Why not Ecthelion?
 

Why was it Glorfindel that was reincarnated and sent back? Yes he was a great warrior/elf-lord and he saved Tuor and company from the Balrog when they were fleeing Gondolin. I would never bad mouth him. Its just that Ecthelion killed what 4 Balrogs and then turned around and killed Gothmog. He dies as well but still thats 5 Balrogs, one being the greatest of them all. I just think Ecthelion is over looked alot of times. I mean Gorfindel got sent back and what did Ecthelion get, Denethor's father named after him haha JK. Unless mayby he had done his part or something like that. Ecthelion is prolly my fav character besides Finrod, "Ecthelion of the Fountain" how cool of a name is that?

You say it like being sent back to the Middle-earth backwater was a reward, when actually Glorfindel was being punished for taking out some minor, wet-behind-the-wings Balrog recruit through pure clumsiness. Meanwhile Ecthelion obliterated Gothmog and his toughest hench-rogs left and right using nothing more than a puddle and his freakin' hat*.

*I may have taken some minor liberties with this story.

I'm not willing to be a spoil-sport or anything, but wasn't it the case that Tolkien had to come up with this resurrection-idea only when he realised he had used the same name for two different characters both being remarkable enough they just couldn't have been two different persons - not to talk of the fact that one had actually died already before the second came along? :)

Is it at all possible that Glorfindel volunteered to return to Middle-earth? Maybe Ecthelion simply wanted to "enjoy his retirement" as it were - we have to assume that, in the fulness of time, he was re-embodied in Aman and got to go about his business.

What with no Elves ever permanently dying (except Fëanor I suppose, and however the Finwë-Míriel tradeoff ended up working out, and perhaps some others - I always liked that line which might be in Morgoth's Ring about the reports of resurrected Eldar about the fëa of the Avari in Mandos) it must have become really crowded in Aman after a while. I know the Eldar did not reproduce as quickly as Men but still...

ROFL Ecthelion Rules All!!!! I can see im gonna like you Ix, u think like me. No really that just shows the difference in caliber from 1st age to 3rd. Gandalf died killing Durins Bane, Ecth woulda never missed a step especially if he had Glamdring..... Thats why they didnt send him. Sauron didnt have anything to stand against him, the Valar wanted to make it a little sport huh? haha Glad i found this spot my wife hates LOTR and none of my friends read so its awesome to get to actually talk with someone about it!

Ya but its way funner to think that reincarnation was how it went.

Ya maybe he felt bad so he volunteered, i like to think they were setting around talking with Ecthelion teasing Glorfindel "hey at least i fell in the water on pourpose"..... haha

You should remember that Ecthelion only killed multiple Balrogs in the very early 'Lost Tales' version of the story. At that point, Balrogs were conceived of quite differently from the great demons of fire and darkness that they became around the time of the writing of LotR. If the later 'Fall of Gondolin' had been carried further, it is highly doubtful that Ecthelion would have killed any Balrogs beyond Gothmog.

Of course, you're free to disagree - but one can't simply throw things written years apart together willy-nilly and expect any kind of coherence.

Ya i know what you mean my the different versions, so i guess i should have said earlier that this topic was posted using what the middle earth wikipedia says. Thats where i go if i have a question and dont feel like goin to find the book or if im away from home. like you said its whatever version you wanna look at.

Im just happy to have someone to talk about it with.

Maybe, but I think you also need to consider circumstances. Gandalf met "B" on a narrow bridge where there was no room to dodge. He destroyed B's sword in a moment and dropped B into the gulf a moment later - it was only his being surprised by the whip and unable to avoid it that made the struggle even close.

War may be a science, but individual battles often turn on the simplest of circumstances. Except for that one chance of failing to avoid a whip (a simple slash of his sword to cut the whip-cord before being dragged in would suffice), and we would be saying how Ecth had to resort to desparation and kamikazi to >barely< kill B at the cost of his life, while Gandalf snuffed out Big-B with a swift 1-2 punch (parry sword; break bridge; End-of-story ... all done, no hu-hu) - and practically without breaking a sweat!

Good point. But.....the 1-2 punch as you put it would not have killed the Balrog just dumped him in a under ground lake. I think the breaking of the flame sword was more Glamdring then anything though, but i agree the bridge made it alot more complicated. Although the bridge wasnt the hard part for Gandalf it was chasing the wet Balrog who was running scared from him. He pursued him for what 8 days? Then finally cornerd him on Durin's Tower and 2 more days of fighting after that. No bridge it would have more then likely been over in minutes. In Ecth's defence he had only 1 arm (depending on what version we look at), for either part of or the whole fight.

No that wasn't the case :D

Tolkien's Elves were reincarnated (in some fashion) even in the early The Book of Lost Tales, thus well before Tolkien somewhat randomly borrowed the name Glorfindel for The Lord of the Rings -- not wholly randomly it seems, if we judge by a note in the drafts for The Lord of the Rings that Glorfindel should tell of his ancestry in Gondolin (although obviously Tolkien did not have Glorfindel tell of this in the ultimate version of the story).

Also Tolkien would not have been forced to use Glorfindel for The Silmarillion, and it hadn't been published by him -- meaning if JRRT really could not find out the 'truth' of this matter to his satisfaction, he didn't have to explain a scenario with 'two Glorfindels' in any case...

... as his readership only knew about one.

Tolkien seems to find a number of reasons why Glorfindel was reincarnated before the ban was lifted (which is different from being sent back of course, but being under the ban was problematic). He didn't list them like this, but here goes:

1) Glorfindel was an Elda of high and noble spirit (I'm going to assume exceptionally high and noble is meant)

2) he incurred the ban reluctantly only because of kinship and allegiance to Turgon, and love for his Kindred.

3) he took no part in the Kinslaying

4) 'More important': he had sacrificed his life, enabling Tuor and Idril to escape, a deed of vital importance to the designs of the Valar.

So Glorfindel was purged of any guilt -- in note 12 Tolkien describes that his guilt had been small, and once again refers to his noble character, among other things. He was released from Mandos, and Manwe restored him to bodily life -- and he gained the primitive innocence and grace of the Eldar. It is then said he became a friend and follower of Gandalf!

Glorfindel remained in the Blessed Realm, but his ultimate return (it is said) must have been for the purpose of strengthening Gil-galad and Elrond, in SA 1600 it appears.


It's already been noted, but these Balrogs were more destructible than Tolkien would later imagine them. I doubt these numbers were going to stand -- and actually, there is evidence that JRRT imagined as little as three, or at most seven Balrogs, ever existing.

The matter of Balrog numbers is a bit complicated, and involves 'when Tolkien wrote what' (as there are plenty of descriptions written when Tolkien imagined very many Balrogs existing), but the idea at least (in my opinion) notably calls into question the number of Balrogs that were going to be slain in any theoried, updated revision of The Fall of Gondolin...

... the detailed version of which never got very much beyond Tuor's coming to the city [see Unfinished Tales], although Tolkien did some updating with Maeglin too.

These are thorough account of the reasons that Tolkien gave. I think it's interesting that Glorfindel left with Turgon, because of the kinship the two shared. With his blonde hair, it seems that Glorfindel probably had significant Vanyar ancestry. At the same time he was a Noldor prince. I always thought that he was a descendant of one of Finwe's daughters that had married a Vanyar relative of Elenwe, hence the close kinship to Turgon.
I don't think the matter of Balrogs are complicated at all. Tolkien just changed his mind on them from being a race of fire creatures, to being demons. He is also quite clear on reducing the number and even says that the fight between Glorfindel and the Balrog would have to be rewritten. With the story we have, it is almost a given there were no more than 3-7 Balrogs.

Well, I said the matter of Balrog numbers, and let me complicate that a bit more then ;)

Yes Tolkien clearly made one marginal note in the later 1950s [or sometime later, as it's hard to tell], and revised one passage -- which revision did not however, speak to how many Balrogs actually existed.

And yet Tolkien does not revise other texts that still refer to very many Balrogs. Why not? When I look at all of them, some might be explained by saying that he simply didn't get around to them, but I'm not sure that necessarily works perfectly for all examples.

And since there are seemingly more edited Silmarillion readers that HME readers, many do not realize that it was Christopher Tolkien, not JRRT himself, who edited the pasages in question. This often enough 'complicates' the discussion, especially since Christopher Tolkien did not edit the War of Wrath passage in this respect, which often enough gets raised in the discussion.

That is, Silmarillion-readers-only do not necessarily know that the War of Wrath passage was written well before the marginal note, nor that Christopher Tolkien has edited other reference where his father did not.

And as this marginal note is not part of the text proper, was Tolkien going to truly give a specific number in the tale itself? And if so, three or seven? Or was JRRT just going to revise all the passages concerned to make the matter ambiguous -- while not refering to large numbers at least.

And while Tolkien did write another, this time certainly 'late' note, that the duel with Glorfindel and the 'demon' may need revision, that in itself does not tell us that the revisions were going to let the reader know how many Balrogs actually existed.

Revise what? Add a shadow? Make this Balrog more powerful? Shorten it? Since Tolkien wrote demon and seems to 'avoid' Balrog in this late text, was he going to have Glorfindel fight a notable demon if 'lesser than Balrog' kind of demon -- hardly seems likely to me after all the external history behind Glorfindel slaying a Balrog, but I have read someone argue this possibility nonetheless.

So it can get 'a bit' complicated in my opinion :D

Your entire argument is just stretching the what is possible.

1. We have been through this and we have seen that Christopher Tolkien has the right to edit any unpublished material he liked. What he says and edits is good enough for me.

2. Tolkien was a busy man and had a very demanding full time job. He never got to rewrite many things that he planned to do. It's a very weak argument to use that he had not rewritten the stories as an excuse. Especially, since it's very easy to edit the number of balrogs. More importantly he never in later work suggested that there were numerous balrogs again.

3. It simply does not fit with the story that the likes of Tuor or Ecthelion were killing Balrogs by the handful. We have seen that Gandalf died fighting one and it was a real threat to Lothlorien, that contained Galadriel.

4. Tolkien constantly refers to Balrogs as demons throughout his letters and notes. So just, because he refers to Glorfindel's battle with 'demon' hardly implies he planned to change it from a Balrog to some other beast.

So I am sorry to say the matter is a very simple one. There were no more than 7 Balrogs in the story as we know it and no reason that there should even be more than 3.

Well more than one possibility makes things more complicated, especially since, included within my statement is the idea that not everyone has read HME -- that alone makes it a 'bit' complicated in my opinion, at least as far as discussion goes.

Yes let's bring canon considerations into the matter. That never complicates things :p

I never say above that by not revising a given passage containing many Balrogs 'proves' that Tolkien was of two minds, but rather that it doesn't exactly make the matter as cut and dry as you seem to be trying to make it now...

'Sauron came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower, with a host of Balrogs.' Of the Ruin of Beleriand And the Fall of Fingolfin [Christopher Tolkien edited this to: '... named Gorthaur, came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower upon Tol Sirion.' Of The Ruin Of Beleriand]

But not only did Tolkien not revise 'host of Balrogs' in the early 1950s -- while making revisions to this same passage [passage 143], Christopher Tolkien even notes a revision to passage 143 on LQ2, which puts this revision [even if more minor than the early 1950s revision], in the same time phase as the '3 or 7' Balrog note...

... at least generally, so we don't know which comes later, the revision to 143 or the marginal note, and now one has to argue that Tolkien maybe just missed this reference, even on LQ2. Well, maybe is part of the point: it helps complicate matters 'a bit' because people will have different opinions about how to view these things.

I haven't said otherwise. Still it's a fact [and not that you said otherwise] that after Tolkien wrote the Moria passage he still imagined very many Balrogs existing in Middle-earth in the First Age.

Well, all I said was that someone else raised this, and that I thought it very unlikely myself.

In any case the point there was, in response to you bringing up this statement from JRRT about Glorfindel, was that Tolkien's note about Glorfindel's fight with the demon possibly needing revision tells us nothing about Balrog numbers.

Yes and The Lord of the Rings is about a short guy trying to get rid of some evil jewelry ;)

And incidentally, to be fair to the other person who raised the possibility, Tolkien actually appears to have crossed out the word Balrog in one instance [in the late text concerned], as well as employ demon throughout. I can't really easily explain why he should feel the need to do that...

... although again I still don't buy it myself [even if Balrog numbers were drastically reduced]...

but let's not [including me, if I have] simplify this person's suggestion of a possibility ;)

And that's all it was, if I recall correctly.

I think the matter is easier (my humble opinion). If we would want (as it stands in the section of the New Silmarillion) to create an coherent text, the number of Balrogs must be treated as a mixed version. I mean, the 3 or 7 note is that, "a note" , not developed by the professor, if the text had been rewritten we had the "truth", but we haven't, only know that the number is wanted to be reduced in accordance with the new "strength" of the demons opposite to the Lost Tales version. I think with no more data rewritten, we can assume 7 equal to 10 or 12 for example.
Greetings

Not reading all the source material does not make things more complicated. It just means that you don't have the full information.
Again only if you want to make things difficult. Tolkien was explicit with what he wrote in his will. Whether you or I like it or not does not matter. Christoper Tolkien has actually greatly restrained his hand and could have done far more with the power his father left him.
Tolkien is not perfect and is not going to notice every little detail We have to look at the grand picture and we get to my next point.
Where is the proof in this? As he made the Balrog more powerful he was probably considering the change at that point. It's quite apparent that a host of Balrogs does not work. One Balrog alone was enough to defeat Gandalf.
Look we can see all the information we have including Tolkien's notes the power of the Balrogs etc and we get a picture. I don't see any contradiction to the updated note and you have not convinced me it is remotely complicated. We will have to agree to disagree here once more.

Well, heres another way to look at it. Even if the Balrogs were as Durin's Bane was portrayed in the movie, there could have been a great number of them. It would just mean that the Eldar of the 1st age were that much tougher. You cant really go by Gandalf getting killed by one if this was the case, 1st the elfs of old would have been greater then Gandalf was in 3rd age as a Istari, thats not saying he couldnt have just snapped his fingers and blew it to pieces in his true form, if he wanted to. Or being able to do the same to the any of the eldar from the 1st age either. Its saying that he wasnt allowed to... or that he didnt have that kind of power in the mortal form. Its just another way to think about it and include both views of the Balrogs. Like this also, i think if Fingolfin had ran into Gothmog on his way to challenge Morgoth he would have absolutly destroyed him, and even Sauron would have been hard pressed for that matter, In my opinion. Dont burn me at the stake please. Its just an idea, thinking out loud it you will.

Elrond and Galadriel were a match for any first age elves. The Balrog was still a huge threat to them. The first age Elves were really no stronger than those of the 2nd Age or even the third Age. The First Age just had more of them.

Here's the thing. There's no such thing as 'canon'. Some people (including you, I gather) want to talk about the fictional world described in the published Silmarillion. Others want to talk about the fictional world as envisioned by JRRT at some particular point in time. Some want to talk about a hypothetical final form that the Legendarium would have taken if Tolkien had lived longer and prepared the Silmarillion for publication. Still others want to talk about the whole corpus of texts without privileging any one version of the story.

None of these groups is right or wrong, and arguments between them are (it seems obvious) completely pointless. And yet a lot of arguments about Tolkien's work do in fact stem from the (often unrecognized) fact that the participants are taking different approaches. It's the equivalent of those arguments that appear to be about something substantive but are really just semantics, the people involved having different definitions for the terms they are using.

In other words, the issue isn't that Galin or anyone else disagrees about the authority (whatever that might mean) of the published Silmarillion. It's that they are interested in a different question.

Some people just like to pick and chose what they like from different time periods. At the end of the day Tolkien never finished his work and after painstakingly going through his notes, Christoper was able to give us a coherent story. This is the only story we are going to get and it's the only story that fits with other published works.

The issue at hand is they disagree with the authority of Christopher Tolkien, because I don't see people arguing that Aragorn should really have been a Hobbit named Trotter or any of the countless other ideas that Tolkien dropped.

We can never know what Tolkien would have written had he lived, because he changed his mind about a lot of things, but we can know what the story that fits the other published works tells us.

Tolkien's early works are a great read and enjoyable on their own, but Sauron being a cat is not something that works with LOTR nor does Beren being an elf.

Christopher is the fact maker of the modern Tolkien interest, and was due to the publishes Sil. Without it we didn't have UT and HOME. I reverence Chris almost as much as his father because without his edit work we didn't have the world of Arda that we have now, only (of course not less) TH and TLOTR (with TRGEO).
Himself was sorry of the published Silmarillion, Edited with hurry due to the pressure of the editorial. In HOME and think in other place don't remember, he said that some many "editions" could have been treated in other way but he must let stand the work as it is. And took the decision of publish the woks in its original context.
Some people (like me) want to edit a dreamed Sil or in a greater way a Compilation of the texts of Arda for a personal taste, and share with the people that think like us, but we know that some many others wants the pub Sil and UT and HOME as they are; ok, no problem, all friends. We have both versions.

Greetings

I was jusy saying what if for conversation's sake..... but i disagree Galadriel and Elrond were not a match for "any" 1st age elf. I dont think either of them could match Maedros, Fingon,Turgon, Finrod (who was Galadriels big brother) and there peers not to meantion the likes of Feanor or Fingolfin. Dont get me wrong im not downing either of them but it said that when Gil-Galed died Galadriel was the fairest and greatest left in ME, and he was (in sil which Christopher said was a mistake) Fingons son but in later works he was supposed to be Odoreths son. Either way she wouldnt have been a match for Fingon or Odoreth and apparently Gil-Galad either. she was greater then Elrond since she has seen the undying lands also. There was a big difference in the elfs who had seen the light of the Valar and those who had not. So yes there was a huge difference in 1st and 3rd age elfs. Especially with the Sindar and Noldar lines.

No, we have already gotten lots of stories. There is no sense in which the published Silmarillion is 'the only story we are going to get'. It was the first one, and it was the only one that was published as a compiled narrative without textual notes or commentary, but those are the only things that set it apart from the texts given in HoMe (which, it's worth noting, Christopher Tolkien also saw fit to publish).

It is also not the only story that fits with other published works. Some of the HoMe texts agree with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Others, to varying degrees, don't. The published Silmarillion is not somehow the unique version of the story that is allowed by the published works.

There's no 'should' about it. There are only facts about what was written in different texts at different times.

Most people are more interested in the published version of The Lord of the Rings than in the early drafts, so most discussions about that work are naturally going to be about the published version. On the other hand, many people are more interested in the various HoMe texts than in the published Silmarillion, so it's natural that they will want to discuss them and won't necessarily be that interested in what the published version has to say about the topics they are discussing.

What, after all, does 'authority' mean in this context? Does it mean that the published version is the only one that people should be allowed to discuss? Obviously not. Does it mean that people discussing the HoMe texts must stop their discussion when someone provides an answer from the published version? Again, that would seem ridiculous. Does it mean that people ought to be more interested in the published version than in the other texts? No, because you can't dictate people's interests like that. Does it mean that the published Silmarillion is the 'right' or 'true' version? It can't, because this is a fictional world we're talking about and there is no 'truth' about it. One is forced to conclude that 'authority' is just not a meaningful concept in this context.

Sorry if I'm steering this thread into canonicity territory; but I really think that fundamentally, people are arguing past each other here due to their interests lying in different places.

The reason is simple: Glorfindel had to leave Valinor and the Halls of Mandos because Ecthelion was incessantly teasing him. After all, Ecthelion had killed multiple balrogs, while Glorfindel had merely tripped and fell of a cliff.

Pfffttt! Where's the epic heroism of that?

Christopher Tolkien has admitted he made mistakes in the Silmarillion and I accept his corrections. I accept what Christopher Tolkien has put together and when he confirms that a matter was his father's final words.
Discussing Tolkien's early ideas or notions is fine, but I disagree when people try and argue that those text are equally valid when discussing the final story. I very much enjoy hearing how Huan and Sauron originated the conflict we see today between cats and dogs, but I don't agree with using that to discuss the legendarium as we know it.

The host of Balrogs just does not fit with the story as we have it now. There is just no way that Tuor would be killing Balrogs five at a time. This is probably a ky reason why Tolkien cut the number.

I know right! Like i said earlier in a post Glor and Etch are setting around and Ecth is teasing him "hey at least i meant to fall in the water". LOL If its not fun its not worth it right?

Maybe, or perhaps not.

After they had fell into the cold lake, so cold it almost stopped Gandalf's heart, the balrog's "fire was quenched" and did not ignite again until they reach the summit of Celebdil.

Remember, the balrog was essentially fighting without a weapon after they fell.

So it is said as they clash deep beneath the mountain, "ever he clutched at me, and ever I hewed him, till at last he fled into dark tunnels" [TTT, ch. 5]. It appears to me as though this is not just 1 minute of sparring, rather a prolonged encounter before the balrog fled all the way up the mountain.

Even before their physical encounter recall Gandalf's exclamation to the company.

The encounter left him totally winded. He could not even make a light for them in the dark. I'd figure the battle could have gone either way.

Finally they both let loose on the precipice, which neither walked away from.

These do not seem to be quick encounters. Gandalf says, "Those that looked up from afar thought that the mountain was crowned with storm." A one or two minute long storm? I think not. Also He says, "I have never felt such a challenge" [FotR, bk. 2, ch. 5].

If we look to the Unfinished Tales it is said of Galadriel in conjunction with Fëanor that they were the greatest Eldar in Aman [Part ll, ch. 4] She is said the possess "the equal if unlike endowments of Fëanor." Of those endowments it is said in the Silmarillion and in Morgoth's Ring:

She is compared with the greatest/mightiest of the Noldor, "his likeness has never again appeared in Arda... Thus ended the mightiest of the Noldor" [Sil, ch. 13, p. 125] which includes not only herself, but all the other princes who followed Fëanor and Fingolfin into Beleriand that you mentioned.

Lastly there is a quote in UT that compares Galadriel to the loremasters who're described in note 23 of The People's of Middle-earth.

Not all of them were as such but it is interesting that generally who they are compared to are Fëanor and/or Gondolin's captains, such as Ecthelion. So I'd say that Galadriel imo was clearly a match for any of these guys, and certainly their better.

Not necessarily a huge difference in innate abilities. Some of the Sindar in fact grew to become powerful.

I said it makes the discussion more complicated. And obviously it does when one reader is looking at or raising a quote that he or she is not aware has been edited.

Did Tolkien explicitly state in his will that if CJRT chose to publish a single volume version of the Silmarillion [which was not what CJRT originally intended incidentally] that he [JRRT] would consider it 'canon'? Does CJRT ever claim the constructed version is intended to be the 'canonical' version?

Not that I'm aware of, to both questions.

But now you're just complicating matters here, with 'canon' :p

The proof is in the dating: the early 1950s Silmarillion passages [in which many Balrogs still exist] post date the Moria encounter with Gandalf, as [obviously] do those references to very many Balrogs that survive the later 1950s revisions.

So the proof is in The History of Middle-Earth series, basically.

Plenty of elves permanently die, none of the Moriquendi were reborn. I'm sure it's Morgoth's Ring where it's said the Dark Elves were seen in the Halls of Mandos but did not speak to the Eldar.

If in the First Age there where many Balrogs, how many might be slain even before the rebellion of the Noldor, for example.

Not only is this dated after Tolkien wrote the Moria encounter with Gandalf [in support of my statement above], but my point here is, Tolkien could [as in might, if desired] still have kept very many Balrogs existing in the First Age, but not had Tuor kill five.

I'm not saying that's what JRRT ultimately desired, but still.

I can't agee. As far as I'm aware, generally speaking, all Elves had the potential to be reincarnated. What passage in Morgoth's Ring states otherwise?

In Morgoth's Ring CJRT states something incorrect about Elven reincarnation with respect to his father's 'final' intent -- later corrected by CJRT in the notes to the Glorfindel essays in any case -- although if I recall correctly it wasn't about the issue you raise here.

So, just a general caution for employing MR when it comes to Elven reincarnation.