Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[Garen LiLorian]

Although Mr. Underhill's 'Gimli' thesis is one of the more interesting features of the debate, (to my mind) I have one small worm in that apple. The Fellowship, at that point, hadn't actually seen any Nazgûl since leaving Rivendell. It seems entirely possible that Gimli had never seen one at all, unless he was present at the Lonely Mountain debacle. Assuming he wasn't, it's pretty fair to assume that when he sees a big evil shadow thingy, he thinks 'Balrog'. I mean, it kinda reminded me of the Balrog. Not that I thought it was, just the description reminded me of it.

That all being said, I'm still on the pro-winger side of the debate.

[obloquy]

But what's wrong with that?

Is it fine with you that some people insist that Sauron was a disembodied eyeball during the War of the Ring? Or that the Witch-King's proper name is Angmar?

Good point, Garen. Combine Gimli's possible lack of experience with Ringwraiths with the Fellowship's lack of knowledge of Balrogs and I think that argument is effectively neutered.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

But what's wrong with that?

What’s wrong with it is that’s not the question. The question is "Did Balrogs have wings" and not "Do you think Balrogs would look nice with wings?" or "Would you like Balrogs to have wings" Silly!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Is it fine with you that some people insist that Sauron was a disembodied eyeball during the War of the Ring? Or that the Witch-King's proper name is Angmar?

Well, I do not presume to dictate how anyone should approach the book. Although, on a discussion board such as this, I would expect participants in any discussion on such issues to accept, for the purposes of the dicussion, the "stated" facts as we know them.

The question is "Did Balrogs have wings" and not "Do you think Balrogs would look nice with wings?" or "Would you like Balrogs to have wings" Silly!

Since it is clear from this thread that there is (as yet) no definitive answer either way by reference to the published materials, then I see no problem in people answering the question on the basis of personal preference. I did.

I will accept non-winged Balrogs if the proposition can be established beyond all reasonable doubt (in the way that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that Aragorn was not a Hobbit). If, despite such rigorous proof, anyone wants to continue imagining Balrogs as winged, then that's fine by me. Although, in those circumstances (and assuming that they were acquainted with all the relevant facts), I would expect them to answer "No" to the question posed by this thread.

Backatcha!

[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.

Ah, but this opens a brand new can of worms! The Balrog (if it had wings, which I'm saying it doesn't, so why I'm going on like this, I can't fathom, except that it gives me a fine sense of the absurd..) cannot necessarily be assumed to have rigid wings and a rigid body. I suppose, if one wanted, one could open a spin-off thread, entitled "Are Balrogs Built Like Aircraft?" and even more elusively, "Can Balrogs Break the Sound Barrier in Flight?" both of which would assume a priori that Balrogs not only have wings but can fly in a straight line. There would, of course, be the dissenting school which bases their calculations on the flight of large birds and would perhaps extrapolate the difference between the flight of Thorondor and the flight of Gwaihir, thus determining the exact measure by which the size of the Great Eagles had diminished over the course of two Ages.

Then, there would be the splinter school of thought, which would spin off yet a third speculative thread, "How Badly Does the Fiery Whip Get Tangled up in a Balrog's Wings?" and finally, "Did Gandalf Smite the Balrog, or Did it Smack Itself in the Face with its own Weapon and Expire of its own Stupidity?" But all this is, of course, a ridiculous flight of fancy.

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.

Can I get this on Interlibrary Loan? You know, I never even considered the contribution of translucency in the equation! I must go back and tease my hair out some more and scribble purposefully until it all comes clear!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Michael Wilhelmson]

Just like to say that, just because a Balrog might have wings, doesn't mean it can use them. If the Balrog is just a corrupted form of a Maiar by Morgoth, then it might suggest that a Maiar is somewhat angelic in appearance. This would mean that a Balrog's wings would be bare and useless. In conclusion, IF a Balrog did have wings, they would probably be shriveled and barren, and do nothing more than to remind an unfortunate viewer of the demon's past status.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

[Gandalf: ]Long I fell [into the chasm of the Bridge of Khazad-dûm], and [the Balrog] fell with me.

LR III 5

According to Physics, their freefall velocity will increase with a factor of g for every second they fall. So, if I see it correctly, by the time they reach the bottom, they would have enough of a velocity to squash them flatter than a pancake (even if it was water that they hit).

Retardation of freefall due to wings, anyone?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, I'm going to go ahead and call it. According to my fellow BDers:

*drum roll*

Balrogs have wings.

(That may or may not be functional.)

Next Up: "Can orcs repent?"