The Balrog vs The Witch King

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Sauron could 'pour' his power into things, he did so with the One Ring. However, Sauron was not like Morgoth who just 'squandered' his power into everything, to control/corrupt everything, and in doing so weakening himself.

Sorry to respond so late to this, Boromir. I disagree. I think that Sauron's ability to craft something that is infused with a large portion of his power might not demonstrate that he has the ability to dole out his power in portions to whomever he pleases. Remember that The One Ring's capacity as a reservoir for Sauron's power came at a price: if the Ring was destroyed, Sauron was also ruined. This suggests a much tighter--and indeed a reliant--relationship between Sauron and his Ring than he would have allowed between himself and a more or less expendable servant, unless that servant was invincible to the same degree that the Ring was. Also, Sauron created The One Ring at a time when he was still evidently discarnate, which makes the situation wholly different. A more plausible scenario, I believe, would be an allocation of more ring-power (was this an active well which Sauron could draw upon, reallocate, and augment?) to the Witch-King's ring, provided Sauron was willing to let the Witch-King wear it.

(You are correct about Sauron being more conservative than Morgoth, who squandered his power. If Sauron was capable of doing this and it involves the same "process" as the Ring's infusion, we must assume that when the Witch-King was slain, Sauron himself was damaged to a certain degree. There's nothing that I am aware of that precludes this possibility, but it is certainly an example of that Morgothian power squandering. Morgoth is the only one I am aware of who is said to put his own power into another being.)

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

Was Ecthelion on par with Gothmog, the servant of Morgoth and son of Morgoth? No.

He may have been, yes. He was not the same type of being, but the gap in potency between the lesser Maiar (the Balrogs are described as such) and the greater Eldar was very narrow--the tiers may even overlap.

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

Tolkien has surprised us enough with apparently "weaker" foes rising to the challenge so to speak. So to say that the Witch King is inadequate because he must be 'atleast in equal power' and he 'must therefore be deemed a weaker opponant', is in my view a little narrow minded (not personally i'm sure).

I see this claim a lot, but I'm unaware of the references. Maybe you could share which scenarios you're talking about.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

This suggests a much tighter--and indeed reliant--relationship between Sauron and his Ring than he would have allowed between himself and a more or less expendable servant, unless that servant was invincible to the same degree that the Ring was.

We have reasons to believe they are, to a good degree:

Originally Posted by The ring goes south

- You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that, said Gandalf. The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him.

Also, Sauron created The One Ring at a time when he was still evidently discarnate, which makes the situation wholly different.

Sauron discarnate in 1600 S.A.? Why?

A more plausible scenario, I believe, would be an allocation of more ring-power (was this an active well which Sauron could draw upon, reallocate, and augment?) to the Witch-King's ring, provided Sauron was willing to let the Witch-King wear it.

An interesting thought. Then again, Gandalf mentions that Sauron keeps the nine rings, so this wouldn't be a problem (as you mentioned in a later post, I noticed).

the lesser Maiar (the Balrogs are described as such)

Where are they described as such?

Glorfindel in particular, though not the greatest of the Eldar, is said to be on par with the Maiar.

True, but his case is highly particular, since he is a reincarnated elf who was allowed to return to M.E.

Certainly this holds true also for Cirdan, Luthien, Galadriel, Ecthelion, Gil-galad, Elrond, Feanor, Fingolfin, Thingol, and others.

Why?

it stands to reason that the power received from the nine rings is primarily that irrational fear that all the Ulairi share

Hm, I hold my doubts towards this idea. The nine rigns were forged by the elves. Other than subservience to Sauron, I know of no other trait that would allow the ring to infuse the bearer with such power. Therefore, this power must come from Sauron also.

Why didn't the other Nazgul receive it as well? All the Nazgul received this weapon of supernatural fear, so if the Witch-King acquired his other powers from Sauron, why didn't the others? It makes more sense, lacking any textual indication that Sauron singled out the Witch-King for an extra helping of bad, that the ways in which the Witch-King is superior to the other eight are his own personal skillset, and that the ways in which he is like the other eight (wraith, "weaponized" fear, aversion to water) are what was received from Sauron and the nine rings.

This isn't the only explanation possible. I believe that the need to have a hierarchy would require simple leadership skills on his behalf. Further from that, Sauron can give him whatever he thought was necessary for his role.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

We have reasons to believe they are, to a good degree:

The Nazgul stand or fall with Sauron, naturally. But Sauron does not stand or fall with them, so this relationship is not equivalent to Sauron's relationship with the Ring. Come on, you shouldn't have needed me to explain that to you.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Sauron discarnate in 1600 S.A.? Why?

He was still capable of modifying his appearance until the drowning of Numenor.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Where are they described as such?

Find it yourself.

Originally Posted by Raynor

True, but his case is highly particular, since he is a reincarnated elf who was allowed to return to M.E.

And yet he was still not called one of the greatest Eldar. Are you suggesting that after his reincarnation and return he had surpassed all others? (That's a rhetorical question.)

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why?

Because they're all greater than Glorfindel.

Why am I answering these questions? Crack a book.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

The Nazgul stand or fall with Sauron, naturally. But Sauron does not stand or fall with them, so this relationship is not equivalent to Sauron's relationship with the Ring. Come on, you shouldn't have needed me to explain that to you.

Your initial argument was:

This suggests a much tighter--and indeed reliant--relationship between Sauron and his Ring than he would have allowed between himself and a more or less expendable servant, unless that servant was invincible to the same degree that the Ring was.

If the WK would fall only if Sauron would, it pretty much means that the WK would fall only if the Ring is destroyed (other alternatives of destroying Sauron are not explored much in the book). Therefore, as long as the Ring endures, so does the WK.

He was still capable of modifying his appearance until the drowning of Numenor.

Being capable of modifying appearance is completely different from being discarnate at the time of making the ring.

Find it yourself.

Originally Posted by Of the enemies, Valaquenta, Silmarillion

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.

Nothing about the maiar that came into Melkor's service mentions them being any lower than the rest. Balrogs are not mentioned as lesser spirit, quite the contrary can be surmised from their mentioning in this passage. All throughout the work, the balrogs are given prime status among his servants, which justifies at least their equal status with any other fallen maia.

And yet he was still not called one of the greatest Eldar. Are you suggesting that after his reincarnation and return he had surpassed all others?

Greatest of the Eldar is a rather unqualified, general label - as you yourself have mentioned.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Tolkien uses the same unqualified "greatest" to describe Galadriel as he does to describe Sauron (greatest of Melkor's servants).

Nowhere is it equated with status close or equal to that of lesser maiar.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Therefore, as long as the Ring endures, so does the WK.

Which is patently untrue.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Being capable of modifying appearance is completely different from being discarnate at the time of making the ring.

No it isn't. Once incarnate, ealar can no longer change their shape at will. Prior to incarnation, they can take on any physical "raiment" they wish.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Nothing about the maiar that came into Melkor's service mentions them being any lower than the rest. Balrogs are not mentioned as lesser spirit, quite the contrary can be surmised from their mentioning in this passage. All throughout the work, the balrogs are given prime status among his servants, which justifies at least their equal status with any other fallen maia.

I guess you didn't find it then, did you?

Originally Posted by Raynor

Greatest of the Eldar is a rather unqualified, general label - as you yourself have mentioned.

Yeah, it refers to general power level, which is exactly what I have referenced. Glorfindel is not the most powerful elf.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Nowhere is it equated with status close or equal to that of lesser maiar.

No, but I never said Galadriel was described this way. However, Glorfindel was, and Galadriel is greater than Glorfindel. Figure it out.

Seriously, think before you post. Are you just trying to distract me while someone steals my belongings? Or what?

[alatar]

My two cents: Before pitting these 'creatures' against each other in a fight, one might want to look at the creatures involved. To me, the Balrog may lose the fight due to its unwillingness to engage in battle. Morgoth's Balrogs are like bodyguards, gate wardens and subcaptains of war. When did any of them set up shop on its own? Even the Roggie in Moria just sits around reading '101 Ways of Cooking Dwarves' until Gandalf shows up. Attack Lothlorien? Naa. Attack during the Battle of Azanulbizar? Naa, just keep them pesky Dwarves from coming in the door.

Without Morgoth's and/or Sauron's prompting, the Balrog would be sitting in the corner after the bell rang.

The Witch-King is another matter, having an extended resume of accomplishments pre and post wraithdom.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Which is patently untrue.

Some sort of evidence would definitely help the validity of this opinion.

Once incarnate, ealar can no longer change their shape at will. Prior to incarnation, they can take on any physical "raiment" they wish.

So that prior physical raiment is equivalent to being discarnate? It's a stretch that I have problems agreeing with.

Yeah, it refers to general power level, which is exactly what I have referenced.

Nice. First it is unqualified (with which I agree), now, it equals general power level. Well.... maybe. Greatest of the eldar remains an unqualified label and using it one way or the other, just because it suits in one particular debate, is an argument "from ignorance", a fallacy. We don't know what exactly Tolkien meant by it, so we can't use it as we see fit.

Originally Posted by alatar

To me, the Balrog may lose the fight due to its unwillingness to engage in battle.

Hm... though the balrog may not seek to start a battle if it implies leaving his "safe zone", I doubt he would be unwilling to continue one, or start one on his own turf.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Some sort of evidence would definitely help the validity of this opinion.

Am I misreading the point? The Witch-King was vanquished yet Frodo still held the Ring.

Hm... though the balrog may not seek to start a battle if it implies leaving his "safe zone", I doubt he would be unwilling to continue one, or start one on his own turf.

So you agree that you really gots to wind the Roggies up to get them to fight.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

So that prior physical raiment is equivalent to being discarnate? It's a stretch that I have problems agreeing with.

It's not a stretch at all. Ealar who are capable of changing shape are obviously not bound to one physical shape, and are therefore still fundamentally discarnate. They could drop the shape altogether and function just fine as spirits, as they were originally created. Perhaps there are degrees of incarnation, where shapechanging is still possible but not total reversion to incorporeal existence, but this is speculation. In Sauron's case, he can still change his appearance until his "death" in Numenor, after which he is bound to one specific shape. This is incarnation.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Nice. First it is unqualified (with which I agree), now, it equals general power level. Well.... maybe. Greatest of the eldar remains an unqualified label and using it one way or the other, just because it suits in one particular debate, is an argument "from ignorance", a fallacy. We don't know what exactly Tolkien meant by it, so we can't use it as we see fit.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I am using the expression exactly as I have always used it, and exactly as I understand it to be used by Tolkien. You're the one who called it "general" in your previous post. Are you saying it does not refer to power level? Because the term definitely does sometimes, and if it remains unqualified, we have to assume Tolkien means the same thing when using it in reference to Galadriel as he meant when he used it to describe Sauron's status among Morgoth's servants. In both cases it is unqualified, so in both cases its meaning must be considered all-inclusive.

Originally Posted by Raynor

If Gandalf's words are true, then his state was likely temporary and the WK would have been redressed eventually.

It's debatable. The point, however, is that Sauron is unaffected by the Witch-King's death (though perhaps he felt it), and therefore the relationship between the two is obviously not the same as Sauron's connection to his Ring.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by obloquy

He may have been, yes. He was not the same type of being, but the gap in potency between the lesser Maiar (the Balrogs are described as such) and the greater Eldar was very narrow--the tiers may even overlap.



I see this claim a lot, but I'm unaware of the references. Maybe you could share which scenarios you're talking about.

The point i was making is similar to yours obloquy. Just because the character is of different status or what have you, doesn't make that character confined to achieve only what is deemed possible from an outward perspective. Ecthelion was not as powerful as Gothmog, i see no indication to support the possibility that he was - being that Gothmog was a particularly powerful and potent force within Melkor's ranks, and his alledged son for that matter. Ecthelion was a lord of Gondolin and of the Noldor, not royalty or of the elite echelon, yet he was revered.

We know the lesser Maija and the High Elves have a power not totally unlike the other, we have seen evidence that High Elves can endure physical conflict with the Maija - and it was physical conflict. The emphasis of 'power' in various writings of the encounters between Elf and Maija or Valar is minimal, it takes rather a more hardy standpoint on the physical prowess of those concerned.

A common example of the "seemingly" weaker foe is Glorfindel. You may argue that his status as one of the Elite Eldar gives reason enough for him to triumph over a balrog, a demigod. Who can say they saw it coming that Glorfindel on the impression they had already gained of him would win? I know i thought he was a terrific character, but defeating a Balrog in a 1 Vs1, i may have doubted.