Dwarves vs Elves

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

As for Dwarves being more powerful than elves, I think I've finally found a fitting referance that is worthy of their skill.

I'm sorry, but I believe you are reading a bit more into the passage than Tolkien intended. Certainly, the Dwarves were brave and deserve their due for fighting the dragon, but you seem to be overlooking some points:

1) There were many Dwarves with Azaghal encircling Glaurung (much like when the Dwarves murdered Thingol). This was not single combat (again, going back to the original premise of the thread).

2) The Dwarves were better equipped armor-wise to withstand the fires of Glaurung.

3) They did not kill the dragon. Azaghal only wounded him with his blade (Turin, a man, did a more complete job of sword thrusting).

4) When their king was killed the Dwarves bore him off the field -- and left. They gave up.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

This is the only thing that the Noldor had going for them the entire day. When everything went wrong for them the Dwarves kept them from total destruction pitting themselves against the most horrible of all Morgoth's creation: dragons, and drove them from the field. Unlike the elves or men who had nothing going for them that day, the Dwarves succeeded in their duty against all odds, against the mightiest creatures that Morgoth could throw at them, besides the Balrogs.

Now, see, that's the problem with confining an entire battle to a single quote. Had you read the previous page of the Sil, you would have found this important information:

Originally Posted by Of the Fifth Battle

Some have said that even then the Eldar would have won the day, had all their hosts proved faithful...[and then a paragraph later] Yet neither by wolf, nor Balrog, nor by Dragon, would Morgoth have achieved his end, but for the treachery of Men.

So saying that the only thing the Noldor had going for them the entire day was the Dwarves is a fallacy. The deciding factor in Morgoth's victory was the treachery of Men, a point Tolkien reiterated twice. The Dwarves certainly saved the Eastern army of the Noldor after they were decimated by treachery, and deserve renown for their battle with Glaurung, but you have to take the whole battle in context.

And in regards to single combat (aside from Hurin's glorious last stand), there is the battle between Fingon and Gothmog:

Originally Posted by Of the Fifth Battle

Gothmog, Lord of the Balrogs, high-captain of Angband, was come; and he drove a dark wedge between the Elvenhosts, surrounding King Fingon...That was a grim meeting. At last Fingon stood alone with his guard dead about him; and he fought with Gothmog, until another Balrog came behind him and cast a thong of fire about him. Then Gothmog hewed him with his black axe, and a white flame sprang up from the helm of Fingon as it was cloven.

This seems to indicate a fair fight until a second Balrog bound Fingon with fire. Since there really is no noted instance of single combat between a Dwarf and a Noldor, I can only refer you to the Battle of Sarn Athrad, where Beren (an Edain) "fought his last fight, and himself slew the Lord of Nogrod, and wrested from him the Necklace of the Dwarves." If Beren could do such a deed of arms (and he was not even the most renowed warrior of the Edain), I see no reason why Fingolfin, Ecthelion or Glorfindel could not do the same.

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I'm sorry, but I believe you are reading a bit more into the passage than Tolkien intended. Certainly, the Dwarves were brave and deserve their due for fighting the dragon, but you seem to be overlooking some points:

1) There were many Dwarves with Azaghal encircling Glaurung (much like when the Dwarves murdered Thingol). This was not single combat (again, going back to the original premise of the thread).

It seems that you have looked over a couple of facts. Fact: dragons are the fiercest of Morgoth's creation and Glaurung is fiercest of the dragons. The dragon's were all routed and the Dwarves WON!

Originally Posted by Morthoron

2) The Dwarves were better equipped armor-wise to withstand the fires of Glaurung.

I think that is more of a compliment, Morthoron.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

3) They did not kill the dragon. Azaghal only wounded him with his blade (Turin, a man, did a more complete job of sword thrusting).

Azaghal had only a knife while Turin had a sword. Turin didn't exactly face the dragon in a fair fight.

What about Glaurung's gaze? It affected Turin, but doesn't seem to do anything to the Dwarves, how can this be?

Originally Posted by Morthoron

4) When their king was killed the Dwarves bore him off the field -- and left. They gave up.

They didn't give up they did their part. I think that says more about their love for their king than anything else. The passage also says that none dared to hinder them, that description doesn't sound like a people who have given up.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Now, see, that's the problem with confining an entire battle to a single quote. Had you read the previous page of the Sil, you would have found this important information:



So saying that the only thing the Noldor had going for them the entire day was the Dwarves is a fallacy. The deciding factor in Morgoth's victory was the treachery of Men, a point Tolkien reiterated twice. The Dwarves certainly saved the Eastern army of the Noldor after they were decimated by treachery, and deserve renown for their battle with Glaurung, but you have to take the whole battle in context.

The passage I chose from the Silmarillion did not downsize the might of the Elves, it emphasized the might of the Dwarves. Like I said before, there is so little known about the Dwarves and I gave that reference as the best that I could find.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

This seems to indicate a fair fight until a second Balrog bound Fingon with fire.

He still got beat. I also dislike the way that people say the things are unfair when people are fighting, you do whatever it takes to survive. You can also use that kind of argument with the Dwarves. Everything could have gone so well for them if Glaurung hadn't "cheated" and use his breath to melt the Dwarves or when he used his gigantic sized to roll over one of them.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Since there really is no noted instance of single combat between a Dwarf and a Noldor, I can only refer you to the Battle of Sarn Athrad, where Beren (an Edain) "fought his last fight, and himself slew the Lord of Nogrod, and wrested from him the Necklace of the Dwarves." If Beren could do such a deed of arms (and he was not even the most renowed warrior of the Edain), I see no reason why Fingolfin, Ecthelion or Glorfindel could not do the same.

The passage does not say that Beren "wrestled" with the Dwarves it just says that he slew them and took the necklace. It also refers to how the cowards chose to kill the Dwarves with bows and not hand to hand, though I am sure that they did fight hand to hand once the Dwarves where low enough in numbers.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Yes, they did. The Petty-Dwarves, however, were said to have been "banished in ancient days from the great Dwarf-cities of the east." They were exiles, but there is no indication they were less capable in combat than the "civilised" Dwarves.

They are described as being shorter than a normal Dwarf, that would put them in the same category of height as the Hobbits.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by groin

Azaghal had only a knife while Turin had a sword. Turin didn't exactly face the dragon in a fair fight.

Originally Posted by groin

I also dislike the way that people say the things are unfair when people are fighting, you do whatever it takes to survive

Interesting

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Interesting

Alright you got me Rune. What I mean is that in the case of Turin necessity overcame the need for an honorable fight. Anything goes when you're locked in combat with someone, but there is a difference between honorable and dishonorable.

Morthoron, I would like to respond to each of your comments that you made about my post, especially the comments when you downsize the might of the Dwarves, but I'm getting tired of this nitpicking at each others posts. Therefore I will say this: The entire Silmarillion is based on the history of Men and Elves with few references to Dwarves, ergo you have a mountain of references to choose from where I have very little (so unfair). I am very unlikely to change your mind, and you are definitely not going to change mine on the matter of the Dwarves. Therefore I'm going to try a knew approach to this.

What do we know of Azaghal? Not very much I'm afraid, the only thing that we can judge him by is by his final moments and that is not anything to go on. If we judged Thingol in his final moments we would indeed think him a fool, or at least I would.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

What do we know of Azaghal? Not very much I'm afraid, the only thing that we can judge him by is by his final moments and that is not anything to go on. If we judged Thingol in his final moments we would indeed think him a fool, or at least I would.

You missed my point entirely, I am not judging Azaghal in regards to his brave last stand; however, I do question the Dwarves under his command who cared more for taking his body off the field and retiring from battle than finishing the fight (and avenging their Lord, which has a precedent elsewhere in Dwarvish history).

As far as Thingol, he was rude and brash and behaved like any absolute monarch (which is not usually a good thing), but the Dwarves had already decided to steal the Silmaril and Thingol divined their purpose. Killing a king was long considered reprehensible even among kingdoms who were at war with each other (Tolkien, seemingly an avid monarchist, would most likely be appalled by such an act of lese-majesty). A truly sly King would have seemed to acquiesce; but as soon as he was able, call his guards and slaughter each and every Dwarf without mercy. It doesn't really matter, it would have led to war in any case.

[Andsigil]

Look. Let's face it: elves may be good fighters, powerful sorcerers, and wise loremasters, but, at the heart, they're still prissy, metrosexual nancy-boys. Dwarves may be short, but they're hirsute, direct, and manly. That makes them better.

(runs and ducks for cover)

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

Look. Let's face it: elves may be good fighters, powerful sorcerers, and wise loremasters, but, at the heart, they're still prissy, metrosexual nancy-boys. Dwarves may be short, but they're hirsute, direct, and manly. That makes them better.

(runs and ducks for cover)

Ummm...wow.

*Considers Andsigil's rather bellicose statements*

Hmmm...I don't see how one can consider Dwarves 'manly' (a contradiction in any case), because they have virtually no females (and evidently no interest in them if they had some) -- poor Dis being the one and only Smurfette mentioned among the Smurfish Dwarves (well, they did come from the Blue Mountains, didn't they?). Unless, of course, you mean manly in the sense of The Village People:

Young dwarf, there's no need to feel down
I said, young dwarf, cos' you live underground
I said, young dwarf, pile your gold into mounds
There's no need to see sunlight

Young dwarf, why don't you leave Erebor
I said, young dwarf, go to Hollin's Door
I said, young dwarf, take your axe off to war
There's some Orcs to be-head

It's fun to stay down in M-O-R-I-A
It's fun to stay down in M-O-R-I-A

You can mine for mithril and make marvelous toys
You can hang out with all the boys

It's fun to stay down in M-O-R-I-A
It's fun to stay down in M-O-R-I-A

You can stuff yourself like a drunken hog
Just don't you wake up the Balrog...etc.

[Groin Redbeard]

OK, everyone's beginning to act screwy!

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You missed my point entirely, I am not judging Azaghal in regards to his brave last stand; however, I do question the Dwarves under his command who cared more for taking his body off the field and retiring from battle than finishing the fight (and avenging their Lord, which has a precedent elsewhere in Dwarvish history).

Good point here, but vengeance can be dealt out in more ways than one. My theory would be that the anger of the Dwarves was so great that it could not be directed at just the Orcs, actually I think it would be more out of love for Azagha but I'll let you decide. It was the Elves who led them to this battle and in the end they are blaming the Elves for something they couldn't prevent, therefore the best way to avenge their king is to leave the Elves to their own fate. A rather rash decision on their part but logic almost never prevails when you are overcome with grief.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

As far as Thingol, he was rude and brash and behaved like any absolute monarch (which is not usually a good thing), but the Dwarves had already decided to steal the Silmaril and Thingol divined their purpose. Killing a king was long considered reprehensible even among kingdoms who were at war with each other (Tolkien, seemingly an avid monarchist, would most likely be appalled by such an act of lese-majesty). A truly sly King would have seemed to acquiesce; but as soon as he was able, call his guards and slaughter each and every Dwarf without mercy. It doesn't really matter, it would have led to war in any case.

True it would eventually have led to war, but both parties were in the wrong. You forget that it was Thingol who lusted to the necklace of the Naugrim as well as the Silmaril.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

OK, everyone's beginning to act screwy! .

Well, considering this subject has the philosophical propensities of a box of hair, I rather enjoy the screwiness to the actual discussion.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

True it would eventually have led to war, but both parties were in the wrong. You forget that it was Thingol who lusted to the necklace of the Naugrim as well as the Silmaril.

He did not lust after the Nauglimir, he owned it. It was the Dwarves who made the fallacious claim that since it was given to Finrod by the Dwarves and then brought to Thingol by Hurin from the wreck of Nargothrond, that they somehow had a right to it after having given away of their own free will (a classic instance of 'Indian-givers', if you'll pardon the racial pejorative). The Dwarves had no claim to it, particularly since the Silmaril was now part of it (you'll notice they never mentioned the Silmaril, but it was obviously the reason they coveted it).

Yes, the Dwarves murdered Thingol because they were intent on stealing the Silmaril. From a strictly legal sense, they would have been convicted of grand theft and murder. The case of O.J. Simpson comes to mind. If you recall, O.J. was tried and convicted of trying to steal his own memorabilia which was no longer his property.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

It seems that you have looked over a couple of facts. Fact: dragons are the fiercest of Morgoth's creation and Glaurung is fiercest of the dragons. The dragon's were all routed and the Dwarves WON!.

They won a skirmish, a section of a battle on one wing. They left before the battle ended. It would be like saying that Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo because he defeated the Prussians at Ligny, and not taking into account Wellington, the Prince of Orange and the rest of the three day battle.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

I think that is more of a compliment, Morthoron.

It was never meant otherwise. The masks of the Dwarves seemed impervious to fire, which gave them a distinct technological advantage.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Azaghal had only a knife while Turin had a sword. Turin didn't exactly face the dragon in a fair fight.

Glaurung was surrounded by an army of Dwarves. Azaghal was not in a solo combat situation. The remaining Dwarves did not follow up on their success, a major blunder in any military campaign.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

What about Glaurung's gaze? It affected Turin, but doesn't seem to do anything to the Dwarves, how can this be?

Perhaps when surrounded by heavy axes, there is little time to be proactive and focus power. In any case, one doesn't have a discussion with a dragon, that was Turin's mistake, and Bilbo almost fell under the same error with Samug.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

They didn't give up they did their part. I think that says more about their love for their king than anything else. The passage also says that none dared to hinder them, that description doesn't sound like a people who have given up.

They left an unfinished battle with the outcome hanging in the balance. Certainly none dared hinder them, why would they? They were leaving. They were no longer a factor in the battle.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

The passage I chose from the Silmarillion did not downsize the might of the Elves, it emphasized the might of the Dwarves. Like I said before, there is so little known about the Dwarves and I gave that reference as the best that I could find.

It was an excellent reference; however, it only related a portion of the overall battle. Had the Dwarves followed up their defeat of the Dragons with a further attack (as someone like Patton, Grant or Napoleon would certainly demand), the outcome might have been different. Remember, Tolkien stated on more than one occasion that it wasn't dragons or Balrogs that defeated the Noldor, it was treachery. That does not necessarily mean that the Dwarves shared in the treachery of Men, but it is disheartening (and rather odd, as I have thought for a long time), that the Dwarves simply packed it in when Azaghal died, particularly given their noted thirst for vengeance when a king is killed as evidenced in the War of Dwarves and Orcs.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

He still got beat. I also dislike the way that people say the things are unfair when people are fighting, you do whatever it takes to survive. You can also use that kind of argument with the Dwarves. Everything could have gone so well for them if Glaurung hadn't "cheated" and use his breath to melt the Dwarves or when he used his gigantic sized to roll over one of them.

Do you think Gandalf would have been successful if he had a Balrog before him on the bridge and one behind him, binding him with a thong of fire? Gandalf died against one Balrog, and he was not fighting Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs and Captain of Angband. Would Azaghal have done anything at all against Glaurung had he been without the aid of an army of Dwarves? Hurin lost while hewing numerous trolls, does his eventual defeat somehow diminish his renown? Your premise does not hold water.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

The passage does not say that Beren "wrestled" with the Dwarves it just says that he slew them and took the necklace. It also refers to how the cowards chose to kill the Dwarves with bows and not hand to hand, though I am sure that they did fight hand to hand once the Dwarves where low enough in numbers.

I would suggest the Dwarves would have not been slaughtered if they had not cowardly murdered Thingol in the first place. They surrounded him and murdered him -- a gutless thing to do. And since when is using bows considered cowardly? It is a matter of using technology just as the Dwarves' armor and masks aided them in fighting Glaurung. But I suppose the French felt the same way as they were mowed down at Poitier, Crecy and Agincourt (but I never heard it claimed, even by the French, that someone like the Black Prince or Henry V were cowards). As far as Beren, Tolkien says he slew the Lord of Nogrod (just as Azaghal was Lord of Belegost), and obviously this was a very important Dwarf (he was wearing the Nauglimir), but it is evident Beren didn't have to stab him in the back to do it (one thing you couldn't say about Beren was that he ever commited a cowardly act).