# The Great Balrog Debate



## Noldor_returned (Apr 20, 2006)

I think it's time we settled this once and for all. Do Balrogs have wings? Please, nobody bite my head off for this, but I think it had to happen.

So do they or don't they? In tFotR, the Balrog certainly has wings, as it stretches across the Hall. Then we have all the other Balrogs mentioned throughout Sil and UT, such as Gothmog, which there is no evidence of having wings. So if they do, can they fly? I think they do, because none have been created since the First Age, so why would Morgoth make them differently? However, the wings give them no special powers because I don't think they can fly.


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 21, 2006)

Why would anyone bite your head off for that? Well, let me see in this place. If this is going to be an actual debate thing, we gots to come up with official stances for the two sides to have, then decide how the debate will work. One versus one? Two teams of four? That one person's idea of only one amazingly persuasive post per player? Or at least, a deadline. I would think that the question ---> "Do the Balrog type things have wings?" can't be used, since both sides could point out that not all Balrog type things are necessarily exactly alike. They weren't somehow magically manufactered by the Mel character. They were a bunch of fire spirits who enjoyed the guy's music and decided to hang out with him. The lady who totes the sun around all of the time was a fire spirit, too, and she looks nothing like the Balrog types. I would think that they would all be scary and have something to do with fire, but besides that, some might have chosen their physical clothing to include wings and some might not have thought of that at all. Whoops. I did not intend to start much of a debate, already. *hides*


----------



## Noldor_returned (Apr 21, 2006)

Well if we make it 2 vs. 2 to begin with, that should work, and if we have others express interest then we can see what can happen to let them in. As for the Balrogs having wings, this debate wouldn't work without that question. Unless you have another question in mind that would work.


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 21, 2006)

Well, you could just narrow it down to ---> "Did the Balrog dude from that The Lord Of The Rings story have wings?" Or, if you felt an especially burning need to include the entire group of them ---> "Could those creepy Balrog beings fly, in any way besides directly downwards after tripping?" But then, I would feel sorry for anyone choosing the side that they couldn't, in that debate. *hides*


----------



## Annaheru (Apr 21, 2006)

Noldor_returned said:


> In tFotR, the Balrog certainly has wings, as it stretches across the Hall.


 
Not necessarily- some (myself included) would argue that the "wings" in that passage are a metaphor related to the simile "shadow like wings" found 2 paragraphs above. . .

In a debate like this you'll find that each side of the argument has a different understanding of what key passages actually say. 

So first you'll have to establish an "orthodox" interpretation of each disputed passage. And if religious history has taught us anything, it's that very few orthodox interpretations go unopposed.


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 21, 2006)

I didn't point that out earlier, Annaheru person, because I thought that the point of the thread might end up being a debate on how that part of the story should be interpreted. Isn't that what the debate is usually centered on? oh well. I have no problem with starting a debate on that part, then finding a few judges who would have no problem with tossing their own biases out of the window to judge on which team's point of view was the most persuasive.


----------



## Annaheru (Apr 21, 2006)

I think examination of this passage is almost inevitable


OR

if the point is to look at balrogs in general, we could _exclude_ the bridge scene, and just examine the other passages, then interpret Durin's Bane according to the results.

just a thought


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 21, 2006)

Got it. That would be up to the Noldor_returned person. But then, I would probably go for a debate on the first thing that you mentioned, since the second seems too easy. I could be wrong, though. Counts how many debates he has ever actually won. oh well. At least I always enjoy them.  Anyways, I was mostly replying at you to point out that coming up with an "orthodox" interpretation would make no sense, in this debate. If we decided that, for this debate thing, the Balrog in that scene definitely had wings, what would we be debating? Just that they were actual wings that could carry him around or not? oh well.


----------



## Alcuin (Apr 21, 2006)

Fuzzy slippers. The Balrog is wearing fuzzy slippers.

It’s Schrödinger’s Balrog: he both does and does not have wings until he’s actually observed by the Fellowship, when whether he has wings or not suddenly collapses into one reality or the other. And because it’s Schrödinger’s Balrog, the wings/no wings paradox exists for each of us until we read the passage and the Psi function collapses.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Apr 21, 2006)

Well you guys have had the ideas. Perhaps we should debate over sections which include Balrogs, deciding whether they do or not in each instance. The Fellowship Balrog should certainly be included, as there aren't many better examples that can be found. So the topic seems to be: "Do Balrogs have wings or are they a figurative image?" Or at least something along those lines.

At the moment we have:
For: NR (me)
Against: None


----------



## Bethelarien (Apr 30, 2006)

Annaheru--

It's unnecessary to establish an "orthodox" interpretation of the aforementioned passages. Yes, both sides will interpret the passages differently. However--the debate is determined by how well they demonstrate their chosen interpretation. Meaning that whoever is the most convincing wins. That's the point of a debate.

The last debate I was in here, long ago, probably mentioned the same three or four passages, both sides interpreting them differently. That's the whole point, otherwise there would be no need to debate.



I'm willing to debate on either side, whether I agree with it or not, I can still argue either way.


----------



## Annaheru (Apr 30, 2006)

Bethelarien said:


> Annaheru--
> 
> It's unnecessary to establish an "orthodox" interpretation of the aforementioned passages.


that particular line was a reference to the first sentence of the first post: "I think it's time we settled this once and for all." If you seek to answer this question "once and for all" then you _will_ be establishing an orthodoxy. That was my point: it won't happen. 

And I am well aware of the definition of a debate, and how they are conducted. Thank you


----------



## Alcuin (Jul 6, 2006)

Hm. Is this idea alive or dead or dormant?


----------



## Noldor_returned (Jul 6, 2006)

I keep meaning to come back to it, but never quite find the time or the effort. Well, what I was thinking, is that we establish two sides and what we are arguing exactly, then, if someone wants to join in, they can post, and if it will make things too uneven, then they could try and find someone else to join as well on the opposing side to them.

The topic: That Balrogs have wings.
Topic Guidelines: Any reference to Balrog's can be used, and the two sides are affirmative and negative of course. Whether Balrogs can fly or not is irrelevant, unless it involves their wings. No reference to the movie Balrog will be taken seriously. If you want to use the books, go for it.

I think that should just about do it. Now, for some "teams". Well I am against this topic. Anyone else?


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 8, 2006)

You are against this topic? Then why did you bring it up? Or did you mean that you are for the idea that Balrogs don't have wings? Or did you mean that you are leaning up against this topic in a possessive and nurturing way? oh well. I'll join in, for whichever side thinks that they will lose.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Jul 9, 2006)

I brought this topic up, Yay, because it is the one thing that divides Tolkienists. I do not personally think that Balrogs have wings, but I brought this up so that a decision could be made. A topic never works if it is negative, so that is why I made it affirmative. And Yay, choose a side that you believe in. If you don't believe in either, then don't choose a side.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 9, 2006)

You missed or ignored my ribbing. oh well. Of course, going by the way that you worded how the debate should go, I would say that sure, Balrogs have wings that are in any way involved in flight. I have no problem with hopping to the other side of the argument, if it would balance teams out, though. Also, how often do debates actually settle issues? No, I am sure that people will stick to their opinions, no matter which side wins.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Jul 9, 2006)

Then we'll help the ishy-washy people choose a side. So, if you want to post an argument, go for it, otherwise I will in the next few days.


----------



## YayGollum (Jul 10, 2006)

You can go ahead and toss some points out, if you feel like it. In the old days, though, we waited to see who would join what team. We didn't just let random people pop in and help out players who were losing, or pop in and destroy the really good points of their new teammates while trying to help. Crazy impulsive Noldor_returned person!  Sometimes, we even waited for judges to be named before we could start.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Aug 3, 2006)

Well, that's what can happen, as I don't reeally have the time to start at the moment. Once more people join, and a judge is announced, then let the Great Balrog debate begin!


----------



## Ermundo (Aug 4, 2006)

YayGollum said:


> Crazy impulsive Noldor_returned person!



You're a great guy mate but let's leave all personel comments aside.


As for old days, I'm going to wait for more people to join so that we can have an official debate going on. If we ever come to that though, I'd like to side with the people arguing for the Balrog having wings.





Morgoththe1
Dark Lord of nothing


----------



## Noldor_returned (Aug 6, 2006)

At the moment, we have Morgoth saying that Balrogs have wings, and I am against him. Other takers (and a judge)?


----------



## YayGollum (Aug 6, 2006)

Well, to speed things along, unless another feels like evening teams out, I can be the judge. Or I could jump onto either team, of course.


----------



## Erurainon (Aug 11, 2006)

I personally think, that when Melkor designed them he was free to include wings, and from what i see later in the books (the winged Durin's Bane; Gondolin) those wings were just ornamental, i.e. Melkor put them just to make the Balrogs more scary.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Aug 11, 2006)

Well I take it you're joining the side that Balrogs do have wings with morgoththe1 against me and ??? Onc this other person joins my side, we'll get going, so long as Yay agrees to be judge.


----------



## Ermundo (Aug 11, 2006)

Umm, actually I have found out that I will not be able to make it to the debate. I lost my copy of LOTR, the Sil and the rest of Tolkiens books at the library have a waiting list of 200 North, and I have to go the bathroom.

...Anyway, I'm sorry, I know I'm a hippocrit, but I can't make it. Sorry.


----------



## Grond (Apr 23, 2007)

Top.

I've been on both sides of this issue for longer than most of you have been alive. My opinion now is shaped by a few events. One would be the fight with Gandalf on the Bridge and then falling down the chasm into the depths of Khadad-Dum. My question to all of you... if the Balrog had wings... why didn't it simply fly away from Gandalf? It seems to me if it could fly, it could have escaped the battle with Gandalf at any time.

In the Silmarillion, the Balrogs chased Ungoliant yet lost her in her dark webs. If they could have flown, you would think they would have been able to keep tabs on her. I'll reread more of the Balrog passages out of the works and post again. With so many references of Balrog's being ground based, it would appear that if they did have wings, they were Penguin wings which couldn't be used for flight.

Cheers,

grond


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 24, 2007)

Well, neither of those points are especially perfect. Why didn't the Balrog run away from the evil torturer Gandalf? He wasn't a wimp, could be one answer. Why did the Balrogs lose Ungoliant? She was too smart for them, could be one answer.


----------



## Gothmog (Apr 25, 2007)

Erurainon said:


> I personally think, that when Melkor designed them he was free to include wings, and from what i see later in the books (the winged Durin's Bane; Gondolin) those wings were just ornamental, i.e. *Melkor put them just to make the Balrogs more scary*.


Interesting point. Just one question, since us Balrogs walked around cloaked in shadow to the point that our shapes were only just visible, how would anyone even notice wings?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 25, 2007)

Noldor_returned said:


> I think it's time we settled this once and for all. Do Balrogs have wings? Please, nobody bite my head off for this, but I think it had to happen.



Jeesssss! Well, if there's nothing else to talk about, we can always get into it about this! It's a subject that can never be settled because everything Tolkien wrote about Balrogs is vague and/or contradictory enough so that the interpretation can go either way (however I think Grond's ideas make the most sense).

I myself settled this in my own mind long ago by _compromise:_ A Balrog has ONE WING running down his spine! Why is it that no one takes me seriously on this???  

Barley


----------



## Ermundo (Apr 28, 2007)

Well then, both seriously and not-so, I would label that there demon, "CRIPPLED."


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 28, 2007)

Ermundo said:


> Well then, both seriously and not-so, I would label that there demon, "CRIPPLED."



Yes, but it _settles the argument_ once and for all, O Thou of the Spinning Avatar!

Barley


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 3, 2007)

Not quite. Those who are arguing for no wings have to settle for one, which isn't what they were saying.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 3, 2007)

Noldor_returned said:


> Not quite. Those who are arguing for no wings have to settle for one, which isn't what they were saying.



Same with those who argue two. This way, each has half. Half a loaf...  

Barley


----------



## Chymaera (May 4, 2007)

The third side of this debate is that it doesn't matter if Balrogs had wings or not. 

But if it came to a debate I would go with no wings.

Consider how many times the eagles foiled Morgoth at the Gates of Angband and fly away and nothing ever came in pursuit. 

(did that last line make any sense? )

the air war did not start until the coming of the wing dragons


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 5, 2007)

Chymaera said:


> The third side of this debate is that it doesn't matter if Balrogs had wings or not.
> 
> But if it came to a debate I would go with no wings.
> 
> ...



What you say makes perfect sense (unless JRR forgot that Balrogs have 'em). So much so that I will now change my position: I now firmly plant myself in the BALROGS HAVE NO WINGS camp!

Barley


----------



## Ithrynluin (May 5, 2007)

*Every time this topic pops up, a Balrog loses its wings.*



Chymaera said:


> Consider how many times the eagles foiled Morgoth at the Gates of Angband and fly away and nothing ever came in pursuit.



Wow, that is probably one of the best anti-wings arguments I've ever read. Great find, Chymaera!

Barley, welcome to the wingless "camp". Though I started out as a pro-winger, I've gradually crossed over to the other side over the past couple years. Though winged Balrogs are perhaps more fun to imagine, wingless ones make immeasurably more sense.

So give it up already, pro-winger scum!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 5, 2007)

*Re: Every time this topic pops up, a Balrog loses its wings.*



Ithrynluin said:


> Barley, welcome to the wingless "camp".



*takes deep dignified bow*

Barley


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 6, 2007)

If you follow that logic, penguins don't have wings. See, it would be like this:

Albatross and birds of flight attack penguins and fly away and do not get pursued. Therefore penguins do not have wings. Because according to your argument eagles attacked and were not pursued by Balrogs so they must not have wings. Mayhaps Balrogs are flightless?


----------



## Ithrynluin (May 6, 2007)

To me, the main idea behind this question has always been whether Balrogs can fly or not, and I believe the majority of pro-wing proponents are arguing that Balrogs have wings and can therefore fly. Only a tiny fraction proposes the possibility that the wings are not functional and serve only decorational or/and intimidational purposes; frankly, I don't really care if Balrogs have wings or not, but in my opinion, the supporting texts are strongly indicative of flightless Balrogs.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 7, 2007)

Noldor_returned said:


> If you follow that logic, penguins don't have wings. See, it would be like this:
> 
> Albatross and birds of flight attack penguins and fly away and do not get pursued. Therefore penguins do not have wings. Because according to your argument eagles attacked and were not pursued by Balrogs so they must not have wings. Mayhaps Balrogs are flightless?



Your syllogism is flawed, if only because penguins DO have wings. The argument about Balrogs has never been nor ever will be settled. I switched camps because of the convincing logic our friend Chymaera put forward. However that still doesn't _prove_ anything one way or the other, because Tolkien's writings are vague, unclear and imprecise on the matter. And as far as I know, he never said one way or another in any of his private writings.

Barley


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 7, 2007)

So The Fellowship Balrog has wings...it says so and the exact phrase has been posted enough around the place. I will post it if someone queries it, but I thought of something. It may go against what I have been saying somewhat, but I had a discussion recently on another forum about a certain term used. I'll just get the extract...



> His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake.


 
This is when Gandalf is describing the battle between him and the Balrog. They fell from the bridge, and fell into a lake. So, what was this slime, because later,



> The sun shone fiercely there, but all was wrapped in cloud. Out he sprang, and even as I came behind, he burst into new flame.


 
So quite possibly, Balrogs can choose their own form, to a certain extent. It would account for the abnormalities in the descriptions between the Fellowship and Silmarillion.

For instance, all Balrogs have a basic form. To this, they can add certain features such as wings, because after all, they turn to slime but can re-ignite themselves. Does everyone follow?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 7, 2007)

I don't see anything you said or quoted in your last post that even hints at wings.

Barley


----------



## Annaheru (May 8, 2007)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I don't see anything you said or quoted in your last post that even hints at wings.
> 
> Barley


 

aye, and the rather infamous passage I believe is being refered to can easily (and correctly, IMHO) be understood as a simile. . . or at least that's how I've understood it since I was in 3rd grade (back before my grammer was subverted by English teachers that no longer cared  ).

As noted above there will never be absolute proof one way or another- just clues that must be interpreted.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 8, 2007)

Annaheru said:


> aye, and the rather infamous passage I believe is being refered to can easily (and correctly, IMHO) be understood as a simile. . . or at least that's how I've understood it since I was in 3rd grade (back before my grammer was subverted by English teachers that no longer cared  ).
> 
> As noted above there will never be absolute proof one way or another- just clues that must be interpreted.



Your grammer was subverted??? Grampa must be furious!!!  

Barley


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 15, 2007)

There are two passages. One, which goes along the lines of, "and the Balrog's wings stretched up to the roof" or something like that. The other is where the Balrog becomes slime. Slime has no exact shape, so maybe Balrogs can change their shape to a certain extent. It would provide an answer: Balrogs can choose to have wings or not.

After all, and I could be mistaken, but aren't they Maiar? The same race as Gandalf, Saruman etc. In Valinor, the "wizards" had no true form if I remember correctly, and they chose their guises to make them seem more like Man. So perhaps the Balrogs, being not as powerful had variations of one design.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 15, 2007)

Noldor_returned said:


> There are two passages. One, which goes along the lines of, "and the Balrog's wings stretched up to the roof" or something like that.



Without checking, I believe that passage refers to shadow-shapes, and too vague to form any solid conclusions about, hence the never-ending debate.

Barley


----------



## Chymaera (May 16, 2007)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> What you say makes perfect sense (unless JRR forgot that Balrogs have 'em). So much so that I will now change my position: I now firmly plant myself in the BALROGS HAVE NO WINGS camp!
> 
> Barley


 Wow, I am influenza *cough* I mean influentual  



Ithrynluin said:


> Wow, that is probably one of the best anti-wings arguments I've ever read. Great find, Chymaera!


 It was in my head all this time 



Noldor_returned said:


> So The Fellowship Balrog has wings...it says so and the exact phrase has been posted enough around the place. I will post it if someone queries it, but I thought of something. It may go against what I have been saying somewhat, but I had a discussion recently on another forum about a certain term used. I'll just get the extract...
> 
> 
> 
> This is when Gandalf is describing the battle between him and the Balrog. They fell from the bridge, and fell into a lake. So, what was this slime, because later,



If you are a large demon of darkness and fire stuck in a dark cave there would be a lot of smoke and shadow in your immedate vicinity and this would cause an observer to take this smoke and shadow for wings.

If you throw a burning log into a lake and then pull the log out of the lake the wet ash that clings to the log could be mistaken for slime. 

Whatever shape-changing abilities Balrogs had were lost back in the First age. Even Morgoth and Sauron lost these powers.


----------



## Ermundo (May 16, 2007)

Chymaera said:


> If you are a large demon of darkness and fire stuck in a dark cave there would be a lot of smoke and shadow in your immedate vicinity and this would cause an observer to take this smoke and shadow for wings.




Naturally, smoke doesn't take a specific shape. It only takes the shape of the object it's contained in. So, to say that someone would mistake a huge amount of smoke and darkness (which problably behaves in the same way as smoke) for wings, doesn't add up. But that's how the narrator described the whole ordeal. Assuming that the narrator is an honest man, than the Balrog definitely had a great will over the shape of the smoke, and made the shape of it that of wings. And if that's the case, than it's safe to say that the Balrog had a degree of control over his own shape as well.


----------



## Miss Insanity (May 16, 2007)

I think it's fairly safe to say that Balrogs cannot fly. Even in the film version of FOTR, the Balrog never actually uses his wings. When the bridge broke beneath him, why not just support himself with those wings? Also, they seem fairly small and frail in relation to his body wieght/size.

I therefore make the assumption that the wings are mainly for show. They act like a lizard's frill, or peacock's feathers. Meant to intimidate it's enemies. (Although I don't know if a giant fire-breathing monster needs wings to be intimidating).


----------



## Ermundo (May 17, 2007)

Miss Insanity said:


> (Although I don't know if a giant fire-breathing monster needs wings to be intimidating).



Maybe. Maybe not. Most of the time the bloody creature is hiding behind a cloud, soooo... I dunno.


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 18, 2007)

Chymaera said:


> Wow, I am influenza *cough* I mean influentual
> 
> It was in my head all this time
> 
> ...


 
I was under the impression Morgoth and Sauron could no longer alter their appearance because they remained in one form too long. It wasn't that they lost their power, from what I remember.

Smoke can cause the illusion of wings? But the passage says:


> ...For a moment the orcs quailed and the fiery shadow halted...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...


If Gandalf could be seen from a distance and he was small, I'm fairly sure the wings which are noted could be seen. So, the wings could be seen easily. I don't know how you can continue to argue that the wings don't exist, when they were quite clearly seen.



Ermundo said:


> Naturally, smoke doesn't take a specific shape. It only takes the shape of the object it's contained in. So, to say that someone would mistake a huge amount of smoke and darkness (which problably behaves in the same way as smoke) for wings, doesn't add up. But that's how the narrator described the whole ordeal. Assuming that the narrator is an honest man, than the Balrog definitely had a great will over the shape of the smoke, and made the shape of it that of wings. And if that's the case, than it's safe to say that the Balrog had a degree of control over his own shape as well.


 
Hear hear! And it wasn't even the smoke that made the wings.



Miss Insanity said:


> I think it's fairly safe to say that Balrogs cannot fly. Even in the film version of FOTR, the Balrog never actually uses his wings. When the bridge broke beneath him, why not just support himself with those wings? Also, they seem fairly small and frail in relation to his body wieght/size.
> 
> I therefore make the assumption that the wings are mainly for show. They act like a lizard's frill, or peacock's feathers. Meant to intimidate it's enemies. (Although I don't know if a giant fire-breathing monster needs wings to be intimidating).


 
Please do not use the movie as a source. It has little standing in serious discussions.



Ermundo said:


> Maybe. Maybe not. Most of the time the bloody creature is hiding behind a cloud, soooo... I dunno.


 
However, when you can see it, you can see the wings (or at least that's what it says in the Fellowship).


----------



## Majimaune (May 18, 2007)

They have wings but can't fly. I think that is a pretty good conclusion (I tried to end the other thread or this before and it didn't work. Will it work this time?).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 18, 2007)

Majimaune said:


> They have wings but can't fly. I think that is a pretty good conclusion (I tried to end the other thread or this before and it didn't work. Will it work this time?).



No, it won't work this time or any time, because my idea trumps it: They have ONE wing running down their spine. This satisfies both sides of the argument. 

Barley


----------



## Majimaune (May 18, 2007)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> No, it won't work this time or any time, because my idea trumps it: They have ONE wing running down their spine. This satisfies both sides of the argument.
> 
> Barley


Yes I remember when you said that. It stumped a lot of people, they didn't have a comeback for it.


----------



## Ermundo (May 18, 2007)

Majimaune said:


> Yes I remember when you said that. It stumped a lot of people, they didn't have a comeback for it.





Ermundo said:


> *Well then, both seriously and not-so, I would label that there demon, "CRIPPLED."*




Need I say more?


----------



## Majimaune (May 18, 2007)

No you needn't.


----------



## Chymaera (May 19, 2007)

Noldor_returned said:


> I was under the impression Morgoth and Sauron could no longer alter their appearance because they remained in one form too long. It wasn't that they lost their power, from what I remember.



It takes power to change shape. Morgoth was putting his power into making orcs and dragons and other evil things. Sauron had great shape-shifting power once, remerber Wolf-Sauron vs. Huan. 
Sauron lost his power when his body was lost when Númenor sunk. His spirit returned to Barad-dur and used the power in the One ring to take form again. After Isildur took his ring it took him about 2500 years to take a new shape. 
(You could write whole novels around every one hunting for a ring of power) 


It is obvious to me that Balrogs on evidence have tongues (chatty buggers them Balrogs)

Same arguement for wings (believe what makes you happy) :smile:


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 20, 2007)

Well are we able to agree on a conclusion? Balrogs choose their own form, and wings are a design feature? Or do they all have to be the same?

After all, humans developed differently, for instance some have black hair, some have brown. Why can't it be that Balrogs developed differently, or that they can choose to have wings if they want to or not?


----------



## Chymaera (May 20, 2007)

Here is the thing: Balrogs are lesser Maia and were from Ilúvartas head. So they were first spirites before they came to Arda and did not have bodies. All they have to do is drop their present form and they can fly through the world as spirites, get to their destination and reassume their form. 

Why have heavy meat wings when you don't need them?

Morgoth and Sauron and Balrogs thought they were going to rule the World. They did not anticipate their defeat and loss of their natural powers and did not incorperate the power of flight into a cloak that they wore in the world. That would be defeatist.


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 22, 2007)

Why have really large wings? Initmidation techniques. Remember, Balrogs were sent into battle against elves and men. Those of lesser heart could be dismayed and not want to fight, making the battle easier.

And as for your last paragraph: It really doesn't work logically. It would be defeatist for them to not anticipate defeat and to have a guise which they can't fly in. The definition of defeatist is to expect failure or readily accept it. Your argument was that they didn't expect to lose (which is the opposite of defeatist), and that they were therefore defeatist.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 22, 2007)

Noldor_returned said:


> Why have really large wings? Initmidation techniques. Remember, Balrogs were sent into battle against elves and men. Those of lesser heart could be dismayed and not want to fight, making the battle easier.
> 
> And as for your last paragraph: It really doesn't work logically. It would be defeatist for them to not anticipate defeat and to have a guise which they can't fly in. The definition of defeatist is to expect failure or readily accept it. Your argument was that they didn't expect to lose (which is the opposite of defeatist), and that they were therefore defeatist.



There are other burning questions that deserve equally serious consideration: Do they have belly buttons? Do they possess anything that could undergo religious rituals shortly after birth? Do they nurse their young? Do they use deoderant or aftershave?

Barley


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 22, 2007)

Well as to those questions they are more easily answered I hope. They don't have belly buttons because they were not born out of a womb, and as such do not have an umbilical cord. The second would depend on the gender, and the third I'm not sure if they mate and reproduce in the traditional manner so perhaps they don't have their own young. And I'm fairly sure that they could burn beards off and wouldn't need to shave, although deoderant may come in handy.

Whew...imagine a serious discussion on whether Balrogs have earlobes or not...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 23, 2007)

Noldor_returned said:


> ...imagine a serious discussion on whether Balrogs have earlobes or not...



Frankly m'friend, I find it hard to imagine a serious discussion about Balrogs at all, and I've seen plenty Balrog discussions on this board!

Barley


----------



## Majimaune (May 23, 2007)

Balrogs might have earlobes for all we know...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 23, 2007)

Majimaune said:


> Balrogs might have earlobes for all we know...



Hanging off their lower lip...

Barley


----------



## Chymaera (May 25, 2007)

All questions will be answered.

Not all Balrogs have been accounted for.

One day they will drill or dig too deep and another Balrog will awake.


----------



## Miss Insanity (May 25, 2007)

Chymaera said:


> All questions will be answered.
> 
> Not all Balrogs have been accounted for.
> 
> One day they will drill or dig too deep and another Balrog will awake.



If that happened tomorrow, the human race would be so incredibly unprepared!


----------



## Majimaune (May 25, 2007)

Except for us, knowing that there are balrogs with one wing in the centre of their back and earlobes on their lips.


----------



## Ermundo (May 29, 2007)

Hold up just a second. Wasn't there, like, an entire page full of posts after the ^ one.


----------



## Ithrynluin (May 29, 2007)

Yes, there was in fact an _entire_ page full of off topic comments, but it has gone the way of all the earth...


----------



## Majimaune (May 30, 2007)

And then you got rid of our fun. Humph.


----------



## Noldor_returned (May 31, 2007)

Noldor_returned said:


> Why have really large wings? Initmidation techniques. Remember, Balrogs were sent into battle against elves and men. Those of lesser heart could be dismayed and not want to fight, making the battle easier.
> 
> And as for your last paragraph: It really doesn't work logically. It would be defeatist for them to not anticipate defeat and to have a guise which they can't fly in. The definition of defeatist is to expect failure or readily accept it. Your argument was that they didn't expect to lose (which is the opposite of defeatist), and that they were therefore defeatist.


 Yeah, but unless somebody disagrees with me on this (seriously) we can't continue in a serious manner.


----------



## Majimaune (May 31, 2007)

Yes I think you are right NR.


----------

