Balrog vs 200 000 dwarves ?

[Juicy-Sweet]

I googled "Moria population estimate" to see if there was some golden thread out there - but I just found this one, as well as a bunch of REAL places called Moria.

Dunno if there's mentioned a headcount of ANY dwarven city anywhere in Tolkien? The we could compare and guess a bit.

Otherwise I suppose the 10 000 estimate which also is pretty random is orthodoxy now - since we are page 1 in google

Another thought in why it might have been easy for the Balrog.

Moria must have had a heavy bueareaycracy + safety measures for two reasons:

Mines always need to control the miners for theft. Seing Moria is mining the priciest of all things to mine, mithril, they must have had extensive rules and laws for who were allowed to mine where, to control if noone was cheating.

Due to them only having few exits, they are very vulnerable to being besieged. It means they must have had huge food supplies + water supplies + heavy safety measures to prevent sabotage.

So I imagine Moria as a place with most people being informed only on a "need to know basis", with a lot of identity paper ("Sir this is a class B mithril mine. We need to know you belong here.") and security clearing etc - a slow inefficient bureaucracy.

Meaning they sucked at adapting their defenses from armies coming from the outside to an unknown enemy from the inside. And their forces were hampered by red tape when they wanted to pass through a mithril mine to blow up the section they thought the balrog was in. etc.

[Sarumian]

I think the comparison with Alien is excellent: most of dwarves had probably never seen their Bane before until Gimli could and those who had got such a chance were dead next moment. But unlike Alien, Balrog had advantages - weapons of mass destruction. He could make ceilings fall with his spells and burn air in mines, suffocating dwarves.

[Bêthberry]

I have just a tiny little question to ask.

What does this have to do with the Books? There seems to be very little discussion of Tolkien's actual texts.

[Sarumian]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I have just a tiny little question to ask.

What does this have to do with the Books? There seems to be very little discussion of Tolkien's actual texts.

It looks as if it's not the only discussion like this at Barrowdowns. There is a problem and it seems texts say little about it. Could you contribute?

[Bêthberry]

Oh, there's no problem with the discussion, Sarumian.

Indeed, there are many like it here on the Downs. I was simply wondering if it belonged in this forum, which is supposed to be about in depth discussion of the books, since it isn't book-based.

Perhaps one of the other forums, which are devoted more to conjecture and opinion, would draw more attention to the topic?

Since the texts say little about the topic, I wouldn't have much to contribute, but thank you kindly for asking.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I have just a tiny little question to ask.

What does this have to do with the Books? There seems to be very little discussion of Tolkien's actual texts.

Beth, it seems everyone is talking about the current Hobbit movie. What does that have to do with the book?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Beth, it seems everyone is talking about the current Hobbit movie. What does that have to do with the book?

But Morth, we have our very own special forum for that, the movie forum, to which you have recently added much drama and intrigue. There's a place for everything and everything in its place. Perhaps a fitting quote from Alice In Wonderland--part of which was first presented as an Anglo Saxon poem and so does bear some affinity to Tolkien--can justify my cantankerousness: I have lost my muchness.