statements in the Unfinished Tales that conflicts with information in the Lord of the Rings is either an out-dated notion or a slip up.

That pretty much sums up my argument, do your worst smilies/evil.gif

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[littlemanpoet]

I haven't looked, but I'd be willing to wager that all of the Maia that are described are described as servants and not creatures. Tolkien was very careful with the use of language, and I doubt it is coincidental that the Maia are referred to as servants and the rest of Melkor's armies as creatures.

This is a false distinction, Thingol.

Creature: 1. something created: as a) a lower animal; b) a human being; c) a being of anomalous or uncertain aspect or nature. 2. one who is the servile dependent or tool of another.

As this definition shows, a creature can be either in flesh or not. Therefore, All beings, whether Valar or Children of Iluvatar, are creatures. Note that "servant" is even contained within the definition of "creature".

Despite the fact that spirit and body cannot be teased out from each other, Thingol, I agree that a strong spirit (or will), like that of a Balrog, can only be defeated by a spirit or will of comparable strength. But the strength of the weapon of the opponent should be accounted for, as well. Turin with his Black Sword, for example.

What I was really saying with "teased out" was a caution against talking about the physical and spiritual as if they were two separate battles. I agree that the spirit is in general more important than the flesh, but not exclusively so.

There is another important factor that I don't think has been brought into this discussion, and it needs to be because of Thingol's first two points about the weakness of Men. Iluvatar created the Valar and Eldar to be governed by fate, whereas Men have freedom to change fate, this making them more like Melkor than any of the other Valar in the eyes of the Eldar.

This ability to act free of fate is part of what is going on with Bilbo (who must be accounted as part of humanity) and Bard, slayer of Smaug. Bilbo was called 'lucky', and Bard's slaying of Smaug was also 'lucky'. This basically makes it impossible to compare men to the Eldar or Valar in terms of strength of spirit, because luck cannot be factored into the calculation with any success.

Here's my opinion on the Balrog versus Dragon debate after having read all of this thread so far: Balrogs were Melkor's Maiar and they made their own shapes. Dragons were the shapes that Melkor made for other Maiar who were not as strong as Balrogs. The Balrogs were created by Iluvatar to shape their own forms; the Dragons shapes were created by Melkor, a lesser being than Iluvatar, so the Dragons themselves must be lesser than Balrogs. It's my guess that the Maiar that inhabit Dragons are made more powerful by having been given those powerful forms. But that's only a guess.

[Thingol]

Creature: Something created...

The only problem is the Balrogs were not created by Melkor, and in Voronwe's statement he says of Glaurung, he is the most fell of all the creatures of Morgoth. Morgoth did not create the Balrogs; they could be considered creatures of Illuvitar under your interpretation, but not the most fell of Melkor's creatures. Therefore, thanks to your definition, Balrogs can not be classified under creatures. On the other hand Melkor did have a part in breeding the Dragon's, so they could be refered to as his creatures. Legolas' statement, that save Sauron the Balrogs are the greatest of the elf banes is more general, and can include both Balrogs and Dragons. I did check and every one of the few times a Maia (of any Vala) is described, it is always as a servant. Creature might be a more general term, but there is still a distinction, at least in Tolkien's works, between servant and creature. I think Obloquy's comparison of pig vs farmhand applies nicely. smilies/smile.gif

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Thingol]

Also littlemanpoet, it is not certain, even if it is likely, that the spirit that inhabits a Dragon is a Maia, it is only one possibility.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[littlemanpoet]

I will clarify.

Balrogs were originally Maia, creatures of Iluvatar. That is, they were created by Iluvatar. Melkor was a creature of Iluvatar, created by him. Melkor and the Balrogs were of a single nature: Valar. They incarnated themselves, taking from the nature of Arda to clothe themselves in materiality.

The Dragons, by contrast, were of two natures. There are two possibilities: 1) Iluvatar created great serpents and created Maia, and Melkor corrupted them to evil and joined the Maia into the animal serpents. 2) Melkor made Dragons by turning normal serpents into Great serpents, investing them with Maia.

If the spirits of Melkor in Dragons were not Maia, what else could they be? They could not have been mere serpents to which Melkor added intelligence, because 1) that's not what Tolkien says; 2) Melkor was incapable of creating a new thing; all he could do was corrupt what Iluvatar or the other Valar had made. And for that reason I favor #1 above.

If by this I show agreement with the farmer/pig analogy, as limited as it is, so be it.

Glaurung is a creature of Morgoth, which means Morgoth created him. And invested him with a "spirit of Morgoth". This is probably a servant-spirit of Morgoth, that is, a corrupted Maia. If this is still insufficient proof that Dragons' spirits are Maia, then there is still a preponderance of hte evidence.

[Thingol]

The spritis that inhabit Dragons could be corrupted elven spirits or even Dwarven spirits (We are never directly told where Dwarven spirits go). The spirits that inhabited the werewolves were probably corrupted elf spirits. If an elf Fea rejects the summons of Mandos, then it is doomed to wander the Earth. Many Avari elves rejected the summons of Mandos (being unfamiliar with the Valar) and were ensnared by Melkor/Sauron. The Barrow Wights were also probably corrupted elven spirits that were forced into the bodies of dead men by the Witchking. Also Balrogs and Melkor were of a single nature, but not Valar, they were both Ainur. The Balrogs are creatures of Illuvitar, but Servants of Morgoth. The Dragons on the other hand were bred, probably in the same manner in which Carchoth was bred, by Melkor and hence can be considered his creatures.

[obloquy]

Balrogs were originally Maia, creatures of Iluvatar. That is, they were created by Iluvatar. Melkor was a creature of Iluvatar, created by him. Melkor and the Balrogs were of a single nature: Valar.

I don't mean to be anal, but their "single nature" was Ainur, not Valar. The Valar (Melkor) were the higher beings among the Ainur, and the Maiar (Balrogs) were the servants of them.

The Dragons, by contrast, were of two natures. There are two possibilities: 1) Iluvatar created great serpents and created Maia, and Melkor corrupted them to evil and joined the Maia into the animal serpents. 2) Melkor made Dragons by turning normal serpents into Great serpents, investing them with Maia.

You seem to consider the Maiarin spirit as a necessity. It is not.

If the spirits of Melkor in Dragons were not Maia, what else could they be?

The seeming sentience of the Dragons could have been the original spirit of the beast that Morgoth corrupted, after having been taught to speak. Here is a quote that supports this as a possibility: In summary: I think it must be assumed that 'talking' is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a 'rational soul' or fëa. The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted / converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their 'talking' was really reeling off 'records' set in them by Melkor. Even their rebellious critical words — he knew about them. Melkor taught them speech and as they bred they inherited this; and they had just as much independence as have, say, dogs or horses of their human masters. This talking was largely echoic (cf. parrots), in The Lord of the Rings Sauron is said to have devised a language for them.
The same sort of thing may be said of Húan and the Eagles: they were taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher level - but they still had no fëar.
But Finrod probably went too far in his assertion that Melkor could not wholly corrupt any work of Eru, or that Eru would (necessarily) interfere to abrogate the corruption, or to end the being of His own creatures because they had been corrupted and fallen into evil.Myths Transformed

Granted, this essay was in regard to Orc origins, but it applies. It supports the idea that, in devising Dragons, Morgoth corrupted a serpent or reptile of some kind, and taught it to speak or to express his hatred and malice. It would also be capable of rebellion.

There's also the possibility that Dragons are the offspring of Balrogs and serpents. I mentioned this early on in the discussion. The result of such a union would not be more Maiar (cf. Melian + Thingol = Luthien), but rather a strain of perverted beasts with a measure of Maiarin blood, or possibly even sentience. This entire scenario could be the "corruption" that Morgoth imposed on the serpent in the above paragraph.

[Thingol]

I was just about to post that exact same quote Obloquy smilies/biggrin.gif

[Kuruharan]

Dang! That'll teach me to be away from the boards for a whole day! smilies/eek.gif

I'm afraid my horrible schedule is coming back to bite me in the butt again so, all sophistry aside, I'm going to say what I really think about the whole thing, and skip my little spiel about how just because two characters in the story say something that contradicts with another character that doesn't mean that one text should be favored over another. As Tolkien himself said there is a difference between characters in the story and his knowledge as subcreator. (Although I know there will be argument over that too...)

Balrogs are definitely Maiar.
Dragons are possibly Maiar, possibly not, but in any case are of a lower order than Balrogs.
I am still not convinced that Balrogs would have such an overwhealming spiritual advantage over Dragons, some yes, but not overwhealming.
Dragons are better at fighing than Balrogs, but are more easily destroyed.

In all honesty, I think that the best thing that can be said is that's probably too close to call.

And, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
smilies/tongue.gif


I do kinda like that theory about Dragons being the offspring of Balrogs and giant serpents though. Well, like as in appreciate it's merit not like as in..., well you know what I mean. smilies/eek.gif

Since, Dragons do seem to possess a higher order of intelligence and power than any spirit of any beast, I think that I would have been a bit more than mearly a perverted beast.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[littlemanpoet]

Okay, being of somewhat limited intelligence and attention span (and I'm not taking notes), I've lost track of what Kuruharan and Obloquy assert, whereas Thingol has laid his out pretty cleaerly (which I don't consider weird, just organized - I won't even tell you what I was doing before you beat me to it - it WAs weird smilies/biggrin.gif ) All that to say this: Balrogs are Tolkien's invention, plain and simple. Dragons are not. Do you think that Tolkien's dragons are actually different in nature than those found in received Indo-European tradition? A lot of the debate and research on this thread into his works seem to indicate this sentiment. I personally think that he accepted this tradition and may have found it necessary (maybe not) to devise a mechanism (techno-speech - yuck smilies/rolleyes.gif ) for dragons' nature within Middle Earth. But I don't think so. Maybe we're finding angels on the ends of needles with this, eh? Yes, it's still great fun. smilies/biggrin.gif

Because I do think he accepted this tradition, I think ALL his dragons are worth discussing: Glaurung, Smaug, EVEN Chrysophylax.

And yes, we have got to think up some thread about Farmer Giles of Ham. smilies/biggrin.gif But what? smilies/confused.gif

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Kuruharan]

Mussst...get...thread...on...to...the...third...pa ge...ha-ha, ha, ha, ha, hee, hee...

I've lost track of what Kuruharan assert

Actually, I sort of did a little summary right above you, although for the most part I have been more dogmatic about it.

I do not believe that Balrogs can be physically destroyed unless they are met by an opponent with equal or greater spiritual/magical power.


What happened to that whole Ainur vs. Elves thing, since Elves killed Balrogs. smilies/wink.gif

Essentially the core of my thing is that I don't think that the "spiritual" power of the Dragons is so easily discarded as some here apparently think.

[Thingol]

I contend that the elves who slayed Balrogs did defeat them on a spiritual level, their spirit was boosted because of the hopelessness of the situation and their closeness to death. Tolkien considered Glorfindel's act as one of the greatest deeds of all the children of Illuvitar. This indicates to me that for the most part the Balrogs were far too great an oponent for the elves, (This is one of the major reasons why Obloquy asserts that more than 7 Balrogs would be unreasonable; any more than 7 would unbalance the scale of power between the Noldor and Morgoth) and that elves of the caliber of Glorfindel and Ecthillion were very rare and powerful. I'm sure that the same could be said of Feanor, Fingon, and Fingolofin because they seemed to be doing allright in their battle against a single Balrog. And of coarse Fingolofin did a number on Morgoth himself, so I'd assume he could probably hold his own against a Balorg. Hehe, close to 3 pages. smilies/evil.gif

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[obloquy]

The problem, Kuruharan, is that we don't know what kind of spiritual power Dragons possess. Since Balrogs were originally among the highest order of beings, it is hard to accept speculation that a Dragon is more powerful. Tolkien was very specific about the origin of Morgoth's Umaiar servants, and yet he never mentions Dragons among them.

[littlemanpoet]

All right, I'll try again by quoting myself.

Do you think that Tolkien's dragons are actually different in nature than those found in received Indo-European tradition? A lot of the debate and research on this thread into his works seem to indicate this sentiment.

This makes a difference as to the nature of the spirits of Dragons: if Tolkien based his Dragons on a tradition, we may research that tradition and write about it on this thread and get it to a 3rd page! bwahahahahaha smilies/biggrin.gif

But seriously, I think the tradition is worth studying in this context.

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Kuruharan]

I never said that Dragons would have greater spiritual power than Balrogs. In fact I have said that Balrogs would probably have had greater spiritual power than Dragons.

However, I have said that I do not think that the spiritual power of a Balrog would be so overwhealming as to be decisive in a fight with a Dragon.

On a related note (sort of) to what obloquy and littlemanpoet were talking about, the nature of the power of Dragons seemed to be geared towards deception, ensnaring, and trickery. For instance, Glaurung ensnared Turin with his gaze and tricked him into doing some rather silly things (like passing up an Elven wench smilies/wink.gif ). Smaug was attempting to trick Bilbo into revealing himself and the whole plot.

littlemanpoet:
This makes a difference as to the nature of the spirits of Dragons: if Tolkien based his Dragons on a tradition, we may research that tradition and write about it on this thread and get it to a 3rd page!
If you would care to get the ball rolling on that subject, I'd be happy to oblige. I'm not entirely sure what direction you would like to go, but I think that the dragon that had the most influence on his writing was the one in Beowulf, although dragons in Germanic, and Norse mythology in general would probably also qualify.

[Amanaduial the archer]

WOAH!!!!!!!!!!i wud soooooooo go and see that fight! b4 the film, i think idve thoight the dragons wud win, but now ive seen the film i think balrogs definitly hav a chance, cos i never imagined them 2 b so big!

[littlemanpoet]

Yes, the Beowulf dragon is one. Another is Fafnir of the Nibelunglied. Another - and this one may be too great - is the wyrm (I forget its name) that encompasses the entirety of Midgaard in Norse mythology. Now THAT one could probably handle a Balrog - 10 of 'em. smilies/biggrin.gif I'll dig in and see what I can find....

[littlemanpoet]

Here's the result of my research. The primary Dragons and Serpents are:

1) Fafnir (not of the Nibelunglied, but the Volsunga saga - sorry, my mistake)
2) Beowulf's Dragon
3) Lemmenkainen's Serpent

1) Fafnir is without wings, and spits poison. He doesn't begin to speak until after Sigurd has dealt the death blow. But from thereon he proceeds to prophesy, warn, and curse Sigurd (for going after his hoard), revealing an uncanny intelligence and 'fea' of mythic proportion. To save space and prevent boredom for those not so keen on this, I refer you to the website: The Story of the Volsungs (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Volsunga/chapter18.html)

2) Beowulf's Dragon does not speak, but it flies and vomits fire. It is ferocious. I have the book, so I didn't look up a website for this one.

3) Lemmenkainen's Serpent. For info on this one, see Rune XXVI. Origin of the Serpent (http://www.sacredtexts.com/neu/kveng/kvrune26.html) I'll quote from it briefly so you can get a sense of its proportions: Longer than the longest rafters,
Larger than the posts of oak-wood;
Hundred-eyed, the heinous serpent,
And a thousand tongues, the monster,
Eyes as large as sifting vessels,
Tongues as long as shafts of javelins,
Teeth as large as hatchet-handles,
Back as broad as skiffs of ocean.

Its size is comparable to the other two. It has no wings and does not speak, and it spits poison. I would think Tolkien knew of this Serpent, though it's at odds in some ways with his mythos, especially in how it is defeated. Lemmenkainen does not slay it, but says the right words to make it go away. The right words are the naming of its origins. Would that such a thing worked to get rid of our own opponents, eh?
smilies/wink.gif

There's probably more in the tradition, but I wanted to get back to this thread before too much time passed.

Anyway, I see similarity between Fafnir on one hand and Glaurung & Smaug on the other, especially Glaurung (both Turin and Sigurd are heroes who face tragic ends).

The sheer ferocity of Beowulf's Dragon sets it apart. It's the only fire-breathing Dragon I've found so far.

As to Balrogs versus Dragons, my initial sense upon doing this brief research is that:
1) there are levels of power among Dragons/Serpents. Intelligence that allows for speech may play a factor in this.
2) it's anybody's guess whether poison would be any more effective against Balrogs (spirits of fire) than firey breath.
3) Gandalf used words against the Balrog, not unlike Lemminkainen against the Serpent. But there was a physical battle between Gandalf and the Balrog, as has been said here already.

A lot more can be said, but I'll let it go at this for now.

[obloquy]

Nice research, littlemanpoet. I definitely see a couple of similarities, but I don't think we can look at those original Dragons to fill in the gaps that Tolkien left in his. Tolkien's borrowed mythical beings differ drastically from their traditional folklore counterparts. Gnomes and Elves, for example. It is interesting to see the characters that were evidently Tolkien's models for his Dragons, but I would avoid transferring features from them to Tolkien's. Tolkien's mythology was entirely independent.

[littlemanpoet]

I don't think we can look at those original Dragons to fill in the gaps that Tolkien left in his. Tolkien's borrowed mythical beings differ drastically from their traditional folklore counterparts.

Because the mythical beings are borrowed, Obloquy, there are enough similarities. Your examples don't help your assertion regarding drastic differences because Gnomes don't exist in Tolkien's mythos (unless you refer to his old usage from BOLT, which he revised, rendering that usage un-canon) and Tolkien's Elves do indeed hearken back to an older tradition than the corrupted Victorian pixie-style elfs.

I would avoid transferring features from them to Tolkien's. Tolkien's mythology was entirely independent.

By independent, do you mean that it stands alone, or that it is entirely divorced or autonomous from any heritage, or something else? Obviously, it stands alone, but that's not saying much. Anyone with any literary discernment can tell that Tolkien's mythos is his and not something else. To say that it is entirely divorced or autonomous is to deny all the roots which Tolkien himself acknowledged, such as the Elder Edda, etc. Check out this fascinating website regarding Tolkien's sources. Sources of the Lord of the Rings (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ring/index.html). If by entirely independent you mean something else, please explain.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[obloquy]

Tolkien merely changed what he called the Noldor because the meaning of "gnomes" had become confused. They're still Gnomes, according to what Tolkien originally intended by that name.

By independent, do you mean that it stands alone, or that it is entirely divorced or autonomous from any heritage, or something else?

I mean that apart from borrowing certain features of traditional folklore and mythology, Middle-earth is unconnected to those traditions. In other words, there are dragons, but there is no Fafnir. I am not going to pretend that I know much about the cultural traditions that influenced Tolkien, but I do know that it would be silly to attribute any aspects of those traditions to Tolkien's cosmos just because they don't directly conflict. He didn't just expand on existing mythology, he used classical models to create his own.

[Thingol]

I'm inclined to agree with Obloquy, for the most part Tolkien's works are independent from classical mythology. However, I just finished reading Beowulf, and the Dragon from the story bears striking familiarity to Smaug. For example the dragon is Beowulf is roused by a man who steals a jeweled cup from the dragon's hoard, just as Smaug is roused by Bilbo stealing a jeweled cup. The description of the dragon in Beowulf is also very similar to the description of Smaug. However, just because the Dragons that Tolkien borrowed are beings of incredible power and ferocity does not mean that this is proof that Dragons are more powerful than Balrogs. Tolkien certainly did not blindly copy the descriptions of Dragons from other works, he made many modifications to them. It is evident, at least to me, that Tolkien's Dragons are not on the same level as some of the Dragons described in Norse and especially Chineese mythology. In Tolkien's works the Dragons are more like beasts of pure physical power, and as I've said this does not necessarily give them an edge over the Balrogs. I do not know much about Norse mythology outside of Beowulf, so I really can't tell how closely Tolkien's mythos resembles already existing ones. I posted a thread in Books 2 discussing the originality of Tolkien's works, which is relevant to this discussion.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Kuruharan]

Miss me? smilies/wink.gif

Good job on getting it to the third page. smilies/biggrin.gif

the Dragon from the story bears striking familiarity to Smaug. For example the dragon is Beowulf is roused by a man who steals a jeweled cup from the dragon's hoard, just as Smaug is roused by Bilbo stealing a jeweled cup. The description of the dragon in Beowulf is also very similar to the description of Smaug.
Yes, that was where the idea for the stolen cup came from.

If you want a section in the book that is REALLY similar to Beowulf, read the section about Gandalf & co. arriving at Edoras, and his interactions with some of the people there.

Dragons probably made a convienient nasssty beasty for Tolkien to use in his works, that was also a familiar beast from other mythology. Since the idea was there, why not use it? smilies/smile.gif

[littlemanpoet]

Yay 100!

As to 'silly', I'll let that one go. I am not asserting 'blind copying'. I do assert that Tolkien's dragons are based on those found in Germanic myth, particularly Fafnir and the Beowulf dragon. The evidence from the texts bears that out. I know of no others. I guess the question may be phrased thus:

"Is it safe to say that characteristics of dragons from Germanic, Finnish, and Celtic myth can be assumed to exist in Tolkien's dragons unless it is clear from Tolkien's mythos that they cannot fit?"

It is clear that Tolkien went beyond the two we know of in Glaurung, whose cunning went beyond Fafnir, and obviously beyond the Beowulf dragon.

I gotta run off to work. Back later.

[obloquy]

That is the exact question I intended to be answering. I realize that Tolkien's mythology was modeled after "real" mythology, I just don't think the aspects of those models that are not specifically borrowed should be attributed to Tolkien's cosmos. You can't look to outside sources to find the truth of matters that are based within Tolkien's world.

[littlemanpoet]

Now that I've stated the question with sufficient clarity, I'm having a harder time answering "yes". I'm not ready to say "no". I do think, however, that Fafnir, the Beowulf Dragon, the Lemmenkainen serpent, and any others extant in ancient texts, are useful for enlightening our understanding of Tolkien's dragons, at least by virtue of comparison and contrast. Now I'm hungry to find more dragons.

Here we go a-dragon hunting,
dragon hunting,
dragon hunting,
here we go a-dragon hunting
so early in the morni- !!!

slurp

smilies/tongue.gif

[Kuruharan]

You'll have to forgive me, I'm not entirely up on my Teutonic legends, but weren't there some dragons in the Siegfried tales as well?
Or at least one dragon?

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[littlemanpoet]

I thought so too, but when I scanned the lists and took a couple plunges I realized that the Siegfried and Sigurd legends get confused with each other, which is what I had done. Siegfried's is the Nibelungenlied, Sigurd's is the Volsung saga. Not that this answer is the end - all. I need to look into this more....

[Kuruharan]

Another thing that I'll point out, just because...

Tolkien took several different ideas of dragons and incorporated them into Middle earth.
He had Dragons that were land bound and did not vomit fire (cold drakes), Dragons that did vomit fire, but were land bound (Glaurung), and Dragons that could vomit fire and fly (Smaug). Although Tolkien did not have any Dragons that spit poison, which might have been interesting.

Yes, I know this is cheap, but I had to do something to save the thread. smilies/wink.gif

[Nice-Smeagol]

Hello,

Here is my interpratation of how a battle would go.....

Round 1:

Dragon glares at Balrog, Balrog glares back. Dragon sees Balrog is mightier at glaring and looks away. Dragon looks back and tries to make the Balrog have a mind blank. Succeeds. Round 1 to the Dragon. smilies/smile.gif

Round 2:

Dragon and Balrog glare again. This time Dragon decides to attack. Breathes fire on Balrog. Has no effect. Balrog uses whip and scars Dragon. Dragon flies down and attacks Balrog with claws and teeth.. Burns himself. Balrog looms up scarily. Dragon surrenders. smilies/frown.gif

Round 3:

Glaring begins again. Dragon breathes noxious fumes and flame. Has no effect. Hurls insults at Balrog. Balrog hurls the end of his whip. Dragon gets it on the end of his nose.Makes Balrog have mind blank.

So, a very close battle and probably a load of rubbish. I think we'll never know who would win unless we asked Tolkien himself.

[Kuruharan]

So, a very close battle and probably a load of rubbish. I think we'll never know who would win unless we asked Tolkien himself.


This is probably true. smilies/smile.gif

[Lanniae of the Axe]

Okay, I really think it could be argued either way, of course if I had to choose I'd bet my bottom buck on the Balrog. I say that well the Balrogs were servants of the Morgoth, and so were the Dragons. Of course, Balrog Sauron rose to power and almost wiped out Middle Earth and I don't see any Glaurung doing that. Of course, we never see anyone carrying on an intelligent conversation with a Balrog (well, generally). But, well, yeah. Balrogs, man. Dragons rock, but I mean, Balrogs are a heck of a lot nastier and well...MORE EVIL.

[Kuruharan]

Tsk! smilies/wink.gif

[erandir]

With all the talk of defeating enemies on a spiritual level, what of the mention of Tuor's slaying of 7 (number may be incorrect) balrogs at the Fall of Gondolin? New though I am, I see that the Fall of Gondolin is in dispute in terms of the validity of some of its passages, but I thought this still bore some consideration.
Are we to assume that Aragorn, a mortal of the highest order and strength of will, able to contest Sauron himself, (albeit concerning a palantir which was rightfully his own) would not be able to master the Balrog of Khazad-Dum on the spiritual plane?

The argument that Elves are noted as killing Balrogs whereas Men have only killed dragons, and thus dragons are easier to kill, is moot. Couldn't it be said in rebuttal that no Elves are noted as killing dragons (barring the peredhel mariner) so they must be stronger?

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Erandir ]

[Thingol]

Now those drakes and worms are the evilest creatures that Melko has made, and the most uncouth, yet of all are they the most powerful, save it be the Balrogs only. -Book of Lost Tales II, Chapter 2

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Kuruharan]

Hail Thingol, son of whoknows(?), and well met! We meet again on this perpetual battlefield of Balrogs and Dragons!
I give thee joy to know that there is something that I would like to point out about that particular quote. It is from the Lost Tales and so it is not strictly canon. The power of Dragons tended to grow as Tolkien revised the work, a point shown in the discussion on Glorund's meeting with Nienor in Lost Tales II.

(Yes, yes, I know that the power of Balrogs also greatly grew, but I could not resist the opportunity to fire off a round, for old times sake.) smilies/wink.gif smilies/tongue.gif

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[NeNyA_808]

Which is more big? A bolrog or a dragon? I watched the movies and read the book. The one that strkies feer in me is a Balrog. Dragons, to me, remind me of dinosaurs. Balrogs, on the other hand, remind me of demons, or even of a Diablo. Anyway, yeah, just wondering!!

[littlemanpoet]

Tolkien's dragons were large, probably as big as medium sized dinosaurs. A Balrog, a flame demon, forms its own shape. It can vary its size, probably as small as man-size (why it would want to be that small would be beyond me) and as large, or larger, than a dragon.

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Kuruharan]

AH-HA! One of my favorite hobby horses!

First of all I have a few questions. Do you mean that the Balrog would be bigger than the dragon is tall when the dragon is standing on all four feet, or do you mean that the Balrog is taller than a dragon is long?

It can vary its size

Could you explain this comment a little bit more? I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. Do you mean that the Balrog shape-shifts or that size is different from Balrog to Balrog?

I read someplace (I'm sorry, I'm afraid that I have no idea where) that Smaug was over 80 feet long from snout to tail. I'm sure that's not canon, but I thought I'd say throw that out there just to give some idea of the lengths we may be talking about.

[shadowstalker]

Balroge, definatly. If niether of them could use fire, what would you pick, a sword and a whip, or teeth and claws?Balrogs would whoop the dragons, no contest.
Also, aren't Balrogs former Maiar? Dragons are just beasts created by Morgoth the Enemy. Also, dragons get killed easily. As far as Tolkien told us, the only Balrogs that were killed was the one killed by Gandalf, and a couple in the earlier wars. Most the Maiar and Valar just sealed away somewhere.

The most terrible of the Maiar spirits who became servants of Morgoth were the Balrogs. In the High Elven tongue they were named the Valaraukar, but in Middle Earth they were called the Balrogs, the "demons of might"

[Lanniae of the Axe]

So is it even POSSIBLE to come to a decision on this? Seems Tolkien loved both his dragons and his balrogs!

'Course, its fun to jsut discuss this endlessly!

[Orald]

Not one to jump in at the middle/end of a discussion, but I think littlemanpoet is refering to the maiarin origins of Balrogs and the ability for maiar to clothe themselves in any form. It would only make sense that their size could also very. That is if Balrogs could change form and were not bound to their bodies. Who is to say on that one?

[Kuruharan]

I thought that might be it, but I wanted to make sure. That they could choose the size and so forth of their form, I'd agree with. I do not agree that they could shape-shift afterwards, or that they were the size of dragons.

[littlemanpoet]

Durelen had my thinking right. Of course, who's to say a Balrog couldn't grow itself to at least 80 feet tall? Have you seen Jon Howe's 'The Fall of Gondolin'? He depicts both Balrogs and Dragons. Not saying that his depiction is necessarily canon, but it's interesting. His Balrogs are the same size as his Dragons from shoulder to tail, I think, and then add the Dragons' tail and neck/head. But that's just one example of one artist's rendition.

[Feanor...]

"Whew!" what an exciting debate lets keep it moving! smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/biggrin.gif

[Kuruharan]

Okay, with all due respect to John Howe (and no offense to his fans), he is a wonderful artist and more talented than I could ever possibly hope to be, but I think that his visual representations of Middle earth are almost all wrong. However, sticking to Balrogs specifically, there are several problems that I have with his version.
1. It has wings (but I'm not meaning to open that can o' worms right now.)
2. The Balrogs are entirely too tall. (More on this in a second)
3. He generally makes his Balrogs look like big dogs with bat wings and bull horns.

Back to the matter of size. I find it impossible to believe that Balrogs could be more than 15-20 feet in height.

First when the Balrog is described as towering over Gandalf, you have to remember that the Balrog is being described in relation to. A Maia whose form is that of an old man. You take a 15 foot Balrog and a 5'6" Gandalf, and the Balrog would seem to tower over Gandalf.

Second, the Balrog had existed in Khazad-dum for centuries. It could have lived entirely in the larger chambers (even though I find that a bit hard to swallow), but it is described as physically entering the Chamber of Mazarbul. That chamber was a smallish room, as was the tunnel and the door leading to the room. There is no way that a 50'-80' Balrog could have gotten through.

Third, if the Balrogs could be 80' tall, why did they not just stomp on their enemies and be done with it? That would have been so much simpler than having to battle these puny, pesky elves like Feanor and Fingon who were putting up such a nasty fight.

As for Balrogs changing shape, too much attention is paid to the sentence where the Balrog has the strength of a strangling snake. Just because they had crashed into deep water and the Balrog was still very strong does not mean that he had taken on the form of a snake. The Balrog had always been that strong, its just that the description sounded better now that they were in the water.
Plus, Morgoth and Sauron had both lost the power to shape-shift. I don't see a compelling reason to accept that the Balrogs still had a power that their masters lost.

And in conclusion, I would like to apologize for my lack of quoted material in the above post. My books are packed away in boxes and I can't get to them right now. I'm afraid that you'll have to wait a few more weeks for me to deluge you with my usual slurry of quotes. smilies/wink.gif

[Orald]

I find myself drawn to this thread now for some reason or another. smilies/frown.gif

I do agree Kuruharan on Howe's renderings of Balrogs: they are spirits of fire and cloaked in shadow, not giant rottweiler's with bat wings. What we have here is a Tolkien creation, and in his land Men of old were in excess of 8' and an Elf like Thingol would probably have been over 9' since he was the tallest of all the Children of Ilùvatar. So I don't think a 20' Balrog is out of the picture.

Gandalf was not 5'6" but one of the tallest member of the fellowship, making him more than 6', taller than Boromir, taller than Legolas and possibly taller than Aragorn(I don't remember exactly how it is stated).

Continuing on with the Tolkien Cosmos. It is widely known that many beings(Gandalf, Aragorn, Tuor) often seemed to grow in stature. This along with any ability to actually grow, there could very well have been some small ability, a Balrog could go from a height of 20 feet to 30 feet. Anything larger and we begin to see some major problems.

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: Durelen ]

[littlemanpoet]

I don't see how Morgoth's and Sauron's lack of ability to change shape and size causes a Balrog to lose the ability - especially since Morgoth and Sauron are known to have dissipated their power into other beings and artifices, whereas Balrogs are not known to have done so.

I don't see what the problem is with a Balrog changing its size at will, in order to get into the Chamber of Marzabul, then to tower over Gandalf. As far as stomping on its opponents by being big, I would expect a Balrog to expend only so much of its energy in "up-sizing" as it deemed necessary for the occasion. I don't think any of that's outside of Tolkien's mythos.

I guess I always pictured the Balrogs, from my first reading on, to be more like at least 30 feet tall....

[Feanor...]

I agree, I don't like the depiction of balrogs as hulking beasts. However I disagree w. Kuruharan's statement about balrogs losing the ability to change shape. Remember Balrogs were once Ainu and the ability to change shape was native to them in the begining and the only reason why Melkor and Sauron were no longer able to do so was because they suffered such grevious injuries to their person that they could not easily change their form with out much pain and effort. For example when Morgoth was attacked by Unguoilant he was very much injured as we see from what happened to the land of Lammoth. And Sauron's ability to take a fair shape was lost when he got caught in the downfall of Numenor. In each instance they went through massive injury. However there is no indication that the balrog endured the same type of ordeal. Besides the fack that he fled the War of Wrath but the very fact that he escaped is more strongly indicative that he was able to escape Manwe's fury, thus escaping injury.

[Kuruharan]

Gandalf was not 5'6" but one of the tallest member of the fellowship, making him more than 6', taller than Boromir, taller than Legolas and possibly taller than Aragorn(I don't remember exactly how it is stated).

Ah, well 5'6" was just the random number I happened to pick off the top of my head so you're undoubtedly right about that. Still, the difference between 6' and 20' is tremendous.

This along with any ability to actually grow, there could very well have been some small ability, a Balrog could go from a height of 20 feet to 30 feet. Anything larger and we begin to see some major problems.

I don't think that the ability to have a controlled growth spurt of 10' would qualify as a small ability. I think that even a size change of 10' causes major problems. (Of course, I may be taking a too literal interpretation of your words there. If I am let me know.)

I don't see how Morgoth's and Sauron's lack of ability to change shape and size causes a Balrog to lose the ability - especially since Morgoth and Sauron are known to have dissipated their power into other beings and artifices, whereas Balrogs are not known to have done so.

Remember Balrogs were once Ainu and the ability to change shape was native to them in the begining and the only reason why Melkor and Sauron were no longer able to do so was because they suffered such grevious injuries to their person that they could not easily change their form with out much pain and effort.

Allow me to clarify, I see that I phrased my thought about this incompletely and very badly. I did not mean to say that the Balrogs had lost any abilities because of anything that happened to Morgoth or Sauron. That statement was meant as more of a comparison. The reason why I think that the Balrogs lost the ability to change their forms is because they became, in a sense, trapped in their bodies. They spent so much time in their forms that they became unable to shed it and unable to greatly alter it. Granted, Sauron lost his ability to shape shift in the Downfall of Numenor, but was the fight with Ungoliant the reason why Morgoth lost his? I think that Morgoth's spirit became caged in his body because of his desire to be a visible tyrant on the earth. As powerful as the Balrogs were, Morgoth was a much greater being and if he gradually became ensnared in his form, I think it likely that the lesser Balrogs were similarly trapped.

One sentence that I see over and over again on this issue is the statement that the, "Balrog drew itself up to a great height." This sentence does not mean that the Balrog was able to change his size. Again, the situation needs to be remembered. They were in an ancient dwarven kingdom. The Balrog had been running through mazes of tunnels and rooms that were not really large enough for it. When it got to the First Hall and confronted Gandalf it was finally in a room tall enough for him to be able to stand up straight. Aside from getting relief for it's aching back, the 20' Balrog used this as a means of trying to instill fear in the heart of Gandalf.

My biggest problem with the shape shifting Balrogs is where to draw the line. If you take all the opportunities that the Balrog allegedly had to change forms then he would have altered his shape (counting the size adjustment to enter the Chamber of Mazarbul) four times. This was under stress and fighting through most of that time, and chasing after the Fellowship the time he was not fighting. That puts a rather large hole in the notion that it took a great deal of energy and time to rest before making alterations in the physical form. I just can't see that happening. I prefer to go with the simplest explaination rather than have to conjure up a bunch of different theories and ideas that are not supported in the text.
In this case the simplest explaination is that: the Balrogs were only 15'-25' tall (and I believe that 25' is REALLY pushing it), they could not change their forms aside from perhaps some very limited alterations in size, and they did not look like psychotic black labs with bull horns and bat wings.

And, yes I know that Sauron was able to change his form about four times in the grip of Huan, but Sauron was a greater spirit. That effort left even him completely exhausted and he could not fight. The Balrog was still in full flame on the mountain top and fighting like mad.

[Thingol]

I have two comments, number one it never says that Sauron lost the ability to change his form, only that he could no longer assume a fair form. Also Tolkien specifically stated that the Balrogs became bound to their bodies permanently. This probably occurred after the Battle of Powers.

[Kuruharan]

I have two comments, number one it never says that Sauron lost the ability to change his form, only that he could no longer assume a fair form.

Good point! Perhaps the Professor meant that when he created new forms he could not create a fair one, but that he could not change the form that he created.

He did generate two forms after the Downfall. One when he got back to Mordor, and one at some point in Dol Guldur.

[Feanor...]

I think that Morgoth's spirit became caged in his body because of his desire to be a visible tyrant on the earth. As powerful as the Balrogs were, Morgoth was a much greater being and if he gradually became ensnared in his form, I think it likely that the lesser Balrogs were similarly trapped.
I would have to disagree with this statement. Now Melkor came to Avathar and sought her out; and he put on again the form he had worn as the tyrant of Utumno: a dark lord, tall and terrible. As you can see here the form Melkor had put on was the same as the one he had put on before and there was nothing to prevent him from taking it off again besides a vague "In that form he remained ever after". Refering back to the string about spiritual encounters Melkor's clash with the Ungouilant would definitely have been spiritual and considering the fact that she had just consumed the power of the Trees and Wells and gems of Fëanor the encounter was spiritually devastating for Melkor and he was wounded deeply, preventing him from changing form as easilly as before. As for Sauron his downfall was not as spiritually severe for in the downfall of Numenor the damage was mostly physical and he yet retained most of his native power the only spiritual damage done was due to the to the involvement of Illuvatar's power, yet that was not focused directly on Sauron but on the world and namely Valinor and Numenor; thus indirectly at Sauron, which is why he sustained less injury and retained more of his power.

[Daniel Telcontar]

That is interesting, Feanor, but what is your view upon dragons versus balrogs? If this discussion is to begin again, we need to know each other's opinions. Personally, the balrog is my favorite.

[Kuruharan]

It does say someplace that Morgoth actually lost the power to change forms. I just can't remember where. smilies/wink.gif

[Thingol]

In Morgoth's Ring there is an in depth discussion of the nature and subsequent dissipation of Melkor’s power. There are also quite a few threads on the boards devoted to the topic of Melkor’s power, just search Melkor or Morgoth. Kuruharan is correct, Melkor became chained to the tall, dark lord persona after his confrontation with Ungoliant. Melkor becomes much less powerful after he incarnates himself. This discussion is actually very relevant to the debate on the nature of the power of dragons and Balrogs. It goes to the heart of the effects of incarnating oneself into a single hröa. (body) “Here Pengolodh adds a long note on the use of hröar by the Valar. In brief he says that though in origin a "self-arraying", it may tend to approach the state of "incarnation", especially with the lesser members of that order. "It is said that the longer and the more the same hröa is used, the greater is the bond of habit, and the less do the 'self-arrayed' desire to leave it. As raiment may soon cease to be adornment, and becomes (as is said in the tongues of both Elves and Men) a 'habit', a customary garb. Or if among Elves and Men it be worn to mitigate heat or cold, it soon makes the clad body less able to endure these things when naked". Pengolodh also cites the opinion that if a "spirit" (that is, one of those not embodied by creation) uses a hröa for the furtherance of its personal purposes, or (still more) for the enjoyment of bodily faculties, it finds it increasingly difficult to operate without the hröa. The things that are most binding are those that in the Incarnate have to do with the life of the hröa itself, its sustenance and its propagation. Thus eating and drinking are binding, but not the delight in beauty of sound or form. Most binding is begetting or conceiving.” Again in Morgoth's Ring "Myths Transformed", VIII, Orcs, JRRT discusses spirits who have becomes permanently incarnate as Orcs, until death of their body. “But again ** would Eru provide fëar for such creatures? For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs.” Now I am aware that the Balrogs became trapped in a single hroa, just as the dragons were. However, from the description of the Balrog of Moria, and the fact that Tolkien states that “Most binding is begetting or conceiving” I believe that the dragons were much closer to the physical world than the Balrogs were. The original dragons were probably inhabited by Maia, but it is highly unlikely that all of their brood were as well. Even if some of the original dragons would have been a match for a Balrog (which I do not agree with) I doubt that your run of the mill dragon could put up much of a fight against a Balrog. And don't give me one of those: this comes from an earlier period and Tolkien changed his mind lines, smilies/biggrin.gif the quotes come from Myth's Transformed in Morgoth's Ring and are some of Tolkien's later writings.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Kuruharan]

What's this? Somebody's trying to get us back to the point?

Just a thought, but why could not the later dragons have Maiar spirits. If they did not what sort of soul would they have? As you said, "would Eru provide fëar for such creatures? For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs." I think that you could say the same for dragons. They clearly had some sort of spirit inside them. Smaug was intelligent and filled with cunning and evil will far beyond the scope of a mere beast. For instance, he could talk. Corrupt Maiar spirits are the most logical choice as the source for such cunning and ability.

[Feanor...]

I think the battle would have to come down to a matter of circumstance. We all agree that the balrogs were great beings of power in which the spirits of Ainu resided. however the personage of a dragon is not as clear and could be one of many things.
1. A Maia who was incarnated into a hroa of Melkor's making.
2. A Maia who bred with some kind of reptile and was subsequently strengthened with Morgoth's power
3. A reptile possibly a dinosaur who was twisted, and whose fea was fed, strengthened and grown by Melkor's power
4. A mecanical device built by Morgoth in which the fea of a child of Illuvatar was imprisoned
The victor would depend on the battle cicumstance:
Balrog vs. 1. I believe it would come down to the one whose power, strengh of will, intelligence and tenacity of spirit was stronger.
Balrogs 1, Dragons 1
Balrog vs. 2. I would say the same thing as in #1 I mean Luthien was half breed elf/maia and look what she did to Morgoth. Feanor and Fingolfin wern't even half and look what they did, consider a balrog is substantially weaker than Morgoth
Balrogs 2, Dragons 2
Balrogs vs. 3. I would have to say no question this would go to the Balrogs although they might have a tad bit of trouble if the balrog was unusually weak and the dragon had an overdose of power. smilies/biggrin.gif
Balrogs 3, Dragons 2
Balrogs vs. 4. Do I really have to say anything here? smilies/rolleyes.gif
Balrogs 4, Dragons 2
Add that to my personal vote towards Balrogs and we have:
Balrogs 5, Dragons 2 GAME SET AND MATCH BALROGS WIN!!!!!!!!!!
That's my opinion. smilies/smile.gif

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: Feanor... ]

[Kuruharan]

Alright!! Fourth page!!! smilies/biggrin.gif

I think the battle would have to come down to a matter of circumstance.

Most battles do. And don't forget the ever important pure dumb luck, like whose going to step on a loose stone and fall flat on their face.

Well, sure if you're going to have the poor dragons outnumbered by over 2:1...

And when were you elected judge anyway? smilies/tongue.gif smilies/biggrin.gif

[Feanor...]

This debate is starting to get so long it's hard to keep track of where everyone stands. If it's not too much to ask can everyone who is participating restate which side they're on. Thanx smilies/smile.gif

[littlemanpoet]

Balrog. Maiar, created by Eru, who can enflesh themselves. Dragons, by contrast, may have spirits that are Maiar, may not. They were created by Melkor, and are imprisoned in one form.

[Daniel Telcontar]

You may think of balrogs being weaker than dragons. But think of Smaug. One arrow and he was down. Not much of a fight, aye?
At the same time, we have a balrog in Moria, who it takes another Maia to kill.
And Smaug may have conquered Erebor on his own, but the balrog took out Moria, the greatest of the dwarven kingdoms.
I say that my vote has to go for the balrogs.

[Kuruharan]

But think of Smaug. One arrow and he was down. Not much of a fight, aye?


again...

We do not know what would have happened if Legolas had been able to get ahold of himself and shoot the Balrog. Smaug was all distracted and enjoying himself town-baiting when Bard shot him. If Smaug had been paying attention to Bard, he would have ended up one crispy critter, rather than king of Dale. Legolas had a similar opportunity to shoot the Balrog when he was paying attention to Gandalf. Who knows? The Balrog might have had a convienent hole in its armor (or hide) and that would have solved the problem.

Anyway, recap...
Balrogs-maiar
Dragons-maiar
Similar spirits, different tools, would have depended on the circumstances, who was fighting, no clear cut advantage to the Balrogs.

Dragons...are imprisoned in one form.

To quote Thingol...

Also Tolkien specifically stated that the Balrogs became bound to their bodies permanently. This probably occurred after the Battle of Powers.

Balrogs were bound to their forms as well.
And as we discussed (at length) earlier Melkor also put his power into his Balrogs as well as the Dragons.

[littlemanpoet]

Alright. I forgot about that permanence of body thing.

Balrog: demon of fire.
Dragon: breather of fire.

Balrog's fire can burn a dragon's hide (I suppose) and its wip can cut dragon hide, can certainly blind dragon.

Dragon's fire cannot harm a fire demon, may even add to its strength.

Advantage: Balrog.

[Kuruharan]

Alright. I forgot about that permanence of body thing.

If a Balrog had a body, then the same thing would be true of a Dragon's body. Meaning that it could be damaged by fire.

[obloquy]

I'd just like to point out that we actually have no reason whatsoever to believe that Dragons were incarnate Maiar. I proposed it early on as a possibility that couldn't be ignored, but there is really no textual evidence at all to support it.

I think a lot of people have lost sight of the only reason the 'Dragons > Balrogs' camp got past the first round of debate, which was the text presented by Kuruharan on page one. Without that little citation (which I thought I had successfully argued away), I doubt this discussion would've reached two pages.

A lot of the thread's newcomers would benefit from reading the first three (lengthy) pages.

[Kuruharan]

Ahh, obloquy, how are you? It's been awhile. smilies/smile.gif

I'd just like to point out that we actually have no reason whatsoever to believe that Dragons were incarnate Maiar. I proposed it early on as a possibility that couldn't be ignored, but there is really no textual evidence at all to support it.

And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that they did not. In fact, as I have pointed out (a few times) there are some good hints in the text that suggest that they did. The references to various dragons spirits, and the "putting of [their] power" against someone (in reference to the power in their eyes).

There is actually an interesting parallel to that last power, to trick and bemuse, in the Voice of Saruman. There is no doubt that Saruman was Maiar in origin. He was able to use his voice to cloud the minds of his listeners. Dragons were able to accomplish a similar feat through their eyes. While not proof, this is another instance that is suggestive.

[obloquy]

Hiya Kuruharan. =)

In fact, as I have pointed out (a few times) there are some good hints in the text that suggest that they did.

Tolkien was very clear about other incarnate Maiar. He didn't just hint at it. We know that Dragons didn't make their own hroar, which means that if their fear were Maiarin, their incarnation would've been a unique case: Morgoth was never spoken of as having created empty bodies to be possessed by corrupted Maiar spirits. Though this doesn't rule out the possibility, I think that if it had happened this way, it would be uncharacteristic of JRRT to leave it unexplained.

And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that they did not.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. Unless there is some textual indication that they were Maiar there's simply no solid argument. You can make comparisons and draw parallels all you want, but in the end that's all you'll have. Granted, it's a very real possibility, but no more likely than Goldberry being Yavanna.

[Hurins Heir]

In the Sil.. It was said that glaruang had a spirit of pure evil. Would this mean that he was a Mair? smilies/frown.gif

[obloquy]

No.

[Kuruharan]

Tolkien was very clear about other incarnate Maiar. He didn't just hint at it. We know that Dragons didn't make their own hroar, which means that if their fear were Maiarin, their incarnation would've been a unique case: Morgoth was never spoken of as having created empty bodies to be possessed by corrupted Maiar spirits. Though this doesn't rule out the possibility, I think that if it had happened this way, it would be uncharacteristic of JRRT to leave it unexplained.


Not necessarily. He did not clearly explain the origins or the natures of Ents and Eagles (the big talking variety).

Unless there is some textual indication that they were Maiar there's simply no solid argument. You can make comparisons and draw parallels all you want, but in the end that's all you'll have. Granted, it's a very real possibility, but no more likely than Goldberry being Yavanna.


It's no less solid than assuming that they did not based upon lack of direct textual evidence. While they are not explicit statements comparisons and parallels from the text are evidence.

And it is much more likely than Goldberry being Yavanna. smilies/wink.gif

Dragons are explicitly spoken of in the text as having spirits in them. If they weren't Maiar then what were they?

And before you say elves, let me remind you that very few elves could do the things that dragons could do, the beclouding of minds and ensnaring of wills for instance. Most of the elves who did seem to possess such power are accounted for: Feanor, Finrod, and Galadriel are the only ones I can remember off the top of my head. I have a hard time believing that there were that many renegade elvish souls that powerful that Morgoth could stuff into Dragons.

[obloquy]

Not necessarily. He did not clearly explain the origins or the natures of Ents and Eagles (the big talking variety).

The Ents are the 'kelvar' spoken of in Of Aule and Yavanna, in the '77.

As for the Eagles:
What of talking beasts and birds with reasoning and speech? These have been rather lightly adopted from less 'serious' mythologies, but play a part which cannot now be excised. They are certainly 'exceptions' and not much used, but sufficiently to show they are a recognized feature of the world. All other creatures accept them as natural if not common.

But true 'rational' creatures, 'speaking peoples', are all of human / 'humanoid' form. Only the Valar and Maiar are intelligences that can assume forms of Arda at will. Huan and Sorontar could be Maiar - emissaries of Manwë (4). But unfortunately in The Lord of the Rings Gwaehir and Landroval are said to be descendants of Sorontar.

(4) See p. 138.-At the bottom of the page bearing the brief text V (p. 389) my father jotted down the following, entirely unconnected with the matter of the text:
Living things in Aman. 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.)Myths Transformed

as well as the following conflicting bit from the same chapter:

The same sort of thing may be said of Húan and the Eagles: they were taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher level - but they still had no fëar.

You've seen these passages before, I'm sure. No, it doesn't provide a concrete answer regarding Eagles, but Tolkien at least addressed the issue. He didn't even bother with Dragons.

It's no less solid than assuming that they did not based upon lack of direct textual evidence.

I'm not assuming Dragons were not Maiar. I am only saying that there is no reason to believe they were. The possibility is just as speculative as that of Goldberry being Yavanna. We can draw parallels, and we can say "there's nothing to refute the theory", but that doesn't make it any more likely that it was Tolkien's conception.

And it is much more likely than Goldberry being Yavanna.

Why?

Dragons are explicitly spoken of in the text as having spirits in them.

Could you point me to this so that I don't have to hunt it down?

If they weren't Maiar then what were they?

It's possible they were beasts that were taught to speak, cf. the MT quote above. They could also have been the progeny of a Balrog/beast union. They could be puppets of Morgoth's maleficent will. Perhaps they were nothing more than the original spirit of whatever beast Morgoth started with when devising Dragons after having been infused with a healthy portion of Morgoth's own power, and 'raised to a higher level', again per the MT quote. And then, of course, they might be Maiar. None of these have any more textual support than the others, though, so comparing them to Balrogs is really next to impossible.

I have offered a couple of arguments against the Maiar theory, though. Why were they not included in the lists of Morgoth's Maiarin servants? If they were Maiar, would their apparently fiery spirits not qualify them as Balrogs, regardless of the bodies they inhabit?

In addition, when Dragons died, they were dead -- no surviving spirit. This is because they were incarnate, rather than 'clothed', and thus bound in life and death to their hroar. But this begs the question, Why would these Maiar have been incarnated, when they could just as easily have only inhabited the Dragon shell and then been able to survive its death?

Here's another theory for you: Say Glaurung, the Father of the Dragons, was a Maia. We know he did a lot of breeding for Morgoth. This would eventually have incarnated him, making his subsequent death permanent. His offspring, though not full Maiar, would've been mighty beings, and probably sentient. Well? More conjecture to add to an issue that will have to remain uncertain.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

[Kuruharan]

The Ents are the 'kelvar' spoken of in Of Aule and Yavanna, in the '77.


Yes, but what were they?

And it is much more likely than Goldberry being Yavanna.

The evidence for Goldberry being Yavanna is very sketchy (and rather far fetched in my opinion). There is no explicit statement regarding her true nature.
Dragons are at least explicitly spoken of in the text as having spirits in them.

..., and [Glaurung] spoke by the evil spirit within him.

I do not believe that the spirit of any mere beast (assuming that beasts have spirits) would be capable of the actions of the dragons that are described to us.

and thus bound in life and death to their hroar.

But didn't we just establish that Balrogs were also bound to their bodies?

His offspring, though not full Maiar, would've been mighty beings, and probably sentient.

So do these later dragons only have part of a spirit, or how does that work if the bodies of new dragons were not inhabited by Maiar spirits?

[obloquy]

Yes, but what were they?

I have actually changed my mind about the meaning of the 'kelvar' and 'olvar'. I think these words probably just mean the same as 'fauna' and 'flora', respectively. Now I say that the Ents are just another of Tolkien's mysteries. Much like Dragons.

The evidence for Goldberry being Yavanna is very sketchy (and rather far fetched in my opinion).

Of course it's sketchy. So is the 'evidence' of Dragons being Maiar.

There is no explicit statement regarding her true nature.

Dragons are only spoken of as being devised or bred by Melkor. How is that any more revealing than what we know of Goldberry?

Dragons are at least explicitly spoken of in the text as having spirits in them.

Are you saying you doubt whether Goldberry has a fea?

..., and [Glaurung] spoke by the evil spirit within him.

This is interesting. The way this reads implies that the speaker was not Glaurung, but the spirit within Glaurung. What is Glaurung and why is there a distinction between him and his spirit? Seems like a passage that one might use in defense of the Morgoth-the-puppeteer theory.

I do not believe that the spirit of any mere beast (assuming that beasts have spirits) would be capable of the actions of the dragons that are described to us.

Of course not. They didn't just come out of the wild with these abilities. Morgoth tinkered with them.

But didn't we just establish that Balrogs were also bound to their bodies?

Yeah, so?

So do these later dragons only have part of a spirit[...]?

They have a hybrid spirit, like Luthien. Luthien was neither Maia nor fully Elf. These later Dragons would be Maia-enhanced beasts. The theory is similar to one possible explanation of Orc origins.

how does that work if the bodies of new dragons were not inhabited by Maiar spirits?

When you say 'bodies inhabited by Maiar spirits', you're describing what we refer to as 'clothed' Maiar. Dragons must necessarily be incarnate Maiar (if Maiar at all), because they did not survive the death of their hroar. This is why the above quote (Glaurung speaking by the spirit within him) doesn't quite fit with the Maiarin origin theory. The passage is written as if Glaurung is merely a vessel. It would certainly be possible for a Maia to pilot a Dragon-ship, but when the body was slain, the spirit would not go with it.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

[Kuruharan]

Dragons are only spoken of as being devised or bred by Melkor. How is that any more revealing than what we know of Goldberry?


It is at least a statement regarding their origins and maker. We have none of that for Goldberry other than a fanciful statement about her being a river's daughter, which may or may not be literal. We know where Dragons came from if not what they were made from or what type of soul they had.

Are you saying you doubt whether Goldberry has a fea?


That was not what I meant by that statement at all. That statement was referring to Dragons as having a spirit of some type.

When it comes down to it, it does not explicitly say that Goldberry had a fea, so, following your usual line of reasoning, perhaps she did not.

and thus bound in life and death to their hroar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But didn't we just establish that Balrogs were also bound to their bodies?

Yeah, so?



So they would perhaps be bound in life and death to their body.

They have a hybrid spirit

A hybrid with what? It is also said (I believe) that beasts do not have souls. So, what would the Maiar spirit be mingled with? If there was no soul to mix with, then the spirit would of necessity be pure Maiar.

(Oh, and with the Orc thing, you're drawing a parallel more tenuous than any I have made. smilies/wink.gif)

because they did not survive the death of their hroar.

Where does it say that on some level they do not? And for the sake of making a comparison, where does it say that Balrogs do?

This is why the above quote (Glaurung speaking by the spirit within him) doesn't quite fit with the Maiarin origin theory. The passage is written as if Glaurung is merely a vessel.

It could be the phraseology that Tolkien used for the sake of variation. In the passage with Nienor Glaurung is also referred to as, "putting out his power against her," as if he actually possessed it himself.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[Thingol]

Well, the Balrogs do survive the death of their hroa, the Fea of any being cannot be destroyed by anyone except Iluvatar. If the dragons are merely beasts then they would not survive the destruction of their hroa, but as has been stated we are not certain what the dragons were. I find it difficult to accept that Iluvatar would provide a fea for all of the dragon children. I find it equally difficult to believe that Melkor had enough Maia at his disposal to invest all of the dragons with Maia (I’ve always imagined there to be around 80 dragons, I don’t know why, just feels right). So in conclusion, even though the Balrogs were permanently bound to their bodies their fea could not be destroyed; the fea were doomed to wander the Earth in a weakened state, unable to take shape again. What I believe Obloquy was trying to point out is that there is ample evidence (although, like your evidence, his evidence is also merely drawing parallels; in his case between orcs and dragons) to support several theories on the type of beings dragons were. I offer a compromise that perhaps the original dragons contained maia spirits, but not the rest of their brood. Like the orcs, the majority of dragons would only be semi sentient.

[obloquy]

It is at least a statement regarding their origins and maker.[...]We know where Dragons came from if not what they were made from or what type of soul they had.

Eru created Goldberry. It doesn't need to be explicitly stated because there's no implication that she was any kind of exception. Eru would not have created Dragons, however, so as exceptions their origin is explained. Still, there is no indication as to what type of being Goldberry was, and likewise for Dragons. I maintain that 'Goldberry = Yavanna' and 'Dragons = Maiar' are comparable issues.

When it comes down to it, it does not explicitly say that Goldberry had a fea, so, following your usual line of reasoning, perhaps she did not.

We can assume she did. She was in 'humanoid' form, and capable of reason and vocalization. There is a big difference between attributing a fea to Goldberry and assigning an unattested origin to the Dragons' spirits. Surely you can see that.

So they would perhaps be bound in life and death to their body.

Right, Balrog deaths appear to be final. I never said they weren't. (Except in the theory I proposed to explain the Battle of the Powers/'3 or 7' note.)

A hybrid with what? It is also said (I believe) that beasts do not have souls. So, what would the Maiar spirit be mingled with? If there was no soul to mix with, then the spirit would of necessity be pure Maiar.

You're right, beasts do not have fear. Consider this, however: The only way Maiar can procreate is by adopting a physical form: two discarnate spirits cannot beget offspring. This means that all offspring of Maiar would necessarily be incarnate, since they would have to be born from a physical mother. They could therefore not be Maiar, as Maiar are in origin incorporeal. Though that does not mean they could not potentially be as powerful as a true Maia, or born with supernatural abilities.

(Oh, and with the Orc thing, you're drawing a parallel more tenuous than any I have made. )

We won't go into it here, but I assure you it is not that far-fetched.

Where does it say that on some level they do not? And for the sake of making a comparison, where does it say that Balrogs do?

On some level they would have (as Maiar).

[...]by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form), until released by death (killing), and they would dwindle in force. When released they would, of course, like Sauron, be 'damned': i.e. reduced to impotence, infinitely recessive: still hating but unable more and more to make it effective physically[...]MT

They didn't completely cease to be, but they were incapable of causing any more trouble. We have to assume that the deaths of both Balrogs and Dragons rendered their fea completely impotent, otherwise they would have simply taken new forms. Nobody seems to fear the possibility that Gothmog, Glorfindel's Bane, Durin's Bane, Glaurung, or Ancalagon will show up again.

By no means am I saying you should change your mind -- I happen to have filled in many of Tolkien's gaps with my own theories -- I just don't think it's fair to represent this particular theory as the most probable.

[Kuruharan]

find it difficult to accept that Iluvatar would provide a fea for all of the dragon children. I find it equally difficult to believe that Melkor had enough Maia at his disposal to invest all of the dragons with Maia (I’ve always imagined there to be around 80 dragons, I don’t know why, just feels right)....I offer a compromise that perhaps the original dragons contained maia spirits, but not the rest of their brood. Like the orcs, the majority of dragons would only be semi sentient.

What makes me hesitant about this is the lack of textual evidence. We know that Tolkien explored the possibilities of there being different classes of orcs because there are writings about them. No such materials exist for Dragons. The only classes that are mentioned of Dragons are the land bound fireless kind, the land bound fire breathers, and the winged fire breathers. (I'm sorry that I don't have the technical terms, my books are still partially unavailable.) There is no mention of 'spiritual' differences between them.

It would probably be easiest to believe that the land bound cold drakes were the closest to beasts, being only semi-sentient. However, if anyone had a Maiar spirit Glaurung was the one, but he was land bound and not the greatest dragon. But there were Dragons that came later that were also possessed of great cunning and power (Ancalagon the Black and Smaug).
Would it be possible for corrupt Maiar spirits to be just hanging around waiting for a Dragon of sufficient physical might to be spawned so they could inhabit the body?

We can assume she did. She was in 'humanoid' form, and capable of reason and vocalization. There is a big difference between attributing a fea to Goldberry and assigning an unattested origin to the Dragons' spirits. Surely you can see that.


Tsk, tsk, where does it say that? smilies/wink.gif

Dragons were also capable of reason and vocalization. And Goldberry's origins are most definitely unattested.

I find it difficult to accept that Iluvatar would provide a fea for all of the dragon children.

The only way Maiar can procreate is by adopting a physical form: two discarnate spirits cannot beget offspring. This means that all offspring of Maiar would necessarily be incarnate, since they would have to be born from a physical mother. They could therefore not be Maiar, as Maiar are in origin incorporeal. Though that does not mean they could not potentially be as powerful as a true Maia, or born with supernatural abilities.


Perhaps it was not so much a matter of giving as Eru allowing a process that he created to carry through as designed, even though it would be creating great monsters of evil, because "greater glory could come through it." All the heroical slayings and so forth that make such good stories.

I had actually not been looking at the second part in quite the same way. I was looking at it from the point of view of that if something is not mixed then it is the same substance as it's...uh parent (for lack of a better word; although I guess that was what it was).

They didn't completely cease to be, but they were incapable of causing any more trouble. We have to assume that the deaths of both Balrogs and Dragons rendered their fea completely impotent, otherwise they would have simply taken new forms. Nobody seems to fear the possibility that Gothmog, Glorfindel's Bane, Durin's Bane, Glaurung, or Ancalagon will show up again.


I think that we may finally have found something to reach a concensus on! smilies/biggrin.gif

[obloquy]

[in response to Thingol...]What makes me hesitant about this is the lack of textual evidence.

We're in agreement here, for the most part.

Would it be possible for corrupt Maiar spirits to be just hanging around waiting for a Dragon of sufficient physical might to be spawned so they could inhabit the body?

This is what I was referring to when I said I found it telling that Tolkien left this matter unexplained. Not that Tolkien rarely left mysteries, but that such a significantly different and unique origin be unaddressed. There is no precedent for this theory, as Morgoth is not said to have created bodies for other spirits and then incarnated them into these forms. This point of incarnation happens to be very significant because it appears to be involuntary and undesirable. It seems to always have been a side-effect of the Maia's extensive interaction with the physical plane, with the possible exception of the Istari--of whom we know rather little. Do you see what I'm trying to say? This intentional marriage of a soul to a pre-made body is an entirely unattested concept, unless I'm quite mistaken. (I believe we must consider the reincarnation of Elves a different matter since Elves are incarnate in nature, whereas Maiar are naturally incorporeal.) Again, that's not to say it's impossible. There is just too much we don't know about the metaphysics of Tolkien's cosmos. And this applies equally to the apparent incarnation of Balrogs: we don't know how they became that way.

Tsk, tsk, where does it say that?

It's a fairly reasonable and logical assumption. You're playing games with me now.

Dragons were also capable of reason and vocalization. And Goldberry's origins are most definitely unattested.

And I'm not necessarily claiming Dragons had no fea.

I had actually not been looking at the second part in quite the same way. I was looking at it from the point of view of that if something is not mixed then it is the same substance as it's...uh parent (for lack of a better word; although I guess that was what it was).

But I believe my reasoning stands. All offspring of Maiar must be incarnate, and thus cannot be called Maiar themselves. Whether the spirit within is undiluted or not, Maiar are in origin ealar, not incarnates.

I think that we may finally have found something to reach a concensus on!

I suppose I have been taking this point for granted when mentioning the 'permanent' deaths of incarnate Maiar.

I think if I type 'incarnate' one more time I'll probably eat my hand off.

To clarify, my standpoint on the issue is "hell if I know."

[Kuruharan]

You're playing games with me now.


Touché! smilies/wink.gif

All offspring of Maiar must be incarnate, and thus cannot be called Maiar themselves.

But then what would they be?

Whether the spirit within is undiluted or not, Maiar are in origin ealar, not incarnates.


I don't think that this means that the spirit would be any weaker, since there was no dilution.

This thread has gotten so long and rambly (to say nothing of convoluted and technical) I wonder if even the admins have gotten bored and are no longer bothering to read it. smilies/wink.gif

Not that I'm bored, this is fun! smilies/biggrin.gif

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[obloquy]

But then what would they be?

A hybrid of some sort, like I said. The point is that they are beings who can't 'exist' (in the way that true ealar exist) in a disembodied state.

I don't think that this means that the spirit would be any weaker, since there was no dilution.

Maybe not. I already conceded this point in an earlier post:

Though that does not mean they could not potentially be as powerful as a true Maia, or born with supernatural abilities.

But breeding with beasts may be more of a 'negative' than just a 'zero', if you catch my meaning. I don't expect you to accept that as a point of argument, though. It's just one more possible explanation regarding something we know very little of.

I wonder if even the admins have gotten bored and are no longer bothering to read it

I know Sharku doesn't bother reading my Balrog babble. smilies/wink.gif

[Kuruharan]

A hybrid of some sort, like I said. The point is that they are beings who can't 'exist' (in the way that true ealar exist) in a disembodied state.


I think I must still be unclear on something. First of all, I assume that by "exist" you mean on a level that is tangible to mere mortals and such.

Second, after the point in time when Balrogs lost their ability to change their forms, or became permanently incarnate, did that change their status. After all, they were no longer able to exist in a disembodied state.

But breeding with beasts may be more of a 'negative' than just a 'zero', if you catch my meaning. I don't expect you to accept that as a point of argument, though. It's just one more possible explanation regarding something we know very little of.


I think I understand better what you are saying.

Kind of like (and this is just an example) a change from one state of matter to another. Steam is water, but if it condenses it's still water, but it is no longer steam. (A rather imperfect comparison, but is that sort of what you are saying?)

I know Sharku doesn't bother reading my Balrog babble.

Tee-hee... smilies/wink.gif

[obloquy]

I think I must still be unclear on something. First of all, I assume that by "exist" you mean on a level that is tangible to mere mortals and such.

No, not necessarily 'tangible'. I mean they 'exist' in that they are capable of affecting the physical world in some way. When this incarnate fea is separated from its hroa (most likely this will only happen when it 'dies'), its spirit will be rendered impotent. A Maia, on the other hand, is a being whose nature it is to exist in an incorporeal state. Though the Maia, after dying as an incarnate, would also be a powerless spirit (as we must assume was the case with the Balrogs and Dragons, as well as Saruman, Sauron, and Melkor, per Myths Transformed), its nature as created was eala. The difference lies in that the hybrid's original nature was physical: the being never existed and could never exist in a discarnate state. In other words, since a Maia is partly defined as an eala, a being that cannot exist in that form simply cannot be Maia.

Second, after the point in time when Balrogs lost their ability to change their forms, or became permanently incarnate, did that change their status. After all, they were no longer able to exist in a disembodied state.

No. Tolkien still referred to Balrogs, Sauron, and the Istari as Maiar. Besides, it's an issue of the created (or born) nature of the spirit, not its state of being at any given time.

Kind of like (and this is just an example) a change from one state of matter to another. Steam is water, but if it condenses it's still water, but it is no longer steam. (A rather imperfect comparison, but is that sort of what you are saying?)

hmm, somewhat. It can probably be most simply put in mathematical terms. Where it's possible that the scenario could be represented this way: 1 + 0 = 1; I think it should probably be considered this way: 1 + (-1) = 0. Though the resultant being would not likely 'be a zero'. Anyway, I think that should clear up my thinking on that particular question.

We seem to be winding down. smilies/biggrin.gif

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

[Kuruharan]

No, not necessarily 'tangible'. I mean they 'exist' in that they are capable of affecting the physical world in some way.

As in, for instance, the Valar being able to do much in the world even though those who saw them thought they were just sitting there.

We seem to be winding down.

Alas, yes! I think that we've hashed this topic out about as much as such a murky matter can be hashed.

As a matter of fact, we've hashed a few things more than once. smilies/wink.gif

Although, who knows. Maybe in another couple of months somebody will come along and light a fire under this ole' thread again...

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

Had to double edit my post. How embarassing. smilies/redface.gif

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[obloquy]

When I have to edit a second time, I always edit out the first "This message was edited" bit.

[Kuruharan]

I normally do to, but I had to do something silly to tie all the loose ends together. smilies/wink.gif

[Feanor...]

Like I said before at the begining of this page the whole battle would come down to circumstance. In the first few the match is indefinite and from what I've seen of this debate it's useless to try arguing the technicalities of these because it can go either way and will end up going endlessly in a string of circular reasoning. However in the latter of the matches the circumstances for dragons slope towards the negative side while the balrogs stay constant. Therefore giving the balrogs the advantage, the way this debate continues to be argued concentrates continually on only one of the many different circumstances the battle could be played out on. In arguing somthing like this you need to constantly keep in mind the Big Picture(to borrow the cliche). However when the tally is taken the Big Pictue inevitably favors the Balrog's side (again due to circumstance). So even without my personal vote Balrogs would still emerge victorious after all's said and done. And like I've said before it's useless to argue over the technicallities because this battle is determined by the circumstances of the different battles all fitting together in the big picture. Because Balrogs are in a default position and the dragons are not dragons can only be at most equal with the balrogs and gradually more and more weak in every other circumstance.

I hope I haven't sounded the death knell for this thread because it's been really fun to participate in. But if I have, like Kuruharan said Although, who knows. Maybe in another couple of months somebody will come along and light a fire under this ole' thread again...

smilies/frown.gif smilies/smile.gif

[obloquy]

Welcome to the Barrow-Downs, Feanor.

[Tinuviel of Denton]

Ok, I'm coming to this a little late, but here goes.
First of all, I don't think that the dragons are infused/indwelled/inhabited/whatever by Maiar. The ones that I've read about seem to be more like (big and strong and fire-breathing, but ) humans. Actually, I know some people who act like dragons (meaning Smaug and Glaurung), at least in personality. Dragons, in Tolkien anyway, are greedy, arrogant, and generally all-around .
On Balrogs, well, they just seem to exist for one purpose. Destruction. Of Elves, of dwarves, of men, of anything. They are more like demons than dragons are.
Also, I do agree with someone-or-other (sorry that I can't remember your name) that the dragons are very smart (and ) animal sort of things. Balrogs are more like just plain demons. They are "Maiar in a purer form." (though I still don't think dragons are Maiar at all)

[obloquy]

And where do you find this demonic archetype which balrogs fit and dragons don't? Although I believe dragons were not Ainur, I don't see the distinction you're making, or any base whatsoever for your contention.

[Mitheithel]

Note to Maltaharma: I think that a Balrog with pink eyes would be pretty funny!(Not that I`d like to meet one)
(sigh) I`d have to vote for the Balrogs though I liked dragons more...
smilies/frown.gif

[Elf of the Wand]

1. All those that kill a Balrog are themselves killed in the process.

Tuor killed multiple Balrogs in Gondolin, and he didn't die.

[Mitheithel]

Well, I investigated the Encyclopedia of Tolkien at that`s what it said:

The Balrogs are the most powerful servants of Morgoth, except the Dragons.

[obloquy]

Hey, great work! You've found an unsubstantiated -- and thus completely useless -- quote.

Tuor killed multiple Balrogs in Gondolin, and he didn't die.

You are totally unprepared for this discussion.

[Dunlondion]

BALROGS ALL THE WAY!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! I know Dragons are more powerful but i just think BAlrogs are cooler.

[Afrodal Fenyar]

Well well. I don't think saying "All who killed a balrod died" means that balrogs are much stronger. What else did the balrogs do than sit in Angband, unless it was a battle? Túrin was only able to kill Glaurung because Glaurung didn't think that anyone would come and stab his stomach. Could even the mightiest of elven lords have slain him in a duel? No way.

The Balrogs existed for only one purpose - to destroy. Dragons liked a little fun, they put a dragon spell on their victims. The Balrogs simply slaughtered their opponents. The Dragons' weak spot was indeed this, they always underestimated their opponents and played when it was time to kill.

Many have said, that killing a Balrog needs great power of will, and therefore a man can't kill a Balrog. Well, a dragon sure has enough power of will to do that. And imagine it, a hundred feet long, enormous dragon against a Balrog, who is maybe twice the stature of an elf. Even if the fire the dragon breathes is useless(which I don't think it is, not completely at least), he still has his claws and tail. The Balrog can't break the dragon's armour. His belly is his weak spot? Smaug didn't have a weak spot in his belly, there was only that one hole. All dragon's didn't have that, I think. Balrog's attack fails --> he is smashed by the dragon's tail. Groaar, he's dead.

My vote for the dragons.

[Maédhros]

Actually there is a quote from The Book of Lost Tales II: Turambar and the Foalókë
Now those drakes and worms are the evillest creatures that Melko has made, and the most uncouth, yet of all are they themost powerful, save it be the Balrogs only.
The Tale of Turambar and the Foalóke was written circa 1917, before the Tale of Tinuviel. If we couple that with the fact that Tolkien drastically reduced the number of Total Balrogs in existence from Hundreds in the The Fall of Gondolin to at it's most only seven, so as to make them stronger and deadlier if you will.
It appears that Balrogs are indeed more powerful than Dragons.
On the other hand, it could be said that, at that time, Winged dragons didn't exist and you could make the argument that the quote doesn't apply to them.

[Wolf Larson]

Are the Drakes of Fire and Iron that Melko used agaist Gondolin counted at all?

If not, certianly the Balrogs.

A Balrog has wings too. They would not have been given them if they were unable to use them (Morgoth is too cunning for that), however, because the records do not show that they were used on a large scale they may have been used only when needed.

[ May 30, 2003: Message edited by: Wolf Larson ]

[Kuruharan]

I'm probably going to regret this...

It can probably fly, though I can't recall any instances where they did.


Since you cannot recall any instances where they did (and there are not any, I assure you) you really cannot say that they can probably fly. It is a case of having a distinct lack of evidence.

[ May 11, 2003: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[Alakhriveion TMA]

This is ridiculous. Balrogs are Anuir, and Dragons are mortal creations of Morgoth. If that's not clear enough, Miar don't really die. They are either banished of return to Valinor. No such thing happened to Smaug. Also, the dragons would be incapable of battling the Balrogs, as they were lesser servants of Morgoth. I use the term "lesser" rather loosely, but the Balrog could simply order a dragon about. A direct confronation seems rather unlikely. Lastly, what kind of Dragon? A Cold-Drake might have a better chance if, say, they were pitted against each other. smilies/wink.gif

[Afrodal Fenyar]

I don't think that a balrog could have ordered a dragon. Sauron, who was the mightiest of Melkor's servants, never tried it, which I think means he couldn't, or that it would have been very hard for him. If Sauron couldn't how could a balrog? Of course when Morgoth was still in Middle-Earth a balrog could have done that as Morgoth's lieteutenant, but not after the War of Wrath.

Besides, the balrogs never leave their bodies, or at least it isn't mentioned. I think this means they were sort of incarnated, like the istari, and therefore can be killed. I'm pretty much sure the fall from Zirak-Zigil was Durin's bane's last fall.

[Alakhriveion TMA]

Yes, but Sauron might not have been aware of the existance of surviving Dragons. At the time of Smaug and Bilbo, has was in the middle of a battle with Gandalf at Dol Guldur (correct my spelling), and didn't have the Ring, making him unable to give orders, period. And the Istari can be killed, but Gandalf was sent back to ME, and Saruman was banished.

[Aule]

I am very sure he was aware of them, thats why Gandalf wanted to get rid of Smaug cause he was afraid that Sauron mya use him in any futur battles

[Kuruharan]

Dragons are mortal creations of Morgoth

As I'm sure you noted above, there is some dissension over that particular issue.

No such thing happened to Smaug.

Prove it.

Also, the dragons would be incapable of battling the Balrogs, as they were lesser servants of Morgoth. I use the term "lesser" rather loosely, but the Balrog could simply order a dragon about.

Again, as noted above there, is some dissension over which was "lesser."

As for Balrogs ordering Dragons about, we have examples of both.

In front of the fire came Glaurung the golden, father of dragons, in his full might; and in his train were Balrogs...
-from "Of the Ruin of Beleriand"

Balrogs were in Glaurung's train (meaning they were assigned to follow and obey him.)

Obviously Gothmog commanded Dragons at the Fall of Gondolin.

So, we have examples of both.

Lastly, what kind of Dragon?

I believe that the direction of the discussion tended toward the Great Dragons, and not those of lesser brood.

Besides, the balrogs never leave their bodies, or at least it isn't mentioned. I think this means they were sort of incarnated, like the istari, and therefore can be killed. I'm pretty much sure the fall from Zirak-Zigil was Durin's bane's last fall.


You are correct.

[ May 12, 2003: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[the witch king]

Dragons all the way!

But i do think it matters which Dragon and which Balrog.

[ArcticWyrm]

I Have to go with Balrogs. They are the closest thing LoTR has to Demons, so I think they could eventually take down a dragon.

[Hennet Dragonborn]

Balrogs were the personal servicemen of Morgoth. They were mainly dormant in his abscence. Dragons, on the other hand, had a free (and reckless, i might add) will. Also, dragons varied much in color, power, and ability. Not as true with Balrogs. Sure, they varied in strength, but there size remained in the same ballpark and I've never heard of a blue Balrog (kind of fun to think about though, eh?). And, obviously, I am biased towards dragons *cough* *screen name* *cough*. So, dragons all the way.

[Sharkû]

This isn't really a thread for _opinions_. If it were, it wouldn't have gone to five pages in Books; five pages worth reading.

[SuperMaiario]

I think all this can be solved with a single quote from Peregrin Took. "Even the mightiest warrior may be slain by a single arrow." booya.