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

[Andsigil]

RRJ,

I touched on this subject before in another thread. Have a look here:
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...210#post704210

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

RRJ,

I touched on this subject before in another thread. Have a look here:
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...210#post704210

Thanks for that. You said

The most powerful dwarves, men, and elves were always the oldest. This is especially true of the elves who were either old enough to have seen the light of Valinor, and/or those of the oldest and most distinguished lineages. Galadriel was the last of the elves in the 3rd age, for example, who saw Valinor, and she remained the most powerful because of it.

I dont fully disagree and its a good argument. But I think the fact they are old, such as galadriel, is just the reason they are more powerful. Like the numonrians who lived longer ages, grew in wisdom, and became stronger. For example galadriel in the third age i would argue was more powerful than the second age or first age in part because of Nenya. She was also powerful because she was taught by Yavanna and Melian and her linage.


the Silmarils. They were Valar-level and world-changing relics.

Were they not created by the dwarves?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

But I think the fact they are old, such as galadriel, is just the reason they are more powerful. Like the numonrians who lived longer ages, grew in wisdom, and became stronger. For example galadriel in the third age i would argue was more powerful than the second age or first age in part because of Nenya. She was also powerful because she was taught by Yavanna and Melian and her linage.

Galadriel was also augmented by the fact that she was born in the Blessed Realm early in the Elves' history, when their power was higher.

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

the Silmarils. They were Valar-level and world-changing relics.

Were they not created by the dwarves?

Feanor made the Silmarils. The Dwarves had no involvement.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Feanor made the Silmarils. The Dwarves had no involvement.

Thanks for the correction, i was thinking of Nauglamir.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Thanks for that. You said

The most powerful dwarves, men, and elves were always the oldest. This is especially true of the elves who were either old enough to have seen the light of Valinor, and/or those of the oldest and most distinguished lineages. Galadriel was the last of the elves in the 3rd age, for example, who saw Valinor, and she remained the most powerful because of it.

I dont fully disagree and its a good argument. But I think the fact they are old, such as galadriel, is just the reason they are more powerful. Like the numonrians who lived longer ages, grew in wisdom, and became stronger. For example galadriel in the third age i would argue was more powerful than the second age or first age in part because of Nenya. She was also powerful because she was taught by Yavanna and Melian and her linage.

I meant that they were more powerful because, in the First Age, for example, everything was simply more powerful, bigger, and more connected to the Valar. This applies to other races, too. Among the Dwarves, for example:

• Telchar was a better smith than any subsequent Dwarven smith.
• Durin the Deathless needs no explanation.
• Azaghal fell fighting Glaurung. As mighty as Gimli was, I couldn't see him (or Dain, or Thorin, etc) wounding Glauring like Azaghal did.

While Tolkien explicitly said that his works were not Christian allegory, anyone who reads the Old Testament will see parallels in the concept of ancient = mightier.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

While Tolkien explicitly said that his works were not Christian allegory, anyone who reads the Old Testament will see parallels in the concept of ancient = mightier.

Biblical precedents, certainly; however, Tolkien drew just as heavily, if not more, on the Greek pantheon and mythos in The Silmarillion. Really, every mythology, whether it be Hebraic, Greek or Norse, had some form of ancestor worship wherein the heroes were all greater, braver, lived longer and were of demi-god status back in days of yore. The "gods" themselves were closer to man, and meddled in internecine conflicts, even warring for the side of the true faith (like the Valar), or drew evil races unto them (like Morgoth).

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

I meant that they were more powerful because, in the First Age, for example, everything was simply more powerful, bigger, and more connected to the Valar. This applies to other races, too. Among the Dwarves, for example:

• Telchar was a better smith than any subsequent Dwarven smith.
• Durin the Deathless needs no explanation.
• Azaghal fell fighting Glaurung. As mighty as Gimli was, I couldn't see him (or Dain, or Thorin, etc) wounding Glauring like Azaghal did.

While Tolkien explicitly said that his works were not Christian allegory, anyone who reads the Old Testament will see parallels in the concept of ancient = mightier.

And as i argued in my op these are more the result of the first ages being mythical, legendary writings, rather than the historical writings of the third age. Things that gain power over time such as wisdom would generally increase with time i think galadriel is a good example. However i am not ruling out the conclusion of your either, just i am not so sure the third age was that distinct in "power" from the first two ages.


I agree there are many biblical parallels in LOTR.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...f-Middle-Earth


but I am not sure I agree with the OT "mightier" depiction you suggest. In fact I see in the sillmarillion allot of the kind of hyperbole used in some old testament text i think supporting my view. for example in war literature of the time period used during the conquest.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...uest-of-Canaan

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

And as i argued in my op these are more the result of the first ages being mythical, legendary writings, rather than the historical writings of the third age. Things that gain power over time such as wisdom would generally increase with time i think galadriel is a good example. However i am not ruling out the conclusion of your either, just i am not so sure the third age was that distinct in "power" from the first two ages.


I agree there are many biblical parallels in LOTR.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...f-Middle-Earth


but I am not sure I agree with the OT "mightier" depiction you suggest. In fact I see in the sillmarillion allot of the kind of hyperbole used in some old testament text i think supporting my view. for example in war literature of the time period used during the conquest.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...uest-of-Canaan

I think you're quite off the mark there. I don't for once think that Tolkien meant the slow, inexorable fall from grace from the 1st to 2nd to 3rd Age to be hyperbolic in the least. There are any number of tangible pieces of integral plot-lines that can only lead to the inevitable conclusion that Tolkien intended a precipitous decline from the 1st to the 3rd Age.

From a maker's standpoint, the Silmarils and the Palantir of Fëanor, the galvorn of Eöl, and the weaponscraft of Telchar of Nogrod were not to be repeated in following Ages. The making of the Rings of Power required the intervention by Sauron to teach the craft surreptitiously to Celebrimbor, a scion of Fëanor. Without Sauron's direct influence and "instruction", the Rings would never be created, let alone even contemplated. It is notable that the Elven Rings' power in essence faded once the One Ring was destroyed; whereas the recovered Silmarils play an important role after Dagor Dagorath, when Yavanna shall break them at last and rekindle the light of the Two Trees. The potency of such power is palpable and everlasting.

How many characters in The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings opine of lost skill or lost grandeur or lost importance? Thorin bemoaned the Dwarves' loss of skill (save in the making of mithril chain), Aragorn and Faramir recount the greatness of the long dead Numenoreans. There is a pronounced sense of frustration and loss when we come to the Doors of Durin, or Gimli literally cries upon entering Moria, or that a 1500 year-old blade of Westernesse is necessary to unbind the hidden sinew of the WitchKing. Please also recall that Aragorn reforges Narsil, the heirloom of his House, which was first forged by Telchar in the 1st Age, and that his brooch, the Elessar, was crafted by an elven-smith in Gondolin named Enerdhil, whose skill in jewel-crafting was second only to Feanor. Not to mention Bilbo's Sting and Gandalf's Glamdring were also forged in Gondolin. Again, tangible.

And as far as the nature of evil itself, in the 1st Age it takes a host of Valinor -- the Valar, Maiar and Vanyar -- to defeat Morgoth, whereas Sauron is defeated in war by the Numenoreans, later in direct combat against Gil-Galad and Elendil, and, finally and most importantly, the least of all, a hobbit, destroyed the One Ring, and with its dissolution Sauron was expelled from Middle-earth once and for all. The least achieved what the greatest could not, a primary plot point of LotR. So too, the Valar do not directly get involved with 3rd Age affairs, sending instead the Istari, who themselves are cloaked in wizened figures of old men and not allowed to reveal their true natures to combat Sauron.

The downfall of Numenor, which is enumerated in the declining ages of its kings after Elros is a recorded phenomena in the works of Tolkien; again, tangible as opposed to hyperbole. Their Dunedain descendants continue the slow descent from Valaric favor to becoming mere mortals, and eventually only Aragorn is considered a throwback to Numenor, the first King in an Age to choose his time of death at the height of his glory. Tolkien is explicit when he has Aragorn say:

"I am the last of the Numenoreans and the latest King of the Elder Days; and to me has been given not only a span thrice that of Men of Middle-earth, but also the grace to go at my will, and give back the gift."

It is not hyperbole that has Aragorn referring back to the venerable Kings of Numenor or to the Elder Days. He is, by the grace of the Valar, the final King bestowed with the great gift that the Kings of Numenor frittered away and spurned thousands of years before he was born.

P.S. Upon further consideration, your biblical hyperbole analogy fails utterly because there were beings from the 1st Age still existing in the 3rd Age who could attest to the actual events of the Elder Days: among them Elrond, Galadriel, Treebeard, Gandalf, Círdan the Shipwright and Glorfindel (who himself battled a balrog and whose power was so great he drove the WitchKing away in fear). At the Ford of Bruinen, Glorfindel is revealed as a mighty Elf-lord terrible in his wrath; Frodo saw him as a shining figure. Gandalf explains this later to Frodo (and emphasizes my point!):

"In Rivendell there live still some of his chief foes: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas. They do not fear the Ringwraiths, for those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen and the Unseen they have great power."

Even Legolas, a 3rd Age-born Elf by all accounts, knows a balrog when he sees it, although he could not possibly have seen one previously; however, the continuous retelling of Elvish history, perhaps even by those who actually beheld one of these malevolent Maia, gave him the basis to quickly identify it:

"It was a Balrog of Morgoth," said Legolas, "of all elf-banes the most deadly, save the One who sits in the Dark Tower.”

[Galin]

So far, and concerning the Balrog case anyway, I do think Tolkien reduced their numbers -- and rather drastically from "hosts" of Balrogs (or Balrogs a thousand) to as few as three, or at most seven, ever existing -- due to power considerations.

This later 1950s change was only described in a marginal note, and (if I recall correctly) surfaced in a revision to one description in The Annals of Aman. Thus "many Balrog" type references remained in other texts, but for the 1977 constructed Silmarillion, Christopher Tolkien edited these, making them vague regarding numbers...

... though CJRT left the wording (concerning Balrogs) that his father had used regarding the War of Wrath, as -- I'm guessing -- although written during a period when Tolkien still imagined many Balrogs existing in the First Age, it read somewhat vague already. I remember one reader arguing that Tolkien was maybe going to have Glorfindel fight a different kind of demon, a great orc-formed Maia for example, instead of a Balrog. The argument hailed from some wording/revised wording in a late text...

... for myself, I wasn't convinced Tolkien was going to alter such a long held idea, but I must admit (at least), that Tolkien's revision of Balrog to "demon", at one point in the text concerned, seems a bit odd or unnecessary. A Balrog is a mighty demon!

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Galin

So far, and concerning the Balrog case anyway, I do think Tolkien reduced their numbers -- and rather drastically from "hosts" of Balrogs (or Balrogs a thousand) to as few as three, or at most seven, ever existing -- due to power considerations.

This later 1950s change was only described in a marginal note, and (if I recall correctly) surfaced in a revision to one description in The Annals of Aman. Thus "many Balrog" type references remained in other texts, but for the 1977 constructed Silmarillion, Christopher Tolkien edited these, making them vague regarding numbers...

... though CJRT left the wording (concerning Balrogs) that his father had used regarding the War of Wrath, as -- I'm guessing -- although written during a period when Tolkien still imagined many Balrogs existing in the First Age, it read somewhat vague already. I remember one reader arguing that Tolkien was maybe going to have Glorfindel fight a different kind of demon, a great orc-formed Maia for example, instead of a Balrog. The argument hailed from some wording/revised wording in a late text...

... for myself, I wasn't convinced Tolkien was going to alter such a long held idea, but I must admit (at least), that Tolkien's revision of Balrog to "demon", at one point in the text concerned, seems a bit odd or unnecessary. A Balrog is a mighty demon!

Tolkien took allot of notes and changed drastically during his creation, unless it is published be careful to take it as gospel. This brings up the issue of of Christopher is cannon, my op does make that assumption. However regarding his supposed changing ideas on balrogs, i do not think it is so I will paste from my op.

Durins Bane

The Balrog of Moria known as Durins Bane was slain by Gandalf the gray [first age Olorin] the “wisest” of the Maiar. This account Is used as the best example of Tolkiens change in opinion on Balrogs over time from the first age balrogs to the mighty balrogs of the third age, Durins bane. I think this one example is given to much weight to force a contradiction between Tolkiens views on balrogs.

After publishing Fellowship of the ring a fan asked a question of Tolkien in the letters 144 of Tolkien, Tolkien did not view the third age balrog as different than his unpublished sillmarillion view of balrogs. He said “the balrog is a survivor from the silmarillion and the legends of the first age.” He always sought to reconcile seeming differences and we should as well. The balrog is the best known balrog and arguable the second most powerful [behind Gothmog] in the history of middle earth. His actions against the dwarves show this. He was one of the few balrogs to survive the war of wrath and escaped the valar and the imprisonment of morgoth. The balrogs of the first age were killed by some of the most powerful elves to ever walk middle earth and could easily have been weaker balrogs than Durins Bane.

Also I think the movies exaggerated the balrog in appearance and power. He appears in the movie upwards of 20 feet yet the fellowship of the ring indicates he was not much larger than a man, and the sillmarillion another balrog was described as twice the size of a man, or around 12 feet.

“What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater…
-Book Two, Chapter V, The Bridge of Khazad-Dûm

"it pierced the Balrog's belly nigh his own face (for that demon was double his stature) ..."
-Lost Tales, Part II, p. 194

The balrog in the movies also had horns nowhere mentioned in the books. And he also had wings, a highly debatable subject. The real balrog an ancient demon, may have looked something like this.

[​IMG]

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Great post thanks for taking the time. I hope I clarified my position and I think it will find us much more in agreement.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I think you're quite off the mark there. I don't for once think that Tolkien meant the slow, inexorable fall from grace from the 1st to 2nd to 3rd Age to be hyperbolic in the least. There are any number of tangible pieces of integral plot-lines that can only lead to the inevitable conclusion that Tolkien intended a precipitous decline from the 1st to the 3rd Age.

I agree and disagree, i think it depends on what is meant by decline. In many ways such as the elves, their was a drastic decline and i agree as my op said. But there was also the emergence of mankind uniting under Aragon and growth.

Let me clarify some. Lets take balrogs. In the first age collectively, they were far more powerful as their numbers were many. The third age they were few and thus far less powerful. However my op is aimed more at individuals such as an third age balrog vs a first age balrog. I accept blame i was not clear. And more to the point, the strength of the legendary creatures and heroes was exaggerated in the mythical/legendary writings of the first two ages.

After thinking about it I guess i am also arguing against more power overall in the first two ages, but i agree there was a decline in this area perhaps not as much as often assumed.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

From a maker's standpoint, the Silmarils and the Palantir of Fëanor, the galvorn of Eöl, and the weaponscraft of Telchar of Nogrod were not to be repeated in following Ages. The making of the Rings of Power required the intervention by Sauron to teach the craft surreptitiously to Celebrimbor, a scion of Fëanor. Without Sauron's direct influence and "instruction", the Rings would never be created, let alone even contemplated. It is notable that the Elven Rings' power in essence faded once the One Ring was destroyed; whereas the recovered Silmarils play an important role after Dagor Dagorath, when Yavanna shall break them at last and rekindle the light of the Two Trees. The potency of such power is palpable and everlasting.

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.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

How many characters in The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings opine of lost skill or lost grandeur or lost importance? Thorin bemoaned the Dwarves' loss of skill (save in the making of mithril chain), Aragorn and Faramir recount the greatness of the long dead Numenoreans. There is a pronounced sense of frustration and loss when we come to the Doors of Durin, or Gimli literally cries upon entering Moria, or that a 1500 year-old blade of Westernesse is necessary to unbind the hidden sinew of the WitchKing. Please also recall that Aragorn reforges Narsil, the heirloom of his House, which was first forged by Telchar in the 1st Age, and that his brooch, the Elessar, was crafted by an elven-smith in Gondolin named Enerdhil, whose skill in jewel-crafting was second only to Feanor. Not to mention Bilbo's Sting and Gandalf's Glamdring were also forged in Gondolin. Again, tangible.

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.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

And as far as the nature of evil itself, in the 1st Age it takes a host of Valinor -- the Valar, Maiar and Vanyar -- to defeat Morgoth, whereas Sauron is defeated in war by the Numenoreans, later in direct combat against Gil-Galad and Elendil, and, finally and most importantly, the least of all, a hobbit, destroyed the One Ring, and with its dissolution Sauron was expelled from Middle-earth once and for all. The least achieved what the greatest could not, a primary plot point of LotR. So too, the Valar do not directly get involved with 3rd Age affairs, sending instead the Istari, who themselves are cloaked in wizened figures of old men and not allowed to reveal their true natures to combat Sauron.

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.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The downfall of Numenor, which is enumerated in the declining ages of its kings after Elros is a recorded phenomena in the works of Tolkien; again, tangible as opposed to hyperbole. Their Dunedain descendants continue the slow descent from Valaric favor to becoming mere mortals, and eventually only Aragorn is considered a throwback to Numenor, the first King in an Age to choose his time of death at the height of his glory. Tolkien is explicit when he has Aragorn say:

"I am the last of the Numenoreans and the latest King of the Elder Days; and to me has been given not only a span thrice that of Men of Middle-earth, but also the grace to go at my will, and give back the gift."

It is not hyperbole that has Aragorn referring back to the venerable Kings of Numenor or to the Elder Days. He is, by the grace of the Valar, the final King bestowed with the great gift that the Kings of Numenor frittered away and spurned thousands of years before he was born.

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.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

P.S. Upon further consideration, your biblical hyperbole analogy fails utterly because there were beings from the 1st Age still existing in the 3rd Age who could attest to the actual events of the Elder Days: among them Elrond, Galadriel, Treebeard, Gandalf, Círdan the Shipwright and Glorfindel (who himself battled a balrog and whose power was so great he drove the WitchKing away in fear). At the Ford of Bruinen, Glorfindel is revealed as a mighty Elf-lord terrible in his wrath; Frodo saw him as a shining figure. Gandalf explains this later to Frodo (and emphasizes my point!):

"In Rivendell there live still some of his chief foes: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas. They do not fear the Ringwraiths, for those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen and the Unseen they have great power."

Even Legolas, a 3rd Age-born Elf by all accounts, knows a balrog when he sees it, although he could not possibly have seen one previously; however, the continuous retelling of Elvish history, perhaps even by those who actually beheld one of these malevolent Maia, gave him the basis to quickly identify it:

"It was a Balrog of Morgoth," said Legolas, "of all elf-banes the most deadly, save the One who sits in the Dark Tower.”

Once more I think you might not object much to my op with a different understanding of what i meant by hyperbole. It only applied to small sections that were based on historical events. For example my biblical argument. The conquest was a historical narrative, yet in the war literature of its day it used hyperbole at times describing the events "all killed" "men woman children" etc these were hyperbole statements used in the standard language of the day describing historical events.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

(...) After publishing Fellowship of the ring a fan asked a question of Tolkien in the letters 144 of Tolkien,...

Pedantic niggle: Naomi Mitchison had read page-proofs of the first two volumes, as Fellowship had not been published quite yet when Tolkien answered her here.

... Tolkien did not view the third age balrog as different than his unpublished sillmarillion view of balrogs. He said “the balrog is a survivor from the silmarillion and the legends of the first age.”

Okay, but if there were only seven Balrogs that ever existed, Durin's Bane would still be a survivor from the legends of the First Age. Of course, Tolkien does not tell Naomi that when he wrote the Balrog-Gandalf encounter, the Balrog was not yet one of the "primeval spirits of destroying fire" (letter 144, emphasis on primeval here -- that is, the Balrog was not yet a Maia).

He always sought to reconcile seeming differences and we should as well.

I agree in general, but "always" and Tolkien can be a difficult pairing.

And what we sometimes have in The Letters of JRRT, for examples, are readers pointing out difficulties with author-published ideas or statements. Yes, Tolkien usually looks for what I call internal explanations -- the idea being, not error-by-author, but seeming discrepancy because the translator has more material to draw from than the reader knows about. I often engage in this myself, in threads or in my head at times...

... and Tolkien even sometimes appears to treat "private draft material" (from his point of view) as if already published, and tries to find an internal answer. But that said: Quenta Silmarillion was still open to drastic revision, and if, in 1958, Tolkien thinks that Balrogs being Maiar might be problematic if they existed in the thousands -- despite the noted strengths of the First Age (or problematic for whatever reason) -- he is very free to make this revision.

Nothing about Balrog numbers had been published, and obviously JRRT is not bound to private writing, or even a given letter in my opinion. JRRT ultimately dropped his long held idea about how Elves were reincarnated -- a change he was free to make given what had been published about this... interestingly perhaps, even here Tolkien "holds on" to the old reincarnation idea by noting not simply that it is false, but that it might be noted in the legendarium as a false Mannish idea. Thus it still will arguably find its way into print (internal in one sense), despite it being no longer true internally.

And I could use the same argument against me with respect to the Glorfindel case I referred to above, and I (the other me) would have to at least concede that the idea of Glorfindel defeating a Balrog does not appear in anything Tolkien himself published...

... if it had, my argument (the other me again) would have been arguably easier!

[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.