# A balrog vs a dragon.



## Úlairi

*Balrogs vs Dragons?*

What do you people out there think the outcome would be if the Balrogs and the Dragons had a little disagreement and decided to have a little rumble somewhere in ME. Who do you guys think would win? Vote above and put an opinion below!


----------



## Úlairi

*SORRY!*

I forgot to ask for a poll, oh well just put your opinions below!


----------



## Strider97

Balrogs are Maia and the dragons would not have a chance.


----------



## Nazgul

I agree with the opinion of Strider97
Barlogs Rules!


----------



## Ragnarok

Dragons are stronger than Balrogs. The order of evil went Melkor, Sauron, Dragons, Balrogs. Dragons would own them. Balrogs are still cool though.


----------



## Strider97

I have to disagree with your rankings Sauron and the Balrogs were both Maia and were servants of Morgoth. Sauron could not control the Balrogs. There is an excellent discussion on balrogs at this web site:
http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/balrogs.html

They could work together as when they slew Fingol and they knew magic. Dragons were terrible but showed no cognizant powers capable of outwitting a Maiar.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

> _Originally posted by Strider97 _
> *I have to disagree with your rankings Sauron and the Balrogs were both Maia and were servants of Morgoth. Sauron could not control the Balrogs. There is an excellent discussion on balrogs at this web site:
> http://www.daimi.aau.dk/~bouvin/tolkien/balrogs.html
> 
> They could work together as when they slew Fingol and they knew magic. Dragons were terrible but showed no cognizant powers capable of outwitting a Maiar. *





I think the dragons would win they showed wit, smartness and humuor just look at Gluarung and Smaug. It says in the sil that in the war of the wrath that the vala were on there way 2 victory until morgoth issued the las of his fighters from angband and out came Ancalgon and they were winning back the war driving them untill thorondor, the eagles and earendil arrived killing ancalagon. Now eonwe was in the battle was he not maybe the most powerful maia??? I think the dragons would crush them with their strenght, largness, and auru. Remember Turin one of the most powerful men fell under a spel. Fingol is know maia and the dragons were smarter i think especially Glaurung. How many of each were their??? And they are maia as well.


----------



## Úlairi

*Gee, many opinions!!!*

Wow, we have a lot of opinions here. Now, the belief is that Dragons were not Maia. I belive this also in some ways. But what quite a lot of people do in this forum jump to conclusions. There is no compulsive evidence or proof that Dragons were not Maia. It is said in the Sil that Morgoth drew many Maia into his service i.e Sauron and the Balrogs. But I think there are only nine Balrogs and of course there is only one Sauron. That makes 10. But it says MANY Maia. Now I do not define 10 as a large number!!! Who is to say that Dragons were not fallen Maia? That is why I started this thread to simply discover peoples beliefs. Now my belief is Balrogs would probably prove the stronger of the two, but they were subject basically entirely to Morgoth's will, where dragons were not. Glaurung did not act on Morgoth's orders when he wiped Niniel of her memory, nor when he cast Turin under his spell. I believe Morgoth wanted Turin dead, but Glaurung only put him under a spell. So, Balrogs may prove the stronger but I believe Dargons may prove the smarter. I asked who would win, not who was stronger. In the War of the Last Allianve the Army was severely outnumbered, proving that the Orc Army was much stronger. But who won?? The Army of the Last Alliace did!! That is because Isildur killed Sauron, which was the SMARTER thing to do. Kill one creature to scatter them all, not all the creatures to stop ONE! Get my drift! So who do you think would win? Balrogs or Dragons???


----------



## Bucky

Woa! Wait a second here.....

Glaurung wasn't acting on Morgoth's orders with The Children of Hurin?

Morgoth cursed Hurin, & it was easy to just kill his kids, he wanted them to SUFFER the most possible prior to that. 

What's worse, Morgoth telling Hurin "Your kids are dead" or "Your son married your daughter, got her pregnant; he made her kill herself & then he killed himself"?

On the Dragon being Maiar, there is no statement to back that up which I know of.
The Silmarillion does say 'Glaurung spoke because of the fell spirit that was in him'. But, that in itself does not mean those spirits were Maiar. 
What about the barrow-wights or Two Watchers at Cirith Ungol that had 'fell spirits' in them? They weren't Maiar.
Also, that would mean each new baby dragon would have to be 'inhabited' by another Maiar. There was a finite number of Maiar, correct?

Now, where is there any indication of the number of Balrogs being 9?
You aren't confusing Balrogs with Nazgul are you?

All the stuff I've read by Tolkien would indicate a larger number than 9.
'There were Balrogs in his train' (Glaurung).
Morgoth summoned Balrogs from Angband to help him escape Ungoliant. 
2 were definitely destroyed at the sack of Gondolin.
But, at the breaking of Thangorodrim, JRR states 'Well nigh all the Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that hid themselves in the deep places of the earth' (paraphrase)

That sounds like a whole bunch more than 7 to me.

Now, if a High Elf could destroy a Balrog, I sure bet a Dragon could.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

> _Originally posted by Bucky _
> *Woa! Wait a second here.....
> 
> Glaurung wasn't acting on Morgoth's orders with The Children of Hurin?
> 
> Morgoth cursed Hurin, & it was easy to just kill his kids, he wanted them to SUFFER the most possible prior to that.
> 
> What's worse, Morgoth telling Hurin "Your kids are dead" or "Your son married your daughter, got her pregnant; he made her kill herself & then he killed himself"?
> 
> On the Dragon being Maiar, there is no statement to back that up which I know of.
> The Silmarillion does say 'Glaurung spoke because of the fell spirit that was in him'. But, that in itself does not mean those spirits were Maiar.
> What about the barrow-wights or Two Watchers at Cirith Ungol that had 'fell spirits' in them? They weren't Maiar.
> Also, that would mean each new baby dragon would have to be 'inhabited' by another Maiar. There was a finite number of Maiar, correct?
> 
> Now, where is there any indication of the number of Balrogs being 9?
> You aren't confusing Balrogs with Nazgul are you?
> 
> All the stuff I've read by Tolkien would indicate a larger number than 9.
> 'There were Balrogs in his train' (Glaurung).
> Morgoth summoned Balrogs from Angband to help him escape Ungoliant.
> 2 were definitely destroyed at the sack of Gondolin.
> But, at the breaking of Thangorodrim, JRR states 'Well nigh all the Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that hid themselves in the deep places of the earth' (paraphrase)
> 
> That sounds like a whole bunch more than 7 to me.
> 
> Now, if a High Elf could destroy a Balrog, I sure bet a Dragon could. *




I got that opionion from one of the other threads here. I don't remember what it wa though. If they weren't maia then what were they made by iluvatar i think not and morgoth couldn't make his own creations because he didn't have the flame. But he could corrupt and breed. Maybe Cian or Grond could comment and if anyone could remember that thread. I believe that ALL the dragons would win.


----------



## UngattTrunn475

Balrogs would win, definently. The point has been made before, Balrogs are Maia, and dragons aren't. Plus, the most a dragon could do is breath flame, and that would do diddly-squat to a Balrog, more strengthen it.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

> _Originally posted by UngattTrunn475 _
> *Balrogs would win, definently. The point has been made before, Balrogs are Maia, and dragons aren't. Plus, the most a dragon could do is breath flame, and that would do diddly-squat to a Balrog, more strengthen it. *




what is a dragon then??? I think their power and smartness would make them win and balrogs couldn't do anything against it not with out its scales their and the fire would be useless.


----------



## Lord Melkor

Glaurung would destroy sons of Faenor with they mighty armies if it wasn`t for the dvarfes! And Gothmog couldn`t even slew Fingon by himself, another Balrog had to strike him from behind! Yet Fingon was barely able to deal with Glaurung while he was young and weak! And he needed few hundred archers to make him retreat!


----------



## Hama

Where does it say that there were only nine balrogs. Dragons are not maiar, and were not corrupted into Melkor's service. They were in fact bred by him. Remember that Glaurung, Ancalagon and Smaug were the most powerful dragons of their age. But all were killed by men or half-men. Balrogs on the other hand were killed with slightly more difficulty - by elves or other maiar. I would say that a Balrog had much more power. And the strenght of a dragon was its fiery breath, which would have no impact on a balrog. However, there is a reference in the sil to balrogs being in glaurung's train, suggesting they were less powerful. I would say that we are comparing apples and oranges, but if I had to vote for one or the other, I would put my vote in for balrogs.


----------



## Ged

I feel sure that somewhere there is a direct comparison of the powers of the Balrogs vs Dragons. I must admit I can't find it. My recollection is that the dragons were "stronger", even though the Balrogs were Maia. (Remember that Morgoth himself specially bred the dragons.)

The best I can do for now is the following quote from Robert Foster's Guide to Middle Earth (a secondary source I know), page 165 under "Glaurung":

"Glaurung did not emerge again until Dagor Bragollach, when he was full grown and the greatest terror of Morgoth's armies."

There were certainly Balrogs at the Dagor Bragollach. 

Somebody help me with the quote directly comparing Balrogs vs Dragons.


----------



## Bucky

I think most people are making some good points to defend their opinion of who would win.

After reading them, I see it this way (so far):

Dragons seem to have more destructive power or 'conquering ability' than a Balrog. 
Balrogs travelled WITH armies.
Dragons DEFEATED armies...

It seems that Balrogs are harder to destroy as it takes a mighty individual being (Maiar or High Elf) to take one out.

That same High Elf or Maiar might not be any more sucessful in a one-on-one confrontation with a Dragon than a Man or Dwarf or even a very sneaky Hobbit might be.
The fact that a Dagon could be killed by the weakest of opponents that was lucky enough to get a blow in a soft spot seems to back up the 'creature' nature of a Dragon as opposed to the 'angelic' (or demonic) nature of a Balrog. 

The 'Dragon's main weapon is fire' arguement doesn't hold up.
Read Smaug's description of himself in 'The Hobbit':
"My teeth are like swords, my claws like spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breathe death."

Sounds like he had a few more weapons than his breathe. 

And, how is a Balrog destroyed?

Ecthelion & Gothmog 'slew each other'.

Glorfindel & that Balrog both 'fell to ruin'.

Gandalf said he "threw down his enemy, and he fell from the high place and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin."

So, what can we deduce from these encounters?

Not much.....

It would seem fairly certain that Balrogs DON'T have wings, as 2 of the 3 'fell' to their death.

Do they sort of 'blow up'? Read Gandalf's description. Possibly sounds like an explosion to me.

Bottom line:
Why would a Dragon ever be fighting a Balrog to begin with?

I agree with the 'apples & oranges' theory.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

> _Originally posted by Ged _
> *I feel sure that somewhere there is a direct comparison of the powers of the Balrogs vs Dragons. I must admit I can't find it. My recollection is that the dragons were "stronger", even though the Balrogs were Maia. (Remember that Morgoth himself specially bred the dragons.)
> 
> The best I can do for now is the following quote from Robert Foster's Guide to Middle Earth (a secondary source I know), page 165 under "Glaurung":
> 
> "Glaurung did not emerge again until Dagor Bragollach, when he was full grown and the greatest terror of Morgoth's armies."
> 
> There were certainly Balrogs at the Dagor Bragollach.
> 
> Somebody help me with the quote directly comparing Balrogs vs Dragons. *




That is right. Someone who thinks Balrogs would win please tell me how they would win????? The dragons strenght and cunning would be too much. Now Gothmog was below Glaurung in the ranks and Glaurung wasn't even the greatest dragon. Remember maia are spirit and can inhabit things.


----------



## Úlairi

*That is correct Bucky!*

The number of Balrogs wasn't nine, that was the Nazgul. But somehow I seem to remember that I read somewhere that there was a specific number of Balrogs. However, people say that dragons are not Maiar, when as I have said that there is no evidence saying that they are not. Perhaps my memeory wasn't that good on touching the subject on the House of Hurin. Dragons may be slain by a mere human and Balrogs destroyed by Maiar, but I asked who would win? Who are we to say that Dragons are NOT Maiar, I belive we would have to consult a REAL expert on this!!!


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

*Re: That is correct Bucky!*



> _Originally posted by Ulairi _
> *The number of Balrogs wasn't nine, that was the Nazgul. But somehow I seem to remember that I read somewhere that there was a specific number of Balrogs. However, people say that dragons are not Maiar, when as I have said that there is no evidence saying that they are not. Perhaps my memeory wasn't that good on touching the subject on the House of Hurin. Dragons may be slain by a mere human and Balrogs destroyed by Maiar, but I asked who would win? Who are we to say that Dragons are NOT Maiar, I belive we would have to consult a REAL expert on this!!! *




yes i think so 2. I also think i can remember grond or someone posting about this 2??? But what are they then if they aren't maia, valar no, dwarves or anything like that no, and morgoth couldn't have created them and iluvatar probably didn't they were probably corrupt maia bred and made hideous over the ages.


----------



## Mormegil

The reasons that I think a Dragon would be no match for a Balrog are as follows... 

1. Balrogs were originally Maiar, corrupted by Melkor in the 
first age. Dragons however were bred by Melkor, I don't 
believe that we actually are told what from. So without 
any facts it is my opinion that Dragons are not Maiar and 
so are mortal. Giving Balrogs a distinct advantage in strength 
and Power. 

2. The Balrogs were Fire Demons who were partially made of 
flame: 
"Their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, 
and terror went before them, they had whips of flame." 
(The Silmarillion, Of The Coming Of Elves And The Captivity 
Of Melkor) 
It is my opinion that the fire breathed by a Dragon would not 
harm a Balrog, because of the fact that a Balrog is made of fire 
anyway. 
So, IMO, the Dragons main weapon would be useless against a 
Balrog, but the Balrog's flame whip would be able to harm the 
dragon. Dragons have been killed by mortal weapons before, 
(Smaug with an arrow, Glaurung with a sword), so I don't think 
that a Dragons armour would be able to withstand the flame 
whip of a Balrog. 

3. Dragons drive their foe back through the heat of their flame, 
Balrogs drive their foe back though terror and flame. IMO, 
a Balrog would drive a Dragon back. 

4. Maybe a weak point, but in other threads here, people have 
stated that Ungoliant was perhaps the most fearsome creature 
ever to exist in Tolkiens world. Even Melkor was scared of her. 
But when he called the Balrogs... 
"With their whips of flame they smote asunder the webs of 
Ungoliant, and she quailed and turned to flight." 
(The Silmarillion, Of The Flight Of The Noldor) 
Granted, the Balrogs outnumbered Ungoliant, but she was 
scared of them all the same. 

I know that there can be counterclaims to my argument, especially in the fact that both Glorfindel and Ecthellion killed Balrogs during the fall of Gondolin. But these were mighty elf lords who both lost their lives during the battles with the Balrogs, and who used swords against their foe. 

Also as far as I can see, any Balrog that we are told has been Killed, also slew its foe, (Glorfindel, Ecthellion, Gandalf). So there is no documented evidence of a Balrog 'losing' a fight to the death, only drawing or winning. 

So I think that a Balrog would defeat a Dragon 1 vs 1.


----------



## Lantarion

*Ooh, this would have made for an excellent poll..*

I think Balrogs would win. The fight might be tough, but it would be a bit hard to say whether the fight would be unanimous for the Valarauko or not; both the Balrog and the dragon would be the last of their kind in the world, and their strength might be dwindled from their greatness.
Dragons were much bigger than Balrogs, or at least that is my impression. A good painting which would back this up is "The Fall of Gondolin" by John Howe: a dragon and a Balrog are portrayed there side by side. and the dragon is about twice the Bal's size. This might mean that dragons had greater physical strength. So a dragon might punch the lights out of a Balrog, but the Balrog might cut the dragon up and curse him first.


----------



## Bucky

>>>>Who are we to say that Dragons are NOT Maiar, I
belive we would have to consult a REAL expert on this!!!

You have; us!

My answer to your statement is simple:

Who are YOU to say that Dragons ARE Maiar?

Here is the evidence against:
1. It is said Morgoth bred the Dragons. Where does it say that Maiar inhabited created or bred beings? Maiar took shape themselves.

2. Dragons died NATURALLY. As Gandalf said "There is not left on earth a dragon in whom the old fire is hot enough." Notice OLD.
Do Maiar age & die? No. But Dragons do. 

I also noticed each time a Balrog was slain, it took down the opponent as well.
Although Gandalf says He 'threw down his foe" then 'walked long on paths' (i.e. died), so an arguement could be made that Gandalf 'won' & then died as a result of the effort in winning. That's just semantics though, the final result is the same, death to both participants.

If a Balrog could be 'thrown down' or 'fall' would it first have to be incapitated? Or could one sweep of a Dragon's tail knock it off a cliff?
That would appear to be case as Durin's Bane fell the first time, still with full power, just by having a bridge collaspe under it.
If that's all it took, strength alone would be a huge advantage to a Dragon.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

> _Originally posted by Bucky _
> *>>>>Who are we to say that Dragons are NOT Maiar, I
> belive we would have to consult a REAL expert on this!!!
> 
> You have; us!
> 
> My answer to your statement is simple:
> 
> Who are YOU to say that Dragons ARE Maiar?
> 
> Here is the evidence against:
> 1. It is said Morgoth bred the Dragons. Where does it say that Maiar inhabited created or bred beings? Maiar took shape themselves.
> 
> 2. Dragons died NATURALLY. As Gandalf said "There is not left on earth a dragon in whom the old fire is hot enough." Notice OLD.
> Do Maiar age & die? No. But Dragons do.
> 
> I also noticed each time a Balrog was slain, it took down the opponent as well.
> Although Gandalf says He 'threw down his foe" then 'walked long on paths' (i.e. died), so an arguement could be made that Gandalf 'won' & then died as a result of the effort in winning. That's just semantics though, the final result is the same, death to both participants.
> 
> If a Balrog could be 'thrown down' or 'fall' would it first have to be incapitated? Or could one sweep of a Dragon's tail knock it off a cliff?
> That would appear to be case as Durin's Bane fell the first time, still with full power, just by having a bridge collaspe under it.
> If that's all it took, strength alone would be a huge advantage to a Dragon. *






That is exactly right how do you know they aren't bred maia??? Elves had enough strenght to knock down a balrog imagine a dragon. 

As for number 2 that isn't right!!! Remember what Thorin said dragons never enjoy their gold as long as they live which is pratically for ever. How do you know a whip could beat it??? And its fire is obviously the hottest goimg around how DO YOU know that it wouldn't hurt him??? That evidenc doesn't prove a thing a bout the dragons dieinng of natural causes. Ant wat ive gotta go. Post more later.


----------



## Úlairi

*All right Bucky!*

O.K. Bucky, you're the expert. WHAT ARE DRAGONS??? Would you be kind enough to enlighten us with your expertise on the subject. Give me one good and solid STATEMENT AND/OR FACT and not a THEORY on why DRAGONS could NOT be MAIA!!!


----------



## Hama

bravo mormegil...
I think your arguments are both valid and sound. Yes, I would like to see such an argument presented by bucky. Maia are able to take on a physical image at their own choosing, and are therefore not restricted to a physical presence. Dragons are. Dragons live long but not for ever, as shown by the following quote from the silmarillion. "...long and slow is the life of dragons." Dragons are also young, and are therefore 'born' unlike Maiar who were created at the beginning of time by Iluvatar. Dragons were probably larger than balrogs but as almost all writings of Tolkien show, the strongest are not always the biggest. Balrogs have been the greatest aids to Morgoth through the years, as in the incident involving Ungoliant. As Mormegil has aptly shown by quoting LotR, balrogs are in fact made of fire, and would not be affected by the breath of dragons. I think the convincing arguments in this debate presented by myself, Ulairi and Mormegil are enough to show that balrogs were more powerful than dragons.


----------



## Camille

This is an very interesting thread!! balrogs vr dragons I agree with Mormegil I go with Balrogs!! now it seams to me that the main dicussion is: balrongs are maia , and dragons are not then balrogs rules, but some disagree with this idea and say there is no evidence that dragons are maiar, but I have a question..the sil says that dragons were breed by melkor and that some dreadfull spirit inhabitated them (stated in the Turin Turambar storie) so what is this dreadfull spirit?? maiar... ainur... spirit of the death??


----------



## Mormegil

Yay, I'm getting my own fanclub 
Thankyou Hama and Camille for agreeing with me.

Balrogs would definately kick Dragon butt!!


----------



## Camille

ja ja ja All right Mormegil!! but before going a member of your fan club you have to ask my question


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

I think the balrogs would lose. But how many dragons were there?? I have a feelingthere would be more dragons then balrogs and anyway would win. The balrog wouldn't be able to peirce the dragons scales!! They destroyed armies and were the most fearsome creatures ever. The reason that melkor called for the balrogs when he and ungloiant going for it was that the dragons weren't reaady. I'm sure some of the heavyweights in this forum think they are maia. And so do i. What could the balrog REALLY do to kill a dragon??? Something that is bigger stronger, scarier, smarter and has hotter scales them. Also it can fly??? Not much i think as a dragon would just crush it with his tale. Remember they are maia and so was gandalf and they both died. He was scared of the dragon and didn't go near it in the hobbit and smaug was a weakling.


----------



## Bucky

>>>

As for number 2 that isn't right!!! Remember what Thorin said dragons never
enjoy their gold as long as they live which is pratically for ever

Um, actually YOUR OWN STATEMENT proves that Dragons DO die. 
Notice 'practically'.......

If Dragons were immortal, practically wouldn't be there.
This (a finite life span) alone would indicate that Dragons aren't Maiar.
Name ONE Maia that dies of 'natural Causes'?

And, I must say 'the lack of evidence that Dragons aren't Maiar' is hardly evidence that they ARE Maiar.
Ridiculous.....

By your own standard, produce not even SOME evidence (as I have), but ANY to support your theory that Dragons are Maiar. 

And, on Balrogs being Morgoth's 'greatest aids', I refer to Valaquenta:
'Amoung his (Morgoth's) servants that have names (remember Gothmog, btw) the greatest was....Sauron. In all the deeds of Melkor the Morgoth upon Arda... Sauron had a part, and was only lees evil then his master in that for a long time he served another & not himself.'


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

> _Originally posted by Bucky _
> *>>>
> 
> As for number 2 that isn't right!!! Remember what Thorin said dragons never
> enjoy their gold as long as they live which is pratically for ever
> 
> Um, actually YOUR OWN STATEMENT proves that Dragons DO die.
> Notice 'practically'.......
> 
> If Dragons were immortal, practically wouldn't be there.
> This (a finite life span) alone would indicate that Dragons aren't Maiar.
> Name ONE Maia that dies of 'natural Causes'?
> 
> And, I must say 'the lack of evidence that Dragons aren't Maiar' is hardly evidence that they ARE Maiar.
> Ridiculous.....
> 
> By your own standard, produce not even SOME evidence (as I have), but ANY to support your theory that Dragons are Maiar.
> 
> And, on Balrogs being Morgoth's 'greatest aids', I refer to Valaquenta:
> 'Amoung his (Morgoth's) servants that have names (remember Gothmog, btw) the greatest was....Sauron. In all the deeds of Melkor the Morgoth upon Arda... Sauron had a part, and was only lees evil then his master in that for a long time he served another & not himself.' *






Name one dragon that died of natural causes!! And as i have said a lot of times. Melkor couldn't make his own beings, they aren't valar or anything made by Eru so what does that leave left eh?? Maia??? What could he have bred to make dragons?? Hobbit and ent??? No but he could have made the dragon and then have gotten maia to give it life??? Like Aule his dwarves weren't alive untill iluvatar gave them the flame???

And as camille said there were spirits in them so that makes them either vala or maia??? Eh.!! Now dragons were greater servants to morgoth then the balrogs. They had to work together as dragons know one would go near. Now imagine if he had all his dragons together at the 1 time. They whole of beleriand would be his. Remember turin was scared of glaurung 2 and he is one of the best fighters ever if not the best.


----------



## Bucky

>>>Name one dragon that died of natural causes!! And as i have said a lot of
times.

Give it up.
You can't produce one shred of evidence to support your deduction that Dragons are Maiar.

I think we've POSSITIVELY assertained that Dragons have a long but finite life span.
And, that Maiar did not 'enter' living beings, they manifested themselves as (the form of) living beings which never died naturally.

Name one Dragon that died of natural causes?
Name 5 that didn't.
There isn't exactly a whole bunch of Dragon names out there in ME.

Read The Tale of the Years:
2570 'About this time, Dragons reappear in the North & begin to afflict the Dwarves.
(directly opposed to Eorl's ancestor slaying 'Scatha the Worm', which had to happen before then, as the Rohirrim were already in Rohan by 2570.)
3018: Gandalf says "There is not now left on earth a Dragon in whom the OLD fire is hot enough"

Hence, there's MORE proof that Dragons age & die.

Well, Scatha's one. Name 4 more Dragons.....

And while you're at it, how about one itsy bitsy shred of documentation to back up YOUR arguement?


----------



## Hama

Bucky, I think you are wasting your time trying to reason with the lad. Give it up, I think the evidence on the side of the Dragons not being Maiar is substantial.


----------



## Camille

> And as camille said there were spirits in them so that makes them either vala or maia???


why Tolkien would not say maia if he meant so?, I dont think that spirits were maias, remember Caradras ( or something like that ) the great werewolf that bit beren's hand?? he was also breed like dragons and also he had this dreadfull spiti inside him whay they are i dont know but it seams to me that they were not maia.


----------



## Lantarion

Carcharoth.. 




> "There is not now left on earth a Dragon in whom the OLD fire is hot enough"


Exactly. The FIRE is old, but it doesn't mean that the dragon is! What Gandalf meant by this statement was that basically there were no more dragons left; or if there were, their fire wouldn't be hot enough to melt the One Ring. I agree that dragons are mortal, although they live for thousands of years, but this statement doesn't proove in any way that dragons aged. It means simply that dragons have been around for a very long time, hence if there are any more left their fire, and spirit, is ancient.


----------



## imladris

same here


----------



## Úlairi

*I'm sorry Bucky!!!*

   I'm sorry Bucky, I read the thread giving quite good evidenve that dragons do not live forever therefore concluding that they are not Maia.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

*Re: I'm sorry Bucky!!!*

Okay me 2. They aren'tprobably maia. But i still think they would win here is why



There was marshalled the whole power of the Throne of Morgoth, and it had become great beyond count, so that Anfauglith could not contain it; and all the North was aflame with war.
But it availed him not. The Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that fled and hid themselves in caverns inaccessible at the roots of the earth;...........................Then seeing that his hosts were overthrown and his power dispersed, Morgoth quailed, and he dared not come forth himself. But he loosed upon his foes the last desperate assault that he had prepared, and out of the pits of Angband there issued the winged dragons, that had not been seen; and so sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet that the host of the Valar was driven back, for the coming of the dragons was with great thunder, and lightning, and a tempest of fire.




I think if the Host of the Valar, which even though was just huge armies of Elves led by many Maiar, were pushed back by dragons but not by Balrogs, then I think that shows that the dragons are the more deadly of the two.




I still think though that dragons would win.


----------



## Mormegil

Of course the Balrogs would lose to the Dragons, due to numerical disadvantage. JRRT says that there were never more than 3-7 Balrogs, compared to a whole host of Dargons.

In a one vs one fight between Dragon and Balrog, the Balrog would win.


----------



## Legsofglass

Someone here raised a point saying the Dragons wouldn't be hindered by a mere whip; but what about a great black axe? Wouldn't the great axe of Morgoth leave a mark on a Dragon?


----------



## Lantarion

Yes, I would think so: Melkor was a Vala, and Dragons were probably Maiar. 
If there were never more than 3-7 Balrogs around EVER, then why would Tolkien have amplified their overwhelmance in eg. the Nirnaeth Arnoediad? I remember him writing many times in the Sil about a 'great host of Balrogs' or 'many Balrogs'; and the scene at the beginning of the Dagor Bragollach when he compares the running of the lava to a swarm of Balrogs would give the picture that there were at least a couple dozen Balrogs around. I mean, how many Maiar did Ilúvatar create anyway? Hundreds at least, if not thousands. And although not many of these were seduced by Melkor, I would think it was more than 7!


----------



## Uminya

There were many more balrogs than dragons, but many of them (at least 30) were killed in Gondolin.

Since the dragons were devised by Morgoth, I doubt that they are Maiar. Perhaps there was one of those enigmatic creatures (like Unogliante) that Morgoth twisted and modified for his own ends (like the trolls)


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

> _Originally posted by Ciryaher _
> *There were many more balrogs than dragons, but many of them (at least 30) were killed in Gondolin.
> 
> Since the dragons were devised by Morgoth, I doubt that they are Maiar. Perhaps there was one of those enigmatic creatures (like Unogliante) that Morgoth twisted and modified for his own ends (like the trolls) *




Really?? I never new it was that many  . I stil think the dragons would win. Does anyone have any reference for that info?? I would like to read it.


----------



## Úlairi

I have heard some people e.g Pontifex say that Dragons ARE Maia and some people e.g. Good ol' Bucky, that they are not and that they had "fell" spirits inside of them!!! If these "fell" spirits were not Maia, then what the HELL were they!!! Anyone have an idea???


----------



## SpencerC18

*Balrogs vs. Dragons?*

Who would win in a fight Ancalagon the greatest winged dragon or Gothmog the Captain of the balrogs?

Or basically any balrog vs. any dragon. lol


----------



## DavidJ

I think there have been a few threads on this already. 
I believe that a Balrog would defeat a Dragon 1 vs 1.
I have stated my reasoning elsewhere, so won't write it again.

Some people argue that Dragons would win because they are Maia. However, there is no proof that Dragons are Maia.

Here are the previous threads:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2382&highlight=Balrogs+AND+Dragons

And
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2950&highlight=Balrogs+AND+Dragons

Read them. They have some pretty good arguments in them.


----------



## Thorin

1) Balrog's are Maia as well, David

2) The Worms of Morgoth would have to be Maia, because I don't recall Eru creating them, and Morgoth could not create but warp and distort what is already there.


----------



## Lantarion

Well, as *Mormegil* pointed out, Maiar are stronger than non-Maiar. And as far as every single shred of evidence is concerned, Dragons are not Maiar.


----------



## Zale

From reading the Silmarillion I got the distinct impresion that Dragons were far more devastating in battle - but that could just be because there were more of them. One-on-one, I have no idea who would win.


----------



## Nazgul_Lord

Yes there have been a few posts about this lately. I personally think a dragon would win, and I've already posted my reasoning (several times) on other threads so I will not bother to do it again, so SpencerC18 try looking around for other posts on this subject k.


----------



## Mormegil

> _Originally posted by Thorin _
> *1) Balrog's are Maia as well, David
> 
> 2) The Worms of Morgoth would have to be Maia, because I don't recall Eru creating them, and Morgoth could not create but warp and distort what is already there. *



I'll reply using my proper account.

Thorin. 
1) Well Duh!! Of course I know that. I never said they weren't. I was speaking about Dragons.

2)They don't HAVE to be Maia. There is not a single piece of evidence to say that they are. 
I also don't recall Eru creating Oliphaunts, Wargs or rabbits. So by your logic they are all maia as well??


----------



## Turgon

Cool links Mormegil. Some interesting arguments on both sides - personally I don't know who would win, guess it all depends on which Balrog is fighting which dragon. Sorry to see your CUT has gone, you must be gutted - but I bet that whole 70's time-warp thing was pretty cool...


----------



## Mormegil

I am a bit gutted. My post count is gone. But you can still read all my old posts which is good. I really miss that Custom Title though.
I thought it was amazing how I managed to register on this forum 13 years before I was born.


----------



## Camille

Yes this has been discussed in another thread, it tha last one I voted for Balrogs.


----------



## Lord Aragorn

I believe a dragon would win over a Balrog. It seems to me that dragons had a much greater power in the Sil especially. The Balrogs seemed to be more plentiful and not feared as much as the great dragons such as Glaurung. Also, one on one Balrogs seem to die more often. Sure several dragons have been killed one on one, Glaurung but only at the hands of Turin, and Smaug, which I don't think counts as Bard kinda cheated and only had to shoot him with one arrow. For the most part is seems dragons were rarely and seemingly more powerful than the Balrogs, which seem to be somewhat more plentiful.


----------



## Lantarion

IMO Dragons were just as cool as Balrogs, but seeing as Balrogs were Maiar and nothing but mega-powerful spirits under a damn frightening and evil outer core, whereas Dragons were all flesh and bones, I think the Maiar would win because they would be so darn hard to kill. They would also have better fighting techniques and mightier skills and attacks than the Dragons. Dragons swing their tail around, breathe fire and fly around. Balrogs (although I prefer the term _Valaraukar_) swing their gigantic, fiery swords and their sharp, cunning and damn painful whips, they create incredible terror and fear wherever they go and they have the power to make things go flying about (Cf. when Gandalf first encounters the Balrog and the door bursts in splinters).


----------



## tom_bombadil

the barlog would win definently


----------



## Ithrynluin

*Dragons or Balrogs?*

Who is more powerful,dragons or balrogs?
I know,I know,Balrogs are Maiar and dragons are....whatever
But reading the Sil several times kinda gave me the feeling that somehow dragons hold the greater power and are of greater importance.
Some thoughts/comments/arguments would be welcome.


----------



## Gamil Zirak

I'm going to have to go with Barlogs on this one. My reasoning being that when every Barlrog (that we know of) was killed, they also killed their killer.


----------



## Ponte

Perhaps Ancalagon and Glaurung were more powerful then balrogs but 
compared to normal dragons Balrogs were more powerful i think.


----------



## Rúmil

I would say that Balrogs, being Maiar, are much more powerful than dragons, even if dragons can work more material destruction. To take a lame comparison, the Balrog would be a general and the dragon a tank.


----------



## Phenix

I wuld say...dragonscouse they are more powerfull fighters


----------



## Rúmil

If it were a fight between a Balrog and a dragon, the Balrog would win.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Gamil Zirak _
> *I'm going to have to go with Barlogs on this one. My reasoning being that when every Barlrog (that we know of) was killed, they also killed their killer. *



Very wise 
I chose Balrogs as well.But I guess if I had to choose just one superior and most powerful being among both the Balrogs and the dragons,I would probably pick Glaurung - that's a mighty,noble,evil,fate-changing creature.But in general,balrogs are greater.
And one more question that's been bugging me: Why do dragons often talk and balrogs never so? Sure dragons are supposed to be very intelligent spirits/creatures,but COME ON - why doesn't even one of the balrogs speak even once?


----------



## Rúmil

> The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all. Above all he does not laugh or sneer.


 Letter #210The Balrogs don't speak, for the same reason the Nazgûl seldom do: their main power is in terror; it looks more dignified to make your enemies drop and shrink on your passage, rather than to go around blabbing all the time. It is part of their majesty and the terror that goes with them.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Rúmil _
> * Letter #210The Balrogs don't speak, for the same reason the Nazgûl seldom do: their main power is in terror; it looks more dignified to make your enemies drop and shrink on your passage, rather than to go around blabbing all the time. It is part of their majesty and the terror that goes with them. *



I kinda guessed that could be the reason,but I also thought it would be quite cool for Balrogs to say something high&noble FROM TIME TO TIME -something like Glaurung or the Witch-king.


----------



## Gamil Zirak

Something like, "hand over the halfling she-elf."


----------



## ¤-Elessar-¤

arg, hate that change, 'twas the worst one in the movie. 

Anyways, Balrogs reign supreme. 

First of all, most of the instances where we see Dragons they are put up against armies or small groups of men, and most of the time they came unthought of, and had a huge element of surprise. On the other hand, Balrogs were known of, and widley feared. They most often came into play when a great warrior was defeated (Feanor, Ecthelion, Durin I, ect.) And, the only mentioning of a mortal (including elven kind) slaying a Balrog was in the case of Ecthelion and Gothmog, all of the rest fled the might of Valinor, or fell to it.


----------



## Rúmil

You forget Glorfindel, Elessar. But your point is made, I think.


----------



## Gil-Galad

Well I think that Balrogs are stronger than dragons.In the Sil dragons were kept as a secret.I mean that Eleves didn't know so much about them.They were a kind of newer weapon which Morgoth used in last battles.


----------



## obloquy

For those of you who like hardcore Tolkien debate, check out this thread at The Barrow-Downs: Dragons vs. Balrogs.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by obloquy _
> *For those of you who like hardcore Tolkien debate, check out this thread at The Barrow-Downs: Dragons vs. Balrogs. *



Very,very interesting obloquy! Thanks a lot! I find the artwork of the Barrow downs a little confusing though.


----------



## Ancalagon

> For those of you who like hardcore Tolkien debate, check out this thread at The Barrow-Downs: Dragons vs. Balrogs.



Or alternatively you could contribute to this forum while you are here, as many of us do when we visit The Barrow Downs!

Anyhoo, this is being merged with an older thread of the same subject matter.


----------



## Maedhros

Hmmmm. This is a very interesting question. I would have to go with the dragons, because they made the host of the Valar retreat in the war of wrath a little while the Varaulakular were destroyed pretty rapidly.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Ancalagon _
> * Anyhoo, this is being merged with an older thread of the same subject matter. *



Whoops,sorry Anc,I didn't know this has already been discussed before,otherwise I wouldn't have started this thread.Well,at least now we have a poll.


----------



## obloquy

I intend to contribute, Ancalagon. I thought that's what I was doing. Instead of reposting all of the (lengthy) arguments in that thread, I just provided a link to it. I hope my post didn't come off as an advertisement for the Barrow-Downs, I only meant to be expanding the discussion on this forum with a little fuel from another.


----------



## Feanor

Who would win?


----------



## Maeglin

I can't vote right now! 

But anyway I think a Balrog would kick a dragons a** with no problem at all, though a Balrog couldn't beat me, Glorfindel, without getting killed itself.


----------



## elf boy

balrogs are definately stronger than dragons... let's just use an example. In the Hobbit, Gandalf went with the dwarves to a mountain which they knew to be inhabited by a dragon, but the very fear of the mines of moria (mostly brought about cause of the balrog) caused them to exhaust all other options first in the FOTR.... and they didn't even know if there was anything there.


----------



## mr underhill

dragon could beat a balrog anyday!


----------



## elf boy

> _Originally posted by mr underhill _
> *dragon could beat a balrog anyday! *



yer sooo wrong.... balrogs are made of fire and shadow, here is an example... In the hobbit, Bard killed Smaug, it was a great shot... but one man still killed him, and it wasn't exactly real well planned. But in the FOTR, they had a fellowship of 9 and Gandalf told them all to run because "this foe is beyond any of you". Gandalf finally took it out... but he (basically, not real clear on this part) got killed doing it. So if Bard could kill a dragon with and arrow, and all of Legolas' arrows would of been for naught against the balrog... this suggests to me that the balrog would make short work of a dragon. (Also Dragons breath fire, BALROGS ARE MADE OF IT!) *wha ha ha*


----------

