Dwarves vs Elves

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

In answering this somewhat frivolous question, everyone seems to be forgetting the Ruin of Doriath. This is the best example of the tragedy of elf fighting dwarf, and is told to show such a conflict in that light.

The Dwarves killed Thingol, "Elwë Singollo, King of Doriath, who alone of all the Children of Ilúvatar was joined with one of the Ainur; and he who, alone of the Forsaken Elves, had seen the light of the Trees of Valinor," (ibid, p. 233). They also defeated the Elves of Doriath, including Mablung, Thingol's chief captain and therefore not the least formidable of the Sindar.

Yes, the question is frivolous, but then so are most of the discussions on this or any Tolkien forum. It is what happens when nearly any and every topic has been repeated ad naseum over many years. *shrugs*

First, Thingol was murdered: "and they [dwarves, plural] rose up about him, and laid hands on him, and slew him as he stood." This indicates to me that Thingol was surrounded and was not able to defend himself properly; therefore, it is not germane to the original, frivolous premise.

Second, the Sindar were not really comparable to the Noldor per Tolkien, as the Elves of Aman were blessed with abilities that the Sindar and other Moriquendi did not possess. In any case, the original question revolved around single combat between named renowned individuals. The answer to the question might be decidedly different, comparatively speaking, if we were discussing combat on a rank-and-file basis among races, irrespective of great heroes.

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

So we know that Dwarves can kill Elves, that the ability of some elf-lords to kill balrogs is not conclusive proof and that taller characters can be beaten by those of lesser stature. I still think that the elf would probably win in a completely even match, but I doubt that a Dwarf would enter such a contest in the first place: it would be idiotic. In any case, it seems to demean Tolkien's work more than a little to reduce his legends to questions of who can beat whom.

True on many levels, Squatter, but not every topic can be penetrating or philosophically deep (and obviously most just amount to idle banter and speculation). I don't think anyone is demeaning Tolkien when bringing up questions of who can beat whom (or as the Lord of Swamp Castle would say, 'Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.'). People who ardently believe in something often take the object of ardor for granted. I am reminded of medieval clerics who held irreverent masses on certain holidays and served black puddings and used old shoes as incense censers and recited doggerel verses in place of scripture. It's not that they hated the church; on the contrary, they loved it, but there was a familarity that breeched what might seem as due respect for the institution. Therefore, we must be indulgent with the lower classes, and inject a little levity where applicable.

P.S. CSteefel, you are entirely correct regarding the weapons of the WiKi. I was merely offering examples that perhaps shed light on the comparative abilities of the various characters we were discussing.

P.P.S. And in regards to Glorfindel and the Balrog (and Tolkien's continual dissembling), when Tolkien finally decided that Glorfindel Balrog-slayer was indeed the ressurrected Glorfindel Inglorion (and not just the misprint of an already used name), I seem to remember Tolkien alluding to Glorfindel being brought back for the very reason he was renowned for slaying a Balrog; however, I am too lazy to look it up.