Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[Aiwendil]

It occurs to me that I haven't voted. So, for what it's worth . . .

Yes, all seven Balrogs had wings.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Yes, all seven Balrogs had wings

That maybe, or maybe not. Meanwhile, the numerous hosts of them marched on feet...

But such a claim by Aiwendil opens up the trouser of time for yours truly to slip in his theory (posted on the Downs long ago too ):

There are Balrogs, and there are balrogs:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

The number of balrogs always was dubious thing. Passages like:

…and upon them rode the Balrogs in hundreds…

…and the number of Balrogs that perished was a marvel and dread to

the hosts of Melko…

…and they mingle with the Balrogs that pour about the breach…

(The Fall of Gondolin)

…a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants

that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwe…

(Annals of Aman)

strongly imply the great number of those, at least several thousand. Yet these lines were written when Tolkien started to create his mythology, in 10s and 20s of XX century. In the same period balrogs were not summoned, but ‘wrought’ by Melko after the fall of the Lamps. Yet, since the conception that Melkor/Morgoth was unable to create anything but to mock the doings of others was introduced, the idea of ‘wrought’ balrogs was abandoned. Consequently and gradually, their number in Tolkien’s imagination diminishes, until it reaches the mark of ‘at least three, at most seven’. The last quote given above is mostly interesting in the view, for it was there, that in a marginal note Tolkien added:

It may sound like contradiction in terms. Hosts of balrogs consisted of 3 persons? As a solution - there (I assume) must have been two different types of balrog. Philological analysis above does not contradict such a statement (i.e. Thunderbird may be applied to a bird proper, yet first thing one remembers upon hearing may be a Ford’s motorvehicle. Or, on the other hand, whales where thought to be fish before closer examination had proved they are mammals). So in this case balrog as general term is applied to anything that looks like one. And looks presumably may be altered by Morgoth (up to a point, for he disperses his power gradually, and, also presumable, must lose an ability after some point. (I.e. no more balrogs after certain time, but plenty before the point of no return is reached), who is Master of the Fates of Arda, had put important portion of himself into the matter of it and therefore has partial power over anything consisting of the matter. But Balrogs in essentia, corrupted spirits, e.g. Umaiar, are up to seven only. [and not created but 'summoned'] It would have been logical for Morgoth to conform the looks of the new adepts (if balrogs were formed from captive elves and men or strongest orks) to the most terrible looks (wings or no wings) of the Balrog

I suggest to distinguish those two types in writing with capital letter. Thus Umaiar whose number was determined as 3 to 7 will be marked as Balrogs, and the rest as balrogs

Self plagiarism, but timely one...

But my statement above stands as it is - hosts of balrogs indeed marched on feet, otherwise, why should 'boarding' Gondolin walls have been such a problem? Whilst Balrogs had at most 'shadow' wrapped around in the likeness of wings

Still more, at times my dentist qualifies for the title of Tormenting Demon as well...

cheers

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Meanwhile, the numerous hosts of them marched on feet...

Well they'd look a bit silly marching on wings.

Perhaps they reserved their aeronautic abilities for formation flying displays and fly-pasts at Angband victory parades.

[narfforc]

I do not wish to enter this argument again, having already had my say, however I would just like to point out one small thing. The only published work of Tolkien regarding Balrogs is LotR. We cannot guess as to whether he would have been happy with the finished Silmarillion, nor anything else published after his death, he was a revisionist. Whatever is written in The Histories, are thoughts on the subject, who knows what his final version would of been. Quoting from unpublished works, to give strength to your argument is wrong. As I said earlier, the only thing we truly know Tolkien was happy with, are the words in Lotr, so read what they say.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

I can't believe anything in the History of Middle Earth is 'lawful canon' as far as the story goes.

I believe if something doesn't make it into the actual story, all versions aside, it isn't canon.

However, the thing about Balrogs and the HoME are that, aside from not being canon, it does give some more evidence at least to what Tolkien originally envisioned things looking like. Of course, if those depictions didn't make it to the books, tough break.

Anyway, it's not that hard to depict / draw / render something with vague features. Just use lots of black.

The darker, the more accurate. After all, if the Balrog's shadow was enough that it actually smothered out and blocked view of a gaping rift filled with fire, it must have been pretty dark.

Anyway, if you look at things this way, you'll get another notion.

The Lord of the Rings (let's can all Silm references for a moment) was supposed to have been written by Frodo and Sam, with a lot of account filled in by Merry and Pippin, and a fair bit of old history and higher matters that happened told to them by Aragorn. Gimli and Legolas theoretically kept in touch with the Hobbits and helped too.

So the idea is, Frodo (with help) was describing what he saw in that chamber. And it's pretty obvious he didn't see much, if his description is that vague. It seems pretty clear that all the members of the Fellowship could see Gandalf pretty clearly, and the chamber behind and around the Balrog was pitch black, filled with smoke.

The only thing that gave the impression of man shape in the darkest of dark places was probably the fact that the Balrog's hair (hair-like shape) was on fire, and highlighting the "humanoid silhouette" of the Balrog from behind.

Trying to humanize, or even 'demonize' the Balrog in the traditional 'demon' sense, just doesn't do it justice.

It's a spirit of fire, which is physically incarnate and wrapped in shadow. Fire, shadow ... neither thing has solid substance (clearly the Balrog does, otherwise Gandalf couldn't have grappled with it or stabbed at it). If it had no solid mass, it's own weight falling off the mountain couldn't kill it, and it wouldn't have needed wings to fly, being a gaseous entity.

Well, that's my two cents for the moment.

[narfforc]

Yes and why in all creation have wings that are of no use. it does not fit into the way Tolkien told stories. If they had wings, he would have given them flight. Like the dragons.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

How does "I won't answer" answer the question? (narfforc)

How come Tolkien left Bombadil ambiguous?

If [Balrogs] had wings, he would have given them flight. Like the dragons. (narfforc)

Well, what if they were bereft of their power to fly, then stuck in a winged incarnate form? Like the Three Elven Rings losing potency at the fall of the One.

[narfforc]

Sorry I do not go for the "What ifs", I only read what is. Show me where Tolkien says anything like that and I will conceed to your point, where does it ever say in the published (during his lifetime) works, that they ever flew. The only person who bereft them of the power of flight was Tolkien, by excluding it. This thread has a lot of suppositions in it. The only man that knew the Truth was Tolkien, and his are the only words that count. I can forgive our desire for more, I do it all the time. Our wish that this great piece of work could somehow have told us everything, but did`nt. So when discussing the written word of Tolkien, we must stick to what is plainly written and not let our imagination go too far. When I cast off this mortal coil, I like many of you will seek out The Prof, and ask him a multitude of questions. I assure you somewhere near the top will be the words Wings and Balrogs.