High Elves and the Balrogs

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

I think it was fairly obvious i was refering to Tolkien's work actually... off the top of my head only Eowyn and Morwen were ever depicted in a 'powerful' role - that is ofcourse in reference to humans, there are quite a few Elvish women depicted in such a light also.

Here's another: Haleth of the Haladin was a woman considered the equal of any man in battle and led her people courageously.

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

Off topic, Joan of Arc only co-led the army i think you'll find with a certain Duke. Furthermore she was burned at the stake for heresy before she managed to finalise her aims - that said, she is an extraordinary example of female leadership, being so young and also, being a woman.

She did complete her primary aim, the reversal of France's fortunes in the 100 Year's War and almost single-handedly had Charles VII crowned king of France at Rheims. Without her vision and valor, the ineffectual Armagnacs would have eventually crumbled against the English/Burgundian alliance. As far as her heresy trial, it was a political sham, a mockery of justice that circumvented numerous ecclesiastical court procedures. The heresy charges were nullified by Pope Calixtus a mere 25 years after her death (astounding in the fact that the Catholic Church usually takes centuries to overturn previous rulings -- as in the case of Galileo).

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

She did complete her primary aim, the reversal of France's fortunes in the 100 Year's War and almost single-handedly had Charles VII crowned king of France at Rheims. Without her vision and valor, the ineffectual Armagnacs would have eventually crumbled against the English/Burgundian alliance. As far as her heresy trial, it was a political sham, a mockery of justice that circumvented numerous ecclesiastical court procedures. The heresy charges were nullified by Pope Calixtus a mere 25 years after her death (astounding in the fact that the Catholic Church usually takes centuries to overturn previous rulings -- as in the case of Galileo).

You just proved what i said lol... almost being a key-word. Alot of what Joan of Arc achieved is hypothetically speaking, "would have" and so on. She did not achieve everything that she set out to do. I'm not trying to make her appear weaker because she is a woman, i'm just trying to prove a point. She was never granted full military control, she had to confer with the Duke of [insert] before any major decisions were made.

She was burned at the stake, whether it was anulled or not, the "mockery" was successful and the mighty Joan of Arc was made a martyr... get over it.

[obloquy]

If I had posted either of the two previous responses it would have been deleted.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by obloquy

If I had posted either of the two previous responses it would have been deleted.

Just clearing up a misunderstanding mate

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

You just proved what i said lol... almost being a key-word. Alot of what Joan of Arc achieved is hypothetically speaking, "would have" and so on. She did not achieve everything that she set out to do. I'm not trying to make her appear weaker because she is a woman, i'm just trying to prove a point. She was never granted full military control, she had to confer with the Duke of [insert] before any major decisions were made.

She was burned at the stake, whether it was anulled or not, the "mockery" was successful and the mighty Joan of Arc was made a martyr... get over it.

Not wishing to go too off-topic here, but please reread what I said. I stated "She did complete her primary aim, the reversal of France's fortunes in the 100 Year's War and almost single-handedly had Charles VII crowned king of France at Rheims." The 'almost' you are referring to does not mitigate her achievement. She did get Charles crowned king, which was her aim, and she did so 'almost' single-handedly (incredible for a teenage girl of the era).

As far as conferring with Duc de Alençon, yes she did, what of it? She eventually became co-commander of an army with him. She also had many heated arguments with Dunois of Orleans over tactics. Had she not prevailed with her strategy, Dunois was ready to retreat before the taking of les Tournelles and the raising of the siege of Orleans would have failed. She completed in nine days what the French army did not do in five months. Bluntly, the French achieved victory because of her choice of tactics over the established leadership's cautious and defeatist attitudes. The raising of the siege of Orleans marked the turning point in the Hundred Year's War. There are no hypotheticals about it.

As far as 'getting over it', please watch your tone. I would hate to see this thread locked because of unnecessary attitude.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Back to Tolkien, please.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Not wishing to go too off-topic here, but please reread what I said. I stated "She did complete her primary aim, the reversal of France's fortunes in the 100 Year's War and almost single-handedly had Charles VII crowned king of France at Rheims." The 'almost' you are referring to does not mitigate her achievement. She did get Charles crowned king, which was her aim, and she did so 'almost' single-handedly (incredible for a teenage girl of the era).

As far as conferring with Duc de Alençon, yes she did, what of it? She eventually became co-commander of an army with him. She also had many heated arguments with Dunois of Orleans over tactics. Had she not prevailed with her strategy, Dunois was ready to retreat before the taking of les Tournelles and the raising of the siege of Orleans would have failed. She completed in nine days what the French army did not do in five months. Bluntly, the French achieved victory because of her choice of tactics over the established leadership's cautious and defeatist attitudes. The raising of the siege of Orleans marked the turning point in the Hundred Year's War. There are no hypotheticals about it.

As far as 'getting over it', please watch your tone. I would hate to see this thread locked because of unnecessary attitude.

Please do not talk to me in such a condescending tone - i actually feel quite annoyed now. Half of the information and debate gathered here is without cause, i havn't commented on Joan of Arc's bad military tactics because i think they were quite excellent - so why would you bring it up like i've disputed it? My only argument against Joan of Arc was that she is given recognition as the sole force that changed the fate of the French Monarchy and decisively won the French victories in the 100 Years War - when in fact she was in no way working alone, she depended on the support of others, being a teenage girl what would you expect?

Actually, alot of the issues concerning Joan of Arc are hypothetically speaking, check your sources again. Because certain things were achieved after her death that she fought for, it does not mean that she alone made it happen.

So i'll beg you again to refrain from the pretentious statements and the argument altogether, i've had my say, as have you - Joan of Arc isn't particularly relevant so i'll carry on with the thread now.

I think it is all very well saying Galadriel could defeat a Balrog by herself, what with the amount of quotations supporting her being the "Greatest" of the Noldor behind Feanor, but whenever a mortal has faced a Balrog, it has been a weapon-in-hand job - Interestingly with Olórin which i now feel compelled to read again, he appears to resume his former shape and do a "power" battle with Durin's Bane. Is it possible to say that Galadriel could equal the Maiar's efforts in power? I'm not sure. I still remain confident that Galadriel would not best a Balrog with a blade, the quotations given just don't define her as a warrior,we have ones of her "greatness" which i believe refer to her mind, and ones of her "athletic ability" and so forth, i could be wrong, but Galadriel only wielded a blade on the odd occasion over the course of thousands of years.

Compare her to Fingolfin, Ecthelion or Glorfindel, each are continuously reputed with their battle skill. Galadriel is in reference to her beauty and mind. I can't see it myself, but their is some evidence there to suggest her military capability, it is just not as clear as with other characters - and so it leads to what we are all doing now, speculating.

Besides, i feel sorry for Celeborn if Galadriel had the power to crush a Balrog :P

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Please keep personal comments out of public posts. Any points on which two members conflict should be resolved in private messages. Thank you!

[obloquy]

I don't think anyone said she could "crush" a Balrog.

Is it possible to say that Galadriel could equal the Maiar's efforts in power?

Yes, in fact. We have a handy example in Glorfindel, whose duel with a Balrog went much the same as Gandalf's did. His power was actually increased through his reincarnation and recuperation in Aman, and he returned to Middle-earth almost a peer of the Maiar. Galadriel was more powerful than Glorfindel.

Relevant text from HoMe XII Late Writings:

[Glorfindel] then became again a living incarnate person, but was permitted to dwell in the Blessed Realm; for he had regained the primitive innocence and grace of the Eldar. For long years he remained in Valinor, in reunion with the Eldar who had not rebelled, and in the companionship of the Maiar. To these he had now become almost an equal, for though he was an incarnate (to whom a bodily form not made or chosen by himself was necessary) his spiritual power had been greatly enhanced by his self-sacrifice.

What, Tolkien? "Spiritual power"? Why, we have never heard of this before!

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I don't think anyone said she could "crush" a Balrog.

Yes, in fact. We have a handy example in Glorfindel, whose duel with a Balrog went much the same as Gandalf's did. His power was actually increased through his reincarnation and recuperation in Aman, and he returned to Middle-earth almost a peer of the Maiar. Galadriel was more powerful than Glorfindel.

Relevant text from HoMe XII Late Writings:

What, Tolkien? "Spiritual power"? Why, we have never heard of this before!

So if Galadriel was more powerful than Glorfindel, that means the curse of Mandos hasn't harshly affected her (except for weariness). And wasn't it said that the Eldar diminished in their spiritual powers eventually, or become weary to that effect? And if she was still more powerful than Glorfindel even after his rebirth, that would mean she was the closest to a Maia, right? But then Tolkien is confusing. He says that Galadriel was the mightiest and fairest of all the elves (including the mighty Glorfindel) in the 3rd age. But he seems to suggest that Elrond was inherently more powerful than Galadriel in one of his letters:

Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him - being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. In the 'Mirror of Galadriel', 1381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond.