Does the Silmarillion Contradict Third age History? How Powerful Were Those First age

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Thanks for that. You said

The most powerful dwarves, men, and elves were always the oldest. This is especially true of the elves who were either old enough to have seen the light of Valinor, and/or those of the oldest and most distinguished lineages. Galadriel was the last of the elves in the 3rd age, for example, who saw Valinor, and she remained the most powerful because of it.

I dont fully disagree and its a good argument. But I think the fact they are old, such as galadriel, is just the reason they are more powerful. Like the numonrians who lived longer ages, grew in wisdom, and became stronger. For example galadriel in the third age i would argue was more powerful than the second age or first age in part because of Nenya. She was also powerful because she was taught by Yavanna and Melian and her linage.

I meant that they were more powerful because, in the First Age, for example, everything was simply more powerful, bigger, and more connected to the Valar. This applies to other races, too. Among the Dwarves, for example:

• Telchar was a better smith than any subsequent Dwarven smith.
• Durin the Deathless needs no explanation.
• Azaghal fell fighting Glaurung. As mighty as Gimli was, I couldn't see him (or Dain, or Thorin, etc) wounding Glauring like Azaghal did.

While Tolkien explicitly said that his works were not Christian allegory, anyone who reads the Old Testament will see parallels in the concept of ancient = mightier.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

While Tolkien explicitly said that his works were not Christian allegory, anyone who reads the Old Testament will see parallels in the concept of ancient = mightier.

Biblical precedents, certainly; however, Tolkien drew just as heavily, if not more, on the Greek pantheon and mythos in The Silmarillion. Really, every mythology, whether it be Hebraic, Greek or Norse, had some form of ancestor worship wherein the heroes were all greater, braver, lived longer and were of demi-god status back in days of yore. The "gods" themselves were closer to man, and meddled in internecine conflicts, even warring for the side of the true faith (like the Valar), or drew evil races unto them (like Morgoth).

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

I meant that they were more powerful because, in the First Age, for example, everything was simply more powerful, bigger, and more connected to the Valar. This applies to other races, too. Among the Dwarves, for example:

• Telchar was a better smith than any subsequent Dwarven smith.
• Durin the Deathless needs no explanation.
• Azaghal fell fighting Glaurung. As mighty as Gimli was, I couldn't see him (or Dain, or Thorin, etc) wounding Glauring like Azaghal did.

While Tolkien explicitly said that his works were not Christian allegory, anyone who reads the Old Testament will see parallels in the concept of ancient = mightier.

And as i argued in my op these are more the result of the first ages being mythical, legendary writings, rather than the historical writings of the third age. Things that gain power over time such as wisdom would generally increase with time i think galadriel is a good example. However i am not ruling out the conclusion of your either, just i am not so sure the third age was that distinct in "power" from the first two ages.


I agree there are many biblical parallels in LOTR.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...f-Middle-Earth


but I am not sure I agree with the OT "mightier" depiction you suggest. In fact I see in the sillmarillion allot of the kind of hyperbole used in some old testament text i think supporting my view. for example in war literature of the time period used during the conquest.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...uest-of-Canaan

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

And as i argued in my op these are more the result of the first ages being mythical, legendary writings, rather than the historical writings of the third age. Things that gain power over time such as wisdom would generally increase with time i think galadriel is a good example. However i am not ruling out the conclusion of your either, just i am not so sure the third age was that distinct in "power" from the first two ages.


I agree there are many biblical parallels in LOTR.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...f-Middle-Earth


but I am not sure I agree with the OT "mightier" depiction you suggest. In fact I see in the sillmarillion allot of the kind of hyperbole used in some old testament text i think supporting my view. for example in war literature of the time period used during the conquest.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...uest-of-Canaan

I think you're quite off the mark there. I don't for once think that Tolkien meant the slow, inexorable fall from grace from the 1st to 2nd to 3rd Age to be hyperbolic in the least. There are any number of tangible pieces of integral plot-lines that can only lead to the inevitable conclusion that Tolkien intended a precipitous decline from the 1st to the 3rd Age.

From a maker's standpoint, the Silmarils and the Palantir of Fëanor, the galvorn of Eöl, and the weaponscraft of Telchar of Nogrod were not to be repeated in following Ages. The making of the Rings of Power required the intervention by Sauron to teach the craft surreptitiously to Celebrimbor, a scion of Fëanor. Without Sauron's direct influence and "instruction", the Rings would never be created, let alone even contemplated. It is notable that the Elven Rings' power in essence faded once the One Ring was destroyed; whereas the recovered Silmarils play an important role after Dagor Dagorath, when Yavanna shall break them at last and rekindle the light of the Two Trees. The potency of such power is palpable and everlasting.

How many characters in The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings opine of lost skill or lost grandeur or lost importance? Thorin bemoaned the Dwarves' loss of skill (save in the making of mithril chain), Aragorn and Faramir recount the greatness of the long dead Numenoreans. There is a pronounced sense of frustration and loss when we come to the Doors of Durin, or Gimli literally cries upon entering Moria, or that a 1500 year-old blade of Westernesse is necessary to unbind the hidden sinew of the WitchKing. Please also recall that Aragorn reforges Narsil, the heirloom of his House, which was first forged by Telchar in the 1st Age, and that his brooch, the Elessar, was crafted by an elven-smith in Gondolin named Enerdhil, whose skill in jewel-crafting was second only to Feanor. Not to mention Bilbo's Sting and Gandalf's Glamdring were also forged in Gondolin. Again, tangible.

And as far as the nature of evil itself, in the 1st Age it takes a host of Valinor -- the Valar, Maiar and Vanyar -- to defeat Morgoth, whereas Sauron is defeated in war by the Numenoreans, later in direct combat against Gil-Galad and Elendil, and, finally and most importantly, the least of all, a hobbit, destroyed the One Ring, and with its dissolution Sauron was expelled from Middle-earth once and for all. The least achieved what the greatest could not, a primary plot point of LotR. So too, the Valar do not directly get involved with 3rd Age affairs, sending instead the Istari, who themselves are cloaked in wizened figures of old men and not allowed to reveal their true natures to combat Sauron.

The downfall of Numenor, which is enumerated in the declining ages of its kings after Elros is a recorded phenomena in the works of Tolkien; again, tangible as opposed to hyperbole. Their Dunedain descendants continue the slow descent from Valaric favor to becoming mere mortals, and eventually only Aragorn is considered a throwback to Numenor, the first King in an Age to choose his time of death at the height of his glory. Tolkien is explicit when he has Aragorn say:

"I am the last of the Numenoreans and the latest King of the Elder Days; and to me has been given not only a span thrice that of Men of Middle-earth, but also the grace to go at my will, and give back the gift."

It is not hyperbole that has Aragorn referring back to the venerable Kings of Numenor or to the Elder Days. He is, by the grace of the Valar, the final King bestowed with the great gift that the Kings of Numenor frittered away and spurned thousands of years before he was born.

P.S. Upon further consideration, your biblical hyperbole analogy fails utterly because there were beings from the 1st Age still existing in the 3rd Age who could attest to the actual events of the Elder Days: among them Elrond, Galadriel, Treebeard, Gandalf, Círdan the Shipwright and Glorfindel (who himself battled a balrog and whose power was so great he drove the WitchKing away in fear). At the Ford of Bruinen, Glorfindel is revealed as a mighty Elf-lord terrible in his wrath; Frodo saw him as a shining figure. Gandalf explains this later to Frodo (and emphasizes my point!):

"In Rivendell there live still some of his chief foes: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas. They do not fear the Ringwraiths, for those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen and the Unseen they have great power."

Even Legolas, a 3rd Age-born Elf by all accounts, knows a balrog when he sees it, although he could not possibly have seen one previously; however, the continuous retelling of Elvish history, perhaps even by those who actually beheld one of these malevolent Maia, gave him the basis to quickly identify it:

"It was a Balrog of Morgoth," said Legolas, "of all elf-banes the most deadly, save the One who sits in the Dark Tower.”

[Galin]

So far, and concerning the Balrog case anyway, I do think Tolkien reduced their numbers -- and rather drastically from "hosts" of Balrogs (or Balrogs a thousand) to as few as three, or at most seven, ever existing -- due to power considerations.

This later 1950s change was only described in a marginal note, and (if I recall correctly) surfaced in a revision to one description in The Annals of Aman. Thus "many Balrog" type references remained in other texts, but for the 1977 constructed Silmarillion, Christopher Tolkien edited these, making them vague regarding numbers...

... though CJRT left the wording (concerning Balrogs) that his father had used regarding the War of Wrath, as -- I'm guessing -- although written during a period when Tolkien still imagined many Balrogs existing in the First Age, it read somewhat vague already. I remember one reader arguing that Tolkien was maybe going to have Glorfindel fight a different kind of demon, a great orc-formed Maia for example, instead of a Balrog. The argument hailed from some wording/revised wording in a late text...

... for myself, I wasn't convinced Tolkien was going to alter such a long held idea, but I must admit (at least), that Tolkien's revision of Balrog to "demon", at one point in the text concerned, seems a bit odd or unnecessary. A Balrog is a mighty demon!

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Galin

So far, and concerning the Balrog case anyway, I do think Tolkien reduced their numbers -- and rather drastically from "hosts" of Balrogs (or Balrogs a thousand) to as few as three, or at most seven, ever existing -- due to power considerations.

This later 1950s change was only described in a marginal note, and (if I recall correctly) surfaced in a revision to one description in The Annals of Aman. Thus "many Balrog" type references remained in other texts, but for the 1977 constructed Silmarillion, Christopher Tolkien edited these, making them vague regarding numbers...

... though CJRT left the wording (concerning Balrogs) that his father had used regarding the War of Wrath, as -- I'm guessing -- although written during a period when Tolkien still imagined many Balrogs existing in the First Age, it read somewhat vague already. I remember one reader arguing that Tolkien was maybe going to have Glorfindel fight a different kind of demon, a great orc-formed Maia for example, instead of a Balrog. The argument hailed from some wording/revised wording in a late text...

... for myself, I wasn't convinced Tolkien was going to alter such a long held idea, but I must admit (at least), that Tolkien's revision of Balrog to "demon", at one point in the text concerned, seems a bit odd or unnecessary. A Balrog is a mighty demon!

Tolkien took allot of notes and changed drastically during his creation, unless it is published be careful to take it as gospel. This brings up the issue of of Christopher is cannon, my op does make that assumption. However regarding his supposed changing ideas on balrogs, i do not think it is so I will paste from my op.

Durins Bane

The Balrog of Moria known as Durins Bane was slain by Gandalf the gray [first age Olorin] the “wisest” of the Maiar. This account Is used as the best example of Tolkiens change in opinion on Balrogs over time from the first age balrogs to the mighty balrogs of the third age, Durins bane. I think this one example is given to much weight to force a contradiction between Tolkiens views on balrogs.

After publishing Fellowship of the ring a fan asked a question of Tolkien in the letters 144 of Tolkien, Tolkien did not view the third age balrog as different than his unpublished sillmarillion view of balrogs. He said “the balrog is a survivor from the silmarillion and the legends of the first age.” He always sought to reconcile seeming differences and we should as well. The balrog is the best known balrog and arguable the second most powerful [behind Gothmog] in the history of middle earth. His actions against the dwarves show this. He was one of the few balrogs to survive the war of wrath and escaped the valar and the imprisonment of morgoth. The balrogs of the first age were killed by some of the most powerful elves to ever walk middle earth and could easily have been weaker balrogs than Durins Bane.

Also I think the movies exaggerated the balrog in appearance and power. He appears in the movie upwards of 20 feet yet the fellowship of the ring indicates he was not much larger than a man, and the sillmarillion another balrog was described as twice the size of a man, or around 12 feet.

“What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater…
-Book Two, Chapter V, The Bridge of Khazad-Dûm

"it pierced the Balrog's belly nigh his own face (for that demon was double his stature) ..."
-Lost Tales, Part II, p. 194

The balrog in the movies also had horns nowhere mentioned in the books. And he also had wings, a highly debatable subject. The real balrog an ancient demon, may have looked something like this.

[​IMG]

[Galin]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Tolkien took allot of notes and changed drastically during his creation, unless it is published be careful to take it as gospel.

Actually my definition of Tolkien canon is "published work by the author", but anyway...

This brings up the issue of of Christopher is cannon, my op does make that assumption.

And even though I would disagree as far as employing the word canon here, with respect to taking into account everything that Tolkien wrote about Balrogs (you even quote from The Lost Tales in your original post), well, that's where this marginal note and revision come in.

However regarding his supposed changing ideas on balrogs, i do not think it is so I will paste from my op.

You are free to hold that opinion obviously, but no one knows for sure, not even Christopher Tolkien. And in my opinion Christopher Tolkien arguably took this note into account: in other words, for the 1977 constructed Silmarillion, it seems to me that CJRT altered those instances where Tolkien referred to very many Balrogs to allow for the possibility that this idea might have been a factor in any later, full QS revision.

Tolkien's marginal note described an actual number: three, at most seven, but the revision to Annals of Aman reads:
"a host of Balrogs" > "his Balrogs"

In any case I think we can safely say that at this point in time (when JRRT writes the note and makes this revision) Tolkien was thinking of drastically reducing Balrog numbers.

For some reason

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Galin

Actually my definition of Tolkien canon is "published work by the author", but anyway...

And even though I would disagree as far as employing the word canon here, with respect to taking into account everything that Tolkien wrote about Balrogs (you even quote from The Lost Tales in your original post), well, that's where this marginal note and revision come in.


You are free to hold that opinion obviously, but no one knows for sure, not even Christopher Tolkien. And in my opinion Christopher Tolkien arguably took this note into account: in other words, for the 1977 constructed Silmarillion, it seems to me that CJRT altered those instances where Tolkien referred to very many Balrogs to allow for the possibility that this idea might have been a factor in any later, full QS revision.

Tolkien's marginal note described an actual number: three, at most seven, but the revision to Annals of Aman reads:
"a host of Balrogs" > "his Balrogs"

In any case I think we can safely say that at this point in time (when JRRT writes the note and makes this revision) Tolkien was thinking of drastically reducing Balrog numbers.

For some reason

Point taken. That is a sure safe bet. It is a subject that I am not fully on one side or the other.

http://newboards.theonering.net/foru...=unread#unread

But to even discus first age matters we need some material to work with, this op does assume the sillmarillion published is part of cannon. If not, there is no first age/second age cannon and it would vary greatly from person to person. I also never said reject any of Tolkiens notes, but to be very careful with his unpublished materials. The reasons I think of the balrogs as i do, come not just from the sillmarillion, but his letters as well.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Great post thanks for taking the time. I hope I clarified my position and I think it will find us much more in agreement.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I think you're quite off the mark there. I don't for once think that Tolkien meant the slow, inexorable fall from grace from the 1st to 2nd to 3rd Age to be hyperbolic in the least. There are any number of tangible pieces of integral plot-lines that can only lead to the inevitable conclusion that Tolkien intended a precipitous decline from the 1st to the 3rd Age.

I agree and disagree, i think it depends on what is meant by decline. In many ways such as the elves, their was a drastic decline and i agree as my op said. But there was also the emergence of mankind uniting under Aragon and growth.

Let me clarify some. Lets take balrogs. In the first age collectively, they were far more powerful as their numbers were many. The third age they were few and thus far less powerful. However my op is aimed more at individuals such as an third age balrog vs a first age balrog. I accept blame i was not clear. And more to the point, the strength of the legendary creatures and heroes was exaggerated in the mythical/legendary writings of the first two ages.

After thinking about it I guess i am also arguing against more power overall in the first two ages, but i agree there was a decline in this area perhaps not as much as often assumed.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

From a maker's standpoint, the Silmarils and the Palantir of Fëanor, the galvorn of Eöl, and the weaponscraft of Telchar of Nogrod were not to be repeated in following Ages. The making of the Rings of Power required the intervention by Sauron to teach the craft surreptitiously to Celebrimbor, a scion of Fëanor. Without Sauron's direct influence and "instruction", the Rings would never be created, let alone even contemplated. It is notable that the Elven Rings' power in essence faded once the One Ring was destroyed; whereas the recovered Silmarils play an important role after Dagor Dagorath, when Yavanna shall break them at last and rekindle the light of the Two Trees. The potency of such power is palpable and everlasting.

Very true. cant really argue. but maybe as a counter perhaps something along the lines of Sauromans breeding of the uruk-hai. Saurons improvements of the olog-hai as improved over previous trolls. The hardrim domestication of the mumakil. The rings of power brought into middle earth and used by the like of galadriel. The witch king and the ring wraiths power, 5 wizards sent to ME, gandalf the grey to gandalf the white. the army of the dead put into action. The ents uniting for the attack on isengard. The rise of power in Mordor. Those are a few off the top of my head. Maybe these are not craftsmanship, but they do seem to show a few examples where power seemed to increase or at least reached a higher power in the third age.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

How many characters in The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings opine of lost skill or lost grandeur or lost importance? Thorin bemoaned the Dwarves' loss of skill (save in the making of mithril chain), Aragorn and Faramir recount the greatness of the long dead Numenoreans. There is a pronounced sense of frustration and loss when we come to the Doors of Durin, or Gimli literally cries upon entering Moria, or that a 1500 year-old blade of Westernesse is necessary to unbind the hidden sinew of the WitchKing. Please also recall that Aragorn reforges Narsil, the heirloom of his House, which was first forged by Telchar in the 1st Age, and that his brooch, the Elessar, was crafted by an elven-smith in Gondolin named Enerdhil, whose skill in jewel-crafting was second only to Feanor. Not to mention Bilbo's Sting and Gandalf's Glamdring were also forged in Gondolin. Again, tangible.

I agree and once more an generally speaking of individuals more than a total power. However what you have rightly pointed out above fits my view still. Take Moria, yes the great dwarven city was gone, however it was know a power of the followers of melkor and the balrog. So while the dwarves morn, any orc passing by would celebrate the rise of the power of moria for the evil side. Yes the hobbit contains lost power, however the book is on the restoration of that power to the dwarves and men of lake town that can now flourish. And yes the men of gondor nd arnor were in a big decline, but they are restored [at least gondor] under aragorn.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

And as far as the nature of evil itself, in the 1st Age it takes a host of Valinor -- the Valar, Maiar and Vanyar -- to defeat Morgoth, whereas Sauron is defeated in war by the Numenoreans, later in direct combat against Gil-Galad and Elendil, and, finally and most importantly, the least of all, a hobbit, destroyed the One Ring, and with its dissolution Sauron was expelled from Middle-earth once and for all. The least achieved what the greatest could not, a primary plot point of LotR. So too, the Valar do not directly get involved with 3rd Age affairs, sending instead the Istari, who themselves are cloaked in wizened figures of old men and not allowed to reveal their true natures to combat Sauron.

True, but dont forget the Numenoreans could have taken valar and had to be stopped by Eru himself. One of my points was that the valar and maiar are not as epic as sometimes portrayed. I think we see that in the war of wrath as i pointed out in my op. The valar needed rescuing in the battle. On the other side it was the dragons that were most fierce in battle.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The downfall of Numenor, which is enumerated in the declining ages of its kings after Elros is a recorded phenomena in the works of Tolkien; again, tangible as opposed to hyperbole. Their Dunedain descendants continue the slow descent from Valaric favor to becoming mere mortals, and eventually only Aragorn is considered a throwback to Numenor, the first King in an Age to choose his time of death at the height of his glory. Tolkien is explicit when he has Aragorn say:

"I am the last of the Numenoreans and the latest King of the Elder Days; and to me has been given not only a span thrice that of Men of Middle-earth, but also the grace to go at my will, and give back the gift."

It is not hyperbole that has Aragorn referring back to the venerable Kings of Numenor or to the Elder Days. He is, by the grace of the Valar, the final King bestowed with the great gift that the Kings of Numenor frittered away and spurned thousands of years before he was born.

I agree fully with the historical downfall of the men of numenor [and there return under aragorn in many ways] I think you might have misunderstood hyperbole as used in my op. The sil and its events are generally historical and true. However simply exaggerated in some areas yet based on truth.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

P.S. Upon further consideration, your biblical hyperbole analogy fails utterly because there were beings from the 1st Age still existing in the 3rd Age who could attest to the actual events of the Elder Days: among them Elrond, Galadriel, Treebeard, Gandalf, Círdan the Shipwright and Glorfindel (who himself battled a balrog and whose power was so great he drove the WitchKing away in fear). At the Ford of Bruinen, Glorfindel is revealed as a mighty Elf-lord terrible in his wrath; Frodo saw him as a shining figure. Gandalf explains this later to Frodo (and emphasizes my point!):

"In Rivendell there live still some of his chief foes: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas. They do not fear the Ringwraiths, for those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen and the Unseen they have great power."

Even Legolas, a 3rd Age-born Elf by all accounts, knows a balrog when he sees it, although he could not possibly have seen one previously; however, the continuous retelling of Elvish history, perhaps even by those who actually beheld one of these malevolent Maia, gave him the basis to quickly identify it:

"It was a Balrog of Morgoth," said Legolas, "of all elf-banes the most deadly, save the One who sits in the Dark Tower.”

Once more I think you might not object much to my op with a different understanding of what i meant by hyperbole. It only applied to small sections that were based on historical events. For example my biblical argument. The conquest was a historical narrative, yet in the war literature of its day it used hyperbole at times describing the events "all killed" "men woman children" etc these were hyperbole statements used in the standard language of the day describing historical events.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

(...) After publishing Fellowship of the ring a fan asked a question of Tolkien in the letters 144 of Tolkien,...

Pedantic niggle: Naomi Mitchison had read page-proofs of the first two volumes, as Fellowship had not been published quite yet when Tolkien answered her here.

... Tolkien did not view the third age balrog as different than his unpublished sillmarillion view of balrogs. He said “the balrog is a survivor from the silmarillion and the legends of the first age.”

Okay, but if there were only seven Balrogs that ever existed, Durin's Bane would still be a survivor from the legends of the First Age. Of course, Tolkien does not tell Naomi that when he wrote the Balrog-Gandalf encounter, the Balrog was not yet one of the "primeval spirits of destroying fire" (letter 144, emphasis on primeval here -- that is, the Balrog was not yet a Maia).

He always sought to reconcile seeming differences and we should as well.

I agree in general, but "always" and Tolkien can be a difficult pairing.

And what we sometimes have in The Letters of JRRT, for examples, are readers pointing out difficulties with author-published ideas or statements. Yes, Tolkien usually looks for what I call internal explanations -- the idea being, not error-by-author, but seeming discrepancy because the translator has more material to draw from than the reader knows about. I often engage in this myself, in threads or in my head at times...

... and Tolkien even sometimes appears to treat "private draft material" (from his point of view) as if already published, and tries to find an internal answer. But that said: Quenta Silmarillion was still open to drastic revision, and if, in 1958, Tolkien thinks that Balrogs being Maiar might be problematic if they existed in the thousands -- despite the noted strengths of the First Age (or problematic for whatever reason) -- he is very free to make this revision.

Nothing about Balrog numbers had been published, and obviously JRRT is not bound to private writing, or even a given letter in my opinion. JRRT ultimately dropped his long held idea about how Elves were reincarnated -- a change he was free to make given what had been published about this... interestingly perhaps, even here Tolkien "holds on" to the old reincarnation idea by noting not simply that it is false, but that it might be noted in the legendarium as a false Mannish idea. Thus it still will arguably find its way into print (internal in one sense), despite it being no longer true internally.

And I could use the same argument against me with respect to the Glorfindel case I referred to above, and I (the other me) would have to at least concede that the idea of Glorfindel defeating a Balrog does not appear in anything Tolkien himself published...

... if it had, my argument (the other me again) would have been arguably easier!

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Galin

Pedantic niggle: Naomi Mitchison had read page-proofs of the first two volumes, as Fellowship had not been published quite yet when Tolkien answered her here.

Thanks for the correction. However just a couple months out with no major revisions and none done to the balrog he saw as constant with his sillmarillion.

Originally Posted by Galin

Okay, but if there were only seven Balrogs that ever existed, Durin's Bane would still be a survivor from the legends of the First Age. Of course, Tolkien does not tell Naomi that when he wrote the Balrog-Gandalf encounter, the Balrog was not yet one of the "primeval spirits of destroying fire" (letter 144, emphasis on primeval here -- that is, the Balrog was not yet a Maia).

At this point why do you suppose Tolkien had the view there were only 7 ever? The sillmarillion had many and they are referred to in the letter. They were maia in his mind at this point.

"The Balrog is a survivor from the Silmarillion and the legends of the First Age. So is Shelob. The Balrogs, of whom the whips were the chief weapons, were primeval spirits[maia] of destroying fire, chief servants of the primeval Dark Power of the First Age. They were supposed to have been all destroyed in the overthrow of Thangorodrim, his fortress in the North. But it is here found (there is usually a hang-over especially of evil from one age to another) that one had escaped and taken refuge under the mountains of Hithaeglin (the Misty Mountains)."

Originally Posted by Galin

I agree in general, but "always" and Tolkien can be a difficult pairing.

And what we sometimes have in The Letters of JRRT, for examples, are readers pointing out difficulties with author-published ideas or statements. Yes, Tolkien usually looks for what I call internal explanations -- the idea being, not error-by-author, but seeming discrepancy because the translator has more material to draw from than the reader knows about. I often engage in this myself, in threads or in my head at times...

... and Tolkien even sometimes appears to treat "private draft material" (from his point of view) as if already published, and tries to find an internal answer. But that said: Quenta Silmarillion was still open to drastic revision, and if, in 1958, Tolkien thinks that Balrogs being Maiar might be problematic if they existed in the thousands -- despite the noted strengths of the First Age (or problematic for whatever reason) -- he is very free to make this revision.

Nothing about Balrog numbers had been published, and obviously JRRT is not bound to private writing, or even a given letter in my opinion. JRRT ultimately dropped his long held idea about how Elves were reincarnated -- a change he was free to make given what had been published about this... interestingly perhaps, even here Tolkien "holds on" to the old reincarnation idea by noting not simply that it is false, but that it might be noted in the legendarium as a false Mannish idea. Thus it still will arguably find its way into print (internal in one sense), despite it being no longer true internally.

And I could use the same argument against me with respect to the Glorfindel case I referred to above, and I (the other me) would have to at least concede that the idea of Glorfindel defeating a Balrog does not appear in anything Tolkien himself published...

... if it had, my argument (the other me again) would have been arguably easier!

Vary good. Once more my op assumes the sillmarillion as published is cannon. Weather that is so should be another thread. In fact I think you should start it i would love to hear all opinions on it.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Thanks for the correction. However just a couple months out with no major revisions and none done to the balrog he saw as constant with his sillmarillion. (...) At this point why do you suppose Tolkien had the view there were only 7 ever? The sillmarillion had many and they are referred to in the letter. They were maia in his mind at this point.

I don't suppose it at that point, but what I mean is, Tolkien did make a notable change between writing the Balrog-Gandalf encounter and answering this letter, and it changes nothing with respect to explaining that Durin's Bane is a creature from the First Age...

... thus in 1958 or later, the same remains true (or easily can): the conception shifts in Tolkien's mind regarding both works, and with each shift the Balrogs remain consistent.

In other other words: Durin's bane was not a Maia when Tolkien wrote the encounter, same as the other Balrogs in QS > then "DB" was a Maia, so also the Balrogs in QS, at the time this letter was answered. Still consistent.



Then in the later 1950s Tolkien (possibly) begins to question if Maia status is problematic in any way with respect to great numbers in the Elder Days. Too powerful? Or whatever other reason (I still tend to lean toward "too powerful", but as I say, just my opinion so far)...

... so, if so, DB's battle with GS (G. Stormcrow) can remain as written, as arguably, there's nothing necessarily inconsistent about this with respect to Tolkien's question. And if original numbers are to be revised, Tolkien never gets to a full revision of everything in QS however, as we know is true in general, in any case.

So possibly, we get less Balrogs at about the same time when we get Orc-formed Maiar thrown into Morgoth's mix.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Very true. cant really argue. but maybe as a counter perhaps something along the lines of Sauromans breeding of the uruk-hai. Saurons improvements of the olog-hai as improved over previous trolls. The hardrim domestication of the mumakil. The rings of power brought into middle earth and used by the like of galadriel. The witch king and the ring wraiths power, 5 wizards sent to ME, gandalf the grey to gandalf the white. the army of the dead put into action. The ents uniting for the attack on isengard. The rise of power in Mordor. Those are a few off the top of my head. Maybe these are not craftsmanship, but they do seem to show a few examples where power seemed to increase or at least reached a higher power in the third age.

That is not a counter-argument. Saruman did not create the Uruk-hai, he merely borrowed the recipe from Sauron who actually first bred the race earlier in the 3rd Age. But Saruman and Sauron tinkering only goes back to the point that they were Maiar, and 1st Age (actually Ainulindalë) beings that are holdovers in the 3rd Age, and these Maiar easily swayed the 3rd Age races under their control (which merely bolsters my point). That both Sauron and Saruman were once Maiar in the service of Aulë, the Vala master of all crafts, is notable and they learned their abilities under his tutelage in the deeps of time. But unlike Aulë who created the Dwarves (with the final permission of Eru), Sauron and Saruman did not create life, merely subverted existing creatures.

In addition, it's interesting the other characters you named. The 3 wielders of the Elven Rings of power were a Maia (Gandalf) and two 1st Age Elves (or half-Elf as the case may be) Elrond and Galadriel, and the previous holders of these Rings, Cirdan and Gil-Galad were also 1st Age Elves. The ents were led by Treebeard, again, a 1st Age being. The Haradrim domesticating Mûmakil really doesn't equate in this conversation, although the idea of using them in war was perhaps just as novel for the period as Hannibal using elephants during the Punic Wars against the Romans.

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

I agree and once more an generally speaking of individuals more than a total power. However what you have rightly pointed out above fits my view still. Take Moria, yes the great dwarven city was gone, however it was know a power of the followers of melkor and the balrog. So while the dwarves morn, any orc passing by would celebrate the rise of the power of moria for the evil side. Yes the hobbit contains lost power, however the book is on the restoration of that power to the dwarves and men of lake town that can now flourish. And yes the men of gondor nd arnor were in a big decline, but they are restored [at least gondor] under aragorn.

The dwarves, even retaking Moria in the 4th Age, were a shadow of their 1st Age or 2nd Age greatness. Their numbers were decimated by the end of the War of the Ring, and Tolkien infers they will eventually disappear (that whole lack of comely dwarf maidens thing). The men of Laketown certainly were not to the level of greatness as Dale earlier in the 3rd Age, and Aragorn may have restored Gondor as an empire, but that doesn't in any way mean that the the Dunedain blood of Gondorions themselves wouldn't continue to wane and mix with lesser races. As I mentioned previously, Aragorn himself admits he is the last of his line (meaning a Numenorean throwback). He was a reflection of former glory.

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

True, but dont forget the Numenoreans could have taken valar and had to be stopped by Eru himself. One of my points was that the valar and maiar are not as epic as sometimes portrayed. I think we see that in the war of wrath as i pointed out in my op. The valar needed rescuing in the battle. On the other side it was the dragons that were most fierce in battle.

I think you are misreading the passage of Ar-Pharazon's invasion in the Akallabêth. It's not necessarily true that the Numenoreans "could have taken" the Valar (in fact, you can't "kill" the Valar in the conventional sense). Tolkien himself referred to Ar-Pharazon's folly as "going up with war against the Deathless" as he broke the ban of the Valar. It seems to me the more likely scenario is that Manwe, not wishing to spill the blood of First and Second Born Children of Eru in a catastrophic war, and the Valar themselves forced to kill Numenoreans, gave up power to Illuvatar himself to make a final, divine judgement over his Children.

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

I agree fully with the historical downfall of the men of numenor [and there return under aragorn in many ways] I think you might have misunderstood hyperbole as used in my op. The sil and its events are generally historical and true. However simply exaggerated in some areas yet based on truth.

Again, there were 1st Age beings present and leading or influencing the peoples of the 3rd Age (whether that be Sauron, Gandalf, Galadriel or Elrond). They did not downplay the past; on the contrary, these 1st Age beings superseded and were by far more powerful than any 3rd age character. But in the 1st Age, Sauron was a lieutenant of a greater Vala, and Saruman and Gandalf were followers of the Valar as well. Galadriel, great as she was, learned much under the tutelage of Melian the Maia, and Master Elrond was a lieutenant as well, not a prince. Even Shelob, as evil and bloated as she was, was merely another of the thousands of offspring of Ungoliant, who rivaled Morgoth himself. And the WitchKing may have filled 3rd Age Men with dread, but on two occasions he fled from a 1st Age Elf-lord like Glorfindel.

You wish to conflate the deeds of 3rd Age folk, while minimizing 1st Age power claiming the use of hyperbole. That is simply not how Tolkien wrote the story.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

It's not necessarily true that the Numenoreans "could have taken" the Valar (in fact, you can't "kill" the Valar in the conventional sense). Tolkien himself referred to Ar-Pharazon's folly as "going up with war against the Deathless" as he broke the ban of the Valar. It seems to me the more likely scenario is that Manwe, not wishing to spill the blood of First and Second Born Children of Eru in a catastrophic war, and the Valar themselves forced to kill Numenoreans, gave up power to Illuvatar himself to make a final, divine judgement over his Children.

Yes, I always understood the situation as being that Manwë called upon Eru because it would have been inappropriate for the Valar to have fought the Númenóreans, even though they could have annihilated them easily. Surely the whole point of Sauron encouraging the Númenóreans to attack Aman was in the hope that the Valar would wipe them out.

EDIT: Letter 156 more or less states that the Valar not fighting the Númenóreans was a matter of law, not ability: "The Valar had no real answer to this monstrous rebellion - for the Children of God were not under their ultimate jurisdiction: they were not allowed to destroy them, or coerce them, with any ’divine’ display of the powers they held over the physical world."

EDIT 2: However, Letter 131 states that the invasion was a source of "real peril (since the Númenóreans directed by Sauron could have wrought ruin in Valinor itself)". This, however, suggests to me that the Númenóreans could have caused a lot of destruction and disaster – killing Elves and despoiling holy places, for instance – before they were defeated. I don't think it implies that they could have defeated the Valar themselves, merely that Sauron may have informed them of "weak points" in Aman that they could have attacked and damaged.

EDIT 3: Akallabêth also heavily implies that Sauron expected the Númenóreans to lose, as he had been "hoping only for the death of the Númenóreans and the defeat of their proud king."

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Question for the history of middle earth scholars. When was this text written? after publishing LOTR?

"For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror."


If Tolkien created in the category of Maiar after LOTR, than he must have been ok with balrogs in large numbers as maiar correct?

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Yes, I always understood the situation as being that Manwë called upon Eru because it would have been inappropriate for the Valar to have fought the Númenóreans, even though they could have annihilated them easily. Surely the whole point of Sauron encouraging the Númenóreans to attack Aman was in the hope that the Valar would wipe them out.

EDIT: Letter 156 more or less states that the Valar not fighting the Númenóreans was a matter of law, not ability: "The Valar had no real answer to this monstrous rebellion - for the Children of God were not under their ultimate jurisdiction: they were not allowed to destroy them, or coerce them, with any ’divine’ display of the powers they held over the physical world."

I dont disagree fully with what you have said about Manwe. But weather he steeped aside or not does not take away from what Tolkien called the mightiest navy to ever gather in ME and its potential to ruin valinor itself. Neither does Sauron's plan of causing them to fight and i am sure he would wish to wipe them both out.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

EDIT 2: However, Letter 131 states that the invasion was a source of "real peril (since the Númenóreans directed by Sauron could have wrought ruin in Valinor itself)". This, however, suggests to me that the Númenóreans could have caused a lot of destruction and disaster – killing Elves and despoiling holy places, for instance – before they were defeated. I don't think it implies that they could have defeated the Valar themselves, merely that Sauron may have informed them of "weak points" in Aman that they could have attacked and damaged.

While the valar stood by? I would suggest valinor itself was in peril, that included the entire area and those who dwelled there. Noldor elves sure did a great job in the first age against balrogs and morgoth in battle, if the numenoreans could best them, it seems indeed valinor was in peril.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

EDIT 3: Akallabêth also heavily implies that Sauron expected the Númenóreans to lose, as he had been "hoping only for the death of the Númenóreans and the defeat of their proud king."

In letters 153 Tolkien said the characters can be wrong in their statements and dont represent Tolkien. In fact his example was the maiar Gandalf being wrong in a statement. No reason Sauron could not be. He made the rings as an attempt to control ME, that did not work out so well.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

That is not a counter-argument. Saruman did not create the Uruk-hai, he merely borrowed the recipe from Sauron who actually first bred the race earlier in the 3rd Age. But Saruman and Sauron tinkering only goes back to the point that they were Maiar, and 1st Age (actually Ainulindalë) beings that are holdovers in the 3rd Age, and these Maiar easily swayed the 3rd Age races under their control (which merely bolsters my point). That both Sauron and Saruman were once Maiar in the service of Aulë, the Vala master of all crafts, is notable and they learned their abilities under his tutelage in the deeps of time. But unlike Aulë who created the Dwarves (with the final permission of Eru), Sauron and Saruman did not create life, merely subverted existing creatures.

A counter to strength in the first age is to give example of strength that increased in the third age imo. If it were Sauron or Saruman does not matter [thanks for the correction if so] but that it was the third age vs earlier forms. I think it supported my argument that knowledge can be gained over time [such as numonrians longer life spans] and so even though sauron and saruman were both Maiar and were first age beings, that does not take away that over time they created a better breed of ork that morgoth [valar] could not and sauron could not in the first 2 ages.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

In addition, it's interesting the other characters you named. The 3 wielders of the Elven Rings of power were a Maia (Gandalf) and two 1st Age Elves (or half-Elf as the case may be) Elrond and Galadriel, and the previous holders of these Rings, Cirdan and Gil-Galad were also 1st Age Elves. The ents were led by Treebeard, again, a 1st Age being. The Haradrim domesticating Mûmakil really doesn't equate in this conversation, although the idea of using them in war was perhaps just as novel for the period as Hannibal using elephants during the Punic Wars against the Romans.

I am not saying the Maia are not powerful creatures in middle earth. They will always be among the most powerful. I did say they tend to be set apart to much IMO as far away and above all others that I dont think is accurate to Tolkien mythology. For example we are talking on increase in knowledge over time In Valinar the Noldor elves “thirst for more knowledge , and in many things surpassed their teachers” [the valar].”


But I think you missed my point. The rings themselves added to maia such as gandalf or elves such as galadriel a power that was not around in the first age. Gandalf himself is an added power at least to ME compared to the first age. I also made the point I would think Galdriel [more powerful than elrond part maia] was more powerful [in part because of the ring] in the third age than the first. The ents were around but never united for a war on the scale of isengard. That mumakil to me seems a good example where time and knowledge was increased [to domesticate the wild beasts] for action and causing an increase in power over previous ages in this case.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The dwarves, even retaking Moria in the 4th Age, were a shadow of their 1st Age or 2nd Age greatness. Their numbers were decimated by the end of the War of the Ring, and Tolkien infers they will eventually disappear (that whole lack of comely dwarf maidens thing). The men of Laketown certainly were not to the level of greatness as Dale earlier in the 3rd Age, and Aragorn may have restored Gondor as an empire, but that doesn't in any way mean that the the Dunedain blood of Gondorions themselves wouldn't continue to wane and mix with lesser races. As I mentioned previously, Aragorn himself admits he is the last of his line (meaning a Numenorean throwback). He was a reflection of former glory.

I dont disagree, In fact moria and lake town depended on trade with elves for economy and with them leaving ME, they could not fully restore power. But to prove my point they did not have to, just a change of power happens with a loss of power such as the orcs in moria. Or as you say the dwindleing of the dwarves [and elves] they will however be replaced by mankind. However this thread does not deal with 4th age hypothetical but the first 3 ages.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I think you are misreading the passage of Ar-Pharazon's invasion in the Akallabêth. It's not necessarily true that the Numenoreans "could have taken" the Valar (in fact, you can't "kill" the Valar in the conventional sense). Tolkien himself referred to Ar-Pharazon's folly as "going up with war against the Deathless" as he broke the ban of the Valar. It seems to me the more likely scenario is that Manwe, not wishing to spill the blood of First and Second Born Children of Eru in a catastrophic war, and the Valar themselves forced to kill Numenoreans, gave up power to Illuvatar himself to make a final, divine judgement over his Children.

True i did not get it from the passage, but from Tolkiens letters. In Tolkiens letters 130 he said of the attack on valinar by men “The Numen-oreans directed by Sauron could have wrought ruin in Valinor itself." While the valar perhaps could not be "killed" in the same sense, we see valar and maiar being wounded or bodily killed by conventional weapons from the first age to the third age. I dont disagree fully with what you have said about Manwe. But weather he steeped aside or not does not take away from what Tolkien called the mightiest navy to ever gather in ME and its potential to ruin valinor itself.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Again, there were 1st Age beings present and leading or influencing the peoples of the 3rd Age (whether that be Sauron, Gandalf, Galadriel or Elrond). They did not downplay the past; on the contrary, these 1st Age beings superseded and were by far more powerful than any 3rd age character.

I dont disagree. I am not "downplaying" I am simply pointing out a style of writing and its effects on perception of those historical events. I am simply pointing out the style it was written for a better proper understanding.


“Pure myth and legend....cosmological myth ”
-Letters of J.R.R Tolkien 122

Tolkien's writings use hyperbole language especially in his yet unpublished silmarillion. This is not false, just a style of writing. Over long periods of history tales grow and over time exaggerated characters and beasts become more powerful than they were. Yet even within the text they are often not as mighty as presumed. Often various times you will hear someone was the “greatest” or “tallest” etc.

“Tolkien uses profoundly figurative language – particularly when describing distant events in semi-legendary past.”
-John Garth


I am not saying maia or valar are not of the most powerful beings. My op says

"the valar the strongest beings outside of Eru [God]"

"Valar were the strongest creations by eru"

Originally Posted by Morthoron

But in the 1st Age, Sauron was a lieutenant of a greater Vala, and Saruman and Gandalf were followers of the Valar as well. Galadriel, great as she was, learned much under the tutelage of Melian the Maia, and Master Elrond was a lieutenant as well, not a prince. Even Shelob, as evil and bloated as she was, was merely another of the thousands of offspring of Ungoliant, who rivaled Morgoth himself. And the WitchKing may have filled 3rd Age Men with dread, but on two occasions he fled from a 1st Age Elf-lord like Glorfindel.

You wish to conflate the deeds of 3rd Age folk, while minimizing 1st Age power claiming the use of hyperbole. That is simply not how Tolkien wrote the story.

Agreed as my op says of morgoth

“His might was greatest of all things in this world.”
-of the ruin of Beleriand

However i think he is a great example of why the valar [he being the greatest] are not so far and above all other creatures as my op argues. Some also argue Sauron became stronger with the ring and had more success than morgoth.


Yes galadriel learned from the valar and maia and that is part of her power. Because especially early the maia and valar were the most powerful as they taught the children of eru. However In Valinar the Noldor elves “thirst for more knowledge , and in many things surpassed their teachers” [valar] I would think Galadriel would be such a candidate for this.

Calling Elrond a lieutenant and saying he was weaker goes against you as he was part maia and thus below pure elves. I would suggest it had to do with time of birth, family etc.

You said "Ungoliant, who rivaled Morgoth himself" I will let that speak for itself.



I would say I am doing neither, but trying to understand them as Tolkien did.

“Moreover my father came to conceive the silmarillion as a compilation , a compedious narrative, made long afterwords from sources of great diversity [poems annuals and oral tales] that have survived in tradition”
-Christopher Tolkien Forward to the Silmarillion

[Huinesoron]

Regarding the specific question of whether Tolkien saw the Silmarillion as complete and consistent with LotR in the 50s, I would have to say no: what he probably saw it as was something that he /could soon complete/.

HoME5 (The Lost Road) contains the 1937 Quenta Silmarillion, abandoned when Tolkien started writing LotR. In the early parts, it is broadly the same as the Silmarillion we know and love - but it peters out long before the end. The tale of Beren and Luthien exists in draft form. The chapter on the Nirnaeth looks complete. The tale of Turin runs out with his flight from Menegroth. The falls of Doriath and Gondolin are unwritten (and in fact don't exist at all after the Book of Lost Tales from the 20s!), and the story of Earendil only exists from his approach to the Lonely Isle.

It's also interesting to note that JRR Tolkien's Silmarillion would have looked very different to Christopher's. We know this because the 1937 Silm comes with a title page!

The Silmarillion
The history of the Three Jewels, the Silmarils of Feanor, in which is told in brief the history of the Elves from their coming until the Change of the World
1. Qenta Silmarillion, or Pennas Hilevril
To which is appended
The houses of the princes of Men and Elves
The tale of years
The tale of battles

2. The Annals of Valinor
3. The Annals of Beleriand
4. The Lhammas or Account of Tongues

Tolkien's Silmarillion was most definitely (as I think someone said) a compendium of different materials.

Finally: yes, the 1937 Silm is broadly consistent with LotR. So are all the later revisions (there's two whole books of HoME detailing the post-LotR Silm). But, you know what? Other than the details of the Tale of Tinuviel, so is the Book of Lost Tales! LotR simply doesn't make enough detailed references to the Elder Days to create wild inconsistencies.

I highly recommend hunting down the two volumes of BoLT, by the way, if you haven't already. They present a nearly complete (everything but the ending) narrative of Middle-earth that is both internally consistent (almost) and wildly different to what we know. It's a really weird experience, frankly - but very interesting.

hS

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

A counter to strength in the first age is to give example of strength that increased in the third age imo. If it were Sauron or Saruman does not matter [thanks for the correction if so] but that it was the third age vs earlier forms. I think it supported my argument that knowledge can be gained over time [such as numonrians longer life spans] and so even though sauron and saruman were both Maiar and were first age beings, that does not take away that over time they created a better breed of ork that morgoth [valar] could not and sauron could not in the first 2 ages.

Breeding a better orc may be a technological advance, but it does not indicate strength. Consider that Smaug ruined Erebor and Dale by himself, but he was the last of his kind; yet in the 1st Age dragons were numerous and more powerful and used by Morgoth as weapons of war the like of which was not seen in the 2nd or 3rd Age (even Gandalf says, "It has been said that dragon-fire could melt and consume the Rings of Power, but there is not now any dragon left on earth in which the old fire is hot enough," -- implying whatever few dragons were left did not have the power of dragons of old).

So too, whether seven or a host, the Balrogs of the 1st Age were more formidable than any orc or troll. And again, Gandalf makes plain when he goes up against the Balrog at the Bridge of Khazad-dum, that Aragorn and the Fellowship, although 3rd Age heroes, were useless against Durin's Bane. His exact words were "Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way." The Maia was stating the obvious. No man or dwarf ever defeated a Balrog, but Ecthelion and Glorfindel had n the 1st Age, and fought them to the death.

In any case, the Men of the West Sauron and Saruman faced during the War of the Ring were dwindled and few compared to earlier in the 3rd Age when Gondor was at the height of its power, or even later when it ceded Rohan to Eorl the Young and the Éothéod because its empire was in decline. Decline is a central theme in Gondor as it was amongst the Elves as they fought the "long defeat"and eventually began to depart from Middle-earth altogether.

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

But I think you missed my point. The rings themselves added to maia such as gandalf or elves such as galadriel a power that was not around in the first age. Gandalf himself is an added power at least to ME compared to the first age. I also made the point I would think Galdriel [more powerful than elrond part maia] was more powerful [in part because of the ring] in the third age than the first. The ents were around but never united for a war on the scale of isengard. That mumakil to me seems a good example where time and knowledge was increased [to domesticate the wild beasts] for action and causing an increase in power over previous ages in this case.

Gandalf had to assume mortal form in order to follow the requirements of the Valar. He was not allowed to present himself in his Maiaric form. Even when he was ressurrected, Gandalf merely became Saruman, or what Saruman should have been. He did not revert to being a Maiaric incarnation.

The Ents crushed the Dwarves in the 1st Age. But they were never a warlike race.

And again, Gondolin assailed by dragons and balrogs trumps a few elephants any day, don't you think?

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

I dont disagree, In fact moria and lake town depended on trade with elves for economy and with them leaving ME, they could not fully restore power. But to prove my point they did not have to, just a change of power happens with a loss of power such as the orcs in moria. Or as you say the dwindleing of the dwarves [and elves] they will however be replaced by mankind. However this thread does not deal with 4th age hypothetical but the first 3 ages.

The dwarvish forces were decimated in the Battle of Five Armies, and then reduced further by the end of the War of the Ring. Thus, through battle and Tolkien's own direct statement that there were few Dwarvish females assured their declining fate. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Laketown as if were some type of power. After Dale was destroyed by Smaug, they never reached those heights again.

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

In Tolkiens letters 130 he said of the attack on valinar by men “The Numen-oreans directed by Sauron could have wrought ruin in Valinor itself." While the valar perhaps could not be "killed" in the same sense, we see valar and maiar being wounded or bodily killed by conventional weapons from the first age to the third age. I dont disagree fully with what you have said about Manwe. But weather he steeped aside or not does not take away from what Tolkien called the mightiest navy to ever gather in ME and its potential to ruin valinor itself.

Your mistake is equating Istari in a mortal form who's incarnate earthly form could be destroyed in the 3rd Age, and a Valar like Tulkas or a Maiar like Eonwe who had no such prohibition, and were revealed in all their wrath. Even Sauron as a physical presence was far greater in the 1st Age before he put all his power into the One Ring. Sauron was defeated three times thereafter (surrendering to the Numenoreans, defeated by Elendil and Gil-Galad, and once and for all when the One Ring was destroyed).

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

However i think he is a great example of why the valar [he being the greatest] are not so far and above all other creatures as my op argues. Some also argue Sauron became stronger with the ring and had more success than morgoth.

Which "some" argued Sauron had more success than Morgoth? I'd love to pick apart their impecunious arguments into tiny pieces. Have you ever read Morgoth's Ring from HoMe? The evil achievements of Morgoth were made plain by Tolkien: "Just as Sauron concentrated his power in the One Ring, Morgoth dispersed his power into the very matter of Arda, thus 'the whole of Middle-earth was Morgoth's Ring'." Morgoth perverted all of Middle-earth, raised mountains, perverted orcs, bred dragons, destroyed the Two Trees, caused the Rebellion of the Noldor. Sauron was Morgoth's lieutenant while Morgoth ruled Arda.

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Calling Elrond a lieutenant and saying he was weaker goes against you as he was part maia and thus below pure elves. I would suggest it had to do with time of birth, family etc.

Tolkien called Elrond a lieutenant -- I am merely referring back to what the author said. Elrond may have been part Maia, but he chose to be an elf. That comes with Elvish restrictions, just as Elros choosing to be a Man. In Tolkien's view, you can't be more than one thing. You have to choose a destiny, and being a Maia was not one of those.

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

You said "Ungoliant, who rivaled Morgoth himself" I will let that speak for itself.

Ungoliant became overpowered when she consumed the light of the Two Trees. She also wanted the Silmarils and challenged Morgoth himself at this point. This does not undercut Morgoth's power, just magnifies what Ungoliant became, imbued thus with what she had consumed. That there was an alternate evil in the 1st Age who could rival Morgoth himself is proof enough that there is no comparison from the 1st Age to the 3rd Age.