Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[Mister Underhill]

If memory serves, Balrogs were "made" by Morgoth in early versions; not made, but merely "multiplied" by him later on; and in still later versions (which I think are the foundation for the 77 Silm), the Balrogs are Maiar (or Umaiar) who followed him into corruption. See HoME X to trace this evolution.

[obloquy]

Yeah, Underhill is right. I tend to ignore the obsolete versions when I post, which is probably unfair to those who have not gotten to the last few volumes of HoMe.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

It reminds me of Jesus' claims.

Way off, dude!

Hear me out! The way I see it, Tolkien left ambiguous clues about the Balrog that could be seen one way or another. Because of that, we have our own interpretations of what a Balrog should look like, or how a Balrog could travel.

Now I was chewing on that thought in my mind when it struck me: Jesus left some clues to his real identity, just enough to at least make us think of the possibility. He didn't overwhelm us with irrevocable proof of his Lordship. He made us free to choose what to make of him: a lunatic, a great teacher and prophet, or what he really claimed to be.

I know I might be committing Gorthadian suicide when I post this, but I just had to post it. Do what you will.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

The one thing that I worry about with this poll is that many people may be voting "Yes" because they would like Balrogs to have wings. I almost did. I really had to think about my Balrogian (My new word) theory. I remember having many a heated debate and I will admit I did sway this way and that to begin with. It was only when I re read Silmarillion last that in began to think about how I saw balrogs. I came to my conclusion by thinking; "Well, Melkor wasn't stupid. He wouldn't give them useless wings." Especially now considering that quote about no other creatures of Melkor ever taking to the air.

[HerenIstarion]

The way I see it, Tolkien left ambiguous clues about the Balrog that could be seen one way or another

I suppose that is because, up to a point, it does not really matter, after all. The point is, the higher, the nobler is the creature in its 'normal' state, the more terrible its fall if it does fall

[Child of the 7th Age]

Since this has become rather a technical argument, can anyone tell me what the air-speed velocity of an unladen Balrog is? (That is, assuming he can attain the air...)

Lyta Underhill -

I would encourage you to look closely at this article that suggests a way to factor in the following variables: aerodynamic center of wing body combinations---lift, normal force, pitching moment, aerodynamic centre, upwash, drag.

Please note that this method applies for zero or near zero roll angle solely to balrogs with diaphanous wings. When predicted values were compared with experimental values extracted from the literature an accuracy of 10 per cent was indicated. This is illustrated for results in the angle of attack range of 20 to 25 degrees, and the ranges of experimental parameters used are tabulated. Such a method applies to both the straight or swept-forward trailing-edges of the wings, but has been found to be satisfactory for moderate trailing-edge as well.

For balrogs with non-diaphanous wings, please consult Fordim Hedgethistle's well known treatise "Vortex interference factors as Applied to Balrogs". Fordim's analysis takes the body-alone contribution (ESDU 89008 provides values for both First and Third Age Balrogs) and adds contributions from the wing (in the presence of the body) and from the change in body lift-curve slope due to the wing.

Hope this clears up any questions in your mind!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

The one thing that I worry about with this poll is that many people may be voting "Yes" because they would like Balrogs to have wings.

But what's wrong with that?

[Lindolirian]

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

Now I was chewing on that thought in my mind when it struck me: Jesus left some clues to his real identity, just enough to at least make us think of the possibility. He didn't overwhelm us with irrevocable proof of his Lordship. He made us free to choose what to make of him: a lunatic, a great teacher and prophet, or what he really claimed to be.

Originally Posted by John 14:6

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Not too much ambiguity there... But just so that this doesn't turn into a religious debate (since the Downs is not the place for it), I won't go any further but will add a reminder: In the saloons and pubs in western US of the late 1800s, it was not uncommon to see on the list of rules (among things like No Guns, No Cheating, No Cussing) it would say "No discussion of Politics or Religion" because it almost always erupted into a fight. Not saying that that would happen here, but its still a sensitive subject.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I did not mean it that way, Lindo.

To believers, it is unambiguous, because we believe it--like someone believing that Balrogs have (or don't have) wings, and that all evidence point to it. But to others, well, they look at the same evidence, and they don't see it that way--like how the other side would react to the same quote. That is how I see it.

And yes, I know I should not discuss religion here, but, well, the parallelism is just too glaring.

So there.