Balrogs vs Dragons

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Essence of Darkness
Posts: 531</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
I seem to have noticed an uncanny regularity concerning fights between Balrogs and people, and Dragons and people. Every duel with Balrogs that is described afterwards in which the Balrog is slain ends up leaving the other contestant dead also; and yet the slayer of a Dragon always seems to come out alive.

Some examples:

The Dead Balrog-slayers
Ecthelion -- fell with Gothmog in the sack of Gondolin
Glorfindel -- killed and was killed by a Balrog while crossing the Echoriath out of Gondlin
Gandalf -- slew Durin's bane in Moria and passed away

The Living Dragon-slayers
Bard of Esgaroth -- shot Smaug of Erebor and after became king
Túrin Turambar -- stabbed Glaurung father of Dragons with Gurthang; swooned but recovered and returned to Brethil
Fram of the Rohirrim -- slew Scatha the Worm in Rhovanion and became very rich
Eärendil the Mariner -- struck Ancalagon the Black out of the sky in the Great Battle; lived on and became the voyager of the skies for eternity

And yet were the Dragons not more dangerous than the Balrogs?

</p>

[burrahobbit]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hidden Spirit
Posts: 566</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

Well, in single combat Balrogs are very dangerous, but Dragons can breath fire and (some of them) could fly. And unless I am mistaken there were more Dragons than Balrogs.

What's a burrahobbit got to do with my pocket, anyways?</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000062>burrahobbit</A> at: 12/9/00 12:41:56 am

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Essence of Darkness
Posts: 535</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

Sorry, burrahobbit, but that didn't make much sense to me. Could you explain it to me again?

</p>

[burrahobbit]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hidden Spirit
Posts: 569</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

I mean to say that Dragons have extra very bad things that make them all the more fearsome. And they stink.

What's a burrahobbit got to do with my pocket, anyways?</p>

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Essence of Darkness
Posts: 538</TD><TD><img src=http://www.geocities.com/gwindlord/eagle.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

Yes, quite, but the point is if Dragons had all those extra very bad things, how come so many Balrog-banes end up dead themselves but a prospective Dragon-killer has quite a good life-expectancy?

Farewell! Wherever you fare, until your eyries receive you at the journey’s end!</p>

[burrahobbit]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hidden Spirit
Posts: 570</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

Perhaps because to fight and kill a Balrog you had to be in a place where it could kill you just the same, and generally when fighting a Dragon you would be in a place where you couldn't kill it (the front) but it could kill you and whenever a person has killed a Dragon he came at it from the bottom where the Dragon would not be able to do anything about him. This is just a guess, but it seems to hold true for every time that I know the details of a Dragon's death.

What's a burrahobbit got to do with my pocket, anyways?</p>

[The Barrow-Wight]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wraith of Angmar
Posts: 1630</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

Dragons we creatures bred by Morgoth, evil and dangerous but not immortal. They could and did suffer mortal blows even as they dealt out horrific damage to their enemies in battle.

Balrogs on the other hand were immortal spirits embodied in terrible figures. They, too, could be injured, but their Maiaric origin made them extremely difficult to slay. So difficult, in fact, that it usually (aways?) required a sacrifice to slay them - Ecthelion, Glorfindel, Gandalf. And in the end, both the Elves that slayed them and the spirits that they really were were actually just separated from their bodies - neither the Balrog nor the Elf was really annhiliated.

The Barrow-Wight (RKittle)
<font size="2">I usually haunt http://www.barrowdowns.comThe Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgiMiddle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p>

[the Lorien wanderer]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 23</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

But Gandalf didn't die, really.

Not all those who wander are lost.</p>

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Essence of Darkness
Posts: 539</TD><TD><img src=http://www.geocities.com/gwindlord/eagle.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

Yes, I like the suggestions of both burrahobbit and RK. Very good. I think you've both solved that problem for me; thanks. <img src=smile.gif ALT=":)"> But do you what happened to a Maia after he was slain? did he, like the Elves and the Dwarves, depart to Mandos to await re-embodyment?

(BTW, Lorien Wanderer, actually, Gandalf did die. He was returned to life by either Eru or the Valar but we don't know for sure which one. Just as Glorfindel was restored by Mandos, and undoubtedly Ecthelion spent very little time in in the Halls of Awaiting too.)

Farewell! Wherever you fare, until your eyries receive you at the journey’s end!</p>

[Grand Admiral Reese]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 28</TD><TD><img src=http://www.facelink.com/edit/raw/rawimage/50/1315350.jpg?flezbwidth=60&flezbheight=60?flezbwidth=60&flezbheight=60?flezbwidth=60&flezbheight=60?flezbwidth=60&flezbheight=60?flezbwidth=60&flezbheight=60 WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/onering.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

Balrogs are a lot meaner than Dragons. <img src=smile.gif ALT=":)"> And they take a lot more to kill. Wheras one good stab with a sword can take out a Dragon, a Balrog would probably need a lot more before going down.


Tall ships and tall kings Three times three, What brought they from the foundered land Over the flowing sea? Seven stars and seven stones And one white tree. .</br>
Administrator @ <a href=http://pub6.ezboard.com/bthegrandadmiralsforums>The Grand Admirals Forums</a>, <a href=http://pub10.ezboard.com/bb5techforums>The Grey Council Forums</a>, <a href=http://pub9.ezboard.com/bechostation12>The McClain Council</a> and <a href=http://pub14.ezboard.com/bthegrandmoffsforums>The Grand Moff's Forums</a>.</br> </p>

[onewhitetree]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 15</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/onering.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

Okay, question: Were Balrogs actual tangible creatures, or more like evil spirits, or were they evil spirits who manifested themselves in earthly bodies

P.S. GREAT signature, Admiral. <img src=smile.gif ALT=":)">

Sell crazy someplace else...We're all stocked up here. <a href=http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul>Minas Morgul</a></p>

[Orald]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 65</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/onering.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

i am almost 100% sure that balrogs were tanjible creatures, like gandalf or even morgoth.

glaurung led the hosts of morgoth with balrogs in his wake. doesn't that imply something about dragons. the dragons were stronger and could do more damage, but they were more vunerable than balrogs. plus, weren't the dragons very vain and proud. so after a while of going unchallenge the dragons would get a feeling of invincibility and let down there guard, and that would just add to their vunerability. but i am not sure, does that sound about right?

</p>

[burrahobbit]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hidden Spirit
Posts: 571</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/onering.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

Yes, that sounds rather good, Durelen. Balrogs Don't seem proud at all, what with some of them (all that didn't die?) running away and hiding at the end of the First Age.

What's a burrahobbit got to do with my pocket, anyways?</p>

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Essence of Darkness
Posts: 544</TD><TD><img src=http://www.geocities.com/gwindlord/eagle.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/onering.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

Yeeees, but ho-one answered my question about the Maiar.

Gwaihir the Windlord http://www.barrowdowns.comThe Barrow-Downs</A> <FONT size="2">'Sing now, ye people of the Tower of Anor, for the Realm of Sauron is ended for ever, and the Dark Tower is thrown down.'</p>

[Orald]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 67</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

sorry, i didn't see that. i would assume that the lesser ainur can die, but they don't go to mandos to await a new vessel. the maiar, like the valar can take any form whenever they like, so couldn't they just reform themselves after their body is vanquished, i.e. Sauron. of course after they die maybe some of them are to weak to reform, so in a sense they die because they can't become flesh again.

i can see that for some of the greater maiar it may take a few times to lose their ability to reform. and for the valar, being strongest of the ainur, never losing their power to reform, so they could never die, an example of this would be Morgoth.

</p>

[the Lorien wanderer]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 24</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/sting.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

I know Gwaihir. But whatever the circumstances, the Balrog was unable to kill Gandalf off for good. And I'm pretty sure they're tangible.

Not all those who wander are lost.</p>

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Essence of Darkness
Posts: 550</TD><TD><img src=http://www.geocities.com/gwindlord/eagle.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/sting.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

Ah-ha, I've got it. Gandalf was a Maia, right? And he was slain by the Balrog at Zirak-Zigil. So he travelled to Valinor to be rejuvenated (he was also allowed to use more of his Maiar powers, to make up for the loss of all the other Istari) and reinhabited his body. To kill the Balrog took a large amount of his energy away, so the Valar allowed him to rest to get it back.

Saruman, on the other hand, tried to return to Valinor after he was slain, but the Valar send a strong wind that blows him back. I think that maybe the Valar decide whether to let the spirit of a Maia reform or not; or unless he is strong enough, like Sauron at the Downfall of Numenor or after the victory of the Last Alliance. And even that might be because of the Power he kept in reserve in his Ring. Of course, I may be wrong.

Gwaihir the Windlord http://www.barrowdowns.comthe barrow-downs</A>
<FONT size="2.5">'Sing now, ye people of the Tower of Anor,
for the Realm of Sauron is ended for ever,
and the Dark Tower is thrown down.'
</p>

[Mister Underhill]

Wight
Posts: 213
Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

From the Wight's post above:Dragons were creatures bred by Morgoth, evil and dangerous but not immortal.Reading this just made me wonder how dragons fit into the cosmology. According to generally accepted Tolkien-lore, evil could not create, right? Hence the lengthy discussions on the origins of Orcs and other evil creatures. Dragons are highly intelligent (even magical?) and, if not immortal, at least exceptionally long-lived (unless slain, of course). According to Tolkien criteria, then, dragons must have some kind of soul, right? So what sort of "spirit" inhabits the dragon-form, and what happens to it after death?

With regards to the original question, I'd say dragons appear to have the upper hand in sheer destructive power (see "Of the Fifth Battle" in the Sil: "And but for them [the Dwarves of Belegost] Glaurung and his brood would have withered all that was left of the Noldor."; also, the winged Dragons actually managed to drive the host of the Valar back for a time during the War of Wrath!), while Balrogs make more effective commanders and are certainly deadly in one-on-one (or two-on-one, in Fingon's case) combat. The living dragon-slayers mostly seem to have survived because they weren't fighting the dragon head-to-head but managed to slip in a "sneak attack" on a vulnerable spot.

When I saw the subject line, I thought this would be a topic on, "Who would win in a fight between a dragon and a Balrog?" Hehe. LotR Smackdown.

[Orald]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 96</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Well Said

Now you've got me thinking, MU. If they were not immortal then they couldn't be Maiar or any of the other orders akin to them, or could they. Were eagles immortal? Were Ents?
I know Morgoth tried to ally himself with some eagles, maybe he succeeded and dragons were the final product. It says that Thorondor was a massive creature, could he have rivaled dragons? Sorry to add questions to a question but I have never really thought about it and I would like to know.

</p>

[Machgoku]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 2</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/redeye.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Balrogs Vs. Dragons

In response to the Balrog vs. human ending in death for both, and Dragon vs. human, ending in death for the dragon, dragons were slightly smarter than Balrogs if I'm not mistaken, and the Balrogs fought so recklessly they would destroy their opponent even at the cost of their own lives, while a dragon would be overly cautious leaving no room to attack but only be attacked.

</p>

[Frodo9Fingers]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 2</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/onering.jpg" align=absmiddle> I´ve always liked dragons....

If I don´t remember wrong the dragons where Morgoths desperate defense aganist the Valar in the War of Wrath...and i think Tolkien says that they weren´t fully prepared at the time they rised from Angband...
And what about Glaurung....what about his power to control the mind...
I think dragon slayers survive because they kill them from distance most of the times (dragons usually have ONE weak point...)
Turin slayed Glaurung while he was sleeping or something like that...when they where to fight face to face Glaurung could just have crush him after putting him under spell....No chance!
The Great Father of Dragons....In my opinion the most powerfull creature under Melkor commands...(Sauron asaid..)
(sorry for spelling...i´m spanish)


</p>

[The Last Elf]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 9</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/narya.jpg" align=absmiddle> Dragons...

Hmm... i've read all replies, but... I think Dragons, at the beginning of time, were not evil creatures... I believe they were powerful, incontrastated... elves and other creatures have broken Dragon's peace... and SO Dragons became evil. I also think not all Dragons are evil.
But my ideas come from DragonLance, not only from Tolkien. I can be in fault.
Sorry for my english, I'm Italian.
Bye! :-)

</p>

[Telchar]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ghost-Prince of Cardolan
Posts: 585</TD><TD><img src=http://www.hbgk.dk/terning.gif WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/narya.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Dragons...

Interesting discussion! My own wiews are:
A Dragons and Balrogs alike are inhabited by spirits, Maiar.
B Dragons were bred by Morgoth and he entralled the spirits in them - like Charcharoth.
C Balrogs or valaruaka were also maiar who took the form as Balrogs.
D Both could be slain - its a coinsidence (interesting one i admit) that those that kill dragons live and those that kill Balrogs don't.
E I think Tolkien was inspired by Scandinavian Mythologi on this point, where there are several dragons slain by heros who survived the battle.
F We only hear tales of those who succed in killing either B or D - how many people, elves, men or dwarf do you thin have tried to kill a Dragon and end up dead??? - and the same for Balrogs.

<img src=smokin.gif ALT=":smokin"> Telchar





Anar kaluva tielyanna!</p>

[Chattizard]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 2</TD><TD><img src=http://www.geocities.com/Lord_Zard2001/ankkaperhe.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Balrogs vs Dragons

Hmmm...

Well, I'm new fan, but I think that...

... Dragons were creatures like Eagles, or any animals.
... Morgoth made dragons evil, they were not before that.
... Dragons always have weak points, and they could be slain when surprised, like from a distance, or when tey're sleeping, or something. If dragon is awake and guarding it's treasure while attacked, it CAN easily defeat it's enemy, or simply be slain, or both attacker and it can be killed in battle.
... Balrogs were Maiar, who Morgoth made evil and maded his servants. They were Maiars who chose the form of Balrog. Balrogs were really, really evil and little stupid, too. If they saw their enemy, they just wanted to kill it, no matter what it costs. I think that dragons were more powerful, but they usually defended their treasures. As Balrog's attacked. So they attacked like mad and slew their enemies, and got shot what killed them...

Well... I don't know! <img src=smile.gif ALT=":)">

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Muistattekos sen faktan siitä Roope-sedän numerosta 43 kun Roope sanoi..."
mailto:Darth_Zard@hotmail.comLord Zard</a>
http://LordZard.cjb.netLord Zard's Galaxy</a></p>

[Bêthberry]

Tolkien says dragons still exist, are still around in later ages. Does he ever say the same about balrogs? Or are they extinct? No female balrogs, even bearded ones?

If so, would that make dragons the winners in the smackdown, over the long term?

[Mister Underhill]

I've known a dragon-lady or two, and seen a pint-sized Kimodo dragon or three at the zoo, but if Tolkien-esque dragons are still around, they're doing a pretty good job of keeping it on the down-low. What good is it to be the last man standing if you have to hide out at the root of some mountain or other? I'd say it's a push here in the present day.

[Gurthang]

On this point I'd have to ask the question: Are Balrogs immortal? Do they ever die without being slain? If they do live forever, as dragons do not, then they could still be around. Probably sleeping deep in the earth like Durin's Bane was.

Yet I doubt dragons would still be around. There is some convincing evidence that they seriously did exist, but I don't think so anymore. Consider the following:


1. Dragons have not been seen for some time. They could still be in hiding, but even then the youngest would have to be over 700 years old. That's getting up there, even for a dragon. So it is unlikely that they would still be alive.


2. Dragons reproduce sexually. I am under the pretense that dragons were not cohabitational. It would be very difficult for two of them to travel unseen to a place where they could mate. So no new offspring. Also, the new offspring would eventually have to leave their mother's home and find one of their own. They have not been seen doing so.


3. Knowing the nature of dragons to sit on enormous piles of treasure for extensive periods of time, they would not be satisfied to hide in an empty hole. Presumeably, they would be seen flying around looking for a big enough pile of treasure. Yet they have not been seen. This means they must have already found their treasure. The most logical spots for them to find such a treasure would be in Egypt or under Wall Street (National Treasure! :D). Since we have not encountered any dragons while excavating these places, it would make sense that dragons are not around anymore.


This brings about only one possible solution: Balrogs could still be around, but dragons are, in fact, extinct.

[Boromir88]

I'm not much of a dragon person, but I can answer the balrog stuff for you Gurthang. :)

Are Balrogs immortal? Do they ever die without being slain?
Seeig as they are Maia, I would think they are immortal.

If they do live forever, as dragons do not, then they could still be around. Probably sleeping deep in the earth like Durin's Bane was.

This brings about only one possible solution: Balrogs could still be around, but dragons are, in fact, extinct.

Nope, at first in the Book of Lost Tales, Tolkien had a lot of Balrogs, and they
were weaker. He changed these thoughts in later works.
('a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained’) 'his Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained faithful to him'. In the margin my father wrote: 'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed.'
(Home X: Morgoth's Ring).
In letter #144 Tolkien tells us the fate of the balrogs (just not the number). Two died in Gondolin, the rest (except for Durin's bane) dies in the War of the Wraith.

[obloquy]

um

i thik ur answer is obveous,,,,,


balrouges have more powers cuz there maya........end of storey



altho on 2rd thot dragens have fire breathe plus claws so i duno

[Bêthberry]

I've known a dragon-lady or two, and seen a pint-sized Kimodo dragon or three at the zoo, but if Tolkien-esque dragons are still around, they're doing a pretty good job of keeping it on the down-low. What good is it to be the last man standing if you have to hide out at the root of some mountain or other? I'd say it's a push here in the present day.

Well, isn't there the possibility that hobbits are hanging out in their smials, hiding from the Big Folk, still? And I seem to recall Mithadan once arguing that at least some elves stayed behind and made it into the Fourth Age, in addition to the sons of Elrond.

I'd say the good would be the potential for more stories--and that's a good I'm sure Tolkien wouldn't resist.

[Mister Underhill]

Well feh -- who needs to be concerned about a little thing like survival for there to be stories? Look how well dinosaurs have made out over the years. Dragons arguably have the slight edge on that "survival" scale, though Balrogs (the rightly interpreted winged kind) haven't done too shabbily either. ;)

[Bergil]

in my opinion, dragons have more raw power, but are weak defensively and vulnerable to stealth. Balrogs are weaker, but it takes many good hits to take them down, so stealth is useless.

not that I'd like to take on either alone.

[Boromir88]

in my opinion, dragons have more raw power, but are weak defensively and vulnerable to stealth. Balrogs are weaker, but it takes many good hits to take them down, so stealth is useless.
Actually Balrogs were quite agile. They aren't the big lumbering, bulky, beasts that Jackson portrays. Tolkien describes them as about the size of a man, or greater (so 6-8 feet?) and they were quite agile...
It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it. Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure.~Bridge of Khazad-dum

Then later as Gandalf tells us.

In that despair my enemy was my only hope, and I pursued him, clutching at his heel...
"From the lowest dungeon to the highest peak it climbed, ascending in unbroken spiral in many thousand steps, until it issued at last in Durin's Tower carved in the living rock of Zirakzigil, the pinnacle of the Silvertine."~The White Rider
So, when the Balrog does flee from Gandalf he was able to "outrun" him, until he reached the top that is.

If you have read the Silmarillion, and read about Gothmog's battles. He slew Fingon with his axe, he slew Feanor, he bounded up Hurin and dragged him away. Then his fight with Echthelion, which is told in a another tale, that I have not read yet.

[Eonwe]

dragons vs. balrogs, eh? well, in the tales of dragons, they are usually more free agents, sort of. they seem to kind of do as the please, at least more so than balrogs. also, maybe that is why stealth doesn't work on balrogs: they are always holed up on a tower or on the field in a huge battle, whereas dragons make themselves comfy on a pile of someone's gold in a deep cavern somewhere by themselves. it is interesting to note, thought, that dragons very precise senses of hearing and smell (Bilbo and smaug episode), so they seem to have some defenses against stealth.

other than that, there is the obvious difference in flight capabilities. ;) :p

[Bergil]

where, exaxctly did I say they were slow?

[Boromir88]

You didn't say they were slow, but you did say...
Balrogs are weaker, but it takes many good hits to take them down, so stealth is useless.
Which makes it seem like they didn't have stealth.

[Gurthang]

Well, considering that both are beings of fire, the outcome is rather hard to determine. All in all, it's an extremely tight match.

Balrog:
Sword
Whip
Magic(see Gandalf discussing the door in Balin's Tomb)
Creates Shadow
Maia

Dragon:
Teeth/Claws
Tough, Scaly Armour
Spellcasting Eyes
Emits Light
Fell Spirit.

All those attributes pretty much offset the opponents. There are only two aspects that give distinct advantages to one side: the Dragon's ability to fly and Dragon's weak stomach. Regardless of whether or not a Balrog has wings, it's generally assumed that it can't fly. So the Dragon, which definitely can, has the upperhand. On the other side, the Dragon's belly is soft and vulnerable, making it very susceptible to an underside attack.

So the real question is whether or not the Dragon's ability to fly overrides it's extremely weak tummy.

[Eonwe]

you forgot one thing in your otherwise excelent list. some dragons had fire. think on this: if a dragon can't or chooses not to fly, were are you going to attack him? i really see no way i would get killed if i was a dragon.

[Bergil]

I meant, that stealth wouldn't help AGAINST a balrog, but it would against a dragon, because the balrog can take a lot of damage.

[Gurthang]

I meant, that stealth wouldn't help AGAINST a balrog, but it would against a dragon, because the balrog can take a lot of damage.

But wouldn't a Dragon also be able to take a lot of damage? And in The Hobbit, it talks about Dragons 'sleeping with an eyelid open' or something like that. Not easy to sneak up on.

The fact that a dragon might choose not to fly, just brings us back to the point where the battle is pretty much even.

[Boromir88]

I meant, that stealth wouldn't help AGAINST a balrog, but it would against a dragon, because the balrog can take a lot of damage.
Ok, I gotcha now, thanks for clearing that up.

[the phantom]

So the real question is whether or not the Dragon's ability to fly overrides it's extremely weak tummy.
Nice thought, Gurthang.

Flying is definitely a nice perk when engaging enemies, but if the battle was dragon versus balrog, flying wouldn't be very beneficial.

You see, flying is nice because it allows the dragon to blast its opponent with fire while staying out of range and thus not allowing its opponent to land a blow. The dragon's fiery breath is its main weapon while airborne.

Now, a balrog is a spirit of fire. Isn't it likely that a dragon's breath would be useless against a balrog?

If so, then flying would not be of much use.

[Kuruharan]

Egad! How has this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread/php?t=1414) thread avoided being referenced here.

[Gurthang]

Great link Kuruharan.

I just thought of another question, and, while glancing through that other thread, I saw some similar comments.

Balrogs are fire. Dragons Breathe fire. Therefore, logic says that the fire wouldn't do any damage.

But we never specified what type of dragon or even which Dragon. Maybe we are not being specific enough. Gandalf mentions that maybe Dragon Fire could have melted the One Ring. Perhaps the Fire of Ancalagon the Black could have done a Balrog harm? Or perhaps a cold-drake (I believe that Scatha was a cold-drake?) would have had a better chance. Who knows, as there is not an entirely extensive history of Dragons.



(700 posts!)