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

[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

[Eldy]

On a similar note, Charles Noad put together an outline of what The Silmarillion might have looked like had Tolkien finished it in his later life. He explained his reasoning in detail in his essay "On the Construction of 'The Silmarillion'", which is part of the anthology Tolkien's Legendarium, edited by Verlyn Flieger and Carl F. Hostetter).

Quenta Silmarillion

Concerning the Powers
- Ainulindalë
- Valaquenta

The Great Tales
- The Lay of Leithian
- Narn i Chîn Húrin
- The Fall of Gondolin
- Eärendil the Wanderer

The Later Tales
- Akallabêth
- Of the Rings of Power

Appendices
- The Tale of Years
- Of the Laws and Customs among the Eldar
- Dangweth Pengoloð
- Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth
- Quendi and Eldar

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Eldorion

On a similar note, Charles Noad put together an outline of what The Silmarillion might have looked like had Tolkien finished it in his later life. He explained his reasoning in detail in his essay "On the Construction of 'The Silmarillion'", which is part of the anthology Tolkien's Legendarium, edited by Verlyn Flieger and Carl F. Hostetter).

where do i get this essay?

[Galin]

As Eldo says, in the book Tolkien's Legendarium, Essays on the History of Middle-earth. If you mean where can you get this book, you probably have to dig about in used book sources.

A quick search gave me two results, priced: $122 and $105.08.


When I got my copy it was only $80. Even so (helpful hint), I went out and bought a $50 bookmark for it, so the book itself would seem less expensive.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Galin

As Eldo says, in the book Tolkien's Legendarium, Essays on the History of Middle-earth. If you mean where can you get this book, you probably have to dig about in used book sources.

A quick search gave me two results, priced: $122 and $105.08.

When I got my copy it was only $80. Even so (helpful hint), I went out and bought a $50 bookmark for it, so the book itself would seem less expensive.

AbeBooks reports a copy for a mere $75 (£60 on the UK version of the site).

hS

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by 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!



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

Amazing post and thank you for your knowledge. I will indeed hunt them down.

[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.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Thanks for your thoughts but your comment show me many times you have not read my op or read to fast. I ask that you read my op in its entirety, and than respond to any objections. Ask for clarification if needed anywhere.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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).

"...and others, too, came out of the forest. Great Orcs, who also bore the White Hand of Isengard: that kind is stronger and more fell than all the others."
― Éomer

"black orcs of great strength"


It is clear they were a stronger and more powerful breed just as the Olog-hai and thus more powerful. Siting an example of dragons as a decrease in power overtime and to than try and force it somehow on orc breeds, simply ignores that fact and is an attempt [not sure why] to avoid the improvement.


aS for dragons, smaug was also killed by an arrow by a man, and was said to be the last powerful dragon. The dragons of the first age did not reach full growth for a long time and yes, were very powerful and caused destruction in the first age as well arguable more so than smaug. Since they turned the tide in the war of wrath beating the valar back.

As for the gandalf comment gandalf is not always correct as tolkien said in his letters. But even if he is, that just meant their is not many powerful dragons left, was not smaug the last? did gandalf say this in the hobbit or lotr.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

Could you show me where in my op I stated balrogs were less powerful than an orc or troll? I never said such a thing, please read my op and take your time to understand it. Once more gandalf can be wrong and has been. But even so i would agree with gandalf as i never said DB [second most powerful balrog ever] could beat 1v1 a elf, or 2 hobbits, a dawrf etc the only one I would argue that could have any real chance would be perhaps, aragorn.


Yes elves of the first age killed the maia balrogs. This argues for my op please read it.

First age vs Third age Elves

“History of the elves, or the silmarillion...rational incarnate creatures of more or less comparable stature with our own.”
-J.R.R Tolkien letters 130

Since morgoth, balrogs and sauron feared the elves at various times in the first age, and since various elves killed balrogs and challenged morgoth, must the first age elves be more powerful than the third age elves? I dont think so. When the silmarillion speaks of elves being more powerful in the first age, it is referring to their collective strength. The elves had a larger population in the first and and their numbers dwindled over time.

In “of the ruin of doriath” the dwarves of Nogrod defeated the mighty kingdom of elves of doriath, captured their city, Nauglamir, and the silmarillion. They than were ambushed by some elves and the rest were destroyed by ents. In of the fifth battle men of dor-lomin and the dwarves of Belegrost won renown at the battle and fought the best rather than any elves. Many times men rose high in elf kingdoms and in warfare and were better fighters than elves. At times the best individual fighter in middle earth was a man. The eldar fled the numonrians who charged for battle in aman, tuna, and the coast of valinor. This is not surprising given in letters 153 Tolkien said “Elves and men are evidently in biological terms one race.” in 181 he says “Elves and men are just different aspects of the humane...elves and men are in their incarnate forms kindrid.”

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

Agreed, and restoration as well under aragorn. But as i said before where one side is in decline, the other is on the rise [mordor/moria etc].

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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?

????? and? you just spend time arguing only he as a maia could face the balrog of the fellowship are you know downplaying his power as an added third age power? and also ignoring what i had said, that his ring added on to him even more power? it seems more you want to argue than understand and disuse. You are seemingly willing to move the goal posts at will just to argue.

The ents beat up already defeated and ambushed remnant of dwarves. I would not equal that with their decision to attack isengard and the orc army after helms deep.


Never said otherwise. But will you agree the domestication of those oliphaunts was an increase in third age power.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

I will refer you to my previous 2 responses on this thread of our discussion.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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).

I think my op responds to this well.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php

I said some not me and dont care to argue that here. Though I might just for fun on a different thread, or at least follow such a thread as it would be interesting. One thread was on the above forum that I had read it awhile back.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

and my conclusion followed.

"Calling Elrond a lieutenant and saying he was weaker goes against you as he was part maia and thus below pure elves."

But i than said it likely had to do with birth since he was born after the first elves were created. It does not equate the strength. Otherwise Aragorn was less powerful than the steward of gondor and princes as well.

Yes elrond chose his destiny, not his birth and power.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

If we assume no power in the third age comparable.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Thanks for your thoughts but your comment show me many times you have not read my op or read to fast. I ask that you read my op in its entirety, and than respond to any objections. Ask for clarification if needed anywhere.

No thank you. I think I've made all the points necessary, and this conversation is getting no where. So rather than continue a circular debate without a logical outcome, I'll just stop here. We are unfortunately separated by the use of a common language.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Some Clarification

Just to make sure I am not misunderstood in my op and perhaps I was not clear enough, I would like to clarify what I think might not be so clear in my op.

The First age was the Most Powerful

The first age overall had more "power" than the third and second ages. Two great examples brought up are the many dragons of the first age vs smaug as the only remaining powerful dragon in the third age. And the decline of the elves as another. As I pointed out the third age did have some examples of increase in power over the first two ages, but not enough to counter the loss of power.

Valar are the Most powerful Maiar Second

As I said multiple times in my op, the valar are the strongest creation by Eru followed by the Maiar. As a class these beings are the most powerful classes and far surpass any class such as orc, dwarf, elf or troll or any other.

What I did Argue/ The Class of Valar and Maiar are not as Drastically "Above" the Other Highest Beings on Middle Earth


I argued in my op that just because any individual was in the class of Maiar or Valar does not make them untouchable to all other classes and were vulnerable to the strongest individuals of the other classes.


Hyperbole was Used

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

Describing the legendary nature of the sillmarillion Tolkien used hyperbole as typical of these sort of writings though based on historical events. Over long periods of history tales grow and over time exaggerated characters and beasts become more powerful than they were. Thus the legendary status of some of the first age heroes and creatures has been exaggerated.

This is common today in sports. When people talk of the "greatest ever" basketball player, or pitcher, or boxer etc over time they become legendary and we forget their weakness and exaggerate their up sides. We also tend to use language and exaggerate their accomplishments and often talk of them as beyond compare the "best ever."

[R.R.J Tolkien]

I was thinking, what if tolkien instead of going back and changing balrogs in multiple accounts, just have gothmog survive and be DB?