# The balrog debate--is there a point?



## Lomin... (Nov 21, 2005)

Okay, just vote for the things that you agree with.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 21, 2005)

I was pro-wing several years ago and then gradually came to change my mind, as most instances that feature Balrogs gave me a distinct no-wing feel when I reread or "re-contemplated" the works of JRRT. 

I'd have voted for the less tentative option (_"It's obvious they don't have wings!"_), were it not for the one (and only) place in the books that makes me swing in a more pro-wing stance, i.e. when the Balrogs come to Morgoth's aid when he is trapped by Ungoliant and cries out for help with great urgency. I don't see much sense in wingless Balrogs coming to his rescue. Sure, being Maiar they may have been super fast runners, but I am ultimately skeptical that they could have traversed all the high mountains between Angband and Lammoth in time to find Melkor alive. Ungoliant simply was too much of an impulsive and greedy creature to have waited that long, being ever driven with unquenchable gluttony for light (and perhaps the greatest light was contained within the Silmarils, which Melkor held and refused to surrender). Winged Balrogs would have achieved this with greater ease and believability.

As vexing as some people find this topic, I don't think it ever should stop. It is interesting and fun to discuss, and certainly flexes one's grey matter!


----------



## Hammersmith (Nov 21, 2005)

I'm just in on it to be difficult. Besides that we can all get a warm snuggly feeling by knowing that hundreds of people across the world are all connected by their relentless participation in an ultimately meaningless vote that may be sad and pathetic, _but that the pro wing faction is winning!_


----------



## Gothmog (Nov 21, 2005)

Unlike Ithy. I have never thought of the Balrog with wings. From the first time I read the description in the mines of Moria I pictured a crteature that had no wings but a vast shadow like a cloak.

In all that I have read since (even the section that gives Ithy pause in his path to the truth ), never did I see a need for wings. In fact to me, wingless Balrogs able to travel great distances at such speed only show how powerful they were.


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 21, 2005)

Well, Gothmog says 'no', and he should know what he's talking about, so I guess that I join the 'no-side' as well.

And as they are spirits, they are probably able to go from A to B faster than most other creatures .


----------



## e.Blackstar (Nov 21, 2005)

I'm joining the "duh they have wings" and the "Lomin is awesome" factions.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Nov 21, 2005)

Since Melkor was trying to learn the secret of flying from the eagles, I doubt these lesser servants (the maiar who became balrogs) acquired that ability. I will join the "no" side.


> And as they are spirits, they are probably able to go from A to B faster than most other creature


Well, spirits as in not having some sort of a body?


----------



## Lomin... (Nov 22, 2005)

e.Blackstar said:


> I'm joining the "duh they have wings" and the "Lomin is awesome" factions.



You're also in the "There's no way to tell" faction it seems. lol. e.Blackstar, you're insane! Never change. I love ya.  

Oh, yes, and Hammersmith is cool, too...

The rest of ye all, I don't know. You're names confuse me.  j/k

...

I'm glad this topic is actually going somewhere. I think it's my first meaningful thread. lol. Well, sort of meaningful.

Good night Forum.


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 22, 2005)

And even a thread where we are supposed to debate if there is anything to debate, ends up as a debate. ROFL!


----------



## Gothmog (Nov 22, 2005)

Élhendi said:


> And even a thread where we are supposed to debate if there is anything to debate, ends up as a debate. ROFL!


Well I suppose that is a debatable point.


----------



## DGoeij (Nov 22, 2005)

Occasionally I stroll into the 'Wings or no' thread, but I'm still one of those who at first did not picture these creatures with wings and I see no reason why I should. I can also understand why some people would have the perception of Balrogs with wings, so I voted "There's no way to know...but I don't think they'd have wings".

The movie-Balrog was great, but no need for wings there either.


----------



## Lomin... (Nov 23, 2005)

I never really explained my own, stance here...

Well, firstly I would like to say that the first contact I had with middle-earth was FotR the movie, followed by TTT the movie, then I read all the books (including The Hobbit)...finally saw RotK...

So, I admit my opinion is biases toward the winged end of the spetrum due to movie. I voted for "There's no way to know...but I think they have wings," myself. I really have no clue, and after reading some of the things here I'm even less sure.

Lastly, I would like to thank whichever oh-so-kind mod that raised my humble poll to this place of great honor, in the Hall of Fire! ^^'


----------



## Noldor_returned (Nov 23, 2005)

Please, can we end this debate for once and for all? Some Balrogs do, some don't, it's that easy. Even if you don't agree with this, I am just so sick of the argument. You should make every member vote and post their reason why. Then when everyone has posted, no-one is allowed to bring up the issue ever again. Can we just at least try to get everyone to agree to that?


----------



## DGoeij (Nov 23, 2005)

Negative waves baby, negative waves. If you don't like it, stay away from it. It's that easy.


----------



## Hobbit-GalRosie (Nov 23, 2005)

This was a great idea bro.

Anyway, I think that it's a little less likely that Balrogs have wings, just based on my reading of the text, after having been introduced to the concept that they might not (I admit it didn't occur to me by itself, possibly for much the same reason my brother cites, seeing the movie before reading the book). I mean, Tolkien being so careful about the way he uses language it seems kind of unlikely if he would have said that they were "shadows like wings" the first time round if they were _actually_ wings. Though, of course, it now occurs to me on typing that that it's possible he used that word at that point because it would have been unclear if to the Fellowship whether they were wings or not at that point. It'll never end, will it?

Anyway, I started to read that wings or no thread a couple times and gave up in despair. It's all over my head and seems quite pointless, but we all love debating. I think this is a relatively poor topic that needs a rest because it's already been worked to death. I mean, how much can you really care about it anyway? Plenty, it would seem, but not me. I just wish that it would cool down for a while, becoming idle speculation instead of convoluted intellectual debate.

Gosh, this post has turned out more serious than I meant. Anyway, all hail Lomin, immortal forger of the Blacksword, lord of coolness and frivilous polls.


----------



## Hammersmith (Nov 23, 2005)

Lomin... said:


> Oh, yes, and Hammersmith is cool, too...


Maybe a mod needs to change this poll to the "Is Hammersmith really _that_ cool and how can we grow as cool?"


----------



## Starbrow (Dec 3, 2005)

Of course Balrogs have wings, but I voted for everything so I could make everyone happy.


----------



## Hammersmith (Dec 3, 2005)

Starbrow said:


> Of course Balrogs have wings, but I voted for everything so I could make everyone happy.


You made me unhappy.


----------



## Majimaune (Dec 30, 2005)

who cares i dont and its not like we're going to find out any time soon (or at all) so i just say shut it

Majimaune Legnimdok


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 30, 2005)

The Balrog debate is like Monopoly — every few years it's fun to play for a while. 

Hm — just noticed this is my 2200th post. Had it not been for The Great Point Purge (otherwise known as The Great Electronic High Colonic) a while back it would have been my 3000th!  )

Barley


----------



## DGoeij (Jan 3, 2006)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Hm — just noticed this is my 2200th post. Had it not been for The Great Point Purge (otherwise known as The Great Electronic High Colonic) a while back it would have been my 3000th!  )
> 
> Barley



By not posting very much, I guess my post count is dropping rapidly. Only debating wether a debate over having a debate about balrog's having wings or not, could reverse that process. So keep it up!


----------



## e.Blackstar (Jan 3, 2006)

> lord of coolness and frivilous polls.


Of frivilous polls? I think not...he's only a mere serf compared to Elgee in this matter.


----------



## Ermundo (Jan 17, 2006)

I concur

Personally the BALROG debate has no point. I mean, there aren't enough clues
to make a stable conclusion or even an educated guess. It's kinda pointless really. I don't know how the debate came up but I don't really like it. 

BUT THAT IS JUST MY OPINION


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Jan 23, 2006)

I don't mind discussing it if people have new ideas, or new ways to present old ideas.
But I hate reading the same stuff over and over again. If people are just going to repeat their original argument ad nauseum then let's have them stop.
But if people are going to engage and provide reasons and not just repeat the same quotes and opinions over and over then let's continue on.

I am undecided on the wings/no-wings issue, though I lean towards them having wings I can't give you a reason for why I feel that's the case.

It gets bad when people get angry. I hate that. Sometimes people get a bit antsy when people don't agree with them. I love to debate, but I hate to get into a fight. Heated debate is ok, fighting is not.


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 24, 2006)

Well, I for one agree with Ted Nasmith who called this issue a "no-brainer."
The only place where there is any connection between Balrog's and wings is in _The Lord of the Rings_. Look elsewhere, and there is no connection of any such kind.

And what great point would there have been concerning *winged Dragons* if *winged Balrogs* had already existed?


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Jan 24, 2006)

Élhendi said:


> Well, I for one agree with Ted Nasmith who called this issue a "no-brainer."
> The only place where there is any connection between Balrog's and wings is in _The Lord of the Rings_. Look elsewhere, and there is no connection of any such kind.
> 
> And what great point would there have been concerning *winged Dragons* if *winged Balrogs* had already existed?



That doesn't make it a no-brainer for everyone though. Personally I don't see that bit of evidence any more convincing than any other.

However, I must ask you this. If there would've been no point to winged dragons if there were already winged balorgs then what would the point have flightless dragons been if there were already flightless balrogs?


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 26, 2006)

Ask Ted Nasmith... 

But seriously: Dragons had characteristics that were far different from Balrogs. One example being the ability to cast a spell on someone. Balrogs just invoked fear, that's all.
(Well, not "all" but I guess you understand my meaning)

And the point of flightless (unwinged) Dragons was that so far, Melkor/Morgoth had been unable to master the skill of creating characters with wings. That was a later step in evolution.

Perhaps.....


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Jan 27, 2006)

Élhendi said:


> Ask Ted Nasmith...
> 
> But seriously: Dragons had characteristics that were far different from Balrogs. One example being the ability to cast a spell on someone. Balrogs just invoked fear, that's all.
> (Well, not "all" but I guess you understand my meaning)
> ...



But we know that there were later dragons with wings, perhaps balrogs went through similar revisions?


----------



## Starbrow (Jan 29, 2006)

Is it just me, or has this thread become the "Do Balrog's have wings?" thread? 

Obviously, there's a point to the thread. People love to debate the topic.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 29, 2006)

Élhendi said:


> Well, I for one agree with Ted Nasmith who called this issue a "no-brainer."
> The only place where there is any connection between Balrog's and wings is in _The Lord of the Rings_. Look elsewhere, and there is no connection of any such kind.
> 
> And what great point would there have been concerning *winged Dragons* if *winged Balrogs* had already existed?



This means that the High Chief Balrog would be _The Lord of the Wings..._  

Balrog


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 30, 2006)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> This means that the High Chief Balrog would be _The Lord of the Wings..._
> 
> Balrog


Now, why does the line "Wewease Wodewick!" spring to mind? 



Wonks said:


> But we know that there were later dragons with wings, perhaps balrogs went through similar revisions?


If so, we must assume that the maiar that took shape as Balrogs were able to change their physical appearance, and abilities later. And the number of assumptions just increased once more... 



Starbrow said:


> Is it just me, or has this thread become the "Do Balrog's have wings?" thread?


Oooops...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 30, 2006)

Originally Posted by Barliman Butterbur
This means that the High Chief Balrog would be The Lord of the Wings... 

Now, why does the line "Wewease Wodewick!" spring to mind? 

========================

I forgot to mention: that's an Elmer Fudd quote, huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh... 

Barley


----------



## Noldor_returned (Jan 31, 2006)

Wewease Wodewick!...He sounds like a very notorious criminal...He's a wobber! And a wapist! And a pickpocket!

Excellent movie that.


----------



## Uminya (Jan 31, 2006)

It is clear that Balrogs have wings, though not like dragon-wings.

Thus, I voted that they do indeed have wings. I first took the pro-wing position when the very first Balrog Wing Thread (or BWT) appeared on TTF years ago. I still stand by that position, and believe that whatever Jackson might have screwed up otherwise, he had an excellent Balrog with wings that were exactly in every way as they should be in perfect proportion and appearance.

The Antiwingers (more like...WHINGERS! lololol!!1!) have been, are, and will forever be incorrect in their denial of that which is made evident by Tolkien, and their lack of faith in the most Holy Wing will grant them an abode in the fiery pits of Utumno!


----------



## DGoeij (Feb 1, 2006)

Ciryaher said:


> [..] and their lack of faith in the most Holy Wing will grant them an abode in the fiery pits of Utumno!



Just ONE holy wing? So the 'single wing theory' as supported by Master Butterbur is the actual correct one. Hihgly surprising. 

During the creation of this post I made a typo, wing became wig. Now what if our dearest professor actually made that same mistake, the other way around?

A single wig is much more believable that a single wing.


----------



## Arvedui (Feb 2, 2006)

It's wig spread from wall to wall....

So, the Balrogs are actually british barristers!


----------



## Uminya (Feb 2, 2006)

Well you know that in some cultures, the plural for "wing" is "wingi" as opposed to our own "wings". The Tunisian Akkababbit people use "wingo" whereas the Gelflings of Lower Rhodesia would use "whinge".

I became confused, a bit afraid, and quite flustered all at the same time. So I left it singular, open to the interpretation of my peers for all eternity. Or, rather, until I made this post. Holy Wings. Not to be confused with Hot Wings...though they could have been Holy Hot Wings, Hot Holy Wings, Wings: Holy and Hot, etc etc.


----------



## DGoeij (Feb 7, 2006)

In Dutch it's 'vleugel', plural 'vleugels'. The word is also used to describe a kind of piano (those large ones), but I have trouble imagining a Balrog stretching those from wall to wall.


----------

