Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[Fingolfin II]

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

Didn't Morgoth give them this gift for their service to him?

But isn't it said in HoME (not sure which) that Morgoth would kill the Eagles and use their wings in an attempt to fly, but that for all his power he could never master flight? And as well as this, I don't think it would be in Morgoth's power to bestow gifts that alter the physical being of an Ainu.

Also, let me throw another argument - that's bound to have been already mentioned in one of the other Balrog threads - if Gothmog could fly, what use would his troll-guard be to him? I'm assuming that trolls can't fly and that if Balrogs had wings and could fly that they would do that, which would give them a much greater speed and strategic advantage over their opponents than if they fought on the ground.

[Mister Underhill]

Hey Sono! Nice to see you back posting. Both you and mark12_30 demonstrate your keen intelligence (not to mention good taste) once again.

My own exhaustive (some might say exhausting) research on this topic has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that Tolkien conceived of Balrogs as winged creatures, at least at the time of the writing of LotR. There is compelling evidence of First Age wingers, too, but I won't rehash arguments I've made of old in the linked threads here.

I will, however, note that the Silm "troll-guard" reference is suspect to say the least. See this section of my Olog-hai article for a comprehensive investigation -- or just let me sum it up for you: this section of the published Silm was constructed from various source texts by Christopher. Not one of Tolkien's source texts as published or described in HoME refers to trolls, so how they got into Christopher's Frankenstein version is anybody's guess. This instance is also the sole mention of trolls in the entire published Silm as far as I know.

So troll-guard references in relation to the Balrog debate are simply not compelling.

[Esgallhugwen]

Ok here's my pathetic attempt at giving my humble opinion after humming and hawing over my fellow BDer's posts.

In my opinion they did have wings.

Now to incorporate some proof to my flimsy theory, I agree that evolution would be out, though at first my proof and opinion was going to be that, [I]well Ostriches and Emus are huge birds but their weight and over all proportions prevent them from flying to any extentso yes the Balrogs could have had wings, but aside from evolution the weight theory can still be put into effect for obvious reasons, they were freakin' huge!

Now for them being able to have changed forms, Morgoth's Maia, very much like himself, would have lost their ability or capability to perform certain tasks, after all due to Morgoth's downfall he was only able to pervert and contort and not make things of his own. Perhaps it could be the same for his followers, maybe after a period of time they were unable to change to anything else and unable to use their wings in flight due to them no longer being of the Light, or perhaps the wings could potentially be in a stunted form from their inability to have changed further due to their degradation, thus not allowing them flight.

So I believe the Balrogs had wings but were unable to fly.
I think thats all I have to say for now untill I think of something better.

[HerenIstarion]

Ah, for the fifth year we disagree on this subject

On balrog origins, see here (One Hand tied behind their backs by Mithadan, post #32)

I consciously avoided wings issue in the article linked to.

But I still hold they did not have wings

Arguments (not touching on traditional 'like wings' quote from LoTR, for it may be used as pro and contra argument likewise.

Balrogs may have had wings originally (that is, as Tolkien envisioned them, as 'fallen angels'. Allegedly, angels having wings and balorgs too. Excuse me drawing in this inappropriate imagery, but have you played Heroes of Might and Magic IV? I suppose you must have, Mr.U? Remember 'angels' and 'demons' of that game? Former have feather wings and the latter leather wings - but that is part of the whole Western mythic imagery - as bats (leather wings) are associated with vampires (Evil) and dove (feather wings) with Holy Spirit, basilisk (leather wings) is scared away by cockerel (feather wings) etc.

But winged angels (besides two first orders, cherubs and seraphs, who have four and six ccorrespondingly), appearence is not confirmed by any sacred text. It's just a popular belief, kind of an 'urban legend' for first Christians (see link to mark 12_30's post below). So I hold that as Tolkien 'conscioulsy' revised his work, he changed his mind (as it may be misleading to imagine things which are spiritual, and may actually have no physical 'look' at all)

What am I driving at? As was discussed in many good threads around the Downs (Ëalar and Incarnation by obloquy for one, it is in Haudh-en-Ndengin, Do Ainur have wings by Estelyn for two, mark (pun intended) mark 12_30's post there). Ainur, in general, do not need physical bodies for travel, unless they are tied to their bodies (Deliberately for Istari, habitually for balrogs - practicing incarnate activities making the bondage unbreakable - see excerpts from Osanwe-Kenta on the subject here - The Ainur and their physical forms by Neithan)

But once they 'grow' incarnate, their physical forms are:

1. What they chose in the beginning and grew accustomed to
2. Reflection of their inward status - hence Sauron being only 'terrible' after some point

And another very grave but - BUT in both cases, biological functionality plays the major part - i.e. spirits who fly take form of eagles - i.e. physical apparatus designed for flight. Humanoid form, however, is an apparatus specifically designed for upright walking. Wings on it look as out of place as they would on a seal or a snail. Biological inconsistency, so to say. (Or John Travolta with a bottle of whiskey by the fridge)

And there is also age old argument of mine about two duels with balrogs. (Gandalf and Glorfindel). In both cases balrogs do fall down the abyss. Why should they fall, if the are winged and able of flight? In Gandalf's case it may be argued that the abyss below the bridge is too narrow for such a huge flier to spread its wings, but in Glorfindel's case the abyss is quite wide - enormous Thorondor flies down and up it to recover Glorfindel's body after the battle is over.

[narfforc]

Many years ago, whist I was still a young pup, I asked this question to a grey beard during Oxonmoot (Tolkien Society). His answer was What does the good book say. Here is what it says exactly, His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out LIKE two vast wings. It does not say, its two vast wings reached out. A few sentences later are the words that have made this one of the most asked questions over the years, it drew itself up to a great height, AND ITS WINGS were spread from wall to wall. What Tolkien is talking about here are the Balrogs SHADOW wings. So the answer to this question is yes and no, the wings were there for show, like a politicians smile.

NOMOREIHERE

[davem]

I suppose its possible that the 'wings' were a deliberate illusion created by the Balrog to intimidate the Fellowship: 'His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.' Which implies that the Balrog, being a creature of 'shadow & flame' had control over its 'appearance'.

The 'wings' would not be real, but would seem so. It could not use them to fly only to intimidate. I get the sense of them being intended to give a sense of there being no escape - they 'were spread from wall to wall' - increasing the impression of size & power. In that sense they weren't 'wings' at all - they weren't a means to fly - perhaps Tolkien is using the word 'wings' in the sense of a house having 'wings'. The Balrog was making itself 'bigger' - like a cat raising its hackles...

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

The Balrog was making itself 'bigger' - like a cat raising its hackles...

That, Sir, is worthy of the title Quote of the Day!

Which I have a pleasure of opening up a thread for:

Quote of the Day

[Kransha]

Ah, a question I have carefully avoided answering, despite the debates, ceaseless as they are, that sway my opinions.

Now, though, in the culminating resolution (in poll form, no less), raised by the scholarly Professor Hedgethistle, I must cast my die...or something.

I try to use logic when thinking over the problem, rather than diggin through references. Usually, I like debates with supportive facts, but the Balrog-wings debate is no simple debate, so I only use straight book-reference, no Letters or Silmarillion extras. Those are my grounds. Here are, in my mind, the different supported cases that could be argued, regardless of illogic:

Case #1 - Balrogs have no wings, and the description of Balrogs is completely metaphoric.
Case #2 - Balrogs have "shadow projections," wing-like structures that are not really wings, but kinda are.
Case #3 - Balrogs have useless wings, like some flightless though winged animals.
Case #4 - Balrogs have vestigial wings for intimidation purposes
Case #5 - Balrogs have capes, ala Batman (copyright DC Comics, 19something5)

Well, now I must go through the process of approval or dissaproval.

Case #1 seems senseless when taken literally. Obviously the Balrogs had SOMETHING that the Fellowship saw, and weren't just big flaming giants. So, this case is illegimately disproved. I think that, despite Tolkien's penchant for metaphor, despite cordial dislike of allegory, he was not trying to indicate that Balrogs had no protrusions of any kind. To me, that puts the kibosh on Case #1.

Case #2 is a pretty legit deal. Shadowy, semi-magical projections are, in essence, a good case to plead for. They would not allow the Balrogs to fly in principle, but still match the description fit, and are, via the invention of the simile; "like wings." In order, though, to research the use of the term "wings" ala Balrogs one must discover what wings are. Even though this principle analysis of wings may have been conducted before, I'll do it again for the benefit of others.

According to Webster's Seventh New Collegate Dictionary, published in 1961 (one of the nearest publications to the time of the books' publication, I believe), a wing is:

1. a; one of the moveable feathered or membranous paired appendages by means of which a bird, bat, or insect is able to fly; b; any of the various organic structures (esp. of a flying fish or flying lemur) providing means of limited flight; 2. an appendage or part likened to a wing in shape, appearance, or position, as a: a device used for swimming attached to the shoulders; b: a turned-back or extended edge on an article of clothin; c: a sidepiece at the top of an armchair; d: a foliacious, membranous, or woody expansion of a plant; e: a vane of a windmill or arrow; f: a sail; g: one of the airfoils that develope. . .et cetera

Most of that is just misleading. Just wipe from your minds definitions 2:a-2:g, though the actual second definition is intriguing. Perhaps the term wing does apply to Balrog appendages using Definition 2 or 1:b (means of limited flight i.e. flying fish - lemur). The definitions provide evidence for Case #3 and #4 in a sense, but you have to analyze and re-analyze to discover if ol' dead Webster was actually in agreement with one or the other. Vestigial or useless wings are semi-common (vestigial wings are not, but it is not an inane or foreign concept).

In fact, Case #4 goes hand in hand with Case #2. If Balrogs have vestigial wings, they function on the same principle as shadowy extra appendages, intimidating/scaring/just being there sorts of things that serve little more purpose. But, were Balrogs designed to be scary or effective? Melkor seemed to be pretty with the idea of effectiveness in his monsters, but he did sacrifice intelligence when making orcs, possibly, as well as the ability to withstand sunlight, which means that maybe he was more concerned with making scary creatures that couldn't fly. But, it is awfully silly to give something wings that don't work, or to have wings that don't work. Balrogs may not have been created by Morgoth literally, or they may have been, but it seems that, in a world of villainous, fiendish efficiency, the Pits of Utumno and realm of the Dark Enemy, things with wings would fly. So, perhaps they really didn't have anything that allowed them to fly. So, Case #4 is assimilated into Case #2. Case #3 went bye-bye a while back. That leaves:

Case #1 - Doubtful
Case #2 - Strange, but plausible
Case #5 - Just plain weird...but...

If I may entertain a totally serious idea – maybe Balrogs wear capes?

Hey, it’s possible. This is, of course, far more of a humorous prospect, but it does make sense, to a degree; giant capes, possibly bionic or grafted onto their shoulders. Some artists have depicted Balrogs as wearing clothes of a sort, armor and the like. Trolls and orcs wore clothes, or so we are led to believe, on occasion. Maybe Balrogs did too? Maybe Morgoth had them fitted with trended, wing-like capes, clipped to their elbows and wrists so they could flap about and look as if they had wings. Maybe they just liked the feel of capes, and kept them around, which provided a shadowy illusion, as well as intimidation, as well as the ideals of wings, as well as the concept of fire-resistant material. Maybe….

Or maybe I’m off my rocker.

But, seriously, there is my contribution. Balrog capes.

As far as the Balrog in Moria, I like to think that it had wings but, because it had spent so much time underground in a relatively confined space, its wings no longer allowed it to fly. Perhaps Morgoth’s original Valarauka could fly, but the Moria Balrog could not, and thus, fell (on several occasions) to some degree of doom. Poor balrog. Jerry Springer would’ve had a field day.

So, I cast a vote for Balrog Capes.

For the poll, I vote yes…unofficially.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I have yet to see a convincing argument against Underhill's thesis. It seems logical that if members of the Fellowship, who have just seen a Balrog up close and personal, mistake a flying creature for a Balrog, Balrogs must a) have wings and b) be capable of flight. (SoN)

Gimli wasn't officially a Balrog expert. And he didn't actually see the Balrog fly.

Perhaps he did see wings, and thought they work.

So, maybe they did have wings.

[Lalwendë]

Now it's my turn to have a go...

Much in the manner of David Frost on Through The Keyhole (or perhaps not...) "Let's look at the evidence so far..."

The dark figure streaming with fire raced towards them. The orcs yelled and poured over the stone gangways. Then Boromir raised his horn and blew. Loud the challenge rang and bellowed, like the shout of many throats under the cavernous roof. For a moment the orcs quailed and the fiery shadow halted. Then the echoes died as suddenly as a flame blown out by a dark wind, and the enemy advanced again.

'Over the bridge!' cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. 'Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!' Aragorn and Boromir did not heed the command, but still held their ground, side by side, behind Gandalf at the far end of the bridge. The others halted just within the doorway at the hall's end, and turned, unable to leave their leader to face the enemy alone.

The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm.

'You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. 'I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.

From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming.
Glamdring glittered white in answer.

There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell back and its sword flew up in molten fragments. The wizard swayed on the bridge, stepped back a pace, and then again stood still.

'You cannot pass!' he said.

With a bound the Balrog leaped full upon the bridge. Its whip whirled and hissed.
'He cannot stand alone!' cried Aragorn suddenly and ran back along the bridge. 'Elendil!' he shouted. 'I am with you, Gandalf!'

'Gondor!' cried Boromir and leaped after him.

At that moment Gandalf lifted his staff, and crying aloud he smote the bridge before him. The staff broke asunder and fell from his hand. A blinding sheet of white flame sprang up. The bridge cracked. Right at the Balrog's feet it broke, and the stone upon which it stood crashed into the gulf, while the rest remained, poised, quivering like a tongue of rock thrust out into emptiness.

With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard's knees, dragging him to the brink. He staggered, and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into the abyss.

'Fly, you fools!' he cried, and was gone.

The first description of the Balrog says the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. This does not say it had wings, but the shadows looked like wings.

The second description says suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall. This suggests that it did have wings, but what have we already read? That it was the shadows which looked like wings; we cannot take this out of context.

Finally, when the Balrog falls, With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. So why, when the bridge collapses, does the Balrog not put his 'wings' into action? If he does have wings, then they are certainly not useable ones, and has already been said, evolution is not a factor in Middle earth so why would he have merely vestigial wings?

Now, the Balrog is a creature of shadow and fire, he (and we assume it is a 'he', it could indeed be a female Balrog but I won't open that can of worms) is not made of flesh and blood. So when the shadow about him 'reached out like two vast wings' then I would think that the Balrog absorbed some of this shadow into his own being, thus making it indeed appear that he had wings! The picture which comes to mind is the old film Nosferatu where the vampire appears enormous by way of using his shadow to impressive effect. In the case of the Balrog, he uses the shadow to actually make his own being appear different. So no, he does not have wings, but he does appear to have them.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Just a quick note.

There have been a few people who have weighed in on the issue in the thread but who have failed officially to cast their vote. I wonder if they are pretending to achieve a resolution and then losing their nerve when it comes to actually nailing their colours to the masthead, as it were, in the form of a vote.

But back to this important topic:

I really don't see why the balrog not flying out of the abyss means that its wings don't work. . .

1) perhaps the cavern is too narrow for the wings to work (a brilliant little solution achieved by the film-makers)

2) this is my theory: it could have flown out but didn't want to. When Gandalf returns to the Fellowship he tells them that:

'Long I fell, and he fell with me. His fire was about me. I was burned.'

And then a bit further on:

'Ever he clutched me, and I hewed him, till at last he fled into dark tunnels.'

OK, so what point are these lines making? Well, rather an obvious one I should think: that Gandalf and the balrog are fighting with one another. Why would the balrog want to fly out of the abyss? He's trying to destroy Gandalf, and Gandalf is falling so "he fell with me". Neither one of them is afraid of being killed by the impact of falling because, well, they're maia. I can't imagine the balrog thinking "oh dear, an oopsie. I'm falling -- better fly away. I suppose I can let Olorin go, I've got something more important to do than kill him anyway. . ." The balrog's only thought when he starts to fall is, apparently, to destroy Gandalf as he takes the wizard with him rather than try to save himself (why not pull an Indianna Jones and use the whip as a safety line instead of to snare Gandalf?).

I can already anticipate someone saying that the balrog could have seized Gandal and flown out with him but again, why? Why grab your opponent in one hand only to bring him back up to where his companions are, much closer to escape, when he's already falling (without wings) into a darker and more terrible realm into which you can pursue him -- and if you have wings, that pursuit will be a whole lot easier.

The second quote demonstrates that this is not about two guys trying to get away from one another and save their own skin, but two Mighty Opponents trying to wipe each other out. When the balrog flees, Gandalf doesn't 'fly the coop' so to speak he -- like the balrog earlier -- goes after him.

But this is all just secondary. Mister Underhill's thesis alone is enough to satisfy me as to the presence and usefulness of balrog wings. Sure Gimli may not be a balrog expert, but he did see one!!

[drigel]

ugh i dont want to get sucked into this but.. metaphors people lol
IMHO:
Balrogs "flying" in the Silm would be the same as the fellowship flying after Gandalf fell: "Fly you fools!".... one of many examples, like, why arent we asking: did Shadowfax have wings?

The parallels of both the LOTR balrog's and Gothmog's demise are curious, but one aspect says it all for me. They both involve: (drumroll)... falling.
thats it - no more poetry

[The Saucepan Man]

Didn't Gothmog drown in the Fountain of Gondolin after being impaled on Ecthelion's helmet? I suspect that his shadow wings got soggy and weighed him down.

It was the Balrog that Glorfindel fought that fell.

I have never read either actual passage. Would anyone care to submit them for analysis?

[Lalwendë]

But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard's knees, dragging him to the brink. He staggered, and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into the abyss.

This could suggest that the Balrog flung his whip (or whatever it is you do with a whip) because he hoped to catch hold of Gandalf and so save himself from falling! Yet in an almost comic moment, Gandalf lets go, and so the Balrog too falls.

There have been a few people who have weighed in on the issue in the thread but who have failed officially to cast their vote. I wonder if they are pretending to achieve a resolution and then losing their nerve when it comes to actually nailing their colours to the masthead, as it were, in the form of a vote.

Do we get fined if we don't vote? I forgot to, but I will do so right now.

[drigel]

SPM
I think your right. But doesnt 3 make a trend? Ecthelion's helm was the final blow that snuffed Gothmog.
I think there would be more votes if there was a catagory for "had wings, but not used for flight".

[Mister Underhill]

The second description says suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall. This suggests that it did have wings, but what have we already read? That it was the shadows which looked like wings; we cannot take this out of context.

The old "like" chestnut. If you want the whole context, back up a few paragraphs, where the Balrog is first seen. "It was like a great shadow..." By the logic of the "like" argument, we must conclude that the "shadow" is metaphorical.

In past battles, evidence has been presented that Tolkien frequently uses "like" to create a mood, especially when introducing his evil characters. There are a few long posts ranging over this ground in the Were Balrogs winged? thread, starting out around page 3. See this post in particular for a list of examples.

Balrogs most certainly were creatures of flesh and blood -- you'd have a tough row to hoe arguing otherwise: "His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake. We fought far under the living earth, where time is not counted. Ever he clutched me, and ever I hewed him..." We could get into a whole fëa/hröa thing here, but I'll desist.

As to how a winged Balrog might fall during a battle -- it's no mystery. Wings may be hewn as easily as limbs or necks, I reckon.

P.S. -- Gandalf only lets go in the movie.

[drigel]

Ever he clutched me, and ever I hewed him..." We could get into a hole fëa/hröa thing here, but I'll desist.

Now that would be a balrog discussion that would be INTERESTING

[The Saucepan Man]

Is anyone actually inclined to be persuaded one way or the other by the various arguments? As for me, whatever the arguments, I will only accept wingless Balrogs if presented with irrefutable proof that Tolkien intended them so. It's an emotional/intuitive thing, y'see.

Originally Posted by drigel

I think there would be more votes if there was a catagory for "had wings, but not used for flight"

I assume that, of those who have voted "Yes", a proportion are of the "winged but flightless" camp. On the basis that the vote has hovered around the Yes: 60% No: 40% mark more or less since inception, I would speculate that there would be a roughly equal three-way vote, although (on the basis of the comments made here) those of us who believe that Balrogs had wings and were fully capable of using them for flight unless constrained from doing so would might possibly fall into the minority.

As an aside, it is interesting that the ratio of "Yes" to "No" on this poll is remarkably similar to the result of the "Did Elves have pointed Ears?" poll. Are there any conclusions to draw from this? I suspect not, as the Elf ears poll is "confidential". Although we know that Fordim, at least, has voted "Yes" for Balrog's wings and "No" for pointed Elf ears. In contrast, I have voted "Yes" to both questions, and for broadly the same reasons.

[the phantom]

There have been a few people who have weighed in on the issue in the thread but who have failed officially to cast their vote. I wonder if they are pretending to achieve a resolution and then losing their nerve when it comes to actually nailing their colours to the masthead, as it were, in the form of a vote.

Any floating voters?

I'm not voting. It would end the debate.

(actually, I don't care too much, I just enjoy watching everyone go back and forth- great stuff from both sides)

[drigel]

As with the movies and with most subjects on this wonderfull website, I enjoy the forum for the various different views and learned exchanges. It's through here where I pick up bits and pieces of lore that i otherwise would surely miss myself. Otherwise, I remain entrenched in my own personal Idaho otherwise known as ME.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by me

Is anyone actually inclined to be persuaded one way or the other by the various arguments?

Just to be clear, I did not mean by this comment to suggest that the discussion is futile or pointless. It is, in fact, both entertaining and engrossing as far as I am concerned. However, this does seem to be one of those issues in which views are generally pretty firmly entrenched - most probably because it is a debate which has been raging for so long.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Saucie

Is anyone actually inclined to be persuaded one way or the other by the various arguments?

As may be observed above, I had been flippantly neutral and/or indifferent for the past thirty years (thirty years is a LONG time to not care about balrog wings) until the other day when I was soundly convinced by the logic of Mister Underhill-- by which I remain satisfied, and unrattled by other arguments I have read since.

So yes, it can happen.

[mark12_30]

Tuppence turn: thanks to Lalwendë for supplying the text...

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.

From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming.
Glamdring glittered white in answer.

There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell back and its sword flew up in molten fragments. The wizard swayed on the bridge, stepped back a pace, and then again stood still.

At this moment, the two have had a major power encounter: enough to (a) shatter the sword of the balrog and and make him step back, and (b) make Gandalf sway on the bridge. So the Balrog had already taken a 'hit'. The second dose of power (from Gandalf's striking the bridge) may have affected him as well, but either way, the first hit may have weakened him enough to make him unsteady.

And meanwhile, wasn't the air in the mines, especially at the bridge, cold and sinking? No hot updrafts? So even a jet (or an eagle) might have dropped in those conditions, as they sometimes do when encountering downdrafts while crossing mountains.

[Lalwendë]

As someone who used to take a great interest in psephology, the study of voting patterns, this is starting to get really interesting. We have already had questions raised about whether the voting system is flawed, a former floating voter being persuaded by some pamphleteering, even questions raised as to what leads us into voting a certain way! And they wonder why real elections can get so fraught! Is the Barrow-Downs Select Committee going to examine the results?

And like Saucepan Man says, I'm finding it entertaining, by the way!

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Much as I would like Balrogs to have had wings, (I.e. they would look cooler) I have to say no. Among all the obvious arguing about how the Proff wrote that fateful scene in Moria, I have one view that sets it for me.

Here is my little theory of sorts.

Melkor, who we all know and love, made the Balrogs, yes? It is my reading that suggest that they were among the first creatures he... invented?.... and I do not think that had the Balrogs had wings then the appearance of Ancalagon and the flying dragons would not have been met with such fear and horror. It is my opinion that flying Balrogs would be slightly more frightening than the dragons. Also, perhaps winged creatures were a later thought of Melkors, and they were not given to another of his creatures (Unless I messed something).

However, This theory does not throw away the theory of later Balrogs having wings. Melkor could have improved on his original design. Bit I do not think he did. For surely if he did, then the armies of the elves would have been wiped out completely very early. As powerful as Balrogs were, give them wings and they are near invincible. Yes they were Mair and thus originally could change shape. But I like to think that Melkor constrained them so they could not change his own (as he may call it) perfect vision of fear.

As for winged but flightless, I think about it this way; if I were Melkor, would I waste time on wings that did not work? What would be the point?

In summery; Balrogs no wings. Wings reserved for Dragons like Ancalagon. Balrogs first thought, wings after thought.

Mind you, I could be wrong. Fell free to criticise.

[Mithalwen]

But as yet no hanging chad....
and no scope for spoiling ballot papers.

I think balrogs probably used their wings rather as chickens use theirs..........

Maybe balrog wings is just another gimmick by KFC?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

As someone who used to take a great interest in psephology, the study of voting patterns, this is starting to get really interesting. We have already had questions raised about whether the voting system is flawed, a former floating voter being persuaded by some pamphleteering, even questions raised as to what leads us into voting a certain way! And they wonder why real elections can get so fraught! Is the Barrow-Downs Select Committee going to examine the results?

And like Saucepan Man says, I'm finding it entertaining, by the way!

Pamphleteering? Nay, my duck, it was oratory of the highest ilk-- reported by our beloved Professor himself, and spoken by his sidekicks: Gimli, and Frodo of the Cold Shoulder. Mister Underhill had the good sense to quote it.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

My ulterior motive revealed at last.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Late as usual! If I've duplicated anything I apologize, but here is more food for thought.

First, if Balrogs flew in the First Age, how do we explain the following quotations that were part of the Legendarium from its earliest date? The italics are mine.

The eagles dwell out of reach of Orc and Balrog, and are great foes of Morgoth and his people. (Shaping of Middle-earth, p. 23

But he loosed upon his foes the last desperate assault that he had prepared, And out of the pits of Angaband there issued the winged dragons, that had not been seen; for until that day no creatures of his cruel thought had yet assailed the air. Lost Road, p. 329

There is also this quotation that suggests Melkor’s own inability to fly. If the Balrogs knew how to fly, why would Melkor not go and get the secret from his own allies, rather than trying to capture eagles to force the information from them?

Then arose Thornder, King of Eagles, and he loved not Melko, for Melko had caught many of his kindred and chained them against sharp rocks to squeeze from them the magic words whereby he might learn to fly (for he dreamed of contending even against Manwe in the air); and when they would not tell he cut off their wings and sought to fashion there from a mightly pair for his use, but it availed not. BoLT2, p. 193

As others have pointed out, even in the later writings, there is no mention of Balrogs taking wing to save themselves in any of their fights, even though we have cited instances of Balrogs plunging downward from high places, and falling into crevices.

It seems that everything boils down to five particular passages: the reference in the appendix of LotR, the two mentions of wings in the books itself, the conversation between Gimli and Frodo that Mr. Underhill cited, and the one passage where the Balrogs are said to have come to Morgoth’s aid. Let me take these one at a time…not necessarily in the order listed. I think we have to look very closely at the language and style of writing that’s used and see how this compares with the language and style of other passages to determine if JRRT was speaking literally or figuratively.

First, we’ve already discussed the Gimli sighting. With all respect to Mr. Underhill, I don’t think this proves the case. Gimli says the distant winged thing reminds him of “the shadow of the Balrog”. He says nothing about physical form or wings. The emphasis here is on the “unlight” or “shadow” that invariably cloaks all evil creatures. This is something that Tolkien frequently focuses on. Two evil creatures could have the same dark shadow surrounding them and strike the same feeling of dread, but have very different physical features.

Second there is the appendix reference discussing what happened to the dwarves:

Thus the roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth.” RotK, App. A

The key word here is “flying”… Is it literal or figurative? I think it is the latter. We do have other examples where Tolkien uses the word “flying” to describe someone fleeing something. Thus, Frodo talks about “flying” from the Shire in Shadow of the Past or Tolkien mentions dwarves flying south in front of the dragons. Both of these come from the first two chapters, which is the only place I looked. I could probably find more examples of figurative use if I looked further. (In fact, there’s a reference to Gandalf “flying down the steps” in the chapter where he fights the Balrog.)

Next, there’s the time when the Balrogs come to aid Morgoth:

Swiftly, they arose and passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of Fire.” Morgoth’s Ring,

But again, the language here can be viewed literally or figuratively. There are other places where similar words are used with a figurative meaning: Luthien in human form was said to be “swift as bird on wing” and Fingolphin “passed over Dor-nu-Fauglith like a wind amid the dust”, yet he was clearly on horseback. I don’t see the language of this quote as firm proof.

Finally, there are the words in LotR itself. These have already been quoted… The first passage (like two vast wings) is clearly a simile. But is the second (its wings were spread from wall to wall) a metaphor or a literal description? There are definitely times when Tolkien uses a simile first and then goes on to use a metaphor. The one instance I can remember is when the men from Far Harad are said to be “like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues.” In the very next sentence, he calls them “troll-men”.

But there is another argument here that I think is very convincing to show that the second phrase has to be a metaphor, and not a literal description. This is not my original idea: you can find the whole argument in the “Balrog” entry in the Encyclopedia of Arda. I will try to paraphrase it.

First, we know from Tolkien’s text that the chasm is 50 feet wide, and that the hall was “cavernous”, “loftier and far longer than the one in which they had slept” Using this information, the Encyclopedia says this:

The hall is gigantic. If the chasm is fifty feet wide, then the entire hall must be at least several hundred feet longer than it is wide, and the chasm’s length defines the width of the hall. So we can derive a fairly reliable minimum width somewhere in the region of seventy-five to one hundred feet. This is supported by the text, which tells us that the hall was so wide that it needed pillars down the centre to support the roof”…

This means that, if the Balrog’s wings were real, and literally spread ‘wall-to-wall’, its minimum wingspan is also somewhere approaching one hundred feet.”

This, as the entry further explains, raises a serious problem. We know that the Balrog manages to follow the orcs into the Chamber of Marzabul though the same entrance that the Orcs came in. The orcs leapt “one after another” into the Chamber. That implies a door that is not huge.

It should also be noted, and this is a further $.02 from me, that the members of the Fellowship were also told to “slam” the door and they “wedged it with broken sword-blades and splinters of wood.” For them to be able to do this, implies a door that isn’t huge. . There was simply no way that a Balrog with a 100-foot wingspan could have squeezed into the Chamber even if the door was 10-12 feet wide. The meaning of the quote has to be figurative rather than literal.

The Balrogs apparently could control the shadow about them enough to give the illusion of wings, but that's a far cry from real wings, vestigal or full size.

I don’t know… Tolkien changed his mind about so many things about Balrogs. He decreased their numbers and added the shadows. Maybe he also had it in his mind to add real wings, but he never did the revisions of the Legendarium, and never unequivocally said that Balrogs had wings or could fly….

I vote no!

Now, I must definitely have a look at Fordim's "ulterior motive".

[Neithan]

And meanwhile, wasn't the air in the mines, especially at the bridge, cold and sinking? No hot updrafts? So even a jet (or an eagle) might have dropped in those conditions, as they sometimes do when encountering downdrafts while crossing mountains.

That may be true, but this is not the only instance of Balrogs falling. Two "died" by falling of cliffs. If Tolkien meant for Balrogs to be able to fly, he would not have written three instances where they fell, without giving any explanation of why they didn't just fly away. So, even without the damning evidence provided by child, we can say, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Balrogs could not fly.
We know that Sauron changed into a flying creature and flew away, so it stands to reason that the Balrogs as Maiar could have given themselves wings that worked. I can't see that Balrogs would give themselves wings to intimidate but decide that they didn't want these wings to work. That would be incredibly stupid.

I think that Balrogs could've had wings if they chose but didn't have wings so they couldn't fly but if they did they still couldn't fly unless they wanted to fly in which case they could but only if they had had wings but they didn't have wings since they couldn't fly.

Why was this quote largely ignored?

[drigel]

The BoLT2, p. 193 quote is interesting.
Spirits of fire originally, perhaps the shadowy characteristics - including the wings - were a result of M's failed attempts at flight. Mabye this was the best M could come up with..

Possibly, their shadowy wings were the legacy of Morgoths stewardship over them.

drigel's balrog thesis so sayeth he

[obloquy]

Good post, Child. I'm glad someone referenced the old dimensions/proportions argument, as it is one of the most convincing pieces for me as well.

Hookbill: Melkor did not create Balrogs.

I also have not voted.

[obloquy]

Why was this quote largely ignored?

I think that quote was a joke.

[mark12_30]

If HoME XXVIII has been published, I want to know how we all missed the publication of 14-27.

[the phantom]

They weren't published. I raided CT's house and took them. They go up to XXXI. They're great. XVII includes a drawing of elvish ears. They are not pointy. They're round, and sort of resemble oranges. It doesn't look like they can be used to fly. There's also a balrog drawing. It doesn't have wings, but a note at the bottom adds that balrog wings would be pointed if they had them.

[mark12_30]

"Angel of music", indeed! That's quite an opera, and well sung!

[Mister Underhill]

There is also this quotation that suggests Melkor’s own inability to fly. If the Balrogs knew how to fly, why would Melkor not go and get the secret from his own allies, rather than trying to capture eagles to force the information from them?

On the other hand, there are citations aplenty regarding winged servants of Morgoth, the most obvious of which is Thuringwethil, "the messenger of Sauron, [who] was wont to fly in vampire's form to Angband..." See also the words of Carcharoth in the Lays: "Though winged creatures to and fro unnumbered pass here, all I know."

The speculation on the dimensions of the hall in the Encyclopedia of Arda is just that -- pure speculation. We can't draw any reliable inference of the dimensions of the hall side of the bridge based on the width of the chasm; there's no correlation between the two.

As far as the Chamber of Mazarbul -- there's no reason to think that wings would make a stitch of difference as to whether or not a winged or unwinged Balrog would be able to pass through the door. Why wouldn't a Balrog, like any winged creature, be able to fold its wings into its body? By the same logic, no garden-variety songbird should be able to fit through the round hole of a bird-house.

You can read all the "wings", "winged", "flying", etc. figuratively, but there sure seem to be a lot of wing references cropping up in relation to Balrogs. The debate surges on!

[Bêthberry]

posted by Mr. Underhill

You can read all the "wings", "winged", "flying", etc. figuratively, but there sure seem to be a lot of wing references cropping up in relation to Balrogs. The debate surges on!

Clearly, some of us are winging it while others are not.

[mark12_30]

Child, you are eloquent, and thorough, and persuasive.

But if Balrogs were so groundbound, then why didn't Frodo (and the rest of the fellowship) just look at Gimli and say, "In the air?"

They had just as much reason to guess "Black Rider" as they did to guess "balrog". The reason they didn't guess "Nazgul" first is that they had no reason to suspect a Nazgul could fly; they'd always been on the ground before.

All the falling-from-mountainside arguments don't convince me. There are large birds that can fly, but need room, headwind and some luck to get off of the ground. (Canadian geese; swans.)



EDIT

You know, thirty years later, and here I am. Balrogs? I feel like a lounge-lizard. I can't believe I got sucked into this.

Wings, I tell you. Wings.

[obloquy]

What did the Fellowship really know about Balrogs, anyway? We know that, at the very least, the shadows looked like wings. That's all the Fellowship ever saw of Balrogs, so, whether Balrogs could fly or not, or had wings or not, the Fellowship only knew what they saw, which was a dark shape with wings (of shadow or otherwise). They may have seen it, but none of them knew anything about what they saw.

Maybe when Frodo said it was not a Balrog it was because he happened to know, where Gimli did not, that Balrogs cannot fly, since Frodo had spent his time in Rivendell educating himself.