High Elves and the Balrogs

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Tolkien uses the same unqualified "greatest" to describe Galadriel as he does to describe Sauron (greatest of Melkor's servants). Please tell us why you refuse to allow Galadriel's greatness to include prowess in battle. It certainly isn't based on anything in the books. As I outlined in my "Sauron vs. Your Mama" thread, Middle-earth battles are more about spiritual stature than anything else. Maybe you can come up with an example of an exception to this rule, but I can't.

I refuse to allow Galadriel's greatness to include prowess in battle simply because she fought maybe once or twice in the history of ME, by "fought" i refer to fighting - whether that includes a degree of spiritual works or sword, i mean a confrontational bout. She may have attacked Dol Guldur and broken its walls... with her power, and yet, has she ever claimed a significant life? not to my recollection. Celeborn led the host against Dol Guldur, whilst Galadriel stood atop a hill and fashioned some devilish hocus pocus.

What can magic do for you in a one on one bout? when there is a scant second between each parry? Not a great deal.

Ecthelion slew 3 Balrogs, and Gothmog (Maiar?) - It was achieved through his sword and helmet. Glorfindel slew a Balrog - He fought with a blade also. The Hammer of Wrath all bore weapons when they collectively slew several Balrogs. Fingolfin wounded the most powerful Valar with a blade. Infact, only Gandalf weaved magic into his combat (that with Durin's Bane) and he was Maiar. Conclusion - it doesn't take a spell to defeat a being of immense "power". It just takes a really skilled combatant.

So though magic may well be a prominent player in battle, in a one on one bout, it has little bearence, in my opinion. It is usually the case that those equipped with great power are also cunning fighters, which is why we associate that power with their battle prowess.

Unfortunately i don't have my books on tap at the moment, so i can't quote anything.

I think that the notion of "power" not being a key weapon in a duel is altogether plausible. So much evidence backs it up, and it is realistic. All of the greatest warriors bore a weapon, was it a means of channeling the "power"? i doubt it. Its just because they were great warriors, nothing more. Maybe with the lack of heroes during the third age, it is harder to determine the gravity of people in ages past. That is my level of thinking anyway, is it totally unbelievable?

[Raynor]

Well, there are other instances when magic was essential in a battle. Finrod and Sauron fought each other in songs of power and Luthien was capable of putting down even Melkor through her song. The valar battled Melkor in the beginning of Arda, and they dealt disastrous damage to the earth, much of which I would attribute to magic, rather than mere weapons.

[obloquy]

I never said anything about Galadriel's magic.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I never said anything about Galadriel's magic.

Then i see even less reason as to why she'd be an able fighter to be honest.

[Boromir88]

I refuse to allow Galadriel's greatness to include prowess in battle simply because she fought maybe once or twice in the history of ME~Hammerhand

It doesn't matter how many times we are told Galadriel fought (with a 'blade')...what matters is that we know she could and that she did indeed fight with a 'blade' before. And my understanding that when she fought with a blade (as Raynor has provided with the Unfinished Tales quote) that she was quite good.

I say 'times we are told Galadriel fought' because as CT points out the tale of Galadriel and Celeborn was being 'refashioned', their roles were becoming greater, and not everything was known.

There is no part of the history of Middle-earth more full of problems than the story of Galadriel and Celeborn; and it must be admitted that there are severe inconsistancies "embedded in the traditions"; or, to look at the matter from another point of view, that the role and importance of Galadriel only emerged slowly, and that her story underwent continual refashionings.~Unfinished Tales: The History of Galadriel and Celeborn

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It doesn't matter how many times we are told Galadriel fought (with a 'blade')...what matters is that we know she could and that she did indeed fight with a 'blade' before. And my understanding that when she fought with a blade (as Raynor has provided with the Unfinished Tales quote) that she was quite good.

I say 'times we are told Galadriel fought' because as CT points out the tale of Galadriel and Celeborn was being 'refashioned', their roles were becoming greater, and not everything was known.

I'll concede that she had the ability to use a blade. I do believe it is important that she seldom fought, and that she never fought anyone of significance. The reason being that we know little about her physical abilities, so to claim she could best a Balrog or even Glorfindel... or many others, to me, is hypothetical and unfounded.

The roles of Galadriel and Celeborn only became more important because they were two of the few Elven Lords still in charge of a settlement in Middle Earth and because they bore a large degree of power and influence - I can't see many other reasons besides, unless ofcourse Tolkien had some other purpose for the characters.

[CSteefel]

Another possible argument against one of the three Rings like Nenya making a big difference is that Gandalf was wearing one himself. Here you have a Maia pitted against a Maia, but with one holding one of the 3 Rings. To the extent that the contest between the Balrog and Gandalf was a draw, then it would seem the Ring didn't make a large amount of difference.

However...

Perhaps another way to view the contest between Gandalf and the Balrog is that Gandalf did win finally, but that the mortal part of himself (the form he took on coming to Middle Earth) was the casualty. From this interpretation, Gandalf is really made up of two components: the Maiar (that later becomes Gandalf the White) and the human, which suffers heat and cold and injury like the rest of men.

Where this leaves Galadriel or Glorfindel is less clear, but neither seems to have a clearly human form in the same sense that Gandalf has (for example, Glorfindel still appears as young as a spring chicken despite his 6,000 year age, while Gandalf appears more aged, even if he does age slowly).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It must also be remembered that Celebrimbor originally gave the Three Rings of Power only to his High-King, Gil-Galad, and to Galadriel (Gil-Galad then giving one each to Elrond and Cirdan, who in turn gave his to Gandalf). This, I believe, infers the status of Galadriel amongst the Elves.

While there's little doubt about her native power, this I think also was a question of 'legitimacy:' Gil-Galad and Galadriel were the only fully-Elven members of the House of Finwe left in Middle-earth.


Hammerhand: I' think you're confusing the meaning of 'early' and 'late' Balrogs. What folks are trying to say is that Balrogs *in JRRT's early writings* are more numerous and less individually powerful than they would become *in Tolkien's later writings*- not that from an internal perspective Balrogs became more powerful over time.


Canonicity: If we're going to confine ourself to works published before 1973, then the Balrog of Moria is the *only* one. If on the other hand we take the more reasonable approach of trying to deduce from existing writings what Tolkien's considered opinion was, then we see that as late as ca. 1970 Glorfindel's duel was still in effect; and as late as the work on 'Maeglin' Glorfindel and Ecthelion are paired as the great captains of the Hidden City. What we can't do is conclude that the old Tale remains canonical, notwithstanding certain elements of Tuor's journey which would endure: the heraldry of 1917 was gone by 1951, as were (almost certainly) the mechanical dragon-tanks, and any linguistic structure that would allow an Elf to be named "Rog."

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Hammerhand: I' think you're confusing the meaning of 'early' and 'late' Balrogs. What folks are trying to say is that Balrogs *in JRRT's early writings* are more numerous and less individually powerful than they would become *in Tolkien's later writings*- not that from an internal perspective Balrogs became more powerful over time.


Canonicity: If we're going to confine ourself to works published before 1973, then the Balrog of Moria is the *only* one. If on the other hand we take the more reasonable approach of trying to deduce from existing writings what Tolkien's considered opinion was, then we see that as late as ca. 1970 Glorfindel's duel was still in effect; and as late as the work on 'Maeglin' Glorfindel and Ecthelion are paired as the great captains of the Hidden City. What we can't do is conclude that the old Tale remains canonical, notwithstanding certain elements of Tuor's journey which would endure: the heraldry of 1917 was gone by 1951, as were (almost certainly) the mechanical dragon-tanks, and any linguistic structure that would allow an Elf to be named "Rog."

So if the Balrogs were less powerful, would that mean Gothmog was less powerful than Durin's Bane? Furthermore, if there were only seven Balrogs at a time in ME, how come we never hear of any besides Durin's Bane in the third age? and why didn't they help Sauron? Doesn't really make sense to me.

My previous point concerning Fingolfin was solid. If a powerful elf can wound a Valar, why wouldn't one be able to wound or kill a 'later' Balrog? Say for example that Ecthelion fought Durin's Bane, would you conclude that Durin's Bane would triumph? Swap Ecthelion with Glorfindel or Fingolfin, would you draw the same conclusion? Alot of this topic is hypothetical, being that half of the people being debated never fought a Balrog, and most of those that did, fought 'early' Balrogs.

I also think personally, that if there is an elf named "Rog", and it was published, we can only assume it was meant to be - maybe Tolkien, the lawmaker, didn't want a Nordic representation of him? I am not a linguistics expert, it just seems to me that though most of the names in ME have a 'meaning' as such, does it make it obligatory?