Dragons vs. Balrogs?

[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 ]