The WitchKing and Gothmog

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

I just finished reading "bye bye balrogs" and I couldn't help but think of the lesser balrogs everyone is talking about. Think about it, Sauron works pretty similarly to his old master Morgoth. Sauron has nine ringwraiths, yes, but it is a known fact that those wraithes had control of lesser wraithes, like Frodo would have become. So as I've said in "Seven Thains of Morgoth", Morgoth had seven. But Tolkiens writings referred to hundreds (vaguely or not so vaguely). Why then, couldn't Morgoth have seven captains-the balrogs, a mouth of Sauron lieutenant of Angband type guy, ruling in a tower nearer to the action-Thu (Sauron), and hundreds of lesser balrogs, not unlike the Witch-king's lesser wraithes. Only on a bigger scale, just like how Sauron's empire is pretty much a toned down remake of Morgoth's (you've gotta stick with what works). By the way, if someone has already suggested this, sorry. Anyway, to show it in organized format for rank-

Dark Lord=Morgoth/Sauron
the Black Hand=Thu, the mouth of Sauron
Black Captain/most powerful general=
Gothmog lord of balrogs, Witchking
lord of Nazgul
Elite guys=Balrogs, Nazgul
lesser elite=hosts of balrogs, wraithes
and wights
As for the fell rider of Utumno, Idon't
think Sauron did much twisting of elves
outside his own tower.

[Dwarin Thunderhammer]

There were only 7 Balrogs there weren't hosts of them. They were fallen Maia, like Sauron. Maia did not reproduce, so there were no lesser Balrogs to be made. There were seven and no more. I seriously doubt that Sauron had any power over them because they were of the same race. I don't think that there were any lesser wraiths either they are nowhere mentioned in the books. Neither were wights. Sauron's strength was in his orcs, trolls, and wild men. Other creatures than that were few and far between.

[Thingol]

That's pretty much the way I see it also Keeper, yet there is very little textual evidence to support it. Personally I think Tolkien did not put much detail into the power and rank of monster's and people so that the reader can make his/her own vision of Middle Earth in their mind.

"I said once that the world he charts was there long before him, and I still believe it. He is a great enough magician to tap our most common nightmares, daydreams, and twilight fancies, but he never invented them either: he found them a place to live, a green alternative to each day's madness here in a poisoned world."

Peter S. Beagle

I love that quote and think it is very handy to keep in mind when reading Tolkien.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Right, and to answer the question about lesser ringwraithes, no there weren't lesser ringwraithes but yes there were lesser wraithes-the morgul knife was turning Frodo into one. And definitely seven Balrogs, but demon underlings seem likely.

[Thingol]

"There came a hundred thousand Orcs, and a thousand Balrogs,..."

The Lost Road (HoME 5)

"Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwë, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone."

Morgoth's Ring (HoME 10)

There are quite a few references to thousands of Balrogs in the HoME series. The only reference to the number 7 comes from a note that Chris Tolkien placed beside a passage saying that his father said that at most no more than 3 or 7 ever existed. While it is entirely possible and even probable that Tolkien wanted to reduce the number of Balrogs drastically, even to 7, we can never know for sure if he would have actually done so.

"Maia did not reproduce, so there were no lesser Balrogs to be made"

While there may not have been lesser Balrogs per say, Morgoth certainly had other lesser Maia under him, I believe that’s what Keeper meant by "lesser Balrogs." Also the ring enhanced Sauron’s power to dominate the wills of others. With the Ring I believe that Sauron would have been able to command the Balrog. As early as 2480 the Balrog was coexisting with Sauron’s orcs, but I doubt Sauron could have commanded the Balrog without the Ring.

As for lesser wraith’s Frodo was being turned into one and the Barrow Wights were also under the sway of Sauron. The watchers that guarded the Tower of Cirith Ungol were not orcs or trolls. Throughout the book it is hinted at the fact that Sauron’s got more up his sleeves than orcs and trolls.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Carannillion]

As for the numberof Balrogs, that issue will probably never be settled. Another thread somewhere here 'sort of ended up with kinda agreeing on seven' (get the point..?). However, hosts of lesser balrogs (boldogs, they were called, I think...), under the command of Balrogs (captains of Moroth) were sort of likely.

I dunno, I just agree with what I just said... [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

[obloquy]

There were only 7 Balrogs there weren't hosts of them.

This is just one of the many conflicting accounts. That's not to say that it isn't the best possible explanation, or the latest concept of Tolkien's, or that I don't agree with it.

Maia did not reproduce, so there were no lesser Balrogs to be made.

Incorrect. Maiar were capable of begetting; in fact, that was one of the things that most irrevocably bound the fea to the hroa. Melian (a Maia) was the mother of Luthien, remember. It is not inconceivable that the Balrogs fathered offspring. Their progeny would have been only part Maia (unless the Balrogs mated with other Maiar, perhaps among themselves), and would therefore not have been actual Balrogs.

By way of speculation, consider this: The Balrogs don't seem to be able to change their shape or abandon their physical forms. Why? Perhaps Morgoth gave them the women-folk of Men (or Elves, for that matter), and allowed them to "take them". They would have been more and more bound to their forms, and Morgoth would have been given warriors with the potent blood of a Maia running through their veins.

I seriously doubt that Sauron had any power over them because they were of the same race.

This doesn't mean much, really. Sauron was far more powerful, and would have inherited (in the eyes of Morgoth's faithful servants) Morgoth's rulership. However, we do know that the fact that Durin's Bane survived the War of Wrath means that he must have abandoned Morgoth and fled. He most likely felt no loyalty to Sauron, or perhaps feared to show his unfaithful self.

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

[obloquy]

There are quite a few references to thousands of Balrogs in the HoME series. The only reference to the number 7 comes from a note that Chris Tolkien placed beside a passage saying that his father said that at most no more than 3 or 7 ever existed. While it is entirely possible and even probable that Tolkien wanted to reduce the number of Balrogs drastically, even to 7, we can never know for sure if he would have actually done so.

I'd like to point out once again that the way you speak of the note is deceptive. It was JRRT's note. Christopher Tolkien inserted nothing, he just told us about his father's note, which presents his father's latest intention regarding Balrogs. The note is just as much 'canon' as any other Silmarillion concept that is not referenced in Lord of the Rings, and in fact more likely "true" than earlier Balrog accounts. It should not be dismissed as if it doesn't exist simply because the change was never implemented.

[Voronwe]

Thû was actually the name of Sauron in earlier versions of the mythology.

-Voronwë

[Thingol]

My purpose is not to be deceptive, I said that Toklien did in fact make the statement that no more than 3 or 7 Balrogs ever existed. However, just because he made the statement does not mean he would have changed things he already made. Tolkien was increasingly reluctant to change things in print. In addition his memory was not what it used to be in his old age and the fact that he would consider having only 3 Balrogs shows this. It is entirely possible that he would have made the reduction, but the existance of one note written by Tolkien can not undo the thousands of Balrogs that are present at the Fall of Gondolin. To presume that anyone could know for certain Tolkien's latest intentions is ridiculous. As I have said several times, you just have to make your own judgements on exactly how many Balrogs there are. I, like the Keeper think that there might have been only a few Balrogs (I believe more than 7) with many lesser Maia subservient and maybe even similiar in appearence to the Balrogs.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[obloquy]

However, just because he made the statement does not mean he would have changed things he already made. Tolkien was increasingly reluctant to change things in print.

It tells us that he had a new idea for the Balrogs of the earlier stories. He was not in the slightest reluctant to change things "in print". He changed his hand-written and typed stories very much. Don't forget that none of the Silmarillion had been published when this note was written.

In addition his memory was not what it used to be in his old age and the fact that he would consider having only 3 Balrogs shows this.

The suggestion of reducing the Balrogs' total number to three is not evidence of dotage, as I have seen implied many times. What is so outlandish about three Balrogs? Implementing the change of quantities to a maximum of seven would already be modifying the existing stories radically, why is reducing the number to three so impossible? There need only be three Balrogs: Gothmog, Durin's Bane, and Glorfindel's Bane. All of the other thousands could be eliminated with no drastic change. In fact, retaining the thousands of Balrogs, in light of the Balrogs' LotR "power surge", would be ridiculous.

To presume that anyone could know for certain Tolkien's latest intentions is ridiculous.

It's not strictly presumption. The note is the latest idea as to Balrog numbers in writing by Tolkien. It dates after all other materials, and was attached as a tentative change to the Annals of Aman.

[Thingol]

If there were only 3 Balrogs then none would be left to be slain in the war of wrath. I do not see how you can assume that reducing the number of Balrogs to 7 was Tolkien's latest notion. For all you know the number 7 could just have been a passing notion to Tolkien. I do not doubt that he was thinking about reducing the number of Balrogs, perhaps drastically, but 7 is too extreme a reduction in my opinion. What it comes down to is neither of us can prove anything one way or the other, your opinion is just as legitamite as mine.

[Mithadan]

Why is it that Balrogs always seem to get peoples' backs up? I assume you all have looked at the "Bye Bye Balrogs" thread in the Canon forum. Many different interpretations are possible, though some are less likely than others.

[Thingol]

Hahaha, you are correct Mithadan, everyone, even myself, gets a little worked up about Balrogs sometimes. I think its because one of them killed Gandalf, and everyone really likes Gandalf. We all have very strong opionons about something strong enough to take down one of our favorite characters. I highly suggest reading the bye bye Balrogs thread in the knew Silm project, it has much more convincing and interesting arguments than I could put forth.

[obloquy]

If there were only 3 Balrogs then none would be left to be slain in the war of wrath.

So?!("interrobang", thanks réd [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) The War of Wrath was just as dynamic as any other of his writings, why would this change be impossible? If he was intending to change the Balrog population as a whole, the War of Wrath account was not going to go unaffected regardless of the number he chose.

I do not see how you can assume that reducing the number of Balrogs to 7 was Tolkien's latest notion.

I am not assuming that it is Tolkien's latest notion, I am saying that it is Tolkien's latest notion in writing (which is really all we can go on, now isn't it?). And it is. We can put an approximate date on it by taking note of the fact that it was attached to the Annals of Aman, which therefore must have existed before its writing. There is no other text containing a reference to the number of Balrogs that dates more recent than AAm. It is Tolkien's latest written concept of the quantities of Balrogs.

For all you know the number 7 could just have been a passing notion to Tolkien. I do not doubt that he was thinking about reducing the number of Balrogs, perhaps drastically, but 7 is too extreme a reduction in my opinion.

It is an idea that makes perfect sense. It would have reconciled much inconsistency between some very obsolete Silmarillion material and the Lord of the Rings, and it should not be ignored.

What it comes down to is neither of us can prove anything one way or the other, your opinion is just as legitamite as mine.

My proof is in the writings that we have. All of the Silmarillion is incomplete. Even if the story is complete (like the Fall of Gondolin), it is "incomplete" since Tolkien never achieved the internal consistency that he desired, and it was never to an acceptable point of completion for him to publish it. This leads most of us to view the latest written ideas as the most valid. It is logical for us to adopt a newer concept and assume, based on that newer concept, that the earlier accounts would have been modified to fit with it. It is a mistake to assume that the note is inconsequential and that the author probably didn't mean anything by it.

[Mithadan]

#@$%&#@ Balrogs!

[Mister Underhill]

Wings!

[Thingol]

"But what if we assume that the '3 or 7' note is from the same time as the correction to the Battle of the Powers passage in Morgoth's Ring (and all indications are that these were simultaneous changes)? Although he changed 'a host of Balrogs' to 'the Balrogs', he retained their being slain by Manwe. This is problematic. If he seriously considered reducing the number to 3, how can he have retained the idea that any were slain? Certainly re-embodiment can be ruled out in this case; the death of Gothmog is treated always as if it were quite final, and none of the characters suggest that Durin's bane might have been a re-embodiment. Perhaps he meant to make them not be killed by Manwe? In this case, though, he surely would have made the relevant correction to the text. Quite puzzling."
Aiwendil, The Seven Thains of Morgoth

Later in that post, obloquy you suggested that the mere notion that Tolkien was considering the number 3 suggests that he was planning drastic changes. I agree with you there, the only difference is in the degree of change. If he had actually desired to change the number to 3 or 7 why did he not do so?

"It is a mistake to assume that the note is inconsequential and that the author probably didn't mean anything by it."
obloquy, this post

I agree to disregard the note is a mistake, in fact I agree with you obloquy, that we must take the spirit of the note to reduce the Balrogs in number; but it is equally dangerous to read too much into the note, after all there is no other mention of the number 7 anywhere in Tolkien's writings.
P.S. sorry the quotes aren't in that little box thing, but the quote button isn't working for me.
P.P.S. lol no wings, don't get me started Mr. Underhill

[obloquy]

Aiwendil's observations are apt, and I agree that it is somewhat puzzling. But the suggestion of three remains. The fact that he gives two numbers in the note (3 and 7) tells us that he hadn't decided on a specific amount yet. Modifying 'the host of Balrogs' to 'the Balrogs' allows for a reduction to seven, but not three, though this still doesn't rule out the possibility of Tolkien completely eliminating the death of Balrogs, aside from the named three, in every instance in the Silmarillion.

I never intended to say that a reduction to three was his plan, merely that the note cannot be dismissed simply because it conflicts with "completed" versions of the stories. I also wanted to point out that reducing the Balrogs to three, though it would conflict with every existing text, is not as completely insane as some make it seem. He simply would have had a lot of rewriting to do.

I think saying that you believe he intended a drastic reduction, but not seven, and most assuredly not three, is tantamount to completely disregarding the note. The specific numbers seven and three are given, and the suggestion of three does not damage the credibility of the note or the Professor's state of mind at the time.

Edit: And no, I don't believe that accepting the numbers given in the note are 'reading too much into it'.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

[Thingol]

Tantamount: Equivalent in effect or value, nice word, I had to look that one up [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
I am not trying to disregard the note, I am simply pointing out that while Tolkien does mention 3 or 7 that does not mean that those MUST be the amount of Balrogs in existence. I was merely trying to point out that there are several possibilities. As I said earlier in the post I believe Tolkien might have been intentionally vague on some points so that the reader could use his/her own imagination. After all that’s the reason some of us get so worked up about various Tolkien topics, no one wants their image of Middle Earth tampered with.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

To back up a little and respond to Voronwe, Thu, I think, was Sauron's name, because Sauron means "abominable one," or something similar, and he wasn't originally abominable or evil, so he probably only changed it or was called it after years of killing elves. And seven balrogs is a great number, if you talk about balrog captains, but boldog/balrog/daemon underlings is remarkably possible and would indeed whither to Manwe's power much easier than legions of Gandalf-slayer type Balrogs. By the way, they had wings.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

oh and by the way, I don't know if anyone noticed, but Tolkien specifically said legions of balrogs, and so its pretty truthful in saying that seven thirty foot winged daemons with whips and thousands of orc/troll/worm underlings, equal elves armies. Heck, even seven balrogs would have pretty much equaled the elves if superior spiritually powerful freakishly powerful elves like Ecthelion and Glorfindel, with their enchanted swords, and powerful armor hadn't exsisted.

[Elenhin]

Tolkien didn't talk about legions of Balrogs after writing the LotR. What he wrote before that doesn't really matter.

No, they weren't 30 foot tall. And no, they didn't have wings.

The Boldogs that have been mentioned here aren't really "lesser Balrogs". Tolkien wrote that "Boldog" was a common name for powerful Orc-chieftains. He then speculated that they might not have been real Orcs at all, but lesser Maiar.

[Eldar14]

If the exact wording is "Legions of Balrogs," couldn't that be interpreted as "Balrogs' Legions." So the legions may just be legions of orcs led by Balrogs.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Exactly! Balrog's legions, legions of Balrogs. Same difference. And maybe a host of a thousand Balrogs was just Tolkienistic writing for host of a thousand Balrog's troops, these distinctions in writing are a problem for me. But it still seems almost clear. And regarding to a Balrogs appearence, "it spread it's great wings of shadow"...wait, because if you recall a balrog is a spirit of fire-cloaked in shadow. The wings could easily be part of it's shadowy covering. Heart of fire, body of darkness, etc... This gives explanation to you anti-wingists as to the wings simply being shadow surrounding it, it is shadow.

I've just seen this thread for the first time. What most interests me is a comment made in the very first post: "Sauron has nine ringwraiths, yes, but it is a known fact that those wraithes had control of lesser wraithes, like Frodo would have become."

Is anything at all known about these lesser wraiths? What texts supporting this? What were their powers? Could they die? Were they invisible? If they were invisible, they would be incredibly powerful tools for evil.

I think i read some where that when in Dol Guildor Saron visited Moria and "talked" with the Balrog, and Saron put orcs and troll under his control, i forge twhere though, and my two bits on the wings, unless you want a borin fantsy book you have to put cool stuff like huge winged beasties in there, i bet they had them for intimidation, whats scarer a blob of shadow of winged demon from hell?

[Aule]

Bye the way mair did reproduce as is plainly seen in Tinuviel who was the daughter of a mair and and elf. sorry but i forget their names at the moment. Its in the Silmarillion

[Tarthang]

This is in response to one of Thingol's earlier postings in this thread.

I just finished The Lost Road (HoME 5) and vividly recall the quote mentioning Hosts of Balrogs. I also recall one of the versions given has some of the Balrogs ran and hid, thus escaping the War of Wrath. (Which by the way was led by Fionwe, son of Manwe, in these versions to put to rest the Maia, Vala having offspring issue to rest).
I haven't read Morgoth's Ring (HoME 10) yet, so I don't know where this notation of 3 to 7 Balrogs comes into play. Therefore, I could interpret these numbers to mean a refernce to the numbers of Balrogs who fled, going on what I've read from The Lost Road and what I'm seeing here.
I've alway's interpreted any fallen Maia as being a Balrog. I don't know if JRRT ever addressed what exactly quantified a Balrog either, so even a lesser fallen Maia is a Balrog (if not as powerful as say Gothmog). So perhaps we should define exactly what qualifies a fallen Maia to have Balrog status.

[obloquy]

You might want to actually read the thread before replying. Or better yet, read the thread and then don't reply.

[obloquy]

I think i read some where that when in Dol Guildor Saron visited Moria and "talked" with the Balrog, and Saron put orcs and troll under his control, i forge twhere though

Nope.

Aule: They are called "Maiar". "Maiar" is plural, and "Maia" is singular.

Tarthang: My rather grouchy reply was not to your post, but to the two above it. Your post had not shown up when I hit the reply button.

I just finished The Lost Road (HoME 5) and vividly recall the quote mentioning Hosts of Balrogs. I also recall one of the versions given has some of the Balrogs ran and hid, thus escaping the War of Wrath.

We're actually talking about the Battle of the Powers. Nobody has denied that early accounts of this battle included 'hosts of Balrogs'.

(Which by the way was led by Fionwe, son of Manwe, in these versions to put to rest the Maia, Vala having offspring issue to rest).

The texts of HoMe V are obsolete, as is this version of the account of the War of Wrath (note: this is not the Battle of the Powers). Eonwe the Maia replaced Fionwe.

I haven't read Morgoth's Ring (HoME 10) yet

At least some knowledge of MR is required for this discussion. This is why you're not quite understanding the points that were made above. I highly recommend making MR your next Tolkien purchase.

Therefore, I could interpret these numbers to mean a refernce to the numbers of Balrogs who fled, going on what I've read from The Lost Road and what I'm seeing here.

In the margin of a manuscript of the Annals of Aman (provided in Morgoth's Ring), Tolkien wrote this: 'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 [Balrogs] ever existed.' I think the wording here rules out your interpretation.

I've alway's interpreted any fallen Maia as being a Balrog. I don't know if JRRT ever addressed what exactly quantified a Balrog either, so even a lesser fallen Maia is a Balrog (if not as powerful as say Gothmog).

It has to do with the spirit of the Maia. The Balrogs are 'spirits of fire'. Sauron was not a Balrog. Tolkien tells us that lesser Maiar took shape as mighty Orc chieftains.

I hope this helps!

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

[Tarthang]

Obloquy
Actually, I focused on only a few things I read in this thread alone. And actually I got side tracked from the actual topic of the thread.
And in your defence, the read the thread does apply to me this instance, in part because I wasn't pating attention to the fact that this thread is in reference to another.
Thanks for your suggestion about reading Morgoth's Ring, next. I will if I can find it.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Tarthang ]